The conclusion of the line in the song’s lyric is “What it is ain’t exactly clear.”  That pretty much sizes up what Barack Obama has in mind for his first 100 days regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Something’s happening.  We don’t know exactly what it is.  But it’s big.  The N.Y. Times reveals that his staff is searching for an Arab capital in which to make a major policy address in his first 100 days.  If he does so, this will upset the conventional wisdom that he must pay sole and undivided attention to the economy before he engages the I-P conflict.

I’d be delighted if he upsets the conventional wisdom in this particular case. The only way he will end his second term with a peaceful Israel and Palestine is if he engaged this sucker right from the get go.  The fact that he’s thinking outside the box on this is reassuring.

Of course, he won’t just address the I-P conflict in such an address.  There are so many other Mideast issues he will want to cover including Iran and Iraq.  But I think it can only be good to have the American president telling the Arab world–and the entire world–that bringing healing, peace and stability to this region is one of his top priorities.

This report from The Forward is also tantalizing though a tad on the vague side:

An Arab diplomat told the Forward that Arab leaders are now preparing a letter to Obama in which they will urge him to adopt the [Saudi peace] plan and move promptly toward a final status solution to the conflict. The diplomat did not rule out the possibility that Arab states will agree to move faster toward normalizing ties with Israel if they feel the new administration in Washington is taking serious steps to solve the Palestinian problem.

What this tells us is that Arab states are willing to show reciprocity and good will to Obama as long as they believe he will conclude a negotiation along the lines of the Saudi peace plan.  Even Ehud Olmert has indicated he feels favorably disposed toward the same plan.  Should Tzipi Livni become the next prime minister, she would likely feel the same way.  So who knows,  it’s possible Obama could pull a rabbit out of his hat.  Of course, if Bibi wins all bets are off.

The Forward also brings news that Jimmy Carter has a new Israeli-Arab peace plan of his own coming out in book form on–you guess it–January 20th.  That guy has impeccable sense of timing!

Nathan Guttman will have to forgive me but this passage doesn’t speak for me or many other American Jews regarding our attitude toward Carter’s peace efforts:

Carter’s previous book drew harsh criticism from the Jewish community and pro-Israel activists who argued it was tainted with anti-Israel bias and has singled out the Jewish state while ignoring the role of other Middle East players in the conflict. The book deepened the already existing rift between the Jewish community and the 39th president.

I would say that the book deepened a rift between SOME MEMBERS of the Jewish community and Carter. But to claim that the community monolithically endorsed this point of view is quite reductionist. In fact (and Carter has made this point himself), Jimmy Carter’s views are widely shared by many Israelis and can be read on the editorial pages of most of the daily newspapers there. The fact that Aipac and the Israel lobby has managed to make Carter’s views seem aberrant reflects their insularity, and not Carter’s extremism.

Carter will be visiting Lebanon and Syria this coming week. I wonder if he’s doing a little ‘advance work’ for Obama regarding the latter’s future Mideast peace efforts, though of course the latter was very careful to insulate himself from any direct contact with Carter during the campaign. That’s because the attitude of the Israel lobby groups toward Carter has been similar to that of King Henry II, who said of Thomas Becket: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” If only the right-wing pro-Israel leadership could somehow be rid of the meddlesome former president. Luckily they can’t.

JTA’s Eric Fingerhut must’ve had a really slow news day because he chose to write up a previously reported interview Alan Dershowitz gave to that august forum of Jewish media excellence, Shalom TV. There Der Dersh recounted one of his Samsonian fever dreams in which he single-handedly saved the Democratic national convention from having to sit through an address from the despised anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, no goodnik former president Jimmy Carter. Yes, it was all Alan’s doing, our great Mattathias, our great Maccabee, that hammer of the Jewish people.

Alan Dershowitz revealed that he was among those who convinced Barack Obama to keep Jimmy Carter from addressing the Democratic National Convention.

“I pushed him very hard to make that decision. Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect. And I’m very glad he made that decision. It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision.”

Excuse me while I barf in my air sickness bag. First, why should anyone believe this lying schemer that he had anything to do with whether or not Jimmy Carter spoke to the Convention? Second, if Obama’s people did nix Carter, then having Der Dersh call a decision based on cynical, political expedience a “wise, moral decision” is beyond despicable (as Dershowitz is).

