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 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?

Golda's Balcony and the Middle East "Peace Process"

In the play, Golda's Balcony, starring Valerie Harper, Harper plays former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The play tracks the former Prime Minister's life as told in a monologue by Harper. The play ends with Meir making this rhetorical point. Asking herself when there would be peace in the Middle East, she responds

When the other side learns to love their own children more than they hate us

While the play is obviously told from a perspective that is sympathetic to Israel, there is a great deal of truth in this last thought. The so called peace process, now back in the news because of word that reports that Barack Obama will suggest that borders be moved to their pre 1967 geography in exchange for "peace", has always been to me a bit of a misnomer.



That's because the peace process has never been about some sort of disagreement over land, territory, or any dispute in which there can be some kind of compromise. There has always been this naive notion that if only each side got enough of what they wanted that one day we would achieve peace.



There are many so called intelligent pundits that proclaim that Israel knows that they must give up this and that in order to achieve peace. This misses the crucial point of the "peace process". The enemies of Israel don't want peace. Rather, they want the total and complete destruction of the country. They want the entire Jewish race erased from existence entirely.



The only times when Israel has achieved peace with any of its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, then, in effect, the words of Golda Meir had come true. Both Egypt and Jordan had lost so much trying to destroy Israel that their will had been broken. The only way for there to be peace between Israel and its enemies is for the will of its enemies to first be broken.



Knowing this, it shows a foolish naivete to say that borders must go back to the pre 1967 levels or any level in order to achieve peace. Bill Clinton learned this lesson all too well when he attempted to give Yasser Arafat 95% of what he wanted only to have Arafat reject the "peace" proposal and start a new Intifada. For the leadership in places like Syria, Palestine, and Iran, this has never been about land or some sort of settlement for peaceful coexistence. Ultimately, there will only be peace when the last words in Golda's Balcony become a reality.

Why the Pre 1967 Borders Are a Non Starter

The media is abuzz with news floating from the Obama campaign that his administration will attempt to try peace negotiations that include having Israel go back to the 1967 borders.

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

In the summer of 1967, upon being surprised with an attack, Israel had one of the most stunning victories in military history..

The Six-Day War (Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة‎, Ḥarb al‑Ayyam as‑Sitta or more commonly Arabic: حرب 1967‎, Ḥarb 1967; Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים‎, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The nations of Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces.[4]

In May 1967, Egypt's president Nasser requested the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, while calling for a return to the conditions prevailing prior to the 1956 Suez Crisis, and to full observance by both parties of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.[5] The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion which was launched during the Suez Crisis. Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the border[6] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials,receiving strong support from other Arab countries. [7] On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[8] against Egypt's airforce, while the Israeli Defense Forces drove through the remnants of the UNEF peacekeeping force.[9] Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[10][11][12] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day

The land annexed by Israel: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, were all annexed as a result of this victory. Most of the rest of the Middle East has been attempting to get this land back since.

If Israel were to accept such a "peace plan", they would in fact be inviting further wars. That's because the results of prior wars would no longer have any relevance. Israel annexed this land as a result of their victory in 1967. If this land is given back for some piece of paper, it makes the results of that war moot.

More than this, a "peace plan" is not worth the paper its written on if Israel must give up the Golan Heights. There's a reason why Israel's enemies have floated the Golan Heights in exchange for "peace" for years. The Golan Heights carries enormous strategic value in any future military operation. The Golan Heights gives Israel the most important strategic advantage in warfare, the high ground. In fact, the Golan Heights, in and of itself, is an effective peace plan against many of Israel's enemies. Because the Golan Heights gives Israel the high ground it effectively deters attacks from anyone in the area. Certainly, the high ground is not an end all, but it is an effective deterrent to attack.

I hope that these reports are wrong. I hope that Barack Obama is not so consumed with his own sense of legacy that he would be willing to sell out Israel's long term security in the process. Without the high ground there is no peace. Without the Golan Heights there is no high ground. Returning to the pre 1967 borders is a non starter.

Is Iraq the Right Battlefield?

On yesterday's O'Reilly Factor, when questioning Obama, Bill O'Reilly proclaimed that he believed that history would judge Iraq to be the wrong battlefield. This is frankly a common narrative and when that most Americans agree with. I would find myself in th minority in arguing that Iraq was then, is now, and continues to be the right battlefield. In fact, I believe that the Iraq is the exact right battlefield that for four terrible years was fought with the wrong strategy. This wrong strategy created the embedded perception that the war was wrong.

