Confirmation

I generally agree with about 90% of David Horsey's opinions.  Today is an exception.  I think he's nailed it in one.  His subject is President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary and what we can expect in confirmation hearings.  As Horsey points out, there are some serious objections being voiced on both sides of the aisle and he lays out those objections succinctly.

First -- and this is earning him enmity from both sides of the aisle -- he is not very popular with the pro-Israel lobby. It is not that his views are anti-Israel -- his skepticism about the policies of the current Israeli government is shared by a rather large number of Israelis, after all -- it is that he has not been a bouncing, bubbling cheerleader for Israel the way so many American politicians feel they need to be.

Second, Hagel, in the past, has favored negotiation rather than confrontation with Iran. He has modified this view more recently and now says all options -- including a military option -- should be considered to stop Iran's push for nuclear weapons. That is pretty much a consensus opinion in the foreign policy establishments of both political parties, but there are some saber rattlers on the right who, nevertheless, suspect Hagel is soft on the ayatollahs.

Third, the conservative social views he held as a senator are bugging liberals. His position on abortion leaned toward the wacky Todd Akin wing of his party, which led him to vote against allowing abortions in military hospitals. Now, with that prohibition lifted, some Democrats are wondering if he will try to undermine the new policy. Hagel also said some catty things about a gay gentleman who had been picked to be an American ambassador. Although he has since apologized for his remarks, gay-rights folks wonder if he is the right guy to oversee the new gay-friendly military.

Fourth, Democrats are wondering why in the heck Democratic presidents so often pick Republicans to run the Pentagon. They worry it plays into the stereotype that Democrats are not tough enough to be in charge of running America's wars.

But there is also a fifth point that Horsey makes, and it is that fifth point is where he really seals the deal:

And so, though not much has been said about it, yet, it is likely that the biggest behind-the-scenes resistance to Hagel will come from defense contractors and people within the Pentagon who think bloat is just fine. More than the pro-Israel folks, more than the bomb-Iran crowd, more than gays and abortion activists, it is those who profit from military spending and the senators who are lavished with their campaign donations who will be aiming the biggest guns to shoot down Chuck Hagel.    [Emphasis added]

So, why did Obama choose Chuck Hagel?  Apparently because he likes Hagel and because they share some common goals.  Hagel "mentored" Obama when the president was a brand new senator.  Both of them want to cut back on traditional "war waging" whenever there is a dispute, especially since our new arsenal of weaponry (e.g., drones) don't always require too many boots on the ground.  Both men want to get the troops out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later.  Both really are committed to slicing the bloat out of the Pentagon budget (like the Abrams tanks that even the military doesn't want).

Is that enough to justify the nomination and to justify the president's digging his heels in?

It's hard to tell, but I'll tell you what:  those confirmation hearings are going to be high drama.

Look into popcorn futures.  Might be a hot investment over the coming months

Here We Go, Again

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (July 31, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then come on back.)

I'll be the first to admit that I took some perverse joy in the coverage of Mitt Romney's Grand Tour, taken to establish his foreign policy credibility. He has gone from gaffe to gaffe, and the MSM has been quite happy to document each mis-step, from the condescending comments on the English readiness for the Olympics, to the snubbing (and cursing) of the US press corps traveling with him, to the insulting of the Palestinian culture. It has been like watching a real "not-ready-for-prime-time" troupe.

My good cheer, however, vanished when I read some serious coverage of what he has been saying during the Grand Tour. All sorts of alarms sounded when I read Maeve Weston's article on his Jerusalem speech.

On a day that mixed religious symbolism, courtship of financial donors and tough rhetoric, Mitt Romney on Sunday declared in his most aggressive tones to date that the U.S. should stand firmly behind Israel if it chooses military action to thwart Iran's progression toward a nuclear weapon.

Flanked by several dozen Israeli and American flags, with the last glimmers of sunlight illuminating the walls of Jerusalem's Old City behind him, Romney argued in a speech that Tehran's ayatollahs "are testing our moral defenses" and monitoring "who will object" and "who will look the other way."

Accusing Iran of having a "bloody and brutal record," the unofficial Republican presidential nominee said, "We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran's leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions."

The conduct of Iran's leaders "gives us no reason to trust them with nuclear material," he said. As they edge toward developing nuclear weapons capability, "preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority."

It was only with super-human restraint that I didn't embolden that whole quote.

First of all, what the hell does "the ayatollahs are testing our moral defenses" mean? I recognize the words and the syntax as English, but I just don't get it. It's not as if the Obama White House is shining Iran on; in fact, right now the White House and Congress are busy ratcheting up the pressure via sanctions in Iran. And it's not as if the rest of the world is ignoring the fact that the crazies in Iran have the know-how, and possibly the capacity already to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. What the adults in the world are trying to do is make it clear to Iran that it just isn't worth it.

So, amidst all of this diplomacy Mitt decides to pander to the crazies in Israel (who are currently in power) that want the US to either nuke Iran or allow them to do so. Why? There's a big Jewish vote out there.

Kevin Siers' cartoons reminds us of the last Republican who was itching for a war. A decade and a trillion dollars later, and we're about to go that route again.

Kyrie Eleison

The Family Budget

It has always struck me as ludicrous that the Pentagon budget is always the last to be slashed or even minimally lowered during difficult economic times. We can expect attacks on social programs, like free lunches for poor children or Medicaid, but the Pentagon ... well, it's simply too important to touch. It's even harder these days because we seem to be caught up in the idea of perpetual war and it would be unpatriotic to undercut our troops. Jets that won't fly, tanks that are too unwieldy for the modern battlefield: no matter. We need them.

It's especially disconcerting when the expenditures on weaponry are for the benefit of another nation.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is pushing for congressional funding to ship more Iron Dome missile defense systems to Israel.

“The Department of Defense has been in conversations with ... Israel about U.S. support for the acquisition of additional Iron Dome systems and intends to request an appropriate level of funding from Congress to support such acquisitions based on Israeli requirements and production capacity," Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement released Tuesday.

DOD had set aside more than $200 million to help Israel purchase and field the Iron Dome system in fiscal 2012. Israel already has three Iron Dome systems deployed in the country.

