Moral obligations vs political imperatives

December 17, 2006

Moral obligations vs political imperatives

Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas's decision to call early presidential and parliamentary elections marks a serious turn in the battle between his Fatah group and the ruling Hamas movement.
Hamas has termed the call as a coup d'etat while Abbas has asserted his presidential authority to dismiss the government.
Obviously, Fatah feels confident of victory in snap elections held in the shadow of the suffering of the Palestinian people resulting from the international sanctions imposed on them after Hamas took office this year. By the same token, Hamas feels it is being deprived of its right to rule the Palestinian people who elected the group with a sweeping majority 11 months ago.
Abbas, in his capacity as president of his people, has the moral responsibility to correct course if it is in his power as and when he feels that his people are suffering. That was one of the key points he highlighted in his address to his people on Saturday.
"We are living through difficult and miserable times ... To break the vicious circle and prevent our lives from deteriorating further and our cause from eroding, I have decided to call early presidential and legislative elections," he said. "Basic law stipulates that the people are the source of power," he said.
In that sense, his move is very much democratic to leave it to the Palestinian people to decide whether they need a "change of regime" in order to address the plight under the choking economic blockade. By placing the presidency also in the race, Abbas also appeared to have signalled that he has no inclination to hang on to office. It is a different matter whether he feels confident of re-election — although he has said that he might not run for another term in office.
As Abbas explained in his speech, efforts for a "national unity" cabinet had failed and the way ahead was blocked by Hamas's refusal to accept the US/Europe-backed demands that it recognise Israel, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements signed by the mainstream Palestinian leadership and the Jewish state.
Politics apart, the net impact of the deadlock is felt by the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as Israel's hostages since 1967. Few have the means to sustain without regular income, and the main employer in the government, which is not in a position to pay their wages because of the economic blockade placed against it. Life for most has hit the bottom line, with many families edging towards starvation.
As such, Abbas's move could be taken as made in good faith and stemming from his sense of responsibility towards his people.
However, the threat is very much real is that Hamas, which has a wide support base among the Palestinian constituents, would not allow itself to be ousted from power. Its armed wing could pose a serious threat to the law and order situation in the Palestinian territories, and Abbas would be placed in an almost impossible situation, particularly if his Fatah fighters decide to take on the Hamas challenge. The result would indeed be more Palestinian blood shed by Palestinians, with the real perpetrator of injustice, watching and applauding from the sides.
Indeed, Hamas leaders also have a responsibility towards the people and, judging from the group's record, they are aware of their obligation to alleviate the suffering of their people. Again, the danger here is of Hamas leaders deciding that accepting the president's decision means nothing but succumbing to the months of US/Israeli-European pressure and means a victory for the forces arrayed against them.
The small opening ahead is Abbas's announcement that the door is open to forming a government of national unity with Hamas — a cabinet of technocrats — in the interim period. It is "the first priority," he said.
This offers an opportunity for Hamas to soften its insistence on some of the key ministerial positions and join hands with Abbas to form an interim government without having to "lose face." If that happens, then the moral ground would be shaky for those are arguing against assistance to the Palestinians even if it means starving them do death.
Under the circumstances, that could turn out to be the only way out of the Palestinian deadlock. We in the Arab World could only hope that good sense would prevail among all Palestinian groups and there would be an early end to the suffering of the people living under Israeli occupation.