reuters:Afghan violence rises amid troop surge -Pentagon

UPDATE 2-Afghan violence rises amid troop surge -Pentagon

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/afghanistan-usa-idUSN2916648920110429

* Obama plans to begin US troop drawdown in July

* Violence reported up in 2010-11 winter fighting season

* Afghan security units unable to act alone effectively (Adds quotes from defense official, other details)

By Missy Ryan

WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - A surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan has dealt a blow to the Taliban insurgency but total violence has risen since last fall and is likely to keep climbing, the Pentagon said on Friday in a new assessment of the war as it approaches its 10-year mark.

The Pentagon's twice-annual report to the U.S. Congress on the war comes as President Barack Obama plans to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in July. Only a modest drawdown is expected initially.

The rise in violence in Afghanistan, including roadside bombs, direct fire and other acts, was due in part to the troop surge, stepped-up targeting of insurgent safe havens and mild winter weather, the Pentagon said in its report.

The Pentagon acknowledged that the worst may be ahead, saying violence may peak in the next 12 months as Taliban and other militants seek to regain lost territory.

Officials say the Obama administration's decision to deploy an extra 30,000 soldiers helped push the Taliban from strategic areas of the Afghan south, diminishing the overall insurgent threat almost 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States that prompted the war.

The Pentagon report also said Afghan security forces have grown and improved in the past six months but not a single unit is yet able to operate effectively without foreign advisers.

The United States and its allies expect Afghan forces to take over security responsibilities as foreign troops withdraw. President Hamid Karzai has announced a plan to gradually put Afghan forces in security control starting in July. [ID:nSGE72L03V]

These Afghan forces continue to struggle with problems of desertion, illiteracy and fighting prowess.

'A LOT TO DO'

"The situation on the ground is fundamentally changing. This is something that happens day by day, week by week, month by month over the past two years," a senior U.S. defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

"There's still a lot to do. There are going to be some tough days ahead," the official said.

NATO is bracing for a series of major attacks expected across Afghanistan over the next week, senior military officials said on Friday. [ID:nL3E7FT2X4]

Bloodshed in the poor, fractured country hit its highest levels of the war in 2010, as foreign powers struggled to create a potent Afghan fighting force and buttress the weak, corrupt government in Kabul.

In its report -- which covers Oct. 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011 -- the Pentagon warned that the Taliban and other militants had proven a resilient adversaries, adapting techniques and seeking to expand influence into new areas.

Insurgent infiltration from Pakistan remains a major problem, although the Obama administration is trying to temper its criticism of Islamabad to try to salvage an important relationship that has been battered in recent months.

Obama, seeking re-election in 2012, opposed the Iraq war before he took office and is seeking to curtail the costly, unpopular Afghan conflict. The Pentagon does not expect any change to Obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops in July.

The Pentagon assessment, trumpeting strategic defeats of the Taliban and a reversal of insurgent momentum in some areas, may reflect the scaled-back goals Obama embraced as he promised to return the focus to a long-neglected conflict.

"Our objective in this war is not to kill every Taliban," the defense official said. "Our objective is for there to be a political process that is Afghan-led that results in the Afghans coming up with their own way forward."

Officials acknowledge that less progress has been made off the battlefield, where endemic corruption, poor services and deep poverty have alienated many Afghans from their government and fueled support for the Taliban.

The report said that political challenges and slow progress in improving governance could jeopardize gains in security.

Washington hopes that, even as the U.S. Afghanistan commander General David Petraeus prepares to leave Afghanistan in coming months to head the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the arrival of veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker as ambassador in Kabul will give U.S. civilian efforts a boost. [ID:nL3E7FS2C5]

LATimes:EGYPT: Muslim Brotherhood announces new political party

EGYPT: Muslim Brotherhood announces new political party

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/04/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-announces-formation-of-new-party.html

After struggling to form a legitimate political party for more than eight decades, the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest and best-organized Islamic movement, has officially established its Freedom and Justice party, the group announced Saturday.

"This party will be independent from the Brotherhood but will coordinate with it," Mahmoud Hussein, the Brotherhood’s secretary general, said at a press conference. The Brotherhood said Mohamed Morsy, a member of the group’s politburo, will lead the new party, with prominent Brotherhood figures Essam Erian and Saad Katatni serving as deputy chief and secretary general, respectively.

Morsy quickly moved to allay fears that Freedom and Justice would be dominated by religious ideology and Islamic conservatism: "The party will not be Islamist in the old understanding," he said.

The Brotherhood said the new party will be contesting for 45% to 50% of the seats in parliamentary elections scheduled for September. The group has previously said that it would not field a candidate in presidential elections, which are expected two months after a new parliament is selected.

The Brotherhood was barred from politics by former President Hosni Mubarak’s regime, which often referred to it as a terrorist organization that threatened the country's democracy. But the Brotherhood has long had widespread appeal for its grassroots social programs. The Supreme Military Council that has been running the country since Mubarak's overthrow in February has allowed the Brotherhood and other religious organizations to form political parties.

In 2005, with its members running as independents, the Brotherhood stunned the nation by winning 20% of parliament seats, making it the largest opposition bloc in the chamber. But the group lost its parliamentary status during the 2010 elections, winning no more than one seat in a ballot that was widely regarded as rigged by Mubarak's ruling party.

nytimes:Germany’s Terrorism Arrests Disrupt a Broader Investigation of Al Qaeda

Germany’s Terrorism Arrests Disrupt a Broader Investigation of Al Qaeda

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/world/europe/01germany.html

KARLSRUHE, Germany — For six months, dozens of German police officers and federal agents had been following and electronically eavesdropping on three young men suspected of planning a bomb attack in the Düsseldorf area, building a case that they felt could tie the men to a wider network of operatives for Al Qaeda. Then, on Thursday, they were suddenly presented with a painful choice.

The moment came after they overheard a conversation in which the men exulted about the bombing in Morocco on Thursday that killed 16 people. The suspects had begun building a bomb; one of them complained about the smell as they mixed chemicals in a kitchen. They also mused about where they might kill the most people, officials said. A crowded bus stop, perhaps?

At that point, the investigators reluctantly decided that the danger of an attack outweighed the risk that arresting the men would alert other suspects and hamper the broader investigation. Shortly after sunrise on Friday, they seized two suspects in Düsseldorf, catching one as he walked to his car and another in his apartment, where the suspect briefly brandished a knife before surrendering. A third man was arrested in Bochum, where he offered no resistance, German officials said on Saturday.

“It was completely clear to me we had to act,” said Jörg Ziercke, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office.

Mr. Ziercke and other officials laid out details of the investigation on Saturday, in a news conference near the federal court where the three men were brought before a judge. The officials described a vast operation involving an intensive surveillance effort by more than 100 people and including assistance from American intelligence sources and the Moroccan authorities.

The German officials said they believed that the aborted attack was part of a strategy that Al Qaeda had been following to encourage homegrown terrorist attacks, now that the group had lost much of its ability to direct attacks from abroad.

Mr. Ziercke described the plot as a kind of hybrid terrorism that had elements of central control but left would-be attackers largely to their own devices.

One of the suspects, a citizen of Morocco who had lived for a decade in Germany, was recruited to attend a Qaeda training camp last year near the Afghan-Pakistani border, officials said. The suspect, identified only as Abdeladim El-K., 29, received weapons and explosives training and orders from a high-ranking Qaeda official, whom the authorities did not identify, to carry out an attack in Germany.

After re-entering Germany illegally in May 2010, Mr. Ziercke and other officials said, the suspect recruited two longtime acquaintances: men identified as Jamil S., 31, who has joint German and Moroccan citizenship; and Amid C., 19, who is a citizen of Germany and Iran.

