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.

Video and Transcript of Barack Obama's Interview with Al-Arabiya Television

Analysis: Obama's First "Reach-Out" to the Muslim World

This is the best-quality video of the interview available, although it is only a portion of the discussion. Part 1 and Part 2 of the full interview, albeit in lower quality and with an annoying advertisement at the start, are available on YouTube.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yKETOw2_jMY[/youtube]



Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.



And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great. How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.

We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Obama's First "Reach-Out" to the Muslim World: The Interview with Al-Arabiya

The Transcript of the Obama interview with Al-Arabiya

Now this is some high-profile and, I think, effective public diplomacy. Barack Obama's first extended interview with a television station was with an Arab channel, the Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiya. However, it wasn't only his choice of outlet that was significant but his tone and language, including a soundbite that will get heavy play around the world today: the US is interested in listening rather than dictating.

(I suspect, although there is no indication yet, that Obama's interview replaces the original plan for a speech in an Arab capital in the first three months of his Administration. Al-Arabiya pressed for details of such a speech, but the President was non-committal.)

Obama offered general, diplomatic statements in advance of his envoy George Mitchell's trip to Israel and the West Bank of Palestine: "I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table."



Obama did not address any difficult issues, such as contact with Hamas or arrangements for the border crossings, but he did offer an important olive branch by praising the Saudi peace initiatives of King Abdullah that had been dismissed by former President George W. Bush: "I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."

On Iran Obama repeated the Administration line, re-quoting from his Inaugural Speech. Interestingly, however, he emphasised engagement rather than the US challenge to Tehran: "It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but (also) where there are potential avenues for progress. If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

The Latest from Israel-Palestine-Gaza (24 January)

Latest Post: How Israel Spawned Hamas
Earlier Updates and Links to Stories: The Latest from Israel-Palestine-Gaza (23 January)

8:35 p.m. After a long and busy week, we're taking the night off. We'll be back in the morning with all the overnight developments fit to notice.

8:30 p.m. Just to make sure that no one forgets his country's emerging position amidst the Gaza conflict, Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has congratulated Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal on the "victory" over Israeli forces.

7:23 p.m. Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal has followed up his criticism of US policy on Israel and Palestine, and an Obama phone call to Saudi King Abdullah, with a more muted warning in an interview with CNN. While welcoming Obama's Friday statement and the appointment of envoy George Mitchell, Turki said: "We've heard this before. We need to see implementation. We need to see facts on the ground change. We need to see rhetoric change. We need to see presence on the ground."

7:15 p.m. Hamas is not backing down in the face of Israel's attempts to cut off aid unless it is distributed by other organisations. The Gazan leadership has announced the formation of a committee of senior officials as "the only body to oversee and supervise the rescue. We will be in contact with all other bodies, whether local, national or international, to organise the relief."

7:10 p.m. While Lebanon has not been in the front line of Arab debate over Gaza, it is still worthwhile to note the statement of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Saturday. Speaking of a Day of Solidarity with Gaza, Siniora called on all Lebanese "to support the Palestinian brethren in Gaza in any way possible and according to the individual's capability".

5:50 p.m. Word is being leaked that President Obama's envoy George Mitchell will visit Israel and the West Bank next week. The sharp-eyed amongst you will already note that he is not going to Gaza.

5:35 p.m. ITV and Channel 4 have broken with the BBC and will now air a Disaster Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza. The same article also carries Tony Benn's prediction that the BBC will back down and agree to air the appeal, "Before the sun sets in London tonight."



5:05 p.m. A must-see article in The Wall Street Journal: "How Israel Helped Spawn Hamas". We've reprinted and analysed it in a separate post.

2:55 p.m. Interesting counter-move in Cairo: Hamas is meeting with Egyptian officials to discuss a possible swap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas since 2006, for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Equally, Hamas is suggesting that members of the Palestinian Authority can assist in the monitoring of the Rafah crossing, as long as they are residents of Gaza and not the West Bank. Hamas is also proposing that European Union and Turkish peacekeepers supervise the border.

These are quite clever proposals.  Hamas is trying to separate the Shalit issue from the question of reopening the crossings, and their proposals for the border are very close to the Mubarak-Sarkozy plan pressed by Cairo soon after the initial Israeli attacks. If Cairo agrees, Egypt has effectively dismissed its earlier hopes of removing Hamas from power, and the diplomatic ball will be in  Tel Aviv's court.

2:50 p.m. Schools have reopened in Gaza, but teachers are having to deal with the "psychological trauma" suffered by children in recent weeks.

12:50 p.m. In Case You're Still Thinking About That Regime Change Idea. Washington Post reporters finally get into Gaza and report:

In dozens of interviews across Gaza on Friday, ...Palestinians generally expressed either unbridled support for Hamas or resignation to the idea that the group's reign in Gaza will continue for the foreseeable future. No one suggested that the group is vulnerable.

