Mitchell and ‘Abbas

I know I will get in deep trouble if I ever start having caption contests, so I think I'm going to be very selective on comments on this one, but I couldn't help noticing that in the picture, George Mitchell is standing in front of the picture of ‘Arafat, and Mahmud ‘Abbas is standing in front of the picture of, well, Mahmud ‘Abbas. No comments beyond that one; make up y0ur own but please be civil. ("Why are these men smiling?" does not count.) If it gets out of hand I'll close comments on such posts in the future, but so far our conversations have been quite civil.

Fred Hof and the Israeli Press

In an earlier post, I noted that the Israeli press keeps spelling Fred Hof's name as "Hoff," and that it wasn't "Frederick Hoff" but "Frederic Hof."

Now there's a Jerusalem Post piece that has gotten the "Hof" part right, but spells the first name "Fredd."

Fred, (or Fredd), if you find this post, please believe I'm trying to get it right. And good luck out there.

Fred Hof and Israel-Syrian Peace

Via Syria Comment, a translated piece by Israel Policy Forum from Yediot Aharanot on George Mitchell's man on Syria-Israel-Lebanon border issues, Fred Hof, visiting Israel with some fleshed-out proposals. Fred knows the border issues as well as anyone, having done a lot of serious historical work on their history and having worked that field for years, and this is an interesting report, if accurate. One minor quibble: Having known Fred since undergraduate days at Georgetown in the late '60s, and even worked with him for a time in the '90s, I have to tell the translator that it's "Frederic Hof," not "Frederick Hoff." Interesting piece, though, and it sounds quite credible.

Ghajar Withdrawal Appears Likely Soon

Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanese half of the town of Ghajar seems likely in the near future, (also see here), amid reports that it is working with the United Nations to assure the security on the Lebanese side of the border once it pulls back to the internatonal frontier. I posted on the background of the Ghajar issue here, and refer you to the details there, but essentially Ghajar is one of the easiest territorial issues to address since Israel has no desire to stay on the Lebanese side of the border (which it reoccupied during the 2006 war with Hizbullah); it's awkward because the town straddles the old Lebanese-Syrian border and the Syrian side is part of the Israeli occupied Golan.

Ghajar is an anomaly, a town divided by an international border that, during the period between 1982 and 2000 when Israel occupied its security zone in south Lebanon, grew into a larger and united entity. (It's also an anomaly because the population is ‘Alawite, and most Syrian and Lebanese ‘Alawites live much farther north).

Israel says the only reason it is still in Ghajar is because the Lebanese Army failed to come up with a plan to assure the security of the border against Hizbullah infiltration, and now the UN seems to be working hard to bring about a withdrawal. It's the one withdrawal Netanyahu can safely carry out without offending any major Israeli constituency, and there have been reports it is a priority for the US to get Israel to withdraw before the Lebanese elections June 7. (One of George Mitchell's aides, Fred Hof, is both an old friend of mine and one of the acknowledged experts on Lebanese border issues; his hand may be in here somewhere.)

Of all the various territorial issues in play, Ghajar seems like the one most likely to be solved in the near term.

US Pressuring Israel over Ghajar?

A brief weekend posting: Here's an interesting story from Monday's Beirut Daily Star, (citing al-Balad), saying the US is quietly pressuring Israel to withdraw from the village of Ghajar before the Lebanese elections, on the grounds that this would help the March 14 movement (the pro-Hariri, pro-Western alignment).

Ghajar is one of those issues that usually flies under the international radar, except for a handful of specialists. You can get a fairly straight version of the story from Wikipedia. Ghajar is close to, but a separate issue from, the disputed Shebaa Farms; you can see its location on the map accompanying Wikipedia's Shebaa Farms article, however. Before 1967 it was administered by Syria, as part of the Golan Heights. Across the Lebanese border lay an adjacent village known as Wazzani. After some confusion it came under Israeli occupation. In 1976, when Israel first moved into southern Lebanon, Israeli troops moved across the border, and of course Israel occupied the border areas of Lebanon continuously from 1982 to 2000. During that period Ghajar expanded to include the former Lebanese village of Wazzani, and therefore straddled the Lebanese-Syrian border. In 2000, when Israel withdrew from South Lebanon, they withdrew from the Lebanese side of the border but retained the occupation of Ghajar on the Syrian side.

Then came the 2006 war with Hizbullah in Lebanon. Israel moved into the Lebanese side of Ghajar and, when it otherwise withdrew from undisputed Lebanese territory after the operation, it remained in the Lebanese part of Ghajar. The Israelis say that a plan to have UNIFIL deploy there was dependent on Lebanese Army cooperation that has not panned out. For whatever reason, the whole town remains under Israeli occupation. Unlike the Shebaa Farms, no one disputes that the northern part of Ghajar is historically Lebanese; they just dispute how to turn it over without giving Hizbullah control of it.

So the Daily Star article suggests that the US is quietly pushing to resolve the Ghajar issue before the Lebanese elections (which are June 7). It's a minor issue, unless you're a citizen of Ghajar (who are, oddly for that part of the region, mostly 'Alawites), but a symbolic one. The article doesn't say it, but I almost wonder if George Mitchell is involved, since it's been said he is planning to rely again on Fred Hof, who aided his earlier Middle East mission, and who happens to be one of only two or three people who understand the Lebanese border issues thoroughly.

A Note on George Mitchell

I won't normally post on weekends -- that's family time -- but I thought I'd take a moment to gloat -- um, note -- that today's lead editorial in The Washington Post says pretty much the same thing I said three days earlier in one of my earliest posts. No particular point here: just noting the fact.

George Mitchell: Deja Vu All Over Again

Today is George Mitchell's first day shuttling as the new Middle East envoy, and it must seem familiar to him: though a lot of commentary has noted his successes in Northern Ireland some years back, he also headed the Sharm al-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee set up in 2000 and 2001 to study and make recommendations following the collapse of Camp David II and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

Reading the conclusions of the Mitchell group today is somewhat depressing to say the least: eight years later, almost every recommendation to both sides has yet to be implemented. Although his mission is a different one this time, since he is a representative of the US government rather than an international fact-finding group, he's likely to recognize most of the issues: settlements and security, refugees and terrorism and borders. He'll doubtless find better cell phone coverage and more Wi-Fi in the hotels, but pretty much the same problems he had to wrestle with in 2001. It doubtless seems, as Yogi Berra supposedly said, "like deja vu all over again."