Captain's Quarters -

Israel To Gaza: Get Ready

The Israelis have sent a warning to Gaza and its Hamas leadership after the latest rocket attack on Ashkelon. If the attacks continue, Israel will invade Gaza and conduct large-scale military operations to eliminate the threat:

Israeli leaders warned Friday of an approaching conflagration in the Gaza Strip as Israel activated a rocket warning system to protect Ashkelon, a city of 120,000 people, from Palestinian rockets.

Ashkelon was hit by several Grad rockets fired from Gaza on Thursday, a sign of the widening scope of violence between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza. One hit an apartment building and another landed near a school, wounding a 17-year-old girl.

Located 11 miles from Gaza, Ashkelon had been sporadically targeted in the past but never suffered direct hits or significant damage.

"It will be sad, and difficult, but we have no other choice," Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defense mister, said Friday, referring to the large-scale military operation he said Israel was preparing to bring a halt to the rocket fire.

"We're getting close to using our full strength. Until now, we've used a small percentage of the army's power because of the nature of the territory," Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday.

Israel had tried using softer methods to stop the attacks, including a lockdown on the border between Gaza and Israel. That resulted in a breakout at Rafah, which took the Egyptian government several days to resecure. Other nations had pressured Israel to end the embargo or at least loosen it for food, energy, and medical supplies, but the rocket attacks continue.

Hamas says that Israel's return fire has killed 15 civilians and blames Israel for the rising tensions. Apart from the absurdity of blaming someone for hitting an aggressor in return, Hamas and other terrorist entities have no one but themselves to blame for civilian deaths. Even the AP acknowledges that Hamas launches its rockets from densely populated civilian centers, drawing fire onto their own people.

Israel cannot stand idle while terrorists rain rockets onto civilian populations, and the escalation to Ashkelon is a deliberate provocation by Hamas. The IDF has to take action, and this time it cannot be constrained by proportionality. They need a massive response to the Gaza provocateurs, one that leaves them no ground to hide. If Gaza's civilian population wants to avoid that, then they need to rid themselves of the terrorists before Israel's military does its work.

Israel Kept US In Tel Aviv

The location of the US embassy in Israel has generated considerable controversy here in the US. The American government has never fully recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, preferring to let that contentious point get determined in final Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. Both Bill Clinton and George W Bush promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but neither actually took the step.

According to Arutz Sheva, the Israelis themselves pressed the US to remain in Tel Aviv (via Keshertalk):

Former Israeli Consul General to the US Yoram Ettinger revealed at the Jerusalem Conference Wednesday that Israel prevented a move that would have relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

“The US Senate was ready to do away with the waiver that allows the president to defer the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem,” Ettinger said during a round-table discussion at the Jerusalem Conference. “There were over 80 senators – enough to override any [presidential] veto.”

It was the Israeli government, Ettinger said, who intervened on behalf of leaving the Embassy in Tel Aviv. “The problem is that both houses of congress have been firmer on Jerusalem than any Israeli government since 1993.”

Ettinger did not elaborate which Israeli government it was that told Congress to stand down.

In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. This got overwhelming approval, but it allowed the President to sign a waiver if, for diplomatic or security reasons, the move needed to be delayed. Clinton and Bush did so 12 times, delaying the move while both administrations attempted to engage the Palestinians and to eliminate their terrorist activities.

Arutz Sheva gave no reason why the Israelis objected to the move. Perhaps they recognized the provocative nature of the transfer. No other nation has its embassy in Jerusalem. Hezbollah leader promised terrorist attacks on any American embassy located in Jerusalem, but we rarely let terrorists dictate our actions anywhere. The bigger problem would be the almost-certain reaction from the Palestinians and the appearance that we had decided on the Jerusalem question without their input, something that even the Israelis know would lead to another intifada.

It looks like we'll be staying in Tel Aviv for the foreseeable future, and that our present location suits the Israelis just fine.

