Israel-Palestine: Hamas' Meshaal Makes His Move

Israel-Palestine: How Netanyahu Demolished the Plan A of the Peace Process

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

In a televised statement on Thursday, Hamas political director Khaled Meshaal rejected Israel’s peace proposal while hailing the US President Barack Obama’s “new language.”

With reconciliation talks with Fatah due to take place in Cairo on Sunday, Meshaal’s pragmatic speech should be interpreted as another links in a chain of moves to strengthen Washington’s hand and to put more pressure on Israel. Nevertheless, Meshaal did not bring any new ideas to the table but repeated Hamas' rhetorical position.

Meshaal took apart the recent speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, “The [Palestinian] state that Netanyahu talked about, with control on it by land, sea and air, is a freak entity and a big prison, not a country fit for a great people… Mr. Netanyahu offered merely self-governance under the name of a country”

As for Netanyahu's demand for Palestinians recognition of Israel, Meshaal responded: “The enemy's leaders call for a so-called Jewish state is a racist demand that is no different from calls by Italian Fascists and Hitler's Nazism.”

Meshaal offered no change in Hamas’s current political position, rejecting the demands of the US-EU-UN-Russia Quartet, “Dealing with Hamas and Palestinian resistance movements must be based on respecting the will of the Palestinian people and its democratic choice, not through putting conditions, such as those of the quartet” He continued to stand upon "the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, that has full sovereignty on the borders of 4 June 1967; the removal of all settlements; and the achievement of the right of return".

Having drawn a firm line against any movement towards Israel, Meshaal then praised Obama with a message for "the sake of the reconciliation talks":: “We appreciate Obama's new language towards Hamas. And it is the first step in the right direction towards a dialogue without conditions, and we welcome this.”

This is not the first time that Hamas has mentioned talks with the US but on an unconditional basis. On 11 June, Meshaal told the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, “Obama says he will turn a new page in the region and begin a dialogue with the Iranians and with the Syrians unconditionally… If so, why is he placing conditions on Hamas?”

The question is whether Washington takes up Meshaal's rhetoric to put pressure on Israel. The Obama Administration has left open that possibility: when it asked Congress to allow continued aid to Palestinians, it said this was possible even if officials linked to Hamas become part of the government after reconciliation talks.

If the Cairo discussions proceed, the Obama Administration might use Meshaal’s message as leverage in the event that Israel does not move beyond symbolic developments, such as Thursday's declaration that it is reducing the number of its soldiers in four West Bank.

On then to Egypt: this time the seemingly endless cycle of stop-start discussions may have significance.

Israel-Palestine: How Netanyahu Demolished the Plan A of the Peace Process

Related Post: Israel-Palestine - Netanyahu’s Two-State Magical Sidestep
Transcript: Netanyahu Speech on Israel-Palestine (14 June)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s carefully-framed speech on 14 June portrayed a peaceful Israel pursuing all necessary steps for a regional peace agreement.

It's when you read the speech more closely that problems emerge. Netanyahu’s priority of economic development rather than political agreements, Israel’s pre-conditions for peace (including no pre-conditions on Israel), and its political and social securitization are out of step with dynamics in the Middle East.

Netanyahu's speech was bolstered by developments  such as the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Since the beginning of June, the tension in the West Bank has soared dramatically. After several Hamas members were killed by Fatah, a Damascus-based Hamas spokesman, Talal Nasser, called on Palestinians to fight the Palestinian Authority as though they were fighting the Israeli occupation. In response, the Palestinian police arrested 36 Hamas supporters in the West Bank. Hamas’s unsustainable and irrational steps were partly curbed by its chief in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, who complained instead about pre-conditions set by the Obama Administration. He declared that Hamas would not be an obstacle to the peace process if it was included as a partner in Israeli talks with the Palestinian Authority.

However, in the eyes of important actors in the international community, there is no legitimate ground for Hamas unless it confirms the conditions of the Quartet: recognition of Israel, ending terrorist activities and abiding by the past agreements signed by the PA. And Hamas will not issue that confirmation as long as Gaza and the West Bank are divided both geographically and politically.

Thus Netanyahu can rely upon the "existential threat" of a strong Hamas troubling Fatah in the West Bank and, more importantly, relying of the backing of a "potentially nuclear-armed" Iran.

