Hamas opposition to unity government needs stronger resistance

The Palestinian unity government is keeping up with the trend of fomenting further discord, ridiculing its existence and proving its role as collaborator against the Palestinian cause. Since its inception, the unity government flourished as an extension of the Palestinian Authority’s repressive and exploitative policies, ensuring its existence through wilful acquiescence and occasionally indulging in brief outbursts of unification and inclusion discourse. The latest was a short-lived declaration that Palestinian factions would be included in discussions regarding the new unity government.

According to Ma’an, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk declared the movement will not deal with the new ministers appointed by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah. Abu Marzouk also stated that there is “national agreement on removing the incumbent Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah” who he described as “a failure”. Furthermore, Hamas has described the government reshuffle assigned to Hamdallah by PA President Mahmoud Abbas as “unconstitutional and outside consensus”.

However, it is not the government reshuffle that should elicit criticism and opposition but rather the whole concept of the unity government since its formation. Discussions on reconciliation prior to the initial formation of the unity government eliminated resistance from the equation, thus ensuring that perpetual fragmentation of Palestine became a top priority for the diplomatic participants. Hamas issued several contradictory statements last year which veered between acceptance of the two-state compromise and outright verbal rejection of Israel’s recognition, automatically eliciting questions as to how resistance can survive within a climate of considerable isolation and dependency.

The PA’s latest imposition upon Hamas was insisting that the resistance movement relinquish control over Gaza in return for participation in the unity government – a request obviously shunned by Hamas. Putting forth a new strategy to combat the PA’s flaunting of prerequisites is essential if Hamas is to manoeuvre itself away from the spasmodic attempts to criticise the PA.

Ma’an also reported that Marzouk considers a long-term truce with Israel in order to solve Gaza’s issues as “acceptable”, although he clarified there is no such proposal being discussed. Fatah, on the other hand, is reported to be against the move as it would “separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and end the possibility of a Palestinian state along 1967 borders.”

Both opinions expressed constitute a specimen of compromise. The PA’s fabricated concern with the two-state conspiracy as diplomatic jargon only reveals its true intentions with regards collaborating with Israel to ensure the complete colonisation of Palestine. Any possibility of a truce between Israel and Hamas – albeit still only a hypothesis – would raise issues, such as the price that Palestinian resistance would pay for such gestures. In either case the outcome remains similar – an expression of further subjugation to Israeli demands in return for slivers of temporary alleviation of humanitarian discomfort for the Palestinian population, while resistance for Palestine and the Palestinians is once again relegated to the side lines, to pave the way for appeasing the colonial power.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.