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.

Keeping the Gaza-Iran Link (and Dispute) Alive

Update: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responds to Obama offer of engagement

Related Post: The Linking of Clenched Fists: Israel, Gaza, and Iran

Even while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are talking of engagement with Tehran, others are keeping the pot simmering for a possible showdown.

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, claimed, "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 in the Red 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.

Meanwhile, from the Iran-Is-Just-Possibly-Planning-to-Kill-Us-All newsdesk: The Daily Telegraph plays up a section of the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, "Military Balances 2009", which say Iran may have an amount enriched uranium sufficent for weapons production by 2010.

The appropriate response should be: And so....? Enriched uranium is essential, of course, for domestic nuclear energy production, so this development on its own says nothing about Iran's military intentions. The key question is still whether Iran has resumed research and development of nuclear fuel production for warheads. While there is a major effort underway to trash the US National Estimate of December 2007, which said Iran had suspended the military process in 2003, there is no evidence yet to refute its conclusions.

Obama on Top of the World: The Afghanistan Muddle

Latest Updates: Obama on Top of the World (23 January)

We ended yesterday's updates in confusion over the "gobbledy-gook" statement of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Afghanistan which promised "more concrete goals that can be achieved realistically within three to five years", implying that the Bush Administration had no such goals such as ensuring Afghan security, fighting Al Qa'eda, and delivering services to the Afghan people.

Where we saw cause for concern, Robert Dreyfuss, who asked the question that led to Gates' response, sees hope. For him, the statement points to a "stalemate" within the Obama Administration over the number of US troops to be sent to Afghanistan in 2009, with Gates and the military pushing for a doubling of the US presence from 30,000 to 60,000 but Obama favouring a smaller but unspecified amount. This "opens a window -- yes, it's a small one -- for opponents of expanding the Afghan war to persuade the White House that it's not a good idea".

In his analysis, Dreyfuss posts the transcript of his exchange with Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the opening statement by Richard Holbrooke, the President's envoy to Afghanistan:


I had a chance today, at a news briefing at the Pentagon, to ask Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I pointed out the contradiction between President Obama's campaign pledge to add "two or three brigades" of troops and the US commander's determination to add 30,000 troops, two or three times as much as Obama had promised to add.

Significantly, in their answer, Gates and Mullen stressed that no decision has yet been made about adding troops. That's important, because it opens a window -- yes, it's a small one -- for opponents of expanding the Afghan war to persuade the White House that it's not a good idea.

Here's the transcript of my exchange with Gates and Mullen:

Dreyfuss: During the campaign, President Obama said that he would, when elected, send perhaps two to three additional brigades of troops to Afghanistan. Lately, actually since the election, we've heard talk about as many as 30,000 troops -- significantly more than that -- going to Afghanistan. Have any decisions been actually made, pending this review that the president has talked about, in terms of how many American forces might go to Afghanistan this year?

Gates: No final decision has been made. Part of -- part of what the president made clear was that they intend to look at Iraq and Afghanistan holistically. And so I think part of the -- one of the things that the president will expect before making decisions is what the implications are not just for Iraq, but for Afghanistan. And I expect, as I say that, to be part of those decisions to be forthcoming pretty soon.

Do you want to add anything to that?

Mullen: I -- I really wouldn't add a lot except to say that these are the level of forces that the commander has asked for. So again, we've looked very carefully at how to do that. There have been some recommendations that have been made up the chain of command, but no decisions yet.

And consistent with what I said before, I think a very deliberate process now, but rapid as it can be, to both recommend and have the president make this decision -- these decisions.

Dreyfuss: Are there detailed plans that you've already seen for what these 30,000 troops would do -- in other words, where they would be deployed specifically in terms of what provinces and cities, and what their tasks would be? Or is it just a ballpark estimate about what these --

Mullen: No. I -- consistent with how the commanders on the ground have acted for years now is when they come forward, they come forward and have a very clear plan of what they want the forces to do. And that's certainly the case here as well.

