Before the June 25 capture of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip, the Hamas-led government was facing a number of severe difficulties as a result of lack of experience and the Israeli and international boycott of that government.

These difficulties, compounded by the fact that all rival parties, including Fateh and the PLO factions, were outside the government creating a relatively strong opposition, had started to produce the beginnings of public criticism of the government.

For these and other reasons, the ground was being prepared for a possible national unity government. After June 25, however, and with the Israeli campaign of violence against Gaza as well as the arrest of most Hamas Cabinet members and parliamentarians in the West Bank, these efforts froze.

Within Hamas now, the debate seems to be focused on whether or not to link negotiations on the captured Israeli soldier in Gaza with what Hizballah might be doing regarding the two Israeli soldiers captured on the Lebanon-Israel border.

Most Hamas members in Gaza do not seem enthusiastic about such a linkage and prefer a deal that would involve a release of Palestinian prisoners and an end to the Israeli violence against Gaza in return for the release of the Israeli soldier held in Gaza and an end to the rocket launching at southern Israel.

Should such a deal materialize--and strenuous efforts to this effect are being undertaken by Egypt and the presidency of the Palestinian Authority--the possibility of a national unity coalition government might emerge again.

There are two views within Hamas on such an eventuality. There are those who still take seriously their task as a government and believe that a coalition government has a better chance of survival and consequently of sustaining Hamas' victory in parliamentary elections in January.

This strand of thought also holds that a coalition government will be better able to confront and end the international boycott and might also help convince Israel to stop withholding the taxes it collects on behalf of the PA, monies that constitute one-third to a half of the PA's salary bill.

Indeed, the transfer of that money might also be a condition in any deal with Israel over the captured Israeli soldier.

However, there have been no encouraging signals from Israel or the international community to indicate that support of the PA can resume should a national unity government emerge. This is in spite of suggestions that any such government will have a technocrat prime minister rather than a Hamas premier or even that President Mahmoud Abbas would himself play that role.

The lack of such signals is being used as an argument by the other strand of thought on the issue within Hamas. This strand holds that a pure Hamas-government should continue because no matter how flexible and forthcoming on this issue Hamas is, there is little that can be expected in terms of flexibility in the attitude of the donor community and Israel.

Nevertheless, any prisoner exchange deal with Israel is likely to be followed by at least a government reshuffle. That might coincide with a change either in the composition of the Israeli government or a change in its attitude and position vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue.

One of the conclusions that Israel is invited to draw from its crises with both Hamas in Palestine and Hizballah in Lebanon is that relying only on military superiority and the use of force will not be enough to ensure the safety, security and survival of Israel. No matter how strong Israel is, the continuing injustice it inflicts on its neighbors and the lack of any peaceful political prospect for co-existence--the sum total of the Palestinian experience of negotiations for a historic compromise based on the exchange of land for peace--will always give rise to resistance.

That's why, logically, it should be expected from either a new post-conflict Israeli government or the existing government to move toward a political process. Without such a process, Israel cannot hope to defuse the growing hostility among Israel's neighbors that has resulted from Israeli arrogance, the disproportionate use of force and a total neglect of the basic needs and rights of the other side.- Published 7/8/2006 © 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.

AN ISRAELI VIEW Israeli disengagement frozen; de facto Palestinian trusteeship

by Gerald M. Steinberg

Domestic politics in Israel and the Palestinian Authority were already unsettled before the kidnappings in Gaza and by Hizballah touched off the current confrontations. And while the outcome of the fighting remains uncertain, these events are likely to produce major changes in leadership and policies.

In Israel, the war in Lebanon has stressed and tested the coalition led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz. The lack of military or diplomatic experience among these two top leaders is highly unusual (a point that did not escape Hassan Nasrallah) and is reflected in widespread criticism of their policies. They are likely to face formidable domestic challenges to their leadership in the coming months.

Olmert, who was selected by Ariel Sharon as deputy prime minister in reward for loyalty, suddenly took over following Sharon's stroke in January. He also inherited the leadership of the Kadima party, which was formed by centrist elements from the Likud and Labor. Sharon's decision to proceed with disengagement from Gaza in August 2005 triggered a major realignment in Israeli politics, and Kadima's main source of cohesion was support for extending unilateral separation to the Judea and Samaria regions of the West Bank.

While this process was supported by a majority of Israelis, there was also strong opposition, and even without the war in Lebanon it would have been difficult to gain agreement. The Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and the growing missile and rocket attacks from Gaza raised additional doubts regarding further withdrawals. The kidnapping attacks from Gaza and Lebanon highlighted the importance of maintaining military control of territory. Indeed, Olmert's comment to a European journalist that a victory over Hizballah would promote the disengagement in the West Bank led to angry protests from many Israelis, and Olmert was forced to withdraw the statement. Although completion of the security/separation barrier will be accelerated and the demographic concerns remain, further Israeli disengagement will be delayed for many years. Even the long-planned removal of outposts will now be difficult for this government.

Furthermore, if the war in Lebanon does not end well for Israel and the Hizballah threat continues, Olmert and Peretz are likely to face major leadership challenges. The coming confrontation over the Iranian nuclear program and the repeated Iranian threats to "wipe Israel off the map" will add to these concerns. A number of former high-level IDF officers are positioned to present themselves as candidates, recognizing that an Israeli public that feels threatened is likely to turn to experienced military leaders.

On the Palestinian side, the intense focus on Hizballah has overshadowed the escalating military conflict that followed increased Qassam rocket attacks and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. The chaos and lack of control by the government was highlighted by this incident, and there is little evidence that this situation is likely to change in the near term.

