Diana Buttu, "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered": A Call to Rehabilitate Hamas

Tweet

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

- Winston Churchill

The New York Times today published an op-ed entitled "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered" by Diana Buttu, who asserted in a 2012 Harvard lecture that Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians "don't have explosive heads" (yeah, right). She also claimed at that same lecture that "between the period of 1997 until the year 2000, there wasn't a single Israeli who died of a suicide bombing inside Israel," yet, when confronted with the 1997 Café Apropo bombing, Butto resorted to another lie: "All of the people you are talking about were settlers." In fact, one of the women was from Tel Aviv, one from Herzliya, and one from Neve Monosson. (To learn more about Butto's prevarication at the Harvard lecture, have a gander at CAMERA's article "Diana Buttu is at it Again, Harvard Edition.") But back now to Butto's op-ed, which is no less "imaginative" than her Harvard talk. Butto begins by questioning "whether the Palestinian Authority plays any positive role or is simply a tool of control for Israel and the international community," and declares that "it’s time for the authority to go." Buttu continues:

"[Palestinian Authority] security forces do not provide a normal police service to Palestinians, but instead aid the Israeli Army in maintaining the occupation and Israel’s ever-expanding settlements.

. . . .

The raison d’être of the Palestinian Authority today is not to liberate Palestine; it is to keep Palestinians silent and quash dissent while Israel steals land, demolishes Palestinian homes, and builds and expands settlements."

Ah yes, the "ever-expanding" settlements. However, as observed in a December 29, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started" (my emphasis in red):

"In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Similarly, Rick Richman wrote in a December 28, 2016 Commentary article entitled "It’s Not the Settlements, Stupid":

"The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs 'everyone knows' Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years."

Buttu also fails to take into account what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. Additionally, she does not make mention of past Israeli evacuations of Sinai and Gaza, other than to assert that Israel maintains "overall control" of the Gaza Strip. Needless to say, Buttu avoids mention of Israel's evacuation of Gaza in 2005 and fails to observe that Gaza shares a border with Egypt.

And then there is the "small matter" of Hamas. Buttu writes:

"To remove this noose that has been choking Palestinians, the authority must be replaced with the sort of community-based decision making that predated the body’s establishment. And we must reform our main political body, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Abbas also heads, to make it more representative of the Palestinian people and their political parties, including Hamas. Hamas has long indicated that it wants to be part of the P.L.O., and its revised charter, recently released in Doha, Qatar, affirms this aspiration."

Ah yes, the "new" Hamas, whose 2017 charter reads in relevant part:

14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.

15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.

. . . .

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Rehabilitate Hamas, which earlier this week executed three men accused of killing one of its senior commanders - the executions were partially streamed live via Facebook? I don't think so.

Tom Hamburger, "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won": No Mention of Brookings, Indyk, Qatar and Hamas

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won," Tom Hamburger writes:

"The hero of the country’s liberal movement launched a surprise attack Tuesday against Washington’s most revered Democratic-leaning think tanks — and drew blood.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, stepping up her crusade against the power of wealthy interests, accused a Brookings Institution scholar of writing a research paper to benefit his corporate patrons.

Warren’s charge prompted a swift response, with Brookings seeking and receiving the resignation of the economist, Robert Litan, whose report criticized a Warren-backed consumer protection rule targeting the financial services industry."

A pity that Warren was not equally incensed by Qatar's $14.8 million donation to Brookings in 2014, which goes unmentioned by Hamburger. As was reported by The Algemeiner in a September 7, 2014 article entitled "Revealed: Hamas-Backing Qatar, Also Funding Brookings Institute, Home of Former U.S. MidEast Envoy Indyk":

"Questions are emerging over possible conflicts-of-interest after The New York Times highlighted Qatari funding for U.S. think tanks, including the Brookings Institute, employer of former U.S. envoy Martin Indyk, who was directly involved in recent negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

'Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world,' according to The Times.

The report comes just weeks after Israel vociferously voiced objection to Qatar’s funding of its major adversary, terror group Hamas."

And as Lee Smith is quoted in an October 2, 2014 Tablet article entitled "Brookings Responds to Tablet Piece on Qatar Funding":

"The fact that Ambassador Indyk’s employer raised $14.8 million from the same Arab regime that funds Hamas, a mortal enemy of the two parties—Israel and the PA—whose negotiations he was to mediate, should have been enough to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that Dr. Indyk would be, at the least, a questionable choice for the job. This judgment might have been further supported by Mr. Indyk’s strange demeanor in casting Israel, both anonymously in news articles and publicly in hotel bars, as solely responsible for the failure of peace talks.

Why Ambassador Indyk veered so widely from the normal practices of statesmanship is unclear. Perhaps he thought his own behavior to be above reproach, even when others might say it violates commonly accepted norms, and creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest so glaring that it would be legible to a nine-year-old. Or perhaps one of the most influential think tanks taking money from one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism was taken as a sign that the rules of the Washington DC foreign policy influence-peddling game have changed, and become even more gross and venal?"

You will recall that Obama and Kerry sought to impose Qatari and Turkish mediation upon Israel during its conflict with Hamas during the summer of 2014. As reported in a July 30, 2014 Hudson Institute article entitled "John Kerry Has Hamas’ Back: So, Who Has Israel’s?" by Lee Smith:

"'Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas,' Netanyahu told President Obama, according to an Israeli transcript of a recording of the phone call. (A transcript the White House and prime minister’s office now claim is false.) 'It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.' To which Obama snidely responded: 'I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.' When Netanyahu objected to Obama’s high-school mean-girl treatment—'I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks'—the president of the United States simply ignored him: 'The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.'"

Personally, I "believe" that the transcript accurately reflected the content of the conversation, although it involved translation back and forth between English and Hebrew.