Dersh has been reading too many of his own press releases. Instead of a law professor, he should’ve been born in the age of the traveling circuses. He would’ve made an excellent carnival barker or perhaps Borsht Belt tummeler. Unfortunately for him, many of us stopped reading his press releases decades ago. Dershowitz is a parody of himself. A buffoon. A babbling idiot. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would bother listening to anything he says or quote him in a serious newspaper (though JTA often falls short of qualifying as serious journalism I’m afraid).

Here’s some more entertaining spew from Big Al:

[He] received thousands of emails from Jews opposing Obama during the election campaign…Dershowitz is convinced that many were from “extreme right-wing Jews” and that some were “out-and-out racist.”

Right-wing, out and out racist Jews?  Dersh must’ve been writing to himself.  I mean of course, his racism toward Palestinians since he seems to have curbed whatever racist inclinations he might’ve once had toward African-Americans.

Dersh for AG! And only at Shalom TV!

Could Dershowitz be part of an Obama administration, perhaps as Attorney General? Dershowitz responded with a categorical, “no.”

Thank God Obama seems inclined to pick Eric Holder for that job, someone who actually deserves consideration unlike Al.

Why in God’s name would anyone from Obama’s campaign have wanted Dersh to speak on his behalf? I guess someone there believes he retains some credibility among a few Jews (probably those over 90 sitting in West Palm retirement homes):

Dershowitz also said he declined a request to represent Obama on the campaign trail, explaining, “I said I couldn’t do that because I want to keep my own independent views independent. I don’t want to be a surrogate for anybody.”

He’s a two-faced SOB and his endorsement of Obama was about as heartfelt as a Dear John letter.  Thanks to one of my readers for pointing out this story.

* Tummeler: a raucous Borsht Belt comedian; full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I’ll trade you 300 Hamas activists and a Barghouti for a Shalit.  The bartering now going on preceding a potential prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas reminds one of teenagers trading baseball cards.

Ynetnews and Haaretz both report negotiations in earnest to free Gilad Shalit.  The word is that the lead Palestinian prisoner released will be Marwan Barghouti, a senior Fatah leader:

Israel has agreed in principle to release Marwan Barguti and a number of prominent Hamas leaders from prison – diplomatic sources were quoted as saying in Monday’s ‘Al-Bayan’ newspaper, based in the United Arab Emirates.

According to the report, Israel will free Barguti, Fatah’s former secretary-general in the West Bank, and the Hamas officials as part of the burgeoning exchange deal with the Islamist Hamas group in return for captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit…

Israel has given its consent, in principle, to the release of 300 Palestinian prisoners, including Hamas leaders Hassan Salame, Abdullah Barguti and Ibrahim Hamed.

The report said Israel was still on the fence on whether it is willing to release the secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Ahmad Saadat – who was convicted and sentenced for his involvement in the murder of the late Minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

Which would be very interesting since it would mean that Hamas, which is leading negotiations for the Palestinian side, is attempting to liberate an Israeli prisoner who could possibly become its political nemesis during the next round of presidential elections.

Should Israel free Saadat it should be terribly embarrassing for the Olmert government and IDF, since a year or so ago they orchestrated a Jericho prison “break-in” that “liberated” (or “kidnapped” depending on your perspective) Saadat from a Palestinian prison in order to spirit him to an Israeli prison so as to ensure he would not be freed. If they free him I’ll be only too happy to republish the photos of Israel demolishing the Palestinian prison to ensure the dangerous criminal never saw the light of day.

I’m also delighted to report that Jimmy Carter has been playing an interesting intermediary role in persuading Israeli politicians to include Hamas prisoners in the exchange. This will no doubt drive some anti-Carter Jewish activists to distraction since they view the former president as an arch-enemy of the State of Israel.

Israeli UN ambassador Dan Gillerman has brewed a mini-tempest in a teacup by taking the highly undiplomatic step of smearing the good name of a former U.S. president. I say “mini-tempest” not because Gillerman’s breach isn’t serious–it is very serious. Rather, I say this because Condi Rice doesn’t really care much that Gillerman had a hissy fit against Carter. I’ll bet privately she even approves at least somewhat of Gillerman’s attack. But for the purpose of protocol and diplomatic precedent she’s got to pretend to take umbrage at Gillerman’s backalley brawling tactics.

In addition to saying that Carter had “blood on his hands” for meeting Khaled Meshal, Gillerman also called Carter (keep in mind this is the only U.S. president to actually negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and one of its Arab enemies) an “enemy of Israel.”

The United States registered an official protest with Israel against its ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, for calling former U.S. President Jimmy Carter an “enemy of Israel” prior to Carter’s recent visit to the region.

A senior Foreign Ministry source said Saturday that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv asked that Gillerman be made aware of the U.S. administration’s dissatisfaction with the disrespectful comments about the former U.S. President.

In addition, the State Department is planning to issue a public statement condemning comments made by Gillerman at a press conference in New York on Thursday, where he called Carter a “bigot.”

In my last post on this incident, I expressed the hope that Gillerman had gone “off the reservation” rather than that he was expressing the official position of the Israeli government regarding Carter. It appears the former explanation may be what happened. If that is the case, then the attack is no less disturbing as it means that Gillerman was making policy on his own in direct contravention of directives from his superiors–that is, Livni herself:

The same [foreign ministry] source said that Gillerman’s attack on Carter “surprised and embarrassed” Jerusalem, which contravened direct instructions from Livni to avoid comments on the former president.

Gillerman is scheduled to leave his post in several months. I wonder whether Livni will call him home early or leave him in place. I also wonder whether Gillerman, knowing full well that his incendiary remarks couldn’t hurt him this late in his UN tenure, is angling, like many of his predecessors, for a political career in the Likud. If that is the case, the Carter smear may be a transparent tactic to curry favor with the Bibi crowd.

Either way, an Israeli diplomat has just mugged a former U.S. president. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Gillerman is a two-bit political thug. Carter is a Nobel laureate.

I read that headline tonight and got sick to my stomach. But I wasn’t going to write about it because it just didn’t rate high enough on my disgust-o-meter. After all, with Israel offering to return the Golan and Hamas on the verge of approving a temporary Gaza ceasefire there is actually something positive to write about for a change.

But then Michael Furmanovsky, an old friend living in Japan, said he was waiting to hear what I had to say. I couldn’t let an old friend down now could I?

So here’s what Dan Gillerman, God and Israel’s gift to international diplomacy, had to say about America’s former president, Nobel laureate and the statesman responsible for negotiating the first major peace agreement between Israel and one of its Arab enemies:

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter “a bigot” for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas,” Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters.

The ambassador called last weekend’s encounter “a very sad episode in American history.”

He said it was “a shame” to see Carter, who had done “good things” as a former president, “turn into what I believe to be a bigot.”

What a foul and disgusting performance. Yossi Beilin called for Gillerman to be sacked which is what he so richly deserves. I hope to God Gillerman went off the reservation on this one and that Olmert and Livni (his ostensible boss) don’t agree with what this jackass said. Saying that Carter has “bloody hands” for meeting Meshal? If we want to talk about bloody hands I think we can mention a few Israeli politicians and generals whose hands are at least as bloody if not more.

Carter is a bigot?  Meaning that he hates Israel?  Gimme a break.  This is about as low as a diplomat can go. I’m hoping that Tzipi Livni, at the least, will tell Gillerman that it’s inappropriate to have a hissy fit regarding a U.S. president. The Nobel Committee found the sort of mission Carter undertook to Syria precisely the reason they awarded him the Peace Prize. Between the Committee’s judgment and Gillerman’s I know which I trust more.

I note that the press briefing at which he suffered this debilitating case of verbal diarrhea was hosted by those paragons of balance and objectivity: the Israel Project.  Hey, as if we don’t have enough militant pro-Israel groups (CAMERA, Middle East Forum, Frontpagemagazine, MEMRI, AIPAC, the David Project, ZOA, Americans for a Safe Israel).  We seem to need another.  Their goal is to inveigle journalists into presenting Israel in the best possible light in the international media (do I hear hasbara anyone?).  They sure failed this time.

Eli Yishai breaks government boycott of Carter (Nir Keidar/Haaretz)

When I first read this story I got it on a superficial level but didn’t really understand the full significance until Assaf Oron sent me a link to his Daily Kos diary entry. Haaretz reports that deputy prime minister Eli Yishai of the Mizrahi Shas party, broke the government boycott against Carter’s Israel visit and not only met with the former president but asked Carter for a meeting with Hamas representatives in an attempt to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Assaf correctly notes that this is a bombshell not only for Israeli politics, but it also breaks the solid front the Israel lobby has attempted to create here in the U.S. against dealing with Hamas.

It also serves notice on journalists like Mark Perelman of the Jewish Forward, Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz, and strangely Michael Young of Beirut’s Daily Star; and political operatives like Ira Forman’s AIPAC-leaning National Jewish Democratic Council and even all the presidential candidates, who’ve bought the Israel lobby line (clearly Young is following a different political line). They all ignore the fact that a number of liberal Jewish blogs like this one (Jerry Haber and Tony Karon as well) and now a cabinet minister have bucked the “Three No’s” (an ironic reference to the Arab League’s “three no’s” after the 67 war) approach to Hamas. The line on Carter is that he’s a troublemaker who represents no one but himself. Rosner even goes so far as to say that Carter is a washed up has been (which actually describes Rosner himself rather than Carter) whose glory days, if he ever had any, are past.

I’ve already noted here that Israel already negotiates with Hamas though indirectly through Egypt. Further, a recent poll finds that 64% of Israelis are in favor of precisely the kind of approach favored by Yishai–direct negotiations with Hamas. So this Hamas boycott is a charade, a political fiction created to provide cover for a Bush Administration that can’t do anything to promote meaningful negotiations among the warring parties; and an Israeli government which doesn’t have the will to get up and do what’s got to be done regarding talking to the Palestinian parties that really matter.  So how long will it be before this sham policy falls like a house of cards?

I’m not a huge fan of Shas, though they sometimes are quite progressive on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But on this one issue Yishai is right on the money (or should I say “shekel”?).

All I can say is–it’s about time. About time someone stood up and said this policy is stupid and not working and counter-productive. About time that we talked to Hamas. Former Mossad director Ephraim Levy has been saying it for a long time. Other former Israeli generals and leading academic analysts have been saying it. Even Israeli public opinion is in favor. Who’s against? The pols: Olmert and those farther to his right are opposed. And the Bushites and the remaining neo-cons are agin’ it.

But the problem with the policy is that like much of the Bush’s approach it’s based on a theory that just doesn’t hold up on closer examination. The three no’s (remember the Arab League’s three No’s?): no contact without Hamas recognition of Israel, renunciation of terror, & acceptance of previous agreements, are largely a smokescreen. Neither the U.S. nor Israel made such demands before negotiating with the PLO. Despite this the PLO DID eventually recognize Israel and renounce violence as part of a negotiation process…the same type of negotiation process that should happen with Hamas.

Before the carpers start carping, I need to make clear that Carter will doubtless go into this meeting with no illusions about who Khaled Meshal is and what he represents. Carter won’t be starry-eyed and unduly impressed with his interlocutor. Meshal represents a lot of what is bad about Hamas. But he also represents a powerful faction within the group and there is no possible way to effect any sort of agreement with Hamas in the long term without Meshal’s at least tacit agreement.

There are those in Israel and people like Dick Cheney who believe the only good Hamas is a dead one. They’re prepared for a fight to the death. But no matter how attractive such a prospect may be to some extremists it would be an abject failure should anyone try to implement it.

No matter how odious anyone may find Hamas, there simply is no alternative to dealing with them. So Democrats and the Israeli government can rail at him all they want. But Carter’s only doing what they should be doing themselves. What they will eventually be doing themselves despite all protestations to the contrary. For we will negotiate with Hamas (Israel is already doing it indirectly through Egyptian auspices). The question is not “if” but “when.”

