The Gaza War Continues: Where Do We Go From Here?

The latest battle in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas (Operation Protective Edge) continued without any sign of letup. Israel's military continues ground operations inside Gaza, while Hamas has continued firing rockets and missiles at Israel. Israeli ground forces have taken casualties while Gazan casualties continue to grow.

Thus far, Palestinians living in Gaza have taken the brunt of the fighting. There have been hundreds of casualties and it is still unclear just how many of them are civilians and how many have been Hamas fighters. Media outlets are relying almost exclusively on Hamas and PA sources for casualty counts, and Hamas has been notorious with lying about who was killed and conflating their casualties with civilians.

It is indisputable that Israel has hit civilians, including children in the course of the fighting and trying to hit at Hamas terrorists who are entrenched in urban areas and firing at Israel from within civilian areas. Israel reports that they've killed at least 270 terrorists, while the UN indicates that 479 have been killed overall, including 364 civilians, 76 militants, and 39 who they can't classify. Gaza's Health Ministry puts the tally at 632 killed and nearly 3,800 wounded.

It is also indisputable that Hamas has no problem firing from civilian positions including schools and UN facilities. For the second time in a week, the UNRWA has found rocket caches in one of their facilities.

https://twitter.com/lawhawk/status/491629164584112128

Hamas has become more brazen in where they're storing their weapons, all while their leaders cower in underground bunkers while Gazans who aren't connected with the leadership and don't have the means to protect themselves are taking the brunt of the damage with no where else to go.

It is also indisputable that but for Hamas firing rockets and missiles at Israel incessantly since even the last ceasefire in 2012 (all but one month had missile/mortar or rocket fire) that Israel would not have needed to invade Gaza once again after the latest rounds of barrages that have landed deep inside Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

The FAA may have succeeded in doing what Hamas couldn't do directly. After firing missiles in the direction of Ben Gurion Airport, Delta Airlines and a quick succession of other airlines decided that they didn't want to put their planes in harms' way. The FAA then ordered US airlines to halt flights to and from Israel for 24 hours. Other airlines also followed suit.

The airlines rightfully don’t want to see their gear destroyed by the missiles or rockets, and that’ll be more than enough to keep them away though it is strange that they are not willing to fly into Israel but haven't had issues with flights to/from or over other war zones and conflict regions in recent years, including Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine (prior to the shoot down of Malaysian Air Flight 17).

The FAA order and its effect on the conflict can play out in one of two ways. It could force Israel to a ceasefire while Israel has not achieved its goals militarily so as to get flights to resume. If the flights remain shut down, it would have the effect of imposing economic harms on Israel (lost tourism/commerce) and indirectly strengthens Hamas’ hand.

However, the concern for Israel's economy is just as likely to move Israel to mount an even larger military campaign into Gaza so as to eliminate the threat to Israel's only international airport and crush Hamas' capabilities once and for all. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu is likely to opt for the latter, knowing that his country needs the influx of tourists to keep the economy going and a prolonged shutdown would have dire consequences. Israeli public opinion isn't going to take this kind of existential threat to their livelihood and country; they're going to press ahead with rooting out Hamas if it means eliminating the threat to Israel's airport.

Until now, the primary justification for the Israeli ground assault has been to root out the tunnels and bunkers Hamas has used to bring weapons into Gaza from Sinai, store the weapons, and to infiltrate into Israel. The missile attacks near Ben Gurion are the kind of justification that Israel could make to continue its fight inside Gaza - to eliminate the threat to Israel's economy and transportation networks that fighting to clear the tunnels from Gaza didn't. It would potentially provide the open-ended invitation for Israel to remain in Gaza, a region Israel unilaterally withdrew from in 2005 as no nation would ever allow its key transit locations to be under constant threat from missiles and bombs.

Meanwhile, the diplomats are trying to formulate yet another cease fire proposal. It's actually a joke at this point. Everyone knows that the ceasefire agreement is going to end up being the same as all the prior deals between Israel and Hamas. Both sides will promise not to fire on the other beginning at X. Once X plus a given period Y has occurred, Israel will promise Z and Hamas will need to reciprocate with A. The ceasefire deals are essentially fill-in-the-blank and you can substitute the times, dates, and in the end, all that is left are the casualties on both sides to be buried and hospitalized.

It's nice that the diplomats and EU members are calling on Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza to be disarmed, but there's no indication of how or who would do what they propose. Hamas seems to have an answer to that question - they’ll keep firing their munitions until they’ve expended their stockpiles. Israel will continue taking that fire until they have forced Hamas to expend all of its weapons.

Gazans will continue to suffer from Hamas actions and Israeli responses and both Israelis and Gazans will mourn their losses and curse Hamas. And that, unfortunately, is the takeaway.

Cross posted at LGF

On Yesterday's Historic Israeli Elections

Yesterday, Israelis went to the polls to determine the new makeup of the 19th Israeli Knesset. All 120 seats were up for grabs, and while Israeli pollsters largely predicted that current Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's Likud bloc would retain its plurality in the Knesset, that margin would shrink and his current coalition government would see a shakeup. Currently, Netenyahu's coalition is Likud 27, Yisrael Beiteinu 15, Shas 11, Jewish Home 3, Independence (barak's party) 5, and UTJ 5.

Boy were they ever right about that.

The results are in, and there's a huge shift in the political landscape - much of it is personality driven.

Likud, which formed a bloc vote with Yisrael Beiteinu, won 31 seats (compared with 42 under the old grouping). Habayit Hayehudi had 11. Religious parties Shas maintained their 11 seats, while UTJ picked up two seats to 7 from 5. Arab parties combined for 12 seats (10% of the Knesset).

Yair Lapid, who formed a new political party for this election, exceeded all expectations and won 19 seats, making him the head of the second largest bloc in the Knesset.

Labor came in with 15 seats, Meretz and Hatunah with 6 each. Kadima, which had been formed by Ariel Sharon out of disaffected Likud and Labor, managed to scratch out two seats (early reports yesterday had indicated that they would have been shut out of the Knesset altogether). Exit polling by Channel 1, 2, and 10 all indicated that Kadima would be toast and underestimated the Arab vote

Lapid could choose to either form a government with Netenyahu or lead the opposition.

This gives Lapid tremendous sway over how Netenyahu's government will address outstanding issues that are critical to Israel's economic and social progress, including the Tal Law reformation process, economic and social opportunities, and the peace process that has all but ground to a halt.

Everyone and their grandmother is giving Lapid advice on how to proceed. After all, his choices will affect how the new coalition government is cobbled together. It could land Lapid with a major cabinet position and sway over policy.

That's precisely what Israel needs - someone who will address the issues pragmatically and integrate the Haredi into Israeli society. The Tal Law is at the forefront of that debate, and it's past time for the religious community to better integrate into Israeli society - not only with military service (or government service of some form), but to better integrate into the Israeli economy.

While the Israeli economy is a tremendous incubator of technology and medical advances, the Haredi community is largely on the sidelines. Getting that untapped pool of knowledge and insight into the economy would greatly expand economic opportunities for all.

That's part of Lapid's goal and mission, although some are seeing it as a combative effort to eliminate longstanding exemptions for the Orthodox. I think that's the wrong view on this issue. Mandatory service of some form will help unify Israeli society whereas the current exemptions only lead to further stratification.

