Ghassan Khatib

While the international boycott of the Hamas-led government might bring about its collapse simply out of practical necessity, it most likely will also leave Hamas as popular as ever since that collapse will be seen as a direct result of external pressure rather than any failing of the government itself.

by Ghassan Khatib

by Ghassan Khatib

There is no doubt that the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political scene is a very dramatic development for Israelis, especially the vast majority of the Israeli people who elected Sharon and believed he was on course to fulfill some of their hopes and aspirations. There is also no doubt that this is a tragic moment for his family and those who worked closely with him.

Sharon was in many ways a unique Israeli leader. At a time of serious crisis, he managed to govern Israel with almost no serious political opposition while also almost completely neutralizing international criticism and even influence. Yet, such an unparalleled achievement should not hide the fact that as far as the basic, legitimate Israeli objectives of peace and security are concerned, he achieved little.

In addition to the economic, political and humanitarian importance of opening up Gaza, the way in which this deal was negotiated and concluded carries many lessons that can be applied to other aspects of the conflict.

by Ghassan Khatib

by Ghassan Khatib

The unilateral approach to dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a right-wing Israeli invention that at the time it was first proposed was justified because of the "absence of a Palestinian partner" for bilateral negotiations and agreements.

It aims at enabling the Israeli government to escape the inevitable obligations and consequences that would have arisen from bilateral negotiations. A bilateral approach would of necessity derive from previous agreements reached under the peace process and taken its legitimacy from international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

The Quartet-proposed roadmap plan for peace as a basis for a bilateral peace process was difficult for Israel to reject due to its strong international backing. However, it contradicted the political positions of this particular Israeli government, a self-confessed opponent of the peace process upon which the roadmap was based. The roadmap, for example, is about "ending the occupation that started in 1967", while this particular Israeli government is about consolidating that occupation and eventually annexing at least a significant part of occupied territory.

by Ghassan Khatib

Safe passage is the name that was given in the Oslo Accords to the way the West Bank is supposed to be connected to the Gaza Strip. The accords stressed the need to maintain the integrity and continuity of the Palestinian territories. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are, by any standards, geographically very small and hence also comprise a small market. Should the two be disunited it would thus further shrink a Palestinian market and consequently strongly affect the potential for economic growth and recovery.

By the same token, the Gaza Strip is not on its own economically viable. It needs to be part of a Palestinian economy encompassing the West Bank in order to survive. The same, maybe to a lesser extent, can be said for the West Bank. In other words, the economic viability of a future Palestinian state depends on the economic integrity of the parts of this state, i.e. the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The premise on which the peace process has been based is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is also an integral part of what has become known as Bush's vision for the future of the Middle East, i.e., two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side. This political vision is one of the fundamental bases for the implementation of a future solution based on international legality that calls for Palestinian self determination in an independent state in the territories occupied in the 1967 war.

by Ghassan Khatib

Many Palestinian politicians and analysts are optimistic that the Hamas organization, the military wing of the traditional Muslim Brotherhood, is ready to be integrated into the political system. Views vary, however, on the price that might be exacted for this, and what political weight Hamas will come to carry within the system.

The inclusion of Islamic political parties in political systems in the Arab world has been controversial since the Algerian elections were cancelled at the last minute when it was clear to almost everybody that the Islamic movement there would win. While this was clearly undemocratic, there is always a question mark over whether Islamists who take power by democratic means are committed to maintaining parliamentarian democracy, or to changing the system to an Islamic regime, which is a different proposition.

That debate has been particularly fierce in recent years and has included many of the prominent thinkers from within the Islamic movements. The conclusion reached was that if Islamic movements are to play the democratic game, they have to play it properly. In other words, they have to accept that democracy can circulate power between them and others.