How stupid is Hamas?

Pretty freakin' freakin'stupid

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, whose Hamas-led government negotiated the cease-fire with its militant wing, blamed Israel: "We made great efforts at keeping the truce and there was a positive Palestinian position, but unfortunately this position was met by expanding the aggression and escalating it against the Palestinian people," he said. "It's not a Palestinian problem, it is an Israeli problem."

..."The cease-fire has been over for a long time, and Israel is responsible for that," the spokesman, Abu Obeida, told the Voice of Palestine radio station. "We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers."

It's really quite sad. We sympathize with average Palestinian citizens, and believe that some of Israel's policies, particularly the wall, the bulldozing of complete neighborhoods, and the illegal use of clusterbombs are abhorrent. It's been said before, but bears repeating: if the Palestinian leadership accepted Israel's existence and lobbied for its own state by adopting nonviolent means after anti-colonialist, civil rights champions like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and even Martin Luther King Jr, they'd receive their own country, maybe even East Jerusalem and the pre-1967 borders. But the thing is they don't have leadership.

No one who represents them has both the pragmatism to move away from the banner of jihad and towards reality (you, Hamas) or the strength and solidarity to actually get a deal done (you Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor.)

So Hamas will probably carry on its war and get maybe 10-15 Israelis killed, Israel will retaliate, getting 80 militants killed (and civilian "collateral damage") and the world will look on, thinking "those damn crazy middle-easterners." It will take years for the blood of the Holy Land to ever be cleansed, and for the people there to live the way God intended-in peace and compassion with one another.

It's a freaking shame, too.

John McCain is the Pauly Shore of War-Comedy

So what do you do when you are a major Presidential candidate at a time when America is in a war with Iraq that hasn't gone exactly as planned, and you are asked a question about the potential for war with its biggest neighbor, Iran? We hope your answer would not be breaking out to song, replacing the Beach Boy's hit "Barbara Ann" with the words "Bomb Iran."

Senator McCain's campaign claims it was a joke, made in good fun. And that anyone who is bothered by the Senator's remarks should get over it.

We like to think we have a sense of humor. But given the unfathomably paranoid way the Iranians view the world, the animosity in the history of US-Iranian relations, and the need greater diplomatic initiatives in the region if the US ever leaves Iraq, the remarks from a serious presidential candidate are very hard to forgive, whatever the context. The mullahs in Iran will definitely make sure "Bomb Iran" is taken literally. And this will make finding agreements on the few things we should agree on, mainly Iraq being stable, even harder than before.

We are not sure what McCain was thinking, because this can't help him catch Rudy Giuliani in the polls. But we do know that with MC Rove finally found an opening act, and the RNC might have to put out a "Greatest Hits" album. We just hope that the word "hits" isn't meant literally.

A Tale of Two Presidents, Pakistan, and the beginning of baseball

To look at Al Gore and George W. Bush now, nearly seven years after the crazy election, adds a fascinating dimension to a tale of two Presidents. Hurricane Katrina and the Iraqi misadventure leave Bush floundering in a sea of mediocrity and shame. History will not remember Bush very fondly. At the same time, Al Gore has enjoyed critical and popular acclaim as an Oscar and Nobel prize winner. Many people believe, myself included, that Al Gore still is a legitimate presidential candidate.

Yet locking back over the last seven years, to what extent would Al Gore's reaction to events like Katrina or 9/11 been better than Bush, if better at all?

All we can do us bring our bias to the table and speculate.

Certainly, I think the US would be a better place with Gore, but that is not saying much when the alternative is Bush's America. There are real problems in this country that transcend a single man like Bush, like education, the affordability of healthcare, and poverty. My point is I think Gore's America would be only mildly better.

Whatever your opinion, it is clear that Gore has enjoyed a more succesful life since 2000. Perhaps he really did come out on top.

-------

From rouge provinces in Pakistan, both Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose an unacceptable threat to world stability. Yet, the US and international forces lack the ability to go on the offensive. Pakistani officials have repeatedly threatened against foreign intervention into their borders.

Pakistan is a critical ally. President Musharraf is a man the United States supports for very important reasons. Musharaff posseses nuclear weapons, is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and did play a critical role in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. We like Musharaff because we don't like any of the alternatives, therefore we must be somewhat supportive of him.

That being said, The United States should be able to act against Al Qaeda under any circumstance, including through missions in Pakistan.

The Pakistani government has no real control over the regions where terrorists find shelter. Operations there wouldn't be a threat to the Pakistani government so much as it would be sweeping the bacteria that seeks to do great harm.

I consider myself an internationalist. I never supported the war in Iraq and believe that foreign nations and other international institutions should be respected and cooperated with in most cases. But sometimes acting alone is necessary, this seems like one of them.
-------

I saw my first baseball game of 2007 yesterday. A spring training game between the Atlanta Braves and the Pittsburgh Pirates on ESPN. I am an American League guy, therefore I don't pay much attention to most NL teams during the regular season. But seeing baseball--however meaningless it might have been--I couldn't help myself from feeling a joyous rush of happiness, the kind one gets when they get a new car, tell a good joke, or see an old friend for the first time after a long departure. I follow football and basketball, but they don't come close to baseball. Thank God baseball is back!

US ought to recognize the new Palestinian government

The greatest accomplishments always rest on one's willingess to take immense risks by making decisions that make us uncomfortable. If Secretary of State Rice is truly serious about taking steps to build a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, she will do precisely that by recognizing the the coalition unity government of Palestine, brokered by "US ally" Saudi Arabia.

The agreement by the two rival Palestinian factions of Fatah (moderates led by Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's elected succesor) and Hamas (radical Islamists, lambasted by the West, but popular in Palestine due to its appearance as a non-corrupt entity) should have been considered good news for anyone hoping to resume any sort of dialogue for peace. Yet, the US and Israel have threatened to refuse recognition of the Palestinian government until Hamas directly states Israel's right to exist and denounces violence.

Perhaps these threats are mere rhetoric designed to continue pressure. Nevertheless, I believe it would be a mistake for the US to refuse the new Palestinian government for several reasons.

Although the Hamas-Fatah agreement stopped short of explicit recognition, it implied something similar with the pledge to "respect" past international agreements. I know that may not satisfy Israelis in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but it is unrealistic to expect Palestinians to put down their weapons in one day. For many Palestinians, peace and recognition of Israel will be a process--a long and ardous one where small steps are taken. Yet these small steps must yield some results in the form of US acceptance if they are to bear fruit rather than disillusionment. This was a critical moment in Palestinian politics and was widely lauded by average citizens in the West Bank and Gaza. For America to shun this truth has the potential to move Palestinians ever closer to the fringes of violence and destruction.

The agreement represented an important event in the region's politics. Saudi Arabian King Prince Abdullah personally led negotiations in Mecca, Islam's holiest city. In this context, it is important in its implications in US-Saudi relations and beyond. If America aspires to limit Iranian interests in the region, supporting a Sunni-led dialogue and helping it become succesful has the potential to undermine Shiite Iran, which considers Middle East peace a danger to its regional ambitions.

The bottom line is if Americans are truly searching to build a foundation for peace, a series of risks must be taken. Sure those risks may make us feel uncomfortable, but I believe the potential benefits can make it worth it. The current gridlock of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has done little to boost American interests in the Middle East.