Silver Linings in Short Supply

From the Holy Land to South Asia, violence remained a constant in 2008, reports Mustafa Qadri. Will elections in Palestine and Israel – and the inauguration of Obama – promote dialogue or further violence?

Amid continued violence, from the Holy Land to South Asia, 2008 was a year of defining moments. Although the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States was a promising historical watershed, his impact in the Israel-Palestine conflict may be limited given his unflinching support for Israel and appointment of key foreign policy advisers, such as Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross, who are unquestioning Israel sympathisers. Obama’s rhetoric about unilateral strikes in Pakistan and increasing US troop numbers in Afghanistan suggests a transfer of US military power from the catastrophic occupation of Iraq to the troubled gateway to Asia.

South Asia becomes the ‘new’ battleground
“Today, virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas [between Pakistan and Afghanistan],” remarked CIA Director Michael Hayden at the Atlantic Council in November. The greatest challenge for Pakistan in the coming year will be to convince the world that it is addressing these threats.

Last month’s Mumbai attacks undoubtedly hastened that challenge. Along with India, Afghanistan and Pakistan returned to international attention after several years on the periphery. Significantly, the increased attention does not reflect an upsurge in violence but rather the increased targeting of Westerners.

Pakistan
The resignation of Pervez Musharraf as President in August was the first time that formal parliamentary proceedings caused the removal of a military head in Pakistan. This time last year, when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was still alive, few could have imagined that Musharraf would be replaced by Asif Ali Zardari. It was a remarkable revival for Zardari, a man who spent almost 12 years in prison between 1990 and 2004. In September Zardari was elected President by Pakistan’s national and provincial assemblies.

Pakistan’s economy deteriorated significantly in 2008 and the decline is expected to continue in 2009. It will make the push for stability even more difficult. Inflation hovered between 20 to 30 per cent throughout the year, while energy supplies struggled to cope with demands leading to long, daily blackouts in every major city. With its foreign reserves dwindling at an alarming rate, Pakistan was compelled to sign a $US7.6 billion loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund in early November.

The army remains Pakistan’s most powerful institution — as evidenced by the civilian government’s inability to increase oversight of the powerful military intelligence organisation, the Inter-Services Intelligence.

If the Army remained the most powerful force within Pakistan, the United States remained the greatest influence outside. Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders met High US officials before and after commencing their appointments this year.

The Pakistan Army accelerated operations in its tribal areas under intense pressure from the US. Although it boasted of killing many hundreds of militants throughout the year, ordinary civilians suffered the most. Estimates of displaced persons range from 400,000 to 900,000.

The US too increased strikes in Pakistan’s Waziristan region where the Taliban is at its strongest. The strikes killed almost a hundred civilians and a few alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. There have been over 22 US missile strikes and three attempted ground assaults in Pakistan since Musharraf’s resignation in August.

Afghanistan
Although President Hamid Karzai evaded Pervez Musharraf’s fate, an increasing number of observers at home and abroad expect him to lose the elections slated for next year. Disdainfully described as the Mayor of Kabul, Karzai has struggled to exert influence beyond the Afghanistan’s capital. Nor has his policy of supporting warlords done much for the development of infrastructure, services or institutional capacity within the country. Despite a series of cabinet reshuffles in 2008, Karzai’s power still depends upon continued Western support and local warlords.

The Taliban’s influence in Afghanistan, particularly in the south and east, continued to increase, although talk of the militants taking Kabul was greatly exaggerated. A relative oasis of peace for the past several years, Kabul became an increased target for Taliban attacks. In March, the insurgents tried to assassinate President Karzai and cabinet ministers during a military parade. Several foreign aid workers were kidnapped or killed during the year.

The Karzai Government stepped up efforts to recruit members of the Taliban and even publicly offered to reconcile with Mullah Omar, founder of the Afghan Taliban movement, if he renounced his ties with Al Qaeda, stopped attacks on Afghan and foreign forces and acknowledged the Afghan constitution established under US auspices in 2004.

