Atlantic Sentinel

Tag: Palestinians

  • Egypt Lifts the Gaza Siege

    The strategy, often referred to as “the siege,” was a cornerstone of Israel’s campaign against the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. The ploy started in 2007, when the Islamist militant group clashed with forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. After a brief period of Palestinian infighting, the United States, Mahmoud Abbas and Israel woke up the next morning with an Hamas foothold miles away from Israel’s southern community. Hamas not only won the battle against an American backed Palestinian Authority but did so in the most impressive way — by watching Fatah soldiers cower out of the coastal territory with their heads down and their comrades in Hamas’ prisons.

    From that day on, the Israeli government, with the support of the United States, initiated a containment policy designed to back Hamas into an untenable position. Land routes between Gaza and Israel were shut down, stopping the trade that Palestinians inside the strip depended on for basic food staples and commodities. Ships traveling toward Gaza through Mediterranean were intercepted by Israeli vessels, searched and turned back to their original sailing points. 1.5 million Palestinians were boxed into a stretch of land barely twice the size of Washington DC. And after Israel’s 2008-2009 military operation in the strip, thousands of buildings were destroyed and deliberately prevented from being repaired.

    The siege was a classic campaign of attrition. By depriving Palestinians in the strip and making their lives uncomfortable, the Israelis hoped that the population would turn against Hamas out of frustration. The security problem in Gaza might not be solved entirely but Israel’s main foe would at least suffer a setback. One Israeli military official described the siege as an effort to put Palestinians “on a diet.”

    Four years into the strategy, Hamas is still in power, the Israelis are becoming more isolated in the international community and Gaza is perhaps the most poverty stricken area in the greater Middle East. The cutoff not only failed in its main goal — toppling Hamas — but proved unable to stem the flow of weapons into militant hands. Instead of using land routes and border crossings, Hamas simply dug underground, smuggling in RPGs, shoulder fired rockets, anti-aircraft missiles and firearms.

    The Egyptians, long leery of the siege in the first place, decided this weekend to lift their part of the blockade. While Palestinians between the ages of eighteen to forty are still required to obtain a visa before crossing into Egypt, thousands of Palestinians who have been waiting to visit family members on the other side of the fence will now be afforded the opportunity to travel.

    The announcement comes in stark contrast to the former regime of Hosni Mubarak which was eager to close its border with the Gaza Strip in order to prevent Hamas from infiltrating the Sinai Peninsula if not mainland Egypt. Mubarak was in no way sympathetic to Hamas’ ideology of resistance, which went against everything Egyptian foreign policy had stood for since its signing of the Camp David Accords. Hamas also represents itself as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s most popular opposition movement and Mubarak’s most formidable political foe. Distancing the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood from Hamas was therefore a top priority for Mubarak and participating in the Israeli led siege a surefire way of advocating it.

    But Mubarak is now gone, swept away by his own people and camped out in a military hospital. The Egyptian military, now running the country on an interim basis, is well tuned to what Egyptians think. The Gaza embargo was widely despised by the Egyptian masses, who tended to see the scheme through a humanitarian lens rather than as a security precaution. The fact that their country was heavily involved and knowingly complicit in the suffering of the Palestinian people rubbed many Egyptians the wrong way. Lifting the blockade is therefore in large part a product of Egypt’s revolution. Diplomatically, the measure was also an inducement that the Egyptians made in order to persuade Hamas to sign a recent unity agreement with their Fatah rivals in the West Bank.

    Egypt and the Gaza Strip are connected once again. The Israeli government will not like it, nor will they respect their new Egyptian partners for shifting course. But it may just push Israel into a new frame of mind with respect to the peace process. The Egyptians are trying to do their part by unifying Palestinian factions; the Arab League has done its part by promising normal diplomatic relations for Israel in the event of a solution; the United Nations will do their part in September by supporting a Palestinian state. The Israelis might as well do their part by implementing what every impartial Middle East negotiator has been arguing for — an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, mutually agreed land swaps to account for major Jewish settlements and the formation of a state ruled by Palestinians without an exhausting and draining occupation.

