China Watch: Beijing Media’s Global Expansion (Shan Shan)

Last week, Xinhua news agency, China’s main news service, launched a 24-hour global TV news network in English, China Xinhua News Network Corporation (CNC) World.

According to Xinhua’s report, CNC aims to reach 50 million viewers in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, North America and Africa by satellite, cable, cellphone and the Internet within its first year. Plans are for it to be available on cable networks in regions including the United States by 1 Ocotber.

Meanwhile, Xinhua's North American headquarters will move to the top floor of a 44-story skyscraper in New York's Times Square, alongside media giants such as Thomson Reuters and Conde Nast, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The two efforts are being seen as attempts by China to enable “more voices to be heard by the rest of the world” and to counter foreign media views. Beijing officials contend that China is often misunderstood and misrepresented by the international media, which “present a biased or unfair view of news from the country, focusing on negative stories and ignoring positive developments”.



The move points to Xinhua’s intention to be “a global player” and to the recogntion of China "in the global arena that soft power is as important as hard power”. However, many critics are doubtful about CNC World’s independence and objectivity in news reporting because of Xinhua’s state-owned status and Chinese censorship.

Countering these views, Wu Jincai, controller of CNC World, insisted that CNC World is " a news channel, not a propaganda station". Unlike other Chinese media, CNC is “51% owned by Xinhua but also has private investors, including Gree --- a private Chinese home appliances maker”.

Shirong Chen, the BBC China Editor, points out that since 2008, Xinhua has made efforts to “transform itself from an official news agency to a multimedia empire with direct access to audiences both at home and abroad”. At the same time, even though international news will take up more than half of its programs, CNC World “is competing for the strongest forces for covering China news. With ubiquitous correspondents positioned throughout China, CNC World produces extensive and in-depth TV programs on China news.” Li Congjun, Xinhua President, summarised, "CNC World will report international news with a China perspective and China news with a global vision" for overseas audiences.

CNC World’s launch and Xinhua’s move are only part of efforts to expand China's influence abroad. It is also said that “Beijing has been pouring millions of dollars into the broadcasters in an attempt to promote its own messages about China to the wider world”.

In recent years, China’s media organiaztions have been trying to increase its presence outside the country, echoing Chinese President Hu Jintao's aspiration for "a modern communication system" and "communication capacity" for Chinese media at home and abroad. Integrating several media’s reports, China Central Television, the country’s biggest state-run television broadcaster, has been expanding overseas and offering broadcasts in English, Spanish, French, Arabic and other languages.

People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party, owns two newspapers: China Daily, an English-language daily newspaper, and an English edition of Global Times. The Xinhua news agency, which already has more than 10,000 employees and 120 bureaus around the world, has begun recruiting non-Chinese journalists from around the world to write for its news services.

Last month, the Southern Daily Group, which publishes one of the most influential liberal newspapers in China, the Southern Metropolis Daily, made a bid to purchase Newsweek magazine. Even though the bid was unsuccessful, it was reported that the Southern Daily Group's senior management was "expecting to make other similar purchases".

Middle East Inside Line: US Secretly Pledges Sale of Nuclear Technology to Israel (Ha'aretz)

Hmm... Here's one aspect of this week's talks between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that you may not have noticed. From the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz and reporter Barak Ravid:

Israel's Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

Israel-US Analysis: Netanyahu Wins — 1, 2, 3, 4 Times — in Talks With Obama (Yenidunya)
Israel Video & Transcript: The Netanyahu-Obama Meeting (6 July)

According to Army Radio, the U.S. has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies, despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT, and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.

During Tuesday's meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the two leaders discussed the global challenge of nuclear proliferation and the need to strengthen the nonproliferation system.

They also discussed calls for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was peoposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York and which Netanyahu said he would not take part in because it intends to single out Israel.

Obama informed Netanyahu that, as a co-sponsor charged with enabling the proposed conference, the United States will insist that such a conference have a broad agenda to include regional security issues, verification and compliance and discussion of all types of weapons of mass destruction.