While two of the suspects had Moroccan roots, the authorities said they had not found any evidence of a direct connection between the German plot and the bombing in Rabat. However, the men did appear to have been inspired by the attack, the police said.

The authorities said all three of the suspects worked full time on preparing for an attack, trying to conceal their activities by communicating in code and acquiring chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide and acetone that can be used in bomb production. They downloaded bomb-making recipes from the Internet and tried to extract chemicals for a detonator from a charcoal lighter.

The suspects also investigated security measures at possible targets like public buildings, airports and train stations, the authorities said. They stayed away from mosques and other places where they might attract attention.

The German officials who spoke on Saturday did not confirm news reports that the suspects planned to stage an attack during the Eurovision Song Contest, an international music competition that will draw large crowds to Düsseldorf from May 10 to 14. While taking note of the event, officials said the suspects had not yet settled on a target.

“They wanted to create an explosion in a place with big crowds of people,” said Rainer Griesbaum, head of the antiterrorism unit at the federal prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe.

Mr. Griesbaum and Mr. Ziercke said there was at least one other suspect tied to the plot who had not been arrested, and that there might be dozens of others in Germany providing financial and logistical support to terrorist groups. The officials said they knew of about 200 Germans who had received training at Qaeda camps.

Mr. Griesbaum said Al Qaeda remained determined to retaliate against Germany for sending troops to Afghanistan.

“We have prevented this danger, but only this danger,” Mr. Griesbaum said.

USAToday:Taliban announce beginning of spring offensive

Taliban announce beginning of spring offensive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2011-04-30-taliban-offensive-afghanistan_n.htm

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Taliban on Saturday announced the beginning of their spring military offensive against the U.S.-led coalition, a day after a new Pentagon report claimed that the militants' fighting spirit was low after sustaining heavy losses on the battlefield.

In a two-page statement, the Taliban said that beginning Sunday they would launch attacks on military bases, convoys and Afghan officials, including members of the government's peace council, who are working to reconcile with top insurgent leaders.

"The war in our country will not come to an end unless and until the foreign invading forces pull out of Afghanistan," said the announcement released by the leadership council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which is what the Taliban calls itself.

Senior officers with the U.S.-led coalition said on Friday that the Taliban — aided by the al-Qaida-linked Haqqani network — have plans to conduct a brief series of high-profile attacks, such as suicide bombings, across the country in a display of power as fighting gears up with the warmer weather. The senior officers spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss recent intelligence that lead to the assessment.

Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a spokesman for the coalition, said the Taliban planned to use the spate of violence as a "propaganda ploy" to try to demonstrate their relevance and create the perception of momentum despite recent setbacks.

The Pentagon report said the insurgents' momentum had been "broadly arrested" and their morale had begun to erode. Hundreds of insurgent leaders have been killed or captured and since last July 700 former Taliban have officially reintegrated into Afghan society and another 2,000 insurgents are in various stages of the process, the report said.

The Taliban, known for their resiliency, said insurgents will target "foreign invading forces, members of their spy networks and other spies, high-ranking officials of the Kabul puppet administration … and heads of foreign and local companies working for the enemy and contractors."

The Taliban ordered its fighters to pay "strict attention" to protecting civilians during the spring offensive. A recent U.N. report said about three-quarters of the estimated 2,777 civilians killed in Afghanistan last year died at the hands of insurgents, not international forces.

Also on Saturday, the coalition released initial findings of the April 27 attack at the Kabul airport where a veteran Afghan military pilot opened fire, killing eight U.S. troops and an American civilian contractor who had been training the nascent Afghan air force.

The shooting was the deadliest attack by a member of the Afghan security forces, or an insurgent impersonating them, on coalition troops or Afghan soldiers or policemen. Seven of the eight U.S. airmen killed were commissioned officers.

The gunman was severely wounded by gunfire and was bleeding heavily when he left the room where most, but not all, of the trainers were killed, according to a senior NATO official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is not complete. The gunman was found dead in another part of the building, he said.

The attack occurred at an Afghan facility, the air force headquarters, so the usual coalition weapons procedures would not have been in place and the trainers would have had their weapons — with magazines in place — in their possession, the official said.

The trainers would not have had to load their guns to defend themselves, he said. All the NATO trainers killed were armed at the time of the attack, he said.

According to the initial findings, the gunman appeared to be carrying two handguns.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, but the coalition said it has uncovered no evidence to suggest that the insurgency was behind it.

"At this point in the investigation, it appears that the gunman was acting alone," the coalition said. "Beyond that, no Taliban connection with the gunman has been discovered. However, the investigation is still ongoing and we have not conclusively ruled out that possibility."

Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi declined comment Saturday, saying the joint investigation by the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and the Afghan government was still under way.

In a statement issued late Friday, the U.S. Defense Department identified those killed as:

•Lt. Col. Frank D. Bryant Jr., 37, of Knoxville, Tennessee.

•Maj. Philip D. Ambard, 44, of Edmonds, Washington.

•Maj. Jeffrey O. Ausborn, 41, of Gadsden, Alabama.

•Maj. David L. Brodeur, 34, of Auburn, Massachusetts.

•Maj. Raymond G. Estelle II, 40, of New Haven, Connecticut.

•Capt. Nathan J. Nylander, 35, of Hockley, Texas.

•Capt. Charles A. Ransom, 31, of Midlothian, Virginia.

•Master Sgt. Tara R. Brown, 33, of Deltona, Florida.

The civilian contractor was James McLaughlin Jr., 55, of Santa Rosa, California. McLaughlin was a helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft pilot who spent 32 years in the Army before retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 2007. In recent years, he trained Afghan helicopter pilots as an employee of L-3 MPRI, a consulting company based in Alexandria, Virginia.

NEWSMAX;Minister: Egypt's Mubarak Could Face Death Penalty

Minister: Egypt's Mubarak Could Face Death Penalty

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ML-Egypt/2011/04/30/id/394643

Egypt's justice minister says that ousted President Hosni Mubarak would face the death penalty if convicted of ordering the shooting of protesters during the uprisings that brought him down.

Mohammed el-Guindi told the daily Al-Ahram Saturday that Mubarak, his two sons and wife are also facing allegations of corruption.

He added that former first lady Suzanne Mubarak will be questioned for the first time in a few days over her illicit amassing of wealth.

El-Guindi blamed Mubarak for the country's widespread corruption during his almost 30-year-rule.

Mubarak, 82, stepped down in February and was placed under arrest in the Sharm el-Sheikh hospital due to heart problems. At least 846 protesters have been killed during the uprising.

© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Minister: Egypt's Mubarak Could Face Death Penalty
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

WASHPOST:NATO dismisses Taliban’s spring offensive as sign of their recent setbacks

NATO dismisses Taliban’s spring offensive as sign of their recent setbacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-dismisses-talibans-spring-offensive-as-sign-of-their-recent-setbacks/2011/04/30/AFy5zOKF_story.html

BRUSSELS — NATO says Taliban’s announcement of their spring military offensive in Afghanistan is a sign of the insurgents’ desperation over recent setbacks.

A NATO official in Brussels also said Taliban will try to gain a propaganda victory through coordinated attacks and that the U.S.-led coalition already has tightened security.

Earlier Saturday, Taliban said that beginning Sunday they would launch attacks on military bases, convoys and Afghan officials.

The NATO official said on condition of anonymity in keeping with regulations that the insurgents will use their spring offensive to try to undermine the transition process, but that it actually is “a sign of their impotence and desperation.”