At the same time, the new government will have to address the fact that the peace process is in a holding pattern. That doesn't sit well with armchair diplomats who think that Israel's intransigence is the reason there isn't a 2-state solution, but the problems extend beyond Israel's political situation to the fact that the Palestinians aren't exactly seeking a 2-state solution as Hamas reminds everyone on a regular basis. They have no intention of seeking peace with Israel or recognizing Israel's rights to territories either inside or outside the 1948 or 1967 borders.

The current Israeli position is to essentially do the minimum needed to work with the Palestinian Authority on issues and address Hamas only if Hamas and the other terror groups fire mortars or rockets at Israel. The Gaza disengagement showed Israel's polity just where Hamas' intentions lie. Even if Fatah seeks a peace deal, it would not address the situation in Gaza unless you're going to recognize that there's a de facto 3-state solution (Hamas' Gaza, Fatah's West Bank, and Israel).

All the other issues that flow from the still present schism between Fatah and Hamas are the main reason Israel has no reason to address a peace deal. They have no one to negotiate with. Only when the Palestinians resolve their own internal politics - and accept Israel's rights to exist, can the other issues begin to get addressed through negotiations (and I'd prefer that they be done in back channels where there's a greater flow of dialogue, than in publicly held negotiation sessions that generally lead to meaningless gestures and posturing that sets back the process).

The Barak Disengagement Plan

Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak has come out with a new plan that is spurring a new debate about Israel's role in the West Bank. Ehud Barak is part of the government coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, but he's also the leader of his own political party and has aspirations to once again be Prime Minister of Israel.

That means that his comments need to be framed both as an internal political issue within the Israeli electorate and as a wider Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Barak's plan? A disengagement from large portions of the West Bank, including uprooting settlements and using financial incentives to get Israel's to move back inside the Green Line. However, the Etzion and Ariel settlement blocs would not be included in the disengagement:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is urging the government to examine a plan for unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. Under the plan, secluded settlements and outposts in Judea and Samaria would be evacuated by the state, and any Jews wishing to remain in the region would be permitted to live there under Palestinian rule.

In a special interview with Israel Hayom, to be published in full on Tuesday, Barak outlined the details of his plan and explained the logic behind it. Under Barak's plan, the settlement blocs of Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel would remain intact. These blocs house some 90 percent of Judea and Samaria's Jewish population. Strategic areas (such as the Samarian hills overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport) would similarly remain under Israeli control, and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley would be ensured. The remainder of the territory would be handed over to the Palestinians to establish a state. Dozens of small Jewish communities would have to be evacuated.


Barak's plan elicited a harsh response from the right on Monday, with Likud Minister Yuli Edelstein saying that "this is not a disengagement plan we are talking about. This is our survival. Ehud Barak is continuing to make rookie mistakes. After supporting the disastrous Oslo Accords, orchestrating the escape from Lebanon and advancing the withdrawal from Gaza, which put a million Israelis in bomb shelters, Barak is now willing to put millions more in harms way just to get more votes."

There has been no visible movement on the peace process in the past couple of years as Hamas has solidified its hold on Gaza while Fatah continues running the show in the West Bank autonomous areas where Palestinians have civil administrative control. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has full civil administrative control over certain portions, shared security arrangements in other areas, and Israel controls the remaining areas. The ultimate disposition of the West Bank would be determined in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But since Hamas has remained steadfast in its refusal to recognize Israel's very right to exist and has no interest in holding to already signed deals between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, there's been no movement. Israel can't work on a peace deal when it doesn't have a partner in peace.

Elections are likely in the next year, and Barak thinks he's got a shot at winning the opportunity to forge a coalition government rather than Netenyahu. Disengagement isn't likely to sit well with many Israelis after the Gaza experiment, though there are significant differences between the two scenarios. For one, Hamas had a greater presence in Gaza than in the West Bank, and Fatah has been more willing to coordinate security with Israel. That isn't to say that disengagement is without risk to Israel's security.

So, this is where Barak's proposal comes into play. It would seem to be a version of Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan. It would take into account the demographic problems that face Israel with a growing Palestinian population that would threaten the very character of Israel's Jewishness.

Critics of Barak's plan in Israel point to the problems resulting from the Gaza disengagement. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor notes that the disengagement from Gaza allowed Hamas to overrun and take control of the area and turned Gaza into a rocket and terrorist haven. Thousands of terror attacks have been launched against Israel - in the form of mortars, kassams, and grad rocket/missile attacks against Israel from Ashkelon and Ashdod through Sderot. Meridor points out that something similar would likely occur if Israel unilaterally withdraws from areas in the West Bank.

"We saw what happened in Gaza," Meridor told Israel Radio, expressing his belief that unilateral withdrawal from settlements is "not a good idea."

"We all want to reach an agreement," he said, "but since Olmert's proposal (in 2006) we haven't had real negotiations, and they [the Palestinians] don't seem to want it."

Meridor stressed that Israel should make an effort to reach an agreement and that the current situation must not continue, but he added that the army must remain in the West Bank for the time being.

Meanwhile, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom all but dismissed the proposal, predicting that Barak will not have sway on government action in the settlements, following elections scheduled for 2013.

The view that Israelis are the ones blocking a path to a peace deal ignore the reality on the ground unless the goal is to establish not a two-state solution, but a three state solution. One for Hamas in Gaza, one for Fatah in the West Bank territories, and Israel. If that's the path to take, then we need to eliminate the fiction that the Palestinian Authority has any actual authority, that the votes the Palestinians took, and their civil war that led to the current situation but that would also mean that Palestinian self-determination in those elections wasn't determinative.

The problem with the three-state solution is that the Palestinians themselves don't appear to want that - they still hold fast to 2-state solution that ultimately leads to a 1-state solution in overruning Israel.

Fatah's Abbas isn't willing to make concessions on right of return or other critical issues that would lead to a new peace deal. And housing and settlements are a non-factor since Israel has repeatedly shown that Israel is willing to uproot settlers from housing to have an opportunity for peace.

They did it in Sinai.

They did it in Gaza.

And they'd do so in the West Bank if there was a peace deal to be had. Without a partner in peace though, the Israelis aren't going to warm up to another unilateral disengagement plan.

Israel's Netanyahu Forms Coalition Government With Rival Kadima

Israeli politics can make for strange bedfellows. The Knesset is made up of 120 parlimentarians, and to govern, one must be able to get a majority of Parliament. In the last election, Likud was given the opportunity to form a coalition government (in Israel's history, no single party has ever garnered sufficient seats to form a government on its own). It did so, but only barely.

The need to create coalition governments means that minority parties can hold tremendous sway in the coalition governments - the religious parties for example can threaten to leave the government if their policies aren't enacted/followed, for instance).

A few times in Israel's history, the two biggest parties have joined together to form a unity government - particularly in times of need.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes this was the right time to form a unity government, and that gives Netanyahu the numbers in the Knesset to take a policy stance that might push some of the minority parties to bolt. It convinced rival party Kadima to join in a unity government so that there is no need to hold new elections to form a new government.

No elections, Kadima joins government: In a dramatic move, the Likud and Kadima parties agreed on a unity government early Tuesday, averting the prospect of early elections.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz finalized the surprising unity agreement hours before the Knesset was expected to approve its own dissolution and set September 4th as the date of the next elections.

