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.
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.
Yesterday, as we were focused on events in Iran, news came through of the deadliest attack in Iraq this year, with 80 people dying in a suicide truck bombing in Kirkuk.
That incident may put into perspective the appearance on the US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, in Washington two days earlier. Hill confirmed the interests of Iran and Syria in Iraq while striking a delicate balance: the two countries contributed to Iraq’s insecurity, but dialogue with them was important to an Iraqi future.
Meanwhile, thanks to the engagement policy of the US, Hill said, the dialogue among different factions in Iraq had played a significant role in the overall downward trend of violence. Hill added, though, “But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.”
AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s a pleasure to be here and not talking about North Korea. (Laughter.) That was a preemptive strike. But I’m back for a few days of consultations and some personal travel, and I will be getting back to Baghdad next week.
Obviously, this is an important month because we’re getting to the – one of the major milestones of the security agreement that is the out-of-the-city milestone where our combat forces will be out of the remaining urban areas in Iraq. It’s an important moment because some – because as we go forward with the security agreement, we will also be moving ahead on something called the Strategic Framework Agreement, and this is an agreement which will really govern our relationship for, we hope, decades to come, that will involve our educational exchanges, economic relations, various political exchanges, things that we work on internationally.
So we want to make this Strategic Framework Agreement really the essence of the relationship, and to get to that we need to get through the remaining elements of the security agreement, and certainly the one dealing with – the provision dealing with our combat forces out of the urban areas is obviously a key element of it.
(Inaudible) – Libby.
QUESTION: I have a question about Iran, actually. Your predecessor met with the Iranians several times about issues specifically related to Iraq. What do you anticipate your role being with the Iranians as far as your post now in Iraq?
AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s hard to say. Frankly, the issue hasn’t come up as of now. I’ve only been there a couple of months. Iran has a great interest in Iraq. We certainly feel their interest in Iraq. They’re a historical neighbor of Iraq and obviously those two countries will have a relationship going forward. And as I said at my confirmation hearing, I think it would be best if Iran did all it could do to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor.
QUESTION: Has there been a change in Iranian activity in the last few days following the elections and the tension –
AMBASSADOR HILL: With respect to Iraq?
QUESTION: Yeah.
AMBASSADOR HILL: Not to my knowledge.
QUESTION: Is Syria being more helpful in terms of Iraq? Have you noticed a change?
AMBASSADOR HILL: I think, you know, obviously it’s – this is – Syria’s relationship with Iraq has gone through some ups and downs in recent years. Obviously, we are interested in Syria and Iraq having a better relationship. We are – we have addressed that issue with the Iraqis and we will continue to do so and see if we can be helpful. And as the Iraqi Prime Minister said to me, we’ll try to coordinate what we’re doing with Syria. But making Iraq have a better relationship with its neighbors is a key element of what we’re trying to do in that country.
QUESTION: Have you noticed fewer foreign fighters, though, crossing over from Syria?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I can’t really gauge it in a matter of days or weeks. I think we have to take a broader view of what that is.
QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit to Syria –
AMBASSADOR HILL: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit –
AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I’m not in a position to discuss the CENTCOM visit --
QUESTION: But your impression?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to – I’m not here to talk about Syria relations – we have other people to do that – except insofar as it relates to Iraq. And certainly, the Iraqis have welcomed our interest in a dialogue with Syria and have expressed an interest in making sure that we’re coordinated, and we are.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about the renewed violence over the last couple of months in Iran? It definitely seems a concerted effort --
QUESTION: Iraq.
QUESTION: -- by the Sunni extremists to go after the Shia. They’ve been quiet so far – the Shia – not retaliating, but there is a huge concern that there would be – if there was like a major bombing like Najaf or something that there would be a huge renewed sectarian round of violence.
AMBASSADOR HILL: I think if you look at overall levels of violence in Iraq, you’ll see an overall trending downward. And this trending downward includes some of the events that took place in recent weeks. I must say, as someone who is new there and when I see a couple of rockets hit the green zone, those are a couple of rockets too many for my taste. But people who have had the benefit of more time there always tell me it’s nothing compared to last year. So when you see the aggregate numbers put together by the U.S. military, you see there is an overall trending down.
