Deal Nears for Shalit Release

Gilat Shalit was captured in a cross border raid by Hamas in 2006. Now, that naked act of aggression appears to be about to pay off for the terrorist group.

Israel's cabinet has handed its response to a proposed prisoner exchange deal with Hamas to a German mediator, following lengthy debate between ministers.

No details of the Israeli response, which could see hundreds of Palestinian prisoners swapped for an Israeli soldier held in the Gaza Strip, were immediately available on Tuesday.

Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier at the centre of the exchange, was captured in a cross-border raid by Palestinian fighters in June 2006 and has been held by Hamas ever since.

If you're a believer in Pavlov's theories, like me, then you can see that such an exchange will do more harm than good. In fact, I am of the opinion that Shalit was captured, in part at least, because the Israelis had agreed to similar exchanges in previous years.

BiBi to the UN: Have You No Shame

The speech given earlier today by Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations was one of the best I've heard a politician given in all the years I've been following politics. While I have no doubt the speech will be universally lauded for its excellence, the question remains just how much of a difference it will make. That remains an open question. Netanyahu delivered a powerful indictment over holocaust denial, Iranian aggression, and the UN's utter apathy in the face of it all.



Netanyahu began by countering the absurd and vicious assertions by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust didn't happen. Netanyahu actually pulled out a copy of Hitler's final solution as proof that the Holocaust happened. If that wasn't enough, he then recounted how most of his wife's family died in the Holocaust. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, the UN legitimizes him and his hateful rhetoric. Netanyahu congratulated all those nation that left before and during Ahmadinejad's speech as standing up for humanity and moral clarity. To all who stayed, he delivered this pithy thought.

To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency.

Netanyahu detailed Iran's aggressive behavior toward Israel including calling for its destruction, supporting Hamas and supporting Hezbollah. Netanyahu pointed out that Iran is not merely a threat to Israel but to the rest of the world. He pointed out that all throughout history tyrants that targeted Jews eventually targeted the rest of the world.



Netanyahu went through the history of the creation of Israel. He pointed out that the words of Isaiah are printed on the entrance of the United Nations. Netanyahu pointed out that Isaiah, himself a Jew, said those from Judea in what is now Israel. That was all part of Netanyahu's reminder of the UN that Jews didn't just happen to find their way to Israel in 1948 but have historic ties to that land for several thousand years.



He pointed out that in 1947 the UN issued a charter that would create two states, one a Jewish state and the other an Arab state. He pointed out that the Jewish people accepted this charter while the Arabs rejected it and then attacked the newly formed Israeli nation in 1948.



Netanyahu left his most blunt and direct attack for UN's current policy. In righteous indignation, he condemned the UN's recent condemnation of Israel for its offensive in Gaza last January.

What a travesty, Israel justly defended itself against terror. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

Netanyahu pointed out that Hamas has used Gaza as the launching point for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli cities for the last eight years. In fact, Netanyahu made a historical comparison. He said only once in history had one nation targeted the civilian population of another and that was Germany's carpet bombing of London. By that logic, Netanyahu said, the UN would have written a report of condemnation of FDR and Winston Churchill had they been around in the early 1940's.



Netanyahu pointed out that the UN has never once written a report condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for their systematic targeting of civilians. They've never written one report condemning those three for launching attacks from schools, homes, and Mosques. Never once has the UN written a report of condemnation for any of the three hiding among civilians all while launching rockets haphazardly into Israeli civilian population.



In the irony of ironies, he called for two states living peacefully side by side just as the camera moved to a rep of Palestine leaving the hall. At one point, a representative of Nigeria could be seen with arms crossed leaning back in his seat, body language that indicates deep distrust and disfavor.



He called this a moment of truth and the jury being out on the UN. Will the UN continue to draw a moral equivalence between the democratic nation of Israel and the terrorists of Hamas?



Netanyahu's speech was powerful because it identified several simple truths. Ahmadinejad is a madman and a Holocaust denier, and yet, the UN, and the world community for that matter, refuses to confront him. If he gets nuclear weapons, that will be devastating for the world. Yet, the UN which is supposed to confront such evil fails to confront him all the while using every opportunity to condemn Israel.



While this speech was powerful, I don't know that it will ultimately make much of a difference. In my final senior speech in front of my fraternity, I called out all the racists in my fraternity, and there were many. Here's how I concluded my speech.

One last thing, when I first arrived here, many of you made comments about me being Jewish. At first, I figured it wasn't that big a deal because you weren't that mature, but since its been four years and you still haven't gotten over it. The only thing I can see is that to you I'm just another K%^E, just like Macias is just another S^&C, and Arnold's just another Ni$$er.

I became a bit of a rock star in the fraternity for the next week. Many of my frat brothers were genuinely sorry for what they had said. That said, none ultimately stopped being racist and most were ultimately left unchanged by the speech. If someone is weak and rotten that's how they'll be. That's how I see the UN and while this was a great speech I don't think that many in the UN will now see the light.

A Middle East Breakthrough

It's probably not going to be anything that good but President Obama has secured a Middle East coup.

A day after U.S. special envoy George Mitchell left Israel with no deal on a resumption of peace talks in the region, the White House announced Saturday that President Barack Obama will meet Tuesday in New York with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. That meeting will be immediately preceded by separate meetings between Obama and each leader, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

The announcement changed the Mideast headline from “stalemate” to “breakthrough” as the Obama administration enters a week in which foreign policy takes center stage, with the president appearing at both the opening of the United Nations General Assembly and the G20 economic meetings in Pittsburgh.

Now, getting the two sides to the table is the easy part. The issues here are so complicated that it's very unlikely that anything will come of this meeting. Now, before everyone runs out and condemns Obama even before the meeting, let's all remember that these issues have been out there as long as Israel has been around, and before. No one has been able to resolve them and I simply expect President Obama to be as effective as all his predecessors.

Just look at the issues. Obama wants Netanyahu to stop building settlements. Netanyahu wants some sort assurances for peace. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas has very limited power. That's about as complex a symbiotic relationship as there is. Netanyahu would be a fool to commit to anything. After all, Abbas could promise anything but he has no power over Hamas.

Meanwhile, a major premise of the Obama doctrine is on the line. President Obama insists that if you bring the parties to the table, then geopolitical issues can be resolved. Now, here's the first test. He's now going to have Palestine sitting across the table from Israel. It's the first of many meetings hopefully.

In my opinion, however, face to face chats resolve nothing in these very complicated scenarios. The Palestinian people are fractured. One side simply wants to destroy Israel. The other side, Abbas, claims to want negotiations. Meanwhile, Israel can't seem to figure out how to achieve peace with enemies surrounding it. In that climate, you can talk for the next three lifetimes and nothing will be resolved. President Obama disagrees. We will all soon enough see.

