UPDATED: Senior Fatah Official Assassinated in Lebanon

Latest Post: The Assassination of Kamal Medhat in Lebanon
Latest Post: Update - The Killing of Kamal Medhat in Lebanon

Kamal Medhat (Kamal Naji), the deputy representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Lebanon and Fatah's former intelligence chief, Akram Daher, the head of the PLO's youth organisation in Lebanon, and two bodyguards have been killed in a bombing. The attack occurred outside Mieh Mieh refugee camp, near Sidon in southern Lebanon.

Abbas Zaki, the PLO chief in Lebanon, was visiting the camp at the time of the attack but was uninjured. Zaki and Mehdat were offering condolences to the families of two men killed in a family feud in the camp on Saturday.

The bomb, made up of more than 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of TNT, was detonated by remote control.

There are any number of possible suspects in the killing; on Saturday. Watch out for attempts to make political capital out of the assassination by pinning it on various groups --- Israel, Syria, Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah all jump to mind --- irrespective of evidence (or a lack of it).

The official in charge of security at the camp speculated that "a third party...got involved to create inter-Palestinian sedition and chaos," but a Fatah official in Lebanon, Edward Kattoura, said, "According to the style of the operation it seems that Israel is behind this, because it is a very highly professional execution."

Hamas official Osama Hamdan struck a conciliatory note, saying Naji had played a role in easing tensions among the Palestinian factions in the country, and cautioned, "It is not possible to speculate on who committed this crime."

The Latest from Israel-Palestine (12 March): Talks But No News

In contrast to the barrage of stories surrounding last month's negotiating manoeuvres between Israel, Hamas, and Fatah last month, yesterday's resumption of "reconciliation" talks in Cairo between Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian factions went almost unnoticed by US and British media.

In part, that is because the discussions have moved from the high-profile drama of delegations setting out broad positions for their leadership of Palestine to the more mundane exchanges in five committees on security, economics, and political structure.

In part, however, it is because the drama of December/January war and clashes between the Palestianian Authority, led by Fatah, and Hamas has given way to glacial progress, if not stalemate. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas wants the support of quick decisions for his flagging political position. So of course it is in the interests of Hamas to delay until it gets acceptance of its stance on border crossing and security arrangements as well as clear recognition that it is the equal of the PA.

That Hamas approach is being bolstered by the latest opinion poll which shows, for the first time, that Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniya is ahead of Abbas amongst those who would vote in the next (still unscheduled) Presidential election for Palestine. The margin is small --- 47 to 45 percent --- but it is evidence that the PA and Fatah cannot rely on their base support in the West Bank to maintain leadership. Equally important, the trend since the Gaza War is sharply against Abbas: in December, he led Haniya by 48 to 38 percent.

The Latest on Israel-Palestine (8 March): Fayyad Resigns

Morning Update (6:15 a.m. GMT; 8:15 a.m. Israel/Palestine): Palestinian Authority leader Salam Fayyad (pictured) "resigned" as Prime Minister of the West Bank on Saturday. Fayyad's appointment, like that of West Bank President Mohammad Abbas, formally expired on 9 January, but both men continued to claim political authority.

It is unclear what lies behind the resignation. The media spin is that this "may help smooth the way for a Palestinian unity government that would be acceptable to both Hamas and Fatah", the party of both Fayyad and Abbas, but the only basis for this is Fayyad's cursory statement of his reasons for stepping down.

Meanwhile, there were a series of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, responding to six rockets launched from the area, on Saturday. The Israeli military said two "smuggling tunnels" on the southern Gaza border and one "weaponry storage site" in Gaza City were targeted.

Ms Clinton's Wild Ride: A US "Grand Strategy" on Israel-Palestine-Iran?

Related Post: Iran, Missile Defense, and a Clinton Power Play?
Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride: Is Dennis Ross in the Saddle on Iran?


"What is the broader strategy for the Obama Administration if it is re-engaging with the Israel-Palestinian process and the region beyond? There are three issues to consider: 1. The pursuit of a "two-state" Israel-Palestine settlement; 2. The contest between Hamas and Fatah for political leadership in Gaza and the West Bank; 3. The US relationship with Iran."

