You know that global priorities have been hopelessly perverted when responsible, stable democratic countries give up safe nuclear energy due to public pressure while fanatical despots leap toward nuclear-weapons capabilities without a hitch.

A remarkable bit of news out of Germany:

The German government agreed on Monday to phase out all nuclear power by 2022, a sharp reversal by Chancellor Angela Merkel aimed at appeasing the country’s intensified antinuclear movement. . . . Mrs. Merkel has been grappling with the sudden deepening of German distrust of nuclear power since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan set off the world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

And an unremarkable bit of news out of Iran:

Iran has conducted work on technology to place nuclear material on a missile and detonate it, the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in a nine-page report published May 24. Documented evidence suggests that Iran has done “studies involving the removal of the conventional high-explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replace it with a spherical nuclear payload,” the report states.

A single accident—a freakishly large geologic event combined with a uniquely situated island nuclear plant—sends policy and technology marching swiftly in reverse. But three decades of doomsday genocide threats, global terrorist facilitation, illicit nuclear programs, and violations of international law can’t bring the oh-so-concerned “antinuclear movement” to block production of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

I still think Gen. David Petraeus—the most successful general the U.S. has produced in decades—would have been the logical candidate to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral James Stavridis, currently Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and before that the head of Southern Command, would have been another logical choice because of his diplomatic experience.

But it is hard to argue with the selection of Gen. Martin Dempsey, who was only recently tapped to become army chief of staff. He is a veteran of two combat tours in Iraq and a former acting commander of Central Command who is widely respected for his intellect and his grasp of Middle Eastern complexities. Certainly he is a far better choice than Gen. James Cartwright, the Marine who is the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and was widely seen as the front-runner for the top job until a few weeks ago in spite of his having absolutely no combat experience at a time of war.

Cartwright endeared himself to some in the White House by backing Vice President Biden in his opposition to the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which was strongly backed by Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In the process, Cartwright got a reputation within the Pentagon as a devious and disloyal bureaucratic operator. If he had been appointed as chairman, a crisis in civil-military relations would have ensued. That flare-up has now been avoided.

As a bonus, the selection of Dempsey as chairman opened up the army chief of staff’s job for Gen. Ray Odierno, who did as much as Petraeus to make the surge in Iraq a success. Odierno has been on the frontlines as long as any senior general, and he will bring to his new job a comprehensive knowledge of all the army units that served under his command—which by this point must include most of the army.

Today’s announcements confirm the point I had made earlier about Obama: He has had to undergo a long period of on-the-job training and he has made a number of stumbles along the way but he also has a capacity to learn from experience and correct course before things go too disastrously awry. The decision to drop Cartwright in favor of Dempsey is another indication of that process in action.

The discussion of Memorial Day usually (and rightly) focuses on the need for all Americans to take some time to honor those who are fighting right now to defend our freedom or our own parents, grandparents, and relatives who served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or more recent conflicts. We Americans are fortunate to be living in a country where the day set aside to honor veterans and those who fell in defense of our republic is sufficiently remote from the experience of most citizens that, for most, it is a day of barbecues instead of national mourning, which is how, as I wrote a few weeks ago, it is observed in Israel.

However, I think it is also useful to take a moment to remember the origins of this holiday, especially in the year that we commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. As David has already pointed out (here and here), Memorial Day began in the aftermath of that war, a conflict whose cost in American blood would be far greater than even that of the two World Wars of the following century. Decoration Day, as it was called prior to the First World War, was not observed in the former Confederate states where different days where set aside to honor the dead of the rebel cause. That division has been largely forgotten, but as much as we should not show disrespect to the memory of fallen Confederates, it is perhaps more appropriate not to lump together those who died to continue the shame of American slavery with those who sought to end it and to preserve the union.

As Adam Goodheart’s new book 1861: The Awakening admirably illustrates, the catastrophe that disunion would have been for the United States as well as the world (which would rely on a strong and united America to save it three times from catastrophe in the following century) was averted not by a general call to duty by those on both sides but by the courage and determination of a few loyal souls who stood by their country and its Constitution at its moment of greatest peril. The country—nay, the free world that we live in today—would not be possible without the tremendous sacrifices of those who served the union 150 years ago.

