I'm surprised I haven't seen a few more diaries on the bloody political earthquake unfolding in the occupied territories. I do not know of any observer of the region who predicted that Gaza and the West Bank would politically splinter. In hindsight, this break was foreseeable.
Fatah, which dominates in the West Bank, has a large interest in cooperation with Israel because it wants independence, some control of East Jerusalem, removal of settlements, access rights and control over some historic sites/cities, and of course, control over basic resources (water, electricity). In addition, Jordan ceded official claims to the West Bank many years ago, so Israel is the only place to which they can turn.
Hamas, which now controls Gaza, does not need to cooperate with Israel because the land is not actually occupied by Israel. There are no Jewish settlements in Gaza nor Israeli troops, so they have de facto independence. They have a coast line and don't necessarily require Israeli cooperation to develop it for commercial purposes. There is already a significant border fence sealing Gaza off from Israel and the West Bank. The Mediterranean forms another border, and their Southern/Western border is with Egypt, the Arab world's largest country and cultural center, which used to own that land. The geographic issues with respect to an independent Palestinian homeland in Gaza have been dealt with to a large extent.
There are also few, if any, sites or cities in Gaza of historical and biblical significance. In addition, though I don't have statistics on this, I wonder how many Arabs living in Gaza have arguable claims regarding the emotional ‘right of return’ issue (meaning claims by Palestinian Arabs who used to live in present day Israel who either left on their own or were forced to leave as a result of the first Arab-Israeli war and the political realignment that took place which brought about the creation of Israel in 1948). The concern over Gaza is more focused on security issues, and not on historic, cultural or religious claims which extend to the global community of Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Finally, whatever common linkage the West Bank and Gaza had was made more remote by the fact that Israel, with its checkpoints and barriers, has made it impossible for people in Gaza and the West Bank to travel to the other side and visit each other. They use cell phones and video conferencing to communicate. This explains, in part, why the West Bank is more secular and Gaza has become more deeply fundamentalist. People in California have more connections to people in Florida or North Carolina than these two regions, which are only 20 miles apart.
The sad tragedy of Gaza, however, is that it is significantly poorer than the West Bank and is in dire need of aid, but as long as Hamas is running things, it will not get such assistance, from either the West or the Arab world. Egypt has sealed its border nearly as tightly as Israel, and Gaza seems more like a prison camp run by a mafia than an independent homeland.
So given that Hamas has seized control of Gaza and that Israel and the US are willing to let it go for the time being, what happens next? I suggest that the future may turn out well for the region, provided that a Democrat gets elected President in 2008.
In the near term, Fatah will get a boost in the West Bank because Hamas is no longer part of the government. Aid will flow, and it might be easier to get a peace deal with Israel. Fatah will also have the ability to consolidate power and root out the Hamas element. This will enable them to establish more control and legitimacy over the West Bank and reduce the threat of terrorist attacks which have imperiled peace talks for the last 2 decades. Conditions in Gaza will likely worsen unless Hamas can find a way to provide public services as effectively as Hezbollah does in Lebanon. Money from abroad will be difficult to get into Gaza because Egypt and Israel have effectively sealed their borders.
In my view, it is quite possible that Hamas rule in Gaza will collapse over the next year or two, because it is difficult to see how Hamas can satisfy the needs of the people given their physical isolation by Egypt and Israel and their diplomatic isolation by the international community. The Sunni Arab community is not likely to support Hamas, because they don’t want to encourage radicalism and give Iran yet another foothold in the Arab world.
If Hamas were to fall, Fatah might be back in the game and they could reestablish control in Gaza and the two-state solution would be back on the front burner, Fatah having demonstrated their legitimacy to their people, Israel and the world. Fatah, however, could simply decide that they don’t want the headache of dealing with Gaza and refuse to take it over. They might find it too difficult to root out Hamas in Gaza, and they don’t want to be responsible to Israel for acts of violence that they cannot control as effectively as they can in the West Bank. They might leave Gaza for Israel to deal with and negotiate their own peace deal with Israel. Egypt may be asked to reincorporate Gaza (which they would likely refuse). The UN might be asked to take over, but Israel’s long running hostility towards the UN (maybe it’s time for Israel to give the UN a second chance after 35 years?) could become a road block. If the UN is allowed to have a significant role in a post-Hamas Gaza, perhaps they can bring in the aid and development necessary to make Gaza functional. With that much coastline, shrewd businessmen could also develop it into the Arab world’s Monaco. You might think it crazy, but there are greater contradictions in the Arabian peninsula today where devout Wahabbists have built the most gaudy, opulent golf courses, dance clubs, casinos and hotels the world has ever seen. Club Med – Gaza City!: That’s the future.
Another key factor is getting a Democrat elected President in the US. Nothing moves in the Middle East without the US guiding it. This current situation has unfolded because of Bush’s singular incompetence and his peculiarly ideological foreign policy. A President Clinton (Hillary that is), for example, would have great credibility in the Middle East and could force Israel to make real concessions (especially if Bill were the special envoy). Israel’s government is weak, and the legacy of the Bush-Sharon policy is in shambles. The Hezbollah war of 2006, the victory of Hamas in the elections and in seizing Gaza, the failure of the Iraq war to change the balance of power in the region in Israel’s favor, and the tactical victories for Iran in Iraq and Lebanon demonstrate this failure.
A new Democratic President would bring hope to the Arab world that America has returned to its senses. The new President could demand concessions from Israel and give greater support to Fatah, because Fatah might well have complete, uncontested control of the West Bank. It will not be as easy for the Israeli right to claim that they cannot do business with Fatah, especially if Hamas has been discredited and marginalized. Israel will have to make concessions on settlements, the border fence that encroaches over the Green Line, control of utilities (water, electricity), border security and checkpoints, access to the ports and work permits (among many other things). The time is ripe for an enlightened US President to be a catalyst for change within Israel’s political system, to push Israel to make concessions, to encourage Fatah to continue on the path to moderation and consolidation of power, and to dust off and reopen some of the solutions proposed at Camp David 2000 and the Geneva Accord and get to work.
However, all of this speculation hinges on a Democrat being elected President in 2008. I think Hillary would be uniquely positioned to affect results in the Middle East in a positive way, because of Bill Clinton’s credibility on this issue. Edwards or Obama would also move things in the right direction. The GOP, however, has made itself incapable of providing a useful role. All of the GOP candidates have hewn to Bush’s policy, and are catering to the extreme positions of the evangelical right and supporters of the Israeli right in this country, which are in fundamental opposition to the peace process.
In short, Democrats have to win the 2008 election in order to secure a more peaceful Middle East. The GOP is incapable of providing any useful role on this issue. If Democrats win in ‘08, then I think events unfolding on the ground in Israel and the occupied territories provide a unique opportunity to change the region for the better.