The perception that Iraq is the wrong battlefield comes from the brutal, deadly, and frustrating four years in which the country followed Donald Rumsfeld into the abyss. By not recognizing that the country immediately devolved into a low grade insurgency, the coalition allowed that low grade insurgency to devolve into an intense and high grade insurgency. After four years, the public at large totally turned on the war, and even with overwhelming success it is unlikely it will ever be looked at favorably. Yet, the dramatic turnaround that the surge has created makes me wonder what would have happened had the strategy been implemented immediately and what this would have done to public opinion.

The second reason that many consider Iraq the wrong battlefield is because WMD's weren't discovered. While this is essentially true, what the world has learned is that Saddam always intended to attain WMD's. He retained the technology, and most importantly, he continually lied, subverted, and thumbed his nose at the world. Even if the world knew that in fact he had no WMD's, not confronting him on multiple UN violations, seventeen in all, would have allowed a tyrant to thumb his nose at the world over and over with impugnity. This would have signaled to all other tyrants that they too can do as they want with impugnity. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Mr. Qaddafi suddenly had a change of heart and decided to open up and destroy his WMD stockpile. It is naive and partisan to suggest these two events were not related.

Third, critics of the war point out that Saddam Hussein and Iran were enemies, and the two regimes balanced each other out. This is a foolish thought. Two evil tyrannical regimes both with ties to terrorists don't cancel each other out. They create a situation ready to explode at any moment. It's true that Iran grew in strength while we struggled in Iraq, but that is precisely because we struggled. Now that we are succeeding our weakness can turn into strength just as quickly. Critics will argue that the Iraqi government is nothing more than an Iranian puppet. That is nonsense. Iraqi politics is very complicated and Maliki's insistence on going after the Sadrites in Basrah shows that he is no one's puppet.

In fact, the best way to negotiate from a position of strength with Iran is to first succeed in Iraq. By doing so, the Iranians know that not only is the U.S. willing to take on the task of removing their government if necessary, but that we have the will to finish the job. Furthermore, the worst thing for the tyranical Iranian government is a functioning democracy on their border.

Now, let's examine some of the reasons for invading Iraq. Syria, Iraq, and Iran can be found on a map as standing side by side with Iraq in the middle. At the time of the invasion, each of the three were terrorist sponsoring and enabling nations. The three of them funded, trained and sponsored such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, etc. Saddam Hussein himself, was a terrorist sponsoring free agent working with and training terrorist groups of all stripes like Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, etc. Here we were fighting a GWOT and yet three terrorist enablers stood side by side. It would simply be impossible to win this war and keep the map as it was. Since Iraq was placed in the middle, it made it the most strategic, geographically. Now, both the terrorist sponsoring Syria and the terrorist sponsoring Iran have a democratic neighbor.

When Saddam Hussein was defeated in the first Gulf War, he agreed to a set of the conditions with the United Nations. These conditions held a caveat that any violation would lead to a resumption of war. He then went on to systematically violate those conditions over and over with impugnity. By the time Saddam Hussein violated Resolution 1441, he had violated seventeen United Nations resolutions and not once was he held to account. This is a vital point because if tyrants are allowed to thumb their nose at the world with impugnity, this leads to geopolitical chaos. How can we make any progress with regimes like Syria, Iran, North Korea, et al if they see Saddam doing as he pleases with impugnity.

The Bush doctrine believes that terrorism is a struggle against freedom and Democracy. That's exactly how he has battled it. Now, both Afghanistan and Iraq are on their way to being functioning democracies in an area where only Israel is a true democracy. There are literally hundreds of newspapers functioning in Iraq within a structure of free press. Millions of ordinary citizens have blogs in Iraq. Dozens of free television and radio media function in Iraq. None of these things were allowed under Saddam Hussein. The best way to counter the hateful ideology of terrorists is to bring it out in the open challenge and debate it. That's what functioning democracies allow.

Finally, while we see what the failed strategy wraught, one thing we can never know is what would have happened had Saddam been left in place. What would Saddam had done to try and create chaos in Afghanistan and make life more difficult for our troops? What terrorist groups would he have gotten into bed with to create even more chaos? What sort of trouble would Saddam have caused to put even more upward pressure on gas prices? None of these questions will ever need to be answered because he is no longer around. It's easy to criticize mistakes. It's not as easy to project the potential mistakes avoided. By removing Saddam we also removed all sorts of variables that are difficult to predict.

