The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (28 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Posts: The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (27 January)
Latest Post: Keeping the Gaza-Iran Link Alive

12:40 a.m. The Egyptian newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reports, from Palestinian sources, that Hamas delegates will present their response tomorrow to Egypt's proposals. This will include an 18-month cease-fire to begin on 5 February; however, Hamas will not commit to the Palestinian unity talks proposed by Egypt on 22 February.

If --- and this is a big if --- this is true, Hamas is making a bold, challenging move. It is putting recognition of its legitimacy before other issues such as the opening of the crossings, although of course it may pursue these issues once the cease-fire is agreed. Israel would have to acknowledge Hamas as the de facto leadership of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority would be sidelined, and other Palestinian factions would have to either follow the Hamas lead or risk undermining the cease-fire.

Next move: Egypt's. Will it accept the Hamas proposal with the PR victory of a cease-fire or hold out for the "unity" talks?



11:45 p.m. Israeli military reports that a rocket has landed in southern Israel. It is the first fired since the unilateral cease-fires of 18 January.

9 p.m. A shift on Hamas? As Egypt takes a harder line, the European Union moves --- slightly --- in the other direction. The EU's foreign policy head, Javier Solana, said "that a new Palestinian government that included Hamas should commit to pursuing a two-state solution".

This is a shift from the three conditions, set down by the Quarter of the US-EU-Russia-UN, that Hamas renounce violence, recognise Israel, and recognise interim peace agreements.

Solana's seems to be a recognition that a Palestinian Authority-only approach will no longer work, given the weakness of the organisation amongst Palestinians, and that negotiations with Israel must rest on a "reconciliation" of Hamas and Fatah, the leading party in the PA.  A diplomat said, "We have to give some room to [PA leader] Mahmoud Abbas."

6:05 p.m. And let's hope that this change in tone and direction from Egypt isn't linked to the Mitchell visit. Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit has invoked the grand axis of Hamas-Hezbollah-Tehran as the culprits in Gaza: "(They tried) to turn the region to confrontation in the interest of Iran, which is trying to use its cards to escape Western pressure ... on the nuclear file."

So much for Egypt trying to lead a united Arab settlement: look for more stories of an "Arab Cold War" with Cairo squaring up against Syria.

5:45 p.m. Let's hope that US envoy George Mitchell's initial trip to the Middle East is, as President Obama indicated on Monday night, one "for America to listen". Because, from what little is emerging, I'm not sure how the journey is matching up to Mitchell's declaration that the US is "committed to vigorously pursuing lasting peace and stability in the region".

After meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday, Mitchell put forth a couple of general points for a settlement, notably an end to smuggling into the Gaza Strip and the reopening of border crossings linked to the 2005 agreement brokered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The first point, of course, is aimed at Hamas and the second, while appearing on the surface to be a concession to Gaza, is specifically tied to re-introducing Palestinian Authority forces into the area.

4:30 p.m. Seven Israeli human-rights groups have filed a claim that Israeli Defense Forces kept Gaza detainees in "horrid conditions" and treated them "inhumanely". The lawsuit, based on detainee testimony, claims "many of the prisoners were held inside holes in the ground for long hours, while they were handcuffed, blindfolded and left exposed to the harsh weather".

4:20 p.m. An Israeli emergency clinic at the Erez crossing, opened on 19 January, has closed after treating only five wounded Palestinians.

12:30 p.m. The initial press statement of US envoy George Mitchell, held after his talks in Cairo, was distinctly and diplomatically vague. Mitchell said only, "It is of critical importance that the ceasefire be extended and consolidated, and we support Egypt's continuing efforts in that regard."

Mitchell is now in Israel for discussions.

9:45 a.m. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad el Baradei, is refusing to give any interviews to the BBC after its refusal to air the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza.

8:45 a.m. False Alarm. I was very, very excited at the Ticker-flash from The New York Times: "Abdullah II: The Five-State Solution", thinking that the Saudi king had unveiled a new, grand initiative for a Middle Eastern settlement. Took me only a second to click on the link.

Unfortunately, it's just Thomas Friedman making stuff up.

Morning update (8 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): Three Israeli airstrikes on tunnels overnight, a day after the killing of an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian farmer.

US envoy George Mitchell is in talks in Cairo, including with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Meanwhile the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has kept the notion of a Gaza-Iran dispute simmering with the claim, "The United States did all it could to intercept a suspected arms shipment to Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but its hands were tied." Mullen was referring to the seizure of a Cypriot-flagged ship, which we noted at the time, which was intercepted by a US patrol at sea, taken to a port, and searched for two days. Reports at the time said "artillery", which Hamas does not use in Gaza, was found; Mullen referred to "small munitions".

Explanation? If US forces had found parts for rockets, their headline claim of Tehran support for Hamas, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to seize them and hold them up to world scrutiny --- it's not as if US "hands are tied" these days regarding international waters or even national sovereignty (for example, Pakistan). On the other hand, "small munitions" --- handguns and ammunition, for example --- isn't worth the fuss; better just to big up the incident (see the Sunday Times "story" by Uzi Mahnaimi that raised our eyebrows) to keep pressure on Iran.

