From a very smart Barry Rubin piece at Pajamas Media:

In some ways, the most important — or at least second most important — thing to happen in the Middle East this week is that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah went too far, calling for the overthrow of Egypt’s government.

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit responded, “They have actually declared war on Egypt.” And when he says “they” he means Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. The Saudis and Gulf Arabs are also drawing lines deeper than ever before. Publicly and loudly, they look at Gaza and see Arabs and Muslims, and criticize Israel. More softly in public and loudly in private they look at Gaza and see the Iranian axis.

This is the Middle East of 2008 and not of 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, or 1998. The Palestinian issue has little effect on any other issue. The real conflict is Iran-Syria against Egypt-Saudi Arabia. Islamists are seeking to conquer the region from Arab nationalists. Radical groups are not interested in happy homelands but jihad and genocide.

And so the issue is not why Israel is attacking Hamas in Gaza now, but why Hamas in Gaza is attacking Israel now.

Does Israel have any greater advantage in its existential struggle than the endless feuding among Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Persians, nationalists and Islamists. Rubin makes an excellent point about Hezbollah having dangerously overreached (I think Hamas did as well, though on a smaller scale, with its attack yesterday on Be'er Sheva) and about the effect this latest fighting seems to have had on the existing divisions in the Middle East, but in many ways, the Middle East of 2008 is not so different from the Middle East of 1948 or 1967 or 1973. As long as the Muslim world is divided against itself, even a dysfunctional Israeli political system will be able to outmaneuver its foes as it has done for the last 60 years. Read the rest of Rubin's piece here.

Speaking of things that could kill a prayer, there is a new lawsuit by Michael Newdow (the guy who tried unsuccessfully to get "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance) that takes aim at inauguration prayers as well as the practice (it started with George Washington) of a president's saying the words "so help me God" after reciting the brief oath in Article II of the Constitution. Newdow wants to have all of that declared unconstitutional. It won't happen.

This alone ought to disqualify Roland Burris from being appointed as a United States Senator. Its amazing how the left has been able to rally around Burris without knowing anything about him, declaring him qualified to serve if only he hadn't been appointed by a governor on the verge of impeachment and imprisonment. Nevermind that he sought the appointment despite all that, or that he ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate and was soundly rejected by the voters of Illinois once before, as he was rejected for governor by those same voters (in favor of Blago!).

Did anyone ever think that maybe there was a reason Illinois voters refused to send Burris to the Senate when they had the chance? Click through to see the "major accomplishments" Burris has emblazoned on his own monument to his own greatness.

On CBS's "The Early Show" this morning:

RODRIGUEZ: I’m fine, thank you. Yesterday we heard you say that they shouldn’t hang and lynch the appointee to punish the appointer. But do you believe that this is the way the only African-American Senator should be seated? Tainted, rightly or not, by a scandal and against the objections of most of his own party?

Rep. RUSH: Well, let me just say this, you know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children–where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I’m talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I’m talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I’m sure that the US Senate don’t want to see themselves placed in the same position. I know my friend Harry Reid…

RODRIGUEZ: But it’s not just the Senate, Congressman. It’s Barack Obama who is African-American also who disagrees with this.

Rep. RUSH: Well, I think what needs–what needs to happen now is that all these folks who are opposed to Governor Blagojevich, they need to take a chill pill. We’re still a nation of laws and I believe that Roland Burris and Governor Blagojevich, they’re on solid constitutional grounds in terms of them being–of him being selected. I think that the US Senate will have to accept him. Let me just say this, you know, the real political tragedy, the real political issue, the moral issue that we face is why in the US Senate there are no African-Americans? There are two Asians, three Latinos, 11 women, but no African-Americans. And I just must applaud the people of the state of Illinois because in the last 150 years, we have sent two of the three African-Americans to the Senate over a period of 150 years. Now something is really, really wrong with that. So are you saying is this–is this…

Holy chutzpah! Nice careers you got there, Senators...shame if anyone should start comparing you to Bull Connor. For pure entertainment value, the Blago scandal cannot be beat.

How's this for encouragement in the new year? Obama and Senate Dems can't shake the resilient Rod Blagojevich, House Dems can't rid themselves of the scandal-ridden Charlie Rangel, and now, it is revealed that none other than Billy Mays is a Republican.

The interview is actually a couple months old, but I'd never seen it linked anywhere, and I thought the news was vital:

L.G.: A lot of the fundraising is done on the internet, in small increments—indeed, in many cases in $19.95 increments. Could you see a situation where you're selling Barack Obama or John McCain in that way, or is that just too nutty?