Similar ideas were voiced by Britain’s Ambassador and top military commander in Afghanistan, as well as the French Chief of the Army and the UN’s top official in Afghanistan, Kai Eide. “We all know that we cannot win it militarily,” Eide said at a press conference in Kabul. “It has to be won through… political engagement [with the Taliban].”

These sentiments appear to be gaining ground among US planners too, including CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who has been retained by the Obama administration.

Israel-Palestine
In Israel like Pakistan a leader was forced to resign, this time under a cloud of corruption allegations. Ehud Olmert announced his resignation but remains caretaker Prime Minister until Israelis go to the polls in February next year. He has ratcheted up the rhetoric about a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. Olmert even compared ultra-orthodox Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron to a “pogrom”, unprecedented for an Israeli leader. Many see his words as empty statements by a man soon to be out of power. But they nevertheless point to the underlying reality that the continued seizure of Palestinian land in Jerusalem and the West Bank, along with a brutal blockade of the Gaza Strip, are at the heart of the conflict.

No doubt the silver lining amid the grey clouds was the June ceasefire negotiated between the Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli Government. The ceasefire did reduce the violence this year, but it was far from non-violent. According to the UN, 433 Palestinians were killed and 2011 injured as a result of the conflict. Thirty Israelis were killed and 106 injured.

With elections to be held in Israel and Palestine, and a new President in the White House, one can only hope that the New Year brings with it the promise of more dialogue and less violence. Thus far, however, the signs have not been good.

Hamas has called in the media strategists and news channels to soften its image abroad. But not everyone is convinced.

It isn’t easy to interview Hamas members these days, which makes reporting on the Islamic movement’s media strategies all the more difficult – and ironic. Most Hamas activists in the West Bank have been killed or kidnapped by Israeli forces. The remaining members have either fled the Occupied Territories or are in hiding.

In such a climate, arranging meetings becomes a task in itself. Most Palestinian cities and towns have mosques affiliated with Hamas. But even at these mosques, people are loathe to expose their membership in the Islamic movement. It was at one such mosque in Nablus that I spoke to an unnamed Hamas spokesperson. “Who are you and what do you want?” was his initial response to my interview request.

In the intervening weeks and months, and after several conversations with Hamas activists, I was eventually told to speak to Dr Ahmed Yusuf, one of the movement’s senior public representatives in the Gaza Strip. Dr Yusuf, a medical doctor who lived for a time in the United States, has been published in the New York Times and the Washington Post. He, like Dr Azzam Tamimi from the Hamas-aligned Institute of Islamic Political Thought in the United Kingdom, represents the new wave of Hamas leaders who are more conversant with Western media discourse.

“Hamas is an enlightened Islamic party,” explains Dr Yusuf. “We believe in human rights, civil rights, civil society and democracy. Hamas is not Taliban or al-Qaeda.”

Since its takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2006, the Islamic movement has attained unprecedented prominence. With that prominence Hamas has sought to improve its image internationally, particularly in the West.

Last year Hamas engaged Nashat Aqtash, a media studies academic from Birzeit University in the West Bank, to help improve its image in the West. Aqtash advised the movement to refrain from calling for the destruction of Israel and to avoid celebrating the death of Israelis.

Although the firebrand rhetoric remains, some moderation has occurred. In recent television interviews in Western countries, for example, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal has been careful to avoid hyperbole and grand rhetoric, employing instead the “sound bite” approach that is more familiar to Western audiences.

The turning point for the Islamic movement’s approach to Western audiences was its January 2006 victory in legislative elections. Western governments unanimously boycotted the organisation, effectively refusing to recognise Hamas stewardship of the Palestinian National Authority. Subsequent attempts by Hamas to sustain a united government with the rival Fatah movement were also blocked by Western governments.

“We were cut out, nobody wanted to know us,” recalls Ahmed (not his real name), a Hamas organiser from Ramallah.

