Blogs and Stories
Hillary's Gaza Problem
Eyad Baba/AP
From Jordan, The Daily Beast’s Salameh Nematt on how Hillary Clinton can jumpstart the Mideast peace negotiations her husband left behind in 2000.
Israel’s massive blitzkrieg of the Gaza Strip, which has killed nearly 330 Palestinians so far and injured more than 1,000, continued Monday with no end in sight.
The carnage inflicted by “Operation Cast Lead”—ostensibly in retaliation for the death of one Israeli in rocket attacks by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)—is the largest Israeli action in Gaza since 1967. It has raised political tensions across the Middle East and pushed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the forefront of the foreign policy challenges facing the incoming U.S. administration of Barack Obama, which is already saddled with a global economic crisis, unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming nuclear threat from Iran.
There is a real danger that the Mideast peace process, already in a coma in the last days of George W. Bush's presidency, could be killed off by renewed violence.
There is a real danger that the Mideast peace process, already in a coma in the last days of George W. Bush's presidency, could be killed off by renewed violence, which will make it more difficult to overcome divisions within both the Israeli and Palestinian camps. The split among the Palestinians between the mainstream Fatah movement, controlling the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, has been further deepened by the PA’s apparent complicity to rid Gaza of Hamas. And Israel is likely to tilt further away from the pro-negotiation stance adopted by the centrist Kadima Party in power today if, as expected, hardline Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu wins February’s elections there.
Mindful of Washington’s strategic alliance with Israel, and aware of the need to maintain a measure of neutrality that would enable his administration to be an effective mediator, President-elect Obama did not immediately comment on the airstrikes and may choose to let the crisis play out before he commits the new administration to a specific position.
Once he takes office on January 20, Obama would appear to have two narrow options. First: Send Hillary Clinton to restart negotiations from the point they reached in 2000, when her husband, President Bill Clinton, brought a historic peace agreement as close as it’s ever been. But that deal collapsed, largely due to miscalculations by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak (the current defense minister) and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and the second Palestinian intifada broke out instead.
Second: Manage the immediate crisis by brokering a new cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, with the help of regional powers, thus abandoning any grandiose hopes of a peace agreement until political circumstances improve.
In the meantime, the political climate in the Middle East will improve or further deteriorate depending on how the Iraq war pans out. If the U.S. appears to be withdrawing from Iraq and abandoning the region to Iran’s designs, it is likely to harden the hostilities between Israel and Palestine. If the occupation of Iraq looks more like a success, this may encourage radicals on both sides to join the bandwagon of so-called moderate regional powers such as Turkey and Egypt.
For now, the Arab world is expressing outrage at the Israeli action, while most Western powers are urging restraint all around. On Saturday, the Bush administration cautioned Israel to avoid civilian casualties in airstrikes on Gaza and said Hamas must stop its rocket attacks into Israel for the violence to cease. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States "holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza." She added that the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, which expired more than a week ago, "should be restored immediately"—a plea seconded by PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
The spokesman for European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana also called for both sides to declare a cease-fire, and this plea was echoed by France, Russia, and Britain. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown reportedly contacted his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert, and made it clear Israel must stick by its humanitarian obligations in Gaza.
Arab League head Amr Moussa called for an emergency meeting of all Arab foreign ministers in Cairo Sunday, while the Egyptian government summoned the Israeli ambassador to express its condemnation of the airstrikes, and King Abdullah II of Jordan called for an immediate halt to all military actions, saying the attacks targeted innocent civilians in Palestine.
Lebanon's prime minister, Fuad Siniora, described the Israeli attacks as a "criminal operation,” and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a religious decree ordering Muslims to defend the Palestinians. But there was no indication that Iran would give the green light to its proxy Hezbollah militia in Lebanon to launch rocket attacks across the border into Israel.
A Syrian official said Sunday that Damascus was suspending its indirect peace talks with Israel, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he, too, had frozen his contacts with outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Olmert.
On Monday, Israel bombed the Islamic University and government compound in Gaza City, centers of Hamas power. By the end of the day, Israel was close to exhausting its target bank for aerial bombing, according to Israeli military analysts quoted by the Haaretz newspaper. Now it will have to either launch a ground operation or bring the campaign to a speedy conclusion.
Thus far, however, Israel has been sending conflicting messages about where the operation is headed. Asked whether Israel would follow up the airstrikes with a ground offensive, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, "If boots on the ground will be needed, they will be there."
But Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the foreign media that Israel does not seek to reoccupy Gaza, and government sources said the Foreign Ministry is already working on an exit strategy—though this strategy would not involve stationing an international force in Gaza. Livni, who hopes to defeat the right-wing hawks to become prime minister in the February elections, has also said the rule of Hamas in Gaza must be ended because the Islamists will never make peace with Israel.