The easy part first: the significant development at the Gaza Donors Conference this week was not the declaration of $5.2 billion in aid for the area. It might have been a feel-good measure and good PR for some of the countries putting up their symbolic numbers, but it means nothing unless 1) Israel relents on its choke-hold on any aid to Gaza; 2) Hamas agrees to let the Palestinian Authority carry the aid and the credit. The first condition is doubtful with the current interregnum in the Israeli Government and the prospect of a Netanyahu Administration; the second is a non-starter.

Nope, if you wanted a meaningful headline, it's this: "US Promises $300 Million to Gaza; $600 Million to Palestinian Authority and West Bank". That's right: at a conference which was supposedly to arrange relief for Gazans suffering from long-term deprivation and the short-term assault by Israeli forces, two-thirds of the American commitment went elsewhere.

Which, of course, is no accident: Washington's clear priority is to prop up the PA and Fatah Party of Mahmoud Abbas as the proper faction to lead the Palestinian cause. But there's more....

Yesterday's New York Times, that US newspaper of record, did not lead with the aid announcement. Instead, it chose another pronouncement by the Secretary of State, this one made "privately" to an Arab foreign minister: "Clinton Pessimistic on Iran Outreach". So, at a conference supposedly devoted to the immediate problems of Gaza, the American delegation --- which immediately fed Clinton's Iran statement to the press --- was not solely concentrated on Israel and Palestine but looking hundreds of miles away to Tehran.

This all begs the question: what is the broader strategy for the Obama Administration if it is re-engaging with the Israel-Palestinian process and the region beyond? There are three issues to consider:

1. The pursuit of a "two-state" Israel-Palestine settlement;
2. The contest between Hamas and Fatah for political leadership in Gaza and the West Bank;
3. The US relationship with Iran.

Let's assume that the first issue is the long-term priority for the Obama Administration. That is the declared purpose of the President's designation of an envoy, George Mitchell, and it was restated in Clinton's speech at the Donors Conference and after her meetings with Israeli leaders yesterday.

That doesn't mean, however, that this is the immediate objective of US officials. Instead, their focus is on getting the right answer on Issue 2 --- that "proper" Palestinian leadership --- before proceeding with the negotiations for the two-state settlement.

And this is where Washington lowered the boom this week. It's not just a question of repeating the preconditions for Hamas to be "acceptable" in the political process: renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to 2005 agreements on border crossings. The US just handed out a $200 million lifeline to the Palestinian Authority so it can pay its employees and promised another $400 for unspecified "projects", but presumably ones where Abbas and Fatah will take credit. And, beyond that, there's the small matter of Washington funding the PA's security forces, as a New York Times puff piece illustrated this week:

One year ago, this 18-acre campus built with $10 million of American taxpayer money was another piece of Jordan Valley desert, and Palestinian guardsmen slept on flea-bitten mattresses and took meals on their laps. Along with a 35-acre, $11 million operations camp a few miles away, also American-financed, it is a real step forward in an otherwise moribund process of Palestinian state-building.

“These guys now feel like they’re on a winning team, that they are building a Palestinian state,” said Lt. Gen. Keith W. Dayton, the American who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian forces, as he watched exercises on Thursday. “And I wouldn’t stay if I didn’t think they were going to do it. I have complete confidence in the Palestinian leadership, and I’m convinced the new administration is serious about this.”

That's the nice spin on the US effort. The not-so-nice possibilities are that these security forces may be more concerned about stopping political dissent in the West Bank than they are about stopping attacks on Israel. And, oh yes, those forces could always be used --- as occurred in 2007 --- in a de facto civil war with Hamas.

This US support of the Palestinian Authority, and its corresponding effort to isolate and undermine Hamas, is far from new. Indeed, it was part of the December war in Gaza. However, when the effort to re-install the PA failed, there was a window of possibility --- through private talks or communications via a third party --- for Washington to "engage" Hamas with a view to bringing it into the peace process.

Clinton and the US money this week signalled that this is no longer on the table. It may be that the possibility never existed. Or it may be that the Obama Administration has calculated that, with visions of Benjamin Netanyahu, promotion of the PA is the only way to get the next Israeli Prime Minister to accept any two-state possibility.

That, however, is only the first part of the story. The second is the apparent decision of Washington to bring the Iran variable back into the Israel-Palestine calculation. Clinton's statement of her pessimism on engagement with Tehran was accompanied by the leak to the New York Times of the US offer to Russia to trade missile defence for Moscow's abandonment of the Iranian nuclear programme.