Unfortunately, this Forward report is yet another example of the clueless approach the Jewish communal leadership is taking on this one:

Carter’s decision to meet with the leader of Hamas, which is listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, is yet another step in the former president’s shift away from the mainstream approach in Washington to Middle East peacemaking. It is also seen as distancing him even further from the Jewish and pro-Israel community in the United States…

What Guttman really meant was this is yet another step away from the AIPAC approach to Mideast peacemaking. It certainly isn’t a step away from a mainstream approach since as I already wrote, Israel is currently negotiating with Hamas. And Carter isn’t distancing himself from the Jewish community. He’s distancing himself from the nostrums of the Israel lobby organizations, the very ones whose ideas have fallen flat over many years in dealing with these peacemaking issues.

All I can say is “Go Jimmy. Give ‘em hell (both Meshal AND the Israel lobby).”

The Forward also notes Israel’s typical cutting off its nose to spite its face in regards to its treatment of Carter. It refused him permission to meet Hamas’ more moderate Gaza leadership. Not to be outmanuvered, Carter one-upped the Israelis. He said if they won’t let me meet with Hamas in Gaza I’ll meet with Hamas leadership that Israel detests even more deeply–in Syria. Instead of playing games with Carter, the Israelis should’ve let him meet with Haniya and the other Gaza leaders. Now they have a real problem on their hands in trying to put back the genie into the bottle that Carter has opened.

I was tickled by this ludicrous statement from the State Department:

…The State Department had not commented on Carter’s reported plans to meet Meshaal, but did say that Carter was advised by administration official that meetings with Syrian officials in the past “had not produced positive results.”

And U.S. policy toward Hamas HAS “produced positive results??” What could be worse than our current bankrupt policy? A full-tilt regional war involving Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, etc.? That’s still a possibility if we don’t do something better quickly.

Jimmy Carter’s newest efforts to repair relations with the Jewish community were rebuffed…last week — and at the very highest levels…

A closed-door meeting he held with Jewish members of Congress turned into a passionate rebuke of the former president’s views on Israel and the Middle East…The event, hosted by California Democrat Tom Lantos, served as a forum for Jewish Democrats to vent their outrage at Carter’s book.

“I told him that the Jewish community, that has great respect for his work around the world, is extremely hurt, disappointed and frustrated from his views and that he cannot serve as an honest broker,” Ackerman said.

A similar message was also voiced by Lantos and three other Jewish lawmakers who attended the meeting: Henry Waxman, Howard Berman and Jane Harman.

The members of Congress told Carter that he needs to apologize, but the former president did not do so.

–The Forward, Carter’s Efforts To Mend Ties With Community Get Cold Shoulder

Don’t do it, Mr. President. You published an honest book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If these people have a problem with the book it’s their own problem and they’ll just have to deal with it. They don’t hold a monopoly on truth regarding these issues. Why should you apologize? Because you criticized Israel? Because you called the Occupation equivalent to apartheid? It’s something you hear in the Israeli media regularly. Why is it treif in U.S. political discourse? Or American Jewish discourse?

If Gary Ackerman, Henry Waxman, Howard Berman and Jane Harman are telling Carter to apologize then they aren’t true friends to Israel. They’re merely sycophants or better yet suppliants at the trough of AIPAC.

And isn’t it instructive that Ackerman used this historical analogy to a political assassination in describing Carter’s response to the meeting:

“He left the room less happy than Lincoln was when he left the Ford Theatre,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat who attended the meeting.

That’s, uh, really cute Gary. Very quotable. But you do realize that you’ve just accused yourself of assassinating a former president’s character, if not his physical body, don’t you?

The Forward article also contains a mendacious claim by Dino Abe Foxman about Carter’s views:

“I don’t disrespect him,” Foxman said, adding that his reason for not coming to the meeting was Carter’s refusal to apologize for arguing that Jews control the media and academia. “He is entitled not to support Israel, but he is not entitled to come out and fuel antisemitic canards.”

Carter does not claim that Jews “control the media or academia.” But he does claim that the Israel lobby has intimidated the mainstream media into putting constraints on discourse about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Those are not the same things. But a propagandist like Foxman could never muster the nuance to understand this. That is why Foxman does such a disservice to American Jewish communal discourse and the quicker he leaves the scene the better off we will be (not that there are not other dinosaurs out there equally destructive).