Six Days in History

Forty years ago, one of the most intriguing conflicts began on this day and ended six days later with repercussions that are felt to this day. The aftermath of the conflict put Israel in control of the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza, which were captured from Egypt, and the West Bank including the Old City of Jerusalem, which were captured from Jordan.

Since 1967, the Israelis have returned control of the Sinai to the Egyptians under the terms of the Camp David Accord, and handed over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. The Israelis have a peace agreement with Jordan, and Syria still seeks to regain control over the strategic Golan. Yet, the thorny issue of the Palestinians remains - the Palestinian Authority has control over Gaza, though I use that term loosely considering that the situation there is near anarchy and Hamas and Fatah are slugging it out for supremacy and the direction of Palestinian intentions towards Israel. Fatah is willing to destroy Israel with thousands of papercuts, while Hamas wants to destroy Israel yesterday. Hamas is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist, and considers it its religious obligation to destroy Israel.

It is against that backdrop that one of the best books on the subject is Michael Oren's Six Days of War: The Making of the Modern Middle East. He traces the origin of the conflict and the repercussions.

Move the Embassy Already

American Presidents have long claimed that they would move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, they've always stopped short of actually doing it. President Bush continues that awful tradition by refusing to move it, even though he made a campaign promise to do so. They listen to the State Dept flacks who say that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would be taking sides and reduce the appearance of impartiality. Congress, however, has set yet another vote on a resolution calling on the President to move the embassy.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next week on a resolution calling for President Bush to move the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, strengthening Israel's position against recurring diplomatic efforts to take away its capital.

The resolution, which passed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 23, commemorates the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory in the Six Day War that unified Jerusalem. It also calls on Mr. Bush to adhere to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which authorized the funds to begin moving the embassy and declared that it was American policy to recognize the city as the capital of the Jewish state.

The House resolution, scheduled for a floor vote on Tuesday, "reiterates its commitment to the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions."

Here's a newsflash.

Israel is a US ally and the Palestinians have only seen the US as an enemy for years. Sure, they'll take our money and equipment, but they'll turn around and use them to kill our allies and even US citizens who get in the way. Palestinian leaders have tread all over American efforts, and made US presidents look foolish - see Clinton and his Camp David efforts in 2000 to get Arafat to make peace with Israel once and for all blow up in his face.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would be a concession to reality, and long overdue.

Carter Baby Steps Back Comments

President Carter, whose comments a few days back called the Bush Administration's foreign policy the worst in the nation's history is walking back from those comments just a bit.

Former President Jimmy Carter on Monday said his comments over the weekend about the Bush administration were “careless.”

Carter was quoted Saturday as saying “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”

The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an “overt reversal of America’s basic values” as expressed by previous administrations, including that of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Interviewed on the TODAY Show about the comments, Carter said, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

When pressed by NBC’s Meredith Vieira as to whether he was saying his remarks were careless or reckless, the former president said, “I think they were, yes, because they were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations."

Every time Carter opens his mouth he says something careless. He's also been objectively wrong on this and other issues relating to foreign policy and instead sees things through a partisan lens.

Carter knows that people take his words seriously because he's a former President. They carry weight, despite the fact that Carter's own foreign policy record is awful save one moment at Camp David. He oversaw the Iran hostage situation where he was incapable of taking any steps to defend the nation's interests against a rogue regime. That inaction only emboldened terrorists and Islamists around the world. We're still dealing with the repercussions of that inaction today.

America's basic values include extending the ideals of freedom and democracy around the world. President Bush liberated 50 million people from totalitarian and thuggish regimes, which is more than Carter can say. Carter couldn't even liberate the hostages held by the Islamists in Tehran.

Carter knew exactly what he was saying and meant every word of it. He's expounded on the subject in the past and this is completely in keeping with his earlier statements and sentiments.

Israel Walks Fine Line on Palestinian Civil War

The reason that the West continues to try and make deals with Fatah goes back to a deep seated desire to bring peace to the Middle East at any costs. The diplomats think that if you back a group that they think is moderate and says the right things, that you could eventually get them to make peace with Israel.

Some of this desire is based in politicians believing that if they can bring peace to the region, that they would secure a lasting legacy that trumps anything else they did in their time in office. President Clinton attempted just that in 2000 at Camp David where Arafat rebuked an extremely generous Israeli offer providing nearly everything that the Palestinians had asked for over the years. Arafat refused because Israel didn't bend over backwards enough and didn't even provide a counteroffer.

But Fatah at least gives the veneer of diplomatic activities. They'll at least talk about deals even if they never actually adhere to them. Hamas doesn't even bother with diplomatic deals and has repeatedly stated that it would not abide by any deals made between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Well, things have changed significantly. Hamas now vies for power with Fatah and actually dominates in Gaza. Fatah's power is significantly weaker, despite propping up by the West.

The fatal flaw in that view is that the two groups that currently dominate the Palestinians, Hamas and Fatah are both calling for Israel's destruction. Fatah, which was and always has been part of the PLO, makes it an essential part of its goals to destroy Israel. Hamas is no different.

The difference in how that goal is reached is the key. Fatah has no problem killing Israel with thousands of paper cuts over a span of decades. Hamas can't and wont wait. Hamas will not bend to diplomatic maneuvering. They want to destroy Israel and aren't afraid to come out and say it.

That's why diplomats think that Fatah is moderate and can be dealt with despite the fact that they have not lived up to any of the obligations under Oslo or any other agreement. They have not curbed terrorism or clamped down on other militia groups. They've spawned their own splinter terror groups that conduct actual attacks against Israel.

And yet, Israeli and US diplomats think Fatah is preferable to Hamas. They think that Hamas in control over Gaza is a bad idea. They're correct in knowing that Hamas is the bad alternative, but think that the only viable alternative is to go with Fatah.

There are some in Israel who have finally realized that the situation is intolerable and that Fatah is no better than Hamas. Avigor Lieberman thinks that Israel should stay out of the infighting between Hamas and Fatah - to avoid taking sides - but Hamas needs to be dismantled. If Israel doesn't take that step, then the Israeli government needs to be changed. He thinks Israel should take over the Philadephi route between Gaza and Egypt to deter smuggling arms and personnel into Gaza from Egypt until an international peacekeeping force can be brought into the situation.

Peretz said that according to his information, the Gaza infighting has left 73 dead so far. Most of the casualties were Fatah members.

"Hamas is proving its clear upper-hand in this conflict," he said, "killing innocents, taking the law into their own hands, the embodiment of anarchy - there is no rule of law."

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has made efforts to lead to calm, with little success. "This demonstrates the weakness of Hamas and Fatah's leadership," Peretz said, adding that Israel wanted to stay out of the Palestinian internal conflict.

Haniyeh has no reason to stop the violence as they have the upper hand. If they do call for a hudna, they'll be doing so to consolidate their gains, not because they think that they owe anyone a duty to stop the violence.

Adding to the mix, Islamic Jihad says that they've got a bunch of female suicide bombers ready to attack Israel if it goes into Gaza. Newsflash - these terrorist groups always manage to find people willing to blow themselves up and will use them regardless of what Israel does.

Israel has declared a state of emergency in the region around Gaza. Too little too late given the way the rockets have been falling there for months.

UPDATE:
Israeli airstrikes continue to pound Hamas positions and thugs as they scurry about in Gaza as word of yet another truce comes forth:

Israeli warplanes sent missiles slamming into a car carrying Hamas militants early Sunday, then demolished arms factories belonging to two Palestinian Arab groups, the army said, in a widening of reprisals against Gaza rocket squads.