Richard Kemp, "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous": Exposing the Bias of Mary McGowan Davis and the Times Editorial Board

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous," Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, exposes the United Nations Human Rights Council report on last summer’s conflict in Gaza for what it is: tendentious trash commissioned to vilify Israel. Colonel Kemp writes (my emphasis in blue):

"The report is characterized by a lack of understanding of warfare. That is hardly surprising. Judge [Mary McGowan] Davis admitted, when I testified before her in February, that the commission, though investigating a war, had no military expertise. Perhaps that is why no attempt has been made to judge Israeli military operations against the practices of other armies. Without such international benchmarks, the report’s findings are meaningless.

The commission could have listened to Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last November that the I.D.F. [Israel Defense Forces] had taken extraordinary measures to try to limit civilian casualties. Or to a group of 11 senior military officers from seven nations, including the United States, Germany, Spain and Australia, who also investigated the Gaza conflict recently. I was a member of that group, and our report, made available to Judge Davis, said: 'None of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the I.D.F. last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population.'

The report acknowledges that Israel took steps to warn of imminent attacks but suggests more should have been done to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it offers no opinion about what additional measures Israel could have taken. It even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices — the 'knock on the roof' — as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof-knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives.

Judge Davis suggests that the I.D.F.’s use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime and recommends further international legal restrictions on their use. Yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies."

Now compare Colonel Kemp's conclusions with those of The New York Times in a June 23 editorial entitled "War Crimes and the Gaza War" (my emphasis in red):

"The report is expected to serve as the basis for a fuller investigation into possible war crimes by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. It is unrealistic to expect Hamas, which the United States and other countries consider a terrorist group, to comply with international law or police itself. But Israel has a duty, and should have the desire, to adjust its military policies to avoid civilian casualties and hold those who failed to do so accountable."

Yes, the New York Times is every bit as biased and ignorant as the panel responsible for preparing the United Nations Gaza report. Needless to say, the Times failed to mention how the UNHRC, ever since it came into being, has consistently singled out Israel for censure. As observed by UN Watch:

"In the nine years of its existence, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined, revealed UN Watch today, ahead of a new report to be released by the Geneva-based NGO that documents endemic selectivity and politicization at the world body.

The outcome resolution for the latest Gaza report, to be introduced at the UNHRC this week by the Palestinians together with the Arab and Islamic states, will condemn Israel exclusively, and will mark the 62nd resolution targeting Israel since the new and improved Council was created in 2006 -- while the total of all other UNHRC condemnatory resolutions for the rest of the world amounts to 55, with most of the worst violators given a free pass, if not a seat on the council itself."

One can only wonder why the Times allowed Colonel Kemp to rebut its vacuous editorial.

The Washington Post, "Israeli leaders don’t meet with Jimmy Carter during Middle East visit": No Mention of What Carter Said About Khaled Mashaal

In a Washington Post article entitled "Israeli leaders don’t meet with Jimmy Carter during Middle East visit," William Booth writes:

"In East Jerusalem on Saturday, Carter, 90, said that he and his traveling companion, former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, did not ask for a meeting with Netanyahu or his cabinet because they assumed they would be rebuffed as past requests were.

'It would be a waste of time to ask,' Carter said.


. . . .

Carter advocates negotiations with Hamas, a group that the United States and Israel consider a terror organization."

But now have a look at an article entitled "Carter says Hamas leader committed to peace, Netanyahu not" in today's Times of Israel, which reports:

"Carter, who cancelled a planned visit to Gaza on this trip, said Saturday he 'deplored' criminal acts by members of Hamas, but said he was looking to support moderate members of the group, which he said wasn’t a terrorist organization.

'I don’t believe that he’s a terrorist. He’s strongly in favor of the peace process,' Carter said of Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal."

Mashaal, who was responsible for launching 4,000 rockets at Israeli towns and cities during 2014 is not a terrorist and strongly favors the peace process? Yeah, right.

But more to the point, why does The Washington Post make reference to Carter's contempt for Netanyahu, but fail to report Carter's declaration regarding Mashaal in the above-mentioned article? Has this no relevance to the refusal of Israeli leaders to meet with Jimmy?

Let's see what the editors of WaPo have to say in this regard.

Jeffrey Goldberg, "Israel's Dangerous Predicament": Obama the Punisher

In an Atlantic article entitled "Israel's Dangerous Predicament," Jeffrey Goldberg describes Obama's threats to abandon Israel to its fate at the UN after Netanyahu had the gall to emerge victorious in Israel's parliamentary elections on Tuesday. Goldberg writes:

"It is up to Netanyahu, in the coming weeks, to show he is actually committed to preserving the possibility of a two-state solution. I would like it, of course, if the White House would cease to dump on Israel for a day or two—it would be nice if it would exhibit the same restraint it shows when talking about the actions of the Iranian regime, for instance—but, nevertheless, this is a problem largely created by Netanyahu's deep cynicism, and cast-iron obstinacy.

If the Security Council recognizes Palestine as an independent state, Netanyahu will have no time at all to get his house in order before Israel becomes a true pariah. I've been arguing for years that Netanyahu has had two choices: Arrange for the birth of a Palestinian state in an orderly, secure way, over a period of several years, or do nothing over a period of several years, and then face a sudden crisis in which Israel loses its ability to manage the situation."

Fascinating. But if the Security Council recognizes Palestine as an independent state, who is in charge? Fatah, which governs the West Bank, and which is headed by Mahmoud Abbas, now in the eleventh year of his four-year term as President of the Palestinian Authority? In 2008, Abbas rejected Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions. No need, of course, for Obama to force Abbas back to the negotiating table. It's all Netanyahu's fault.

Or maybe Hamas, which governs Gaza, will be in charge of the new state. The charter of Hamas, which has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. They will be given sway over the nascent state of Palestine? Good luck!