Reagan didn't sit down with Gorbachev until the arms race had broken the Soviet Union. In that, he was negotiating from a position of power. In this negotiation, no one has any power. There is simply chaos. That's a recipe for confusion and a negotiation without a purpose. This appears to be the sort of sit down in which nothing will be decided except all sides will agree to sit down again. That's fine, however many issues need to be resolved that can't be resolved by these sitdowns. Until they are, these sort of sit downs seem to be useless.

The Opportunity in Iran

There is a simple rule of warfare, divide and conquer. I once spoke to an expert about Israel and they told me that Israel may not necessarily want either Hamas or Fatah destroyed. That's because the two are just as much now rivals to each other as to Israel. By having their main enemies fighting each other, they have less time to fight Israel itself.

In Iran, we have something similar forming and we have a chance, behind the scenes, to stoke our enemies against each other. This is the opportunity to divide and conquer. In many ways, what is happening in Iran is an extension of a rivalry that has been percolating between the Mullahs and the military faction of Iran.

JUST after Iran’s rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup d’état.The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship.

Both the Revolutionary Guard and the Mullahs are enemies to peace and to the United States, however this revolution may have brought to the surface their rivalry toward each other. Such a rivalry can be used to turn the two against one another and thus we would divide and conquer.

Meanwhile, Hamas is also making their presence felt.

Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday.

They made their allegations as rioting on a scale unseen in Iran for nearly a decade continued in the wake of the elections and the allegations that the results were falsified. The protests have now spread from Teheran to other major cities.

Hamas formally welcomed incumbent Ahmadinejad's ostensible reelection victory on Saturday. The Palestinian Islamist movement receives arms and funding from Iran, and its members have often received training there, including in terror tactics and weapons manufacture.

So, with Hamas weighing in, many of our enemies are all in Iran choosing sides. It appears that Ahmadinejad has sided with the Revolutionary Guard and so that means that so has Hamas.

I have on more than occasion said that this revolution shows that regime change should be our policy toward regimes like Iran. Had that been the case, we likely would have had detailed information on exactly how all of these rivalries had played out to lead us here.

That said, we could play, behind the scenes, a role in stoking all of these rivals so that they turn on each other. Through a series of propaganda, psy ops, and other intelligence techniques we can use this moment to get all our enemies to turn on each other.

The revolution has left a power vacuum. It isn't merely the people versus the government. If we see it this simplistically, we may miss an opportunity to turn our enemies against themselves. That the Revolutionary Guard is vying with the Mullahs for power should be seen as an opportunity. That Hamas is in country looking to stoke the chaos can also be used to our advantage. With several of our enemies all vying with each other, the opportunity is there to divide and conquer.

I'm Bearish On Obama's Middle East Policy..and Here's Why

If you are diplomatice, you would say that President Obama is the most balanced president we've had when it comes to the Middle East. If you are more incendiary, you would call President Obama anti Israel. This new approach has excited some, and many in the Middle East are hopeful. I, however, am bearish and here's why.

The president has four main pillars to his Middle East policy. First, he wants a softer approach that he believes will win hearts and minds of the commoner on the Middle East street. Second, he believes that the center piece of his policy must be a successful two state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli crisis. Third, he wants to make an all out effort to create face to face dialogue with Iran. Fourth, he will take a much harder line with Israel and this starts with the issue of settlements. He also has de emphasized Iraq while emphasizing Afghanistan much more. Those two issues aren't as important to this discussion.

Here's why this will all fail miserably. First, by making the issue of settlements so important, he gives the Palestinians all the excuses they need to do nothing to stop the violence and hate. In other words, while rockets are lobbed and Hamas continues to insist on the destruction of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas will continue to insist that there's no progress because Israel hasn't halted their settlement expansion. As rockets continue to reign over Israel, you can bet Abbas will blame Israel's expansionist policies for the failure of the peace process to move forward. Abbas will simply refuse to do anything until Israel halts settlements, and Hamas will continue reigning terror in the meantime. Obama will be stuck. His insistence on Israel halting settlements is one of the pillars for winning hearts and minds. If he softens that, the rest of the Middle East will accuse him lying and making empty promises. As such, while the Palestinians continue regular terror, Obama will in fact continue to demand that Israel halt settlements. You can all see just how nice and neat the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be solved if this happens.

From Israel's perspective, the citizens are waking up to the idea that President Obama doesn't have their best interest at heart. This means that PM Netanyahu not only has free reign to oppose Obama, but electorally he has no choice. Here's how Israeli journalist Caroline Glick put it.

The only silver lining for Israelis from the president’s speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill.

So, Obama's open hostility to Israel means that Netanyahu will be that much less likely to give in on a range of issues, settlements included. So, President Obama will soon find that neither side will be very accomodating in his requests. With neither side cooperating, the two state solution stalls. With that stalling, this allows the rest of the Middle East to continue as normal blaming the stalemate on their own lack of progress on civil rights, democracy, and recognizing Israel. Given the importance that Obama has placed on it, it will be hard for him to press anyone.

This leads directly to the issue of Iran. While the president continues to pursue engagement, the clock is ticking for Israel. Unlike the president, PM Netanyahu simply can't wait to see if this engagement will work. At some point, he will have to attack Iran's nuclear sites. Such an attack would create serious instability in the region if not all out war. As soon as that happens, whatever progress he has made in the Middle East will be obliterated and the rest of the Middle East will likely blame the President for not stopping Israel from attacking. Once Netanyahu attacks Iran you can put to bed any ideas of a two state solution until long after Obama is out office, even if he wins a second term.

Finally, the president is downright arrogant about his geopolitical skills.

You've probably seen more sustained activity on this issue in the first five months than you would have seen in most previous administrations,” Obama said. “I think given what we've done so far, we've at least created the space, the atmosphere, in which talks can restart.

On a later conference call, a State Department official made the criticism more personal to President George W. Bush: "The president made clear that the United States, under his administration in the past few months, has probably done more than it had in the previous eight years.

During the news conference, Obama said: “Ultimately, the United States can't force peace upon the parties. But what we've tried to do is to clear away some of the misunderstandings so that we can at least begin to have frank dialogue. … We've only been in office five months, and yet we've seen extraordinary activity already on this issue. And that's sent a signal to all the parties in the Middle East that we are serious.”

