Palestine's National Holiday: A Land of Hope?

Sunday is the anniversary of the symbolic Nov. 15, 1988 declaration of independence by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

On the Hamas side, despite an earlier decision to keep schools funded by Fatah open on independence day, it was declared that schools would be shut.

Hamas also targeted Israel with words that claimed that "Israel was trying to find pretexts to cover up its previous war crimes with a preparation of another war."

Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, director of Military Intelligence, announced last week that Hamas had launched a rocket some 60 kilometers into the sea. In other words, it meant that Hamas could hit Tel Aviv if this rocket was fired from the northern border of the Gaza Strip. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said:

These claims are part of the Israeli lies to justify a new aggression on the Gaza Strip.

Such threats are coming under the title of incitement and creating pretexts in order to commit more new crimes against Gaza and cover up the previous crimes that were committed during the last war.

However, another Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida said that he could not confirm or deny that the group had test-fired a rocket, "since such news come from the occupation [Israel]."

On the Fatah side, on Saturday, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam that the Palestinian Authority is considering seeking recognition from the United Nations Security Council of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He also added that both United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Russia are supportive of this idea.

On the eve of the national independence day, on one hand, Hamas is directing its words against and trying to give a "non-aggressive" image vis-a-vis its rival party Fatah. On the other hand, Fatah is appealing to nationalist sentiments and trying to give new hope to its people. But the question is: does Washington find this idea useful as a leverage against Tel Aviv's continuing resistance to change? Such a move would strengthen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hand in the eyes of Israeli public?

Photo Diplomacy: The Meaning Behind the Picture at the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

Haaretz Correspondent Roey Simioni offers an interesting take on photo diplomacy in Washington.

The only photo released by the White House of the recent meeting between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu shows both men talking seriously in a friendly and calm dinner setting. One might say that the Obama administration could have leaked a photo in which Obama is pointing his finger toward Netanyahu's face, or another pose which could raise questions regarding the atmosphere of the meeting. However this picture looks like the best of bad lot.

Here is Simioni's opinion:

A painting hangs on the wall beside the two leaders, which if Netanyahu did not see it, or saw it and did not understand its significance, then Obama, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, must have taken the trouble to explain to him its historic importance.

Obama's message to Netanyahu, if there really was such a message, is quite clear: If you end the blood feud and make a peace of the brave, you will be remembered in history as a great leader, like Lincoln (the former president most esteemed by Obama).

In the picture, which was painted in 1865 by the artist George Peter Alexander Healy, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, is seen conferring with William Sherman, Ulysses Grant and David Porter, the commanders of the Union army. During conversations the four men held on the River Queen steamboat on March 27 and March 28 of that year, just over a week before the end of the U.S. Civil War, they discussed the conditions of the peace treaty they would offer the defeated Confederate forces. The accord, even if it had many deficiencies, brought about the reunion of the North and South, the economic recovery of the South, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

Iraq: An EA Correspondent Reports from Kirkuk

At the main Bazzar inside the city of Kirkuk, three languages are heard simultaneously, Kurdish, Arabic and Turkmani, not in that or any order. Here is the alleged site of the tomb of prophet Daniel, there is a Chaldean Church, here is the Talabani Takiyah and there is the ancient Citadel, here is the Shorjah neighborhood and there is the Rahimawah and Rashidawah neighborhoods and underneath it all 160 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, enough to supply the whole world for 160 years!

While the security situation seems to be slightly better in Kerkuk these days, one still gets the feeling that this city is constantly awaiting its next bombing, everywhere you go, you see heavily armed policemen, wearing bullet-proof vests. On top of each and every police truck, a man in a helmet has his index finger on the trigger of a machine gun, waiting for an order from the officer in the front passenger seat to say "start fire." Police trucks penetrate through traffic with annoying sirens and occasional multilingual commands over loud speaks, ordering the cars immediately before them to make way or else...