And just maybe if the State of Palestine is recognized by the UN Security Council, we will see another Fatah-Hamas civil war, which, the last time around, lasted from January 2006 to May 2007 and cost the lives of 600 Palestinians. After all, why should Palestine be spared the chaos of Syria and Iraq?

Go for it, Obama! Abandon Israel at the UN! Maybe you can't stand up to Putin or Khamenei, but here's your chance to go toe to toe with an ally and prove you're a man!

Fareed Zakaria, "Israel’s threat from within": Killing Israel Softly?

Do you recall Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's November 8, 2014  tweet calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Well, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel’s threat from within," Obama acolyte Fareed Zakaria would have us know that Iran seeks to destroy Israel, but not by means of war. Zakaria writes:

"Let me be clear. Iran’s supreme leader is a radical, anti-Western ideologue whose Twitter feed is filled with hate and hostility — and he means Israel only harm. But he is also a canny politician who has survived and thrived in Iran’s complex political system. What is the message he is sending?

Khamenei speaks often about the destruction of Israel. But he rejects doing so by means of a war. 'We recommend neither a classical war by the army of Muslim countries nor to throw migrated Jews at sea.' (It’s good to know that he is against drowning Jews en masse!) Akbar Ganji, Iran’s best-known dissident, who was jailed for criticizing Khamenei, argues that the supreme leader has been consistent in this position for years — no war, certainly not by Iran."

"No war, certainly not by Iran"? Fascinating. Consider how Hassan Nasrallah, who heads Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, declared in 2002: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Okay, that statement was made more than a decade ago, but in the meantime, Iran has supplied Hezbollah with some 70,000 missiles, some of which are capable of striking the entirety of Israel.

Consider also how, two months ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Mohammad Ali Allah-Dadi, accompanied by senior Hezbollah operatives, was killed by an Israeli strike while on a "reconnaissance" tour in the Golan Heights opposite the Israeli border. The Iranian general wasn't there on a mission to pick wild flowers.

Turning to Gaza, the covenant of Hamas, which is armed by Iran, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. As reported in an August 5, 2014 International Business Times article entitled "Gaza Strip Crisis: Iran Admits Supplying Missile Technology to Hamas" by Vasudevan Sridharan:

"A top Iranian military official has admitted that Tehran supplied military technology to the Palestine-based militant group Hamas in its battle against Israel.

'Palestinian resistance missiles are the blessings of Iran's transfer of technology. We need to transfer defensive and military technology to Palestinians so that they can build weapons under the blockade and defend themselves,' Mohsen Rezaei, a senior official at the Expediency Discernment Council, told the state-run Arabic channel Al-Alam."

Iran plans to "annihilate" Israel by peaceful means? Only Barack Obama could possibly believe Zakaria's rubbish.

* * * *

In other news, we now know that US Secretary of State is "deeply disturbed" by reports that Assad attacked the Syrian town of Sarmin with chlorine. Kerry declared, "While we cannot yet confirm details, if true, this would be only the latest tragic example of the Assad regime's atrocities against the Syrian people, which the entire international community must condemn."

Ah yes, the international community, including Khamenei and Putin, should "condemn" the attack. That should send shudders up Assad's spine.

But whereas Kerry is "disturbed" by this latest use of chemical weapons by Assad, Obama plans to punish Netanyahu for emerging victorious in Israel's parliamentary elections by withholding support for Israel at the UN.

Go figure.

Nicholas Kristof, "Winds of War in Gaza": Selective Reporting as Usual

Nicholas Kristof is back to his old tricks. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Winds of War in Gaza," Kristof writes (my emphasis in red):

"The suffering [in Gaza] has multiple causes. Israel sustains a siege that amounts to economic warfare on an entire population. Hamas provokes Israel, squanders resources and is brutal and oppressive in its own right. Egypt has closed smuggling tunnels that used to relieve the stranglehold, and it mostly keeps its border with Gaza closed. The 1.8 million Gazans are on their own, and one step forward should be international pressure on Israel and Egypt to ease the blockade."

This is the only mention of "tunnels" in Kristof's opinion piece. Needless to say, Kristof fails to point out that Hamas used much of the cement that was imported from Israel in recent years to build a vast network of tunnels extending into Israel, which was used for terrorist infiltration during the last war.

Ease the blockade? Allow more cement and steel into Gaza to build new tunnels and thousands of more rockets to attack Israeli civilians? Take a hike, Nick!

Fethullah Gulen, "Turkey's Eroding Democracy": No Mention That Turkey Is Now Hosting Hamas

Given that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has been declared by Obama, a foreign affairs puddinghead, to be one of his best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html), the content of today's guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Turkey’s Eroding Democracy" by Fethullah Gulen, should come as no surprise. Mr. Fethullah states:

"It is deeply disappointing to see what has become of Turkey in the last few years. Not long ago, it was the envy of Muslim-majority countries: a viable candidate for the European Union on its path to becoming a functioning democracy that upholds universal human rights, gender equality, the rule of law and the rights of Kurdish and non-Muslim citizens. This historic opportunity now appears to have been squandered as Turkey’s ruling party, known as the A.K.P., reverses that progress and clamps down on civil society, media, the judiciary and free enterprise.

. . . .

Turkey has now reached a point where democracy and human rights have almost been shelved."

Mr. Fethulla forgets to mention that Turkey now serves as a headquarters for Hamas.

Elsewhere in the news today, we are told that Zacaria Moussaoui is claiming that members of the Saudi royal family supported al-Qaeda. But why should that have prevented Obama from visiting Saudi Arabia last week, while avoiding Israel, which is just a hop, skip and a jump away from Riyadh?

