The Palestinians must jettison the false Fatah-Hamas divide and empower leaders that can save their aspirations from the abyss, writes Sharif Elmusa* "When you embark on revenge, dig a grave for two," said Confucius. No words better describe the abyss into which the Hamas-Fatah quarrel is leading the Palestinian national liberation project. Perhaps what has happened is the inevitable consequence of the territorial fragmentation that Israel systematically visited on us. Perhaps we wouldn't be skidding down this steep slope had Fatah's big men gracefully accepted the decisive win of Hamas in the parliamentary elections, put their own movement's house in order, and waited for the next round. Nonetheless, we cannot surrender to despair. We have always surprised ourselves by our capacity for regeneration as much as for self- destruction. We may still be able to garner sufficient political will, and enable leaders to emerge who see beyond their own or their factions' interests, to chart a new course. A vast majority of Palestinians are for reconciliation and for ending a feud detrimental to their political aspirations. We would do well to jettison the tedious argument of Hamas-vs-Fatah and look within and outside both for leadership and for a resistance strategy. The two organisations are not monolithic; the seeming polarisation does not represent the diverse tendencies within each. Just as the US, Israel and Arab regimes have discovered leaders from Fatah whom they consider "good fellows", so should the Palestinians identify their own good leaders. There is, I think, a political space that mirrors the desire of the great majority. It encompasses at least four political currents. To make it palpable, I will link it to names of four Palestinian leaders: Marwan Barghouti from Fatah, jailed by Israel; Ismail Haniyeh from Hamas; Azmi Bishara, head of the Palestinian Balad Party in Israel, now in exile because of trumped-up charges against him; and Mustafa Barghouti, who received more than 15 per cent of the vote when he ran as an independent against Mahmoud Abbas in the 2005 presidential elections. They are widely respected by the normally sceptical Palestinian public, and they can speak effectively to Arab and international audiences. The four of them have taken positions conducive to national unity, or pluralistic politics. Marwan Barghouti issued a statement from his prison cell in Israel that included backing dialogue between Fatah and Hamas. Mustafa Barghouti did not agree to serve in factional governments. Bishara is an Arab nationalist and secularist, yet sees Hamas as essential for any programme of resistance. Haniyeh spearheaded Hamas's negotiations with Fatah, until they were broken off. So here we have four credible leaders from across the political spectrum who advocate partnership. They may differ on many things, political and social. Yet they all agree that Israel cannot be persuaded to concede anything significant without effective resistance. President Abbas and his associates have placed their faith in diplomacy alone. They have offered no evidence, however, that their technocratic- diplomatic "methodology" will work. The historical record, Israel's relentless territorial advance, as well as analyses of Israeli political forces and mindset, tell us that Israel, in the absence of countervailing force, will continue to expand and consolidate its colonial presence. If it were to offer Abbas anything, it would be at best a small, shredded and feeble entity. Abbas, like Bush, does not believe in facts. But whereas Bush resorts to power, Abbas has opted for weakness. The Israelis are not slovenly when it comes to spotting and furthering Palestinian weakness. Some of their politicians have already proposed that their government should start talking with Hamas, whereas Abbas, president of the Palestinians, absurdly refuses to open a dialogue with his "former" prime minister, Hamas's Haniyeh. In this, Abbas does not represent the predominant opinion of his people who want a strong, unified Palestinian voice. Few Palestinians trust Israel or the US to make concessions to diplomacy not backed by strength. The four aforementioned leaders may not agree on the forms that resistance should assume; however, they may not have much to argue about, for the scope for armed resistance is severely restricted. How can Gazans resist without paying a prohibitive price? In the West Bank, armed resistance could yield results only if Jordan was willing to make its borders porous for arms supplies, like Syria has done with Hizbullah. How likely is the Hashemite regime, champion of normalising relations with Israel, to change heart? Hamas, as if acknowledging the difficulty of waging effective "armed struggle", had agreed to a one-year truce. Currently, it is attempting to stop the firing of ineffectual Qassam rockets into Israel. Marwan Barghouti has long held the position that armed resistance should be limited only to the West Bank and ought not to be extended to Israel or Israeli civilians. That highly confines the scope of armed resistance. There is another route, and more and more Palestinians have started endorsing it: non-violent resistance. In fact, Palestinian resistance in the main has been non-violent; but this is always occluded by, among other things, the omnipresence of the Israeli narrative in Western media. The first Intifada was basically non-violent; so was the initial phase of the second Intifada. A microcosm of non-violent resistance exists. It is exemplified in acts of civil disobedience by limited numbers of activists, aimed at stopping the confiscation of Palestinian land and uprooting of olive orchards by thuggish Jewish settlers. The resistors hail from many countries and their work is coordinated locally. This microcosm could be generalised, becoming transformed as mass mobilisation, involving the leadership and all segments of society. Non-violent resistance could also facilitate the unification of the struggle of Palestinians inside Israel and those in the West Bank and Gaza. Increasing numbers of politically conscious people have begun to recognise, and are willing to speak out about, the apartheid character of the Israeli state. Former US president Jimmy Carter's choice to entitle his recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is but one well-publicised instance. Coupled with such recognition is a budding grassroots movement to boycott Israel culturally and economically. The strongest part of the movement in the West is in the UK, where several academic and employees unions have passed resolutions approving such a boycott. Some of the leading figures of the boycott movement are Jews. That such a course has the potential to isolate Israel and expose its moral bankruptcy may be appreciated from the vehement reaction to it by the pro-Israel lobby in the US and Europe. Briefly, by adopting a strategy of non-violence that highlights the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and mobilises a wide-ranging boycott effort of that state, Palestinians might have a chance to tip the balance against Israeli power. Yes, I have in mind the South African experience. But first, Palestinians must not let the Fatah- Hamas conflict leave them mental captives of a fallacy of polarisation. The Barghoutis, Haniyeh and Bishara need to push each within their own political space for consensual politics. It is a demanding task, but this is the hour of statesmanship. The responsibility is not theirs alone. Members of the Palestinian intelligentsia -- especially in the West Bank and Gaza -- also must shoulder this historic burden and articulate what is common. They need to put forward constructive ideas, not contribute to the break between the two movements and the two regions. Cynicism, personal profit and silent complicity are luxuries we cannot afford when the Palestinian national liberation project is heading towards oblivion. * The writer is an associate professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
