Jaw Jaw Instead of War War

Egypt has called on Jordan, Israel, and the PA to meet for a summit in Egypt. Egypt wants to retain its leadership role in the Middle East among Arab countries, where its main competitor among Sunni countries is Saudi Arabia. The last time that the Palestinians met to discuss matters, they claimed to reach an agreement on a unity government. Within hours that devolved into the civil war that resulted in Fatah being ousted from Gaza and Hamas firmly in charge there.

The diplomats are doing what they always do; they are talking. Expect the usual from this - demands that Israel make concessions for the sake of peace. No where do I expect concessions to be demanded of Fatah although they're not exactly in a position to give up much of anything.

Closing ranks against Hamas, Egypt's president invited Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders to a peace summit, officials said Thursday, the biggest show of support yet by moderate Arab states for beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The meeting will take place Monday in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, said Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has invited Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jordan's King Abdullah II.

Abbas will call for a resumption of peace talks with Israel, arguing that only progress toward Palestinian statehood can serve as a true buffer against Hamas, which took control of Gaza by force last week, Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said.

''The most important thing to realize is that time is of the essence,'' Erekat said. ''We need to deliver the end of occupation, a Palestinian state. If we don't have hope, Hamas will export despair to the people.''

As immediate steps, Abbas will ask Israel to remove West Bank checkpoints that disrupt daily life and trade, and to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in Palestinian tax funds Israel froze after Hamas came to power last year.

In Washington this week, Olmert said he would propose to his Cabinet on Sunday that it unlock frozen funds, thought he did not say how much money he thought Israel should free. Israel is holding about $550 million in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinians.

Despite the talk about peace, however, the Hamas takeover has dealt a setback to statehood efforts, with the Islamic militants in charge of Gaza and Abbas in charge of the West Bank.

Actually, Fatah is also comprised of terrorists, but we've decided to play realpolitik and give those terrorists a chance to act as a buffer against the more extreme terrorists in Hamas.

I'm not a fan of it, and consider it pseudorealism considering that Fatah still considers the destruction of Israel to be its ultimate goal - hardly a moderate stance. Still, the possibility that dipomatic action might undermine and forestall a wider conflict is what diplomats are hoping for. The problem is that hope is a very poor way to strategize dipomacy. It's wishful thinking when the Palestinians refuse to make concessions that could actually lead to peace.

Egypt is supposedly the key to dealing with Hamas. Well, if Egypt could manage to shut down the arms smuggling into Gaza, that may be worth considering. The idea that Egypt should be asked to take over Gaza and administer the territory is a nonstarter - Egypt didn't want it when Israel and Egypt signed the peace treaty at Camp David in 1979, so there's no reason to think that has changed. Egypt knows it doesn't stand to benefit from that - and the Islamists in Gaza could further undermine Mubarak's position.

However, it does stand to benefit from increased patrols along the Philadelphi corridor.

For its part, Hamas continues to threaten Fatah for what it considers an illegal takeover of the PA.

In an interview here, Mr. Zahar, the former Palestinian foreign minister, said Hamas would not sit idle if its political rival, Fatah, dominant in the occupied West Bank and backed by the United States and Israel, continued to attack Hamas institutions and politicians.

“If they continue to dismantle the local elections in the West Bank and punish Hamas there, the United States and Israel will face another surprise there,” Mr. Zahar said. Asked how, he said, “The way we defend ourselves against Israel and this occupation.” Pressed if that meant attacks and suicide bombings, he smiled and replied: “You said that.” Then he added: “We are ending the reign of the spies and collaborators in Fatah.”

In recent days, Fatah gunmen have been attacking and burning Hamas institutions in the West Bank, and its forces have arrested a number of elected Hamas officials there as well. Mr. Zahar, a physician singled out in the past by Israeli forces who killed one of his sons and his son-in-law, spoke on a day when Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, the Palestinian president, said he would not negotiate with Hamas. In a televised speech, he said that “there is no dialogue with those murderous terrorists” and added: “Our main goal is to prevent sedition from spreading to the west Bank.”

Their main goal is to create an Islamic state of Palestine, comprised of the West Bank, Gaza, and what is presently Israel. Make no mistake about that.

And in a poll conducted of Palestinian views on the situation, most Palestinians would prefer new elections but Hamas would still come out ahead. Make of that what you will.

Syria claims that it is willing to talk peace. Would they consider giving up the possibility of regaining the Golan? Or is that the deal breaker for them? Land for peace has shown itself to have limits - just look at what the Palestinians have done with Gaza when Israel withdrew and South Lebanon when Israel withdrew in 2000 - it turned in to Hizbullahland from which that terrorist group could start a ruinous war. Syria wants the Golan back, and anything less would not be acceptable to them. Count on it. This latest move by Syria is an attempt to put the pressure back on Israel, instead of on Syria, which repeatedly used the Heights to fire into Israel when it was in control from 1948 through 1967, and again during the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

Then, there's the not insignificant matter of who is actually holding Alan Johnston and what is being done to secure his release. There's a report that a member of the group claiming to hold Johnston was killed but note the language being used to describe the group; they're talking about a clan holding him, not the terrorist group Army of Islam which has claimed responsibility. Masked gunmen reportedly shot a member of the Dughmush clan, which could mean Hamas was behind the attack. Hamas has said that it would use force against those holding Johnston if he was not released, and Hamas' brand of diplomacy is to shoot first and make demands later.

The bottom story of the day from the UN is that Secretary General Ban has denounced the UN Human Rights Council decision to single out Israel's human rights stance.

UPDATE:
Well, this report clearly indicates that the Army of Islam and the Dughmush clan are one in the same. Via LGF:



I guess the Army of Islam decided to consult with the media critics to give 'em an extreme name makeover to make it more palatable to the West. Saying that you're the Army of Islam might be... inflammatory and undermine the Islamists jihad by being so damned overt in their calling.

Calling themselves a clan is so much more ... tribal.