New York Times Editorial, "A British Message to Israel ":

In an editorial entitled "A British Message to Israel," The New York Times declares:

"Israel and the United States have dismissed Monday’s vote in the House of Commons in Britain that endorsed diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state as a symbolic gesture that won’t change British policy.

. . . .

Israel and its allies should not ignore the message. The vote is one more sign of the frustration many people in Europe feel about the failure to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement despite years of promises."

The Times doesn't bother to consider that it is difficult to reach a peace agreement with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and rejects negotiation with Israel. It is also difficult to reach a peace agreement with Fatah, whose chairman, Abbas, demands that Palestine be free of "Israelis", but refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel should listen to Europe's message? This is the same Europe that did nothing some 70 years ago when Hitler murdered some six million Jews, i.e. two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population.

More specifically, Israel should not ignore Monday's vote in the House of Commons? Oh really? Consider, how following an investigation by Britain's Crown Prosecution Service of an August speech by MP George Galloway, declaring his district, Bradford, an "Israel Free Zone," the CPS last night concluded:

"Given the context and setting in which the speech was made, including its overall content and the audience discussion which followed, we have determined that the speech did not indicate a desire to encourage others to hate a racial group.

“There is also insufficient evidence to show, in all the circumstances of this case, that it was likely that people would have been motivated to hate people of Israeli origin as a result."

Galloway's use of "Israel Free Zone" had no connection to the Nazi term "Judenfrei"? Fascinating.

What about anti-Semitism in the UK? In July 2014, it was at record levels. In August, a London branch of the Sainsbury supermarket chain removed all kosher food from its shelves for fear that the store would be attacked.

Consider also how in August of this year, as reported by Reuters in an article entitled "UK says to suspend some Israel arms exports if Gaza truce fails":

"Britain said on Tuesday it would suspend 12 licences to export military items to Israel, including tank, aircraft and radar parts, if hostilities with Hamas in Gaza resumed, citing concerns the exports may be used to breach international laws.

Britain said last week it was reviewing all arms export licences to Israel after fierce fighting which has resulted in heavy civilian casualties in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza.

That review concluded on Tuesday that 12 licences would be temporarily suspended pending further investigation if the current truce breaks down and heavy fighting resumes."

Of course, the UK didn't care that Hamas was responsible for repeatedly violating the ceasefires. Thousands of rockets fired at Israeli population centers? Also of no consequence.

The reality is that anti-Semitism has never lost its hold over Europe, and for Israel to do Europe's bidding is no less than a call for Jewish suicide.

Israel's Next War: Just Around the Corner

All is quiet on the border with Gaza. Israel's recent war with Hamas and Islamic Jihad set the economy of Gaza back by a decade, and it will be quite some time before these two terror organizations dare send another rocket into Israel.

On the other hand, the quiet on Israel's northern border with Lebanon is deceptive. Shiite Hezbollah refused to intervene on behalf of Sunni Hamas's behalf, given the brutal fighting in Syria between these two sects of Islam. (Hamas, of course, moved its headquarters from Damascus to Qatar owing to this tension.) However, the Israeli military is now busy preparing for a Hezbollah attack across the Lebanese border into northern Israel. As reported by Marissa Newman in a Times of Israel article entitled "Hezbollah could advance into Israel in next war, official warns":

"A senior IDF official warned Sunday that while Hezbollah has no immediate plan to attack Israel, a minor security incident could erupt into a full-fledged war on Israel’s northern front during which the terror organization would likely try to capture swaths of the Galilee.

. . . .

According to the assessment, Hezbollah could capture the Rosh Hanikra area, including a small Israeli town near the border with Lebanon, for several hours, if Israel does not strike the group preemptively.

He said the army was working on a plan to evacuate the northern residents if need be, but warned there would be casualties on the Israeli side."

Any such war will necessarily involve a deep ground penetration by Israel into Lebanon in order to stanch the firing of missiles at Israeli civilian targets. Hezbollah has received from Iran and Syria more than 50,000 missiles, which can hit anywhere in Israel.

Israeli civilian casualties? There will be many, unless Israel launches a preemptive attack.

Israel can only hope that when this happens (not if it happens), there will be a new US president, who will not seek to cut off arms deliveries in the middle of the fighting.

Roger Cohen, "A War of Choice in Gaza": A 21st Century Blood Libel

Warning! Reading Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen's latest New York Times op-ed, "A War of Choice in Gaza," could induce nausea and vomiting. But before analyzing the content of Cohen's "opinion piece," it is first necessary to recount a few facts.

In an August 22nd Yahoo! News article entitled "Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL," Khaled Mashaal acknowledged that Hamas was responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers, which led up to the current Gaza conflict:

"Meshaal acknowledged for the first time that Hamas members — but not the group's political leadership — were behind the slaying of three Israeli settlers on the West Bank in June. But he defended the murders as a legitimate action against Israeli 'illegal occupation.'"

But notwithstanding Mashaal's attempt to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders, Israel's left wing Haaretz newspaper reported on August 21 in an article entitled "Hamas claims responsibility for three Israeli teens' kidnapping and murder" by Jack Khoury:

"A senior Hamas official boasted during a conference in Istanbul on Wednesday that the group's military wing was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June.

A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16."

A few days ago, in an article entitled "Israel indicts mastermind behind West Bank kidnapping" by Gili Cohen, we were informed:

"Hussam Qawasmeh, who allegedly headed the terror cell that kidnapped and murdered three Jewish teenagers in Gush Etzion in June, was charged in Ofer military court with organizing and funding the attack.

. . . .

During his interrogation, the Shin Bet Security Service says, Hussam said he had hinted to his brother that he needed funds for a military operation, and eventually he received 220,000 shekels. A female courier made three deliveries of 50,000 shekels each to Hussam’s mother’s home, the Shin Bet said, while the other 70,000 shekels were transferred to Hussam via an offsetting transaction.

. . . .