They have been key in deterring counter short-range rocket and mortar attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip, according to Little. [Emphasis added]

Yes, I know: these are defensive systems intended to protect Israel from incoming missiles. And I do admit that I find funding such systems a bit more palatable then assisting Israel buy more rockets and jet fighters. That said, I still find it hard to swallow that we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up a nation that by all outward signs is still not serious about solving the biggest problem in the Middle East right now as it spreads its "settlements" into Palestinian territory and locks down other parts of that land.

From the looks of things, however, it appears that Israel will get this further assistance and the vote will truly be bipartisan:

“Iron Dome is a game changer,” said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.). “The threats Israel faces from incoming, indiscriminate terrorist rocket attacks are countered by this cutting edge anti-missile system. Iron Dome is fundamentally shifting political, diplomatic and military realities on the ground."

Berman, a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has pushed a number of pro-Israeli measures, including an extension of an Israeli loan guarantee program and further sanctions against Iran, along with more funding for Iron Dome systems.

Rep. Berman has lots of friends from the other side of the aisle rushing to join him in pushing for that additional funding. Unfortunately, no such cooperation appears to be imminent for additional funding for such programs as WIC, school lunches, Medicaid and the like. I guess our welfare isn't quite as important.

Feeble And Pliant

As I've said several times in the past, there are several reasons I go over to Watching America each week. First of all, it's a good bet that I'll find information about the US there that I won't get in any American papers. Equally as important, however, is that those international articles give some indication of just how the US is viewed by friends and not-such-friends around the world on any given issue. It is the latter point that I was drawn to today.

This editorial in the Arab News (Saudi Arabia) assesses the latest state of the US-led peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel as an epic fail.

Washington’s decision that it will no longer attempt to persuade the Israelis to impose a new moratorium on settlement construction in order to restart peace negotiations is an abject and shocking admission of failure. Everyone knew that that the Americans had serious difficulties trying to persuade the Israelis to concede on this vital issue. But there was wide belief that an ingenious diplomatic formula could be devised to enable talks to go ahead. No one imagined that President Barack Obama would simply capitulate to the Israelis. That is what has happened. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to concede on the matter and, rather than try to use the financial and political force the US has to make him change his mind, Obama has thrown in the towel. Never in the history of US-Israeli relations has a US president been so feeble or so pliant. ...

The US response was also critical. It can no longer justify that position. The time has come for the Arab states, through the Arab League that meets in the next couple of days to respond to the American announcement, to formally tell the US that its Middle East policy is a failure. It should also tell it that since it is not prepared to help find a just and workable solution, it has forfeited any right to hinder attempts by others to do so. Washington will not like it, but it has abandoned all semblances of integrity and responsibility in the matter. [Emphasis added]

The descriptor "feeble and pliant" would apply to this president's domestic efforts as well as his diplomatic ones. Healthcare reform and the recent tax cut extension deals are prime evidence of that. But in the crucial Middle East arena, that approach could be cataclysmic in ways the president apparently has not considered. When Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to impose a moratorium on new settlements, the White House did have options to bring pressure to bear on the recalcitrant leader, chief of which was the ending of matching grants of military weapons. Instead, President Obama blinked. And then he shrugged and turned away, like a crippled old man just spat upon by a local thug.

The editorial calls upon the rest of the world to step in by formally recognizing the Palestine State with all that entails. It also calls upon the Arab League to step up and take the place of the US in the morass the peace talks have become. Since the US has shown such an unwillingness to challenge the current Israeli leadership, it should indeed step down. If it will not lead, then the least it can do is get out of the way.

Balance

One of the real joys in following Watching America is that there is usually at least one article posted from the world press that captures an issue so well that I've had to shift my perspective to one more in touch with reality. This week there was such an article, this one from Spain.

“Israel will be the victim of geography and demography,” prophesied De Gaulle, indicating that Israel would not be able to resist the pressure of the surrounding Arab world, which has a much superior birth rate to its own. However, Israel has not only resisted both pressures but has accumulated victory after victory until it has converted itself into the premier power of the Middle East. No country in its surroundings, or all of them put together, can stand up to it.

That could carry Israel, paradoxically, to destruction. In order to continue using its power in all its forms and in occasions where it appears challenged, that same strength will turn against it. It is already happening. It is true that it would only take Israel’s enemies one battle to annihilate it, whereas Israel would have to eliminate all of them in order not to disappear. But in the global world in which we live, he who minds only his particular interests without keeping in mind those of the community will inevitably end up condemned to ostracism. Remember South Africa under apartheid. It is what Israel’s most sensitive spirits are warning against. [Emphasis added.]

While the logic is a bit murky, the essence of the portion cited is that if Israel is not reined in, either by cooler heads in Israel or by pressure bought to bear by the rest of the world (in particular, by the US), it will indeed have to stand alone if the Arab world should finally decide that enough is enough. South Africa managed to avert violence in the overthrow of the apartheid government, in part because the burden of economic and social sanctions simply became too much to bear. The question now, however, is whether that kind of universal sanctioning can be accomplished with Israel, given the history of US subversion of any attempt to punish Israel for its egregious behavior.

José María Carrascal, the author of this opinion piece, offers a tentative answer to that question, one that both sides of the conflict should take hope from:

In a global world, there are no individual solutions, and the Palestinian problem has been poisoning international relations since the division of that territory. It is this that is impeding the rapprochement of the West and the spread of moderate Islam, this that makes it impossible for the Palestinian Authority to control its people and this that has converted Gaza into a small fort controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization. “The flotilla was aiming to break the Gaza blockade,” claimed the Israeli government in order to justify its commandos’ assault of it. But the problem comes precisely from having Gaza blockaded. In the 21st century, a million and a half people cannot be locked inside a ghetto. Today, Gaza is a powder keg ready to explode, to the satisfaction of extremists.

Israel believed that, with the backing of the United States, it could resist the harassment coming not only from the Arab world but also from the entire world. Until now it has achieved that, thanks to the carte blanche offered by all American presidents to defend itself. But the United States has other priorities than the defense of Israel, and Obama has already shown interest in a more well-balanced Middle East foreign policy. ...

