The US aid package

THE three-billion dollar assistance package offered by President Bush to Pakistan, as expected, has become a marginally contentious issue. President Musharraf, who negotiated the deal at Camp David, describes that as the largest single aid package ever offered to Pakistan, while some of the opposition groups dub it as “peanuts” based on the pre-Iraq war package offered by the US to Turkey to join in the war, but later rejected by Ankara.

The deal comes to 600 million dollars a year until 2009, which is equal to the average of the US aid offered annually for two years since 9/11 for Pakistan’s active support against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.

It was one thing to dismiss the initial aid of 200 million dollars offered by President Carter in the 1980s for active help in the US campaign against the Russians in Afghanistan, which we proclaimed as our ideological war as well. It is quite different to react to the 3 billion dollar package after the main Iraqi war is over in the same dismissive manner.

The fact is Pakistan’s bargaining power with the US would have been far greater in financial terms and the volume of aid much larger, if Pakistan was not beseeching active US assistance in settling the 55-year-old Kashmir dispute, and we did not want to buy from the US sophisticated arms which the US is not too eager to sell against Indian opposition.

Stage two is the conditonalities for receiving the assistance during the next five years. President Musharraf said the aid was unconditional. But the usually well-informed “Washington Post” came up with three conditions quoted by White House officials. They included an annual review of Pakistan’s cooperation in the war against terrorism (2) control of spread of nuclear weapons, and (3) steps towards democracy.

The package has to be approved by Congress which has a strong Israeli lobby. And the Congressional committees will come up with conditionalities, particularly in respect of spread of nuclear weapons and promotion of democracy without the army chief of staff being the President as well calling most of the political shots.

These are not conditionalities which Pakistan can object to. The US administration has always told army rulers to speed up the return of democracy and make the democratic process effective which had seldom been welcomed by them. But the US presidents have always quoted the demand in Congress for a return to the democratic process as the reason why they have to remind the Pakistani presidents of that need.

The US has not called for a rollback of the Pakistan’s nuclear programme nor its freezing as once the process starts it has to continue, as India has been doing since 1974 when it exploded a nuclear device.

The package is to be divided equally between the defence and security needs of Pakistan and the economic needs. As Pakistan has been talking of balance in conventional weapons between it and India, the US has to sell some of the sophisticated weapons whether they include F-16s or not which are not desperately needed by Pakistan after it acquired nuclear capability.

President Musharraf has said he did not want Congress to “micro-manage” the package. He has also said he wants to use the bulk of the aid for education and public health. But as far as the donors are concerned we have a poor history of aid usage. That is why even after 60 billion dollars of aid, including the grants and aid repaid, received by Pakistan we are in a bad state economically. If we had used the aid, which is far more than the Marshall aid for Europe we would have been far better off now.

We got more aid for the Social Action Programme I and II, and that too was partially misused. We produced too many ghost schools and ghost hospitals, and ghosts doctors and teachers on government pay rolls.

The World Bank sees most of the large public sector utilities as corrupt, including Wapda, KESC and PIA. And now the Bank president James Wolfensohn says 90 per cent of the Pakistanis see government departments as corrupt. In such a context the donors are bound to come up with conditionalities before giving the aid and rigid oversight of its usage in actual practice.

There is no dearth of large aid for Pakistan, Wolfensohn says that since 2001 Pakistan had received Bank aid of 1.1 billion dollars. And more such assistance will be available from the Bank and the Asian Development Ban at the current low global interest rates.

The issue is how well we use the aid, how effective and economic we make it and achieve the desired results? The officials of the donors resident in Pakistan are bound to watch that diligently.

During the president’s visit to the US the two countries also signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement aimed at opening US markets for Pakistani goods. It would lead to a US Pakistan Free Trade Area within two to three years if the agreement works well. They also signed an agreement on science and technology to increase the cooperation between them in these vital areas.

An agreement was reached between the two governments shortly after 9/11 following President Musharraf’s visit to the US to increase access for Pakistani goods to US markets. But little results could be achieved because of the resistance of the US textile interests. But now the quota system for textile exports to the US is to come to an end by the end of next year and there will be a free for all in textile exports in the world. How can the US render special assistance to Pakistan in respect of market access to Pakistani textiles in the US remains to be seen. We are really moving into the outer space of textile trade and how it all works has to be seen.