The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates (20 January)

See also: Chris Emery on Israeli Elections and the Gaza Crisis: What Has Changed?

12:30 a.m. That's all for today. No real diplomatic shifts, and the story of a possible full Israeli withdrawal to welcome President Obama was clearly spin.

Most dramatic development was UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's speech when he discovered the extent of the destruction wrought by Israeli forces. Whether his emotive criticism of Tel Aviv has any effect, especially as he went straight from Gaza to a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is another question.

Good night and peace to all.

11:55 p.m. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has moved to re-define any initiatives for a settlement with Hamas, announcing in a campaign speech that Israel will not end its blockade of Gaza until there is progress in talks on the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held in Gaza since June 2006.

Meanwhile, Israel has re-confirmed its strategy to get the Palestinian Authority back into Gaza, declaring that any aid to the area should go through the UN, non-governmental organisations, or the PA.

11:40 p.m. The International Atomic Energy Agency will investigate complaints, lodged by ambassadors of Arab countries, that Israel has used depleted uranium in its munitions during the Gaza conflict.

11:30 p.m. Ha'aretz is reporting skirmishes in violation of the Gaza cease-fire on Tuesday. After Palestinian militants (not necessarily from Hamas) fired eight mortars, the Israeli Defense Forces launched an airstrike on the positions. Gunmen also fired on Israeli troops in two separate incidents.



9:45 p.m. Repeating the- importanfiret news from earlier today: Arab countries at the Kuwait summit have been unable to agree on how to support reconstruction in Gaza, disagreeing on whether aid can be dispersed via Hamas.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Obama Administration will name former Senator George Mitchell, who was instrumental in the negotiations of an agreement on Northern Ireland, as his envoy to the Middle East.

9:30 p.m. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has phoned Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to congratulate Hamas on the "victory achieved by confronting the Zionist aggression on Gaza".

9:20 p.m. We're back after a break to live-blog the Inaugural of President Barack Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been quick to offer thanks to former President George W. Bush and a welcome to Obama:

The values of democracy, brotherhood and freedom that constitute the building blocks of American society are also shared by Israeli society, together with the faith in man's power and ability to change and influence his surroundings. We wish the incoming President success in his office and are certain that we will be full partners in advancing peace and stability in the Middle East.

3:35 p.m. Al Jazeera's Mouin Rabbani on Ban's statement: "Those were very, very, very powerful words. We haven't seen a leader of this stature speak such language...condemning Israel but not the Palestinians, using the term 'Palestinian self-determination', calling for investigations and accountability....The Rubicon has been crossed here."

3:15 p.m. Ah, there he is: Ban Ki-Moon emerges, a bit shaken from his debriefing by UN staff. He is "not able to describe" how he feels about the damage and devastation, and he has "expressed his utter frustration, his utter anger" about the attack on the UN compound, asking for those responsible to be accountable.

Political questions remain: Ban continues to press the notion of "Palestinian unity", possibly without any consideration that this might imply the imposition of the Palestinian Authority upon Gaza.

2:45 p.m. UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon is still in hiding in the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza. Al Jazeera has been featuring a shot of a bank of microphones on an empty podium for the last 90 minutes.

1:40 p.m. Arab leaders at Kuwait summit pledge $2 billion for Gaza reconstruction but divide sharply over how to distribute aid: Egypt and Saudi Arabia oppose direct provision to Hamas. On the symbolic front, there is some consensus with the call for Israeli political and military leaders to be tried for war crimes.

1:10 p.m. Donald Macintyre in The Independent of London has more details of the Zeitoun mass killing.

1:02 p.m. Oh, good, a fight over the military figures rather than the humanitarian toll: Israel claims more than 500 Hamas fighters killed (vs. Hamas claim of 48 and "Palestinian factions" claim of 112 plus 170 policemen), more than 12oo of Hamas' 2000 rockets destroyed, and 80 percent of tunnels shut down.

1 p.m. Robert Fisk sums up yesterday's Kuwait summit in nine words: "There was really no adequate comment for this charade."

12:50 p.m. The medical crisis continues: Nasser Medical Compound in Khan Younis has appealed to Arab nursing unions and international organizations to “urgently send nursing staff” to the Gaza Strip to fill a large void there.

12:40 p.m. I don't know if UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is lost, or just too embarrassed to come out, but still no press conference from his visit to Gaza.

12:30 p.m. Interesting dichotomy in Gaza coverage in US and Britain: while broadcast networks have largely moved away from the news service, print journalists --- some belatedly getting access to sites and sources --- are continuing to highlight the legal and humanitarian issues. Sheera Frenkel of The Times has followed the articles in The Guardian with a human-interest story from Israeli attacks on Jabaliya, "Blind and burnt: Mahmoud, 14, young victim of banned white phosphorus shelling", and the revelation: "The Times has uncovered dozens of incidents in which doctors say that civilians have been wounded by white phosphorus."