In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert threatened tougher action if the intensified rocket fire on Israeli border communities didn't cease.

The sixth straight day of airstrikes came as an uneasy truce between warring Palestinian factions set in. Masked Hamas and Fatah gunmen who had controlled the streets and taken over apartment buildings in the previous week scaled back their presence sharply, and residents who had holed up at home seeking refuge from the gunbattles ventured out to stock up on supplies at busy shops.

Children went back to school in time for final exams, and adults returned to work.

Four previous truces last week quickly collapsed, but Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said he expected the cease-fire deal reached Saturday to stick because of Israel's military action.

"No one would accept to fight one another while the Israelis are shelling Gaza," he said.

Barhoum has a point. Why should Palestinian terrorists kill each other when they could focus on killing Israelis. Hamas hasn't stopped firing rockets, and we should think that Israel shouldn't return fire?

UPDATE:
The Israeli cabinet has given the green light to go after Hamas leadership for their ongoing support for rocket attacks against Israel. Rockets hit Sderot yet again today, including one that destroyed a restaurant.

Israeli airstrikes continue, and the home of a Hamas official was hit, killing eight (5 gunmen) and wounded 13. The official was not present.

It's curiously entertaining to watch some folks say that the Arabs should send a peacekeeping force to Gaza in order to prevent Israel reoccupying Gaza. Lest they forget, the quickest and easiest way to prevent Israel from taking that drastic step that they'd rather avoid doing, Hamas and Fatah must lay down their weapons and stop firing rockets into Israel along with planning yet more terror attacks.

Arab peacekeepers wouldn't disarm Hamas any more than UNIFIL has disarmed Hizbullah in Lebanon despite the fact that UNIFIL operates under UN SCR 1701 which calls for disarmament of all militias. Bringing peacekeepers into the territories would also cement Hamas gains.

The Israeli government has gotten around to creating a blog to help get the message out about the dire situation in Sderot. We've already got blogs who are doing that - including many of those I regularly link to. Blogging about the situation is one thing, the Israeli government taking action to stop the rocket fire is something else, and on that front the government is doing quite poorly.

UPDATE:
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Stageleft, , stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Colloquium, , Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Palestinian Authority Death Spiral Watch

So, has the violence in Gaza reached a point where the situation has completely gotten out of control for the PA and that Abbas has lost control? Well, Abbas hasn't exactly been in control of the situation for some time, but Hamas and Fatah have managed to put a veneer that they were able to limit the violence.

That no longer seems to be the case.

This presents a difficult situation for everyone concerned. Hamas wants to dominate the Palestinian polity, and they've got the numbers to do it. Fatah is outmanned and outgunned. With Israel looking on wondering when the next rocket barrage will hit Sderot or Ashkelon, they are simply looking for an end to the terrorism.

Instapundit points out a couple of folks who think that the deteriorating situation will lead to Egypt and Jordan taking on a custodial role in administering Gaza and West Bank respectively.

I think that's fanciful. Instapundit is right to wonder why Egypt or Jordan would want the Palestinians on their plate.

Egypt wanted nothing to do with Gaza when Israel and Egypt agreed to the Camp David accords. They saw the problems that Gaza caused Israel, and the Islamification of Gaza only complicates matters for Egypt. If the Palestinian terrorists continue firing on Israel while Egypt is in administrative control of Gaza, that puts Egypt in a position of having to crack down on the Palestinians - and that means that the Egyptian Islamists might find common cause and engage in terrorism of their own.

The same goes for Jordan, which has had its fill of Palestinian terrorism over the years - including the 1970-71 Black September when the PLO (which includes Fatah) tried to overthrow the Jordanian government and King Hussein decimated the Palestinian thugs ranks and threw the Palestinians out (and who promptly started trouble in Lebanon).

The Egyptians and Jordanians have a long and bloody history when it comes to the Palestinians (and some will suggest that many of the Palestinians are really Egyptians and Jordanians who lived in Gaza and West Bank from 1948-1967). They wanted nothing to do with the problem when they were in control of Gaza and West Bank from 1948 through 1967, and they're not likely to want to reassert control there now.

Hamas threatens more attacks against Israel as Israel engages in yet more airstrikes following Hamas rocket barrages landing in Sderot causing more Israeli injuries.

It's funny to listen to Hamas declare that Israel has declared war on Hamas, while war to annilihate Israel is a fundamental and integral part of the Hamas charter. Defending yourself from terrorist attacks and refusing to die like lambs to the slaughterhouse is declaring war against Hamas in the minds of the Hamas terrorists.

Netenyahu continues to slam the Olmert government for inaction to properly defend Sderot, and he's right - the Olmert policy of ignoring rocket attacks against Israel has undermined Israeli security and Olmert needs to take responsibility for that failure. Meanwhile, Olmert has more pressing concerns, including a terrorist plot to assassinate him and other members of the Knesset:

Palestinian Gaza resident, Massab Bashir, is suspected of planning the assassination of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Knesset members, according to an indictment filed against him on Thursday.

Shin Bet and police forces arrested the 25-year-old on 19 April, when he made his latest trip into Israel.

After his arrest in Jerusalem, Bashir confessed to planning the attacks and taking advantage of the entry permit given him for his work with the “Doctors Without Borders” humanitarian organization.

The suspect admitted entering Israel in order to collect personal information on senior officials with the intention of assassinating them. He also said he was collaborating with members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

UPDATE:
At least 22 were killed in fighting between Hamas and Fatah on Wednesday, and there's no sign of a letup.

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee wonders whether it is time to start calling the situation in Gaza a civil war. The NY Post seems to think that there's a civil war going on as well.

UPDATE:
Another Israeli airstrike - this time against a car carrying Hamas terrorists, killed one and wounded five others. There's also word that Israeli tanks have rolled into Gaza.

UPDATE:
Others keeping tabs on the situation in Gaza: Meryl Yourish (and here), Israelated, Israellycool, and Carl in Jerusalem.

UPDATE:
Hamas and Israel are not trading attacks New York Times. Hamas fires on anything any everything inside Israel. Schools and civilians are fair game. That's who have been bearing the brunt of the rockets fired into Israel by Palestinians from Gaza.

Israel is responding by going after the very terrorists who are responsible for the terrorist attacks - destroying the places they use to plot their attacks, and going after them when they are on the move.

That's not trading attacks, that's called self-defense. Israel would not be engaging in these self defense attacks had Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists not turned Sderot into a ghost town because of the incessant rocket attacks.

UPDATE:
The IDF took over the airwaves in Gaza, but I think this is a bad idea:

Also, as the air campaign was unleashed the IDF electronically took over several Gaza radio stations, using them to issue a call to Palestinian civilians to flee zones from which Kassam rockets were being launched, Channel 2 quoted Palestinian sources as saying.

No doubt the terrorists also took the messages sent by the IDF and fled the areas that the IAF were targeting. Giving the terrorists advance warning of attacks means that they're able to avoid being wounded or killed when such attacks do happen or they put civilians in harms way. Either way, the Israeli actions are thwarted and cannot accomplish the goal of eliminating the terrorists.

The IAF did hit another terrorist preparing to fire a kassam rocket into Israel though. The problem is that there were more kassams that hit southern Ashkelon and other points inside Israel.

UPDATE:
More rockets have slammed into Sderot, including one that hit the synagogue just minutes after services let out. Meanwhile, Israelis living in Sderot were being evacuated but that stopped - and the residents got more than a little perturbed.