Whatever they call themselves, they're still holding Johnston and deserve to be hunted down.

UPDATE:
We're also approach the one-year anniversary of the date on which Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas in a raid that killed two other Israeli soldiers. Gilad is still being held somewhere in Gaza.

Hamas, meanwhile, has said that the PA should be comprised of technocrats instead of Fatah and Hamas thugs. Interesting idea, but hardly unoriginal. I believe that that idea has been floated by others around the Internet. It would benefit Hamas since it would get around some of the problems of having Hamas on the West's blacklist (no economic aid), but Hamas would still be part of the government. Technocrats sound better than kleptocrats or thugocrats, but the Palestinians have shown themselves to be lacking in competent leaders.

Hamas sees this trial balloon as a way of getting back into the money and to reassert power in both Gaza and the West Bank, instead of largely being confined to the hellhole of Gaza.

UPDATE:
Israel has agreed to meet for this summit, and it would appear that the US might be trying to apply the screws to Egypt to get them to do more to secure the Hamastan/Egypt border, to the tune of withholding $200 million in foreign aid.

Oh, and where are the usual suspects in Israel who are quick to condemn Israel for defending itself and kill terrorists, but are silent when the terrorists of Fatah and Hamas are busy killing each other. Hypocrites.

The Israeli Left and Arab Knesset members are enlightened and humane people. They are quick to cry out in the face of any injustice. In the course of the ongoing, Sisyphean and bloody war against Islamic terrorists raging in our region, there were cases where Palestinians used as cover by murderers have been hurt by mistake. Knesset Member Zahava Gal-On and Ahmed Tibi were quick to storm the nearest microphones in order to condemn the act, resorted to harsh, impassioned criticism of IDF commanders and fighters, and threatened to submit High Court petitions and turn to local and international human rights groups.

A blatant example of this is the nutty establishment of a commission of inquiry to look into the targeted killing of a top Hamas terrorist, the "saintly" Salah Shahada.

As it turns out now, their conscience is selective, just like their memory. More than 300 people have been recently killed in Gaza and Lebanon. In Gaza we witnessed a massacre, executions, cold-blooded daytime murders on the street, lynching against a backdrop of cheering masses, and horrendous acts of abuse one cannot find in any horror film.

However, it appears that the blood of these victims is not as red, and the reason is that those who are killing them, slitting their throats and abusing them are their Muslim brothers. Heaven forbid we criticize the barbaric butchers. It is easier to criticize those who fail to offer assistance than it is to slam Hamas, which is committing the crimes. As usual, we are being condemned, for not treating gunshot victims.

I would highly recommend the map feature at the Guardian (via Conflict Blotter). It's an interactive map that lets you see who controls what in the West Bank and various aspects of Israel's means of self defense - aka the security fence. It's the Guardian, so it's couched in terms of occupation and a pro-Palestinian bent, but the key detail is when you click on the links for Palestinian controlled and administered territory. It highlights a key detail that is often missing in news reports. Israel has relinquished control over large areas of the West Bank to Palestinian civil administrative control. Palestinians have been governing Palestinians - not very well I might add since Oslo in 1993. And that's part of the problem. The PA is a bunch of kleptocrats, so the Palestinians haven't been able to do much with what they have.

UPDATE:
Hamas is going to get a dose of what it's like to run Gaza, but the journalist writing this piece, still can't help but find ways to pin the blame on Israel.

Still, even Zahar must know that once the euphoria wears off, the Islamists are almost certainly due for a humbling lesson in real-world management. Maintaining order in a 25-mile strip of land choked with 1.4 million impoverished Palestinians is a daunting task for even the most disciplined and efficient of organizations. Governing will be all the more difficult while fighting periodic skirmishes with Israeli troops stationed just across the border. Earlier this week, Israeli and Palestinian soldiers exchanged gunfire at the busy Erez Crossing, and on Wednesday Israeli forces killed six more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. American officials have pledged vigorous support for President Mahmoud Abbas's forces in the West Bank, and Hamas activists could face further arrests there, where Abbas’s Fatah faction remains relatively strong. Meanwhile, dozens of Gazans are still trying to flee the fighting; on Wednesday Israel allowed more than 50 residents to pass on a bus to Egypt, although others remained stranded at Erez.

The Erez Crossing is a creepy place, even in the best of times. The walls of the concrete tunnel that leads from Israel to Gaza are chewed with the charred pockmarks of past shooting attacks; brass M-16 casings litter the floor alongside the pulled pins of smoke grenades. At a series of locked gates along the way, the disembodied voices of Israeli soldiers bark confusing orders over loudspeakers, instructing you to open your bags, take everything out of your pockets, raise your arms. On past trips to Gaza, a Palestinian policeman has checked my passport on the far side, and then waved me in. But this time I was thrust into a scene of frenetic activity almost as soon as I stepped across the border. Dozens of Palestinian kids were hanging from the green steel rafters of the tunnel, swinging axes and hoisting blowtorches—stripping even the tunnel itself of any metal that could possibly sold for scrap.

The violence at Erez crossing earlier this week was due to Hamas firing on Fatah thugs who were trying to gain entry into Israel. Israeli troops fired to provide cover for the Fatah thugs, and have even provided some medical assistance.

Erez crossing is designed the way it is because of the ongoing and persistent threat of Palestinian suicide bombers attempting to gain access to Israel, and to deal with crowd control.

Everything of even remote value is being scavenged from Gaza, and the situation will get only worse as Hamas cements its hold on Gaza.

UPDATE:
Yet another reason not to consider Fatah a moderate - the Fatah torture chamber of horrors (via LGF). Expect Hamas to return the favor, which goes hand in hand with the honor/shame cycle of violence.

UPDATE:
Meanwhile, the Lebanese military claims to have finally crushed Fatah al Islam. That group's leaders are on the run, which means that they could try to regroup elsewhere - namely one of the other camps, but this is a positive step. 16 people were arrested for a bus bombing back in February.