Abbas: No Plans To Pull A Kosovo

Mahmoud Abbas poured a little cold water on remarks his aide made a few hours earlier about the potential for the Palestinians to follow the Kosovars into independence. Yasser Abed Rabbo told reporters that "Kosovo is not better than us," and said that the Palestinian Authority could declare unilateral statehood at any time. Abbas didn't dispute that, but rejected the idea ... for 2008:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ruled out on Wednesday any unilateral declaration of statehood in the near future, responding to an aide's call to take the step if peace talks with Israel continued to falter. ...

"We will pursue negotiations in order to reach a peace agreement during 2008 that includes the settlement of all final status issues including Jerusalem," Abbas said in a statement.

"But if we cannot achieve that, and we reach a deadlock, we will go back to our Arab nation to take the necessary decision at the highest level," he said, without mentioning any options.

The issue came up as the Annapolis agreements have done little to change the facts on the ground for either side. Israel continues to build settlements, while Palestinians continue to conduct attacks. The headline grabbers come from Gaza, where the hail of rockets continues to fall on Sderot, but militant activity also continues in the West Bank.

Rabbo made the original remarks as a rebuke to Ehud Olmert for the stall in the negotiations. He also demanded that the US and the EU recognize Palestinian independence as readily as both accepted Kosovo's declaration this weekend. However, the PA declared its independence already, as Saeb Erekat noted; they did so as the PLO in 1988, which has been roundly ignored, even by the Palestinians. Since the intifadas and their overall failures, everyone has avoided talking about it in favor of a negotiated settlement that results in statehood, which all sides have promised as the eventual result of a legitimate peace process.

The problem is finding reliable partners for that peace process. The exit of Hamas from the negotiations may have made that somewhat easier, but neither side trusts the other to make the difficult decisions that will have to come. If Abbas can't rein in his militants and Olmert won't stop expanding settlements in disputed territories, then talks won't matter at all.

Israel: If He Can Do It, Sure

Sometimes, Israelis must shake their head in wonder at the folly of their friends and enemies alike. After Egypt failed to close the Rafah crossing that Hamas blew open last week, the US, EU, and Egypt put their heads together -- and decided to let Mahmoud Abbas give it a try:

Israel will not stand in the way of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas taking control of Gaza's breached border with Egypt as part of a deal to sideline Hamas Islamists who rule the enclave, officials said on Tuesday.

But it is unclear how Abbas, the Fatah leader, would be able to assert control over the crossing with Egypt given opposition from Hamas, which seized the coastal territory in June and blasted open the Egyptian border wall last week in defiance of an Israeli-led blockade.

Tensions along Gaza's frontier with Egypt flared anew on Tuesday when Egyptian forces tried to prevent Palestinian vehicles from driving into Egypt.

Hamas gunmen intervened, firing into the air to clear the way for cars to pass. They threatened to blast new holes in the border if Egyptian forces refused to back down.

This had to be a red-letter day for Egypt and its security forces. Hamas gunmen fire in the air, and all Egypt can do is hit reverse? I know Americans complain about the poor border control along the Rio Grande, but this is ridiculous.

A gang of terrorists faced down Egypt, and now they want a more moderate terrorist to do in Rafah what he couldn't do in the rest of Gaza. Abbas lost control of the territory last year when Hamas conducted an armed revolt against the Palestinian Authority. It only took Hamas five days to seize Gaza from a clearly unprepared Abbas. What makes the US, Egypt, and the Arab world think that Abbas can hold Rafah with poor lines of communication, no strategic position, against an enemy that just chased Egypt off of the border crossing?

Israel has essentially shrugged at the suggestion. Supposedly the West and Egypt will backstop Abbas, but if they couldn't backstop Egypt, Abbas won't fare much better. Either way, it's moot for Israel, which has to see this as a disaster through which everyone must pass before anyone gets serious about dealing with Hamas. Let Abbas give it a try -- and when that fails spectacularly, maybe the Hamas problem will get real attention.