Shocking Naivite in Syrian Dialogue

It appears that Barack Obama's proclamation that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions has unleashed every hair brain idea for negotiating with our enemies. The latest comes from the combination of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the Wall Street Journal today. They start out with this faulty premise.

The recent announcement of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria through Turkey, and the agreement between the Lebanese factions in Qatar – both apparently without meaningful U.S. involvement – should serve as a wake-up call that our policy of nonengagement has isolated us more than the Syrians. These developments also help create new opportunities and increased leverage that we can only exploit through substantive dialogue with Syria.

These so called peace negotiations are being directed by an Israeli PM that will soon be out of a job and frankly should have never had one. Furthermore, these so called negotiations come mere months after the Israelis blew up a covert nuclear program that Syria was working on with North Korea. It has also been reported that part of the negotiations include the Israelis giving up the Golan Heights. Of course, it is patently ridiculous for Israel to give up the strategic high ground for a worthless piece of paper. Does all of this provide the proper framework for negotiations that would benefit Israel?

The two continue.

The agreement by the Lebanese parties provides another opening. Syria must respect Lebanon's sovereignty and end its deadly meddling. But the fact that Syria's ally, Hezbollah, secured much of the political power it sought should remove Syria's excuse for failing to open an embassy, normalize relations, and finally demarcate the border with Lebanon. Hezbollah must eventually be disarmed, as United Nations Resolutions 1559 and 1701 require, but its agreement not to use force internally could be used to push Syria to shut off the supply of weapons.

Of course, these two are plain naive. This so called agreement was nothing more than a capitulation by the central government of Lebanon to the terrorist group Hezbollah. In fact, Hezbollah is now more powerful than ever and that's because the world insisted on a settled agreement rather than a military one in 2006. These two seem to argue that we want more involvement by Syria in Lebanon. This is of course the same Syria that supports and funds Hezbollah which is causing all the problems there. Then, they say their most foolish thing.

Dialogue can open the door for greater cooperation on Iraq. Top Syrian officials have argued that Syria shares America's interest in a stable, secular Iraq and does not want a strongly pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. Our partnership with Sunni tribes against al Qaeda may have further aligned our interests. As U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has noted, Islamic extremists also threaten Syria.

While Syria must crack down on the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims positive steps have not been rewarded. We should test whether offering tangible benefits brings better results, starting with providing more humanitarian assistance for the nearly 1.5 million Iraqi refugees Syria has absorbed.

The only thing that Syria wants is for the U.S. to fail miserably in Iraq. A democracy on its border threatens the very fabric of their own dictatorship. The idea that Assad would ever willingly help us in Iraq is the height fo naivite. It simply boggles the mind that professional politicians think that evil folks should be given carrots in lieu of sticks. They seem to take Assad at his word that he has been more cooperative even though Syria continues to be second only to Iran as the biggest state menaces in Iraq.

What Assad desperately wants is the recognition and respect of the rest of the Middle East and the world. That's exactly what a high level meeting would bring him. Yet, that's exactly what these two are proposing.

The Cult of Barack Obama

A few days ago I wrote a piece analyzing whether or not the government could practically be expected to prevent a speculative market from occurring. I tried to use the premise of this piece to try and trap a fellow colleague of mine, an Obama supporter, into agreeing with a policy position that is polar opposite of that of Obama's himself. The premise of the piece is that the government couldn't be counted on preventing a speculative market because the very behavior they would need to restrict would also be making people lots of money at the time.

I started by asking my colleague the very title of the piece, Can Governments Prevent Speculative Markets. He thought about it for a minute and replied no. He went into a long winded and frankly confusing explanation about insider information but in the end he agreed the government can't. My machiavellian plan was to get my colleague to admit that government can't prevent speculative markets and then to point out that this is the exact flawed idea that Obama has. Of course, he pre empted me. Before I had a chance to even bring up Obama's name, he proclaimed that Obama would in fact be able to prevent speculative markets. In other words, he sees Obama as being able to accomplish that which he thinks the government in general can not.

I also have a friend that is very well off. He is one of those that Obama has promised would have his taxes raised. He is also an Obama supporter. When I pointed this out to him, he replied that having to pay higher taxes is well worth restoring our reputation in the world and leading our nation back to greatness.

