I'm glad to see that you included the Arab peace initiative.
On a related note - what's your take on why Reform Judaism switched from anti-zionist to zionist?

You are right. Thanks. I will fix.

It was heartwarming to have a feel good story in the plane rescue in NYC Thursday. Those are our people. This is our country. This is the infrastructure that makes the difference between life and death for American people.

Obama must have a relentless, single-minded focus on what is good for the American people. It's the can-do competence that we saw in NYC on Thursday that people around the world admire. It's the example we set at home that provides models for better or worse abroad.

Stop intefering in the middle east. Bring the troops home. If AIPAC isn't happy with that, move to Israel. If Israelis aren't comfortable with that, move to New York.

This works as an exercise of wish fulfillment. Superman, in the form of Barack Obama, flies in and saves the day. Hostility that has been festering for generations, indeed centuries, magically falls away. Would that it were so.

You seem to posit the Israeli right wing lobby as the central obstacle that Obama will have to overcome to achieve peace. Once they are tamed, you envision the US assuming the role of honest broker to achieve the peace agreement any sane person looking at the conflict sees as inevitable. Even assuming that the US has the authority and credibility to bring about a comprehensive deal (and for a contrary view, see Robert Malley's piece in the latest New York Review of Books), hoping for sanity here seems a tall order.

Thus, incredibly, there is no mention of Hamas (or Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, for that matter). Like most of the analysis I've read, yours fails to take into account this most significant obstacle.

Surely you read the news today (oh boy). Israel's cabinet is on the verge of declaring a unilateral cease fire. The deal provides for US, Egyptian and International assistance in halting the arms traffic to Hamas in Gaza. Not surprisingly, Hamas is rejecting the ceasefire. As if in rejoinder to MJ, Meshal (safely ensconced in Syria) proclaims that the United States will not be able to dictate the rules and vows to continue armed "resistance" no matter the cost in innocent lives.

And as if to illustrate the insanity of the situation, Hamas (if the experts are correct) stands to gain from its stance. When the smoke clears, Hamas will predictably claim victory. Despite the apocalyptic suffering of his people and futility of his "resistance," Hamas is expected to gain new legitimacy and a generation of loyal adherents. Meanwhile, Abbas, despite losing not a single life and presiding over some incremental (though hardly significant enough) gains for his people, is viewed as ineffectual because he was unable to protect Palestinians from a conflict he did not instigate. In Israel, one can only hope Barak and Livni prevail given the nightmarish prospect of an empowered Bibi facing down an entrenched Hamas.

Whatever happens, it's hard to see any of MJ hopes for - an Israeli leader willing to reverse the disastrous settlement enterprise and end the "siege" of Gaza - as long as Hamas retains its influence.

Of course, it's nice to dream.

Maybe Obama is channeling some of your hopes and dream....by taking the "peace train" to D.C.

Just heard the radio broadcast of his last political speech as Senator Obama in Philly…covering many aspects he spoke of earlier in his Democratic campaign, though, selecting more verbiage from his Iowa Caucus win would have been just as appropriate (his introductory remarks included the usual laudatory recognition of Gov Rendell, Mayor Nutter, Senators Spector and Casey. The train ride to D.C. is a great idea and what should this ride be euphemistically called - Yes, We Can…ride into D.C. on bio-fuels and solar powered generators stored in the caboose.

If the country’s economic woes are so urgent and pressing, Obama’s bipartisanship callings on this particular crisis is not necessarily good timing, as is the same with some quarters of the Party calling for investigations and hearings on the Bush Administration. Not to say neither should be swept aside, but rather the appropriate time and place should happen; the stimulus package passed and signed by President’s Day and consideration for an independent investigation into the questionable aspects of Bush’s foreign policy farther down the road (but within the statutory time limits).

The soon appointed U.S. Atty General Eric Holder can and should also implement inquiry into Congress (both parties) and how they skirt around the laws by enacting laws that curry favor for their own political viability and their ties with the lobbying industry.