It's clear to me that even though Gates and Mullen say that no decision has been made, they are pushing for the additional troops. And it seems pretty clear that Obama has decided to add at least some troops to the mix.

Another reporter asked if the new administration has any idea of what its goals in Afghanistan are. "What is our end state? When are we done there?" she asked.

Here's Gates' complete answer, which, you'll notice, was framed in terms of the commitment of "three to five years" for even the limited goals he outlines:

I think one of the -- one of the points where I suspect both administrations come to the same conclusion is that the goals we did have for Afghanistan are too broad and too far into the future, are too future-oriented, and that we need more concrete goals that can be achieved realistically within three to five years in terms of reestablishing control in certain areas, providing security for the population, going after al Qaeda, preventing the reestablishment of terrorism, better performance in terms of delivery of services to the people, some very concrete things.

So I think that that's -- that's a starting point. But you know, the president, I think, has referred -- I think referred last night to the need for a comprehensive assessment on Afghanistan. And what we have -- you know, I mean, we have a -- we have a NATO campaign plan. We have an RC [Regional Command] South campaign plan. We have a commander's campaign plan. We have General Petraeus's study. And we have the Afghan review that was conducted in the last administration at the White House.

So I think all of these pieces will be inputs into the -- into the review that this administration will take in terms of determining what those nearer-term goals should be and how we get to where we -- where we can achieve them.

Meanwhile, across the river, at the State Department Hillary Clinton was introducing Richard Holbrooke, her hawkish adviser, as her special envoy for Afghanistan (and Pakistan). Holbooke was looking at "long-term," not short-term goals, in Afghanistan, though he avoided saying anything of substance, really. It's his job to pull together all elements of US policy for a coordinated strategy in the war in Afghanistan and spilling over into neighboring Pakistan. Here's what Holbrooke did say:

We know what our long-term objective is. I hope I will be able to fill out the mandate which Secretary Clinton has mentioned: to help coordinate a clearly chaotic foreign assistance program, which must be pulled together; to work closely with General Petraeus, CENTCOM, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General McKiernan and the command in Afghanistan, to create a more coherent program.

If our resources are mobilized and coordinated and pulled together, we can quadruple, quintuple, multiply by tenfold the effectiveness of our efforts there.

The Times, meanwhile, carries a lengthy piece by Dexter Filkins today on the vast areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, without any US or NATO presence to deter them. An excerpt:

The Taliban are everywhere the soldiers are not, the saying goes in the southern part of the country. ...

The general [Brig. Gen. John W. Nicholson] is going to get a lot more troops very soon. American commanders in southern Afghanistan have been told to make plans to accept nearly all of the 20,000 to 30,000 additional troops that the Obama administration has agreed to deploy. ... The commanders here call the current situation "stalemate," meaning they can hold what they have but cannot do much else. ...

It is perhaps in Kandahar, one of the provincial capitals, where the lack of troops is most evident. About 3,000 Canadian soldiers are assigned to secure the city, home to about 500,000 people. In a recent visit, this reporter traveled the city for five days and did not see a single Canadian soldier on the streets.

The real point is that it's a stalemate. Obama has pledged to carry out a top-to-bottom review of Afghan policy. If that takes a month, or three months, or six months, so be it. There's no need to rush more troops there just because the generals want them.

It's Morning in America: The Day After The Inauguration

Related Post: Your Obama on Top of the World Updates
Related Post: Welcome to the World, Mr President - Afghanistan and Pakistan
Related Post: Obama Orders Suspension of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay

5:30 p.m. Thanks for joining us today. It's a bit early for a Day 1 Assessment, as there may be developments in the next few hours while we have some downtime. As expected, Obama made the high-profile announcement of Guantanamo's closure, although the impact was limited by the 12-month timeframe (a concession to the political and legal obstacles to shifting the detainees). He made the first symbolic step of US re-entry into the Israel-Palestine arena with calls to Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas --- the expected appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy is still awaited. On the bureaucratic front, Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State came through.

