The sixth round of national dialogue - a two-sided round of talks between Fateh and Hamas meant to produce an agreement that would restore Palestinian national unity - has failed. This failure has eroded Palestinian dignity and reduced the chances for success of the next round of talks, scheduled for July 28.

The dialogue failed due to a number of reasons:

Firstly, Hamas demands full partnership in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), including in the West Bank, before it yields control of Gaza, but is unwilling to pay the price.

Hamas believes that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Hence, Hamas welcomed with great enthusiasm the formation of a joint factional committee, an alternative to the formation ?of a national unity government, whose job it would be to coordinate between the governments in Ramallah and Gaza.

This, however, would cement the division, allowing Hamas to avoid complying with agreements the PLO signed with Israel. However, Hamas is stalling until circumstances change in its favour, hoping to achieve a deal that is better than what is offered.

Secondly, Fateh wants to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza without affording Hamas full and real participation in the PLO and PA in the West Bank.

It wants to maintain leadership in these two institutions by winning an agreement that guarantees that Hamas will remain a minority in the political system.

If the dialogue does not achieve this objective, Fateh thinks it can be achieved through alienating and defeating Hamas through elections. Fateh feels it is in a better position after US President Barack Obama’s speech in support of its policies for a two-state solution and ongoing cooperation with the American administration, and that it has become capable of imposing its conditions on Hamas.

Thirdly, although comprehensive national dialogue including all Palestinian factions has the potential to produce an agreement, the current bilateral negotiations between Hamas and Fateh are less likely to be successful, because they weaken plurality, participation and equality.

A power-sharing agreement between Fateh and Hamas would be similar to the bilateral Makkah agreement, which collapsed when the national unity government was unable to agree on a Palestinian security apparatus and after an Israeli and international blockade was imposed on the government.

For Egyptian mediation to succeed, it should not side with any party against the other. While it does not have to be at an equal distance from each, it should exert a great deal of pressure on both sides, and employ effective Arab, regional and international parties.

The Palestinian national dialogue will succeed only once the demands and interests of all the parties are taken into consideration:

· Reinstating respect for the national agenda and crystallising a national, democratic and realistic strategy concerning the Right of Return and Palestinian statehood with Jerusalem as the capital.

· Finding a format for the national reconciliation government that complies with international law and United Nations resolutions, whose referential framework is the PLO. It should not be based on the unfair conditions stipulated by the Quartet, which were aimed at alienating Hamas rather than achieving reconciliation.

· Adopting a national partnership within the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, with participation from each party according to its weight, through a commitment to the principles and values of democracy, plurality, partnership, equality and the supremacy of the law and by periodically taking stock of public opinion through general elections.

Ending the rift and regaining Palestinian unity requires popular and political pressure. It also requires consolidation of the Arab and international position in a manner that will exert pressure to achieve a successful Palestinian national dialogue on the one hand, and pressure on Israel to allow Palestinian national reconciliation on the other. Achieving this goal requires further crystallising an American initiative backed by the international community that is aimed at resolving the conflict rather than simply managing it.

The negative implications of a continued Palestinian political and geographic rift is not limited to internal Palestinian affairs but also permeates Palestinian-Israeli relations.

Israel uses the rift to claim that there is no Palestinian partner to engage in peacemaking. It asks with whom it would sign an agreement, and would such a party represent all Palestinians?

Therefore, to ensure that Israel complies with its current obligations and that the peace process moves forward, as well as for reasons of internal Palestinian wellbeing, it is necessary to end this rift and achieve Palestinian unity.

Hani El Masri is the director of the Bada’el Center for Information, Research and Studies. This article first appeared at Common Ground News Service