Fake Blood, Real Draculas

My good friend Scott Johnson, who in real life may be one of the most unassuming people you'll ever meet, is a tiger when it comes to documenting media shenanigans and Palestinian terrorism. In the upcoming issue of the Weekly Standard, the Power Line heavyweight delves into one of the more reprehensible media-fueled urban legends of 9/11: Yasser Arafat and his blood donation.

Recall the shrieking adulation in the streets of Ramallah when al-Qaeda killed 3,000 people in New York City and Washington DC as the context for this event. Americans, already with our blood boiling, saw the images of ululating Palestinians and began drawing connections between the jihadist mass murderers and the Palestinian cause. Arafat sensed disaster, and the media put on a show to blunt American rage:

The story of Arafat's blood donation was reported around the world in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, usually accompanied by photographs depicting Arafat in the apparent act of giving blood at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Enderlin elaborated on his contention that the scene depicted in the photographs was staged. According to Pollak's account of Enderlin's remarks, "Arafat didn't like needles, and so the doctor put a needle near his arm and agitated a bag of blood. The reporters took the requisite photographs." ...

Do the photographs conform to Enderlin's description of them? In short, the [answer] is yes. ... But what about the photographers? What does the record reveal about them?

Among the work of AP photographer Adel Hana is a 2006 photograph claiming to show a Palestinian girl killed by an Israeli airstrike against "Islamic militants" being carried into the Shifa Hospital by a grieving relative surrounded by armed men. It is a heartbreaking photograph. The AP subsequently updated the caption to indicate that "doctors said that the 5-year-old Palestinian girl initially believed to have been killed by an Israeli military strike Wednesday apparently died after sustaining head injuries during a fall from a swing in the same area before the strike."

Reuters's Ahmed Jadallah, for his part, is clearly on the team he's covering. Reuters itself helpfully advises visitors that Jadallah "shoots reportages of Palestinian funerals and Israeli violence" almost daily. Israeli authorities have barred him from going to Reuters's main office in Jerusalem. Reuters also ingenuously discloses: "He sees it as his mission to have the world see the despair of the Palestinian people." And, we can fairly assume, the benefactions of their late chairman.

Be sure to read it all. The blood may have been faked, but we saw the bloodthirstiness of the Palestinians for ourselves on 9/11, and all of the media hoaxes in the world can't possibly erase that from our consciousnesses.

Egypt Got The Message

It didn't take long for Egypt to get the message. After Israeli ministers openly talked about transferring responsibility for Gaza's energy and humanitarian needs to Cairo for not closing the blown-up Rafah border, Egypt responded today by forcing the border closed. They put up barbed wire and shot water cannons at Gazans who attempted to defy the closure:

Egypt began closing its breached border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip on Friday, using barbed wire and water cannons to keep Palestinians from crossing into Egypt in defiance of an Israeli blockade.

Israeli air strikes overnight killed four Palestinian militants in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, where Hamas blasted open the border wall on Wednesday, letting tens of thousands rush across to stock up on goods in short supply.

Pressed by the United States and Israel to take control of the situation, Egyptian forces in riot gear lined the border and began placing barbed wire and chain-link fences to prevent more Gazans from entering Egyptian soil.

Tensions flared as some in the crowd threw stones at the Egyptian police, who responded with batons and water cannons. As tensions rose, Hamas began to deploy its own forces on the Gaza side of the border.

The move appeared to take Hamas by surprise. They complained that Egypt needed to create a mechanism for Gazans to lawfully cross the border at Rafah. That complaint came after Hamas blew up the border, of course, making their protestations about lawfulness somewhat empty. The terrorist group arrayed some of its fighters across the gap, but wisely have not chosen to engage, at least not yet.

Egypt did not want to get saddled with Gaza again. Many have suggested that as a solution to the political standoff over the small parcel, overcrowded with more than a million Palestinians. Egypt lost Gaza in the 1967 conflict and has no particular desire to reacquire it, with its radicalism and high-maintenance population. Israel's threat to close all the other borders permanently and let Hosni Mubarak deal with the problem undoubtedly clarified that choice.

