And on the Eighth Day: Hopes and Fears over The Obama Foreign Policy

Whatever else is said about Barack Obama, you cannot accuse him of being slow off the mark. A day after the Inauguration, he issued the order closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and CIA “black sites” and ending torture by American agencies. Two days later, he revoked the Reagan directive banning funding for any organisation carrying out abortions overseas. On 26 January, he ordered a new approach to emissions and global warming, as the State Department appointed Todd Stern to oversee policy on climate change.



Last Monday, Obama launched his “reach-out” to the Islamic world with a televised interview, his first with any channel, with Al Arabiya. Two envoys, George Mitchell for the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have been appointed; Mitchell is already in the region searching for diplomatic settlements. All of this has occurred even as the Administration was pushing for approval of its economic stimulus package and engaging in fierce inter-agency debates over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The media, rightly but ritually, hailed Obama's symbolic renunciation of his predecessor George W. Bush. Much more substantial was this Administration's attention to methods. The American global image would not be projected and its position assured, as in the Dubya years, through military strength; instead, the US would lsucceed through a recognition of and adherence to international cooperation, a projection of tolerance, and a desire to listen. While the term “smart power”, developed over the last two years in anticipation of this Administration, is already in danger of overuse, it is the right expression for the Obama approach.

Yet, even in Obama's more than symbolic announcement, there were seeds of trouble for that “smart power”. The President had hoped to order the immediate, or at least the near-future, shutdown of Camp X-Ray, but he was stymied by political opposition as well as legal complications. The interview with Al Arabiya was a substitute for Obama's hope of a major foreign policy speech in an Arab capital in the first weeks of his Administrat. The Holbrooke appointment was modified when New Delhi made clear it would not receive a “Pakistan-India” envoy; Mitchell's scope for success has already been constrained by the background of Gaza.

Little of this was within Obama's power to rectify; it would have been Messianic indeed if he could have prevailed immediately, given the domestic and international context. The President may have received a quick lesson, however, in the bureaucratic challenges that face even the most determined and persuasive leader.

Already some officials in the Pentagon have tried to block Obama initiatives. They tried to spun against the plan to close Guantanamo Bay, before and after the Inauguration, with the claims that released detainees had returned to Al Qa'eda and terrorism. That attempt was undermined by the shallowness of the claims, which were only substantiated in two cases, and the unexpected offense that it caused Saudi Arabia, who felt that its programme for rehabilitation of former insurgents had been insulted. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally and firmed quashed the mini-coup by declaring on Wednesday that he fully supported Obama's plans.

On other key issues, however, the President faces tougher, higher-ranking, and more persistent opposition. Within a day of Obama's first meeting on Iraq, Pentagon sources were letting the media know their doubts on a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. And, after this Wednesday's meeting, General Raymond Odierno, in charge of US forces in Iraq, publicly warned against a quick transition to the Iraqi military and security forces. This not-too-subtle rebuke of the President has been backed by the outgoing US Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and I suspect by the key military figure, head of US Central Command General David Petraeus.

The future US strategy in Afghanistan also appears to be caught up in a battle within the Administration, with a lack of resolution on the increase in the American military presence (much,much more on that in a moment). And even on Iran, where Obama appears to be making a overture on engagement with Tehran, it's not clear that he will get backing for a near-future initiatives. White House officials leaked Obama's draft letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a British newspaper, but State Department officials added that such a letter would not be sent until a “full review” of the US strategy with Iran had been completed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Still, all of these might be minor irritants, given the impact both of Obama's symbolic steps and of other quieter but important steps. For example, after the outright Bush Administration hostility to any Latin American Government that did not have the proper economic or political stance, Obama's State Department immediately recognised the victory of President Evo Morales in a referendum on the Bolivian constitution, and there are signs that the President will soon be engaging with Havana's leaders with a view to opening up a US-Cuban relationship. In Europe, Obama's phone call with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was quickly followed by Moscow's announcement that, in return for a more productive US stance on missile defence (i.e., Washington wasn't going to roll out the system in Eastern Europe), Russia would not deploy missiles on the Polish border. There are even signals of an advance in the Middle East through a new US-Syrian relationship, although this is probably contingent on some recogntion or acceptance of Hamas by Washington.