Over 200 people had been at the synagogue only a half an hour prior to the rocket strike, and 20 to the 30 of them were still in the area at the time of the attack, Noam Bedin, director of the Sderot Information Center told the Jerusalem Post.

One person was lightly injured in the attack, and a number of others suffered from shock, Bedin said.

Earlier, fear, panic and bitterness reached the boiling point in Sderot as angry residents burst into the office of Mayor Eli Moyal and demanded to be evacuated from the city.

They wanted to join about 800 others, whom the city had dispatched earlier in the day to a hotel in the center of the country for three nights. The locals were bused out as a relief measure after the southern border city was hit by dozens of Palestinian-launched Kassam rockets fired from Gaza in the last three days; 20 fell yesterday alone.

UPDATE:
Hamas is calling for some Arab peacekeeping force that doesn't even exist to come in and separate Hamas from Fatah?

Now, that's funny.

Hamas starts a war with Fatah, and they want peacekeepers? I guess they figure that they have the advantage but can't press it too much more, so they'll consolidate their gains (such as it is).

Also, this gives the Palestinian terrorists a respite from their ongoing civil war to get back to what they know best - going after Israel.

Oh, and this call for a peacekeeping force comes at the same time as news of an assassination plot to kill Fatah's Abbas is reported.

Israel's Turn To Push Peace Plan

This plan has just as much chance for success as the widely touted Saudi plan that is little more than a rehash of earlier plans that stalled in their early stages.

The problem with every single peace plan proposal is simple. One side, the Palestinians, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and seeks its destruction. That side is currently represented by Hamas and Fatah, neither of which is in any hurry to modify their foundation documents that call for Israel's destruction and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the ruins of the Jewish state in Israel.

The United States and Egypt have proposed that Israel agree to quickly start talks with a committee of Arab states on how to move the peace process forward, diplomats involved in the matter said on Sunday.

While generally welcoming the peace initiative endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit last week in Saudi Arabia, Israel has called several key components problematic and has been noncommital about how to proceed.

In weekend talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and other officials, Washington and Cairo proposed that Israel agree to take part "as soon as possible" in a meeting with a working group approved by the Arab summit that could begin negotiating a possible agreement.

"Arab League countries would talk formally and publicly as a collective with Israel," one diplomat said, calling the effort unprecedented in its potential scope. Talks in the past have generally been on a bilateral basis, the diplomat said.

U.S. and Egyptian diplomats were not immediately available to comment.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday called on Israel to take constructive steps in response to a new Arab peace initiative.

"I call on the Israeli government to take constructive steps to answer the peace initiative put forward by Arab countries," Abbas said at a news conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

At the summit, Arab leaders revived a 5-year-old peace plan that offers Israel normal ties with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from land seized in the 1967 Six-Day War, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinians displaced in 1948 with Israel's creation.

The Arab leaders have nothing to lose by rehashing old proposals because they know that all the risks are on the Israelis. If Israeli leaders recognize that the threat to their existence is existential and pervasive regardless of what the Arabs promise, they'll know that the Saudi plan and any other plan that comes to mind is a nonstarter.

The Arab countries must recognize Israel before discussing any further changes to the border, not the other way around. Israel should not be forced to change its borders to suit those nations and entities that have been seeking its destruction since 1947.

A just solution for those Palestinians displaced in the various conflicts is simple. Reparations and for the Arab countries where they took refuge to once and for all accept them as full citizens of their respective countries and to actually provide services to them instead of using them as a pressure relief valve for all that ails the decrepit Arab societies. The time for these nations to use Palestinians as pawns and cannon fodder is over. These nations have to take responsibility for what they've done and the Saudi plan does nothing to address this at all.

Israel can assist in providing reparations, though I believe that it will once again fall to the US to provide the lubricant on which a peace deal will happen (see 1979 Camp David where Egypt was paid $2 billion a year to make peace with Israel).

Of course, pushing the onus on those who sponsor terrorism and invoke Israel as a bogeyman is not going to sit well with those nations since they'd actually incur risks and take chances that their radicalized populations might not like. Yet, if they truly want peace [not peace on their terms where Israel is shattered and broken], then such risks are necessary preconditions to a real peace in the region.

Carter's Revisionist History Continues

Israel withdrew from all of Gaza in 2005. The entire area including the Philadelpi Route as specified in the Oslo Accord that was designed to protect Israel from Palestinian smuggling of weapons between Egypt and Gaza.

The result? Hamas and Fatah turned Gaza into an armed camp.

Israel has not had a partner in peace. Fatah instigated a war with Israel - the latest intifada after not even bothering to provide Israel with a counter proposal at Camp David in 2000. Israel determined it was not in its strategic and survival interests to negotiate with terrorists who would not even negotiate in good faith and whose strategic doctrine was founded on the principle of destroying Israel and a refusal to recognize a 2-state solution.

Former President Carter goes on Jay Leno to hawk his book and shows that he still doesn't get it:

Leno said to the president who held office more than 25 years ago, "But when Israel gives something back, it doesn't seem like they get anything for it. It seems like it just moves some angry people closer to them."

"No, that's not true at all," responded Carter. "Israel hasn't really tried to give 'Palestine' back to the Palestinians. They did give up some of Gaza. And then they moved out, and the Palestinians captured one soldier and tried to swap [him] for 300 children – some as young as 12 years old – and 94 women, but the Israelis wouldn't swap. So then Israel reinvaded Gaza. But if Israel ever wants peace – and they do want peace – a majority of Israelis have always said, 'Let's get rid of the land, and let's have peace.' That's what we need to have."

Does Carter remember what a 2-state solution is or what it requires? It means Palestinians and Israelis each having their own state. Listen to what Hamas and Fatah have to say - in Arabic. Listen to what Hamas says in English. They're not shy about what they want. They want Israel's destruction and do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

That is not the basis for a negotiation about the establishment of a 2-state solution. Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinians, do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas wont even recognize Israel for purposes of negotiating, let alone Israel's right to exist. It's a fundamental and integral part of the Palestinian psyche and political outlook. Carter's wishful thinking and projection doesn't change that inalienable fact.

Palestinians have fired thousands of rockets into Israel. They invaded Israel and captured Gilad Shalit (along with killing two other Israeli soldiers) in the hopes of provoking a prisoner exchange involving hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian prisoners - many with Israeli blood on their hands. Convicted murderers, Hamas and Fatah thugs arrested for provoking attacks. Terrorists. Some as young as teenagers. Some as old as their 90s.

Israel refuses to negotiate with terrorists who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel sent in its military forces to rescue Shalit and to destroy the terror cells responsible for the rocket fire and the attacks on Israelis. Carter thinks that this is an irrational position and that Israel is at fault for not caving to Palestinian demands.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Israelis do want peace with their neighbors. Palestinians want pieces of Israelis. A piece here. A piece there. Pretty soon, no Israel. That's what Carter advocates - and it's a position little different than his caving into Islamists during his own term of office.

Israel turns Gaza over to the Palestinians, who promptly turn it into a haven for terrorist groups operating against Israel. Rocket fire against Israel becomes a daily event. Israel benefitted from withdrawing its troops from Gaza, but now suffers from a lack of presence inside Gaza to disrupt those terror cells before they fire. It's an untenable situation either way, but would improve immediately if the Palestinians do two simple things - 1) release Gilad Shalit without any demands or prisoner exchanges; 2) recognize Israel's right to exist and that means a cessation of all rocket attacks and other terror attacks against Israelis.