12:15 p.m. So much for that Arab "Consensus"? Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has apparently told news services that delegations at the Kuwait summit "are unable to agree on a unified statement about Gaza".

10:20 a.m. Al Jazeera's Ayman Moyheldin continues to warn of possible outbreak of disease, with bodies now weeks old and sewage flowing over in many areas.

9:55 a.m. Eyewitnesses are telling Al Jazeera that Israeli troops are destroying buildings and infrastructure as they pull back in Gaza.

9:45 a.m. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will be in Gaza in just over an hour.

Morning Updates (8 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): The Central Bureau of Statistics in Palestine has confirmed more than 1300 Gazans have been killed and more than 5400 wounded in the conflict. More than 4,000 buildings were destroyed; another 18,000 were severely damaged. The total cost to Gaza of the invasion is more than $1.9 billion. A new and staggering figure: more than 80 percent of Gazan crops were destroyed.

Hamas has survived as the Gazan leadership, however, and it will offer a public demonstration today with a "victory rally".

Meanwhile, Barack Obama's team keep insisting that he will now enter the diplomatic arena, named a special envoy to the Middle East today. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will maintained his even-handed intervention with a visit to Sderot in southern Israel; there are reports he will also visit the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Rolling Updates (18 January)

Earlier updates: The Israeli Invasion of Gaza (17 January)
Latest Post: Hello? Gaza is Not Tehran

1 a.m. Last night we closed with: "At the very least, I’m grateful that there has been a cessation of violence in Gaza. My concern is that we’re at the start of a different phase which will not bring resolution but further hardship."

More of the same tonight. Today has been for mourning rather than dying --- only one death from violence to my knowledge, while close to 100 bodies have been pulled from the rubble. There appears to be a very gradual Israeli pullback from the edges of the cities as they re-trench in their military occupation.

The politics today was posturing, as a lot of leaders tried to figure out how to respond to Israel's unilateral "cease-fire". The Europeans appear to be paralysed, as they await a President Obama, while Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is scrambling to save his personal position. The Saudis have gone into hiding.

That means that the diplomatic baton --- perhaps unexpectedly, if you scripted this a month ago --- passes to Syria and other countries pursuing a stronger line in favour of Hamas. They will be at the Arab countries' economic summit in Kuwait tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see how forthright they take their position to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The main question remains: how long will Israel hold out with its re-occupation in the hope that Hamas will crumble?

Good night and peace to all.



12:30 a.m. United Nations official Chris Gunness has told Al Jazeera that 53 UN installations have been destroyed or damaged in the Gaza conflict.

12 midnight: The "other" emerging regional bloc in this conflict, with Syria as the Arab country in the lead and including Turkey and Iran, took a back seat to the Sharm el-Sheikh summit today. Tomorrow, however, all Arab states are at an economic summit in Kuwait, and you can expect manoeuvring to take the lead in the discussions over Gaza. So this comment from Syrian leader Bashir al-Assad, made on Friday at the Qatar mini-summit, might be noteworthy:

We will take care to remind our children of the Gaza slaughter. We will save the pictures of the children of Gaza with their wounds and blood, and we will teach our children that the strong believer is better than the weak. We will teach them: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and he who started it is the more unjust. What is taken by force will not be returned but by force.

11:25 p.m. And now Political Quick Move of the Day: apparently Bono, while performing at the Inaugural Concert for President-elect Barack Obama, just shouted out for "a Palestinian dream". As an observer noted, "Oy, the Israelis are not going to like that." (Obama, having promised not to issue any meaningful statements on Gaza until Tuesday, will react in 36 hours.)

11 p.m. Dropping objectivity for a moment to offer the Horrific Propaganda Story of the Day:

The Israeli Consulate has Twittered proudly that "Israel Opens Field Clinic at Gaza Border to Treat Palestinian Wounded": "One Palestinian woman was already being treated in the clinic eight-bed clinic that includes a pharmacy, an X-ray machine and five consultation rooms."

Hmm, this feels like offering a fella a Band-Aid after you've beaten him to a pulp. I guess it would be churlish of me to note that it would take 650 of these clinics for all the wounded from the conflict. And even more churlish to note that a lot of wounded died in the last three weeks because of appalling conditions in hospitals and Israel's bombing and shelling of medical services.

8:45 p.m. The video report of the demolition of houses and killing of at least 14 in Khuza'a is now posted on YouTube.

8 p.m. Israel military sources say to Al Jazeera and Reuters, "I can confirm that a gradual withdrawal of our forces is under way," but it is unclear how many troops are involved and how far they are pulling back. Eyewitnesses are reporting some Israeli units are moving back from edge of Gaza City, and Israeli television is showing images of tanks re-crossing border from Gaza.

Israeli military says 19 rockets fired into Israel today.

7:30 p.m. Speaking of Rafah Kid, he has video on his website of the mass killing at Khuza'a, which an article today in The Observer exposed today as a possible Israeli war crime.

