Hamas offers truce

As always, a slow news day in the Middle East is a good news day. Therre was one story in the Jerusalem Post when I woke up this morning that I found very interesting. Reports indicate that Hamas has offered to turn over the positions and institutions they seized from Fatah during their takeover of the Gaza Strip in return for a renewed unity government and PLO reforms.

From Jpost.com, Hamas offers Fatah renewal of Unity Government:

Hamas was prepared to cede to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas control of PA institutions and bases in the Gaza Strip, in return for a renewal of the unity government, reforms in the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] and reinstating the Palestinian parliament, Israel Radio quoted a report from the pan Arab daily Asharq Alawsat as saying Wednesday.

The proposal was reportedly given by Hamas seniors to Abbas on Tuesday but the Hamas leadership was reluctant to embrace it.

A Palestinian source was quoted as saying that if Hamas leaders would become supportive of the proposal, Abbas would accept it.

I honestly can’t believe Abbas would take this deal. This would essentially amount to a return to the status quo ante. Instead, Abbas should use this opportunity to wait-out Hamas and just win.

Hamas’ terms are only likely to soften if made to wait. They have already seen a dramatic decline in its internal an international standing in the wake of its coup in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian polls once again show Fatah with a commanding lead over Hamas in a hypothetical electoral match up.

Further still, Abbas – who was once considered extremely weak – is growing in strength both in negotiations with Israel and within Palestinian politics. His strength enables him to continue to isolate Hamas and strike back at Islamic militants – as evidenced by the shootout in Jenin to protect an IDF major and the shutdown of 103 charities associated with Hamas that I wrote about yesterday. Instead of surrendering this position of strength for almost nothing, Abbas should continue to isolate Hamas in an effort to improve the terms of its relative surrender. Abbas could use the opportunity to demand Hamas’ disarmament among other things. Let’s hope he doesn’t cave too soon.

Abbas, Olmert meet in Jerusalem

Earlier today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met in Jerusalem to work on the so-called “Declaration of Principles” for the international peace conference set for this Fall. Although Israeli sources are reporting that Olmert and Abbas discussed final status issues during the meeting, Voice of Palestine Radio is reporting that Abbas doesn’t feel the declaration of principles is sufficient.

From Ha’aretz, PM, Abbas discuss three major final status issues:

Abbas headed into the talks warning that the planned conference would be pointless if it failed to address the core issues of Palestinian statehood - borders, refugees and Jerusalem.

“If there is a clear framework including final status issues, we will welcome this and go to the conference,” Abbas told Voice of Palestine radio.

He pressed Israel to be more specific on how it plans to approach peace talks, saying Olmert’s proposed declaration of principles would not suffice.

The PA chairman had also expressed concern Monday that the summit would be a “waste of time” if it limited itself to a “declaration of principles.”

And more bluster from Hamas in the same story about how Fatah is trying to marginalize them:

Hamas called the Abbas-Olmert meeting another attempt to isolate it.

“The meeting will end in complete failure. Such meetings can never achieve anything as long as the Israeli occupation continues to deny the rights of our people and continues its aggression against them,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas official.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting some specific details from the meeting, Israel offers control of Ramallah, Nablus and Jenin:

Among the proposals made by the Israeli team was an offer to share control of the Temple Mount between the three major religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) and to cede control of the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem to the PA. The policing of major West Bank towns Ramallah, Jenin and Nablus would also be given to the Palestinians.

The proposals were presented in a document obtained by Channel 10. Notably, the document makes no mention of the issue of Palestinian refugees.
This comes on the heels of news that Fatah in the West Bank recently closed 103 Islamic charities allegedly linked to Hamas.

This is an interesting development. Israel sharing sovereignty over the Temple Mount and surrendering sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be a significant Israeli concession. I have long believed that the central compromise of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be partition of Jerusalem for a near-complete renunciation of the right of return.

