End of the freeze and...nothing.

So there we have it, the freeze ended and the Israelis continued their building. On the Israeli side no major issues. On the Palestinian side, significant concern that Abbas, the Fatah and PNA leader, has lost his spine. Abbas has publicly stated that there will be no return to violence and has deferred a decision on the talks until after he confers with the Arab League. This decision smacks of indecision and points to how weak the PNA has become under Abbas. Peace advocates will hail Abbas' statesmen like decision; however, when confronting the hawkish Israel, strength not indecision, is required. So now we wait, again. The Arab League meet again next week and until then the Israeli settlers will continue blissfully unaware that by continuing to build without significant Palestinian reprisals they have in effect strengthened Netanyahu's hand.

Talks teetering on collapse

At 22:00 GMT tonight a freeze on Israeli settlements will be lifted, meaning that Israeli settlers in the West Bank will be allowed to continue building homes. The ten month freeze has been credited as creating conditions within which the recent direct peace negotiations between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel, the first in two years, were allowed to restart in early September. Now after just a handful of meetings the issue of Israeli construction has once again emerged as a deal breaker. PNA president Abbas is currently in France of all places having snails with French President Sarkozy while the future of the talks rests with the Israeli PM, Netanyahu who is no doubt steeped in consultation with his advisers over what course to take. This is a major decision for him. If he extends the freeze he will be credited internationally as a peace maker and the talks have a chance of survival, unfortunately his ruling coalition is likely to strongly oppose such an extension and there is a possibility that they may pull their support leading to a collapse of the government, not exactly an enticing prospect for Netanyahu. The easier option will be to allow the settlement construction to continue, thus saving his own neck domestically. However, this course will lead international commentators to question Israel's commitment to peace and will further strain relations with Fatah and the PNA that had shown such promise in recent months. One other interested party will be Hamas, Fatah's main rival, who will be hoping Israel don't extend the freeze and the talks fail. Hamas will benefit greatly from this scenario as they will be able to portray it as another Israeli transgression and Fatah failure to rule the Palestinian people. At the moment there are no clear hints to the direction Netanyahu will go. The world waits for 22:01

The big freeze

With just four days left to the expiration of a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank the future of the recent direct peace negotiations hangs in the balance. Fatah, one of the primary Palestinian groups, began a process of reengagement with Israel in early September after nearly two years. The recent talks have been touted by the US administration as a new beginning and hopes have been raised, again, of a possible break through on a future Palestinian state. Yet with a key issue, settlements, seemingly unresolved the talks seem set to fail. On the Israeli side the ruling coalition is split between those favouring a settlement freeze and those that are adamant that settlement construction is a right of the Jewish nation. Any agreement on halting settlement construction completely to meet the demands of the Palestinians will likely lead to a fall in the Israeli government. If the Palestinians agree to allow settlements to expand Fatah will lose all legitimacy and chaos will erupt across the West Bank. So what are the options available to the negotiators? A settlement freeze extension is currently the only viable option yet even this option simply delays the inevitable. The next few days and weeks will be very interesting indeed.

 

Once upon a time in Arabia...

Bahrain is up to its old tricks again. Just months before a crucial parliamentary election the ruling Sunni minority has decided to clampdown on terrorists and traitors. In a democracy this wouldn't be a bad thing unfortunately for Bahrain it's obvious that their true intentions are too derail the political opposition, which is supported largely by the Shiite majority. The terrorists and traitors who have been soundly rounded up and interrogated include human rights lawyers, political activists and your run of the mill family men with at least one unconfirmed report of a small Shiite parrot being arrested and tried on charges of treason. The pressure being exerted on the opposition has resulted, justifiably, in protest and probably less justifiably in violence. On Monday, a bomb exploded in Manama damaging a number of vehicles while violent unrest in small outlying villages has been regularly reported since 2007. October 23 will be another landmark occasion for the Bahraini political history. However, even after this event the core problems of the country will not disappear. Even though there is a parliament, it hasn't much power and the ruling elite are unlikely to allow Shiite representation in the highest echelons of government any time soon. Bahrain's greatest ally, the United States, a fake democracy if there ever was one, is also unlikely to put pressure on the government to reform for fear of losing their Persian Gulf ally to the evil and nuke loaded Iran. The outlook, like so many other outlooks in the region, looks bleak. Yet there is hope. Not all is lost. Who knows, maybe Sheikh Hamad will have a spark of inspiration and realise that Shiites aren't that much different from Sunnis and allow them some form of representation in the executive. If he does not, it is highly likely that the Shiites will become increasingly agitated and move, on that long horizontal line of ideology, towards extremism. Let's hope Hamad makes the right choice.

A brief on CNN's GPS on al-Qaeda

CNN's Fareek Zakaria held an interesting debate on his GPS programme on Sunday night. The focus of the debate was whether al-Qaeda remained a force capable of changing the game (like it did after 9/11) and whether the US had overreacted to the al-Qaeda threat and were continuing to overreact. The panel eventually agreed that, yes, the US was and continues to overreact, but that this was justified. Al-Qaeda it was argued has ceased to be an effective unit able to bring about change; however, Zakaria made an interesting point that al-Qaeda continued to achieve results by simply being a reason for the US to overreact.