Without that carte blanche, Israel would have to come to terms with its neighbors and would have to cease the collective punishment of the Palestinians for the murderous behavior of the extremists. That collective punishment, whether in the form of the blockade (see this LA Times article on the impact of the blockade on all of the Palestinians in Gaza) or in the simple day-to-day harassment of Palestinians at the border (see this post at Dohiyi Mir for evidence of just how petty, yet violent, the IDF can be), is only pushing the Palestinians into the camp of the violent and the neighboring nations into the camp of the hotheaded war makers.

Mr. Carrascal's concluding remarks summarize just what kind of balance has to be struck:

I would say that the first party interested in finding a just and balanced solution to the Palestinian problem is Israel. Then, we are. The Jews can never return to being a wandering people without rights or a homeland in the world. Neither can the Palestinians.

From you lips, Mr. Carrascal, to the world's ears.

Weak Tea

A day late and a dollar short: the left-of-center editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has continued its tradition of banality with respect to the Israeli murderous attack on the boats carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza.

As I did a few days ago, the editorial dutifully notes the he said-she said nature of the media coverage. It even calls for a real independent investigation into what actually happened. However, it appears to be treating the whole shameful episode as simply between Israel and Hamas and implying that there's not much the rest of the world can do beyond the exerting of some moral suasion.

In the days ahead, we need to learn what intelligence Israeli officials relied on in planning Operation Sea Breeze, why the operation was carried out in international waters, and what preparations were made for the obvious possibility that the commandos might meet resistance. We need to understand why a military that possesses tear gas and rubber bullets and other crowd-control tools couldn't find a way of defusing the situation short of shooting civilians dead with live ammunition.

Inevitably, the incident also will focus new attention on the blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza to isolate the Hamas government there. We agree with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the blockade "creates unacceptable suffering, hurts forces of moderation and empowers extremists."

This page supports Israel's right to self-defense. We support reasonable measures to stop cross-border shelling and to keep weapons from illegally entering Gaza by land or sea. We oppose the Hamas government's consistent call for the destruction of Israel. But we also want to see an end to the blockade, which amounts to collective punishment of about 1.5 million Palestinians.

There is absolutely no mention of what beyond the tsk-tsking of the world needs to be done, especially by the chief enabler of this kind of atrocious Israeli behavior, the US. After billions of dollars in military aid and dozens of UN Security Council vetoes of any measure condemning Israeli behavior, the US still maintains its unswerving support of Israel, even in the face of this atrocity. I have yet to see any article reporting even the summoning of the Israeli Ambassador to the White House.

The editorial calls for the end of Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is a commendable sentiment, but it will remain just that -- a sentiment -- unless and until real pressure is brought against the Israeli government by the US. And that will happen only when real pressure is brought against the US government to take some bold steps, pressure which could be initiated by editorial boards of major newspapers.

Weak tea, indeed.

Mean, Hateful, And Stupid

The Israeli attack on the boats carrying humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza has at least temporarily focused the world's attention on something other than the BP Gulf spill. Predictably, the two stories share a couple of common factors, the biggest of which is the "he said, she said" coverage.

Israel claims the deaths and injuries were caused by the boats' illegal attempt to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza, a blockade imposed for security reasons once Hamas took over Gaza. The passengers on one of those boats set up an ambush and attacked IDF forces as they boarded.

The passengers on the boats claim they were in international waters, and the boat attacked was sailing under a Turkish flag. The IDF forces boarded the boat with guns blazing. The passengers had no traditional weapons and used whatever was at hand in self-defense. The boats were not smuggling weapons into Gaza, they were carrying medical and relief supplies for the people of Gaza.

The Israelis claim there were 9 deaths. The Pro-Gaza activists on board the ship claim 16.

Regardless of the true facts (which, in all likelihood, will probably never come out), the Israeli decision to challenge the small flotilla with an overwhelming military force was a really, really stupid one by all news accounts, including this one from the L.A. Times.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticized Israel's "disproportionate use of force." U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the violence. The European Union's foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, said the bloc was deeply concerned, and she called on Israel to conduct an inquiry. British Foreign Secretary William Hague deplored the killings and called for an end to the Gaza blockade.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called the raid "banditry and piracy" on the high seas and "murder conducted by a state." Turkey, whose citizens accounted for more than half the flotilla's passengers and which has been an ally of Israel, recalled its ambassador to Israel and warned of further actions.

Ma Zhaoxu, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said his nation "is appalled and condemns the Israeli navy's attack on the Turkish fleet shipping humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip."

Greece, Egypt, Sweden, Spain and Denmark summoned Israel's ambassadors, demanding explanations for the violence. Greece suspended a military exercise with Israel and postponed a visit by Israel's air force chief. Germany called for an immediate investigation but was careful not to directly place blame, adding that it was seeking information on six German citizens believed to have been aboard the ships.

For decades the rest of the world, led by the United States, has cut Israel all sorts of slack for its behavior with respect to the Palestinians under the theory that the small country had a big security problem, one that it had a right to address. And for decades the small country has pushed the boundaries of decency in its treatment of the Palestinians because the rest of the world could be counted on to look the other way after muttering a few "tsk tsks".

This time the Israelis pushed too far, if the initial reactions of the rest of the world are any indication. Israel has deeply angered its one ally in the region, Turkey, and given the Arab League yet another reason to be distrustful of its small neighbor. If past history is any indication, the action has also strengthened the claims of Hamas (no innocent party itself) that the only way to deal with Israel is with bombs and terrorist attacks.

The blockade of Gaza itself was a wretched act insofar as it deprived its inhabitants of the most basic of needs: clean water, food, medical supplies, and materials for infrastructure. The vicious military attack upon the protesters of that blockade was even worse.

The response of the White House has been cautious (no surprise there). It would be nice if more than a few words deploring the loss of life emanated from the one location that has kept Israel afloat all these years, and even nicer if some harsh language issued within the next day. Recalling the American Ambassador, even summoning the Israeli Ambassador to the White House would at least signal to Israel and to the rest of the world that such behavior will no longer be tolerated.

Sadly, I doubt any of that will happen. It wouldn't be prudent.