In reality, the president has accomplished absolutely nothing. He's made a few speeches and sent a few diplomats to the region. The problems facing the region are deep and complicated, and outreach means very little. All this crowing about opening frank dialogue does is raise expectations well beyond where they reasonably should be. Obama believes his own hype and soon he'll discover that Middle East reality is far more complicated. His far too rosey initial assessments will then be used by all in the Middle East as a bludgeon against Obama when things don't actually improve. He will be accused of not following through. He will be accused of not engaging enough.

Ultimately, it won't matter very much if in fact all of this is true. One thing is certain. In the Middle East, tyrants and despots are very good at deflecting attention from their own deficiencies. When the Middle East looks like much more of a mess at the end of the year, you can bet that everyone will put the blame on Obama. His early optimism will only be used as a bludgeon.

Is Obama Anti Israel?

President Obama is about to embark on a trip through the Middle East as well as Europe. He will stop in Cairo and make a long planned speech to address the "Muslim world". He will stop in Saudi Arabia as well. He will also swing through Europe and mark the anniversary of D Day. One place he won't stop in is Israel. This is just the latest in a series of actions and comments that raises the suspicion that this president is becoming anti Israel.

Those that knew about Obama's history back in his days working his way through the Chicago political culture feared this among several potential policy actions. Obama was for years engrained in the South Side of Chicago's culture of support for the Palestinian cause. His friendship with Rashid Khalidi should have raised eyebrows for those that support Israel however Jews voted for Obama overwhelmingly.

The Middle East is complicated to say the least. Pakistan is nuclear and Islamists are constantly on the brink of taking over. Wahhabis continue to spew hate out of Saudi Arabia. Iran is on the brink of a nuclear bomb. Hamas rules part of Palestine. Hezbollah rules part of Lebanon. Yet, President Obama has focused the majority of his statements on the Middle East on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. Furthermore, he has fixated on stopping Israel from building anymore settlements.

The issue of settlements is one of many that need to be resolved in order to finally get the Middle East to normalcy. Yet, it is peculiar that a president of the United States would make this the number one issue the way the current president has. Furthermore, at the same time, he is treating our enemies, the Iranians, with respect they don't deserve. He has offered multiple olive branches. He continues to push for diplomatic outreach. Just today he has ordered our embassies all over the world to invite Iranians in those countries to enjoy Fourth of July celebrations.

It has been reported that CIA chief Leon Panetta flew to Israel to make it clear in no uncertain terms that an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons would be unacceptable to the U.S. On the same issue, it has also been reported that Obama is characterized as "having made his peace with Iranian nuclear weapons".

Just today, the Washington Post reports that in an interview President Obama even said that Iran has legitimate right to civilian nuclear technology. While this may technically be true, Obama didn't address the fact that Iran has one of the largest oil supplies and that their pursuit of nuclear technology stunts their own energy needs by forcing sanctions.

Now, it should be noted that Obama will also push for normalization of relations between Israel and both Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It will remain to be seen just how Obama will handle things when those overtures are no doubt rejected. Expecting the virulently anti Jewish country of Saudi Arabia to suddenly normalize relations with Israel is a bit naive. If after being rejected by these two nations Obama continues to press Israel to stop settlement expansion, that will be proof positive that Obama is anti Israel.

Israel, Palestine, and Iran: A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma

There is a debate raging among folks that I would refer to as pseudo analysts about how to approach the issue of Iran's nukes along with the Israeli/Palestinian feud. Some, like the president, think that solving the crisis between Israel and Palestine will lead directly to weakening Iran and thus forcing them to give up their nukes. Others, like Alan Dershowitz, believe it's the other way around. To solve the Palestinian/Israeli feud you first must disarm Iran.

In my opinion, the reality is that all these things are symbiotic and the whole situation is like a massive onion that is unpeeled only to find new layers that cause problems. There's no doubt that peace between Israel and Palestine would in fact lead to Iran's disarmament because they would lose significant influence and be isolated to a point at which more nuclear build up would no longer be an option. It's also no doubt that if Iran stopped developing nukes and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas that peace between the two would be significantly easier.

Of course, all the players understand this and that's why Iran won't stop developing their nukes. It's also why Iran won't stop its support for both Hezbollah and Hamas. The new buzz word in the Middle East is the two state solution. Anyone that touts this frankly hasn't the first clue what's going on. The so called two state solution isn't the answer but the goal. You can't simply say we need a two state solution. It's sort of like me saying the answer to all my money problems is to make a million dollars this year.

The key isn't the two state solution itself, but rather, how we get to this. The current president hasn't given the first hint that he has any plan to how to get there. Of course, this would put him in the same category as every major politician for the last two thousand plus years. How exactly do we get to a two state solution when two major players, Hamas and Hezbollah, want the two destruction of one of the two states? How do we get to this solution when we have a major state funding these two groups? How do we get to this solution when most of the neighborhood refuses to even acknowledge the existence of one of the two states? How do we get to this two state solution when thousands of years bitterness, history, and religion need to be resolved before anyone on either side is willing to sit down for any serious compromise?

All of these issues are wrapped up in today's meeting between Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama. President Obama is said to be pushing a re newed effort for a "two state solution". Yet, all of these other issues remain to be resolved. It's as though most of the leaders in the world live in some sort of a fantasy land where the problems of the Middle East magically disappear just because they want a solution. President Obama apparently believes that talking to Iran and ignoring the stated goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah is the road to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Unfortunately, it isn't. Netanyahu can walk out of this meeting with Obama and proclaim himself a partner in the "two state solution" and ultimately it will mean nothing. That's because Hamas and Hezbollah are still determined to wipe Israel from existence and Iran is still doing everything it can to support both of them.

My solution is what my old boss referred to as "simply but not easy". By simple, I mean I can certainly say how to do it. Actually doing it, though, is another story. My solution requires the simultaneous combination of both a strong Israeli and American leader determined to see it through. Unfortunately, we never have had that. From my perspective, the ultimate road to the resolution of all these issues lies in Israel's ability to once and for all destroy even just one of its enemies entirely: be it Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.

This is of course not easy, but possible. The most obvious candidate is Hamas, both because of their proximity and their weakness. Such an action would require a bloody commitment that would involve brutal and sustained street fighting. It could take a year or more to accomplish. Furthermore, within weeks or months at the most, the whole entire world community would be condemning Israel for "overreaction". This is where a strong American and Israeli leader would be required. America would need to support Israel in this both geopolitically and financially. There's no doubt that as the war raged on many countries and groups would boycott all things Israel in an attempt to stop "Israeli aggression".

This can be done. Hamas is ultimately weak. There are only so many places they can hide and a sustained fight over months or even a years would destroy nearly all its fighters. Whatever is left would not amount to anything more than street gangs. Once Hamas is destroyed the message is sent that Israel is not fighting tit for tat. Their enemies face total destruction if they continue their aggression.

