The Threat of Military Action toward Iran is the Best Approach

Polls suggest that most Americans are not excited at the prospect of a war with Iran over its development of nuclear weapons.  While some polls show that a majority of Americans favor military action, other polls show that most Americans favor diplomacy and economic sanctions as the first steps to take.  Not surprisingly, poll results depend heavily on the wording of the questions. 

There can be no doubt that few Americans want to see a nuclear armed Iran.  But there are differing views as to whether the United States and others can stop that from happening.  Some feel that sanctions, if broadly applied, could well pressure Iran to not move forward toward developing nuclear weapons.  Others believe that only military action can bring about that outcome.  Still others believe that neither course of action will succeed.  And then there are no doubt a few who believe Iran does not harbor any intention to develop nuclear weapons.

I do not presume to know the answer.  I do believe Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons.  But I do not know whether economic sanctions or military action, short of total war and a military invasion, will suffice to stop Iran’s efforts.  I am skeptical that either will work.  As to sanctions, unless Russia, China, India and other countries join in the sanctions campaign, I believe it will likely not be effective.  And even were these countries to join, states subject to sanctions are often quite able to continue trade despite the existence of sanctions.  However, economic sanctions are worth a try, particularly given the extent now contemplated which presumably would affect the viability of Iran’s central bank.

As to military action short of total war and an invasion, I am also skeptical that this strategy will work.  I am not expert on the locations of Iran’s nuclear facilities but it appears there are multiple locations and that at least some may be underground and heavily fortified.  Then, too, the element of surprise is lacking, something that may have been present when Israel successfully bombed specific nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria years ago.  Any attack on Iran, rather than leading to a popular uprising that some Americans may believe would quickly occur, will, in my judgment, more likely provoke a nationalist reaction leading Iranians of all walks of life and political views to rally around the state.  Any such attack would likely result in a military response, not only against Israel but against American and other Western interests in the area and beyond.  Other Muslim states, even Arab states that might privately favor the elimination of an Iranian nuclear threat, would likely condemn the military action against Iran.  Even were the Iranian program damaged to the point that it could not immediately continue, it is highly likely that such a program would not end but would resume over time.  The ramifications of military action would be huge.

As for total war and an invasion, I do not believe Americans or most others are wanting to put boots on the ground in Iran to stop its nuclear program or replace its regime.  Some Republican candidates for President and other conservatives may be willing to pursue this strategy although their campaign rhetoric might quickly desert them were any elected President.

While I am skeptical that military action short of total war would be effective to either destroy Iran’s nuclear program or to dissuade Iran from continuing that program in the face of devastating damage from such military action, this does not mean that the threat of such an attack might not work to cause Iran to put its nuclear program on hold for an indefinite period of time. 

Some might question how the threat of attack might work if an attack itself would likely not work.  An attack would, as I suggested above, unite most Iranians, lead to a counter-attack, lead to major military activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, call upon Russia and others to decide what action, if any, to take, and likely lead Iran to redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  But the threat of an attack would not have all these outcomes.  It might go unheeded by the Iranians.  But it might cause them to hesitate and drawback, depending upon whether they actually believed that the threat would translate into an actual attack. 

The credibility of such a threat is paramount.  When President Obama states that he doesn’t bluff, he is attempting to create certainty that, if Iran does not stand down in the face of a threat of military action, there will be military action, whether Obama wants it or would ultimately actually utilize it given all the risks and uncertainties surrounding military action.  When Netanyahu states Israel’s impatience he too is seeking to persuade Iran that a military attack is imminent; in his case he may have no doubts about that (although frankly he should).

But when Mitt Romney states that, if Obama wins re-election, Iran will develop nuclear weapons, he undercuts American strategy by weakening the credibility of America’s threat of military action.  This is foolish politicking at its worst.

But Romney’s assertions raise the deeper question: how dangerous would a nuclear Iran be?  Obama has said that containment of a nuclear Iran is not acceptable; he will not countenance a nuclear Iran.  Israel has clearly articulated a similar position.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.  Not only does it make more likely a nuclear “accident,” but it also increases the likelihood that such weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists not constrained in their possible use because they have no nation-state to protect.  In this sense, a nuclear Iran, with its terrorist history and links to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, poses a danger.  As well, were Iran to develop nuclear weapons, the likelihood is that neighboring states, such as Saudi Arabia, would also want such weaponry.

But there are already a number of states that have nuclear weapons, some of whom are not terribly stable; probably more unstable than Iran.  Most notable among the unstable are North Korea and Pakistan.  To date, nuclear weapons have not been used in military conflicts in part because of the implications and consequences of their use, including the so-called “balance of terror” and the reasons associated with nuclear deterrence theory.  Deterrence theory is far from an established “fact.”  See http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/ten-serious-flaws-in-nuclear-deterrence-theory/32886.  And we know how strong the American reaction was to the prospect of nuclear weapons in Cuba.  But, by the same token, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has seemed to work and there is much to be said that countries like Iran and Pakistan, and even North Korea, let alone the United States, Russia, China and Israel, would be and are constrained from using nuclear weapons based upon such fears.

I’m not convinced that the consequences of an actual military strike against Iran, including only a chance that it would permanently deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, justify such a policy.  But the threat of military action certainly makes good sense, even recognizing that were America not to follow through there would be some who would consider us a “paper tiger.”  But such a threat, as policy, only makes sense if the threat appears certain to be carried out.  The more certain that the threat will be carried out, the stronger the likelihood that it will achieve the objective.  Anything that detracts from fostering the belief that the threat will be carried out, including comments made by Mitt Romney (and perhaps this blog as well), undercuts the likelihood of its success.☐

It is Time to Leave Afghanistan

In deciding on its foreign policy, the United States should act in its national interest, not simply out of anger, pique or frustration at particular events happening in the world.  With that in mind, I believe that it is time for the United States, and NATO, to depart Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, four American soldiers have now been killed apparently in response to an incident in which NATO soldiers destroyed Korans.  According to NATO, extremist messages had been written in these Korans by captured insurgents at a detention camp and were being used to communicate among the captives.  For that reason these books were included amongst other matter that was burned.  This was a mistake but certainly was not done out of disrespect for Islam or the Koran.

It has spawned an outpouring of anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Demonstrations have been widespread and violent.  Two American soldiers were killed on a base and most recently two American officers were killed within the heavily secured Afghanistan Interior Ministry.  The Taliban has claimed credit for at least the latter killings which were in fact assassinations.  President Obama has apologized to Afghanistan for the destruction of the Korans.  But that has not contributed to any easing of the demonstrations.

At this point, I believe it is time for the United States, and NATO, to withdraw from Afghanistan, rather than doing so slowly over the next two years.  America has become stuck there as the defender of a corrupt and ineffectual regime, the Karzai government, fighting a civil war against the Taliban.  The initial purpose of America's intervention, to destroy the al Qaida force there led by Osama bin Laden that had engineered the tragedy of 9/11, has been achieved.  While some vestiges of al Qaida may remain in Afghanistan and links between the Taliban and al Qaida may persist, Afghanistan surely no longer presents a danger to the United States by providing a safe haven for al Qaida or for any other reasons.  Instead, the U.S. and NATO are again back in the business of nation-building, something we should by now have learned is beyond our ability let alone our need.  And, the Karzai government appears as corrupt and ineffectual as, if not worse than, any ally the United States has had in these kinds of wars, whether in South Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

To be sure, departing Afghanistan now does not come without a price.  There's the usual argument that doing so gives the wrong message to American allies that we cut and run; that we make commitments but then abandon them when the going gets tough.  In this instance such an argument is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.  The United States has been in Afghanistan for years and years.  We have sacrificed our sons and daughters and our finances but for what?  A corrupt regime there that frequently attacks America and ridicules us.  A commitment from America to assist is not a blank check for a permanent presence.

Departing Afghanistan will no doubt ultimately lead to the return of the Taliban to power.  Of course, that may be the case even if NATO remains another two years.  Indeed, media reports suggest that America, and Karzai, are already in negotiations, or trying to begin negotiations, with the Taliban.  America's national interest does not dictate that it remain in Afghanistan to ward off a return to power of the Taliban.  But its return will undermine at least some of the changes that have occurred, most particularly some steps toward the liberation of women.  Females who have stepped forward will likely be crushed by the Taliban and that is an extremely costly consequence of an end to the American presence, but despite such a tragedy it is not enough to justify a continued American military presence.

No doubt a decision by President Obama to move up the departure date of American forces from Afghanistan will lead many Republicans and other critics to claim that he mismanaged that war.  They will claim that, at least in Iraq, at the time of America's departure a government with some semblance of democratic processes and Western leanings was left in power and that little risk existed that Hussein's allies would return to power.  But, not only is it questionable that Iraq evidences a strong move toward democracy or that its government will continue to lean toward the West rather than toward neighboring Shia Iran, Afghanistan is not Iraq and Iraq is not Afghanistan.  To equate the two countries is to make another mistake.  It is about time that America stopped lumping all Muslim countries together.  While there are some regional patterns, each of these countries, be they Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Tunisia, has unique qualities that require the United States to approach each of them with distinct policies.

It is time to let Afghanistan resolve its own internal conflicts.  That will mean a continuing loss of human life as well as continued suffering by the Afghan people.  But America's presence no longer makes sense and no longer seems destined to leave things better off within any reasonable period of time, if ever.  While the American national interest includes spreading the principles of human rights, human dignity, democracy and respect for minorities, it does not dictate that America make war or participate in endless war in the name of those principles, especially when such wars often prove fruitless in the spread of those principles, or in greater national security for the United States.

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander - Tolerance Please

I'm struck by the fact that so many Americans are quick to condemn the intrusion of religion into the political structures of various other societies while at the same time they steadfastly seek to impose their religious values onto the political structure of the United States.  No Sharia law, they say.  Down with Muslim fundamentalism, they chant.  Turkey should remain secular, they opine.  The Wahabi movement should not dictate the laws in Saudi Arabia, they cry.  Iran should shed itself of its mullahs, they demand.

Yet, today I heard a flock of Republican candidates for President trying to outdo one another in wanting the American Government to ban all abortions with no exceptions or almost none, to declare that life begins at conception (thereby offering a legal protection to fetuses not historically extended), and probably, had they been asked, to require prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism, and the imposition of all kinds of other religious and sectarian views of theirs on all Americans.

Wake up America.  Don't be so quick to condemn other countries when you're advocating similar religious and sectarian straightjackets in your own.  If you're tolerant then be tolerant.  If you claim to want to limit big Government, then don't turn around and try to use big Government to impose your own narrow religious views on others.

Erdogan vs. Achmadinejad

Have you noticed?

It is increasingly apparent that the leaders of two Muslim non-Arab states are vying for leadership of the Arabs.  Surprising?  Not really.  Audacious?  Yes, that’s more to the point.  These are two very ambitious, opportunistic and, in my view, dangerous individuals.

And who are they?  They are Mahmoud Achmadinejad of Iran and Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.  Interestingly, the states that they lead today dominated what is today the Arab world at various times in the past.

The Persian Empire reached its zenith about 500 BC under Cyrus and encompassed modern day Turkey, and the Middle East stretching across Egypt.  The Ottomon Empire at its apex in the late 19th century encompassed Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa to Morocco, the Balkans and lands almost to Vienna, but never Persia.

Today, Iran and Turkey are large, modernizing societies, each with sophisticated populations approaching 75 million people.  They are both heavily Muslim, the Turks predominantly Sunni and the Iranians predominantly Shia.

It seems clear that Erdogan and Achmadinejad have visions of restoring the historical influence of their respective states over the area that is now the Arab world, not through territorial conquest and subjugation but by making alliances within the Arab world, aiding their respective allies militarily and otherwise, and, not least, demonizing Israel, as a means of extending their influence among Arabs in the street.

Both Turkey and Iran have witnessed a resurgence of Islamic identity over recent decades.  In Iran, a religious theocracy secured power in a revolution against the represssive regime of the Shah.  In Turkey, an Islamic party secured power over secular elements that had been inspired by Ataturk and that had been grouped in the military and bureacuracy.  But Achmadinejad and Erdogan have also harnessed and exploited the forces of old fashioned nationalism in their respective societies in consolidating their power.

Achmadinejad’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bents have long been on display.  Erdogan appears to have decided that to achieve his goal to lead Muslim Arab states in the region he must adopt a very strong anti-Israel posture.  Turkey, long an ally of Israel in the region, has now turned into one of its sharpest critics and potential enemies.  Erdogan’s miscalculations with respect to Syria, where he is slowly coming to oppose Assad, seem to have driven him to take an even more virulent position against Israel.

While Erdogan appears popular among some activist Arabs at the moment, and Achmadinejad scores some points among Arab Shia, it is far from clear that either will achieve his dream.  From news reports, both have strongly authoritarian streaks and, not surprising for any political leader, are far more focused on pursuing their own interests than on permitting real pluralism to flourish in their respective states or in the region.  While various Arab groups, most notably Hezbollah and Hamas, look to Achmadinejad for support, and while Erdogan may inspire Arab activists in their struggles against the entrenched regimes, it is unlikely that the Arab countries will wish to bestow a leadership role upon a non-Arab, particularly a Shi’ite who comes from a neighboring state with a history of hostility vis-a-vis Arabs.

As for the Turkish government’s new-found hostility toward Israel, where that goes remains to be seen.  At one time Turkey’s deep interest in joining the European Union seemed to have a moderating effect on Turkish policies but that is less clear.  Turkey, a NATO member, and its leader may still conclude that acting to mobilize regional hostilities against Israel does not serve its longterm interests.

Tug of War between Saudi Arabia and the United States

Today's Los Angeles Times (June 19, 2011) featured a front page news analysis entitled "U.S., Saudis in Mideast tug of war."  The subtitle on the web edition read: "The quest for greater influence includes a tug of war over Jordan, just one example of the contest between the longtime allies split over the democracy uprisings sweeping the region." See http://tinyurl.com/3jwzrrx

My comments, made in an email to the two Times reporters/commentators, follow:

Dear Paul and Neela,

Thanks much for your well-written lead news analysis, "U.S., Saudis in Mideast tug of war," in today's (June 19, 2011) Los Angeles Times.  The increasing tensions between the United States and Saudi Arabia are a significant development that deserves considerable attention.  I have some observations to make on what you wrote about.

I was struck by your reference to the "autocratic traditions that have kept the House of Saud secure for centuries."  I think you grossly overstate the case and I believe most readers have no idea of the history of the "House of Saud."  Yes, the House of Saud dates back centuries but I think your statement suggests that this tribe has had continuous and secure control over the territories it controls today for centuries and this is decidedly not the case.

Interestingly enough, part of the frost between Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan derives from the historical fact that King Abdullah II of Jordan's great great grandfather, Sherif Hussein of Mecca, expected to rule over much of today's Saudi Arabia following World War I, based on his having sided with the British against the Ottomons, but ultimately lost control to the Saudis driven by their Islamic Wahabi fundamentalism.  Hussein was able to set up two of his sons as rulers in Iraq and TransJordan, both under British control as mandates following WWI.  While Saudis and the Hashemites (a term referring to claims to having descended directly from the Prophet Mohammed) are Sunnis, there are certainly significant differences between their religious practices.

The United States must be mindful of the positions it takes toward the so-called Arab Spring and its manifestations in various Arab states and recognize that both supporting the status quo and supporting the new uprisings are fraught with uncertainty and risk.  Pushing the Saudis toward greater openness in their society will certainly not win Obama any appreciation from the House of Saud and he has tried to avoid doing so at least in public.  But even that kingdom is likely to experience growing internal stress, especially if the ruling family gives no ground.  Note even the mild protest the other day by women for the right to drive automobiles.  These pressures will grow and eventually explode if not addressed sooner.  Hence, for the Saudis to seek to persuade Abdullah II of Jordan to stay the course might be what the Saudis see as in their interest but I don't think staying the course is in the interests of either Abdullah or the United States.

Recent developments in Morocco, another kingdom ruled, I believe, by a Hashemite, King Mohammed VI, not only show the continued growth of internal tensions there but also, hopefully, a wiser monarch who recognizes that giving some ground is the best way to retain legitimacy in this modern age.  To be sure, Morocco is far more developed and urbanized than Saudi Arabia or Jordan and has had an active leftist opposition since before its formal independence from France in the 1950's, in part affected by the civil war next door in Algeria.  Still, the United States should be careful about accommodating the Saudis too much as their model of governing will simply not last, particularly in other monarchies in the region.  But the West's need for oil is real.