A Gentle Rebuke

Vice President Biden's comments on Sunday with respect to a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites (see my post on the issue here) have been "clarified" by President Obama. From the Los Angeles Times:

President Obama, issuing an unusual clarification of his vice president's words, said today that his administration has "absolutely not" given its blessing for an Israeli attack on Iran.

Obama said that though Israel has the right to defend itself, U.S. officials have emphasized the need to avoid "major conflict in the Middle East." ...

Biden's words set off a debate over whether the White House was hardening its line on Iran in the wake of Tehran's postelection crackdown, or whether Biden had simply committed a gaffe.

Obama said in a CNN interview today that Biden was merely stating "a categorical fact, which is that we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are."

That the US is not giving Israel any kind of blank check for such an attack is a relief. I just wish the response had been a little quicker from Mr. Obama, but I suppose an argument could be made that too quick a public response would have unnecessarily embarrassed the Vice President (if that's possible).

Presumably someone from the White House has already sent a message to Israel's government which similarly "clarified" the Vice President's comments, but if not, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, forcefully reiterated President Obama's stance on tamping down the instability in that region of the world yesterday while speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, according to this AP article.

Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" - is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said.

One way to be sure Israel and it's Prime Minister get the message would be to be a bit more selective in the weaponry we ship to Israel. Maybe if those "bunker buster" missiles that country wants stayed in the armories here in the US, Israel would begin to get the message that there are no longer any blank checks being sent by Washington.

Say, What?

Writing a check with his mouth that his feet can't cash is nothing new for Joe Biden. He was famous for his irreverent and careless statements when he was a senator, but most people assumed that as Vice President he would be more circumspect because what he says will now be construed as White House policy. That's why his comments yesterday on ABC's "This Week" were so stunning. From the NY Times:

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

"Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said, in an interview taped in Baghdad at the end of a visit there.

The remarks went beyond at least the spirit of any public utterances by President Barack Obama, who has said that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program should be given to the end of the year. But the president has also said that he is “not reconciled” to the possibility of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon — a goal Tehran denies. [Emphasis added]

Now, it is entirely possible that Vice President Biden had just lapsed into his old ways because he was tired. He spoke, after all, from Baghdad at the end of his trip to visit the troops and his son. If that was the case, he'll be facing a tongue lashing from another famous mouth, the one on Rahm Immanuel, for his failure of discipline, and we can expect a "clarifying" statement to issue from the White House.

However, even if the vice president's comments were not an expression of a stiffening policy from the White House, they might as well have been. The effect will potentially be the same: Israel will assume it has just been given a blank check to do what certain elements in that country have wanted to do for several years, launch an attack on suspected nuclear sites in Iran. Those elements are now in charge of the Israeli government, so such an attack is certainly not out of the question. That attack will be carried out with weaponry largely supplied by the US and paid for by US taxpayers, a fact that is well known by countries in that region and in the world.

Mr. Biden did include the standard White House line with respect to diplomatic engagement of Iran, reminding the Iranian leaders that the offer to talk is still on the table. President Obama, also speaking on Sunday, reiterated the preference for talks with Iran, as another NY Times article makes clear, but will that be enough to offset the free pass seemingly given to Israel?

That's still an open question, one that had better be answered in a hurry, if only through quiet diplomatic channels. If it isn't, we're in for more cowboy diplomacy, only this time it will involve a surrogate.

And that's not the kind of change that was promised.

What The Rest Of The World Heard

Not surprisingly, President Obama's speech in Cairo was the focus of the majority of articles at Watching America, especially those articles from the Middle East press outlets. The range of opinions on what the US president said and what he meant was as wide outside the US as it was inside, and it is clear that international leaders are still poring over the speech, parsing each statement and even each word in order to discern the overall intention of the US with respect to that region.

The article that intrigued me the most was an editorial from Lebanon's Daily Star because it pointed out something I hadn't considered in my own analysis of the speech.

To measure the impact of such an innovative address, one even needs innovative tools, as well as time to digest it before completing the full evaluation. But we should remember the Cairo speech wasn't a show - it was an exercise in power politics of the first order. The credit here probably belongs to Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff. Without Emmanuel, whose pro-Israeli sympathies can't be questioned, Obama wouldn't be taking on the pro-Israel lobby, whether on Palestine or Iran. Emmanuel has laid down a bruising challenge: come up with a better plan on these issues, or shut up.

Thus, Obama's speech wasn't a lightweight declaration of idealistic principles; it represented a country, through its innovative leader, speaking quietly and carrying a big stick. [Emphasis added]

Yes, given the venue from which the speech was delivered, it was intended to be heard by the Islamic world, but it was also intended to be heard by Israel. If the speech was more than rhetoric and was actually an introduction to President Obama's new policy for the Middle East, and especially for Palestine, then it portends a shift in US attitudes, one, in the eyes of the editorialist, that should be welcomed by the Arab nations.

Obama emphasized the down side of global interdependence, meaning today's problems have real-world impact for many countries. Moreover, interdependence is a two-way street: people here are being asked to drop their misperceptions, just as America under Obama's leadership is prepared to drop its own misperceptions.

The focus on partnership isn't rhetoric; it has a real-world impact. If countries in the rest of the world step up to the plate, they will find that they have a role to play in these global battles.

It won't be a perfect symmetry of roles, since no one has the clout of the United States. But if the game is played correctly, having a positive role to play in a fair international system is an outcome we can live with. To get there, we need to keep ourselves oriented toward the new, and the innovative, and remember the contrast we saw in Cairo this week, one between a new politics of hope and interdependence, and the old politics of despair and disappointment.

While it is too early to tell just how serious President Obama is about this new approach to the Middle East region, he at least has sent out preliminary signals to Israel that the US will not just accept whatever that tiny nation which is tied so tightly to the US by history and by a powerful lobby decides to do or not do. He has called for an end to new settlements in the West Bank, a call that must be making Prime Minister Netanyahu apoplectic. That in itself is evidence of change, the kind of change that is so needed if the US is to return to the role of honest broker in the region.

"Truth Is Relative" Doesn't Make It Incest

What, we can cut the cord now? If Pres. Obama keeps on like this, some one will discover that the country called U.S. of A. is not joined at the waist with Israel. In watching our Department of Justice work on the assumption that our security is gained by fighting against Palestinians in that conflict, against Palestinians' freedoms, I would say that's all to the good.

