What can the Annapolis peace talks accomplish?

There are hopes that Annapolis will pave the way for a 2008 peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have voiced hope that a conference in Maryland could produce a starting point for serious peace negotiations.

Bush said that peace was 'worth it to try' and that he 'work[s] the phones' in the peace process.

This peace conference is the first of its kind since 2000. The US is actively taking a role in the talks, after sitting on the sidelines on many previous occasions.

Israel has argued that initiatives that have isolated the Palestinian territories are needed for its security. The general pattern of Israel-Palestinian skirmishes is militant fires rocket into Israel or attacks army, Israel responds with raids which result with civilian deaths, more rocket fire and retaliations by Palestinians, and collective punishment upon already-angry Palestinians by Israel. This is how it has been for years.

There are several firsts for this conference. Syria will be in attendance — a first for the dictatorial, terror-supporting-yet-marginalized (and under-utilized) nation. The country will, of course, be on the side of the Palestinians and is still pushing for the return of its Golan Heights from Israel. As a reminder, Syria is on President Bush's "axis of evil". This will also be the first big job for British PM turned peace negotiator Tony Blair. Lastly, Saudis and Israelis will be sitting at the same table — but Israeli diplomats beware: the Saudi representative has stated he will not shake hands with you.

A total of 40 countries are attending the summit in Annapolis, Maryland. Hamas, which rules Gaza, will not be coming. In fact, it wouldn't see the point in such a meeting as it neither recognizes Israel nor diplomacy as a good way to achieve results.

This is an odd, if possibly inappropriate, time for peace talks. Tensions are high over Iraq; the Bush administration faces hurdle after hurdle with shear incompetence and poor diplomacy. Perhaps Bush is making a last-ditch effort at setting the stage for the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state, an aspiration of his. Secretary of State Condi Rice may be vying for a good diplomatic spot in history, odd since she helped block former Sec. of State Colin Powell's attempts at a similar Mideast peace conference.

CFR's Richard Haass argues that one will have to wait for the time to be right before a real drive for peace can be effectively made. But talking in the meantime can't hurt. It isn't good to be impervious to reality just for the sake of optimism.

There is an overall mood of skepticism as talks get underway. The best and most realistic hope is that some progress can be made in bringing Israel and Palestine out of decades of conflict using diplomacy. Hopefully both sides will make valuable concessions, but considering Palestinian Authority President Abbas only has control of the West Bank, his options are even more limited. Seven years ago US President Clinton made a large effort at Mideast peace — it failed miserably. Even though I don't care at all for this White House or its historical legacy, I hope this summit's results aren't the same.

Is now the time for a Palestinian state?

Even as political tensions rise and the situation on the ground worsens, America seems to (finally) be pushing for an independent Palestinian state, if just in foreign policy rhetoric.

"Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Ms Rice told reporters in a news conference which she held with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

One unique thing about the Bush administration is that it has always expressed a wish for a Palestinian state, something even the Clinton-led White House wasn't willing to do in public. Rice's wish for a sovereign state conflicts with the very slanted policy the US has held in favor of Israel, especially under President Bush.

Israel has attacked Syria; Hamas has offered to at least try to kiss and half-heartedly make up with its rival Fatah — news, both good and bad, has been coming out of this area of the Middle East. In the midst of all of it, I am frankly surprised to hear such a bold, but not bad, statement from the American secretary of state.

Rice hopes for a diplomatic meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on American turf. I don't know what to make of that idea. On one hand, there is a desperate need for a peace settlement that results from concessions from both sides. One the other hand, assuming the proposed talks fail is this just an excuse for the US to say, 'Well, we gave it a try'? Will important Palestinian factions be kept out of the meeting, thus further alienating many and helping the radicals? I neither want to be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. United States isn't the only external party in this diplomatic picture: the Quartet, of which it is a member, has acted incorrectly at the wrong times — where is it when it's most needed and why can countries not be more flexible?

This summer the major unresolved issue (besides security) that prevented any progress between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators was refugees; now it looks like land rights in Jerusalem, a holy city to both Muslims and Jews, is a central focus.

It is believable that the White House wants a Palestinian state; I do not doubt that their intentions are good. But after years of poor policy under this president and others, I do not see what can change at this point as long as America has a role in the change. It is time for a Palestinian state; but shouldn't stability and agreement on the basic issues come first?

Fallout from Israel's Gaza decision

Israel's decision to label Gaza as an "enemy entity" has backfired, it seems, in more ways than one. Hamas has called it a 'declaration of war'; UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the world's top diplomat, has asked Israel to reverse — for the sake of its image, security, and international law, as well as human rights — what looks to be another big foreign policy mistake.

“There are 1.4 million people in Gaza, including the old, the young and the sick, who are already suffering from the impact of prolonged closure,” he said. “They should not be punished for the unacceptable actions of militants and extremists.”

The statement noted that the United Nations has broad humanitarian responsibilities and is mandated to provide assistance to and meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Mr. Ban added that “the continued indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza into Israel is unacceptable and I deplore it. I call for it to stop immediately. I understand Israel’s security concerns over this matter.”

UN officials have expressed concern repeatedly in recent months that the closure of border crossings and other restrictions in Gaza have cut exports and forced factories to shut, leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians in the territory without jobs or income.

