Iraq: What Do Latest Post-Election Power Plays Indicate? (Cole)

Juan Cole cuts through the confusion to offer the latest developments in the post-election struggle to lead Iraq. Many useful points here, including:

1. No individual, party, or list "won" the 7 March election, since no one has even one-third of the Parliamentary seats. The battle is now to form a working coalition amongst the various parties.

2. While these maneovures include meetings between Iraqi political actors in Tehran, this does not mean that Tehran will control or dominate any emerging Iraqi Government.

3. And a point made through absence in this account: although the US has an interest in this contest, there is little sign of the Americans in these latest moves.

The Justice and Accountability Commission (formerly the Debaathification Commission), headed by Ahmad Chalabi, is moving to disqualify 6 elected candidates in the 7 March election for their ties to the banned Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. Three of those to be banned are from the Iraqiya list of [former Prime Minister] Iyad Allawi, which would reduce his seat total from 91 to 88, making his list second in number of seats after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition, which has 89 seats.



The move, by commission head Ahmad Chalabi (himself an elected MP on the fundamentalist Shiite list, the Iraqi National Alliance), will cause a lot of anger among Sunni Arabs, the main backers of Allawi's list, along with secular middle class urban Shiites.

Al-Hayat writing in Arabic reports that commission official Ali al-Lami let it slip that one of those to be disqualified is Hamdi Najm, leader of the National Dialogue Front in Diyala Province, who is currently in prison on terrorism charges. His party forms part of the Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi. The disqualifications will be taken to court. However, the courts sided with the Justice and Accountability Commission when it excluded candidates on these grounds in the lead-up to the election, so that avenue does not appear very promising.

But the move is not decisive in deciding the next prime minister, because who can form a government depends not on who has a plurality but on who can put together a governing coalition. It is true that the constitution requires the president to ask the leader of the single largest bloc to form a government. But if that person cannot, then another party leader would get the chance. The best analogy for Iraqi politics at the moment is Israel or Lebanon. In the 2009 parliamentary elections in Israel, Tzipi Livni's Kadima gained 28 seats and Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud only got 27. But you will note that Netanyahu is prime minister, because Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and others preferred to ally with him rather than with Ms. Livni.

I admit to a good deal of frustration with the corporate media in the United States that keeps talking about Iyad Allawi "winning" the Iraqi parliamentary elections. It just is not true. Apparently even some well informed and intelligence Americans can't understand the difference between achieving a slight plurality and winning a parliamentary election.

You need 163 seats to have a majority in the 325-member Iraqi parliament, so neither 91 nor 89 is a "win." Rather, 163 is a win. Allawi did not win and has not won and probably won't win.

The reason is that it is difficult to see how he gets to 163. He needs 72 more seats (or maybe 75 if the disqualifications go through). It is easier for al-Maliki's list, if not al-Maliki himself, to get to 163 seats than it is for Allawi, since the fundamentalist Shiites have 70 seats and they under normal circumstances will find it easier to ally with Maliki's Islamic Mission Party (Da'wa) than with the secular Arab nationalists and Sunnis that back Allawi.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that 'informed sources' told its reporters that Ali al-Adib, a leader of al-Maliki's State of Law coalition, recently met Muqtada al-Sadr in Qom, Iran, though they have not yet closed a deal. Al-Sadr has 38 seats in parliament and his bloc is the largest single group of seats in the Shiite fundamentalist Iraqi National Alliance, which has 70 seats. Then, al-Maliki is said to have returned to Baghdad from Tehran, accompanied by al-Adib and Abdul Hamid al-Zuhairi (both from the State of Law list) and Jalal al-Din al-Saghir and Hadi al-Amiri of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Al-Maliki is said to have been among a big party of Iraqi officials in Tehran the day before yesterday. They went there, al-Hayat said, because there was too much danger of being listened in on in Iraq. Presumably what is actually being asserted here is that the US has sophisticated signals intelligence and has widely tapped phones, so that in Baghdad any attempt at coalition-formation would be immediately picked up by US intelligence. Since the US is widely thought to be backing Allawi's secular Iraqiya list, it would be undesirable from al-Maliki's point of view for them to overhear his negotiations with other lists. Thus, they went off to Iran.