Both the Saudis and Jordan were clearly concerned with America's role in bringing the Shi'ites to power in Iraq.  But, interestingly, we're seeing again today some of the consequences of our having accepted if not supported authoritarian regimes led by minority groups in Arab countries for decades.  Hussein in Iraq was one example.  While the Sunnis constitute a considerable minority there, they were a minority, dominating and repressing the Shia and the Kurds.  In Syria, the dominant minority is even a smaller segment of a diverse society, and we are now witnessing what in part appears to be a struggle by Sunnis and others to replace Alawite repression.

To be sure, there are no easy answers.  There are no guarantees that the "Arab Spring" will result in the emergence of democratic regimes.  It isn't even clear where Iraq is headed in that regard.  I lived in Tunisia in the 1960's doing graduate work and I sincerely hope that Tunisia will emerge as a more open, pluralist society with democratic structures than has been the case.  I think it has the best chance.  The jury is out on Egypt and, as I said, Iraq.  And more "democratic" regimes in those latter countries may actually lead to more friction, not only with Israel but within the region as a whole, than has been the case in recent decades.

Thanks again for your analysis.  Keep them coming!

Regards,

Donald

Anthony Weiner and Rule 22

I still remember “the rule” from my college days at Brandeis University.  It was known as Rule 22, and went as follows.

“Rule 22:

This rule is known to all as “Rule 22” from its place in a former list of University regulations.

It means that Brandeis students should never display themselves in an unfavorable light either on or off campus, by excessive drinking, public display of affection, brawling, improper language, etc.  In short, be discreet!

All students are expected to conduct themselves at all times, both on and off campus, in an orderly manner.  Disorderly and improper conduct may lead to expulsion or other penalties.”

From brandeis student handbook 1962-1963, pg. 103.

Yes, even in 1962 we students complained about Rule 22.  Remember, back then we were reading George Orwell’s 1984 and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.  Rule 22 seemingly gave those hated administrators unregulated power to punish us.  And for what?  Well, it wasn’t very clear.  Public displays of affection?  Oh my Lord!  Any “indiscretion?”  Ridiculous!

But at the end of the day, we all knew that “the rule” as applied meant BE DISCREET.  In actuality, it didn’t mean we couldn’t indulge.  It meant we should do so in private.  I’m not aware that the University ever enforced Rule 22 against private behavior that was not unlawful.  Nor, by the way, am I aware that anyone was ever sanctioned under Rule 22 for public displays of affection, in the form of hand holding, kissing and the like (remember, this was the late 1950’s into the early 1960’s)!

The reason I called for Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign shortly after he admitted his “indiscretions” is because he has so dramatically and profoundly violated Rule 22.  It appears, as Weiner has stated, that he never met the women who were the objects of his tweets, messages, emails and photos, and never engaged in sex, as that term is typically understood, with any of them.  In that sense, his so-called by some “sexless sex scandal” is different and perhaps less abhorrent than others’ sex scandals, including those of Bill Clinton, and various ministers, Senators and Representatives.  To be sure, in some cases these others have resigned, although obviously not all have done so.

Had word leaked out that Weiner had indulged in the activities that have been reported but without the subsequent release of revealing photos, tweets or emails, that might have been a different story, perhaps not in moral terms but in its impact and the political fallout.  At least it likely would have made some difference to me.

I opposed Clinton’s impeachment (let alone conviction).  But, had there been Blackberry photos of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky doing what they were apparently doing (recall, according to them it wasn’t quite sex!), I suspect Clinton would have resigned or been convicted in the impeachment trial.  And I would likely have approved of his removal.  The release of photos would not have changed Clinton’s conduct but, at least for me, the impact would have undermined my ability to view and respect him as my President.

Am I preaching a double standard --  almost anything goes in private but if it is done in public then consequences flow?  No.  Obviously criminal or other extreme misconduct, whether conducted in public or in private, is wrong and public figures who transgress should pay the consequences.  But what I am saying is that, when it comes to salacious but not unlawful behavior indulged in by public figures, I believe Rule 22 should apply.

On Obama's Middle East Address re Israel's Borders

Peter Nicholas wrote an article in the May 22, 2011 Los Angeles Times, "GOP sees an opening on Israel policy."  He noted that Obama's comments in his Middle East policy address last week calling for a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians based partly on boundaries in place before Israel's territorial gains in the 1967 war were surely going to be used against him by Republicans but not so much to peel Jewish voters from supporting Obama as to appeal to pro-Israel conservative Republicans in Republican primaries.  I agree with Peter's observations and offer some of my own on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute below in a copy of an email I wrote to him.