Ultimately, most of Israel's enemies are weak and cowardly and after they see the fate of Hamas they will disintegrate quickly. Without their proxies, Iran becomes an isolated nation that only counts Syria as an ally. Without Hamas, Hezbollah knows that any war is only on one front. Furthermore, they know that any war has the real potential to do to them what happened to Hamas.

Unfortunately, such a plan requires both an Israeli leader willing to see it through but also an American leader. I have no doubt that Netanyahu would see such an action through, but I wouldn't give Obama more than three weeks before he's demanding a pull back. So, for the next four years, we will all debate the worthiness of a "two state solution", while Iran bides its time developing its first nuclear weapon.

The Inexplicable Cease Fire

Today, the Israeli cabinet approved the cease fire agreement brokered by Egypt.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Saturday, folllwing a Security Cabinent vote in favor of a cease-fire, said that the goals of Israel's offensive in Gaza had been achieved.

Israel has no immediate plans to withdraw troops from Gaza, but the cease-fire likely will entail the end of Israeli attacks on Hamas now that the militant Palestinian group appears to have been disabled to the point that there is less of a threat of rocket attacks on southern Israel.

Olmert said in a televised address that Israel's "goals have been achieved, and even more." Fighting stopped at 2 a.m. local time (7 p.m. EST) but Israel will keep troops on the ground for the time being, Olmert said.

This cease fire is inexplicable militarily, geopolitically, and politically internally. While the Israelis have no plans to leave Gaza yet, they also have stopped fighting. This makes no sense militarily. They had Hamas on the run, flat footed, and ready to be destroyed. Yet, right when they needed to tighten the proverbial noose around their necks, the Israelis agree to a cease fire. Hamas was ready to fall and yet the Israelis, again, stopped military operations leaving their enemy to fight another day.

Geopolitically this reminds of the old saying

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

Do the Israelis really believe that this cease fire will end differently than all the others? I know exactly how it will go because this has become a broken record. Hamas will cease firing rockets. The two sides will agree to a truce. Hamas will replenish its supplies, men, and money. Then, they will attack Israel at some later date. This is exactly how each and every cease fire has gone for as long as the two sides have had cease fires. This one will be no different.

Politically internally, the ruling Kadima party have all but handed the next election to Ben Netanyahu. The Israeli public is unlikely to be impressed with a cease fire. They will likely see this war much like they saw the war with Hezbollah two plus years ago. Hamas will be badly damaged but merely surviving will be enough to claim victory. The Kadima Party will again be seen as losing their will just when things got tough. The Israeli people will simply not allow for this and they will vote in the hawkish Netanyahu in the next election in February.

The Israelis Should Listen to their Enemies When the Message is so Clear

According to Israeli media, here is what one captured Hamas terrorist said about Israel's assault.

Two captured terrorists interviewed by Maariv/NRG say that Hamas was not expecting Israel’s response to the escalation in missile attacks on Israeli targets that preceded Operation Cast Lead. One of them, a 52-year-old victim of a premature detonation who had already done time in an Israeli jail, said, “Hamas took a gamble. We thought, at worst Israel will come and do something from the air - something superficial. They’ll come in and go out. We never thought that we would reach the point where fear will swallow the heart and the feet will want to flee. You [Israel] are fighting like you fought in ‘48. What got into you all of a sudden?”

While this may be the rantings of two terrorists trained to give misinformation, I firmly believe that in fact Hamas was caught totally unprepared for the assault. If so, this should have serious repercussions to the strategy that Israel employs going forward.

If Hamas wasn't necessarily looking for the war they got, Hamas is apt to fall if Israel continues to apply pressure long enough. Israel has Hamas disoriented, frustrated and scared. In warfare, you simply can't ask for a better combination in your opponent. In such a case, I would think you apply even more pressure and put your enemy away. Yet, it appears that just as the enemy is ready to be put away once and for all, the Israeli cabinet is ready to capitulate to a cease fire.

The Israeli Security Cabinet will vote Saturday night on whether to accept an Egyptian proposal for a truce to end the fighting in Gaza, an official said.

The senior government official said a decision to approve the truce would begin a phased process in which Israel stops fighting and gauges the reaction from Hamas militants. The official says that under this process, Israel would resume its offensive if the militants continue to fire rockets at Israel.

Now, I could be wrong and this truce might be long lasting. Yet, I don't see anything different between this truce and any number of prior agreements. I have no doubt that Hamas would stop firing rockets for the time being, but does Israel really believe that if they let Hamas off the hook that at some point, the rockets won't reign over their country again.

So far, Israel's military operation has been a model of military might and effective implementation of systematic strategy. Significant portions of top Hamas leadership have been killed. Gaza has been split, communication disrupted, and so far Israel has moved further and further into more populated areas with relatively little resistence. Given how effective the operation has been so far, why would they cut it off now? I can't say for sure how long before Hamas is destroyed entirely but it is weeks if not months.

Sure, the groans from the "world community" will grow louder as the operation continues. There will be calls of genocide, condemnations and demands for an immediate end to the bloodshed. So what? Wouldn't withstanding the pressure of the rest of the weak kneed world for several more months be worth it to put away this enemy once and for all. Clearly, Hamas didn't know what they were getting themselves into. Clearly, they have no answer for the military operation they are facing. Furthermore, Hamas is not much of a fighting force to begin with. Sure, they can blow themselves up around innoncent civilians. Yet, match them up with trained military and calling it a "match up" is ridiculous.

Hamas wasn't expecting what they are getting. As such, I am of the opinion that now is the time to put even more military pressure on them until they break. Yet, the Israelis are ready for yet another cease fire. We've been here before and eventually it leads to more rockets landing in Israel.

Why Gaza May Not Be Lebanon All Over Again

As the war with Hezbollah opened, I intially saw an Israeli military offensive that looked like it was on course for an overwhelming defeat. The firepower from the air cut off the airport and isolated certain parts of Beirut from others as well as other parts of Lebanon from the rest of the country. It initially looked as though the Israelis had a two pronged strategy. First, they were going to bomb Hezbollah with overwhelming force, send in ground troops behind the bombings, and quickly dismantle the terrorists. It wasn't meant to be. Instead, the bombing campaign began to drag on and the leadership initially was hesitant to send in the ground troops. Soon, it became clear that the air offensive was bringing in diminishing returns. Furthermore, once ground troops were sent in, the operation was weak and amateurish. Whenever really heavy fighting broke out, the Israelis invariably pulled their forces back before the operation finished. Worse yet, often embedded reporters would report on locations. We only found out afterwards that Hezbollah actually got a lot of intelligence just from watching the news. Then, the Israelis finally got their footing in the ground war only to have it cut short just as it appeared that victory might finally be approaching.