Back in Israel, PM Olmert is considering releasing taxes collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians to the PA. That's quite a tidy sum of money too, and could go a long way to building infrastructure, though it is most likely to be used for buying weapons and paying thugs.

Hamas is making itself right at home in Fatah's former bases.

Moving much closer to home, New Jersey is one step closer to requiring the state pension fund divest itself from those securities that invest in Iran.

UPDATE:
Bibi thinks that Jordan needs to be more involved in securing the West Bank. There is a certain amount of logic to that proposal, given that Palestinians from the West Bank were Jordanians before 1967, and Israel and Jordan have a peace deal. However, it's not in Jordan's interest to bring still more radical terrorists into their own sphere of influence since many do not consider Abdullah to be legitimate.

Israel also wants Saudi Arabia in on the peace efforts. Well, that's splitting the difference between the two regional Sunni powers - Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I don't see this doing anything one way or the other, except as to provide yet more money to any possible deal.

Israel is also allowing hundreds of tons of food to enter Gaza.

UPDATE:
Abbas is considering early elections. He obviously doesn't believe in the polls that would have Hamas winning.

UPDATE:
It would seem that Fatah al Islam's old neighbors don't want them to come back. Actually, it's not just Fatah al Islam, but the Palestinians in general who resided in the Nahr al-Bared camp and who had no problem with the terrorists operating from within the camp.

Terrorists Continue Rocket War Against Israel

Why should anyone call this anything other than a war? Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups continue firing rockets into Israel, and do so on a daily basis. They aren't going to stop unless Israel forces them to stop or the Palestinians run out of sewer pipes to convert into rockets.

Hamas says the attacks will continue, and blames the West for the tensions between Fatah and Hamas. The West would love nothing more but to see the Palestinians stop fighting, both with themselves and with Israel, and yet Fatah and Hamas have no problem going after each other because they want to be the sole voice of the Palestinian people and do not brook dissent.

He added that armed resistance was what would bring about an end to the occupation and was what had caused former prime minister Ariel Sharon to pull out of the Gaza Strip and his predecessor Ehud Barak to leave Lebanon.

"Under occupation, people don't ask whether their means are effective in hurting the enemy," he said. "The occupiers always have the means to hurt the people they control. The Palestinians have only modest means, so they defend themselves however they can."

It's most curious that Hamas' Meshaal says that. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and all the Palestinians have done since then is turn the place into a disaster zone. The PA has ignored basic infrastructure, causing cesspool collapses, destroyed infrastructure left by Israel such as greenhouses or used them as terror training facilities, and anarchy reigns in Gaza. Whoever has the most guns gets to decide what happens, and thus far it is Hamas that has dominated the situation there. For Hamas, the occupation includes all of Israel - regardless of where the diplomats draw the lines and borders. No map including a state of Israel is acceptable to Hamas.

And the US needs to stop supporting any efforts to train or supply the Palestinian Authority. All that does is provide equipment and training for terrorists:

A long-wanted terrorist chief captured this week by Israeli forces was trained by the US, served in a senior capacity on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' US-backed security detail, and was a ranking member of a team that received and distributed American arms shipments the past two years, the WND has learned.

Khaled Shawish, an officer in Abbas' Force 17 presidential guards, was arrested Sunday by undercover Israeli police forces following scores of shooting attacks Shawish is suspected of carrying out.

I can understand why some in the State Department might think that supporting Fatah makes sense when the alternative is Hamas, but this kind of phony realpolitik undermines US national security and strategic interests in the region. Fatah has no interest in peace with Israel, and has repeatedly refused to hold up its end of repeated deals on security with Israel.

UPDATE:
Predictably, CNN headlines that Israel strikes at Gaza, rather than focusing on the Hamas rocket fire that precipitated the latest Israeli response.

An Israeli airstrike killed two members of Hamas' military wing early Wednesday, Palestinian security sources said, as Israel kept up pressure on Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza.

Meanwhile, in an effort to defuse the latest flare-up in tensions, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will meet next week, Olmert's office said in a statement released Tuesday. The precise date and location has yet to be determined.

The latest Israeli air raid occurred shortly after 1:30 a.m. Wednesday (6:30 p.m. Tuesday ET), east of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, the security sources said. Two people were killed and one person was wounded, hospital sources said.

The strike came a day after an attack on what an Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman said was a Hamas training facility in southern Gaza. No injuries were reported from that attack.

UPDATE:
Have no fear, the UN Security Council is here; they want the kassam rocket attacks to stop. What is the UN going to do, use harsh language?

I have no doubt that they're going to push for Israel to make concessions such as ending the defensive engagements with Hamas thugs in Gaza, the arrest of Hamas leaders, or the airstrikes against the rocket teams, in order to get Hamas to stop firing rockets on a daily basis. The UN will likely accept firing every other day and force Israel to do so. The logic behind my opinion is simple - there's no way that the UN will force the terrorist group Hamas to comply. It will not send in troops to stop Hamas. It will not open fire on the terrorists, despite the terrorists repeatedly firing on Israeli civilians.

Arafat Responsible for Pair of Americans Murdered in 1973

Now why would the State Department bury evidence showing the Palestinian terrorist Yasir Arafat was deeply involved in the murder of two Americans in Sudan in 1973? What were they thinking?

THE SEIZURE OF THE SAUDI ARABIAN EMBASSY IN KHARTOUM

Summary

In the early evening hours of 1 March 1973, eight Black September Organization (BSO) terrorists seized the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum as a diplomatic reception honoring the departing United States Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) was ending. After slightly wounding the United States Ambassador and the Belgian Charge d'Affaires, the terrorists took these officials plus the United States DCM, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador and the Jordanian Charge d'Affaires hostage. In return for the freedom of the hostages, the captors demanded the release of various individuals, mostly Palestinian guerrillas, imprisoned in Jordan, Israel and the United States.

The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy.

