Six Questions, Washington Babylon — June 17, 2007, 6:01 pm

Six Questions for Mark Perry on the Conflict in Palestine

Mark Perry is a military, intelligence and foreign affairs analyst and the co-director of Conflicts Forum, a private group that calls for increased dialogue between Western countries and Islamic movements and political parties. A former adviser to Yassir Arafat, Perry has worked for long periods over two decades in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. He is the author of seven books, including A Fire In Zion (the recipient of the 1995 Jewish-American Community Book Award) and the newly released Partners in Command, a history of the Marshall-Eisenhower military partnership during World War II. I spoke with Perry by phone on Sunday as he was preparing to leave for Beirut, where his agenda includes talks with senior officials from Hamas.

1. What’s going on in Gaza? Is it the beginning of a Palestinian civil war?
This is not a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. What happened was that a small segment of Fatah, represented by the Preventive Security Service under the command of Mohammed Dahlan, tried to enter Gaza. Hamas warned Abu Mazin [Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority] not to allow the Service in because it was controlled by Dahlan, supplied, trained and equipped by the United States, and set up to take them on. But the warning was ignored and they attacked when the Service came in, soundly defeating it. But the conflict was between Hamas and the Service, not all of Fatah. Fatah is still alive and well in Gaza.

2. But is it possible that this will trigger a broader conflict between the two sides?
I don’t think this is going to spread into a general conflict, though over the last few days there have been increasing arrests of Hamas individuals by Fatah in the West Bank. But when I was in the West Bank a few weeks ago, Hamas and Fatah were actually working very closely together. Hamas doesn’t want a larger conflict. They would like their military units integrated into the larger security service, but Abu Mazin turned them down. Hamas is a political organization that is more interested in political power than Islam. A lot of its original leadership came out of Fatah.

3. So Hamas’s victory doesn’t augur the onset of Islamic rule in Gaza?
There’s a lot of disinformation circulating. We heard that Hamas would impose Islamic rule, but so far that hasn’t happened. We heard that Hamas would write Islamic rule into the law of Gaza, and I don’t think that will happen either. I don’t think there are broad social consequences from Hamas’s victory. Nine of the 15 members of Hamas’s Shura Council have Ph.D.s in the sciences. They are sophisticated people and not rejectionists of the enlightenment. There are hardliners within Hamas who would push for an Islamic state, but they are relatively few in number, and they’re street captains–not in the leadership. Hamas has been strong in Gaza, but there’s no Islamic state there–no enforced social programs, no religious police, and a relatively free press. Is Gaza more conservative than the West Bank? Yes, but that’s part of a process that’s been going on for the past 40 years. It’s not because of the recent fighting. You just don’t see support for an Islamic state on the ground. This is not Tehran in 1979.

The irony is that there is coherent, honest Palestinian leadership, but it’s in Hamas, not Fatah.

4. How much popular support does Hamas have?
It slipped after Hamas won the parliamentary elections last year, especially because it could not meet the payroll for government employees. But my sense is that it has recovered because it’s been able to run an efficient government. You also have to remember that Hamas won every single metropolitan area in the West Bank during the elections, which is pretty stunning. It won a lot of support in Fatah constituencies that are traditionally secular. Abu Mazin is the one that is isolated. Not Hamas. He’s a weak leader without support from many within his own party. If he makes the wrong moves, Hamas could end up in control of the West Bank as well.

5. How do you think the current conflict will play out?
I’m hopeful that cooler heads will prevail. Abu Mazin dissolved the government, which was technically legal, but he needs permission from the legislature within 30 days to formalize it. And Hamas has a majority in parliament. The United States acts as if the Palestinians don’t care about the rule of law, but they do. If he dissolves the government without the consent of parliament, it’s essentially a coup. There are people on both sides who want a return to a national unity government. There’s a chance that this can be patched up.

6. The consensus view in the media here is that this signals the end to the Middle East peace process and an end to a possible two-state solution. What’s your take?
The Middle East peace process has been effectively dead for a long time. The problem is that there’s very weak leadership in Israel and at the head of the Palestinian Authority. We need better leadership and that’s probably at least two years away. The irony is that there is coherent, honest Palestinian leadership, but it’s in Hamas, not Fatah. And that scares Israel and the United States. I know what Hamas’s political rhetoric is, and people in the United States say that they’re committed to Israel’s destruction. But in the end I think they’re willing to negotiate. They’ve already sent signals along those lines but no one is willing to talk to them without all sorts of preconditions. There should never be preconditions for negotiations. The important thing is to get the parties to the table and have them sit down and talk.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2018

Strandings

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Future of Queer

Swap Meet

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Newlyweds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Body Politic

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Munich, 1938

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall

Factor by which the brightness of a recent supernova exceeded that of all the stars in the Milky Way:

20

Fetuses yawn.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today