Obama emphasized the conference will only take place if all countries "feel confident that they can attend," and said that efforts to single out Israel would make the prospects of such a conference unlikely.

The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the IAEA General Conference in September.

Obama emphasized that the U.S. will continue to work closely with Israel to ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security, and "support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability."

Afghanistan Projection: Pakistan's "Strategic Depth" & Endless War (Mull)

EA correspondent Josh Mullis the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

If everything works out perfectly in our counterinsurgency strategy, or if congress forces a binding timetable in line with popular support, the United States will begin slowly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan in July 2011. It's only the start, it will be tremendously slow, and the military leadership will likely fight it every step of the way (if Iraq is any indication, that is).

Afghanistan: Republican Chairman Steele Stumbles, “Progressive” Reaction Fumbles (Mull)

July 2011. That's one year from now --- 12 months. If June's casualty numbers remain constant, more than a thousand Americans wi'll die before then, at minimum another $80 billion will be spent, and then we just start leaving. After that there's no clear evidence of exactly how long it will take before the US has completely removed its military presence from Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc., although there's no evidence we're planning on leaving those places either.

This is a good thing. It's good that Congress is starting to listen to its constituents, and is taking action to hold President Obama to his timetable for withdrawal. Afghanistan is America's longest war, and with such ethereal objectives as "stability" and "preventing safe havens for extremism", the war can seem endlessly un-winnable, stretching on for decades as long as we're content to let it happen. That we have a goal in sight, July 2011, is absolutely a victory.

Unfortunately, it's not good enough. Pakistan's national security policy of supporting terrorist groups and militias as proxies against India, known as "strategic depth", is accelerating out of control, and they are either deliberately or inadvertently engineering a globalized religious war, a clash of civilisations. Both terrorist and insurgent elements are evolving, with the Taliban co-opting Al-Qa'eda's idea of religious war to legitimize its fight against the Pakistani state, and Al-Qa'eda in turn co-opting the Taliban's objective of confronting India to legitimize the sub-continent as the premier theater of global jihad. Hawkish India, for one, will not take these developments lightly.

If pressure on Congress is not increased, if the US remains on the slow, ambiguous timetable it is on now, it will be caught right in the middle of this clash. The bloodbath of Iraq in 2006 was only a preview of what will happen if there is a civil war in Pakistan, or a (nuclear?) war between Pakistan and India. Or both. If the US does not expedite its withdrawal, as well as dramatically reform its policies toward the region as a whole, we will very quickly be sucked into that conflagration.

"Strategic Depth", Pakistan's support of militants, is a carefully crafted national security strategy. However, it is easiest to understand in the context of state-sponsored terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, many Arab governments supported terrorist groups as a form of internal security. The oppressive Arab dictators would facilitate terrorist recruiting and training so long as they went off to wage jihad in Lebanon, or Palestine, or Israel, or anywhere else but at home. In doing so, they ensured that any violent radicals were engaged elsewhere, while clinging to scraps of Islamic legitimacy for their brutal police states. It is "strategic depth" for domestic purposes.

Pakistan's calculation is just the same, only adapted to military and foreign policy. Pakistan is able to wage a war against India through terrorism and militancy (Taliban puppets in Kabul, Lashkar-e-Taipa puppets at home), while maintaining some legitimacy with its own constituency (elite Punjabi Pakistanis). Furthermore, Pakistan's military-owned industries are able to win massive amounts of contracts and investments from the US and China among others, and in return offer up meaningless victories (capturing an Al-Qa'eda commander for the Americans, shutting down a Uighur training camp for the Chinese). All the while the Army safely maintains its truly-important insurgent assets for use against India. It is state-sponsored terrorism as foreign policy, and it's been very successful for them so far.

