The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (4 February)

Latest Post: The Failed Olmert Offer of an Israel-Palestine Settlement
Latest-Post: Israel-Gaza: How to Cover a Mass Killing with "Balance"

9:25 p.m. Stating the Obvious. "The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas said on Wednesday it doubted Egypt could complete a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Palestinian groups in Gaza on Thursday."

Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk set out the official line that "clarifications" were needed on the extent to which Israel would open border crossings, but to state the obvious, there was no way a proposal could be put while Fatah and Hamas are still vying with each other for the diplomatic upper hand.

8 p.m. Red Alert of the Day. Isaac Ben Israel, a Member of the Knesset, has declared that Israel has a year in which to attack Iran before Tehran has a nuclear bomb: Ben Israel, a former general and senior defence official, said, "Last resort means when you reach the stage when everything else failed. When is this? Maybe a year, give or take."

Meanwhile, Prime Ministerial candidate Benjamin Netanyahu told a conference that Iran poses "the gravest challenge Israel has faced since the War of Independence in 1948. We will work on all levels to neutralise this danger."

Evening Update (7:45 p.m. GMT; 9:45 p.m. Israel/Palestine): The Israeli military have accepted responsibility for the deaths of four girls from tank fire in Gaza.


So why have the Israeli Defense Forces admitted this incident when they have denied numerous others involving civilian deaths? Could the reason be that the girls were the three daughters and niece of a Gazan doctor, who appeared live on Israeli television when he received news of the killings?

Still, there are limits to responsibility, even the case is in the Israeli public spotlight. The IDF have claimed there were militants firing from the upper story of the house, which they did not know belonged to the doctor.

1 p.m. United Nations official Chris Gunness has claimed Hamas took hundreds of food parcels and thousands of blankets that the UN planned to distribute to 500 families. The Hamas Welfare Minister has denied the accusation.

12:45 p.m. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, addressing the European Parliament, has said, "Israeli leaders should be held accountable for their violations of international and humanitarian law." He claims 90,000 Gazans lost their homes in the recent Israeli invasion.

Abbas, seeking to regain leadership of the Palestinian movement, set out his "red line" for talks with Israel: "It is no longer acceptable to negotiate on the principle on ending the occupation. Negotiations must end the occupation of all the land occupied in 1967."

12:30 p.m. The Palestinian Authority, trying to regain a foothold in Gaza, has announced a $600 million reconstruction programme. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced that most of the money from donors, though no details were given on whether these were foreign governments, the United Nations, or non-governmental organisations.

Fayyad also did not say how the aid would get to Gaza, given Israel's restriction on any transfer of cash by the Palestinian Authority to the area. While Hamas has paid its employees in dollars, the Palestinian Authority has had to delay payments to its employees for two weeks.

8:40 a.m. Today's Mahmoud Abbas Walkabout. The Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas meets the President of the European Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering, and addresses the parliament on Wednesday.

Abbas met French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Tuesday. Kouchner made a call for Gaza's crossing to be reopened, but the real significance was the reference to "a major issue" of Palestinian reconciliation.

Abbas and his spokesmen are now putting out the line that they will not only work with Hamas in a unity movement but that such a movement must include Hamas. However, Abbas is adding a not-too veiled condition: "a national unity government that considers itself bound by international legality and previous agreements", i.e. recognition of Israel and previous arrangements on borders and Israeli settlements.


Morning update (8:15 a.m. GMT; 3:15 a.m. Israel/Palestine): We've posted two significant stories as separate entries: one on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer of a broad settlement last autumn to the Palestinian Authority and one digging out the significance of a lengthy article by The New York Times on a mass killing in El Atatra by Israeli forces during the recent Gaza war.

Meanwhile, in a continuing side-story, Cyprus has given the United Nations a report on the cargo of a container ship suspected of carrying arms from Iran to Gaza. Israel and the US are hoping that this will finally tie Tehran to military support of Hamas; previous efforts in recent weeks have failed to provide the necessary evidence.

Afghanistan: The US Military to Obama - Make a Decision Now; Obama to Military - No

Throughout yesterday afternoon, the military leaks to the media and the Pentagon public statements began to fill the in-box. Several officials began putting out the story that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would soon give a secret report to President Obama. This would advise the President "to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and Al Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy".