7:25 p.m. Rafah Kid offers a pertinent twist on the formula, put forth at today's Sharm el-Sheikh summit, of a "secure Israel and a viable Palestine":

Ha! Imagine if written like this --- "viable Israel and a secure Palestine". Because that's the paradox that is the cause of this mess.

7:20 p.m. More than 90 bodies found today in rubble in Gaza.

4:30 p.m. Further from the Sharm al-Sheikh summit: not much of significance. Notable that King Abdullah of Jordan talked about need for Europe and US to revive the peace process but did not refer to an Arab country apart from Egypt. And United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made a speech that was so relevant that British and Spanish Prime Ministers Brown and Zapatero could be seen laughing and chatting about other matters.

4:25 p.m. Al Jazeera's Mouin Rabbani: "This war, perhaps more than any other event in the last decade or so, has transformed peace into a dirty word and has transformed negotiations into an even dirtier word. And resistance, which had been very much a dirty word in the last 15 words, is now the word and the concept which is increasingly on the lips of the people in this region."

4:20 p.m. Al Jazeera's Mouin Rabbani has just roasted Mubarak, Sarkozy, and Brown: "I'm speechless that in 2009, you can have a major international gathering to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict and have a whole series of keynote speeches in which the word 'occupation' is not mentions even once."

4:13 p.m. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who oftens play the aid card at international conferences, starts with a pledge to treble Britain's humanitarian aid to Gaza. That step, however, rests on Israeli goodwill towards aid distribution in Gaza, and Brown can only blather --- after a name-check to "President Obama" --- Europe must ensure political settlement to ensure "secure Israel and a viable Palestine".

4:10 p.m. French President Nicolas Sarkozy follows Mubarak. He initially emphasises the deal with Israel to stop arms shipments to Gaza but then delivers a stinger to Tel Aviv: "Israel should state immediately and clearly that, when rocket fire stops, the Israeli army will leave Gaza. There is no other solution for peace."

It looks like Israel may have unilaterally put itself into isolation over political and military issues in Gaza.

4 p.m This could be fun: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak just opened the Sharm el-Sheikh conference and, after the platitudes, told Israel to "get stuffed" on any ideas of an international force monitoring the Egypt-Gaza border from the Egyptian side: "Egypt will never accept a foreign force." Mubarak also invoked an "independent Palestianian state" without using the US and Israeli formula of the Palestinian Authority as the "legitimate Palestinian Government".

3:40 p.m. Another rocket reported to have hit Ashdod about 30 minutes ago.

3:20 p.m. A bit disturbing: Barack Obama either hasn't caught up with the plot or he is so cautious that he risks putting himself in a difficult position when he takes office on Tuesday: his spokesman says Obama "welcomes Israel's ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and is committed to helping Israelis and Palestinians work toward peace".

Unlike the Bush Administration and Condoleezza Rice's statement, which focused on the Cairo talks today and looked beyond Tel Aviv to put hope in a "true" internationally-arranged cease-fire, Obama is on the verge --- unintentionally or deliberately --- of tying himself to Israel.

3:07 p.m. Clarification on the Zeitoun atrocity: the number of "95 bodies" appears to have been a misstatement in the confusion as recovery efforts were disrupted by the advance of Israeli tanks. More than 100 people were in the al-Samouni compound; in addition to the more than 30 confirmed killed last week, at least 15 bodies have been recovered today and more are in the rubble.

3:05 p.m. Al Jazeera's Ayman Moyheldin: "It's going to take years to rebuild what has been destroyed in these 22 days."

2:45 p.m. An intriguing statement from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice which, despite Reuters' headline "US Welcomes Gaza Ceasefire", is far from a ringing endorsement.

Of course Rice did not criticise Tel Aviv, but she clearly looked beyond it when she said, "The goal remains a durable and fully respected ceasefire that will lead to stabilisation and normalisation in Gaza." In particular, Rice tried to boost the manoeuvres in Cairo today: "The United States commends Egypt for its efforts and remains deeply concerned by the suffering of innocent Palestinians. We welcome calls for immediate coordinated international action to increase assistance flows and will contribute to such efforts."

I suspect the US, like Egypt, has been a bit wrong-footed by Israel's unilateral move, and Washington is now trying to recover an international strategy towards Gaza and Hamas.

2:35 p.m. Al Jazeera's Ayman Moyheldin: "The destruction we are seeing is unimaginable." He says, "Streets have been bulldozed for kilometres", and building reduced to rubble.

2:30 p.m. An important move by Hamas: Ayman Taha has told Reuters that the Gazan organisation is ceasing fire for one week, giving Israel a chance to pull out of the territory.

2 p.m. The scale of the Zeitoun atrocity, which we noted last week, is becoming clear: medics report up to 95 bodies in the al-Samouni compound. Israeli tanks are in area, so ambulances, medical personnel, Al Jazeera's crew, and bystanders are fleeing.

1:50 p.m. Israeli military spokeswoman Amital Leibovich lays down Tel Aviv's line: "If Hamas chooses to still launch rockets, we'll answer back and we'll answer back harshly."