There are no Americans to be seen, per the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement, SoFa, the Americans have retreated back to their bases and are called to duty only at the request and under the command of the Kerkuk police department, officially known as the Directorate of Kerkuk Police. Unlike the other police departments in Iraq, Kerkuk's is in charge of not only the city center but also the districts (in the rest of Iraq, the Iraqi military handles security in the outer districts). Kerkuk's outer districts includes the Sunni Arab district of al-Hawijah, which, despite the presence of an awakening council, continues to be, for the most part, a no man's land. Fighters of al-Hawijah awakening council have had their salaries cut after the security file was transferred to the Iraqis and according to one awakening council leader, the funds have not come in for two months! I could not help but wonder whether the Maliki government is intentionally irritating members of Kerkuk's awakening councils in order to stir things up ahead of the upcoming elections of which Kerkuk will take part. So I asked whether the al-Anbar awakening council members' salaries have also been reduced and the negative response confirmed my fears.

I sat there, puzzled: "Is this Kurdistan? Is this the heart of Kurdistan?" The Kurdistan I know and love has no terrorists, nobody wears an armored vest, nobody's church or mosque is protected by heavily armed policemen. The Kurdistan in which I live has no ethnic tensions, the Kurdistan in which I live, foreigners hail cabs as freely as they would in London or New York, they attend concerts, they even watch baseball and American football on large HDTV sets in Erbil's newly built T-Bar and Speed Center.

The naive person in me, the idealist person in me started to wonder, why would a Turkman or an Arab NOT want to be part of this prosperous and safe region and instead opt for this oh-so-tense status quo?

With that thought and with the bright flames of the Baba Gurgur oilfield behind me, I sped through the Kerkuk-Erbil highway and came back to Erbil, just in time to catch Dolphins-Patriots game, in which Patriots were, of course victorious!

Syria: Assad Interview with France 2 TV

After his visit to Paris this week, Syrian President Bashir al-Assad was interviewed by Laurent Delahousse of France 2 Television. (France 2 video news page here, direct link to video here):

DELAHOUSSE: Good evening, Mr President, Thank you for accepting our invitation. First of all, today you met the [French] President Nicolas Sarkozy. It's not the first time, [as Sarkozy] went to Syria twice. [Note: al-Assad also came to France on 14 July] How would you describe the relationship today between our two countries, France and Syria ?

AL-ASSAD: With Nicolas Sarkozy, we wished to base our relationship on frankness and transparency. We have built a climate of confidence between us, between France and Syria. Together, we can play a positive and constructive role on questions that concern us in international situations, at least in the Middle East.

DELAHOUSSE: Mr President, this visit today was because, it's in a particular context, for you, it is  urgent in that the peace process in the Middle East is started again. Do you agree that the peace process is simply blocked today?

AL-ASSAD: This process is effectively blocked, at least since the Israeli attack on Gaza at the beginning of the year. We should always think about the interest of stability for the interest  of peace. And peace, of course, leads to stability. I'm rather inclined towards optimism, even if there is no Israeli partner, and that's what we discussed with Mr Sarkozy.

DELAHOUSSE: If you came today to see and consult with President Sarkozy, does that mean that you are counting on France to have a role in this peace process?

AL-ASSAD: Yes, France can play an important role. They should defend the mediator role of Turkey, and persuade Israel to return to the negotiating table, with the Turkish mediator. We discussed this  with President Sarkozy and we think he is able to [help] within the framework of his relations with Israel.

DELAHOUSSE: Mr President, it's now a year that Barak Obama has been President of the US, we may think from what you say for a while that you seem to be disappointed with his diplomacy, is this the case or not?

AL-ASSAD: (laughs a bit) We quite agree with the main lines of what he said before he was President, and since he is President, but when we see the result, countries and peoples ask for a plan of action. How to transform this positive talk that we heard into a reality on the field. I can't talk about deception, it's less than a year that President Obama is in power, I think therefore that we must give more time to Obama.

But I can say that the peoples of the Middle East are beginning to lose hope. I hope they are wrong.

DELAHOUSSE: Mr President, you are convinced today that the Iranian nuclear program is only peaceful and not military ?

AL-ASSAD: For years we have heard that Iran wants the nuclear bomb, in one year, two, or three years. The crisis began in 2003, and six years later we still hear about a level of uranium enrichment of 5% [that Iran is reaching]. For medical enrichment, you need a level of 20%, and for military levels you need more that 90%. How can one believe that there is a military programme? Logically it's not convincing.

I say to Europe not to believe the Americans, that [attitude of Washington] goes back to in fact the Bush Administration.

