Does the truce agreement sponsored by Egypt, with American cover, between Hamas, along with Islamic Jihad, and Israel, in Gaza, resemble the April Understanding of 1996? Back then, the US, France, Syria and former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sponsored this agreement, between Hezbollah and Israel, ending the Israeli aggression against Lebanon. It was preceded by massacres that resemble the ones committed by the Israelis in the Gaza Strip the other day, the most famous of which was the first Qana massacre of 1996. What prompts us to ask about the resemblance between the current truce and the April Understanding is that the Gaza agreement cements Israeli recognition of Hamas as a resistance movement, and to a certain extent American recognition, just as the two countries recognized Hezbollah in 1996 as a resistance movement against occupation, when it stipulated that targeting populated areas should be avoided. The Gaza Agreement stipulates something similar, with different terms, as it mentions halting aggressive Israeli acts against Gaza, by land, sea and air, and invading and targeting individuals (assassinations). In return, the Palestinian factions should refrain from attacking Israel, including the use of rockets (which targeted civilians in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in recent days), and cross-border attacks. The mutual recognition is the basic element of similarity in the two cases, even if the Gaza Agreement was conducted directly between the two parties to the struggle, as with the April Understanding in Lebanon. Tel Aviv and Washington recognized Hamas, while the latter recognized the borders of Israel, by refraining from launching attacks at its territory, while Hezbollah was fighting occupation on its land at the time. The head of the Hamas politburo, Khaled Meshaal, followed this by telling CNN two days ago about the need for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, which cements what the movement had early said, in vague fashion, and then saw its leaders retract the statements, about accepting a two-state solution, which is what the Palestinian Authority, under President Mahmoud Abbas, is striving for. The two agreements have things in common, and points of difference. The April Understanding set up an authority for monitoring that included Syria, in a Monitoring Committee, alongside the US, France, Lebanon and Israel, which moved around on Lebanese and Israeli territory (but not Syria) when any violation took place. However, the Gaza monitoring "committee" is Egypt alone, backed by Washington, and also Turkey and Qatar. There is no presence for the pro-resistance camp, which Syria represented in Lebanon. In Gaza, her place was taken by Egypt, which has returned to playing a role that is certainly greater than that played by the old regime, in addition to Turkey and Qatar. This new alliance on Gaza involves a kind of sponsorship that the Americans believe to a positive, needed step in pulling Hamas away from the Iranians. This raises the question of whether the similarity is that the April Understanding cemented two Lebanese authorities later on, namely Hezbollah and the Lebanese state, while the Gaza Agreement will cement the existence of two authorities in the Palestinian arena, namely Hamas and Abbas' PA, unless there is some movement on re-uniting the Palestinians, who have been divided since 2007. The Gaza Agreement might re-shuffle the regional situation, and places Hamas before the challenge of being able to rein in other Palestinian factions in line with the agreement, if any of these factions want to violate it, amid talk of the continuing alliance between Islamic Jihad and Iran. This might present the challenge of Washington's readiness to open channels of communication, as a response from the Americans, who are frightened by Abbas' insistence on requesting non-member status at the United Nations General Assembly next week, and want revenge against him. This response could go as far as giving a green light for a hostile action on the West Bank and in Ramallah. Does the Gaza Agreement mean neutralizing Hamas, before dealing with Abbas on the West Bank, as is widely expected? Does this agreement cover the West Bank, in terms of refraining from "aggressive acts"? This comes amid a western campaign, which has seen Europe ask all Arab leaders, including Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, to convince the Palestinian president to abandon the membership request. When Mikati tried to convince Abbas, he refused to take the advice. One of the points of similarity between the Gaza Agreement and the April Understanding is that when Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres launched the 1996 war, he was preparing for elections and hoping to gain popularity, but he lost in those polls. Benjamin Netanyahu also launched his war in the hope of recovering some deterrent power, but he failed. Will he lose the elections, like Peres? The Gaza Agreement is an important event in the dynamic new regional scene, which is moving quickly toward an unlimited range of possibilities.