For from from Ha’aretz about Fatah-Hamas tensions, PA to shut down 103 charities to weaken Hamas:

“The government decided to close down 103 charities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they have violated the law,” said Mahmoud al-Habbash, Minister of Social Affairs in a government appointed by Abbas after Hamas seized the Gaza Strip.

Habbash said the move did not target any single group. He told Reuters that some of the charities were being used as “cover-ups for activities that contravene the law”.

. . .

The bank accounts of al-Salah Association, one of the largest Islamic charities in the Gaza Strip, were frozen earlier this month by Palestinian banks after the U.S. government designated it a “key support node for Hamas”.

Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said the decision to close the charities is part of an attempt by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to “uproot the Hamas movement” and that it would only cause hardship among Palestinians.

About 2,400 charities operate in the Palestinian territories, Habbash said.

Habbash did not say how many Hamas charities would be affected by the decision or how the ruling would be carried out in the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas.

This is another indication that Fatah’s power is growing vis a vis Hamas. It is becoming clear that Hamas’ decision to take over in Gaza has had a very negative impact on their overall standing both among Palestinians and in the international community. The diplomatic dialogue between Abbas and Olmert can only widen the gap between Fatah and Hamas. I would not be the least bit surprised, as I said yesterday, if Hamas got desperate and started attacking inside Israel again.

Gul wins Turkish presidency

So far, we’re having a relatively quiet news day coming out of the Middle East. The biggest news by far today is the election of Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul to the Turkish presidency. If you will recall, last year Turkish Prime Minister Reciep Tayyip Erdogan first nominated Gul for the presidency – which is elected through parliament. Both are members of the Justice and Development (AK) Party, whose roots lie in an Islamist party whom the Turkish Army – whom the Turkish Constitution invests with the power to preserve the secular republic – deposed during the 1990s.

Last year, the Army threatened to overthrow the government if Gul were elected president. This sparked massive pro-secular protests across Turkey and resulted in new parliamentary elections. AK won the election, earning a substantially more seats.

Although Gul is a devout Muslim and his political party has Islamist roots, I genuinely believe they’re the best party to be governing Turkey. The AK Party is staunchly committed to Turkey’s membership in the EU. As part of this process, they have enacted numerous liberal reforms, such as the abolition of the death penalty. Furthermore, they have scaled back the power of the military in politics – a very popular position among rank and file Turks.

If anything, the West should be celebrating AK. They have found a way to reconcile liberal democracy with Islam. Although they are still working out the kinks, such a reconciliation could lead a path forward for other Muslim states around the world as they transition to democracy.

Hamas threats

What a shocker: Hamas is trying to derail the modest progress being made between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert toward some sort of agreement ahead of the Middle East peace summit in the fall.

From the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, Shin Bet: Hamas in Syria plans suicide bombings:

The security services are increasingly concerned that the Hamas leadership in Syria is intensifying efforts to undermine the diplomatic dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority through a series of spectacular terrorist attacks.

. . .

“There are efforts by Khaled Meshal [Hamas’ political bureau chief based in Damascus] and the Hamas leadership abroad to formulate a plan to undermine the diplomatic efforts between PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israel,” Y., the deputy head of the Shin Bet, told the ministers.

Hamas is scared of this nascent dialogue because if it were to succeed, it would go out of business. When things start getting better, people are less likely to be drawn in by extremism. Although Hamas has been given some legitimacy abroad as a political movement it remains a nihilist Islamist terror organization whose entire existence requires a perpetual state of conflict with Israel. Just like anything struggling to survive, it is likely to lash out and take extreme measures to ensure its survival.

Before the Second Intifada, Hamas’ pattern of terrorist activity can be directly linked to times during which crucial negotiation was underway between Israelis and Palestinians. When the process was strong – such as in 1993-1994 – these attacks were condemned and ignored. During 1996 and 1998 – in the wake of Rabin’s assassination and during the Wye River Accords negotiation – the attacks empowered the Israeli right. Given the state of weakness in the Israeli government at the moment – and the fact that the pro-Israel noise machine is likely to interpret a renewal of suicide bombings as the resumption of Palestinian mainstream rejectionism – a resumption of attacks would probably derail any nascent progress.