And when the US-Pakistan Free Trade Area is established three years from now will more US goods come into Pakistan or more Pakistani goods flow into the US? In such areas there are more questions now than answers and more speculation than predictable courses.

What form the cooperation in science and technology will take remains to be seen. Will that be cooperation in the area of information technology or higher education in scientific and technological institutions.

As regards industrial technology that comes with large scale industrial investment through joint enterprises. Advance technology is not given to other countries as packaged gifts, but comes in the shape of their industries established here using their advanced technology.

In the West and Japan they guard their industrial secrets zealously and take measures to protect against industrial spying by rivals. Hence if we want their latest technology we have to get their industries set up in Pakistan on a large scale and our people can then come to know of their technology gradually.

These are areas in which the private sector has to play a large role. The private sector enterprises which can face the challenges of 21st century and the aggressive WTO world have to be far different from the conventional business deals and far more enterprising.

And the government officials down the line from the ministers have to be equally enterprising and helpful to the private sector which may not be the cleanest in the world. But we have no option except to make best use of our available talent and work closer with India to benefit from its experience and regional cooperation with it.

In fact, the US is seeking a Free Trade Areas not only with Pakistan but also with many other countries, including those of the Middle East and the Gulf. At the recent World Economic Forum conference in Amman, Singapore offered to have a Free Trade area with Jordan. What all that means is the more and more countries are entering into free trade agreements and are trying to export more aggressively while accommodating the imports from others. To be part of such a world Pakistan needs a more aggressive industrial sector, and sustain and increase its current growth rate.

There are people here who do not like Pakistan seeking aid. And when it does they want large aid, but are not ready to pay the price of larger aid as nothing comes for free, and the price of far larger aid may be further erosion of the sovereignty of the country.

Wolfensohn estimates the country’s reform programme will add 2 to 3 per cent of the GDP increase in budgetary resources in the next three to five years, creating the sort of fiscal space that would make greater spending on poverty reduction programme possible. The new budget, he says, has added 13 per cent in development spending in the new fiscal year, which is below the 20 per cent increase claimed by the government.

He says while the reform process has resulted in marked success, there remained “an unfinished agenda” in key structural areas like education, power sector reforms, privatization, and civil service reforms.

Meanwhile the country director of the World Bank John Wall says the new model of developed authority may take 15 years to replace the 150 year old colonial system and not 15 months as the government have hoped. Haste in this area can result in many blunders and a great deal of confusion.

Meanwhile we live from slogan to slogan as they sound good. We are now told we are in the take-off stage economically. How do you convince a man living in the dark day and night for hours and even his UPS runs out after some hours and he remains without water for long or drinks impure water that his country is about to enter the Take-off stage?

A young Sindh minister tells me “we don’t need aid; we have more than what we need.” Then why don’t you use some of the excess aid for producing more power and water in the city?” I asked. “Also to have more basic education”? He had no replay.

Issue of Israel’s recognition

RECENTLY, some high officials in Islamabad publicly hinted at the possibility of Israel’s diplomatic recognition. Speaking at a press conference in Washington, on June 23, the foreign secretary of Pakistan declared, in no uncertain terms, that sooner or later, Pakistan will have to recognize Israel.

Following these pronouncements, which were probably made to test the waters, a debate has ensued in the national media in which opposing arguments on the issue are being put forward. The opponents of Israel’s recognition maintain that the Zionist entity is an evil and a manifestation of perfidy against the Palestinians.

It enjoys no legitimacy — historical, moral, political or juridical.

Since its creation, Israel has also been actively engaged in activities which are detrimental to the interest of the Arab and Muslim world. It would, therefore, be inadvisable to normalize relations with Israel, particularly at this stage, when the Palestinians are encountering enormous difficulties at the hands of the Zionists and Israelis in achieving the goal of their statehood.

On the other hand, the exponents of Israel’s recognition, who remained anonymous and in a low key in the past, are now openly demanding a change in Pakistan’s policy on this issue. The main thrust of their argument is that since the Palestinians themselves have already conceded Israel’s right to exist and several Muslim countries have formally recognized it, there may be no harm if Pakistan also follows suit.

The powers that had connived at the creation of Israel, to protect their long-term geopolitical and other interests in the Middle East, have continued to extend their moral and material support to it.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, hardly received any meaningful support from the Islamic world, except empty rhetorical expressions of sympathy, which virtually incapacitated them to carry on their struggle against their powerful enemy and ultimately forced them to cave in to accept Israel’s right to exist.