As I said in my earlier post, it's time for Hamas to take initative, too. And why hasn't there been much progress — even superficial progress — with diplomacy between the less anti-Israel Abbas and the Israeli government? Since his new emergency government was made earlier this summer, not much seems to have happened. Even with Hamas out of the picture, closed off in Gaza as Abbas' Fatah controls the West Bank, things don't seem to be moving along. Maybe Israel could focus more of its energy (positive energy) on Abbas and let Hamas hurt itself instead of giving the party more fuel for its popularity.

If it weren't for diplomatic moves like the one Israel made today, I bet Hamas would have already lost popularity. It would have lost the main reason for its existence: to pester and 'destroy' the 'Zionist entity': Israel. If the Palestinian people were not given so many reasons to dislike Israel, Hamas would loose support; and without Israel fighting back, it would probably implode, at least a bit.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has sucked in the attention and meddling of so many foreign powers, and has altered the political and economic composition of the Middle East for decades now. It has had a great and negative effect on international relations and the people of the region. Perhaps it's time for Israel to no longer punish Palestinian civilians, but work with those willing to work towards a peaceful solution to one of the biggest long-term conflicts of our time.

More Israeli twisted logic

BBC News:

Israel declares the Gaza Strip a "hostile entity", which may lead to it cutting off vital fuel and electricity supplies.

Because surely cutting off vital resources and inflicting collective punishment won't increase support for terrorists opposed to Israel...

Why do they think Gaza has grown so hostile? It was in part a result of Israel's horrendous policy towards the Palestinian territories. Yes, Hamas has brought Gaza to a new low, but why should regular people pay? I hope someone in the Israeli government will recognize the faulty logic of shutting off electricity and other essential utilities from people who have already suffered enough, and are already understandably angry at their overbearing neighbor.

As far as the legality of collective punishment goes,
IHT:

Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers. Denying civilians access to the necessities of life is considered collective punishment and a violation of international law under both the Hague and Geneva conventions.

Of course America rushes to the defense of Israel on this matter. Israel is just in calling the Hamas haven of Gaza 'hostile', but punishing the 1.4 million residents of the entity is no solution -- in fact, it ultimately hurts all parties.

I understand Israel's dilemma. After all, the most direct way to confront the militants firing rockets into Israel would be to invade or launch a military attack. That would be the worst thing Israel could do; it would draw scorn from foreign powers as well as serve as the perfect rallying cry for the same rebels Israel wishes to defeat. I do not know, however, if it is sending covert special forces to help take down the rocket-firing militants — just the militants. I certainly would not be against that.

If Israel really wanted peace in Gaza, it would stop fueling the fire paradox (counterintuitive actions in fighting terrorism), and that includes inflaming the already-disconsolate -- and often radicalized -- civilian population of Gaza. Hamas also needs to look at the damage it's doing to its own people, innocent Israelis, as well as its own political standing. If it ever wants legitimacy, it needs to recognize Israel. There are steps for both parties to take, but neither is willing, especially Hamas.

Hamas opens up? More on Sharm el-Sheikh

This is an update on an earlier post concerning Israel's release of a number of Palestinian Fatah prisoners and other events at a diplomatic summit being held in Egypt.

From the afore-quoted BBC News article:

The sacked Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya of Hamas, said he was ready to engage in talks with Fatah.

A spokesman for Mr Haniya in Gaza said Hamas was "disposed to immediately take up this dialogue" urged by Mr Mubarak.

(Update: new article can be found here.)

Is this a good sign of dialogue to come? Haniya's Hamas talks to Abbas' Fatah; Abbas talks to Israel? For all its turns away from freedom and democracy, I must give kudos to Egypt for time and time again playing mediator in the Palestinian conflicts — including that between Israel and Palestine. Mubarak might want to try his hand at ambassador rather than strengthening his authoritarian hold on Egypt. Along with Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian leaders, Jordan's King Abdullah was in attendance. Jordan is a fairly neutral player in the Middle East and, like Egypt, holds decent relations with America. I was somewhat surprised that Saudi Arabia was not at the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting. The Saudis have taken an active role in Palestinian mediation, notably cementing the short-lived Hamas-Fatah unity government earlier this year.

Plus I just wanted to add that

About 10,000 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, some without charge.

So the release of a mere 250 Fatah prisoners "who do not have blood on their hands", as Israeli PM Olmert said, is at most a "goodwill gesture", and nothing more. No doubt there are plenty of innocents in those jails, and that their jailing serves as a rallying cry for anti-Israel forces. However if Israel were to let them all go, it would loose major leverage (not that it seems to be using it, but brute rather military force shown to worsen the situation) and appear weak. It's a lose, lose situation — much like the conflicts of the Middle East themselves.

Israel does the right thing for peace

Finally one Israeli-Palestinian story that does not result in blaming both sides?

BBC News:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told Arab leaders he plans to seize a new opportunity to promote peace.
He said Israel would free 250 prisoners from the Fatah group led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh brings together Mr Olmert, Mr Abbas, Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan.
...
On Sunday the Israeli cabinet decided to release the frozen tax funds to the Palestinian emergency government based in the West Bank.