The continuing talks on a unity government between Fateh, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas are seen as largely irrelevant in this context. In practice, Abbas appears powerless to implement even limited agreements with Israel that would provide some security, end the missile attacks from Gaza, and allow Israel to reopen border crossings for aid shipments. The official Hamas leadership is subordinate to Khaled Meshaal, who is based in Damascus. So even if an agreement on a new government were to be announced, the reality on the ground is not expected to change.

That reality is based on the relative power of Hamas and the legacy of failed governance following decades of control by Fateh. An agreement among the leaders of these two factions is unlikely to resolve the bitter fight over access to economic assets--external aid funding, control over customs and duties, income from monopolies and licenses, protection, etc.

Under these conditions, the Palestinian Authority is being transformed, de facto, into an international trusteeship (a framework floated by American former diplomat Martin Indyk a few years ago). Economic policy and major budgetary decision-making are increasing the responsibility of the World Bank and international aid organizations. Diplomatic contacts, including negotiations for providing access of aid conveys to Gaza, have been carried out by representatives of the Quartet--primarily the US and the European Union. And Israel has resumed full and direct responsibility for security, moving forces in and out of Gaza and the West Bank based on intelligence information regarding rocket production, explosives smuggling and planning for terror attacks.

This division is likely to be reinforced in coming months regardless of internal Palestinian agreements, including the announcement of a unity government under Abbas. Until basic changes in Palestinian self-governance take place and a more capable and pragmatic leadership emerges, de facto trusteeship is likely to continue.- Published 7/8/2006 © bitterlemons.org

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

A PALESTINIAN VIEW Same old crisis

by Mustafa Abu Sway

The conflict(s) in the Middle East cannot be reduced to the most recent Israeli asymmetrical and "disproportionate" war on Lebanon (which is being described in Arab media as the Sixth War). It is also naive to believe that this war was launched because of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizballah. The conflict goes deeper and the recent crisis is only a symptom of it. One should not lose sight of the original cause of all that is going on today: the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.

It has become a cliche that no military action can solve the Middle East conflict. Yet, it seems that one war is only a prelude to another. This means that during and in between these wars, diplomacy fails to address the root problems.

For the Palestinians, there is a strong feeling of deja vu all over again. The destruction of infrastructure that Israel is inflicting on Lebanon today, it has done and is still doing in the occupied Palestinian territories, mostly in the Gaza Strip. Israel has hit the airport in Gaza, destroyed electric power plants, bombarded bridges and private homes, killed families and children, created a no-man's zone in the north of the Strip, etc., etc., etc.

While Israel continues to bombard Lebanon, people around the world, including Arabs and Muslims, are bombarded with heartbreaking images such as those coming from the second massacre at Qana. There is sadness, sorrow and anger. These images continue to shape the collective memory of those who surround Israel. It is a guaranteed recipe for continued conflict.

The same could be said about the United Nations Security Council. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has realized that people around the world are aware of the players and mechanisms that prevent a ceasefire in Lebanon. He wasted no time in stating that the future of the UN was at stake. Every resolution has to be approved by the United States; any attempt to bypass the US will be met by a veto. Of course, Israel has not complied with a host of previous resolutions that were not to its liking. Allowing Israel such a free hand and not holding it accountable to international law only means that the conflicts will not be solved.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is interested in creating an image of a war that he will win to employ this "victory" for his unilateral "convergence" plan. Again, this plan does not solve the conflict since it ignores the roots of the problem: the occupation.

All of these facts and scenarios should signal trouble for any Palestinian government. The current Palestinian government, formed by Hamas, has been isolated by Israel and western countries. Though it came to power through a transparent democratic process, it was not internationally accepted. It had to fulfill Israeli and western conditions, including the recognition of Israel. The situation on the ground in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is very grim. Over 65 Palestinian ministers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are prisoners in Israeli jails. The government functions under very difficult circumstances; it has not been able to pay the salaries of civil servants for the past five months. Israel continues to withhold taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The end result is that there is a cash crunch and ministries do not have proper running budgets.

It should be noted that previous Palestinian governments that included prime ministers Ahmed Qurei and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who did recognize Israel and were pillars of the Oslo Accords, did not stand a much better chance. And since Abu Mazen became PA president, he has been deemed irrelevant and subsequently weakened by Israel.

As a possible way out, leaders of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails agreed on a document that paved the way for a potential Palestinian unity government. Ismail Haniyeh, the current prime minister, is on record as saying that Hamas would still form this new government because it has the largest number of seats in the PLC. But even if all parties agreed to a government formed of technocrats, it would not bring the conflict to an end. Israel continues with its unilateral steps that in practice confine Palestinians to living in Bantustans, large jails circumscribed by a huge network of Israeli colonies, military checkpoints and walls.

An end to corruption in the PA and a unity government might be helpful steps, yet no solution will loom on the horizon until Israel is either willing or pressured to implement relevant UN resolutions to end the occupation. But there is no apparent change of heart in Israel, nor does the international community, especially the United States, appear willing to put any pressure on Israel to comply with international law any time soon.

It is no wonder then that a growing number of Palestinian voices are calling for an end to the existence of the interim PA itself in order to force Israel to assume its responsibilities as an occupier.- Published 7/8/2006 © bitterlemons.org

Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway is director of the Islamic Research Center at Al Quds University.

To unsubscribe from this bitterlemons HTML email list, simply write to unsubscribehtml@bitterlemons.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To subscribe to the text version instead, write to subscribetext@bitterlemons.org. Editors Ghassan Khatib and Yossi Alpher can be reached at ghassan@bitterlemons.org and yossi@bitterlemons.org, respectively.

Bitterlemons.org is an internet newsletter that presents Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints on prominent issues of concern. Each edition addresses a specific issue of controversy. Bitterlemons.org maintains complete organizational and institutional symmetry between its Palestinian and Israeli sides.