B.M.: I think if I was approached by the McCain camp. I'm a Republican.

L.G.: Maybe this is unfair to ask, but how would you pitch John McCain? Would you say, "Billy Mays here for John McCain?"

B.M.: Security. The world's a safer place. Country first. "Billy Mays for John McCain! If you want to keep you and your family safe, vote McCain!" I'd have to think about it, I wouldn't like to bash anything. I'd like to keep things positive.

As far as I'm concerned, this means our 2009 prospects are stronger than Mighty Putty and brighter than an Oxi-Cleaned laundry load.

Egypt cancels New Year's in solidarity with Palestinians. Too bad they didn't ever cancel all that smuggling into Gaza.

Beware the cycle of ceasefires.

Adding a million or so drunk revelers to a city renowned for its high levels of crime and low levels of competence? Happy Inauguration Day! Wear a helmet.

The Top 10 Top 10 lists of 2008. Meta!

Anti-Israel protestors wait for "change" in Mid-East policy that's not coming anytime soon.

Blago cannot be stopped!

Israel's stories you won't see on CNN.

Things get worse for Caroline.

They will never, ever leave us. Never.

The other day I emailed a few questions to Rick Warren, who has accepted Barack Obama’s invitation to give the inauguration prayer, and he’s now responded. Warren says, among other things, that the invitation was “completely unexpected” and that “several dozen” other pastors would do “a better job.” It’s apparent that he knows a great deal about inaugural prayers--he actually has a binder containing them all--and he says he’s going to reread them all before he settles on what shape his will take. I don’t think he’ll be backing away from praying in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, he won’t be using his prayer to preach or take a political stance--"that’s the fastest way to kill a prayer," he says.

Here are my questions and Warren’s answers:

How hard or easy was the decision to accept the president-elect’s invitation?

I am both humbled and honored to have a tiny part of a history-making day, when our country inaugurates our first African- American president. The invitation was completely unexpected. I could name several dozen wonderful pastors, both black and white, who would do a better job.

Do you expect to look at some past inauguration prayers to see what’s been done before?

I’ve always been an avid student of American history, since a Richard Warren was one of the 41 Pilgrim signers of the Mayflower Compact. I already have a collection of many of the important prayers in U.S. history, including a binder of every inaugural prayer. Of course, I’ll reread them all again before Jan. 20th. I own Abraham Lincoln’s handwritten note confirming the need for a national chaplaincy to care [for] wounded soldiers during the Civil War and approving a pastor.

How do you think about the kind of prayer to be given at a (any) public event, given that the audiences at such events usually have various faiths represented?

It doesn’t bother me at all when an Imam prays a Muslim prayer in [a] public arena or when a Rabbi prays a Jewish prayer in public or when anyone expresses their personal faith in public. This is America. We don’t deny our differences but we are respectful of all of them. I’m a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray.

By which I mean both what is prayed for and how it is prayed?

Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements, nor political posturing. That’s the fastest way to kill a prayer. They are humble appeals to God. My hope is that all Americans will pray for the new president.

You've got to love the Pakistani government's sense of humor, which is so vividly on display with its official position on Ajmal Amir Kasab, the surviving terrorist involved in the execution of the Mumbai terror assault.

Pakistan has repeatedly denied that Kasab is even a Pakistani, let alone a member of the Inter-Services Intelligence-backed Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even President Asif Ali Zardari, in an interview with the BBC said there is no proof Kasab is a Pakistani. "Have you seen any evidence to that effect. I have definitely not seen any real evidence to that effect," Zardari told the BBC in mid-December.

More than one month after the Mumbai attack, Pakistani National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani waffles on the issue of Kasab's nationality. "Could be," Durrani said when asked if Kasab was a Pakistani citizen. "I am not saying more than that because we don't have, I hate to say this we don't have proof."

But Pakistan has been given proof of Kasab's nationality. Kasab himself admitted he is from Pakistan and submitted a request for consular access. The request is "under review." Kasab's father and neighbors were interviewed by Pakistani television and news outlets and confirmed he was indeed from Pakistan. His own father identified him and provided a nearly identical account of his son's background as Kasab gave to Indian intelligence. "This is the truth," Kasab's father told a Pakistani news outlet. "I have seen the picture in the newspaper. This is my son Ajmal."

