The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (28 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Posts: The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (27 January)
Latest Post: Keeping the Gaza-Iran Link Alive

12:40 a.m. The Egyptian newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reports, from Palestinian sources, that Hamas delegates will present their response tomorrow to Egypt's proposals. This will include an 18-month cease-fire to begin on 5 February; however, Hamas will not commit to the Palestinian unity talks proposed by Egypt on 22 February.

If --- and this is a big if --- this is true, Hamas is making a bold, challenging move. It is putting recognition of its legitimacy before other issues such as the opening of the crossings, although of course it may pursue these issues once the cease-fire is agreed. Israel would have to acknowledge Hamas as the de facto leadership of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority would be sidelined, and other Palestinian factions would have to either follow the Hamas lead or risk undermining the cease-fire.

Next move: Egypt's. Will it accept the Hamas proposal with the PR victory of a cease-fire or hold out for the "unity" talks?



11:45 p.m. Israeli military reports that a rocket has landed in southern Israel. It is the first fired since the unilateral cease-fires of 18 January.

9 p.m. A shift on Hamas? As Egypt takes a harder line, the European Union moves --- slightly --- in the other direction. The EU's foreign policy head, Javier Solana, said "that a new Palestinian government that included Hamas should commit to pursuing a two-state solution".

This is a shift from the three conditions, set down by the Quarter of the US-EU-Russia-UN, that Hamas renounce violence, recognise Israel, and recognise interim peace agreements.

Solana's seems to be a recognition that a Palestinian Authority-only approach will no longer work, given the weakness of the organisation amongst Palestinians, and that negotiations with Israel must rest on a "reconciliation" of Hamas and Fatah, the leading party in the PA.  A diplomat said, "We have to give some room to [PA leader] Mahmoud Abbas."

6:05 p.m. And let's hope that this change in tone and direction from Egypt isn't linked to the Mitchell visit. Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit has invoked the grand axis of Hamas-Hezbollah-Tehran as the culprits in Gaza: "(They tried) to turn the region to confrontation in the interest of Iran, which is trying to use its cards to escape Western pressure ... on the nuclear file."

So much for Egypt trying to lead a united Arab settlement: look for more stories of an "Arab Cold War" with Cairo squaring up against Syria.

5:45 p.m. Let's hope that US envoy George Mitchell's initial trip to the Middle East is, as President Obama indicated on Monday night, one "for America to listen". Because, from what little is emerging, I'm not sure how the journey is matching up to Mitchell's declaration that the US is "committed to vigorously pursuing lasting peace and stability in the region".

After meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday, Mitchell put forth a couple of general points for a settlement, notably an end to smuggling into the Gaza Strip and the reopening of border crossings linked to the 2005 agreement brokered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The first point, of course, is aimed at Hamas and the second, while appearing on the surface to be a concession to Gaza, is specifically tied to re-introducing Palestinian Authority forces into the area.

4:30 p.m. Seven Israeli human-rights groups have filed a claim that Israeli Defense Forces kept Gaza detainees in "horrid conditions" and treated them "inhumanely". The lawsuit, based on detainee testimony, claims "many of the prisoners were held inside holes in the ground for long hours, while they were handcuffed, blindfolded and left exposed to the harsh weather".

4:20 p.m. An Israeli emergency clinic at the Erez crossing, opened on 19 January, has closed after treating only five wounded Palestinians.

12:30 p.m. The initial press statement of US envoy George Mitchell, held after his talks in Cairo, was distinctly and diplomatically vague. Mitchell said only, "It is of critical importance that the ceasefire be extended and consolidated, and we support Egypt's continuing efforts in that regard."

Mitchell is now in Israel for discussions.

9:45 a.m. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad el Baradei, is refusing to give any interviews to the BBC after its refusal to air the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza.

8:45 a.m. False Alarm. I was very, very excited at the Ticker-flash from The New York Times: "Abdullah II: The Five-State Solution", thinking that the Saudi king had unveiled a new, grand initiative for a Middle Eastern settlement. Took me only a second to click on the link.

Unfortunately, it's just Thomas Friedman making stuff up.

Morning update (8 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): Three Israeli airstrikes on tunnels overnight, a day after the killing of an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian farmer.

US envoy George Mitchell is in talks in Cairo, including with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Meanwhile the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has kept the notion of a Gaza-Iran dispute simmering with the claim, "The United States did all it could to intercept a suspected arms shipment to Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but its hands were tied." Mullen was referring to the seizure of a Cypriot-flagged ship, which we noted at the time, which was intercepted by a US patrol at sea, taken to a port, and searched for two days. Reports at the time said "artillery", which Hamas does not use in Gaza, was found; Mullen referred to "small munitions".

