Some people had thought they could use Hamas in order to divide the Palestinian movement and slow down Arafat’s powerful resistance. But during the first and particularly the second Intifada, Hamas didn’t divide the Palestinian movement but progressively took it over. During his last years, Arafat was accused more of not being able to control Hamas than for his attitudes toward Israel.Nowadays, Hamas is being treated as the opposition while it is in fact the government and Fatah is considered as the non-governing government. This situation is confirmed by the unrest in the Gaza strip, the unpaid salaries of employees, economic difficulties and foreign aid blackmail. The main issue is the determination and control of the channels which will assure the transfer of financial aid. This vital issue reflects the debate among Palestinians on the status of Israel and different expectations about their future. The formation of an interim government, organization of early elections and decisions about whether to negotiate with Israel show the lack of cohesion between Palestinians.
This intricate situation creates suffering for the people of the region and excitement and impasse for non-regional states. It is not possible for states that have perceived and still perceive Hamas and its partisans as a “terrorist organization” to accept them as valid interlocutors. It is also not possible to neglect them. Many of the Westerners, such as the US, are keeping their official relations with Fatah. The process has transformed Abbas into a political actor and successor of Arafat, seen as a long time terrorist; thus, Palestine has never really been close to forming a state. But Hamas wants to establish another kind of state, and it has popular support. This situation put two essential contradictions before the West which reduce the political stability and free and democratic elections. Firstly, how to communicate with Hamas and accept its own Palestinian state model, and secondly, how to explain that free elections are not always a good idea.
For several years, global powers such as the US thought the manipulation of the governments in the Middle East, including Israel, would be enough to rule the regional dynamics. In the past, they were in touch with different factions and the opposition movements only in order to manipulate the authorities they cared about, and not because they were taking the demands of Palestinians seriously. In fact, it is not possible to claim that the situation is different today. The US is asking Abbas to find a compromise with Hamas through negotiations with Egyptian and Jordanian mediators. Because the United States has deep governmental ties in Jordan and Egypt, these are legitimate in the eyes of their societies. Participative regimes are supported, but in the meantime those who will participate with them are imposed. Leaders of the countries still seen as capable of controlling the Hamas ideology are chosen as mediators.
Unfortunately, every society in the Middle East has an existing problem, and the solution doesn’t always mean the establishment of a state. How to govern a state is becoming more important than how to build one.