1:10 p.m. Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev: "We can't talk about a timetable for withdrawal until we know the ceasefire is holding."

12:25 p.m. The first death of the "cease-fire": Gazan civilian killed by Israeli fire near Khan Younis.

11:35 a.m. The challenge to the Israeli strategy: The Observer of London offers this evaluation of Hamas, based on interviews with Gazans: "The organisation's prestige appears to have survived intact, and even emerged enhanced."

11 a.m. And The Observer of London is also preferring to look at issues beyond the "unilateral cease-fire":

Israel stands accused of perpetrating a series of war crimes during a sustained 12-hour assault on a village in southern Gaza last week in which 14 people died. In testimony collected from residents of the village of Khuza'a by the Observer, it is claimed that Israeli soldiers entering the village attempted to bulldoze houses with civilians inside; killed civilians trying to escape under the protection of white flags; opened fire on an ambulance attempting to reach the wounded; used indiscriminate force in a civilian area and fired white phosphorus shells.

10:50 a.m. The Independent of London is way off-script this morning, noting the cease-fire but leading with the headline: "'Tungsten bombs' leave Israel's victims with mystery wounds." Physicians, including the Norwegian doctor Erik Fosse who helped expose the scale of civilian casualties, detail the injuries suffered from dense inert metal explosive (DIME) weapons.

10:30 a.m. Al Jazeera's Ayman Moyheldin: 25 bodies found as Gazans dig through rubble.

10:16 a.m. Tel Aviv, attempting both to gloss its claimed victory and to turn the game back towards Iran, puts out the Hamas=Tehran line: "Israeli leaders say the pounding of Hamas dealt a blow to Iran, which Israel accuses of backing the Palestinian group, and to Hezbollah, the Shiite militia in Lebanon that fought Israel to a stalemate in 2006."

10:15 a.m. Israeli Army announces that it has launched airstrikes against sites for this morning's rocket launches.

9:50 a.m. While we think the Israeli strategy sought "regime change" in Gaza, there is another explanation: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert --- and this has been "Olmert's War" --- wanted a military victory to erase his failure in 2006 against Hezbollah. Aluf Benn in Ha'aretz sets this out, but adds, "Hamas' gains cannot be ignored: It has won international legitimacy and sympathy, and its forces still control the Gaza Strip."

9:35 a.m. Our colleague Rami Khouri to Al Jazeera: "There is no chance of any unilateral move by Israel having any success. It has to be a negotiated agreement that responds to the basic legitimate needs of both sides."

9:25 a.m. At least four rockets fired towards Sderot in southern Israel this hour. Machine-gun fire in Gaza on the ground, with constant overflights by Israeli planes.

9:20 a.m. Hamas advisor Ahmed Youssef: Israel still occupying and threatening Gaza so "we have to do something. This is not a treaty. This is not a peaceful initiative. This is nothing." If Israel withdrew, "of course" Hamas would halt operations.

Morning update (9:15 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): So Gaza awoke this morning to the "cease-fire" that isn't a cease-fire. Israel, unable to finish off Hamas militarily with a battle in the cities, now moves into a "Phase 4": Tel Aviv hopes either to finish off its Gazan enemy through further political and economic constriction or, if Hamas offers a suitable pretext through rocket fire or attacks on Israeli troops, re-starting more bombing and even more intensive ground operations.



The Israeli manoeuvre both tries to deflect growing international pressure against its Gazan strategy and to put the ball in Hamas' court. Does the Gazan leadership offer a clear sign that "resistance continues" through rocket attacks, inviting Tel Aviv to resume its military campaign, or does it sit back, hoping to win the political and diplomatic battle? The possible answer is an attempted balance between a limited number of rocket launches and a visible political campaign to free Gaza from its misery and re-occupation, but this may be difficult to achieve with the leadership so dispersed and, in some cases, operating out of hiding.

Ironically, the Israeli unilateral "cease-fire" may bring regional countries to the forefront of this crisis. Hamas needs support to withstand Tel Aviv's latest moves, and this could come from the emerging bloc led by Syria, Turkey, and Iran and supported by some Gulf countries.

Meanwhile, Egypt will try to fashion an alternative multi-national response today when it hosts leaders from the Palestinian Authority, European countries, and the United Nations, and representatives from the European Commission, Russia, and the US. (The sharp-eyed will notice that Jordan is the only other Arab country present. Saudi Arabia is staying away.) Those attending walk another tightrope: how closely do they follow Tel Aviv, for example with support for the initiative to block arms to Gaza, and how much distance do they keep given internal difficulties and the lack of a post-Hamas solution?

