The Stupidity of Attacking Syria

It seems like there are two main camps who oppose President Obama's proposed retaliatory strikes against the Assad regime. One is the liberal anti-war camp, which opposes any military action anywhere. The other is the isolationist camp, which wants the United States to butt out of other countries' affairs, diplomatically as well as militarily. But what about people like me who think the particular circumstances in Syria are what makes a strike inadvisable, rather than any general pacifist or anti-interventionist principles?

I don't see how a strike against Assad would make matters any better. The best scenario would be an end to the use of chemical weapons, but the regime would definitely continue massacring its own people with conventional weapons. At worst, what begins as a limited strike will spread the violence to neighboring Israel, Jordan and Turkey, in addition to Lebanon, where this has already started to happen. Assad may be replaced by Sunni Jihadists who would take over his chemical weapon stockpiles.

As an Israeli, what is most important to me is how any action in Syria would effect Israel. The Israeli government and the Israeli public, according to polls, back a strike on Syria. Again, I find myself in the minority. There is too great a danger that a strike would pull Israel into a war with Syria, without any clear objectives or any likely positive outcomes. 

When evil fights evil, stay the hell out of the way. Sure, innocent Syrians are caught in the middle, but we're not going to help them. If anything, we'll just be adding innocent Israelis, Jordanians, Turks and Lebanese to the list of people suffering from Assad's regime.

What Obama Actually Said in 2010

Palestinians claim that when they go to the United Nations this Friday to receive recognition as an independent state, they will just be adhering to President Obama's words before the General Assembly last year. They say he called for the acceptance of Palestine as a member state within a year. Well, that isn't exactly what he said.

Here's the paragraph where he referred to Palestine as a member of the UN, with my own emphasis added:

"This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

So no, what the Palestinians plan to declare on September 23, 2011 is not in line with what Obama declared on September 23, 2010. He did not say a Palestinian state should be declared and admitted into the UN "when we come back here next year" no matter what. He hoped there would be an agreement that would lead to the establishment of Palestine. That is the exact opposite of what the Palestinians have decided to do.

Obama should quote himself in his 2011 UN address. He should emphasize that he called for an agreement bred by Israeli-Palestinian tolerance, not for a move that is counter to Israel's wishes. He can point out that during this year, neither the Palestinian or Israeli leadership acted tolerantly toward the other side. If Obama doesn't do so, Netanyahu should use the quote, not as a reminder to the American administration, which is on Israel's side on this one anyway, but as a reminder to Palestinians and to European countries.

The Obama-Netanyahu $3 Billion Deal

What the hell is President Barack Obama thinking? Yes, it is very important that Israel freeze construction in West Bank settlements, but Obama's way of getting this done is just foolish. His administration offered Israel a package worth $3 billion, which includes 20 state of the art fighter jets in exchange for an additional 3-month freeze. Why just three months? Because during this time, according to Obama's expectations, Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement about final borders, which would mean that it would be clear where Israel can build and where it can't.

Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.

My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?

In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.

Positive Signs in the West Bank

It is well-known that there is an economic boom in the West Bank. Unfortunately, our government isn't going to seize this opportunity - having a peaceful, stable and moderate Palestinian society with something lose if violence breaks out again - to come any closer to peace.

Thomas Friedman writes about the Palestinian economy in today's op-ed in the New York Times. I think the most significant paragraph is this one:

The most important thing President Obama can do when he meets Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, on July 6 is to nudge him to begin gradually ceding control of major West Bank Palestinian cities to the Palestinian Authority so that Fayyad can show his people, as he puts it, that what he is building is an independent state “not an exercise in adapting to the permanence of occupation” — and so that Israel can test if the new Palestinian security forces really can keep the peace without Israel making nighttime raids. Nothing would strengthen Fayyadism more than that.

Would Netanyahu do such a thing as an interim step? I don't think so, but one hopes Obama might convince him.

The May 2010 War and Peace Index

There are some very interesting results in the latest War and Peace Index poll (Hebrew/English). Israelis see the crisis between Israel and the United States as over, and blame Barack Obama for it ever happening more than they blame Benjamin Netanyahu. Oddly, 56% of those polled said Netanyahu was handling relations with the US well or very well. So what if he hasn't shown any signs of budging on the Palestinian issue, which is at the center of US-Israel relations right now? My fellow Israelis still think he's doing swell.

Israelis aren't crazy about Obama, but don't hate him either. 43% think he's neutral towards Israel, which is similar to a previous poll. By comparison, a majority of Israelis found George W. Bush and Bill Clinton favorable towards Israel. Also in today's poll, 55% said Obama is favorable or very favorable toward the Arab world. I'd say that to many Israelis, if not most of them, being favorable toward the Arabs is not a very positive thing.