There are, of course, issues beyond Hamas. How can there be a peace process with Fatah while settlements are still not frozen and the proposal of a demilitarized Palestinian state includes "ironclad security provisions" for Israeli security forces? How can Netanyahu foresee a real regional peace agreement without giving any concessions  to Israel's Arab neighbours, for example, when his Syrian colleague Bashar Assad has already declared that there will be no negotiations without the promise to return the Golan Heights to Syria?

For Netanyahu, the wonder of "Hamas" is that it can always trump these difficulties because of the overriding notion of Israeli "security".

Securitization of Israel’s Existence

The remarkable threats in Netanyahu’s speech were those of nuclear weapons and radical Islam. Because Iran is considered as the nexus of these two, it is the number one enemy for Israel. Radical Islam’s branches – Hamas and Hezbollah – follow:

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons....Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people.

The contrast to these menaces is the unique character of Israelis. They are the ones whose forefathers and prophets lived in the same lands where they now live; they are the only nation linking their state’s existence with religion and history. It is Israelis who suffered from expulsions, pogroms, massacres, and a Holocaust which has no parallel in human history. Despite these hardships, it was Israelis who formed their own state.

The threat of Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas endangers this unique "existence", word used three times by Netanyahu in his speech. Each time, "existence" referred not only to community but to Israeli institutions: “It is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people....On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed....Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.”

Netanyahu’s Investment in "Peace"

But how to deal with the issue that, while Netanyahu might have an emphasis on "security", others would be looking for "peace"?

In a speech where every word was selected carefully, “peace” was used on 43 occasions, 15 more times than Barack Obama invoked it in his Cairo speech. The word “war” was used seven times, once to highlight Israel’s success in the 1967 Six-Day War, six times to depict the ugliness of wars in general.

In addition, there were two references to the religion of the Torah and the prophet. This was to show one party in the conflict, Israelis, demanding peace not just in their political debates but also in their prayers. This religious commitment put forth Israel’s honesty when “the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own”. Israelis struggle for peace day and night while Arabs dismiss “the truth”.

Israel’s Pre-Conditions for A Two-State Solution under “The Road Map”

Netanyahu's headline statement, according to many in the Western media, was that he finally accepted "peace" through a two-state solution. However, the corollary of Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state is that Israelis will not accept the right of return of Palestinians who left their homes after 1948 war. His insistence, “The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel,” means that Israel will control all borders, reserving the right to intervene, in the name of both Israeli and Palestinian securities, with forces surrounding the entire Palestinian territories. This may also include Israeli defense of Jewish settlements and some military outposts inside the West Bank.

When all this is taken into consideration, as well as Netanyahu’s declaration, “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel,” it is clear that the Israeli Government’s demands are distant from the "two-state" conditions in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. In this case, the Road Map loses its meaning, even before parties agree on progress towards regional peace.

The Justifications of Preconditions

Netanyahu’s approach was a combination of religious belief and a “security” perspective to justify a position as necessary rather than illegitimate. He said:

The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

This subtle move put a “history” of thousands of years above international law to establish the “unique” character of Israel. And it also ensured that the security perspective was not forgotten. Netanyahu set this up through a clear distinction between Israel, with its values and culture, and those who would always remain outside that ideal:

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

And because Palestinians can never be part of the unique character, with its inherent "peace", security's conditions must be placed upon them from the outset of negotiations: 

Without these two conditions (the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the demilitarization of the Palestinian state), there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza… Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

Once again, to give substance to the threat of the ideological-cultural outsider, Netanyahu invoked specific enemies, "In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Future of Settlements

The problem for Netanyahu, entering this speech, is that all his definitions of a proper Israel and a potentially dangerous Palestine did not cover the in-between area: Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Therefore, he began by trying to pull those settlements back into "Israel", not geographically but on a higher cultural ground:

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements… But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

On a less exalted level, Netanyahu had said: No Freeze on Settlements (see the follow-up to the speech in Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington).

But, to return to Netanyahu's attempted higher plane of discussion, he never referred to "the West Bank".  Instead, he used "Judea and Samaria", the Biblical expression used for the West Bank, three times. Once more, an eternal religious invocation --- one which can only be claimed by Jewish people --- was deployed to keep open the issue of "legitimacy" in a disputed area.

Indeed, "Judaea and Samaria" provided the foundation for Netanyahu's claim of no connection between Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and terrorist attacks:

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence… The attacks against us began in the 1920s. We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children… The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

Putting the Burden on the Palestinian Authority

Netanyahu was clear, "The Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas.”

Given Netanyahu's refusal to make any concessions on the Israeli position, it is obvious that there can be no positive answer from the other side. The Palestinian Authority's leader Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as “sabotaging” peace efforts. Nemer Hammad, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas said, "Netanyahu’s speech had not brought anything new."