Olmert's War: How the Prime Minister Took Israel Further into Gaza

In today's Ha'aretz, Aluf Benn has a stunning analysis (reprinted in full below), supported by a wealth of inside information, of the battles within the Israeli Cabinet over the ground offensive in Gaza:

[Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak detest each other and both of them have only contempt for [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, whom they view as inexperienced. Olmert supposedly respects Barak's security record but is actually using it against him. In the prime minister's narrative, Barak was hesitant, did not want to launch the operation, placed obstacles before each stage and was ready to stop it a while ago. Before every decision, Barak and the Israel Defense Forces' top brass presented lengthy timetables and warned of heavy losses among the soldiers, on the home front and among Palestinian civilians. In Olmert's view, all their assessments were wrong.

The only problem with Benn's analysis is that it is incomplete. He attributes the difference in positions to Olmert's focus on Gaza while Barak and Livni had an eye on February elections. Fair enough, but he might have also mentioned that Olmert is trying to wipe away the stain of his failure in the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Even more important, it should be noted that it is Olmert, the politician, who is pressing the military campaign while it is Barak, heading the military, who is looking at political considerations and urging a more restrained Israeli position. While Olmert may revel in the short-term military success, it is the politics of occupation that may ultimately prove Barak right.



Unlike Livni and Barak, Olmert is focusing on Gaza, not elections

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week likened Israel's situation in the confrontation with Hamas to that of a mountain climber. "When the Guinness Book of Records enters the record set by someone who conquered a peak, he must have been on the peak for a certain amount of time before the record is registered," Olmert explained to his interlocutor. "Israel has a hand on the peak, the slope is slippery, but the goal is within reach. When we get there, we have to stay there for a while."

This is the narrative Olmert is formulating as the Gaza operation seems to near its end. He maintained his determination and tenacity even when the troika's two other members, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, wanted to stop. The successful, highly popular war was his. They were bothered by next month's elections, and this influenced their approach, while he, who is not running for anything, concentrated on running the war.

Olmert and Barak detest each other and both of them have only contempt for Livni, whom they view as inexperienced. Olmert supposedly respects Barak's security record but is actually using it against him. In the prime minister's narrative, Barak was hesitant, did not want to launch the operation, placed obstacles before each stage and was ready to stop it a while ago. Before every decision, Barak and the Israel Defense Forces' top brass presented lengthy timetables and warned of heavy losses among the soldiers, on the home front and among Palestinian civilians. In Olmert's view, all their assessments were wrong.

Olmert has no doubt that the one who was right about it all was Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shin Bet security service, who, together with Mossad espionage agency chief Meir Dagan, presented a tough line in the troika meetings and pressed for the operation to continue. Both of them backed Olmert, who talked about "a success strategy and not an exit strategy." Some gained the impression that Diskin has a "magical influence" over the prime minister. He opposed the earlier cease-fire with Hamas, he evaluated the balance of forces correctly, he was not moved by the pressures.

During Monday night's troika meeting, Olmert, after listening to the proposals made by Barak and Livni, produced an intelligence document stating that Hamas was drawing encouragement from the comments of the defense and foreign ministers and discussing the possibility that if they manage to hold out a little longer, they might secure a victory over Israel. A "senior security figure" supported Olmert: "We are closest to and farthest away from the achievement: close on the ground, but far away because of what is going on in the political echelon, because we are busy pressuring ourselves and being afraid of ourselves."

An irresponsible adventurer?

As early as last week, Barak and Livni reached the conclusion that the Gaza operation had accomplished all it could and that continued military pressure would only harm Israel and heighten the chance of military and international complications. Despite their political rivalry, Barak and Livni presented a similar approach, which brings to mind the similarity of their election slogans on billboards. Barak was afraid of an operational glitch that would cause the deaths of numerous civilians in Gaza; Livni was upset by the humanitarian crisis in the Strip and by the diplomatic and legal price Israel would pay after the war.

From their perspective, Olmert looked like an irresponsible adventurer, who had, in the course of the war, become addicted to glory and lost touch with reality. It happened in Lebanon in 2006 and now again in Gaza. Once again he was leading Israel into a collision with a wall. They, too, do not understand what Olmert means by "the continuation of the operation." After all, he knows as well as they do that Barack Obama will take the oath of office as president of the United States next Tuesday, and that the last thing he wants to see after his inauguration ceremony is a map of Gaza on his desk in the Oval Office. And that if the war does not end by Tuesday, Obama will mercilessly bring down the curtain on it. Barak spoke this week with his counterpart and friend Robert Gates, the U.S. secretary of defense, who will stay on under Obama. It is a safe guess that he picked up the spirit of the new commander-in-chief from him.

Internally, too, Olmert found himself increasingly isolated. The army joined Barak's call for a cease-fire. The GOC Southern Command, Yoav Galant, who came across as an activist pushing for more, said the conquest of Gaza was within reach - if the military echelon could promise him "a year" to mop up the occupied area. Even Diskin, according to another account, asked for five months to conclude the preventive operations. It is the wont of officers and officials to show determination and tenacity, ostensibly, while leaving it to the political echelon in charge to curb them - to restrain stallions, as Moshe Dayan put it. Of them it will not be said, as Olmert said of the IDF senior officer corps in 2006, that they "did not present plans" to the political echelon.

