MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Image

John McCain earned himself headlines in Israel today when he said, "I support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."

Professing support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognized as such, has become a time-honored political tradition for U.S. presidents and would-be presidents. Since the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed Congress in 1995, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem has been the official policy of the United States. And yet, every six months, the president signs a waiver that says, "[My] Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem." It never happens, for the obvious reason that the move would cause an uproar in the Arab world. Last year, El Salvador and Costa Rica became the last coutries to move their embassies to Tel Aviv, even though the Knesset and the prime minister's offices are located an hour's drive away in Jerusalem. I doubt a President McCain would upend the status quo, notwithstanding his suggestive comments today.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Does Adm. William J. Fallon's resignation mean the United States is closer to a war with Iran? The White House has called that suggestion "just ridiculous." But it's still what everyone seems to be asking today. Over at the Washington Post, Dan Froomkin concludes, "It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran." Meanwhile, Terry Atlas at U.S. News offers up "6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War In Iran." And on Capitol Hill, Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel said he was, "very concerned to see [Fallon] go."

Given the military realities at the moment, Froomkin's suggestion that "full-scale" war against Iran is possible seems a little off to me. When Foreign Policy recently surveyed more than 3,400 retired and active duty officers at the highest levels of command, 80 percent told us that it was "unreasonable" to believe that, given current deployments, the U.S. could engage in another major combat operation at this time. And the officers put America's preparedness for war against Iran at just 4.5 on a 10-point scale, where 10 meant the U.S. was fully prepared for such a mission.

Atlas's "6 Signs" taken as a whole and in the context of regional events don't worry me too much. Still, Fallon's departure may point to trouble, particularly in light a just-released assessment by the Israeli intelligence community, summarized today in a piece by TNR's Yossi Klein Halevi:

According to a just-released strategic assessment by the Israeli intelligence community, 2008 will be the 'Year of Iran.' The Lebanese government, warns the assessment, could collapse in the coming months, allowing Hezbollah to take power. Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Hamas are considering a coordinated rocket assault on Israeli population centers, almost all of which are within rocket range of either group. And, according to the strategic assessment, sometime within the coming year, or by early 2009 at the latest, Iran will achieve nuclear capability. The threat that emerges from the intelligence assessment may well be the most acute that Israel has ever faced."

With Dick Cheney departing for the Middle East next week, this assessment is worrisome. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said that the Israelis would not consider unilateral action against Iran. But they would likely leap at the chance to conduct coordinated strikes with the U.S. And Cheney's ear is reportedly sympathetic to the argument that diplomacy with Iran is futile. "Full-scale" war with Iran is probably militarily out at this stage, but strikes conducted by air and sea -- with the Navy taking the lead -- are still a very real possibility before the Bush administration is through. And that does make Admiral Fallon's departure worthy of concern.

A few commenters asked why, in yesterday's post about Mahmoud Abbas, I didn't note that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may have his own political reasons (i.e., the rockets) for not wanting to negotiate with the Palestinians right now. My answer: It's different, since Abbas is clearly not responsible for Hamas's rocket fire, yet Olmert is responsible for the decision to send the IDF into Gaza. In any case, it may be a moot point now. The gloves are about to come off:

Several people were killed Thursday evening when terrorists infiltrated the Merkaz Harav yeshiva Jerusalem and opened fire, a senior police official said.

It was unclear exactly many assailants were involved, but according to various reports, one or two terrorists infiltrated the yeshiva, and may be armed with explosive belts.

Some reports suggested the terrorists were shot and killed, while other reports from the scene said the incident was ongoing and shots were still being fired.

A large number of police and emergency medical personnel had either arrived or were en route to the scene, with some 20-30 ambulances involved.

There is no shortage of Israelis who are fed up with daily rocket attacks from Gaza. One such Israeli has decided to go vigilante. A man in Ashkelon reportedly fashioned his own homemade missile to launch into Gaza. The "200-millimeter ballistic missile" also came with some fightin' words:

From this day onwards, we will push back to the stone age every place which dares shoot missiles into Israel's sovereign territory... It is time the world understood Israelis' lives are not expendable... I'm afraid this is the only language the Palestinians understand, and this is the language in which we'll speak to them."