But the terrorists and militants themselves also benefit from this relationship, and they may now be adapting beyond the control of the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Just as the Arab governments discovered, state-sponsored terrorism always comes back to bite you. Syria learned from Lebanon, Egypt learned from the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Saudis learned from Al-Qa'eda that it is only a matter of time before the militants turn on you. In the same way, the Taliban is now turning from the US in Afghanistan and onto the Pakistani state.

We see this in the recent attack on a Sufi Muslim shrine in Lahore, Pakistan. Sufi are the majority in Pakistan, centered in its Punjab region with the country's elite. The Taliban, with their Deoband Islam, are in the minority, focused in the Pashtun tribal areas. The shrine bombing shows that Al-Qa'eda's idea of war for Islamic purity has taken hold within the Taliban, and they are able to pivot from a local liberation movement fighting the Americans to a religious jihad against the Pakistani state as represented by the heretical Sufi Islam.

China Hand writes:

Beyond the demands of Deobandi faith, igniting a religious struggle against popular Sufism is almost a tactical necessity. Fighting against the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps is not the same as battling the NATO and U.S. unbelievers in Afghanistan.

The Pakistan Taliban are locked in a battle with the military forces of an Islamic state and need the trappings of a sustained Islamic religious struggle inside Pakistan in order to sustain its legitimacy, motivate its followers, and divide its opposition.

In fact, attacking Sufi religious practices is probably integral to the entire Taliban strategy of polarizing Pakistani society by attacking a weak link—the popular but difficult to defend (on strict Islamic terms) worship of local saints whose interred bodies reputedly have magic powers.

The central province of Punjab hosts several important Sufi shrines, raising the terrifying specter of attacks on heterodox religious practices in Pakistan’s heartland by an ostentatiously righteous, militant, and ascendant religious group whose stated mission is to rescue Islam not only from the West but from idolatry within its own ranks.

And, as a reading of Sikan indicates, challenging popular Sufism also means challenging the authority of the custodians who obtained legitimacy, wealth, and power from their control of the shrines and promises to link the Taliban to a populist, anti-elitist message that may find resonance in the impoverished areas of Pakistan far beyond its Pashtun base.

There's not much hope that even the Sufi majority can withstand an open civil war against the Deobandi minority:

If the conflict comes, the [Sufi] are likely to be outgunned.

The Pashtun Deobandi are militant, supported by zakat (Islamic charity contributions) from Saudi Arabia, and have numerous friends and supporters within Pakistan’s security apparatus.

The pacifist, underfunded, and underorganized Barelvi—with the exception of the reliably violent MQM in Karachi—appear to be reliant upon Pakistan’s rickety and equivocal civilian government to take the battle to the Taliban.

Those numerous friends and supporters within the security apparatus is the "strategic depth," the state sponsorship. That sponsorship may have given them enough strength to finally ignite an all-out civil war. At that point we are no longer talking about isolated Pashtun insurgencies and rural-urban disparities, we are looking at the complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity. Like Iraq, Pakistan is a wealthy, militarized, and industrialized society and the consequences of its shattered social fabric will be hell on earth. Only Pakistan also happens to have an extensive nuclear weapons arsenal. Iraq, famously, did not.

In addition to the Taliban, the Pakistani Al-Qa'eda franchises have also adapted with the support of "strategic depth". They are now carrying out attacks against targets in India, claiming other Pakistan-supported militant attacks as their own, or both.

From Raman's Strategic Analysis:

There are two types of messages purporting to be from Al Qaeda relating to India. The first are video or audio messages of Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri relating to the global jihad and the global intifada in which there are references to India, including Kashmir. These have been authenticated by Western intelligence agencies on the basis of voice recognition. They are in the form of general criticism of India or general threats and not specific.

The second are messages claiming responsibility on behalf of [Al Qaeda fil Hind, "Al-Qaeda in India"] for specific acts of terrorism in India such as the Mumbai suburban train explosions of July 2006, the Mumbai terrorist strikes of 26/11 and the Pune German bakery explosion and warning of future acts of terrorism against global sports events in India. These are messages circulated through the Internet or through phone calls by persons whose voices could not be identified. There is no way of establishing the authenticity of these messages. We must take them seriously for further investigation and strengthening physical security. At the same time, we should take care not to walk into any trap of the ISI to divert suspicion away from the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organizations and from the ISI for serious acts of terrorism in Indian territory by creating an impression that those were carried out by Al Qaeda.