With regard to whether this attack was overseen in Gaza or by senior Hamas officials, [a Shin Bet] agent said the Shin Bet doesn’t think the kidnapping was a directive from above, though the money probably came from there, 'and even that was not necessarily for a kidnapping but for military activity.' The Shin Bet agent thought the attack was the failed attempt by a local Hamas cell in Hebron that to kidnap someone to use as a bargaining chip."

Or stated otherwise, the murders of the three Israeli boys by a Hamas cell in Hebron were funded by Hamas and subsequently justified by its leadership. Moreover, a senior Hamas official, operating out of Turkey, is crediting the terror organization's military wing with the killings.

Now back to Cohen's "opinion piece." Writing from London about the recent war between Hamas and Israel, Cohen would have us know:

"Much mystery continues to shroud its genesis, the abduction on June 12 of three Israeli youths near Hebron and their murder, now attributed to a local Palestinian clan including Hamas operatives who acted without the knowledge or direction of the Hamas leadership. (There has been no major investigative piece in the American press on the incident, a troubling omission.)

But enough detail has emerged to make clear that Netanyahu leapt on 'unequivocal proof' of Hamas responsibility (still unproduced) for political ends.

. . . .

For more than two weeks after the abduction, persuasive evidence that the teenagers were dead was kept from the Israeli public.

. . . .

The effect of this concealment, whatever its justification, was to whip up an Israeli frenzy."

As already stated, even if Hamas's leadership in Gaza did not direct the operation, it was undertaken by a Hamas cell, funded by Hamas and justified by Hamas's most senior leadership. Cohen prefers to ignore this information.

And then there is also the small matter of Hamas's charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis). But why should Cohen mention the charter, if the objective of his "opinion piece" is to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders?

Moreover, unbeknownst to Cohen, many in Israel presumed that the three Israeli teenagers had been murdered when there was no request for a release of Hamas prisoners in exchange for the boys. On the other hand, it was impossible for the Israeli government to declare the boys dead without first discovering the bodies.

Continuous rocket fire from Gaza aimed at southern Israeli towns and cities throughout 2013 and 2014? Also ignored by Cohen, intent upon bolstering his premise that Israel could have avoided the last round of fighting.

Cohen concludes his opinion piece with an attack, having nothing whatsoever to do with the murders, on AIPAC:

"Two other recent pieces are essential reading in the aftermath of the fighting. The first is Connie Bruck’s 'Friends of Israel' in The New Yorker, an examination of the political sway of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby group. In it, she quotes Brian Baird, a former Democratic congressman, getting to the nub: 'The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if Aipac is on your side, you can do that.' She also quotes John Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: 'We all took an oath of office. And Aipac, in many instances, is asking us to ignore it.'"

Ah yes, AIPAC money is being used to manipulate the United States government. Remind you of something?

Using figures provided by Maplight for 2010, I took the total amount of "pro-Israel" contributions to House of Representatives recipients and divided this number by the total number of recipients. The average contribution: $16,313. Can this amount buy even a single 30-second television advertisement, let alone win an election? Oh, those scheming nefarious Jews!

Although the Middle East has descended into savagery and chaos (What ever happened to the ebullient Roger Cohen who glorified the "Arab Spring" from Cairo in 2011 after gleefully promoting reconciliation with Iran in 2009?), how dare anyone believe that Israel's security should be a US priority!

Yes, Cohen is sickening.

[In his "opinion piece," Cohen declares: "More than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians and many of them children, have been killed." Indeed, this is what is being claimed by the UN, based upon numbers provided to the UN by Hamas. However, Cohen does not mention that adult militants and gun-toting teenagers were counted by Hamas as dead "children." Cohen also fails to observe that many civilians died as the result of errant Hamas rocket fire. In addition, Cohen does not state whether his number includes the 120 Gaza residents who, according to Palestinian Authority President Abbas, were executed by Hamas.]

Ron Prosor, "Club Med for Terrorists": What About the US Arms Sale to Qatar Totaling $11 Billion?

Earlier this month, I submitted an opinion piece to The Washington Post entitled "Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco." I observed Qatar's links to radical Islamic organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State, alternatively known as ISIL or ISIS. In addition, I noted the Obama administration's demand that Israel accept Qatari mediation of the Gaza conflict, coming on the heels of the July sale by the US of $11 billion of arms (including 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Qatar.

What use does a nation the size of Connecticut with a population of 2 million have for so many anti-tank missiles? None. You know as well as I do where these missiles will be headed.

Last Wednesday, the same day on which I was notified by WaPo that they were not interested in my opinion piece, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. Of course, Merkel is unwilling to take a position with respect to these allegations directed against the world's richest country per capita.

Today, in a guest opinion piece entitled "Club Med for Terrorists," Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, asks that the world tell Qatar to stop financing Hamas. Prosor writes:

"In recent years, the sheikhs of Doha, Qatar’s capital, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza. Every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that read 'Made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar.'

. . . .

[Qatar] harbors leading Islamist radicals like the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a religious fatwa endorsing suicide attacks, and the Doha-based history professor Abdul Rahman Omeir al-Naimi, whom the United States Department of Treasury has named as a 'terrorist financier' for Al Qaeda. Qatar also funds a life of luxury for Khaled Meshal, the fugitive leader of Hamas."

No mention, however, by Prosor of the July sale by the United States of $11 billion of advanced armaments to Qatar. Why no mention? Perhaps given Israel's current difficult relationship with the Obama administration, he didn't wish to pour fuel on the fire.

Me? I don't need to be diplomatic. The sale of these weapons to Qatar by the Obama administration is nothing less than an obscenity.

Maureen Dowd, "The Golf Address": Foley and Ferguson, Consecutive Double Bogeys

Bravo, Maureen.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Golf Address," a parody on Lincoln's Gettysberg Address, Dowd takes Obama to task for spending so much time on the Martha's Vineyard links, at a time when the country and the world are awash in crisis. Dowd begins:

"FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL."

