The Latest from Israel-Palestine (16 March): Israel Coalition, Palestinian Reconciliation

Late Afternoon Update (5 p.m. GMT): Palestinian sources say that agreement has been reached in Cairo amongst factions on the holding of Presidential and legislative elections by January 2010.

In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party and the Israel-Beitenu Party of Avigdor Lieberman have signed a coalition agreement. Lieberman would be the Foreign Minister and Israel-Beitenu would also have the ministerial portfolios of internal security, infrastructure, tourism, and integration of new immigrants.

Morning Update (10 a.m. GMT): Interesting news out of Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (pictured) has postponed for 24 hours Monday's Cabinet meeting, which was to discuss the possibility of a prisoner exchange with Hamas for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

"It should be emphasized that as of yet, there is no sign that indicates a result in any particular direction in the negotiations," the Prime Minister's Office said.

It appears that the two Israeli negotiators in Cairo, Yuval Diskin, the head of domestic intelligence service Shin Bet, and Olmert's envoy Ofer Dekel have stayed an extra day. It is also being reported that Hamas military commander Ahmad Jabari has been in Egypt since Thursday to head Hamas' delegation on the prisoner issue.

Olmert's office is still being cautious, saying, "It should be emphasized that as of yet, there is no sign that indicates a result in any particular direction in the negotiations."

The Latest from Israel-Palestine (15 March): Reconciliation Talks Stalled

Evening Update (8:15 p.m.): As we projected earlier this week, reconciliation talks in Egypt between Palestinian factions are making gradual headway at best. While delegates are offering little detail, Hamas spokesman Taher al-Onoo has told Reuters: "There was progress in some issues last night. There is an optimism, a cautious optimism. Still the issues of the government and elections remained [unresolved]."

Senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath said that the five working committees "have done all their work" except for two issues: "The difficulties are, first, what kind of commitments the government ought to give to gain international acceptance and, second, whether (the government) is composed of (representatives of) the organisations or independents."

Translation: Hamas and Fatah are fighting over the framework and timing of the next set of Presidential and legislative elections, which could be critical in determining which party has the upper hand in Palestinian politics.

Morning Update: Hints over the last few days that there might be a deal swapping Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (pictured), held by Hamas since 2006, have been given substance with Israeli negotiators travelling to Cairo for talks. The head of Israel's domestic security service Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, and Ofer Dekel are returning to Tel Aviv today, and the Israeli Cabinet will discuss the proposal tomorrow.

There are strong incentives on both sides for a deal. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, after defeat in the Lebanon War of 2006 and an inconclusive result in Gaza in 2008/9, would get a symbolic victory, and Hamas could claim credit for the release of dozens of Palestinian detainees.

On the other hand, that boost for Hamas may be too much for Israeli politicians to countenance, and the Palestinian Authority would be at best lukewarm about the outcome. So it is very much touch-and-go whether Olmert departs, with a new Israeli Government under Benjamin Netanyahu taking a harder line, without success.

New US, New Middle East? The Syria Initiative

The major follow-up to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Middle Eastern trip has come not in Israel and Palestine, where there is too much uncertainty for any American move, but in Damascus. On Saturday two US envoys, Jeffrey Feltman of the State Department and Daniel Shapiro of the National Security Council, sat down with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. They were accompanied by the senior American official in Damascus and two other Syrian advisors for 3 1/2 hours before Feltman and al-Moallem had a private discussion.

The meeting on its own is significant, as the US has no Ambassador in Syria. Expectations are even higher, however, because Damascus could be the lynchpin for an Obama strategy. The core success of Israeli-Syrian talks would be complemented by Syria's distancing from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, giving the US greater room for manoeuvre on the Israel-Palestine negotiations and an advantage over Tehran in Washington's conception of the new battle for the Middle East.

After the meeting, Feltman was kind in tone toward Syria, “The Syrians have concerns with us as well. I’m sure the Syrians will be looking at choices we will be making in the future just as we will be looking at choices Syria is making,”. However, he was non-committal on specifics beyond the platitude, “We found a lot of common ground today."

The Syrians also gave nothing away. In particular, there is no sign that Damascus, in return for economic aid and an American "balance" on direct discussions with Tel Aviv over issues such as the Golan Heights, offered up the concessions that Washington wants on the bad guys in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and Tehran. So the most that can be said is that yesterday's event, while of symbolic importance, is only the opener in a long process.

