Internal Palestinian divisions block a solution to Israel Palestine conflict

The argument

This argument holds that no solution is available because one side lacks a partner capable of delivering it. A settlement requires a negotiator who can bind the whole population to the terms agreed, and proponents argue the two Palestinian camps will never be able to achieve a suitable compromise between themselves, let alone with Israel. The obstacle they identify is a disagreement about the destination rather than about the route. Peaceful negotiations between the Israeli government and Fatah will never fully solve the conflict, on this argument, because Hamas will not be satisfied with a two-state, secular solution when what it seeks is a single Islamic Palestinian state. Those are not positions that can be split at a midpoint: any agreement that satisfies one of them defeats the other, so an accord reached with Fatah would be rejected by Hamas rather than inherited by it. Violence then closes the remaining route. Proponents argue that the Hamas group makes peaceful negotiation impossible and prevents progress from being made, and that Israel occupies and subjugates Palestinians out of fear about the safety of Israeli citizens — a fear they say will not cease while that violence continues. On this reading the two dynamics sustain each other: the internal Palestinian split guarantees that violence continues whatever any negotiator agrees, and the continuing violence guarantees that Israel will not relinquish control. The conclusion is structural rather than about anyone's good faith. The internal conflict among Palestinians prevents true progress from being made toward peace, because there is no single authority with whom an agreement could be concluded and by whom it could be enforced. An already difficult task is therefore made impossible, proponents argue, because the Palestinians do not have a united front.

Context

Palestinians are largely divided into two political groups, Hamas and Fatah. Although both groups support a Palestinian state, they have many differing beliefs. Fatah formed out of the original Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late 1950s, now supports peaceful negotiations with Israel with the goal of a two-party state. Hamas is a more militant group that provides social welfare for Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation but primarily focuses on violent terrorist acts against the state of Israel with the goal of a single Palestinian state. The primary differences between the two are that Hamas uses violent action while Fatah solely uses peaceful negotiations and that Hamas is religiously Islamist-based while Fatah is secular.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Though the two groups are strongly opposed, with creative negotiations and a compromise from both Palestinian parties a suitable solution could be reached. Especially if a solution was backed by other Arabic nations or the United Nations, an agreement could be enforced even if all parties were not entirely content with it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Parties could be forced to compromise.