Cute. Or not so cute for anyone who has seen the picture of James Foley's decapitated body.

But let's be honest: Is there anyone naive enough to believe that Obama really gives a damn about Foley? Obama suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. He doesn't care about the feelings of others.

And even if he had cut his vacation short for the sake of optics, what would it have accomplished? If he had spent a day "brainstorming" with Valerie "the Night Stalker" Jarrett,  John "I didn't inject Botox" Kerry, and Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel, might this foursome have emerged with a game plan? Not a chance.

But as long as we're on the subject on ISIL, you should be asking yourself how it came to pass that America's president recently approved an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar, the world's premier financier of terror, who make the Saudis appear like choirboys. The US will soon be supplying Qatar with 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which, I promise you, will soon find their way into the hands of ISIL, the al-Nusra Front, and Hamas.

Am I just growing grouchy with age, or has the world truly taken a turn for the worse?

US State Department Spokesdimwit Marie Harf: ISIS and Hamas "Quite Different in Some Ways"

When asked about Netanyahu's comparison of ISIS and Hamas on Wednesday, US State Department spokesdimwit spokesperson Marie Harf responded:

"They’re both foreign terrorist organizations designated under United States law, but I’m not going to do any more comparison of them. Obviously, they’re quite different in some ways."

Harf's circumlocutions remind me of the painfully awful book launch speech scene from Bridget Jones's Diary (2001).

Well, following the execution by Hamas on Friday of 18 alleged "collaborators," even the Palestian Authority president's secretary-general, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, is claiming that these executions are akin to those being perpertrated by the Islamic State.

Perhaps someone would care to ask Harf again for her "expert" opinion.

Khaled Mashaal Acknowledges Hamas Killed 3 Israeli Teenagers: Do Andrew Sullivan, Katie Zavadski and Sheera Frenkel Care to Comment?

In a Yahoo! News article entitled "Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL," Khaled Mashaal acknowledges that Hamas was responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers, which led up to the current Gaza conflict:

"Meshaal acknowledged for the first time that Hamas members — but not the group's political leadership — were behind the slaying of three Israeli settlers on the West Bank in June. But he defended the murders as a legitimate action against Israeli 'illegal occupation.'"

But notwithstanding Mashaal's attempt to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders, Haaretz reported two days ago in an article entitled "Hamas claims responsibility for three Israeli teens' kidnapping and murder":

"A senior Hamas official boasted during a conference in Istanbul on Wednesday that the group's military wing was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June.

A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16."

You will recall that Katie Zavadski in a New York Magazine article entitled "It Turns Out Hamas May Not Have Kidnapped and Killed the 3 Israeli Teens After All [Updated]" wrote:

"BuzzFeed reporter Sheera Frenkel was among the first to suggest that it was unlikely that Hamas was behind the deaths of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, and Eyal Yifrach. Citing Palestinian sources and experts in the field, Frenkel reported that kidnapping three Israeli teens would be a foolish move for Hamas. International experts told her it was likely the work of a local group, acting without concern for the repercussions."

Following Zavadski's piece, Andrew Sullivan's The Dish told us in an item entitled "The Lie Behind The War":

"Katie Zavadski, fresh from a Dishternship, nails down a critical fact in the latest Israel-Hamas death-match. As the Dish has noted before, the Israeli government knew from the get-go that the murderers of three Israeli teens – the incident that set off this bloody chain of events – were not doing official Hamas’ bidding even in the West Bank, let alone Gaza."

Do Andrew Sullivan, Katie Zavadski and Sheera Frenkel wish to say anything further on the subject?

[I sent an email to Andrew Sullivan, requesting a retraction. Do you think he will bother to respond?]

Is Mohammed Deif, Head of Hamas's Military Wing, Dead?

According to Fox News, Israeli intelligence believes that Mohammed Deif, head of Hamas's military wing, was killed in an air strike on Gaza this morning.

Why do I believe this is a reasonable assumption? The body of a man was pulled from the rubble, but his identity has not been disclosed by Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas has disclosed that Deif's wife and son were killed in the air strike.

In addition, Israel used a bunker bomb on the house. The IDF would not waste a bunker bomb unless it had a high degree of confidence that Deif was in the house.

Moreover, Hamas has responded to the attack with unaccustomed rage - a record 168 rockets fired at Israel on Wednesday - and even shot two missiles at an Israeli offshore gas installation 19 miles from Gaza.

Stay tuned.

Ronen Bergman, "How Hamas Beat Israel in Gaza": Yeah, Right

Yes, The New York Times remains intent upon disparaging Israel, also as regards its current conflict with Hamas.

Last month, The New York Times published a guest op-ed by a young man named Nathan Thrall (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/nathan-thrall-how-west-chose-war-in.html), who would have us believe that Israel, with the help of Egypt and the West, brought the current war with Hamas upon itself. However, Thrall's risible essay failed to mention:

• The Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

• Past suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by Hamas operatives (425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, which killed 377 and wounded 2,076).

• The thousands of rockets fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the course of more than a decade.

Thrall did, of course, repeat Obama's declaration that the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable."

Today, in furtherance of its agenda, The New York Times has published a guest op-ed entitled "How Hamas Beat Israel in Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opinion/how-hamas-beat-israel-in-gaza.html) by 42-year-old Ronen Bergman, who would have us believe:

• "Hamas was dictating the duration of the conflict by repeatedly refusing cease-fires. Furthermore, it preserved its capability of firing rockets and missiles at most of Israel’s territory, despite the immense effort the Israeli Air Force invested in knocking out launch sites."

