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.

Israel-Gaza: How to Cover a Mass Killing with "Balance"

Morning Update (7:30 a.m. GMT; 2:30 a.m. Israel/Palestine): The New York Times has a lengthy article on the mass killing in El Atatra, in which 16 civilians allegedly died amidst fighting that killed four soldiers.

The article is a careful study in how to maintain balance in an unbalanced situation:

The war in El Atatra tells the story of Israel’s three-week offensive in Gaza, with each side giving a very different version. Palestinians here describe Israeli military actions as a massacre, and Israelis attribute civilian casualties to a Hamas policy of hiding behind its people. In El Atatra, neither version appears entirely true, based on 50 interviews with villagers and four Israeli commanders.

So what is the middle ground between these versions?

The dozen or so civilian deaths seem like the painful but inevitable outcome of a modern army bringing war to an urban space. And while Hamas fighters had placed explosives in a kitchen, on doorways and in a mosque, they did not seem to be forcing civilians to act as shields.

All right, so Hamas is cleared of the most serious charge of hiding behind civilians, while Israel gets a reduced civilian death toll and the let-off that "S*** Happens" in modern warfare. But hold on, go back to the top of the article:

The phosphorus smoke bomb punched through the roof in exactly the spot where much of the family had taken refuge — the upstairs hall away from the windows. The bomb, which international weapons experts identified as phosphorus by its fragments, was intended to mask troop movements outside. Instead it breathed its storm of fire and smoke into Sabah Abu Halima’s hallway, releasing flaming chemicals that clung to her husband, baby girl and three other small children, burning them to death.

That would be not just phosphorous then but "white phosphorous", the use of which in built-up areas with civilians is illegal under international law. Reporters Ethan Bronner and Sabrina Tavernise, for all the admirable detail in their article, never directly mention this. Instead, they pass the buck:

The question of how Israel handled civilians in this war has become a matter of keen controversy. Human rights groups are crisscrossing Gaza, documenting what they believe will form the basis for war crimes proceedings aimed at demonstrating that Israel used disproportionate force.

Israeli officers said they took special care not to harm civilians.

Balance? Journalistic objectivity, yes. Offering evidence but then hiding its significance, no.

Elsewhere Bronner and Tavernise depict graphically the shooting of unarmed civilians trying to surrender and the dead lying uncollected for 11 days as dogs ate their remains. And, in their understated way, they offer a chilling forecast of the consequences from the El Atatra mass killing, which will not occur in an international court but in further conflict:

Matar’s mother, Nabila Abu Halima, said she had been shot through the arm when she tried to move toward her son. Her left arm bears a round scar. Her son came back to her in pieces, his body crushed under tank treads....

“We used to tell fighters not to fire from here,” said Nabila Abu Halima, looking over a field through her open window. “Now I’ll invite them to do it from my house.”

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (3 February)

Current Obamameter Reading: Fair but Long-Term Prospect of Storms

11:20 p.m. Well, not much to wrap up --- world still in one piece and Obama Administration preoccupied with the forced withdrawal of Tom Daschle's nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary because of tax problems.

We've got inside story on two major developments, however, regarding Afghanistan and Iran and will be leading the morning update with these in a few hours.

Good night and peace to all.



7:30 p.m. We're suspending service for the very good reason that we're seeing Steve Earle's son Justin in concert. Back later with an evening wrap-up.

6:10 p.m. Oops, Spoke Too Soon. We reported 30 minutes ago of far-from-panicked response of the US Administration to the Iran satellite launch, but in another sign that the Obama White House is far from unified in both message and policy, a Pentagon spokesman is not so laid back: "It is certainly a reason for us to be concerned about Iran and its continued attempts to develop a ballistic missile program of increasingly long range."

One can only hope that the US gets its act on Iran together before the meeting on Wednesday with Russia, China, and the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) in Berlin. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held the line today: ""It is clear that ... Iran has an opportunity to step up and become a productive member of the international community."

6 p.m. Score One for Moscow. As we projected this morning (10:25 a.m.), the Russian offer of aid to Kyrgyzstan has had consequences for the US. Reports indicate the US airbase, strategically important for support of Afghanistan, will be closed.

5:45 p.m. The Israeli Government won't be pleased, but this seems a sensible (if unofficial and anonymous) line on the Iran satellite launch from an Obama staffer. The strategic balance in the region is unaltered: ""The satellite technology they have deployed is probably not state of the art, but for the Iranians this is an important symbolic step forward."

1:45 p.m. The Islamic insurgent group, Al-Shabab, has called on Somalis to drive African Union troops out of the country.

11:25 a.m. An interesting piece from Reuters: "The Obama administration has toned down U.S. rhetoric against Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, dropping for now a public demand the veteran African leader step down." Policy towards Zimbabwe is under review, but with no appointment yet of the State Department's top personnel for Africa, this may take take some time.

11:20 a.m. Iran Coming in from the US Cold? If so, one reason will be the increasingly difficult position for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. NATO's top commander, General John Craddock, has told the Associated Press, that the alliance would not object to individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan: "Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces."