The Palestinians will not agree to either one, even if it means a restoration of economic aid cut off when Hamas refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. That should speak volumes as to Hamas and the Palestinians' intentions towards Israel. They're willing to forgo hundreds of millions in foreign aid all in their desire to attack Israel in the here and now. This is a group of people blinded by hatred.

To Carter, this is a partner in peace.

He couldn't be more hopelessly wrong.

UPDATE:
The Palestinians continue to prove Carter wrong. There's supposed to be a ceasefire in Gaza between Palestinians and Israelis, and yet the Palestinians continue to fire rockets into Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has responded by busting a huge Islamic Jihad terror cell - recovering weapons, materials, and 50 members in a six-month operation.

In a widespread operation lasting several months, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the IDF and Israel Police, have arrested 50 terror suspects affiliated with the Islamic Jihad and believed to be directly involved in planning terror attacks, it was released for publication on Tuesday.

Seven of the suspects, security officials said, expressed willingness to perpetrate suicide attacks against Israeli cities.

During the arrest raids, security forces uncovered large quantities of weapons including high-grade explosives and computer discs containing instructions how to assemble an explosive device.

The arrest wave began half a year ago following the capture of Hani Rajoub, an Islamic Jihad member from the Hebron area. During his interrogation, the Shin Bet discovered that Rajoub was actually a member of a large-scale terror network consisting of dozens of terror operatives throughout the southern Hebron Hills area.

These would likely be among those prisoners that Hamas and Hizbullah would try to swap in exchange for Shalit and/or Goldwasser and Regev.

Technorati: terrorism, nasrallah, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, carter, Abbas, Regev, Goldwasser, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.

The ISG Report Is In

This is why I call the Baker boys psuedorealists and why the media doesn't quite get it.

Headline: Panel: Start Withdrawing From Iraq.

The lede:

A commission on the war in Iraq recommended new and enhanced diplomacy Wednesday so the United States can "begin to move its combat forces" out of the country responsibly.

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," the commission warned after an eight-month review of a conflict that has killed more than 2,800 U.S. troops and grown increasingly unpopular at home. The report was obtained by The Associated Press.

The report warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."

Maybe it's just me but there's a serious disconnect between the headline and what the panel is ostensibly calling for. If the US withdraws, the slide towards chaos will accelerate and deteriorate further. It would not improve with the US leaving. The only difference is that the US wouldn't be in country to do anything to stop the violence (though the ISG says that there's little the US can do on that score except accelerate training of the Iraqi forces).

The report says that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own security - but that's what the US has been saying for some time now. The Iraqis haven't quite figured out how to deal with the jihadis and militias that are operating both within the government and outside it. They must gain control over the situation to improve the security situation.

But to think that the situation will improve if the US up and leaves, is downright naive. The situation cannot improve if the US leaves because the terrorists will be able to operate openly and freely. The US takes casualties because of its ongoing operations to deal with terrorists where we know they're located - inside Iraq.

It's also naive to think that the Syrians or Iranians have Iraqis best intentions in mind. They're too busy trying to destabilize all the democratically elected neighbors so that they can increase their power in the region. Lebanon tetters on the brink, Israel is beleaguered and beset on its borders by terrorists sponsored by Syria and Iran, and Iraq is between a rock (Syria) and a hard place (Iran). Calling for negotiations with countries whose long term goals are the imposition their will and their version of Islam (Ahmadinejad issued yet another da'wa to the West today) are doomed to failure because there is no common ground. Any concessions by the West will be seen as weakness by the Iranians to be exploited down the road. It is for this reason I call Baker and his comrades who call for negotiations with Iran and Syria pseudorealists because nothing good can come of such talks for the long term strategic interests of the US (or its allies in the region).

The report doesn't call for a specific timeline for withdrawal, which is a good thing since there's no reason to spell out the specific date that the terrorists have to simply survive until in order for them to achieve their success. Instead, the report provides goals that need to be achieved and warns of the dire consequences of failure. The report notes the importance of gaining consensus on what to do about Iraq and to see things through. I could not agree more. Precipitous withdrawal would have disasterous consequences not only for the Iraqis, but for US interests in the region both in the short term and the long term. While such a withdrawal would mean US forces coming home, it would reduce US national security because our allies would be that much more leery of committing to action to defend their common interests, and nations and leaders that might otherwise seek our support and assistance would instead become more reluctant to work with the US for fear of having the carpet pulled from under them at the worst possible time.

UPDATE:
The full text of the report can be found here. Among the problems, many are due to corruption within the Iraqi government, a weak judiciary, and failings of the Iraqi military and security forces who have uneven performance and allegiances (pages 20/21). The economic situation in Iraq is uneven, but there are serious signs of progress. Cell phone usage is growing significantly and that's also a sign of freedom of speech as Saddam had restricted such usage because he would not be able to control the message. Food production also increased by 40% in Kurdish controlled areas because of an improved security situation. The Iraqi government also met IMF benchmarks.

The Iraqi economy is growing at 4% a year, which falls short of the hoped for 11%. Considering that most of Europe would kill to get 4% economic growth, take that comment by the ISG with a grain of salt. The unemployment situation is bad and improving that could go a long way to reducing the violence as well. Some percentage of those who are involved in the insurgency are doing so because they don't have jobs or because they no longer have their former jobs under Saddam. That will need to be addressed by the Iraqi government in some form or another.

Corruption and violence are also affecting Iraq's oil output, though the high prices of oil on the international markets have meant that Iraq's economy has not been harmed nearly as badly. Output is below pre-war figures, and that too needs to be addressed by the Iraqi government.

International aid has fallen short of its pledged amounts. No surprise there. (page 27). Strangely, the report claims that no country in the region wants an unstable Iraq and yet a few pages later the ISG outlines that Iran and Syria are meddling in Iraq to achieve their own strategic and tactical goals. Both are purposefully undermining the US and coalition efforts in Iraq, and undermining democratically elected governments elsewhere in the region because such governments are a direct threat to the thugs in Damascus and Tehran. Chaos in Iraq is being exploited by Iran and Syria to expand and enhance their power. Instead of addressing this, the ISG ignores this basic fact and instead suggests that the US engage in multilateral discussions as though this will accomplish US strategic interests (page 50).

What also makes little sense is why the US can or should link the situation in Iraq to any peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis (page 44). That conflict has been going on for 60 years with no sign that the Palestinians are any closer to recognizing Israel's right to exist and a 2-state solution than they were when Israel declared its independence in 1948. Yet, there is one respect where the various regional conflicts are linked: international terrorism and the state sponsorship of that violence by the likes of Iran and Syria. Saudi sheikhs are also involved in the sponsorship and other countries host terrorists and groups that preach violence and jihad. The problem is that none of the countries in the region are willing to address those issues because the terrorism is an extension of their foreign and military policies and/or lack of control over such groups as a result of being failed states that have become terrorist incubators. The ISG wiggles out of this in the following manner:

There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist)[emphasis added], and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.

Considering that the Palestinians elected Hamas - an Islamic terror group dedicated to Israel's destruction, and Fatah is also committed to Israel's destruction, no progress is possible unless and until the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist. Syria will not stop its support of terrorism unless the regime itself is threatened with force to cease such support. It will not willingly give up thoughts of dominating Lebanon either without such threats. Yet, the ISG claims that there is no military solution to the situation. I disagree. A military solution would involve heavy casualties, but those regimes that support and harbor terrorists would be deposed and would no longer provide safe havens to the terrorists. Hizbullah and Hamas would lose their primary financial support, and be forced to fend for themselves. They'd still be able to cause mayhem against Israel and Lebanon, and perhaps other US interests in the region.