So why am I even more concerned about the Obama foreign-policy path than I was a week ago, when I wrote of my conflicted reaction to the Inauguration? Let me introduce to the two elephants in this room, one which he inherited and one which he seems to have purchased.

Unless there is an unexpected outcome from George Mitchell's tour of the Middle East, Obama's goodwill toward the Arab and Islamic worlds could quickly dissipate over Gaza. The military conflict may be over, but the bitterness over the deaths of more than 1300 Gazans, most of them civilians, is not going away. And because President-elect Obama said next-to-nothing while the Israeli attack was ongoing, the burden of expectation upon President Obama to do something beyond an Al Arabiya interview is even greater.

Whether the Bush Administration directly supported Israel's attempt to overthrow Hamas and put the Palestinian Authority in Gaza or whether it was drawn along by Tel Aviv's initiative, the cold political reality is that this failed. Indeed, the operation --- again in political, not military, terms --- backfired. Hamas' position has been strengthened, while the Palestinian Authority now looks weak and may even be in trouble in its base of the West Bank.

And there are wider re-configurations. Egypt, which supported the Israeli attempt, is now having to recover some modicum of authority in the Arab world while Syria, which openly supported Hamas, has been bolstered. (Those getting into detail may note not only the emerging alliance between Damascus, Turkey, and Iran but also that Syria has sent an Ambassador to Beirut, effectively signalling a new Syrian-Lebanese relationship.)

Put bluntly, the Obama Administration --- with its belated approach to Gaza and its consequences --- is entering a situation which it does not control and, indeed, which it cannot lead. The US Government may pretend that it can pursue a political and diplomatic resolution by talking to only two of the three central actors, working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority but not Hamas, but that is no longer an approach recognised by most in the region and beyond. (In a separate post later today, I'll note a signal that even Washington's European allies are bowing to the existence of Hamas.)

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza situation is not my foremost concern, however. As significant, in symbolic and political terms, as that conflict might be for Washington's position in the Middle East and beyond, it will be a sideshow if the President and his advisors march towards disaster in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Wednesday, the New York Times had the red-flag story. White House staffers leaked the essence of the Obama plan: increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, leave nation-building to “the Europeans”, and drop Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he had any objections. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congressional committees that the US would continue its bombing of targets in northwest Pakistan. (Not a surprise, since the first strikes of the Obama era had already taken place , killing 19 people, most of them civilians.)

So much for “smart power”. Leave aside, for the moment, that the rationale for the approach to Afghanistan --- Gates saying that the US had to defeat “Al Qa'eda” --- is either a diversion or a flight for reality, since the major challenge in the country (and indeed in Pakistan) is from local insurgents. Consider the consequences.

What happens to Obama's symbolic goodwill in not only the Islamic world but worlds beyond when an increase in US forces and US operations leads to an increase in civilian deaths, when America walks away from economic and social projects as it concentrates on the projection of force, when there are more detainees pushed into Camp Bagram (which already has more than twice as many “residents” and worse conditions than Guantanamo Bay)? What happens to “smart power” when Obama's pledge to listen and grasp the unclenched fist is replaced with a far more forceful, clenched American fist? And what has happened to supposed US respect for freedom and democracy when Washington not only carries out unilateral operations in Pakistan but threatens to topple an Afghan leader who it put into power in 2001/2?

