Gaza: "Moderate" Hamas Does a Balancing "War on Terror" Act

World, may we introduce you to the "moderate" Hamas?

During last Friday's prayers in Rafah, the leader of Junut Ansar Allah (Soldiers of Allah's Supporters), Abd al-Latif Musa, declared "the birth of an Islamic emirate in Gaza". There were his last words of him. Hamas attacked the mosque, killing 24 --- including six unarmed civilians –-- and injuring 125.

Now this may seem a curious way to become "moderate". However, with the Rafah mosque attack, Hamas was not only acting against a perceived insurgent threat. In the past, it has often been alleged that al-Qaeda militants are training and receiving support from Hamas. The Gazan leadership has always denied this but, with last Friday's operation, it offered a war against anti-American Islamist “terrorism”, distancing itself from “radicalism” and sending “positive” signals to Washington and Brussels.

Doing so, the Gazan organisation is striking a delicate balance. On the one hand, it is maintaining a low-profile vigilance against any anti-Western rhetoric that might give its opponents (read "Israel") ammunition for a public-relations assault. On the other, it is maintaining relations with Islamic groups, including some backed by Iran, to prevent any opening of space for challengers in Gaza.

Khaled Meshal, the political director of Hamas, said last week in an interview with Qatari newspaper al-Watan that the post-election turmoil in Iran would not endanger Tehran’s support for Hamas: "No doubt what is happening in Iran concerns and worries us, but we consider it to be an internal affair… But we are definitely not worried about the relationship with Iran or the support that Iran offers us.” Meshal's words took on new signficance after the provocative speech of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on Friday: "Hezbollah is able to hit every city in Israel, and I repeat: if they hit Beirut, we will attack Tel Aviv.”

For, while Hezbollah might want to shake a fist at Israel right now, Hamas does not. So Meshal’s “worry” indicates a thin red line between Hamas and Tehran. Iran, for both domestic and regional reasons, is anxious to keep the heat on Tel Aviv, and it may be sending a message to Hamas to be less forthcoming towards an Israel-Palestine settlement. On the other hand, Meshal in particular has been attentive to sending signals to Washington that Hamas welcomes the US brokering of an agreement.

So Hamas finds itself manoeuvring both vis-a-vis external powers and against internal challenges. Flexibility becomes the keyword for strategy. But if that means Iran cannot be put to one side, it also means that "radicalism" is no longer an attractive label for Gaza's political leaders.

Welcome then to the new, moderate (if War-on-Terror-fighting) Hamas. But how will the world (read "United States") react?

UPDATED Israel's War of Words: The Times of London, Iran's Bombs, and Hezbollah

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Co-written with Ali Yenidunya:

UPDATE 13 August, 0630 GMT: A good psychological warfare campaign can't go silent for long. Reuters reported on Wednesday: "Under a photograph of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting the previous day in the cockpit of an F-15I long-range fighter-bomber, mass-selling [Israeli newspaper] Ma'ariv quoted the official as saying Israel could carry out such a strike without U.S. approval but time was running out for it to be effective. The official said, ""The military option is real and at the disposal of Israel's leaders, but time is working against them."

You have to hand it to The Times of London: when it comes to propaganda, their reporters never run the risk of subtlety.

On 3 August, an article signed by no less than three intrepid reporters, including the Defence Correspondent, proclaimed, "Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb." A research programme to create weaponised uranium had been completed in the summer of 2003, and Iranian scientists "could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order" from Khamenei.

Two days later, Foreign Editor Richard Beeston, one of the three authors of the Bomb Is Imminent piece, found another angle in a pair of articles, one co-written with Nicholas Blanford, "Tehran is investing...in its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah", which had "amassed tens of thousands of rockets and missiles capable of bombarding half [of Israel]".

The threat of an Iranian nuclear attack, coupled with its sponsorship of a regional war on Tel Aviv? Where could Beeston and his companions have discovered these master plans? According to one of the articles, "Western intelligence sources".

Which is absolutely right, if by "Western" you mean "Israeli".