Pakistan's response was to cordon the village, remove Kasab's family from their home and move someone else in, and force the townspeople to retract their statements. That's humor, Pakistani style. But nuclear-armed India doesn’t think it is funny.

Ramesh Ponnuru bats down the newfangled (and nonsensical) proportionality standard promoted by many critics of Israeli military action.

Cynthia McKinney's voyage to Gaza doesn't go quite as it was planned.

Vicki Iseman sues the New York Times for $27 million.

Remember when Joe Biden vowed there wouldn't be any earmarks in the next stimulus bill? So much for that.

If one of us has Alien Hand Syndrome, we all have Alien Hand Syndrome.

Can Harry Reid really deny Roland Burris a Senate seat? As Pejman Yousefzadeh points out, the Supreme Court seems to have ruled definitively on whether or not the Senate can refuse to seat a designee simply because they oppose the governor who named him. Yousefzadeh reviews the Supreme Court's finding in the case of Powell v. McCormack, and concludes:

... we glean that so long as Roland Burris meets the qualifications for a United States Senator as set forth in the Constitution, he must be seated. Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution states that "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Roland Burris is more than "thirty Years" old, has been a citizen of the United States all of his life and is "an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." He may be expelled or punished if he engages in misconduct while a member of the Senate, but I can't see how he is prevented from taking his seat.

So while Reid has threatened to deny Burris the seat, Supreme Court jurisprudence forbids him from doing so. Can he prevent Burris' credentials from coming before the Senate? It seems unlikely. Senate Rule II makes this a question of privilege--one which can be raised by any Senator at more or less any time:

The presentation of the credentials of Senators elect or of Senators designate and other questions of privilege shall always be in order, except during the reading and correction of the Journal, while a question of order or a motion to adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum; and all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of.

As I understand the rule, it only takes one Senator to call for action on Burris to force a Senate debate, and ultimately a vote on whether to seat him. If he is denied his seat--or if he's somehow denied a vote at all--Burris will presumably go to court to force the matter. And while there is a report that the Illinois secretary of state will refuse to certify Blagojevich's action, the secretary of state's own office has reportedly acknowledged that no certification is needed to make the appointment.

It seems that the U.S. Senate, the people of Illinois, and the nation at large may be set for a tragicomedy reminiscent of Florida 2000. With Democrats holding somewhere close to 60 Senate seats, Barack Obama's effectiveness in his critical first 100 days may depend on Reid's ability to muster 60 votes to break filibusters. And now it appears that two Senate seats (Minnesota and Illinois) could remain open for months or weeks while courts settle things.

And to think: the Illinois mess could have been avoided if the Democratic leadership of the state legislature had gone through with its initial plan to strip Blagojevich of appointment powers, and provide for a special election to replace Barack Obama in the Senate. Instead, they decided to try to avoid giving a Republican a shot at the seat by gambling that Blagojevich wouldn't appoint someone before he was kicked out of office.

The best laid plans of mice and men...

Eric Trager says that's the best possible outcome for Israel:

...Israel should move towards asserting a quick victory - immediately. At the moment, Israel has Hamas cornered: through its air strikes on key Hamas targets, Israel has achieved a peak in its military offensive, and the threat of a ground invasion remains highly credible. Now would be the perfect time for Israel to recruit pro-western Arab states for pushing Hamas towards relinquishing its rockets; or extending the truce well into the future; or releasing IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit; or some other meaningful concession to which Hamas might agree under the circumstances.

That all seems a bit fanciful. Haaretz now reports that two rockets have hit Be'er Sheva -- the first time such rockets have reached so deep into Israel (about 25 miles from Gaza). If anything, it seems that Hamas has doubled down and in so doing cornered the Israeli leadership. How are the Israelis to escape this with a credible deterrent and a credible claim to victory if they cease fire while Hamas retains an arsenal capable of penetrating so deeply into Israel? Another ten miles and Hamas could hit Tel Aviv, precisely the threat which compels an occupation of the West Bank.

Also at Contentions, Noah Pollak offers what I think is the only acceptable outcome for Israel:

What would be far more stabilizing is if democracies around the world backed Israel’s military operation until Hamas loses either its ability or its will to continue fighting. The Iranian-led resistance bloc would thus learn a lesson whose stabilizing effects would be felt around the region: the free world will support anyone forced to fight Islamic terrorism.