There has been surprisingly low-key coverage of the meeting in the US press. CNN has a report, but The New York Times recycles a downbeat Associated Press story, "Amid Low Expectations, American Officials Hold Talks in Syria", and The Washington Post overlooks the event altogether.

Syrian specialist Josh Landis offers excellent coverage on his blog, featuring Rami Khouri's upbeat (overly upbeat, in my opinion) assessment of a fundamental shift in US policy:

What we have going on, I suspect, is that the two leading proponents of Western arrogance in the form of colonialism and neocolonialism - the United States and the United Kingdom - have recognized that their approach has failed, and that they are better off having normal diplomatic talks and negotiations with the three leading centers of resistance to them, namely Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.

The Latest on Israel-Palestine (8 March): Fayyad Resigns

Morning Update (6:15 a.m. GMT; 8:15 a.m. Israel/Palestine): Palestinian Authority leader Salam Fayyad (pictured) "resigned" as Prime Minister of the West Bank on Saturday. Fayyad's appointment, like that of West Bank President Mohammad Abbas, formally expired on 9 January, but both men continued to claim political authority.

It is unclear what lies behind the resignation. The media spin is that this "may help smooth the way for a Palestinian unity government that would be acceptable to both Hamas and Fatah", the party of both Fayyad and Abbas, but the only basis for this is Fayyad's cursory statement of his reasons for stepping down.

Meanwhile, there were a series of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, responding to six rockets launched from the area, on Saturday. The Israeli military said two "smuggling tunnels" on the southern Gaza border and one "weaponry storage site" in Gaza City were targeted.

Clinton to Iran: You Can Play in the (Afghanistan) Sandbox

This is getting just a bit silly. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has wagged her finger at Iran all week, stoking up ideas of a renewed Iranian-Arab conflict, trying it on with the supposed letter to Russia linking missile defence to a cessation of support for Tehran's nuclear and missile programmes, and re-applying the label of Iran as supporter of "terrorism" (Hamas). So what is her encore?

Setting up the prospect of its first face-to-face encounter with Iran, the Obama administration has proposed a major conference on Afghanistan this month that would include Iran among the invited countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

“We presented the idea of what is being called a big-tent meeting, with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan,” she said at a news conference here after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. “If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited, as a neighbor of Afghanistan.”

In itself, that move is both wise and necessary. The Bush Administration never grasped, or chose to set aside, the significance of Iranian influence in the west of Afghanistan, and the recent travails of the US military --- supply lines closed, insurgency spreading, opium/heroin production out of control --- have only highlighted that Washington needs a regional strategy which includes Tehran.

But it's a bit rich, if not stupid, to do this after putting the rhetorical and diplomatic squeeze on Iran all week. The chances of a warm Iranian reception and possible attendance at the meeting, scheduled for the Netherlands on 31 March, would have been greater if the US Secretary of State had not spent the last 96 hours portraying Tehran as an untrustworthy, even pariah regime.

The resolution of this apparent contradiction in Washington policy is actually straightforward. What Clinton has attempted, rather crudely, is to define where the US will allow Iran to have influence. The Middle East, especially Israel-Palestine, is a no-go area. However, in Central Asia, Washington will accept that Iran has a role to play in logistics and support, while trying to ensure that Tehran has only a limited place in the re-arrangement of Afghan politics (and, of course, no place at all in US military operations in the centre of the country).

Clever, ain't it? Well, it would be, if you presume that Tehran will simply say, "Gee, thanks," and accept the American definition on where it is allowed to go. That's the naive response of The New York Times, which burbles, "Afghanistan may provide the most promising avenue for opening a diplomatic channel to Iran," --- and then forgets to mention Clinton's statements on the Middle East in the 1000-word article.

I could be wrong --- there might be winks, nudges, and secret discussions in which the Americans have tipped off Iranian colleagues, "OK, we're going to pose as if we really don't like you for a few days, but just go along with it until the next act" --- but I suspect the Iranian Government is going to bristle at the high-handed treatment since Monday. They may throw the Afghanistan offer back at the US; at the very least, I expect they will demand that Washington drop the hostile rhetoric on the Middle East and the Iran nuclear programme.

This latest Clinton move is the equivalent of a parent yelling at her child, "No, no, no!", then pointing the kid to the "right" place to play in. Well, I've done that, and I can tell you a litte secret:

The little b****** wouldn't stay in the sandbox.