A few points:
1. It's good that this meeting is occurring and that the parties are showing support for Abbas. Too bad he didn't get this kind of support from the Arab countries, Israel, and the West before Hamas' recent 'coup' in Gaza.
2. Olmert has made the right decision: peace instead of hostility.
3. Hamas should seize this opportunity — although since it's isolated in Gaza and left out of the new government, I do not know how it can react in any political manner, although militarily it can stop attacking both Israel and Palestine.
4. This shows what diplomacy and open channels for discussion can accomplish: this move is ultimately good for the Palestinians and, in effect, the Israelis. Diplomacy and peace, however, take more time than war and aggression, which aren't instant fixes either. In the past Israel's military excursions have led to more political and security woes.
5. Because of the aforementioned slow and steady course of diplomacy, neither the Israeli government nor the electorate should expect to see the immediate results of this progressive move.
6. It is likely Abbas will have to eventually form a real government instead of an emergency one in the West Bank. When he does so Hamas should be peacefully welcomed and/or elections should be called when the time is right. International mediators should be called if needed and Israel and the US shouldn't object to the outcome of Palestinian democracy, further driving up Palestinian hostility to them and isolating an already angry people.

So how did the Hamas-Fatah rift grow to such great proportions? An Economist in-depth report looks at the series of events in Palestinian politics resulting in virtually two governments — one viewing the other as illegitimate, and vice versa — in one.

Not until last year did the Islamists feel ready to challenge Fatah in parliamentary elections. It meant, after all, tacitly accepting the Oslo accords, which had created the PA. But Fatah was by then in such a mess that it could not even unify its lists of candidates. Using its network of cells as a grassroots campaign organisation, Hamas won nearly twice as many seats as Fatah (though a small majority of votes).

Fatah, however, never fully relinquished control. On the eve of the new parliament's swearing-in, Mr Abbas brought some of the PA's dozen-odd security forces under his own command by decree. Other forces, notionally under the new Hamas government's orders, stayed largely loyal to their Fatah commanders.

Its power curtailed, Hamas created its own force in Gaza. America, which before Hamas's election had been helping reform the PA forces as a whole, switched to beefing up Mr Abbas's presidential guard. Hamas-Fatah clashes, exacerbated by feuds between Gaza's powerful clans, grew more frequent. Attacks by militants on Gaza's border crossings prompted frequent closures of these trade lifelines by Israel, tightening the economic chokehold imposed by the West's embargo of the PA. When the militants raided Israel and kidnapped a soldier, Israel launched an offensive that killed some 400 Gazans.

After some arm-twisting from Saudi Arabia, Fatah and Hamas at last formed a unity government at a meeting in Mecca in February. But they could not agree on who would control the security forces.
...
And when election day dawns at last, Hamas will still be there. Many Palestinians feel that for all its faults, it was robbed of the chance to govern properly. Fatah, to become electable again, needs to end its infighting and corruption.

And we all know the story from there: more bloodshed, ceasefires, ceasefires broken, then, eventually Hamas seizes control of Gaza and Abbas sets up camp in the West Bank and forms an emergency government with the support of the West.

By ignoring the Palestinian's choice of Hamas for government, Abbas and his Fatah party as well as the outside world that shunned the democracy it had long been self-rightously pushing for have helped create this mess. Hamas was not the only militant actor: Abbas' security power grab — whether to defend his presidency or as a show of political power — was questionable to say the least. Israel and America's support of it makes them look ever worse to a Palestinian people who are, I can safely assume, sick of all this fighting.

Stubborn militancy (Hamas) and selfish politics (everyone else) have hurt an already scarred population. Whenever one side steps up — like Israel just did — the other refuses to rise alongside it and help their own people escape the trap of death and desolation that mark their land. Moreover America wanted democracy and free and fair election. That's what they got in Palestine and Hamas was elected. Abbas refused Hamas' government; America refused Hamas even though they were fairly elected in an election the US pushed (thus America refused democracy? only more hypocrisy in the eyes of many); Hamas refused peace and coexistence with Israel (in part because Israel did the same); the international community cut off essential aid to Palestine as Israel cut of money and utilities; and the Palestinian people were rejected by everyone. After all, it's the people who receive the full blow of all these poor policies and actions.

More on Gaza and Palestine

Abbas' new emergency government may have legitimacy in the eyes of outside powers, but what about with the people? Abbas needs to balance foreign support with not looking like a puppet of the west, which would only empower Hamas further.

On a different note, for all its malevolence (e.g. using terrorism, dismantling Gaza), Hamas can sometimes look OK, especially in the case of treating journalists fairly. The last thing a political organization wants is to look bad to the world.

Hamas has issued an ultimatum for the Palestinian group holding BBC reporter Alan Johnston or else it has said it will use force to free the reporter, who has been held for quite some while. Governments reacted with alarm, stating how this situation is a delicate one. At least Hamas isn't encouraging the killing of the journalist, right?

Why does Gaza matter?

For once in recent times an American publication has an important cover story. Newsweek's this week is on why Gaza affects America, and the world. In short the turbulence there may not only spread across Palestine, increasing attacks on Israel, but send waves of extremism and terror movements abroad — into, say, Iraq. (There's already enough blowback in Iraq.) In addition, the politics of the wider Middle East and the Arab states there is at hand.

No doubt there are various cells of international terror movements itching for more membership and support in the turbulent and ravaged Gaza. People feel helpless and angered. It's amazing what kinds of things people will support or do when they feel intense fear, hopelessness, and anger...

Gaza also matters to the Israeli lobby in the US that doesn't want its homeland shaken by explosions and neighboring disaster. However Israel is a green zone to Palestine's red.