This approach towards Afghanistan/Pakistan will crack even the bedrock of US-European relations. In Britain, America's closest ally in this venture, politicians, diplomats, and military commanders are close-to-openly horrified at the US takeover and direction of this Afghan strategy and at the consequences in Pakistan of the US bombings and missile strikes. Put bluntly, “Europe” isn't going to step up to nation-build throughout Afghanistan as a mere support for American's military-first strategy. And when it doesn't, Obama and advisors will have a choice: will they then criticise European allies to the point of risking NATO --- at least in “out-of-area” operations --- or will it accept a limit to their actions?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the lack of agreement in the Obama Administration so far on a defined number of US troops means the President might not be in accord with the approach unveiled in the New York Times. Maybe the Administration will pursue an integrated political strategy, talking to groups inside Afghanistan (and, yes, that includes “moderate Taliban”) and to other countries with influence, such as Iran. Or maybe it won't do any of this, but Afghanistan won't be a disaster, or at least a symbolic disaster --- as with Iraq from 2003 --- spilling over into all areas of US foreign policy.

Sitting here amidst the grey rain of Dublin and the morning-after recognition that “expert thought” in the US, whatever that means, doesn't see the dangers in Afghanistan and Pakistan that I've laid out, I desperately hope to be wrong.

Because, if the world was made in six days, parts of it can be unmade in the next six months.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (28 January)

Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (27 January)
Latest Post: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

6 p.m. The Guardian of London: "President Barack Obama's administration is considering sending a letter to Iran aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks." The letter would be in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Obama on 6 November.

2:20 p.m. We've updated this morning's story on the Obama strategy for Afghanistan.

2:02 p.m. Reports that President Obama will visit Canada on 19 February.

2 p.m. The Dennis Ross saga, which has given us nightmares, continues. He still has not been officially named as the State Department envoy on Iranian matters but "United Against Nuclear Iran", the pressure group which includes as members Ross and State's envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, either has outdated info or gives the game away:

United Against Nuclear Iran thanks Ambassadors Holbrooke and Ross for their commitment, service, and leadership and we congratulate them on their recent appointments to the Department of State.

1 p.m. Pick a Number, Any Number. A NATO spokesman claims that less than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in the organisation's military operations in 2008. That compares with an estimate in The New York Times of up to 4000 and by an Afghan human rights group, based on UN numbers, of almost 700.

11:30 a.m. On the Other Hand....Only two hours after we updated on Russia's cancellation of a deployment of missiles on the Polish border, thanks to the Obama Factor, another problem crops up:

NATO countries expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Russia plans to set up bases in Russian-backed breakaway territories in Georgia, a NATO spokesman said.

The specific issue is Russia's announcement on Monday that it intends to build a naval base in Abkhazia, which was part of Georgia but which Russia recognised as "independent" after last August's Russian-Georgian war.

10:35 a.m. It's not all bad news in Afghanistan. The Taliban have praised, "Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Unfortunately, the feel-good moment may be short-lived. The Taliban also insisted that, if the President wants "mutual respect" with Muslim communities, "He must completely withdraw all his forces from the two occupied Islamic countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and to stop defending Israel against Islamic interests in the Middle East and the entire world." And, as for Afghanistan, Obama should not send additional US forces as "the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

9:45 a.m. Score one diplomatic/victory for the Obama Factor.

An official from the Russian General Staff has told the Interfax news agency that Moscow will suspend deployment of missiles on the Polish border: "These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic." The news follows a conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Monday.

There are other US-Russian exchanges to watch. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister has told Iran that Moscow wants to broaden "political, trade, and economic cooperation". For the moment, however, the apparent rapprochement raises the question....

What exactly was the value of the Missile Defence pursued by the Bush Administration so relentlessly over the last eight years?

7:30 a.m. Is this for show for real? Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, contradicting the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday,  say they have no agreement with the Obama Administration allowing US missile strikes on Pakistani territory: ""There is no understanding between Pakistan and the United States on Predator attacks."

Of course, it could be the case that the American arrangement is with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, bypassing the Foreign Ministry. Alternatively, the Pakistani Government is trying to hold to the public line of "independence" while private accepting US operations.

