Ghaith al-Omari: All Publications, Events and Press

Ghaith al-Omari in the New York Times | 'Israel’s Political Situation Dims Hopes for Peace Deal'

Communications — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:42:00 -0400

New America in the News:

“There is zero chance” now, said Ghaith al-Omari, a former negotiator for Mr. Abbas. Mr. Omari said that the best the Palestinians could now expect was that Ms. Rice could manage to preserve something to hand to the next administration.

“The best we can hope for is a stabilization package that will make it easier for the next president to engage the process,” Mr. Omari said. LINK

Ghaith al-Omari in Reuters | 'Olmert Departure Makes Mideast Peace More Elusive'

Communications — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:48:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Reflecting the considerable uncertainty brought on by Olmert's decision, Ghaith Al-Omari, advocacy director for the Washington-based American Task Force on Palestine, offered a pessimistic assessment.

"In my view, it seals the fact that there will be no conflict-ending deal by the end of this year," said Al-Omari, who was a member of the Palestinian negotiating team during the failed 2000 Camp David U.S.-backed peace-making effort.

Al-Omari said he did not think Olmert had the moral authority to negotiate a deal and said his chief negotiator and possible successor, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, would be unable to make concessions in a political season.

"Livni will not enter the election season with 'Dividing Jerusalem' on her banner. She cannot make the necessary compromises," he said. "We are going to get into a holding pattern on the negotiations ... I think it's politically impossible to reach a deal by the end of the year." LINK

Ghaith al-Omari in the Jewish Daily Forward | 'Amid Pessisism on Peace Prospects, Rice Meets Parties in Last Push for Accord'

Communications — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:28:00 -0400

New America in the News:

“Public trust in the peace process is very low” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to the Palestinian president. Al-Omari, who now serves as director of advocacy for the American Task Force on Palestine, said that the Palestinian public does not believe reports of progress in the talks because they clash with the reality on the ground.

“It’s unfortunate that Condi Rice keeps on being so ideological instead of focusing on issues on the ground, such as the settlements,” al-Omari said. LINK

Making Sense of the Arab-Israel Nightmare

Communications — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
06/27/2008 - 9:30am

On June 27th, the New America Foundation and the Century Foundation co-hosted “Making Sense of the Arab-Israel Nightmare”, an event which aimed to investigate the status quo, the future available to the Bush Administration, and a measure of “crystal ball gazing” into what one can hope for from the next Administration Special Assistant to Ambassador Morton Abramowitz at the Century Foundation, Jonathan Kolieb, hosted a Q&A-style session with three former practitioners in a lively discussion that explored the lessons to be learned from the current and previous administrations and its implications for the future. The speakers were former State Department negotiator, Aaron David Miller, Director of the Middle East Policy Initiative at New America, Daniel Levy, and former advisor to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and current Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program, Ghaith al-Omari. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Kolieb’s first question, directed at Miller, asked what the latter’s assessment was of the Bush Administration what its legacy will be. Miller began by citing former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker and the Jimmy Carter Adminsitration as the three most successful American efforts at Middle East peace. What distinguished these three was each made peace a top priority and was tough on each side of the issue. Additionally, each had an exquisite sense of timing and did not over-engage or disengage. Finally, each was tenacious and viewed it through the lens of American national interest. For Miller, Bush is the “great disengager” looking to its other priorities even as opportunities for peace came along. For example, it did not take the opportunity given in Fall 2004 when Yasser Arafat died but rather let chance, randomness, and Ariel Sharon dictate the political terrain. It is now, for him, “painful to imagine” a happy ending to the conflict in the short-term. The next six months should, then, aim to do no harm. It should support codifying whatever Palestinian and Israeli talks on permanent issues occur, the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, and prevent a major confrontation between Hamas and Israel. If these were to pass, there would be a remote possibility of serious and good things happening in the new Adminstrations.