The main reason for this debacle, in my opinion, was that the Israeli Defense Minister at the time, Amir Peretz, served in the Air Force during his long military service. I believe that he fell in love with winning the war in Lebanon mostly through the air. That's what he knew and that's the strategy he devised. Far too often we learn in war that in order to finish off your opponent, you must do the difficult and deadly task of sending in troops on the ground for hand to hand combat. That's what the Israelis learned in Lebanon, and it is a lesson they have taken to heart.

The current Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, also has a long military record however his military record includes plenty of time in ground troops. He has clearly learned the lessons of the Lebanon War. After softening up Hamas through the air, he sent in the ground troops behind them. He cut Gaza into three parts and since the Israelis have been systematically isolating and devastating Hamas from the ground since. Furthermore, it appears that they are gaining all sorts of intelligence from the ground. Several days ago, the media was reporting that Israel had run out of targets from the air. In the last couple days, Israel is again renewing its bombing campaign in earnest. That's likely because ground troops have received new intelligence that has lead to more targets.

Finally, while they are both terrorist groups, Hamas are considerably weaker fighters than Hezbollah. Hezbollah was a well trained military force. They knew the terrain and they were ready for the Israelis when their ground forces entered. Hamas has shown none of that. Hamas is very long on fiery rhetoric but very short on any military action to back up this rhetoric. Whereas Hezbollah could be counted on to give the Israelis a bloody fight that would lead to many casualties, and soon far too many to be acceptable, Hamas has shown none of that fighting skill.

The only constant is Ehud Olmert and he remains a wild card. Will Olmert get weak kneed before the operation is done? Only time will tell but there is no doubt that the military operation this time around is leaps and bounds better than the one two and half years ago.

The Absurdity of Middle East Peace

In a nutshell, this article illustrates the absurdity of the Middle East peace process.

Egypt's foreign minister said on Thursday that Hamas must ensure rocket fire stops in any truce deal to halt Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip, criticizing the Palestinian group for giving Israel an excuse to launch the bombardment.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit's comments came as Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Egypt's president, part of a tour by the Turkish leader to work out an Egyptian-Turkish initiative to end the violence.

The initiative calls for a halt to Israel's assault, a return to a Hamas-Israel truce and an international mechanism to ensure the opening of Gaza border crossings. Erdogan met a day earlier with Syrian President Bashar Assad and was expected to head to Saudi Arabia on Saturday.

Now, let's take things one at a time. First, we have the Foreign Minister from Egypt, a relatively moderate Middle East state, scolding Hamas. Yet, he isn't scolding Hamas for their naked aggression or their blatant tactic of haphazardly targeting civilians. Instead, he is scolding Hamas because in his view their behavior gives Israel all the justification they need for all out war.

Second, we have the Turkish Prime Minister working hard to maintain a lasting peace. Who does he engage with in this process? First, he meets with officials from Saudi Arabia and he then plans on meeting with Bashar Assad of Syria. I assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is next on his itinerary. Isn't that the Middle East peace process in a nutshell? You want peace so you employ the "peace loving nations" of Saudi Arabia and Syria to create that lasting truce.

Then, there is Israel. I didn't quote it but later in the article Israeli officials are quoted as saying that they want international monitors to make sure that all sides are abiding by the peace. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? How many times have international observers failed to do exactly what Israel demand they do now? Isn't that how war broke out in Lebanon two years ago? Yet, now Israel is demanding this as part of any truce deal.

So, there you have it. We have a region full of keystone cops of peace processes. Is it any wonder that the region is constantly at war?

Israel, Hamas,and Dick Morris' Theory Why Now

A few days ago on the O'Reilly Factor, Dick Morris gave his theory for why violence has flared now. Morris believes that both sides are trying to exploit the election in Israel in February. In Israel, the more moderate Kadima party is facing off against the much more hard line Ben Netanyahu. Netanyahu strongly opposed the removal of settlements from Gaza, while it was the Kadima party that lead the effort, and events since have proven him right. On top of this, the embarrassing defeat of two plus years ago against Hezbollah have made Kadima very vulnerable. As such, Morris believes that Kadima is looking to assert itself before the election and show they are terror warriors on the scale of Netanyahu. From the perspective of Hamas, Morris believes that Hamas would like to do anything to avoid having Netanyahu as Prime Minister. If Netanyahu were Prime Minister, you could bet that Israeli troops would already be going house to house through Gaza in searching for militants. You can bet he wouldn't have cut off the war against Hezbollah early either.

If this is the case, both sides have made serious miscalculations. In order for Kadima to assert itself with the Israeli people, nothing short of total annihilation of Hamas will do. I don't believe that Kadima has the stomach for such an all out war. Such a war would require street to street, hand to hand, combat and I just don't believe that the leadership has the stomach for the deaths that would follow. They have already considered a truce and Olmert has told Bush privately that he would like a "sustainable truce" whatever that might mean.

From the perspective of Hamas, the only way to keep Netanyahu out of office now is for its own organization to be totally eliminated. If they see Netanyahu as an opponent they'd rather not face, then the last thing they would want to do is test his own internal opponents on the eve of an election. Now, they have caught themselves in a heads we lose tails they win situation. If they are to survive this war prior to the election, then that would all but guarantee Netanyahu getting election. Obviously, their own destruction is not an outcome they can afford. Even if the war was still continuing through the election, that's not an outcome they would like. If they are still facing war a month and a half from now it's likely that ground troops would be in Gaza. It would likely mean that current Israeli leadership is serious about their own destruction.

So, from the perspective of Israel, the war couldn't have been timed any better. Either Hamas will finally be finished off once and for all, or a leader will be installed that will make sure the next time they will.

Now Israel's Actions Must Match Its Rhetoric

With about three weeks left in my final year of college, a few of my fraternity buddies decided to spend a Sunday afternoon drinking on our fraternity's roof. As the alcohol began to take hold, they began to engage in some good natured ribbing with some fraternity members, also drinking on their roof, of the fraternity across the street. One thing lead to another and good natured ribbing turned into a verbal confrontation. The more the confrontation escalated, the more the rhetoric became sensationalized. Soon, each fraternity was promising total destruction of the other. As the rhetoric escalated, finally, one of the fraternity members of the fraternity across the street threw a beer bottle the shattered one of our windows. Now, we were ready to brawl but for reasons I still don't know our side eventually backed down. 'We dared the other side for a full out fraternity war, they obliged, and once we got it, we backed down. We allowed our window to be broken with impunity. We spent the last three weeks of my senior year being the laughingstock of our Greek system.

