$733,457,590/Page, Spent on Bill Few Read!

Democrats, with the help of three renegade Republican Senators, just voted to spend $733,457,590/page and few even had the time, or took the time, to read the 1073 page Stimulus Bill - now that's responsible Democracy in action. If you are a member of the shrinking tax payer pool do you feel you are on a "Ship of Fools" manned by 'Demwits' who trained on the Titanic? If so you may soon be drowning in your own tears?

Roses are red violets are blue Congress' message to America - screw you!

Two views - you decide (See 1 and 1a below.)

Clever play on words regarding Sen. Gregg's decision not to join President Obama's Cabinet.

My own interpretation is: Gregg realized he could not stomach being "window dressing" on a give away salad topped with pork. (See 2 below.)

More petulance from our youthful thin skinned president? Clever rhetoric can carry you only so far. (See 3 below.)

Truman said:"If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen." In Obama's case seems he blames everyone else for giving him bad ingredients. (See 4 below.)

Case in point: Running The Harvard Law Review may turn out not to be the requisite training for running the country.

As FDR said: "Happy Days Are Here Again" cause Liberals are in position to spend and spend.(See 5 below.)

More smoke and mirrors from Hamas so Israel's IAF replies. (See 6 below.)

Shalit or no deal. (See 7 below.)

Glick poses four questions for Netanyahu to answer and how he does will be critical in terms of how he governs. Kadima offers Netanyahu both cover and problems. A must read to understand Netanyahu and Israel's plight as it seeks to thread the Iranian nuclear needle which represents a threat to its survival. (See 8 below.)


Dick


1) Obama's pyrrhic victory on the stimulus package
By Phil Levy

As the fiscal stimulus saga draws to a close, we can ask what this opening salvo of the Obama presidency means economically, politically, and internationally.

The economic range of reactions to the stimulus can be oversimplified into three camps. The first camp could be called the Scientific Keynesians, with Paul Krugman at their forefront. This group typically looks at what the economy is capable of producing, subtracts what it is likely to produce in this slump, and identifies the difference as a gap to be filled. They have confidence that it's possible to bring spending online in a timely fashion and fine-tune the amounts so as to produce the requisite growth and jobs. They tend to view the $789 billion package as woefully inadequate (it doesn't fill the gap) and have been highly critical.

A second group could be called the Cost-Benefit Covey. For them, federal spending is neither good nor bad, per se. It depends what it costs and what it will do. In a time of low interest rates and idle workers, there may be projects that are worthwhile that would not pass the test when the economy is humming. But the number of such projects is limited. As Larry Summers put it, this group is looking for spending that will be "timely, targeted, and temporary." Even if there were a $1.2 trillion output gap, that does not mean so much can be spent wisely in the time the gap remains open. Members of this loosely-defined group have criticized the stimulus plan as excessive and wasteful. They are not prone to embrace John Maynard Keynes' idea that we might just as well employ people to dig holes and fill them again. Members worry about racking up enormous debts and the high taxes or inflation those debts may bring.

A third group could be called the Animal Spiritualists. The same Lord Keynes used the term "animal spirits" to describe public confidence in the economy. Such confidence certainly seems to be at a low ebb at the moment. The question is how to restore it. In this light, perceptions are all-important. If the package is seen as being significant, it will create hope, people will buy again, and the economy will revive. There's not much precision to this approach; it's mostly psychology. While the Animal Spiritualists may be happiest with the fiscal stimulus package, they would seem vulnerable to the Scientific Keynesians and the Cost-Benefit Covey. If the public believes the critiques from either direction that the stimulus plan won't work, then those critiques will be proven correct.

My own sympathies lie closest to the Cost-Benefit Covey. I have little faith that the fiscal stimulus plan will revive the economy. There is an output gap, of course, but there are also some big structural problems -- like a collapsed financial sector and a housing sector in a downward spiral. Fixing those will be a prerequisite for recovery and may require all the resources we can muster.

Politically, President Obama seems to have dashed many of his major thematic campaign promises in his very first foray into large-scale policy-making. The crafting and selling of the stimulus package have been neither transparent, innovative, calm, nor bipartisan. Much of the package was crafted behind closed doors. The rush to push money out quickly left no time to develop creative new approaches. The president's dire warnings of doom did little to soothe fears, particularly in those who had doubts about the stimulus package's efficacy. And hopes for bipartisanship may have been the biggest victim of the endeavor. While President Obama was willing to exchange pleasantries with Republicans, those Republicans were largely excluded from the crafting of the bill and voted overwhelmingly against it.

Of course, a natural response by the Obama administration is that the Republicans were just engaging in rank partisanship. There are certainly Republicans motivated solely by politics, but this is why Sen. Judd Gregg's withdrawal as Commerce nominee is so devastating. Even President Obama's hand-picked reasonable Republican found the process unpalatable.