We have written for months about how The Times is a leading channel for stories put out by Israel's military and intelligence services. This time, however, the paper went a step further. Rather than taking the information fed to the normal outlet, Tel Aviv correspondent Uzi Mahnaimi, it sent Beeston to Israel where he was given the material for the articles by Israeli officials. As Amos Harel subsequently reported in Ha'aretz, "At a Knesset [Israeli Parliament] Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee briefing on Tuesday [5 August], the head of the Military Intelligence Research Brigade, Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, used almost identical terms to those of The Times" on the state of Iran's nuclear programme.

For the Hezbollah report, the Israeli military escorted Beeston to the Lebanese border where he met Brigadier-General Alon Friedman, the deputy head of the Israeli Northern Command, who laid out the line that the situation could “explode at any minute”. This followed an earlier Times claim of "surveillance footage" (source not identified) which "showed Hezbollah fighters trying to salvage rockets and munitions" from an ammunition bunker which exploded.

OK, it's far from rare for a newspaper to turn briefings by officials into an "exclusive" investigative report. It's not unusual to imply multiple sources to cover up the campaign of a single Government. What is distinctive about the reports in The Times is that Beeston and his colleagues cannot be bothered to cite information and analysis that cuts the other way. It is far from a deep secret that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate of US services had concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear arms research programme in 2003. In the same week of The Times' report, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research issued an assessment that Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb even if it wanted to do it right now:

While Iran has made significant progress in uranium enrichment technology, the State Department’s intelligence bureau (INR) continues to assess it is unlikely that Iran will have the technical capability to produce HEU [highly enriched uranium] before 2013.

Now perhaps the Israelis have some specific piece of intelligence that refutes the American assessment. Possibly there is some document somewhere that establishes that Iran is commanding a Hezbollah political and military forces with "40,000" rockets. Rest assured, however, that these articles are not based on such tangible evidence. They are press releases masquerading as investigative journalism.

To paraphrase one of the best guides to propaganda, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "This is Israel and Iran, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Israel: The Indictment of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Last week, Israeli police recommended that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman be indicted on criminal charges. According to the police, there is sufficient evidence that Lieberman took bribes, fraudulently received goods, violated the duties of his public office, obstructed justice, harassed witnesses, and laundered millions of shekels using a host of shell companies and bank accounts. Furthermore, according to a police source, Lieberman contacted witnesses during the investigation despite being told not to do so.
The case was passed to state prosecutors and to Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz. On the same day, Lieberman issued a statement, claiming that the police's decision was without foundation and that he was the victim of political persecution:

For 13 years the police have conducted a campaign of persecution against me. There was not one real reason to open an investigation against me. I hope that, as opposed to the police, the other law enforcement bodies will act with reason, without political interests and without prejudice, and will not try to justify the longest political investigation in the history of the state.

One day later, Lieberman told a meeting of his party, Israel Beiteinu, that he would resign as Foreign Minister and party leader if Mazuz pressed charges. He added, “I'm happy that after great efforts and an appeal to the High Court of Justice, the investigation at least has reached its conclusion, and I hope the State Attorney's Office will supply a swift answer."

According to The Jerusalem Post, the Attorney General could take at least two months to issue an indictment. In the event of Lieberman's  resignation, the post of Foreign Minister will likely go to his deputy, Danny Ayalon, who is also a high-ranking official in Israel Beitenu.

Boiling Point for US-Israeli Relations: The Warning to Israel from Within

UPDATE (9 August, 1920 GMT): The Israeli Government is bringing the hammer down on Nadav Tamir after his criticism of the Netanyahu Government and its endangerment of US-Israeli relations. He has been summoned home and disciplined for his "very regrettable" memorandum.

You want to know how much trouble is Tamir in? Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon not only went public on Army Radio with criticism of the diplomat. He took the trouble to Twitter, "Nadav Tamir's document was not the work of a professional and contained more opinion than data."

How serious is the effect on US-Israeli relations of Israel’s uncompromising hard line on Palestine?

According to the Israeli daily newspaperHaaretz, Israel's consul general in Boston, Nadav Tamir, wrote a warning letter to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Tamir accused the Netanyahu Government of endangering relations with Washington and risking the alienation of the Jewish lobby in the United States:

The manner in which we are conducting relations with the American administration is causing strategic damage to Israel. The distance between us and the US administration has clear consequences for Israeli deterrence.