I believe this story has much relation to the situation in Gaza. That's because, much like own fraternity, Israel has now made bold proclamations. Here is what Israel's Defense Minister said in describing the current conflict with Hamas.

Israel obliterated symbols of Hamas power on the third day of what the defense minister described Monday as a "war to the bitter end," striking next to the Hamas premier's home, and devastating a security compound and a university building.

Here is how their U.S. Ambassador described the conflict.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations says the goal of the current offensive in the Gaza Strip is much broader than ending Palestinian rocket attacks. She says Israel wants to destroy Gaza's ruling Hamas movement.

In an interview Tuesday, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said Israel's main goal is to "destroy completely" what she called a "terrorist gang."

Here is how a Senior Defense official characterized the military action.

A senior Israeli military officer says Israel is striking at the entire Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip, not just terrorists and people who launch rockets into Israel.

...

Israeli military's deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Dan Harel says there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza when the attack is over.

"After this operation there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza, and we plan to change the rules of the game," he told the YNet News website.

"We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas Government and all its wings."

Make no mistake, the message from Israel is clear and unmistakable. This is no limited military incursion. This no tit for tat operation. The top officials of the Israeli government see this offensive as one final all out war in which they intend to destroy and eliminate Hamas.

Our fraternity made similar bold proclamations in our own confrontation and we were humiliated when we didn't back those proclamations up. In the case of Israel, the stakes are exponentially higher. If Hamas retains any capability whatsoever after this confrontation, this will undeniably be seen as a loss for Israel. Following a similar loss against Hezbollah two years ago, Israel's military might will be seen as weakening. Her enemies will be emboldened, and so, anything short of a total annihilation of Hamas now will have disastrous results for Israel.

Israel has just performed the war version of going all in, and so they had better be ready to back it up. If Israel doesn't back up its rhetoric with serious military might, they will invite each and every one of their enemies to attack at will. The only thing that Israel cannot afford at all costs is to look weak. Now that they have made very bold proclamations, they must back those up with military action that accomplishes their bold rhetoric. Anything less, and they will suffer a humiliation much worse than my fraternity and with much more serious consequences.

President Designate Obama's Low Middle East Bar

Columnist Mark Shone writes a column in which he assures the audience that we need not worry about President Designate Obama's Middle East policy in light of the war between Israel and Hamas.

Back in July -- when there was much [groundless] Democratic worry about Obama's supposed problem with Jewish voters -- the presidential candidate visited Israel. He met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Shimon Peres and a boy who lost a leg to a Palestinian rocket attack.

In Sderot, a city near Gaza hit by many Palestinian rockets, Obama was asked whether he would negotiate with Hamas.

"I don't think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens," he said. "The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if -- I don't even care if I was a politician -- if somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."

Obama had sounded the same theme four months earlier. In March, Obama said, "The violence in Gaza is the result of Hamas' decision to launch rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and Israel has a right to defend itself."

In fact, Obama also said something that sounds nearly identical to what Bush spokesperson Johndroe said Saturday about civilian casualties. Said Obama, "I remain very concerned about the fate of civilians and urge Israel to do all it can to avoid civilian deaths and to keep its focus on Hamas, which bears responsibility for these events."

The column is remarkable for two reasons. First, in the view of Shone, the reason we need not worry about Obama's Middle East policy is because it is basically the same as the current President's. Not only is this simply not accurate, but it is totally disingenuous. Here, the MSM has spent the last eight years telling the world that the current administration's foreign policy is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. Now, when there really is a foreign policy crisis, it is the Bush model that is held up as the one we should follow. That's nothing short of hypocritical.

Second, in the entire column, the eight hundred pound gorilla is not mentioned once. That gorilla is of course Iran. Shone tells the reader not to worry because Obama has stated clearly he won't negotiate with Hamas. Yet, he says nothing about Obama's stated intention of negotiating with their sponsors, Iran.

Shone points out that Obama was clear that Hamas is no partner in peace because they shoot rockets at Israel. Yet, Shone says nothing about Iran's slow move toward gaining a nuclear weapon which of course they have every intention of using against Israel.

In fact, Obama's policy is so ludicrous that it would be funny, if things weren't so serious. Now more than ever, everyone should be concerned about President Designate Obama's outreach to Iran program. Given that their proxy, Hamas, is now engaged in a full out war with Israel, is now really the time to reach out to Iran?

The whole thing is totally absurd. Obama won't negotiate with Hamas because they are no partner in peace. Yet, he'll negotiate with Iran even though they supply Hamas with weapons, money and training. Now more than ever, the country needs to know if Obama still plans on reaching out to Iran. What will he try to accomplish with this outreach? Will his outreach program be a detriment to our ally, Israel? In fact, President Designate Obama has a very suspicious Middle East policy. No one seemed to pay attention because the economy overwhelmed all. Yet, now we are on the brink of war and his policy will be that much more important. Now, more than every, we must all examine whether or not negotiating with state sponsor of terror, Iran, is a good idea.

Dialogue in Gaza?

So says this editorial from the British newspaper the Guardian.

It is a depressingly familiar scenario, a cycle of provocation and reprisal that periodically escalates into full-blown war. There is no simple account of events leading up to the current confrontation that does justice to the amassed sense of grievance on both sides. But two specific events have played a decisive role: the decision earlier this month by Hamas to end a six-month ceasefire and elections in Israel due in February.

In reality, the "ceasefire" was a tempering of aggression on both sides rather than a cessation of hostilities. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni has declared the rocket attacks "unbearable" and asserted that the Hamas administration in Gaza must be
"toppled".

Ms Livni's hawkish stance is conditioned in part by the aspiration to become prime minister. Her Kadima party is trailing in opinion polls, behind Likud, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, a determined hardliner.

...

Even those Israeli and Palestinian politicians who are minded to negotiate are boxed into uncompromising stances, and for both the main reason is Hamas. But attempting to remove the problem with military power will not work. Hamas craves confrontation because its support increases when ordinary Palestinians are collectively punished, as has happened under the blockade. There are compelling reasons why Israeli politicians do not try to talk Hamas out of its militancy. But the near certainty of failure is also a more compelling reason not to try force instead.

Now, I agree that tit for tat attacks don't work. Yet, this column presents a false choice. The choice is between a never ending cycle of violence and dialogue. The piece doesn't say what this dialogue will be or how it will accomplish anything. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hamas' doesn't want a two state solution but rather a solution in which there is no Israeli state. How exactly do you carry on a dialogue when the goal of one side is your own destruction?

