The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (9 February)

Evening Update (11:30 p.m.): Tonight brings another Hamas report that gaps between Israel and the Gazan leadership are narrowing and a cease-fire agreement could be arranged within days. The specifics on border crossings and a prisoner swap are still unclear, although it is now reported that there would be a 300-meter "buffer zone" on either side of the border from which "militants" would be excluded.

6:45 p.m. Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk has told The Daily Telegraph that the situation in Gaza "can only be dealt with by period of calm between the two sides". According to the Telegraph, Hamas is offering Israel a Tahdia, a period of non-aggression, while the cease-fire of a Hudna, or ceasefire, awaits an agreement in which Israel withdraws from Palestinian territory.



5:55 p.m. Hamas has returned United Nations stocks of food and blankets that it had seized in two raids last week. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency will now resume deliveries throughout Gaza.

Afternoon Update (4:45 p.m.): A Meeting to Interpret. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met Monday in Paris, with the main topic Cairo's brokering of discussing between Hamas and Israel. Mubarak kept details close to his chest, however, saying, "We discussed the date at which a return to calm could come. Perhaps starting next week."

The Palestinian organisation Popular Resistance Committees, which coordinated with Hamas in the seizure of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006, said Monday that there had been no progress on a prisoner swap involving their captive.

CNN offers an update on this morning's Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.

9 a.m. An Israeli tank shell has killed a man in northern Gaza, following Israeli airstrikes on two targets in the south, including a Hamas security compound.

Morning Update: Will there be an Israel-Gaza agreement put to Tel Aviv today? The Egyptian newspaper al-Gomhouria reports that a Hamas delegation including top official Mahmoud az-Zahar will return to Cairo today, bringing a "positive answer" to proposals discussed over the weekend. The paper reports that agreement on a cease-fire of at least 12 months could be arranged in the next 48 hours.

Comments

[don mac namara]

Tonight the world is at a precipice as Israelis go to the polls tomorrow.
They will choose between a moderate Left on a bellicose Right .
Mr Netenyahu is the front runner and is poised to take another Right wing party into a governing coalition with him.
Why is the world watching or should be watching the developments in Israel with scrutiny?
Mr Netanyahu is undoubtedly an able politician ; but he is more politician than statesman. Where a statesman will think altruistically and more globally Mr Netanyahu can scarcely think more than regionally ; where the statesman can think longtermism the politician thinks selfishly and for the short term immediacy .
He has stated with some calculated hyperbole that the biggest threat facing world stability at this moment in history is Iran. By staking his claim to this he is displaying an acute ignorance of the imminent collapse of the capitalist system; he is doing so at a time when all the finest economists ‘mind’s in the world are endeavouring to salvage the system from total wipe out.
Economies , large and small have depended on the capitalist system for the past few hundred years ; and given all other systems it can best be said of capitalism that it is the best worst system.
In this regard if it can not be salvaged we are in totally uncharted water to use that tired old cliché; but there is simply no better way of expressing it.

But Mr Netanyahu has chosen to ignore economic meltdown globally and has focused his cross hairs on Iran and its nuclear proliferation .
Selfish ; local; regional . In so doing he is goading the worst instincts of the nascent Obama administration to come on board and fight his personal war for him. It remains to be seen whether Obama has the determination to deflect the administration from acquiescing to this toxic ideology .

Mr Netanyahu will be very mindful how the Bush cabal had Iran lined up after Iraq. He will also be mindful of the USA’s recent message to Iran and Russia through the mouthpiece of Mr Biden , who has cautioned both Iran and Russia of a peace contingent on compliance with USA’s specific agendas in both countries. Nuclear missiles in Iran ; positioning USA defence batteries against Russia in Eastern Europe ( Check Republic and Poland - both members of the EU) and threats of sanctions coupled with militarism against Iran .

There is a further more pressing consideration which should give us pause; it the danger that Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party probably most closely resonates with the Israeli mind set. So many Israelis believe that the outgoing administration has left some unfinished business in Gaza , and want the job finished. Mr Netanyahu has indicated that such a commitment might be a priority for his new coalition .
This policy , coming as it does even before the scorched wounds of Gaza have begun to soothe seems scarcely comprehendible . Even as UNCHR . The UN and others are considering indicting Israeli Officers for war crimes Mr Netanyahu has signalled his willingness to reinvade Gaza.
But as he is more politician than statesman his vacillation on this question will be contingent on how such a course would pander to populism within the Israeli electorate.
The late King Hussein of Jordan befriended Netanyahu in the belief that he could persuade the latter to adopt a more consolatory line in adopting a two State solution to the Arab Israeli conflict . When he thought he had persuaded Mr Netanyahu that such a course was not only prudent one to bring about peace for all the Semitic peoples of the area ( Jews , Arabs , Phoenecians Aramaics ) Mr Netanyahu again changed his mind and betrayed his old friend.
Now as they go out to vote tomorrow , the Israelis have a clear choice ; that between peace and a return to disproportionate warfare 1300 / 8 casualties.
Bombing hospitals and schools , UN depots , stores ,places of refuge.
The use of white phosphorous in built up areas; bulldozing down dwellings with people still in the rubble ; war where one third of the casualties are children.
Or they can reject Netanyahu and opt for a more dovish administration. The choice is theirs ; revenge or reconciliation.