Initially, the main objective of the attack appeared to be to secure the release of Fatah/BSO leader Muhammed Awadh (Abu Da'ud) from Jordanian captivity. Information acquired subsequently reveals that the Fatah/BSO leaders did not expect Awadh to be freed, and indicates that one of the primary goals of the operation was to strike at the United States because of its efforts to achieve a Middle East peace settlement which many Arabs believe would be inimical to Palestinian interests.

Negotiations with the BSO terrorist team were conducted primarily by the Sudanese Ministers of Interior and of Health. No effort was spared, within the capabilities of the Sudanese Government, to secure the freedom of the hostages. The terrorists extended their deadlines three times, but when they became convinced that their demands would not be met and after they reportedly had received orders from Fatah headquarters in Beirut, they killed the two United States officials and the Belgian Charge. Thirty-four hours later, upon receipt of orders from Yasir Arafat in Beirut to surrender, the terrorists released their other hostages unharmed and surrendered to Sudanese authorities.

The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike where least expected. The open participation of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack provides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum.

The murder of American citizens should have been sufficient to bring charges against Arafat upon his entry into the US. Instead, he was feted at the White House on numerous occasions.

The American government participated in rehabilitating Arafat's image to the point where he would get lauded by the Nobel Prize committee despite the fact that he did nothing to actually secure peace. Signing a piece of paper does not equate with peace. Taking steps to enforce and implement the terms of those documents does.

Arafat did nothing of the sort. Arafat was a terrorist to the end, utilizing the triangle offense to continue attacks against Israel via splinter groups and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Fatah terrorists (aka BSO) took hostage the following diplomats:

Guy Eid, Belgian Chargé d'affaires to Sudan
Sheikh Abdullah al Malhouk, Saudi Ambassador to Sudan
Wife of Sheikh Abdullah al Malhouk
Malhouk's four children
George Curtis Moore, US Deputy Chief of Mission to Sudan
Adli al Nasser, Jordanian Chargé d'affaires to Sudan
Cleo A. Noel, Jr., US Chief of Mission to Sudan

Of that group, Eid, Noel, and Moore were murdered. The terrorists involved in the attack were excused by the sympathetic Sudanese government (what a surprise). Arafat was never held to account.

All we are left with are questions why the US government would not pursue the matter further when all the evidence pointed to Arafat's direct involvment in the hostage taking and assassinations.

UPDATE:
Curt at Flopping Aces recalls a posting by Scott at Powerline that provided circumstantial evidence of Arafat's involvement in the assassinations of Eid, Noel, and Moore. At that time, the State Department laughed off the posting and claimed that there was no connection between Arafat and the deaths of those two American diplomats. Funny how that worked out when the facts are revealed to be quite different.

The Moderate Voice weighs in and wonders what the fuss is - we knew that Arafat was a terrorist and killed people. I think the difference is that Arafat went out of his way to target American diplomats, which is generally considered a big no-no in international relations and foreign policy. Arafat was not the only person who could have been turned into the Palestinian representative but one could argue it was realpolitik that the world looked to Arafat since he was the head of the biggest Palestinian terrorist group and those world leaders (the US among them) figured that if they could turn him, things would work out eventually.

We should be outraged over the way that the State Department went out of its way to rehabilitate Arafat's image despite the fact that he was behind the murders of two US diplomats. Others sharing their outrage include: Bizzyblog, Doug Ross, Hyscience, Ace, and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.

The Siege Continues

The New York Times doesn't seem to think that the continuing siege of the legitimate government in Lebanon by Hizbullah warrants above the fold consideration. Indeed, the actual news piece is subservient to an arts and leisure angle a notable Lebanese singer who went ahead with her performances despite the upheaval in the political realm. Is the paper that dense? [hint: yes!]

Reuters is not much better, having assumed Hizbullah's framing of the issues and terminology. A quick hit on the article and you would have no idea that Hizbullah is an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to Israel's destruction, has murdered US and French peacekeepers in the past, that support for the Lebanese government under Siniora isn't confined to the US or the West, and that Hizbullah's 34-day war with Israel devastated much of South Lebanon. Instead, we get a slightly whitewashed version:

Lebanon's political crisis showed no sign of easing on Sunday, with the pro-Syrian opposition pressing on with its protest campaign to topple the Western-backed government.

Thousands of protesters from Hezbollah and its allies spent a second night in a tent city in central Beirut, within earshot of the office-turned-residence of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

"We are not letting them (ministers) sleep, we're disturbing them with our noise. We have the resilience to stay not for one month, but a year or two," said Ahmed Kayello, 20, from south Lebanon, sitting on a grassy slope.

And even though the opening paragraph says that the Siniora government is western backed, if you read down, you'll note this curious tidbit:

Siniora, who has vowed he would not be forced out by the protests, has won expressions of support from Arab and Western governments, including the United States, Britain and Germany.

So, it's not just Western governments, but indeed most governments around the world. The only ones who oppose the Siniora government? Syria and Iran. Abu Kais has yet another insightful posting at Totten on the complex political situation and what the March 14 group needs to do to deal with Hizbullah and their ostensible coup.'

It's interesting that this report notes that thousands of pro-Syrian demonstrators joined up with the Hizbullah thugs camped out in front of the government buildings.

Thousands of pro-Syrian protestors joined some 5,000 people holding a sit-in in downtown Beirut Sunday in what they described as a 'popular movement to overthrow the anti-Syrian government' of Premier Fouad Seniora.

Meanwhile, Seniora was taking part in prayers for assassinated anti-Syrian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel.

A mass was held inside the governmental palace, where the offices of Seniora are located and where all the anti-Syrian ministers have taken refuge following the assassination of Gemayel on November 21.

The service was attended by Seniora, several cabinet ministers and deputies from the anti-Syrian parliament majority and members of Gemayel's family.

Gemayel, the son of former president Amin Gemayel, was the sixth critic of Syria to be assassinated in Lebanon over the past two years.