6 a.m. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given a challenging but cautious response to President Obama's suggestion of engagement. Speaking at an election rally in western Iran, Ahmadinejad said:

We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track. When they say "we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change ... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad, clearly picking up on Obama's campaign slogan of "change", added, "[The US] should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

This is a significant rhetorical position that has been taken up by Iranian leaders in the past. Indeed, I suspect US policymakers will immediately think that at the end of the Clinton Administration, they made such an apology, albeit belatedly, for the 1953 US-backed coup. It should also be noted that this is a campaign speech, with Ahmadinejad staking out his foreign-policy position to the Iranian electorate.

This said, Ahmadinejad gave an important signal in a reference to Washington stifling Iran's economic development since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decoded, this may be indicating to Obama: if you want to engage, the US has to make a commitment --- possibly even in advance of negotiations --- to ease existing sanctions on Tehran.

3:50 a.m. Glimpse the Future. Just to highlight our top post this morning on Afghanistan and the problems of the Obama strategy: "American officers distributed $40,000 on Tuesday to relatives of 15 people killed Jan. 19 in a United States raid."

The US military wasn't exactly generous in its apology, holding to the claim that a "militant commander" died along with 14 civilians. While a colonel told villages, "If there was collateral damage, I’m very sorry about that,” a US military lawyers made clear that "he payments were not an admission that innocents had been killed".

3:30 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry highlighting the apparent White House strategy in Afghanistan: ramp up the military effort, leave nation-building to others, and ditch Afghan President Hamid Karzai if necessary.

Morning Update (1:45 a.m. Washington time): It looks the campaign, pursued by some in the Pentagon, to undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay within a year has been checked. The New York Times and CNN began running a "backlash" story yesterday that the Saudi programme for rehabilitation of terrorists was actually very, very good with only nine participants, out of hundreds, returning to their evil ways. The significance? The original spin was that two ex-Gitmo detainees who had rejoined Yemeni terrorist cells may have gone through the Saudi programme.

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying to Congressional committees, gave full support to the closure plan: ""I believe that if we did not have a deadline, we could kick that can down the road endlessly."

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."

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (24 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Stories: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (23 January)
Latest Post: Coming Next in Iran
Latest Post: Track Barack with the Obamameter

1:35 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.

12:50 p.m. According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, France has drafted a plan for European countries to take 60 detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility. The French Government has refused to comment on the report.

12:40 p.m. In Independent but Not-Quite-Independent Iraq, US troops have killed a couple and wounded their daughter in a raid on  the house of a former Iraqi Army officer in Kirkuk.

A US military spokesman claimed the incident occurred in a joint operation with Iraqi forces, but an Iraqi police general said no Iraqi troops were present.

11:15 a.m. India Snubs Barack and Hillary. Here's one we missed. All week we were identifying Richard Holbrooke as President Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. In fact, when the appointment was announced on Thursday, India had fallen off the title.

It wasn't an omission. According to a US official, "When the Indian government learned Holbrooke was going to do [Pakistan]-India, they swung into action and lobbied to have India excluded from his purview. And they succeeded. Holbrooke's account officially does not include India."

Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations offers an explanation for Delhi's resistance: "They [India] are the big fish [in the region]. They don't want to be grouped with the 'problem children' in the region, on Kashmir, on nuclear issues." Moreover, another US official added, "The Indians do not like Holbrooke because he has been very good on Pakistan... and has a very good feel for the place."



11 a.m. Hey, Barack, Look Over Here! United Press International reports:

North Korea's state-run Korean Central News Agency said that a special U.S. Department of Defense investigations committee "recently made public a report designating (North Korea) as a nuclear weapons state."

The news service said the Defense Department report said that North Korea not only has "several nuclear weapons but a missile system capable of delivering them."

At the same time, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il is reportedly telling Chinese hosts, "The North Korean side will commit itself to the denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula, and hopes to co-exist peacefully with other involved parties."