Netanyahu and his Cabinet members knew that this would be the reaction. The speech was not meant to open negotations but to frame them in such a way that they could not be started. Why? The Israeli Prime Minister's strategy is to buy time and then, in more favourable political condition, returns to talks based on his agenda of the economic development of the West Bank. As he said in another part of his speech: “I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it.”

Almost two weeks have now passed since Netanyahu's speech, responding to President Obama's original plan for Israeli-Palestinian talks.  The Plan B of a wider engagement between the US and Iran in the region, alongside or awaiting those talks, is now comatose after turmoil in Tehran. A Plan C, based on an anti-Iran rhetoric as well as changed relations with countries like Syria, may come into play.

All this, however, is speculation beyond immediate significance: the Netanyahu effect --- blending security, Israeli exceptionalism, and religion --- has been to take Plan A off the table.

Israel-Palestine: The Politics of Prisoner Releases

The political ground in Palestine changes again. Arrests and violence have tapered off, at least for the time being, and on Monday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners held in the West Bank.

Many officials interpreted Abbas' decision as  the outcome of last week’s mutual declarations of Hamas and Fatah that they would exchange lists of detainees to break the ice before forthcoming discussions in Cairo. Azam al-Ahmad, the head of the Fatah bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said: "The gesture aims at putting an end to division and lays the ground for Palestinian reconciliation talks to be held by Egypt next month."

This is a partial explanation for Abbas' move, but its wider implications should be noted. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had declared the recognition of a de-militarized Palestinian state, surrounded with ironclad security provisions, the Palestinian Authority leader needed to hit back. And, unless many occasions in the past, Abbas had some leverage.  Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in his meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, might have maintained the hard-line position of the Netanyahu Government on Israeli settlements, but Clinton did not fold. So Abbas, if he could get an easing of tensions with Hamas, might be in a position to put some pressure on Tel Aviv. 

This is not the end of the story, however.  Israel tried to play down the Abbas initiative --- "It is just an exchange of prisoners for the expected round of reconciliation talks" --- but recognised that this might not be enough. So, on Tuesday, Israel released the Hamas speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Aziz Dweik, who had been in prison since 2006. This was no minor prisoner: Aziz Dweik had been captured by Israeli Defense Forces just after Hamas militants had abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006 and had been a possible bargaining chip for Shalit's return.

The moral may be that moving detainees about might buy time and a bit of breathing space, but it is no substitute for firm agreements. Next scene? The Fatah-Hamas talks in Cairo.

Israel-Palestine: Netanyahu-Mitchell Talks Postponed

Here's a news item that, amidst other crises, slipped under the radar: "A meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell originally scheduled to take place in Paris on Thursday has been postponed with no new date set."

This was supposed to be the follow-up to President Obama's Cairo initiative but the US-Israel row over Israeli settlements in the West Bank is still at the centre of relations. Netayanhu's recent speech has not removed that obstacle; to the contrary, it indicates that Tel Aviv is holding its position.

So the process reverts to another visit by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Washington on Monday. Barak had privately and publicly more receptive of the US position, but on Tuesday he was reported "to have approved the construction of 240 housing units" in the Israeli settlements. A State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, announced the Mitchell-Netanyahu suspension and added:

I’ll reiterate our – what we always say or what I always say and what others say: We oppose continued settlement activity. All parties have the responsibility to help create the context that will support renewed, meaningful negotiations that can be concluded quickly. The bottom line is that we expect all parties to honor their commitments. Our position is that settlement activity has to stop consistent with the Roadmap.

The Latest from Iran (22 June): Waiting for the Next Move

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday

Iran: 2+2 = A Breakthrough? (Mousavi and the Clerics)
Iran: Detained Iranian Politicians and Journalists
Iran: Who was "Neda"?
Iran: The “Mousavi Revolutionary Manifesto” for Change (Gary Sick)
The Latest from Iran (21 June): Does the Fight Continue?
LATEST Video: The “Neda” Protests (20-21 June)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

2300 GMT: It's on....Mir Hossein Mousavi's Facebook site put out the news this evening, "There will be another peaceful demonstration in Tehran to honor the martyrs on Thursday. Please Update us with your 'Solidarity' Events around the globe on Thursday."

