Hamas, in the eyes of the United States government, is a terrorist organization. It is illegal for the Palestinian Islamist party to receive American aid because it fails to meet three criteria established by U.S. law: it refuses to acknowledge Israel, renounce violence, or abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In the event of the formation of a coalition government between Fatah and Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, this fact would prevent American aid from being delivered to the PA. To sidestep this problem, Secretary of State Clinton pressed Congress last week to amend a law, in order to keep money flowing to the PA should there be a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

The Obama administration’s plan would allow the PA to receive American aid as long as the Hamas members of the coalition government met America’s three criteria, even if Hamas as an organization did not. Clinton noted that the United States continues to provide aid to the Lebanese government, despite the fact that Hezbollah is a member. She argued that cutting all of America’s financial strings to the PA would deprive it of the ability to affect a gradual change in Hamas’s behavior.

In addition to an ethical dilemma, this scheme also presents a bevy of political ones. Opinions of Democratic and Republican members of Congress have ranged from skeptical to hostile, with one Republican Congressmen describing it as similar to supporting a government “that only has a few Nazis in it.” An anonymous Israeli political source stated that the proposal was “painful and worrying.”

Obama deserves credit for bravery in putting forth a plan which will inevitably be portrayed as benefiting Hamas, an organization easily and deservedly vilified. However, the widening rift between the rival Palestinian factions makes the question of a unity government purely hypothetical, and suggests that Obama’s plan will have a greater impact in Washington and Jerusalem than it ever will in Ramallah.

CQ's Jeff Stein writes, in an explosive story today, that California Representative Jane Harman was recorded on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would intervene on behalf of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee officials, who were being charged with espionage:

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

...

The identity of the “suspected Israeli agent” could not be determined with certainty, and officials were extremely skittish about going beyond Harman’s involvement to discuss other aspects of the NSA eavesdropping operation against Israeli targets, which remain highly classified.

But according to the former officials familiar with the transcripts, the alleged Israeli agent asked Harman if she could use any influence she had with Gonzales, who became attorney general in 2005, to get the charges against the AIPAC officials reduced to lesser felonies.

AIPAC official Steve Rosen had been charged with two counts of conspiring to communicate, and communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. Weissman was charged with conspiracy.

AIPAC dismissed the two in May 2005, about five months before the events here unfolded.

Harman responded that Gonzales would be a difficult task, because he “just follows White House orders,” but that she might be able to influence lesser officials, according to an official who read the transcript.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been sworn in as the leader of Israel's 32nd government. The controversial Avigdor Lieberman will, as feared, be foreign minister while Labor Party leader Ehud Barak will keep his role as defense minister.

Haaretz reports that Israeli negotiators are staying in Cario for an extra day to secure the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas since 2006, and are close to an agreement. The head of Hamas's military wing is reportedly heading negotiations on their side. Citing the pan-Arab paper Al Hayat, the article describes the possible conditions for Shalit's release:

The newspaper also reported that Israel is willing to release 300 Palestinian prisoners out of 450 on a list presented by Hamas, but maintains its opposition to the remaining 150, some of whom have been convicted of involvement in terrorist attacks. 

This promotional video that Israeli defense contractor Rafael made for a recent Indian aerospace trade fair is just weird beyond belief: 

(Hat tip: Marginal Revolution)

Bashar al-Assad, the lisping former opthamologist who rules Syria with an iron fist, has got to be enjoying himself these days.

First, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her interest in seeing the Turkish-mediated, indirect negotiations between Israel and Syria succeed. Next, two U.S. officials, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council official Daniel Shapiro, visited Damascus last week to open a dialogue with the Syrian regime after year of isolation. On Tuesday, Syria opened its first stock market. Then, the Saudis hosted a mini-summit in Riyadh Wednesday with the thinly veiled aim of enticing the Syrians away from Iran.

It seems like everyone is intent on wooing Damascus.

Everyone, that is, except Israel. Turns out the incoming Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu isn't so hot on the Syria track:

Benjamin Netanyahu will likely shelve recently revived Israeli peace talks with Syria given its territorial demands and alliance with Iran, a senior adviser to Israel's prime minister-designate said on Thursday. Uzi Arad helped Netanyahu when he was premier in 1996-1999 to craft indirect contacts with Damascus and is widely considered to be his choice for national security adviser.

He suggested Israel's new regional priorities may make negotiating with the Palestinians a more viable prospect than Syrian talks.

I'm going to have to throw the BS flag here. More likely, the very fact that the Syria track is becoming increasingly viable is what makes Netanyahu and other Israeli hardliners nervous -- they don't want a deal because they simply don't want to give up the Golan Heights. They're ideologues, but they're not naive: There's no way they think the Palestinian track is going anywhere right now.

You can tell that Arad is being disingenuous from this bit of flim-flammery:

Western interest in advancing Israeli-Arab peace could best be served by curbing Iran's nuclear programme, he argued.

Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has endorsed U.S.-led efforts to use sanctions to get Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce bombs though the Iranians deny having any such intent. "The more Iran becomes strong, the closer it gets to nuclear weapons, the more terrified the moderates in the Arab world and the Palestinian people become, and the more emboldened the radicals and the extremists are," Arad said. "So whichever way you look at it the order of priority is: blunt Iran first, move vigorously on peace after, and based on that. Should you act in the wrong order...you will have a sterile, perhaps failed process with the Palestinians and at the same time you will end up with a nuclear Iran."

Remember when the argument was that Saddam had to go before any progress could be made on Israeli-Palestinian peace? How's that working out?

The bottom line: It's a real shame that just as the United States is finally putting together a smart diplomatic strategy for the region, its supposed best friend is gearing up to ensure that America fails.

Haaretz asks how Israel's U.S. allies will respond if, as expected, far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman becomes foreign minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government:

The official position in Washington is that Barack Obama's administration will work with whatever Israeli government is ultimately established. Beyond that, American officials are keeping mum.

But the "Lieberman question" continually arises in State Department briefings for journalists and in other forums. And opinion columns in the American press have presented Lieberman in an extremely negative light, with comparisons to Austria's Joerg Haider and even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (both use "ultranationalist rhetoric of hate," one paper charged).

No American official is likely to convene a press conference publicly condemning Lieberman's appointment. However, such a choice will almost certainly encourage the U.S. administration to keep its distance from Benjamin Netanyahu's government, as Washington will not want to take the flak absorbed by demonstrating closeness to a government whose public face is widely considered to be a racist.

I find it kind of doubtful that a U.S. administration would ever "keep its distance" from an Israeli government. Netanyahu could probably appoint Skeletor as foreign minister and U.S. officials would still meet with him.

That said, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell can't be looking forward to peace negotiations with someone who has made it clear he considers them a waste of time. Not that any of that bothers America's own Lieberman.

Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

Since yesterday's item on Chas Freeman, more commentators have sallied forth to attack and defend President Obama's controversial pick to run the National Intelligence Council.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Witherspoon Institute says that Obama wants to place "a China-coddling Israel basher in charge of drafting the most important analyses prepared by the U.S. government." He argues that Schoenfeld's views on China should worry us as much as his thoughts about Israel and ties to Saudi Arabia:

On the massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989, Mr. Freeman unabashedly sides with the Chinese government, a remarkable position for an appointee of an administration that has pledged to advance the cause of human rights. Mr. Freeman has been a participant in ChinaSec, a confidential Internet discussion group of China specialists. A copy of one of his postings was provided to me by a former member. "The truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities," he wrote there in 2006, "was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud." Moreover, "the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tiananmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action." Indeed, continued Mr. Freeman, "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be."

The Daily Beast's Ashley Rindsberg explains another political strike against Freeman, his past business dealings with the bin Laden family:

As chairman of Projects International Inc., a company that develops international business deals, Mr. Freeman asserted in an interview with the Associated Press less than a month after September 11 that he was still “discussing proposals with the Binladen Group—and that won't change.”

In the same interview, Freeman also contested the notion that international companies who had business with the bin Laden family should be “running for public-relations cover,” noting that bin Laden was still “a very honored name in the kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]”, despite its family tie to the Al-Qaeda leader.

The New Republic's Martin Peretz adds his take, calling Freeman "bigoted and out of touch."

The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss defends Freeman here calling the campaign against him "scurrilous":

If the campaign by the neocons, friends of the Israeli far right, and their allies against Freeman succeeds, it will have enormous repercussions. If the White House caves in to their pressure, it will signal that President Obama's even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli dispute can't be trusted. Because if Obama can't defend his own appointee against criticism from a discredited, fringe movement like the neoconservatives, how can the Arabs expect Obama to be able to stand up to Israel's next prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu? 

My co-blogger David Rothkopf also takes up the issue, noting that while he vehemently disagrees with Freeman's views on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China, his continued willingness to utter uncomfortable truths to power make him the perfect pick for Obama's intelligence briefer:

Part of the reason he is so controversial is that he has zero fear of speaking what he perceives to be truth to power. You can't cow him and you can't find someone with a more relentlessly questioning worldview. His job will be to help present the president and top policymakers with informed analysis by which they can make their choices. His intellectual honesty and his appreciation for what is necessary in a functioning policy process is such that he will not stack the deck for any one position. He wouldn't last five minutes in the job if he did.  (And Denny Blair, the wise and canny Director of National Intelligence wouldn't tolerate it.) Further, the chairman of the NIC does not directly whisper into the president's ear in a void. He helps prepare materials that will become the fodder for active debate among a national security team that is devoid of shrinking violets.  

FP's Laura Rozen is also following the Freeman debate closely. Stay tuned to "The Cable" for more details as they emerge.

Last week, FP's Laura Rozen broke the story that former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman is the Obama administration's pick to head the National Intelligence Council, the internal think tank for the intelligence community responsible for producing National Intelligence Estimates.

