"A better option is to push for a workable solution now"

From Daniel Levy on Prospects For Peace:

"Gaza and the Obama Effect—Ending the War

This piece can also be read at Huffington Post.

Barack Obama is not even President yet but he may have just played a central role in getting to a ceasefire in the current Gaza Israel crisis--just by being there. All the signals are that we are in a final and ugly escalatory cycle in advance of hostilities being ceased and that the proximity of this war ending to next week's inauguration of the new President is not coincidental. ( GOOD NEWS )

Here's where things stand:

Egyptian mediation is now reaching a ceasefire package building on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860, and barring last minute hiccups, it is likely to deliver a breakthrough in the very near future( VERY GOOD ). The elements of that ceasefire package are well known: ending military actions and rocket strikes, withdrawing IDF forces, opening the Gaza border crossings, and preventing future weapons smuggling into Gaza. In fact, one of the most painful truths of this conflict is that these ingredients were known in advance and had the current, frantic diplomacy been conducted one month ago, this terrible human suffering could probably have all been avoided( ALL VERY TRUE ). The details are now being hashed out with the comings and goings of Israeli and Hamas officials in Cairo.

On the Israeli side, there have been fierce disagreements within both the political and military leaderships since Operation Cast Lead was launched. Defense Minister Barak apparently supported a truce during the very first days of the attack( GOOD FOR HIM ). Foreign Minister Livni later got on board for a de-escalation( I ACTUALLY LIKE HER ), and with the military chief of staff widely reported to be unenthusiastic about an entrenched and prolonged re-occupation of Gaza( SMART ), the Prime Minister seems finally ready to bring this to an end.

In recent days, the Israeli media has seemed to be building to this crescendo with generous helpings of propaganda with regards to Israel's achievements and the of enfeeblement of Hamas (the true picture is likely to be more mixed). ( TRUE )

The Defense Minister also scored his victory photo today with the killing of Hamas Interior Minister Said Siam. While that is the picture most Israelis will be looking at, the rest of the world is likely to be pouring over further bombings of U.N. facilities and a death toll that is now over a thousand, of which according to Israeli estimates, only 360 are Hamas fighters (according to Ofer Shelah in the Maariv newspaper, quoting Israeli military sources). Nevertheless, the war has given Ehud Barak and his Labor party a boost in the run-up to February's elections. ( I'M HAPPY ABOUT THAT, BUT DON'T AGREE WITH THIS WAR. )

The war has been popular with Israelis and a key element in delaying a ceasefire has been the need for not just one, but two, victory narratives and photos--one each for the two senior ministers whose parties are competing in elections (Livni and Barak). By the way, it's worth remembering that the Iraq War was just as popular with the American public after three weeks as this action is with the Israeli public. But even if Israel ends now, the longer term consequences are likely to be as debilitating for Israel in this situation as they have been for the US in Iraq. ( I AGREE )

According to the latest news, Livni is now likely to get her own victory photo, too. The Israeli Foreign Minister is on her way to Washington to sign a memorandum of understanding with Secretary Rice regarding American commitments to assist in preventing weapons smuggling into Gaza. It will almost certainly be Rice's last act in office.

Hamas, too, is busy preparing its own victory narrative. They will claim to have withstood the Israeli onslaught and to have deterred the Israelis from entering deeper into the urban warfare awaiting them in Gazan cities. They will assert that despite international efforts to isolate Hamas, they have been negotiating the terms of the ceasefire and that they have achieved their key demand of lifting the closure on Gaza (it's worth noting that according to Israeli's former Mossad chief and former national security adviser, Efraim Halevy, "If Israel's goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation"( I AGREE )). Expect Hamas to also emerge politically strengthened with President Abbas having looked like a bystander throughout this conflict and even being perceived by many as complicit in the destruction wrought on Gaza( TRUE. THIS SADDENS ME. I ADMIRE HIM GREATLY. ). The terrible images emerging from Gaza, and that may get worse (when foreign camera crews finally get into Gaza and the extent of damage becomes known) are likely to generate further sympathy.

If a ceasefire is becoming imminent, then it is fair to assume that while the dynamics of the conflict (Israeli recoil from fully re-occupying Gaza), and the diplomatic effort have played a role, the key element to timing here is the approaching Obama presidency. ( INTERESTING )

First of all, the various actors--and one imagines Israel in particular--will not want to piss on Obama's parade this Tuesday. More substantively, there is an expectation that the new president would have felt compelled to immediately intervene in this situation. While there is an assumption that the Obama administration will remain strongly supportive of Israel, one can also anticipate a more thoughtful articulation of what serves American interests in the Middle East, how the close Israel-America relationship should be managed, and the taking of corresponding efforts to immediately de-escalate this spiraling crisis. It might be pushing the envelope to call Obama the peacemaker here, but it's hard to deny that his impending entrance to the world stage has an effect.