To most of us, those who died for the union are an abstraction often forgotten amid the entirely proper hero worship of Abraham Lincoln and the less praiseworthy idolatry devoted to Robert E. Lee and his comrades. But it is the boys in blue, in whose memory this holiday was first dedicated and whose herculean efforts preserved this great republic of ours that we should honor above all today.

Lawrence Kaplan raises a good point in the New Republic: why aren’t we having parades on Memorial Day, or on other occasions for that matter, to honor Iraq War veterans? Our reticence to honor the current crop of heroes stands in stark contrast to the ticker-tape parade held in 1991 in New York’s “canyon of heroes” to honor Gulf War vets.

I agree with Kaplan that the failure to honor our recent vets—and those still fighting in Afghanistan—is shameful. But it is not unexpected. The Gulf War was the kind of neat, tidy, short, decisive conflict—or so it appeared at the time—that makes for easy and pleasurable chest-thumping. The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are something else: long, messy, untidy counterinsurgencies where it will not be clear for decades after the fact whether our efforts succeeded or not. And unlike the Gulf War (which everyone supported, if only after the fact), the two more recent wars have created deep, uncomfortable divides in our society.

In this respect the current conflicts remind me of the Indian Wars, the long series of frontier clashes that were fought by the U.S. Army from its earliest days until 1890. Those veterans too were denied victory parades; they were more likely to appear in the newspaper when they were massacred (e.g. the Battle of the Little Big Horn) or when they were themselves accused by Eastern humanitarians of perpetrating war crimes against the “noble savages” (as indeed sometimes occurred).

It would be nice if all of our wars fit the tidy model of World War II, starting with an attack against us and ending with the unconditional surrender of the enemy, to be followed by the lionization of those who fought as the “Greatest Generation.” But most of our history has been more messy than that. Americans must come to terms with the nature of “small wars” and realize that even if these conflicts lack a moment of triumph such as the surrender on the USS Missouri, they are nevertheless an important part of our national defense—and that those who fight in the “savage wars of peace” (as Kipling called them) are every bit as worthy of respect as the veterans of our handful of big wars.

It has become popular to argue that the Arab Spring will be the downfall of Al Qaeda and its ilk. There is no doubt that mass protests have proven a more potent instrument of regime change than suicide bombs—but it is too early to write off the terrorists either. While the longterm impact of the changes sweeping the Arab world may well be to redress some of the grievances which have given rise to terrorism, in the short term this period of upheavals could create an opening for armed Islamists to seize power. While they are far from having majority support in the Muslim world, jihadists are just the kind of small, well-organized, well-armed, and ruthless clique that—like the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917—can seize power in a moment of revolutionary turmoil.

The latest evidence of the danger comes from Yemen, where a decrepit and unpopular strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has been tottering on the brink for weeks. So serious was his situation that he even agreed to give up power—only to renege on his pledge. But Yemen has never been all that strongly governed to begin with, and now there are reports that Islamists are taking advantage of the moment to seize power in the city of Zinjibar. This is a worrisome development because Yemen is home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Along with Somalia, it is the country where jihadists currently have the best chance of seizing power.

The U.S. has tried to head off this catastrophe by providing aid to the Saleh regime as well as conducting some Special Operations raids within Yemen. But President Obama not long ago called for Saleh to step down, a belated recognition of how how much legitimacy he has lost. The challenge now will be to work behind the scenes in a country where our influence is distinctly limited to try to bolster a transition to a regime capable of exerting some degree of influence over this chaotic country. Or else the radical jihadists, who had appeared irrelevant just a few weeks ago, could stage a worrisome comeback.

As Rep. Paul Ryan continues to brush off speculation that he may enter the presidential race, enthusiasm over his candidacy continues to heat up. The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson analyzes the top potentialRepublican candidates, and finds that Ryan might be the best positioned to win in a general election:

Among top-tier prospective nominees, Ryan would have the biggest geographical advantage in a race against Obama. To win the presidency, Ryan would just have to win his home state and hold GOP-leaning Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. That would be it: election over, Obama defeated, Ryan’s pen poised to sign the Obamacare-repeal legislation.