Also of interest is the fact that 73% of Israelis think Israel will continue to be criticized no matter what it does. The poll says a majority among all of Israel's parties says so, with the lowest percentage coming from Meretz, 55%. Does this mean that voters for Chadash (the Arab-Jewish Communist party) and other Arab parties have an even higher percentage than 55% thinking that Israel will always be criticized, or were the pollsters only referring to the Jewish parties?

Anyway, this vast majority isn't surprising. I, too, think that Israel will be criticized even when it does the right thing. Even when the two-state solution will be implemented, we'll still be criticized, but a lot less.

Obama Just Earned His Nobel

Although I voted for Barack Obama, I wasn't too crazy about him. I thought he wasn't prepared to lead the United States. When he won his Nobel Prize for peace, I thought it was ridiculous, and still think he shouldn't have won in 2009. Obama has proved me wrong about his preparedness for the job, at least when it comes to domestic issues. What he has done with his health insurance reform is huge. That alone now makes him worthy, in my opinion, of a peace prize. He may not have resolved international conflicts, but  his actions will bring about an improvement in the health of millions of Americans and will prevent the deaths of countless people who currently can't afford care for their curable diseases. This will save no less lives than bringing an end to a bloody war.

Obama and Israelis: The Myth of Hostility

Long before Barack Obama was elected president, this notion arose out of nowhere that Israelis didn't like the guy. Maybe people expected Israelis to dislike anybody with "Hussein" in his name, even though King Hussein of Jordan was quite popular here. Yes, Israelis preferred Hillary Clinton, whose husband Bill is still probably the most popular former American president in Israel, and John McCain. But time and again we see that Israelis aren't as hostile towards Obama as people think. In the Democratic primary in 2008, Americans in Israel gave Obama 45% of their votes.

The recent crisis between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is an excellent opportunity to check the pulse of Israelis' attitudes towards Obama. According to a poll published by Haaretz yesterday, Obama may not be as popular as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but Israelis don't show hostility towards him either.

When asked how Obama relates to Israel, 51% said he is fair, 18% said friendly, and 21% said hostile. With the two previous presidents, the vast majority would have said they're friendly. But according to the hostility myth, you'd expect to see at least 80% of respondents saying Obama is hostile. That just isn't the case.

One thing Obama should be worried about if he cares about Israeli public opinion is the question of anti-Semitism. While the majority, 56%, don't think he's anti-Semitic, more than a quarter (27%) said that he is. That's a much higher number than previous presidents would get, and it is also ridiculous, considering the fact that his most trusted advisors are Jewish.

For furthur analysis of the Haaretz poll and other weekend polls, here's Daneil Levy's take in Foreign Policy.

Obama vs. Netanyahu

I usually don't like it when my two countries' relations with each other get strained. Now, though, I'm just elated about the mini-crisis we're in following the East Jerusalem construction announcement that came out while Vice President Joe Biden was here. Biden publicly censured the Israeli government, and voiced his disapproval in private meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a 40-minute phone conversation with Netanyahu in which she reprimanded him. The PM has apologized, saying the timing was off and that he plans to make sure such announcements are never made without his say-so. He doesn't seem to understand that the timing is the minor issue here. The problem is the construction itself, which isn't just a slap in the Americans' and Palestinians' faces but also against Israel's interests. Even more worrying is the fact that even some Labor Party ministers don't understand what the big deal is.

So, why am I happy about this controversy? Netanyahu deserves a good whooping. The opposition is too fragmented to forcefully and effectively speak out against the current government's policies. The Labor Party, which claimed to join the coalition in order to be a moderating force, is being dragged rightward rather than dragging Netanyahu leftward. The electorate may not be crazy about Netanyahu, but according to polls, if the elections were held today the Likud would have an even larger delegation in the Knesset. Nothing much is really threatening Netanyahu into action. Perhaps some kind of ultimatum from Obama is the only way to convince Bibi to prove that he really does support the two state solution.

I'm against an imposed solution, but some prodding in the right direction can be helpful.

Description of the Decade: Shitty

2009 was a shitty year. In some respects in was even shittier than 2008, in others, it was better. In both my countries, the United States and Israel, one shitty chief executive was replaced by another shitty chief executive. Barack Obama is far less shitty than George W. Bush ever was, but this year he has proven what I thought about him last year, that he is ill-equipped for the job of president. In Israel, I'm having a hard time deciding who the hell is shittier, Benjamin Shitinyahu or Ehud Ol-merde (read as in French).