So there's no concrete evidence that Al-Qa'eda in India exists as of yet, but the perception that it does exist is growing. Even if it is Pakistani intelligence services trying to create a mythical Al-Qa'eda, that doesn't change the fact that each new terrorist attack in India will be seen as a victory for Al-Qa'eda's jihad. And with each new "victory" come new "foreign fighters" willing to take up arms. The myth becomes reality, whether you want it to or not. And not only in India, but in Kashmir as well.

Eric Randolph writes:

On 15 June, Al Qaeda announced that it has a new branch, Al Qaeda in Kashmir (AQK), according to a report in Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor [subscription needed]. The group is apparently led by Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri, who claimed responsibility for the February bombing of the German Bakery in Pune, India. [...]

The announcement of AQK is significant, however, since it shows Al Qaeda trying to bolster what it clearly thinks is an emerging front in the global jihad: India. The LeT have already shown an interest in extending anti-Indian militancy beyond localised issues such as Kashmir. The LeT opposes India not just because of specific policies and actions, but for its very existence - as a perceived enemy of Islam. Hence, attacks such as those in Mumbai, as well as earlier bombings in which it is likely to have played a role, strike at symbols of India’s success – its economic growth and its acceptance into the global (i.e. Western) community. The appearance of the Al Qaeda brand name in the region is part of this process: framing the conflict between India and Pakistan as a global, ahistorical phenomenon, divorced from immediate political concerns and thus insulating the jihad from any progress in negotiations between the two governments.  Who belongs to which group is less important than the symbolism that this latest development suggests.

Al-Qa'eda can fully open the entire sub-continent as a theater for jihad, and coupled with the collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan and the presumable Indian military response, we have the Clash of Civilizations. Pakistan vs India becomes Islam vs the Hindu Superpower. And stuck right there in the middle of it is 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan, soon to be controlled by a Taliban-Karzai power-sharing government, a puppet of Pakistan's "strategic depth". To say it will be ugly is an epic understatement.

We may be in the process of pulling ourselves back from the brink of endless war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't stop anyone else from sucking us back in. Whatever our pretensions about 9/11 and denying terrorists a safe haven in Afghanistan, there's no turning back once we've been sucked into a massive blowout on the sub-continent.

Congress must be forced to not only institute a binding timetable for the President, but to accelerate that timetable in every conceivable way possible. Funding must be cut, programs discontinued, missions aborted. Nothing the US could (doubtfully) accomplish before July 2011 will change the events in Pakistan and India. We can eradicate the corruption in Kandahar, but that won't deter the Deobandi-Sufi civil war in Pakistan. We can install perfect governments-in-a-box in every single province in Afghanistan, it won't stop Al-Qa'eda from waging its jihad in Kashmir and India. We can't afford the blood and treasure that the war is costing now, much less if it explodes across the region.

The US must accelerate its withdrawal timetable, but it also must dramatically reform its policy toward Pakistan. Waiting another year before beginning to leave Afghanistan is also another year spent dumping billions of dollars and sophisticated military technology into the hands of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, those most responsible for the stoking the civil war and terrorism with their "strategic depth." The US must engage with and empower the democratically elected civilian government. It is they who must be strengthened in the battle against extremism, not the Army and ISI. But even this is simply taking yet another side in yet another civil war, and if the past is any indication, the US is by no means guaranteed success even if we try.

It is good to celebrate what has been accomplished in ending the war. It is good that 65% of Americans now support the timetable, and that congress is starting to act on that. But more pressure must be brought to bear on your local representatives. The timetable must be sped up, the US must begin drawing down before July 2011 and certainly at a much faster pace than is currently planned. The maneuvering for a post-US Afghanistan has accelerated out of control, and if we don't move fast enough, if  Congress isn't forced to step up efforts, there may be no such thing as a post-US Afghanistan. Quite frankly, if we don't start leaving now, we may never leave at all.