There hasn't been much news on the disaster in Palestine since Abbas formed his new government. Israel has followed America in backing this Hamas-free emergency government. The EU has also allowed aid to resume after it was halted when Hamas was in power.

Is the new Palestinian government 'illegal'?

The new Hamas-free Palestinian government has been sworn in. America is happy and might now let some aid trickle in to help the impoverished Palestinians; Israel is content too. Hopefully they will let the door open to new diplomacy with President Mahmoud Abbas' emergency Fatah government. Hamas still rules supreme in Gaza. See this post for background.

Reformist Salam Fayyad has been named prime minister.

Could it be we see an ill-formed three-state solution as a result of this major rift in Palestinian politics?

Palestine (Fatah) in the West Bank, Palestine (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip, and, of course, Israel.

Hamas maintains the new government is not only illegal, it's unneeded because Hamas itself doesn't recognize that its power was vanquished when Abbas dissolved the government following a large uprising by Hamas in the already-turbulent Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at the prospect of an international force in Gaza. If Abbas asked for peace keepers, that could be a possibility. I doubt he'd refuse like, say, the government of Sudan has over its genocide in Darfur. Abbas needs all the help he can get. He cannot appear too weak, nor can he look like just another tool of the West — especially of the 'evil' America and Israel.

Many are blaming the United States with an array of justified and unjustified arguments.

Oh and some rockets were fired at Israel by Islamist militants in Lebanon. Two Katyushas hit Kiryat Shmona, a northern Israeli town. (Thankfully there were no casualties.) Last summer all over again?

In related news, there have been more reports of Israel finally gearing up for diplomacy with Syria. They are not on the best terms mainly because the Israelis occupy Syria's Golan Heights. "Secret test diplomacy: the story of Israel and Syria" coming soon.

Abbas' power problem

Just got back from my vacation, and wow a lot of news has developed — especially in Palestine.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the weak Hamas-Fatah unity government after increased fighting between militant Hamas and Fatah forces in which Hamas seized control of the virulent Gaza Strip. A state of emergency has been declared by Abbas. Hamas now effectively rules Gaza; Fatah still has control over the West Bank.

America has finally shown support for Abbas and proposed to end some embargoes that were put into place following Hamas' victory at the polls in January 2006, legitimizing it as a political, as well as militant, force (it controlled the parliament and led the governmental coalition until Abbas dismissed it a few days ago). US sanctions on Palestine will be lifted and international aid will be allowed in as soon as Abbas forms a new (emergency) government, without Hamas of course. The United States' lack of support for the weak and moderate Abbas has been partially blamed for the Hamas takeover in Gaza. Abbas was seen as weak, and in reality he is, which worsens the situation. Of course other Bush administration policies also made the Palestinian situation develop into this disaster. This latest takeover by Hamas — which the Arab League called a 'crime' — emphasized the failure of Bush's Mid-East policy.

In brief: there are virtually two governments in the Palestinian Authority: Abbas' new Fatah government to-be and Hamas' illegitimate, renegade rule. One could easily call it a civil war; or an intergovernmental war with one ruling party in control of some areas, the other in control of other areas.

Has the drawn out factional conflict in the already-embattled Palestine reached a point of no return? Can peace ever exist in a land so scarred by war and fighting? As with all other developing events, only time will tell. In this case, it'll require a lot more waiting.

What goes around, comes around

Israelis launch raids into Gaza, devastate neighborhoods, resulting in more recruitment and support for extremists; extremists attack Israel.

Palestinian militants have launched a raid into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Fresh fighting has now erupted between rival Palestinian political and militant factions Hamas and Fatah, breaking a recent ceasefire. Will this also desecrate the weak governmental unity between these two powers?

I'm still in New York... I will be writing some about my trip soon.

US and Israel proxy warring with Hamas via Fatah?

Did America and Israel's urge to fight Hamas result in Palestine destabilization and loss of life?

On 18 May, Israel and the US pushed Fatah to fight Hamas — just as radical Islamic leaders have, I might add:

Israel this week allowed the Palestinian party Fatah to bring into the Gaza Strip as many as 500 fresh troops trained under a U.S.-coordinated program to counter Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that won Palestinian parliamentary elections last year. Fighting between Hamas and Fatah has left about 45 Palestinians dead since Sunday.

And today, some less bleak news:

The rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah have embarked on another ceasefire as they attempt to end an upsurge in fighting in the Gaza Strip.

It is the fifth such truce since violence broke out last Sunday. Since then about 50 people have died.

As Israel and the United States instigated a fight between the rival factions, a ceasefire has followed. That actually is a sign of hope for the often virulent Palestinian political situation.

Meanwhile, the Israeli air-strikes continue.

Might civilians just support radical groups like Hamas more as they look to them for security? If Israel wanted to really take out the rocket positions, they could send elite, black-ops, ground forces to do so, instead of instituting disproportionate collateral damage that might just make the terrorism problem much worse. Mass air strikes do not make sense. Clandestine operations would work much better at accomplishing small, precise goals.

Pros and cons of Israel's Gaza raid

Here we go again: another Israeli excursion
Judging by previous experiences, how can Israel expect these raids to make things better? It will just make Palestinians more annoyed and spark even more terrorism. But since the matter is hardly void of opinion, here I present a list of "Pros" and "Cons" of the Israeli raid of Gaza.