Miller turned, then, his attention to the future Administration and observed that the legacy Bush bestows will be important. Miller proposed, then, four ways to change the way America approaches the situation. First, it should be a national priority and Israel-Palestine negotiations will go nowhere without a strong American presence. Second, there must be a chance of success because a young administration will not risk a monumental failure and thus Bush must leave his successor with a viable starting-point on the conflict. Third, America is perceived as weak and incompetent in the Middle East and tough and serious diplomacy is the only way to reemerge as a regional power. Finally, it needs tactical flexibility and strategic independence in its conduct with respect to the Israeli-Arab conflict. If there is the perception that America is the lawyer to one side of the conflict, the minimal level of trust will be inexistent. America’s “special relationship” with Israel is valuable but should not be an exclusive relationship which does not criticize inappropriate behavior by Israelis.

Kolieb’s next question, directed at al-Omari, asked for his take on what the last years of the Administration will look like and his suggestions to it. al-Omari initially observed that the current Annapolis process is dependant on the US because of Olmert’s and Abbas’s political weakness. Additionally, if the next President inherits an active conflict and a dead process, it will have little incentive to work at reviving it. The focus of the next six months should, then, be to strengthen the prospects for peace until the next Administration arrives. To achieve this goal, a four-pronged approach is necessary. This mistake of Annapolis was to focus on the big peace deal while ignoring the reality on the ground. The Israeli and Palestinian publics found no substantial movement in their daily experience and thus the deal had no credibility or support. Furthermore, America needs to assess the situation on final status in order to make sure that the parties do not lock up into orthodoxy and constantly revert to opening positions. America’s role is to be a tough third-party negotiator to ensure things do not go backwards. Major political action is necessary, for example, Israel needs settlement freezing and Palestinians need vigorous action to reassure Israel’s security concerns. Confidence building measures are necessary to create a sense that progress is happening. The fourth prong is to avoid a Hamas-Israel war. If there was to be a major invasion, it would kill the process and be a complete failure for Israel. It is, lastly, the responsibility of the current Administration also for the President-elect.

Kolieb’s follow-up question asked what the bright spots were in the current disaster in Palestinian politics. Al-Omari bluntly stated there were no bright spots but insisted the only way to fix it is to have the US stop trying to control it. Palestinian politics is obscure and opaque to Western visions and every attempt at manipulation has ended in failure. The US should negotiate with Abbas but, at the same time, not constrict his domestic readings. If he wants a Hamas truce, then the US should not try to block it and let the Palestinians manage their own affairs.

Lastly, Kolieb turned to Levy for his own assessments and advice of the Bush Administration and the next one. The first thing Levy indicates is to let the cease-fire work and prevent a catastrophe between Israel and Gaza. His reading of the situation sees active American opposition to the cease-fire no longer existing but the latter is still fragile. There have been a half-dozen rockets landing in Israel running parallel to military operations in the West Bank, Gaza, and economic closures. There is furthermore a need to abandon the Clinton approach of forcing an agreement on a peace of paper. The Middle East is still not ready for the kind of deal that America insists upon. While he is pessimistic on the prospects of this happening, he suggests a non-public paper to reflect where the parties are at. Another proposal, although he is again pessimistic on this, is to repeat the Camp David parameters but making it such that it will pass over to the next Administration and does not force the timetable upon the Israelis and Palestinians. If they get the content of the parameters correct and choreograph this with the next President, then these measures would work. However, Levy warns against a managerial approach to the conflict as long as there is occupation and its attendant insecurity. If the decision is for an agreement and the political will exists then one should push forward but, if it does not, an extension of time will not necessarily create it. He concurs with al-Omari in saying confidence building measures would be helpful

Kolieb followed up by asking the status of Israeli politics and whether its instabilities are endemic. Levy responded by observing the immediate term still sees some measure of decision-making capacity despite Olmert’s weakness albeit shallow and unable to create a peace deal with the Palestinians. The road ahead will either see the Kadima party elect a new leader in a primary who will create a new coalition and avoid elections or disunity in the Kadima party leading to elections happening which would bring in Benjamin Netanyahu. The last possibility would be an election loss for Netanyahu although most polls show him winning if there was to be an election. In general, Israeli coalition politics is extremely fractured with thirteen parties answering to often sectarian, sometimes ethnic constituencies. This creates a structural weight for a Prime Minister and serves as a constricting factor in the ability to make big decisions.