One encouraging sign from the PA came earlier today when PA Security Services rescued a major in the Israeli Defense Forces who had accidentally strayed into the West Bank city of Jenin.

From Ha’aretz, Livni: Rescue proves PA strength:

The incident began Monday when a PA policeman noticed the officer, who was in uniform, driving in central Jenin. The policeman stopped him and called additional security forces to the scene.

In the meantime, a crowd gathered in the area, and tried to assault the IDF officer. PA police evacuated him from the area, and took him to the PA security forces’ headquarters in Jenin.

Islamic Jihad militants then opened fire on the headquarters, sparking a gun battle with PA security forces.

. . .

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday praised the Palestinian Authority for rescuing an Israel Defense Forces officer who inadvertently entered the West Bank city of Jenin.

“This operation proves that the Palestinian government and its forces are growing stronger in the field relative to the terrorist organizations,” Livni said, during a meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad.

Livni stressed that the rescue of the IDF officer is an example of how security deterioration can be prevented, and how Israel and the Palestinians can avoid harm to both sides.

As Livni said, such operations could do a lot to strengthen the partnership between Israel and PA at this critical juncture.

Declaration of Principles: The way forward?

The buzz du-jour coming from the Middle East is that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are negotiating based on a so-called “Declaration of Principles” ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East peace summit set to take place in the Fall. Although the mere term “declaration of principles” evokes thoughts of the disastrous Oslo Process, such an agreement could serve as the basis for a sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Earlier this year I wrote a group policy paper about the demographic, geographic and historical issues inherent in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Although I can’t post the whole paper up on this Web site due to the fact that I did not write all of it, I will post some germane elements that I did in fact write:

In concert, the aforementioned geographic, demographic and historical issues represent substantial obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. Because of the complexity inherent in these issues, it is difficult to envision a durable peace emerging under present circumstances, even if a treaty were signed tomorrow. Instead of adopting a zero-sum paradigm toward reconciliation, both Israelis and Palestinians should accept certain assumptions in the near term, and work over a longer period of time to ensure that two viable and legitimate states are able to emerge.

The “certain assumptions” written about in the paper implies an agreement on the general terms of an agreement, while allowing for a certain process to unfold enabling the agreement to succeed.

It is my sincere belief that even were a final agreement to be signed tomorrow, the accord would not succeed over time. This has a great deal to do with the unstable realities on the ground. First, the Palestinian Authority is itself partitioned – Hamas controls Gaza while the Fatah-led emergency government controls those parts of the West Bank under PA control. Without reconciliation of these divergent elements, a viable two-state solution would be unworkable. In addition, the Palestinian economy is in such shambles that an independent Palestinian state would not survive.

The more pressing concern about the viability of a potential final accord is the Israeli settlement enterprise. After suffering a staggering defeat after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the settlers are once again ascendant. If Israel can’t even evacuate outposts they consider to be illegal, there is no chance they’d be able to have sufficient legitimacy to immediately withdraw and repatriate over 250,000 people from the eveacuated settlements.

The declaration of principles could be an innovative way to get around these troubles. By agreeing in principle to certain political arrangements, the view of an equitable end-game solution could provide enough momentum for Fatah to retake Gaza and for Israel to withdraw from the settlements. The important thing is that it would be an equitable solution, providing each side potential gains to show their people. My take on what these would include are:

In addition to the essential commitment to a two-state-solution, both Israelis and Palestinians must agree in principle to the division of the land more-or-less along the 1949 Armistice (Green) Line. This agreement implies an end to Israeli settlement in the vast majority of the West Bank and a division of Jerusalem.

In addition, Israel must immediately accept the existence of a link between the West Bank and Gaza while a more permanent solution is arranged.

Palestinians must agree to the existence of some sort of physical barrier between Israel and emerging Palestine – with an adequate compensation structure in place for confiscated and/or damaged property – during the implementation phase of the agreement.