Al-Hayat's source says that Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated flexibility, and demanded in return for dropping his objection to al-Maliki the release of all prisoners from his movement, and undertakings that al-Maliki would not attempt to rule single-handedly. He also wanted an agreement that al-Maliki would be fired if he attempted to overstep the decided-up course of action of the party. A Sadrist leader, Qusay Suhail, refused to comment on the Iran story, but did allow as how the Sadrists had met with representatives of al-Maliki's State of Law. The source said that so far in the negotiations the Kurdistan Alliance and the Sadr Movement have declined to put forward an alternative candidate for prime minister. So far al-Maliki is the only candidate from the Shiite parties, "and we did not sense any opposition to him." In contrast, cleric Jalal al-Din Saghir of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq insisted that ISCI would definitely put forward a prime ministerial candidate. (ISCI is actually too small to follow through on Saghir's bluster.)

Israel-Palestine-Hamas Mystery: Questions & A Response

The question: what did the secret internal Foreign Ministry report distributed to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad mean? The document declares that the US administration will not put much effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations, opting instead to focus on November’s Congressional elections.

Why was this released in the wake of the visit of Vice President Joe Biden to Israel? Was this a message to Washington over the previous "unwanted" Ametrican statements on settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank or was it just an example of Israel trying to box in the Obama Administration by revealing, through a well-timed leak, the supposed US policy?

Israel-Palestine: “Proximity Talks” and US Vice President Biden

Then there's the Hamas question: on Sunday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed to Hamas to argue that an early deal for a Palestinian state is unlikely, given the strength of the organisation in the Gaza Strip.



David Zonseine,  joint founder of an initiative seeking direct and open talks with Hamas, gave a blunt answer to the Prime Minister:

Israel must talk to Hamas. Not secretly. Not indirectly. Not for a politician to rehabilitate himself on the way to taking over the leadership of a party, as Kadima's Shaul Mofaz tried to do, but openly and seriously. Just as the United States regularly talks to the Israeli opposition, Israel should maintain a dialogue with the Palestinian opposition. The dialogue should cover all core issues including a final settlement.

It's not a simple matter, of course. There is agreement across the political spectrum to reduce the debate to a demonization of Hamas, dwelling on the organization's external attributes as perceived by Israel - religious, extremist and desiring all the territory between the river and the sea. This debate does not focus on the Israeli interest. We should be asking ourselves the following questions: Is it worthwhile to speak with Hamas? What are our reasons for not talking to them? Is boycotting them linked to an erroneous preconception?

Israel rigorously insists that Hamas is not a partner and that our partner is Fatah, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But negotiations with Fatah have been going on for nearly two decades, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declaration that he accepts the principle of two states for two peoples looks like just another trick to postpone the demise of the current negotiation process.

In 2004, the Israeli government decided that Yasser Arafat was not relevant. Abbas, Israel's leaders have said, is weak. At the same time, Israel has for years been doing all it can to weaken the Palestinian Authority. That way, it will be possible to prove yet again that although "we have to talk, there's no one you can close a deal with." Even if an agreement is signed under American pressure, the PA will not be able to implement it because more than half the Palestinians don't accept its authority. This is why the refusal to speak with Hamas is pointless. It is no more than a continuation of avoiding talking to the Palestinians by other means.

Hamas' rule in Gaza is the outcome of despair with the Fatah leadership. The deterioration of the situation in Gaza after the ongoing failure of negotiations and the total dependence on Israel for receiving basic needs intensify the despair and extremism. (And no one is talking about the right to free movement, to go abroad to study.) Even today, there are groups resisting Hamas that resemble Al-Qaida. We can drag things out as much as we want, but we have to admit that the notion that time is on our side is baseless. The people who led Abbas to consider resigning and who refuse to talk to Hamas will find themselves in five years with a partner who reports to Osama bin Laden.

Nothing is possible without Gilad Shalit. People may say that the fate of a country cannot be dependent on what happens to one abducted soldier. There is no greater mistake. The abandonment of Shalit is symptomatic of Zionism's failure, the elevation of pride over wisdom and tactics over strategy. It's the denial of the sanctity of life and redeeming prisoners, values that are at the heart and soul of the nation.

Precisely here, the soft underbelly of public opinion, it would be possible to makes progress on the delicate matter of contacts with Hamas. More than 7,000 Palestinians are being held prisoner in Israel. There is one Israeli prisoner in Palestine. The suffering of both sides, and with it the tremendous joy that a prisoner exchange would produce, can and should be the lever for a stepped-up conciliation process.

For years Israel and its citizens have been paying the price of choosing solutions that were appropriate for the last war. Hiding our head in the sand at such a critical stage is dangerous. We have to declare our readiness to speak with the Palestinian opposition, immediately.