Republicans will likely focus on flipping a Democratic-leaning tossup states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, especially with President Obama’s beefing up his Florida operation. According to Politico, Democrats are planning to spend close to $50 million on a state-wide campaign aimed at attacking the GOP on Medicare.

That’s not to say the president would have an easy time picking up Florida. ObamaCare is still wildly unpopular, and his recent comments on Israel’s 1967 borders could be a problem in the state. But even if Obama does manage to succeed there, Anderson writes that Ryan is one of the only candidates who could win the election without Florida:

Ryan’s competitiveness in Wisconsin would open up scenarios in which he could potentially survive even the loss of the most important state on the electoral map: Florida. Without winning Florida, a Republican who doesn’t win Wisconsin would absolutely have to win Pennsylvania. Even then, he or she would face an uphill battle, as Pennsylvania is worth 9 fewer electoral votes than the Sunshine State. Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes, however, would more than make up that difference. Moreover, Ryan could potentially survive the loss of both Florida and Pennsylvania​—​which no other potential GOP nominee could realistically do​—​by sweeping Wisconsin, Nevada, and the three toss-up states of Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

Of course, if Republicans end up nominating a certain charismatic Floridian senator as their vice presidential candidate, Obama’s $50 million Florida campaign could all be for nothing.

This weekend, Egypt reopened its Rafah border crossing with Gaza after four years of almost total closure. Amid much talk about the move’s meaning for Gaza’s quality of life, for Israel’s security, and for the character of Egypt’s new government, perhaps its most significant element has been overlooked. A binding international agreement, brokered by the U.S. and signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, has just effectively been torn up.

The 2005 agreement laid down detailed provisions for how Gaza’s border crossings would be run following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory earlier that year. From a security standpoint, Israel won’t mourn its demise, as the European monitors stationed at Rafah quickly proved useless at preventing the passage of terrorists and contraband.

But at a time when the world is demanding that Israel make far more dangerous territorial concessions in the West Bank in exchange for yet another piece of paper containing “robust” security provisions (to quote President Barack Obama), it’s worth noting just how flimsy such pieces of paper are. In a mere six years, Hamas has replaced the PA as Gaza’s landlord and declined to honor the latter’s promises, while Egypt’s new government has scrapped former President Hosni Mubarak’s policy of upholding the agreement even though he wasn’t a formal signatory. And presto! there goes the agreement.

Read More

As Jonathan observed a few weeks ago, Memorial Day in the United States has become for too many simply a day off, uninterrupted by the sparsely attended memorial events of the day. We lack what Israel has on its Remembrance Day—a two-minute national silence, when the country remembers its fallen together, with even cars on the road stopped and drivers standing silent outside them.

Few know that in 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-579, establishing a “National Moment of Remembrance” for 3 p.m. local time, a “time for all Americans to observe, in their own way . . . a symbolic act of unity” in order to “reclaim Memorial Day as the sacred and noble event that day is intended to be.”

The Los Angeles National Cemetery, established in 1889 in a largely vacant area of town, is today in the middle of Westwood, with 85,000 gravestones—a reflection of the fact that Americans have served in seven wars since the cemetery was founded. Visitors will see a small flag placed at each grave, a sight both stirring and sobering, and pass stone tablets inscribed with stanzas from “Bivouac of the Dead” by Theodore O’Hara (1820–1867)—a poem filled with what David called “the language of memory and respect.” Here is an excerpt, perhaps worth rereading today at 3 p.m.:

The muffled drum’s sad roll has beat
   The soldier’s last tattoo;
No more on Life’s parade shall meet
   That brave and fallen few.
On Fame’s eternal camping-ground
   Their silent tents are spread,
And Glory guards, with solemn round,
   The bivouac of the dead.

No rumor of the foe’s advance
   Now swells upon the wind;
No troubled thought at midnight haunts
   Of loved ones left behind;
No vision of the morrow’s strife
   The warrior’s dream alarms;
No braying horn nor screaming fife
   At dawn shall call to arms.