Obviously no such support will be forthcoming from most of the world's democracies, but most of the world's democracies are irrelevant in this fight. Israel has the support of the United States, and it will, presumably, continue to have such support in the wake of Obama's inauguration. If Hamas is not neutered, at least temporarily, then how can this be spun as a success, and how can Kadima hold on to power?

Alan Rogers of USA Today captures one of the central dilemmas facing the new Obama administration here:

President-elect Barack Obama vowed on the campaign trail to shut down the terrorist detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But he never said what he would do with the prisoners there.

What to do with the 250 alleged foreign terrorists at the Cuba prison is the real question facing Obama, experts say.

Rogers cites my research on the Guantánamo detainees, but that is not the only reason you should read the piece. (Ha!) Rogers also cites a new study by the Brookings Institution that is similar to the research I have been doing in many ways. The Brookings study was authored by Benjamin Wittes, who is always worth reading when it comes to Guantánamo and U.S. detention policy.

In addition to making a determination about what to do with the current detainees, the Obama administration would be wise to keep an eye on the former detainees as well. As Wittes and USA Today remind us, hundreds of detainees have been repatriated to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where we rely on foreign governments to keep an eye on them. The fact that the U.S. repatriated these suspects does not necessarily mean that they are not dangerous. Some of them, for example, were involved in al Qaeda’s anthrax program.

In the weeks to come, we’ll have more on the current and former Guantánamo detainees -- who they are as well as the difficulties the new administration faces in determining what to do with them and how to make sure they do not rejoin the jihad.

As Israel continues its retaliatory strikes against the Hamas stronghold in Gaza, so the left increases its collective j'accuse, specifically bemoaning the use of 'disproportionate force.'

The manner in which a nation conducts war, and achieves victory, can be as important as the war itself. Compare the conquests of the British Empire to that of the Mongols under Genghis Kan. Tactics and the utility of force matter, a point that hasn't been lost on modern, Western militaries.

The highly professional Israeli Defense Force, however, is nothing like the Mongol Horde. The IDF's campaign against Hamas is both legal and justified under ever major treatise on warfare, from the Geneva Convention to Thomas Aquinas' jus ad bellum. Israel is on firm ground here.

Observations that the action against Hamas constitutes a limited war, and should be conducted as such, are correct -- to an equally limited point. One of the principle problems with limited warfare is the frequent inability of the side with superior firepower to bring its force to bear in a manner quick enough to prevent the smaller, more agile force from responding, adjusting, and relocating. Israel's tactic of swift, sweeping air raids against Hamas' centers-of-gravity appears to have largely neutralized this trend.

For the left, this leads to clumsy fumbling over terms like 'disproportionate force.’ In today's highly technological battlefield, disproportionate force (or killing a mosquito with a cannon) has as much to do with types of weapon platforms as it does numerical superiority. The Israelis, with their air-delivered precision-guided munitions, are using a scalpel -- not a broad sword. And it's a method that we've used ourselves frequently -- during the Clinton years as well -- in places like Serbia and Iraq. There's no clause in the Law of Armed Conflict or Geneva Convention which states that your enemy must first have an air force before you use your own, nor are there any rules that restrict Israel to using weapons that are of equal or lesser caliber than the ones which Hamas uses against Israeli civilians.

So this is a strange phenomena that leaves critics of Israel forced to create their own rules of warfare to better fit their narrative. It's an odd play for a crowd noted for their championing of global solutions and treaties to local problems.

For more, I highly recommend Noah Pollak's The Juicebox Mafia on Gaza.

Most retailers won't report their sales results until the customary 1st Thursday after the 2nd, which is January 8. Still that hasn't stopped the downbeat headlines trumpeting the plummeting of retail sales, mostly based on the SpendingPulse Holiday Wrap-up Report put out by MasterCard Advisors. The report claims that "excluding gasoline, total sales were down 2% to 4% this holiday season compared to the same period in 2007."

One possibility is that when all the numbers are in MasterCard's estimates may be wrong this year. While MasterCard has complete access to sales activity on the MasterCard payments network, it has to estimate other sales, including the use of cash and checks. With credit card companies cutting credit limits and raising interest rates and fees it is entirely possible that MasterCard's model -- just like those used by so many Wall Street investment bankers -- will prove to be off this year.

In addition, many of the fastest growing retailers in the country are so-called "deep discounters" such as ALDI and they don't accept credit cards making MasterCard's estimate even less reliable.