NATO claims Taliban have recently suffered setbacks such as high casualties and the loss of traditional strongholds.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

WASHPOST:Karzai considers military draft in Afghanistan instead of all-volunteer army

Karzai considers military draft in Afghanistan instead of all-volunteer army

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/karzai-considers-military-draft-in-afghanistan/2011/04/27/AFe0HL6E_story.html

Faced with daunting bills and uncertain about the United States’ long-term commitment to fund the Afghan army and police, President Hamid Karzai is considering a military draft to replace the all-volunteer force being built in Afghanistan, according to senior Afghan officials.

The prospect of mandatory conscription, though still only a topic of discussion, has some appeal for Karzai because it would be cheaper than fielding the costly security forces that are rapidly growing with American money and support, the officials said. The Afghan security forces are projected to cost more than $6 billion to sustain in 2014, the year Afghans are set to take sole control of their combat duties — a vast sum for a country that took in $1.5 billion in revenue last year.

“The number of Afghan security forces should be adequate to the security environment we have,” said Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan’s national security adviser. “I don’t think we will have endlessly a very expensive army that we have to pay for.”

The topic has come up during the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan to reach a “strategic partnership” agreement that would outline the terms of America’s commitment here beyond 2014. American and Afghan officials worry about the ability of the United States and its NATO allies to foot the massive costs of the security forces for many years into the future.

Karzai also has political concerns about such a commitment. The starting salary for an army private is $165 a month, rising to more than $200 for those in hazardous areas, more than some judges, prosecutors or teachers make. A draft probably would allow the government to pay its troops less than it does now.

Karzai has worried that devoting too much of the state’s resources to the security forces — projected to be 310,000-strong later this year — could create an entitled military class with imposing political power that could undermine civilian authority, much as it has in Pakistan.

Karzai has publicly proposed the idea of a draft in the past, including during a visit to Germany in February 2010.

“This is a discussion,” Spanta said of the draft idea, adding that it is being looked at for after 2014. “It’s not in the implementation phase.”

U.S. military officials involved in building the Afghan security forces have long opposed the idea of a draft. They argue that soldiers and police require a good wage to attract recruits and that they have already improved the ethnic balance of the security forces. Enticing Pashtuns from southern Afghanistan to fight the predominantly Pashtun Taliban has been an obstacle for years, but the aggressive recruiting drive for soldiers and police has already surpassed authorities’ targets.

“Why would you need a draft when you’ve got an overabundance of recruits?” asked one U.S. military official in Kabul involved in the training effort. On a draft, the official said, “our position would be absolutely not.”

A senior U.S. military official said the notion of a draft has not come up in conversation with Defense Minister Rahim Wardak.

A spokesman for Wardak said the constitution allows for conscription, but he added, “I think in the current situation, the country is not ready for a military draft.”

Conscription is not new in Afghanistan. The country had a draft during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s as well as in the previous four-decade rule of King Zahir Shah. Even with mandatory military service, some areas of the country, including Pashtun areas of the southeast, were exempt, and security was provided by local tribal militias. The prospect of bringing back the draft would face similar problems today in rural areas detached from the central government, said Seth Jones, a Rand Corp. analyst and Afghanistan expert.

“There are some areas, including Pashtun areas, that are likely to be deeply resistant to conscription because they’re not going to want to be part of the central government,” Jones said.

“The most important issue is, will that make the army a more effective fighting force? What Afghanistan looks like in five to 10 years — a lot of these debates .  . . will be irrelevant or moot if the government loses,” he added. “The most immediate issue is to win the war.”

WASHPOST:Pentagon reports ‘tangible progress’ in Afghanistan

Pentagon reports ‘tangible progress’ in Afghanistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pentagon-reports-tangible-progress-in-afghanistan/2011/04/29/AFBqBkFF_story.html

The Pentagon on Friday painted a guardedly optimistic picture of the war in Afghanistan, saying that U.S. and allied forces had made “tangible progress” against the Taliban over the past six months and that conditions were right to withdraw at least some U.S. troops this summer.

In a report to Congress assessing the war effort through the end of March, the Defense Department presented its most positive view of the Afghanistan war in years. Although the Pentagon offered plenty of caveats and studiously avoided using words such as “victory” or “winning,” it largely concluded that the Obama administration’s strategy was working.

“The situation on the ground is fundamentally changing,” said a senior defense official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity under rules fixed by the Pentagon.

The Taliban announced Saturday that they will begin their spring offensive against the U.S.-led coalition on Sunday. Targets will include military bases and convoys as well as Afghan officials, the Taliban said in a statement.

In tone and substance, the Pentagon report was rosier than a similar assessment presented to Congress by the White House this month. In its report, the White House noted that the Taliban had gained strength in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and that there was “no clear path” toward defeating insurgents who hide out in Pakistan, beyond the reach of U.S. and NATO troops.

The Pentagon, in contrast, made only brief references to Taliban havens in Pakistan, saying that more effort is needed “to eliminate these sanctuaries.”

The report’s inattention to Pakistan’s role in the Afghanistan war was striking given recent complaints by senior U.S. military officials. On April 20, during a visit to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of providing support to the Haqqani network, a Taliban affiliate that leads the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan.

The Pentagon and White House are each required to evaluate the war’s progress in regular reports to Congress. In general, both have said that President Obama’s strategy has borne fruit since he announced in December 2009 that he would deploy 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan.

There are about 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan today, but Obama has promised to withdraw at least some of them starting in July. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is scheduled in the coming days to make specific recommendations on the scope of the withdrawals.

Plans for a partial pullout come as domestic support for the war plummets. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in March found that two-thirds of Americans feel the decade-long war is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet.

The Pentagon report focused on its efforts to bolster the size and ability of Afghanistan’s security forces so they can eventually take over responsibility for fighting the Taliban. Defense officials cited a litany of challenges that continue to dog the Afghan forces — illiteracy, high dropout rates, a lack of trainers — but said things were improving in general.

In particular, the Pentagon said new local Afghan police and village security forces have proved effective in deterring the Taliban. In December, Petraeus announced plans to triple the size of the local Afghan police forces — which one U.S. military official described as “community watch on steroids” — to 30,000.

According to the Pentagon, the Taliban sees the local police forces as “significant threats, as they empower the local populace to reject the insurgency and connect them to the government.” The report said that the Taliban has targeted the local forces with assassinations and kidnappings but that the attacks were “largely ineffective.”

NYTIMES:Afghanistan War Report Cites Progress By Troops

Afghanistan War Report Cites Progress By Troops

WASHINGTON — Tangible progress has been made in expanding security across Afghanistan, the Pentagon reported on Friday, saying that successes on the battlefield over the past several months could be attributed to the 30,000 additional troops sent to the war by President Obama.

But the optimistic tone of the report was tempered by assessments from senior officials in Kabul and Washington that the Taliban and other insurgent groups were expected to attempt spectacular counterattacks, perhaps in the near future.

Fighting across Afghanistan usually increases each year with the spring thaw, and Pentagon and military officials say they expect insurgent leaders to make a major effort soon to prove that their loss of territory to Mr. Obama’s troop increase could be reversed this year.

A senior Pentagon official agreed that the latest update’s tone was more optimistic, even if cautiously so, than that of previous reports, which since 2009 have described the security situation in Afghanistan as deteriorating. Congress requires the progress reports twice a year.

American, allied and Afghan forces have halted the insurgency’s momentum and have achieved “tangible progress in some really key areas,” the Pentagon official said.

Echoing a view often expressed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, the official warned that the assessment clearly noted that the advances were fragile and reversible.

“It does show progress,” said the official, who briefed reporters under ground rules imposed by the Pentagon that precluded identifying him by name. “It also points out that we do have a resilient enemy,” the official added.

There remain significant shortages of foreign trainers, hampering the development of Afghan security forces, the official noted. And progress in economic development and governance has not kept pace with advances on the battlefield. In addition, corruption across all levels of government puts the military’s gains at risk.

