The Palestinian dialogue sessions scheduled to begin in Cairo on Sunday have been dominating the news. Egypt refers to the talks as "the Palestinian national project", a clear attempt to emphasise the relevance of years of Palestinian national struggle to the current situation and to underline the urgency of reconciliation. But things are not as simple as the slogan suggests. Any talks that attempt to paper over the complexities of the Arab-Zionist conflict are doomed from the start. And should the conferees fail to come up with detailed and binding formulas the results will be nothing short of tragic. The various Palestinian factions have differed in their reactions to the invitation. The Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority and its allied factions have made encouraging noises. During a meeting of the follow-up committee of the Palestinian National Council, held in Damascus a few days ago, Palestinian officials said that any reservations they may have will be discussed behind closed doors in Cairo. Hamas remains suspicious. Said Seyam, one of the movement's key officials, says that "Hamas does not place any preconditions on the dialogue but insists on reaching a package deal, one that -- so as not to repeat the errors of the Mecca Agreement -- involves simultaneous action in both the West Bank and Gaza on outstanding issues." Seyam believes that Gaza doesn't need troops but that the West Bank could use some. Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar insists that the only guarantee for a successful dialogue is "goodwill". But with other Hamas officials convinced that the US is still opposed to the dialogue, goodwill is in short supply. Al-Zahar has promised that "things will not return to how they used to be in Gaza" and has stated that, despite all the reservations voiced by Palestinian officials, Cairo is not in a mood to rewrite the draft reconciliation paper. But goodwill is not the only thing that matters. Even more important is the ability of interlocutors to identify the roots of their current troubles. The Egyptian invitation appears intentionally ambiguous on some matters. Cairo has not invited everyone interested in the talks. Some Palestinian factions have been excluded along with academics and civil society activists. But Palestinian officials need to listen to the views of non-affiliated experts across factional divisions. They must agree on the meaning of armed struggle and how best to manage the current conflict with Israel. In the absence of unity the Palestinians have no hope of ending the occupation. Palestinian unity cannot wait until international and regional circumstances are right. The Palestinians need unity for its own sake, not just to send an inter-factional team to negotiate with Israel. Palestinian interlocutors need to speak frankly. They need to do all they can to define common positions. And until they do so, spare us the optimism.