Pros:

Helps with Israeli security*

Gets rid of some terrorists

Weakens Hamas*

Good for domestic politics; makes Olmert not seem soft

Secures Israeli military personnel

Increases power and leverage in future negotiations

Cons:

Creates more Palestinian strife

Kills, injures, and destroys

Weakens support abroad, save the US

Puts semi-stable Palestine unity government in disarray

Creates more terrorism (see fire paradox)

Does not accomplish mission and objectives*

Cuts chances of diplomacy

Infringes on human rights, political sovereignty (if officials are arrested like in previous raids)

Palestinians support radicals more because of anguish and need for security against Israel, which appears more malevolent than ever

Moderate Abbas loses support of people because of above reason

* - Questionable

Olmert's political losses

Ehud Olmert is a man with a problem — well, several problems in fact. He is the prime minister of a nuclear state, a world player in fact, with many security troubles and political conundrums. His country gets more attention than most; and the majority of his neighbors resent the country he governs. Olmert is the prime minister of Israel. He faces many problems: investigations into the ethics of his administration; the loss of political support within his new centrist party as well as in the wider population; frequent acts of terror from both inside and outside Israel's borders — among other issues. His personal goals — namely the much needed Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank — are in shambles and his nations external security is looking as bleak as ever. America seems to be the only steadfast ally, and even it is hinting at doubt in Israel's handling of itself and Olmert's handling of Israel. Every foreign policy move Olmert makes might find itself under international scrutiny.

So why is this flaring up all of the sudden? A panel released its findings of last summer's torrential Israeli-Lebanese war (i.e. the 2006 Lebanon War), which was mainly a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel's defense forces. (From the start the battle was seen as poorly executed, and this is a result of a major inquiry.) Lebanon is still unstable following the skirmish of summer 2006. Israel took the militant group's bait, and now Israel is seen as even more of an aggressor against innocents — in the Arab Muslim world as well as abroad.

An Israeli government commission excoriated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday for "severe failures" in last summer's war against the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, setting off a furious debate on whether he should remain in office.

The commission accused him of having decided hastily to go to war, neglecting to ask for a detailed military plan, refusing to consult outside the army and setting "over-ambitious and unobtainable goals."

Israel's political troubles are vast and wide. In its parliament, the Knesset, parties must gain power often by forming coalitions, many times with more extreme factions of the Israeli politik. Israelis also doubt how pulling out of Palestinian territories will help — they think the attacks will continue nonetheless just as some Palestinians fail to rationalize how a stop in the fighting will help them too.

Israel's policy towards Palestine is a prime example of the fire paradox at work: in fighting terrorism, Israel has created more. For example, Hezbollah's support has arguably grown following last year's conflict with Israel, which killed many civilians, left even more scared, and destroyed all too much. Hezbollah, fueled by funds from Iran, helped rebuild and aided civilians. However, some view Hezbollah's moves as haphazard and blame it for sparking the conflict with Israel. That launched a perpetual drive of terrorism and recruiters take advantage of the poor, hopeless, yet angered, Palestinians. And its a two-way street. There are also plenty of militant extremists within Israel, extra-Zionists, so to speak, who think the world is theirs for the taking, and Israel should not fail to resort to heavy military means when attacked.

How to fight the terror? Sending tanks into a neighborhood of Lebanon (home to Hezbollah) or Palestine (home to Hamas) that is already angry because its power and water supplies are cut off, and the bridge is blown up, does not help. There is also the issue of the politics within Israel's neighboring states. Would Israel rather moderate Islamic rule in its Arab neighbors, or dictatorships which are more of a hotbed for terror?

If Israel really wanted to take back its captured soldiers in Southern Lebanon and Palestine last summer, black ops or special forces could have gotten the job done much better. Now there are ever more terrorists, terrorist supporters, and potential terrorists wanting to get their revenge on the state who they feel harmed them and their people. Both the Israelis and their neighbors are also scared, and there are plenty of examples of how people act amazingly irrational when scared.

If Olmert is forced out or his political condition worsens, there are multiple fears about the potential repercussions:

A more conservative government might take power, and institute policies only making the Palestinian issue worse and not act in the true national interest;

Groups like Hezbollah will see it as a victory and will launch future, more powerful attacks;

Israel's domestic political situation will be very bad, to say the least;

Olmert, if still in office, will have to make concessions to conservative Israelis or political groups in order to stay in office, thus worsening the situation.

The execution of the war in Lebanon was botched from the start. Who is to blame? Should Olmert be forced out because of his government’s poor decision making, which costed and affected hundreds of thousands of Lebanese lives, not to mention many Israelis, and increased the tension between his country and its Middle Eastern neighbors, and the international community. The strategy also proved to be counter-intuitive and might yet breed more terrorism. Israelis should take note of these major mistakes, and in the future strive for not repeating them.

For now it looks like Olmert's job is secure. But with new protests, it's anyone's guess. One outcome could be a (more) hawkish, right-wing party — more conservative than Likud — winning over support from Olmert's ruling centrist Kadima party.

technorati tags: ehud+olmert, israel, hezbollah, hamas, terrorism, lebanon, middle+east, arab+israeli, 2006+lebanon+war, olmert+political+israel, palestine

Hoping for the best

A much talked about summit is about to take place. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, not to mention the Quartet of Russia, the EU, the US, and the UN, which is steering these diplomatic talks, will be in attendance.