10:45 a.m. Russia and the US may be maneouvring for advantages in places like Central Asia, but the direct relationship continues to improve. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by phone on Tuesday. The chief topic, according to a Russian statement, was "the mutual interest of building a positive agenda".

10:35 a.m. Update on the Stalemate over Drugs/AIDS Policy. The Guardian has a follow-up article on our analysis on Sunday about the State Department's blocking of any reference to "harm reduction" in a United Nations declaration on drug use and AIDS.

10:25 a.m. One to Watch in Central Asia. Russia, as part of its ongoing manoeuvres vs. the US for influence in the region, may offer "hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency aid" to Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev during his talks in Moscow with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Kremlin officials said that military co-operation would be discussed but did not indicate whether the offer of the aid and that co-operation has any connection to current US efforts to renew the lease on its airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The US base is a vital supply route for forces in Afghanistan.

10 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry on the revelation in The Washington Post that a Pentagon memo says Blackwater, the security firm responsible for numerous civilian deaths in Iraq, is not subject to US criminal laws.

9:45 a.m. A Reminder Why Obama is Better. Today's New York Times has an editorial by a Mr John Bolton, who I believe was an official in the George W. Bush Administration, on Sunday's Iraqi provincial elections.

Not one of the 500 words is devoted, however, to the significance of the elections for Iraqis. Instead, Bolton's concern is how the vote "redefine Iran's role in the region".

Readers who move beyond the superficial headline --- or the question of why the Times continues to give space to Bolton to blow hard; the three reactions from Iraqi bloggers are far more important --- may recognise the strategy of the Bush Administration: make Iraq a demonstration to show American strength to others in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. But, to keep it simple....

It's Not All About Iran.

7:45 a.m. The Flaws in the Afghanistan Strategy. We've just posted a separate entry on a revealing --- and disturbing --- speech by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State yesterday.

Morning Update (7 a.m. GMT; 2 a.m. Washington): NATO statistics show a 30 percent increase in attacks by roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2008. Overall attacks were up 31 percent, and deaths of US and NATO forces rose 26 percent.

Pakistani insurgents have blown up a major bridge in the Khyber Pass,west of Peshawar, further restricting movement along the supply route to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The US military is looking for alternative routes to the Pass and another route via Chaman to its Afghan base in Kandahar because of insurgent attacks; up to 75 percent of supplies to US and NATO forces could be affected. Pakistani military claimed it has killed 35 militants in fighting in the Swat Valley.

Iran, timing the breakthrough with the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, has launched its first satellite orbiting the Earth.

Fighting in Somalia, which we reported yesterday, killed at least 39 civilians. The incident followed a bomb targeting African Union troops, which injured one soldier.

Obama vs. The Generals: The Withdrawal from Iraq

We've noted since Day 2 of the Obama Administration the dispute between the President and the military over Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. This is shaping up, however, to be more than a contest over Iraq policy; it could be a symbolic showdown of who calls the shots in Barack's White House.

Gareth Porter, one of the best investigative reporters around, has updated the story (the full article is reprinted below). General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, tried to back down Obama at a 21 January meeting, pushing a scheme to relabel US combat troops as "support troops". The President held firm: "He wanted [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan."



Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the meeting. Perhaps more significantly, military sources started spinning against the President. Retired General Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus, was telling news outlets on the evening of 21 January that Obama's plan would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months", jeopardising the "stable political situation in Iraq". Another Petraeus ally and his replacement as commander of US forces in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno, went as far as to give an interview to The New York Times, published on 29 January: "It might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly."

According to Porter, the statements by Keane, Odierno, and other unnamed sources are only the beginning. A military network, "which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq".

Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision
GARETH PORTER

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".

The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.

That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.

Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge.
It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan.

Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.

Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq.

Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them."

Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.

But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.

All Talk, No Clean Needles? The Obama Administration, Drugs Policy, and AIDS Prevention

Much praise has been given, quite rightly, to President Obama's new tone on US co-operation in international health and social programmes, such as his revocation of Ronald Reagan's "gag order" on American organisations assisting with health and family planning efforts.

Yet, whatever the good intentions, the Obama Administration already faces a serious test within its own ranks. State Department officials at a United Nations drugs conference in Vienna have been blocking any reference to "harm reduction" because the phrase might refer to proposals for the exchange of used needles and syringes. The proposals are supported by most delegations at the conference, including the European Union.



The White House website sets out Obama's position as "lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users." There has been no move, however, to change the current policy, and the State Department's officials are studiously adhering to it. The situation is further complicated because the State Department's global AIDS coordinator, Dr Mark Dybul, was forced to resign on 22 January, as he was a Bush appointee, and no replacement has been named.

A draft version of the UN declaration, dated 15 January, included language to "develop, review and strengthen" drug-treatment programs to include "harm reduction measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use and dependence". The US, joined by Russia, Japan, and Colombia, insisted the language be removed. The clause was moved into a footnote but that was also rejected by the US.

The matter is urgent because the draft is to be ratified by the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs on 12-13 March.

There has been some public movement in the US on the issue. On Wednesday, three members of Congress asked Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, to act, and The New York Times had an editorial on Saturday calling for quick action by Obama. The story, however, has had little circulation in other media.