The wily politician?

On Monday the troika held a lengthy meeting, which ended well after midnight. As usual, there are conflicting versions about what transpired. Olmert's impression was that Barak and Livni were speaking softly, with the tape recorder documenting their remarks, and then shouting aloud to the reporters outside. Their impression was that behind the prime minister's talk about determination and courage lay the wily politician Olmert, who maneuvered them into a decision to continue the operation under the guise of "waiting for answers from Egypt." They are two and he is one, but he has the power.

The next day, things took a different turn. Olmert became entangled in an unnecessary and stupid incident with the U.S. administration after boasting of getting President Bush to interrupt a talk he was giving so that Olmert could tell him to order Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to change her intended vote on a cease-fire resolution in the Security Council. Rice supposedly emerged "shamefaced." The administration responded brutally, presenting Olmert as a teller of tales. There has been no love lost between Olmert and Rice since the Second Lebanon War, and he often complained about her to the president. But until this week's incident, he did so discreetly. His verbal blundering during a visit to Ashkelon strengthened Barak and Livni's claims that Olmert was losing it.

Olmert did not convene the troika on Tuesday and apparently was in no hurry to return phone calls from the defense minister and the foreign minister. The result was a wave of wicked rumors that he had disappeared or had been hospitalized. His office managed to allay reporters who called to ask about the prime minister's whereabouts. Olmert gained another day, but Barak lost his patience; his call for a cease-fire was the main headline in Haaretz the next day.

In the meantime, Hamas' determination also faltered, from a perspiring Ismail Haniyeh on television on Monday, to the announcement that the organization had accepted the Egyptian initiative for a cease-fire on Wednesday evening. Yitzhak Rabin once said that there is generally no military decision in Israeli-Arab wars. So how does one know who won? Simple: The side that requests a cease-fire first is the loser.

During the troika's next meeting, on Wednesday, the atmosphere was far more conciliatory. The discussion focused on the preparation for Amos Gilad's visit to Cairo the following day, to conclude the cease-fire terms. In a parallel move, Livni worked out a draft agreement with the U.S. administration for cooperation in preventing arms smuggling into Gaza. The final decision on ending the operation awaited Gilad's return, yesterday evening.

Problematic successes

What can we learn from this story? First, that it is impossible to explain the Israeli leadership's decision-making on the basis of a theoretical model formulated by a committee of inquiry, or proposals made by strategic experts and consultants. No model can factor in the passions, the personal rivalries, problems of character and political constraints faced by decision makers, all of which can decisively affect the outcome.

Second, every investigation focuses on what happened and not on what might happen in the future. The Winograd Committee, which examined the conduct in the Second Lebanon War, emphasized the "process," the need for prior preparation and the examination of alternatives before entering battle. It looked at the failed battles in Lebanon but did not consider the question of how to pull out of an operation that appears to be successful. The events of the past week show that successes, too, sometimes cause problems.

Gaza: It's Not Necessarily All About Tehran

Latest Updates: The Israeli Invasion of Gaza (16 January)

Last week, we noted --- via the wisdom of William Kristol --- the litany of comment setting out the fight in Gaza as a de facto fight against Iran. Israel had to triumph over Hamas, the argument runs, or Hamas' sponsors in Iran would win a big victory in their drive for regional supremacy.

Trita Parsi, in our opinion one of the best analysts of Iranian politics and US-Iranian relations, has offered the following dissection of the Hamas = Iran narrative:

Israel, Gaza and Iran: Trapping Obama in Imagined Fault Lines

In talking about the assault on Gaza, neo-conservative pundits and Israeli hardliners have relied on a familiar frame. The fighting in Gaza, they say, is a struggle between Israel and so-called "moderate" Arab states (namely, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) on the one hand, and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. In reality, Israel is fighting Iran in Gaza, the argument reads.
These imagined Manichean fault lines defy logic and reality. This conflict is the last thing Tehran would have wished for in the last few weeks of the Bush administration. It increases the risk of a US-Iran confrontation now, and reduces the prospects for US-Iran diplomacy once President elect Obama takes over - neither of which is in Iran's national interest. Rather than benefiting from the instability following the slaughter in Gaza, Iran stands to lose much from the rise in tensions. And so does Obama.



To Iran, Hamas is no Hezbollah

While there certainly is an underlying rivalry between Israel and Iran that has come to fuel many other otherwise unrelated conflicts in the region, not every war Israel fights is related to Iran. In this specific case, the parallels to the 2006 Lebanon war are inaccurate. Iran's ties to Hamas are incomparable to the much deeper relationship Iran enjoys with Hezbollah. Iran's close relationship with Hezbollah is rooted in the Iranian view that Shiite minorities in Arab countries are Iran's most likely allies and agents of pro-Iranian sentiment; consequently, backing Hezbollah is viewed to be in Iran's core national interest. In contrast, Iran's relationship with Hamas is a marriage of convenience at best.

