To observers of the Middle East and Palestine, the inept 'warfare' is matched by poor words.  Year after year, a constant barrage of rhetoric is as misguided as the bullets, mortars, and rockets.

A recent exchange of civilian casualties illustrates insanity.  To begin, or respond, or continue things (you choose depending on your religion) Hamas showcased ability to blindly fire a mortar, striking a paint factory and killing a 52 year worker.  In turn, Israeli helicopters targeted Hamas militants, but the missile missed and killed an 8 year old girl.

Rather than apologize, spokesmen aped the other side and appeased their own thugs.  Hamas said the operation was response to "nonstop agression against our people."  Not to be outdone, an Israeli spokesman said Hamas "would be held accountable".  Despite the lack of logic suggesting that paint is a tool of "aggression", or that the 8 year old was "accountable" for the mortar attack, neither side blinked at the contradictions.

In an election with the Middle East dominating foreign policy debate, how can Obama confront the 'apologist' and 'appeasement' tags in a region that has no concept of owning up and each side appeases only their own thugs?  Could withdrawing aid make them both sorry?        

In Todays New York Times Court  Dismisses Rendition Suit
       

By ALAN FEUER
Published: July 1, 2008

A federal appeals court on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Syrian-born Canadian man who had accused the United States of violating the law and his civil rights after he was detained at Kennedy Airport and sent to Syria under what he claims was an act of "extraordinary rendition."

Such is the status of the courts and justice in the United States, that Kennedy Airport is the equivalent of Guantanemo, technically speaking.

The man, Maher Arar, tried to win civil damages from United States officials in his suit, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled that because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in the federal courts.

I don't know what precedent was used, perhaps that Tom Hanks movie "The Terminal"?

I have found a good example of what Obama is talking about when he emphasizes the need to engage in talks with a wider variety of countries in the world today---including those considered to be our enemies.

It is a June 5, 2008 article on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel entitled "It's Time to Talk to Syria."

The article is well-reasoned and compelling.  I've quoted four paragraphs of it below.   The article starts out with an odd epiphany.  After the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, US President George H. W. Bush---against all expectations--- convinced Syrian President Hafez Assad to join the American-led coalition against Iraq.  Now the sons of these two men have an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough.

(Sorry, I have discontinued my online subscription with WSJ and cannot offer a Web reference to the article--- because I have no way to locate it.)

It is now clear that McCain is embracing the neoconservative idea of nation building in the middle east. Thankfully, Obama opposed this idea for the start.

Keep reading.

On Wednesday, embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and lame duck American President George W. Bush will meet in Washington in a gathering of the walking wounded.  Bush's fading hopes to secure a Middle East peace agreement before leaving office have dimmed further as scandal enveloped his Israeli counterpart.  Worse still, by moving ahead with peace talks with Syria and the expansion of West Bank settlements over just the past two weks, Olmert has already dealt President Bush a double-blow.

(reposted from my fake news blog, www.richieville.com)

Richieville News Service – BOYNTON BEACH, FL

 In retirement communities and delicatessens across this state, Jewish voters expressed grave reservations over the news of Israel's peace talks with Syria. The outpouring of criticism  raised the possibility that Israel might be losing the support of one of its core constituencies, Jews.

"They're talking to terrorists!" said Bernie Kupferstein, 74, as he leaned on his shuffleboard stick at the Aberdeen Country Club. "I can't believe Israel would betray Israel like that."

Two important stories have emerged this week from the Middle East, and for a change, both had to do with peace.

On Wednesday Israel and Syria, in what appeared to be coordinated announcements, said that they had begun indirect talks in Turkey, the first confirmation in eight years of negotiations between the long-time enemies. Also on Wednesday, the tiny Gulf state of Qatar scored a diplomatic coup by pulling off a deal to end Lebanon's protracted crisis, successfully shepherding the negotiations between feuding Lebanese factions to end months of political turmoil and violence.

While John McCain and Barack Obama begin a long-distance debate about how best to deal with our “enemies,” whether or not we should talk with Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah or Syria or whoever is left in the Axis of Evil, all of this with the understanding that we have “a special relationship” with Israel and need to keep their defense and survival front and center, in the meantime, Israel appears to be talking with one of its own worst enemies, Syria.  And according to many reports in the press may be working out a deal.  