TRANSPARENCY from the top down, and back up again to the top….with the mainstream media reporting on ALL of it.

"Believe me, no pro-Israel organization of any consequence is going to take this President on if he insists that both Israelis and Palestinians live up to the commitment each has made to the United States and to each other."

Of course, that is the heart of the problem. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel'ls right to exist, and to recognize previous agreements.

Moreover, anyone who has read the Hamas charter and/or knows ANYTHING about Hamas knows they will NEVER be willing to live in peace with Israel (regardless of pipe dreams of the ignorant). The Hamas charter is available in its entirety on the peace site mideastweb.org (run by both Palestinians and Israelis). Some choice tidbits:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

*****************************

As for comparisons of Israelis and the IDF to Nazis "raising hackles" and the reference to Finkelstein...like Finkelstein, I am a child of survivors. But I don't share Finkelstein's Mommy/Daddy problems, nor would I ever accuse my mother of being a collaborator (as Finkelstein has done).

Unlike the Palestinians, my family did no violence to the Germans, much less commit constant terrorism against them. My murdered grandparents, aunts, and uncles could not avoid their fate just by renouncing a commitment to a murderous and violent ideology.

As for comparisons of the IDF to the Nazis, no army in recent or ancient history has been more careful to avoid civilian casualties than the IDF. Of course war is hell, and civilians get hurt. But for that matter, the majority of Israeli casualties are from "friendly fire" - no one, not even the IDF, can achieve perfection.

Compare how the IDF has acted to what the US did in the second battle of Fallujah. We killed at least 6,000 innocent civilians in a short period, and estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed ranges anywhere upward of 200,000.

The Allies (the good guys, right) in WWII killed 40,000 German civilians in one night when they firebombed Dresden. How many Afghans and Chechnyans did Russians kill intentionally by putting them under tank treads to make a point?

But perhaps the best and most direct comparison is how the Syrians responded to the Muslim Brotherhood (of which many consider Hamas to be an offshoot) in the Syrian city Hama (pop 350,000) in 1982. The Syrians killed somewhere between 7,000 and 35,000 OF THEIR OWN civilians over a three week period. But of course, that was just Arabs killing other Arabs, so who gives a damn.

No, humanitarian considerations only exist when Israel is involved. Only Israel, fighting an enemy that dresses up as women, hides their weapons in schools and mosques, and has their command center underneath a hospital, is held to impossible standards.

The US would not put up with missiles being fired at us for one day, much less for eight years. What was our response to ONE ATTACK on US soil? We are still in Afghanistan, half way around the world, 8 years later. And what real threat does Afghanistan pose to us, compared to constant rocket fire from Gaza?

A Palestinian friend of mine told me of a news report on Al Jazeera arabic last night. His translation was to the effect that the Emir of Kuwait called Abbas to invite him to this weekends Gulf Conference in Qatar.

Abbas responded that he didn't have a permit to travel to which the Emir answered that he'd take care of the permit

So the Emir called back 90 minutes later "We have your permit"

Abbas sheepishly replied "I can't leave here. Someone would slit my throat"

A unity government MJ?

I don't think that is in the cards and neither do any Palestinians I know

No, the Israelis have consistently undercut the only Palestinian they label "a partner."

I'm beginning to think....How to say this.....that the Israelis don't want a negotiating partner.

D'oh!

MJ: As I mentioned above, you seem to posit confronting the Israeli right and its allies in the US as Obama's central task in bringing peace. Once the US puts pressure on Israel to do the things we both would acknowledge it must, you seem to think peace will magically appear.

My question for you is what role do you envision Hamas playing in this process?

Who was that fella standing awkwardly off to the side at the President's Lunch?

Why that's Jimmy Carter

That's who Obama needs to listen to!