Now, the real question is whether some of these attacks – in one case, an attack on an Iranian tourist, actually – whether these attacks on obvious Shiite populations are ones that are going to be reciprocated. And certainly, you’ve seen some attacks on Sunnis. Whether it’s concerted or not, it’s obviously, in our view, an attempt to stimulate tensions. And we’re pleased to say that it has not had a desired effect.
The overall level of violence is – continues to be low. We don’t see any recreation of militia groups. There are still militia groups out there, but there’s certainly no growth in that pattern. Whether we continue to have this – these positive trends I think is hard to say, except that we work very hard to make sure that there is dialogue among the various political interlocutors in the country. We continue to do what we can to help people get together.
That is a country that’s gone through six years of very, very painful violence, where everybody has lost a loved one. And one never wants to predict when people are sick of this sort of thing, but since arriving there in the last couple of months, I do believe that people are trying to work their way through a political process.
QUESTION: But you don’t see – I mean, the violence is down, but the last kind of – couple of years of violence seemed to be more evidence from the insurgency and from al-Qaida-type – you know, al-Qaida in Iraq things. You don’t see a renewed level of sectarian tensions that gives you pause that there might be a --
AMBASSADOR HILL: No, I mean – no, we don’t, actually. What we do see are an anticipation of parliamentary elections which are now expected to be in January. We do see a lot of jockeying for political positions. We see Shiite parties reaching out to have a Sunni partner and to have a Kurdish partner. These sorts of things are actually healthy. So in general, what we see is a tendency to want to work with a political – within the political system. But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.
QUESTION: Can I ask you – your predecessor talked about this a lot, whether the violence in Iraq goes to the gains that you’ve seen over the past year are irreversible or not. And he would describe it as fragile, but reversible. Do you share that assessment? Do you think we’ve kind of gone over the hump on that?
And then on Mosul, where a lot of the more recent violence has been taking place, do you still think that U.S. troops will be able to pull out of Mosul on the 30th without any problems?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, what I know is that we’re going to comply fully with our obligations under the security agreement. I think – we signed that agreement and we will absolutely comply fully with it, and that means pulling all combat forces out of the – out of the cities. And I think what’s important to understand is that in most cities in Iraq, our combat forces are already out of the city, so this is not some brand new model that we’re not sure how it’s going to work. But to some extent, we’ve left the best for last – that is Baghdad and Mosul.
I was up in Mosul a few weeks ago. And to be sure, it’s a city that has a lot of tension in it. To be sure, there are various groups, whether it’s the Kurdish population there or the Sunni or – and I want to emphasize this as well – Christian groups that are – that have concerns about what life will be like in the future.
Again, I think the way forward is through political dialogue. I met with members of the provincial council. I met with the Kurdish delegation that is continuing to boycott the provincial council. I met with the governor. I met with some others. And I think we just have to keep doing that. I mean, whether this is irreversible, I think to some extent, will depend on the people themselves, whether they’re prepared to continue to work at this. I have no doubt that Iraq is a better place for the fact there’s less violence, and I think that’s an insight most Iraqis get or have every day.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any contingency plan in case the violence escalates after withdrawal?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to discuss contingency plans. I’m not in charge of contingency plans with respect to security. What I am involved in is to make sure that we are complying with the security agreement. This is something that we want to do and must do, and it’s something that’s expected of us.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Egypt has just appointed an ambassador. Have you had any indications that Saudi Arabia might be ready to do this?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Not yet. Obviously, this step by the Egyptians to send an ambassador is most welcome, and look forward to being there to welcome him or her. I think it’s – we really want to see Iraq reattach to its neighbors, as my comments earlier on Syria would suggest. And so we believe it’s in everyone’s interest to be present in Iraq, present diplomatically. We believe it’s in everyone’s interest, whether they’re interested for economic purposes or for regional stability, and anyone with an interest in regional stability, anyone with an interest in Iraq’s sovereignty and development as a healthy democratic state should be there.
QUESTION: Do you have a sense of what’s holding the Saudis back or --
AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t. You’ll have to ask someone who lives and works on Saudi Arabia.
Yeah.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on President Obama, did he ask King Abdullah to send the --
AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to comment on what went on between the President and President Abdullah -- King Abdullah.
