Expectations Met

Saying expectations were low for today's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would fall into the category of gross understatement. The two seemed like unwilling teenagers set up on a blind date by, say, their parents, who wanted to see them together so the crowd at the club would speak well of them, the parents, or, say, the American Secretary of State. Better to have people here talking than not talking, but both sides had come into this dampening hopes that anything meaningful would come out of it. And they were right to. The early word is that Olmert offered to keep a commercial crossing point from Gaza into Israel open a little longer, to stimulate some economic activity in the struggling Strip (at least until another reason emerges to keep it closed). And they agreed to meet again. But the big issues, such as, well, everything else, will have to wait for another day.

One imagines they discussed the make-up of the Palestinian unity government, which will, according to the word going around, be announced some time this week. That would make things quite interesting. The first task would be to restore some sense of security within the Palestinian territories--security by the Palestinians for the Palestinians. A few days of quiet seemed to augur well for that hope, but then some Fatah militants fired at the convoy of a Hamas minister yesterday in the West Bank and gunfire was exchanged between the sides today in Gaza. Seems silly, but these groups are fractured, some of their factions difficult to control. Who'd be shooting at each other when "unity" is supposed to be the word of the day? Perhaps some within each party who don't like the idea of the unity government? Who fear concessions might be made? Who have gotten so used to fighting, or being powerful, or rich, that they'd rather see chaos continue than make any progress toward substantive negotiations?

But if this new Palestinian government is actually formed, and does manage to instill some internal security, then it would look more viable to the international community. If not the Americans, who have held to the demand that Hamas recognizes Israel and forswears violence, than perhaps the European Union, which seems more flexible. The same goes for reaching a deal on an exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who has been held by militants in Gaza for the last eight-and-a-half months. Ahead of the meeting today, Olmert said Abbas had told him that the unity government would not be announced until a deal was in place for Shalit's release. An interesting statement, which could be true, and would mean Abbas would now have to deliver. Or it could be a method of putting pressure on Abbas to get the deal done. Or it could serve to undermine Abbas--making him look to his people like he's bending to pressure from Israel or the U.S. Or it could serve, potentially, to undermine the whole unity government, which, if a deal is not reached, might look either unable or unwilling to make such a deal, and thus not seem viable to outsiders.

But, if this new Palestinian government is actually formed, and does manage to instill some internal security, and does manage to come to an agreement on Gilad Shalit, and does appear viable, and the Europeans do want to deal with them, then perhaps the pressure rises on the Americans and the Israelis to deal with them, too. A long shot, but perhaps. The problem, though--or "a problem," I should say, one of them--is that even when you start running through what might be called "best case scenarios," at least for those who still think a comprehensive deal possible, you run into so many obstacles: recognition, settlements, continued rocket attacks, forswearing violence, the status of East Jerusalem, the status of the Temple Mount, borders, weak leadership who would be hard pressed to sell their people on any deals, and on and on. Olmert also said he'd consider aspects of the Saudi peace proposal, the one that offers pan-Arab recognition and ties in return for a withdrawal of the 1967 borders, but there, too, there are significant stumbling blocks, the right of return being the biggest. That and the absolute lack of trust. And some other things, too.

Very interesting story, by the way, by Scott Wilson in The Washington Post today about Israeli historian Benny Morris, and the arc his thinking (and feeling) has taken over the years. He may have gone further toward opposite poles than most, but he's not the only one to go through such shifts in his beliefs on the past, present, and future of all this.

Someone who evinces no change in his beliefs and seems very unlikely to, ever, under any circumstances, is Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's chief ideologue. And he doesn't seem to like anyone else who does change their thinking, or tactics, or who might, even possibly, a little bit. So he comes out and lambastes Hamas in a statement aired by Al Jazeera, blasting the Mecca Agreement, saying "The leadership of Hamas has surrendered to the Jews most of Palestine" and that Hamas "has fallen into the quagmire of surrender" and "Hamas has sold out so it can keep hold of a third of government." Hamas and Zawahiri have traded barbs in the past. The responses this time from that Hamas leadership will be interesting to see.

I made a mistake in an earlier post, I want to note, saying that Hezbollah was holding three Israeli soldiers. They are holding two.
--Phil Zabriskie/Jerusalem