• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Israel",
    "Palestine"
  ],
  "topics": []
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Peace process cannot move forward without Palestinian unity government

Efforts to move the Israeli–Palestinian peace process forward will fail if the U.S. continues to marginalize or ignore Hamas. A national unity government—which would require a slower approach to the peace process and depends on difficult concessions—is the only promising solution.

Link Copied
Published on Jun 3, 2009

WASHINGTON, June 3—Efforts to move the Israeli–Palestinian peace process forward will fail if the United States continues to marginalize or ignore Hamas. A national unity government—which would require a slower approach to the peace process than the Obama administration would like and depends on difficult concessions—is the only promising solution, explains a new commentary by Nathan Brown.

Key Conclusions:

  • The split between the Palestinian factions—Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in Ramallah—has no easy solution.
  • Elections will likely be an outcome of reconciliation, rather than the means to achieve it. Elections face almost insurmountable logistical and legal challenges, and even if Fatah and Hamas were to agree on the conditions, Israeli cooperation would be required.
  • There is little hope for removing Hamas from power in Gaza. Previous policies aimed at doing so—an economic blockade, U.S. security assistance to Fatah, and Israeli military action—have failed.
  • Neither Hamas nor Fatah are anxious for a national unity government. A sustained and coordinated effort by international actors—particularly the United States, Europe, and Egypt—is needed to break the stalemate.

Brown concludes:

“The new leadership in Washington is refreshingly bold in its tactics but far more conventional in its strategies. Its new approach (especially on settlements) has already attracted attention in the region. But thus far its public policy toward Gaza remains unrealistic: demanding that Hamas change and treating the movement as if it does not exist until it does so. It is difficult to envision how the Obama administration’s initiatives can gain full traction until it develops more realistic ideas on Gaza."

###


NOTES

  • Click here to read the full commentary
  • Nathan J. Brown is director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, a nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, and a distinguished scholar and author of four well-received books on Arab politics.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world to provide analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Center based in Beirut, Lebanon, aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East.
  • Carnegie's Arab Reform Bulletin offers a monthly analysis of political and economic developments in Arab countries.
  • Press Contact: Jessica Jennings, 202/939-2265, jjennings@ceip.org
Middle EastIsraelPalestine

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    Risk and Retaliation: Israel, Iran, and the Evolving Situation in West Asia

    An Israeli response to Iran’s October 1 attack is imminent. The key question is of its intensity and potential fallout, both within Iran, in terms of nuclear security policy changes, and across the broader region. The coming days are likely to reshape West Asia irreversibly.

      Gaddam Dharmendra

  • Commentary
    India’s View on Soleimani, Iran, and the United States

    For India, the equation is pretty simple: better diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran would let New Delhi deal more smoothly with both countries. A decline in the relationship adversely affects Indian interests.

      Rudra Chaudhuri

  • Commentary
    What Would a Larger Chinese Presence Mean for the Middle East?

    The recent developments around the Strait of Hormuz have once again highlighted the importance of maritime chokepoints and their connection to regional geopolitics.

      Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    As US-Iran Tensions Mount, What India Can Learn from the Oil ‘Tanker War’ in 1980s

    Last week, Britain impounded an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar, claiming that the vessel was carrying oil to Syria in violation of the European Union’s sanctions.

      Srinath Raghavan

  • Commentary
    Under Modi, India Has Shed its Traditional Defensiveness Towards the Middle East

    It has been a rather long learning curve for New Delhi to separate presumed transcendental religious solidarity and the logic of national self-interest in engaging the Middle East.

      C. Raja Mohan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.