The unilateral recognition of Israel by some of the Muslim states was indeed myopic and a betrayal of the Palestinians which undermined their struggle and bolstered the Zionist entity to pursue its repressive policies against them.

A similar action by Pakistan, at the present stage, will have a devastating effect on the morale of the already disheartened and dejected Palestinians and could further weaken their struggle. They would rightly feel betrayed by a country which had always stood by them in their hour of trial.

Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel, following the 1979 Camp David accord, which, among other things, stipulated normalization of relations between the two countries. It seems desirable to mention that Israel had expanded its spying network and intensified other illegal activities in Egypt only after the establishment of its diplomatic mission in Cairo. Jordan, another Arab country to normalize its relations with Israel, also went through a similar bitter experience.

Both these countries had apparently not visualized the dangers which were associated with the recognition of the Zionist entity which follows its own code of conduct in its external relations.

Islamic solidarity is, of course, the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy. It is, however, an illusion that Pakistan did not recognize Israel only as a mark of its fraternal concern for the Palestinians. Pakistan has always been the most consistent and articulate opponent of the creation of Israel, as a matter of principle. During the UN debate on the future of Palestine, it had played a pivotal role in opposing the plan of its partition.

Pakistan also remained steadfast to its principled stand when Israel, after its proclamation, sought its recognition and desired to develop some kind of a modus vivendi with it, the prime objective of which was only to weaken the Palestinian struggle by driving a wedge among the Muslim nations.

Some people also believe that in order to ingratiate itself with the United States, where the Jewish lobby wields enormous influence on the policy makers and media, Pakistan should normalize its relations with Israel. The US-based think tank, Stratfor, in its report, released recently, has commented that the idea of Israel’s recognition may have been floated by the Pakistani leadership to gain a special status in its relationship with Washington. The Pak-US relationship has its own rationale.

It is essentially based on the mutuality of interest. The suggestion that Pakistan’s recognition of Israel would help enhance the status of that relationship is rather far-fetched and devoid of logic.

The stalemate in the Middle East peace process, as a result of the obduracy of Israel, is an important factor which also limits Pakistan’s ability to recognize Israel.

Therefore, Pakistan and, for that matter, the Muslim countries generally, should scrupulously refrain from according recognition to the Zionist entity till the achievement of tangible progress on the recently initiated road map for the Palestinian statehood, the fate of which still remains uncertain and obscure.

Moreover, on the delicate question of Israel’s recognition, the Islamic countries should, as a matter of policy, shun unilateralism and act in unison by taking a decision, through mutual consultation, under the auspices of the Organization of Islamic Conference the OIC.

The Palestinians remain deprived of their inalienable right to self-determination as expressed in terms of an independent and sovereign state on their own land. For the last 50 years or so, they have been demanding justice in accordance with the principles of international law, the UN Charter and specific UN resolutions on Palestine. They have faced adversity with exemplary courage and perseverance.

At this crucial juncture in their history, when the Quartet- sponsored proposed road map for their statehood has once again kindled the hope of justice to them, a unilateral recognition of Israel, by any country, under any excuse or pretext, would be a great disservice to the Palestinians and their noble cause.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

America’s Iran policy

IT is very difficult to know if the U.S. in on course or off course with its policy towards Iran. This is in large measure because Washington hasn’t made up its mind on what course it wants to set.

President George Bush said last month that an Iran with nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated. At the same time there are no plans afoot to invade Iran and topple the regime and get rid of the country’s alleged possession of dangerous nuclear facilities and materials.

Yet no one any longer really doubts that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. (This column argued as long as four years ago that this, in all likelihood, was the Iranian intention.) Surely the U.S. should go into Iran now and get the whole nasty business of regime change over. There are indeed a few outspoken Iranians who say they would welcome this.

Invading Iran would be a p of c. (piece of cake). American troops are already deployed in the vicinity. The geography makes it an easy one. And although there is latent anti-Americanism in Iran, in recent years the mullahs who call the big shots in Iran have found themselves less and less able to play that card for lack of a popular visceral anti-American hatred. When 70% of the population is under thirty the old memories of the taking of American hostages and the over-the-top American response are distant, almost forgotten thoughts.