Of course, Egypt may find the Rafah crossing harder to close than Hamas did opening it with bombs. If Hamas makes trouble, Mubarak may find himself in a military alliance with Israel in dealing with the terrorists in Gaza. That could create even bigger headaches than he has now.

Israel: We Wash Our Hands Of Gaza

The explosion of the wall in Rafah intended to demonstrate defiance of Israel by Hamas, but it may have given the Israelis a bigger opening than it provided Gazans. An official declared that the unaddressed breach would now allow Egypt to handle Gaza's needs -- and that Israel could completely shut off energy and medical supplies to the people who keep launching rockets at their cities (via Shrink Wrapped, who saw this coming):

Washington, Cairo, and Jerusalem are expressing "concern" regarding the flow of hundreds of thousands of Gazans into Egypt, testing border agreements that have existed since Israel completely withdrew from the heavily populated strip in 2005. Some Israeli officials, nevertheless, saw an "opportunity" in yesterday's event, suggesting that responsibility for Gaza's humanitarian situation should be shifted to Egypt.

Egyptian officials said that yesterday's event occurred after an explosion on the border crossing from the Sinai desert into the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. After the explosion, which blew the border barriers open, a teeming flow of Palestinian Arab men and women — up to 350,000 people, according to some counts — crossed the border into Egypt, in search of heating oil, food, cigarettes, and other goods Gaza lacks. ...

The official — who was intimately involved in forging the agreements between Israel and its neighbors when Prime Minister Sharon decided on "disengagement" from Gaza — said the "paradigm change" after yesterday's event at Rafah may lead to a reexamination of some realities those agreements have created, such as Israel's responsibility for the flow of humanitarian goods into Gaza.

The Gazans will have to rely on other Arabs for their sustenance, and that may prove a poor strategy in the long term. Arab nations such as Egypt have long used the Palestinians for their own political purposes, but have done nothing to alleviate their conditions. They see the Palestinians as useful props but nothing more, and would rather have little to do with them.

Egypt has little desire to become their long-term supplier for energy, food, and humanitarian needs. They want that pressure to stay on Israel as a means to gain concessions in other negotiations, and to tie Israel down economically and militarily. But if Egypt isn't willing to secure the Rafah crossing properly, then they have removed what leverage they have with Gaza. Israel certainly won't continue to allow border crossings when the Gazans can bring all sorts of weapons and explosives through Rafah from Egypt, and if Egypt wants to encourage them to buy goods through Rafah, then Israel doesn't need to do it at all.

Israel should follow through on this threat. Cease all humanitarian provisions and make it clear to Hamas and the Gazans that they need to rely on other Arabs for their sustenance. We'll see how long it takes for Egypt to close Rafah again under those circumstances. Most likely, it will be a matter of days.

Gazans Invade Egypt, For Cigarettes

After several days of an Israeli border closure, Gazans blew up a wall in Rafah separating the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Thousands of Palestinians flooded into Egypt, returning with small quantities of fuel, cigarettes, and cash:

Tens of thousands of Palestinians poured from the Gaza Strip into Egypt Wednesday after masked gunmen with explosives destroyed most of the seven-mile wall dividing the border town of Rafah.

The Gazans crossed on foot, in cars or riding donkey carts to buy supplies made scarce by an Israeli blockade of their impoverished territory. Police from the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, directed the traffic. Egyptian border guards took no action.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel said Israel has no forces on the Gaza-Egypt border and, "therefore it is the responsibility of Egypt to ensure that the border operates properly, according to the signed agreements."

Hamas, which runs Gaza, expressed approval for the action. This seems rather strange, as it clearly shows that the current leadership has performed so poorly that the only means for survival of its population relies on escaping it. It has been Hamas' refusal to end the rocket attacks into Israel which led to the border closures and the interruption of energy supplies into Gaza.