Rest on, embalmed and sainted dead!
   Dear as the blood ye gave;
No impious footstep here shall tread
   The herbage of your grave;
Nor shall your glory be forgot
   While Fame her record keeps,
Or Honor points the hallowed spot
   Where Valor proudly sleeps.

It’s not often that the New York Times’s editorial board sides with the Senate Republicans on an issue, but apparently the Democrats’ budget dereliction has become too problematic to ignore. In an editorial today, the Times called out Senate Democrats for failing to produce a budget plan of their own:

But there will be no vote on a budget by the Democratic majority of the Senate, the traditional method for stating the majority’s priorities in black and white dollar signs. That’s because the Budget Committee has not agreed on one. And that’s because a good plan by the committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, was deferred by Senate leaders, who feared that the plan’s tax increase on millionaires would make Democratic senators ripe targets for Tea Party attacks.

The Times also admonished Democrats for choosing the “safe political path,” adding that this tactic “will let down those who sent them to Washington.” Senate Republicans have been saying as much for weeks, but the fact that the Times is now jumping on board shows that the narrative of slacker Democrats is gaining traction and could become increasingly problematic for them. The left seems to be growing tired of the party’s passivity, and wants it to launch a robust defense of liberal economic policy. Of course, the American public won’t be as thrilled about the massive tax hikes that would naturally be included in any Democratic budget plan, so that scenario is exactly what Republicans are hoping for.

Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress unwisely waded into Israeli politics once again last week, writing about a phenomenon that he terms “post-Jewish Zionism.”  This is his theory that Christians and conservatives are becoming increasingly pro-Israel, a concept that isn’t exactly groundbreaking.

But according to Yglesias, the impact of this is that American Jews—who are typically politically liberal—are becoming “decreasingly relevant to the politics of Israel.”

“The existence of Christian Zionists is, of course, not new,” Yglesias wrote. “But what is new is that Israeli politics has drifted toward the hawkish right over the past ten years even as Jewish Americans remain on the progressive left.”

The insinuation is that American Jews have a more “progressive” perspective on how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than either Christian Zionists or Israelis themselves, and that these conservatives may hijack the issue and push solutions that don’t mesh with the values of typical American Jews.

It’s true that some (though not all) Christian Zionists don’t support a two-state solution, which puts them out of sync with the politics of most of the American Jewish community. However, while American Jews are progressive on social issues, they take a far more pragmatic and conservative stance on Israel.

Read More

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as Jonathan noted, single-handedly prevented last week’s G-8 summit from explicitly endorsing the 1967 lines as a starting point for Israeli-Palestinian talks. What made this remarkable, however, was not merely that Harper once again provided the lone pro-Israel voice in an international forum. It’s that Harper, rather than the U.S. president, was the one Israel’s prime minister telephoned for help — because Barack Obama has blatantly abandoned a longstanding American tradition of insisting that international forums meet minimal standards of even-handedness.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of this shift. For decades, when Israel wanted help defending its case in an international forum, it dialed Washington. It didn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans occupied the White House; Washington was always the address.

That’s because successive U.S. presidents all adopted a simple policy: You can’t target Israel while giving the Palestinians a free pass. You can’t condemn Israeli military operations without also condemning the rocket fire or suicide bombings that prompted them; you can’t demand Israeli concessions at the negotiating table without also demanding Palestinian concessions. As then-UN Ambassador John Danforth explained in a masterful exposition of this policy in 2004, that is how America defines “even-handedness,” and it won’t accept anything less.

But it’s precisely this policy that Obama has abandoned – and that Harper has stepped in to defend. As the latter told reporters after the summit, he doesn’t share Israel’s opposition to mentioning the 1967 lines in principle. What he objected to was the G-8’s attempt to make demands of Israel without also mentioning the concessions Palestinians will have to make for a two-state solution.

“You can’t cherry pick elements of that speech,” Harper said, referring to Obama’s May 19 Middle East policy address. “I think if you’re going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama’s speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized.”

Not so long ago, it would have been the U.S. president insisting on that basic modicum of even-handedness. It’s a measure of how far Obama has undercut the American-Israeli alliance that Jerusalem is now forced to dial Ottawa instead.