Israel-Palestine: "Proximity Talks" and US Vice President Biden

Here's the background: last Friday, US Mideast Special Envoy George Mitchell's deputy, David Hale, said Israeli-Palestinian understandings since the Annapolis talks would not be binding.

Following the approval of two conditions (the outlines of a border deal with Israel and a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze) by the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he hoped for direct negotiations in the near future, but reiterated that any permanent settlement would require recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a long-term guarantee of Israel's security.

Thus, the clear difference between two disputants' mentalities: on one hand, Ramallah is considering indirect talks as a basis to be consolidated in order to move to the next round of direct talks; on the other hand, West Jerusalem sees indirect talks as a way to block preconditions.

In the midst of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's permission for the construction of 112 housing units in the settlement of Beitar Ilit, despite the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden arrived Israel on Tuesday while Mitchell moved to Ramallah for further talks.

Biden, on early Tuesday, met President Shimon Peres. He said that the agreed resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks provided a "moment of real opportunity" for peace and added:

The interests of both the Palestinians and the Israeli people, if everyone would just step back and take a deep breath, are actually very much more in line than they are in opposition.

Then, Biden talked to PM Netanyahu. He said that "historic peace will require both sides to make historically bold commitments" and gave the golden statement:

There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security.

When it came to the Iranian issue, Biden said: "We're determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and we're working with many countries around the world to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist." President Peres harshly targeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He stated that Ahmadinejad must face "total" international isolation and added:

A person like Ahmadinejad, who calls openly to destroy the state of Israel, cannot be a full member of the United Nations.

A man who calls for acts of terror, and who hangs people in the street ... he should be placed in his proper definition. He cannot go around almost like a cultural hero.

Ahmadinejad has to be isolated and not be welcomed in the capitals of the world.

Middle East Inside Line: Palestine-Israel Dialogue?; Britain & Arrest Warrants for Israelis; China & Iran

Indirect Israel-Palestine Dialogue: On Wednesday, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, found political cover to enter into an indirect dialogue with Israel, as 14 ministers of the Arab League agreed in Cairo that the PA should engage in indirect negotiations with Israel for a preliminary four-month period. The Arab ministers also mentioned that no progress will be possible without a complete settlement freeze, indicating that the four months will be an assessment process.

"Despite the lack of conviction in the seriousness of the Israeli side, the committee sees that it would give the indirect talks the chance as a last attempt and to facilitate the US role," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_PNUq8uM_c[/youtube]



Following the news from Cairo, a senior U.S. official said that special envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell will travel to the region over the weekend to see if Israel and the Palestinians are ready to begin indirect peace talks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added: "We were very pleased by the endorsement that came out of Cairo today. (We) are very committed to try to bring about the two-state solution and we hope the proximity talks will be the beginning of that process."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the decision of the Arab league and said:

It seems that the conditions are ripening for the renewal of negotiations between us and the Palestinians.

In the Middle East you need two to tango, but it could be that we need three to tango and we might need to leapfrog at first but the obstacle isn't and never was Israel.

On Thursday, Haaretz learned that Mitchell will land in Israel on Saturday night and both parties will declare the beginning of indirect talks on Monday, as US Vice President Joe Biden arrives.

However, Haaretz reports that Israeli President Shimon Peres, in his private conversations with various political figures, has been saying that Netanyahu is restricted because of Israel's right wing in moving forward, so the Prime Minister should offer a good deal to the "centrist" Kadima opposition to join the coalition. In response, one of  associates said: "Even if [Avigdor] Lieberman is forced to resign, Bibi won't name a replacement as foreign minister."

Britain to Block Arrest Warrants Against Israel's Officials: On Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced plans to stop politically-motivated campaign groups from securing arrest warrants for visiting foreign officials. Brown wrote in The Daily Telegraph: 

Britain will continue to take action to prosecute or extradite suspected war criminals - regardless of their status or power... But the process by which we take action must guarantee the best results. The only question for me is whether our purpose is best served by a process where an arrest warrant for the gravest crimes can be issued on the slightest of evidence.

A statement from the office of former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who faced a British warrant, said:

The British legal system has been abused by cynical elements in the United Kingdom. This is important news for every country in the Free World which is fighting terror.

China Reject Sanctions on Iran: Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gan said on Thursday, "We've been making diplomatic efforts and we believe they have not been exhausted, and we will continue to work with other parties to push for a settlement to this issue."