Israelis are tired of leaders that waffle and do not take decisive actions. They supported Sharon's disengagement from Gaza because it ended Israeli occupation of Gaza. That was met with a rocket war launched by PIJ, Hamas, and Fatah. Palestinians, instead of using the opportunity to advance economically, turned Gaza into an armed camp - complete with bunkers, smuggling tunnels, and further radicalized the Palestinians who saw the disengagement as a sign of Israeli weakness instead of a peace offering.

Land for peace may sound great as per UN SCR 242 and 338, but the Palestinians have no interest in anything other than pieces for peace. They want Israel in pieces, and then the Palestinians will have their peace. Their refusal to carry out any of the obligations under Oslo shows that they are unserious about peace. The Palestinians refused the deal offered by Barak at Camp David in 2000, and their elected leaders are more radical now than in 2000.

Elsewhere, the ISG's recommendations on page 45 amount to little more than asking Iran and Syria to "pretty please with sugar on top" stop making trouble in Iraq. Hoping that the UN will have some kind of magic pixie dust (page 50) to assist in Iraq is also wishful thinking. The UN was part and parcel of the problem via OFF/UNSCAM and a blind eye to the repeated Iraqi violations of UN resolutions by Saddam. Now, China, Russia, and others are hoping to use Iraq to club the US and tie it down there so that they can expand their influence in the region at US expense.

The ISG's response to addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear program: punt to the UN Security Council (pages 51/52). That's done wonders so far. No resolution and Iran continues down the path to securing its nuclear weapons program.

Hoping that Syria will adhere to UN SCR 1701 is also wishful thinking (page 54). Heck, it's wishful thinking that the UN itself would carry out the terms of UN SCR 1701 since they've ignored the part about disarming all militias operating within Lebanon - including Hizbullah. That's a not insigificant oversight and flaw in both the UN and the ISG report.

All in all, the ISG report mostly rehashes recent history and offers up a bunch of ideas that are pie-in-the sky offerings and hopes for renewed diplomatic maneuverings that might get movement somewhere on the issues facing the region.

UPDATE:
As would be expected, quite a few people are discussing the report and attempting to read the tea leaves. This includes Charles at LGF who wonders why the ISG wants to hang Israel out to dry and negotiate with the terror supporting regimes that destabilize the region.

Rick Moran takes a read on the lay of the land. Decision 08 saw this coming given the leaks about the report for weeks and months now and further notes benchmarking is a great idea, but negotiating with Syria and Iran isn't.

The incoming chair of the House Intel Committee thinks that the US should add troops to Iraq.

Don Surber notes that the Democrats have found themselves wanting to win in Iraq now that they're going to be in charge of Congress come January. Flopping Aces wonders what this is going to do to the unhinged Left.

Others blogging: Stop the ACLU, Ace of Spades, Jules Crittenden, Tom Maguire, and Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE:
Added TTLB linking for citations above. The ISG isn't a blueprint to victory. As others have noted, this is a political document designed to provide political cover to those who think the Administration needs to withdraw post-haste, or to continue and fight but aren't sure just what their commitment is. Others blogging: Security Watchtower, QandO, neo-neocon, and Redstate.

UPDATE:
Still more reactions: Macranger thinks the ISG is telling the US to bend over.

Others blogging: The Lede, Dan Riehl, AJ Strata, Tigerhawk, and Tammy Bruce.

More importantly, what do Iraqis think of this. They aren't exactly thrilled about the report, or its contents.

Technorati: iraq, isg, iraq study group, bush, baker, terrorism.

Boiling Point

Hizbullah is threatening to destroy Lebanon again. They're considering going ahead with their demonstrations that they wisely held off when Pierre Gemayel was assassinated last week. Hizbullah, along with Assad in Syria, doesn't want the investigation of the Hariri assassination to go ahead. Pierre Gemayel's assassination is surely going to be a part of the Hariri assassination and the smart money has the political murders of the past two years linked back to Syria and its forces in Lebanon, including Hizbullah. Suspicions have the murders being ordered from Assad's inner circle, so these are dangerous times not only in Lebanon, but Syria. However, Lebanon's on the chopping block as it is far weaker than the vulture to the East, and has Hizbullah dominating large parts of South Lebanon.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and parliament speaker Nabih Berri issued a statement Friday reiterating Hezbollah's demand for representation by it and its allies in the government that would give it effective veto power.

To obtain their goal, they vowed to use "all democratic and legal means," a reference to peaceful demonstrations.

The resignation earlier this month of six pro-Hezbollah ministers and the assassination of a Christian Cabinet minister last week have fueled political tensions in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said Saturday he would be willing to postpone "for a few days" the Cabinet meeting to approve the tribunal if the six ministers would return to the government.

If the Cabinet approves the tribunal, as it is expected to do, that is expected to spark a new round of disagreements. Before the United Nations pushes ahead with setting it up, the Lebanese president must approve the document and then parliament must ratify it.

But Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud, who is closely allied to Syria, has expressed reservations on the draft document setting up the tribunal to try the suspects in the February 2005 assassination of Hariri.

Lahoud has described the government's approval of that document earlier this month as "unconstitutional." The anti-Syrian parliamentary majority in Lebanon has accused the president of seeking to block the tribunal, a charge he denies.

Further complicating matters, Syria suggested Friday it may not cooperate with the planned tribunal because Damascus was not consulted on the plan, according to a letter it sent to Secretary-General Kofi Annan and circulated Friday at the U.N. Security Council.

Syria and Iran are helping Hizbullah rearm, despite the fact that UN SCR 1701 requires Hizbullah to be disarmed. Where's the world's outrage over this? Never mind, this is the UN we're talking about. James Joyner thinks that the UN peacekeepers are powerless to do anything about this. He's on to something, but it has more to do with the rules of engagement than anything else. The UN can and should change the rules of engagement to forcibly disarm Hizbullah and put a stop to the cross border shipments, but those steps would put those UNIFIL peacekeepers into harm's way against a force that is not only dug in, but highly motivated and determined to keep its weapons. The problem is that the member nations that have contributed peacekeepers to the Lebanon operation would not permit any changes that might put their forces into harm's way by demanding action. So, UNIFIL sits back and watches as Hizbullah rearms right under the nose of UNIFIL operations. Instead, UNIFIL members make threats against Israel - threatening to shoot down Israeli jets keeping track of Hizbullah's movements.

Hot Air wonders just how much digging Time did to come up with the 'scoop' that Hizbullah was being rearmed by Syria and Iran across the Lebanon-Syria border. Not much, since that's how Hizbullah has been armed since its inception. The difference now is that UN SCR 1701, 1559, 425, and 426 all call for the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon, including Hizbullah. The rearmament flies directly in the face of the carefully crafted piece of paper that promised peace in our time. All the UN resolutions have done is delay the inevitable. Hizbullah is promising war, and they're going to get one - much to the detriment of the Lebanese people.

FFDB notes that Hizbullah has a timeframe on which to take down the Lebanese government by hook and crook. One month. The political assassinations speed up the process since if one more member of the cabinet resigns or is somehow eliminated from the equation, the government is no longer constitutional. Hizbullah would get its way, and mayhem and chaos would erupt as Hizbullah is the faction with the most weapons.

Blue Crab Boulevard takes exception to the Washington Post's David Ignatius who throws his hands up on the situation in the Middle East and the use of violence. Spreading democracy is still the best way of dealing with the violence, and supporting nascent democratic states is the best way to give those countries a chance at stability and modernity. That means helping Lebanon and Iraq, not walking away.

