Has the Obama Administration Brought Hamas into A Palestine Unity Government?

Last Thursday George Mitchell, the US envoy in the Middle East, in a conference calls with Jewish-American leaders, stated the full support of the Obama Administration for a Palestinian unity government. That in itself is a long-standing American policy; what was significant was that Mitchell indicated the unity government could include not only Fatah, the party behind the Palestianian Authority, but also Hamas.

The timing of Mitchell’s intervention was even more important. As of last Thursday, Egypt’s efforts to bring Fatah and Hamas together in “reconciliation” talks, scheduled for 22 February, appeared to be going nowhere. Although Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas had praised Cairo’s initiative but Hamas had refused unless the Palestinian Authority released its members from jails in the West Bank. This weekend, after Mitchell’s statement was widely publicised by the Obama Administration (and after British and French delegations had met with Hamas representatives in Beirut and Damascus and after three US Congressmen visited Gaza), Egypt was able to announce that the talks would proceed on Wednesday.

Of course, Mitchell continued to emphasise the long-standing conditions of the “Quartet” of the US-European Union-United Nations-Russia for Hamas’ political participation: halting violence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. But these demands have already been accepted, at least in their rhetoric, by the officials of Hamas, as the organisation moves away from its 1988 Charter. What has been needed, given the double standards applied to Israeli behaviour and that of Hamas, has been some sign of goodwill which would permit legitimacy for the Hamas leadership.

It is unclear what that sign, for Mitchell, was. On the surface, there was no need to recognise a “victorious” Hamas, because the party has been weakened by the Gazan conflict. While Hamas was not defeated militarily by Israel or even significantly damaged, and while it has had a short-term political boost --- especially compared with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority --- as the defender of Palestinians, it cannot turn this to a decisive advantage against Tel Aviv, as Hezbollah did in the Lebanon War in 2006. Politically, with its ostracism by the West, it still lacks the image of an established “authority”, in contrast to that given to the Palestine Liberation Organization from the 1980s.

However, Hamas’ inability to project “victory” --- at least to the West and Israel, if not its own people --- may have actually worked to its advantage and brought Mitchell’s signal. Because the group might be represented as needing to moderate its views in order to get any role in the peace process, the Obama Administration can contain the notion of Hamas as imminent threat to a new Israeli Government.

Indeed, with Israel itself in transition, Mitchell could put the challenge to Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Khaled Meshaal or Ismail Haniya: “Form a government that is ready for dialogue and cooperation in solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem.”

So the hand has been extended, very indirectly and at a distance but still extended, to Hamas by Obama. The 44th President of the United States of America, unlike his predecessor, has given priority to an meaningful peace process rather than the rigid mantra of “Israeli security”. If Hamas got the second of its nine lives through survival in the Gaza War, it now has a third political life. Whether that continues may be conditioned on whether it can find some consensus with Fatah now.

The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (12 February)

9:35 p.m. A member of the Hamas negotiating team in Cairo says a cease-fire agreement with Israel will be announced within 72 hours. Israeli officials have offered no comment on the claim.

9:30 p.m. Evening Update: Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend an international donors' conference for Gaza next month in Cairo. Gheit met Clinton in Washington to urge a more "even-handed approach" to Israel and Palestine than that shown by the Bush Administration.

12:30 p.m. Interesting and little-noticed development in Cairo. High-ranking Fatah officials met the Hamas delegation on Tuesday, raising the possibility of a reconciliation. Hamas had earlier said that it would not attend a 22 February meeting in Cairo to discuss Palestinian unity, but Fatah's Azzam el-Ahmed says that the Gazan leadership is now considering attendance.



10:30 a.m. I Heart You from Tel Aviv: "Israel temporarily eased its blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Thursday to allow Palestinian flower growers to export 25,000 blooms to Europe ahead of Valentine's Day."

Morning Update (8 a.m. GMT; 10 a.m. Israel/Palestine): No significant movement overnight on either the formation of the new Israeli Government or the Israel-Gaza cease-fire talks. There could be some development in Cairo today, at least in Hamas' position, as its delegation is meeting Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.