On the international front, the bill portends trouble. The original excesses of the Buy American clauses were trimmed back, but President Obama missed a golden opportunity. Had he embraced Sen. John McCain's amendment to remove the clause, he would have demonstrated bipartisanship, assured the world that America was not embracing protectionism, and still retained existing legal authority to direct some contracts toward domestic producers. Instead, Sen. McCain's amendment was defeated. The remaining clause sends a bad signal, allows protection, invites retaliation and risks provoking numerous trade disputes.

If worried allies wish to call up and seek reassurance, they likely won't find the right person on the other line, as key international economic positions remain unfilled: Ron Kirk, the nominee for United States Trade Representative, has not yet had hearings scheduled, and there is a new vacancy at Commerce. The Treasury, meanwhile, may be otherwise occupied.

President Obama got the stimulus plan that he wanted, but at potentially a very high cost.

1a) President Barack Obama's Weekly Address


This week, I spent some time with Americans across the country who are hurting because of our economic crisis -- people closing the businesses they scrimped and saved to start; families losing the homes that were their stake in the American Dream; folks who've given up trying to get ahead, and given in to the stark reality of just trying to get by.


They've been looking to those they sent to Washington for some hope at a time when they need it most.

This morning, I'm pleased to say that after a lively debate full of healthy differences of opinion, we've delivered real and tangible progress for the American people.


Congress has passed my economic recovery plan -- an ambitious plan at a time we badly need it. It will save or create more than 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, ignite spending by business and consumers alike, and lay a new foundation for our lasting economic growth and prosperity.


This is a major milestone on our road to recovery, and I want to thank the members of Congress who came together in common purpose to make it happen. Because they did, I will sign this legislation into law shortly, and we'll begin making the immediate investments necessary to put people back to work doing the work America needs done:


The work of modernizing our health care system, saving billions of dollars and countless lives; and upgrading classrooms, libraries, and labs in our children's schools across America.


The work of building wind turbines and solar panels and the smart grid necessary to transport the clean energy they create; and laying broadband Internet lines to connect rural homes, schools, and businesses to the information superhighway.


The work of repairing our crumbling roads and bridges, and our dangerously deficient dams and levees.


And we'll help folks who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own by providing the unemployment benefits they need and protecting the health care they count on.


Now, some fear we won't be able to effectively implement a plan of this size and scope, and I understand their skepticism. Washington hasn't set a very good example in recent years. And with so much on the line, it's time to begin doing things differently.


That's why our goal must be to spend these precious dollars with unprecedented accountability, responsibility, and transparency. I've tasked my Cabinet and staff to set up the kind of management, oversight, and disclosure that will help ensure that, and I will challenge state and local governments to do the same.


Once the plan is put into action, a new website -- recovery.gov -- will allow any American to watch where the money goes and weigh in with comments and questions -- and I encourage every American to do so. Ultimately, this is your money, and you deserve to know where it's going and how it's spent.


This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning. The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task.


For our plan to succeed, we must stabilize, repair, and reform our banking system, and get credit flowing again to families and businesses. We must write and enforce new rules of the road, to stop unscrupulous speculators from undermining our economy ever again. We must stem the spread of foreclosures and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes.


And in the weeks ahead, I will submit a proposal for the federal budget that will begin to restore the discipline these challenging times demand. Our debt has doubled over the past eight years, and we've inherited a trillion dollar deficit -- which we must add to in the short term in order to jumpstart our sick economy. But our long-term economic growth demands that we tame our burgeoning federal deficit; that we invest in the things we need, and dispense with the things we don't. This is a challenging agenda, but one we can and will achieve.


This morning, I'm reminded of words President Kennedy spoke in another time of uncertainty: "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks."


America, we will prove equal to this task. It will take time, and it will take effort, but working together, we will turn this crisis into opportunity and emerge from our painful present into a brighter future. After a week spent with the fundamentally decent men and women of this nation, I have never been more certain of that.


Thank you.

2) Joseph W. McQuaid: Sen. Gregg comes to his 'Census'
By JOSEPH W. MCQUAID

Two weeks ago, this newspaper wrote Judd Gregg's decision to accept the post of Secretary of Commerce for President Barack Obama "may actually bring some much-needed balance to an administration that seems bent on spending the nation into oblivion.''

"That's a long shot, but even if Gregg has only a 1-in-10 chance of being heard on fiscal and business issues, that's better than no chance at all.''


It is now clear that Sen. Gregg wouldn't have had even that small chance. The White House's planned political kidnapping of the Census Bureau from Commerce jurisdiction was all the sign that Gregg needed to realize he would have been mere conservative window dressing in a liberal giveaway store.