  • Violence Hits Israel’s Borders

    As the world continues to cover the demonstrations against the Ba’athist regime in Syria, the region’s oldest conflict flared up once again on Sunday, with thousands of Palestinians from Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank converging toward Israel in a show of force against the occupation. The four pronged protest came on the same day as Israel was commemorating its independence. To Israelis, the day was full of joy, unity and a relief from the usual turmoil that tends to dominate the country’s headlines. For Palestinians, on the other hand, the day marked the biggest setback for their cause.

    While it is not uncommon for the anniversary (Israel was established in 1948 with the help of a United Nations mandate) to proceed with a few minor instances of violence, this year’s festivities turned out to be far bloodier than usual. At the end of the day, twelve people were reported killed and even more were injured when Israeli troops and Palestinian demonstrators clashed on Israel’s borders.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is scheduled to speak to the United States Congress this week, called the coordinated protests an effort to delegitimize Israel’s existence as a state. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had a different take on the events, praising the participants fighting for Palestinian rights.

    A dozen fatalities may not be earth shattering given how violent the conflict has gotten after more than sixty years, yet the toll illustrates that Israelis and Palestinians are still stubbornly holding on to their respective positions without any room for compromise. The latest American measure this past September produced nothing but a few rounds of feckless negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian delegations. Mediation from the United Nations, with the United States and Europe taking point, hasn’t resulted in anything noteworthy either, despite the resources devoted to a resolution. The resignation of George Mitchell as President Barack Obama’s Middle East Envoy only adds to the stagnation that has come to characterize the conflict since the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993. A solution is as far off as ever, and with Hamas joining the Palestinian government last week, the chances that Israel will resume negotiations is exceedingly slim.

    Both sides have much to gain from an eventual resolution. For Israel, security with Palestine and its Arab neighbors could finally be achieved after years of looking over their shoulders. For Palestinians, the goal is to have an independent, sovereign state joining the community of nations. Nearly every country involved with the negotiation process understands what needs to be done for a deal to be reached — Israel needs to withdraw to 1967 lines and the Palestinian leadership must accept the legitimacy of Israel’s Jewish character in return. The United States, on various proposals under different administrations, has put forth the same peace plan parameters for the past twenty years, albeit in multiple stages. Every human rights group in the world has endorsed, and continues to endorse, the two-state formula.

    Yet politics on all sides drags reconciliation down. With the Israeli political system taking a sharp right turn, there is little confidence that Netanyahu will be able to convince his governing coalition to stop settlement construction or ease up on security restrictions on Palestinian land. Mahmoud Abbas is no better in his outlook either, refusing to negotiate directly until settlements are stopped permanently. The United States are perhaps the biggest lame duck of all, with messages of peace emanating from the White House downgrading to empty mantra. Washington hesitates to use its power as leverage to coax everyone around the same table.

    Palestinians and Israelis are growing tired of the same old status quo while the rest of the Arab world fights for change in their own societies. With the latest violence on all sides of Israel, the Palestinians may be trying to remake the “Arab Spring” into their own reform instigator. That spring has now reached the borders and shores of Israel.

    How will Israel respond? Or, better yet, will it respond constructively?

  • The World Reacts to Bin Laden’s Death

    Minutes after President Barack Obama broke the news of Osama bin Laden’s death, official statements from some of the globe’s leading authorities started to enter the public airwaves. Most of the remarks, some by former presidents, some by congressional leaders, some by prime ministers, were generally similar in tone and substance: congratulations to the American armed forces and intelligence community for a job well done. The unified response to the killing showed how important bringing bin Laden to justice had become.

    Former President George W. Bush: “Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.

    Former President Bill Clinton: “This is a profoundly important moment not just for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in Al Qaeda’s other attacks but for people all over the world who want to build a common future of peace, freedom, and cooperation for our children. I congratulate the president, the national-security team and the members of our armed forces on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice after more than a decade of murderous Al Qaeda attacks.”

    Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York: “This is a thunderous strike for justice for the thousands of my fellow New Yorkers — and citizens from all over the world — who were murdered on 9/11. It took close to ten years, but the world’s most wanted terrorist has finally met his deserved fate. New York’s heart is still broken from the tragedy of 9/11 but this at least brings some measure of closure and consolation to the victims and their families. This is a massive accomplishment for the countless military and intelligence personnel who have been urgently dedicated to this task for the past decade. Because bin Laden’s evil dogma has poisoned the minds of so many others, we cannot let up in the War on Terror. This successful mission sends a definitive message to those who would test the resolve of the people of the United States of America: do not doubt our resolve; if you do us harm, we will find you, we will mete out justice, and we will prevail.”

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel: “a resounding triumph for justice, freedom and the values shared by all democratic nations fighting shoulder to shoulder in determination against terrorism.”

    Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom: “This news will be welcomed right across our country. Of course, it does not mark the end of the threat we face from extremist terrorism. Indeed, we will have to be particularly vigilant in the weeks ahead.”

    President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan: “For years we have said that the fight against terrorism is not in Afghan villages and houses. It is in safe havens, and today that was shown to be true.”

    Saudi Arabia’s State News Agency: “An official source expressed the hope of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that the elimination of the leader of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization would be a step toward supporting international efforts aimed at fighting terrorism.

    Not to be outdone, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab world’s most potent political organization, issued its own remarks about the bin Laden killing, praising the terrorist leader’s death as a new chapter in Arab history and a defeat for the violent extremist ideology that Al Qaeda espouses.

    The Muslim Brotherhood has long opposed Al Qaeda’s violent tactics, including its disregard for killing innocent Muslims, as well as its black and white, us versus them outlook on world affairs.

    The mood, however, was not all celebratory. As expected, jihadist websites were doing their usual clamoring about a western conspiracy aimed at degrading Muslims worldwide. Some questioned whether bin Laden was actually dead, citing other instances of his death in the past as false and misleading. Others used the forums to recount bin Laden’s history as a humble and pious Muslim who stood up to the United States, a country they categorize as the epicenter of all things morally deplorable.

    But Al Qaeda and the Salafi jihadist community were not the only parties upset about the killing. Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of Hamas, expressed to reporters his deep opposition to bin Laden’s assassination.

    We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs. We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior.

    Haniyeh’s comments are a bit surprising, not only because Hamas is battling its own Salafi jihadists in the Gaza Strip, but also because Hamas’ political leadership has long disagreed with Al Qaeda about tactics and ideology. The global jihadist narrative of Al Qaeda has largely been branded by Hamas officials as unnecessary and unrealistic. Indeed, the very core of its ideology contradicts Hamas’ nationalistic agenda, which is concentrated on defeating Israel and liberating Palestinian lands from the occupation.

    Haniyeh’s denouncement also goes against the official line of the Muslim Brotherhood to which Hamas belongs.

    Perhaps Haniyeh is trying to differentiate himself, and his organization, from the Palestinian Authority, which is seen by Palestinians as far more pro-Western in its policies and preferential to negotiations with Israel. One Palestinian analyst, Hani Habib, has suggested that this is Hamas’ way of appeasing its Salafist challengers and getting on their good side.

    Whatever the case, it’s an odd statement for Haniyeh to be making, coming a day after his group signed a reconciliation accord and power-sharing agreement with Fatah. A bad public relations stunt by Hamas but still a bad day for Osama and his followers.

  • Hamas, Fatah Working Together

    Palestinian politics has long been divided. Issues as diverse as economic development and institution building are rarely tackled by the major parties along the same lines. Palestine’s most significant political groupings, Hamas and Fatah, have contrary strategic interests in “high politics” as well, with the former distrustful of the West and the latter owing its very survival to foreign donors. But the most complicated issue within the Palestinian political sphere is how to go about dealing with Israel, a country that the Fatah party has long tried to negotiate with.