Thousands of opposition protesters led by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah have been holding an open-ended rally since Friday near the governmental building. The protests are aimed at toppling the anti-Syrian government.

How long will it be before Hizbullah's true colors start showing outside the government buildings?

UPDATE:
This is what passes for deep penetrating news analysis in big media? MSNBC and the Washington Post came up with this? Are you kidding me?

Long divided by the Christian east and largely Muslim west of its 15-year civil war, Beirut is a city snarled today by far more numerous boundaries of sect, perspective and ideology, intersecting and tangling across a capital and country wrestling with a question still unanswered since independence more than 60 years ago: What is Lebanon's identity?

In today's crisis, those fault lines tell the story of the struggle underway between the country's two camps, divided by past and present, with vastly different visions of Lebanon's future: on one side Hezbollah, supported by Iran and Syria, and on the other the government, backed by the United States and France. The fault lines tell, too, of an impasse that perhaps can't be broken.

The borders are drawn by color, flag, portrait and symbol, a claustrophobic contest to lay claim to identity never solely Lebanese. They are defined by ideology: the culture of resistance to Israel celebrated by the Shiite Muslim movement of Hezbollah, for instance, or the Christian separatism of civil war-era militias with fascist roots. They follow the contours of leaders who command loyalty through personality over politics. And they offer protection in a country where survival can feel precarious.

The article completely ignores the 34-day war that Hizbullah initiated in unilaterally deciding to attack Israel. Israel's response caused billions of dollars in damage to Lebanon, but Hizbullah could care less - it's intentions were to carry out its mission statement of the annihilation of Israel. Hizbullah does not care about the welfare of the Lebanese people who are simply pawns and cannon fodder for media play.

Never mind that the ideological barriers are not simply the West versus Iran and Syria. It is the world versus Iran and Syria as Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, have backed the Siniora government. If the media would only scratch the surface just a little bit, we'd know exactly who is behind the current conflict and what their endgame is.

The Syrians and Iranians want to expand their sphere of influence. They are playing the time tested game of power politics and realpolitik. They've seen the weakness of the West to stand up to a constant onslaught of terrorism and subterfuge. They've exploited divisions between the US and France, the US and Russia and China, and the UN to further their agenda.

Within Lebanon itself, Hizbullah is exploiting the fault lines even more overtly. Hizbullah is the best organized and best armed group in the country. Hizbullah has essentially carved out a fiefdom in South Lebanon all to its own. It dominated large parts of Beirut and the Beka'a Valley. That it has done so is in direct violation of UN SCR 1701, 1559, 425, and 426 - all of which require the disarmament of all militias within Lebanon and the assurance of Lebanon's territorial integrity.

No one has stood up to Hizbullah and forced them to disarm - not the Lebanese government and not the UN. When Israel fought with Hizbullah, there was a faint hope that Israel might have damaged enough of Hizbullah's operations to give the Lebanese and UNIFIL the wherewithal to disarm the terrorist group. Instead, they dithered and have chosen not to confront Hizbullah.

Hizbullah, and its backers in Damascus and Tehran, have taken note with smug glee. Their plans to exploit the West's weakness and reluctance to support Lebanon with more than words have not been derailed after all.

UPDATE:
Abu Kais has updates on the situation in Beirut. The majority of the Lebanese parliament supports the Siniora government, as does the world excepting Syria and Iran, yet Hizbullah thugs are wading into dangerous territory:

Hizbullah, Aoun and Syria's parties are overstaying their welcome. The patience of Beirut citizens and Lebanese from the opposing camp is wearing thin.

LBC is reporting riots involving Sunnis and Shias in the neighborhood of Qasqas as I type this. The Lebanese army has intervened. (Update: The clashes were reportedly between a Hizbullah convoy passing through the area and Sunni residents)

Yesterday, around 300 Hizbullah members reportedly chased a man who hurled insults at Hassan Nasrallah and then fled towards nearby Ashrafieh. The Lebanese army stopped the advance of the militia on the Christian neighborhood and arrested the individual, who turned out to be a Syrian citizen by the name of Hamzah Mohamad Sadeq Ismail. Al-Mustaqbal described this as a Syrian intelligence attempt to create clashes, although one wonders what Hizbullah was thinking by sending 300 members to a Christian neighborhood boiling with rage.

Across the Bay finds that Michel Aoun has never found a war that he didn't find could be enhanced by his presence. Aoun is a wildcard in this whole mess, but he's acting as an opportunist piggybacking on the insanity Hizbullah and its backers in Damascus and Tehran are prepared to inflict on Lebanon.

UPDATE:
No sooner had I pressed publish, did I notice that Rick Moran had posted a considerable piece on the situation in Beirut. One of those clashes between Sunni and Shi'ite resulted in one dead and 10 injured. Moran thinks that Berri may be the lynchpin in averting a civil war; Berri has no interest in seeing Hizbullah pull the country into a civil war but his pro-Syrian bent will not make friends among the March 14ers.

Also, Hizbullah is not likely to be a patient bunch. Do they have the capacity to see this through despite their claims that they're going to remain encamped in large numbers until Siniora's government falls.

UPDATE:
Lebanon is twisting in the breeze, and MSNBC and CNN don't think the story is worthy of above-the-fold coverage. A potential civil war is brewing and neither thinks this significant. Neither thinks to provide anything more than cursory wire reports that provide little more than Hizbullah media releases (as noted above).

Others blogging the Lebanese crisis: Hot Air and Gateway Pundit have regular updates and Beirut Spring notes activity is taking shape elsewhere in Lebanon - Tripoli for example.

UPDATE:
The yellow Hizbullah flags are starting to make their appearances at the siege in front of the government buildings in larger number. Whereas the Hizbullah thugs were more circumspect only a day or two ago, now, they're more willing to show their colors.

UPDATE:
The Daily Star reports the death of one person as a failure of leaders on both sides to rein in their supporters.