Nevertheless, we can be happy that Mr. Bush has not followed the logic of the p of c argument, for the simple reason it is totally unnecessary, and war always brings such tremendous grief to a society in terms of human suffering. Besides, the U.S. has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt in Afghanistan and Iraq that while it is excellent at the bombing part it is near to hopeless at the new governance part.

War is unnecessary for at least three reasons. First, because beneath the rigorous, anti- American fundamentalism of a majority of the religious establishment in Iran, there is a practising secular democracy. It does not exactly thrive, but it exists and it does a number of important things. It is far more developed than the smaller attempts at local democracy that China experiments with and which wins accolades from Washington.

If this democracy in Iran is nurtured by the outside world, rather than hindered, able to show results rather than an empty plate, its political place within the Iranian internal political arrangement would rise many notches. This means Washington should move towards engaging the government, not only dropping sanctions but encouraging every field of joint endeavour from academic exchanges to foreign investment, not least in the oil industry.

Second, it is unnecessary because Russia is now helping the U.S. in its attempt to persuade Iran to be more open. Mr. Bush has done one important thing right- to engage Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, as a friend on this issue of nuclear proliferation in Iran rather than an enemy. The Clinton Administration made the mistake of trying to arm twist Moscow to cancel all nuclear cooperation with Iran, even the work on what would be only a civilian power reactor operating under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Bush Administration was clever enough to realize that the Clinton big stick approach had produced the worst of all worlds- an additional transfer of power reactors to Iran, continued clandestine and perhaps overt Russian fuel cycle assistance, and inadequate constraints on nuclear activities.

Now by working with Russia rather than against it, Mr. Bush has Mr. Putin’s support in the high level debate now continuing in the IAEA. Moscow is supporting much of the U.S. argument. Moscow is almost, if not already, at the point of telling Iran that it will end all nuclear cooperation unless Iran agrees to allow expanded IAEA inspections. The rapid toughening of the Russian line has been nothing less than remarkable.

The third reason for war being unnecessary is that Washington can well afford to be unhysterical about an Iranian nuclear bomb. Of course, the world would be better off if Iran didn’t have the bomb. The more nuclear matches are lying around, the more the chances of them being used either though political ineptitude in a crisis or more likely by accident. But the fact is Iran in 200 years has never started a war with anyone. And who exactly would Iran wage a nuclear war against? Its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, is gone. Whilst Iran has supported terrorist activity against Israel it has never deployed its own soldiers and is unlikely to want to get into a nuclear confrontation when Israel will always have nuclear superiority.

U.S. policy on Iran is on a bit of a wobbly course. Maybe the White House itself isn’t quite sure what course it is exactly on. But, fortuitously or otherwise, it is more or less heading in the right direction. — Copyright

James Bond and WMD

I AM writing the next James Bond movie. The opening scene has M calling James while he is resting with Nicole Kidman in a monastery in Tibet.

M tells him to get back right away. The next scene shows Bond in M’s office.

“This is important. The Prime Minister wants you to go to Iraq and find weapons of mass destruction. He told the British people Iraq had them, and that is why we joined the U.S. in a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein.”

“Why can’t the CIA do that?”

“They assured President Bush that Iraq had the weapons, but now they just can’t find any. The president is a big fan of yours and Don Rumsfeld has told him if anyone can find the WMD, Bond can.”

The next scene shows Bond on an Air France plane. The beautiful stewardess (Juliette Binoche) says to him, “Why do the British hate us?”

Bond says, “We don’t hate you. The Americans hate you. I’ll explain it to you when we get to the Baghdad Hilton, room 25.”

When he gets to his hotel, a CIA agent (Harrison Ford) who works as a room clerk, meets him in the lobby. “Welcome to the land of democracy. What brings you here?”

“I’m looking for weapons of mass destruction.”

“Aren’t we all?”

“Our people say that the CIA people assured Bush and Blair they were here.”

“That’s what they wanted to hear.”

“Well, Blair could lose the election if we don’t find any.”

The CIA agent says, “Bush doesn’t have that problem. He says Saddam has them hidden somewhere, or he destroyed them, or sold them to Syria. And he’ll get re-elected even if we don’t find any.”

Bond says, “I think I’ll take a shower. If a beautiful French stewardess asks for me, let her up and send two dry martinis, a bottle of Dom Perignon and a pound of foie gras.”

“Are we supposed to charge it to MI6?” the CIA agent asks.