Israel has a reason to be concerned with the Rafah breach. The open border between Gaza and Egypt could easily allow for heavier arms to come into the area. At the moment, the Israelis have no good reason to start another major military engagement in Gaza, but an uptick in weaponry might change that. If the Palestinians bring in better rockets and perhaps even more destructive weapons, the IDF will have to invade to destroy them -- which could wind up getting very bloody indeed.

If Egypt wants to keep that from happening, and to keep Gazans from seeking permanent asylum in the Sinai, then they need to send their army to Rafah and plug the breach quickly. Meanwhile, the Israelis should continue their border closures until Gazans finally get rid of their Hamas leadership and end the rocket attacks from their territory.

Israel Listens To Mr. Spock

Israel has closed the Gaza border and stopped energy supplies in response to the rocket attacks coming from Palestinian terrorist groups within the Strip. Europe and other countries have begun to pressure Israel to end its blockade for humanitarian reasons, but Israel points out that it is illogical to supply an enemy with energy and food while they try to kill:

Gaza hospitals will run out of drugs and fuel for generators within a few days unless Israel eases the border blockade it imposed to curb Palestinian rocket attacks, international organizations said on Monday.

Residents of the Hamas-controlled territory awoke to nearly traffic-free streets and shuttered shops, with petrol in short supply due to Israeli restrictions and Gaza's main power plant shut down since late on Sunday.

Palestinian officials have warned the standoff could harm U.S.-spurred efforts with Israel to reach a peace deal this year. ...

Michele Mercier, an ICRC spokeswoman, said the organization was trying to persuade Israel to reopen Gaza's borders at least to humanitarian supplies and fuel deliveries.

Israel would prove itself suicidally foolish to end the blockade. Gaza has been under Palestinian control now for over two years. The terrorist group Hamas took control of it almost a year ago from the somewhat-legitimate Palestinian Authority, and Europe has refused to recognize its authority. Literally, they want Israel to fund, feed, and energize terrorists.

I'm waiting for the ICRC to set up shop in Sderot to monitor Gazan humanitarianism. Palestinian terrorists have launched rockets at this town for years, and the world acts as if that doesn't matter at all. Palestinians haven't merely forced hospitals to focus on emergency surgery; they're dropping bombs on the heads of Israeli women and children. Why should Israel allow food into Gaza while that happens, especially after years of attempting to alternately negotiate an end or to attacking the launch sites?

Whether the ICRC or the EU want to admit it, Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to perform terrorist acts and use Gaza as its launching pad. Under those conditions, especially since Hamas controls Gaza, a state of war exists between Gaza and Israel, and Israel has no obligation to keep Gaza's electricity running or its people fed. When Gazans get tired of starvation and darkness, they can take matters in their own hands and find new leadership, one that will end the terrorist attacks. If the EU doesn't like that, then let them argue against it from Sderot.

Rockets From Lebanon Hit Israel, Welcome Bush

So how's that new and improved UNIFIL force working out in southern Lebanon? About as well as the old version, apparently, as rockets rained down on an Israeli town from the sub-Litani region that Hezbollah controls. The UN force appears to have little effect on the terrorist group's ability to launch missiles at Israeli civilians:

Two Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon struck a northern Israeli town late last night causing no injuries, an Israeli police spokesman said, the first such attacks by Lebanese militants in six months.

The attack came on the day before President Bush is scheduled to arrive in Israel in support of ongoing peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

The rockets struck near a home in the western Galilee town of Shlomi, a few miles from the Lebanon border. One rocket struck a road leading into the town, said police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld, and the other struck nearby. Residents told wire services that a third rocket had struck a home in the same area, but security officials could not confirm those reports.

George Bush is getting quite the welcome from the radical Islamists. Iran conducted a provocative naval exercise that almost started a shooting war in the Straits of Hormuz. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has staged a number of suicide bombings in Iraq. Now Hezbollah launched missiles against northern Israel. Does anyone feel that all of this sudden activity is coincidental, or a coordinated effort to intimidate regional leadership from cooperating with the US?