    The impasse between Hamas and Fatah started long before the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections but most Middle East observers consider that contest to be the jump off point for what has essentially become a fragmented Palestinian government. (more…)

  • UN Report: Palestinians Ready for Statehood

    Aside from concerns about Islamic terrorism and the safety of Israeli citizens, the potential weakness and fragmentation of a Palestinian government has been a prime reason for the Israeli military’s reluctance to withdraw from the West Bank. Numerous Israeli prime ministers dating back to the late 1990s voiced worry over Palestinian governance, concluding that an Israeli draw down from the occupied territories would leave a lasting void that the Palestinian Authority could not possibly plug.

    Benjamin Netanyahu, too, argues that the Palestinians are not yet ready for statehood; that without adequate institutions that are able serve the needs of the Palestinian people, militant groups like Hamas will pop up and exploit the West Bank to their advantage.

    Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, of course, disagrees. He has made it his life’s mission to build Palestinian society from the ground up.

    In August of 2009, Fayyad boldly stated that the Palestinians would be ready for statehood by 2011, complete with a strong economic base providing Palestinian youth with full-time jobs and an administration that both responds to the people’s complaints and follows the requirements of international humanitarian law.

    While it would be easy to dismiss Fayyad’s remarks as overly optimistic, his administration has impressed virtually every major stakeholder in the international community, including the United States and the Israelis.

    The West Bank economy grew at an astounding 8 percent in 2010, despite the difficult fiscal environment that still lingers as a result of the 2008 global recession. The Palestinian Security Forces, once a collection of ill trained and anti-Israeli militias, is now under a competent command and control system courtesy of American training. Technocrats fill the economic, infrastructural, health care and foreign policy portfolios of the Palestinian Authority. And while corruption is still visible in Mahmoud Abbas’ government, its level and severity is a far cry from the embarrassing days of Yasser Arafat.

    With all of these changes in mind, have the Palestinians finally built an administrative apparatus conductive to good governance? Are they able to rule themselves without Israeli soldiers patrolling their neighborhoods?

    The answer, according to the United Nations, is yes — the Palestinians, under the leadership of Abbas and Fayyad, have moved in a positive direction that even the Israelis would find difficult to deny.

    The report (PDF) from the UN’s Middle East Peace Process office is yet another testimonial demonstrating the weaknesses and downright faults embedded within the Israeli government’s outdated argument about Palestinian self governance. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinian Authority has proven to the world that the West Bank should no longer be viewed through the narrow prism of international terrorism. The issue now delves into the much more sensitive subjects of sovereignty, freedom and independence from an occupying force.

    For hardliners in the Israeli government who have long supported an extensive Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories, this report will come across as nothing more than a showpiece from the United Nations, which has frequently been branded anti-Israeli. In fairness, some of their concerns have merit.

    While the Palestinians have made extensive strides in the areas of policing and social services, corruption, abuse of power and oppressive security operations by Palestinian forces are still problems that need to be solved. The West Bank economy may have grown by 8 percent last year but a vast portion of this growth has been sustained by state, regional and global donations. Civil society groups have been created but are still curtailed by the government. Being a Hamas supporter or political dissident carries the risk of a long-term prison sentence.

    Some of these problems are not solely the fault of the Palestinians. The Israeli occupation, which still administers approximately 60 percent of the West Bank, continues to exacerbate the challenges of future Palestinian growth and political progress. Checkpoints in Israeli controlled towns inhibit freedom of maneuver for Palestinians traveling to see their families. They also tend to make it more difficult for Palestinian farmers to get their goods to market.

    Israeli restrictions on exports are still in place, which certainly doesn’t help the employment prospects of a rising Palestinian youth population.