In spite of its ardent pro-Palestinian rhetoric, Iran's relationship with Palestinian groups -- including Hamas -- has often been strained. Tensions with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization were mostly rooted in Arafat's insistence on defining the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a secular Arab nationalist cause -- leaving non-Arab Iran with no opening to play a leadership role in the Muslim world's cause célèbre. Differences with Hamas, however, derived from a mix of politics and ideology. Hamas' intellectual roots go back to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni fundamentalist movement. Furthermore, during the Iraq-Iran war, both the PLO and Hamas expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

Throughout the 1980s, Iran was better at offering rhetoric than practical support to the Palestinian cause, due to Iran's immediate security concerns. This changed in the mid-1990s, when Iran feared that the Oslo peace process was partially aimed at securing Iran's prolonged isolation and political exclusion. But even after the outbreak of the second Intifada, the Iranians took the lead in making grandiose speeches about Iranian backing of the Palestinian cause, but seldom tried to live up to the standards set in its statements. As I describe in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press), European diplomats in contact with representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas visiting Iran after fighting between Israelis and Palestinians had broken out reported back that both groups were utterly disappointed with their Iranian hosts whom they accused of making empty promises -- Tehran neither provided them with money nor weapons. A joke in the streets of Tehran reflected Iran's pretense: "Why aren't there any stones left to stone the adulteress? Per the order of the Supreme Leader, all the stones have been shipped to Palestine as Iran's contribution to the Intifada."

Again, history seems to be repeating itself. After daily demonstrations in Tehran in favor of the Palestinians, including a six-day sit-in at Tehran airport by hard-line students demanding government support for sending volunteers to fight in Gaza, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei contained the protesters by thanking them - while pointing out that Iran was not in a position to go beyond rhetorical support since "our hands are tied in this arena." Other Iranian officials have reinforced that message. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that Hamas does not need military support to defend itself. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brother indicated to the demonstrators at Tehran airport that Iran's support for the Palestinians would be limited to "spiritual support for the victimized people of Gaza."

Why Israel's offensive in Gaza should worry Obama

Tehran's complex, if not conflicted, response to the assault on Gaza can best be understood in the context of its broader strategic aims. By rejecting any material Iranian support or involvement in the Gaza battles, Iran's strategic imperatives trumped its ideological concerns and pretenses once more. Khamenei's statement regarding Iran's hands being tied resembles Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to support the Lebanese Shiites by directly entering into war with Israel in 1984 through his edict that the road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala. That is, until Iran has defeated Saddam Hussein, it will not be sucked into a conflict with Israel, regardless of Tehran's ideological opposition to the Jewish state.

Contrary to the neo-conservative narrative that the fighting benefits Iran, Tehran seems to view the Israeli assault on Gaza as highly problematic for several reasons. First, there are suspicions in Tehran that Israel's offensive is a trap with the aim of drawing both Hezbollah and Iran into the fighting. With only weeks left till President Elect Obama takes office, any direct conflagration between Iran and Israel would significantly reduce Obama's ability to deliver on his campaign promise of opening talks with Tehran without preconditions.

Second, increased tensions and polarization in the Middle East undermines Obama's ability to pursue a new policy towards this region, including a shift in America's 30-year old policy of isolating Iran. In fact, polarization along the imagined Gaza fault lines - and a misleading equation of Hamas with Tehran - traps the incoming Obama administration in an involuntary continuation of the Bush policies that contributed to the increased instability in the Middle East in the first place. From the vantage point of Israeli hardliners, this may be a welcomed outcome since it will make compromise with Tehran more difficult and pressure on Israel less likely. Hence, Tehran seems poised not to help reduce Obama's maneuverability.

Third, the conflict is creating unwelcome tensions between Iran and key Arab states. Arab dictatorships fearing that the rise of Iran would weaken America's position in the Middle East and that the survival of Hamas would embolden Islamic nationalist opposition groups throughout the region - both of which would undermine these Arab governments' undemocratic rule - initially sided with Israel by remaining silent or explicitly putting the blame on Hamas. But as the casualties rose and the images of slaughter spread on Arab satellite TVs, the anger of the Arab streets reached the Arab palaces and courts. A similar pattern was seen in 2006 when many Arab governments initially welcomed Israel's air assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon. There, the change of heart had less to do with the images of Lebanese casualties and more to do with Hezbollah's surprising resilience and fighting power.

Though it is true that increased tensions enables Iran to score propaganda victories on the Arab streets, since many Arab states have either remained silent or secretly collaborated with Israel to defeat Hamas, this does carry a great risk for Tehran. If the fighting in Gaza goes on for too long, the spillover effects will be felt in increased Arab-Iranian tensions at a time when Tehran is more interested in soothing ties with the Arabs in order to minimize Arab disruption to any potential US-Iran opening.

The neo-conservative narrative and its imagined fault lines may temporarily add fuel to the US-Israeli alliance, but it will neither bring stability nor order to the region. Rather, it will push the Middle East further into endless conflict and restrict America's next president to a mindset and a policy framework that risks making the promise of change a dream unfulfilled.