Reuters:

Arab leaders arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday ahead of a summit set to revive a five-year-old plan to end decades of Israeli-Arab conflict at the heart of the region's problems.

The two-day Arab summit, due to open on Wednesday, is expected to renew an offer to the Jewish state of normal ties with all Arab countries if it withdraws from all territories it occupied in the 1967 war, accepts the creation of a Palestinian state and agrees to a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged Israel to seize on the Arab offer, describing it as a last chance for Israel to live in a "sea of peace" across the Arab and Islamic world.
...
The meeting will also tackle other crises, including the Iraq conflict that has divided Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims across the region and a political standoff between the Western-backed government and the pro-Iranian opposition in Lebanon.
...
The Arab summit will also encourage the international community to end a political and financial embargo on the Hamas-led Palestinian unity government.

Sounds all fine and well, right? Arab states recognize Israel if Israel returns to its legal borders. If only the world, and its politics, was that simple. Possibly the biggest problem is that of the Palestinian refugees.

There was some good news in Palestine a while back about rival political factions Fatah and Hamas finally coming together and forming a unity government. So far, the government has worked, with one still-outstanding problem: lack of international recognition. That breakthrough took place in Saudi Arabia, which has been a keen diplomatic player because, as is the case with Egypt, it is an ally of the United States as well as an active Arab state. Expect to see more Saudi diplomatic action, and continued action by long-time Israel-Palestine peace actor Egypt, as there seems to be another spurt of sluggish — or superficial — progress in Israel-Palestine peace talks.

Although the State Department seems to be taking the Middle East diplomacy with stride, many are cautious of the Bush administration's new found diplomatic furvor. Between Bush's tour of Latin America, a peaceful deal being made with North Korea, and US Secretary of State Rice shuttling back and forth, trying to promote dialogue among Arab states, much seems to have changed in the Bush administration's often militant foreign policy outlook. However, policies on Iraq, Iran, and recognition of the new unity Palestinian government remain stubbornly static.

'The lost generation' of Palestine

Don't expect things to be getting any better in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — unless dramatic political action is taken on both sides — at least not for the next couple decades. In part due to elements of the terror/counterterror (insurgent/counterinsurgent) fire paradox, it seems Israel's counterterrorist techniques against Palestinians — innocent and not-so-innocent — have just created more radicals, extremists, and thus, terrorists. Many sympathize with the extremists; they see them as a last resort. That along with the United States' poor publicity in the Mid-East, especially in Palestine where the United States rivals its 'evil' collaborator, Israel, as the greatest demon.

Great NYT article:

Their worried parents call them the lost generation of Palestine: its most radical, most accepting of violence and most despairing.

They are the children of the second intifada, which began in 2000, growing up in a territory riven by infighting, seared by violence, occupied by Israel, largely cut off from the world and segmented by barriers and checkpoints.

To hear these young people talk is to listen in on budding nihilism and a loss of hope.

“Ever since we were little, we see guns and tanks, and little kids wanting little guns to fight against Israel,” said Raed Debie, 24, a student at An Najah University here.
...
While generations of young Palestinians have grown up stateless, seething at Israel as the visible agent of oppression, this generation is uniquely stymied.

Israeli checkpoints, barriers and closures, installed to protect Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers, have lowered these young people’s horizons, shrunk their notion of Palestine and taken away virtually any informal interaction with outsiders, let alone with ordinary Israelis. The security measures have become even tighter since the election to power a year ago of the Islamist group Hamas, which preaches eternal “resistance” to Israeli occupation and rejects Israel’s right to permanent existence on this land.

During most of the 1980s and ’90s, as many as 150,000 Palestinians came into Israel daily to work, study and shop. While they were not treated as equals, many learned Hebrew and established relationships.

Now, the only Israelis whom Palestinians see are armed — soldiers and settlers.
...
Many Israelis agree that the current generation of young Palestinians has been thoroughly radicalized, but say that is the product of Palestinian political and religious leaders who have sanctioned and promoted violence and terrorism against Israel.

technorati tags: israel, palestine, terrorism, middle+east, israeli-palestinian, in+the+news, new+york+times, fire+paradox

Finding progress — in Israel-Palestine peace talks

When I first heard of the multi-party Middle East peace talks — following US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s unannounced visit to Baghdad — a familiar feeling overcame me, a feeling often associated with events dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict that are not superficially negative. That feeling: one of no optimism, yet its nature wasn’t pessimistic either (optimistic pessimism or pessimistic optimism?). In fact, I was much more optimistic following the agreement over the Palestinian government’s power structure, which has looked to decrease factional violence and has been a step towards the PA’s legitimacy in western eyes — or it would be if the West opened up a bit to the fact Hamas has been elected by the people: deal with it. Remember Hamas also has two wings: their ‘terrorist’ militant wing and the more moderate political wing, same with Hezbollah.

For ages there has been strife in the Middle East, more so than in most other regions of the world. Basically nothing has been accomplished from these latest talks, and it looks as if that will be the norm unless one of the parties involved matures to a point where progress can at least be in sight. These talks were the first in six years between the leaders of Palestine and Israel, currently President Abbas of Fatah and President Olmert, respectively. I knew there'd be a schism between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Israel has the US's unequivocal support on nearly every move it makes. Palestine, the isolated underdog, has few real friends: many Arab states use it to get back at Israel, many in the West shun it for whatever reason.