Washington, after the high profile of the George Mitchell mission, is standing well back at the moment. Its token move yesterday was to welcome an Egyptian confernce on aid for Gaza, which will not take place until 2 March. Still, the US Government can't let go of its "Mahmoud Abbas Good, Hamas Bad" political approach: the US hopes the conference will "support the Palestinian Authority's plan for the reconstruction of Gaza as an integral part of a future Palestinian state".

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Forces have carried out an airstrike against a target in southern Gaza.

The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (10 February)

10 p.m. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz is reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud and Avigdor Lieberman of Israeli-Beitenu have had a phone conversation about a possible coalition government.

9:40 p.m. A Qassam rocket has landed in the southern Negev in Israel.

8 p.m. Voting closes in Israeli election. First exit polls have Kadima (party of Tzipi Livni) at 30 seats; Likud (party of Benjamin Netanyahu) 28; "far-right" Israel-Beitenu (Avigdor Lieberman) 15. Labor (Ehud Barak) on course for worst performance ever.

As there are 120 seats in Knesset, there will have to be a coalition with at least 61 members to form a secure Government. That in turn means that even a Kadima-Likud coalition is not sure of a majority in the new parliament.

11:10 a.m. The New York Times has an article on the detention of student Philip Rizk by Egyptian authorities after his walk with friends to raise money for Gazans.

11 a.m. Hamas official Osama Hamdan says further manoeuvres for an agreement with Israel on Gaza will now depend on  the outcome of today's Israeli election: ""If [Likud leader Benjamin] Netanyahu wins, I don't think that the current government will conclude an agreement. If the current government wins, they could reach an agreement."

10:45 a.m. I'm Still Here. Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, trying to assert his leadership as Hamas negotiates an agreement with Israel, has said he is ready to talk to Tel Aviv if "the new Israeli government a halt to new settlements".



Morning Update (9 a.m. GMT; 11 a.m. Israel/Palestine): The headline story is today's Israeli elections, which the media are now projecting as "too close to call" between the Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Kadima Party of Tzipi Livni for the largest number of seats. The equally important --- indeed, more important --- issue will be the make-up of the inevitable coalition that has to be formed to govern Israel.

Meanwhile, former United Nations envoy Ian Martin will head a five-member panel investigating last month's Israeli attacks on UN facilities in Gaza.

The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (8 February)

Related Post: Dose of Cold Reality Statement of the Day - Obama Style v. Middle East Substance

6:30 p.m.: An Israeli Cabinet minister, Rafi Eitan, has forecast that a prisoner swap with Hamas could be completed before the next Israeli Government takes office: "There's a strong probability that all comprehensive moves with Hamas ... will happen during the current prime minister's term, as from experience we know it takes around six weeks for them to put together a new government."

On the Palestinian side, a source says, "There are positive signals that an announcement on a deal is near, unless Israel backs off at the last minute."

Afternoon Update (4:30 p.m. GMT; 6:30 p.m. Israel/Palestine): Aid agencies are expressing frustration at the inability to get supplies into Gaza. United Nations official Chris Gunness said, "For us to move ahead with rehabilitation and repairs, we must get building materials into Gaza. Two hundred and twenty-one schools for 200,000 children only have 40 percent of their books because we can't get paper and glue into Gaza."

More than 21,000 homes are still destroyed or badly damaged.

A rocket from Gaza landed near Ashkelon in southern Israel.

7:50 a.m. We're waiting for news out of Cairo, where a high-level Hamas delegation including Mahmoud az-Zahar is in talks that could move toward a proposed Israel-Gaza settlement. The main sticking point seems to be the opening and control of border crossings.

Diplomats have said that the working proposal is for an 18-month cease-fire, with a prisoner exchange (which presumably included kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit), and opening of at least two crossings. The deal would be "phased", with crossings gradually opened as the cease-fire held and prisoner exchange proceeded.

7:45 a.m. The Israeli navy shelled the northern and western coasts of Gaza this morning, damaging dozens of fishing boats. A rocket has landed in a kibbutz in southern Israel.

