The widening gyre

Today, news agencies have reported that Fatah militiamen have fired upon Palestine’s Parliament building in Ramallah, leading some observers to claim that the event represents the beginning of a Palestinian Civil War. Bloggers in particular have been quick to call the conflict a civil war, despite the major media outlets’ reticence to do likewise, suggesting that the mainstream news agencies wear the taint of being politically compromised in its reporting on Palestine, employing gross euphemism in describing the recent events. So the question of the day is what, exactly, is going on in the West Bank and Gaza, and does it represent something ‘new’ in the course of events?

This much we know: (1) there has been a notable uptick in Fatah-Hamas militia conflict in the streets this week; (2) Fatah announced today that if Hamas does not accept the referendum on the proposed strategy to negotiate with Israel, early elections will be held (whether it has the prerogative or ability to carry out such elections is debatable); and (3) Hamas has lifted the tentative cease-fire with Israel in the wake of the unfortunate civilian deaths on a Gaza beach, purported to have been slain by a rogue Israeli artillery shell.

These three events are related. First, Fatah’s move to press ahead with Israel toward a final solution regarding the question of Palestinian statehood runs counter to the still-unmoderated views of Hamas, which rejects recognition of Israel as a state, much less entering into negotiations with the Israelis over Palestinian sovereignty. This aggressive move by Fatah has prompted Hamas to respond in kind, and The Beach Incident provided the perfect opportunity to respond. Whether or not Israel was responsible for the deaths on the beach (and at this point, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer), Hamas has used the incident as a pretext to end the cease fire. The political motivation for the move, however, has little to do with exacting revenge; rather, its aim is to further distance Fatah from the Palestinian people, to demonstrate how Fatah is ‘out of touch’ with the people by its willingness to negotiate with ‘butchers’ (Israel).

This leads us to the uptick in violence. One imagines that Hamas is turning the screws on Fatah in more ways than one, or as Strategic Forecasting reported today, “Part of this is simply old-style ward politics. Fatah, the faction formerly led by Yasser Arafat, has been in control of the apparatus of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PNA. As such, it is in control of Palestinian revenue and has been in a position to build a system of patronage—as would any political party that stayed in power for a generation. Many people make their livings off of that patronage and do not want to lose it.” Add to this the secular-religious divide represented by the two groups, and it becomes clear that the referendum question is just the latest cause of the prevailing bitterness, but for all that, the referendum question is important in that it is being used by Fatah not just as a means to get back to the negotiating table, but perhaps even to invalidate the Jan. 25 elections it lost (by forcing a new round of elections). Hamas is not about to stand idly by as this unfolds.

Further aggravating the situation is the vagueness of the Palestinian charter. As Stratfor notes, “the PNA charter has given the Palestinians a government like France. It has both a president with real powers and a prime minister with real powers. That wasn’t a problem when each leader hailed from the same party; it becomes a huge problem when they are from different parties.” One could interpret the recent bout of militia violence as an attempt by both sides to fill a Constitutional power vacuum by means of arms.

So is this a civil war? Call it that if you must, but so long as both sides attempt to game the political system—even if the means are violent—I would refrain from calling it a civil war. It’s closest historical analog is something like the Weimar Republic, where groups across the political spectrum from left to right used violence and intimidation as a means of enhancing a political outcome. And that requires the pretense that the current political sphere is still worth winning. We are indeed in a gray area that may yet end without one of the parties withdrawing from the political stage to carry out its arguments via all-out war.

see also The Divagator’s analysis of January’s Palestinian elections (“Those nettlesome Near East elections”)