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.

Lebanon Avoids an Electoral Disaster

Lebanon voted today and it appears that the pro Western Coalition is headed for a solid victory.

Lebanon's ruling pro-Western coalition appeared headed for a decisive political victory over its Iranian-backed Hezbollah rivals early Monday in the Middle East nation's most fiercely contested parliamentary election in decades.

Fireworks echoed through Beirut neighborhoods as unofficial results indicated that Hezbollah and its Christian allies were dealt a surprising setback at the polls.

With soldiers looking on, jubilant supporters of the ruling coalition poured into the streets, waving flags, honking car horns and chanting political slogans.

We "will return as the majority," Samir Geagea , head of the powerful Lebanese Forces party that is part of the pro-Western ruling coalition known as March 14 , told LBC television.

The victory keeps Hezbollah, and the coalition they lead, from taking power. Had Hezbollah won, they would have joined Hamas as two State Department state sponsors of terror that would also be duly elected leaders of parliaments in the Middle East.

The victory is of course welcome for all people that hope to see peace someday in the Middle East. It is, however, only a small step. The government of Lebanon has been rather impotent, corrupt, and ineffective. Struggling democracies are often derailed by all three, just look at the likes of Georgia and the Ukraine. So, now, victory must be followed up with good governance or the next election won't be quite so positive.

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.

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.

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.

Analyzing What I Now Call the Biden Doctrine

When I said that Senator Biden didn't make any major mistakes in the last debate, I must not have been paying attention to the whopper he pulled regarding Hezbollah, Syria and Lebanon. Here is how Michael Totten described the error.

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.”

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

So, let's track the number of gaffes in that statement. First, as Totten points out, Hezbollah hasn't been kicked out of Lebanon. Second, if he meant to say Syria, it was the Lebanese largely on their own that kicked out Hezbollah. It's actually impossible to know what Biden meant because Ifill didn't catch the error and neither did Palin. Furthermore, the MSM has pretended as though the error didn't exist.

Since I can't decipher for sure, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and analyze the one that is closest to a semblance of a thought. Let's suppose that he meant to say that the U.S., along with France, kicked out Syria out of Lebanon. Let's also just dismiss the thought that Lebanon did this largely on its own. Let's examine what he said after this.

First, Hezbollah had long ago became a fixture not only in Lebanese government but society. They did this in two ways. First, they created a so called political wing that ran candidates. They have had an active minority in the government for much longer than Syria has been kicked out of Lebanon. Second, and much more importantly, much like Hamas, they have created another wing to their movement that provides basic food and services to the poor in the area in they area they occupy in Southern Lebanon.

Also, UNIFIL has had a peace keeping force in Lebanon since 1978. In fact, this UNIFIL force was supposed to carry out exactly the sort of peace keeping operations that Biden claimed on Thursday that a NATO force should carry out. What exactly did Biden think this mysterious NATO force could do that the UNIFIL force had failed at so miserably? The idea that a bunch of Europeans fighting in a country that they could care less about would be able to quell Hezbollah when Israel, for the better part of 20 years with everything on the line, couldn't accomplish the same goal is patently ridiculous.

Joe Biden is supposed to have gravitas on foreign policy. Barack Obama was supposed to have picked him so that folks wouldn't be concerned about the direction of our foreign policy under a novice President. Yet, not only can't he keep his facts straight in an area of vital importance to our interest, but even once you decipher his incoherent rant, you get a doctrine that is totally void of reality. If Joe Biden thinks that peace can be created in the Middle East through European lead peace keeping forces that take on embedded militaries/political forces/civil servants like Hezbollah, then God help us all as this foreign policy doctrine is implemented.

Pavlov and the Prisoner Swap

Many countries throughout the world, like Russia for instance, take a very hardline stance toward potential plane hijackings on their soil. They warn that any plane that is hijacked will be stormed and all hijackers will be shot on sight. While this hardline stance would put many that are hijacked in immediate danger, the policy makers believe that ultimate such a hardline policy would ultimately save more lives than it cost by discouraging would be hijackers from even attempting such an undertaking. This is the national security version of Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning.

is a form of associative learning that was first demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov[1] . The typical procedure for inducing classical conditioning involves presentations of a neutral stimulus along with a stimulus of some significance. The neutral stimulus could be any event that does not result in an overt behavioral response from the organism under investigation. Pavlov referred to this as a Conditioned Stimulus (CS).
Conversely, presentation of the significant stimulus necessarily evokes an innate, often reflexive, response. Pavlov called these the Unconditioned Stimulus (US) and Unconditioned Response (UR), respectively. If the CS and the US are repeatedly paired, eventually the two stimuli become associated and the organism begins to produce a behavioral response to the CS. Pavlov called this the Conditioned Response (CR).