We will, as Dan Froomkin observes, do Israel a favor too, if we stop backing them in their indefensible positions. It is time for the Israelis to work with their neighbors. We cannot turn their neighbors pliable unless we all are working toward a reasonable settlement. That does not mean one of those places where Israelis occupy territory they can only claim by force.

President Obama's call for a "new dialogue" in the Middle East -- one in which the U.S. would be "honest" about what Israel has to do to achieve security -- is the clearest indication yet that the new administration is taking a dramatically different and much more assertive approach with its long-time ally.

Obama's comments indicate that he believes Israel has been indulged -- even deluded -- by previous administrations, to its own detriment. By contrast, this president's view seems to be that what Israel really needs is to be pushed into making the difficult concessions that are in its own long-term interests.

And Obama has been clear that the first concession Israel needs to make is to freeze the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank that both literally and figuratively set the occupation of Palestinian territories in concrete.

Stopping the growth of settlements -- not to mention dismantling them -- is a hugely sensitive political issue for Israelis, and and Israel's current right-wing leadership is already talking about defying Obama's request.

But on the eve of an overseas trip that will include a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday, Obama is showing no signs of, as he would put it, "equivocation."

This has been a long time coming, and that has led to any number of conspiracy theories. While I would not clear the past maladministration of any war criminal charges, after the irresponsibility it has shown toward this country, I think that is one element we really can 'put behind' us.

The nation of Israel has a long way to go, and this country can be more help to them than it has been in the past, by applying and insisting on realistic treatment of other countries.

Some Evidence Of Change

This week's jaunt over to Watching America was another educational excursion. Some of the issues covered include China-US relations, Russia-US movement toward nuclear weapon reduction talks, the swine flu epidemic, and the recent visit of Benjamin Netanyahu to the US.

It was that last issue which I found most interesting because the television coverage I saw earlier this week (the post-meeting "smiley-faces") seemed to imply business as usual between the two countries. My assessment, according to the various articles posted, was wrong. President Obama's policy towards Israel and the Middle East just might be moving toward a more balanced view of that region and its number one problem, something Israel's new Prime Minister must not appreciate.

The article with what I found to be the most cogent analysis of that meeting came from Germany's Berliner Umschau. Written by James Kling (and translated by Watching America), the article has a concise and accurate summary of the complicated issues facing this administration: the two-state solution, right of return, settlements, Jerusalem, and Iran. For that summary alone, the article is worth the read.

What interested me more, however, is Mr. Kling's assessment of what appears to be a shift in approach by the US when it comes to Israel, a shift which just might be possible because of a change in opinion in America itself when it comes to Israel.

Barack Obama is the first American president in a long time to acknowledge that America’s interests don’t necessarily always coincide with Israel’s, and that Israel’s latest hard-line government is now actually acting against America’s interests in the Near East. That fact was brought home to Israel’s new prime minister of six weeks when he visited Obama in Washington. ...

...Because Israel owes its very existence to the U.S., America can’t very well turn its back on it. If an American president were to even consider doing so, he would be committing political suicide. The pro-Israeli American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly admits to being a pro-Israel lobby, and it has enormous influence. More importantly, Obama would be unable to count on the Democratic Party, because many members of Congress would be running the risk of losing their seats in the next election if they supported him.

Gradually, however, the atmosphere is changing. People within the government now realize that it is America’s one-sided support for Israel that makes any agreement with the Arabs impossible. And things are changing across the nation itself: If the most recent opinion polls are accurate, a majority of Americans no longer sees U.S.-Israeli interests as congruent; they support a two-state solution, they support the right of return for displaced Palestinians (or at least compensation for them) and they are in favor of allowing Hamas to take part in peace negotiations.

If Mr. Kling is correct, and I do hope he is, President Obama has a real opportunity to move the difficult process along without being seen as sacrificing Israel's very existence. What it will take is real leadership, but, even with all my complaints with Mr. Obama as expressed here since January, I believe he has that quality. He certainly has the right policy team for the issue. Both Secretary of State Clinton and Middle East envoy George Mitchell have the chops for the job and the ear of the President, something that can't be said for the last administration.

So, yes. I am hopeful. I am also cautiously optimistic.

The Obama Middle East Policy

In my usual weekend trip to Watching America, I noticed some shift in the subject matters offered at the site. There were still a lot of articles on the world economy and President Obama's tactics here in the US, but there were several articles on his foreign policies. Especially interesting were those dealing with the Middle East and Secretary of State Clinton's announcement that Iran would be invited to talks on Afghanistan (see my post from earlier this week).

One in particular noted the recent visits of various members of the Middle East team assembled by the US president, including those of Sec. Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell. Written by Ayman El-Amir for Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly, the article describes the strategy President Obama appears to be using in this explosive part of the world and suggests what one of the key stumbling blocks will be.

With all Middle East complex issues on the table, the administration in Washington seems to realise two things: there is no leading Arab power it can engage to address all issues, and that all political and security tracks point to Tehran, which the US is inviting to a planned international conference on Afghanistan as an opening gesture of engagement. So, it would seem its strategy would be to separate the tracks and tackle each one individually, starting from the periphery and gradually moving towards the core. For Syria, confidence-building and the restoration of relations would mark a good start, now that Syria has redefined its relations with Lebanon on the basis of mutual sovereignty and is willing to cooperate with the international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of Al-Hariri. For Hamas, the reconstruction of Gaza, a national unity government and a long-term ceasefire with Israel could be prelude to reviving negotiations towards a final settlement. The only obstacle will be the anticipated policies of the hardcore right-wing government that is expected in Israel. For the future of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance, the option could be held in abeyance pending the progress of negotiations. After all, in negotiating peace in Northern Ireland, George Mitchell did not insist that the Irish Republican Army lay down its weapons as a precondition for uncertain negotiations.

No matter how much the new US strategy will manage to segment the issues, it would seem that all tracks lead to Tehran. As a rising regional power, Iran has vital interest and varying degrees of involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, Lebanon, heavy US military presence in the Gulf and Israel's appetite for expansion and domination of the region. The US hopes that by disconnecting Syria from Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Palestinian problem through a settlement of the Golan Heights issue, the supporting lifeline to Palestinian and Lebanese resistance will dry up and Iranian influence will diminish. Iran would then be isolated and left at the mercy of US and Israel, loyally followed by the European Union. This is easier said than done since it means that Syria could not make such choices without suffering serious destabilising domestic and regional repercussions. ...

