Despite the recent agreement reached on October 12 between the two rival Palestinian governments, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, much work remains to be done before a united Palestinian government will come to fruition. The agreement represented an important first step in bringing the two Palestinian governments closer together, but many of the details outlined in the agreement have yet to be ironed out. Furthermore, the Palestinian people still lack a key central figure who will represent them in peace negotiations with Israel. The Cipher Brief’s Bennett Seftel spoke with Rob Richer, Cipher Brief expert and former Associate Deputy Director for Operations at the CIA about what the deal actually accomplished as well as the prospects for Palestinian statehood.
The Cipher Brief: What were the parameters of the agreement signed between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas?
Rob Richer: For the most part, it’s an agreement to agree. It’s basically an agreement that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has the larger voice in negotiations with Israel. Incumbent in the agreement is that Hamas represents a sizeable population, that they have a say in negotiations, and that there will be great coordination.
But why it’s important is because the Israelis have been pushing back and saying no one voice spoke for the Palestinians, i.e. there cannot be a peace deal.
Israel has refused to negotiate with two separate sides. The Israelis don’t recognize and don’t want to deal with Hamas, and Hamas doesn’t recognize them. The Palestinians realized that if you couldn’t get the Gaza Strip under a deal, which is where most of the attacks come from against Israel, then it really wasn’t worth the discussion.
So this was pushed by some key European partners. There was some pressure from the U.S., but it was mostly the Europeans who pushed the Palestinians to become wired more closely together.
The economic downturn in the Gaza Strip has been horrific the last two years. There is a hard winter coming, and the people in Gaza have almost no fuel supplies and are not getting the food that they need. By working with the more rich, more established, and more structural PA, they have the potential to at least survive the winter and also, maybe at least show a face to the world that they can be cohesive, and they can speak with one voice.
What this agreement helps to do is undermine the Israeli argument of the last couple of years put forth by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that no one speaks authoritatively for the Palestinians.
The two sides are going to cooperate on some internal security issues, and they are going to cooperation on the distribution of goods. They are also looking at reinforcing the electrical grid across to Gaza, which requires some deals with the Israelis that may or may not happen.
But all in all, it was an agreement that says if there is going to be any type of Palestinian future, both sides have to be talking.
TCB: In the past, Fatah and Hamas have reached agreements only to see them fall through. How likely is this agreement to hold?
Richer: It’s one day away or one incident away – a stupid attack originating out of Gaza and then a heavy handed Israeli response – from it falling apart.
But over the last five years – and I’ve been deeply involved in these discussions for years – I think there has been a resignation on the part of the people in Gaza and the Gaza leadership to recognize that they aren’t getting anywhere. Many people in Gaza are unhappy with how they are being led, particularly since the closure of the Rafa tunnels along the Gaza border with Egypt. The Egyptian government has taken a harder line on the smuggling networks coming across the Sinai, so the people in Gaza are on a very isolated island, are becoming economically starved, and realize that they need to try harder.
The Qataris, interestingly enough, have been pushing hard for this agreement. They traditionally have had a relationship with Hamas since they hosted their leadership in Doha when no one else would. They’ve been pushing for a unified position if the Palestinians are going to speak authoritatively and get things done in any peace accord.
TCB: What will happen to Hamas’ fighting force of around 25,000 soldiers known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades? Will it be incorporated into the Palestinian Authority?
Richer: In many ways, it’s similar to Iraq in the years after the collapse of Sadaam Hussein’s central government when the Kurdish Peshmerga were allowed to operate independently of the Iraqi central government. What you have here is that the PA and Hamas will cooperate on security matters, but nowhere in the agreement did Hamas say that they will subordinate their forces under PA authority at this point.
The Hamas leadership made a strong statement about keeping their people under their control and trying to ensure that there are no cross-border acts. They do have a number of members who are very extreme and who have been fueled by years and years of hate. It may be a hard thing to keep to, but the initial signs over the last couple of weeks is that things have been quiet, and they seem to really be trying to stick to this accord.
TCB: How could this agreement affect the prospects for Palestinian statehood?
Richer: Sitting on my wall are two awards from my involvement in the Middle East peace process over 25 years, and nothing ever came out of it except for dialogue. I am not an optimist when it comes to a Palestinian homeland. I don’t believe the Israelis really want it to happen. I think they are looking at other options in terms of what will happen there. And I don’t believe they want another cohesive Arab state within their borders.
So I think this is a chance to get some real pressure behind the Palestinians to help them move this forward, to address some of the key issues such as settlements, free trade for Palestine, the opening of an airport, the opening of free borders on the ocean side so they can fish, bring in shipments, and have an economy in Gaza. That’s part of it, for them to start growing a semi-autonomous region.
However, the Palestinians regularly shoot themselves in the foot when things look good, and the Israelis, particularly under Netanyahu, get very nervous when it looks like support for the Palestinians is growing, and the Palestinians are getting their act together.
So there may be some potential here, but it is a very remote potential for success.
TCB: How should the U.S. view this agreement? Is Palestinian unity a step in the right direction, or is it dangerous to include Hamas into a formal Palestinian government?
Richer: If you asked me that question under previous U.S. administrations, I would have said that the U.S. is probably going to step in and play a strong role. I counter that now with the fact that we have a president who said very specifically that we are not into nation-building or helping people determine their futures. He has said that on numerous occasions.
I don’t see him putting any type of real effort into this. His Middle East lead, Jared Kushner, has been absent at the helm for quite a while. He doesn’t have a whole lot of credibility in the region and doesn’t know the substance. And that is directly from people who deal with him.
So I would say that I don’t see the U.S. taking any type of role. We have a weakened State Department with no assistant secretaries. Other than Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, no one is really empowered to do anything. The State Department is where this should be pushed forward if the White House is going to do it, and it’s not.
Also, the White House demand for Hamas to get rid of its weapons is not going to happen until years down the road, when Hamas feels like they no longer have to worry about the Israelis coming across once they disarm and occupying Gaza again. That’s not going to happen. The administration demanding it is a red flag that makes it hard to have any discussion.
This administration has also been very specific that they support Netanyahu and the Israeli leadership. Look at the settlement issue. People always bring back the fact that President Barack Obama drew red lines in the sand with Syria and walked away from them. This president early on made a strong statement against Israel on settlements, kind of a red line, which never went away and no one is even focusing on it. And Netanyahu announced a major increase in settlements a couple months ago.
Overall, this is going to be a politically wasteful effort. The only benefit might be internally in that it helps the Palestinians become a more unified front – and I say more but not completely united – and it could help alleviate some of the suffering in Gaza.