Since Laura's story hit the Web, critics have been attacking the appointment over Freeman's views on Israel and ties to Saudi Arabia. Former AIPAC staffer (himself a pretty controversial guy) Steve Rosen, now of the Middle East Forum, is leading the charge against the appointment. Here's one controversial comment of Freeman's from a 2005 speech:

As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent.

He's also committed the unforgiveable sin of saying nice things about our colleague Steve Walt and publishing the original "Israel Lobby" article in his organization's journal.

There's also the fact that his organization, the Middle East Policy Council operates "thanks to the generosity of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia" (his own words) and that he's an advocate of improved U.S-Saudi relations.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg argues:

It would be inappropriate to appoint an official of AIPAC to run the National Intelligence Council (though it must be said that AIPAC doesn't receive any funding from the Israeli government) and it seems inappropriate to give the job to a Saudi sympathizer as well.

On the other hand, as Ben Smith notes:

Other appointees have worked for policy groups that accepted money from foreign governments -- though perhaps few as domestically unpopular as the Saudis. Ross, for one, is still listed as the chairman of the board of directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, an Israeli government arm.

As General Zinni learned the hard way, no appointments are final until they are confirmed and the politics of this certainly don't bode well for Freeman. It would be a shame if he were spiked. Freeman's an experienced and highly qualified foreign-policy practitioner and one would hope that his critics can do a little better if they really hope to prove he's the agent of a foreign government. At the same time, one would also hope the Obama team anticipated the possible controversy and have good answers to some reasonable questions about Freeman's views and affiliations.

Want more Freeman? Check out this interview about the Taiwan Strait (he's also an old Asia hand who served as Richard Nixon's translator in China) that he gave to FP in 2007.

Photo: The Middle East Policy Council

I see that American officials in Israel are outraged that U.N. staffers had the temerity to hand John Kerry, who was touring Gaza recently, a letter purportedly from Hamas to U.S. President Barack Obama. And the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman himself has now caught the vapors:

Kerry turned the letter over to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem on Friday and his spokesman told FOX News that the Democratic senator was not aware that the letter was from Hamas when he accepted it from an official with the U.N. relief agency.

Kerry told FOX News that he never read the letter because it was sandwich among other promotional papers the U.N. gave him. A State Department official confirmed to FOX News that it was from Hamas and is now under review.

A potential concern was whether such a letter would violate the United States' policy toward Hamas. Obama has said his administration will not engage in diplomatic talks with Hamas unless the group renounces terrorism and affirms Israel's right to exist.

This is all rather silly. What's the harm in accepting a letter? There's no obligation to do anything with the information. And shouldn't U.S. officials at least be interested to see what Hamas, or those claiming to be its representatives, have to say? Even if its clear that Hamas has no intention of recognizing Israel anytime soon, this policy of pretending that the group doesn't exist -- even as it steadly takes over the Palestinian territories -- is completely baffling to me.

MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/Getty Images

McClatchy's Dion Nissenbaum speculates that an 11th hour endorsement from Israeli supermodel and current Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover girl Bar Rafaeli may tipped Israel's absurdly close election in favor of Kadima's Tzipi Livni.

Here's what Rafaeli told Time in an interview on Monday:

I actually don't know who I would vote for. If I knew I was going to, I'd probably research more. I think I'd probably go for [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, but I don't know.

Yeah, it's not quite "He's the one," but you never know. It looks as if the military vote may decide the final results so we'll have to see how many fans Rafaeli has in the IDF.

Nissenbaum muses, "Now all that is left to discuss is what cabinet post Livni will give Refaeli." As my former colleague Mike Boyer once blogged, Israel has never been above a little bikini diplomacy.

As a general rule of thumb, low turnout tends to favor fringe or opposition parties, whose voters tend to be more committed and fervent. Conversely, higher turnout may boost Kadima and Labor, who hope for a last-minute push against the poll-leading opposition Likud.

Another important group to watch is Israeli-Arabs. A strong turnout in this sector could offset expected big gains by rightist Jewish parties, in particular Avigdor Lieberman's high-flying Yisrael Beiteinu.

Lisa Goldman, a freelance writer in Israel, has posted some great Israeli campaign commercials.

Here's one from the rightist Likud Party's Bibi Netanyahu, arguably the frontrunner:

And here's one from Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and a member of the centrist Kadima Party:

But the most interesting pitch comes from the Holocaust Survivors and Green Leaf Party, whose platform is avowedly pro-cannabis:

According to Goldman, the first caption reads, bizarrely, "this number [i.e., a concentration camp tattoo number] is not good for credit."

Even setting aside Turkey's record with its Armenian and Kurdish minorities for a moment, it's a little rich for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to be so aghast at the idea of sharing a stage with a human rights abuser.

Almost exactly a year before Erdogan's outburst at Davos, in which he lambasted Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel's actions in Gaza, he was literally rolling out the red carpet for Sudan's genocidal president and indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir in Ankara.

So when did "killing people" become a problem for him?