RELATED: Shattered Peace by Judith Miller
RELATED: Why Israel Named Its Gaza War After a Hanukkah Poem About Dreidels by Ethan Perlson
Salameh Nematt is the international editor of The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Qaddafi Struts In
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
The Pharaoh Comes to Washington
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
Iran's Nervous Neighbors
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
Just two, perhaps pedantic points:
Ehud Barack was Israeli PM in 2000, not Olmert. Barak is also the current defense minister.
The Israeli strike was not in retaliation to the killing of one Israeli, rather an effort to end the months and years of Hamas rocket attacks.
"then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (the current defense minister)"
I believe you mean Ehud Barak
The Hamas charter states that Israel shall exist until Islam destroys it.
Why should the United States waste any of its diplomatic resources "negotiating" with such a party?
For example, I would rather have my Secretary of State negotiating more mutually beneficial trade agreements with Chile and Argentina.
I would wish for Hamas to behave in a way that could credibly lead to peaceful coexistence with Israel. But I also would wish for Bush never to have attacked Iraq. The latter can not possibly happen and the former seems almost equally impossible.
Why is this being framed as what Hillary has to do to jumpstart peace negotiations? Why isn't it being framed as what Hamas has to do to jumpstart them? If their starting point for "peace negotiations" is that they're calling for Israel to be destroyed, and they state ahead of time that that point is non-negotiable, then what kind of a moron would try to negotiate peace with them?
It's just illogical, and would be a waste of our precious resources.
Hamas schmamas. The best thing to do would be for the US to cut off all foreign aid to Israel until they agree to a humane peace with the embattered Palestinians. People turn to extremist groups because Israel is building a wall around them, confiscating their land through settlements, diverting water and essential goods away from Gaza. Basically keeping the people in a state of dire poverty. Hamas fills these needs, so of course the people vote for it. If the standard of living in the Palestinian territories was what it is in Israel, the violence would abate. People turn to desperate measures when they are living in desperate straits. Many Israelis wish for peace with Palestine, but unfortunately the radical elements are running the Israeli government. American taxpayers should be ashamed that their taxes are being given to warmongers.
Here here
Oops. It was Ehud Barak, not Ehud Olmert, who was Prime Minister in 2000 (and Defense Minister today).
When Hamas learns that Israel includes people of "the book" as Mohammed put it and renounces violence and terrorism, and the moderate Muslims police the radicals giving them no shelter or quarter, only then will there be negotiations for peace. Otherwise, the Muslims are not genuine in wanting peace.and are cherry picking the most homicidal parts of their book for evil means.
It's hard not to be pessimistic. How long have these people been fighting? 3000 years? I realize it's a lot more complicated than that, but how does one not conclude that that's what this is really about? One incident after another, starting all the way back in biblical times has written hatred and animosity toward one another into the very cultural DNA of both of these peoples. How in the world WOULD they live in peace? They've literally hated each other for so long they don't know how to do anything else.
I'm no conservative, what if they just can't? What if there's no way that these two groups are ever going to get along? What if the world's not big enough for the both of them? What then?
Here is another "neutral Muslim" writing about the ME conflict like he's not taking sides.
Hamas has been firing rockets on a daily basis into Israel without provocation for 3 years now making life unbearable. No one reports on it and nobody complains until Israel strikes back.
When the Lebanese army needed to fight Palesinian extreemists in one of their refugee camps it took them 8 months and they distroyed the whole camp displacing 60K people.The Muslim and arab world didin't say shit. The job Israel has to do is 100 times more difficult.
The author should just state honestly "I hate the Jews and whatever is done to them, they have no right to fight back" instead of pretending to be neutral.
And to the last poster. It's not 3000 years. Islam is about 1400 years old and for most of it's history it has actually been OK to the Jews, relatively speaking. If you don't have something smart to say try to shut up.
The people who live in the Gaza Strip are some of the poorest, least represented people on earth. They have a non-functioning economy, no freedom of movement, very little opportunity. What Israel is doing is lopsided, premeditated, and lethal. You want Hamas out so you obliterate a refugee shelter? Israel has a great intelligence agency and state-of-the-art weaponry. The Palestinians have sling-shots and pipe-bombs. This is David and Goliath.
Strangely enough, these people have not been fighting each other for 3000 years.There have been extended periods during which they not only coexisted but worked with each other.
During the 15th century, the Arabs of Spain and North Africa were the "warriors" of that part of rhe world and the Jews handled their business matters for them and they lived together in harmony and peace. The problem today is that Israel has to defend their homeland against the Arab desire to make that entire area of the world Muslim. I think it unlikely that the problem will ever be resolved and Israel will eventually be facing a crisis when the Israeli Arabs, whose birth rate is in excess of 6.2 per family begin to outnumber the Jews whose birthrate (like most Western countries) is under 2.