“There is still a lot to do,” the official said. He agreed with military and intelligence officers who said that the public should “expect spectacular attacks” by the insurgency.

The Taliban recently scored both a tactical and a propaganda victory with a major prison break of insurgent fighters. In anticipation of an increasing pace of attacks and bombings, the official contended that individual acts of insurgent violence would not be enough to derail the allied and Afghan campaign.

Noting advances made by allied and Afghan security forces, in particular in the insurgent heartland of southern Afghanistan, the official said that “the pushback of the Taliban out of these key areas in the last year is really a strategic defeat for the Taliban.”

“How they respond, whether it’s attacks there, attacks elsewhere, I don’t know,” the official said. “But given that strategic setback that they’ve suffered, they’re going to try and send messages to the population in other ways that they’re going to be able to come back. And that’s going to be a big challenge for the Afghan forces, for us, as those efforts are made.”

The report on progress and stability in Afghanistan again cited the harmful effects of the safe havens that insurgent fighters maintain across the border in Pakistan, allowing them to rest, plan and train before moving back into Afghanistan to mount attacks.

The report was released as General Petraeus was finalizing his proposals for how quickly to start withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan in July, as ordered by the president.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/world/asia/30military.html

NYTIMES:U.S. Moves Cautiously Against Syrian Leaders

U.S. Moves Cautiously Against Syrian Leaders

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — A brutal Arab dictator with a long history of enmity toward the United States turns tanks and troops against his own people, killing hundreds of protesters. His country threatens to split along sectarian lines, with the violence potentially spilling over to its neighbors, some of whom are close allies of Washington.

Libya? Yes, but also Syria.

And yet, with the Syrian government’s bloody crackdown intensifying on Friday, President Obama has not demanded that President Bashar al-Assad resign, and he has not considered military action. Instead, on Friday, the White House took a step that most experts agree will have a modest impact: announcing focused sanctions against three senior officials, including a brother and a cousin of Mr. Assad.

The divergent American responses illustrate the starkly different calculations the United States faces in these countries. For all the parallels to Libya, Mr. Assad is much less isolated internationally than the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. He commands a more capable army, which experts say is unlikely to turn on him, as the military in Egypt did on President Hosni Mubarak. And the ripple effects of Mr. Assad’s ouster would be both wider and more unpredictable than in the case of Colonel Qaddafi.

“Syria is important in a way that Libya is not,” said Steven A. Cook, senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “There is no central U.S. interest engaged in Libya. But a greatly destabilized Syria has implications for Iraq, it has implications for Lebanon, it has implications for Israel.”

These complexities have made Syria a less clear-cut case, even for those who have called for more robust American action against Libya. Senator John McCain, along with Senators Lindsey Graham and Joseph I. Lieberman, urged Mr. Obama earlier this week to demand Mr. Assad’s resignation. But Mr. McCain, an early advocate of a no-fly zone over Libya, said he opposed military action in Syria.

Human rights groups are even more cautious. “If Obama were to call for Assad to go, I don’t think it would change things on the ground in any way, shape or form,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch, which had supported military action in Libya. In this case, he said, sanctions were the right move.

Those measures freeze the assets of three top officials, most notably Maher al-Assad, President Assad’s brother and a brigade commander who is leading the operations in Dara’a. But Syrian leaders tend to keep their money in European and Middle Eastern banks, putting it beyond the reach of the Treasury.

The measures also take aim at Syria’s intelligence agency and the Quds Force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite paramilitary unit already under heavy sanctions from the United States. Iran, officials said, is using the force to funnel tear gas, batons and other riot gear to Syria.

The administration did not impose sanctions on President Assad, saying it focused on those directly responsible for human-rights abuses. A senior official said the United States would not hesitate to add him to the list if the violence did not stop. But the White House seemed to be calculating that it could still prevail on him to show restraint.

“Our goal is to end the violence and create an opening for the Syrian people’s legitimate aspirations,” said a spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “These are among the U.S. government’s strongest available tools to promote these outcomes.”

The European Union said Friday that it was preparing an arms embargo against Syria and threatened further sanctions and cuts in aid. And in Geneva, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning the violence, though the statement was diluted from one drafted by the United States.

The debate over the United Nations resolution demonstrated the difficulty in marshaling international censure of Syria. In Geneva, 26 countries supported the resolution, but nine voted against it, including Russia and China. The two countries blocked a similar effort to pass a resolution at the Security Council this week, a stark contrast to the tough action on Libya.

Even for the Obama administration, abandoning Mr. Assad has costs. For two years, it cultivated him in hopes that Syria would break the logjam in the Middle East peace process by signing a treaty with Israel. The United States tried to lure Syria away from Iran, the greatest American nemesis in the area.

Even the possibility of a change in leadership in Syria had reverberations this week, with the surprise agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to form a unity government. By most accounts, Hamas was motivated in part by a fear that if Mr. Assad were forced from power, it could lose its patron in Damascus.

Disarray in Syria could threaten Israel’s security more directly. While Israeli officials point out that Mr. Assad has hardly been a friend of Israel, if he were replaced by a militant Sunni government, this could pose even greater dangers.

Israel’s sensitivity about Syria is so acute that when reports began circulating this week that Israeli officials were pressing the White House to be less tough on Damascus, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, called reporters to insist that his government was doing nothing of the sort.

Among other countries that are sensitive: Turkey, which shares a border with Syria and a Kurdish population that could be stirred up by unrest; and Saudi Arabia, which does not want to see another Arab government topple. While Mr. Assad’s fall would damage Iran’s regional ambitions, analysts offer caveats.

“The regime coming down in a speedy, orderly transition to a Sunni government would be a setback for Iran, but that’s not what’s happening,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We’re headed for something much messier. The Iranians can play around in that.”

As the administration weighs its options, it faces a sobering fact: The United States has little influence over Damascus. Still, some analysts said the United States must leave open the possibility of tougher measures.

“If a Benghazi-style massacre is threatened, we would have to consider a humanitarian intervention under the same principle,” said Martin S. Indyk, Brookings Institution’s director of foreign policy. “Hard to imagine at this point when the death toll is 400. But if it rises to tens of thousands?”

MSNBC: Taliban declares start of spring offensive Increase attacks expected as militant group vows to protect 'the tenets of Islam and the religion fr

Taliban declares start of spring offensive

Increase attacks expected as militant group vows to protect 'the tenets of Islam and the religion from the claws of the invaders'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42833761/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

KABUL — The Taliban declared the start of a spring offensive Saturday, warning they planned to target foreign troops in Afghanistan as well as Afghan security forces and government officials in a wave of attacks across the country.

In a statement, the hardline Islamists warned Afghan civilians to stay away from public gatherings, military bases and convoys, as well as Afghan government centers, as these would be the focus of attacks.

The Taliban statement comes a day after senior military officials and Western diplomats warned they expected a surge in militant attacks over the next week.

"Operations will focus on attacks against military centers, places of gatherings, airbases, ammunition and logistical military convoys of the foreign invaders in all parts of the country," the Taliban said in the statement.

"The spring operations of Badar have been launched for the purpose of protecting the tenets of Islam and the religion from the claws of the invaders and salvaging the country and people from the foreign colonialism because the foreign invaders have committed unlawful aggression against the sovereignty of our country," it added.

Story: Report: Afghan who killed 9 Americans acted alone

Senior military officials said on Friday recent intelligence reporting indicated that the attacks planned by the Taliban, supported by the al-Qaida-linked Haqqani network and other insurgents, would include suicide bombings.

Week of increased violence?
Two senior coalition commanders said they anticipated the campaign of increased violence would last about a week.

Washington and commanders of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have trumpeted successes against a growing insurgency since 30,000 extra U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan last year.