9:45 a.m. Best Friends Forever Alert. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev made a big show on Friday of co-operation with the new Obama Administration, pointing to his country's permission for US transit of supplies to Afghanistan and offering to work with international efforts against drug-trafficking and terrorism in that country.

It's a low-cost, low-risk strategy for Moscow. There is no great inconvenience giving Washington an alternative to its now-closed Khyber Pass route, and reduced drug production in Afghanistan could ease the flow of illegal narcotics into Russia. And Medvedev can even chide the now-departed Bush Administration, ""Let's hope the new U.S. administration will be more successful than the previous one in dealing with the Afghan settlement."

Russia can do so because it knows full well that, if Obama's military-first approach in Afghanistan fails, it won't be the Soviet Union of the 1980s but the US of the 21st century that takes the fall.

8:30 a.m. A quick tip of the hat to our little-brother site, The State of the United States, which continues to offer some of the most provocative and incisive analysis of US politics: "I'm sure all of us will see Obama's promises carried out soon; people are going to have to be patient. I ask, what is Obama going to promise next? An end to the death penalty?"

6:20 a.m. A suicide car bomb aimed at African Union peacekeepers in Mogadishu, Somalia, has killed 15.

6:05 a.m. More (conflicting) details on the US attack in eastern Afghanistan overnight. The American military is still claiming that 15 militants, including a woman, were killed. Afghan official and a village elder say 21 or 22 civilians died. The elder added, "Their bodies are on the ground. If you (Afghan government) do not believe us, you have helicopters and you should come to the area and see that these are civilians."

5:20 a.m. A revealing pair of sentences in a New York Times summary of yesterday's US missile strikes on Pakistan, which killed at least 20 people:

The downside: "American officials in Washington said there were no immediate signs that the strikes on Friday had killed any senior Qaeda leaders."

The upside: "They said the attacks had dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr. Obama would rein in the Predator attacks."

Soon after the attacks, Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting devoted specifically to Pakistan and Afghanistan. We're searching for details of the discussions.

5:10 a.m. Completely helpful, non-sensational lead sentence in New York Times story on releasing detainees from Guantanamo Bay:

Is Khalid Sheikh Muhammed coming to a prison near you?

5 a.m. Five policeman have been killed and 13 people wounded in a suicide bomb attack northwest of Baghdad.

4:10 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". (cross-posted from Israel-Palestine-Gaza Updates)

3:40 a.m. US officials claim 15 "militants" killed in American raid; villagers report civilians among dead.

Morning update (3 a.m. Washington time): CNN reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reached out to allies by phoning "a slew of leaders since taking office on Thursday". OK, that's great. One question....

What's a slew?

Within 15 minutes, a reader responds by noting that "slew" is the past tense of "slay" and worries that the alliance may have something to do with killing.

For the record, the foreign leaders mentioned by the State Department were "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah and the foreign ministers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia".

The Latest from Israel-Palestine-Gaza (23 January)

Latest Post: George Mitchell on the Israel-Palestine Issue, 22 October 2008
Related Post: Chomsky on Gaza 2009
Related Post: Enduring America in UCD College Tribune on Gaza
Related Post: Regime Change in Gaza - The Israeli Strategy Continues

2 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?



11:05 p.m. The Egypt-Israel Alliance Restored. This really should be headline news....

The Jerusalem Post reports that Cairo and Tel Aviv have agreed on a plan for up to 1500 Egyptian guards to "secure" the Egypt-Gaza border. Egypt and Israel will cooperate on " intelligence cooperation, obstacles in Sinai and the deployment of new tunnel-detection technology along the border". The plan was approved by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak after a late-night meeting on Thursday.

The agreement restores Egyptian-Israeli cooperation on the isolation of Hamas and economic blockade of Gaza after Cairo balked at having an international force patrol the border.

10:45 p.m. France has announced it will be sending a frigate with helicopters to patrol the Gaza coast.