The Latest from Iran (7 July): Mousavi's Intervention

1900 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Bail for human rights activist Abdolreza Ahmadi, detained in March, has been set at $150,000.

1820 GMT: The Bazaar Strike and Government Climb-Down. The Los Angeles Times has a good overview of yesterday's developments over the stoppage in the Tehran Bazaar and the Government's reversal of a proposed increase in business tax.

NEW Iran Analysis: Crisis…What Crisis? (Verde)
NEW Iran’s New Haircut Law: First Culprit Identified!
Iran Document: The Mousavi-Khatami Meeting (5 July)
The Latest from Iran (6 July): Compromise?

1815 GMT: Mousavi on Sanctions (and the Economy and the Revolutionary Guard). Agence France Presse offers a useful summary of today's statement by Mir Hossein Mousavi (see 1430 GMT).

Mousavi, in a direct manipulation of the President's words, declared, "To say that this resolution is like a 'used hankie' will not ease the hardships arising from demagogic policies, as it is clear to me that this resolution will affect our nation's security and economy."

Mousavi continued by noting the impact of sanctions and hitting at the Government's folly for bringing Iran down on both the international and economic fronts:

This oppressive resolution ... will decrease GDP, increase unemployment, create more hardships for people and widen the gap between us and other developing nations, especially our neighbours.

[The Iranian people] should know the effect of this resolution ... on their livelihood, inflation, the nation's progress and security. If people are asked to resist (sanctions), then their trust should be earned by telling them the truth.

Mousavi then linked economic woes to the intervention of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps,  "Bringing Sepah [the IRGC] back to its main responsibilities can decrease the greed of enemies ... and decrease the wave of corruption," he said.

1500 GMT: Rumour of Day. Iran Press News is claiming that the Tehran Bazaar, amidst this week's strike by some traders, is under heavy security. It claims there was an attack by men in plainclothes, with one merchant killed.

1430 GMT: A Double Intervention from Mousavi. Mir Hossein Mousavi has followed his Monday meeting with former President Mohammad Khatami with a further comment.

In a note on the recent UN Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran's nuclear programme, Mousavi extends remarks from the Monday meeting that the UN is wrongfully punishing Iran and adds that this is a product of the Ahmadinejad Government's wayward foreign policy.

Mousavi's website Kalemeh publishes a long editorial explaining that Mousavi does not believe church and state should be separates in the development of the Islamic Republic. The editorial is in part a response to an article in the Los Angeles Times that claimed Mousavi, in his recent "Green Charter", had advocated a secular Iranian system. (It is not stated what role, if any, Mousavi played in the writing and publication of the editorial.)

0840 GMT: The Bazaar Strike. Claimed video of yesterday's strike, protesting at a proposed 70% in business taxes, by merchants in the Tehran Bazaar:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCSSy4HZP-U[/youtube]

0700 GMT: We have two contrasting features this morning. Mr Verde takes a long look at the significant anti-Ahmadinejad intervention by MP Ahmad Tavakoli and the Islamic Azad University dispute to ponder, "Crisis...What Crisis?".

If you prefer your news tongue-in-cheek, our top EA news spies have uncovered the first violator of Iran's new guidelines for men's haircuts.

0610 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. An appeals court has upheld the six-year prison sentence of reformist activist and journalist Keyvan Samimi Behbahani, who has also been barred from political, social and cultural activities for 15 years.

Samimi Behbahani is the managing director of the banned publication Nameh and is also a member of the committee in charge of investigating the unlawful arrest of individuals.

An appeals court has approved the three-year prison sentence handed down to Arman Rezakhani.