The missile, painted with the words "to Hamas, from the residents of Ashkelon," was never fired as police stepped in to stop the man and disperse the crowd that was cheering him on and protesting the government's handling of their security. This ought to be a teachable moment: A government can prevent acts of terrorism if it has the capacity and the will to do so.

As Drew notes, many people have been asking: What does Barack Obama really think about Israel? On Sunday, Ralph Nader had this to say about the Illinois senator on Meet the Press:

He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate.  Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli. He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement...

In a speech not likely to assuage Citizen Ralph, Obama put forth his own views Sunday in a talk to Jewish voters in Cleveland, Ohio. His campaign sent the remarks to the New York Sun, which published them in full here. They're too long to adequately summarize, but here's New Republic Editor Marty Peretz, a staunch pro-Israel voice, with a qualified endorsement:

... Barack Obama's views on Israel and the possibilties of peace between it and the Palestinians are both tough-minded and deeply comprehending. I don't at all think that I'd be disappointed with an Obama presidency, and certainly not with his attitude towards the Jewish State. He is also not massaging Jewish audiences when he observes -- correctly -- that Israelis are, in general, far more various in their views on the security situation than American Jews or American Jewish organizations... [Obama's views on Israel] are not mine exactly. But they are enough like mine to let me sleep calmly.

David Silverman/Getty Images

A Palestinian man hurls stones at Israeli troops (unseen) during a violent protest against Israel's security fence, Feb. 22, 2008, where it cuts off Palestinian farmers from their land at the West Bank village of Bil'in. Hundreds of villagers backed up by foreign and left-wing Israeli supporters marked three years of demonstrations against Israel's controversial barrier.

1st prize People in the News Singles
Yonathan Weitzman, Israel
Dress of an African girl caught in the Israel/Egypt border fence, 20 August

<-- Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next -->

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaci (shown at right) gave an interview for Friday's Haaretz in which he professes admiration for Israel and stresses that his majority-Muslim proto-country (which is expected to declare independence any minute now) will not be an Islamic state:

At a time when in Turkey, which also wants to join Europe, the battle over the religious character of the state is heating up, Thaci promises: "Kosovo is going to be a democratic and secular state of all its citizens, and the freedom to exercise religion without any hindrance is granted by the Kosovo Constitution."

This assertion is significant since many Israelis fear that an independent Kosovo, or a potentially unified "Greater Albania" could serve as an Islamist beachhead in southern Europe that relies on Iranian and Saudi support, an argument that Thaci said "does not even deserve comment." It was this concern that lead then Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon to break with most of the international community in 1999 and support Slobodan Milosevic during the NATO bombing of Serbia. Nevertheless, Thaci describes Sharon as a "great leader."

Many also see parallels between Kosovo's struggle for independence and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and worry that a precedent may be set. This is but one of the many domino-effect scenarios that have emerged in recent weeks. Thaci argues in response that Kosovo is "a unique case" and "should not represent any precedent." The rebel leader-turned-politician clearly hopes Israelis will think of Kosovars as kindred spirits. Haaretz, at least, is already calling him "the Ben Gurion of Kosovo."

DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images

This past weekend, 40 Qassam rockets fell on southern Israel. An eight-year old boy's leg was amputated as a result, and there has been a marked increase in fightin' words from Israel. Residents from the southern town of Sderot even staged mock rocket-attack drills on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to demonstrate what it's like to live under the constant threat of attack. Israelis are boiling over despite four retaliatory air attacks in Gaza Saturday night.

Sderot's mayor stepped up the pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to act, saying, "It's got to be a direct war -- killing Mr. Haniya, killing his deputy, killing all his staff, his house, his government house." (That would be the first time a Seven Questions interview subject was assassinated.) But Olmert, who seems to have become more level-headed since his widely criticized attempt to neutralize Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, responded, "[O]utrage is not a plan for action." Defense Minister Ehud Barak chimed in with an Israeli version of the Powell Doctrine: the need for clear goals, "a [political] exit plan," and international support prior to military action.

The shadow of Winograd is apparent, yet it sounds like expanded action is likely against Gaza. According to Barak, it'll happen only "when the time is right."  Hamas leaders are reported to have cut back on public appearances, and it’s clear they are taking the threats on their lives seriously. They have even pulled out the Gilad Shalit card, saying the captured Israeli soldier will never return home if Hamas leaders are assassinated. Amid this web of rhetoric, the point, as always, is that the rockets need to stop falling for peace talks and hostage negotiations to move forward. If Hamas leaders can't control the threat, Israel will have no choice but to do it for them.

The Egyptian government is trying to pretend that what happened in Gaza Wednesday was all part of a clever plan to help the Palestinian people:

We are not opening the Rafah crossing just for everybody to cross - we're opening it because it's a very dire humanitarian situation," said [Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman] Hassam Zaki.  [...]

"The current situation is only an exception and for temporary reasons, Zaki said. "The border will go back to normal."

Of course, any propaganda points the Egyptian regime can reap from this situation are likely to evaporate once Al Jazeera starts airing footage of these scenes:

Egyptian riot police gathered at the Gaza-Egypt border on Thursday, directing traffic away from the frontier fence smashed by the Hamas
militants a day earlier.

Dozens of Egyptian police in helmets and with search dogs used batons to beat the hoods of private cars and pickup trucks that massed at the border to carry Palestinians further into Egyptian territory.

Thousands of Palestinians continued to flow through the wrecked border fence into Egypt on foot, however, and Egyptian forces also deployed south of the Sinai town of El-Arish in order to prevent Palestinians from traveling further into the country.

MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images

In the wake of U.S. President George W. Bush's visit, it appears that more violence, rather than the hoped-for peace, is breaking out in the Palestinian territories. Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak has promised to step up the assault on Gaza militants who have been attacking southern Israel with Qassam rockets:

Even as we stand here, Qassam fire continues. The [Israel Defense Force (IDF)] will continue in its ongoing operation and deepen it in order to strike at the perpetrators, until the firing stops… It won't be easy, it won't happen this weekend, but we will bring an end to Qassam attacks on Sderot."

To add to the chorus, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had this to say:

The answer to the Qassam rocket attacks is an uncompromising war on terror which originates from Gaza, and not only through dialogue and negotiations. [Israel] must be clear: when speaking of a Palestinian state, we are talking about two parts—Gaza and the West Bank."

The Hamas government in Gaza has reportedly agreed to try and stop the rocket fire, but tellingly warned that it would be difficult to do so if Israeli military assaults continue. 

Honestly though, how can anyone ask people on either side to negotiate for peace while bombs are falling on their civilians? It sounds like the roadmap needs a detour: Get Gaza under control, then talk about what comes next.

AWAD AWAD/AFP/Getty Images

Haaretz reports on U.S. President George W. Bush's trip to the West Bank:

The president said Israel and the Palestinians must both live up to their commitments under the long-dormant road map for peace.

"On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts," Bush said. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure ... no agreement and no Palestinian state will be born of terror."

Bush added that a future Palestinian state can't look like "Swiss cheese"—rather, it has to be "viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent." He also used the word "occupation" to describe the Israeli presence in the West Bank, a loaded term in Israeli politics that was unexpectedly deployed by former PM Ariel Sharon in 2003 (and has since become less loaded). In other words, Bush went farther than he has in the past to express his sympathy for the Palestinian side of the argument.

But the Israeli government isn't convinced that "ending settlement expansion" is in Israel's interests. The Jerusalem Post has the latest:

Israel will continue building in Jerusalem as well as in major settlement blocs in the West Bank, even as a construction freeze continues elsewhere in the territories, a senior Israeli official said Thursday.