Yet even if the estimates are correct, if you combine a 2 to 4 percent drop in sales, measured in dollars, with reports of far deeper discounting by retailers and manufacturers, the implication is that consumers bought more of most items than they did last year. In fact if reports of deep discounts on luxury goods and electronics turn out to be representative, it is very possible that this Christmas season consumers purchased substantially more goods than in 2007.

After all, if a store offers a 50% off sale it has to increase sales by 100%, in term of numbers of items sold, in order to stay even on dollar sales.

Of course whether sales are strong or weak, the profits of retailers and manufacturers, who often help retailers fund discounts, are at risk from deep discounting. The U.S. probably is over-stored and retail will have to adjust. That adjustment, just like adjusting from a surplus of homes, auto manufacturing capacity and who knows what else, will not be painless.

Still, how consumers are suffering in a recession is an important point of public interest so before we all collapse in despair, isn't it worth noting that a more accurate headline than "Retail Sales Plummet" is "Consumers Get More Stuff For Less Money?"

There's a 3 p.m. news conference scheduled for today. This guy is not joking around:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama's Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich's arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor's support.

More on Burris:

Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, 71, had lobbied the governor for the position in recent weeks.

Burris made a previous attempt at the Senate seat in the past -- unsuccessfully. In 1984, he was beat out for the Democratic nomination by Paul Simon.

Update: Reid: No seat for you.

The Pakistani government has shut down NATO's vital supply link to forces based in Afghanistan as the military has launched an offensive to clear the Taliban in a region just on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Peshawar. This is the second such operation launched in this area by the Pakistani military in six weeks. Clearly the first operation failed.

Pakistan has closed the Khyber Pass to NATO convoys three times since September. The first closure was in protest of US airstrikes in the tribal areas. The second was due to the deteriorating security situation.

These closures highlight what should be painfully obvious to anyone remotely following the situation in Pakistan: the government and military have lost control of not only the tribal areas, but large swaths of the Northwest Frontier Province as well.

The Taliban is no longer bottled up in the small agencies of Bajaur and North and South Waziristan. They rule Swat and Shangla, and are poised to take control of Peshawar. Yet the Pakistani military is withdrawing an estimated two divisions of troops from the northwest to station then on the Indian front. The Taliban clearly has the initiative and the upper hand in the northwest. This is why the US is seeking alternative supply routes into Afghanistan.

Click on the map of the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province at right. The government signed peace agreements in the red agencies/ districts (the military said Shangla was under Taliban control in October); purple districts are under de facto Taliban control; yellow regions are under Taliban influence. Map created by The Long War Journal.

In an effort to combat skewed media reports on the current fighting in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces launched a YouTube channel. The IDF has video of airstrikes on smuggling tunnels and rocket launch sites, the movement of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the deployment of IDF tanks to the Gaza region, and other such videos. Eight videos total have been uploaded over the post 24 hours.

The IDF is targeting the blogosphere and anyone else willing to watch the videos. "The blogosphere and new media are another war zone," IDF Foreign Press Branch head Major Avital Leibovich told the Jerusalem Post. "We have to be relevant there."

The videos show something that is rarely reported in the media. The Israeli strikes are conducted in the heart of built up areas. One video shows a strike on about one dozen Hamas fighters as they are loading Grad rockets into the back of a truck in the middle of a densely packed neighborhood. Another video shows an airstrike on a weapons storage depot that clearly is in a residential area (videos are posted below).

Of the estimated 375 Palestinians killed, only 60 are reported to be civilians. The Israeli strikes are remarkably accurate and are causing a relatively low degree of civilian deaths despite airstrikes being launched in built-up, urban areas.

Compare this with Hamas rocket and mortar attacks, or previous suicide attacks when the Palestinians terror groups could pull these off inside Israel. Hamas and others have clearly targeted civilians; the attacks are aimed at civilians in the heart of cities and villages. Yet the reporting invariably hints that the Israeli attacks are indiscriminate while the Palestinian attacks are a response to Israeli aggression and part of the “cycle of violence.”

It certainly isn't shocking to see that there is a double standard when the media report on the Israeli attacks in Gaza. Perhaps the IDF YouTube channel may help narrow this wide gap in reportage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sarah Palin's a grandma! Congrats, and a big welcome to little Tripp. Now, I want to see Piper-as-aunt pictures, pronto.

Obama will raise taxes on wealthiest Americans while lowering them for the middle class, all while passing a $775 billion stimulus package. Also, unicorns.

Atheist says only God-loving people can save Africa.

The IDF joins the fight online, with a new YouTube channel.

Craig Newmark offers suggestions for Continetti's call for creative conservatism.