PM Netanyahu announced that Kadima’s Mofaz will be appointed deputy PM and minister without portfolio, while also being included in Israel’s security cabinet. Mofaz told Kadima members the party will likely get more portfolios later on, apparently in 2013. As part of the deal, Kadima will also chair the Knesset’s Economics Committee.

The move was also a tactical ploy by both Kadima and Likud - the two biggest party blocs in the Knesset to thwart the ascension of a new party headed by Yair Lapid. For Kadima, the move prevents a potentially serious blow to the party's standing in the Knesset. For Netanyahu and Likud, the move strengthens its hand in dealing with a variety of issues, including the contentious move to expand the mandatory draft to include all Israeli citizens, eliminating the exclusion for the ultra-orthodox.

UPDATE:
Some US media outlets are playing the angle that the coalition unity government deal is designed with Iran in mind. That completely ignores the fact that the deal opens up the opportunity to reform the IDF and undertake other economic policy reforms that it could not do if the religious parties were able to force new elections.

Abbas Calls For Statehood At UN; Netenyahu Calls For Restart of Peace Process

Palestinian leaders continue talking right past Israel and towards the international stage, where regimes are more open to the Palestinian worldview rather than the hard task of making peace with Israel - and accepting a 2-state solution.

That's exactly what happened today, when Mahmoud Abbas stepped to the dais at the UN General Assembly to push for Palestinian statehood and membership at the UN, and he was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu who called for a resumption of final status negotiations towards a 2-state solution.

Palestinians, with Hamas in particular, don't want a 2-state solution and their behavior from the past few weeks puts the diplomatic efforts in a different light.

The Palestinians do not have anyone willing to pull a Sadat and make the trip to Jerusalem to pursue peace - a real peace (even if it turns out to be cold). The rhetoric remains the same from Palestinian leaders, whether it was Arafat, or Abbas, or the Hamas/PIJ thugs.

Israel, for its part has gone from Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to Kadima's Ariel Sharon - a former Likudnik who split to pursue a more moderate course, and ended up going for the Gaza disengagement to not only limit Israel's contact with Palestinians that caused friction in Gaza, but was meant to improve Israel's security situation.

Not only did the opposite occur, with the rocket war ensuing shortly after Israel put in place a more secure barrier between Gaza and Israel, but Sharon was felled by a stroke. That left the incompetent Ehud Olmert trying to carry on with similar policies and his weaknesses were exposed during the rocket war and the Hizbullah war.

The disengagement and the rocket war/Hizbullah war left Israelis realizing that they do not have partners in peace, despite Oslo obligations with the Palestinian Authority.

Netenyahu is from that mold - he doesn't see the Palestinians as a partner in peace and isn't afraid to say that to the consternation of diplomats who would willingly paper over that inescapable fact in pursuit of a deal.

Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to cede land for the sake of peace, and while it's worked with Egypt (a cold peace at that following Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and the forcible relocation of hundreds of Israeli communities that were on the Peninsula - a landmass twice the size of Israel proper at that), the Gaza disengagement showed the limits of land for peace where one party doesn't want peace.

The Palestinians have to be held responsible for their situation, and Abbas going to the UN for statehood would be rewarding them for their intractable position regarding Israel and further undermines Israel's sovereignty and right to exist.

Palestinians complain about Israel's security measures that thwart their economic opportunities, but ignore that but for Palestinian terror attacks, Israel would have had no need to operate those security checkpoints, build security fences, or use military action against terrorists who operate from the midst of civilian populations in places like Gaza.

Trying To Salvage Peace Process Means Heading Off Palestinian Calls For Statehood at UN

President Barack Obama and Israel are facing a September deadline. They have to convince the Palestinians that declaring statehood at the United Nations in September would be a train wreck of the worst kind. Yet, the Palestinians are increasingly likely to make that declaration and throw what's left of the "peace process" under the bus. That assessment comes from former Middle East envoy George Mitchell:

"The United Nations does not have the authority to recognize states," Mitchell said. Recognition of a state, especially if passed by an overwhelming margin at the UN, would be "very harmful for Israel, for the United States, and not good for the peace process."

The United States has consistently expressed the opinion that bringing the issue of a Palestinian state to the UN is harmful to the peace process with Israel. Despite this, several countries, have already granted recognition to an independent Palestinian state of their own accord.

In a recent meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned against unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, saying "We do not think that unilateral steps are helpful."

The way the Middle East conflict is going to end, Mitchell said is "by an agreement in which the United States plays an active and substantive role but an agreement that will be owned by, be the property of, and be the result of negotiation by Israelis and Palestinians."

The envoy also spoke about the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, saying "obviously we hope that Abbas and the Fatah Party will win the election, not Hamas."

Mitchell should know better than most that the Palestinians will more than likely vote along the same lines as the last elections held - Hamas wins Gaza and parts of the West Bank, while Fatah wins elsewhere. Hamas would likely repeat its totals, and again throw the "peace process" into turmoil since Hamas refuses to accept Israel's very existence, which is a necessary condition for any talks between Israel and the Palestinians to be worth more than the paper they're printed upon.

While it's worth noting that other countries are backing the US on seeing that the peace process continue via direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, no one should hold any parties just yet - Hamas and Fatah continue to reject Israel's existence and any talk of a 2-state solution can't occur until such time when Hamas and Fatah - the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, accept Israel's right to exist.

It seems that every other day Hamas or Fatah spokeshacks declare their intentions to seek liberation of all Palestine and seek Israel's demise. They aren't hiding their intentions, but the diplomats continue working under the illusion that there is a framework for peace to be found.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gets in on the act too, complaining that peace will not come from speeches and polls. That's rather rich considering that he botched not one but two wars with terror groups - the Hizbullah War and the Operation Cast Lead. Instead of fighting both to defeat Hizbullah and Hamas when they lobbed thousands of rockets, mortars, and missiles at Israel, he took half measures and limited Israel's military efforts to dislodge the terrorists from their refuges. Failing to disrupt the terror networks gave the terror groups renewed hope that they could defeat Israel in the long run.

It's worth noting that Prime Minister Netenyahu essentially agreed with President Obama's calls for peace and painful concessions, but only after the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist. There are no such statements forthcoming from the Palestinians, who hold on to the belief that they can wait out Israel and plot Israel's demise all while forcing Israel into making still more concessions without any reciprocation.

Then, there's the issue of what exactly would happen if the Palestinians declared independence in September? Well, it would mean the end of the peace process as it currently exists, and would then position the territories of Gaza and West Bank into a different category under international law. Gaza would be sovereign territory - and if terrorists launched attacks from Gaza into Israel, it would be a clear act of war to which Israel could respond with force. The situation in the West Bank is more complicated considering that it is carved up into areas of responsibility - A, B, and C zones that give Palestinians and Israelis different levels of control and authority. Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel, but the Palestinians refuse to accept that - or Israel's borders, so it would set the stage for yet another war.

There's no word on whether Palestinian leaders would keep their fellow Palestinians bottled up in refugee camps as they've done throughout Gaza and the West Bank, but that's what they've done to date and there's no reason to believe that they'd end the refugee camps until Israel ceases to exist. That's the ultimate goal under Palestinian demands for a right of return.

Making a Joke of the "Peace Process"

The idiotic coverage of the President's speech earlier this week, and then blowing the context of the speech and the response by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netenyahu have done nothing to resurrect a moribund and defunct "peace process". Fact is that Israel has not had a partner in peace in the Palestinians, even dating back to the signing of Oslo.