As tough as it must have been for him, Gregg has made the right call to withdraw his name. He graciously chose not to blame the President, but as the Wall Street Journal put it yesterday, "Obama could have resolved this mess by telling Senator Gregg that as always the Census Bureau would report to the Commerce Secretary.''

We also wrote two weeks ago, "Three terms in the U.S. Senate is plenty. It would have been time for change, one way or another.'' So we also applaud Gregg for announcing that he will not seek reelection next year.

We wish Sen. Gregg a happy birthday today. He deserves one, especially after the last couple of weeks.

3) Rhetorical President
By Janice Shaw Crouse

The use of language to persuade is a skill much admired since ancient times. Few people become leaders without the ability to move others to agree with their arguments. Rightly understood, rhetoric is only one of the tools of persuasion; the other two, logic and dialectic, are required to truly change peoples' minds. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama awed the media and voters alike with his rhetorical skills. He continues to awe as he uses rhetorical manipulation to sell the stimulus package to the American public.


Legitimate rhetoric balances the skills of public speaking with sound logic and appeals to commonality with the audience on the issue at hand. It is an understatement to say that Barack Obama is skilled at using the language of his opponents to sell his ideas. During the 2009 campaign, he convinced a significant number of evangelicals that he was one of them. He convinced people of polar opposite points of view that he was on their side. Now, as the nation's top snake oil salesman, he is working the room to sell his stimulus package -- a package that experts agree will stimulate the Democratic constituency groups more than the economy.


The snake oil is especially obvious in his slick salesmanship as well as his shrewd manipulation of rhetoric.


Starting on Capitol Hill, he brought Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), the most gullible of the GOP senators, into the Oval Office to overwhelm them with his dialectic; he shrewdly played on his commonality with them on specific ideas and people they mutually admired. One at a time, he worked his charm by stroking each one at their vulnerable points, and all three caved. They undermined their party's hope for leverage, stomped on the principle of checks and balances, and ended the need for any future attempts for genuine bipartisanship. They also gave Obama the cover he needed during his first major political crisis and gave momentum to a massive trillion dollar plan that could burden the nation for the foreseeable future!


Emboldened by his success with the Three Stooges of Capitol Hill, the president shrewdly staged his first prime-time presidential news conference using all the gravitas of the White House East Room as a backdrop. I say "shrewdly" because the president rearranged seating of the White House Press Corp to give deference to the left. The major network stars were seated behind Ed Schulz, a liberal radio talk show host (Note that this administration plans to push the "Fairness Doctrine"), and reporters from the black media outlets. He shrewdly gave international exposure to media most friendly to his administration. Al Jazeera, Essence, and the Saudi Press Agency were given seats. Sam Stein, a leftist blogger from the Huffington Post, was recognized for a question, thus getting international exposure. No wonder there were no follow-up questions or challenges to the president's remarks. The mainstream media, whose worshipful coverage assured him the White House, couldn't have liked the new arrangement, but apparently decided that the slight didn't warrant legitimate grilling of the president during his first press conference.


Mr. Obama was also shrewd in his use of rhetorical devices that many consider demagogic and are, at a minimum, deceptive and misleading. For instance, he frequently used generalization and polarization:


The stimulus bill would mean the difference between catastrophe and creating four million jobs
Liberal Democrats just want to spend more money, but the GOP vetoes all progress
Everything was the fault of the Bush administration, so Obama's administration is facing "unprecedented" problems
Everything the new administration is doing has never been done before
Republican leaders are doing "nothing," while his team is producing plans that will perform miracles


He conveyed a distortion of what the ancient rhetoricians called "ethos." The ancient concept includes the image that is conveyed by the person trying to persuade. Obama almost never smiles, and during the press conference he projected, as usual, the image of self-control, maturity and deliberation. His suits are always impeccable, and his informal wear is "cool." His demeanor projects a seriousness that is softened by his picture perfect family life. During the press conference, he seemed utterly sincere, honest and candid, while dishing out statements that could be thoroughly discounted by any first-year reporter pounding a beat. He skillfully turned to humor in order to disdain and dismiss the only penetrating question of the whole press conference. When Major Garrett of Fox News asked the president about Vice President Joe Biden's comment regarding the administration having a 30 percent chance of failing on any given initiative, the president did not hesitate to make Biden the butt of his joke. The end result was to convey the impression that he is the savior of the nation, while everyone else, including his party and his vice president, stands as a barrier to progress.


For a man who promised bipartisanship by "working with the majority for change," he makes ample use of what he claimed to despise, "the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics."


4) Charm is not an economic policy
By Douglas O'Brien

We heard it over and over on the campaign trail, “experience doesn’t matter,” “experience got us in this mess,” “what we need now is leadership,” and so on, ad nauseum. And a healthy portion of independent voters eventually bought into this canard.