• "Hamas also waged an urban campaign against Israeli ground forces, inflicting at least five times as many casualties as in the last conflict and successfully used tunnels to penetrate Israeli territory and sow fear and demoralization. It made Israel pay a heavy price and the I.D.F. eventually withdrew its ground troops from Gaza without a cease-fire."

• "Israeli leaders have now set the demilitarization of Gaza as one of their goals. But it’s difficult to picture how this could be achieved."

Hamas has dictated the duration of the conflict and has preserved its capability of firing rockets and missiles? Rubbish. In recent days, the number of rockets fired against Israel has declined, and we are no longer seeing intense rocket barrages aimed at the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Beersheva.

Moreover, Hamas has now agreed to a 72-hour-ceasefire. Hamas had previously insisted that it would agree to such a truce only if Israel first agreed to "end its eight-year siege on the Gaza Strip, release dozens of prisoners whom Israel has re-arrested that were released in 2011 as part of the Shalit exchange, [and agree to] the re-opening of a seaport and airport in Gaza, and the creation of a safe passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=718980). What happened to Hamas's demands?

Israel is demoralized? Spare me. Israel was demoralized during and after the War of Atonement (Bergman was a one-year-old toddler at the time), and Israel was demoralized after the Sabra and Shatila massacre (Bergman was 10 at the time). However, as recently acknowledged by none other than Barack Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “poll numbers are a lot higher than mine” and “were greatly boosted by the war in Gaza”  (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0).

It's difficult to picture how demilitarization of Gaza can be achieved? Well, Bergman might first wish to acknowledge the Gaza has suffered some $6 billion in damages owing to the current round of fighting, and there is no way that Gaza will ever recover unless European donor countries urgently send funds. Will Europe again send funds to rebuild Gaza without asking that Hamas stop using the money for missiles and tunnels? Stay tuned.

Certainly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not willing to transfer money to Hamas's account, and Hamas's rift with Iran has not been healed.

And notwithstanding Hamas's efforts to make the world believe that all the dead in Gaza consisted of civilians, we are beginning to learn that close to 1,000 of the dead were militants and Hamas officials. Needless to say, this number does not include the 160 children who died building the tunnels, or those who were executed by Hamas to prevent them from divulging their locations (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-to-have-executed-dozens-of-tunnel-diggers/).

Mind you, I am not saying that there will be no Israeli commissions of inquiry following the conflict. Israel was not prepared for the tunnels, the IDF made the mistake of using antiquated personnel carriers, and mortar fire from Gaza exacted too many IDF casualties. But to claim that "Hamas beat Israel"? Yeah, right.

White House Spokesman Josh Earnest: Not Appropriate for Hamas to Restore Rocket Fire

As just reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-32-hamas-warns-that-without-deal-on-harbor-itll-resume-attacks-friday/):

"White House Spokesman Josh Earnest sounded a cautious note today, saying that the White House 'did not believe it was appropriate for Hamas to restore rocket fire' in a tempered response to the reescalation of violence between Israel and Gaza."

Guess what, Josh? Firing rockets at civilian population centers is more than inappropriate. It's a war crime.

I never thought it possible that I could miss Jay Carney.

Consider also what, again according to The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-33-us-hopes-for-new-gaza-truce-in-coming-hours-livni-submits-plan-to-end-conflict/), US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf had to tell reporters today:

"What Hamas did today in its decision to resume rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk."

Hamas rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk? True, we are being informed by the Israel Defense Forces, that 20 percent of the rockets fired by Hamas on Friday fell on Gaza, but apparently Harf also has a problem declaring that rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilian population centers is a war crime.

Let there be no mistake about it: Obama & Co. are not friends of Israel.

Thomas Friedman, "How This War Ends": Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

Regrettably, the inevitable has happened: Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman has abandoned Madagascar and found his way to the West Bank. Writing from the city of Ramallah, Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How This War Ends" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-how-this-war-ends.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), would have us know how the current war between Israel and Hamas "might end in a stable way":

"Given the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hate Hamas — because of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — as much as Israel, the potential exists for a Gaza deal that would truly align moderate Arabs, Palestinians and Israel. But it won’t come cheap. In fact, it will require Israel, Hamas and the U.S. to throw out all the old rules about who doesn’t talk to whom.

Here’s why: Hamas has been a formidable foe for Israel, and it is unlikely to stop this war without some agreement to end the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Israel is not likely to stop this war without having rooted out most of the Hamas tunnels and put in place a regime that will largely demilitarize Gaza and prevent the import of more rockets.

Since neither Israel nor Egypt wants to govern Gaza, the only chance these goals have of being implemented is if the moderate Palestinian Authority here in Ramallah, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, is invited back into Gaza (from which it was evicted by Hamas in 2007). And, as one of Abbas’s senior advisers, Yasser Abed Rabbo, explained to me, the only way that can happen is if the Palestinians form a national unity government, including Hamas, and if Israel agrees to resume negotiations with this government about ending the West Bank occupation.

. . . .

'We should have a serious Palestinian reconciliation and then go to the world and say, ‘O.K., Gaza will behave as a peaceful place, under the leadership of a united Palestinian front, but, [Egypt], you open your gates, and, Israel, you open your gates,’' Abed Rabbo said. The moderate Arab states would then contribute the rebuilding funds."

Or in other words, Friedman would grant Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis), a place in a Palestinian national unity government that would no longer shoot rockets and mortar rounds from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities (more than 15,000 such attempts at killing Israeli civilians until now). Israel, of course, should trust Hamas to keep its word, particularly after it has broken every ceasefire arranged by the US and the UN in the current round of fighting.

And given such an "ironclad" promise, Israel would of course allow Hamas to smuggle longer range, more powerful missiles into Gaza via the sea.

Hamas's partner, Islamic Jihad? No mention in the op-ed of this charming organization funded by Iran, but I suppose they would also be included in Tom's peaceful Palestinian governing body.