Kolieb’s next question was to Miller. He asked how America should deal with the two polities’ systems. Miller is dismissive of the US capacity of being able to soberly assess and act in their politics. A unified Palestinian political voice is a prerequisite for even the beginnings of a resolution. It is, for Miller, a delusion to believe that Israel would make existential concessions. Israeli political fractures have prevented a leader with the moral authority and legitimacy to emerge. Miller concurs, in the end, with al-Omari’s injunction to have the US stop meddling within domestic politics.

The next question had al-Omari discuss the importance of the US. The US is key because it is the only member that Israel trusts and is comfortable in negotiating with. Yet, this should not mean American monopoly but rather a reinvigorated multilateral effort to resolve the Israel-Palestine dispute is necessary. Finally, engaging Arabs is necessary to give them the incentive and a level of dignity so they can be constructive partners in negotiations.

-Kailash Srinivasan, Research Intern for The Century Foundation

The Perils Of Unconditional Engagement

Ron Tang — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:38:00 -0400

The issue of whether or not to engage Hamas boils down to the following question: would such engagement help moderate the organization, or would it simply improve Hamas’ chances of dominating the Palestinian political scene and encourage extremism throughout the Middle East? For now, any engagement that goes beyond achieving de-escalation in Gaza would serve to bolster Hamas at the expense of those working toward a two-state solution.

Those who argue that engagement would bring about a significant change in Hamas’ policies proceed from a faulty assumption regarding the way the organization thinks. Hamas does not reject the two-state solution and… more

Daniel Levy and Ghaith al-Omari in Washington Post | In Search for Peace, a Shrinking White House Role

Communications — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:32:00 -0500

New America in the News:

In Search for Peace, a Shrinking White House Role (The Washington Post)

. . . Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said that key players in the region are moving beyond the Bush administration. "The feeling is that if you keep the flash points on a lower or somewhat higher flame, it will give you more cards when a new administration comes in," he said, speaking in a phone interview from Israel. "Everyone is sucking up to the Iranians," he added. . .

Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to Abbas and now advocacy director for the American Task Force on Palestine, faulted the Bush administration for not nurturing a process that it started. He noted that the administration has appointed three generals to assess various aspects of the issue, but that few people in the region understand their roles. Rice's two-day visit this week is her first substantive trip since the conference in November. . .

Ghaith al-Omari on the Charlie Rose Show | 'Bush Visits the Middle East'

Communications — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:34:00 -0500

New America in the News:
A Discussion About Bush's Visit to the Middle East (Charlie Rose - PBS)
A discussion about President Bush's visit to the Middle East with Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator under President Clinton & Ghaith al-Omari, Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation.

Ghaith Al-Omari in Washington Post | 'Egypt Opens Its Borders'

Communications — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:02:00 -0500

New America in the News:

Egypt opened its main crossing into the Gaza Strip on Wednesday to allow more than 2,000 Palestinian pilgrims – including at least one official of the armed Hamas movement – to return to their homes there, outraging Israel in a growing dispute over border security. ...

Egyptian officials said at the time that the Hamas group had Saudi visas that had to be honored. Israeli officials assert that the visas were stamped at the Saudi Embassy in Cairo and probably were smuggled back into Gaza via tunnels that Israel asserts Egypt has failed to close.

The Hamas group's departure "tremendously undermined" Abbas, said Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to Abbas who is now at the New America Foundation in Washington. He said the Palestinian Authority had understood it would coordinate the movement of the pilgrims, and by accepting the Hamas-sponsored pilgrims, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were "giving Hamas a level of recognition, establishing Hamas as an official counterpart" to the Abbas government. ...

For the complete story, click here.

Annapolis Conference, Ghaith Al-Omari and Daniel Levy on NPR

Communications — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:52:00 -0500

New America in the News:

The Arab-Israeli conflict has not been high on President Bush's agenda until now. A conference in Annapolis, Md., is seen as a "relaunch" of a process meant to move the two sides toward peace. Ghaith Al-Omari and Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation discuss prospects for progress at the summit. ...