The US must do much more to come to the aid of the anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon. This means taking sides, and while the Arabists and the so-called realists in and out of the Administration might balk at this idea, it provides the best option for the US. Democracy and individual rights are the core of the US experiment. It's proven to be quite successful thus far here within the United States despite our own pitfalls and infighting. Lebanon and Iraq need our assistance in these troubling times because they offer an alternative to the thugocracies and theocracies that dominate the region and harbor Islamic terrorists that threaten the West.

The so-called realists would be wise to observe that the countries responsible for the situation in Lebanon - Iran and Syria, are behind the empty seats in the Lebanese cabinet that have resulted in the Lebanese polity coming dangerously close to the precipice. Syria and Iran have goals that oppose not only our goals for the region, but those of Iraq and Lebanon. A free Lebanon and Iraq would make life incredibly difficult for the totalitarian regimes in both Syria and Iran. That cannot stand, so both Iran and Syria are engaging in state-sponsored terrorism in both Lebanon and Iraq to foment crisis in both that the terror-states can exploit.

Michael Totten finds the NYT reporting and analysis of the situation in Lebanon to be infantile at best. I'd concur. The analysis is sorely lacking and approaches the ignorance seen among the so-called realists.

Shunning Hizbullah isn't what is needed. Hizbullah is a state-sponsored terrorist group that is determined to destroy Israel and has repeatedly attacked US interests. It is a terrorist group at odds with the US. The group doesn't need to be shunned. It needs to be shut down - for the good of the Lebanese, the Israelis, and anyone with a pulse not connected to the regimes in Damascus, Tehran, or aligned with the Islamists.

Lebanese bloggers think we're getting close to the precipice. His impression is that the mass demonstrations after Gemayel's funeral as a wave - and just as temporary in nature. He also thinks that all the sides in the political infighting are absolute in their positions and unwilling to compromise. Where I disagree with him is that there are some positions that are inherently good and those that are inherently evil. Hizbullah and Syria are inherently evil - they want to subjugate the Lebanese people, do not respect the religious and social views of all other religious groups, and seek to use Lebanon as a staging ground for the next conflict. March 14 does not want that to happen, and sees the Syrians and Hizbullah as the mortal threat. The Western countries may be more than willing to throw March 14 and the anti-Syrians under the bus in the name of 'peace in our time' and that cannot be allowed to happen.

Others blogging the crisis: Blue Crab Boulevard, Wake Up America, Rick Moran, The Belmont Club, Hyscience, and Right Truth.

UPDATE:
Lebanon has approved the tribunal to determine who killed Rafik Hariri.

The approval, though widely expected, was bound to deepen the country's political crisis and spark mass street demonstrations threatened by Hizbullah and its allies to topple the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Hizbullah head, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah , along with the chairman of the Lebanese parliament and head of the Amal movement, Nabih Beri, issued a joint statement Friday saying that they back the formation of the court, but stressing they were standing firm by their ministers' decision to resign the government.

Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora said in response that he was willing to postpone the government session on the tribunal, if there was still a chance that the ministers withdraw their resignations. In light of their refusal to do so, the meeting took place as planned.

About two weeks ago, six ministers associated with Hizbullah, Amal, and President Emile Lahoud resigned from the government. The official cause for the resignation was their demand to set up a unity government in which Shiites constitute a third of the ministers.

However, the anti-Syrians camp in Lebanon claimed that the actual reason for the resignation was Nasrallah's objection to the establishment of the international tribunal.

UPDATE:
Posted to Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, bRight and Early, and Stop the ACLU.

UPDATE:
Allah notes that the Lebanese cabinet flipped Assad the bird. Rick Moran has more about the possible next steps - and how the situation is now in Hizbullah's court. Small Town Veteran also comments.

Technorati: assassination, lebanon, gemayel, syria, hizbullah.

The Conundrum, Part 33

What the heck is Olmert thinking by even floating the idea that Abu Mazen is a man with whom he can deal? Can Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) actually deliver on anything? That's far from clear considering that Hamas still controls much of the Palestinian Authority and would readily engage in a shooting war with Fatah if their power is undercut. Ed Morrissey has more, but I can't help but wonder whether the Israeli leaders have learned anything from the lessons of Ehud Barak. Barak went to Camp David and practically gave away the farm to Arafat, who promptly threw it all back in everyone's face without so much as a counteroffer. Olmert could produce the same exact deal, and that too would face the same exact result, except that he'd have multiple terror groups operating against Israel on multiple fronts instead of simply Fatah. Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Olmert is desperate for any kind of movement on the key issues facing Israel right now. There's no solution to the ongoing violence in Gaza and Gilad Shalit continues to be held by Hamas. Hamas has declared that there's no way Shalit is returned without a massive prisoner release, which are the same terms that have been in place since he was captured. Despite all the many iterations of deals in the works, they all boil down to a prisoner swap - one that heavily disfavors Israel.

Politically, Olmert's power is at ebb. There's little he can do to salvage his situation politically, and Hamas, Fatah, and Hizbullah are all preparing for the next round. Hizbullah's preparations come despite the fact that UNIFIL is supposed to be disarming them, but the UN has made it abundantly clear that they will not fulfill their terms of UN SCR 1701, and will do what is necessary to prevent Israel from protecting itself against that outcome.

There continue to be calls that the UN or some international body take control of Gaza. That is a real bad idea. As we're seeing in South Lebanon, unless any international organization dedicates itself to eliminating the weapons and terror groups/militias operating there, Israel's security will continue to be threatened. The Palestinians continue to get bailed out by an international community that repeatedly overlooks the violence inflicted by the Palestinians on the Israelis. Incessant and daily rocket attacks against Israel are overlooked. Random rocket fire lands on Sderot and other neighboring Israeli cities, but not so much as a hand is lifted in Israel's defense. When Israel responds against the terrorists firing those rockets, and misses, the world is outraged and makes claims of war crimes and other such blatherings.

Israel would not have to return fire if the Palestinians themselves did not engage in these attacks from within Gaza - a place that Israel withdrew from in its entirety in 2005. Within days, Hamas and Fatah turned Gaza into an armed camp, supplied with weapons smuggled in from across the Gaza/Egypt border. Since Israel was no longer policing the Philadelpi corridor, the smuggling accelerated. That's what the Palestinians have done since Israel left the Palestinians to their own devices.

The much maligned security fence between Israel and the territories has done a good job at preventing suicide bombers from entering Israel proper, but it does nothing to stop the rocket attacks. And Abbas can do little to stop those.

Meanwhile, is Haniyeh serious about stepping aside so that Hamas and Fatah can set up a unity government?

The prime minister, a senior leader of the Islamist group, told worshippers at a mosque in the Gaza Strip that Western powers did not want him to be part of the new administration.

"(They have) one condition, that the siege will not be lifted unless the prime minister is changed," Haniyeh said.

"When the issue is like this, the siege on one hand, the prime minister on the another ... I prefer the siege be lifted and the suffering ended."

It took him seven months to realize that refusing to recognize Israel as a key condition to receiving foreign aid is the hinge on which the continued existence of the Palestinian Authority rests. Does this mean that Meshaal's faction has succeeded in pushing Haniyeh aside?

But Hamas insists it will never recognize Israel or join a government that does, making it unclear how a unity cabinet could meet international demands to soften its line.

"There are no concessions," Haniyeh said.

While Haniyeh spoke of one condition, the United States and Israel have said the Palestinian government had to recognize the Jewish state, renounce violence and accept past peace deals.