Why Detroit's union problem is so very bad.

You know what this stimulus plan can't do without? $6 million for snowmaking in Minnesota.

Joe Biden names his puppy Champ, despite the fact that I lobbied hard for little "Botox Biden." I thought it had a nice ring to it. They could call him "Bo" for short.

Daschle tours the country with Obama's health care plan: "The Obama playbook is to engage everyone as long as they can, try to avoid getting into the details as long as they can."

Awww, Obama's abs can't save him from bowling jokes.

The Blagojevich recordings cometh.

The boss looks forward to Obama's inauguration with a hopeful eye.

Mackubin Thomas Owens and Reihan Salam pay tribute to Samuel P. Huntington.

Six out of ten active duty service members not too keen on Obama.

Briton with fatal disease waits in emergency room line for 6 hours.

Iraqis will take control of the Green Zone on Thursday.

Christopher Caldwell defends Obama's right to smoke.

Seeing Gaza from the lookout on the Israeli side of the border, it's not obvious that the Palestinian enclave is among the most miserable spots one could possibly live. Still, we know it to be true. But perhaps it is lost on many Americans that living next to Gaza is likewise a miserable experience. The Israelis who cope with a daily bombardment from the crude but increasingly sophisticated rockets produced by Hamas endure what no American would ever abide. Barack Obama was uncharacteristically succinct when he described the situation last summer:

If someone was sending rockets on my house where my daughters were sleeping at night, I would do everything to stop it, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

Yes, and it's evidence only of the extreme paralysis of Israeli politics that it took so long for the Israelis to actually do something. There is no reason to believe that the Israelis are lashing out in some ill-conceived manner -- using their superior military infrastructure to exact revenge for years of unanswered attacks (though such a response would be understandable). In fact, the operation has been in the works for at least six months as the Israelis gathered intelligence on the Hamas leadership and its infrastructure in Gaza. Roggio worries that this looks like a repeat of the 2006 war against Hezbollah. I'm more optimistic.

As Noah Pollak points out, the war against Hezbollah in 2006 did succeed in stopping the rocket fire on Israel's northern border -- at least for the time being. The problem was not solved permanently, and that was indeed a tremendous and unfortunate failure. But as Jeffrey Goldberg writes, the goal here is not the destruction of Hamas -- that doesn't seem possible at this point -- but for the Israeli government to fulfill its fundamental obligation to its citizens: "to use all of the tools of national power to stop attacks on its citizens." That can be achieved by restoring Israel's deterrent through a massive show of force. As Marty Peretz writes:

So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message: do not fuck with the Jews.

The problem with this, however, is that if Israel doesn't finish the job, Hamas may accrue some benefit from the additional suffering of the Palestinian people. Hamas doesn't care whether the residents of Gaza live or die, whether they prosper or starve, it cares only that the Arab world and Iran support the organization with money and weapons, that the Palestinian people are united in their hatred of Israel, and that a moderate Palestinian faction is unable to pursue peace. If Hamas is left as the dominant force in Gaza, then their tactical defeat may also be a strategic victory -- as was the case for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Barak is promising a war with Hamas "to the bitter end." I'll believe that when I see it.

Still, the Israelis' fight in Gaza is a good fight. It is supported by the Israel's left-wing parties and more than 80 percent of its citizenry. While the American left kvetches about the disproportionate use of force, their silence when Hamas announced an end to the cease fire was far more revealing. And this time the American left cannot claim to be in solidarity with their ideological allies in Israel. They are on their own, and they speak only for themselves.

As far as Obama, does anyone doubt he would have supported this attack vigorously? Which raises the question: did the Israelis do Obama a big favor by launching this operation now, rather than forcing Obama to support it publicly three weeks from now? Ben Smith has some good reporting on how this is playing in Obamaland, see the last two paragraphs in particular.

I've been tuned out the last week and missed this amazing story which features the New Republic(!!!) exposing phony war reporting "first-person meditations." If that wasn't enough, Noam Scheiber has this graph attacking Harris Solomon, the man producing a movie based on the bogus story and who prosecuted a vigorous, TNR-like defense of the lies contained therein:

In fact, there's ample proof that Rosenblat's story isn't true; by this point, the burden is on Rosenblat to provide corroborating evidence. What's "bloody repugnant" is that Salomon would try to ward off questions this way.