The Palestinian Authority has not been the partner in peace Israel was looking for and Palestinians still refuse to accept a key condition to any deal - accepting a 2-state solution with Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas refuses to accept Israel's very existence, and they're part and parcel of the Palestinian Authority.

That's why President Obama's latest statements show the farce that the entire process has become.

US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was "more urgent than ever." He said that he was "confident" that there could be a Jewish state with "safe and secure" borders alongside a Palestinian state where Palestinians can "determine their fate and future."

Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister David Cameron at a press conference after the two privately met, Obama said that the Palestinians must understand that "they have obligations as well."

The US president said that the conflict rests on four central points: territorial boundaries, Israeli security, the Palestinian refugee issue, and Jerusalem. He said that the last two issues were "extraordinarily emotional" and would require "wrenching concessions."

He stressed that talks were necessary and that without negotiations, there would be no peace. He said that a UN resolution calling for an independent Palestinian state, if passed, would not create a viable Palestine and, in the end, would not "serve the Palestinians."

Obama acknowledged, however, that Hamas was not a partner for negotiations until it renounced violence and recognized Israel. He said Israelis have a right to be worried by the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, given that Hamas does not recognize Israel and has not renounced violence.

The US president also thanked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for expressing his position, and making recommendations on how to restart the peace process.

Both the UK prime minister and US president expressed unity in supporting Israeli security, as well as a sovereign Palestinian state, in a jointly penned op-ed on Tuesday.

He warns that Hamas is no partner in peace, and yet Israel has to work with the Palestinian Authority. What a way to mangle reality. We have to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hamas is involved in the PA and get Israel to the negotiating table with groups that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, the Palestinians keep making the same demands that they've been making for years - an unlimited right of return that would swamp Israel demographically with millions of Palestinian "refugees" most of whom have never actually lived in the area from which Israel was created or which it later captured from Jordan, Syria, or Egypt.

What exactly is so urgent about forcing a peace deal? It is to provide a legacy achievement for any President who works through a deal, but is it actually in the interests of Israel to cut a peace deal that undermines its security? With the Palestinians steadfastly incapable of adhering to the Oslo requirements - including accepting a 2-state solution, we now have Mahmoud Abbas claiming that he's going to the United Nations in the fall to declare Palestinian independence when Oslo requires a negotiated statehood.

Abbas claims Netenyahu's speech shows that Israel is the stumbling block to a deal, but the reality is that the Palestinians view Israel's existence as the stumbling block - not settlements, not right of return. Eliminate Israel and voila - peace.

You want a breakthrough on a peace deal - how about the Palestinians giving up the right of return. How about them actually eliminating all references to an eternal struggle to destroy Israel in their charters (Hamas charter, PLO charter, and incorporated into everyday affairs such as maps that show Israel as being wiped out).

That's the crux of the Palestinian position, and it is in its most extreme form with Hamas. But Fatah, the PLO, and other Palestinians adhere to that line.

President Obama's Speech On Middle East Relations

Some reports prior to the President addressing the issue today claimed that this would be some form of a reset but the speech was actually a rehash of longstanding US positions, with a few caveats. I don't think this broke new ground, although there are more than a few people claiming that the US has changed position on Palestinian-Israeli relations.

For one thing, the President admitted that the US hasn't exactly held countries like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the same standards that it should have when those regimes cracked down against protesters. This part is particularly good - because he admits that his own Administration's policies towards Bahrain, Yemen, and even the Saudis has been flawed:

Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the President said that there cannot be a resolution when the Palestinians deny Israel's right to exist. Yet with that in mind, how exactly can he turn around and restart the peace process when that's precisely the situation Israel faces? With Hamas involved in the Palestinian Authority, the amount of pretzel logic need to claim that the Palestinians accept a 2-state solution is mind-boggling, especially when both Hamas and Fatah refuse to accept Israel (Fatah being part of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority).

Heck, we can't even get the Palestinian Authority to adhere to their obligations under Oslo to stop inciting Palestinians to violence and otherwise de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.

The President briefly mentioned Jerusalem in the speech, but the key was that the resolution would involve land swaps and as agreed upon by the parties.

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

Also, I'm curious how he intends to have a contiguous Palestinian state when Gaza and the West Bank are separated as they are now. Previous discussions have suggested building land bridges or tunnels, but none of these issues can be acted upon until the Palestinians get over the threshold issue of accepting a 2-state solution, which is something that was originally included in Oslo.

On this point, the President's speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't breaking ground. It rehashes the American positions since at least the George H.W. Bush Administration (Madrid Conference). It doesn't break any new ground.

Yet, there are some media outlets that clearly get the reporting on this wrong, including the AP.

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

This is inaccurate reporting at its finest. Obama hasn't changed US position on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is still committed to final status talks to resolve final borders.

Where Obama clearly gets it wrong is in his statements to cajole Bashar Assad into leading a transition of how Syria is governed. Assad hasn't remained a dictator by getting out the way or transitioning his regime into something else. The Hama Rules rule for a reason in the ME (and Assad's father stayed in power using them to the hilt). Assad's only error is that he didn't use enough power to crush the opposition weeks ago.

So unless the US is going to get involved in Syria to the same extent that the US/NATO is in Libya, Assad isn't going anywhere unless the Syrian people rise up and are joined by the military in that uprising. That isn't likely to happen as the military has pretty much remained solidly behind the Assad regime. There were some reports that some units refused to fire on protesters, but they were dealt with by Assad's loyalists.

Sanctions aren't going to get Assad to change tactics.

UPDATE:
With the growing brouhaha over Obama's speech as it relates to Israel and its borders, this is perhaps the most important part of his speech, as per the transcript:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

Everything else is moot unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist. That includes any talk of final status borders.

This is the strongest wording on this point and it supersedes all talk about Israel's borders. After all, if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, talk about borders is moot.

Moreover, if Obama was truly talking about 1967 borders as the media keeps shilling, then in reality he'd be talking about the post 1948 border (aka the Green Line), but that's not the terminology he used.

There was a specific reason he used 1967 line - with agreed upon land swaps, because it is a reference back to UN SCR 242 and 338 and Oslo, all of which involve land for peace and do not require Israel to return to the pre 1967 Green Line border.

On Anniversary of Israel's Founding, Protesters Breach Israel's Borders on All Sides

Protesters from Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt joined in with thousands of protesters in the West Bank to breach Israel's borders. Israel had no choice but to fire on the masses attempting to breach the borders, and at least a dozen were killed.

At the Lebanese border Israeli troops shot at hundreds of Palestinians trying to cross, killing 10 protesters and wounding more than 100, the Lebanese military said.

The biggest confrontation took place on the Golan Heights when hundreds of Palestinians living in Syria breached a border fence and crowded into the village of Majdal Shams, waving Palestinian flags. Troops fired on the crowd, killing four of them.

Every year in mid-May many Palestinians mark what they call Nakba, or the catastrophe, the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 and the start of a war in which thousands of Palestinians lost their homes through expulsion and flight.

But this is the first year that Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon tried to breach the Israeli military border in marches inspired by recent popular protests around the Arab world. Here too, word about the rallies was spread on social media sites.

“The Palestinians are not less rebellious than other Arab peoples,” said Ali Baraka, a Hamas representative in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said the day’s protests were aimed not at creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel but at destroying Israel.

