With the absence of any viable third option to date, Palestinian public support has become increasingly dichotomised between a paralysed HAMAS-led government and a FATEH-led presidency whose credibility, integrity, and popularity have arguably all but diminished since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority more than 12 years ago.

The inevitable outcome of this deeply polarised political system in Palestine has left little room for manoeuvrability; an inherent inability to create alternative visions, solutions, and institutions capable of transcending the existing political turmoil and leading the Palestinian people out of socio-economic disintegration, and into a more stable and secure political environment.

It is difficult to speculate whether or not Palestinian civil society would eventually be able to find the commitment and means to advocate a vision-led approach that could provide the Palestinian people with new and enlightened options and possibilities, albeit, on the basis of existing political national aspirations and rights. In light of the overwhelming obstacles and challenges currently facing Palestinian society, any attempt to create and nurture an alternative leadership may well backfire, hence deepening the wounds of an already agonised political system. Contemplating a vision for such an alternative will, at best, remain confined to the parameters of academic exercise for now. Quite simply, the reality of Palestinian politics cannot afford more variables; it will have to be either HAMAS or FATEH, while other political forces continue to play a complementary role at the periphery.

With that in mind, the narrow option between HAMAS and FATEH will have an impact on both the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (peacemaking), as well as the development of a Palestinian entity on the social and economic levels. The continuation of HAMAS’ inability to deliver is bound to backfire, possibly resulting in either the return of FATEH to government, at the expense of continued mismanagement, corruption, lack of central command, and chaos, or the formulation of an emergency cabinet (technocratic government) that will be equally limited in political weight and ability to cater for the basic public sectors. After all, it was not too long ago (between February 2005 and January 2006) when the Palestinian executive authority was governed by a combination of FATEH heavyweights and “independent” technocrats who merely managed to sustain a crisis management approach of governance.

Both scenarios are almost equally gloomy. The Palestinian people are faced with the dilemma of having to choose between continued hegemony and incarcerated pluralism. Meanwhile, the emergence of any viable alternative will require a radical institutional-political restructuring; a far fetched possibility at this time and under the current circumstances.

As far as the international community, Israel, and the US are concerned, any alternative to HAMAS is blessed. Such short-sighted assessment of reality provides the ultimate ingredients for the continuation of conflict, and the further disintegration of Palestinian society. Such lack of vision is bound to spell disaster onto Palestine, Israel, and the entire region.

Rami Bathish is director of the Media and Information Programme at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). He can be contacted at mip@miftah.org