This recommendation in one respect is a smokescreen. As we noted when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke in the same vein before Congressional committees last week, the US has always sought "regional stability" in Afghanistan, even if it hasn't done very well in achieving it.

Much more important, when you decode, are these demands in the recommendations. Continue the airstrikes in Pakistan, whatever the domestic political cost. Let others worry about Afghan "democracy" and the "economy", i.e., the US will concentrate on military efforts rather than nation-building.

And, Mr President, immediately approve our request in full for more troops to Afghanistan: one brigade already sent, three more in the next weeks, a fifth in the summer.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell wrapped all of this up in a lot of jargon for reporters yesterday:

There needs to be established a baseline of security. We need to reverse the trend that we are seeing in some parts of the country in terms of a deteriorating security situation. That is accepted as the foundation on whatever the president decides to develop in terms of a further strategy.

Meanwhile, the White House is countering the military by leaking its own evaluation. In an article in today's Washington Post, Administration officials set out a 60-day timeframe for a decision, tied to the 3 April NATO summit. And they are making that it is Obama who is the Decider, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of Defense Gates:

The president . . . wants to hear from the uniformed leadership and civilian advisers as to what the situation is and their thoughts as to the way forward. But he has also given pretty direct guidance.

Just in case you missed that signal, the article shouts it out later:

Officials described Obama's overall approach to what the administration calls "Af-Pak" as a refusal to be rushed, using words such as "rigor" and "restraint." "We know we're going to get [criticism] for taking our time," said a senior official.

And there is even a clear hint that Obama is not on the same page as the Gates-military emphasis on Pakistan as a safe haven for Afghan operations:

Senior administration officials described their approach to Pakistan -- as a major U.S. partner under serious threat of internal collapse -- as fundamentally different from the Bush administration's focus on the country as a Taliban and al-Qaeda "platform" for attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.

US-Russia Relations: A Grand Obama Bargain on Nuclear Warheads?

Just to put everything into the US-Russia mix, as we follow the manoeuvres on issues such as Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Times of London is blaring out an exclusive that the Obama Administration is proposing an 80 percent reduction of nuclear warheads by the US and Russia to 1000 each. This is in addition to the Obama decision to delay roll-out of the American missile defence plans.



The Times also features the response of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov: "We welcome the statements from the new Obama Administration that they are ready to enter into talks and complete within a year, in this very confined timeframe, the signing of a new Russian-US treaty on the limitation of strategic attack weapons. We are also ready for this, undoubtedly."

The story from Washington appears to be based on a single "senior administration source", but it corresponds with other information that has come to the attention of Enduring America. A key unanswered question is whether the Obama Administration will tie this grand initiative to other issues, such as the Russian position on Iran and the competition in Central Asia, or whether it will keep the nuclear issue as a separate, distinct negotiation.

US Foreign Policy Analyses: Latest Issue of Argentia Published

The latest issue of Argentia, the cutting-edge journal of the British International Studies Association, is now out. It features a new project on the influence of conservative faith-based groups on US foreign policy and a roundtable review (with a contribution by Scott Lucas of Enduring America) of the book After Bush by Timothy Lynch and Rob Singh.

Visit our partner site Libertas for access to the journal.

Update: Secret US-Iran Talks This Week?

Last Saturday, we broke the story of possible US-Iran secret talks this week, in connection with the American meeting in Berlin today with Russia, China, and the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany).

Over the last few days, news outlets have been catching up with the revelations that US and Iranian representatives, some of whom are now in the Obama and Ahmadinejad Administrations, were involved in non-governmental meetings in 2008. The most significant new name to emerge was Gary Samore, who will soon become President Obama's advisor on non-proliferation.

The question remains, however: will "engagement", especially with the prospect that the US needs Iranian assistance for the "surge" in Afghanistan, lead to a meeting in early 2009? The latest teaser is in an article in The Asia Times:

Eyes...now turn...toward Germany where the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy is scheduled to take place next weekend. Organizers of the annual event revealed on Thursday that among the 300 prominent figures from the international arena of foreign, security and defense policy will be a "very high-ranking personality" from Tehran.

Other VIPs include US Vice President Joseph Biden, who is expected to make a major foreign and security policy speech.

The question is not whether Biden meets an Iranian official --- that is too high-profile to be a possibility. Instead, will any of the American officials who are in Berlin make the short hop to Munich for a bit of private time with any Iranians who happen to be there?