I agree fully with Netenyahu on this. This was not about protesting towards a 2-state solution, but an attempt to overwhelm Israel with an eye towards subverting Israel's very existence.

I have no doubt that the intentions here were not to protest towards a 2-state solution, but rather a coordinated attempt to overwhelm Israel in every conceivable fashion. Given how the media will likely cover this, expect the Arabs to make still more attempts.

Moreover, it's curious how the protesters from all around the region were able to coordinate their efforts towards breaching Israel's borders in such a systematic method. They were also counting on taking Israel by surprise, and to that extent - they succeeded. It also provides another relief valve on the Arab regimes that have been under assault for all these months - they can simply redirect the ire and anger on the street towards Israel, even though Israel was defending itself against an invasion.



Israel will continue to defend its borders against incursions and invasion - just as any other sovereign nation would do. The Arab regimes and the Palestinians themselves have no interest in peace with Israel and continue in their ongoing assertion to seek Israel's destruction. Those who are killed in confrontations with Israel are seen as martyrs to the cause, and the more that are killed the better.

For Syria's Assad, this couldn't come at a better time since it means that the spotlight will shift from his butchering of hundreds of Syrians who have rose up to protest Assad's brutal regime to Israel killing protesters who have invaded Israel in protest of Israel's very existence. Indeed, the irony is rich that Syria is complaining about Israel's defense of its borders while Assad murders Syrians without mercy.

The skirmishes occurred along the Lebanese border, the Syrian border, and along the Green Line between the West Bank and Israel and the border with Gaza.

Leave it to Hamas' Haniyeh to once again state the blatantly obvious - there can be no peace when the Palestinians want nothing less than Israel's destruction.

No Surprise That Middle East Peace Process In Tatters

I was warning about this very scenario when President Barack Obama launched into his Middle East diplomacy just days into his first term at a time when Palestinians and Israelis weren't exactly primed for a new effort by a neophyte President who lacked any kind of experience dealing with the conflict.

His lack of experience has played itself out with a thus far spectacular failure to improve matters. Moreover, both sides (Palestinians and Israelis) see each the President as bringing about ongoing failure as the other side.

The political peace process to which Obama committed so much energy is considered a failure so far. And in the world’s most pro-American state, the public and its leaders have lost any faith in Obama and — increasingly — even in the notion of a politically negotiated peace.

Even those who still believe in the process that Obama has championed view his conduct as a deeply unfunny comedy of errors.

“He’s like rain,” said a top Israeli official involved in diplomacy with the U.S., speaking of Obama’s role in negotiations. “You can do all kinds of things to cope with it.”

Some fret that not only has Obama failed to move the process forward but he and his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts may have dealt it a setback that will leave it worse off than when they began.

“Each of them has exacerbated the mistakes of the other,” said Michael Herzog, a retired general who still plays an informal role advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s negotiators. He worries that the result of the bumbling could be “disastrous: People will lose hope in the possibility of a two-state solution.”

The White House declined to comment for this story. But in general, the Americans point fingers back at the region. They’re unsure whether Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, has the will to make peace. They’ve been surprised and disappointed by Arab leaders’ unwillingness to bolster Israel’s confidence in the process with diplomatic concessions or financial support for the Palestinian Authority. And they are dissatisfied with the domestic political excuses of an Israeli prime minister they see as having chosen his own intractable coalition and who is now — in the view of one American official — “running out the clock.”

That latter bit is particularly hilarious since no one should have taken the Palestinians seriously since the 2007 schism between Hamas and Fatah that left each with control of only one portion of a potential Palestinian state (Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank) but neither recognizes the rights of the other to speak for all Palestinians.

Moreover, Hamas continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist openly. Fatah is more circumspect in that regard, but it too alludes to a long struggle to overcome the Zionist (Israeli) presence in the Middle East. When one side refuses to recognize the right of the other to even exist, there's absolutely no way that a peace deal could be struck that means anything more than a piece of paper.

The whole notion that Israel has to be prodded into making concessions on housing freezes completely ignores Palestinian failures to adhere to Oslo - and just how uneven the demands on both sides truly are. Housing is not an impediment to peace - Palestinian refusal to accept Israel - as a Jewish state - is. Palestinians want to rid all territories that will fall into their sphere of influence of all Jews. They have required Israel to forcibly uproot Israeli settlements and that was formalized via Oslo - that there are areas in the West Bank where Israelis simply cannot travel or else they'd face arrest (or lynching depending on the mood of the Palestinians that given day). That's not a firm foundation for peace, but for a renewed conflict.

Throw in the US arms deals to the Saudis that would give that feeble regime more fighter aircraft (F-16s) and it's little wonder that the Israelis wanted to get an improved fighter deal for themselves (the F-35). The Saudis see the Iranians as a threat, but the Israelis see the Saudis as a threat should the regime topple (the King is getting up there in years and the stability of the regime isn't entirely certain). The Iranians continue making their usual genocidal statements towards Israel's presence along with attempts at procuring both conventional weapons systems and even nuclear technologies.

The President has made a mess of any chance at further a peace process while the current players are at the helm. It would take a radical sea-change for there to be an improvement in chances for peace - and that would necessarily have to originate with the Palestinians. It is on the Palestinians to bring about the conditions for peace - starting with a complete and total renunciation of their desire to eliminate Israel and to accept a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state. Housing can always be transferred (see the original Camp David accords with Egypt).

The Palestinians have to figure out what they want - whether they want to follow Hamas and their jihad against Israel or Fatah's long-term struggle, or create a whole new path towards peace. Right now, they're showing no interest in peace, and depending on where you ask, they consider jihad or the struggle to be paramount even if it means economic ruin for Palestinians.

Israel has no choice but to continue operating as it has for years - protecting itself from attack and hoping that someone among the Palestinians finally shows courage and backbone to make a deal that Arafat and Abbas would not.

Managing Expectations on Latest Peace Process Gambit

While Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu were in Washington this past week and agreed to continue talks on a biweekly basis, the Israeli Prime Minister was attempting to manage expectations by downplaying chances for a successful outcome.

The prime minister continued, "This year, after many efforts, we jumpstarted the direct talks with the Palestinians. This is an important step in the attempt to advance a peace agreement between us and them. I say this is an attempt because there is no certainty for success. Indeed, there are a lot of obstacles. There is a lot of skepticism and a lot of reasons for skepticism. But we need to try and achieve peace."

"We are trying in good faith, but not in naiveté. We are insisting that any agreement between us and the Palestinians be based on the two principles of security and recognition of the State of Israel as the country of the Jewish people."

"Security," continued Netanyahu, "because no peace will last without strong organs of real security arrangements on the ground. On the ground and not on paper, not some vague international commitment, but real Israeli security arrangements on the ground."

Netanyahu noted that Israel being asked to recognize a Palestinian state, "and it is natural and fitting that we ask from the other side to recognize the Jewish state and the state of the people of Israel. The deep understanding and the belief in our right to live here in this country, our homeland, the country of our forefathers, this understanding is critical for dealing with the challenges of the coming year, of the challenges of the next decade and the future in general."

He has every reason to manage expectations and downplay its chances; his negotiating opponent has no intention of making concessions on any of the key issues - as usual.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talk about an "historic compromise" and said there would be no compromises on core issues such as Jerusalem and borders.