[ChrisE]

"Or they can reject Netanyahu and opt for a more dovish administration."

Or they could choose Lieberman- or any of the other 33 parties.

It is entirely wrong to state that the choice is between the hard right and the moderate or 'dovish' left. The next government in Israel will more likely be one of these coalitions:

Center-Right Coalition (Likud, Kadima and Labour)

Netanyahu (or perhaps Livni) PM

This locks out Lieberman

Hard Right Coalition (Likud and Yisrael Beitenu plus other smallright wing parties)

Netanyahu PM, Lieberman maybe Defence

dark horse coalition (kadima, Labour and Yisrael Beintenu)

Livni PM- Netanyahu locked out from being PM

There is no prospect of a 'dovish', 'moderate' or 'leftist' Israeli coalition

[don mac namara]

ChrisE,

In five of the above 7 formulations you have included Netanyahu.
If as I suspect you are not suggesting that Netanyahu is a "dove " and that he is on the Right , it would appear that you would also be suggesting that the choice is between the Right and the Left .( however slim the chances of that Left is )

I am making the personal observation that Netanyahu will be more Right than he is even currently profiled; and that he is more bellicose than even his electorate had hoped..
In this context I should perhaps simplify my conjecture thus ; the choice is between re invasion of Gaza , expansion of the occupied territories (up / down or lateral / land grab) and some byzantine form of diplomacy by the Left.
But we seem to be in broad agreement that neither the Dove nor the Left shall prevail.
My pessimism suggests to me ; Netanyahu / expansionism/ re invasion of Gaza.
I will bet you 61 shekels that Netanyahu will dominate any new coalition . The number is not arbitrary.

[chrisE]

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear- but I was actually predicting 3 possible coalitions: Center Right, Far Right or a strange Lieberman- Livni group.

I think that the likely govt will be a very complex and unstable coalition that could be broadly defined as center-right. I still think Netanyahu will be PM but with 30% of the Israeli electorate 'undeciders' it is frankly almost impossible to tell.

I am certainly not suggesting that there is any chance of a 'leftist' coalition emerging and there is absolutely no way you could claim that the Israelis are been offered a choice between a right or left government. There are many leftist parties- but they do not represent a realistic vote for governance.

Netanyahu will almost certainly not 'dominate' any new coalition, as he will have to appoint either Leiberman or Livni as high ranking cabinet ministers as both their parties will almost certainly have sizable electoral mandates. Barak, I believe is his 1st choice for Defence Sec- but that will anger Lieberman. God help us, by the way, if Lieberman does get Defence.

Israeli coalitions are frankly amazingly more complex and fragile than you suggest and Netayahu will have to make major compromises to reach the '61' shekels you suggest.

In Israel politics you have to win a major major landslide to dominate any coalition. Likud looked like they may have done this- however they have since had to share the right wing vote with Yisrael Beitenu and also face a resurgent center-right Kadima.

Furthermore, the Israeli voters are not simply voting on policy re-Gaza and settlements. There are a whole range of domestic policies at stake- including the critical political reforms that actually draw some agreement between Lieberman and Livni. Netayahu will certainly struggle to 'dominate' this agenda.

[Dave]

"Or they can reject Netanyahu and opt for a more dovish administration. The choice is theirs ; revenge or reconciliation."
-------

I understand that politically incorrect candor can get me into big trouble here, but I will say that some peoples/cultures are of greater worth than others. It is my opinion that Israeli culture is more worthy than Palestinian/Arab-Islamic culture. I am aware that in liberal orthodoxy, we should believe that all cultures are equal, and that some primitive cultures are more "elightened" than the Western cultural tradition. I reject that liberal orthodoxy and I believe that, given the superiority of Israeli culture over Arab/Islamic culture, it is the duty of the West to support Israel and to help it to protect itself -- even if extraordinary measures are used. We should be more forgiving when it comes to "disproportionate" Israeli action. In my opinion, a society that grants equal rights to women and homosexuals, and adheres to the natural rights of man doctrine, does have greater worth. Unlike its Arab neighbors, Israel is a truly progressive society. It ranks among the very best in information technology, medical technology and academic scholarship. Millions of Jews perished and the survivors came with few resources. But using their intelligence and drive, they managed to turn a few desert dunes into a progressive and thriving society, and they did it in just a few short decades. Israel is not stuck in the 7th century like its neighbors.