QUESTION: Can you – I don’t know whether you’ve been to Kirkuk or not. This – any resolution or any advancement of the problem of solving Kirkuk, and also the oil revenue sharing?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think there has been some – there’s a lot of discussion within Iraq on oil revenue sharing, and – not so much revenue sharing, but overall exploitation of oil. I know the government in Baghdad has had renewed and, I think, positive discussions with the Kurdish regional authority on this matter. I think you saw some fruits of this just a few weeks ago when oil from Kurdish areas was exported out through the main pipeline and where the revenue sharing went according to the UN formula of 17 percent.
I know that the Iraqi Government is working very hard to see what can be done to boost oil production, and they are in touch directly with international oil companies on this. There has been a lot of discussion about where the so-called hydrocarbons law is. And if you ask various political leaders in Iraq, you get different answers as to the potential for getting this law through the parliament. Right now, I must say the discussion in the parliament is very much geared to getting an election law through so that parliamentary elections can take place as scheduled on January 16th.
Yeah.
QUESTION: As we sit here now, how many U.S. troops are left in the cities, and specifically how many in Baghdad?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I would ask that you direct that question to the Pentagon. There are roughly 135,000 U.S. troops in the country, but as for their particular deployment, I’d direct that to the Pentagon.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry. Ambassador, could I just make sure I got that straight? When you were asked about the Syrian fighters coming into Iraq, have you actually seen a diminishing of that number, or is it not yet clear?
AMBASSADOR HILL: I think it’s too soon to gauge the numbers, except to assure you that we track this issue very closely. And compared to, say, a year ago, there is a substantial – there are fewer such people coming over. Now whether there are fewer coming over because they understand the consequence of unlawful crossing of the border is greater now than it might have been in the past, that’s hard to say. But the specific question had to do with the recent discussions with Syrian authorities and whether there’s a change of a flow at this point. And I think in that case, it’s a little too soon to say.
QUESTION: But that was just last weekend, right?
AMBASSADOR HILL: The discussions with Syria were just last week, yeah. So it’s obviously a little early to talk about it.
Yes, ma’am, and then I’ll go to you.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Recently, there’s been some discussion with Turkey that this might be the year that the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) may give up arms and move into the political circle, or just give up violence, and U.S. is putting pressure on the Kurdish authorities as well as the central government. Can you clarify what is going on? Are you involved in the talks? Are you --
AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to discuss the – that process that you’re describing. I mean, this is really for our people who deal with Turkey. I will say that with respect to Iraq, Turkey is very active. Turkey has a number of economic projects underway in Iraq. They’ve been very much bolstering their relationship with Iraq.
And I know, having talked to Turkish visitors from Ankara, there’s a great deal of interest not only in the northern part of Iraq, but also in bolstering their relations with the Shiite part of the southern part of Iraq. So I see a Turkey that is increasingly interested in having a good relationship with Iraq, and we very much welcome this process.
Yeah.
QUESTION: President Obama’s speech in Cairo has produced a lot of new, renewed hopes for the Arabs of the region and for America in there – its policies in there. Today, can you reiterate for us and for the Arab audience that you are looking forward for the day when America leaves Iraq as one country, united and sovereign – I mean, united or not like what Vice President Biden in the past has looked for, a division of Iraq and into three – to three parts?
AMBASSADOR HILL: We are very interested in having a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, and as our President laid out in a speech, we’re interested in a long-term and positive relationship with the entire region.
With respect to our relationship with Iraq, we understand – those of us who work on the issue understand that to have a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, we have to be very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. And so that is one of the real foundation points of that relationship. It’s reflected in the security agreement. It’s reflected in the strategic framework agreement which governs the non-security areas. So we are very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. We’re very respectful of Iraqi territorial integrity, and respectful of Iraqi unity. And that’s been our policy and it’ll continue to be our policy. We will work very hard with Iraqi authorities – not to tell them what to do, but to express our views and to listen to their views. And I think it’s been especially – be important for a new ambassador to do a lot more listening than he does talking, and that’ll continue to be my role.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Iraq’s foreign ministry has requested the U.S. support move in the United Nations to get Iraq out from under Chapter 7, the UN Charter, and restore full sovereignty with no limitations remain from the past dictatorship and so forth. What’s the U.S. position on going ahead with that?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, the U.S., as you know, and the Security Council – there’s some, I think, eight or ten Security Council resolutions that deal with the so-called Chapter 7 issue. According to Article 25 of the security agreement, the one that deals with this issue of U.S. troops out of the cities, there’s an article, Article 25, that deals with the U.S. committing ourselves to assisting Iraq to get off Chapter 7. If you look at the Article 27, it refers specifically to our view that Iraq is no longer a regional threat to peace and security in the region. And on that basis, it’s our desire to help them get off Article 7.
