Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple - William Sieghart.

William Sieghart, Chairperson of Forward Thinking, has a simple solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians:

It is said that this conflict is impossible to solve. In fact, it is very
simple. The top 1,000 people who run Israel - the politicians, generals and
security staff - and the top Palestinian Islamists have never met. Genuine peace
will require that these two groups sit down together without preconditions. But
the events of the past few days seem to have made this more unlikely than ever.
That is the challenge for the new administration in Washington and for its
European allies.

To suggest that this is simplistic seems insulting to other simplistic "solutions" to complex issues. The real difficulty in finding an agreement between the parties lies in the fundamental desire of the Palestinian Islamists for the destruction of Israel. Until they accept the existence of Israel, no lasting peace can be possible.

Mr. Sieghart can gather all the 2000 person peace conferences without preconditions he may choose, but they will achieve nothing so long as Islamists seek the destruction of Israel.

Israel withdrew from Gaza without conditions. Did the Palestinians respond with offers of good faith negotiations or an attempt to develop their economy? No, instead of seeking peace, the Palestinians used Gaza as a launch pad for rockets to bomb Israel.

Simply requiring parties to negotiate does not mean that a solution will automatically occur. Successful negotiations generally begin with parties' sharing a common understanding. Islamists' desire for the destruction of Israel makes such a common understanding impossible. Any "peace" treaty would likely simply constitute a lull prior to renewed attempts by the Palestinians to destroy Israel.

Question for those who attack Israeli bombings in Gaza.

I have a question for those who attack Israel for bombing Gaza. Where was your moral outrage for all of the rocket attacks on Israel coming from Gaza? If terrorists were raining rockets on your country from a neighboring territory, would you demand that your country take no action against the terrorists?

Israel has a right to defend itself against the terrorists in Gaza. Reports seem to indicate that the IDF are acting with precision in targeting rocket launch facilities and Hamas terrorists. Even though Hamas located much of its launch sites and people in civilian residential areas, Israeli strikes seem to limit civilian casualties to a great extent. This stands in stark contrast to the intentional targeting of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists.

It seems to me that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack. No other country in the world would be expected to accept continual rocket attacks on its people.

Former academic embarrasses himself but is too ignorant even to recognize it.

John Kelly, chair person of Friends of Bethlehem University, writes in the Irish Times that Israel's fence hurts Palestinians in Bethlehem. Not willing to simply indicate his empathy for Palestinians, he claims, "It is impossible, for me at any rate, not to compare this situation with the Nazi's Warsaw Ghetto and second World War checkpoints."

Perhaps Mr. Kelly should remind us how many thousands of innocent German civilians the Jews murdered in suicide bombings before the Nazis put them in the Warsaw ghetto. He complains about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians at various checkpoints. "For no reason, they often have to take off their shoes, have their laptop computers confiscated, undergo strip searches and be made wait hours, with no explanation, being sneered at."

Really, Mr. Kelly, for no reason the Israelis set up check points and search Palestinians. Are you truly so ignorant of events that you can't imagine a single reason for such searches? How many Israelis have Palestinian fanatics murdered over the decades? And you whine about some Palestinians' being inconvenienced.

Mr. Kelly also comments, "Strangely, for us non-Arabs, these checkpoint guards are generally quite affable and send you on your way with 'have a nice day' American-style." Is it really so strange, Mr. Kelly? The Israeli military are good people and would treat Arabs equally affably had the Palestinians not murdered so many Israelis. If non-Arabs start suicide bombing, they will undoubtedly soon receive different treatment.

I have to admit to a rather personal interest in this. My oldest daughter may take an intensive course in Hebrew in Israel next summer. I am very thankful that Israel has been successful in reducing bombing incidents. The fence undoubtedly contributed greatly to that success. If I had any question about the need for the fence (which I did not), I would no longer.

If Mr. Kelly really wants to help Palestinians, he should encourage them to end their terrorism against Israel and to invest in business and education rather than bombs and rockets.

Team Obama "investigation" - What a joke.

Major Garrett at Fox News shows that the Team Obama investigation was an even bigger joke that most would assume. My prior posting read Greg Craig's carefully crafted words as indicating that he allowed the staff to write their responses to his question. In fact, his contact was with each staff member's lawyer. Garrett reports:

Major Garrett at Fox News shows that the Team Obama investigation was an even bigger joke that most would assume. My prior posting read Greg Craig's carefully crafted words as indicating that he allowed the staff to write their responses to his question. In fact, his contact was with each staff member's lawyer. Garrett reports:

Greg Craig, the incoming White House Counsel, conducted his inquiry by taking
questions to each transition staff member's lawyer. The lawyers then went to the
staff members and collected the answers. The lawyers then gave the answers to
Craig.

Garret reports one rather funny example. Craig quotes Valerie Jarrett as describing Blagojevich's suggestion he might be appointed secretary of health and human services as "ridiculous" in her conversation with the Illinois head of the Service Employees International Union.

Did Craig get that quotation from Ms. Jarrett in an interview or from a memo she provided him? No. Her attorney told Craig that she said that.

Ben Smith provides a little context for the quote:

Jarrett, Craig said, took it not as a suggestion of a quid pro quo, but as "a
random comment that was, on the face of it, ridiculous."

"She thought it was ridiculous for the governor of Illinois to talk about being appointed to Barack Obama's Cabinet at a time when he was being investigated," Craig said, adding that he was passing on what Jarrett's lawyer had said.

That detail -- like many others -- paint the governor as extremely isolated, and viewed as seriously out of touch even by people, like Balanoff, in regular contact with him.