It is always tragic when innocent people are killed, irrespective of ethnicity, race or religion. I do find it upsetting. But as I stated in the first paragraph, I believe we have an obligation to support and protect Israel, and to allow it to exercise the level of discretion that it feels is necessary in order to ensure its own survival. I believe it is our moral obligation.

If this is racism....so be it.

[don mac namara]

I have had the misfortune to have engaged with" Dave " in the past.
I do not wish to repeat the ordeal. He is quite bankrupt of the smallest degree of tolerance or temperance . I neither know nor understand , nor care what he represents .

[don mac namara]

Dave ,
Please accept my apology ; I Have made the error of mistaking you with " James "
I formed this view on the basis of my interpretation of the comments you posted suggesting that Israelis were more worthy than their neighbors in the region.
In this regard I can only conclude you are utterly blinkered and I do not wish to pursue any further discourse with you .
You could of course be a "trool " or is it "troll" .in which case you will I suspect continue to amuse yourself as" trools " do.
Why not try masturbation .
It might bring temporary relief and divert your unwieldy imagination and give you immeasurably more satisfaction.

In any case do not expect me to take your commentary seriously.

[Dave]

"Why not try masturbation .
It might bring temporary relief and divert your unwieldy imagination and give you immeasurably more satisfaction."

-------

I just remembered I have to buy new pairs of socks to replace the ones I ruined. Thanks for the reminder, Don.

[ChrisE]

Dave- can you coherently articulate Israeli culture for me? And then Palestinian/Arab-Islamic? If you can I'll buy you a new sock...

What is also interesting is that you seem to suggest that only the politically 'correct' or 'orthodox liberals' reject overt racism.

[Dave]

Christianity, with its Judaic foundation, is the wellspring of Western culture. Israel is a product of that, along with values that originate from the Enlightenment. So, when we defend Israel, we are defending ourselves.

Unless the Muslim world has its own enlightenment era, it won't change. Islam is a legalistic religion. Judiaism is not nearly as legalistic and Christianity is a mystical religion. Islam is just as much a political ideology as it is a religion. An enlightenment for Islam may not be possible. Winston Churchill and William Gladstone called Islam "retrograde"...

[ChrisE]

The only thing noteworthy in your last post is that you don't refute being a racist.

Churchill and Gladstone's comments were, of course, in defence of British imperialism (which, like your own beliefs, was firmly rooted in racial superiority theory).

Islam also has a Judaic foundation.

Israel also consists of Jews from Eastern Europe and from the Middle East and Africa. Equally, the very claim and basis of a Jewish nation of Israel pre-dates Christianity and certainly any enlightenment. Israel, and the pursuit there of, is not simply a product of your version of 'western culture'.

You show as much contempt for historical accuracy, or even simple logic, as you do for non 'western' humanity. I can't be bothered to correct your ignorance any further.

[Dave]

I will respond by posting something I posted in December.

I think we miss the point here with the issue of racism. The fact is, we of the Western cultural tradition have a habit of placing our values/ideals, traditions, religion, etc. under the microscope - for criticism. The vast majority of the world’s cultures do not. We are the exception. The vast majority of the world’s cultures do not see other cultures and value systems as having equal worth to their own. They do not because they are ethnocentric. The fact that the West does this actually proves the superiority of the Western cultural tradition — or at least creates such a perception. We have the political superiority of the natural rights doctrine, which grants us free exercise of reason- aside from the doctrine’s core tenets of ‘the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, this has come with high price because we have abandoned enthnocentrism. Reason is used to pursue truth. I am not opposed to adopting values and ideas from other cultures if they benefit our society. But I do not believe that all other cultures and their values to be of equal worth.

It is important to note that we exercise a high degree of tolerance on cultures that do not exercise tolerance themselves. But again - that ability itself can create the perception of Western cultural superiority.

In the Muslim world, there is no natural rights doctrine, therefore no freedom to exercise reason in the pursuit of truth. Here is a dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim to illustrate my point.

Q: How much freedom do you have in Muslim countries?

A: [Muslims] will tell you there is no compulsion in religion. I was with the minister of religion of a major country that I will leave unnamed. He was a very courteous man and he was talking about the work they were doing. They had just met in Malaysia about improving the image of Islam. I asked, ‘Why do you feel it needs to be improved?’ He said, ‘Well, September 11. We are often represented as using compulsion in religion.’ I said, ‘I don’t want to be discourteous, but if I were in your country and I were a Muslim, would I be free to disagree with it?’ He said, ‘Why would you want to do that?’ I said, ‘No, I am just asking theologically: Would I be free to disbelieve it?’ He said, ‘Well, these things get more complicated when you deal with a country’s laws and all.’ I said, ‘When you say there is no compulsion in religion, you are looking at one side of the coin, meaning you will never force someone to become what you are. But to have no compulsion means you should not compel somebody to believe something when they want to disbelieve it. That is a very critical test for compulsion.