DELAHOUSSE: Mr President, France has thanked you twice for the case of Clotilde Reiss [the French student detained in Iran in the post-election crisis]. Do you think that she will freely be able to come back to France? Have you talked to President Sarkozy about this question?

AL ASSAD: I can't say precisely if Clotilde Reiss will be able to come back to France, it depends on Iran and France. We have transmitted what President Sarzozy has said to Iran in the last few months, but we haven't intervened since. [Silence

DELAHOUSSE: Mr President, do you fear a new esclalation of violence in the region?

AL ASSAD: The area today, when we speak of the Israel-Arab conflict, is still a region  between peace and war  This situation can't continue. It can only end with peace or a war. If the war doesn't happen, there will be extremism. Both hypotheses are bad, let's hope that there will be negotiations and measures that will lead to peace and normal relations in the whole region.

DELAHOUSSE: Thank you, Mr President, for answering our questions.

Lebanon: Did Hillary Clinton Just Change US Policy on Hezbollah?

Sharmine Narwani for Huffington Post:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to break with US policy on Tuesday when she discussed Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah on the Charlie Rose show, identifying only the organization's "military wing" as a terrorist concern.

Discussing the recent negotiations between the five UN Security Council nations plus Germany -- P5+1 -- and Iran, Secretary Clinton told Rose:

"I mean, the Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region."

Hezbollah has been on the US State Department's List of Terrorist Organizations since 1999, with no distinctions thus far made between the group's military or political branches. Hezbollah itself rejects distinctions between its various bodies.

Earlier this summer, the British government did make that distinction however, placing only Hezbollah's military wing on its list of organizations banned under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Globally, only the United States, Canada and Israel view Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

A State Department spokeswoman, however, denied any policy shift, saying: "The Secretary's statement is fully consistent with our existing policy. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."

But if Clinton's statement during the lengthy interview with Rose was a mere slip of the tongue, it was a very precise and specific gaff.

Which begs the question, is the US administration about to tweak its decade-long position on Hezbollah, and if so, why now?

The US Secretary of State's new phrasing comes exactly one day after the formation of a unity government in Lebanon, led by US-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

The government's new cabinet includes ten ministerial positions for the Hezbollah-led opposition, two of which will go to Hezbollah members.

Any change in the US's position on the Lebanese resistance group could reflect this new reality: that Hezbollah participated in democratically held elections and is now part of Lebanon's official governmental body.

In the background, however, lurks another possible incentive for a US policy shift. A war of words between Israel and Hezbollah has persisted since the end of Israel's 33-day war on Lebanon in mid-2006. The stalemate that resulted was widely viewed as a defeat for Israel, a country that has relied on the psychology of victory to act as a deterrent for its Arab neighbors. And this perception of defeat has caused significant frustration within Israel's military establishment.

This past summer, Israeli rhetoric threatening Lebanon peaked when it became clear that although the pro-US coalition had won the Lebanese elections, a unity government including Hezbollah was inevitable.

"If Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government as an official entity, let it be clear that the Lebanese government, as far as we are concerned, is responsible for any attack -- any attack -- from its area on the state of Israel," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as recently as August. These comments followed similar statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, increasing speculation that another military conflict could be in the offing.

Could the US administration be softening its stance on Hezbollah in order to give Lebanon's new government a shot at succeeding, and simultaneously warning Israel to back off? President Obama has a lot on his plate, juggling talks with Iran -- an Israeli foe and Hezbollah ally -- managing US military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to jumpstart peace talks between Palestinians and Israel. The last thing he needs is another large-scale armed conflict in the region to distract from his Mideast agenda.

In August, Obama's Assistant on Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, John Brennan introduced more moderate language about the Lebanese resistance group at an event held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC.

While reiterating the US position on Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Brennan painted a more nuanced picture of the group:

"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization ... And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."

In an article in The Nation a few days later, a State Department spokesman responded to Brennan's comments: "U.S. policy toward Hezbollah has not changed. We do not make any distinction between the political and military wings."

But his Secretary of State just did.

Whether Clinton on Tuesday deliberately meant to redefine US policy on Hezbollah or not, it seems the thinking within the administration has taken a turn anyway.