12:30 p.m. The New York Times has a long profile on the quick rebuilding of Gazan tunnels, damaged by Israeli airstrikes: "The tunnels are the principal livelihood for many people here, and as soon as the bombing stopped, they were right back in them with their shovels."

The best quote? “This will give us greater skills,” said one digger. “We’ll become artists.”

11 a.m. Interesting revelations in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz: Obama envoy George Mitchell will arrive in the Middle East before 10 February. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has gone on the offensive and set out Israel's preconditions in any negotiations, telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israel will "not open the Gaza crossings without progress toward the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit".

10 a.m. Israel/Gaza time: The Israeli Government has appointed an inter-ministerial legal defense team to defend officials and soldiers against any war crimes charges.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (23 January)

Latest Post: US Finally Joins Convention on Conventional Weapons
Latest Post: The Afghanistan Muddle
Latest Post: The President Bans Torture

Text of Order Closing Guantanamo Bay
President Obama’s Remarks to State Department Staff (22 January)

6:45 p.m. An intriguing development, but one which will need some detective work to assess its significance. President Obama "asked Saudi King Abdullah for support in halting weapons smuggling into Gaza and underscored the importance of U.S.-Saudi ties" in a Friday phone call.

The call takes on added significance because an influential member of the Saudi Royal Family, Prince Turki al-Feisal, launched an attack against the Bush Administration's "poisonous legacy" in a newspaper article on Friday morning, warning, "If the U.S. wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact -- especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia -- it will have to drastically revise its policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine."

So the first message in Obama's call was not to get active Saudi participation in the naval blockade of Gaza but assurances that Riyadh would not try to undermine it by moving cash and material to Palestinian groups in the area. The second message, however, is more important and hard to decipher:

Do those US-Saudi ties mean that Obama will accept Saudi ideas for Israel-Palestinian negotiations, for example, a revival of the 2002 Mecca proposals that the Bush Administration flagrantly rebuffed? Or is Washington expecting the Saudis to follow the lead of a yet-seen approach that will be unveiled in the visit of George Mitchell to the region? (cross-posted from Israel-Palestine-Gaza Updates)



3:40 p.m. White House announces that President Obama has reversed Ronald Reagan's ban on funding of federally-supported groups who carry out abortions overseas.

3:30 p.m. Not So Fast, General Petraeus. Here's a curious story, unlike you're a fan of Kirghiz politics, that you might have missed. On Wednesday, General David Petraeus and the US military were telling anyone who would listen of their great triumph in securing land and air supply routes into Afghanistan (and trying to cover up the inconvenience that the main supply route over the Khyber Pass has been closed down).

Well, on Thursday the Government of Kyrgyzstan, where a major US airbase is located, decided that it wasn't ready to play the good guy quite yet: "Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev will make a decision on the future of a U.S. military base in Kyrgyzstan by next month, an official said Thursday."

Is Russia, which also has an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, having a bit of competitive fun with Washington? Or has the Kirghiz Government decided to get a higher price for their cooperation?

3:15 p.m. The Netherlands won't be joining the next US adventure in Afghanistan: "Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende ruled out on Friday the possibility of the Netherlands keeping its troops in Afghanistan past 2010 with a force comparable to its current deployment."

2:55 p.m. The Marines Show Their Hand. Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway says that up to 20,000 Marines could be deployed as part of the US military "surge" in Afghanistan. While Conway capped the number at 20,000, that indicates that an overall increase of 30,000 troops, which would include Army units, is still the military's preferred option.

At the same time, Conway seemed to offer support for President Obama's plans for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq: "The time is right for Marines in general terms to leave Iraq. It's very much a nation-building kind of environment that's taking place there."

2:25 p.m. Facebook Message of the Day:

Dear World,

The United States of America, your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located. Replacement components were ordered Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, and have begun arriving. Early test of the new equipment indicate that it is functioning correctly and we expect it to be fully operational by mid-January.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage and we look forward to resuming full service and hopefully even improving it in years to come. Thank you for your patience and understanding,

The USA

2 p.m. On his blog, CNN's Anderson Cooper posts a guest article by former interrogator Ken Robinson: "The truth is --- torture doesn't work."

Nice job, Anderson. Just one question: why didn't you put up such comments in 2003? 2004? 2005? At any point during the Bush Administration?

12:35 p.m. Al Jazeera: 19 killed in northwest Pakistan in two US missile strikes.

12:05 p.m. CNN website reporting 10 killed in US strike on northwest Pakistan, but CNN television is reporting two attacks.

10:10 a.m. The State Department's Twitterers pass on news of a US interception and two-day search of an Iranian-owned ship in the Red Sea.