 

Now the talk itself was useful, as it raised an interesting question as to whether or not al-Qaeda continues to pose a risk. What the program did not cover were the al-Qaeda affiliates that do pose a serious risk to US security. In Algeria and Yemen two significant al-Qaeda linked groups, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, maintain a signficant presence. AQAP for their part have attempted at least one bombing of a major US airline over Detroit in December 2009. It is vital that any discussion on al-Qaeda not get lost on the debate surrounding Islamist extremism which exists in multiple forms across the globe.

 

The panel also agreed that al-Qaeda maintained an ability to conduct sporadic attacks but couldn't effect change like it did in 9/11. I'd like to disagree. It takes only one attack at a right point in time to illicit a response. For example if tensions between Iran and US heighten further and an "Iranian backed Islamist group" coordinated an attack against the US, is it not plausible that the US would overreact again, even if it were justified? The threat from the al-Qaeda prime (let alone from its affiliates) will only be diminished once Islamist extremist thought is eradicated. As long as there is on Islamist extremist there will be a huge problem for government's worldwide. Ultimately it is up to each government to determine its own path, including the US. Whether or not they overreact is their own decision based on a calculation dependent on the needs of the people and the security requirements of the state.

Koran burning & religion

Does it matter that an American nutter is about to burn a whole bunch of Korans? What is the big deal? Not entirely sure; however, to hundreds of millions of Muslims the planned 9/11 Koran burning is highly significant. They are after all burning the word of God as transcribed by the Prophet Mohammed. Now Obama and Hillary have all thrown their two cents in and condemned the plan burning, the media have played it up and it's become standard day time talk show fodder. The event has been blown completely out of proportion. In fact the only person benefiting from this is the preacher in question. The Muslim world and particularly the Islamist extremist minority within it are waiting with bated breathe for the first match and some of them are readying themselves for revenge. One gets a sense that if this goes ahead that US Embassies across the world will not only be covered in eggs but some may even experience more serious implications. Anyone interested in this should stay glued to their news screens on Saturday, things are going to get tasty.

Abyan governorate & jihad

Yemen's Abyan governorate has been the centre of severe levels of Islamist extremist violence in the past month. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has claimed a series of attacks against the security forces which have left dozens of people dead. The campaign has been waged by approximately 300 jihadists (estimate) who are based in the rugged mountains surrounding the governorates main towns and cities. The group has the backing of a number of locals who are thought to be supplying the group with armaments and supplies. In response the government has deployed hundreds of fresh troops to the governorate to quell, what is seemingly becoming, a violent uprising. There efforts in Lowder, an AQAP stronghold, are admirable; however, its use of indiscriminate bombing against AQAP positions in civilian areas that is worrying, particularly from a counter-insurgency standpoint which mandates that in order to crush a guerrilla force it is imperative that the local community support the effort. The bombardments are likely to affect AQAP but will also benefit the group's recruitment drive.

Sensationalism in the media: A challenge for the travel security risk management sector

An article appeared in Reuters Alertnet earlier today that highlights the essential problem with trusting the world media to report on a consistent basis. The news story covered a suicide bombing that left one dead and six injured in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Although the incident is significant to those affected it did not reflect something new or newsworthy in relation to past levels of story on these types of security incidents in the media. There have been numerous and more signficant attacks than these in the recent past that have not received similar coverage (just do a quick search for Iraq factbox on the same alertnet site). We can but conclude that it is a slow news day and that stories on Blair being pelted by eggs had finally become boring to the press core. The challenge for the travel security risk management sector is therefore to explain these incidents within the larger context to its client base and not succumb to the sensationalism of the world media.

The trouble with Hamas' position

Hamas' 31 Aug and 1 Sept attacks against Israeli civilians underlines the groups strong opposition to US-backed peace talks in Washington between their main Palestinian rival, Fatah, and its arch enemy, Israel. Hamas, which ousted Fatah in 2007 from the Gaza Strip, essentially gifting Fatah the West Bank and an opportunity to pursue economic recovery and peace, remains deeply opposed to the Israeli state and continues to stake its legitimacy on this single point. They have been given the opportunity in the past to renounce violence against Israel; however, if they were to do so there would be two results 1. Hamas would reach a peace deal with Fatah and Israel 2. Hamas would lose all credibility as a resistance movement. This is unlikely to happen, so enter Hamas militants and aggressive tactics designed to undermine Fatah's own credibility.

Hamas though are, as an organisation, not stupid. They have realised that they can not exist in the international community without accepting Israel or acting like a real government. In the recent past they have been quietly approached by and have approached the European Union, perhaps to act as intermediaries between them and the international community. However, their integration into the global order will take time, time they do not have or can afford, particularly as their main rival seems intent on pursuing its own course...and at a fairly high pace. Bottom line - Expect more Hamas attacks.