Although Palestinians must accept that most refugees will return to Palestine, Israel must accept responsibility for its role in helping create the Palestinian refugee crisis.

And both sides must agree to resource sharing and conservation.

Although the particulars of such an arrangement have yet to be released, I will keep track of articles referencing the Declaration of Principles on the blog. If you would like to read the particulars of my theoretical Declaration of Principles, feel free to download the five-page summary here.

Obama’s War on Terror

In early August, Barack Obama – who for the purposes of full disclosure I support in the Democratic primaries – gave a speech called “The War We Need to Win.” Although it received most of its press attention due to a somewhat controversial assertion that if Musharraf would not act against actionable intelligence in Pakistan related to al-Qaeda targets, that he would authorize strikes to neutralize the targets.

The speech was so much more than that. It articulated a comprehensive strategy to fight Islamist terrorism – which, for the record, I believe is a sincere and pressing threat. Most importantly, it was a liberal strategy in the war on terror; the way we should have been fighting it from the beginning. Although this is somewhat old news, I wanted to go on the record with some analysis on the speech.

The speech can be found at barackobama.com:

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military — it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.”

Here, he specifically outlines what he would do in Afghanistan outside the military realm. This is critical; the war on terror requires more than guns and troops. Having a comprehensive strategy to address some of the critical non-military issues in Afghanistan is critical to our success there. Most importantly, he talks about the need to address the widespread production of poppy plants and the proliferation of narcotics trafficking.

The paragraph immediately following the passage on attacking militants in Pakistan was:

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”

Again, Obama emphasizes the need for non-military aid. Cuts in such aide have become commonplace under the Bush administration

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions — sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

Here, Obama talks about the need to engage Americans in service of their country. This would be great; to win this war, we need to use all of the weapons in our disposal. This includes talented Americans outside the military

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Although there is already a good amount of international cooperation on the intelligence front, broadening this cooperation would sharpen our capabilities to track down terrorists. This section also shows that Obama recognizes that terrorism is not just in the Middle East. Indonesia and the Horn of Africa are emerging areas of concern. So is North Africa. Having a president who doesn’t hold such a simplistic view of the al-Qaeda threat would be important

And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.

It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

What is most remarkable about this section is that despite all the flack he received for his debate answer on talking to dictators, Obama stresses his belief that we need to talk to our enemies. I particularly agree with his contention that somehow not talking to dictators is a punishment for them. More direct engagement with someone like Hugo Chavez might reorient his anti-American policies – which have been more anti-Bush than anything else.

too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around. When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story. We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show — through deeds as well as words — that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

Obama knows we’re losing the propaganda war. This is just unbelievable given that we’re fighting against a bunch of terrorists who have no real appreciation for human life and are willing to use the most objectionable of means to achieve their goals. Most importantly, he recognizes that to win the propaganda war, we simply cannot have things like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

An extension of the last point, we must protect our civil liberties in this fight. We are the most civilized country in the history of the world, but when we set aside our values in the effort to preserve them, we are seen as hypocrites.

Overall, a progressive war on terror requires us to continue the fight against al-Qaeda militarily while simultaneously expanding opportunity abroad. It also requires the symbol of America to be as compelling as possible. In this speech, Obama hits the right note.

From DC to Jerusalem relaunch

After an extreme and unfortunate period of inactivity, I have decided to relaunch this blog as a way to comment on the foreign policy debate during the 2008 election. I plan to scrutinize candidate statements and policy on a wide range of subjects. As always, I will continue to provide first-hand dispatches from the Middle East once I return in mid-October.

For those of you who may have been readers in the past, there are a few changes to the blog, as you can see. I recently migrated my content management software from Drupal to Wordpress and changed the design of the site. I have also added three new photo galleries to the photos page: Jericho, Morocco and Jordan. I have also added pdf versions of many of my old columns from the GW Hatchet to the articles and papers sections. I will soon add some of the papers I’ve written on the Middle East to the section as well.

I’m looking forward to taking this enterprise more seriously from this point forward and hopefully provide some interesting insight for those of you opting to read.