No jackpot this time, however, in the quest to link Tehran and Hamas. The ship was carrying artillery shells, but the Gazan organisation doesn't use artillery.

9:30 a.m. White House officials are briefing that Obama later today will reverse Ronald Reagan's "Mexico City" order, which banned federally-funded non-government organizations from performing abortions overseas. Bill Clinton lifted the ban in his first week in office, only for George W. Bush to reinstate it in his first Presidential order.

8:20 a.m. The first application of Obama tough love in Pakistan. Reports are coming through that US missiles have killed five people in the northwest of the country. (9:45 a.m.: Death toll is now 9. Six members of a family are among the dead; intelligence officials claim "some foreign militants were also killed".)

6:35 a.m. For those watching the Obama rollback of the Bush War on Terror, some interesting signals from Dennis Blair, Obama's nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in his confirmation hearings yesterday.

Blair backed up the President's headline actions, telling Senators that torture "is not moral, legal or effective" and that "there will not be any waterboarding on my watch". However, the nominee also indicated that Obama might not hand back other executive orders resting on dubious legal ground, as he "hesitated to directly challenge as illegal the Bush administration's approach to interrogations and surveillance".

6:25 a.m. And, Barack, We've Been Talking to the Washington Post. Those waging the counter-offensive against the Obama plan for a 16-month withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq have gotten the ear of the editors of The Post. Their call in their lead editorial today for a slower withdrawal, bizarrely, rests on the argument that Iraq is rapidly becoming more secure:

Iraq's continuing improvement and the low and declining rate of U.S. casualties -- four soldiers have been killed in hostile action so far this month -- ought to decrease the urgency of a quick pullout. Pragmatism calls for working within the agreed U.S.-Iraqi plan, and for allowing adjustments based on positive and negative developments in Iraq, rather than on any fixed and arbitrary timetable.

6:10 a.m. The "New Diplomacy" of the Obama Administration? On Thursday, "the chargé d’affaires at the American Embassy, Krishna Urs, walked out of a speech in Bolivia’s Congress by President Evo Morales."

5;55 a.m. One Dissent is Annoying, Two is a Rebellion. Meanwhile, on the Iraq front, departing US Ambassador Ryan Crocker has also gone public to put brakes --- albeit in diplomatic phrasing on Obama's plan for withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months. Citing "a continuing need for our security support" despite the "enormous progress" of Iraqi security forces, Crocker asserted, “If it were to be a precipitous withdrawal, that could be very dangerous, but it’s clear that’s not the direction in which this is trending.”

Far from incidentally, Crocker was also involved in Wednesday's National Security meeting with military commanders, speaking by videophone from Baghdad.

5:30 a.m. Naughty, Naughty Pentagon. Do you recall that less than 24 hours ago the military started spinning against the President's plans for withdrawal from Iraq? Well, now they're taking aim at his intention to close Guantamo. Officials have fed the following story to Robert Worth of The New York Times:

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

And it should be noted that this is not a sudden leak. The amount of information on the released detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, and the contribution by four Times reporters to the story indicated that this "exclusive" was fed to them well before Obama became President.

Moreover, this is only the latest salvo in the campaign to undermine Obama's plans. Last month "Pentagon officials" began spreading the story that dozens of released detainees were rejoining Al Qa'eda and other terrorist organisations. The supposed information was discredited quickly by journalists who followed up the details --- as the New York Times notes, albeit well below its dramatic headline:

Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have become leaders of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced by foreign fighters.

4:10 a.m. The excellent analyst Jim Lobe finds grounds for optimism both in the appointment of George Mitchell as President Obama's envoy to the Middle East and in Obama's statement yesterday.

3:15 a.m. We've posted separate blogs on Obama's order banning torture and on an apparent muddle over Afghanistan policy, highlighted by Administration statements yesterday.

2:30 a.m. The Guantanamo Bay Effect Reaches Afghanistan. An intriguing statement by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was quick off the mark to welcome President Barack Obama's order closing Camp X-Ray: "Closing this will have a good impact, a significant impact on the minds of Afghans here in Afghanistan. We see it as extremely important and timely and we appreciate the decision taken by the new administration."

Why pay special attention to Karzai's statement beyond the welcomes coming from around the world? Well, there's the small matter of more than 600 detainees, as compared to 245 at Guantanamo, in the US military's Camp Bagram in southern Afghanistan. Karzai is being pressed by Afghan campaigners to do something about unlimited detentions closer to home, so his statement on matters far away is a symbolic nod in their direction.

But will it mean the Afghan Government presses the Americans to bring the rule of law into Bagram? Karzai's spokesman was suitably cautious: "As we rebuild our justice system, as we rebuild our law enforcement capabilities and can ensure there will be due process provided, we do expect the detainees to be gradually and slowly transferred to Afghan custody by mutual agreement,"