Some (very slim) signs of movement on Gaza

Posted By Marc Lynch Friday, February 5, 2010 - 2:13 PM Share

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks about how to restart the Israeli-Palestinian track have sparked some buzz, it appears. Clinton said that "Of course, we believe that the 1967 borders, with swaps, should be the focus of the negotiations over borders." Now analysts are in a bit of tizzy, trying to figure out whether this formulation signals some dramatic new departure and a hint about where talks are going. Maybe. I'm more inclined to think that it was just carelessness, the sort of thing everybody talks about in private but isn't supposed to come from a podium. I'm far more intrigued by a couple of admittedly feeble signs that perhaps movement on Gaza will finally be put on the table -- something that I and many others have been urging for a long, long time.

What are the signs?

First, Haaretz reported yesterday that "The United States has suggested to Israel that easing the Gaza blockade would help counter the fallout from the Goldstone report on alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year ago." The message was reportedly delivered to an Israeli Foreign Ministry delegation by several State Department and NSC officials (including Samantha Power). The Haaretz story has been picked up widely in the Arab media.

Second, Nabil Shaath the other day became the first high-ranking Fatah official to visit Gaza since 2007. He met with a number of senior Hamas officials. This has sparked a flurry of rumours that Hamas and Fatah may finally be ready to sign the fabled reconciliation document -- perhaps in time for the Libya Arab Summit next month, suggests the Palestinian newspaper al-Quds.

Finally, in his controversial speech at the Israeli Herzliya conference, Palestinian Authority/Ramallah Prime Minister Salam al-Fayyad said bluntly that "it was essential that “our country be reunified,” and that lifting the blockade of the Gaza Strip would go along way toward enabling the PA to reassert control there." This follows several other references to Gaza by PA/Ramallah leaders in recent days.

Will this amount to anything? It's easy to be skeptical. Israel isn't likely to change its Gaza policy just because of some American suggestions (although they may do so based on their own calculations of self-interest), and this was hardly a high-profile, public Presidential (or even Secretarial) push. Reports of an impending Hamas-Fatah deal have come and gone so often in the last year that it's become something of a regional punchline, and the underlying conflicts seem as intense and forbidding as ever. PA leaders may be talking about Gaza now only because their failure to do so in the past has cost them with Palestinian public opinion. I'm as skeptical as anyone, believe you me.

But if there were something brewing to alleviate the blockade of Gaza and to achieve some sort of functional rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas, this would be far significant than the latest tweak in wording over the kinds of negotiations which the PA and Israel may or may not begin thinking about considering at some point. The Obama administration's approach thus far has appeared bereft of new thinking: overly focused on resuming negotiations for their own sake, learning the wrong lessons from the unsuccessful attempt to get a settlement freeze from Netanyahu, and stubbornly wedded to an inadequate "West Bank First/PA Only" approach to the Palestinian side. A bold move to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of Gaza could finally introduce some new cards into the game, strengthen the hand of the PA with its own public, generate some Arab support for the process, and -- no small thing -- significantly improve the lives of a devastated Palestinian population. Let's hope that these faint signals develop into some new momentum for real change.

Muhammad Alostaz/PPM via Getty Images

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

TYRTAIOS

3:46 PM ET

February 5, 2010

No Water - No Deal

Slim indeed.

There is often the overlooked fact that geographically put together, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as densely populated as they are, only comprise about a 1/4 of the Palestinian population - the rest living elsewhere throughout the region - many of lay claim to Israeli occupied land.

Keeping that in mind, making a two country solution workable would entail Israel giving back the other 3/4. Problematic for Israel is this land generally provides the biggest share of the underground water table and farmable land.

It will always come down to water and who controls it, and I personally can never see Israel seeding control of that to the Palestinians. Besides Netanyahu, doesn't care about his popularity with the Obama administration, only his popularity with his his ultra-conservative base

JANBEKSTER

5:17 PM ET

February 5, 2010

Two Negations.

Of course I said this before, but how on earth can two negations come together to form supposedly; a nation?. I don't know, but does anyone really believe that, a gunshot marriage prior to the Arab Leaders Conference, is going to sustain the momentum between the two factions?. In the eternal Arab tradition, they will kiss and hug and make up, then after the conference, they will go back to their old ways.
khairi janbek.paris/france

BURNINGCHROME

12:56 PM ET

February 6, 2010

Won't happen until Shalit is freed

1)Won't happen until Shalit is freed. And in my opinion for what it's worth that is absolutely correct.

2) I would never take on faith something reported in Haaretz, or most other Israeli or Arab media for that matter. They are driven by headlines of rumours not facts.

3) Nothing Israel does, including an independent investigation, is going to stop Israel haters from pushing the Goldstone Report forward as far as they can. They smell smell blood and they will pursue it as far as they can, because it gives them the headline they want, associating Israel with war crimes. Never mind if on closer examination it turns out to be incorrect. As far as they are concerned the headline is the conviction they want.

Observers can already see that the media had little interest in presenting the Israeli preliminary conclusion that were published this week. They are reported on the back pages not making the headlines that Goldstone's largely unsubstantiated accusations were given and continue to be given.

4) There is the additional problem for Israel in how to open the crossing points. Hamas kept attacking them when they were open killing workers. They used to be civilian staffed, Now if they reopen it will be the army who has to operate it. This means the government will have to explain why they are deliberately putting Israel's children, fathers and husbands, who serve in the army, in harms way.

JACOB BLUES

2:27 PM ET

February 8, 2010

Same headline different day. Will they or won't they. Hope

this isn't part of the syllubus. Professor Lynch doesn't provide a shred of meaningful material information. He takes common wishful thinking and tries to push a guess based on nothing.
.
One really has to wonder about the reliability of the "Arab Press" given that for the most part its government controlled or influenced.
.
"Reports of an impending Hamas-Fatah deal have come and gone so often in the last year that it's become something of a regional punchline".
.
That's the reality of the status of Fatah / HAMAS relations. Wake us when there is actually some movement, not wishful thinking.
.
Second reality as Burning Chrome so aptly notes, Shalit's still being held hostage. Wake us again when that status changes for the better.
.
Rather than try to peruse the tea leaves of Ha'Aretz or the "Arab press", Prof. Lynch should spare us the wishful thinking. Just as HAMAS remains wedded to the Jihadist path, it also retains the key to stepping onto a new one. The reality is, HAMAS can end the Gazan blockade far quicker and more easily than any other party. It refuses to do so. Don't ruminate on headlines or one off public comments. It's actions that count.

JUSTINT

5:51 AM ET

February 10, 2010

Democracy overlooked?

What I can see here is a failure of democracy. And I'm not talking about just any democracy as recent work (Jean-Paul Gagnon) has come out showing two exceptional fatcs:

1) Before the publication of "The Element of Democracy: A Theory and Definition of Democracy", there was no such thing as a universal definition of democracy. Apparently political theorists have been trying to solve the 'democracy paradox' (as my professor said) for a long time and this Gagnon guy nailed it.

2) The universal definition of democracy is this: the plural citizenry expressing its sovereignty through law, equality, communication, and selecting people to administer government or something like that.

What if we revisit palestine and israel with the revolutionized understanding of democracy so that these states can focus on that to help create peace?