For the complete story, please visit the NPR website. Listen to the interview here and please visit the American Strategy Program's special section on the Annapolis conference.

C-SPAN's Washington Journal Interviews Ghaith Al-Omari on Annapolis Conference

Communications — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:46:00 -0500

New America in the News:

The American Strategy Program's Senior Research Fellow Ghaith Al-Omari appeared as a guest on C-Span's 'Washington Journal' program where he discussed the upcoming Annapolis meeting as well as prospects and conditions for its success. ...

Please follow this link to the video. Ghaith Al-Omari is also advocacy director of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). For more information on the Annapolis conference, visit the American Strategy Program website.

C-SPAN Airs Annapolis Event with Speakers Levy and Al-Omari

Communications — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:31:00 -0500

New America in the News:

Former peace negotiators discussed the summit between Palestinian and Israeli officials to be held in Annapolis, Maryland. They talked about the likely processes, outcomes, and implications of the summit, as well as the political context in which the summit would be held. They also answered questions from the audience. ...

Click here for C-SPAN's coverage of this event. For more information on the Annapolis conference please visit the American Strategy Program's special section on the talks, which offers additional information on event speakers Ghaith Al-Omari and Daniel Levy and moderator Steve Clemons.

Ghaith Al-Omari and Daniel Levy on NPR's All Things Considered

Communications — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:14:00 -0500

New America in the News:

MICHELE NORRIS, host: The formal invitations are just now going out for the Bush administration's Middle East peace conference in Annapolis next week. The idea of the gathering is to formalize final status peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and get the blessings of key players, especially from the Arab world. …

MICHELE KELEMEN, correspondent: There were initially high expectations that the Israelis and Palestinians would set out their end game in Annapolis. But despite numerous trips by Secretary of State Rice, they're expected to come up with a less-ambitious joint statement. … Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian authority President Mahmoud Abbas seemed to have built up trust in their private talks. But both men are seen as politically weak and unable to make major concessions. Daniel Levy who was part of previous Israeli negotiating teams says it would be easier for Olmert to do nothing so his coalition stays with them.

Mr. DANIEL LEVY (Senior Fellow, New America Foundation; Former Member, Israeli Negotiating Team): But I think, first of all, that the Israeli prime minister does see a need in realizing a two-state solution. And secondly, he's not going to politically survive by doing nothing. He would much rather people were arguing about whether it's right to negotiate with the Palestinians or even the Syrians, or whether he's corrupt or whether he ran a bad war last year.

KELEMEN: As for Abbas, he has a political need for a peace process especially after the militant group Hamas seized control of Gaza in June. One of his former advisers, Ghaith al-Omari, who now works alongside Levy at the New American Foundation in Washington, says Abbas needs to prove that only a negotiated settlement will bring about an end to Israeli occupation.

Mr. GHAITH AL-OMARI (Visiting Fellow, New American Foundation; Former Adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas): Abbas right now is in a very adversarial zero-sum game with Hamas. And I think he realizes that's the only that he can position himself in a situation where he can put Hamas on the defensive is if he reaches a peace deal.

KELEMEN: Omari says the challenge for Secretary Rice and the Bush administration is to try to make a peace process look credible for the Palestinians.

Mr. AL-OMARI: The worst thing that you can have is the high officials speaking high politics and the realities in the world keeps on getting worse.

KELEMEN: That brings the two sides right back to where they were four years ago when Palestinians promised to crack down on terrorism and Israelis promised to free settlements among other things in the so-called roadmap. Daniel Levy says we should all expect to hear a lot of these confidence-building steps again.

Mr. LEVY: Annapolis in a way represents regression. Much of the emphasis today will be on process rather than substance and will be on sounding convincing when you commit yourselves to roadmap implementation items that have been there for four years. ...

For the complete transcript and more on this story, please follow this link, or listen to the interview here.

Annapolis and Beyond: What (Not) to Expect

Communications — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:00:00 -0500

A New America Event
11/20/2007 - 10:00am

With the Annapolis peace summit approaching, this event featured three former peace negotiators from the Israeli, Palestinian, and American sides, offering their views on the likely process, outcomes and implications of the Annapolis summit. The former negotiators recently co-authored “Ten Commandments for Mideast Peace.”