So, only six weeks after the Obama Inaugural prospect of engagement with an unclenched fist and four after his Vice-President's speech at Munich further pointed to a possible dialogue (as well as meetings behind the scenes), US officials have chosen to highlight their get-tough stance.

One explanation for this shift is the long-awaited entry of Dennis Ross, who has long advocated "Diplomacy Then Pressure", into the State Department. Another is that the Obama Administration is in a muddle, with different folks putting out different positions on the Iran question.

However, the conjunction of the setting of the Donors Conference and Clinton's declaration raises a grander possibility: the US relationship with Tehran is now a bargaining chip in the US manoeuvres on Israel-Palestine. So does Clinton's statement yesterday after talking to the Israelis that Hamas is "a client of Iran".

Put bluntly, the US may anticipate that Netanyahu will be insisting on a withdrawal from engagement with Iran if there is to be an engagement with the Palestinian Authority and the two-state process; indeed, he may have already make that clear to the Americans.

The folly of the Obama Administration sacrificing any thought of an opening with Iran is clear. Even if Israel-Palestine is a "core" issue, it's not the only one in town. Indeed, you could argue that Afghanistan has also become a "core" issue for the future of US foreign policy and Iran, which is as focused on Central Asia as the Middle East, is a key player which could assist the American efforts. By throwing up a wall to Tehran, the US Government protects its position in one vital area only to give it away on another.

Unfortunately, that is an easy sacrifice to make, at least with respect to the US relationship with Israel and American domestic politics. And the long-term costs remain, well, long-term.

So the Obama team will press on, possibly oblivious to other consequences of their shift. Consider, for example, another piece of the puzzle: the US relationship with Syria. In the vision of a two-state Israel-Palestine process in which the Palestinian Authority would be promoted, Damascus can and should be brought in from the cold. No coincidence, then, that Clinton announced that two US envoys, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, would visit Syria this week --- the highest-level US contacts with Damascus since January 2005.

Of course, that US approach will be seeking a Syrian detachment from Iran and a commitment to let Hamas dangle in the wind. So what happens if the Syrians refuse or simply stall on giving an answer to Washington? Does Washington shake a fist, possibly threatening the consequences of the tribunal on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri? Or does it accept that other countries may not follow the American script?

I fear we are on the verge of witnessing yet another huge strategic choice --- and error --- to accompany the choice/error that has been in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (2 March): The Donors' Conference

Update (1:50 p.m.): Hamas has set out a defiant position in the face of the donors' conference support for aid via the Palestinian Authority and for direct assistance to the PA. Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "To bypass the legitimate Palestinian authorities in the Gaza Strip is a move in the wrong direction and it deliberately undermines the reconstruction."

Hillary Clinton's statement to the conference offered little more than general platitudes: "We cannot afford more setbacks or delays -- or regrets about what might have been, had different decisions been made....It is time to look ahead."

Update (9:25 a.m. GMT): Well, here's a start on our questions below about the politics of this supposed assistance: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pledge $900 million for the Palestinians at a donors' conference in Egypt, but only a third of that is earmarked for Gaza, a U.S. official said on Sunday....About $200 million of the U.S. pledge would help cover budget shortfalls of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) and the remainder was for economic reforms, security and private sector projects run by the PA."

The headline event today will be the meeting in Cairo of representatives from "Western" countries and the Arab world, pledging money to the reconstruction of Gaza.

This is a non-story in some respects. We already know the amounts that individual countries will put forward, for example, $900 million from the US, and we know the formula will be that aid goes through the UN and the Palestinian Authority, with Hamas being ostracised. Shrewder readers will also know that the impact of the aid will be symbolic unless 1) there is a workable arrangement on the ground for the PA to be involved in delivery of assistance and, more importantly, 2) Israel allows the aid through the border crossings.

No, this is primarily a political event. So watch for the extent to which the Palestinian Authority is exalted by the delegations, indicating how much support there really is for an attempt to put Fatah at the head of Gazan politics, and the extent to which Hamas is condemned. That should give an indication as to whether there is a hope, beyond this conference, of an engagement with all parties on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Without that acceptance, which has to include rather than exclude Hamas, today's event will be posture rather than a practical way forward (or even a maintenance of a decent status quo) in Gaza.