The remarks come just two days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Jerusalem Post that the US opposes any new construction in the southeastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, and does not distinguish between Israeli building in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

It's not clear whether Bush meant "ending settlement expansion" to include the deeply controversial Har Homa, but Rice, at least, seemed unusually unequivocal and explicit about it. We'll have to see what happens next.

BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images

While it's somewhat helpful to at least appear to be keeping a process going, very few Middle East analysts are hopeful that Annapolis will bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The main reason? Both Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are too weak to make a deal stick, even if the basic parameters of a peace settlement are widely known at this point.

Far more encouraging is Syria's willingness to send its deputy foreign minister to Annapolis, despite the fact that Israel bombed a suspected nuclear facility back in September. Damascus even spurned a request from the Iranians, who wanted the Syrians to stay home with them and pout, and ignored the views of their client, Hamas. The Syrians are desperate for a deal, but they don't want it to look like they're surrendering—and they don't want to burn their bridges with Tehran until they have faith that entering the Western and Arab fold will be worthwhile. Many questions remain, among them:

• Are the Syrians willing to essentially "sell out" the Palestinians and make a separate peace, à la Egypt? Or will they hold out for a comprehensive settlement?
• Is the United States willing to sell out the Siniora government? The Syrians will seek to reassert their hegemony in Lebanon as part of any bargain.
• And how to square this with Syria abandoning its support for Hezbollah, as the Israelis want?
• Is Israel willing to give up the Golan back to the 1967 lines, as the Syrians have been demanding for years?

Still, it's an encouraging sign that U.S. officials seem more open to the idea, which has been kicked around in policy circles for years, of peeling the Syrians away from their Iranian friends. And the Israelis are certainly enthusiastic about the concept, which helps:

Maybe it's time to employ the carrot to remove [Syria] from the axis of evil," the deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, said in Washington last month. This will "prevent the Iranian influence," he said.

So, while most of the media attention is going to focus on Olmert and Abbas, I'm going to be watching closely to see what how Syria handles this summit. 

Haaretz reports on the Israeli military intelligence view of the upcoming Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, which are slated for November 26:

Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence believes that the U.S-sponsored summit is likely to fail, and that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas might step down as a result. [...]

As Haaretz reported a few weeks ago, MI believes the chances for success at Annapolis are "close to nil."

These MI guys are the ultimate, hardboiled realists. If they see the odds of success as "close to nil," they're probably on the money. Gideon Lichfield, Jerusalem correspondent for The Economist, comments on his personal blog:

Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images

[T]he only one really interested in this [summit] any more is Condi Rice.

One source tells me they will hold the summit without any joint declaration on the substantive issues, merely an agreement on the negotiating process to follow it. That might be so — this source has been right before — but it might just be too embarrassing for everyone concerned. It would especially embarrass Abbas, who has been pretty categorical about how he won't turn up unless Israel makes concrete promises.

And the most foolish-looking would be Rice herself. She has been pushing Annapolis as the answer to America's problem of how to increase Abbas’s legitimacy, which is America's strategy for its broader problem of how to weaken Islamist movements like Hamas. If Abbas caves in and comes to a meaningless summit it will do nothing for his legitimacy or America's policy goals (which I think are quite warped, but that’s another matter).

So I still wouldn't rule out some kind of breakthrough as the date gets closer. But given the limited pressure that Rice is willing or able to apply to either [Israeli PM Ehud] Olmert or Abbas, it will be a minimal breakthrough designed not to bring peace but to save face: Rice's face, first and foremost.

Ouch. And it's not just Abbas whose neck could be on the line. Olmert is struggling to beat back a reputation for corruption. He also faces a serious challenge from Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is carving out political space to Olmert's right and seems eager to torpedo Rice's summit. Olmert has admittedly lasted a lot longer than I thought he would and the Israeli economy is humming, but it's hard to imagine him fending off his rivals for too much longer. If the summit does fail and fighting breaks out again, his party might well decide to finally get rid of him. And the increasingly hawkish Barak is in a great position to take maximum advantage.