by Ghassan Khatib

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is unique because of the extent to which the two parties are dependant on the international community. For that reason, both are very sensitive to the attitudes and positions of the outside world, and this gives the major international players huge leverage over the parties and the conflict.

Israel owes its existence and survival to the continued political support of the international community, especially the US but also others. One of the most important Palestinian achievements, meanwhile, is the international recognition of their right to self-determination, reflected in various resolutions of the United Nations. In addition, both parties, although to different extents, are financially reliant on the outside world.

The international reaction to recent elections on both sides and to the significant developments from their results, especially in Palestine, has raised a question mark over the attitude of the international community, however.

The international community has made it perfectly clear that there are three conditions that must be fulfilled before it is prepared to deal with the new Palestinian reality: recognition of Israel, renouncing violence, and honoring previously signed agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

If these conditions are rejected, the US and EU, the most influential members of the international community vis-a-vis the conflict, have threatened to stop their aid to or through the PA. In recent days these parties have started realizing these threats and seem to be cutting much of their regular support to Palestinians.

Israel, whose position and behavior directly influence the two previously mentioned international players, recently declared a complete boycott of the PA, including the presidency. The Israeli government has not wasted any opportunity to use the new Palestinian reality as a smokescreen to pursue its unilateral agenda. In spite of agreements to the contrary, it has publicly declared its intention to prevent any movement between the West Bank and Gaza. Israel openly continues other illegal practices, including the de facto annexation of areas around Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and further restrictions on the movement of goods and people within the West Bank.

There is a confluence of interests between some Palestinian circles, especially within the peace camp, and the international community, in that both would like to see another Palestinian government. But those same Palestinian circles are extremely concerned that the way the international community is handling the issue is not only ethically questionable but could easily backfire.

While the international boycott of the Hamas-led government might bring about its collapse simply out of practical necessity, it most likely will also leave Hamas as popular as ever since that collapse will be seen as a direct result of external pressure rather than any failing of the government itself.

Currently, Hamas' response to international pressure plays on exactly that and appears highly effective. Hamas is indicating that there is some kind of international conspiracy with local dimensions that is trying to oust the movement from power by punishing the Palestinian people for their legitimate and legal choice in elections that everybody praised as fair. That is creating sympathy for Hamas, and consequently increasing or at least maintaining the level of public support Hamas had before elections.

A rational approach by the international community to the new Palestinian reality must include recognition of the fact that Hamas won elections fair and square and as such must be given the chance to govern the Palestinian people.

The way to change the government is for a successful opposition to be able to convince the majority not to elect Hamas again. Hamas will not agree to cede its victory before practicing authority, but it will be forced to cede authority if it fails to maintain the confidence of the majority of Palestinians in the next elections.

Accordingly, while the international community is obligated to ensure Palestinian compliance with international legitimacy, signed agreements and a peaceful approach to resolving the conflict, it has to be constructive in trying to do so. It must leave to Palestinians to guide their government as soon as possible back to such rational and legitimate positions.

The way the international community has handled this issue so far has been hasty and unwise. By attempting to quicken a change of the Palestinian government through direct, external interference of the kind that involves increasing the suffering of the public, the current approach will most probably only contribute to the process of radicalization among Palestinians and generally in the region.

The international community is required to stop the creation by Israel of illegal, pre-emptive facts on the ground that are jeopardizing any future peace, and, at the same time, are provoking Palestinian extremism. The international community is also required to launch a political initiative on the basis of international legality to resume a peace process that will isolate any Palestinian group, such as Hamas, that might react negatively to such an initiative.

____________________________________

- Published 10/4/2006 - bitterlemons.org.

Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is the former Palestinian Authority minister of planning, and has been a political analyst and media contact for many years.