7:35 a.m. The "Reconciliation" Battle Continues. In Turkey yesterday, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas called for Fatah and Hamas to create a consensus government. He then rejected Hamas' call for a new umbrella group to replace the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Which, in effect, means that Abbas has thrown "reconciliation" back to Hamas: accept the PLO framework or there will be no consensus.

Morning Update (7:30 a.m. GMT; 9:30 a.m. Israel/Palestine): In a separate entry, we've had a look at US Vice President Joe Biden's speech in Munich yesterday. With media attention focused on the "new tone" of the Obama Administration and specific issues such as Afghanistan, Russia, and Iran, almost no one noticed Biden's passage on Israel, Gaza, and Palestine.



Here's the key phrase: "We must consolidate the cease-fire in Gaza by working with Egypt and others to stop smuggling, and developing an international relief and reconstruction effort that strengthens the Palestinian Authority, and not Hamas." So, six weeks, after the Israeli attacks failed to get regime change in Gaza, it seems that the Obama Administration is still supporting options that undermine the Gazan leadership, rather than getting arrangements that help the Gazan people.

A New US Foreign Policy? The Biden Speech in Munich Yesterday

Related Post: Today in Mr Obama's Neighbourhood - The Latest in US Foreign Policy (9 February)
Related Post: Transcript of Joe Biden's Speech on Obama Foreign Policy
Related Post: Obama v. the Military - Where Next in Afghanistan?

The media chat this morning will be about Vice President Joe Biden's speech to the Munich Security Conference yesterday. Our own reading is that the easy part was Biden's signals of difference from the Bush Administration. The US would act "preventively, not pre-emptively" (no more Iraq 2003, at least over the pretext of weapons of mass destruction) and multilaterally. The emphasis will not be on magic capabilities like Missile Defense, but on a wider range of diplomatic, economic, and military instruments.

"America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those we bring to justice," Biden asserted, and he also said that the US would be constructive in finding solutions to climate change.



At the same time, Biden was careful to play the "America will be tough" card, saying the US would "vigorously protect [its] security and values, and he had a not-so-veiled challenge, if not warning, to international partners. The US would uphold alliances if they were "credible and effective" (think back to George W. Bush's 2002 lecture to the UN that it would not be "relevant" if it did not back military action over Iraq), and "America will ask for more from its partners".

Which brings us to the hard part. The Obama Administration may be far more "realist" in its approach to foreign affairs than its predecessor, but the up-front choices are daunting. Biden tried to match the Russians in the competitive co-operation, saying the US would not tolerate a Russian "sphere of influence" but continuing, "The United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide, and they coincide in many places."

On Iran, Biden stuck to the current script of possible diplomacy first but waved the stick: "Continue down the current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

OK, so the hope of "engagement" continues to flicker. What the media missed is that, on two other cases, Biden's signal is that the Obama White House may be charging ahead against perceived enemies, even if that rips up possible settlements and co-operation.

Consider this on the Middle East, which no one seemed to pick up yesterday or this morning: "We must consolidate the cease-fire in Gaza by working with Egypt and others to stop smuggling, and developing an international relief and reconstruction effort that strengthens the Palestinian Authority, and not Hamas." So, despite all the evidence that beating up on Gaza --- be it through Israeli military action or economic strangleholds --- is not dislodging the Gazan leadership and actually weakening Mahmoud Abbas, the US (at least in its public signals) is going to keep playing at the game that it doesn't have to accept the political realities. It will do so even if that means more deprivation and destruction in Gaza.

It is on Afghanisan/Pakistan, however, that this Administration could meet its downfall, and here Biden's "realism" led him to say, if we go down, we all go down together: ""We look forward to sharing that commitment with the government and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with all of our allies and partners, because a deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat not just to the United States, but I would suggest, somewhat presumptively, to every one of you assembled in this room."

The glimmer of light is that Biden also said the US "strategic review" on the two countries is not completed --- code for the battle between President Obama and the military on the way forward --- so Washington may pull back from its full-speed, military-first surge in Afghanistan.

If not, you can go back to Biden's speech and see where all the talk of a new, multilateral relationship actually had the makings of an almighty bust-up between the US and its European partners.