The battle of reconstruction

In the aftermath of the war on Gaza, Hamas is asserting its power as the leading force of the Palestinian resistance. During the course of the war the Palestinian Authority became increasingly sidelined but it is now trying to reassert itself as it appeals for national unity. In response Hamas has escalated the power struggle by demanding that its opponents make a choice. The price they demand for reconciliation is that the PA end its talks with Israel and that it must instead back the resistance movement. The contest now is between those who say that unity comes first and those who say unity can only be based on commonly accepted principles. Speaking at a rally in Beirut, Hamas's local representative, Osama Hamdan, said his organisation would welcome dialogue but reconciliation with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority would require that they end peace talks with Israel and back Hamas' armed resistance against the Jewish state. "We say clearly that we welcome a national Palestinian dialogue but this dialogue must include those who really belong to Palestine and to the Palestinian cause," he said. In the West Bank, where Fatah predominates, security forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas prevented pro-Hamas demonstrations during the conflict. "Those who committed mistakes must correct their mistakes through a clear and frank declaration to stop security coordination with the (Israeli) occupation, release (Hamas) prisoners and later end negotiations (with Israel) because the peace process is irreversibly over," Mr Hamdan said. "It's time for us to talk about a reconciliation based on a resistance programme to liberate the (occupied) territory and regain rights," he said. Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Abbas, rejected Hamas' position and said talks should take place without preconditions. "The important thing is to end the division and have a government of national unity to carry on the reconstruction of Gaza," he told The Associated Press. "All Palestinian factions should come to the dialogue under the Egyptian umbrella without any conditions." The Observer spoke to Hamas's economics minister who reiterated the conditions upon which Palestinian unity depends. "Senior Hamas officials are demanding that the conditions for reconciliation should include an end to negotiations with Israel and to the peace process, a unity agreement under a banner of 'resistance', and continued Hamas control of Gaza. " 'Everyone recognises the need for reconciliation among Palestinians,' said Abu Rushdi Zaza. 'It will happen immediately if the Palestine Liberation Organisation [dominated by Fatah] can be rebuilt. But it must be understood that Hamas is the government. If international institutions want to do rebuilding projects in Gaza, then that is fine - but they must do it under our supervision.' " Israel has proposed to Egyptian mediators an 18-month ceasefire with Hamas, but a Hamas official said on Sunday that the group would only offer a one-year ceasefire, Reuters reported. " 'Hamas listened to the Israeli proposal presented by (Israeli Defense Ministry official) Amos Gilad, and with it a proposal for a ceasefire for a year and a half, but Hamas presented a counterproposal of one year only,' Ayman Taha told reporters in Cairo after talks with Egyptian intelligence officials. "Taha reiterated the group's calls for a lifting of the blockade imposed on the impoverished and devastated Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt. " 'It (Hamas) called for a complete lifting of the blockade and an opening of all the crossings,' Taha said. "Hamas proposed to Egyptian mediators that European and Turkish monitors be present at the border crossings, but rejected the presence of Israeli monitors, saying Israeli monitoring was 'a large part of the problem,' according to Taha. "Asked if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's forces would be present at the crossings, Taha said: 'Hamas is the existing government in Gaza.' Ahmed Yousef, a close aide to Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas government, told the Financial Times that a ceasefire agreement would necessitate that Israel fully open the borders. "If the suffering does not end, then there can be no ceasefire," Mr Yousef said. Keeping the borders closed would keep Gaza "in a state of siege, under sanctions," and this would amount to "a declaration of war," he said. In spite of the strict economic blockade imposed on Gaza from the time that Hamas took full control in June 2007, the government has adequate funding to distribute aid to victims of the war. Ahmed al Kurd, the minister of social affairs, who also heads the National High Committee for Relief was matter-of-fact in describing Hamas's ability to assist those who have lost family members or whose houses have been destroyed. "We are a government that is in charge of all of Gaza," he said. "The ministries have budgets, they have funds, just like in the rest of the countries of the world." Taher al Nunu, a government spokesman, said that Hamas would grant ?1,000 ($1,300) for the family of each "martyr" killed in the war and ?500 ($650) for each one of those injured. Each family whose house has been completely demolished will received ?4,000 ($5,200). He said that more than 20,000 houses were completely demolished or partially damaged during Israeli attacks. But Peter Beaumont observes: "Hamas's greatest problem is likely to come not from Fatah but from ordinary Gazans. It may have access to hundreds of millions of dollars, smuggled through the tunnels under the Rafah crossing, which are now operating again. But as Faisal Abu Shalah, a Fatah member of the legislative council for Gaza points out, while Hamas insists on controlling the reconstruction, Israel will not lift its economic blockade. " 'They have the power and the money. They can give people money to rebuild,' he said last week. 'But with what? There is not a single bag of cement to be had on the Gaza Strip. " 'Look at my window,' he points to a large frame, its glass blown out, replaced with sheet plastic. 'Do you think they can smuggle panes of glass or window frames through the Rafah tunnels? Hamas has the money, but it still cannot help the people in their long suffering.' " Looking beyond the immediate causes of the war, Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges described their findings from a study they have conducted over the last several years. In research funded by the US government they examined the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms that look beyond conventional political analysis. What they found was that "there is a moral logic to seemingly intractable religious and cultural disputes. These conflicts cannot be reduced to secular calculations of interest but must be dealt with on their own terms, a logic very different from the marketplace or realpolitik." As well as interviewing 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis from 2004 to 2008, the researchers spoke to leading political figures in the conflict and found striking parallels in their views. "Remarkably, our survey results were mirrored by our discussions with political leaders from both sides. For example, Mousa Abu Marzook (the deputy chairman of Hamas) said no when we proposed a trade-off for peace without granting a right of return. He became angry when we added in the idea of substantial American aid for rebuilding: 'No, we do not sell ourselves for any amount.' "But when we mentioned a potential Israeli apology for 1948, he brightened: 'Yes, an apology is important, as a beginning. It's not enough because our houses and land were taken away from us and something has to be done about that.' His response suggested that progress on sacred values might open the way for negotiations on material issues, rather than the reverse. "We got a similar reaction from Benjamin Netanyahu, the hard-line former Israeli prime minister. We asked him whether he would seriously consider accepting a two-state solution following the 1967 borders if all major Palestinian factions, including Hamas, were to recognise the right of the Jewish people to an independent state in the region. He answered, 'OK, but the Palestinians would have to show that they sincerely mean it, change their textbooks and anti-Semitic characterisations.' "Making these sorts of wholly intangible 'symbolic' concessions, like an apology or recognition of a right to exist, simply doesn't compute on any utilitarian calculus. And yet the science says they may be the best way to start cutting the knot" and moving towards a resolution of what has often been described as "the mother of all problems".

pwoodward@thenational.ae