EXCERPT:
Both El-Khodary and Brown chastise the US for pumping money into the West Bank and building up Salam Fayyad but not engaging Hamas or actively working to democratize the PA.
US policy has been the most significant contributor to the continued split, she said. By backing the West Bank seemingly against Gaza, the West Bank and Gaza are turning more and more into separate entities, making reconciliation more difficult to effect.
In his discussion of what the US expects to do and gain in the region, Katulis gave a point-by-point overview, focused mainly on PA-Israeli engagement.
He admitted in his discussion of US policy that building security and institutions does not create political legitimacy, as Brown demanded. Moreover, he said, state-building does not connect directly to a two-state solution.
As for the US policy toward Gaza (or lack thereof), it has been "illogical and immoral," Katulis said.
Some have criticized the Obama administration's approach to the Middle East, saying its no different than those who came before him. Katulis offered as an explanation but not an excuse that President Obama took on the presidency saddled with two wars and an economic crisis.
There simply are not enough hours in the day to give the Palestinian-Israeli issue the attention it merits, and the flaws in the management of the Obama's Palestine plan begun to emerge, especially during the flotilla crisis, he said without much elaboration.
He closed his overview of US policy in on the issue saying the US should keep its eyes on intra-Palestinian political development instead of simply hoping Hamas will go away, as Brown put it. Intra-Palestinian divisions impede US goals in the region, Katulis said simply.
Prospects
Despite this fact, El-Khodary had little hope for the US endorsing a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. It would be the end of Salam Fayyad, she said.
There is no love for Fayyad within Hamas, as the PM kept Hamas members out of key ministries before the split, she said. And he has no popular base in Gaza, she continued, because he represents a government that turned its back on its own people.
And without a political base of his own, the American-backed Fayyad would have no toe-hold in a reconciled government.
The US has a history of supporting personalities over institutions, she said, pointing to Fayyad, Abbas, and deceased PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Where is the sustainability in a system like that, she asked.
Hamas, on the other hand, is sustainable as a movement and a government - if any of its key leaders were to be lost, another would enter his place with little disruption. When it comes to the PA or Fatah, discussions deal in names, Brown said. But not Hamas - it has proven to be bigger than the personalities in it.
Where does this leave the two-state solution the US hopes to effect?
With Palestine divided, the two-state solution has little chance of success, and despite the seeming inevitability of this reality, it appeared from the panelists commentary that the US is still disinterested in backing a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.
The end of the lecture was not entirely hopeless. Both sides express that they do want reconciliation, and Brown said he could conceive of a power-sharing government as a possibility. And while it could mean the end of Salam Fayyad and his state-building initiatives, for the panel, building a state cannot begin with Gaza and the West Bank divided.
No comments:
Post a Comment