Ahmed Ali Mahmoud, 20 and believed to be a supporter of the Amal Movement, was shot during the Qasqas incident. It was not clear where the gunfire came from, the officials said. He died before reaching hospital.

The clash started when a group of Hizbullah supporters were returning from central Beirut's and passed through the neighborhood, heavy with late Premier Rafik Hariri's Future Movement supporters.

A high-ranking Lebanese Army said the two sides threw stones at each other before shots were fired. Four other people were hurt in the clash.

The official said the army "intervened to stop the clashes from escalating."

As per stories told from both sides, convoys of cars and mopeds from both the opposition and pro-government parties had been provoking each other throughout the day.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa is trying to keep Lebanon from being torn apart by violence. Yet, it was this from Syria that caught my attention:

In Syria's first official reaction to the street protests in Beirut, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad on Sunday backed the opposition's campaign to bring down the current Lebanese government.

"Syria supports the Lebanese people and its national forces who confronted the Israeli aggression with heroism," he said, referring to the July-August war with Israel.

Syria is clearly throwing its support behind Hizbullah and despite other countries calling on the cessation of foreign interference in Lebanese affairs (that means you Syria and Iran), Syria is clearly influencing matters.

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

Hizbullah's Siege

As Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard notes, Hizbullah's 'tent city' in front of the Lebanese government buildings is not your typical tent city demonstration. This is a siege. They're not leaving until they destroy the Lebanese government and put one in that is more compliant to Hizbullah and Syria's demands.

Gateway Pundit, as usual, has a lot more on the siege, and Hizbullah's endgame.

Thugs in a tent. This isn't about protest babes. It's the raw demonstration of power and there is nothing the Lebanese government can seemingly do about it. Neither can the March 14 supporters.

Prairie Pundit has more. Abu Kais at Michael Totten notes that the only countries not supporting the Lebanese government are Syria and Iran.

UPDATE:
Here's a direct link to a Daily Star article showing the world's solidarity with the Siniora government. Notably absent is Syria and Iran. Both of those countries are engaging in realpolitik in a way that James Baker doesn't understand. They're actually applying all forms of pressure to expand their sphere of influence, and by doing so, they're undermining the West's power, prestige, and influence in the region.

The media has taken to using Hizbullah's terminology in framing the debate. The government is US-backed, even though the world and the US back Siniora's legitimate government. The problem is that the world is only providing words to back up the government, they are not providing physical assistance. Perhaps they want to see how things develop, but Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran are not above physically intervening in Beirut to overthrow the government.

After all, the elimination or removal of one more minister would topple the Siniora government, and Hizbullah and Syria would benefit the most from that situation.

The Daily Star has to be careful how it describes Hizbullah - they're in the direct line of fire if Hizbullah wants to deal with the paper. They call them hard-core opposition members. The BBC will only call them protesters in their headline, ignoring the fact that Hizbullah is an international terrorist group whose intentions are not only the destruction of Israel, but to turn Lebanon into Hizbullahstan. Would it have been too difficult for the BBC to write their headline: "Hizbullah Sets Up Camp in Beirut"? Not only is it more accurate and descriptive, but it tells you exactly who is behind the protests.

The situation is pretty bleak, and everyone is watching warily at what will happen next.

UPDATE:
Gateway Pundit has video of what happens if someone doesn't follow Hizbullah's rules on not showing the Hizbullah flag. Also, does anyone else wonder why some of the Hizbullah-Aoun types are wearing orange bandanas? Seems that they're trying to take a page from Ukraine's Orange Revolution...

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

Linkages

Iran's Ahmadinejad predicts the collapse of Israel, the US, and the UK. So far, there's nothing to disprove that notion as Israel's leadership thinks that they can get a peace deal with genocidal terrorists who think nothing of blowing up Israelis and using toys as bombs and call for Israel's destruction as a basic part of their raison d'etre. The US has sent to the region Baker and Scowcroft who are arguing negotiations with Iran and Syria, both of whom are complicit in assisting the insurgents and terrorists causing so much trouble in Iraq and Lebanon. Then, you get yokels like Jonathan Chait who would like to see Saddam Hussein returned to power in the insane belief that Saddam would be able to restore stability to the country. Yes, a stability that included genocide (and on which he's standing trial for the murder of hundreds of thousands in the Anfal campaign).

Ahmadinejad understands that we are in a war to the death - it's a war of Islamists against the West, and if the US, Israelis, and UK are unwilling to fight for their own defense, there's no one else who will do the fighting for us.

Realists, if they are truly adherents to Hans Morgenthau's iteration of international affairs and the belief that states act in furtherance of their own power, would not engage the likes of Iran and Syria since those actions undermine US national security and power in the region in the long run. Those countries are enemies of the US and their interests are divergent from the US interests. They would rather see Iraq turned into a bloodbath since it serves Iranian and Syrian interests to not have a democratic country operating on their borders - one that has ties with the US. The threat of a stable Iraq on their borders is one they cannot countenance. Syria has shown that it cannot permit Lebanon to exist independently, and has repeatedly engaged in political assassination to undermine the government and thrown its support behind Hizbullah, which started a war with Israel from Lebanese territory.

Baker and Scowcroft are not realists in the true sense of the term since they're only thinking of what a deal can do for the US tomorrow, not what it will do for the US next week. They are operating from a short-term realpolitik that presupposes that what's good for the US in the short term is good for the US in the long term - and if it isn't, then the mess will be cleaned up by someone else.

The problem is that Islamists do not play by the same playbook the US does. The Islamists fight their conflicts in terms of decades and centuries. The US has shown that it cannot sustain its will to fight for more than a few years, and the Islamists have exploited this time and time again.

On Howard Dean

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that unchecked U.S. reliance on foreign oil helps fund terrorists and the nation must address its energy needs in a way that creates jobs.

Howard Dean, in a speech to the American Jewish Committee, said new industries should emerge to develop alternative fuel sources. The other option, he said, is continued support of Islamic schools that teach hatred of the United States and Israel.