The whole decade was shitty. First, the Second Intifadah started. Then Dubya was elected  president. Then 9/11 and then you know all the shit that followed. I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now I think that Iraq shouldn't have been touched, and that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban should have been bombed without an invasion. Airline and border security are the best ways to maintain our safety.

I'd like to say that the shittiness ends tonight, that 2010 and the rest of the Twenty Teens will be much better. Unfortunately, the shittiness is going to spill into the next decade. I don't see any peace deals, or even negotiations, between Israel and the Palestinians or any other Arab neighbors any time soon. The US is still knee deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever happens with Iran, it won't be good (seems like the two main options there are either a war or them obtaining nukes, and I don't see the protesters prevailing). The economy is still shitty, even if it's better than before.

I must say the year and decade were shitty politically, but they were pretty good to me personally. The beginning of the decade wasn't that great, especially the boredom of my military service and when my nephew was diagnosed as autistic. But as the decade ends, my nephew is doing great, I'm a graduate student enjoying my life, and my family and friends are all happy.

Israelis Don't Hate Obama

According to popular wisdom, Israelis are very hostile towards Barack Obama. I have to admit that I bought into that notion myself. Most of my friends have a positive attitude towards Obama, or mixed feelings, but I had a feeling that the social circle I belong to isn't very representative of Israeli society. And indeed, whenever I talked to other people, let's call them non-academic types, they tended to hate Obama, or at the very least, they were suspicious of him. This seemed to be supported by a now discredited poll that claimed only 4% of Israelis support Obama.

A new poll shows I was wrong. Obama's approval ratings in Israel are quite similar to his approval ratings at home. When compared to Rasmussen's Dec. 11 poll, Obama's approval rating in Israel is just six percentage points lower than his approval rating in the States, but even more interesting is the fact that a higher percentage of Americans disapprove of his performance than Israelis: 51% compared to just 37%.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama has a higher approval rating among Israelis than is widely believed, undercutting arguments he has lost Israeli public support for new peace efforts, a poll said on Thursday.

The poll by the Washington-based New America Foundation found that 41 percent of Israelis had a favorable rating of Obama against 37 percent who rated him unfavorably.

Despite this, 55 percent of Israelis polled said they thought Obama did not support Israel against 42 percent who said he did -- a reflection of the "complexity of views" about the U.S. leader as he presses both Israel and the Palestinians to resume stalled peace talks.

"They genuinely admire and like him ... but at the same time they also want to feel that he is in their corner, and they have concerns over this," pollster Jim Gerstein said in an email message.

Gerstein said that, in contrast to widespread media reports of low Israeli public support for Obama, the poll of 1,000 Israelis showed more support and solid backing for a possible future U.S.-brokered peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Israelis believe peace is necessary, but they currently do not feel a sense of urgency to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians," Gerstein said in his report, adding that Obama had a chance now to persuade Israelis it was time to reach an agreement.

"There are real opportunities for the president and his team to speak directly and convincingly to the Israeli people," the report said.

Predicting Time's Person of the Year 2009

Time Magazine likes putting President Barack Obama on its cover, but I think it is safe to say that he won't be Time's Person of the Year for a second year in row. Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he hasn't done enough to merit the title. He deserves to be first runner-up, at the most.

Will it be Angela Merkel, who won re-election as Germany's chancellor this year and has become one of the most influential European leaders?  It's very possible.

Will it be Benjamin Netanyahu, who returned to the Israeli Prime Minister's office after 10 years and has already managed to anger the Palestinians, settlers, the Israeli left and the Obama administration? No, it won't be him.

Will it be Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is credited by many as the person responsible for curbing the financial crisis? I think he's the top candidate. The economy has been the number one issue worldwide this year, so someone who has something to do with it is likely to be named POY. It could also be that the companies that got bailout money will be chosen, if Time Magazine decides to go with something other than a person.

Nobel Committe Wrong, Obama Right

Yesterday, I wrote here that President Barack Obama should not have won the Nobel Peace Prize. I still think so, but I liked Obama's speech reacting to the award. He said himself that he did not feel deserving, since he has not yet achieved enough. He seemed genuinely uncomfortable. He was right to say that he would accept the prize for those who believe in a world of dialogue. He was also right that this is meant to encourage him to continue with his international policies, rather than to acknowledge his work till now.

So, Obama should not have been chosen by the Nobel Committee, but I don't hold it against him. I hold it against the committee.

Obama Cult of Personality Reaches Oslo

I voted for Barack Obama, and I'm glad he's the president, rather than a Republican. I support many of his policies. Still, I see absolutely no reason why he is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize so early into his presidency, especially since he certainly never did anything significant before he was elected president. Though he has lofty goals, he has not achieved them yet. He is repairing the damage left by George W. Bush in the international arena, but he has a lot of work left. The world hasn't suddenly fallen in love with America because of Obama, at least not the third world. He has brought some change, but not a revolution.

Two previous sitting presidents won the Nobel Prize. Teddy Roosevelt was five years into his presidency when he was honored with the prize. Woodrow Wilson had been president for seven years. A third US president, Jimmy Carter, won decades after leaving office. And Obama? He was just 9 months into the job. I've heard a report that he was nominated just two weeks after taking the oath of office.

There are many who see Barack Obama as some kind of political messiah. All the political art he inspired during the campaign, and all the enthusiasm he generated among young Americans who are interested more in celebrities than politics, the zillion Time magazine covers (I'm sure they'll be happy for the excuse to put Obama on the cover again) - it looked quite a bit like a cult of personality. Now, the Nobel Committee has joined in.

Giving Obama the prize now is a mistake. The Norwegians should have waited a few years to see if he actually earns it. I have to say, though, that compared to the egregious mistakes of some of the previous years, this year's choice is just misguided, but not totally outrageous.

Crazy Orly Taitz

Moldovan-Israeli-American Orly Taitz, Commander-in-chief of the lunatic birther squad, made the rounds on American TV stations last month. Now it's Israel's turn. About a week or two ago she was interviewed on Channel 10 News, where she said Benjamin Netanyahu was now her Facebook friend (umm, Orly, I hate to say it, but it certainly ain't really Bibi, and you're an idiot for thinking that it is). The next day she appeared on another Channel 10 show, "London and Kirshenbaum", where she was interviewed by veteran journalists Yaron London and Moti Kirshenbaum, who subtly mocked her. Taitz seemed pleased, as if she thought she had convinced the duo.

Last night, Taitz appeared on Channel 2's "Mo'adon Layla" ("Night Club"), a comedy panel show. She was first asked a few questions and traded barbs with the comedians. This was the part where she not only compared Obama to Hitler, but said Obama was worse, which prompted panelist Ido Rosenblum to jump up from his chair and ask to "turn this thing off", meaning Taitz's satellite feed. She kind of seemed to storm off, though it wasn't entirely clear if she didn't just think her segment was over. After the interview, the comedians joked about her insanity.

Here's the clip, which, by the way, appears on the show's website under the title "Mo'adon Layla Supports Obama". It's in Hebrew without an English translation. Sorry about that:

The Issue of Settlements

Yes indeed, the settlements
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]

Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.

Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.

It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.

The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.

Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?

Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.

Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.

And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.

The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.

If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.

Bibi and Self-Hating Jews

Rahm Emanuel can't get a break. Palestinians and their supporters see him as a Zionist mole inside the White House. The Israeli right-wing, on the other hand, sees him as a traitor. More on how Netanyahu sees Emanuel and fellow Obama advisor David Axelrod in this excellent op-ed from today's Ha'aretz:

What Netanyahu wants from Obama's 'self-hating Jews'
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz [English, Hebrew]

Who is to blame for the latest dispute with the United States over the new neighborhood going up in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah area? Mayor Nir Barkat? Certainly not. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stood behind him? Ridiculous. Any child knows that everything is the fault of other Jews: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, two American administration officials who are inciting President Barack Obama against their own people.

This is not the first time that "self-hating Jews" have given us trouble. In negotiations over the separation of forces agreement in the 1970s, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the scion of a family of Jewish refugees who had escaped from Nazi Germany, earned the anti-Semitic epithet "Jewboy" in Israel. At the end of the 1980s, when president George H.W. Bush dared to argue that the peace process does not jibe with settlement expansion, the Shamir government instigated a campaign against "the 'Jewboy' trio": Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Now it is the turn of Obama's Jewish confidantes to be the scapegoats.

It is easy to imagine what an uproar there would be in Jerusalem if an Arab leader or newspaper dared to claim that an American president was favorable to Israel because of the influence of a Jewish adviser. Netanyahu, who spent many years in the United States, knows very well the extent to which Jewish administration officials in key positions are sensitive to the slightest hint of dual loyalty - to their birthplace and their historic homeland. It turns out that for him, politics bends the iron-clad rule that "all Jews are responsible for one another."

To satisfy the settlers, he permits himself to hurt people whose only sin is that they are trying to promote the goals enshrined in the platform of his senior coalition partner - the Labor Party.

We want our Jews in the administration to be blind to the settlements and deaf to the complaints of the Arabs. Take Elliott Abrams, for example, who was in charge of Middle East affairs in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is identified with the neo-conservative right, made an important contribution to legitimizing a good many dubious Israeli acts. He was an excellent salesman for the "no partner" theory, and the guiding spirit behind the indulgent policy toward the flourishing of settlements. He recently publicly criticized the two-state vision of the president who had hired him, among other things, to promote that vision.

Back during his election campaign Obama made it clear that he did not have to join Likud to be a friend of Israel. Opinion polls in the United States revealed that the views of most Jews are closer to the attitudes of organizations like the Reform movement, American Friends of Peace Now and J Street, which support a two-state solution and eschew Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's doctrine - and above all, largely object to the settlements.

The conversation Obama held with representatives of the Jewish community last week confirms that Netanyahu is drafting them for the wrong war. Even his oldest supporters did not attack the president's position on the settlements, and made do with a complaint about the high profile given to disputes over the issue of natural growth in the settlements. One of the guests at that meeting said that history showed that exposing the differences between the U.S. and Israel does not help to advance peace.

"This was not my reading of the lessons of the last eight years," Obama responded without flinching. Moreover, he said he would not shy away from a willingness to pressure all parties, including Israel, if that is in the best interests of the United States and Israel. Obama did not hesitate to tell his Jewish interlocutors that beyond the special commitment to Israel's security, his policy would be completely even-handed. If it became necessary, Obama said, he would speak to Israelis, as he had done to the Arab and Muslim world, to help them to achieve some kind of self-reflection.

Obama has internalized what his predecessors refused to understand: the traditional supporters of the Israeli right are growing old, or losing their relevance. They are giving way to younger, liberal forces who identify with Obama's values. In the "best" case, Netanyahu's incitement against the "self-hating Jews" will do to them what his whispered comment in the ear of Rabbi Kaduri "those leftists are not Jews" did to Israelis a decade ago - it turned them against him.

Bibi and Dudu

Here's a hilarious cartoon from today's Ha'aretz:

Prime Minister Netanyahu asks: "What will we do with this Obama guy?" and one of his ministers answers "Let's consult Dudu [Topaz]".

If you don't know who Topaz is - well, to make a long story short, he is a former television star who, as revealed this week, responded disproportionately and violently to the decline of his career and to perceived threats to his prospects for renewed success.

Obama's Cairo Speech

I was very impressed by President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world. I disagreed with almost nothing he said. Cooperation with Muslims is a positive thing. The belligerence of the Bush years only created hostility and hindered progress for both the United States and Muslim countries.

I agreed with Obama's words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the general Israeli-Arab situation. The two-state solution is crucial. Israel has to stop settlement activity while Israelis, Palestinians and Arab countries work toward building the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. I also agree with his demand that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel in order to be part of the peace process.

The only part of his speech I disagree with is his vision of a nuclear-free world. I'd love nothing more than to see all nukes destroyed, never to be seen again. However, I don't believe that is how things will play out. A "nuclear-free world" would, in reality, mean a situation where rogue countries would have nukes and international law-abiding nations wouldn't. What deterrent would the rogues have against nuking their enemies? Just imagine a world where nobody has WMD except for North Korea.

Time's People of the Year

Is there any doubt whatsoever that President-elect Barack Obama is the man of the year? Whether you like him or not, the first African-American President beat off more experienced candidates and made history. Do Time Magazine editors even have to think this through? They seemed to support him during the election, so if they won't select him, it would just be a lame attempt to prove they aren't big fans of his.

The bigger question is who the runners up will be. Clinton? Palin? Tina Fey? I'd choose Hillary Clinton as 1st runner up, since she was very close to becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major party and ended the year getting nominated for Secretary of State. Second runner up will probably be the president of China, and a European leader (Brown of the UK, Merkel of Germany or Sarkozy of France) will be 3rd.

Bedouin Obama?

According to the Times of London, an 8,000-member Bedouin tribe in Northern Israel is claiming President-elect Barack Obama as one of their own. Abdul Rahman Sheikh Abdullah, a local council member in Bir el-Maksur in the Galilee, says Obama's grandfather was one of the Kenyans who came to work in the town during the 1930's. He married a local Arab woman and returned with her to Africa. Abdullah's 95-year old grandmother figured out the connection when she saw Obama and noticed a resemblance to the in-law she hadn't seen in decades.

Is there any truth to this? I doubt it. They claim they have documents proving the lineage, but will show it only after they personally present it to Obama first. Since Obama is not likely to invite them to the White House, they'll never show anyone the proof.

If it does turn out to be true, I can understand why they are proud. It won't change Obama's foreign policy, though.