The New America Foundation/American Strategy Program has been hosting a series of briefings to examine and discuss the expectations, opportunities and risks of renewed U.S. peace efforts within the current political context.

In October, the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program along with International Crisis Group and the U.S./Middle East Project organized a letter to President Bush and Secretary Rice titled “Failure Risks Devastating Consequences,” which was signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft, Carla Hills, and four other former officials. Since the original release, over 50 prominent national security experts and former officials have signed on to the letter, which will be re-released with the new signatories at the Tuesday briefing.

Video of this event is available at right. To read and watch other commentary on the upcoming summit, please visit the New America Foundation’s “Road to Annapolis and Beyond” page.

Ghaith al-Omari and Daniel Levy in Middle East Times Analysis

Communications — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:47:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Participants at the 2007 DACOR conference on the Middle East recently heatedly debated the "frying pan of Iraq, the fire of the Israel and Palestinian conflict."

The Iraq panel discussed the increasing fragmentation within the Arab country, agreeing that tribal affinities would color the future Iraqi economic and geopolitical landscape. ...

Meanwhile, early prognoses on the proposed Annapolis Middle East peace conference ruled the discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict panel.

Ghaith Al Omari, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, maintained that the Annapolis summit, without a durable peace process and the diplomatic participation of surrounding Arab states, could not achieve its lofty objectives.

David Levy, a senior fellow and director of the Middle East Programs at the New American Foundation and The Century Foundation, also listed conditions for success at Annapolis, MD. In addition to a viable political process, Levy pointed to the need for the U.S. to present bridging proposals to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together. However, Levy also stressed the need for genuine American initiatives. "If the American ideas, when you unwrap them, start singing 'Hava Nagila,' then they're not American ideas and they don't help Israel either." ...

For the complete article, please follow this link.

Engaging Hamas: The When and the How

Articles — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:28:00 -0400

The Hamas takeover of Gaza in June and the resulting West Bank-Gaza split has raised serious questions. What are the short-term prospects for reunification? Can serious political progress be made with Israel without Palestinian reconciliation? What are the elements of a successful and lasting future reconciliation?

There is no doubt that ultimately for political, economic and geopolitical reasons, the West Bank and Gaza must be one territorial unit. Hamas represents a sizable Palestinian constituency that must be engaged and become part of the political system. But the chances of that happening in the near future are slim. Engaging Hamas without a… more

Chicago Tribune Quotes Ghaith al-Omari on Gaza, Bush, Olmert

Communications — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:39:00 -0400

New America in the News:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration promised direct financial aid Monday to a new West Bank-based Palestinian government that is amenable to peace with Israel, while offering indirect humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza following the territory's takeover by the militant Hamas organization...

Five years to the week after Bush articulated a goal of a "two-state solution" for Israelis and Palestinians, the hostile takeover of Gaza by Hamas, which the White House calls a terrorist organization and which rejects Israel's right to exist, poses the toughest obstacle yet.

After a tumultuous weekend in which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas moved to establish a new government in the West Bank, the White House acted to bolster Abbas, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announcing the U.S. will release up to $86 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority that had been frozen after Hamas gained control of the Palestinian parliament in elections last year...

Bush and [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert believe the tenuous Abbas-led government in the West Bank holds the best prospect for a peaceful resolution of a deepening Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, experts said, the U.S. cannot simply abandon the Palestinians isolated within Hamas-run Gaza...

Ghaith al-Omari, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation who was a political adviser to Abbas, predicted that Hamas, faced now with the responsibility of governing Gaza, "will fail." At the same time, he said, "No Palestinian leader can sit back and watch Gaza starve." And, he said, Bush and Olmert must reject any "assumption that we can separate the West Bank and Gaza..."

For the complete article, please visit The Chicago Tribune website.