Just more than two years ago, Hezbollah terrorists illegal entered the sovereign nation of Israel. They killed several soldiers that guarded the border and took two more hostage. Like any other legitimate military power, Israel has a hard and fast rule about protecting their soldiers in such instances. They normally stop at nothing to rescue soldiers taken by the enemy. There are many reasons and Pavlov's theory is among them. They want their own soldiers conditioned to believe that their country will stop at nothing if ever they find themselves in such a situation and the same for their enemies.

This incident set off a war that Israel, frankly, fumbled and fought half heartedly. Furthermore, Israel ended the war before either destroying Hezbollah or retrieving their own soldiers. Since wars are won or lost and not ended, and Israel didn't achieve either objective, they lost.

Today, things were compounded even more when the remains of those two soldiers were exchanged for some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world.

Now, if we were to approach this whole affair from Pavlov's perspective, here is what we have. Hezbollah illegally entered Israel. They illegally killed multiple soldiers guarding the border. They illegally took two more hostage. Then, that set off a war that public pressure ended before Hezbollah suffered any long term damage. Their reputation grew and now they have recovered 12 of their own brothers for the remains of the two soldiers that Hezbollah ultimately killed.

What sort of conditioning has Hezbollah learned from this? Does it sound like they have been encouraged or discouraged to perpetrate more illegal border incursions in the future? Does it sound as though they have been discouraged or encouraged to take more hostages? Does it sound as though they have been discouraged or encouraged to start more wars?

This prisoner swap is the culmination of many wrong and half hearted measures that will no doubt lead to further escalations soon enough.

Obama's Hezbollah "Clarification"

In Friday's New York Times, David Brooks wrote piece in following up some peculiar statements that Barack Obama made vis a vis Hezbollah. The statement that was most peculiar was this one.

It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”

Barack Obama followed up with a fairly detailed explanation of what he meant to Brooks. Here is some of the explanation...

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

Now, the root causes is the standard mantra among the liberal elite. They firmly believe that if we end poverty, misery, and re claim civil rights in the Middle East then the terrorists will stop hating us. This is rather peculiar because later on Obama says this.

“This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Obama seems to hate being labeled and yet on issue after issue he is a standard boiler plate liberal. This isssue is no exception. That said the part that was of most curiousity to me was this one...

The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services

Now, keep in mind that the U.S. has about 20% of the population below the poverty line. As Democrats like to point out, there are over 40 million people without health insurance. Gas and food is eating up more and more of the middle class' monthly budget. I haven't even begun to talk about all that we as a nation are doing to our environment to cause global warming and other ills. Yet, Barack Obama seems to think that on top of solving all our own ills he will solve the ills of the folks of Lebanon and presumably the rest of the Middle East.

This thinking is not new. In a piece at the end of March by Spencer Ackerman, Obama introduced his foreign policy vision. In it, he said that he hates so called bumper sticker ideas and then followed up with this bumper sticker idea.

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise

So called dignity promotion is something that Barack Obama will try and make a vital part of any foreign policy vision. In other words, the way to counter act Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups is to provide the populace with the vital civil service that they provide. While Obama is right that Hezbollah (along frankly with Hamas) has grown great populist support by exactly these sorts of services to their domestic populations, he is naive if he thinks the U.S. can go around the world and solve the domestic ills of every nation.

What is even more stunning about this belief is that in Iraq, he sees absolutely no reason for the U.S. to do the same thing. He is willing to risk a genocide in Iraq just to pull troops out on a timeline, but at the same time, he is willing to commit billions in U.S. resources to provide vital domestic services to Lebanon. Never mind of course that the folks in Shia communities of Lebanon would likely not accept our services. Never mind that Hezbollah would never allow such an affront to their power in any area they control. This is in fact the Obama doctrine. We will win the GWOT by giving dignity to folks all over the Middle East, accept in Iraq of course where he will create a genocide.

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.