Abbas also reiterated his rejection of Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one," Abbas said in an interview with the semi-official Al-Quds newspaper. "For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

Abbas said that in recent meetings with leaders of the Jewish community in the US, he made it clear that the Palestinians would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want," Abbas said. "But [I told them] you can't expect us to accept this."

Abbas said that by raising the issue of Israel's right to be a Jewish state, Netanyahu was seeking to "strip" Israeli-Arabs of their rights and turn them into illegal citizens. He said that Netanyahu's goal was also to block any chance of Palestinian "refugees" from returning to their original homes inside Israel.

Abbas is more than willing to demand that Israelis dismantle all the Israeli communities in the West Bank outside the Green Line and resettle those Israelis within Israel's pre-1967 borders. That move would essentially make Palestinian territory Jew-free, all while Abbas refuses to recognize Israel's Jewish heritage, history, and necessity as a safe haven for Jews from all over the world (including the hundreds of thousands expelled from Arab states following Israel's independence in 1948.

At the same time, the Palestinian Authority sends mixed messages in public statements and tailors that message to the audience it seeks to sway. The key, as always, is what Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are promising to the Palestinian people - and on this front, it's business as usual. The PA is not about to give up its claims to Jerusalem and not recognizing Israel's right to exist. They are trying to have it both ways - but they have not done anything to prepare the Palestinian people for the eventuality of a two-state solution.

Pushing Israel Into A Corner?

Don't think that the New York Times' timing on the release of a report about US tax exempt donations going to the construction of housing in the West Bank wasn't purposeful on the eve of President Barack Obama's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu. There are some reports that indicate that Obama will try to pressure Israel into making some kind of apology to Turkey over the flotilla raid, even though the backers of the flotilla were intent on creating a violent incident for propaganda purposes and Israel was within its sovereign rights to defend itself from terrorists who would use running the blockade as a means to regroup, resupply, and rearm.

For starters, the tax exempt donations don't only include the West Bank - but Jerusalem as well. And as I keep pointing out ad nauseum, the construction of housing is not an impediment to peace. Housing can always be sold or transferred. It's been done before by Israel - twice. Israel withdrew from Sinai and returned thousands of houses built for settlers there in multiple communities. Israel again withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and transferred those communities to the Gazans, who promptly used them as terror training camps and destroyed the infrastructure, including greenhouses donated by US businessmen for providing an incubator for Gazan economic development.

Other reports indicate that the US will demand that Israel move to a two-state solution immediately. Such reports deny reality and again show the folly of diplomats trying to invent facts instead of taking the situation as it truly is - psuedoreality.

The fact is that Hamas and Fatah continue to refuse Israel's existence and deny a 2-state solution. That is the impediment to peace. When you have Fatah honoring a mass murderer who killed Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972 as conquering hero, your priorities are wrong.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has euologized Abu Dauod, the mastermind of the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munch Olympics in 1972 and who died Saturday. “He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people's just causes,” said Abbas.

Dauod's life's work was focused on murdering Israelis.

Focusing on housing is a distraction from the real problems - that Israel simply does not have a partner in peace. It doesn't matter how many concessions Israel makes, it will never be sufficient and the Palestinians will not accept any such deal because they will always demand more.

Mind you that the PA never even bothered with counterproposals to the two Israeli peace deals made - one with Arafat in 2000 and later with Abbas.

Now, who exactly is Israel to make peace with when the Palestinians themselves can't agree on who is their representative - Hamas that continues to seek Israel's destruction openly and obviously, or Fatah, which is content to let other terror groups do their dirty work while continuing to indoctrinate another generation to hate Israel's very existence. Neither terror group can dominate the other, and each has its own territories to operate from.

998 For One: Sources Indicate Israel To Free 998 Palestinians For Shalit

If there was ever a lopsided deal, this is it. Once again, Israel is likely to release hundreds of Palestinian terrorists, including many who have Israeli blood on their hands to get a solitary Israeli released from terrorist custody. Sources indicate Israel is looking to trade 998 Palestinians for Gilad Shalit.

Expect Hamas to crow about their success. Expect Hamas to use this as a propaganda victory.

Note too that Palestinians are more than willing to value the lives of hundreds of their fellow Palestinians for the life of a single Israeli. They're also more than likely to carry out further attacks so that they could capture Israelis for yet another lopsided trade down the road.

From the Israeli government's perspective, they may carry out a trade akin to the one that secured the release of a video showing that Shalit was alive. They were willing to trade more than a hundred Palestinians, including those who carried out terror attacks against Israel, if they were nearing the end of their prison sentences. Israeli officials and the Netanyahu government may make a similar calculus that releasing those prisoners is not going to adversely affect Israel's long term deterrence factor, but as we've repeatedly seen from the Palestinians, any concession by Israel is taken as a Palestinian victory and further reinforces Palestinian visions of eliminating Israel once and for all.

Not only that, but Israel is looking to release the Palestinians in two phases, which doubles the amount of opportunities for Hamas to use this as a propaganda victory.

So, while securing Shalit's release is a paramount concern, it should not come at the expense of Israel's national security and ability to thwart Hamas.

End of the Peace Process In Sight

Once again, we've got doom and gloom prognostications about the peace process, despite the fact that the Palestinians want nothing to do with peace with Israel, and would much rather have peace without Israel. Mahmoud Abbas is busy trying to get Israel and the US to grovel with concessions to get Abbas to stick around as PA President, despite the fact that Abbas has done nothing himself to advance the cause of peace during his tenure in office.

Abbas heads Fatah, which remains dedicated to Israel's destruction. His followers have little interest in making peace with Israel, and they're the moderates in comparison to Hamas, which seeks Israel's destruction from their base in Gaza. The Palestinians don't have a unified voice, thanks to a de facto civil war that left Fatah exerting civil administrative control over the West Bank, while Hamas has full control of Gaza after Israel fully withdrew in 2005 only to watch Hamas throw Fatah out and start a rocket war that culminated in Operation Cast Lead.

Tom Friedman is right that the US should let the Obama Administration's efforts at a peace process wither and focus on other more important matters. Until the Palestinians actually get serious about making peace - and want to be a genuine partner in peace, no amount of cajoling from the US will help. There's no reason for President Obama to waste precious political capital on the Palestinians when they've shown themselves wholly incapable of putting together a counterproposal to any of Israel's peace proposals.

Forcing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians is a nonstarter; all one has to do is point out that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and the Palestinians responded by turning it into an armed camp for firing thousands of rockets at Israel.

Until Israel has a ready and willing partner in the Palestinians, the situation isn't going to change; the Palestinians have to truly find out how painful it is to continue down this path in order to make real progress. Efforts to extract concessions from Israel only show that the Palestinians can wait out any diplomatic efforts and not have to make any concessions on their side.

Abbas can stay or he can go, but until the Palestinian outlook towards Israel changes, nothing the Americans do will advance the cause of peace on that front.

Israel To Release Prisoners To Get Video Of Shalit?

Note the headline carefully. Israel is releasing 20 prisoners, not to get Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, but to get a video of Gilad Shalit.

“Israel will receive updated and unequivocal proof of Gilad Shalit’s well-being and status,” Mr. Netanyahu’s office said in a statement, describing the deal as the result of an Egyptian initiative meant to build confidence ahead of the “decisive stages of negotiation” for Corporal Shalit’s release. The prime minister’s office added that the negotiations were “still expected to be long and arduous.”

In Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas official, said the deal was “small and symbolic.”