Washington Post Quotes Ghaith al-Omari on Legalitiy of Abbas's Actions

Communications — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:25:00 -0400

New America in the News:

The United States yesterday lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government, joining the European Union and other countries in a swift demonstration of support for embattled President Mahmoud Abbas in his struggle against the anti-Israeli militant group Hamas.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had called Salam Fayyad, the new prime minister named this week by Abbas, to tell him she was ending bans on aid and diplomatic contacts imposed after Hamas's unexpected victory in legislative elections last year. "We want to work with his government and support his efforts to enforce the rule of law and to ensure a better life for the Palestinian people," she told reporters...

Some analysts have questioned the legality under Palestinian law of Abbas's dismissal of the Hamas-dominated government after Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from security forces loyal to Abbas. But Rice and other U.S. officials brushed aside such concerns, insisting he had every right to create a new government -- one that now appears willing and able to negotiate with Israel...

Rice, asked about the legality of Abbas's actions, said: "Our view, very strongly, is that what President Abbas has done is legitimate and it is responsible and we're going to support that action." Other U.S. officials, speaking privately, said they had little concern that legal niceties were being ignored, given Hamas's power grab.

"How do I put this diplomatically? Who cares?" said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Abbas aide now at the New America Foundation. "It is the politics of survival now."

For the complete article, please visit The Washington Post website.

Philadelphia Inquirer Quotes Ghaith al-Omari on Hamas

Communications — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:10:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Like a mismatched couple who live together miserably before breaking up violently, Fatah and Hamas were doomed partners from the start.

But what triggered the final, violent rupture between the Palestinian factions?

Last week's virtual civil war, in which about 100 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, was a crisis foretold.

Since the founding of Hamas in 1987, there has been a deep fault line between its Islamic fundamentalist creed and the more secular side of Palestinian life represented by Fatah - between Hamas followers perceived as disciplined and Fatah bureaucrats perceived as inept at best.

The January 2006 landslide electoral victory of Hamas and its entry into the governing Palestinian Authority exacerbated the differences. Hamas sought to implement its mandate. Fatah refused to share power after ruling Palestinian affairs for 40 years.

A unity agreement brokered at Mecca in Saudi Arabia in March was supposed to tame the hostilities. Some experts said the agreement never had a chance because the parties already were deep into fighting mode...

Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, now a fellow at the New America Foundation think tank in Washington, spoke to his contacts in the Middle East last week and heard two versions about why Gaza boiled over.

One theory is that the Hamas leaders who lost out in the Mecca agreement, principally Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar and former Interior Minister Said Sayyam, green-lighted the violence but without the approval of Hamas higher-ups, including prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashall, the leader-in-exile in Damascus, Syria.

"One thing Mecca didn't do was deal with the security sector. Who would be in charge?" Omari said. "So Hamas decided to just take over the whole security sector. Politically, I think, they bit off more than they can chew. They are stuck now with Gaza with no resources, and more than likely Israel will intensify its actions."

Another theory is that Hamas struck now - preemptively - because it feared Fatah was building up militarily using U.S.-supplied small arms and ammunition deliveries facilitated through Israel, both of which occurred in recent months.

"That is Hamas' line," Omari said, "but I'm not sure I buy it. I think this started out as a limited engagement, gained momentum, and just snowballed..."

For the complete article, please visit The Philadelphia Inquirer website.

Ghaith al-Omari Interviewed on NewsHour on Palestinian Factions

Communications — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:30:00 -0400

New America in the News:

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. In the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Wednesday; then, the latest on the fighting between rival Palestinian forces in Gaza...

JIM LEHRER: The fighting in Gaza, we start with some background narrated by NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The sounds of small-arms fire often clashed with the Muslim call to prayer, as violence intensified across the Gaza Strip today. Groups of gunmen loyal to two rival factions engaged in open battles across the 130-square-mile stretch of coastal land that is home to more than a million Palestinians...

The conflict between Fatah and Hamas has paralyzed the already-fragile Palestinian national unity government. Fatah, the nationalist, largely secular party, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, appeared to be losing significant ground in northern Gaza to the Islamist movement Hamas, which won control of the Palestinian Legislative Council in elections in January 2006...