0515 GMT: As the 11th anniversary of the 1999 student protests approaches, there is talk of some public demonstration linking the past to the present challenge to the regime. For the moment, however, this is just a ripple. Monday's Mousavi-Khatami statement, from what we can gather, seems to have brought little reaction: the summary of the meeting is more a declaration of the "Iranian" legitimacy of the opposition's politics --- the most striking passage is the criticism of international sanctions and "Western" support for terrorism --- than a call for public resistance.

Protest, however, is never far from the surface, for Iran is far more than a Green v. Government scenario. International attention is riveted by the growing campaign to halt the stoning of Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani for adultery.

Inside Iran, the most striking result on Tuesday was the apparent success of merchants in the Tehran Bazaar. A sudden shut-down by some textile vendors --- there was also news of closures in the jewellry market --- seems to have brought a reversal of plans for a 70% increase in business tax.

On the labour front, the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Drivers Union has again strongly condemned the arrest and intimidation of members Saeed Torabian and Reza Shahabi.

And, far from least, the battle within continues. Later this morning we'll have an analysis of the latest "protest" of Ahmad Tavakoli --- key member of Parliament and ally of Speaker Ali Larijani --- against the Government and President Ahmadinejad.

Israel-US Analysis: Netanyahu Wins --- 1, 2, 3, 4 Times --- in Talks With Obama (Yenidunya)

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had his meeting with Barack Obama, an encounter described by the US President as "excellent".

Both leaders pointed to four main topics in their private talks, but the most striking note in Obama's speech was his emphasis on "Israel's security", mentioned eight times, crowned by "the U.S.'s unwavering commitment to Israel's security" and an underlining of the "unbreakable bonds" between two countries.

Palestine Analysis: Assessing Direct Talks between Israel & the Palestinian Authority
Israel Video & Transcript: The Netanyahu-Obama Meeting (6 July)

First of all, there was Gaza. Obama did not criticise Israel's misconduct over the clash with the Freedom Flotilla. He did not mention West Jerusalem's pursuit of an internal enquiry, defying calls for an impartial, international investigation. But he did praise Israel's "real progress" with the widening of the list of goods permitted entry into Gaza.

Secondly, the "Iranian threat". Both leaders praised national and international sanctions. Then, Netanyahu added the title "the biggest threat" to Tehran and called on all those in the United Nations to increase the effectiveness of the sanctions, especially on the energy sector.

Thirdly, Israel's nuclear arsenals. Although nearly 200 signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including the US, agreed in May to work towards a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, Obama stated that there is no change in U.S. policy on West Jerusalem's officially undeclared stockpile of nuclear arms:  "Israel has unique security requirements!"

Lastly, the talks with the Palestinian Authority. Obama's agenda is crystal-clear: both sides will present confidence-building measures. Included in this is a messsage to the Palestinians not to make any demand for a freeze on construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank,  as this will lead to "more room created by more trust".

Then, the parties will move to direct talks. The precedent has been set by this week's  meetingin Jerusalem between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Palestinian Authority's Salam Fayyad. In that meeting, Fayyad asked for more space and duties for a Palestinian security force, consolidating the Palestinian Authority's legitimacy. Obama offered support:

Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas], working with Fayyad, has done some very significant things when it comes to the security front.  And so us being able to widen the scope of their responsibilities in the West Bank is something that I think would be very meaningful to the Palestinian people.

Obama, when asked if  there would be an extension of the construction freeze in the West Bank, merely stated that parties should engage in direct talks so that they can trust each other through confidence-building measures.

It is both interesting and unusual that Washington expects Ramallah to be "more pragmatic"over West Bank settlements  while presuming that this will have no effect in its legitimacy, both in the eyes of its rivals and of its people.

The one explanation that might account for this American position is that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have already agreed in principle to a proposal for a swap of land for 2.3 percent of the West Bank, Israel's sovereignty over the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. With that deal in the pockets of neogtiators, direct talks will be brief and the parties can go to a final stage of discussions.

Is it really that easy? Or did Benjamin Netanyahu just post some big victories --- 1, 2, 3, and 4 --- on the lawn of the White House?