If this conflict does now end (as one desperately hopes it will), then it will of course be the Obama administration that is left to deal with the fall out. The memo of understanding, due to be signed by Israel and the US tomorrow, is one part of that. It seems to be a smart move by Condoleezza Rice to give this to the Israeli Foreign Minister in order to get her fully on board for ending the war. If it is indeed mostly political theater, an election campaign photo-op for Livni, then so be it. But if it amounts to more, then this might well be one final poison chalice that the Bushies are bequeathing to 44. If America is to play an active military role in the Sinai, then expect complications and a scenario with all the makings of nurturing over time another insurgency with possible blowback, and even with consequences for the shaky and unpopular regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Then there is the rest of the post-Gaza mess: a humanitarian emergency to alleviate, the further weakening of America's regional allies, notably including the Palestinian Authority, and a new wave of anger in the region directed at America and its Israeli ally. The first challenge is to make the elements of the ceasefire actually work - ensure an end to hostilities, an IDF withdrawal, and functioning border arrangements( TRUE ). Immediately following that comes the need to rebuild and rehabilitate Gaza which will require an international effort. Essential here will be to avoid the temptation of using reconstruction assistance as a blunt instrument to advance regime change in Gaza but rather to shape this as a core ingredient in facilitating the beginning of a serious Palestinian national reconciliation. That means changing course on the previous failed policy and encouraging - and not vetoing - third party mediation efforts between Fatah and Hamas. ( I AGREE )

But it is the bigger picture of the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will continue to sap US credibility and security until a workable equilibrium can be found. That will require a realistic approach not only to Gaza and its rulers but also to the other 94% of the Palestinian territories - the West Bank and East Jerusalem (the '67 territories) - an approach that finally guarantees Israeli security within recognizable borders and Palestinian independence and de-occupation( I AGREE ). US leadership will be a prerequisite for achieving it.

This issue has forced itself early onto the Obama agenda and if it returns to the back burner than it is guaranteed to periodically explode in everyone's face, sucking America in and costing America dear. A better option is to push for a workable solution now. Nothing will more dramatically and positively affect the prospects for successful US diplomacy in the vital challenges it faces in this most dangerously destabilized of regions. "

I agree.

"that’s why there was a cease-fire from June to December"

Rootless Cosmopolitan with a good point:

"January 2nd, 2009
‘Legimitizing’ Hamas

Tzipi Livni says Israel can’t have a cease-fire with Hamas because that would “legitimize” the organization( THEY'VE ALREADY HAD ONE ). Actually, Hamas’ legitimacy is beyond question, having been democratically elected to govern the Palestinians in 2006( THAT'S THE SAD FACT ). And Israel knows it will eventually have to talk to the organization — indeed, it already has been; that’s why there was a cease-fire from June to December( TRUE ). If Israel was to confine its negotiation efforts to those it considers “legitimate,” it would have to negotiate a cease-fire with Abu Mazen. Which would be pointless, of course, because Abu Mazen has longsince retired from the business of confronting Israel( I BELIEVE THAT ABBAS ACTUALLY WANTS PEACE AND IS AN EXCELLENT LEADER ). (Then again, rewind the clock 20 years, and Livni and her ilk were saying you couldn’t negotiate with Abu Mazen( WHAT A TERRIBLE MISTAKE ), either, because that would “legitimize” him…)"

Livni's statement is PR.

"“The one who needs to be condemned by the international community is Hamas,”

From the NY Times:

"Foreign Minister of Israel Says Hamas Should Be Condemned( WITH THIS I AGREE )

By SHARON OTTERMAN

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni defended the Israeli assault in Gaza, saying on America’s Sunday morning talk shows that Hamas, not Israel, “is the one who needs to be condemned by the international community.” ( SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING )

Reacting to anger from the Arab world, as well a call by the United Nations to cease hosilities, Ms. Livni said on “Fox News Sunday” that the assault “is needed in order to change the realities on the ground, and to give peace and quiet to the citizens in southern Israel.” ( WON'T WORK )

Speaking from Jerusalem in taped interviews, Ms. Livni said that until Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist and ceased rocket attacks against Israel, they remained terrorists who needed to be acted against( I WOULD ADD THAT THEY NEED TO STOP BEING EXPLICIT JEW HATERS ). The Israeli air assault has killed at least 280 Palestinians since it began Saturday.

She said army was seeking to avoid unnecessary deaths in the assault against Hamas headquarters in Gaza( NOT GOOD ENOUGH ). Palestinian hospitals have reported numerous civilians among the dead and wounded.

“We are targeting Hamas, we are not looking for civilians to kill more than that,” she said in a second interview, on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

She added that the Israelis had warned Palestinian civilians to leave places where Hamas officials and fighters were known to be located( HAMAS WILL FOLLOW THEM. ).

“The one who needs to be condemned by the international community is Hamas,” she continued on “Meet the Press.” “Israel is a state that implements its right to defend itself and its citizens( THERE ARE RULES OF LAW AND DECENCY AND RELIGION THAT LIMIT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RIGHTS ).”