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=14087

Barack Obama is very popular, but America is facing an economic meltdown and I think that Obama will not want to spend much political capital in the Middle East on a problem that probably has no solution or at least on a problem where nobody has ever found a solution. To face the economic crisis he needs all the major political groups on board and AIPAC is a major group. In short, I think the collapsing economy and the danger it presents to his future reelection will keep him from dabbling much in the Middle East's political minefields.

I have read many of your posts on Israel and have declined comment, as I feel comparatively inadequate in the subject to add something of substance to a topic that you obviously hold dear. However, reading your posts leaves in me the unmistakable feeling of a sales pitch rather than that of a dispassionate analysis.

Like you, I also wish to “express my gratitude for making me proud to be an American again” with respect to our election of a man whom I think will move our future in a better direction. That you would tell him he can “transform the Middle East” strikes me as a setup for failure by placing his success at the providence of an unstable environment to which he lacks control over the majority of variables, and isolates the conflict from its environment in a way that paints an incomplete picture. This has resulted in your asking that he ignore what are the greater United States regional strategic interests and assumes he has control over regional catalysts that are beyond his control.
Barak Obama is shortly going to take office and as such will have the responsibility of looking after United States strategic interests throughout the world, including the Middle East, independent of his unique background. Regardless of the recent action in Gaza, tending to our interests abroad is not a luxury at any time as proven by the last administration’s methodology apparently based on half measures and arrogance, or lack any effort at all.

I agree that there are “ceasefires and then there are ceasefires”. You speak of addressing “the problems that led to war in the first place” though any mention of what those reasons are or may speculatively be are absent. Is the recent outbreak due to the movement of chess pieces on the board through proxy actions by other states with motivations reaching beyond the range of the explosive ordinance being expended, or is it as you seem to imply, a war isolated from history, oil, water, global state’s interests, and religion?

Obama’s intervention is absolutely necessary if for no other reason than protecting the interests of the United States. His responsibility is to broker those interests alone, not to end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That, I believe is not something he alone can do, so long as the world depends on Middle East oil. At this time in history, the conflict is a world conflict and will only truly become a regional conflict once oil is no longer the world’s fuel of choice thereby leaving water as the regional resource that the people living there will go to war over. Of course by that time, our “standing” will be of little to no concern to us as we have sufficient access to water.
Statements regarding U.S. goodwill in the Middle East and the “Muslim World” leave me feeling now, as much as they have in the past, that they are no more than cherry flavored straw men that deflect attention away from uncomfortable realities of the world we live.

The extent to which our country, or any other country regardless of the side they are on, is responsible for the conflict is nothing more than a reflection of the self-interests of the involved countries. We would not purposefully elect a president to perform his duties of office in a manner that is outside of our countries self-interests. It is as incorrect to view the U.S. as “Israel’s Lawyer” as it is misleading to believe that the relationship is based on anything other than Israel operating as a proxy for U.S. interests when aligned with their own; not a lawyer/client fiduciary relationship. Without Israel the U.S. would be without a regional proxy to protect its access to the oil that is a strategic necessity at this time. The U.S. will never be able to serve as a truly disinterested mediator so long as oil is a strategic resource for our country regardless of any humanitarian association.

Rationalization begins where necessity conflicts with morality. Whether Iran’s goal is complete dominance of the region allowing them to sit at the spigot controlling world access to the regions oil is speculation on my part but, Hamas functions as their proxy, doing their bidding in a manner that threatens U.S. access and strategic necessity. It is in Iran’s interest, given this goal, to at least maintain the status quo and to further act in ways that cause the disintegration of stability to increase in the region. Moral equivalence aside, morality has less to due with peace in the region than world opinion does. Neither has much compared to the free flow of oil. Rather, the more the western world does to embrace its evolution beyond oil, the more pressure Iran feels to increase the rate of reaction. So long as the world needs oil, innocent people will die in the wake of strategic interests around the world.

Regardless of the ancestry of Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton it is the strategic interests of our country and its people they are in the business of putting ahead of all other concerns be it religious, patriotic, or selfish. To the extent that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil demands that we override our individual sense of personal morality I believe it is a harsh and unfair deduction to say that America refuses to see the humanity of the Palestinians. Thinking thus refuses to acknowledge reality in its entirety.