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your well written article in today's (May 22, 2011) Los Angeles Times, "GOP sees an opening on Israel policy."  I think you nailed it.

I am a 68 year old Jewish American who remains a liberal Democrat, albeit not as liberal as I was decades ago, and a supporter of President Obama.  I also lived in Tunisia in the late 1960's for a little less than two years while doing graduate work at Princeton University.

As usual, I find the Republicans hypocritical on their stance toward Obama's comments about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations being based on the pre-1967 borders.  And I wish journalists and other commentators took a broader and more historical view of things.  In my view, George H. W. Bush had no love of Israel or Jews, not that he was anti-Semitic.  He was what I'd call an old line Republican far more focused on oil and preserving America's interests in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia than in supporting Israel.  His son, George W. Bush, brought a more Christian evangelical perspective than his father to the Presidency and that contributed in part to his strong support of almost anything the Israeli government chose to do.  As well, George W. found the mantra of freedom and democracy overpowering, however inapplicable they were in many instances, and saw the world in black and white.  In that division, Israel had to be on the 'white' side.  But, as I recall, it was George W. who made explicit America's commitment to a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, not something that preceding U.S. Presidents had trumpeted anywhere near as loudly.  He was also obviously concerned about America's position in the Gulf but he nonetheless remained a very strong supporter of Israel.

Many American Jews are not in love with Israeli policy that continues to maintain settlements throughout the West Bank.  Many of us are far more critical of the Israeli government than evangelical Christians whose support is not rooted in any affection toward Jews but, rather, in their view of Biblical prophesy and the like.  Such friends can prove quite unreliable but Israeli governments have welcomed such support and I certainly do not reject it.  I just find it interesting and striking that Obama's statements about pre-1967 borders are more likely to give Republicans an election issue among Christians than among Jews, the central thesis of your article.  

I find it sad as well as it misses the larger issue that, at least in my view of things, time is not on Israel's side.  The demographics show far higher birth rates among Arabs than Jews, whether within Israel proper or within the region.  As well, over time Arab military strength has increased and Arab militias, most notably Hezbollah, have shown that they can develop discipline and savvy in their activities both within neighboring Arab countries and against Israel.  While Israel cannot and should not make concessions that will ultimately prove more costly than remaining on hostile relations with the Palestinians and other Arabs, there has to be more creative thinking and risk taking.  It is difficult to say exactly where the winds are blowing, but the so-called Arab Spring has given rise to voices of a younger generation of Arabs and many of them, filled with idealistic imagery and the like, are likely to be more rather than less hostile to Israel.  Then, too, the current turn away from more secular regimes to those with more of an Islamic basis, whether in Turkey (albeit not an Arab country), among Palestinians in the form of Hamas, or elsewhere, does not augur well for Israel.

As you noted in your article, many American Jews, myself included, do not believe that Obama is unfriendly toward Israel or wishes to undermine Israel's security in order to win support among Arabs.  I believe that he is trying to move the parties toward renewed negotiations, which may or may not happen regardless of what he does.  That the Palestinian Authority, or Fatah or whatever name its given, has agreed to some ill-defined coalition with Hamas, may doom negotiations.  Then, again, this may (and I stress may) be the beginning of some movement on the part of Hamas that the United States and Israel should be attentive to and seek to encourage.  There was a time when Arafat and the PLO were intransigent opponents of Israel's right to exist.  Over time Arafat moved politically.  While many question whether he truly changed his deepest feelings, I think it is fair to say that he and his organization did move toward moderation, as reflected in Abbas' positions on issues today.  Israel, with encouragement and support from the United States, must be willing to move as well.  While some might say that the abandonment by some right wing Israelis of a dream of Israel as encompassing Judea and Samaria constitutes a concession, I respectfully do not agree.  Israel needs to make concessions regarding the abandonment of its settlements and move toward further accommodations.  Perhaps the pre-1967 borders are indefensible.  Then that has to be negotiated.  But let's not fault President Obama for trying to get things moving by not entirely embracing one side's position or the other and by making explicit what seemingly has been American policy on the subject for decades.

Thanks again for your article.  Keep up the good work.

Donald