Abstract:

This article addresses two main questions. First, how have regional dynamics and domestic pathologies since 2010 affected (i.e., constrained or delimited) Palestinian reconciliation and rapprochement? Second, can the realist theory of international relations (IR) help us understand the differences or similarities observed in Hamas’s and Fatah’s preferences for reconciliation and rapprochement? Since the turn of the decade, dominant states in the Middle East have become reactive (and proactive) toward state and non-state actors; they have become inclined to react to power magnitude and forces of competition beyond their calculations and control. The differential reactions of both non-state actors, Fatah and Hamas, is due in substantial measure to marked differences in the windows of opportunity, and constraints on regional dynamics that have affected their policy preferences and strategies. This article concludes that the interplay of systemic and domestic factors has notably set the two rival movements on distinctly different trajectories of national unity. In this sense, both streams of realism (neorealism and neoclassical realism) seem appropriate as theoretical frameworks, albeit with different explanatory power/opportunities.   

Keywords: