The rumors are flying around the internets.

Robert Reich reveals the Democratic panic deep within the insiders by pushing a Hillary – Biden switch. He’s just the latest.

The subject of a Biden – Hillary switch makes my book, but I’ve yet to read anyone address the damage it would do to Pres. Obama, who right now is seeing his approval ratings rise. What would dumping Joe Biden, which isn’t going to happen, say about his candidacy? That he absolutely needs Hillary to win? There’s no proof that this is true.

Would Hillary supporters automatically vote for Pres. Obama if she’s on the ticket? Newsflash: Most Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama anyway.

This site was a leading anti-Puma venue in the 2008 general election. Would anti-Obama voters who tilt Democratic and to the left automatically vote for Obama if Hillary was his nominee? Could these people be inspired to vote Obama in order to save Hillary from humiliation of the possibility of not delivering for him?

With Robert Reich the latest to hoist the Hillary – Biden swtich, there is obviously real worry by insider Democrats that the base won’t be inspired to turn out for Obama alone.

For me, however, the most interesting rumor hitting my inbox lately is Condi versus Biden. An abundance of popcorn would be required for a Rice debate with Joe Biden.

But as the CBS video above from November 2011 reveals, she says “… I’m a policy person not a politician. …politics doesn’t appeal to me.”

But before anything would happen Pres. Obama would be forced to combat yet another push for the Biden – Clinton tango, something I think is ludicrous to suggest and, for what it’s worth, do not endorse.

Dr. “swatting flies” Rice was arguably the worst national security adviser in U.S. history.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile? A hijacked airplane as a missile? All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” – Condoleezza Rice

Another round of “mushroom clouds,” anyone?

There’s that little item “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.” that didn’t get much attention from her. Rice’s reaction to George Tenet telling her the U.S. needed to strike Afghanistan is equally disturbing.

Dr. Rice played third fiddle in the Rummy-Cheney fiefdom, then allowed herself to be humiliated by Pres. Bush, who wouldn’t let her do her job and even hung her out on torture.

Rice also demoted Richard Clarke, the man Pres. Clinton elevated to a cabinet position, because of the terrorism threat, including cyberterrorism. Then there’s the decision not to set up a principle’s meeting with Clarke until after 9/11.

Dr. Rice missed the Hamas moment, when Pres. Bush pushed for elections that landed them in power (from 2006), which rendered her “surprised” at the time. It should be noted that the Palestinians warned Bush they weren’t yet ready.

But no one would likely care.

In a year of the Republican circus primary shuffle, Condoleeza Rice comes off like Margaret Thatcher, only moderate.

Ms. Rice is an abortion rights advocate, so she’ll catch some flak from some. However, among suburban women who vote Republican, as well as the highly educated contingent, and independents, not to mention cafeteria Catholics, that will be a plus.

It’s just another rumor, but if Dr. Rice heard George W. Bush’s voice on the phone saying her country needed her could she resist?

I’m still waiting for Liz Cheney’s move, though she’s got plenty of time to make it.

Assuming Romney prevails, the most dangerous man for team Obama remains Chris Christie, though everyone should remember only the fringe people vote on vice presidential choice alone. That includes Robert Reich’s hail Mary panic pick, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From the New York Times:

Buses containing the Palestinian prisoners — the first group of what will eventually be more than 1,000 — made their way into Egypt and from there to the West Bank and Gaza Strip where jubilant relatives awaited and celebrations were planned.

The soldier, Sergeant First Class Gilad Shalit, was taken from Gaza, where he had been held since being abducted in a cross-border raid in 2006, into Egypt and from there to Israel, where he was given a quick medical check and declared in good health. He changed into a military uniform before being flown by helicopter to an Israeli military base where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was reunited with his family.

However, I am reminded of a variation on Lawrence O’Donnell’s line, which is that the negotiated swap for Gilad Shalit isn’t done until it’s actually done.

If it’s completed this is a big moment for the new Egypt, whose involvement was reportedly central to the outcome.

From the New York Times:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told his nation in a live address on television that the soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was captured in June 2006 at the age of 19, could be home “within days,” ending what has been widely seen in Israel as a national trauma.

In Damascus, Syria, Khaled Meshal, the political leader of Hamas, said in a televised address that the negotiations had been “very, very difficult” and called the deal “a national accomplishment” that augured well for the Palestinians, who he said hoped to “cleanse the land, and liberate Jerusalem, and unite the Palestinian ranks.”

It was unclear what drove the two to accept a deal that had been on the table for years. But both stand to benefit politically and had reasons to distract attention from the efforts of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, as he circles the globe seeking votes for his bid to gain United Nations membership for a state of Palestine.

Jeffrey Goldberg brings up a good point: If Marwan Barghouti is released as part of the exchange that will be some deal for Hamas.

Obama’s first meeting after the speech was with Netanyahu, who praised his sometime-nemesis for his “principled position,” and for taking it “in this house, which has … automatic majorities against Israel.” It’s “a badge of honor,” Bibi said — adding, as he turned to Obama, “I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor and also to express my hope that others will follow your example.” – O’s moment of glory is instantly tarnished by French diss

There are few people I respect more than Steve Clemons, though we’ve had our disagreements, whose foreign policy acumen is among the best on the progressive side. He proves again he’s a leading thinker, offering an unflinching take on the issue of Palestinians working for a sovereign state through UNGA, with a strong piece in The Atlantic that eviscerates Pres. Obama all the way to the bone.

Steve Clemons slams Pres. Obama and calls out his lack of courage to stand up for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations where it could really matter.

Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in Back of Bus

President Obama’s UN General Assembly speech shows that the President has lost much of his groove since Cairo and amidst the Arab Spring is telling Palestine to be patient, to stay seated in the back of the bus, until Israel and Palestine leaders decide to be responsible. Obama fails to understand that Israel and Palestine can never sell a deal internally without blaming outside powers for compelling them to do what is in their long term interests. It’s time for Obama to read up on “gaiatsu” and understand the practice and utility of “foreign pressure”.

[...] If this was 2013, Obama might be in a different groove — but by then Palestinian and the broader Arab temperature may be such that they ultimately decide the two state track is folly — and much like Turkey giving up on its European identity aspirations — decides to pull back and subject a recalcitrant Israel to never-ending harassment and violence, assuring that Israel ultimately becomes a state of hard-edged, security-demanding Apartheid, all while the Palestinian demographic edge inside Israel’s borders booms while the Israeli Jewish population growth slows and perhaps even declines.

Obama is assuring the further emasculation and perhaps final demise of Palestine’s moderates. Obama is also treating the Israelis and Palestinians as if they are on equal footing, equally able to concede to each other’s demands. What Obama doesn’t get is that a substantial portion of Israel’s population loves not having a deal and never wants one. They are OK with a peace process to nowhere — but that is not acceptable for the less-endowed, less-powerful Palestinian side. Hamas is in the rejectionist corner as well, seeing its fortunes rise as earnest efforts at peace go nowhere.

Steve defies American conventional wisdom, that it would be catastrophic to allow a vote on statehood through the U.N. Security Council and that “no good can come from it,” to quote Richard Haas, who heads the Council of Foreign Relations, a dinosaur organization.

The world watched Barack Obama lose a battle in the last two years with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israeli settlement expansion in contested and occupied territories. This is like the Soviet Union having lost a war of wills at the height of its power with Cuba.

The client state trumped the President of the United States — telegraphing to many around the world that President Obama ultimately didn’t have the courage of his convictions and wasn’t able to deploy power and statecraft to achieve the outlines of what he called for in his lofty rhetoric. …

George W. Bush aided the rise of Hamas and assured their legitimacy through pushing elections when the Palestinians warned they weren’t ready.

Barack Obama stood up against the building of more and more settlements, only to back down because of domestic pressures and reelection concerns. Pres. Obama, after having offered so much hope and lofty words and outreach towards the Arab world, empowering moderates with what his presidency would mean to the greater Middle East and U.S. influence in the region, has failed to deliver on any measurable scale.

The last American president to put his own skin in the Middle East peace game, working to the last day in office, was Pres. Bill Clinton. Arafat spit in his face.

It’s now finally clear the American era of diplomacy in the Middle East is over.

TM Note: I just want to add that the point of emphasizing Steve’s analysis is that it challenges everyone to think of the situation in a new way, because what were currently doing isn’t cutting it. I haven’t a clue how this serious situation resolves itself completely, but Israel needs Palestine as badly as the Palestinians.

UPDATE: Rep. Keith Ellison has broken with Pres. Obama, as well as Democratic Party tradition, over the Palestinian state vote.

After reading Judge Richard Goldstone’s remarkable piece in the Washington Post today, it’s a further reminder of just how impossible it is to tell any story of Israelis and Palestinians without chasing narratives that inevitably end up colliding.

“Miral” is just such a collision.

Based on the autobiographical novel by Rula Jebreal, the Washington, D.C. premiere of “Miral” included a discussion afterward with the film’s director, as well as Ms. Jebreal, who also wrote the screenplay. Schnabel and Jebreal are partners in life, as in art. Amjad Atallah and Daniel Levy of New America Foundation were the hosts, with an educated foreign policy audience keyed in to what was happening on the screen.

Ms. Jebreal said she has “no resentments” of the First Intifada, but she’s now 37 and wants to know just how long this will have to go on without a resolution. Daniel Levy answered her when he said that “since Oslo we’ve gone back” and it’s come to the point that “hearing the other narrative has an illegality to it.”

Jebreal’s story, which is “Miral,” is compelling and heartbreaking. She is a brilliant, compelling and a deeply passionate woman about peace. At one point Schnabel made a comment that he’d like to see Jebreal sit across from PM Bibi Netanyahu and interview him instead of Piers Morgan, which would be something to see.

The accusations that the film is pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel mystify me, because that’s not what I saw at all. As with all of Mr. Schnabel’s films, “Basquiat,” “Before Night Falls,” both of which I’ve seen (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” I have not), he easily maintains his “It’s not Hollywood, it’s an abstraction” quality, to quote the director, while infusing the characters with heart so that empathy is easily felt.

“If you empathize with the characters the movie does its job,” was the bar Schnabel set for his film, which I believe he reached. When he admits that “you’re watching one kind of movie, then you see another scene and you ask ‘what the hell is happening here?’”, it is the best description of “Miral” that no movie reviewer can replicate. The film is a complicated collage of events that begins in 1947 and goes through Oslo, but does so in a compilation of quick abstractions.

The first large section of the story is the preamble to Miral’s entrance, played by Freida Pinto of “Slumdog Millionaire.” It quickly skims Israel’s creation, introduces Willem Defoe as a token American serviceman, though he has no purpose in the film, which Schnabel admits, but like Vanessa Redgrave’s cameo, both actors are present to give support for Schnabel’s efforts at telling this Palestinian story, which is simultaneously one of an Israeli, something people often aren’t able to digest. It’s Regrave’s known Palestinian support that likely helped inflame some against “Miral,” but it’s hard not to honor artists who want to be part of such an endeavor when many big Hollywood names wouldn’t be caught near the subject for fear of ruining their image. Schnabel noted this after the film.

Of the women who come before Miral in the film, the famous Palestinian icon and heroine Hind al-Husseini deserved much more weight in the screenplay, which is one of the problems from the start, as Jebreal’s talent for fleshing out the female characters is weak and is often put second to scripted political messaging.

“Miral” begins here:

ONE COLD DAY in April 1948, 31-year-old Hind al-Husseini happened upon a group of 55 young children outside the Holy Sepulchre church in Jerusalem’s Old City. They had been dumped in the Old City and wandered near the church after having survived—and been orphaned by—a massacre in their village on the outskirts of Jerusalem, Deir Yassin, by members of the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

Hind rescued the children immediately, bringing them to two rooms she rented for them nearby. Every day, Hind would visit the children with food and spend time with them. She soon brought them to the Sahyoun convent on the Via Dolorosa, following conversations with the head of the convent, who was worried about Hind’s safety en route to visiting the children in their two rooms. Palestine was in the midst of a war, and the Old City of Jerusalem was not spared from attacks. Indeed, shortly after Hind removed the children from the two rooms she had rented, those very rooms were bombed. So, within 10 days, the children had narrowly escaped death—first at their homes in Deir Yassin, and then in the Old City.

After the first cease-fire, Hind brought all 55 children—mostly all under the age of nine—from the convent to her family home, a mansion built by her grandfather in Jerusalem in 1891. Hind had been born there on April 25, 1916. On her 32nd birthday, just two weeks after the massacre of Deir Yassin, she renamed the house the Dar Al-Tifl Al-Arabi (Arab Children’s House), founding it as an orphanage for the young survivors. “It was the worst of times,” she recalled, adding, “It was the end of the Mandate.”

As for other lead female characters, Nadia, Miral’s mother, is a troubled drunk who ends up in prison; the next femme is Fatima, a female terrorist, who meets Nadia in jail. Jamal, Fatima’s brother, ends up raising Miral after her mother’s death. Alexander Siddig, who plays Jamal, whom some of you may remember from episodes of “24,” ends up grounding the entire story, after you get through the beginning narrative.

What struck me from the start of the film was the arc Schnabel was attempting to construct. When I asked him how he managed to edit a piece with such a wide expanse down to 90 minutes he simply replied, “Talent.” It wasn’t a question meant as the set up line it became, but when he quipped “You know the famous line, If I’d had more time it would have been shorter…” I knew his self-satisfaction for getting this ambitious project of love finished, but also getting Harvey Weinstein behind it, which was made possible in part because of the Oscar success of “The King’s Speech,” Schnabel said, was a feat for which he’d be proud, critics be damned.

The critics have not been kind. One reason is because the arc of the film falls in on itself before Miral is even introduced.

One of the things I believe kills the hook to audiences that a storyline requires to support the artistry of “abstraction” is a way in to relate early on so you can jump in and follow the narrative. If you’re hooked on Vanessa Redgrave you’re in, but if you’re not you’ll spend the first chunk of the movie baffled, with Willem Defoe’s cameo nothing akin to what you expect of him in any film making it worse. Even understanding that any ticket buyer is going to be predisposed to “Miral” or they wouldn’t go, the arc of beginning in 1947, while constructing a narrative of a Palestinian girl’s life, then ending at Oslo, with all the inherent politics in between, requires a great deal of athletic film viewing, even by the most dedicated person.

The film poster asks “Is this the face of a terrorist?” It’s the question that no doubt puts some people off seeing the film, while drawing people to it, as the answer seems so obvious, because the girl can’t possibly be that evil. So what makes a terrorist?

We find out through Miral’s boyfriend in the film, because regardless of Hind al-Husseini’s warnings for her to stay away from politics it’s impossible. To be a Palestinian or Israeli in Jerusalem is to be political. It’s inescapable.

TM Note: The Washington Post sat down with Schnabel and Jebreal the day after the Washington screening. Christian Science Monitor reviewed “Miral,” as did the NYTimes.

Nice title for Juan Cole’s new book. It’s something we’ve done a horrible job doing since 9/11. But the timeliness takes on new importance when looking through the prism of the Freeman withdrawal for NIC. Cole’s assessment on President Obama is stark, the review devastating:

Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama. – Juan Cole

Meanwhile, the Washington Post editorial today embarrasses the paper and everyone who trusts it, labeling Chas Freeman’s rhetoric as “crackpot tirades.” But the worst aspect of the editorial is that they naively believe that the campaign against Freeman manifested out of thin air. Labeling what happened to Mr. Freeman as a “reasonable” approach to asking if Freeman was right for the job is down right ludicrous.

The blundering silence of the Obama administration during the Steve Rosen and friends assault (Rosen is now suing AIPAC for defamation – oh, the irony), has hurt President Obama, of that there can be no doubt. How much is not yet known, though anyone can sympathize with Juan’s pessimism.

Scott Horton interviews Juan about his new book, asking him six questions. Here’s one small portion regarding Pakistan, which is always on my radar, especially these days when the major parties look like they’re about to wage political civil war:

As for Pakistan, the demand that the government exert control over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is frankly daft. I’ve been through that territory. You might as well demand that we exert control over all the rattlesnakes in New Mexico. And the conviction that the security of the U.S. mainland depends on the urban Pakistani government regimenting those rural clansmen makes no sense to me. Rugged areas where the government is weak are obviously possible havens for terrorists, but they also typically lack the infrastructure to enable major operations to be conducted directly from such territories. We’d be better off working with Pakistan to put in better airport security and computer tracking of people flying in and out. The Pakistani military has been fighting hard in Bajaur, one of the tribal agencies, against the Pakistani Taliban since August. They have had some success, but displaced 300,000 Pashtuns from their homes. That is going to settle the Pashtuns down?

Then there is Iran, which includes Israel and the entire Middle East mess, the biggest area of possible breakthrough for which President Obama could be known. That is if the Obama administration doesn’t kowtow to the Israel Lobby. Right now there is no indication they have the courage to stand up to them, but since this is urgent and Obama understands this, as does Clinton, I remain in the camp that believes the Administration will find a way through, though I fully admit this is out of necessity of the situation, not any evidence coming from the Administration.

The U.S. relationship with Iran is the most perilous area of U.S. foreign policy going forward. But there are actually only two bilateral issues between Washington and Tehran that put that relationship on the front burner. They comprise, first, Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program, which the U.S. fears could veer toward dual use and result in a nuclear weapon. Second, Iran’s rejectionist stance toward U.S. ally Israel, and its support for the Lebanese Hezbollah and, allegedly, for Hamas in Gaza, are highly objectionable to the United States.

[...] As for the Iranian involvement in the Levant, it is the Israelis who give the ayatollahs that opening and they could easily close it off. If they just gave back the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a Camp David-style peace treaty with Damascus, and gave back the Shebaa Farms occupied territory and made peace with Lebanon, they would deny Hezbollah its pretext for remaining armed and remove a key Hezbollah patron, Syria, from the equation. If they stopped blockading and half-starving the Gazans, ceased colonizing the West Bank and granted the Palestinians a state, Sunni, Christian, and secular Palestinians would not want or need Iranian money and arms. …

“The inevitability of working toward a two-state solution is inescapable,” Clinton said at a news conference after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. (source: Bloomberg News)

Netanyahu:

“We found a common language for achieving the common goals,” Netanyahu said after meeting with Clinton at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He said the two agreed to meet after a new government is formed and “think together creatively to get out of this maze.”

Clinton’s commitment to achieve a “comprehensive peace” was emphasized by language of pursuing that goal “on all fronts.” Active language.

Now let’s go back to Clinton’s remarks from yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh. I wholeheartedly agree with Tamara Wittes, of the Saban Center at Brookings, remarks that are supplied by the ever helpful Marc Lynch, even if he (and others) disagree with her (and me). Ms. Wittes scolds Mr. Lynch, then explains her points on Clinton further:

I have to say I think you badly misinterpreted Clinton’s statement at the Gaza reconstruction conference and unnecessarily reinforced the pessimism you say is already taking hold in the region. And you missed entirely a major variable conditioning her statements and emerging US policy: Congressional attitudes.

There is a big difference, and there has to be, between what the United States is willing to do with its money, and what it might do diplomatically. Clinton’s statement carefully reflected this dualism, but you did not notice it. read on

Meanwhile, guess who slipped into town?

The timing of yesterday’s event moderated by Steve Clemons was perfect, coinciding with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first visit to the Middle East as Secretary of State. The topic: What’s next for peace in the Middle East? Guests included Farah Stockman of The Boston Globe, Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation, M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, and Abderrahim Foukara of Al-Jazeera. It was held at the City Club of Washington.

First, some quick hits on Clinton’s trip, as she begins the work President Obama hopes will step away from the failed non-engagement of the Bush-Cheney years.

Clinton speaking after Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt conference, where almost $1 billion in U.S. aid for Gaza was announced. As an aside, Martin Peretz strikes again, saying no aid should get through, exhibit A why a little tough love to Israel is required regarding Gaza.

Coverage via the Guardian:

“We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands,” she said. “It is time to break the cycle of rejection and resistance, to cut the strings pulled by those who exploit the suffering of innocent people.”

Clinton made no reference to the closure of the Gaza crossings, or to Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are a prime concern for the Palestinians.

There’s also much being made about Clinton’s comments regarding Iran and their nuclear ambitions, as she downplays Iranian reaction to serious diplomacy, undoubtedly meant to lower expectations, while putting pressure on Iran. From Egypt:

“We’re under no illusions,” the official quoted Clinton as telling al Nahyan. “Our eyes are wide open on Iran.”

To add, Clemons has a piece up on Israel, Iran and the U.S. that is a must read. It also proves my point about Netanyahu.

Honest broker moments were revealed though they fell short of dealing with anything controversial such as the choke points and settlements.

Clinton having a moment with Syria’s foreign minister:

It was a brief but significant gesture: in the hubbub of the Gaza donor’s conference in Egypt, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, shook hands and exchanged a few words yesterday with Walid Mouallem, her Syrian counterpart. …

As for what’s next on Middle East peace as the Obama administration begins the tough slog post Bush, several things stood out from the forum. First was Steve Clemons use of the word “equilibrium” over trying to achieve peace. I’ve been wondering how we take advantage of the shift and get to peace under President Obama, especially since I don’t believe peace is a real option. Lurching cease-fires interrupted by violence will never bring peace.

Secondly, the consensus of the panelists was that Iran is a bigger issue for Israelis than the Palestinians. I’ve heard it before, but it still sounds like an excuse, something that is sure to roil politics here in the U.S. and maybe that’s the point?

Much talk was about the question of whether a two state solution is possible anymore, even as some imagine one state is what may manifest. That Palestinians actually want that; juxtaposed against it would really be better for Israelis. I don’t see how anything works in the long term without two states, no matter how much I study and read on the subject. The U.S. and leaders in the region must put pressure on the parties to move forward with some plan for a sustained equilibrium. That can only happen if our gov. puts a value on U.S. interests first, beyond what will only benefit Israel, but cause us problems in the region with Arab nations. Nations with which Obama must make inroads on new engagement.

Optimism seemed to be the prevailing sentiment of the panelists.

Listening to experts you can never discount what is said, but I’m not feeling the same. M.J. Rosenberg’s optimism is in part due to President Obama himself. Israel’s current state of politics in that country are not encouraging, especially with Netanyahu up front, someone who has never appreciated the horrific cost of settlements, which was a constant theme from Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara. Then again, maybe only Bibi can do it. Doubts remain.

I also keep wondering how we get from political philosophy and intent to manifesting something concrete. Seriously, how long can we continue to talk about “peace,” without drawing up a plan that provides “equilibrium” to a region that never seems to want to step forward. We need to, as Clemons says, change the game.

Below are notes I took during the forum. Any misunderstanding of what’s written is on me, not the person to which the idea or quote is attributed. You can only take notes so fast. Any comments I have appear in italics after quote or basic idea of what was said by the panelist or the moderator.

Clemons on Clinton: “Impressive realist stripes” in Asia. (That’s what has enraged the Jewish community recently. They never saw Clinton’s internationalist tendencies, which are realist and pragmatic to their core.)

“I don’t believe in peace. I believe in equilibrium, equilibria.” – Clemons

“Iran was not the elephant in the room that it is now.” – Farah Stockman

“More and more Jewish voices” speaking out for something beyond the status qou. – Abderrahim Foukara. Also says it’s the Iran issue that’s paramount. “The whole thing harkens back to the issue of democracy.” It’s about settlements. “I doubt if Barack Obama will be able to make them do that one thing.” The West talks about Israel being a great democracy, but in the shadow of what the Palestinians are enduring how great a democracy can it be? Not a popular sentiment in the U.S. to offer, a gamble to utter it. (Mr. Foukara’s point was a plea of sorts, made continually throughout the forum.)

MJ Rosenberg – “In general I’m optimistic.” Mitchell’s call last week that included Jewish peace groups is one reason, he said. “We weren’t even invited to a Chanukah celebration” in the Bush years. “The status quo lobby,” as he called it, meaning AIPAC. Some in town “are very worried about George Mitchell, very worried.” Chas freeman, referred by some as that “vile creature,” made it worse. (I linked to MJ’s article on the Chas Freeman battle recently. This appointment is heartening to many peace movement Jews, quite a few in attendance yesterday.)

Amjad Atallah – We either pursue Arab – Israeli peace because Israel wants it, so we adopted that position. Or we have a larger interest that is regional. Mentioned Ann Lewis saying we support whatever gov. the Israelis elect, which is where we are today.

Clemons – Saudi Arabia very uncomfortable with Hamas, “discomfort,” is the appropriate word. (Saudi Arabia helped sponsor this event.)

MJ re Hamas: “I don’t favor engagement with Hamas.” Deal with Hamas only to the extent that it stops the violence. “I don’t see anything wrong with Egypt’s position.” MJ said what Clinton said today was like the Bush admin.

As an aside, here’s what Fox News offered: Lawmakers Worry Whether U.S. Can Keep Gaza Aid Away From Hamas.

Clemons – “The too much, too late strategy” re Clinton.

Farah Stockman – Re Clinton, “wishful thinking”. Even if you don’t say Hamas in your speech they’re still in control of Gaza. (Now you see why I offered a few quick hit links on Clinton’s trip so far. Diplomacy isn’t journalism.)

Is the Hamas issue going to be a civil war inside the Obama admin?, asked Clemons. Yes, said Farah Stockman. “I happened to know that Hamas members have met with Sein Fein” – Farah Stockman. You have to get your armed guys to sign on. (The reality of having George Mitchell in the mix is not a coincidence.)

Abderrahim Foukara – Egypt thinks Hamas is an extension of the Muslim brotherhood. But who would have thought Egypt would be a partner of any sort with Israel. (Acknowledging reality doesn’t mean no progress exists.)

Farah Stockman – “The populations are not the same as their governments.”

Was the election in Palestine a mistake? – Clemons

Abderrahim Foukara – Yes, because Bush put it in terms that democracy was all that was at stake. If we’re not careful parties will “subcontract” their battles to the U.S. “Like Ahmed Chalabi did with us on Iraq.” (American interests must be our prime focus.)

Clemons – “Silo” state issues away from the larger regional issues. (Another way to say it is that people conveniently compartmentalize issues so you don’t have to think of the whole.)

Iran is “paranoid” about their security for many reasons – Clemons

Farah Stockman – Bush made a two-state solution popular. (This infuriated me, because it didn’t matter considering Bush-Cheney had no policy except to aid the Israelis. See Lebanon, which didn’t do the Israelis or the U.S. any good in the region.)

Clemons – Road blocks (brought to Israel by Ehud Barak) are a huge issue. Choke points and aid into Gaza. (I’ve never understood why this isn’t a huge issue with progressives, especially. The choke points and road blocks are a despicable tactic by the Israelis.)

MJ: “Colossaly stupid” to keep food away. “The Israelis are doing everything they can to make these people hate them.”

Abderrahim Foukara – Settlements continued, regardless of Bush’s two state solution rhetoric. (A comment to Ms. Stockman’s point about Bush and two state solution.)

Amjad Atallah – “Punitive” in the hopes that it will make “the Arabs” change. The Israelis seem to believe they can brutalize Arabs into changing. (Again, who can argue that the Israel’s actions are often not only punitive but counterproductive? All that’s happening is radicalization.)

Taking risks in first term will keep Obama from having a second term; so can Obama actually have a dialogue with Hamas? (How can we ignore Hamas’ stature? They run Gaza, whether it’s viable or not seems beside the point.)

Clemons: Give us Netanyahu, please; “What makes sense is game changing moves.” (We cannot afford anything less.)

I’ll be attending a forum on the Middle East peace process this afternoon moderated by Steve Clemons.

You can follow on Twitter.

Now let’s just hope I don’t get stuck in the snow.

First, dealing with Gaza amidst the elections, today Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said “The secretary will be coming to Cairo on the second of March. We expect lots of commitments from everybody, lots of commitments for reconstruction.” The statement from State today emphasized that “The needs of Gaza’s Palestinians remain acute.” Amidst this, Reuters is reporting that Sen. John Kerry will meet Syria’s Assad next week, having met with Clinton today.

Needless to say, Israel’s Gaza skirmish with Hamas is on everyone’s mind as Livni and Netanyahu begin their very public campaign on what comes next. Aside this, there’s a lot of talk right now about Avigdor Lieberman being the “kingmaker,” though he’s not yet decided which way to weigh in just yet. His statement is a classic: “I know exactly who I will recommend to the president, but I am not telling because it is too early.” Clearly, he’s relishing his role, whether it’s “kingmaker,” frankly, I think is up to question. But he sure stopped Bibi.

The only thing we know for certain is that Israeli politics will be directed inward to this mounting friction making any efforts by former Sen. George Mitchell to move a peace agreement out of Bush’s foreign policy storage even more difficult than they were at the beginning, which is a feat unto itself.

The election, remembering Lieberman’s part as well, has left nothing settled. Dueling statements from Kadima and Likud prove this point beyond question.

“Tonight the campaign led by Bibi (nickname of Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu) and the wheeler-dealers of the Likud aimed at stealing power and the will of the voter in Israel must come to an end,” read a statement released by Kadima minutes after the official results were announced.

Kadima repeated its call for Netanyahu to join a national unity government with Tzipi Livni serving as prime minister. “With the completion of the vote count Kadima won and it is the largest party,” the party statement read. “Netanyahu must accede to Tzipi Livni’s call and join a centrist national unity government headed by her.”

Likud officials responded to Kadima’s statement with scorn. “Kadima’s statement is pathetic and shows that it continues to spin some imagined reality instead of recognizing a political reality in accordance with the voter’s verdict,” a Likud communiqué read. “An absolute majority of Israelis wants Netanyahu as prime minister and clearly rejected Kadima’s way which has failed.”

What also matters in all this is how the election was seen through the eyes of the world, including Arab eyes. You know, like the message electing President Obama sent to the world after the horrific foreign policy mismanagement by Bush-Cheney. Marc Lynch:

The skepticism bridges today’s great divide in Arab politics. There’s little difference between the coverage in al-Quds al-Arabi (the most populist / “rejection camp” of the major Arab papers) and al-Sharq al-Awsat (the most conservative / “moderate camp” Saudi paper). The Saudi station Al-Arabiya leads with the rise of Israeli extremists (mutatarufin, the same word used to described al-Qaeda extremists). Al-Sharq al-Awsat describes the election as the choice between “the right and the extreme right.” Neither Barak nor Livni is seen as offering a particularly better choice after Gaza. The veteran journalist Abd al-Wahhab Badrakhan is “waiting for Lieberman,” marveling that Netanyahu finally succeeded in finding someone worse than himself — and arguing, as many do, that Lieberman would be the best winner since he would show Israel’s “true face.”

For Palestinians, especially Hamas, the Israeli elections did nothing to engender hope. However, President Abbas feels that international pressure will make whoever is in charge deal with the pressing reality. From US News & World Report:

President Mahmoud Abbas said whatever the next Israeli cabinet is, it would be obliged to continue peace talks and meet international obligations. “The ascent of the Israeli right does not worry us,” he told Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper.His Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told reporters Israel must meet international obligations. “We imagine that the expectations of the international community (toward Israel) will be the same as ours,” he said.

Al Arabiya called the elections “indecisive.”

No one is sure what will happen next, but I doubt Mr. Netanyahu is taking Livni’s prowess lightly. It’s not what he expected. Using “Believni” and channeling some of the Obama magic, Netanyahu was left to ignore debates as Livni surged at the end.

But who knew it was a supermodel that made the difference?

From Sports Illustrated:

You’re Israeli. Are you voting in the elections?
I am in New York, so I can’t.

How do you think they’re going to go?
I actually don’t know who I would vote for. If I knew I was going to, I’d probably research more. I think I’d probably go for [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, but I don’t know.

If nothing else, the swirling mess gives us all another way to look at Israeli politics. As for peace, at present, stopping settlements seems a long way down the to do list.

Today, Clinton and Mitchell met and also took questions. Regarding Hamas, Secretary Clinton:

QUESTION: — (inaudible) it’s clear that from the President’s first interview and from the first stop in Cairo that the Administration is making a concerted effort to send a signal of the priorities and the balance, and perhaps a rebalancing. Is that enough going in? Or, eventually, does there have to be a path, a diplomatic path to Hamas, in order to resolve Gaza? And if I could ask both of you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, you know, we have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack. So that’s not new news. You know what our position is. It is something that the President has set forth. [...]

On the abduction of the American in Quetta, Pakistan:

MR. WOOD (temporary spokesperson for State): Yeah, the only thing I can tell you is that an American citizen employed by the United Nations was kidnapped in Quetta, Pakistan, on Monday. And officials here in Washington are doing what we can to support the family and providing whatever services we can. But at this point, because of, you know, Privacy Act concerns, I can’t say very much more, I think you can understand, at this point.

QUESTION: Well, not really, since the UN has made his name public.

MR. WOOD: Well, from our standpoint, I can’t say any more at this point.

On Iran, Robert Wood, acting State spokesperson, made clear that “missile-related activities” were noted: “… UN Security Council Resolution 1718[1] prohibits Iran from engaging in missile-related activities. …”. Segue to State on the Iranian satellite launch:

Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern. Recently, Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle (SLV) capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems. Many of the technological building blocks involved in SLVs are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

Working with the United Nations, we have passed a number of UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 1737, which require states to take the necessary measures to prevent the supply of, inter alia, specified equipment and technology that could contribute to Iran’s development of nuclear weapons delivery systems. We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.

Another clue into the Obama foreign policy through the lens of Secretary Clinton:

QUESTION: You know, with several years of diplomacy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program behind us now, from – with the EU-3 and the P-5+1, I think it’s clear that Iran is among the most predictable of the actors involved: They will continue to install centrifuges. Less reliable, it seems, are Russia and China, who will sometimes vote for sanctions on Iran and sometimes demand with the force of international law that they cease enrichment, but they don’t always behave in ways designed to give those documents meaning.

And so I wonder if you can address how this Administration can be more effective than its predecessor in developing the Russians and Chinese as more effective participants in this process.

MR. WOOD: Well, certainly, this Administration wants to engage Russia and China on these important issues to the international community. And Russia and China share our concern about what Iran has been doing, not only with regard to its nuclear program but, you know, with regard to missile technology. So we will, in the future, in discussions with both the Russians and the Chinese, and others, frankly, bring up this issue about Iran’s activities in both of these areas that I mentioned. And it’s of great concern what Iran has been doing, as I’ve mentioned before. So you can count on the fact that in future discussions in these two – with regard to these two countries, we’re going to raise those concerns.

QUESTION: They’ve been raised. Do you have concerns about the spotty record of the Russians and the Chinese with regard to Iran?

MR. WOOD: Well, I think, frankly, everyone can do better with regard to trying to limit Iran’s ability to act in these two particular areas of concern with regard to missile technology and its nuclear program. So it’s something we raise quite often with a number of countries, not just Russia and China. So you can expect that we will continue to do that.

All this began with a full schedule today, including breakfast with Biden. By all reports, it’s hard to imagine finding two happier professional pols more eager to start the day together.

But everyone was wondering where Secretary Clinton would travel first. Looks like it’s likely Japan, South Korea, and China. Not saying she’s visiting our bankers, excluding South Korea, but it’s obvious this part of the world is important.

art by Paul Szep (by permission)

Since Goss took over, between 30 and 90
senior CIA officials have made their exit, according to various sources, some
fleeing into retirement, others taking refuge as consultants. Others, unable
to retire, have stayed, but only to mark time at the agency. Morale, already
low after several years during which the CIA was accused of a series of intelligence
failures related to September 11 and Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass
destruction, is now at rock-bottom. The agency’s vaunted Near East Division,
in particular, which served as the “pointy end of the spear,” as
one CIA veteran put it, in simultaneous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the “global
war on terror,” has been decimated. The
Yes-Man

Now Condoleezza Rice has put a woman's tyrannical touch on the
State Department, using the same tone deaf delicacy of yet another yes-woman
who always backs the boss. She stands right behind Mary Queen of Carville who
stands behind Karen of Arabia. The only thing better than having a woman in
charge is having a woman in charge who always says yes.

But Condi's touch at State has now turned yet another important
government department into Bush central.

A State Department reorganization of analysts involved
in preventing the spread of deadly weapons has spawned internal turmoil, with
more than half a dozen career employees alleging in interviews that political
appointees sought to punish long-term employees whose views they considered
suspect.

Senior State Department officials deny that and say
an investigation has found that the proper personnel practices were followed.
But three officials involved in the reorganization, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, acknowledge
that a merger of two bureaus reduced the influence of employees who were viewed
by some political appointees as disloyal to the administration's policies.

"There are a number of disgruntled employees who
feel they have been shoved aside for political purposes. That's true,"
said one of these officials. "But there was rank insubordination on the
part of these officers."

Administration
Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle

Under George W. Bush, the federal government has been turned into
a political arm of the Republican Party. No longer do we have a CIA interested
in expanding our knowledge and dealing in facts, but instead, we've got a bunch
of appointed bureaucrats generating policy that backs the current boss.

Imagine when a Democratic president is elected. The house cleaning
will have to be severe, just to get dedicated public servants back into position
so that our government gets facts and details based on truth, instead of some
right-wing political agenda.

There are places in the federal government where politics has
no place, or at least that's the way it should be. Federal employees working
at State, the CIA, DoD and the Pentagon, as well as Justice, should be more
concerned with facts than pushing some political line to the current king of
whatever political party is in power. It's equally dangerous to have a bunch
of partisans in sensitive national security positions when a Democratic president
is in charge, because partisanship tends to encourage lazy fact gathering. This
never serves a president or anyone, actually, but especially a president.

The back channel that once existed in the State Department under
Colin Powell has been wiped away, so Administration critics have no where to
run, hide or anyone with whom to offer an opposing point of view. Condi's State
Department will no longer be dissenting from W. Oh, goodie, we're all one big
happy, misinformed and blinded administration. Evidently, ignorance really is
Bush bliss with this bunch.

Maybe that's why Condi and her crew were so "surprised"
by Hamas winning the election. When flacks rule, the boss only gets what she
wants to hear, info that supports the party line. Witness Condi with her State
Department g-string showing.

One particular office in the nonproliferation
bureau, dealing mainly with the International Atomic Energy Agency, was especially
targeted, numerous officials on both sides of the dispute said. Several top
officials in the office were close to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and had
privately objected to the administration's public campaign to deny him a third
term. A former office director who had been on loan to the IAEA asked for
his job back — but was given a non-managerial position in another bureau;
the acting office director also did not get the job.

Instead, a relatively junior Foreign Service officer,
who is outranked by several officials in the bureau but who is considered
skeptical of the IAEA, was named acting head of the office. Last year, two
months before ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the
official sent an e-mail to his colleagues ridiculing the idea. The subject
line read: "A Nobel for the IAEA? Please."

Remember what happened in Iraq when a bunch of Bush crony kids
were put in charge of the reconstruction efforts? We're still trying to get
the power and gas running to this day!

No one is doubting that restructuring and reorganization goes
on every day at the federal level. But there's more than enough proof accumulated
to be assured that what happened at the State Department was more about forcing
dissent out, with truth and transparency the casualties, so the Bush party line could be promoted. Our government truly
is becoming the propaganda arm of the Republican party. Your tax dollars in action.

]]> http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2006/02/bushs-yes-woman-condi-the-incompetent/feed/ 0