These two folks are what one would call true believers of the Barack Obama cult. To them, he really can walk on water, and there really is no problem that he can't solve. Obama has tapped into not only their cynicism of the way in which government works, but also, in his ability to change all of it. Let's just take a look at a snippet of what Obama said on Tuesday.

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

Now, this statement is remarkable not only in its cynicism but in its narcissism. All the folks at Cook County Hospital and every one of the other thousand plus public hospitals all over the country are likely to be quite surprised to learn that the government has not been healing the sick prior to June 2, 2008. Furthermore, there is an obscene amount of hubris in the belief that he, and he alone, can feed the hungry, give jobs to the poor, and provide health care for the sick.

Obama has truly created a messianic persona in the minds of the true believers that follow him. Not only has he created an image of a broken nation, but on top of it, he has created an image that only he can fix it. Whereas Conervative luminary Ronald Reagan galvanized folks by returning American to prominence through conservative ideals, Barack Obama galvanizes folks that America will be great by simply following him. What is remarkable is that his true believers take all of it at face value even though he almost never provides a single specific as to how all of this will be done.

In my opinion, the fallacy in their belief lies in several basic failings. The first failing is that most humans naturally think that everyone believes as they believe. Obama's message of unity is a powerful one, and we all want a government united. Obama's supporters think that everyone will follow along with Obama's message. Of course, this is simply not the case. If and when Barack Obama tries to turn our health care system into a socialized one, you can bet the country will be divided on the issue. Folks like me will vigorously oppose him and that issue will get extremely partisan. The same will happen on the issue of judges, government spending, global warming, and pulling out of Iraq. His supporters seem to think that pulling out of war battlefield will be met with bi partisan approval. It won't . The reality is that Obama has a unifying message, and at the same time, he has a highly ideological platform. To his supporters, his unifying message and belief system are perfectly appropriate together because they believe both. He isn't going to unite the country behind a platform that is polar opposite to that which fiscal, social, foreign policy, conservatives think is wrong.

Next, his supporters seem to think that Obama can charm everyone else in the world the way he charms them. That's why they see his foreign policy vision as new age rather than naive. Since they have been hypnotized by his soaring rhetoric, so to will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar Assad, and Kim Jong Il. The reality is that they won't. Foreign policy has little relation to charm. Rarely has charm and good personality been the key to foreign policy. Reagan didn't defeat the Soviets because he charmed the pants off Mikhail Gorbachev. He put the Soviets into an untennable position, and then he negotiated an agreement from a position of strength. All of Kennedy's charm didn't help him when he met Nikita Kruschev in Vienna. When Obama is sitting across from Ahmadinejad, it won't be his charm that will give him leverage, but rather, he will actually have to have geopolitical leverage to begin with.

Finally, the biggest flaw in the Obama cult is that they vote against their own self interest, and instead they vote in favor of vague but soaring rhetoric. It is not only foolish to vote for someone that promises to raise your taxes specifically, but it also makes an imperfect system. Elections are all about getting the biggest cross section of voters. Each policy will appeal to some and at the same time turn off others. If everyone votes their self interest, then the policies with the biggest cross appeal always win. If someone promises a policy against your self interest, you have to vote against them. For instance, the Reps tough border stance appeals to those that hold illegal immigration as a very important issue. At the same time, it turns off many Latinos. Thus, this policy becomes a delicate political balance. In the case of Obama, my friend will vote for him even though Obama has promised to hurt him personally by raising his taxes. His own self interest will definitely be hurt, while the benefit is nebulous and unclear. The same goes for my colleague. He has navigated with great pain all the rules and regulations of mortgages, and yet, he is willing to vote for a candidate that promises to increase those same regulations dramatically. While the pain to him is specific, the benefit is again nebulous.

The problem with the Obama cult is the same as with most cults. Its followers become so enthralled and hypnotized that they lose sight of reality. If you argue with any true Obama believer, you will always get the same robotic response. If you point out Wright, they will point out Hagee, Parsley et al. (I pointed out the fallacy of that arguement here.) If you attack any of his specific positions or associations, they immediately point out that you are engaging in the cynicism that Obama stands against. If you point out his lack of record or accomplishments, they immediately point out that he is a transformative figure not held to the same standards as any other politician. Just like any other cult, they become nothing more than the robotic zombies always saying the same thing over and over. Ben Jones, previously of the Dukes of Hazzard and a Congressman, was on Hannity and Colmes recently. Hannity asked him about why he supported Obama and he responded that he is the most gifted, charismatic, and impressive politician he had ever seen. That's how all his followers think, and yet, they never give any tangible evidence of any of their beliefs.