On the US-Israel-Palestine summit,

Mr Olmert said on Sunday that US President George W Bush had privately promised Washington would join Israel in shunning any government including Hamas.

… Which is quite possibly the reason for the lax response to the forward-acting Abbas-Meshaal, Hamas-Fatah power sharing deal for the Palestinian Authority. Rice talked with Palestinian President Abbas alone on Sunday, probably trying to assert her influence before the new Palestinian government takes full form.

How can one be staunchly pro-democracy if one refuses to support democratic governments because of their politics, and support repressive authoritarian regimes, ignoring their principles — which contrast to one’s rhetoric? Bush cannot have it both ways. He seems to have chosen a metaphorical war on terrorism, which is mainly bolstered political rhetoric, over his sensible assumed belief in democracy, and insensible belief in forcing democracy on countries via regime changes.

One of the main issues: recognition. Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel outright and Israel and the US’s refusal to recognize a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. These are both, quite frankly, stupid actions of political posturing. Hamas will loose votes if it recognizes Israel’s right to be a state. It will also loose respect and legitimacy in the West’s eyes if it does not recognize Israel. Hamas gains political capital because of its harsh stance towards Israel. In case nobody noticed, Israel is not the most popular of Middle Eastern states, and it is very popular to be a hater of the unpopular in the eyes of the population that elects by popular vote. The United States and Israel — the more developed and ‘mature’ of the two sides — refuse to recognize the Palestinian government because of Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel, and because they just don’t like Hamas.

The US is disliked in the Mid-East region for a number of regions, namely Iraq and other fronts of its ‘war on terror’, which has quite possibly accomplished more terror than it has eliminated — at least in the eyes of many around the globe. It has also bred terror (see my ‘fire paradox’) with poor counterterrorism efforts against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as ‘terrorism’ in general, politically. I think Israel and the US would be happier if there was a brutal dictatorship, a puppet state of hegemonic value to the US-Israel organization and tool of repression of the Palestinians, instead of a government of the Palestinian people’s choosing. A while back President Bush announced he was in favor of a Palestinian state, now it seems American and Israeli officials are sidestepping that issue…

For now the unified Hamas-Fatah Palestinian government, after a recent restructure, appears to be on track.

technorati tags: condi+rice, hamas, bush, palestine, olmert, israel, united+states, politics, news, middle-east, israel-palestine, hamas-fatah, war+on+terror, terrorism, democracy

More analysis of the Abbas-Meshaal deal

This is a follow-up of this post on a new agreement reached in Mecca, Saudi Arabia between the leaders of Palestine's two major political parties, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, on a new power structure for the Palestinian Authority.

The BBC's analysis (which I recommend) plays down hopes, with a usual does of realism.

The Mecca agreement, reached after two days of intensive negotiations in the Saudi city of Mecca between the Palestinian factions, raises two sets of questions.

Will it end the weeks of fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah fighters?

And will it persuade the United States, the Europeans and other international players to resume much-needed economic aid to the Palestinian Authority?

Only if both things happen can the deal be regarded as a breakthrough. Hence the caution with which news of the Mecca accord has been greeted.

The most immediate test is for the two factions to rein in their fighters while the politicians finalise the creation of a power-sharing government.

AGREEMENT KEY POINTS
Ismail Haniya of Hamas remains PM
Key interior, finance and foreign ministries to be run by independents
Reports say Hamas to take nine cabinet posts, Fatah six and one each to four other parties
No explicit recognition of Israel

What might be the problem is what is not in the power of these politicians — i.e. the militant wings of their parties and even the actions of Israel.

Another factor is the response of the West to this latest agreement, a reaction lackluster thus far.

Palestinian Islamist group Hamas urged the West on Friday to accept a new Palestinian unity government which it said was the only way to ensure stability in the Middle East.

Hamas and Fatah signed on Thursday a coalition deal to end factional warfare and to try to win back Western aid halted because of Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel.

"We have agreed with the Saudis to market this agreement internationally. Our (Saudi) brothers are in constant contact with the Americans and Europeans and I believe there is a possibility to market this agreement," Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Reuters.

"They cannot ignore this agreement and impose their own conditions," he said in reference to the United States. "The European Union should open a dialogue with this new government and this is the only way to have stability in the region."

There was a muted international reaction to the accord sealed in Saudi Arabia between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal.

The United States, which spearheaded the economic sanctions, was silent. The European Union said on Friday it would study the deal "in a positive but cautious manner". France welcomed the agreement and said the international community should back the new government. Britain described the accord as "interesting".

Surely they could do better than that?

The Economist seemed to share a similar viewpoint to my post on this latest development in Palestinian politics.

technorati tags: palestine, israel, abbas, hamas, fatah, mechaal, west, poltics, middle+east, news, analysis,

Good news about Palestine, it seems...

After a ceasefire and oh-so-much conflict, some progress is being made in Palestinian politics. The BBC has it covered:

Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas have signed a deal to form a national unity government.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal signed the accord after talks in the Saudi city of Mecca.

It follows weeks of factional violence in Gaza and a year-long international embargo against the Hamas government.