Ms. Livni said that she had been in “close connection” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and that she had spoken with her Saturday night. The Bush administration has been supportive of the assault, condemning Hamas for its repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel in recent weeks. Ms. Rice, in a statement issued Saturday, said that she “holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza.”

The army has not ruled out a ground assault, Ms. Livni added, and has called up thousands of reservists. “We will make these decisions according to the situation on the ground,” she said. “All the options are open.”

The rocket attacks from Gaza are a clear violation of the rules of war. They are clearly targeting civilians. As well, you cannot even fire a missile without a definite MILITARY target in mind. Randomly firing off rockets violates the rules of war.

From the Geneva Conventions, Protocol I:

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. ( HAMAS IS CLEARLY VIOLATING THIS CONVENTION )

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.( I CONSIDER ISRAEL TO BE VIOLATING THIS )

Hamas is also clearly violating this:

Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

"But this is an unhelpful resolution, and it looks like the Bushies are having a farewell snicker at the U.N. Plaza."

Daniel Levy about the last days of the Bush Administration's Israeli- Palestinian Peace Plan:

"The U.N. Security Council today passed its first resolution on Israeli-Palestinian peace process-related issues in 5 years. The resolution was essentially intended to anchor the Annapolis process as an ongoing effort in moving forward beyond the Bush Administration and it closely followed the language of a Quartet statement from last month. UNSCR 1850, however, not only contains little that is new, it also offers very little encouragement that progress is being made by the current approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making.

From the Bush Administration’s perspective it is a last gasp effort at legacy-building, having failed to achieve the goals set out at Annapolis one year ago. How ironic that this Administration would seek a U.N. imprimatur for that legacy, given its characteristic hostility to the U.N. and indeed to multilateralism and international law in general. But this is an unhelpful resolution, and it looks like the Bushies are having a farewell snicker at the U.N. Plaza.

From the international community’s perspective, this looks like a farewell gesture to an Administration who for seven years neglected Israeli-Palestinian peace-making and whose belated efforts were never really found to be convincing. So it can only be hoped that UNSCR 1850 in no way locks the Obama Administration into an Annapolis process that is structurally flawed. The resolution’s insistence on maintaining bi-lateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, on pursuing the Roadmap and on adhering to the Quartet principles for engagement with Palestinians all seem woefully inadequate when faced with the real challenges that will have to be overcome to advance progress toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution.

Only this month two of the most respected establishment Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings, suggested dropping those Quartet principles: “Washington should eschew the Quartet’s conditions on Hamas.” The bi-lateral negotiations themselves will almost certainly need to be buttressed by external intervention, as two of the wisest U.S. national security heads, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have suggested: “A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be.” ( TRUE )

More than anything, UNSCR 1850 looks like a clumsy attempt to intervene in domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics—and one that is likely to backfire.

When Israelis go the polls in February, the main choice for Prime Minister will be between the Annapolis-supporting Tzipi Livni (Kadima) and the more hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). If this resolution is designed to embarrass Netanyahu and to tie his hands when it discusses the “irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations”, then it is unlikely to succeed. The Israeli-voting public can be open to listening to messages from the international community, but not when they are delivered with so little sophistication, in a way that lacks meaning, teeth, or follow-up and that actually borders on being nonsensical—what on earth does the “irreversibility of the bi-lateral negotiations” even mean?

The effort to assist the Palestinian Fatah leadership in Ramallah is even more woeful, transparent, and unconvincing. The resolution “calls on all states and international organizations…to support the Palestinian government that is committed to the Quartet principles and…to maximize the resources available for the Palestinian Authority.” Yet one has to question how much of a selling point this resolution can be with the Palestinian public when the entire text makes no mention of occupation, settlements, or the humanitarian situation in Gaza—all things that might just concern the average Palestinian If anything this is only likely to further discredit the P.A.

A U.N. Security Council Resolution is a tool that if effectively deployed could be helpful in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Resolution 1850 only cheapens and demeans this tool. That the resolution has been largely well received is perhaps testimony to only how low the bar has now been placed for what is considered to be a positive development on Israel-Palestine. International support for such a timid approach, and one so steeped in the failure of the past, is unfortunate to say the least. It is also very out of sync with the hope and expectation of more effective and creative diplomacy that has characterized the international mood since the election of Barack Obama.

In fact, this is not the only issue on which the Bush Administration is trying to have a last laugh at the United Nations—they are also pushing for a UN Security Council Resolution on the situation in Somalia to militarily protect the discredited and impotent Transitional Federal Government there. Bush’s Somalia policy has come close to being matched in its wrongheaded ideological dogmatism and devastating effects by the policy towards the Palestinians. ( THEY AIM FOR CONSISTENCY )

The only good news is that this resolution was the product of U.S.-Russian co-sponsorship (nice to see) and that like the many Israel-Palestine resolutions that preceded it, this one too is likely ( CERTAIN )to be ignored."