For the Obama administration, the most serious challenge is not Syria, Hamas or Hizbullah but Israel, its closest Middle East ally. Israel wants territorial expansion as well as peace based on military pre-eminence and US pressure on the Arabs and the distraught Palestinians. To this end, Israel perceives Iran's development of nuclear technology as a mortal threat, not because Iran will inevitably produce nuclear weapons but because its rise represents a military deterrence to Israeli military supremacy in the region. In this sense, Israel should be the priority target of the Obama Middle East strategy. The problem is that both Israel and the US know well the limits of any effective pressure the administration can bring to bear on its close ally, compared to that it can exercise on its vulnerable Arab interlocutors. [Emphasis added]

Mr. El-Amir is very perceptive in his analysis, especially with respect to Israel. President Obama has already been burned by the powerful Israel lobby when one of his appointees had to withdraw because of his past critical comments on that country and its practices. Unfortunately, unless US pressure is brought to bear on Israel so that no further invasions of Lebanon or Palestinian territories are made and further settlement expansions in the Golan Heights and Gaza are stopped, the main sticking point in any Middle East stabilization will remain.

Hopefully Mr. Obama understands this and there will be some real change in how we deal diplomatically with this part of the world.

Our Ms. Brooks: Teh Stupid!

Rosa Brooks has a superb column on the situation in Gaza in which she skewers all of the major actors. Using the frame of "How to be stupid", she then lists the deadly and boneheaded moves in what I consider to be an evenhanded analysis, and I urge you to click on over to read the entire column.

The part that interested me most was the section on the Bush administration response:

. . . Bush style

Avoid opportunities to push for a rapid end to the conflict. Wring your hands every now and then, but don't engage seriously with European, Turkish or Arab actors anxious to propose compromises that could end the conflict. Block a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a temporary cease-fire on the grounds that it doesn't offer a durable solution.

In general, sit back and relax. It's just the Middle East exploding again. It's just a harbinger of ongoing suffering, regional instability and global terrorism. No big deal. Let the new guy handle it.

Pretty accurate description of our current leader, eh?

Oh, Sec. of State Rice has been wearing her fingertips to the bone dialing world leaders and Israel, but she has made it clear she has no intention of traveling anywhere this late in the game. Let Hillary do it. Besides, Hamas had it coming. It's their fault for lobbing rockets into Israel.

Mr. Bush also feels it's Hamas' due. After all, they are a terrorist organization. Maybe Israel can finally stamp those pesky Arabs out and the land can be restored to its pristine milk and honey state. Besides, John Howard is in town.

And Mr. Obama, the President Elect?

Well, there can be only president at a time. It would be unseemly to make any comments that could be construed as presumptuous. Besides, the inauguration is only twelve days away. There will be time enough to deal with the issue after that when he is the real president.

Only twelve days: twelve days of rocket and bomb showers, some of the weapons tipped with phosphorus. There are still some mosques and schools standing and some parts of Israel that haven't been littered with Katushyas. There are still some civilians on both sides of the wall that haven't been spattered with blood, their own and that of their families and friends.

Teh stupid, it burns!

Literally.

Circular Reasoning Enables Hamas

This morning, the scene is exactly what was inevitable for that occupied White House desperately seeking terrorism. Thousands of civilians are dying from Israel's attacks on the criminally incarcerated population of Gaza. The blame that our cretin in chief assigns is thrown on Hamas.

While no one approves of the constant barrage of Israel by crude rocketry that Hamas has entered into, it is obvious that responding with unbalanced, outlandish, uninhibited attacks on the homegrown insurgency is hardly going to accomplish anything but civilian casualties, outraging the occupied territories. The next seventeen days are full of opportunities for the war criminals to make deeper inroads into what's left of respect for this country by ignoring humane considerations.

In his weekly radio address President George W Bush said Hamas was responsible for the latest violence and rejected any unilateral ceasefire that he said would allow Hamas to continue to fire on Israel.

He added that no peace deal would be acceptable without tougher action to prevent Hamas and other groups from receiving weapons.

"There must be monitoring mechanisms in place to help ensure the smuggling of weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza comes to an end," he said.

"I urge all parties to pressure Hamas to turn away from terror and to support legitimate Palestinian leaders working for peace," Mr Bush added.

Those bombardments of the Gaza populace are just not a good peace move, an aspect of his GWOT that has evaded the worst president ever. As usual, his statements are of a piece with the enlistment efforts of Hamas and other groups that oppose U.S. domination and violence. That does seem to be the aim of all their efforts.

As I observed during my attendance at the Holy Land Foundation trial in federal court in Dallas, our winger Department of Justice equates Israel's fight against Hamas with our own 'homeland security' needs. It is this conviction that an internal struggle in Israel is part of the occupied White House's 'mission' that leads to the outrageous use of injustice, and violence, to promote peace, a practice that is self-evidently contradictory to our real needs.

The willful provocations the executive branch regularly provides have been a huge boost to all our opponents, and are much appreciated by them. The circularity factor, revealing their malice toward all, in turn gives more opportunities for throwing taxpayers' money away in the fight against what they are occasioning. A perfect fit, the purveyors of violence find their purpose in combat against their own effects.

This can only end when rational behavior by functional adults is restored in our country's government.

Focus, Please

I saw this headline over at Watching America: "America’s Image in the Islamic World Needs Improvement." Who could resist? Would it be a screed against the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, or a diatribe about the Iraq War, or perhaps some gloating at the successful prison break in Afghanistan?

Not quite. The article had to do with the issue of Israel and Palestine, the central issue of that area for decades. Egypt's al-Gomhuria reported on a meeting between Egypt's Foreign Minister and US Special Envoy Sada Cumber at the Organization of the Islamic Conference. While Envoy Cumber reported the meeting as a success, the Foreign Minister was more specific.

Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit stressed that the image of the United States needed a boost in the Islamic world, and increased efforts to improve it, and that the beginning of any improvement of the United States’ image in the Islamic world must spring from the issue of arriving at a solution to the Palestinian problem, as it is the essence of Arab-Israeli strife. [Emphasis added]

The Palestinian-Israeli issue has been one of the thorniest issues facing presidents almost from the inception of Israel's nationhood. There have been some successes, Jimmy Carter got a few of the problems ironed out, and Bill Clinton certainly tried to show that the US was an honest broker, but for the last seven years, the current administration skillfully ignored what is perhaps the key issue in the Middle East. Rather than confront the problem (and AIPAC), President Bush offered the rather clumsy band-aid of Karen Hughes hugging babies. It wasn't until the last year of his regime, with multiple failures both domestic and foreign, that he decided his legacy needed burnishing and that perhaps the Israel-Palestine issue would be just the ticket he needed.

Of course, even with all of the fanfare, there was no actual attempt to deal with the real problems. The US continues to provide Israel with munitions (including cluster bombs and missiles), and continues to bully the other nations in the area from dealing with Hamas and Syria. The US continues to cast a blind eye at the illegal settlements in the East Bank and other parts of the Palestinian land and supports the kind of check points that Jimmy Carter rightfully described as instruments of apartheid. But Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice dutifully made several trips to the Middle East insisting that a solution was just around the corner.

This administration will never do what it will take to start a real process towards solving this difficult problem. To do so would be to anger the money people at AIPAC and the misguided "Christian Zionists," who have their own bizarre agenda but who reliably vote Republican. It will be up to the next administration (once again) to try to make some progress.

And it will be difficult. Senator Obama, like Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, made the dutiful trip to AIPAC to assure that group that Israel's continued existence was of paramount importance to the US. That should not be a problem, as long as it is made clear that continued financial and military support is not an automatic given. Israel must be convinced that they too must make some hard choices, some concessions if they truly want peace with their neighbors. Sen. Obama will have to be clear about this if there is to be any improvement of our image and if there is to be any improvement in the credibility of our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

He might want to take that into consideration as he selects his Vice Presidential running mate and his potential cabinet because I have the distinct feeling that he won't have the luxury of seven years if he does not.

It's Foreign Policy Day At Cab Drollery

So, while President Bush is in Russia, and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill is on his way to Singapore for talks with North Korea, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has just returned from the Middle East where she attempted to kick start (again) the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The White House blast faxes have already started preparing us for the fact that Russia simply is not going to sign off on the missile defense system. Chris Hill, a respected career diplomat who came very close to closing the deal early in the Bush administration before North Korea got tagged as part of the "Axis of Evil" and before the administration undercut his efforts, has a long slog ahead of him. And Sec. Rice's efforts? Well, her failure at those talks are a combination of the current administration's ineptitude and, quite frankly, the cowardice of all the administrations in the past thirty years or so.

That she failed to move things along is not in doubt, according to this op-ed piece in the April 3, 2008 Daily Star (Lebanon).

It is hard to tell if US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is being deliberately innocent and juvenile, or, as the highest American foreign policy official, she is genetically incapable of being honest when it comes to Palestinian-Israeli issues. There is now only one real test of progress, or criterion of political seriousness, in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the short term: Can the United States make Israel stop expanding its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories? If not, talk of peace is a cruel hoax that will only raise and then dash expectations, leading to unknown consequences when the backlash occurs.

Continued Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian land is the single most destructive and dangerous reflection of the long-running Palestinian-Israeli conflict. ...

The Palestinian-Israeli "peace process" in its current form has lost all seriousness due to the severe imbalance in power between the two sides. Into this difficult situation steps the American government, vowing admirably, as it did at Annapolis four months ago, to exert vigorous efforts to achieve peace by the end of this year. Two things have been consistent since then, however: senior American officials travel to Israel regularly to push the peace process forward, and with every such visit the Israeli government announces new settlement expansion plans. [Emphasis added.]

Rami G. Khouri, the author of this piece, is absolutely correct, but this has been going on for years, and not just with respect to the expansion of settlements. Almost since the birth of modern Israel in 1948 the United States has had a special relationship with that nation and has protected its security at great cost. In the abstract, that is not a bad thing. The tiny nation, filled with a people who had been vilified and rejected by the rest of the world, culminating in the obscenity of the "Final Solution," deserved support and protection from a nation which had also begun under a similar cloud.

Certain elements in Israel, however, picked up on the US soft spot and have exploited if almost since 1948 to the extent that when it comes to foreign policy, Israel is the "third rail" that social security is when it comes to domestic policy. Every presidential candidate and many congressional candidates make the mandatory trip to Tel Aviv to make their bones. AIPAC keeps track, and their money and influence flows accordingly. As a result, American policy in the Middle East is hamstrung. The tragedy (past, present, and future) is that without a viable agreement between Israel and Palestine there can be no stability in the Middle East.

It's too late for the Bush administration (although there probably was no point at which the neocons would have dreamed of forcing Israel to conform to the standards required of a modern nation), but it's not too late for the next. All three presidential candidates have made their symbolic pilgrimages, but that shouldn't foreclose an honest reassessment of US policy and a shift to a more balanced policy.

It wouldn't take much. Hopefully at least two of the three candidates have Jimmy Carter's phone number on speed dial. He, or respected members of his Peace Center, might be just the answer towards moving Israel and Palestine into the new century.

What New Diversion Is This?

Funny, as Avedon Carol remarked this a.m. re: NIE report, is there something even worse that the occupied White House trying to distract us from by releasing this now. And it happened I just noticed the Times article about Israel being all prepared for invasion of the Gaza Strip. Hmmm. Of course, Israel disputes the NIE report.

Pretend you're KKKarl Rove. Yeh, ewwwwwwww. But Israel wants to make an attack on Gaza and of course, you know, Merka is going to back that up. But shouldn't we keep our (nonexistent) forces ready in case Iran then launches a nukular attack on us - or them. Oh, but there's no nukular threat anymore, as of Monday, so we're not endangering Merka by helping our BFF, as we did when they bombarded Syria. And the cretin in chief has kept up his pose of Big Dog Attacking Iran, to keep his Glass Parking Lot element happy. I've been watching these scum at work for so long, I do believe I'm beginning to follow how they think. It's inescapable to realize that the WH whole effort is for PR, and policy means nothing except a word to cover their rotten politics

Despite frequent cross-border attacks and air strikes on Gaza militants, the Israeli army has been unable to stop the rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled territory.