There is no law in the land where I live, compelling me to [be a Christian]. But in your land, if I chose to disbelieve [Islam], I have to stand before a tribunal of justices and explain it. How can I withstand such intimidation and be honest and not pay for it at the same time? Frankly, he wouldn’t give me an answer. I think if Islam is going to rise to the level many moderates want to see it, they will have to take off the heavy foot of compulsion in their own lands. Then it can be a legitimate representation of how many believe.

[Dave]

"Islam also has a Judaic foundation. "
----

If you mean it as being one of the Abrahamic religions, then yes. But it stops there.

[don mac namara]

ChrisE .
I'd like to bring this back to where it started ; the results I have at hand are;
The Kadima party won the most votes, but not enough to win outright.

Right-wing Likud claims the strong showing of smaller nationalist parties means it has the best chance of forming a coalition government.
The governing centrist Kadima won 28 seats and the right-wing Likud opposition won 27 - both well short of the 61 needed to form a government.

Kadima: 28 seats
Likud: 27 seats
Yisrael Beiteinu: 15
Labour: 13
Shas: 11
United Torah Judaism: 5

You were close in your analysis . I suspect however you did not expect that the two larger parties would be quite so close.

But to return to a point I was making - that of " reconciliation or re invasion"
Probably overly simplistic, but I am assuming that Likud can facilitate Beiteinu, and hence Liberman.
What then would stay Netenyahu's hand from re invading Gaza-, concluding the "unfinished business".
Yes I appreciate it's not the only item on the agenda , but I'm naively perhaps making a quantum leap here.
I started my contribution to this post expressing my fear for the Right's holding Iran in their crosshairs, simply because of Israel's fear of Iran having a nuclear countervailing deterrant. This emasculates Israel's supremacy in the region, and presents the vista down the track of Israel having to negotiate with Iran.
I do believe that the USA would provide Israel with the " star wars " technology , if it fact it works.
This is why I formed the opinion that were the hawks to prevail in the form of Netenyahu , that he would have the capacity to expand / enlarge the settlements, close the border crossings , strangle the lifeblood of Palestinians in Gaza , and thereby provoke a Hamas backlash .
This would increase the gravitational pull which the Palestinians have for the support from the neighboring Arab countries- except Jordan and Saudi.
Iran would be a willing provider of military arsenal yet again.
If Iranian complicity in Palestinian retaliation is proven , this makes for an easier formula for Israel invoking its preemptive nuclear strike.

I simply don't see what or who would stay Netenyahu's hand in these circumstances. After all , he has stated that Iran poses a greater threat to Global stability that the global economic melt down.

Am I right in even making the apparently logical assumption that Yisrael Beiteinu will be king makers.?
And if this is the case are not my other apprehensions not only valid but rather more inevitable.?

Don

[don mac namara]

If as seem likely now that Mr Netenyahu succeeds in proving to the Israelis president , that his is the most likely party to form a government ,the conjecture posited above seem quite plausible .
He will initially , at least , try to curry favour with the Obama persidency.
The important word is " Initially ".
It should be recalled that Netenyahu previously resiled his position on a two state solution with President Hussein of Jordan.
There is no reason to suspect that he may not do the same to Obama.
Mr Mitchell is a patient and wise man . His mettle was tested in N Ireland . And it was not found wanting. The IRA decommissioned their weapons and the two polar opposites finally sat down together in parliament .

The case in Israel is quite different despite the apparent similarities , both sectarian and other interests playing out here.
Mr Netenyahu's right wing and Zionism may place him in a position which is untenable with the somewhat nebulous Obama position.
If Netenyahu sees some wriggle room in an illdefined Obama position , he will undoubtedly exploit it to his own ends.

Econonically Netenyahu was formerlly at least associated with an open economy with low taxation and moving jobs to lower wage economies.
That culture - Milton Freeman and the Chicago Boys has proved globally catastrophic, and whether Mr Netenyahu remains a disciple , if covertly so , is as yet undetermined.

The vexed question about whether Iran is developing a Nuclear bomb., or whether it is developing a nuclear capability in tandem with its power plants is probably a moot point.
As Mr Chirac said previously in terms of the 25000 nuclear warheads scattered globally , and Iran's rather precocious stage in developing a nuclear bomb , " even if they have one of even two , the bomb would not be 200 metres in the air before Tehran was razed."

What will be most interesting will be how Mr Netenyahu dealls with the Israeli bourgeoisie , Will he be a Napoleon figure ?
Will he be presidential , or political.
Will he be bellicose or balming.