Mr Abbas urged the new government to "respect" previous accords signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

But reports said the text of the agreement contained no reference to formal recognition of Israel.

Hamas has consistently refused to recognise the Jewish state - a key demand of the countries behind a crippling economic boycott of the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas and Fatah have been locked in a bitter power struggle since Hamas defeated Fatah in elections in January 2006. Hamas remains the largest group in the Palestinian legislature.

Abbas and Meshaal said they would not leave the holy Islamic city of Mecca until they reached a deal, and, low and behold, they finally have! At the risk of sounding optimistic about a topic usually drenched in pessimism — and rightfully so — I think this might be a huge step in the right direction. The West, however, needs to recognize that, as does Israel. Hamas has two wings: the often-terrorist 'security' wing and their more appropriate political wing. They were elected into power over a year ago in a fair, democratic election, but western nations distanced themselves. It is ironic one of the few democratically-elected governments in the Middle East is disowned by supposed champions of democracy, mainly the United States, just because they are seen in a bad light. The Saudis have been helpful in this peaceful solution and Egypt has, as usual, also had a role. (Too bad they both have atrocious human rights records!)

I neither like the militant wings of Fatah or Hamas or some of their militant supporters; but the militant face of these two major Palestinian political parties is surely different from their political side. Israel has kidnapped (for lack of any more accurate word) many Hamas cabinet ministers; funding that keeps the Palestinian Authority alive has largely been frozen. The Palestinian people spoke and elected Hamas in January 2006, why shouldn't the West honor that decision? Hamas did not overthrow the government by a coup, they were democratically elected. And it is not hard to understand why. Palestinians are scared and terrorized by countries like Israel and the United States — whom they see as collaborators. Just because Palestinians made a decision right to them, they should starve for it? Their own tax dollars should be taken away because of it? Won't that only increase support for terrorism and forces much more dangerous than Hamas? The Hamas leadership has already shown itself as seemingly helping their people at the risk of their own political capital. Recognizing Israel would further damage their capital and might split the party (imagine militants against civil servants), though it looks ludicrous not to. In addition, put yourself in Mahmoud Abbas' shoes, trying to please the people and government, trying to hold the PA together, and keeping relations with Israel and the West open — all at the same time!

Israel and the United States should pick their enemies and choose the lesser of evils, not inflame the situation and, on top of that, be hypocritical. With terror — even somewhat justified on Israel's behalf — comes more terror and counter-terror that, in turn, breeds even more terror. Trashing Palestine and occupying their land is enough, but ruining one of the only democratic government in the region... Obviously this ties into my fire paradox. Might I point out that Israel has made some right decisions, and it is the things they have not done that make them better than the things they have done (i.e. the bad actions). Actions one has not taken are less in the spotlight than actions one has taken, which is why Israel often looks like a menace but, in truth, is not. Following international laws would be a start, though, and you do not see Israel receiving punishment for not following such laws — and making their own situation worse by firing up the extremists.

The United States' role in all of this makes Israel look like even more of a menace tin the eyes of some Arabs. If someone does not like Israel or the US, imaging how much they would hate them even more when they seem as one, a collaboration of 'enemies' fighting against your lifestyle, land, and government. The US already has a bad enough reputation, with Iraq and all.


Songs stuck in my head right now: "The Bends" by Radiohead, "Supermassive Black Hole" by Muse, and "X&Y" by Coldplay.

technorati tags: palestine, israel, middle+east, hamas, fatah, abbas, news, united+states, politics, terrorism, current

Conflict Meter

It has been over a month since the last Conflict Meter report on 31 December 2006. Let's see what turmoil is going on now and what strife is in the conflict forecast...

Somalia

Current: moderate (political, other)

Trend: downward

Forecast: questionable, instable, insurgent (warlord and Islamist; Ethopia was factor); stable government and international support needed (AU and UN, as well as US)

Iraq

Current: very, very high (sectarian and otherwise — terrorist; Iran (v. US), Syria (?) — targeted at practically anyone (depending))

Trend: up

Forecast: down a bit, assuming Baghdad security increases from Iraq govt. and US troop operations though don't get too optimistic; still very bad

Afghanistan

Current: high (Taleban resurgence against govt., troops)

Trend: flat, a bit elevated

Forecast: popular opinion worsening, Taleban might look like heroes compared to other forces

Palestine*

Current: violence was worse — tense calm at the moment; moderate political within (ceasefire in place); heightened with Israel

Trend: lowering within Palestine because of ceasefire and lessening power struggle (?); Israel relations worsening from recent suicide attack

Forecast: could get better or worse between Hamas and Fatah; more impending problems with Israel unless they choose better — altruistic even — policy... Israel should not make the many suffer for the actions of the few, and Arab militants should not let their fellow countrypeople and Muslims, and innocents, suffer for their violent actions


Overall trend of conflict from beginning of Jan 2007 to beginning of Feb 2007:
Up some
(Red up: up greatly; green up: up some. Red down: down greatly from high level; green down: down some from low level.)


*=Within Palestine (Hamas v. Fatah): possibly down because of ceasefire, though it was elevated; Palestine and Israel violence: up; hopefully no further Israeli extra-border action will be taken.


Did I miss any current violent conflicts? Let me know by commenting or emailing me.

technorati tags: conflict+meter, violence, conflicts, war, iraq, somalia, afghanistan, palestine, israel, in+the+news, current, analysis