Bond replies, “Charge it to the CIA. You people have more money than we do.”

The next scene shows Bond getting out of the shower wearing nothing but a bath towel.

There is a knock on the door. It is Juliette Binoche. She is wearing a leather jacket and leather pants from Christian Dior. The champagne arrives a few minutes later. Bond tips the waiter and as soon as he leaves he gives the stewardess a long kiss. They fall on the bed.

The next shot pans to a rumpled bed where Juliette is smoking a Gauloise cigarette. She says, “That was fantastic. Why does the coalition hate the French people?”

“The coalition doesn’t hate only the French people — it hates anyone in the U.N. who didn’t support us when we went to war.”

Juliette goes to her purse and takes out a pistol. “First you make love — then you die. I am really a member of the Baath Party and you are an infidel.”

Bond has his hands up, “I knew you weren’t an airline stewardess when I saw a picture of Saddam in the washroom. Tell me one thing. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?”

“I don’t know. I am only in charge of assassinations.”

Juliette pours herself a glass of champagne, and while she is putting foie gras on her toast, Bond grabs her pistol. They wrestle on the floor. The CIA room clerk comes in with three agents and takes her away.

The phone rings. Bond answers it. He tells M, “I think I found the WMD. They are on the 18th hole at the Baghdad Country Club, where the U.S. army failed to look.”

M says, “That’s good. Now Tony Blair won’t have to resign.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Hamas: vital partner for peace

THERE are many flaws in the American roadmap to peace in the Middle East: poorly defined or even unmarked stretches, reluctant travellers (especially the Israelis), unclear enforcement measures — and misrepresentations. The roadmap shows Hamas (and other armed resistance groups) as obstacles to be overcome on the journey to peace.

Palestinian sentiment and aspirations are represented by the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, better known as Abu Mazen. This is a distortion of the ground reality in the occupied territories, for there it is Hamas — far more than Abu Mazen — which speaks for the Palestinians.

The international image of Hamas, regularly highlighted by Israeli and American leaders and spokesmen, is of a ruthless terrorist organization that has to be dismantled if peace is to be realized in the Middle East. Suicide bombings carried out by the group, like the latest Jerusalem bus bomb that killed 17 Israelis, are cited as supporting evidence. Hamas has indeed been responsible for the greatest number of suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli targets since the intifada started in September 2000. Such attacks can never be justified, but they have to be understood in the Palestinian context.

Living in freedom, it is impossible for outsiders to appreciate the immense frustration and helplessness that those trapped in the Israeli occupied territories feel. These feelings are the product of years of daily oppression, occupation, humiliation and injustice at the hands of the Israeli authorities. Hamas’ bomb attacks provide a vent for that frustration: they allow ordinary Palestinians to feel that they have some power. For them suicide bombings are not terrorism but a blow back against Israeli occupation.

Militant attacks on Israel are all one hears about Hamas. But there is much more to the Hamas phenomenon than its international image of ‘terrorist’ suggests. ‘Phenomenon’ because Hamas is not a conventional underground resistance organisation. Like the Islamist ideology that it espouses, Hamas is a universal, all-encompassing movement that excludes no aspect of societal life from its mandate. As such, most of its work is done ‘above ground’, quite openly. Finding Hamas in the occupied territories requires no effort.

Hamas is active in politics. Its political position is very clear: an Islamic Palestinian state should be formed from Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper. It pushes for this in all the conventional political forums. Dr Abdul-Aziz Al-Rantissi, recent target of an Israeli assassination attempt, is its political spokesman.

Hamas is active in the field of social welfare. It runs clinics, kindergartens, and schools. It gives aid to Palestinians in need: money for widows and the unemployed to feed their families, medicines for the sick, textbooks for schoolchildren, wheelchairs for the disabled. Hamas provides basic support to ordinary Palestinians. And it does so without asking questions or expecting returns. All Palestinians, irrespective of whether they support Hamas, Fatah, Abu Mazen or some other group, are given assistance by Hamas. The only criterion it applies is need.

This aspect of Hamas’ work might come as a surprise to many outside the occupied territories, but is in fact natural given its origins. Sheikh Yasin founded Hamas in 1987 as an off-shoot of the Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood). Ikhwan’s philosophy has always been to reform society from bottom up, both by spreading its message and by helping people. Hamas has the same philosophy. It recognizes that long-term support comes from addressing all the needs of the Palestinian people — the need to vent their anger at Israel, but also the daily need to survive.