“We are offering a report explaining the situation of the soldier in return for the release of 20 women prisoners,” he said as he entered a Red Cross office in Gaza City on Wednesday.

Hamas has held Shalit for more than 3 years following a Hamas raid into Israel that killed two Israeli soldiers and captured Shalit, who was brought back into Gaza. Since then, no one has seen or heard from Shalit, and Hamas demands have been consistent; they want Israel to release hundreds of Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails.

This is an absolute travesty, and only results in Hamas seeing the benefits of further attacks resulting in captured Israelis. Captured Israelis are bargaining chips to be used to secure the release of terrorists from Israeli jails, and worldwide humanitarian groups routinely ignore the gross human rights violations engaged by Hamas by denying the captured Israelis access to those human rights groups like the International Red Cross.

Israel, for its part, may find out the sad truth that Shalit may already be dead, which was a likely outcome from his captivity by Hamas.

There have been no calls by human rights groups calling for Hamas to make the humanitarian gesture of releasing Shalit; instead the onus has always fallen on Israel to undermine its national security to release terrorists in its custody to secure the release of Shalit. The video may yet prove inconclusive as to Shalit's well-being, but as noted above, it raises troubling issues over Israel's ability to protect its citizens from further operations that are designed to capture Israelis for use as pawns. This is a dangerous path Israel has repeatedly taken, and at each step the released terrorists are greeted as heroes, further reinforcing the notion that it is only a matter of time before the Israelis are overwhelmed by the Palestinians and their efforts to destroy Israel.

The Folly of the Israel-Palestinian Peace Process

Mahmoud Abbas is conducting himself little different than Yasir Arafat. He's openly refused to accept an unprecedented offer for Palestinian statehood, including a limited right of return, because he figured he'd get even more favorable terms once President Obama took office.

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian.

That offer was extended by Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli Prime Minister, who was a miserable failure while in office and hoped that a peace deal would be a lasting legacy to make critics ignore his awful handling of Israeli national security.

Abbas is hoping President Obama puts the screws to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is not going to be anywhere near as charitable in his offers.

Of course, what isn't stated in all this is that Abbas would ever accept any deal. No matter what is offered, it will never be deemed sufficient. They will hold out for more - but the ultimate "more" is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state altogether. There is no interest in a two-state solution, nor even negotiating towards a two-state solution. It's again a case of Israel negotiating against itself, which is a classic legal tactic, but one that has dire consequences to Israeli national security.

Once again, we see that the Palestinians are incapable of proffering a counter proposal to a legitimate offer for peace from Israel. They don't want peace, and will never accept a deal because they think that a better one can be had by waiting out Israel and using international pressure to force still more concessions.

The Olmert deal is different from the 2000 Camp David deal in that Olmert provided a limited right of return, which had been off limits until now in addition to the land concessions.

Still, none of this makes any difference when the Palestinians turn to terrorism instead of proffering a counter proposal. War with the ultimate goal of Israel's destruction is the only thing that they have in mind, and doing so with a multitude of paper cuts is the Fatah approach these days - and on this front, they're winning.

Gilad Shalit Update

We're coming up to the three year mark of the date when Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas terrorists who infiltrated into Israel to capture soldiers with the intent to use them as bargaining chips for the release of hundreds of fellow terrorists held in Israeli jails.

I've devoted a significant amount of time to chronicling the fact that Hamas has consistently called for the release of hundreds of terrorists and not budging from that fact. Well, three years later, and we're no closer to getting Hamas to release Shalit than we were on day 1.

Hamas hasn't changed its position one iota. The Olmert government failed to secure Shalit's release by third party talks via Egypt, and the Netanyahu government faces a similar situation.

If anything, Hamas has increased the number of terrorists it sought to be freed from Israeli custody at various times, before settling back at the figures bandied about today.

Israel's security is undermined every time talk arises about dealing for Shalit's release as Hamas gets terrorists back into its fold and Israel faces its mortal enemy emboldened to take more hostages. Where is the world to demand that Hamas make humanitarian gestures by releasing Shalit? There's nothing but silence.

President Obama Meets With Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

Today, President Barack Obama is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House. Given the way that the Obama Administration has screwed up protocol in providing and accepting gifts, I fully expect the Obama Administration to hand Binyamin Netanyahu a Region 1 DVD copy of the Raid on Entebbe (Netanyahu's brother Jonathan was the sole Israeli commando killed in that operation to rescue hostages from Palestinian terrorists holed up at the airport in Entebbe, Uganda) and a copy of all of Obama's speeches on an iPod (which was Obama's gift to the Queen of England).

Seriously though, this meeting isn't exactly going to go well for President Obama. He lives in a dream world where he thinks that if the world gets rid of nuclear weapons, it would eliminate Iran's incentive to obtain them and believes that if we only talk to the Iranians more, they'll somehow come around to our way of thinking.

Sorry to break it to President Obama, but Iran's nuclear intentions are to fulfill religious and ideological obligations, and there is nothing that the US can offer that can alter that. Iran's leadership wants the nuclear capabilities to destroy Israel, and Israel cannot allow that to happen.

Neither can or should the United States.

Iran repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction, is actively working on the means to assure that destruction, and the world's diplomatic actions towards Iran for the past decade have been an abject failure because no one can dissuade Iran from achieving its technological goals in pursuit of fulfilling its ideological and theological intentions.

Iran wants nukes, and Obama's no-nukes pledge is an empty slogan (like so many things Obama says these days). It sounds great in theory, but the reality is so much rougher. There are evil regimes, and Iran is led by evil thugs who don't care what happens to their own countrymen. They are simply cannon fodder in pursuit of their unholy agenda.

The US active engagement in talks with Iran isn't going to get Iran to stop building its nuclear capabilities, nor is it going to stop running those centrifuges that are spinning furiously to enrich uranium to the critical levels needed for weapons grade uranium.

It's a matter of time. Time is a commodity that is in short supply for the rest of the world as Iran counts down the days until they've got sufficient bomb-worthy materials in its possession, and Obama laying into Israel to hold off doesn't improve anyone's security, including that of the US.

Everyone in the region knows that Iran is a real menace to the regional stability - not Israel. Yet, Iran gets a pass while Israel is scapegoated for all that ails the Arab world - when the Arab world has so much wealth at its fingertips and yet all that is achieved is how to make the better suicide bomber.

The region would have peace with Israel if they simply stopped supporting terrorists against Israel and carrying out a proxy war against Israel since Israel cannot be defeated in a conventional war. Instead, these regimes - Iran chief among them - send in the proxies of Hizbullah and Hamas to cause strife and support jihad against Israel's very existence. Yet, it is these entities with whom that President Obama and deluded diplomats think that Israel can and must make concessions to in the pursuit of peace.

UPDATE:
Obama calls on Israel to stop building new communities. He calls them settlements, and I have to again point out that those communities built by Israel have never stopped a peace deal from happening. Israel has withdrawn and forcibly removed Israelis living in communities in the name of peace, and they could do so once again, but the Palestinians have to actually show that they're interested in a two-state solution, which they have steadfastly refused to do for decades.

The Palestinian Authority plays it cute on that point, and Fatah and Hamas, which both comprise the Palestinian Authority when they're not busy trying to kill each other, both call for Israel's destruction as a fundamental obligation of the Palestinian people.