The most significant event, however, was the National Security Council meeting with top military commanders over Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, as I type this, still no news --- no spin, no leaks, no hints --- of what steps will be confirmed. Similarly, the re-affirmation of a 16-month timetable for US combat troops from Iraq still hasn't been made.

Back for Day 2 tomorrow morning....



5:05 p.m. Hillary Clinton has been confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State 94-2. The two Republican spoilsports? David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

5 p.m. The War on Terror - The Obama Legacy Begins: Taking a leaf from the America-Will-Love-Bush-One-Day crew who have been frantically spinning this week, a reader notes, "I would like to point out that there have been no terrorist attacks under President Obama."

3:15 p.m. Immunity Now, Immunity Forever. Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General, for one week to get an assurance that there will be no prosecutions of anyone involved in torture.

2:05 p.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (2): After the attempt to turn a Carter-Clinton non-feud into the downfall of the Democrats, GOP bloggers are going after the size of the crowd on the Mall yesterday: "An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony."

Oh, my, "only" 800,000. That's a pathetic turnout compared to, say, the massive 400,000 who showed up for George W. Bush in 2005.

(Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (1) is at 2:55 a.m.)

1:55 p.m. Reuters has now obtained a draft copy, although it does not reprint it, of Obama's order to close Camp X-Ray by January 2010. There will be an immediate review of how to deal with all remaining detainees. AP has a copy and prints a few extracts covering the main points: the closure "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice".

12:17 p.m. Unconfirmed reports that Obama has order closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year.

12:15 p.m. Obama has called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas.

10:55 a.m. Confirmation that Obama called the head of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday: "Obama reiterated that he and his administration will work in full partnership with President [Mahmoud] Abbas to achieve peace in the region," Saeb Erekat, the PA's chief negotiator, said.

No word on whether Obama calls the leaders of Hamas. (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

10:40 a.m. Obama's initial meeting today on Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to members of his National Security Council such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus of US Central Command, and, by videoconference, General David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq.

9:40 a.m. What's Happening inIraq: a bomb has killed four people in Baghdad. The target was a university dean who is also a member of the Sunni Islamic Party. Another bomb near Tikrit has killed five policemen and wounded three.

On the up side, US and Iraqi authorities have opened a water-treatment plant in Sadr City, a poor section of Baghdad, only 3 1/2 years after it was begun.

9:30 a.m. In case you think our earlier reference to the intense discussion of Michelle Obama's dress and designer Jason Wu was just a cultural blip in America's priorities: The Washington Post covers Page One with a story on Michelle's entire wardrobe:

For the historic moment when she became this country's first African American first lady, Obama chose a lemon-grass yellow, metallic sheath with a matching coat by the Cuban-born designer Isabel Toledo. The dress followed her curves -- paying special attention to the hips -- and announced that the era of first lady-as-rectangle had ended.

8:55 a.m. A judge has just approved Obama's order suspending military commissions at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days.

8:45 a.m. There's something disconcerting about watching four Americans discuss Obama's Inaugural Speech and politics...on Iran's Press TV. They are generally "disappointed" in the speech and are now having a detailed --- and interesting --- discussion of Obama's approach to Israel, Palestine, and Gaza.

7:25 a.m. Before flying to Washington, General David Petraeus meets Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai office issues neutral statement, "During this visit, they discussed and exchanged views on their common relations, how to effectively combat regional terrorism and the way to prevent civilian casualties and gain the trust of the people."

Karzai had told the Afghan Parliament earlier inthe day that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign troops was an important source of instability in Afghanistan. Up to 25 civilians reportedly died in an American attack on Tuesday.

7:15 a.m. Vice Premier Haim Ramon to Israel radio: "Let's not fear President Obama. I am convinced that President Obama and his team want to achieve what is essential to Israel -- two states for two peoples." (cross-posted from The Israel Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

6:15 a.m. Uh-oh, a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey rebuff for Obama. In advance of the President's meeting with General Petraeus (see separate post), French Defence Minister Herve Morin has ruled out any additional French troops for Afghanistan: "We have made the necessary effort. Considering additional reinforcements is out of the question for now."