The problem with the cult of Obama is that it is like any other cult. All you have is a bunch of brainwashed zombies that all think and sound the same. In the case of Barack Obama, the world is awful, America is flawed, and only Barack Obama can save it. There is no substantive debate with the cult of Obama. I know because I have tried. There is only soaring rhetoric of togetherness, healing, and uplifting. This sort of blind devotion is dangerous, as it is with any cult.

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.

Deciphering Brzezinski's Trip to Syria

Zbigniew Brzezinski, top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, recently made a low key trip to Syria to meet with its leader, Bashar Assad.

What in the world are advisers to both Senators Obama and Clinton doing in Syria in the middle of a presidential campaign — and why are the two campaigns so unforthcoming about the details of the visits? The same week that a terrorist mastermind harbored by the Baathist regime in Damascus was assassinated by a car bomb, both one of Mr. Obama's foreign policy counselors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-time critic of Israel, and one of Mrs. Clinton's national finance chairs, Hassan Nemazee, were meeting with President Assad.

The article, along with much of the media all over, is speculating over what Brzezinski was doing there. That is a fascinating question, however we should start by looking at exactly who Brzezinski is. Brezizinski is a leading foreign policy thinker from the school of the realists. The realists see our aggressive action in the GWOT as largely imperialistic, and they don't believe that we can force change upon the Middle East. They certainly don't see change taking place through force, and rather they see the U.S. working with the governments currently ruling and affecting change through non violent means.

While few oppose the goal of political and economic liberalization, many individuals question both the morality and the efficacy of using military force and diplomatic pressure to achieve these aims. This was the starting point for our discussion, and continues to be the organizing principle (Statement of Principles) on which we operate.

In order to counter the arguments of those who favor empire, the Coalition holds conferences, and media events, promotes research, and communicates a vision of the alternatives to American empire, including a restrained foreign policy that protects American interests.

Thus, the short answer for why Brzezinski is meeting with Assad is that he is a leading realist thinker. A better question is will this be effective. There is an old unattributed saying that describes my feelings about meeting with the enemy...

you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat

Obama clearly believes you negotiate with your enemy by trying to charm them. On one level, I can see how he believes this and that's because he has spent much of his life being able to charm most everyone he meets. Why should the leaders of countries such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea be any different? The problem for me with this thinking is that unlike most people the leaders of these nations are sociopaths. For them, every meeting, every word, and every action is set in the context of achieving their own agenda.

First instance, we don't know what the meeting was about but let's say that Brzezinski assured Assad that once Obama was in office that our policy would be less aggressive toward him. Assad would immediately take such a sign as he should lay low, not cause trouble, and wait out Bush's Presidency until a new admin takes over that he can much more easily manipulate. Assad is not interested in peace. He is interested in consolidating and expanding his power. He is likely involved in the death's of several Lebanese politicians, training and infiltration of terrorists into Iraq, and he may even have been behind the death of Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mugniyeh. (not to mention having Damascus as the location for the main office of such terrorist groups as Hezbollah as well as all sorts of bellicose language toward Israel) Assad is no partner for peace and peace is frankly not on his agenda. No amount of sweet talk is going to change him in my opinion.

Yet, that is essentially what Obama and Brezizinski plan on turning the GWOT and U.S. foreign policy in general into. What an Obama Presidency will look like on foreign policy matters is shuttle diplomacy among our many enemies. It is quite ironic that Obama suggested that if need be he would infiltrated Pakistan without the permission of Musharraf because he gives a tyrant like Assad and Ahmadinejad more consideration than an admittedly flawed ally like Musharraf. He has already stated he wants unconditional negotiations with Iran in his first year as President. Now, his top foreign policy advisor is meeting with Assad. One can only imagine what sort of plan he has for North Korea.

The Middle East is a messy and sticky place. Even our allies are duplicitous at best. Deciding who to trust is difficult because ultimately you really can't trust anyone. A foreign policy predicated on the philosophy that we will work with all seems naive and downright dangerous to me, and yet that is exactly what Obama has embraced by employing Brzezinski. Among the many debates that I hope we have this election cycle is the one about the wisdom of realist foreign policy which frankly makes no distinction between friend and foe.