Explanation? If US forces had found parts for rockets, their headline claim of Tehran support for Hamas, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to seize them and hold them up to world scrutiny --- it's not as if US "hands are tied" these days regarding international waters or even national sovereignty (for example, Pakistan). On the other hand, "small munitions" --- handguns and ammunition, for example --- isn't worth the fuss; better just to big up the incident (see the Sunday Times "story" by Uzi Mahnaimi that raised our eyebrows) to keep pressure on Iran.

Comments

[Rajan]

George Mitchell appointed US mediator for Middle East

Barack Obama has exhibited his absolute incompetence and lack of perception in his foreign policy initiatives by appointing his own Middle East envoy, George Mitchell – an act which promptly undermines the status of Tony Blair who is already officiating as the Middle East mediator on behalf of the world community. What will be the role of Blair now? Is he expected to trail behind Mitchell holding his coat tails? It would be totally unfair to demonise Tony Blair in all other matters not connected with his role as the side-kick to George W Bush in waging the Iraq war and trash all his other achievments during his tenure as the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is such unilateral actions without consultations with other important nations or the UN taken by George W Bush which Obama himself was constantly railing against in his campaign rhetoric.

Just because George Mitchell was successful (at least to the extent of halting temporarily the IRA terrorist attacks) in his role as the mediator in the Northern Ireland problem, there is no guarantee that he will make any similar headway in solving the Middle East crisis too. The obvious reason is that the similarity between the two issues stops with the involvement of ruthless militant groups in both of them in battling with a governmental authority. The Provisional IRA’s declared goal was to separate the Northern Ireland province from the British monarchy and merge it with the Irish Republic. But, the Irish government itself, over a period of time, got tired and sick of the IRA’s atrocities committed ostensibly on its behalf, renounced its own claim to the Northern Ireland and also totally disowned the terrorist outfit. Hence, the IRA was left as an orphan without any cause to fight for. It was, therefore, question of time before the IRA, hunted down as it was by both the British and the Irish governments, would eagerly opt for the terrorist analogue of Chapter 11 protection. George Mitchell joined the fray as a mediator at the most opportune moment when all the parties involved were hungering for a pause in hostilities and was, therefore, able to gobble up all the credit. It seems to have been forgotten that it was Tony Blair's key role as the British Prime Minister at that time which greatly facilitated George Mitchell's mediation effort.

But, with the Palestinian problem, it is an entirely different ball game and the prevailing situation is entirely different. It would be a grave blunder to compare the Palestinian militants like the Hamas with the Provisional IRA. The Palestinian guerrillas draw full support, both moral as well as material, not only from all Arab nations but also from other Muslim countries. On the other hand, the IRA is now totally friendless. Even the maverick elements among the pub-crawling Irish community in New York, who once provided them with moral and financial support, seem to have forsaken them now.

When viewed against the above background, George Mitchell is not likely to score any home runs with the Palestinian problem as he did with the Northern Ireland imbroglio. It is a thoughtless, undiplomatic and knee-jerk step for Barack Obama to have appointed him as a counterfoil to Tony Blair who was entrusted with the same task only a year ago by the Middle East Diplomatic Quartet, comprising the UN, the European Union, the Russian Federation and also the US. Tony Blair is a former three-term Prime Minister of a country which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whereas George Mitchell is only a former US Senator. Obama's action in this matter reminds one of the old adage: "Too many cooks will spoil the broth". It would have been fitting and proper if George Mitchell were, in fact, deputed to assist and advise Tony Blair in his mediation efforts. If launching him on a parallel, independent orbit for the same purpose is not an explicit vote of no confidence in Blair's competence as a mediator, what else is it? Possibly, if Tony Blair is not acceptable to the new US administration, (which is very likely, given the relationships between Obama and Hillary Clinton with Blair), the more decent thing to do would have been to drop a hint to him to withdraw himself voluntarily citing some personal reasons (like desiring to spend more time with his family) before the new envoy is appointed.

[ChrisE]

Rajan, I'm confused by your points- are you suggesting that Obama shouldn't appoint a ME envoy? Or are you saying that Mitchell is a poor choice?

Blair had a very narrow mission- Palestinian governance, economics and security rather than the wider conflict between Israel and Palestinians. He was not there to negotiate a wider peace process and he did not, and could not, represent the position of the US government (or even British, and certainly not Russian or Arab). As a result Blair has been a total irrelevancy- unless you can point me towards his achievements.