Rather than the strength of the U.S.-Iraeli relationship empowering Obama, it is the necessity for that relationship to exist that undermines our position as a world power. Take oil out of the equation and the strategic necessity by and large disappears leaving a relationship dependent on friendship and trade only. This is not to say that sans oil the Middle East will be a peaceful place to live; there, water is scarce and Israel is fortunately endowed.

Simply put, the pro-Israeli lobbies represent what is in Israel’s interests in ways that remind decision-making politicians of how and where those interests align with those of the U.S. Given our strategic dependence on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the region the pro-Israeli lobbies have a much easier job than the pro-Palestinian lobbies. Strategic necessity will always trump headlines as motivation to act though Obama will do his best to mitigate damage to world public opinion while Iran, through Hamas, will do its best to destroy it. It’s the reality of the way the game is played. The only way to end the game is to end world dependence on that region.

“He arrives on Tuesday.” Yes he does and, “Yes We Can”.

I think you may be overestimating what America can do, here.

America cannot wave its hand and make Israel less fearful of becoming yet again a minority, in a state it established. America cannot wave its hand and make Palestine accept what has already happened, and anything Israel could strategically accept in order to bring about an inherently uneven peace.

There is a chance for peace between Israel and Palestine. It's the same chance the British and the Irish had, and it comes after both sides wait for one to bleed out with the next generation unwilling to pick up the gun its forebears dropped. America couldn't affect the timing of that, either.

After January 20th, Obama is accountable. Will he do the same kind of job he's done up to now? Will voters feign surprise? Will his anti-Iraq stance be eclipsed by future military initiatives? Will American voters be able to view his performance in a lucid and alert way?

The idea that Hamas will somehow moderate itself has been discredited. That was what was believed when they took over in Gaza. What have they done since then but lob rockets at Israel provoking a massive retaliation. It ignores the very idea of Hamas as being against compromise - that was how the movement began and where it got its strength. In my view, there are two possibilities for dealing with Hamas. The first, and obviously preferable, is to build up something for the Palestinians, to provide them with some hope and hopefully they will recognize the dead end Hamas represents. The second, which Israel is trying here, and which may be successful when the full scope of the devastation is felt, is to discredit Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian people. MJ and others on this site would disagree, and most of the commentators I've heard say that Hamas is strengthened as Israel is blamed for the destruction, but perhaps some will wake up the day after and realize that Hamas has come up on the short end of the apocalypse.

I regard McFaul as really brilliant, but I have looked up his testimony to Congress,
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:RyTaszEENxYJ:foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/mcf090908.pdf+Michael+McFaul+NATO&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

and I have to agree with you at least this far:

Anybody who thinks that expanding NATO eighteen years after the Soviet Union collapsed and after all of Bush's non-stop antagonisms to Russia, is not using his noodle. He seemed also to think that the fact that Ukrainians don't want NATO is irrelevant. Wow.

**I meant to say:

How many times has a president-elect asked for a TRILLION dollars before even taking office...

"Awareness" is an ambiguous term. The President of the United States has an entire consortium of cabinet members and advisers whose job it is to be "aware" of national and international issues. Consequently, every president is aware; they just opt to not do anything most of the time.

Obama was a college professor not more than a few years ago and hasn't even completed one full term in the U.S. Senate. Nobody doubts that he's well informed on a multitude of issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

I'm sorry, and I hope I'm wrong, but I get a really rotten feeling about the whole timing of the war and now this thing with Condi. It's like Olmert is showing Obama exactly how he plans to treat the shwartze President. Sure looks like it.

MJ, this is shocking censorship, why are you deleting all my comments?

then what happened to my comments? i saw a couple posted, and then they disappeared. i only cited articles from mainstream american newspapers. and the ones "held for moderation" never made it at all