There are American and Israeli political elements who oppose Obama on an ideological basis and who are ready to sacrifice the special relationship between the two countries for the sake of their own political agendas.

There has always been a discrepancy in the approaches of both states [on the issue of settlements], but there was always a level of coordination between the governments. Nowadays, there is a sense in the United States that Obama is forced to deal with the obduracy of the governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel.

The administration is making an effort to lower the profile of the disagreements, and yet it is [Israel] that...is highlighting the differences.

The letter of Israel's Consul General is an explicit rejection of Israeli political language, which has been intensifying around the importance of Israeli ethnicity and Judaism, especially on the issue of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Moreover, it underlines the effect on US perceptions. Israel’s image is shifting from a democratic and modern ally to “the source of obduracy” in the region as Israeli politicians dig in their heels on the issue of a freeze on settlements.

Indeed, the wider context bears out the pertinence of Tamir’s warning, with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s ultra-nationalism and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s selective reading of political history.

In an interview with The Times of London in June, Lieberman  applied the “clash of civilizations” theory to the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was part of a broader "clash of values between civilizations" and was not the key for bringing peace to the region. He asserted, "With 9/11 and terrorist acts in London, Madrid, Bali, in Russia, I can't see any linkage with the Israeli-Palestinian problem."

In his major foreign policy speech in June, Netanyahu rejected an open approach to negotiations for a one-sided presentation of history:

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence… The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel… All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.

Palestine, for the Prime Minister, is always “the other” Israel's “universal, modern and right” values…

It is these statements that are the target of Tamir’s letter. Can Lieberman and Netanyahu sustain these statements when there are increasing doubts in Washington --- both because of the direct consequences for Palestine and the wider efects in the region --- over whether the political situation issustainable?

Israel and Palestine: The Latest Manoeuvres of Hamas and Fatah

After Saudi Arabia rejected the US plan for Arab gestures towards Israel to establish diplomatic ties, Saudi King Abdullah warned that the rift among Palestinians was more damaging to their cause of an independent state than the Israeli "enemy".

In a letter to Palestinians gathering at Fatah’s sixth General Assembly, the King said:

"The arrogant and criminal enemy was not able, during years of continued aggression, to hurt the Palestinian cause as much as the Palestinians hurt their cause themselves in the past few months... I can honestly tell you, brothers, that even if the whole world joins to found a Palestinian independent state, and if we have full support for that, this state would not be established as long as the Palestinians are divided."

Abdullah's message comes as Hamas sends stronger signals that it wishes to sign an agreement with Fatah on August 24 in Cairo. On Wednesday, Hamas’s leader in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, stated that Hamas had informed the Egyptian leadership that it wants a unity deal by the 25th.

It is too simple, however, to see this as a one-way Hamas drive for unity. Instead, it appears that the organisation is also looking to pin any blame for failure on Fatah.

Hamas is still guarding against any appearance of weakness and of a Fatah freed to strike a unilateral deal with Israel. So it did not let Fatah delegates leave the Gaza Strip for the West Bank.

Yet Hamas' fears of Fatah "giving in" to Tel Aviv may be overstated. Although some observers expected a significant shift in strategy, the Fatah leadership is not ruling out the option of struggle through arms, although delegates may agree on replacing a statement of 'armed struggle' to 'resistance'. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas said, "While we stress that we have endorsed the path of peace and negotiations on the basis of international legitimacy, we also reserve our authentic right to legitimate resistance as guaranteed by international law."

So Fatah is aiming at distancing itself further from a “terrorist” Hamas but, at the same time, it is not permitting any political vacuum that Hamas to fill. And that in turn means that Abbas will reiterate Fatah's positions on the right of Palestinian return and the rejection of Jewish settlement construction both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, which it leads, can get tangible concessions from Israel and if the Obama Administration can get close to a settlement, then Hamas will be stuck inside the Gaza Strip. However, if the process is drawn out, then Fatah will suffer and, conversely, Hamas will strengthen.