Hamas, which advocates Israel's destruction, accuses the West of trying to topple its administration and giving it no chance to govern. The movement took office after trouncing the once-dominant Fatah in January elections.

Fatah seeks a negotiated peace with Israel.

But have no fear, Hamas has said that they would never recognize Israel's right to exist, so this really can be counted as rearranging deck chairs. And that last bit about Fatah is misleading. Fatah would like to negotiate Israel's destruction as they've come to realize that a military victory is unattainable. So, their strategy is to build up diplomatic victories until such time that they too can fulfill their own Charter (which calls for Israel's destruction).

Israel, meanwhile, has a new Deputy Defense Minister who wants more action and less talk. He's still answerable to Olmert, so that remains to be seen.

Technorati: terrorism, nasrallah, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, Eliyahu, Asheri, Ashri, Abbas, Regev, Goldwasser, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.

Bad Record

Former President Jimmy Carter once again opines on the Middle East, and his history and suggestions on how to deal with the current conflicts are wanting. They're wanting for factual accuracy, recognition that the Palestinians reject land for peace implicitly and explicitly, and that Israel is not the be-all and end-all of all the woes in the region. Start with this:

Q: Do you think the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was the real turning point?
JC: Well, they invaded Lebanon in ‘82 and they stayed there 18 years. As you know, they didn’t come out until 2000.

And why did they go into Lebanon in the first place? Because the PLO was engaging in cross border attacks, and was busy destabilizing the region. Nice to overlook that "minor point."

The rest of the piece is more of the same.

Q:I sometimes detect in your writings over the last few years, Mr. President, what really seems to be frustration if not anger with Israel on this score.
JC: Well, I wouldn’t say anger. I would say that in the last 30 years or so one of my main commitments in life, certainly in international affairs has been to bring peace to Israel. That has been a major goal and I’ve supported every move that’s been made to bring a peace to Israel and acceptance by all the Arab countries of Israel’s right to exist to live in peace. But I am frustrated when terrorist activities cause a serious setback as they have among the Palestinians and earlier by the PLO with cross-border raids, and by Hizbullah, and the reluctance of Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. All those things concern me very much because I see them as a major obstacle to a final peace for Israel with acknowledgement by the Palestinians and all of the Arabs of Israel’s right to exist and the right of the Palestinians to have a state side-by-side with Israel.

The Palestinians implictly and explicitly reject the two-state solution. The PLO (aka Fatah) and Hamas both reject the two-state solution. Look at their maps, rhetoric in Arabic to their followers, and their deeds. None call for a permanent two-state solution. Indeed, where one finds mention of a two-state solution, it is used as a means to eliminating Israel. Hamas rejects even that intermediate step, and rejects all agreements with Israel altogether.

Q: Do you think it is possible to make peace with an organization like Hamas now running the Palestinian government?
JC: Yes, I think within the bounds of a unity government, which is not beyond the realm of possibility—they have been on the verge of it recently—I think that the acceptance of that could lead to an accommodation among the Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas. The Hamas leaders have stated publicly and often that they would accept any peace agreement negotiated between the Palestinian people and Israel if the Palestinians were permitted to approve it in a referendum. That was one of the premises of the Camp David accords: after any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, that it should be submitted to the Palestinians for approval. So those things stay below the surface, they are still there.

What makes Carter think that Hamas is willing to join a unity government where all such attempts have actually led to bloodshed between Fatah and Hamas thugs. Carter seriously thinks that the Palestinians want peace, when it is repeatedly shown that they actually encourage violence at the moment of truth. In 2000, Palestinians were offered a two-state solution from which they could still negotiate further concessions from Israel. Arafat refused, and the second intifada ensued.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and instead of using that opportunity to build a society, the Gazans promptly elected Hamas and began firing rockets into Israel on a regular and ongoing basis.

Carter prattles on about the land for peace under UN SCR 242 completely ignoring the fact that Hamas and Fatah both reject the terms of UN SCR 242. Indeed, Hamas rejects all agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

He also thinks treaties are worth the paper they're written on. Treaties, and the paper they're written on, only means something when both sides actually agree to enforce and carry out the terms of those agreements. The Palestinians thus far have shown themselves incapable and unwilling of those steps.

Carter also muses about what the Middle East would have been like had Anwar Sadat not been assassinated. Well, that's all well and good, but the fact is that the Islamists who murdered him are alive and thriving throughout the Middle East, including in Lebanon, where Hizbullah started a 34 day war against Israel over the summer.

But that's Carter for you.

Ignoring the fact and ignoring the history.

Diplomacy and the Hounds of Hell, Part XIX

Israeli commandos conducted operations against Hizbullah in Tyre. More than 70 targets were hit overnight.

Hizbullah continues firing rockets into Israel, but their aim isn't quite up to snuff. They fired six mortars at Israel, but instead hit Syria. Will Syria call those war crimes if they kill Syrians in the process?

The Saudis continue to play both sides in this conflict. They know that the Shi'ites in charge of Iran are their mortal enemy, and that Israel's fight against Hizbullah is their fight as well. They just can't say that. But the Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia aren't shy about calling Hizbullah the party of the devil.

Mrs. Lawhawk pointed me to Time Magazine this week, which has a whole bunch of stories about Lebanon, Hizbullah and the current conflict. Among the stories is one on who exactly will disarm Hizbullah and specifically at the Lebanese military's inability to do so. The story predictably goes into the disparity between Lebanon's military capability and Israel's military prowess (what goes unmentioned is the fact that Israel needs the sophisticated and advance military because of the likes of Iran whose leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, much as Arab countries have done for the last 60 years), which is actually irrelevant to disarming Hizbullah before noting that the demographics of the Lebanese military makes it simply incapable of disarming Hizbullah. Indeed, the only way the Lebanese military would operate in South Lebanon is at the behest and permission of Hizbullah. That arrangement is simply not going to work. Lebanon doesn't have to build up a military to match Israel, but it has to be robust and independent enough to deal with the likes of Hizbullah, which is a far greater threat to Lebanon than Israel is. After all, the current conflict in Lebanon was brought to the Lebanese people by and on behalf of Hizbullah and the Lebanese unwillingness to deal with this issue til now.

Also in the issue is an essay on how the conflict in Lebanon will affect the situation in Iraq, as if they are two separate and distinct issues. They are not. Iran is behind much of the Shi'ite violence in Iraq, and its Hizbullah forces are funded and equipped by the Iranians. The marches and demonstrations in Iraq are due to Iranian agitation. Time's writers also don't think Syria has much of a stomach for a fight with Israel. Well, if that's the case, then Syria should be doing all it can to shut its border with Lebanon or else worry about the fight spilling over into Syrian territory. Syria appears to be walking a tightrope, playing nice to the mullahs in Iran, but knowing that they can't have their fingerprints on the violence as the Lebanese already distrust and hate Syria for its decades long occupation and influence over Lebanon.

The following link is not for the faint of heart. It's a memorial to the more than 100 Israeli children murdered by Islamic terrorists. These children were not killed by accident. They were purposefully targeted by the Islamic terrorists. The terrorists were honored by their fellow terrorists and sympathizers. There were no apologies.

Iran says that it's supplied long range missiles to Hizbullah to protect Lebanon. No one is quite sure just how long range that is. Debka thinks that the range might be sufficient to hit Dimona, which is where Israel's nuclear research facilities are located.

