As George Mitchell, the United States' new envoy for Middle East peace, arrived in Cairo, it was unclear whether a new chapter was opening in US diplomacy or whether the emphasis was on continuity with the efforts of the previous administration in Washington. A report in Ynet struck notes in familiar themes. The US would be attempting to bolster the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Mitchell did not intend to meet with representatives from Hamas. "The US perceives itself as being in a race with Hamas and, by extension, Iran, in the rehabilitation of Gaza. Mitchell's entourage - state department employees responsible for humanitarian aid and rehabilitation efforts, rather than politicians specialising in negotiations - suggests that delivering assistance to Gaza will be the focus of his current visit." Likewise, in her first news conference, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the position of the Bush administration when she said: "We support Israel's right to self-defense. The [Palestinian] rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas [in Israel] cannot go unanswered." In the first deadly attack since the ceasefire began in Gaza, an Israeli soldier was killed and three others wounded by a remotely detonated bomb close to the Gaza security barrier. Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service said the bomb had been planted by the al Qa'eda-affiliated Global Jihad. The Israeli Air Force subsequently bombed tunnels in Rafah and fired a missile at Hussein Abu-Shamaya who Shin Bet said was involved in the attack. Haaretz said: "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned of a 'further response' to the attack. " 'What the IDF did today was not a response but a preliminary action,' he said at a meeting of ministry directors general. 'A further response to this serious incident will be forthcoming.' " Mr Mitchell is expected in Ramallah on Thursday where he will meet Mr Abbas. In his first news conference since Israel launched its war on Gaza, the Palestinian president said he would tell the US envoy that Israel's offensive proved it was not intent on peacemaking, Reuters reported. "Abbas also said he would back international efforts to prosecute Israel for war crimes. " 'We will do all we can to prove Israel committed crimes that would make your skin crawl,' Abbas said, referring to the Geneva Conventions. 'We want the world to give us justice for once. " 'Israel does not want peace, otherwise it would not have done this. We need to understand this and tell it to those coming from Europe and America. Israel wants to waste time to strengthen facts on the ground with settlements and the wall.' " In dispatching his envoy to the region, Mr Obama called for "genuine progress," and "not just photo ops". "The move came just hours before Obama granted his first full TV interview since being sworn in - to Arabic satellite TV channel al Arabiya, whose Dubai-based signal reached 23 million viewers in the Middle East," wrote Warren Strobel for McClatchy Newspapers. "In the interview, Obama reaffirmed American support for Israel. But he also spoke of a 'new partnership' with the Arab world 'based on mutual respect and mutual interest'. "He also made it clear that he was in a unique position as an American leader in dealing with the Muslim world. 'I have Muslim members of my family,' he said. 'I have lived in Muslim countries.' " In the interview Mr Obama said: "I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals. "And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating - in the past on some of these issues - and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved." The interviewer, Hisham Melhem, did not ask whether "all major parties" included Hamas. When subsequently asked about his impressions of the new American president, Mr Melhem said: "There's a subtle shift here on how he looks at the war on al Qa'eda and the groups that collaborate with it. He doesn't put Hamas and Hizbollah in the same category as al Qa'eda." While the Obama administration may not be ready to openly enter into talks with Hamas, there is a growing awareness in Washington there cannot be a viable peace process without Hamas's involvement. In an interview with Newsweek, the former secretary of state, James Baker said: "You have to get Hamas involved, because you cannot negotiate peace with only half the Palestinian polity at the table. I would suggest an approach like we used leading up to the Madrid Conference in 1991. For the first time ever we got Israel's Arab neighbours - all of them - to negotiate face to face with Israel. How? Back then, we nor Israel could talk to the PLO because, like Hamas, it was a terrorist organization. So we negotiated with Palestinians from within the territories whom we and Israel knew were taking their orders from [Yasir] Arafat in Tunis. But we both had deniability, and it worked!" The former assistant secretary of state, Richard W Murphy, said: "I think we are now getting pulled into a more active position on the ground [in Gaza]. Whether this will lead to the opening of political contact with Hamas is the question. I don't think it will happen quickly but I think it is inevitable. Hamas is, in my opinion, a legitimate representative of part of the Palestinian community." But when asked whether the US can open talks with Hamas, Mr Murphy said: "I don't think we can, politically, move directly to open contacts with Hamas. What we can stop doing is endorsing a policy deliberately aimed at fighting the Palestinians and weakening Hamas." Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, member of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland, who had extensive experience negotiating with George Mitchell in the talks that eventually led to political reconciliation in Northern Ireland said: "In a peace process, the goal must be an inclusive agreement that is acceptable to all sides, is doable, deliverable and sustainable. That means enemies and opponents creating space for each other. It means engaging in real conversations and seeking real solutions. It means accepting that dialogue is crucial and that means recognising the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, their own representatives. "The Israeli government and other governments have to talk to Hamas." Writing for the Middle East Report, Mouin Rabbani and Chris Toensing, said: "Those who believe that the Obama administration brings good tidings for Middle East peace ... have essentially only two arguments in their favour: that Obama is committed to improving US relations with the Muslim world and understands this cannot be done without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the transformational impact of Israel's Gaza war suggests he cannot put the conflict on the back burner - as many suspect he would have liked to do for at least the better part of his first term - in order to first deal with the global financial meltdown, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which America is directly involved, and more direct threats to US interests emerging from Iran and Pakistan... "If there is a significant difference between Obama's approach, as telegraphed to date, and Bush's, it is that much of what Obama said has been made obsolete by Israel's Gaza campaign: Mahmoud Abbas, the 2002 Arab peace initiative and the peace process are in the past tense; Arab normalisation with Israel is being reversed; and today Fatah needs Hamas in order to survive more than the Palestinian Islamists need the Ramallah PA to bring emergency supplies into the Gaza Strip. While Mitchell may be able to move forward by leaving Ramallah off his itinerary, he cannot succeed without at least the tacit cooperation of Hamas." Meanwhile, inside Israel the effect of the war has been to empower the most bellicose and strident trends within a society whose identity has so often been shaped by war. The New York Times said: "With two weeks to go before the Israeli elections, the politicians who seem to have benefited the most from the military offensive against Hamas in Gaza are those who were not involved in planning or carrying out the war. "That is not because Israelis have regrets or have become faint-hearted about the casualties and destruction in Gaza. To the contrary, there appears to have been a shift further to the right, reflecting a feeling among many voters that an even tougher approach may now be required." In The Guardian, Neve Gordon and Yigal Bronner, wrote: "Israeli soccer matches were suspended during the assault on Gaza. When the games resumed last week, the fans had come up with a new chant: 'Why have the schools in Gaza been shut down?' sang the crowd. 'Because all the children were gunned down!' came the answer. "Aside from its sheer barbarism, this chant reflects the widespread belief among Israeli Jews that Israel scored an impressive victory in Gaza - a victory measured, not least, by the death toll."
pwoodward@thenational.ae