Then again, the piece makes it seem as though the only alternative is never ending violence. That is just nonsense. The other alternative is overwhelming force that doesn't merely degrade but destroys Hamas. The problem with military force from the perspective of Israel is, in my opinion, that it doesn't go far enough. Israel has been fighting a never ending war with Hamas. What Israel should do is use overwhelming force and destroy Hamas once and for all.

Dialogue is not an option because there is frankly nothing to discuss. Simply degrading Hamas's capabilitiy through mostly air assaults also does little. While it may degrade their capabilities for the time being, it will leave Hamas to rise again. The only option is to once and for all totally destroy Hamas.

Note to Israel: Tit for Tat is Now Way to Go

It appears that Israel has had enough and they are striking back at Hamas.

Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes Saturday, killing at least 200 people and wounding 270 others in the single bloodiest day of fighting in decades.

Most of those killed were security men, but civilians were also among the dead. Hamas said all of its security installations were hit and responded with several medium-range Grad rockets at Israel, reaching deeper than in the past. One Israeli was killed and at least four people were wounded in the rocket attacks. With so many wounded, the Palestinian death toll was likely to rise.

The air offensive followed weeks of intense Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on southern Israel, and Israeli leaders had issued increasingly tough warnings in recent days that they would not tolerate continued attacks.

Here is one Israel supporter that hopes that this time Israel holds nothing back. In my opinion, the worst strategy is the sort of tit for tat strategy that appeared to be their staple for many years in the earlier part of this decade. In such a strategy, every terrorist attack, rocket fire, or missile launch was met with an equally aggressive action by Israel. Such a strategy, in my opinion, is the long road to a cycle of violence.



I remember seeing Gene Simmons, of KISS, interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly asked Simmons why he was so confrontational. Simmons said that he was of Israeli descent and so if you attack him he hits you back three times harder.



This seems to be a much more effective strategy. There is no doubt that Israel will be viewed in the Middle East as in the wrong and the aggressors. Soon, there will likely be a United Nations condemnation that will need to be vetoed by the United States. Soon, it's likely that the world community will stand in unison in condemnation of "Israel's aggressive action". It's likely that Vladimir Putin, in the irony of geopolitical ironies, will once again call for a measured response.

This will all happen no matter how aggressive Israel is in taking on Hamas. Israel has one of two options now. They can either strike back and pull back, or they can take on Hamas in one final bloody war and end this once and for all. The first option is a lot less bloody for both sides and it will end quickly. For the time being, Hamas will be battered, bruised, and weakened. Make no mistake, if this is merely an aggressive air offensive, Hamas will regroup and they will strike again.

The other option is for Israel to call for an all out war. They can augment the air offensive with an equally tough ground offensive. There is no doubt that such a strategy will produce a lot of deaths on both sides. Many Israeli soldiers will die in what will wind up being a street to street hand to hand combat. This will be tough, brutal and deadly, but it also has the real chance of finishing off Hamas once and for all. If that's what Israel wants, can stomach, and has the will to do. When Israel engaged in a bloody battle with terrorists in Jenin, the world condemned her actions. Yet, that action left many high value terrorists dead, and in the years following this confrontation, deadly terrorist attacks went down dramatically in Israel. In fact, each and everytime Israel follows Simmons' view and strikes back three times as hard, terrorist attacks slow down within her own borders dramatically. Now is the time not merely to strike back three times as hard, but so hard that Hamas is finished off once and for all.

The worst thing that came out of its war with Hezbollah was that Israel stopped before the war was over. Now, Hezbollah is stronger. Hezbollah won because it took Israel's shots and still ended up standing. That only happened because Israel stopped punching before Hezbollah was knocked out. The leadership of Israel didn't have the stomach to finish Hezbollah off. Once public opinion became too strong it cut off its military operation. If Israel does this again with Hamas, that would be the worst thing that could happen.

Israel has two choices. They can make this war the last war against Hamas or they can make this military operation yet another in a long line of tit for tat operations. The first option will be blood, brutal and very deadly, but it will also be final. The second will be relatively painless and easy, but it will lead to another round of relatively painless and easy military operations. I hope this time Israel says that once and for all Hamas will be confronted until each and every one of them is dead.

Hamas, Israel and the Definition of Insanity

According to Fox News reports say that Hamas and Israel are near an agreement on a truce.

Israel and the radical Islamic group Hamas have agreed on a truce to begin Thursday, Egypt's state-owned news agency said Tuesday.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said the group is committed to the truce deal. Israeli officials declined to confirm a deal, but said Israel's negotiator in the truce talks was rushing to Cairo and that they were "cautiously optimistic."

Egypt's MENA agency cited an unnamed high-level Egyptian official as saying that both sides "have agreed on the first phase" of an Egyptian package to end the violence in the Gaza Strip.

I have lost track of all the agreements for a truce that have been struck between the Israelis and Hamas. It seems mind boggling to me that Israel would even negotiate with terrorists let alone take them at their word when they agree to a truce.

The most troubling aspect of these talks is Ehud Olmert. Olmert's approval ratings were recently in single digits. There are rumors floating that he may be indicted on bribery charges. There are few things more dangerous than a weak politician trying to negotiate with foreign entities. It is even more dangerous when weakened politicians negotiate with their enemies. You always want to negotiate with your enemies from a position of strength. That can't happen if you aren't strong domestically. Furthermore, politicians that are weak domestically sometimes try and make a splash on a foreign policy agreement in order to strengthen their domestic hand.

There are rumors that the Israelis are also simultaneously negotiating a peace treaty with Syria and furthermore, rumor has it that they are willing to give up the Golan Heights in the process. (Here, I point out how absurd and dangerous it would ever be for Israel to ever give up the Golan Heights for any peace agreement) If such an agreement is ever reached, that would be proof positive of my theory about weak leaders negotiating on foreign policy. If Olmert ever had Israel agree to give up the Golan Heights in order to procure a peace agreement with Syria, it would be strictly to improve his standing domestically. No Israeli PM would ever dream of giving up the Golan Heights if they had strong domestic standing.

This brings me back to the current reported truce with Hamas. Everytime Hamas agrees to a truce all that really happens is that their fighters reconstitute and as soon as they are ready, Hamas finds an excuse to attack Israel again. Israel takes six to nine months of relative calm in exchange for an invigorated enemy as soon as that calm ends. So, why then is Olmert looking for yet another truce? Does he really believe that Hamas will act any differently this time? I don't know, however I do know that I fear a weakened political leader negotiating foreign policy.

