The two main Palestinian factions — Fatah, which runs the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules Gaza — have said they will form a coalition government and hold elections throughout the occupied territories. Israel is, not unexpectedly, outraged by the development. Hamas, unlike Fatah, has never formally recognized Israel’s right to exist; it has refused to forswear violence; in fact, it continues to engage in sporadic attacks on Israeli civilians. Washington, for its part, has long considered Hamas a terrorist organization. Nonetheless, the United States and other Western countries are taking a wait-and-see attitude toward the Fatah-Hamas pact. The reasons: a) like it or not, Hamas represents a sizeable fraction of Palestinian opinion, b) the current approach — isolation of Hamas — isn’t working, despite an Israeli blockade of Gaza, and c) there exist even more radical Islamic elements than Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing is ever certain in the complex world of internecine Palestinian politics. One thing, however, is clear: a détente between Fatah and Hamas will have no effect on the Arab-Israeli peace process. There is no peace process. It died months ago. The Israeli government under Prime Minister Netanyahu adamantly refused to freeze settlement activity in the occupied territories; the Obama administration proved impotent in its efforts to get Netanyahu to change course. The actual commitment of the current Israeli government to a two-state solution is, to put it charitably, highly ambiguous. If Netanyahu can’t cut a deal with moderates like Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, there is simply no plausible deal that Israel will accept.
The Fatah-Hamas pact might mark a step towards a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence later this year. Such a step could be dangerous for the Palestinians. Israel’s response is likely to be sharp and negative; it has inflicted huge damage to Gaza through a punitive embargo; nothing would stop it from imposing a similar blockade on the West Bank. Major international donors — the United States chief among them — will likely oppose a unilateral declaration. Not least, such a declaration risks freezing the situation on the ground, leading to a rump Palestinian “state” with its capital in Ramallah.
The absence of a viable peace process may make a declaration of independence — however risky — the best of all options for Abbas and Fayyad. The United States has failed in its role as broker; with the approach of an election year, the Obama administration is unlikely to bring significant pressure on the Israeli government; Prime Minister Netanyahu, emboldened by his very public humbling of President Obama, is unlikely to back down.
Still, things could be worse. Then again, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, things can always be worse.
Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.