"We are committed to ending our standing by, while our oil money (provides) indirect funding of fundamentalist Islamic schools all over the world," he said.

Dean took a swipe at the Republican Party, saying the Democratic Party is one of inclusion and religious freedom.

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who is Jewish, addressed the group on Tuesday.

Dean decried energy industry subsidies, suspected price gouging and what he called a lack of leadership in Iraq. He also said any confrontation with Iran should be handled in a better way than the one with Iraq.

If Democrats were truly committed to making sure that American Jews feel comfortable about being American Jews, they'd stop ankle biting the Administration on acting in Iraq, and undercutting on Iran, not to mention caving into the worst that the 60s retread anti-war Left has to offer this country (which is nothing but defeatism and decades of failed policies).

The modern Democratic party has failed to elaborate on a national foreign policy that says anything other than that they oppose what Republicans are doing. Whether it's Middle East policies, nonproliferation, or preempting threats before they become imminent threats that are no longer within our ability to control, the Democrats have repeatedly been on the wrong side of the issue.

What Dean doesn't realize is that American Jews are like all other Americans - they're concerned about their pocketbooks, the rising price of oil, terrorism, and now border control and immigration. All are interrelated and none of the Democratic party's solutions for the problems actually address the problems. Investigations into price gouging will not change the price by a single penny. It's a feelgood move by politicians who are completely incapable of doing the right thing - opening up areas to energy exploration. Such moves, like permitting drilling in ANWR or adding cumbersome red tape to the construction of new refineries and other energy facilities are blocked by Democrats who think that they're doing something good for the country. They're instead pandering to the radical minority of environmentalists.

So, instead of being able to build new nuclear power plants, hydroelectric facilties, wind power facilities, or fossil fuel facilities using resources recovered within our own borders, we're increasingly relying on unstable regimes that are often oppose US. We rely on Venezuelan oil despite the fact that Hugo Chavez is doing everything possible to undermine the US in Latin America. Reliance on Middle East oil skews our national foreign policy and national defense posture because we have to rely on regions whose religious beliefs are antithetical to our own.

Decades of realpolitik have resulted in our ongoing pressure on Israel to accept deals that no rational country should ever have to make. And many of those decisions were put forth to make sure that our ability to secure supplies of oil were not affected.

As for Dean's comments about Iran, he says absolutely nothing of substance except that Democrats would do something different than what was already done on Iraq.

For those that forget what happened with Iraq, since 1991, Iraq was the focus of 17 UN Security Council resolutions seeking enforcement of sanctions, and obligations under the 1991 cease fire agreement. Ongoing violations of the agreement occurred when Iraq would repeatedly fire on US and British aircraft operating in the no-fly zones. Iraq refused to fully cooperate with inspectors seeking to determine the extent of the Iraq WMD programs, including their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons systems and delivery systems.

This situation was an ongoing mess and, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, could no longer be tolerated. This was an ongoing threat that had to be dealt with before it could become imminent. That, combined with the ongoing humanitarian crisis (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity) caused by Saddam's cruel reign of terror, were met with military force finally in 2003.

We're now facing a regime right next door that is following Iraq's blueprints - from ongoing human rights violations, support of terrorism, and a nuclear program that has been unchecked by sanctions or an ineffectual IAEA.

Dean thinks that we have to do something different with Iran than with Iraq. I'd suggest dealing with the threat sooner, rather than later after months and years of diplomatic nonsense give Iran the time it needs to obtain sufficient nuclear materials to make enough nuclear weapons that any military action would result in the potential use of said weapons.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran would ever stop its nuclear program, or that diplomacy will solve this problem when Iran repeatedly states that it has no intention of giving up its program and that there's nothing that countries opposed to Iran's intentions can do short of taking military action. That, combined with China and Russia running interference for the mullahs, means that Iran has the upper hand.

Good vs. Evil

THE BUSH administration's newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled "The Irony of Iran." Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase "axis of evil," the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran — whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda's allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq — chosen in elections that George W. Bush called "a magic moment in the history of liberty" — are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex.

Where to start with this train wreck of muddled thinking? As the document cache recovered from Iraq shows with alarming regularity, Saddam wasn't above dealing with al Qaeda and Osama. They had common enemies and could set aside theological differences if needed.

Albright conflates micro needs versus grand strategy. Iran may have issued a token condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't mean that they weren't cheering the result. The same goes for their actions related to Afghanistan. They wanted to keep the US out of the Iranian sphere of influence, and if that meant trying to negotiate the Taliban to exit stage left without US action, then not only do the Iranians curry favor in US diplomatic circles, but the Iranians don't have to worry about US forces on their borders (all while they're thinking about putting their nuclear program into overdrive).

And the fact that some of Iraq's new leadership has friendly relations with Iran is a realpolitik on the Iraqi's part to recognize that they've got do deal with ongoing threats as well. The country isn't fully prepared to deal with a threat from Iran, so playing nice along that border is common sense. Not to mention that there isn't any sense of allegience to Iran considering that Iran and Iraq spent 8 years slugging it out in a truly horrific and bloody war that killed millions on both sides.

So, on top of misreading the situation between Iraq and Iran, she selectively reads the history to try and prove her point about the US strategy of calling evil by its name, instead of playing it the way the US has always done - maintaining the status quo, even when dangers lurk and need to be addressed before it is too late.

Too bad Albright didn't perceive North Korea as evil, as they went nuclear on her watch. Or watched as Pakistan and Iran launched nuclear programs with assistance of the AQ Khan network to obtain nuclear weapons.

The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq — a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues.

Iran is a threat to the US, yet Albright thinks that you can negotiate with an unstable and unrational regime. Look at all the good that did with Clinton handing off negotiating a deal with North Korea on nuclear weapons to Carter in 1994. Yet, there is something to be said about dealing with Iran on Iraq - namely to gather intel on the Iranian regime and try and settle things down at the Iraq/Iran border so that Iraq can get on its feet. That buys the Iraqis time, but time is something that the US does not have when it comes to the Iranian threat of obtaining nuclear weapons.

Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.

Funny, but the Administration has consistently beaten Democrats on foreign policy at every turn, so why should anyone in the Administration listen to Albright whose foreign policy was largely a failure in the Middle East. The sad fact is that the march of freedom is the big story precisely because Bush threw his weight behind that idea and millions of people around the region are better off for it.

Those who aren't better off: terrorists, and terror-sponsoring regimes who happen to be evil. Oh, and members of the Democratic party in the US who have to root for US failures overseas to win elections back home.

Fidel Lite

Hugo Chavez is quickly turning into Fidel Castro, except that Hugo has oil. And Hugo doesn't have to worry about US sanctions (for now) or hurricanes. Chavez is trying to get the 'Legislature' to adopt provisions letting Chavez remain as 'president' until 2030.

Flawed elections, combined with nearly 75% of the voters refusing to participate in the elections are just the tip of this iceberg.

Before we answer, let's look at what happened. As you may know, Venezuela's five largest opposition parties decided to boycott the legislative elections, citing that Chávez ran the National Election Commission at his will and bent all the rules in his favor.

With a minuscule voter turnout of only 25 percent, Chávez won all 167 seats of the National Assembly, Venezuela's Congress. Now, Chávez will have full control of all levers of power, including the armed forces, Congress, the Supreme Court and the electoral commission. From now on, there will not be even a pretense of separation of powers.

The big question is whether this will move the international community to take distance from Chávez, as Venezuela's opposition hopes, or whether most Latin American and European countries will shrug and say, ``if the opposition didn't participate, they've asked for it. Chávez is a democratically elected president, and he's thus legitimate.''

Venezuela's pro-Chávez president of Congress, Nicolas Maduro, told supporters Tuesday the election will allow ''an acceleration of the revolution.'' He celebrated the fact that ''this newly elected assembly will pass laws to allow Chávez not only to rule until 2021 [as Chávez has proposed], but until 2030,'' the daily El Universal reported Wednesday.

That sounds real democratic folks. Castro never had it so easy.

And Chavez is far from legitimate, despite what the rest of the world may think in some deepseated realpolitik. The earlier elections were flawed, and despite Jimmy Carter's stamp of approval, are considered quite suspect. Widespread fraud was reported in those elections, and that was one of the primary factors behind so much of the absentions in this round of elections.

Totalitarian dictators routinely held elections, which were rigged, and got nearly 100% of the vote. A vote, in and of itself, does not lend legitimacy. Venezuela is in the clutches of a totalitarian dictator, and the Venezuelan people are realizing this - but will they have the wherewithall to put him where he belongs; prison? It's still too soon to tell.

Toxic Indifference to North Korea

Since 2002, defectors among the flood of refugees from North Korea have detailed firsthand accounts of systematic starvation, torture and murder. Enemies of the state are used in experiments to develop new generations of chemical and biological weapons that threaten the world. A microcosm of these horrors is Camp 22, one of 12 concentration camps housing an estimated 200,000 political prisoners facing torture or execution for such "crimes" as being a Christian or a relative of someone suspected of deviation from "official ideology of the state." Another eyewitness, Kwon Hyuk, formerly chief manager at Camp 22, repeated to me what he asserted to the BBC: "I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. . . . The parents were vomiting and dying, but until the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."

So why no worldwide outrage?

For now it appears that realpolitik trumps distant horrors. Despite heroic efforts by Christian activists on both sides of the Pacific to sound the alarm, the South Korean government views these accusations as unwelcome complications to its problematic and complex relations with the North. Indeed, a foreign ministry official whom I met did not deny that North Korea gassed political prisoners to further its program to develop weapons of mass destruction. He politely stated that Seoul was focusing exclusively on the threat from Pyongyang's nuclear program in the context of the six-nation peace talks. Meanwhile, most South Korean nongovernmental organizations are so committed to the idyllic vision of a reunified Korean Peninsula that they have turned a deaf ear to the horrors inflicted on their own people north of the 38th parallel.

The Western media haven't exactly ignored this story. Instead, they have generally treated it in an offhand manner chillingly reminiscent of how the Holocaust was reported during World War II. For example, the Pentagon just recently sought emergency authority to resume administering the anthrax vaccine to U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula as well as in the Persian Gulf because of "a significant potential for a military emergency involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack." The limited coverage of the story focused not on the threat posed by North Korean chemical and biological weaponry but on the controversy over the safety of inoculating the troops.

North Korea's Mengele-style experimentation with killer agents such as anthrax has not escalated into a mass-murder campaign against the regime's own population, the Allied troops stationed in the Korean DMV or North Korea's neighbors -- not yet. But beyond the nuclear threat, the world has reason to be deeply concerned over how much of this deadly know-how has been transferred to terrorist states or entities.

It isn't necessary to insist on "regime change" as a precondition of dialogue. But the world community -- with the United States, Japan, China and Russia in the lead -- must insist on behavioral change, ameliorating the North's human rights pathologies, before making diplomatic concessions. We should start by identifying -- by name -- those involved in crimes against humanity against their own people, and warning these criminals that eventually they will be held accountable before the bar of justice.

The problem with the strategy prescribed by the author is that China and Russia are badly in need of regime change themselves; they're simply the lesser of the competing evils at this particular moment. Both were involved in mass murder and the utilization of gulags and concentration camps by both countries is well documents (though understudied by those who think that socialism and communism is humane and a model for all countries to follow).

For starters, there should be no concessions whatsoever. North Korea will implode from within unless the US and others keep the inevitable from happening. North Korea cannot feed itself, nor can it do much of anything other than hold the world hostage to its claims of possessing nuclear weapons (and the attendant selling of said weapons on the black or open market). Further isolating the country may actually hasten the demise of the old regime and bring about greater change than engagement.