Obviously, this also involves helping Iraq, as I mentioned before, work to have a better relationship with its neighbors. And we would like to see an Iraq-Kuwait relationship that continues to improve, and we will continue to be engaged in that.
QUESTION: Well, is the U.S. going to take any steps to actually do that in the Security Council?
AMBASSADOR HILL: We are working with – as we look to these reviews, we’re obviously in touch with our partners and we will see what steps we will take. Again, I don’t want to be stepping on the role that our people in New York play, Ambassador Rice and others. But we are – obviously, this is a time when we need to look at the review of the situation and make sure that we are complying with Article 25 of the security – of our security agreement with Iraq, but also working with our partners in the UN Security Council and also working with the UN Secretariat on this.
Yeah.
QUESTION: The Iraqi Government says that it’s forming a committee to assess some of its prisons in allegations of overcrowding and prisoner abuses. Being that there will be some prisoners being transferred from U.S. troops to Iraqi prisons, could you tell me what involvement the United States has, if any, in the assessment of Iraqi prisons in regards to some of these allegations?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. We have – first of all, we have made a commitment, and this is also part of our security agreement, to transfer detainees from U.S. custody to Iraqi custody. We are working very closely with the Iraqi prison authorities both in terms of training and helping them with the refurbishment of prison facilities. Indeed, we just opened up a new facility, or a newly renovated facility, just last Saturday. In addition, I met with the minister of justice on Sunday about the issue of the status of the prisons and of their capacity to not only to receive prisoners but also to have a judicial system that has throughput, that is, gets the prisoners out with a – through a legal process to determine guilt or innocence. So this is a very key element of what we call rule of law initiatives at the embassy, and we are very much engaged on it.
And the rule of law initiative, where we have a number of personnel from the Justice Department, actually several hundred personnel from the Justice Department, including some 21 professional lawyers there, and it was for that reason that just the other day, or just two days ago, I met with Attorney General Eric Holder to really thank him for all the work that the Justice Department has been doing precisely on this issue.
QUESTION: Would any member of the United States personnel be a member of that committee or it’s a cooperation?
AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s cooperation.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: One more question on Iran. Do you still have concerns about the Iranians supplying parts for IEDs and contributing negatively to the security environment in Iran? We heard a lot about that in the last administration. What’s the –
AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think, obviously the security situation in Iraq could benefit from less trans-border shipments of various weaponry or explosives, and I think that goes for Iran as well.
QUESTION: What’s the level of current trans-border shipments?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t want to characterize the level of it. I’d ask you to direct that to the Pentagon.
MR. CROWLEY: Just an indication of what we were talking about earlier, Chris’s next activity on his schedule is a phone call with Secretary Clinton, so we’ve got time for one more question.
QUESTION: On –
AMBASSADOR HILL: And I don’t know if Kim Jong-il is – (laughter).
QUESTION: We can talk about that at the next briefing. On corruption, I mean, that was also a big issue in the last administration. And now Maliki seems to have cracked down on corruption so much so that people believe – a lot of people inside Iraq are fearing that he’s using it as a kind of political intimidation. What is your (inaudible) on this situation?
AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I think a lot of countries in Iraq’s state of economic development have so-called capacity problems. And one element of capacity problems is a corruption problem. I think it’s healthy that Iraqis are talking about this and trying to address it.
To the extent that there’s concern about it being abused, I think that goes to the question of whether there are proper procedures in terms of what they’re doing in law and order, whether indictments are well-founded, whether there’s an effort to make sure that warrants are properly executed, et cetera. I think it continues to be something that we watch very closely and are in very close contact with the Iraqi authorities about.
UPDATE (10 June - 11:22 GMT): The death toll in the attack is now at least 17, including two UN employees, with 64 wounded. There were three attackers, who shot their ways onto the hotel grounds and detonated a car bomb.
Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 6:44 
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.”