And who might be behind all of this activity if it isn't coincidental? Iran and Syria make pretty good suspects in that regard. Both help run Hezbollah, and Syria has its contacts with AQI.

However, the ability for both to use Hezbollah for such provocations, even apart from any larger stategy, demonstrates the useless of UNIFIL. The UN left the expanded force as its solution to the last Israel-Lebanon War, even though almost twenty years of previous UNIFIL missions allowed Hezbollah to build its arsenal. The latest version stood and watched as Hezbollah rebuilt it, with help (again) from Damascus and Teheran. Now they will stand and watch while Hezbollah fires their rockets at Israelis, only missing the murder of civilians because of poor marksmanship.

The UN has no business in supposed peacekeeping until it uses rules of engagement that actually prevent thugs from conducting terrorist attacks. Clearly, UNIFIL shows that the UN has not reached that state, and that they only make the situation worse by doing nothing. The US should insist on the disbanding of UNIFIL, if only to keep European troops from becoming inadvertent targets in the next Israel-Lebanon war that UNIFIL has enabled with their refusal to enforce UNSC resolution 1701.

UPDATE: Looks like Hezbollah's tiring of the UNIFIL squads, too. A Spanish patrol just got hit by a roadside bomb south of Beirut. Those are usually remote detonated, so the bombers likely targeted the UNIFIL force. Will the UN respond -- or will they pull out, as they did in Iraq?

Annapolis: Return To The Road Map

The first fruit of the Annapolis Conference has arrived, and it's a road map. The White House just announced its commitment to hold both sides accountable to the road-map agreement, and the acquiescence of the Israelis and the Palestinians to meet its obligations on the way to a peace treaty by the end of 2008:

We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 -- this is called the road map -- and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.

It was important to kick off the conference with some sort of agreement, and this -- like most of what will occur this week -- had to have been pre-arranged. It commits both parties to little more than their previous commitments. This time, of course, they really mean it.

It's interesting, though, that the US has taken the position of arbiter on the road map and its obligations. In 2003, the Quartet fulfilled that role, with the EU, UN, and Russia. The Bush administration has taken more of a political gamble here than predicted, but Bush probably figures he has little to lose. The road map was a dead letter before Annapolis, and even a short-term resuscitation looks better than the status quo.

Bush: You Know It Don't Come Easy

George Bush wants to push for a negotiated settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before he leaves office in 2009, but doesn't want to inflate expectations to the extent that a failure would provoke renewed violence in the West Bank. His opening remarks reflect the tension between those goals, imploring world leaders to work against the extremists while noting the difficulties ahead:

President Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Annapolis conference that the time is right to relaunch Mideast peace talks because "a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East."

Bush said it won't be easy to achieve the goal of creating two states — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace after decades of conflict and bloodshed, yet he urged the two sides to work together for the sake of their people.

"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," Bush said in remarks released by the White House. "Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity. And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors."

After months of frantic diplomacy, top officials from more than 40 nations were converging on this historic state capital for what Bush said he hopes will launch of the first Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in seven years.

The world has changed significantly in the intervening seven years. Yasser Arafat died, and his movement has fractured into several pieces. The Israelis could only fight Hezbollah to a draw in the north. Hamas has conducted a coup and grabbed Gaza, effectively eliminating them politically in the West Bank, where Israel and the Palestinians are interwoven more intimately. Both Abbas and Olmert suffer from considerable political weakness, which makes them simultaneously less effective and more amenable to negotiation.

Arab nations face other challenges, too. The US intervention in Iraq has challenged the status quo of southwest Asia, but more significantly, the Iranian bid for nuclear hegemony has shuffled priorities for the primarily-Sunni nations at the summit. Israel is no longer their biggest worry, and the Palestinians matter even less than they did in 2000.