Where are the demands on the Palestinians to cease smuggling weapons into Gaza for use against Israel, cease propagandizing generations of kids into seeking Israel's destruction and treating suicide bombers and terrorists as the hallmark of Palestinian achievement? No other nation would endure what Israel has, and Israel should be allowed to defeat its mortal enemies, just as surely as the Tamil Tigers were defeated by the Sri Lankan government and other nations routinely defend themselves against terrorists who seek to impose their own regimes - Thailand and Pakistan come to mind.

Comings and Goings In Israel

Israel's President Shimon Peres has given the task of forming the new Israeli government to Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud. He garnered more support in the Knesset than Livni's Kadmima, despite losing the election by one seat. Since governments are formed on a coalition basis, Netanyahu has a better chance of forming a coalition of 60+ seats.

Netanyahu, who met with Peres shortly before Livni, said that Kadima would be the first party he turns to after receiving the nod from Peres. "I am willing to go to great lengths in the negotiations needed to establish such a government," the Likud leader said after his meeting with Peres, echoing assessments that he would be willing to give Kadima several senior portfolios in his cabinet.

Netanyahu said repeatedly during the campaign that not forming a national-unity government when he was prime minister from 1996-99 was his worst-ever political mistake. But Livni left him no choice but to repeat it when she vowed to remain in the opposition.

"Today, the foundations of a right-wing extremist government under Netanyahu were set," Livni wrote in a cellular phone text message sent to some 80,000 Kadima members Thursday. "The path of such a government is not our own and we have nothing to look for there. You didn't vote for us in order to provide a kosher certificate for a right-wing government, and we need to provide an alternative of hope from the opposition."

Livni and Kadima mishandled Israel's national security in the Hizbullah War and by calling off Operation Cast Lead far too soon before Israel's security objectives were reached. The Israeli public doesn't trust them to handle Israel's security affairs, which is why the right wing parties benefited greatly from the situation.

Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry is on his way out of the Middle East, but not without accepting a letter from the Islamic terrorist group Hamas, courtesy of the UNRWA, which received the letter at one of its offices.

"A letter addressed to Obama was left at the gate of our offices in Gaza; it is believed to be from Hamas," said Christopher Gunness of UNRWA, the agency for Palestinian refugees.

Asked about the contents of the letter, Gunness said: "We are very polite at UNRWA, we don't open other people's mail."

Kerry did not meet any Hamas representative and stressed that his trip to the impoverished territory, which no US official had visited for years, did not indicate a shift of policy towards Hamas.

He's going to play messenger boy for Hamas to give a letter to President Obama. The group is on the State Department's terror list and has regularly attacked Israel for years on end in an unending war against Israel's existence.

I can't begin to imagine what is in that letter. Oh wait. I can.

It will probably demand that the US lean on Israel to make still more concessions, including but not limited to: releasing hundreds of terrorists from Israeli jails, an end to airstrikes that kill Hamas terrorists attempting to attack Israel or who have just carried out mortar or rocket attacks on Israel; targeted airstrikes against Hamas leadership; and opening up the border crossings between Israel and Gaza and ensuring that Hamas terrorists free passage, and that's just for starters.

It's nothing that we haven't heard before, but the claim that Kerry had no contacts with Hamas is misleading. Kerry had to have had contacts with Hamas thugs to gain entry to Gaza for his day-trip, including visits to various locations in the Strip. An intermediary could have arranged the trip on Kerry's behalf, but they had to coordinate with Hamas, who controls Gaza. Nothing gets done in Gaza without Hamas having their hands on it.

Within hours of the Kerry visit to Gaza, Hamas rockets and mortars fell on Israel. That includes grad rockets that hit near Netivot. Oh, and a rocket fell short and slammed into Gaza too.

Hamas is a menace to everyone, not just Israelis.

Israel has continued to attack the smuggling tunnels across the Philadelpi corridor, and this has put a crimp on that underground industry. I'm not going to shed a tear for it one bit. Hamas has created the conditions under which the Gazans live, and they are to blame for the situation. But for the rocket attacks and incessant calls to jihad against Israel, the border crossings would have been opened long ago. Instead, Hamas uses the situation to gin up a crisis and to destroy the economy to force still more reliance on Hamas.

Israel Voted and the Losers Are Known

That's a graphic put together by the Jersualem Post.
Labor lost out in a big way. The winners are far less certain. Kadima appears to have won 28 seats while Likud won 27 seats. Kadima is a center right party, while Likud is a right wing party. Those figures could still change as voting tallies are confirmed, but I expect this to be the final breakdown.

The far right wing Israel Beiteinu won what appears to be 15 seats. The religious party Shas won 11 seats. Labor won 13 seats. If anything, Lieberman's Israel Beiteinu party siphoned off just enough votes to keep Likud from having the plurality to overtake Kadima.

It takes 60 seats to form a government.

The media is trying to portray this as some kind of inconclusive election, but that shows a stunning lack of knowledge about the Israeli political system.

Inconclusive election results sent Israel into political limbo Wednesday with both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and hard-line leader Benjamin Netanyahu claiming victory and leaving the kingmaker role to a rising political hawk with an anti-Arab platform.

Livni's Kadima Party won 28 seats, just one more than Netanyahu's Likud, in Tuesday's election for the 120-member parliament, according to nearly complete results. Both held victory rallies, but without a clear majority neither can govern alone. Hard-line parties won a majority of the votes, meaning that Netanyahu has more natural allies and a better chance of forming a coalition.

The results set the stage for what could be weeks of coalition negotiations. The first meetings began Wednesday, with Netanyahu meeting the head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas faction and Livni meeting Avigdor Lieberman, whose ultranationalist party received 15 seats and emerged as the third-largest force in parliament.

This is absolutely clueless drivel from the AP.

Israel always has coalition governments and they require weeks of negotiations to form the government. In fact, as each government functions, parties that make up the coalition routinely threaten to leave the coalition in order to demand and receive additional perks, concessions, from the primary party in charge.

None of this is new. A history lesson would show that Israel has required coalition governments to function since its inception in 1948. Israel's President will choose a Member of the Knesset to form the government, and deadlines are provided by statute.

What is new is that this election marked a repudiation of Labor altogether, but it showed that Kadima is still preferred despite the corruption surrounding outgoing Prime Minister Olmert and the failures of the Olmert government, including Foreign Minister Livni, to deal with the terror threat from Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

The qualms over Livni and Kadima appear to be least felt in the one area of Israel where the rockets and land for peace is least likely to be felt - Tel Aviv. That's where Kadima won the election. Likud won in Jerusalem and had strong showings elsewhere in the country, including in and around Israel's borders with Gaza.

UPDATE:
Carl in Jerusalem has speculation on who Bibi might choose to fill out his government. That's assuming that Israel's President Shimon Peres (formerly of Labor) chooses Netanyahu over Kadima's Livni. The US would likely put pressure on Peres to choose Livni over the right wing Netanyahu, but the ultimate decision rests with Peres, who's seen his dreams of peace shattered by the incessant war launched by the terrorists in the face of every Israeli concession, including the Gaza unilateral withdrawal. Israel's Knesset is made up of more right-leaning parties than left (via Israellycool), and they're recommending Netanyahu get first crack at forming the government.

If Bibi gets first dibs, Kadima has also lost out, although it may still end up as part of the coalition government. Any party trying to cobble together a coalition government must arrive at the magic number of 60 to govern. Let the games begin.