The Taliban statement said the targets of an operation it called "Badar" would be foreign forces, high-ranking officials of President Hamid Karzai's government, members of the cabinet and lawmakers, as well as the heads of foreign and local companies working for the NATO-led coalition.

"All Afghan people should bear in mind to keep away from gatherings, convoys and centers of the enemy so that they will not become harmed during attacks of Mujahideen against the enemy," the Taliban said.

Senior commanders have long anticipated a spike in violence with the arrival of the spring and summer "fighting season", although the usual winter lull was not seen as U.S.-led forces pressed their attack against insurgents, particularly in the Taliban's southern heartland.

Violence across Afghanistan hit record levels in 2010, with civilian and military casualties the worst since U.S-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001.

The Pentagon said in a biannual report on Friday that an overall increase in violence was due in part to increased targeting of safe insurgent safe havens and unseasonably mild winter weather.

YAHOO:U.S. says Gaddafi troops raping, issued Viagra: envoys

U.S. says Gaddafi troops raping, issued Viagra: envoys

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-says-gaddafi-troops-raping-issued-viagra-envoys-213303457.html

The U.S. envoy to the United Nations told the Security Council on Thursday that troops loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi were increasingly engaging in sexual violence and some had been issued the impotency drug Viagra, diplomats said.

Several U.N. diplomats who attended a closed-door Security Council meeting on Libya told Reuters that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice raised the Viagra issue in the context of increasing reports of sexual violence by Gaddafi's troops.

"Rice raised that in the meeting but no one responded," a diplomat said on condition of anonymity. The allegation was first reported by a British newspaper.

Pfizer Inc's drug Viagra is used to treat impotence.

Diplomats said if it were true that Gaddafi's troops were being issued Viagra, it could indicate they were being encouraged by their commanders to engage in rape to terrorize the population in areas that have supported the rebels. That would constitute a war crime.

Several diplomats said Rice provided no evidence for the Viagra allegation, which they said was made in an attempt to persuade doubters the conflict in Libya was not just a standard civil war but a much nastier fight in which Gaddafi is not afraid to order his troops to commit heinous acts.

"She spoke of reports of soldiers getting Viagra and raping," a diplomat said. "She spoke of Gaddafi's soldiers targeting children, and other atrocities."

RAPE AS WEAPON?

Rice's statement, diplomats said, was aimed principally at countries like India, Russia and China, which have grown increasingly skeptical of the effectiveness of the NATO-led air strikes, which they fear have turned the conflict into a protracted civil war that will cause many civilian deaths.

Most council members, diplomats said, had expected Gaddafi's government to collapse quickly. They said the frustration felt by India, Russia and China would likely grow if the war dragged on.

The use of rape as a weapon during wartime has received increasing attention at the United Nations. Last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a special envoy on sexual violence during armed conflict, Margot Wallstrom.

Earlier this month, Wallstrom chided the Security Council for failing to mention sexual violence in two recent resolutions on Libya, despite having made the subject a priority.

Wallstrom said at the time that reports of rape in Libya remained unconfirmed but she cited the highly publicized case of Eman al-Obaidi, the woman who burst into a journalists' hotel in Tripoli last month saying she had been raped by pro-government militiamen.

The International Criminal Court is already investigating whether Gaddafi's government committed war crimes in its violent crackdown against demonstrators who demanded greater freedoms. The crackdown sparked a rebellion that has turned into a civil war.

The U.S. mission to the United Nations declined to comment.

FOXNEWS:Germany Arrests 3 Al Qaeda Suspects

Germany Arrests 3 Al Qaeda Suspects

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/29/germany-arrests-3-al-qaeda-suspects/?test=latestnews

German police on Friday arrested three suspected members of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization who officials say posed a "concrete and imminent danger" to the nation.

Authorities did not say whether the three had planned specific targets and offered few details, but security officials said that all three suspects were of Moroccan origin. They also said that two were arrested were in the western German city of Duesseldorf and one in nearby Bochum. The arrests were based on suspicion they were planning a terror attack, they said.

The arrests "succeeded in averting a concrete and imminent danger, presented by international terrorism," German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said in a statement. They showed "Germany remains a target of international terrorists."

Germany has escaped any large-scale attack by an Islamic terror organization, such as the Madrid train bombings of 2004 and the London transit attacks of 2005. But Germany's presence as part of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan has sparked anger and at least two major plots have been thwarted or failed in Germany before they could be carried out.

The suspects had been under surveillance since November when Germany increased security across the country in response to heightened terror threat warnings in Europe, but authorities only had enough evidence to launch an official criminal investigation starting April 15, German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said in a statement.

Federal prosecutors said earlier they had ordered Germany's federal police to arrest the trio, but gave no further information about the timing or location of the arrests. Officials were planning a news conference for Saturday.

A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss an ongoing investigation told The Associated Press in Washington D.C. that a SWAT team picked up three people in a raid on suspicion they were planning an attack with explosives.

"Our concerns about threats in Europe had a number of different threads and strands, some of which have been disrupted by good intelligence and law enforcement work by the relevant services," another U.S. official told the AP on condition of anonymity.

"There have been five disrupted plots in Europe during the past four years -- including a credible plot in Germany in 2007 -- all of which demonstrate Pakistan-based Al Qaeda's steadfast intent to attack the US and our allies."

Duesseldorf, a city of 600,000 has one of the largest Moroccan immigrant communities in Germany. It is to host the Eurovision Song Contest on May 14, which is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of spectators.

The German prosecutors said the three alleged terrorists would be brought before a judge Saturday who will decide whether they are to remain in detention pending a trial.

Germany raised its security posture in November after receiving information from its own and foreign intelligence services that led authorities to believe a sleeper cell of some 20 to 25 people may have been planning an attack inside the country or in another European nation.

Around the same time Germany also received information from U.S. sources that an attack similar to that in Mumbai in Nov. 2008 that killed 166 may be planned for Germany, the official said. Later, Germany received information on possible attacks at Christmas or New Year's.

In February, the German government lowered the terror level and reduced the number of police officers patrolling railway stations and other public places, but made clear at the time that a threat to the country still remains.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/29/germany-arrests-3-al-qaeda-suspects/#ixzz1L0F9vDap

FOXNEWS:Qaddafi Calls for Negotiations With NATO as Airstrikes Hit Tripoli

Qaddafi Calls for Negotiations With NATO as Airstrikes Hit Tripoli

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/30/qaddafi-calls-negotiations-nato-airstrikes-hit-tripoli/#ixzz1L0CPRKaR

TRIPOLI, Libya -- NATO bombs struck a Libyan government complex before dawn Saturday, damaging two buildings, just as Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called for a cease-fire and negotiations with NATO powers in a live speech on state TV.

The targeted compound included the state television building, and a Libyan official alleged the strikes were meant to kill Qaddafi. "We believe the target was the leader," said government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.

However, the TV building was not damaged, and Qaddafi spoke from an undisclosed location.

Reporters visiting the scene of the strikes were told the damaged buildings housed a commission for women and children and offices of parliament staff. One of at least three bombs or missiles knocked down a huge part of a two-story Italian-style building. In another, doors were blown out and ceiling tiles dropped to the ground. A policeman said three people were wounded, one seriously.

Qaddafi, meanwhile, called for a cease-fire in a speech that was both subdued and defiant and lasted for more than an hour. "The door to peace is open," said the Libyan leader, sitting behind a desk and repeatedly flipping through handwritten notes. "You are the aggressors. We will negotiate with you," he said. "Come, France, Italy, U.K., America, come, we will negotiate with you. Why are you attacking us?"

He said Libyans have the right to choose their own political system, but not under the threat of NATO bombings.

"Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure," he said, denying that his forces had killed Libyan civilians.

Rebel leaders have said they would only negotiate a truce after Qaddafi has stepped aside, something the Libyan leader has refused to do. The uprising against Qaddafi, Libya's ruler of 42 years, erupted in mid-February, and has claimed hundreds of lives. Rebels are controlling the east of the country, while Qaddafi has retained most of the west.

Just hours before the speech, Qaddafi's forces shelled the besieged rebel city of Misrata, killing 15 people, including a 9-year-old boy, hospital doctors said. The city of 300,000 is the main rebel stronghold in western Libya, and has been under siege for two months, with the port its only link to the outside.

On Friday, NATO foiled attempts by regime loyalists to close the only access route to Misrata, intercepting boats that were laying anti-ship mines in the waters around the port.

The Qaddafi regime signaled Friday that it is trying to block access to Misrata by sea.

Ibrahim, the Libyan official, said he was unaware of the attempted mine-laying. However, he said the government is trying to prevent weapons shipments from reaching the rebels by sea. Asked whether aid vessels would also be blocked, he said any aid shipments must be coordinated with the authorities and should preferably come overland.

Qaddafi's forces have repeatedly shelled the port area in the past. Libyan troops are deployed on the outskirts of Misrata, after having been driven out of the downtown area by the rebels last week.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/30/qaddafi-calls-negotiations-nato-airstrikes-hit-tripoli/#ixzz1L0CWKggR

abcnews,4/22:Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama's Little-Noticed Words Could Put U.S. in a Bind

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama's Little-Noticed Words Could Put U.S. in a Bind april 22

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/isreali-palestinian-conflict-obamas-noticed-words-put-us/story?id=13437221

So many promises have been made and commitments broken in the insufferably long Israeli-Palestinian conflict that few Americans took note of the goal President Obama set during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting last September -- he set September 2011 as a target date for achieving a Middle East peace deal that would allow for U.N. recognition of Palestine.

The rest of the world, however, heard Obama's words, and that could mean some difficult decisions for the U.S administration in the months ahead.

The September 2011 deadline was quickly endorsed by the European Union, and much of the world. At the time, there was a glimmer of hope in the Middle East: Israelis and Palestinians had had their first direct negotiations in nearly two years, and leaders on both sides declared they wanted peace.

A few days later, Obama addressed the world's leaders with the message that the stalemate could end. "The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. We could come back next year as we have for the last 60 and make long speeches and read familiar list of grievances," said Obama. "Or we can say this time will be different. ... If we do, we can come back next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations."

But within weeks of Obama's General Assembly address, after the end of a moratorium on new Israeli settlement construction, talks between both sides broke down. An increase in rocket and mortar attacks alongside the smuggling of weapons by Hamas has since exacerbated the situation.

Recently, Palestinian leaders have been using the president's words to lobby nations to formally recognize Palestine -- defined by its 1967 borders -- when the General Assembly reconvenes in September.

But many see these efforts as a way to circumvent direct peace negotiations with Israel.

"It is irresponsible, particularly at a moment when the Middle East is in flames," said Ruth Wedgewood, an international law expert at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "It jumps the gun in the way that destroys the roadmap process that, ironically, the U.N. was party to. It allows Hamas to say Israel is crossing an international border and illegally waging war."

More than 100 nations have said they already recognize Palestine as a state. Gaining U.N. membership typically requires a recommendation from the Security Council and the approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly, or 128 countries.

The U.S., which has a veto in the Security Council, has so far rejected Palestinian bids for recognition as an independent state without first brokering a peace deal with Israel.

"We do not support any unilateral effort by the Palestinians to go to the United Nations to try to obtain some authorization approval, vote, with respect to statehood, because we think you can only achieve the two-state solution, through negotiation," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Charlie Rose last week.

But the prospects of this happening grow by the day.

Thursday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met in Paris with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. French diplomats in the United Nations have signaled, along with other European allies, that they are strongly considering U.N. recognition of Palestine as a way to jump-start the stalled peace process.

Meeting Between Mahmoud Abbas and Nicolas Sarkozy

After their meeting, Abbas said in an interview with TV network France 24 that it would "not be coherent and logical" for the U.S. not to recognize a Palestinian state.

"We can't say that certain organizations or countries promised to recognize a Palestinian state. But all the signs they are sending show that they are awaiting the right moment to do so," said Abbas. "You notice that a certain number of European countries have recently sent additional delegations and official representatives to the Palestinian territories. From our side, we are already treating them like ambassadors."

In a U.N. Security Council meeting Thursday, Riyad Mansour, the permanent observer of Palestine at the U.N., said, "We urge countries that have not yet recognized the state of Palestine to do so at the earliest possible time to contribute to soon making our independence a reality."

Palestinian diplomats have been working feverishly to garner as much support from various nations as possible, because if the U.S. vetoes a Security Council resolution recognizing Palestine, they'd still have the option of going before the General Assembly, where there is no veto power, but resolutions are nonbinding.

There is also talk, although few experts believe it would happen, of a "nuclear option" in which Palestinian diplomats would invoke a rarely used 1950 "uniting for peace" clause from the Korean War meant to block Soviet influence. The clause, in effect, states that if the Security Council can't effectively do its job, it would give the General Assembly the authority to bring forward a binding resolution.

In a speech to the Security Council, Meron Reuben, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., echoed the words of Israeli President Shimon Peres, who recently met with U.N. officials to say, "We need solutions, not resolutions." He said that "peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations. It cannot be imposed from the outside." While Rueben addressed the several challenges Israel faces in jump-starting the stalled peace process, he focused most of his attention on security -- particularly on the rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinian Authority remains unable to control.

Palestinian diplomats have used the findings by various agencies, including the World Bank, that state certain government institutions within Palestinian territories have crossed the threshold for statehood. Palestinian officials would like the Mideast Quartet -- the mediating group consisting of the U.S., U.N., European Union and Russia -- to take the lead. Last week, the U.S. blocked a meeting scheduled in Berlin.

Israeli newspapers have been buzzing with the prospects of U.N. recognition of Palestine, and what it may or may not mean.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to address a joint meeting of Congress next month, and U.N. recognition of Palestine will likely come up.

guardian:How Hamas-Fatah unity could break Middle East deadlock If Palestinian reconciliation holds, it may release all the players, the US and Israe

How Hamas-Fatah unity could break Middle East deadlock

If Palestinian reconciliation holds, it may release all the players, the US and Israel included, from the ossified roles of the process

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/palestinian-territories-hamas

For the better part of 20 years, the policies of Fatah (the leading faction within the Palestine Liberation Organisation) have been predictable to the point of tedium. This week in Cairo, in agreeing to a unity and power-sharing deal with Hamas, Fatah surprised. Yes, Palestinian national reconciliation has been tried before, fleetingly and unenthusiastically, following a Saudi-brokered arrangement in spring 2007, and it may again unravel. But this time, Fatah's move appears to be a more calculated and profound break with past practice – and the anticipated opprobrium of the US seems to weigh less heavily.

From the Algiers 1988 decision of the Palestine National Council adopting a two-state solution on the 1967 lines, to the 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles recognising Israel's right to exist, through to last September's relaunching of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Washington, DC, the PLO approach can be reduced to one simple equation: that a combination of an accommodationist Palestinian side, Israeli rational self-interest and US leverage would overcome inbuilt Israeli-Palestinian asymmetries of power and deliver Palestinian independence and de-occupation.

Gaining traction for that formula was a marketing challenge under the military-fatigued Yasser Arafat, but he was replaced over six years ago by the unequivocally peace-credentialled Mahmoud Abbas. And still, the Palestinians kept doubling down on that formula in the face of failure. Fatah pursued negotiations without terms of reference, security coordination with the Israel Defence Forces, institution-building under occupation, and an inexplicable faith in American mediation – even as settlements metastasised across the Occupied Territories, elections were lost to Hamas, and accusations of collaboration grew deafening.