As always, the burden to provide corroborating evidence must fall on the author, and I share in the New Republic's outrage that those vested in the story would stall, ignore troublesome facts, and ultimately fall back on the moral authority of an author exposed to the hardships of war. You know what would be a real shame is if the publisher responded with a 6,000 word diatribe against his critics rather than just a brief apology for being taken in by a huckster.

What does it take to become president of the United States? The ability to say more or less the same thing, again and again, for two years straight.

Here is Barack Obama to Steve Kroft, in early 2007, on why he should be president:

"We have a narrow window to solve some of the problems that we face. Ten years from now, we may not be in a position to recover the sense of respect around the world that we've lost over the last six years. Certainly, when you look at our energy policy and environment and the prospects of climate change, we've gotta make some decisions right now. And so I feel a sense of urgency for the country."

And here is Obama to Steve Kroft, in late summer 2008, on why he should be president:

"Well, I think that when you think about the challenges we face these are challenges that require us to look forward and not backwards."

Note the skill at which Obama stays on message without saying anything of substance. An extraordinary talent.

What struck me as I watched the 60 Minutes program on Obama last night was not only his unflappability. It was the fact that, for the least experienced president-elect since at least Jimmy Carter, Obama made only one and a half unforced errors throughout the entire long campaign. The first gaffe came in the summer of 2007, when he pledged to meet with the leaders of rogue regimes without precondition. As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, it was a "metastatic gaffe" that trailed Obama for more than a year. Now that he is president, he has quietly dropped the pledge -- an implicit acknowledgment of a mistake.

The half of an unforced error was the Obama campaign's lack of preparedness for the inevitable attack on its candidate's ties to Jeremiah Wright. David Axelrod says here that "We didn't review all of the tapes of Jeremiah Wright as we should have." Translation: We weren't ready. But they knew what was coming. Which is why this counts as only half of an unforced error. The real mistake happened twenty years ago. The real mistake happened when Obama chose Wright as his mentor.

Let me know if I missed any major Obama mistakes during the campaign. I don't think I have.

From the paper's esteemed editors:

Before Mr. Bush spoke, the State Department announced that the United States and its partners would halt deliveries of heavy fuel oil because Pyongyang refused to agree, in writing, on a plan for verifying its nuclear stockpile and facilities.

China and Russia insisted that they had not agreed to any such decision. South Korea said it would delay shipping steel plates for North Korean power stations. Japan was already reneging on its commitment to supply fuel aid, and Australia, which had stepped into the breach, announced that it would withhold its contribution.

If the shipments stop, North Korea would be within its rights to stop disabling its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and resume producing plutonium for weapons. That would present Mr. Obama with an immediate crisis.

According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all countries have the right to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty.” Of course, North Korea became the first country ever to withdraw from that treaty in 2003. Apparently it is the position of the editors at the Times that the North Korean regime therefore has an inherent right to produce nuclear weapons failing sufficient American bribes of food and fuel. One hopes that is not a view shared by Barack Obama.

The United States may cut a deal with the North Korean regime in order to reduce the threat to our allies in the region, but it will be a deal with the devil -- and surely one that we would be within our rights to break at the first opportunity to rid the world of the Kim family.

From the BBC:

The number of civilians killed by violence in Iraq has fallen by two-thirds in 2008, researchers say.

Official Iraqi figures say 5,714 people were killed in 2008 compared to 16,252 the previous year.

The non-governmental organisation Iraq Body Count also said the number of deaths was down by two-thirds, but put the figure between 8,315 and 9,028.

US military casualties fell from 900 in 2007 to just over 300 according to the independent website icasualties.org.

Several days ago, about 200 hundred prominent Turkish intellectuals launched a first-ever online petition apologizing for the “Great Catastrophe” in connection with the massacres of up to 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey during 1915-1917. Titled “I apologize”, the brief statement reads as follows:

“My conscience cannot accept the ignorance and denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and -- on my own behalf -- I share the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers - and I apologize to them.”

The authors of the statement, among them Cem Oezdemir, the new leader of the German Green Party, deliberately opted for the term “Great Catastrophe” in an effort to stay clear of the ultra-explosive term “genocide”. While genocide scholars widely agree that the killings of the Armenians constituted the first genocide of the 21st century, Turkey strongly rejects such accusations to this very day, arguing instead that those killed were simply the victims of civil war. So far, about 22,000 people have signed the online petition, not that many for a country of more than 71 million inhabitants. Several Turkish nationalist counter-websites with titles such as “I Expect An Armenian Apology” or “I Do Not Apologize” have already garnered more than five times as many votes as the initial “I Apologize” petition.