This year, Gazan militants have fired 2,000 rockets and mortars, the army said. The rockets have killed a total of 12 people in recent years and cause widespread panic in southern Israeli border towns.

Israel blames Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, for allowing the attacks, even though the group has not been directly involved in most of the rocket launchings.
(snip)
The White House announced Tuesday that President Bush will visit the Middle East in early January as he presses the Israelis and Palestinians to push forward with talks meant to lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israeli media reported that the visit would include a stop in Israel. U.S. diplomats could not confirm or deny the reports.

In a move that could hamper the U.S. peace push, Israel on Tuesday announced plans to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood. Palestinians warned that the move will undermine the newly revived peace talks.

Of course you know we will be right there to cover their backs on this. The same cretin in chief who tried to pressure attendees at his highly suspect happening in Annapolis to pressure Iran about their (now known to be fictitious) nuclear war-making? The same who was shivering in his artificial cowboy boots about WWIII being imminent? The same who sent his Treasury Secretary out to make a totally nonsense announcement of a "plan" on the mortgage fallout? (See yesterday's post.)

I try not to be part of the element that sees Israeli agents behind every new Middle East stumble, but it's hard to stay out of that pit when our country goes farther down the drain every day, and so much of our effort benefits Israel instead of Americans. I hope I'm wrong this time. What are the odds?

Who Could Have Imagined?

It's back to square one in the Israel-Palestine saga. The dissolution of the Palestinian "Unity Government" and the internal civil war between Fatah and Hamas which provoked that dissolution was not all that surprising, given the Israeli and US decision to force Hamas out of power no matter what the cost. An article in today's NY Times looks at the cynical approach which is still in play.

With the two Palestinian territories increasingly isolated from each other by a week of brutal warfare between rival factions, Israel and the United States seem agreed on a policy to treat them as separate entities to support Fatah in the West Bank and squeeze Hamas in the Gaza Strip. ...

As Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, who arrives in the United States on Sunday to meet with American officials, said, a Fatah government, shorn of Hamas, “can be a new opening.”

After the failure of the Palestinian unity government, Mr. Olmert said in an interview with The New York Times, “I suggest we look at things in a much more realistic manner and with less self-deceit.” [Emphasis added]

Prime Minister Olmert's comments reach beyond the disingenuous to the mendacious when he talk about "self-deceit." The policy of the US and Israel since Hamas scored its stunning electoral victory was to deceive the rest of the world. Instead of according Hamas a seat at the table so that the organization would actually have to learn the art of governing instead of blowing things up, the two countries decided to squeeze Hamas out by depriving the Palestinian government of the money it needed to effectively govern both the West Bank and Gaza.

The problem with the plan is that it not only didn't work, it also didn't deceive the rest of the world as noted in a June 14, 2007 editorial in France's Le Monde (in translation at Watching America).

Bitter and disenchanted is how Alvaro de Soto describes himself, in a report written at the conclusion of a two-year mission as the U.N.'s special Middle East envoy - a report that was to remain confidential. It is an overwhelming look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Extremely severe in its conclusions, the draft is a stunning indictment of a diplomatic failure. And while not sparing Europe or the U.N., it points to the Bush Administration as bearing the heaviest responsibility for its backing of an Israeli policy that has lead to a dead end. It was a policy that sought - even encouraged - the inter-Palestinian violence that today has resulted in a violent offensive by the Islamists of Hamas to take control of the Gaza strip. ...

This American obstinacy precipitated the failure of the Palestinian government of national unity and ruined the global peace effort launched by Saudi diplomacy, which envisaged an across-the-board normalization of relations between the Arab countries and Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state on the basis of its 1967 borders.

Mr. de Soto estimated that hereon in, it will be increasingly difficult if not "impossible" to create a Palestinian state. [Emphasis added]

Secretary of State Rice can make dozens of trips to the Middle East, but until this cynical policy is changed, nothing she can do or say will bring about a resolution of the Palestinian issue, which means that there will be no stability in the Middle East. Apparently, that is just what this administration wants.

The 51st State

There is no question that the illegal US war in Iraq has threatened to destabilize the already fractious Middle East. There is also no question that one of the keys to lasting stability in the Middle East is a resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue. In both matters, the United States bears a substantial responsibility for the current status and for the badly needed improvement in the region. Ironically, for that improvement to happen, however, the players in the region have to be brought into the equation, and that will happen only when diplomacy rather than military muscle is used.

Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't do diplomacy, and, if this article from Ynet News is accurate, it doesn't appreciate other members of the world community using that tool.

Syrian President Bashar Assad is repeatedly calling on Israel to engage in peace talks. In recent days he added that he has no preconditions for entering such talks -Assad is not even demanding the return of the Golan Heights as a precondition.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave an extraordinary response to Assad's overture: Engaging in dialogue with Syria at this time would be "against the position of (US President) George Bush, Israel's greatest friend," who is not interested in a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Thus, Israel is rejecting Syria's outstretched hand. [Emphasis added]

I'm sure Mr. Olmert didn't have to use mental telepathy to divine President Bush's position on Syria. The White House has made it clear to the entire world that it has no intention of speaking to Syria on Iraq or any other subject. I'm sure the White House has also made it clear that it will not countenance Israel doing so as well, which is foolish for many reasons.

If nothing else, Mr. Bush could have used Israeli-Syrian talks to indirectly coax Syria into pressuring the Sunni insurgents to settle down without having to go back on his assertions that he will not negotiate with Syria.

More importantly for the region, however, one less knot in the tangled Middle East could have been untied. A peace treaty between Israel and Syria with the resolution of the Golan Heights issue might have enabled more fruitful talks on the whole panoply of Israel-Palestine questions. In other words, the peace process would have gotten back on track.

But, no, Bush continues to manipulate the rest of the world to achieve whatever it is he wants to achieve. As a result, a wonderful opening to get something positive done in the Middle East is being rejected.

Stupid. Dangerously so.

And shameful.