Is Alan Johnston's release a win for Hamas?

Some say 'Yes', others say 'No', and plenty of others say 'Maybe'.
BBC News has some analysis. This post for background.

America and Israel have announced that even Hamas' help in releasing BBC reporter Johnston does not change a thing in their spiteful relationship with the militant group slash Palestinian political party. Of course let's face reality: no matter what Hamas does they'll hate it, and vice versa.

As my vacation in Michigan nears its end, I won't be online much tomorrow. By Sunday, and definitely by Monday I will return to my usual posting schedule, if not with more posts.

Johnston released

Ending one of the most watched journalist kidnapping cases in the Middle East, the BBC's Alan Johnston has just been freed after pressure from militant group/political party Hamas on his renegade captors. Johnston had been held for nearly four long months. He served as BBC New's Gaza correspondent; the BBC is the only international news organization with a bureau in Gaza.

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?

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.

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.

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