President Obama said today that Poland’s transformation from a corrupt and oppressive Soviet satellite state into a free country ought to be a model for those Arab nations seeking to rise above their own historical experiences. He asserted that Poland, the country that suffered cruelly under the Tsars, the Nazis and the Communists only to become a functioning democracy when it finally regained its independence ought to provide inspiration for Arab and Islamic societies that seek freedom.

Obama has been at pains to praise his hosts during his visit to Poland. He has good reason to do so. Obama betrayed both Poland and the Czech Republic in his first year in office by revoking America’s commitment to provide those countries with missile defense in a vain attempt to appease Russia. The goal of this presidential European tour is to re-establish the close ties with our oldest allies and friends (such as Britain) that Obama did so much to downgrade since taking office.

But his bouquet to the Poles is also yet another instance of the president adopting the rhetoric and the arguments of neoconservatives, the ideological group that liberals like Obama used to love to hate. It was the neo-cons who spent the first decade of the 21^st century arguing that America had a duty and a need to promote democracy around the world, especially in those areas like the Middle East, where democracy was virtually unknown (outside of Israel, that is). Liberals derided this belief as either a cynical cover for American imperialism or a hopelessly naïve expression of ignorance about Arabs and Muslims who, were told, did not share our values.

But, as with the first part of his Middle East policy speech last week (the part before he attempted to tilt the diplomatic playing field in favor of the Palestinians and against Israel), that promoted a freedom agenda that sounded perilously similar to the words of the despised George W. Bush, Barack Obama has yet again set forth his neocon profession of faith.

In truth, America’s freedom agenda is a much easier sell in Poland, which has always seen itself as part of the West despite its location next to Russia, than in the Arab Middle East. The Poles needed help ridding themselves of their oppressors, not in formulating a democracy. The problems faced by those who wish to establish democracies in the Arab world are far greater.

Nevertheless, it is nice to see Obama agree with the neoconservative formulation that freedom is for everybody not just those lucky enough to live in the West. The world will be a better place if he, and the liberals who elected him, follow up on those sentiments.

Mitt Romney wants us to believe that he is a man of principle, a paragon of political decency and common sense whose business acumen and personal integrity will help him lead the country back to greatness. But even though he looks the part of a man with steel in his spine, the former Massachusetts governor proved once again this week that he is merely a garden-variety politician who wants to be all things to all people.

The latest example of this character trait came on Thursday when he told Iowans, “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution in this country.”

The ethanol boondoggle is good for Iowans who grow corn but bad for America. The federal subsidy for the fuel additive is a long-running scandal that even those who benefit from it know must come to an end in an era of budget crises. Yet for decades, it has been an article of faith that those who wish to win the Iowa caucuses must pledge allegiance to ethanol.

Tim Pawlenty is betting that a refusal to play that game will help, not hurt his presidential candidacy. Pawlenty’s statement of opposition to the ethanol subsidy when he formally declared his intention to run earlier this week was a daring step but one that might prove to be good politics. Opposing ethanol allows the former Minnesota governor to establish himself as the mainstream candidate whose concern for the country’s future is such that he won’t go along with business as usual corruption even if it means discomfiting some Iowa farmers. It also allowed him to outflank Michelle Bachmann, a potent rival in the state for Pawlenty, who will have some explaining to do to Tea Party activists who believe all such government handouts are wrong if she waffles on the issue.

Romney’s backing for ethanol calls into question his pose as the guy who can make the tough decisions to balance budgets and eliminate waste and fraud. Though he’d like to be the man he speaks about when he puff his presidential qualifications, he just can’t help being who he is: a weathervane who goes back and forth on the issues depending on where he is and whose votes he wants. Even in Iowa, a state that he may not even actively contest next winter, Romney can’t stop pandering.

For nearly a century and a half—ever since President U. S. Grant declared “Let us have peace” in officially proclaiming a national day to commemorate all who had been killed in the Civil War—we the people of the United States have set aside a day to remember American soldiers, the best among us, who have fallen in battle. Originally called Decoration Day, the holiday was a sectional observance for several decades—the Southern states held a separate Confederate Memorial Day. Not until the Spanish-American War, when Northern and Southern soldiers together came under fire again for the first time in thirty years, did Memorial Day became a national day of remembrance. (This is a history that I have sketched in before. In a moving post at the Weekly Standard this morning, Leon and Amy Kass place the date of the expanded national holiday after World War I.)

American culture has become a victim culture, more comfortable with commemorating slaughter than heroism. The shift can be traced by comparing Allen Tate’s famous “Ode to the Confederate Dead,” first published in 1927, to Robert Lowell’s reply, “For the Union Dead,” read aloud at the Boston Arts Festival in 1960. A native of Kentucky who contributed to the Southern Agrarian manifesto I’ll Take My Stand, Tate acts as a guide to a Confederate cemetery, where the “wind whirrs without recollection.” He urges the visitor:

Turn your eyes to the immoderate past,
Turn to the inscrutable infantry rising
Demons out of the earth—they will not last.
Stonewall, Stonewall, and the sunken fields of hemp,
Shiloh, Antietam, Malvern Hill, Bull Run.
Lost in that orient of the thick-and-fast
You will curse the setting sun.

Read More

The front page of today’s Sunday New York Times leads with a story about the move in several state legislatures to require citizens to produce a photo ID when voting. The conceit of the piece is that this is a Republican plot aimed at suppressing the minority vote via “Jim Crow” laws that will make it difficult for the poor and the elderly to participate.

Republicans answer quite reasonably by pointing out, as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said when signing one such bill into law that, “If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture ID when you vote.”

The attempt to paint voter ID laws as racist is clearly a political tactic aimed at delegitimizing any effort to halt voter fraud. Democrats who oppose such laws claim that there is no evidence of attempts to steal elections via the votes of those who ineligible to vote (such as persons who are not citizens or illegal aliens) or who have already voted in another district.

But the problem with this argument is that stuffing ballot boxes with ineligible, fictitious or multiple votes by the same person is as American as apple pie. Such practices date back as far as colonial days and have been pursued with vigor in big cities and small towns and in every region and state of the union. The stakes involved in democratic elections are high and not just in terms of policy. Government patronage of one form or another has always been a standing temptation to cheat on the local, state and federal levels.

So are Democrats and liberals who oppose voter ID trying to tell us that we have reached an age of such political righteousness that we no longer should fear the possibility of stolen elections? This is, of course, a preposterous suggestion. It is even more preposterous when you consider that there are millions of illegal immigrants within our borders. Though I don’t subscribe to the fear mongering about the impact of the record number of illegals since most come here to work in the jobs that Americans don’t want and actually contribute to our society far more than they hurt it. But it is another thing entirely to say that we shouldn’t care whether non-citizens vote.

The working presumption on election security should be the same as that of airline security. We should presume that fraud is being planned at all times and act accordingly. It takes little or no effort to get a picture ID in this country especially since it is now a requirement in virtually every aspect of economic activity and travel. Voter ID laws are simply common sense. They are not racist or unnecessary and those who make such arguments are either deluded or grinding their own political axes.

On November 11, 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State Clinton issued a Joint Statement, following a “friendly and productive exchange of views.” Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Goldberg, Fareed Zakaria, and Joe Klein have asserted that the November statement is a smoking gun, proving Netanyahu manufactured a confrontation with President Obama over his May 19 Middle East speech. 

At Time magazine, Klein wrote that Obama’s speech had employed the “exact formulation” from the November statement. Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post that the November statement shows “Netanyahu’s quarrel, it appears, is with himself.” In his Atlantic blog, Goldberg wrote it “fairly definitively proves that the whole contretemps over Obama’s radical new analysis of the Middle East crisis was ridiculous.” And Sullivan overtopped his Atlantic colleague, writing the statement confirms that Netanyahu is a “liar.”

The key portion of the November statement consisted of two sentences: (1) a U.S. description of the competing Palestinian and Israeli goals, and (2) a commitment about Israeli security requirements in any future agreement:

Read More

This may be more a product of Republican apathy with the current field of presidential candidates than a burning desire for a Giuliani candidacy, but the former mayor is currently leading the GOP race in the latest CNN poll.