The message was unmistakable. Hamas was not a legitimate political actor in Western eyes. The embargo forced Hamas to try to transform its image in the West from a recalcitrant Islamic resistance movement to a practical and pivotal partner in any negotiated peace settlement. Although still at an embryonic stage, the transformation is slowly taking effect.

Last May retired French diplomat Yves Aubin de la Messuzière revealed that he had made representations to Hamas on behalf of the French Government. Aubin de la Messuzière met with Ismail Haniya, Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza, and Mahmoud Zahar, one of the movement’s most senior public figures. The discussions occurred just days before French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner toured Israel and the West Bank. Aubin de la Messuzière acknowledged that French officials had met with Hamas interlocutors “for several months” prior to the Foreign Minister’s visit.

When confronted with de la Messuzière’s admission, Kouchner noted that many Western countries had commenced a similar dialogue. Palestinian news agencies have carried regular reports about this and last year they claimed that British and other European countries have also held secret talks with Hamas to discuss a continuation of the current hudna (ceasefire) with Israel.
“We have met several [European] officials,” says Dr Yusuf. According to Dr Yusuf, this includes senior officials from France, Norway, Switzerland and Italy. He claims that these countries have maintained contacts with Hamas although none are willing to publicly confirm it.

Despite these developments, Hamas is still seeking high level contact with US officials. Just prior to the US-sponsored Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference held in November 2007, elder statesmen of US foreign policy Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski were among several American diplomats who issued a statement that, among other things, touched on US policy towards the Islamic movement. “As to Hamas,” read the statement, “we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organisation is far preferable to its isolation.”

On European television Mashaal claimed that the party was willing to “accept the creation of a [Palestinian] state on the 1967 borders.” According to Mohammad Dajani, a political scientist from Al-Quds University in the West Bank, this position “amounts to indirect recognition of Israel.”

But sceptics argue that the shift towards more moderate public statements is only rhetorical. Long time Hamas observer Dr Meir Litvak from Tel Aviv University notes that this is not a new strategy. “Hamas has always tried to sound more moderate [to Western audiences] as compared to [statements it makes in] the Arabic press.” Western governments are aware of this and remain wary.

After the Hamas takeover of Gaza, the movement tried to paint itself as an agent for stability and good governance. There was no better example of this than the Hamas-brokered release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston. The world had just witnessed a brutal power struggle between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip where Hamas fighters, along with their rivals, stood accused of committing acts of torture and killing unarmed activists.

With Gaza under its control, the movement was anxious to prove that it could provide order and security. Johnston was released following the Hamas takeover. Johnston openly thanked Hamas for his release, distinguishing the movement from those other Islamic groups who have “a black and white view” of the West. It arguably was, and remains, the greatest public relations coup Hamas has ever had.

Another publicity coup soon followed when former US President Jimmy Carter visited Hamas officials in Syria. Carter was strongly criticised by Israeli and United States high officials, and Israel refused Carter entry into the Gaza Strip. But some prominent Israeli leaders like Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai, who is also a member of the ultra orthodox Shas party, and former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy endorsed his visit. They believe Carter helped facilitate the current ceasefire with Israel.

Speaking on the Palestinian broadcaster Al-Alam, Hamas spokesperson Isma’il al-Ashqar remarked that the Carter visit proved that Hamas could not be ignored. “Carter’s visit,” said al-Ashqar, “came to underline the fact that Hamas has become a tough body that by no means can be bypassed.”

Hamas also has a wide range of media resources but they remain small and ad hoc. Its Al-Aqsa satellite channel and radio programs,modelled  on Hizbollah’s Al Manar, are inaccessible in much of the Middle East and most of Europe and America. It maintains several websites, like that of its armed faction, the Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades, but these predominantly target Arab and Muslim communities. Another, www.palestine-info.info, is partially available in Arabic, Bahasa, English, French, Persian, Russian and Urdu. Foreign analysts, governments and media are increasingly looking to these sources to gain an insight into the party.