Ridiculous? You bet! But this is little different from what Obama and Kerry attempted to hand Hamas on a silver platter when they demanded that Israel agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire and accede to the appointment of Hamas's principal backers, Qatar and Turkey, as mediators in the conflict.

A few of words of background: The current round of fighting amounts to a "war of necessity' for Hamas, given that it has run out of money and has lost many of its friends. Hamas allied itself with the Syrian rebels fighting against the Iranian proxy regime of Bashar al-Assad, and for this reason Hamas was forced to move its headquarters from Damascus to Qatar.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are silently rooting for the destruction of a fanatical Hamas, given their fear of Sunni Islamic radicalism, as embodied by ISIS. Hamas, of course, lost the backing of Egypt when General Sisi ousted the Muslim Brotherhood from power.

And so, facing bankruptcy and irrelevance, Hamas is now engaged in a war in which it has nothing to lose. However, the fighting has not gone well for Hamas, which has witnessed the destruction of its tunnels leading into Israel, constructed at the cost of 160 Palestinian children's lives. Moreover, its arsenal of some 10,000 missiles is nearing depletion and has proven ineffectual in the face of Israel's Iron Dome batteries.

Keep Hamas alive and ticking? I don't think so, but this is what both Obama and Friedman would have Israel do. After all, Obama couldn't do away with al-Qaeda, so why shouldn't Israel be stuck with Hamas?

Charles Krauthammer, "Clueless in Gaza": Is Only Kerry to Blame?

How much sooner would ceasefire negotiations have begun if Kerry had not intervened on the side of Hamas? How many lives might have been saved if Kerry had merely stayed away? We will probably never know the answers.

Over the past two weeks, there have been devastating attacks on John Kerry by Israeli journalists from both left and right, who were outraged by the US secretary of state's proposed ceasefire, which:

• Capitulated to Hamas's demands;
• Appointed Qatar and Turkey, the principal backers of Hamas, as mediators;
• Humiliated Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.

When the Israeli government refused to accept Kerry's terms of surrender, the US State Department and the West Wing went into overdrive mode, excoriating Israel for its criticism of Kerry. In addition, Obama ordered Netanyahu over the phone to agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire, while informing the Israeli prime minister that he was not in a position to choose the mediators.

However, the Obama administration was soon to learn that it wasn't only Israel that was questioning the competence of Kerry. Obama and friends would soon wake up to a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "John Kerry’s big blunder in seeking an Israel-Gaza cease-fire" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-john-kerrys-big-blunder-in-seeking-an-israel-gaza-cease-fire/2014/07/28/ab3fbfd2-1686-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?hpid=z2#) by David Ignatius, a friend of the White House, who observed:

"Kerry’s error has been to put so much emphasis on achieving a quick halt to the bloodshed that he has solidified the role of Hamas, the intractable, unpopular Islamist group that leads Gaza, along with the two hard-line Islamist nations that are its key supporters, Qatar and Turkey. In the process, he has undercut not simply the Israelis but also the Egyptians and the Fatah movement that runs the Palestinian Authority, all of which want to see an end to Hamas rule in Gaza."

Today, Charles Krauthammer is also telling us that Kerry made a mess of things. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clueless in Gaza" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-clueless-in-gaza/2014/07/31/d781a286-18e8-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html), Krauthammer writes:

"John Kerry is upset by heavy criticism from Israelis — left, right and center — of his recent cease-fire diplomacy. But that’s only half the story. More significant is the consternation of America’s Arab partners, starting with the president of the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas was stunned that Kerry would fly off to Paris to negotiate with Hamas allies Qatar and Turkey in talks that excluded the PA and Egypt.

. . . .

It gets worse. Kerry did not just trample an Egyptian initiative. It was backed by the entire Arab League and specifically praised by Saudi Arabia. With the exception of Qatar — more a bank than a country — the Arabs are unanimous in wanting to see Hamas weakened, if not overthrown. The cease-fire-in-place they backed would have denied Hamas any reward for starting this war, while what Kerry brought back from Paris granted practically all of its demands."

Krauthammer concludes:

"Whatever his intent, Kerry legitimized Hamas’s war criminality. Which makes his advocacy of Hamas’s terms not just a strategic blunder — enhancing a U.S.-designated terrorist group just when a wall-to-wall Arab front wants to see it gone — but a moral disgrace."

However, Krauthammer does not say whether Obama is also responsible for this fiasco. Are we really to understand that Kerry was acting in renegade fashion without the knowledge of the president?

Given the transcript (albeit a translation from English to Hebrew and then back to English) of Obama's telephone conversation with Netanyahu, Obama must share in the blame. As I have observed many times over the past five and a half years, Obama is no friend of Israel, and yes, the content of the transcript is real.

Meanwhile, Hamas has now agreed to discuss a ceasefire in Cairo, based upon the original Egyptian proposal, i.e. the discussions do not require Israel to remove its forces from Gaza. In addition, as reported by Khaled Abu Toameh writing for The Jerusalem Post in an article entitled "Cairo denies Hamas an audience without Fatah umbrella" (http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/No-Hamas-members-allowed-in-ceasefire-talks-unless-with-Fatah-says-Egypt-369633):

"The Egyptian authorities have refused to receive any Hamas representative unless part of a Fatah-led delegation entrusted with conducting discussions on ways of ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

. . . .

The paper said that the Egyptians have insisted that any deal on the Gaza Strip include the return of PA security forces to the Rafah border crossing with Sinai as a precondition for opening it for humanitarian aid.

Cairo’s stance coincided with the Egyptian army’s resumption of the destruction of smuggling tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip."

Bottom line: American foreign policy is in a shambles, and Obama would be doing the world a favor by sending the vainglorious Kerry back to Beacon Hill.