The last roll of this Palestinian dice, Fayyadism (named after Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and predicated on the notion that Palestinian good governance would induce Israeli withdrawal or, at least, international pressure to force that withdrawal) is set to splutter to an ignoble end this September. The two-year programme of building state-readiness will have succeeded, but will then stand helpless against the reality of an immovable Israeli occupation.

The test results are in. The accommodationist PLO equation did not compute.

A centrepiece of that strategy was for the peace process to be an exclusive domain of American mediation. In recent months, the Palestinians have been slowly manoeuvering out of this American cul-de-sac. Abbas refused to continue those September negotiations with Israel when the US failed to deliver an extension of even the limited and partial Netanyahu settlement moratorium. The PLO forced a vote on settlements at the UN security council, despite US pressure, leaving the US alone to cast its veto in a 14-1 vote. Preparations for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood proceed apace (again, in opposition to US policy). Finally, and most dramatically, Fatah has now agreed to this deal with Hamas.

Palestinian division, playing so-called "moderates" against "extremists", had been a cornerstone of US (and Israeli) policy. If the Palestinian unity deal holds – and caution is well-advised with the details yet to be agreed, and with a history of false dawns – that cornerstone will be no more. It would be inaccurate to attribute this development to any radical departure in policy on the part of the Obama administration. Rather, this development is best understood against a backdrop of attrition, combined with new, post Arab Spring regional realities. The attrition part is obvious: there has been relentless growth in Israeli settlements and control of the territories over the years. When Oslo was signed in 1993, there were 111,000 settlers in the West Bank alone; today, that number exceeds 300,000, and 60% of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem remain under exclusive Israeli control. And then there has been the impunity unfailingly granted to Israel by the US.

What has changed is that, in a region in democratising flux, Egypt no longer plays the role of status quo guarantor and is rediscovering a capacity for enacting regional policy that is independent, constructive and responsive to domestic opinion. The shift in Egypt's outlook was key to delivering the Palestinian reconciliation breakthrough.

The Fatah-Hamas deal will, inevitably, meet with a rocky reception in the US. Congress may move to defund the PA, security assistance may be withdrawn, and official Israeli talking points ("they chose peace with the terrorists over peace with Israel") will be warmly received on Capitol Hill. But will this reconciliation deal, if it holds, really be a negative development for the Palestinians, the US or even Israel?

For the Palestinians themselves, internal unity seems a prerequisite for developing a new national platform and strategy, and for reviving a legitimate, empowered and representative PLO. Unity creates one Palestinian address, the likelihood of a more robust negotiating posture, and provides an on-ramp for Hamas to engage in the political process, should it so choose. Crucial to any strategy will be a Palestinian adherence to international law and, in that context, to non-violence.

The Palestinians would best avoid preemptively cutting any ties to the US, but reduced dependence on the US, including the possible suspension of US aid, could be far from disastrous and might facilitate more productive and challenging Palestinian approaches to attaining their own freedom. Unity, or even a UN vote for recognition, will not in itself constitute a fully-fledged strategy or end of occupation. Huge challenges remain: managing security coordination (internal and external), running a limited self-governing authority that depends on Israeli goodwill to function and, not least, alleviating the closure-induced misery of Gaza. Unity, though, may be a crucial first step in developing a more compelling local and global Palestinian strategy – especially with the new prospect of meaningful Egyptian support.

For the US, Israel-Palestine is a defining national security interest in a critical region of the world. Alongside that, the peculiarities of American domestic politics on anything related to Israel leads the US to box itself in and limit its own manoeuverability on this issue. Too often, the result is American diplomatic impotence.

There might be advantages for the US in having this issue taken somewhat out of its hands, whether via enhanced Palestinian strategic independence, invigorated Egyptian diplomacy, or greater European or UN involvement. Such developments might enhance the prospects of a solution, produce openings for more effective US engagement with Israel, or at least might mitigate the debilitating cumulative impact this issue has on America's standing in the Middle East.

Finally, Israel. It is unlikely that Israel will welcome a more independent, strategic or empowered Palestinian counterpart. Yet, Israel is today more, not less, insecure and uncertain of its future. In many respects, the aggravated asymmetry of the current peace process and strategic floundering on the part of the Palestinians gives Israel a false sense of permanent impunity and has encouraged Israel's most self-destructive tendencies (not least, towards settlement building and intolerant nationalism).

It makes sense to speculate that a course correction by Israel's leaders towards greater realism, pragmatism and compromise might emerge in response to a more challenging, strategic and – one would hope – non-violent Palestinian adversary.

• This article will be closed to comments overnight; it will reopen at 9am BST on 28 April 2011

jpost:Negotiations: Vindicating Israel

Negotiations: Vindicating Israel

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=218340

"Palileaks," according to US organization, corroborate Israel’s narrative. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?

The Palestinian Authority’s decision to seek a deal with Hamas is being seen in Jerusalem as a gamble intended to attract support from the international community for a declaration of statehood from the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The PA is wagering that it is more important to present the world with an image of Palestinian unity in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip ahead of the vote than to distance itself from the terrorism of Hamas. By building a government of technocrats that would limit terrorism – at least for a few months – the Palestinians are trying to eliminate excuses that could be raised to prevent a state from arising.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu intended to tell European leaders in his visit to London and Paris next week that supporting the UN resolution in September would be giving the Palestinians theatrics but no state, while a state – and a peace agreement – could only be born via negotiations.

However, the Palestinian unity announcement, which took Israeli intelligence agencies by surprise, could make it harder for Netanyahu to make that argument, because there is no chance for negotiations with a Palestinian government built with a Hamas that refuses to renounce terrorism. Or the Palestinians might have played into Netanyahu’s hands by making it easier for him to warn the international community against creating a state that could serve as a base for terrorism against Israel’s heartland.

Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas will travel the world between now and September to try to sell their respective sides of the story. One element that could be crucial in getting world leaders to accept their narratives ahead of September 2011 is to make sure they understand why substantive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians ended in September 2008.

This is especially important now because the Palestinians justified seeking a state from the UN and an agreement with Hamas by saying that reaching a deal with Israel was not an option. One of the central arguments that Abbas is making to world leaders is that he tried to reach an agreement with Netanyahu’s dovish predecessor Ehud Olmert, and he came close, but the criminal investigations that brought down Olmert’s government also ended chances of reaching peace.

Olmert has argued that the reason peace was not achieved is that he offered Abbas a sweetheart deal and the Palestinian leader never responded. He says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control. He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer.

The 1,700 documents revealed by Al Jazeera and the Guardian in January, called “the Palestine Papers” or “Palileaks,” were seen by much of the world as proof that the Palestinians were willing to make unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem and refugees in Abbas’s talks with Olmert. That impression was fed by the analysis of the two media outlets that released the documents selectively in a way that made Abbas seem overly generous and Israel overly hard-line.

But a new reading of the documents by a Christian organization in the United States found that unlike the way they were reported, the Palestine Papers actually proved the Israeli point of view correct on all the key issues.

Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East – which bills itself as a liberal, non-Evangelical Christian (mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic) organization focused on bringing facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict to American churches – had a team of researchers read through all of the 1,700 Palestine Papers.

The organization has been trying to get the world to look more deeply into the papers as well, rather than accept the misreporting of them as fact.

THE KEY concession that the Palestinians were reported to have made was control over Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Al Jazeera broadcast that the Palestinians had offered to “let Israel keep all but one of the Jewish enclaves it built in East Jerusalem,” referring to Har Homa, and settlements over the Green Line amounting to some 2 percent of the land controlled by Jordan between 1948 and 1967.

