It is a sizeable and thorny issue with a difficult background of blood, prisoners, mutual accusations, and accusations of treason. Moreover, profound disagreements surround the peace process and the progress of negotiations with Israel, as well as perspectives on the map of Palestine and the borders of an independent state. Yet the step taken towards Palestinian agreement is a much better one than it had previously been. Indeed, the earlier state of affairs would have led the Palestinian national project to suicide.

A fellow journalist who attended the press conference held by the Palestinian factions in Cairo to announce that they had reached an agreement asked: was it necessary for Israel to destroy Gaza in order for the Palestinians to reach an agreement? A meaningful question, although it never received a conclusive answer, one that would at least offer something like an apology to the families of those who were killed, the wounded and those who lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of the massacres perpetrated by Israel. The only answer was that Israel does not need justifications to commit its aggressions. This is true, but what about the timing of this reconciliation? Would it not have been more useful for the Palestinians to agree on the method of resistance and the launching of rockets ("in vain" according to Abu Mazen) before the aggression, and in a manner that could have prevented it from taking place or could at least have reduced its criminal extent?

The Palestinians were, and perhaps still are, moving in two contradictory directions, not just in terms of tactics, but also in terms of strategy: one that claims that negotiations are a useful means to prevent Israel from engaging in aggressive behavior and to reach a settlement based on the Arab Peace Initiative and international mediations; and another that considers all of this to be in vain and calls for continued resistance at whatever cost. When Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Moussa Abu Marzouk says, in response to a question about the method of resistance that will be adopted by the Islamic movement in the coming phase, that the occupation is in itself an aggression against the Palestinians and that resisting it by any means is thus legitimate, this does not provide answers to questions and doubts regarding the deep-seated conflict between his movement and the leaders of Fatah about the manner best suited to deal with Israel.

Considering the current climate of radicalism in Israel, and the direction taken by Netanyahu towards relying on the most radical right-wing parties in the Hebrew State to preserve his opportunity to form a cabinet, it seems that the atmosphere is suitable for the Palestinian reconciliation to succeed. Indeed, there are no tensions concerning negotiations or the peace process in such an atmosphere, and hence no room for the emergence of conflicts over this course of action, as took place during the negotiations between Abu Mazen and Olmert, which were accompanied by accusations on the part of Hamas ultimately leading to the separation of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority.

This reconciliation is in the interest of both Hamas and Fatah at this time. The Islamic movement is facing a difficult internal situation in Gaza, one related to the obstruction of the reconstruction process, due to the fact that its government is not widely recognized internationally on the part of the countries contributing to the reconstruction. It also faces an atmosphere in the Arab World which tends towards toning down conflicts and thus offers an umbrella for reconciliation with the Fatah movement. As for the Palestinian Authority, represented by President Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah leadership, it considers that restoring national unity and resolving the conflict over the President's authority and the legitimacy of his mandate, as well as over restoring the role of the Palestinian Authority's apparatuses in Gaza, are all positive elements that would strengthen Abu Mazen's position, at both the Arab and international levels, in any action he would take in the future.

Arabs have a tendency to ignore reality and the difficulties that lie ahead, when in the midst of celebrating reconciliations. Nothing prevents the celebration of Palestinian reconciliation. However, it is important for such a reconciliation to pave the way for something that would have an impact deeper and greater than that of merely alleviating the atmosphere and ending campaigns. It is not necessary for any of the parties reconciling today to cancel their political program. What matters is for an agreement to be reached over a framework that would contain any disagreements between them in the future, disagreements that are bound to emerge, whether while setting the political program for the national unity government, or while seeking to restructure the PLO. It is also important to avoid accusations of treason once again becoming acceptable language in any disagreement, as well as practices such as throwing those who take an opposing political stance off roofs.