Turkey’s top leadership, too, has begun a strong push-back to counter the apology campaign. The powerful army, for instance, has warned ominously that the petition could “bring about harmful results”. Finally, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan came up with his own rationale for why he opposes the online petition, saying that “I did not commit any crimes, so why should I apologize?”. As a private individual, for sure, Mr. Erdogan was not involved in any of the Armenian massacres. But coming from a Turkish statesman eager to join the European Union, Erdogan’s statement and cavalier attitude regarding a very dark chapter in Turkish history is simply not acceptable in the 21st century.

In contrast to Erdogan's remark, I am reminded of how then-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl dealt with the issues of personal guilt and collective moral and political responsibility in his historic January 1984 speech to the Knesset in Israel. He said: “I speak to you as someone who could not get caught up in guilt during the Nazi period because he had the grace of a late birth.” At the same time, however, Helmut Kohl (born in 1930) never left any doubt that as the German Chancellor, he was willing to assume collective moral and political responsibility for the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany during the 1933-1945 period. Prime Minister Erdogan’s stubborn refusal to assume collective moral and political responsibility for the “Great Catastrophe” displays a lack of statesmanship and casts a long shadow on Turkey’s aspirations of joining the European Union any time soon.

Yesterday the Taliban conducted a heinous suicide attack in the eastern Afghan province of Khost. A suicide car bomber detonated his explosives outside of a government center just as a group of school children was passing by. A U.S. military surveillance camera captured the bombing, and the Department of Defense released the tape to the Associated Press.

Watch the video, you will see the suicide bomber weaving through the barriers designed to slow down vehicles. The school children are walking against the wall on the right, and are in clear view. The suicide bomber clearly had a view of the children - he was moving slowly enough. Yet he detonated his bomb just as the line of children passed by his car.

Today, the Taliban took credit for the attack, claiming "at least 20 American and puppet terrorists were killed and more than 50 were wounded, and the building was destroyed."

The statement praised the attacker, identified as Afghan Qari Hameedullah, claiming he had rammed a "explosive-laden vehicle into a puppet Afghan government building."

Perhaps the Taliban didn't see the video of their suicide bomber blowing up those puppet school children.

After the expiration of a "truce" with Hamas, terror groups in Gaza pounded the Israeli south with rocket attacks. The Israeli government has responded forcefully, with waves of air strikes targeting Hamas's security infrastructure. More than 280 Palestinians, mostly Hamas members, have been killed in strikes on more than 100 security compounds. Hamas's security chief and several other senior leaders were killed in the attacks.

Hamas has vowed to attack Israel with suicide bombers and other means. More than 80 rockets have been launched into the Negev despite the Israeli air offensive.

Within 24 hours of the assault, Israel already appears to be over relying on air power and avoiding the more difficult task of conducting a ground assault. Per Reuters:

Israeli military affairs commentators said the Israeli offensive did not appear to be aimed at retaking the Gaza Strip or destroying the territory's Hamas government -- ambitious goals that could prove difficult and politically risky to achieve ahead of Israel's February 10 parliamentary election.

Instead, they said, Israel -- after an air bombardment on Saturday -- wanted to strengthen its deterrence power and force Hamas into a new truce that would lead to a long-term halt to cross-border rocket salvoes.

Israel essentially followed the same failed strategy in Lebanon against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. After two soldiers were captured by Hezbollah forces in a cross-border raid into northern Israel, the Olmert government launched an air campaign, convinced it could degrade and destroy Hezbollah's rockets in Beirut and the South, take out Hezbollah's leadership, and force them to release the soldiers.

The Israeli offensive is widely recognized as a strategic failure. Israel was always constrained by time; they could not indefinitely conduct operations inside Lebanon without serious international implications. The Olmert government's failure to act quickly and decisively allowed Hezbollah to maintain the initiative.

Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets into northern Israel, despite a blanket of air cover by the Israeli Air Force. The Israeli Defense Forces cautiously entered southern Lebanon only after it became apparent that the air campaign could only achieve limited results, and by then it was too late as the operation was winding down. The Israeli military never meaningfully pursued Hezbollah's infrastructure in the Bekaa Valley.

The Israeli-Hezbollah War left Hezbollah standing, stronger than ever. They stood up to Israel as no Arab regime has, and survived. Within two years, Hezbollah has become a part of the Lebanese government.

The Olmert government faces tough choices. There is little support for the reoccupation