5:40 a.m. Juan Cole also offers a cold shower of reality this morning, noting the killing of seven and wounding of 22, including two US soldiers, in Iraq yesterday. Cole also offers a necessary and timely analysis of the upcoming Iraqi elections on 31 January.

And, just to cast some light of hope, Cole refers to an emotional and telling Inaugural moment when "US troops in Iraq shed tears of joy for Obama" --- light years away from the narrative of the US military's rejection of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

4 a.m. Press TV of Iran's top stories: 1) Iran wants Israeli leaders to stand trial for war crimes; 2) Israel withdraws from Gaza; 3) Obama promises "better relations" with Muslim world. Al Jazeera focuses on Obama's likely appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy.

3:30 a.m. But Not Quite A New Morning in China, as the BBC reports:

China has censored parts of the new US president's inauguration speech that have appeared on a number of websites. Live footage of the event on state television also cut away from Barack Obama when communism was mentioned. China's leaders appear to have been upset by references to facing down communism and silencing dissent.

3 a.m. Definitely One to Watch: General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military's Central Command with responsibility for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, returns to Washington today to brief Obama. Yesterday Petraeus had extensive discussions with Pakistani political and military leaders.

2:55 a.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day. Don Irvine, the head of Accuracy in Media (accuracy as in "We Won Vietnam", "Last Eight Years Fantastic", "ABC News Flunks Race Test"), sees the downfall of the Democratic Party at the Inauguration:

As [Jimmy] Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each others presence at all. A total snub. This could be a very interesting four years indeed.

2:50 a.m. One more comparison for the record: while the Obama Inaugural celebrations ranged from Pete Seeger to Bruce Springsteen to Aretha Franklin, former President George W Bush's return to Midland, Texas was welcomed by "country music performers Rodney Atkins, the Gatlin Brothers and Lee Greenwood".

2:40 a.m. Israeli officials are busily telling the press that "Barack Obama is a 'true friend of Israel' who identifies emotionally not only with the state, but also with the people of Israel". (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

1:59 a.m. And just to bring out our previous point, Alive in Gaza has posted an audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Hameeb on his perceptions of what Obama's inauguration means for Gaza: "Obama neglected the Palestinians."

1:45 a.m. Global Contrasts: There has been a sharp division, as soon as Obama's image ended, in broadcast coverage between US channels and those overseas.

While US outlets such as Fox and CNN focused on the parade, the parties, and the first formal signing of documents by President Obama, the BBC and Al Jazeera have been all over the question, "What Next?" The best and most detailed analysis and questions have come from Al Jazeera, who had incisive panel discussions on Guantanamo Bay, Israel-Palestine-Gaza, Iraq, Iran, and the US Economy last evening.

This morning, while CNN concentrates on Michelle Obama's Inaugural Gown and Fox has a "presidential historian" burbling over "the peaceful transfer of power...Bush and Obama got along so well", Al Jazeera is focusing on Obama's promise of "mutual respect" for the Muslim world. This is unsurprising, of course, given Al Jazeera's core location and audience, but it still points to the immediate scrutiny that President Obama will face on his first full day in office.

Morning update (1:40 a.m. in Washington):

Even as we finally called it a night in Britain, the parties, the enthusiam, and the energy were still going strong in the United States.

I'm just watching a recording of Obama's speech to the Youth Ball, where he gave a possibly impropmptu speech which was better than his prepared one at the Inaugural:

Young people everywhere are in the process of imagining something different than what has come before. Where there is war, they imagine peace. Where there is hunger, they imagine people being able to feed themselves. Where there is disease, they imagine a public health system that can work for everybody. Where they [see] bigotry, they imagine togetherness.

And so he closed, to "Yes We Can" chanting from the crowd, "I promise you that America will get stronger and more united, more prosperous, more secure. You are going to make it happen."

So, hours after reacting to the Inaugural with a mixture of hope and concern, I'm indulging in a bit of hope with a cup of tea. Now to see what the Day After brings.