This is the military dimension of the French strategy, working with Israel, the US, and Egypt to block arms supplies to Hamas. The question is the whether the political dimension, in which Paris persuades the Obama Administration to talk to Hamas or (more likely) serves as an interlocutor for quiet discussions, is implemented.

8:43 p.m. Israel continues to restrict aid into Gaza. It is allowing 120 truckloads of food and medicine (compared to traffic last summer of 750 trucks/day), but is blocking transport steel and cement and preventing cash --- even though it comes from the Palestinian Authority --- from reaching Gazans.

8:40 p.m. White House release says President Obama phoned Saudi King Abdullah this afternoon. No other details given.

7:15 p.m. What is the definition of Crocodile Tears? Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his reaction to a Gazan doctor hearing, live on Israeli television, about the death of three daughters and a niece: "I cried when I saw this. Who didn't? How could you not?"

5:10 p.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.

4:20 p.m. Reuters reports the statement of United Nations official John Ging that Israel's invasion of Gaza has strengthened the hand of extremists and that growing Gazan anger can only be assuaged by a credible independent investigation: "The extremists here -- there are more now at the end of this conflict than there were at the start, that's the product of such conflict -- are very confident in their rhetoric that there should be no expectation that justice will be delivered through the rule of law. Now we must prove that wrong,"

3:25 p.m. Pro-Israel Twitterers are pushing the news that twelve representatives of Physicians for Human Rights have been allowed into Gaza by Israeli forces. They might want to reflect on the timing and scale of that "concession", given the more than 2000 Gazans who are still hospitalised with serious injuries. And they want to take note of the sub-headline in the article: "Many families were simply wiped out during IDF offensive".

12:20 p.m. Profiles in Broadcasting Courage. The BBC has refused to air a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella group for 13 charities. The explanation? ""The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

Special Note: Using that criteria of "impartiality", the BBC would not have aired LiveAid in the midst of the Ethiopian famine (and civil war) in 1984-85.

11:10 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.

11:05 a.m. Just to highlight the Fatah-Hamas struggle and the possible "blowback" from Israeli operations --- it's Hamas, not Fatah, who is stronger in both Gaza and the West Bank --- Donald Macintyre offers this assessment in The Independent of London:

The sharp decline in support for Fatah and the discrediting of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, because of his inertia during the 22-day Gaza war, will make it very difficult for the US and the EU to pretend that Fatah are the true representatives of the Palestinian community.

10:55 a.m. Saudi Arabian Prince Turki al-Faisal has fired a warning shot at Washington over Israel, Palestine, and Gaza, writing in The Financial Times: "Unless the new U.S. administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the U.S.-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk."

Turki isn't just "a member of the Saudi royal family". He's a former leader of Saudi intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to Britain. Consider the Obama Administration put on notice. Any Saudi backing of the attempt to knock off Hamas is now outweighed by the need to condemn Israel for its military and political approach: "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."

10:50 a.m. Twitter One-Liner of the Morning: "Best thing about appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East envoy is it effectively puts demonic Tony Blair out of a job."



10:30 a.m. We've posted a separate blog,  The Strategy for Gaza Unravels, on Israel's attempt to tie reconstruction aid for Gaza to regime change, toppling Hamas and re-installing the Palestinian Authority.

Morning update (8:45 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): CNN carries a tip-of-the-iceberg story about the central battle over Who Runs Gaza?: "Rival Factions  Trade Accusations Over Spying, Violence". It reports on Hamas accusations of spying for Israel by Fatah members and on counter-accusations that Hamas has carried out "punishment shootings".

The story is mainly a recap of information which has been out for days, although it does add some detail. Fatah is alleging that at least 175 of its members have been rounded up and tortured, while the neighbours of Hamas leader Saed Siam, killed in an Israeli airstrike last week, are claiming that informers pinpointed the house for the Israelis.

What is missing in the article is any recognition of the wider political struggle to lead Gaza, including the linking of the Israeli attacks to plans to return the Palestinian Authority to power.