Mitchell speaks for the US govt- his significance is infinitely greater. Are you really suggesting that the US devolve it's entire diplomatic effort in the peace process to a man whose remit doesn't even stretch to the wider Arab-Israeli conflict?!!

Also, Obama doesn't need to consult the UN or other countries when he appoints his diplomatic representatives! It's not an example of GWB unilateralism!

[Rajan]

ChrisE:

I do see the validity of various points in your reply to my comment.

But, I am constrained to point out that you are also taking a narrow view of Tony Blair's mandate. You have quoted only the opinions of some observers on his appointment, who had suggested that Tony Blair's mission did not include finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. If his mission included only Palestinian governance, economics and security, and nothing else, he should have been called an Advisor to the Palestinian Authority. If Tony Blair's mission was to be solely restricted to his interaction with the Palestinian Authority,why, then, was he given the designation as 'Middle East envoy" - the same designation that is now being given to George Mitchell.

I am giving here the URL of the BBC's story about his appointment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6244358.stm

As you can see, Tony Blair himself did not take a narrow view of his own mandate which, according to the BBC also, was to be expanded later. He did think, as the BBC account does bear out, that finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, though difficult to achieve in the short term, was worth pursuing and was well within his mandate if not in the immediate term.

Of course, as the BBC story itself spells out in stark detail, he does face credibility problem with the Palestinian/Arab side of the divide, since he was identified more with the US/Israeli side at the time of his appointment.

My criticism of Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as the US envoy for the Middle East is mainly based on procedural, diplomatic and protocol grounds. The US was a member of the Middle East Diplomatic Quartet and it was a party to the appointment of Tony Blair to this assignment. (In fact, as the BBC story points out, it was Russia which had initial reservations about Tony Blair's candidature for the post.) The present US administration is in no way obliged to follow the path treaded by the previous one with regard to any issue, particularly in foreign affairs . But, in my view, a more decent way would have been to give Tony Blair some slack to save his face and withdraw himself voluntarily and gracefully by dropping a hint to him that the US had other ideas with regard to finding a solution to the Middle East crisis, before announcing the appointment of George Mitchell as the US envoy to the Middle East. Otherwise, Obama's action gives credence to the old adage: "Too many cooks will spoil the broth".

[Simon T]

@Rajan, I think your memory of the Irish peace process is a little clouded to be honest. And while N. Ireland offers only some clues, I think that the peace process is more instructive than you believe.

It was the confluence of several factors that brought about the peace process in
Ulster. I think you may be giving Blair too much credit, as there were several other important events before he even became Prime Minister. Remember the Major government's secret contacts with the IRA in 1993 were extremely significant, the US involvement (granting Gerry Adams a visa in 1995 for example) and the work of the successive governments in Dublin. Far from being isolated, the Provisional IRA was convinced to give up its armed struggle because its political wing Sinn Fein was welcomed into the political fold.

Blair's role was important but certainly not decisive. Obama's appointment of Mitchell is hardly an attempt to undermine Blair seeing as Blair and Mitchell worked well together in the past.
If anything, Northern Ireland shows that a multi-lateral approach that includes Hamas is needed.

[Rajan]

SimonT:

You are only confirming the validity of my observation in my first comment, which reads as follows:

"George Mitchell joined the fray as a mediator at the most opportune moment when all the parties involved were hungering for a pause in hostilities and was, therefore, able to gobble up all the credit."

In any long-festering problem, as you have rightly pointed out, the confluence of several factors, acting over time, will finally bring forth the solution. And the person holding the position of the mediator at the right moment will win all the accolade. That is a fact of life.

The point I am trying to make is that the US is not the only stake-holder in the Middle East cauldron. It was only to avoid unilateral actions (like the one Obama has now taken) the Middle East Diplomatic Quartet was formed. It is significant to note that even the most ardent unilateralist of all, GWB agreed to become a member of this Quartet, after being sufficiently chastened by the unilateral Iraqi debacle and its aftermath. If the US can appoint its own Middle East envoy, what prevents Russia and the other players have their own? Don't you think that such a development will add confusion to the already confounded situation?

Nobody will deny Obama's right to appoint his own envoy to Outer Mongolia or any other country of his choice on this planet. That is his prerogative as the prez of the US. But, in a complex situation like the Middle East crisis, it would be more productive and also more prudent to have only one cook, appointed by common consent of all the stake-holders involved, tending to the broth!

[atrjdq atrjdq]

I smell the taste of wine. see you! "We do not talk more that day. We stood up, shook his hand and eye lookedeach and so on. Bees were shut out, but came to backhesitatingly. njobcn njobcn - North Face Down.