A gordian knot which looks highly unlikely to be resolved.
I find it interesting that this piece is titled, "Hillary's Gaza Problem" while the other headline is "Obama's Gaza Challenge." Who's president here?
Hey Lizzzz - Gaza exists only because the Jews pulled out some two or three years ago and no Arab country is willing to absorb these people and those of the West bank into their general populations
As for what Israel is doing, how else to respond to the continual rockets that Israel has been exposed to? Soon, the Arabs of Gaza will be equipted with rockets capable of reaching even more distant targets and exposing more Israelis to the danger. How would you respond to that kind of terror? The Israeli response is the only language they nderstand.
Israel shouldn't take their anger out on civilians, but the Palestinians need to mobilize and do something about Hamas. If they won't fix the problem, the Israelis will attempt to...and that's just the way it is.
How can one author get so many things wrong? A blitzkreig would kill 330 people an hour, not over three days. The 'carnage' is not 'ostensibly' in retaliation for one death; military action is being taken against Hamas to end thousands of rocket attacks over years. The Obama administration was already saddled with The Middle East; Israel defending its citizens adds nothing new. The 'danger' of the 'death' of the peace process is rhetorical nonsense; thousands of rocket attacks bely any IslamoArab-participation in any peace process. Any victory in February's elections by the Israeli Right is made *less* likely by Israel defending itself, not more; Israelis are accustomed to being shot at, but they are not accustomed to not shooting back. If Israelis believe that the international community will support defensive action, they are *more* likely to pursue a two-state solution, not less.
This will never stop unless the same rules apply to everyone!
The Israelis still have settlements on Palestinian land where they should not have; per UN resolution.
The Israelis sabotage and are being selective with the flow of goods into Gaza,
The Israelis blockade the ports to Gaza.
They stole Jerusalem from the Palestinians.
The Israelis have an atomic bomb and do not sign the non proliferation treaty.
The list of things Israel thinks they are exempted from and above the law goes on and on.
The Israeli Nation was formed and lives on land that was not their own in order that the west could clear their conscience and wash their hands of the holocast!
There is not much we can do about all of that now, but please lets at least reinforce current rules and laws to everyone equally.
Hillary is not the decider, DB. Obama bears the responsibility of managing this mess that the Israelis and the bushies have handed him. Whatever else Israel accomplishes, we can be confident that these attacks will swell the membership in al Qaeda.
If Obama is wise he will make a few bland statements urging peace and love and let Hillary keep herself busy dealing with this unsolvable problem. The problems of the economy, the need to extricate us from both Iraq and Afghanistan, and to fend off the
numerous special interest groups slavering for his favor, require his full attention.
Hamas is taking patients out of hospitals and shooting them in the head on suspicion of being "Israeli collaborators" - New York Times today. As far as I have read, Israelis aren't doing that. I don't know if there is a solution to this situation, but the world needs to look hard at both sides, not just the Israelis. Terrorists regularly target civilians, and Hamas does just that. The Israelis are working very hard to target only Hamas members. However, Hamas declares that nearly all of its members are civilians, even the ones going around shooting patients in hospitals. No doubt, there are evil-minded people on both sides of this story, no doubt there are provocations and insults on both sides of this story. I tend to come down a little closer to the Israeli side myself, because they aren't pulling people out of hospitals and shooting them in the head, because they aren't wiring up children and women with bombs and sending them out to blow up their own people, because they and their buddies didn't fly jetliners into buildings, because they aren't deliberatley targeting civilians.
if you are going to pretend to be impartial, at least know your facts. you say "But that deal collapsed, largely due to miscalculations by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (the current defense minister)"
it wasn't Ehud OLMERT- it was Ehud Barack (who was PM then, and defense min. now)
Barack, a catchy name...
I can't help thinking what could have been. This recurring nightmare on Gaza Street could have been avoided. I too wrote about it on my blog this week. Ironic how the thing flared up again.
this article is ridiculous. it gets way to many facts wrong and is one of the most slanted pieces of journalism i have ever read in my entire life.
most of the comments already deal with the errors in this article. but my question is posed to tina:
between this article and the judith miller article, i am really starting to doubt the journalistic integrity of this website. if anything, an article should be fact checked before going to print.
this should be the case for any and every article on this website, but it is especially true for articles that deal with issues whose tensions run high.
by posting these nonfactual articles, the site is only providing more ammunition for people's hatred.
im not so sure that that is the "beast" that you want to "feed"
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.