There will now be a 60-hour cat-and-mouse game between the protest movement and the Government. Iran State-run media had already spread the message from the Revolutionary Guards, warning demonstrators not to take to the streets Tuesday. That is now superseded by preparations for Thursday, as we predicted in a separate entry earlier today: Mousavi is declaring that he will announce the march route for Thursday much closer to the time, thus limiting the Government's ability to react.

The latest news overtakes the Government's pseudo-concession earlier in the evening. Press TV repeated the news that Guardian Council and Ministry of the Interior would conduct a box-by-box vote recount, but those same bodies added that no one should expect that this would change the results.

2100 GMT: Mousavi supporters say a general strike is to take place in Iran on Tuesday.

1920 GMT: We have now posted a special snap analysis of today's possibly significant breakthrough from talks between Mir Hossein Mousavi and senior clerics.

1910 GMT: State-run media is reporting that the Ministry of the Interior will carry out a box-by-box vote recount.

Lara Setrakian of ABC News (US) reports that demos continue across Tehran. Paramilitary Basiji are stopping any group of 2 or more people and shooting at "suspects" with paintballs to identify who has been in protests. "God is great" is ringing out from the rooftops of Tehran. Tehran Bureau adds that Basiji are stopping cars and confiscating any cameras, taking the ID cards of the owners.

1810 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi has now posted his appeal to the Guardian Council.

1720 GMT: Claims on Twitter that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi will address a "silent, civil rally" in Tehran on Thursday. Karroubi has also reportedly urged the Guardian Council to annul the Presidential vote instead of wasting time.

1520 GMT: Al Jazeera English's Alireza Ronaghi reports "small gatherings" in a small park near 7 Tir Square with "far too many" security personnel for an ordinary afternoon. "On every important crossroad and...traffic bridges, we saw security forces and special units of the police standing by....Many of these people are just wearing normal clothes with helmets and shields."

Ronaghi also spoke with a key Ahmadinejad advisor, Alireza Zaker-Esfahani, who said, "I don't think the unrest will last. Iran's history is proof of that....Failure [of Mousavi campaign] always brings dissatisfaction. The emotional conditions will not last." The current problem is "the weakness in Mir Hossein Mousavi's political behaviour, which could help calm public opinion by giving it the right information. Unfortunately he did the opposite."

And the reason for President Ahmadinejad's near-disappearance since last Sunday? Zaker-Esfahani asserted, "If he enters the scene now, he may expose himself to the accusation that he --- as Mousavi might said --- is an accomplice in possible irregularity."

1515 GMT: Neda Agha Soltan's fiancee has confirmed to BBC Persian TV what we reported this morning in a short profile of the woman killed on Saturday by paramilitary Basiji: she was buried quickly yesterday and Iranian authorities prevented any memorial service.

1450 GMT: AP reports that the British government is going to evacuate families of British diplomatic personnel in Iran.

1408 GMT: CNN close to helpless now. They are insisting on calling the quick burial of Neda Agha Soltan and the cancelled memorial service "rumours". (We received verified information on this early this morning.)

1402 GMT: Press TV also headlining, "Iran Confirms First Swine Flu Case". Just waiting for this to be blamed on "Western interference". (The patient is a 16-year-old Iranian resident of the US who was visiting Iran.)

1400 GMT: Reports that Iranian security forces have used tear gas and fired gunshots into the air to disperse the protesters at 7 Tir Square. Press TV continues to lag behind events with the headline that the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) "is ready to crush new riots". The IRGC also hailed the Presidential election as "an epic that disappointed the enemies".

1330 GMT: BNO News now reports clashes in Tehran. The AFP wire now says there are 1000 protesters (the figure of 200 appears to have been an error).

1315 GMT: Twitter's BNO News, citing AFP, report that there are 200 people at the rally in Tehran- not the 1000+ reported by Reuters.

1255 GMT: A new rally appears to be taking place in Tehran, possibly in memory of Neda Soltan. CNN's David Clinch reports on Twitter, "Hundreds of protestors have gathered at Haft-e Tir square in Tehran. Hundreds of Basijis + riot police confronting the crowd". A smaller demonstration is also due to take place at the Iranian embassy in London.


1230 GMT: Reuters reports that the Italian embassy in Tehran is open to wounded protesters.

1150 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi has urged supporters to stage more protests against Ahmadinejad's reelection. Iran has meanwhile accused the BBC and Voice of America of engineering post-election unrest in Iran.

1105 GMT: We have just posted a video which appears to show Neda Soltan minutes before her death.

1055 GMT: Associated Press are reporting that Iran's Revolutionary Guard are threatening to "crush" any further protests. Iranian activists say roadblocks from the north to south of Tehran have been set up to prevent congregation of protesters. The Iranian Parliament (Majlis) is under heavy guard, and all roads and alleyways around the Ministry of the Interior are closed with concrete blocks and guards.