KWAME HOLMAN: Since Hamas surged to power in parliamentary elections, there has been tenuous, fitful cooperation between the factions, which hold differing visions of a Palestinian state. The U.S., Israel and European Union had cut off funds to the Palestinian Authority and refused to work with the Hamas-led government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, citing the group`s refusal to recognize Israel and its stated goal of destroying the Jewish state...

KWAME HOLMAN: The U.S., which has funded and assisted in the training of Palestinian security forces, again today pledged its support for President Abbas.

JIM LEHRER: Some analysis of this now from Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. He`s now a visiting fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank...

Gentlemen, first, reports this evening of a truce, and then there were reports, "Oh, no, no, that was not true." Can you update us? Have you heard anything about a truce?

GHAITH AL-OMARI, New America Foundation: Yes, I mean, there has been an offer by Hamas for a truce, a conditional offer. Basically, what happened, Hamas -- or what happened is that the violent aspect of this confrontation seems to be decided in Hamas` favor. Now it moves to the political side...

JIM LEHRER: Now, wait a minute. Let`s just stick to truce. Was the truce accepted or is it...

GHAITH AL-OMARI: Not yet. The conditions of the truce, if I may -- the conditions of the truce are being discussed right now. The conditions include Hamas` take over of the security sector, security system, and the removal of the Fatah leaders of the security organization. This is being discussed tonight within Abbas` government...

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, first of all, that it may be accepted?

GHAITH AL-OMARI: It could be accepted, yes.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree that it would mean accepting a Hamas victory over Fatah in Gaza?

GHAITH AL-OMARI: I don`t think this is the case; it`s not that simple. I think what`s happening right now is that we`re moving into the political phase following the military confrontations. I agree with Mark that the Hamas almost certainly won in Gaza. Right now...

JIM LEHRER: Well, both of you, beginning with you, Mr. al-Omari, help people who don`t follow this that closely understand why Hamas and Fatah are killing each other. What`s not the long history, but just what`s caused this conflict?

GHAITH AL-OMARI: It`s basically a power struggle. Hamas came into power. They won in the election back two years ago. They won an election. They wanted -- after winning the election, they felt that they were entitled to control the whole Palestinian political and security system. Fatah, which has been in power for the last 40 years, felt that they could not relinquish power completely to Hamas and, from that moment on, there was a power struggle...

For the complete transcript, please visit The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer website.

New York Times Quotes Daniel Levy, Ghaith al-Omari on Hamas

Communications — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:29:00 -0400

New America in the News:

WASHINGTON, June 13 — For two years, the United States has tried to choke off Hamas, the militant Islamic group that has been ascendant in Gaza and the West Bank, while throwing limited aid and support to Fatah, its more moderate Palestinian rival. Now, with Fatah, the party of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, on the verge of collapse in Gaza, Washington is facing a shrinking menu of alternatives...

America’s options are limited in part because its role has been limited, with the Bush administration pursuing what for the most part has been a hands-off policy toward the Palestinians...

Administration officials were pushing Mr. Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing agreement between Fatah and Hamas that set up the Palestinians’ national unity government, dismiss the entire government and use the power of the Constitution to call for new elections...

But several Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah indicated Wednesday that Mr. Abbas was considering giving Hamas control over the Palestinian Authority’s security forces in Gaza, a move that would ostensibly cede the territory to Hamas and leave Mr. Abbas with authority solely over the West Bank.

“There are a lot of people now who are angry and are saying, ‘Let Hamas govern Gaza, let Gaza go to hell,’ ” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former foreign policy adviser to Mr. Abbas who is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, a public-policy institute in Washington.

But that is a prospect that Israel and the United States fear could lead to a situation in which Gaza becomes a breeding ground for terrorists...

“The central discipline of both Fatah and Hamas has broken down, and the public is taking the attitude of ‘a plague on both of their houses,’ ” said Daniel Levy, a former peace negotiator in Israel who is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “We will soon be looking back with misty-eyed poignancy on the idea of driving the Palestinians into the hands of Hamas. What we will have done, actually, is driven them into the hands of Al Qaeda...”

For the complete article, please visit The New York Times website.