    Perhaps most importantly, the occupation is relegating all of the achievements that the Palestinians have made over the past two years to theatrics, without a state to show for it. Without an award of sovereignty or at least a significant easing of economic and security restrictions, it’s difficult to believe that the Palestinians would find it worthwhile to keep up progress. That is, unless the United Nations General Assembly votes in favor of Palestinian statehood this September.

    Hopefully, it won’t have to come to that. The United Nations will debate whether to extend statehood to the West Bank this fall. Its latest report will undoubtedly push some previous skeptics of the measure into the Palestinian camp.

    Israel, however, can beat everyone to the punch by offering the Palestinians a good faith measure, such as another moratorium on settlement construction or extended jurisdiction for the Palestinian security services. Doing so would not only show the world that Israel is serious about the two-state solution but could potentially restart direct talks between the two parties.

  • The “Palestine Papers” Shock the Region

    It isn’t everyday when secret government files make their way into the press, unless of course Julian Assange and his cohorts at WikiLeaks have the information. Yet this is exactly what occurred today and the repercussions of these leaks could be far more profound than the 250,000 documents that WikiLeaks released last year.

    Initially reported by Al Jazeera Television in Qatar, and corroborated by Britain’s The Guardian, thousands of pages of authentic files from the Palestinian delegation have been made available to the public.

    In stark contrast to other diplomatic leaks that have been inconsequential, if not downright silly, the “Palestine Papers” actually provide valuable insight into an issue that remains on the global boilerplate: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (more…)

  • A Deadly Operation in the West Bank

    hen news surfaces about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s hardly ever good. Of course, no one should expect anything different when negotiations are at a standstill. But this particular story hits close to the heart, regardless of whether you are an Israeli or Palestinian sympathizer.

    Last week, an unarmed Palestinian man named Amr Qawasme was shot and killed in his home by Israeli commandos searching for an Hamas operative in the West Bank town of Hebron. The suspect, who has since been arrested by Israeli forces, was reportedly charged a few years back on suspicion of terrorism, including allegations of orchestrating suicide bombings against soft Israeli targets. (more…)

  • Peace Talks Collapsed Because of Jordan

    Remember the direct talks that occurred in September between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? The question seems silly, but given the short duration (a total of sixteen hours), it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if people have forgotten that both sides actually spoke face to face. After just three meetings, the discussions broke off amid Israel’s refusal to extend the settlement moratorium. Abbas has stayed on the sidelines ever since, a position that he will continue to use as long as the Israeli government refuses to cease settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    The reason I bring this up is twofold. First, we haven’t had direct talks since that early September date and the United States has been desperately trying coax both sides into talking one on one for the past few months. (Is President Obama getting discouraged?) But more importantly, people in the media (and bloggers like myself) have been citing the wrong reasons as to why the talks collapsed.

    Before this short Newsweek brief came out over the weekend, people similar to myself assumed that the September discussions were terminated because Netanyahu and Abbas were stubborn and unwavering in their demands. In other words, that Israelis wanted one thing, the Palestinians another, and a moderate compromise remained elusive.

    This, apparently, was the wrong assumption to hold. According to Newsweek‘s Dan Ephron, the talks were doomed from the start, due to Netanyahu’s unwillingness to discuss anything before Israel’s “security concept” was accepted by Abbas’ negotiators. This may be a reasonable demand, given Israel’s contentious past with its Arab neighbors and Palestinian militants. But when one gets to the heart of what Israel’s “security concept” means, Netanyahu’s stubbornness simply becomes unjustifiable.

    In details provided by Newsweek, Netanyahu wanted Israeli troops on Palestine’s side of the West Bank barrier, in addition to a large contingent of Israeli soldiers in the Jordan Valley.

    This last demand is particularly difficult to understand. The state of Jordan is, based on Middle Eastern standards, one of the most moderate regimes in the region. Jordanian and Israeli intelligence have worked together repeatedly over the past decade on everything from immigration control to the tracking of militants. Jordan even holds a formal peace treaty with Israel, one of only two Arab states that do so (Egypt being the other). So why, despite all of these positives, was Netanyahu so insistent on retaining Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley?