1045 GMT: Has "Neda" become the symbolic key to the movement's next steps? Mir Houssein Mousavi and advisors are making a concerted effort to link image and protest, both on Mousavi's Facebook site and on a special page devoted to Neda Agha Soltan.

1015 GMT: Twitter users report that there will be a candlelit vigil for Neda Soltan this evening from 5  to 7 p.m. in 7 Tir Square, Tehran.

1005 GMT: Press TV's website and TV channel are both currently leading with Iran's condemnation of "foreign interference by certain Western states in the country's internal affairs." Significantly, however, Press TV have also announced that results in the 50 cities where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of eligible voters would not have had an impact on the outcome of the election.


1000 GMT: Press TV has confirmed that the daughter and four other relatives of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have been released from detention.

1010 GMT: Twitter's PersianKiwi, previously a reliable source of information, believes that Mehdi Karroubi is to publish an announcement today.

0935 GMT: Reuters reports that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has said that a change of leadership in Iran could lead to peaceful relations between the two states. "There is no conflict between the Iranian people and the people of Israel and under a different regime the friendly relations that prevailed in the past could be restored," he told the German newspaper Bild. "What we have seen in Iran is a powerful desire on the part of the Iranian people to be free."

0900 GMT: On the BBC's flagship radio programme Today, Jeremy Bowen offered a similar line to that in our Morning Update (0500 GMT): "The opposition has to decide what its next move will be."

0645 GMT: I'm off on academic duties until mid-afternoon. Mike Dunn will keep an eye on the latest news and update. Meanwhile, please keep sending in your information and comments.

0640 GMT: A far-from incidental detail that was lost over the weekend. The spokesman for the Guardian Council admitted to state-run IRIB television that the number of votes collected in 50 cities was more than the number of eligible voters. The total vote concerned is about 3 million.

0630 GMT: The latest phase of the Iranian Government's attack against "Western interference" was just launched by Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi in his weekly press conference. He was expansive and at times almost agitated in his denuncation, claiming at one point that CNN was posting material on how to conduct "cyber-warfare" against Iran.

The strategy was far from subtle and far from unexpected. What was more interesting was that some of the questions to Qashqavi were challenging, preferring to focus on the details of the Presidential vote rather than American, British, or French meddling. Qashqavi was uneasy at these points, avoiding the questions and returning to his main theme, arguing that there was no interference when the US had its own disputed Presidential election in 2000.

Morning Update 0500 GMT: There is still an uneasy lull in political developments and widespread protests. Press TV is eagerly reporting, "Calm has returned to the streets of the Iranian capital Tehran," with film showing cars moving freely and pedestrians strolling in shopping districts. The violence of Saturday is blamed on protestors "who attacked security forces who tried to disrupt" their march, with "hundreds" arrested (other Iranian state media put the number at 457).

Iranian authorities are trying to choke off the political challenge. They have arrested not only many advisors of Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi but also five members of former President Rafsanjani's family (although they were later reported to have been released). A large but unknown number of activists and opposition party members have also been detained. Media coverage has been closed off, not only through denial of movement to reporters but arrests of about two dozen journalists.

Mousavi is responding through statements posted on his Facebook site and webpage. Yesterday he declared,""Protesting against lies and fraud (in the election) is your right...In your protests, continue to show restraint. I am expecting armed forces to avoid irreversible damage."

However, to maintain momentum, the challenge to the Government and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad awaits movement on two fronts. Within the higher reaches of the system, Rafsanjani's challenge appears to have been blunted, with senior clerics unwilling to come out openly against the Supreme Council. The Guardian Council is holding the line on the legitimacy of the Presidential vote, and Ali Larijani's call for reforms, which we covered in detail yesterday, will have only limited if any effects.

The second front of mass pressure is also uncertain. There has been talk of a candlelight march this afternoon and of a general strike, but nothing firm has crystallised. At this point, it is more likely that there will be scattered demonstrations today.

This does not mean that the battle is over, only slowed. The symbol of "Neda", the 27-year-old student killed by paramilitary Basiji on Saturday, has spread beyond Iran and around the world. Symbols, however, can only represent change rather than bringing it about. Whether Neda Agha Soltan's death will accompany a long-term movement in Iranian politics and society or will become one of many tragic footnotes to this crisis remains to be seen.