So will this conference finally find a resolution to the conflict? Will it even outline the path to such a resolution? Not unless the Arabs have finally resolved to live in peace with Israel. As Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis put it yesterday, the conflict is either existential or a border problem. If the latter, then this kind of conference makes sense, and should resolve the issues relatively quickly. If the former -- if the Arabs simply cannot live with a Jewish state in the region -- then all of the conferences in the world won't solve the underlying problem.

Why hold the conference, if that's the case? The pragmatic reason is to build support for other American initiatives in the region. The idealistic case is that the more diplomatic contact the Arab nations have with Israel, the more likely they will see coexistence as a possibility. With Iran looming as a threat to their power, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan understand that the Israelis have higher priorities than meddling with their regimes.

In the end, however, either there will be all-out war or a negotiated settlement. Rather than assume the all-out war, a diplomatic conference at least gives everyone a chance to check the scorecards after seven years of silence. If the Arab nations accept Israel, then the conference can start looking at the border questions. If not, we know where the problem still lies.

How Serious Is Annapolis?

Many questions surround the peace talks at Annapolis this week, not least among them how far the Bush administration plans to climb out on the ledge to get a settlement. With the Syrians deciding to attend, the prospects for a comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear brighter than any recent time, at least on the surface. The White House will not publicly push for any particulars, though, leaving some to wonder whether the conference will succeed at any level:

President Bush's national security advisor said Sunday that the president would not adopt a more activist role in Mideast peace negotiations that start today, even though many observers believe the United States must step up its direct involvement if the effort is to succeed.

On the eve of a U.S.-convened conference in Annapolis, Md., launching the first formal peace talks in seven years, Stephen J. Hadley said Bush believed Washington's role should be to aid and encourage Israelis and Palestinians, not "lean on one side or another and jam a settlement through."

"History has suggested that those efforts to jam have not worked," Hadley said in a conference call with reporters. "We have said from the beginning -- the president has said -- that it is the parties themselves who have to make the peace."

The president's position is likely to reassure Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is politically weak at home and fearful that tough concessions could bring about his government's collapse. But it will almost surely disappoint the delegation headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, which has been hoping American pressure could force Israeli concessions.

The U.S. stance also is likely to displease many of the Arab and European governments attending the conference that have been urging a more active role.

Why hold a peace conference in the US if the US plans a laissez-faire approach to the negotiations? According to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, the US will not even prompt for deadlines on either a plan or implementation targets. Having watched their predecessors inadvertently provoke an intifada in 2000 and having had to live with its aftermath, the Bush administration doesn't want to create any false hopes ahead of Annapolis, and they don't want to get blamed for any failures afterwards.

That may make some sense, but it leaves open the question as to why they're bothering in the first place. While not immediately apparent, it could be to earn some credit for future negotiations on sanctions against Iran and other efforts in the Middle East. Tony Blair in particular repeatedly called for the US to make a renewed effort in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, virtually non-existent as it is. In order to keep Europe engaged in our agenda, we have to remain engaged in theirs -- and they want progress on the Palestinian question.

Of course, any progress depends on the Israelis and the Palestinians, an obvious point that the White House hits heavily in the prologue to the talks. Both Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert are weak enough to need a deal more than either party has before now. With Syria participating, it could result in a negotiated settlement on a broad range of issues, but that's a thin chance even with Hamas marginalized.

Many people wonder why any talks get held at all, but this conflict won't end in a military settlement, unless Israel gets vanquished. With the Arab nations surrounding Israel, its best option for peace is a negotiated settlement that puts Egypt and Jordan at the head of the Arab coalition enforcing its commitments. None of the nations in the area will allow Israel to sweep the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel won't annex the territories and give the Palestinians a vote in Israeli government. A sturdy settlement for peace is Israel's best hope, and the US its best guarantor.

Eventually, a settlement will occur. The question is whether the Palestinians will stick to it, and whether the Egyptians and Jordanians will ensure that they do. Right now, that doesn't appear to be the case, but the Annapolises should continue to gauge that question.