    Negotiators who were involved in the September talks confirm that the demand was due to Israel’s concern about Jordan turning more radical in the future. Last time I checked, Jordan was relatively stable, and the one political party that Israel has always been leery of, the Muslim Brotherhood, is largely a pragmatic political actor in Jordanian politics.

    Netanyahu is either using Jordan as an excuse to surround a potential state of Palestine with Israeli troops, or King Abdullah’s Hashemite Kingdom is a lot more fragile than we all have been led to believe. Taking Netanyahu’s politics into account — and his desire to keep his right-wing coalition afloat — I’m guessing that the first statement weights more heavily in his mind than the second.

  • Israel and the Palestinians Back to Square One

    Just when the United States were attempting to coax Israel into extending a ban on settlement construction for another three months, the Obama Administration decided to scrap the proposal altogether. (more…)

  • Inside Hamas’ Negotiating Strategy

    While the Americans negotiators try to fend off a complete collapse of the one month old Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, other players in the conflict are hedging their bets and trying to predict what will happen next.

    As of now, Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank has resumed, prompting colonists and far-right members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to celebrate with open arms. Settler organizations are launching the resumption of building with a symbolic victory parade, releasing 2,000 balloons into the air to represent the 2,000 new apartment blocks that will be erected in the foreseeable future.

    And all the while, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is shamefully figuring out what to do next. He will go before the Arab League on Sunday to try to gain political cover for continuing the negotiations.

    But there is another important Palestinian faction hedging its bets and preparing for its next move, despite the fact that the group is technically not a part of the negotiations. Hamas, which remains isolated from the peace talks despite its control of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, is in fact embracing an “all hands on deck” strategy.

    A few weeks ago, I suggested that the killing of four Israeli settlers in the West Bank town of Hebron was a way for Hamas to remind the United States that it was a party to the conflict. Indeed, I stand by that judgment, however controversial it may be. But it also appears that the Hamas leadership is more than willing to play the nationalist card; Khaled Mashal, Hamas’ political leader, declared that it was high time for all Palestinian groups to come together.

    Quoting the DPA story:

    Mashal argued that internal reconciliation would make the Palestinians more powerful in negotiations, calling it a national necessity and the best way to react to the “Zionist intransigence.”

    At first, Mashal’s comments seem to warrant a positive response. Abbas’ Fatah movement and the Islamist Hamas have been at each other’s throats for the past four years. The humiliating electoral defeat at the hands of Hamas still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Fatah officials and the internal conflict between the two groups only worsened after Abbas’ forces were routed from the Gaza Strip.

    In addition to the human calamity of Palestinian infighting, the lack of a unified movement leaves Palestinian negotiators in a very weak position vis-à-vis Israel. On one side of the table sits a strong prime minister, supported by the whole of the Israeli cabinet. On the other side, a weakened president who only governs around 65 percent of the Palestinian people. The odds aren’t good for any negotiator faced with a situation of such magnitude.

    It is because of this unbalanced negotiating environment that American and Western negotiators have devised a new strategy. Rather than continue with the same old divide-and-conquer approach, the United States may find it necessary to get off its “high horse” by extending an “unclenched fist” toward the Hamas delegation.

    Such a proposition is extremely hard to swallow for pro-Israel lobbyists and Washington insiders who have continued to evaluate Hamas exclusively through the prism of terrorism. Indeed, Hamas has perpetuated horrific crimes against innocent Israelis over the years and continues to do so. But refusing to draw Hamas into the peace process — or worse, discouraging Palestinian reconciliation — will prove to be far more detrimental to Israel, Palestine and the United States in the long run than any rocket attack.

    No solution to the Middle East dispute will be sustainable unless all Palestinians are represented, Hamas included. Glancing at Daniel Byman’s latest essay in Foreign Affairs could perhaps serve as a working blueprint.