WAPO Attacks... McCain Responds

The Washington Post became the latest in a long line of MSM entities to try and manufacture a hit piece on John McCain today. (The piece is entitled John McCain was for Talking to Hamas Before He Was Against It)

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

I wasn't going to even say anything about this because I found the whole thing silly. Only the very far left believes that McCain would ever want to talk to Hamas. Those folks weren't going to vote for McCain anyway. I have been receiving correspondence from the campaign and other bloggers throughout the day, and I am going to post this youtube video.



This is the full video of the conversation that was quoted. Here is the transcript.

Jamie Rubin: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is in now charge?”

Sen. John McCain: “They’re the government and sooner or later we‘re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

As you can see Jamie Rubin, a Dem operative, took McCain's words totally out of context in order to present the situation as though he was advocating unconditional talks. Of course, I am certain the Obama campaign will rush out and condemn how his words were taken out of context because they just hate it when folks practice such cynical politics.

In any case, John McCain is not now and never has been for unconditional talks with Hamas or any other terrorist groups. Nor is John McCain for unconditional talks with any state sponosor of terror.

The only candidate willing to talk to any terrorists is his likely opponent Barack Obama who is willing to sit down with Iran in unconditional talks. Iran is of course the backers of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

A Partisan's View of Obama's Strategic Political Blunder

Given that I am the political rival of Barack Obama it might just be that I am viewing this bru ha ha over Bush's remarks yesterday through partisan lenses. That maybe so and thus everyone reading this should keep that admission in mind.

That said, I am frankly shocked and intrigued by his, along with most of his party's, over the top response. I firmly believe that raising this issue brings with it several pieces of baggage and only one glaring positive. Now, the positive can be summed up by this part of his speech today...

Obama said, ticking off grievances ranging from the billions spent on the Iraq war to the thousands of Americans who have been killed there.

By tying this dust up to the Iraq war, he also ties McCain to that policy. No doubt he will want to enjoin McCain as much as possible to that policy, and that is his most effective foreign policy attack. It will of course be up to McCain to point out that he was one of the few politicians that that criticized the failed Rumsfeld strategy from the beginning, but that is a debate for another day. For now, Obama has tied this supposed attack on him to the failed Iraq policy and that is effective.

Unfortunately, the positives of this strategy end there, and the negatives frankly almost never stop. First, read the comments section to this story from almost any source and you can't help but notice a comment much like this.

I know it is hard to swallow Mr. Obama, but the world does not revolve around YOU. You have a rather inflated sense of self importance and it is becoming increasingly annoying. President Bush was NOT talking about YOU. Get over it.

This is one of many reasons why you will NOT be getting my vote this November.

While this comment comes from the Fox News story, you will find a similar sentiment from just about anywhere this story is mentioned. In other words, while Barack Obama maybe convinced that Bush was talking about him, the public at large isn't necessarily convinced as well. President Bush never mentioned Obama or the Democrats, and yet they took his statements as an attack on them. In order to do that, they had to read between the lines. Well, of course there is nothing but empty space between the lines, and so they are now interpreting and getting inside his head. Bush continues to insist that he wasn't directing his remarks at Obama and he is the authority on what he meant. This only perpetuates that perception that Obama is full of himself. That is exactly how this commenter took it.

President Bush speaks in Israel and states that the way to work with terrorists is not through appeasement. No names are mentioned by President Bush but Senator Obama accuses President Bush of attacking him. Reminds you of the song “You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you”.

Frankly, the over the top interpretation is not nearly as devastating as what this does to the political debate. The Democrats aren't in great position to have major victories because Barack Obama wants to talk with no pre conditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They are in great position for victories because we have a housing crisis, out of control gas prices, rising health care costs, and a protracted war in Iraq. Obama would be wise to keep the debate on domestic policy not foreign policy. I am of the opinion that this is foolish and naive policy but much more than that it is terrible politics. Obama may actually believe that the majority of Americans are with him when he says he will meet with Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, but they aren't. All he does is tie himself to a dictator.

More than that there is an old adage in politics. The simplest most concise arguement wins. John McCain says we are going to stay in Iraq till we win and we won't negotiate with terrorists or the states that sponsor them. Barack Obama says we will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, unless any number of one hundred hypotheticals happen in which case he reserves the right to do any number of undetermined actions. Furthermore, he won't meet with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah because they are terrorist organizations but he will meet with the President of Iran because that is a recognized country. Now, which of those arguements sounds more concise and simple?

Finally, John McCain has built his campaign mostly on the strength of his foreign policy readiness, leadership, and experience. Thus, Barack Obama is now fighting on his turf. Remember, McCain recently admitted that he doesn't know much about economics. If the conversation is there, it is Obama's turf. So, why would Obama consciously move the conversation to the opponent's home turf? Obama can proclaim that his vision is the right one, but that offers McCain the opportunity to say this. It is McCain that knows the horrors of war first hand. It is McCain that has foreign policy and military experience for more than half a century. It is McCain that has had first hand dealings with all of the players that Obama is talking about. Obama may think he is right, but that's just because he is a naive neophyte in foreign policy.

So, as a political opponent, I encourage Barack Obama to advance this debate until November. I would like from now until then explain to us the differences between negotiating with Hezbollah and Iran. I am curious why terrorists get the cold shoulder but state sponsors of terror are welcome with open arms. This is the sort of debate that John McCain and his supporters welcome.

Olmert to Cede the Golan Heights?

Recently, I hypothesized tha having the high ground of the Golan Heights is in and of itself a de facto peace accord with Syria. I proclaimed that under no circumstances should Israel ever give up the Heights because it gives Israel such a strategic military advantage that by extension it leads to peace.

On another note, Ehud Olmert is the first Israeli PM with little military background. That may explain why he is willing to trade the peace that comes from a natural military advantage for a worthless piece of paper.

ISRAELI Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has notified Damascus of his readiness to withdraw completely from the Golan Heights in return for peace, a Syrian cabinet minister declared yesterday.

Expatriates Minister Buthaina Shaaban said Mr Olmert had delivered his message to Damascus via Turkish intermediaries.

"Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights in full to Syria," she declared. Israeli officials declined to confirm or deny the report.

The statement by Ms Shaaban, who frequently serves as spokeswoman for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, was preceded earlier by two Syrian press
reports along the same line.

Obviously, reports like this have a built in dubiousness, however if this is true, this will eventually lead to nothing less than an unmitigated disaster for Israel. Just like Hamas which also asked for the high ground in exchange for peace, Syria can use the high ground in many different ways and many of them could be used and still maintain peace. There are plenty of Syrian surrogates, like Hezbollah, that could use this very high ground to attack Israel while Syria technically holds up their end.

If these reports are true, it will ironically be the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East in a long time.