Thus, the quote advances Team Obama's portrait of Blagojevich as "isolated" and "out of touch." This in no way answers whether he approached Team Obama with an offer to sell the Senate seat. Instead, it says that any such conduct arose out of his isolation and irrationality rather than his close contact with Obama in Chicago politics.

Thus, it tells people that they should never think that Obama's prior conduct led Blagojevich to think he would participate in the transaction; only Blagojevich's own irrationality led to his conduct.

Team Obama clears Team Obama of wrongdoing in Blagojevich sale of Senate seat.

Team Obama says that it did nothing wrong and the Mainstream Media happily accept their assurance without question. Gee, would they have taken that attitude as to any internal investigations by the Bush administration.

The report raises many questions. One basic question arises out of the careful language of Greg Craig in describing the basis of his investigation. Having written quite a few legal opinions based on information provided by operating departments in a corporation, I found his description of the factual foundation for his legal opinion revealing. Craig's opinion begins:

At your direction, I arranged for transition staff to provide accounts of
any contacts that you or they may have had with Governor Blagojevich or his
office in which the subject of your successor came up.

This seems to indicate that Craig relied completely on "accounts" voluntarily provided by the "transition staff." This suggests that he simply accepted written responses by the staff and conducted no probing interviews of anyone and made no independent investigation of emails, memos or voice messages. This approach apparently resulted from the "direction" of president-elect Obama.

This would have required someone to write to the White House Counsel designee that "Yes, I engaged in conversations with Governor Blagojevich or his staff to facilitate the sale and purchase of the Senate seat." We are supposed to believe that someone would voluntarily make such an admission in writing that would expose them to criminal prosecution and embarrass Obama who had already assured the public that no such conversations had taken place.

If Craig's description of the basis of his investigation says what it seems to, this was no investigation at all. Furthermore, his conclusion defies common sense. Obviously, the former Senator and president-elect would have an opinion as to who should succeed him in the Senate. He would want someone he could work with. This in no way suggests that Obama or his staff engaged in conversations relating to the sale of the seat, but that either directly or indirectly Obama expressed his choice to the Governor.

That Team Obama and its lawyer cannot admit what can only be the obvious reality suggests two very serious issues. First, this approach will undoubtedly repeat itself in future controversies. Second, it suggests that Team Obama fear admission of even the barest contact between any of its members and the Governor and his staff would embarrass Obama.

It seems to me that no one in Team Obama participated in attempts to meet Blagojevich's price. However, Team Obama's fear arises, not from any wrongdoing on their part, but out of questions that may result from the mere presentation of Blagojevich's offer to sell the seat. One may wonder if Blagojevich thought that Obama would agree to the purchase of the seat because of their prior dealings in Chicago.

Terrorist bombings in Israel.

It seems to me that the following graph answers all questions as to the need and efficacy of the defensive fence built by Israel to stop terrorist bombings:

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/DEATHS%20FROM%20SUICIDE%20BOMBINGSII.JPG

This shows deaths from suicide bombings decreasing from a high of 220 in 2002 to 1 in 2008. One can hardly argue that this tremendous reduction in violence resulted from Palestinian acceptance of Israel or their desire to live in peace. Government's first obligation is to protect its citizens from death and violence. Construction of the barrier to terrorists meets that obligation in the least violent way possible.

Some argue that the barrier inconveniences Palestinians, takes some of their land and attempts to create the boundary for any eventual two-state solution. The creation of a passive defense barrier causes far less disruption to the Palestinian community than strikes by the Israeli Defense Force at Palestinian terrorists.

Does anyone actually believe that the Palestinians or the world community will agree to a final border between Israel and a Palestinian state on the basis of where the barrier lies? Any serious negotiations will simply ignore where the barrier lies and require Israel to dismantle any fence built on what becomes Palestinian territory.

Why is the Obama Team stonewalling?

It seems absolutely obvious that president-elect Obama and Governor Blagojevich and their respective staffs would discuss potential nominees for Obama's vacated Senate seat. Such discussions would in no way imply an agreement by the president-elect to participate in the "sale" or "purchase" of the Senate seat. It seems only natural that the former Senator who would want an ally in the Senate to help pass his program would have strong suggestions to the Governor as to the appointee.

Therefore, all of the stonewalling and representations that no such conversations took place raise concerns about why Team Obama are taking such strange positions. Are they simply afraid of appearances? Do they fear that the American people would not accept what seems obvious - that the governor asked for some position in the administration or other consideration in exchange for appointing Obama's recommended candidate, but that the president-elect either directly or through others rejected that scheme?

Are they concerned about exposing the corruption of Chicago politics? That is already clear to all who can see, if not before, certainly with the current revelations even apart from Team Obama's role in it.

Perhaps Team Obama fears the question arising: Why would Blagojevich risk his career and reputation by approaching Obama directly or indirectly with a request for a bribe unless he thought that Obama was such a creature of Chicago politics that he would agree? Indeed, one might wonder whether Blagojevich knew of past instances of similar behavior on the part of the president-elect in Chicago politics.

What better explains Blagojevich's blatant attempt to sell the office and his extreme anger at Obama for rejecting his request? The two had known each well for years. If Obama were the opponent of corruption as represented in his campaign, Blagojevich would have been extremely foolish to even broach the subject with Obama or his staff. On the other hand, if Blagojevich knew of past conduct by Obama in dealing with Tony Rezco or others in Chicago suggesting otherwise, a request for some consideration in making the appointment would not seem so foolish.

Is this what Team Obama fears? If so, their stonewalling will only push people to ask that question and many others.