In Focus: Alienating support The political discourse espoused by Khaled Meshaal, argues Galal Nassar, is politic in no meaningful way Hot on the heels of the disparaging comments about Egypt and its people made by the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohamed Mahdi Akef, Khaled Meshaal, chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, lashed out at Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders, accusing Fatah officials of treason and saying they were part of a US-Israeli plot to bring down the Palestinian government. What is wrong with Islamist leaders? Why do they find it so easy to insult their compatriots? More importantly, what gives Meshaal the right to draw up Palestinian foreign policy? Why does Meshaal think he is above the president, the prime minister, and the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly (PLC) combined? And just why is Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh happy to play second fiddle to Meshaal, who still lives in Damascus? Are we going through a phase in which Islamic "guides" think they are above all political considerations? The PLC has given a vote of confidence to a government run by Haniyeh, and to a PA headed by Mahmoud Abbas. The PLC hasn't given Meshaal any special powers and yet he seems to be promoting his own agenda, one that conflicts with the national agenda. Half a century of Palestinian struggle cannot be reduced to Hamas's recent elections victory. No one can deny that Hamas played a crucial role in the first and second Intifadas, or that it has been one of the most active Palestinian movements since its inception in the late 1980s. But then nor must we deny the role played by other factions. We mustn't forget Fatah, despite its repeated mistakes and despite the corruption that has marked its years in the PA. No Palestinian faction has the right to act alone, or to take steps that contradict the general interests of the Palestinian people. There are 60 Palestinian groups operating today, yet Hamas is promoting its own agenda, once closely aligned with Islamist political currents across the region. Hamas, the MB -- a group that sees itself as part of an international network -- and Iran seem to be working in coordination. Hamas is edging closer to Iran and has agreed to accept $100 million in assistance from the government of Ahmadinejad. This was both reckless and immature, and may endanger Palestinian interests in the long run. Although it is possible to argue that the economic embargo imposed by Western countries left Hamas with no other choice, the movement should have known better. It should have had the wisdom and patience to argue its case before the international community. A lack of vision and of understanding of the rules of the political game characterises much of the Middle East, and it is a lack of vision shared by Hamas. In the Middle East, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, caution is essential. It is no secret that Israel wants to bring down the Hamas government, and is now using Iranian support as a stick with which to beat the Palestinians. The $100 million Hamas has been promised by Tehran constitutes, Israel argues, a direct threat to its own national security. Israel might have withdrawn from south Lebanon to get away from the Iranian-backed Hizbullah, but it would be a mistake to imagine a similar scenario occurring in the occupied territories. Meshaal's recent visit to Iran provided Israeli politicians, and their Western supporters, with ammunition. The visit was widely covered in the Israeli and Western press, with many papers showing pictures of Meshaal shaking hands with Ahmadinejad. Hamas has just associated itself with a man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and Israel is likely to use this as a pretext to justify further aggression against the Palestinian people and government. The visit came in flagrant defiance of President Mahmoud Abbas, who has urged the Palestinian government to refrain from developing "radical ties with other regimes" and who, during the opening session of the PLC warned against "forging alliances with other powers". Meshaal, though, seems intent on telling the world that Hamas will manage the political front just as it managed the resistance. It will conduct the political battle without recognising Israel, and without laying down its arms. Hamas, he says, will continue to struggle for the liberation of the land, for the return of five million refugees, and for the release of 9,000 prisoners. Hamas's rapprochement with Iran came at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency was still debating the Iranian nuclear programme, a programme that worries many, in the region as well as the West. The Iranian dossier has been referred to the UN Security Council in an unprecedented move, and the Iranian regime has been using provocative language, pushing the crisis to a point of no return. Until relatively recently it appeared as if moderation might prevail in the region. Iran's Khatami and Palestine's Abbas both championed a pragmatic realism. Baathist, pan-Arab and Islamist ideologues appeared to be losing ground. Syria's Baath regime looked to be on its last legs while Hamas and Jihad appeared most interested in helping the poor and homeless. It was generally assumed that Hamas wouldn't contest the Palestinian elections for fear of becoming embroiled in public policy and facing the same tribulations Hizbullah was experiencing in Lebanon. But let me return to Meshaal's political discourse, a discourse that conflicts with everything that constitutes a consensus in the Arab League and the UN. The roadmap, the exchange of land for peace and the implementation of UN resolutions are the only way ahead for the region. This is why European countries, the UN secretary-general and Russia have all called on Hamas to recognise Israel, endorse the roadmap and begin negotiations. Hamas has no other option but to work with the international community and means acknowledging the rules of the game. Association with the Iranian regime is not helpful, and Hamas should recognise this before it is too late.
