Hussein Agha and Robert Malley have a long article on Hamas in the latest issue of The New York Review of Books, which notes the incoherence of past
[T]he
all at once pressed for the recent elections, warned that armed militias such as Hamas should not participate, and opposed Israeli efforts to keep Hamas off the ballot. . . . United States
US perplexity is the price, perhaps, of years of chasing an illusion, the so-called Fatah young guard that was supposed to democratize, reform, and stabilize the Palestinian Authority, while also enjoying the necessary legitimacy to disarm militias and compromise with
. . . . Israel
Having waited in vain, and at heavy cost, for the nonexistent young guard to emerge, the
inherited instead the Islamists. US
But the article is itself a long paean to the illusion du jour: chasing the “possibility of hopeful developments” with Hamas and its vaunted “flexibility and pragmatism:”
[T]here is the possibility of hopeful developments in which all, Hamas, the
US ,, and Fatah alike, display flexibility and pragmatism. Hamas would name a government that includes independents and technocrats. The government would recognize the PA’s past agreements and commitments and continue to deal with Israel . Hamas would maintain its truce . . . and press for a program of good governance and reform. Donor funds would continue to flow and keep the Authority afloat. Israel would proceed with the second phase of its unilateral withdrawal, this time from the heart of the West Bank. Israel
Isn’t that a great plan? Hamas puts some figureheads in the government, lets the government “recognize” the past agreements (which will be observed in the same manner they were observed before), maintains a “truce” until a truce is no longer necessary, and continues its “good governance” (can a Nobel Prize be far away?).
Result: Funds flow and