"The Hamas movement will not recognize Israel even if all its members are killed," Mushir al-Masri, the movement's spokesman, declared at a mass rally at the Jabalya Refugee Camp in Gaza two days ago.

If no dramatic change occurs, there apparently will be no chance for a Palestinian unity government to be established. Both sides - Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and his colleagues in the Fatah leadership; and Khaled Meshal, Ismail Haniyeh and the rest of the Hamas leaders - are sticking to their positions. The rift between them is only getting worse.

An examination of Hamas' and Fatah's political and diplomatic goals shows there are no great differences between them. Abu Mazen and Haniyeh have more than once made similar declarations; both aspire to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, and both are clinging to the right of return. Abu Mazen does talk about recognition of Israel, whereas Haniyeh talks about only a long-term truce that would be renewed every 10 years.

	Advertisement

So what's the big difference? The two of them recently agreed on a joint diplomatic plan that indicates Abu Mazen and Fatah are not much more moderate than Hamas, while Haniyeh and Hamas are not much more extreme than Fatah's supporters. It is a little strange to discover that their differences regard not the future, but the past. Each side is demanding that the other deny its past. Hamas is demanding that Abu Mazen revoke recognition of Israel and forget Oslo and the other agreements, including the Arab peace initiative; Abu Mazen is demanding that Hamas forget its armed struggle and opposition to Israel's existence. If the differences of opinion between Abu Mazen and Hamas are mainly about the past, why are they sunk in a quarrel liable to bring destruction upon their people?

Whatever the answer might be, we in Israel are asking how all these disputes concern us. Let them quarrel in Gaza and the West Bank as much as they want; let them demonstrate because they have no work and have not received salaries for seven months; and let them kill one another. In the end, they are hurting themselves, because a unity government is apparently their government's only chance for international recognition and financial aid, including the large sums of tax monies Israel has confiscated.

However, the establishment of a Palestinian unity government, which would restore some stability to the Palestinian Authority, is in Israeli interests as much as Palestinian interests. Without a unity government, Gaza is tumbling toward becoming a miniature Afghanistan or Iraq, where economic destruction, warring factions and gangs reign. This is a breeding ground for extremist terror cells, which apparently already exist in Gaza.

Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin informed the government at its last meeting that the border between Gaza and Egypt is largely porous and that considerable quantities of explosives and weaponry are being smuggled into Gaza. The Egyptians have not succeeded in wiping out the Al-Qaida cells responsible for the terror attacks in Sinai, so why should they be able to stop the organization of terror cells in Gaza? In such a situation, sooner or later there will be Katyushas in Gaza, and in the future perhaps in the West Bank as well. One of the important conclusions from the Lebanon war is that Israel cannot deal effectively with the threat of rockets, which all the walls and separation barriers cannot stop.

The only way to prevent a horror scenario like this is for the Israeli government to encourage and help the Palestinian government to achieve stability. There is no other way. Only dialogue and negotiations and the return of the tax monies, and help with employment. A Palestinian unity government is not a threat to Israel. It is a lifesaver.