  • Hamas: “Pay Attention To Us”

    Throughout the history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, opponents of reconciliation have often invoked violence and incitement in order to derail the very notion of progress.

    Such was the case during the first ten years of serious negotiations, when radicals on both sides proved to be quite successful at killing off the prospects of an accord. After the historic Oslo Agreement in 1993, Palestinian militants in the West Banka and Gaza launched a devastating wave of terrorist attacks against Israel proper, which resulted not only in the deaths of over 1,000 Israelis but the virtual termination of goodwill between Jews and Palestinians. The historic concessions that were made by the compassionate Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 cost him his life at the hands of a far-right Israeli assassin. And of course, who can forget the Camp David Summit hosted by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, which seemed so close to an agreement but was in reality so far away. (You might remember that the only thing that these talks produced was another intifada.)

    Yet despite all of that history, people seemed somewhat surprised when violence broke out in the West Bank a few days ago. The incident was reported as a drive-by shooting against Israeli civilians near the town of Hebron. Hamas quickly claimed responsibility for the attack (which left four Israeli citizens dead) as a violent signal of protest to the ongoing discussions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

    The response to the attack has been predictable. Israelis are downright appalled that violence has once again struck at the center of innocence. Yet surely they expected something like this to happen?

    Abbas is a bit embarrassed, for the West Bank is usually described as a newly minted success story. Indeed, the territory has been routinely quiet over the past three years, in stark contrast to the 1990s, when terrorists would flood into Israel from camps in the West Bank.

    And Americans are just as upset as the Israelis, issuing a White House statement condemning the attack in the harshest terms. Meanwhile, the Palestinian security forces have begun a crackdown on Hamas operatives inside the West Bank.

    The good news so far is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been smart enough to press ahead with the talks as planned. He no doubt recognizes that his negotiating partner has absolutely no control over the activities of Hamas, and is therefore willing to give him a pass on this latest incident. The question is whether he will continue to give Abbas a pass if these types of attacks continue. I suspect that the current niceties would soon blow away if Hamas steps up its operations, in which case we might as well pack up and go home.

    Thankfully, we haven’t come to that point yet. But Hamas isn’t a dumb organization. They fully recognize that time is on their side, and they also recognize that just the right amount of terrorism will sabotage the participants’ will for a complete resolution. Spoilers have been doing this for years, and Hamas is no different.

    But perhaps Hamas is signaling something else through these shootings. Conventional wisdom would tell you that Hamas is completely opposed to direct talks with Israel in any form and they may be still firmly committed to that line. But perhaps this is Hamas’ not-so-subtle-way of reminding Abbas and Netanyahu that they too are a major player in this conflict.

    Thus far, the United States, Europe, Israel, and some members of Fatah have written off Hamas as a partner and refused to reach out to their representatives. Hamas has been in the dark ever since its victorious 2006 parliamentary elections, totally isolated from the international community and virtually delegitimized in the mainstream Arab world as a political force.

    This shooting, especially gruesome, changes this entire calculus at least for the short term. Indeed, the killings quickly received the attention of the international media. And more importantly, it solicited a response from both the United States and Israel.

    Hamas is back on the map. And in its own perverse way, may be trying to play ball.

  • Same Old “Peace Talks”

    Call me a pessimist or a downer, but I’m truly skeptical about the sincerity of Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas on closing the book on this conflict.

    Despite some confidence building measures from both sides in the last year — like Netanyahu’s temporary settlement freeze in the West Bank and Abbas’ clampdown on radical Palestinians — the Israeli and Palestinian delegations are at polar opposites on every major issue.

    Rumors are already going around in the Israeli press that Netanyahu is kowtowing to the right on resuming settlement expansion when the moratorium ends September 26.

    A weak and indecisive Abbas is looking for any excuse to pull out of the talks, for he really didn’t want to engage the Israelis in the first place. It took some extra cajoling from American diplomats George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton to convince the tired Abbas to travel to Washington. (more…)