Put aside for the moment the current political back-and-forth about what Nixon was up to when he had Henry Kissinger negotiate secretly in Paris with the North Vietnamese (and winning a Noble Prize in the process); or what Reagan was up to when he made nuclear disarmament deals with “The Evil Empire”; or again what Nixon was working out with Chairman Mao; and forget as well what George W. Bush managed to work out with two other Hitlers, Muammar al-Quaddifi and Kim Jong-il.  And even forget John McCain’s own involvement in reestablishing normal diplomatic and economic relations with Vietnam, a country in which he was held prisoner and tortured.

The State of Israel, world renowned appeasers of Islamic Neo-Fascism and various terrorist organizations, have entered into peace talks with neighboring Syria, inviting comparisons to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and current US Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

This is stunning news but not at all unexpected from the dysfunctional administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney:  instead of trying to negotiate and promote peace agreements in the middle east, they tried to stop Israel from negotiating peace with Syria.  What is wrong with these people!?

While the media continues to focus on the increasingly irrelevant "horse race" between Clinton and Obama, serious things are happening around the world that deserve our attention.   I am talking about things that will have much more impact on our daily lives than Clinton's inevitable decision to end her quixotic quest for the presidential nomination.

About a month ago, I faulted coverage of Carter's trip to the Middle East in Focus on Hamas Distracting Attention From Syrian Offer.   Now we see that in fact, Israel and Syria are sitting down to talk finally.  It doesn't surprise me that Israelis embrace the opportunity to talk with their enemies.  After all, they are the ones who actually have to live with the consequences of the insane policies championed by those who claim to "support Israel"  

As I said then:

In their haste to paint Carter as a "traitor" those who claim to be "supporters of Israel" risk cutting off their own noses to spite their face.  

My concern remains...  

Hitting the airwaves right now is the story that Israel and Syria are in peace talks moderated by Turkey.  These talks have been going on for a year or so.

Israel, Syria Acknowledge Indirect Peace Negotiations

The best part of this article is the following:

David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, told reporters in Washington that the U.S. was kept informed by Turkey and Israel of the talks though wasn't doing any direct mediation.

The US knew about this, presumably for some time now.  And yet just last week Mr. Bush delivered his comments before the Knesset in Israel about appeasement that set off heated comments between Obama and McCain.  Wasn't Syria previously labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism / terrorists?

Follow me over the split before my head explodes:

The Israelis are fools. Or maybe they just don't get it about Hitler and appeasement (do you think?). They applauded politely  on May 15 as President Bush warned in a speech before the Knesset that it would be dangerous to have a government (i.e., one headed by Barack Obama) that would negotiate with terrorists and the nations that support them.

What Bush said, exactly, was this:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Hypocrisy, irony, and what the Israelis really think below the fold.

Remember Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset a few days ago, where he implicitly blasted Barack Obama for his willingness to talk to America's enemies?

Well, Newsweek has a new article up today that puts that speech in a somewhat amusing light, considering where it was delivered...

Israel and Syria know something that Bush and McCain do not. Enemies, divided by a bitter disagreement, need to negotiate with one another in order to settle their differences. Even James (don’t forget my role in stealing Florida) Baker knows this.

There are official announcements from both capitals today of what has been known about for months: Israel and Syria are having serious negotiations to settle their differences. As I will explain below this is both real and very important.

The reference in the title shouldn't require much clarification, but let me just give you a brief reminder that a week can be a very long time in international politics.
Less than a week ago, George W. Bush gave a speech to Knesset during his tour of the Middle-East (the main purpose of the tour was to beg for more Saudi oil production, a request that was rebuffed). Bush made controversial remarks that caused quite an uproar.

Just 48 hours after jumping on the Bush appeasement bandwagon, John McCain is probably regretting his leap.  First, it was revealed that the tough-talking Republican presidential nominee was for negotiating with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories before he was against it.  Then Americans learned that in 2003, Mr. Straight Talk favored engagement with the terror-sponsoring state of Syria.  Now in his accusations against Democrat Barack Obama, John McCain conveniently forgot Ronald Reagan's dealings with Tehran during the Iran-Contra scandal.  Given his defense the Reagan administration at the time, McCain's selective amnesia comes as no surprise.

Huffington Post rips another one in McCain, and this one is even more solid... Video due Shortly I'm sure as both incidents occurred on NBC Television... From the Today Show

LAUER: They (Syria) have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they've also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?

Mr. McCAIN: I think it's very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It's also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was.