The survey of 473 Republicans has Giuliani at 16 percent, Romney at 15 percent, Palin at 13 percent, Ron Paul at 12 percent, and Herman Cain at 10 percent, with other potential candidates all garnering less than 10 percent each.

It’s useless to read a lot into polls at this point, but this one could have a practical impact on the field. There hasn’t been much media focus on Giuliani, and this development is likely to change that, especially if it’s reproduced in other polls. Giuliani is reportedly close to a decision on whether to enter the race, and a finding like this could help sway him toward a run.

Giuliani would be a long shot to win the nomination, but his candidacy could potentially be a spoiler for Romney. According to the same CNN poll, Romney leads the GOP field with 19 percent if Giuliani doesn’t enter the race. The two would be competing for virtually the same demographic of moderate Republicans in the Northeast. Both would be focused on New Hampshire, and while Giuliani has a rocky history there, he could end up siphoning off some of Romney’s support. So really the only practical purpose of a Giuliani bid would be to complicate Romney’s strategy.

In the wake of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s successful trip to Washington, Israel’s critics are in a grouchy mood. President Obama failed in his effort to ambush Netanyahu—they can’t deny that—and the result was a reaffirmation of American support for Israel that effectively ends any further diplomatic freelancing by the White House. But unhappy Israel-bashers claim it doesn’t matter.

They say Israel is still isolated diplomatically and will be forced—whether or not Bibi’s fans like it—to capitulate to international territorial demands without getting anything from the Palestinians in exchange. Either that, or the Jewish state will find itself being treated like the new South Africa after the United Nations recognizes an independent Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders with no swaps.

So does that mean that Netanyahu must take “bold” steps to give in to the Palestinians or face a diplomatic “tsunami” this fall? Despite the hopes of those who think the wrong guy won the fight between the two leaders last week, the answer is no.

First of all, the idea that Israel has the power to head off the confrontation in the UN in September is a fallacy. The spectacle of the world’s lining up to bash Israel at the UN will be daunting, but it will get the Palestinians nowhere. In the end, the United States will veto the resolution in the Security Council and that will be that. Israel won’t be any more or less diplomatically isolated than it is today. All that will have been accomplished will be to have proven (again) that the Palestinians won’t talk. The Arabs will be angry with the United States, but essentially nothing will have changed when the dust settles.

Read More

Rep. Paul Ryan has been very careful in how he addresses speculation that he may enter the 2012 race. He’s avoided shutting the door to a run, saying on Tuesday that he has “no plans to run for president . . . not really.” He expanded on this last night during an interview on Fox News’s Special Report:

“I really believe I can do more for this cause where I am right now as chairman of the House Budget Committee. I have no plans to do this—it takes an enormous undertaking to do this—and right now where I am at this moment, I need to focus on this budget fight we’re in. This summer we’re going to be spending a lot of time in budget fights and to me, that’s where I can make the biggest contribution to the debate right now.”

As Bill Kristol points out at the Weekly Standard, “the door is ajar—not ‘right now,’ but after the summer, and if no one else is able to show the kind and quality of leadership that’s needed.”

Over the past week, Ryan has been very open about his desire to see the GOP presidential candidates lead on the budget issue. But so far the current crop of hopefuls has been hesitant to aggressively back the Ryan plan.

“[I[f you apply conservative principles to the budget and debt problems, it’s going to look a lot like this plan,” Ryan told the National Journal in an interview last night. “It would be wrong for us to insist that every single idea in our proposal be in a candidate’s plan. But, you’ve got to be ready to solve this problem.”

Ryan called the budget debate a “Churchillian-type of moment in history,” and said that “The polls are predictable. They are regrettable. But this is a unique time in our history. We can’t go wobbly.”

Ryan understands that the GOP has a unique opportunity with this election. He was likely hoping that someone like Mitch Daniels, who could turn the election into a defense for conservative economic principles, would enter the race. Another candidate who has this ability could still materialize. But if that doesn’t happen, Ryan will have to decide whether he will let this “Churchillian-type of moment” go to waste, or step into the ring.