But Christians for Fair Witness found that the Palestine Papers did not indicate that Abbas made a counter- offer to Olmert’s August 31 proposal. They revealed documents indicating that the Palestinians had decided ahead of the final Olmert-Abbas meeting on September 16 not to issue a counter-offer at that meeting and that Abbas had been advised by his team to wait to respond until George W. Bush was out of the White House.

A December 2, 2008, memo indicated that in response to Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Welch’s question about Olmert’s offer, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Welch that “We offered a 2% swap that would allow 70% of the settlers to remain.”

But the 2% figure is not mentioned at all in either a September 16, 2008, memo of “talking points” for Abbas at his final meeting with Olmert, or a September 22, 2008, memo of “Palestinian Talking Points Regarding Israeli Proposal.” Therefore, it appears that the 2% figure did not play a part in the Palestinian thinking about possible responses to Olmert’s package offer. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever of this figure having been presented to Olmert post-September 16, 2008.

“Nowhere in the Palestine Papers is there any indication that Abbas ever communicated this ‘counter-offer’ of a ‘2% swap’ – or any other – to Olmert,” the organization wrote.

“And while the Palestinians had memos and maps outlining the Israeli offer in detail, there is no documentation in the Palestine Papers of the parameters of a counter-offer designed to respond to this offer.”

THE SECOND concession the Palestinians reportedly made in the talks with Olmert involved the fate of the Temple Mount and the Holy Basin.

“The [PA] proposed international control of the key Jerusalem holy site,” the reports said.

But the documents revealed by Christians for Fair Witness found that Al Jazeera had wrongly portrayed the international control over the Holy Basin as an official PA proposal. In the document, Erekat told American diplomats – and not Olmert – that he was speaking in his private capacity “That was not an offer, it was just talk,” the organization said.

Finally, on the refugee issue, Al Jazeera reported that the Palestinians had agreed that Israel would only take in 10,000 refugees a year for 10 years for a total of 100,000, giving up their demand that all refugees from 1948 and their descendants – amounting to several million people – enter Israel.

But the documents highlighted by Christians for Fair Witness report a conversation between Abbas and Olmert that Erekat recounted, in which Abbas said, “Are you joking?” to Olmert’s figure of 10,000 over 10 years. In a September 22, 2008, internal memo drafted in response to Olmert’s offer, it states that “while we agree to negotiate the number of returnees in consideration of Israel’s capacity of absorption, this particular offer cannot be taken seriously.”

The Palestinians estimated Israel’s absorption capacity at slightly more than a million people over a 10-year period. That’s the only concession the Palestinians were willing to make on the issue. And even that would be only temporary.

They expected additional “returns” later on.

“While there have been claims in the media that the Palestinian Authority was willing to offer great compromises on refugees, the Palestine Papers reveal that this was not the case,” the organization wrote. “While Palestinian negotiators spoke publicly about compromise on refugees, privately they spoke of the ‘Right of Return’ as a matter of individual choice that would have to be extended to each of over seven million ‘refugees.’ They anticipated the potential ‘return’ of millions of Palestinians to the State of Israel, with Palestinians retaining the open-ended right to try to negotiate additional ‘returns’ beyond any number initially agreed upon in a peace treaty.”

The organization expressed hope that just like the understanding that former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down a generous Israeli offer at Camp David in 2000 improved Israel’s image internationally, the same could happen if the world realized that Abbas repeated Arafat’s mistake in September 2008.

It said it was praying that this could help Israel avoid a major crisis this coming September.

CNN:Will a Palestinian state be born this fall?

Will a Palestinian state be born this fall?

April 27th, 2011

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/will-a-palestinian-state-be-born-this-fall/?hpt=Sbin

By Daoud Kuttab - Special to CNN

I place the chances for the birth of a Palestinian state this fall at fifty-fifty. The world community, including the United States, seems to favor the idea. Yet there is clearly a lack of political will and muscle for pushing Israel to seriously negotiate the emergence of Palestine. Meanwhile, the major countries, especially the U.S., are not enthusiastic about a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood accompanied by a United Nations birth certificate.

After all these years, why now?

Momentum for the emergence of statehood this fall came from two sources. It began two years ago with a serious plan for obtaining statehood set forth by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. In addition, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly last year, President Obama supported this process by stating that Palestine should become a full member of the United Nations by the fall of 2011.

This American green light failed to move Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government towards serious negotiations.

When the Americans and the rest of the world community called on Israel to stop settling in areas earmarked for Palestine, the Israelis considered such a call a precondition to negotiations and refused to extend a 10-month slow down of settlement activities.

The ups and downs of the political negotiations did not faze Salam Fayyad, who continued implementing his plan. Fayyad’s plan has since won the approval of the World Bank and major Latin American and European countries. France has made it clear that it will recognize Palestine once it is announced. Norway, Spain and Italy have made positive indications in favor of Palestinian statehood.

Israel’s failure to adhere to the requirements of the talks and America’s reluctance to adopt the Palestinian unilateral plan have slowed the effectiveness of the Quartet - made up of the U.S., the UN, Europe and Russia. The past two high-level meetings of the Quartet were postponed because of differences within the entities over the public declaration that the 1967 borders should constitute the main reference point for the state of Palestine.

The failure of the peace talks - due to Israel’s intransigence and the inability of the Quartet - coupled with the world praise for the performance of the Fayyad government have all paved the way for the possible unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Over 140 countries have indicated that they would support such a declaration when it comes up for a vote in the UN.

This number might even go higher once the reluctant countries of Europe make up their mind. The U.S., which has consistently been an ally of the Israelis, has kept is position close to its chest. Both the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister have indicated that they plan to make major speeches on the issue.

The number two Republican in Congress, Eric Cantor, seems to have more loyalty to Israel than his own government. He pushed for and succeeded in getting the U.S. Congress to invite Israel’s prime minister to address a joint session. The rare invitation has been criticized in many circles, including in Israel, where pundits have said that Netanyahu should address his own people about any new plan before addressing the American people.

Politically, Palestinian leaders have been trying hard to convince the Israelis of their commitment to peace. The Palestinian president has publicly opposed any militarization of anti-Israeli protests and has declared his opposition to a third intifada. But the Palestinian public is concerned that the existence of the most moderate Palestinian leadership to date is a weakness rather than a strength.

On the ground, the big question continues to be what will happen the day after the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood at the UN. Memories of Israel’s own declaration on May 15, 1948 have been cited as one example of what might happen. Although no major war is expected upon the declaration, some expect that there will be movements on the ground to implement and extract sovereignty on Palestinian land.

An incident that took place last week might indicate what lies ahead: An Israeli vehicle carrying settlers entered the Palestinian city of Nablus without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority. When settlers refused to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the area where Joseph’s tomb is located, an altercation took place that led to an Israeli settler getting killed by the fire of a Palestinian police person stationed in the area.

For some time, the Palestinian security forces have been criticized as being dormant and ineffective in defending Palestinians and their interests. There are tens of cases in which Israeli settlers have attacked Palestinians, destroyed property and burnt olive trees while the Palestinian police stood idly by not willing to intervene. Some question whether the Palestinian police force as well as the entire Palestinian public will become part of the political equation when the Palestinian state is declared.

The coming fall will tell whether the present movements in the Arab world for freedom and the end of dictatorships will also apply to Palestinians, who are yearning for the end of a four-decade-old foreign military occupation. Both the will and determination of Palestinians and the international community will be major factors in determining whether Palestine will become a free and independent state alongside a secure state of Israel or whether occupation will be allowed to continue.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Daoud Kuttab.

----------------------------------------