Meanwhile, the Israelis attacked a suspected rocket launcher involved in the Hadera rocket attack. They're also continuing their ongoing search for launcher sites. The IDF soldiers in Lebanon are fighting a hard enemy, one that appears to be well trained and well equipped. Iran's fingerprints are all over Hizbullah, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

And yet, there's something puzzling. Hizbullah's losing all of these crack troops because they didn't predict Israel's response. That means that Iran is losing its crack proxy military. That would explain why Iran is so quick to call for ceasefires, and then echoed by Hizbullah's Nasrallah. Of course, Nasrallah decides to double down by calling for the second phase, by attacking targets beyond Haifa as though their first phase has gone so well for them. But don't take my word for it. That's the assessment of the editor in chief of the Arab Times.

The French and United States are apparently close to an agreement on a ceasefire. That would be a neat trick considering that it will rely on Hizbullah cooperating, when there's absolutely no reason to believe anything coming from Hizbullahland. The Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi believes that there will be no solution to the situation without involving Iran. Well, he's identified Iran as the key. That's a start. Problem is that he thinks getting Iran to sign a piece of paper will secure the peace. Too bad Prodi is far down on the list of those seeking to be the next Neville Chamberlain. The French are well ahead of Prodi as are Javier Solana and the UN.

And then there's Hugo Chavez, who like Iran, is engaging in quite a bit of projection. He's busy calling Israel's actions reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and yet doesn't bother to realize that stealing elections, nationalizing industries, making alliances with other fascist countries, and building up the military are precisely the steps Germany took in the 1930s. Chavez has gotten all warm and cozy with the likes of Ahmadinejad and Castro (who's condition is still unknown).

Hamas says that Gilad Shalit's release is not imminent despite Egypt's ongoing mediation to try and reach a deal/ceasefire.

Bloggers to check in with for daily updates are Blue Crab Boulevard, Carl in Jerusalem, Israellycool, Dave Bender, Meryl Yourish, Euphoric Reality, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, Jameel at the Muqata, Greetings from the French Hill, R'Lazer, and Live from an Israeli Bunker. Check back with them regularly for updates.

UPDATE
The Israelis continue their commando operation in Tyre.

The French and US have come up with language that they think will bring about a ceasefire. Good luck with that, especially since it relies on Hizbullah to stop attacking, and doesn't prevent Israel from continuing operations to attack Hizbullah positions that fire into Israel. This language will go to the full Security Council next week.

The United States and France agreed Saturday on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for a "full cessation" of fighting between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, but would allow Israel to defend itself if attacked.

The draft, obtained by The Associated Press, "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

That language would be a major victory for Israel, which has insisted it must have the right to respond if Hezbollah launches missiles against it. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to violence without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

Israeli Cabinet minister Isaac Herzog praised the draft as an "important development" but said the military would keep up its strikes in coming days.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and French President Jacques Chirac's office confirmed that agreement had been reached. The full 15-nation Security Council was to meet later Saturday to discuss the resolution, and it was likely to be adopted in the next couple of days, Bolton said.

"We're prepared to continue to work tomorrow in order to make progress on the adoption of the resolution but we have reached agreement and we're now ready to proceed," Bolton said. "We're prepared to move as quickly as other members of the council want to move."

The resolution asks that Israel and Lebanon agree to a set of principles to achieve a long-term peace. One crucial element is an arms embargo that would block any entity except the Lebanese government from buying weapons.

That is presumably meant to block the sale of arms to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria, believed to be the militia's main suppliers.

Other principles spelled out in the resolution include the disarmament of Hezbollah; the creation of a buffer zone from the U.N.-demarcated border between Israel and Lebanon north to the Litani River; and the delineation of Lebanon's borders, especially in the disputed Chebaa Farms area.

The resolution would call for the current U.N. force in Lebanon, known by its acronym UNIFIL, to monitor the cessation in fighting. Once Israel and Lebanon have agreed to the series of principles, the Security Council would then authorize a new peacekeeping force for the region.

President Bush seems pleased with the language, and the key is that Israel can continue its operations against Hizbullah until the UN Security Council approves the language, and even then, Israel can conduct operations to go after Hizbullah in defense of attacks.

A huge question will be how anyone can trust the UN to act as peacekeepers, patrol and police the buffer between the Litani and the border, and in the Sheba Farms area.

Israel's response will be made within days or weeks, which tells you all you need to know about Israel's concern for the UN. They know that the UN can't do much of anything and that Hizbullah continues to fire rockets and attack Israel.

Nasrallah is now calling for a ceasefire, which should tell you plenty about how Israel has damaged his organization's ability to hit Israel and conduct operations.

Jimmy Carter speaks, but why does anyone pay attention to him? His legacy in the Middle East is muddled at best, and while he gets credit for the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, his failure to deal with Iran has brought us to this point today where Islamists in Iran now threaten the world and Israel with distruction unless the Islamists get their way.

Meanwhile, three more Israelis were killed by Hizbullah rockets. It was three women, a mother and her two daughters. At least some good will come from the rocket attacks that killed two brothers earlier this week. Israeli doctors will use organs donated from the two brothers to help four other people.

In a complete surprise, Human Rights Watch has actually declared that Hizbullah is committing war crimes by firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas. Gee, it took the organization more than three weeks to come up with that self-evident and easily observed conclusion now? Considering that HRW has been busy churning out pressers denouncing Israel's actions, it's amazing that they managed to produce this document. Israel, meanwhile, has issued a terror alert for Central Israel.

UPDATE:
It didn't take long. Lebanon has rejected the so-called draft document laboriously produced by the US and France. Back to the drawing board folks. As I noted here, it's about the process. And as this document was written by diplomats, nothing has to actually make sense or reflect the situation on the ground. Diplomats love to write things and think that everything is about process. With a word, the Lebanese have undone what the US and French thought that would help with a ceasefire, which would help the country. All the while, Hizbullah and Israel are slugging it out all over Lebanon and Hizbullah continues firing rockets into Israel. Some reports indicate that Hizbullah is equipped like the Syrian or Iranian military. There's a good reason for that. Syria and Iran were, and are, equipping Hizbullah.

Ed Morrissey comments on the US/French proposal. He thinks it's a sensible plan. I see a fatal flaw, in that it relies upon the UNIFIL to verify that Lebanon is attending to matters that the UN has supposed to be dealing with since UN SCR 1559 was enacted (no militias and territorial integrity). This is the same body that is supposed to verify the demilitarization of the area South of the Litani River? I wouldn't hold my breath. And why does the UN have to sanction any nation's right to defend itself? That's completely self evident, but as others have noted, all the usual rules do not apply to Israel or the US, neither of whom can defend themselves unless their enemies provide the rules of engagement. Others commenting on the diplomatic maneuverings: Bryan Preston at Hot Air, Flopping Aces, Sister Toldjah, Dan Riehl, Rick Moran has a handy dandy scorecard (and further notes that the resolutions will still take a few weeks to implement), Macranger, Outside the Beltway, and Blue Crab Boulevard. As an aside, isn't it the slightest bit curious how Ambassador Bolton has managed to get France to agree to the US view on letting Israel defeat Hizbullah and prevent a return to the status quo ante? Wasn't one of the Left's talking points supposed to be that Bolton was unwilling, unable, or incapable of doing such things. Guess that's another talking point gone by the wayside.

The Palestinians claim that the speaker of their parliment was seized by Israel. Israel had no immediate comment.

Hizbullah continues to deny the ICRC access to the two Israeli soldiers they're holding. That's a violation of international law. Hamas rejected a similar call.

Technorati: terrorism, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, Eliyahu, Asheri, Ashri, Abbas, Rains, Summer, cavaliers, wrath, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.