Effective armed resistance (Hamas has extracted a heavy toll in Israeli lives), a potent political message, and a proven humanitarian record — this is the powerful combination that has won Hamas so much support on the Palestinian street. Ironically, it is the least publicized of these — Hamas’ social work — that has probably won it the most followers. For many Palestinians Hamas means the difference between survival and absolute destitution. Social work is also what most distinguishes Hamas from the Palestinian Authority.

Under Yasser Arafat’s chairmanship the Palestinian Authority was notorious for corruption and mismanagement. In the best tradition of Third World government, it fed the rich while the poor suffered. The replacement of Arafat as administrative head by Abu Mazen should bring some improvement, but not overnight. When ordinary Palestinians contrast the ineffectiveness of the PA with the practical assistance provided by Hamas, the nepotism and cronyism that plagues the Authority with the indiscriminate support provided by Hamas, the grand houses of PA leaders with the simple lifestyle of Hamas’ leaders, little wonder that they have more faith in Hamas than in their supposed representatives.

So long as the PA fails to meet the everyday needs of its people, and so long as Hamas fulfils those needs to an extent, the Islamists’ grassroots support will easily outweigh that of the Authority. One should not of course forget the inspirational impact of Hamas’ suicide bombings. Again, when ordinary Palestinians contrast the pain they inflict on Israel with the toothlessness of the Palestinian Authority, it is Hamas that they flock to.

Clearly, Hamas’ democratic mandate (judged in terms of grassroots support) is far stronger than that of Abu Mazen. (Actually, even the sidelined Yasser Arafat has more support on the street than the beleaguered prime minister.) To treat Hamas as an obstacle on the roadmap, and Abu Mazen as the voice of the Palestinians is therefore a huge distortion of reality.

One of the key arguments put forward to deny Hamas its rightful place as a partner on the roadmap is that it is too extremist. Its ideology of total rejection of Israel, and its commitment to armed struggle to achieve that goal, rule it out as a partner for peace. This too is part of the Hamas ‘myth’ built up by Israel and America.

The reality is that Hamas is an ideological but also a pragmatic organization. It sees violence as a means to an end rather than a goal in itself. Hamas knows there has to be a political settlement. It also knows that a settlement can never entail the total destruction of Israel. Its political goal (a Palestinian state comprising the occupied territories and Israel) should therefore be taken as a bargaining chip to secure the best possible compromise for the Palestinians. In practice, Hamas would settle for a Palestinian state with its pre-1967 borders.

The recent cease-fire announced by Sheikh Yasin (together with Islamic Jihad and Fatah) is clear proof of its pragmatism. Despite the many (probably fatal) flaws in the roadmap, Hamas wants to give peace a chance. It does not want to be seen as the factor that bulldozed the roadmap and caused its collapse. By agreeing to a cease-fire in return for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (excluding Jewish settlements) and Bethlehem, release of Palestinian prisoners and an end to targeted assassinations, Hamas has secured tangible relief for its people.

Will Israel and America appreciate Hamas’ pragmatism and work with it towards peace, or will they follow the roadmap — which stipulates that the PA must next dismantle all ‘terrorist structures’ — and thereby destroy all chance of peace?

Early indications are not too promising. George Bush, Colin Powell and others in the US administration have launched a verbal offensive against Hamas, even pressing the EU to designate it a terrorist entity. The Israelis, ever seeking an excuse to pull out of the peace process, are insisting that it be dismantled. Hamas has so far cooperated with the exponents of the roadmap, but to expect it to cooperate in its own destruction is to expect the impossible.

Washington and Tel Aviv envisage the Palestinian Authority carrying out that task. But given that Hamas’ following far outweighs that of the PA, any attempt by the latter to destroy it will predictably lead to civil war. Abu Mazen knows this, which is why he is reluctant to take on the responsibility of dismantling Hamas. Should America and Israel persist with that demand, the consequences will be renewed bloodshed and violence — either between the PA and Hamas or — in the event of Abbas’ continued refusal to confront the Islamists — between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The only hope for the roadmap lies in America and Israel dropping their insistence on the destruction of Hamas. Hamas is a vital and willing partner for peace in the Middle East. Working with it, the roadmap could make some progress; excluding it, the roadmap will get nowhere.