The Upcoming Gaza Civil War

A day after committing an atrocity against Fatah protestors, Hamas took steps to ensure justice -- by rounding up and jailing the dissenters. The terrorist group arrested hundreds of people, apparently for assaulting their bullets as they attempted a peaceful path through a crowd estimated at 200,000 people in Gaza:

Hamas says it has rounded up dozens of Fatah activists in Gaza, a day after a huge rally commemorating Yasser Arafat ended in gunfire killing seven people.

Witnesses say security forces opened fire on unarmed crowds after the rally turned into a protest against the Hamas movement's takeover of Gaza in June.

Hamas says its police came under attack from Fatah gunmen and returned fire.

Fatah party officials allege 400 of their supporters were arrested and dozens more ordered for questioning.

Mahmoud Abbas broke out the heavy-duty rhetoric in response to the massacre and stampede. He told Hamas that they were no better than the Israelis, comparing the assault with the "crimes of the Israeli occupier". Despite the unfairness of the comparison -- when have the Israelis fired into a peaceful protest? -- that has to sting Hamas' leadership.

Hamas has certainly provided a clear example of what Islamist rule would look like in the territories. The display has to damage the credibility of either Fatah or Hamas to act as a peace partner, especially while Abbas makes backhanded accusations as he did in this statement. The Israelis can't be blamed for wondering whether Hamas could take control of the West Bank after independence, and thinking that one terrorist state on its border in Gaza is more than enough.

Gazans have stated that they preferred Israeli occupation to Hamas' dictatorship, so perhaps the probability of a Hamas takeover through democratic means in the West Bank is remote. Gazans might take care of Hamas and their Syrian- and Iranian-backed leadership the old-fashioned way shortly, in any case. If Gaza has not yet fallen into civil war, it will come within weeks. The next fight will last a lot longer than five days, and it could get very bloody -- and just like any other gang war, the civilians in the crossfire will suffer the most.

Hamas Continues Its Governing Strategy By Shooting Into Crowds

The last we looked in on Gaza, Hamas complained about the increasing "terrorism" of open protests in the territory they took by force earlier this year. Today they apparently devised their own solution to this threat to peace in the Palestinian area -- by shooting into a crowd, killing six and wounding 130 in the ensuing stampede:

Six people were killed after Hamas-controlled police opened fire on a Fatah rally in Gaza City today in some of the worst violence seen since the Islamist movement took control of the Gaza Strip five months ago. ....

But the sight of a yelling mob waving posters depicting the Fatah founder and shouting insults against Hamas was always going to risk provoking the heavily armed members of Hamas's "executive force" who were recently renamed as police.

At one point the crowd began to shout "Shi'ite, Shi'ite" as an insult against Hamas which enjoys strong links with the Shia Islamic republic in Iran. Palestinians belong to the rival Sunni sect of Islam.

It is not clear if they were fired on first from inside the crowd but it is known that six members of the crowd died and at least 130 were wounded, mostly from injuries suffered in the resulting stampede.

Hamas has proven effective at putting the tactics it used to seize control of Gaza into its governance. After naming their terrorist squads the official police department of Gaza, it used them to kill civilians and start a riot. Hamas has effectively turned Gaza into a terrorist nation, only instead of terrorizing Israelis exclusively, they have to focus on terrorizing Gazans in order to maintain their deathgrip on power.

This latest atrocity has apparently scotched any efforts at reconciliation. Fatah has declared that it will not negotiate with Hamas to restore Palestinian unity. In language that can only be called ironic, they called Hamas "killers and coup-makers ... who do not believe in dialogue but only understand the language of blood and murder."

And Fatah, with its terrorist arm Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, differs in which respect? It's easy to point to Fatah as the victim here and feel that the world should protest their treatment, and we should -- but we should also remember that Fatah has a long history of attacking civilians in its own greed for power. We will try to negotiate with the least extreme of the political movements in the territories, but it's not as if anyone in the mix follows the precepts of Mohandas Gandhi. Fatah is just the least worst option at the moment.