Now, some of the president’s apologists have the gall to tell us that we cannot criticize the administration so early in the game. Said Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, “expecting the Obama team to operate perfectly under these conditions is like expecting a first-year med student to perform surgery.” Ms. Marcus is absolutely correct. This is why we tend to avoid having first year med students perform surgery and why we definitely don’t want to elect their political equivalent to the presidency.


But the campaign is over. It is time to observe and scrutinize the Obama administration, from day one and at every turn. And, with due respect to the President’s cheerleaders, we cannot afford to excuse every misstep and miscalculation just because a bunch of novices are running the country. We need, at all times, a fully functioning presidency.


It is notable that the President’s new team features numerous DC veterans, particularly of the Clinton vintage, which originally augured well. But the inner circle, the ones you see on Marine One, are generally lacking in any White House experience, and two of his closest advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, have no experience at all in the federal government. This is not to say that only retreads need apply for top jobs, but it suggests that when an acknowledged novice comes to the presidency, slogans and mindless boosterism should be balanced with some serious attention to policy from people who know how to get things done.


One of the Bush-bashing bumper stickers that proliferated among those for whom catch phrases equal philosophy read “Yee-haw is not a foreign policy.” Granted, but neither is charm an economic policy. While it is a marginal improvement in the tenor of debate that President Obama is willing to personally engage the opposition party in dialogue, it will not, and should not, cause any representative to abandon the principles they were elected to advance. Thinking such a personality-based overture would have Republicans eager to vote for a bill so contrary to their core beliefs belies a fundamental misread of the political process.


Interestingly, the place where the promise of hope and change fell flattest was not with the Republicans, who sensibly hoped they would be able to work with a popular president or, at least not be seen to work against him. It was Obama’s allies on the Hill who rolled him almost effortlessly on the stimulus package, overreaching to accomplish every liberal dream while harpooning their party and president’s standing with the public. The Reid-Pelosi team (while firing plenty of barbs at each other) has given their young chief executive a clear tutorial on the old axiom, “the president proposes, but the Congress disposes.”


Since the stimulus drama began Republicans, according to Rassumssen, have erased an eight-point deficit in the generic congressional ballot test to pull even with Democrats. And since his inauguration, the President’s approval index (the spread between those who approve and disapprove of Obama) has been cut almost in half. These are stark indicators that the public is not responding positively to the Democrats undisciplined spending frenzy and their seeming lack of consistent leadership, and that the Republicans have managed their opposition effectively, positioning themselves as more prudent.


In the face of these types of numbers and increasing criticism (even from the likes of Maureen Dowd) of the administration’s command of the situation, Democrats have done what they do best, attacked the Republicans. Apparently the Republicans who hold decided minorities in Congress and got thumped in the presidential campaign are so crafty that they can run the country no matter how elections turn out. It certainly seemed so when the President lobbed thinly-veiled grenades at the GOP in his first presidential press conference. And the tactic served to stop the precipitous slide in public support for the stimulus although it is still supported by well under half the electorate.


Less than a month into the new presidency the high-minded goal of everyone pitching self-interest, (or principled disagreement) and following The One on the road to peace, equality, social justice, lower cholesterol and better hair, seems to have been totaled by the rampaging semi-truck of political reality. Obama’s friends are making him look bad, his team is proving to be chock full of embarrassing hacks, he can’t give everyone in DC everything they want, and he’s falling back on time-honored partisan divisiveness to gain tactical advantage.


Presidents Reagan and Clinton had a great talent for connecting with the American people and, in their ways, used charm as a potent tool in their administrations. But both of them proved adept at managing a policy strategy. Team Obama seems somewhat stunned that managing a government is much harder than managing a campaign. Campaigns are mostly fluff compared to making real decisions that have real consequences.


It shows that the lofty rhetoric of the campaign was enough to instill hope in an electorate eager for change, but such words are useless when doing battle in the trenches of Washington. The entrenched strength of government power is proving to be the formidable negative force in and of itself that conservatives have predicted for generations. Such a force must be met with equal or greater force, not with charm and not with hope, if the President really expects to be the agent of change that he sold to the voters.



5) Obama administration “peeved and churlish” over Gregg

The editorial board of the Washington Post expressed some puzzlement over the White House’s handling of Judd Gregg’s withdrawal as Commerce Secretary yesterday. After giving Gregg high marks for generously accepting the blame for the mismatch of his appointment, Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama appeared to go out of their way to be as ungracious as possible. Could they be afraid that Gregg’s withdrawal will expose an effort to politicize the Census?

There was something appealingly human in Mr. Gregg’s explanation of his change of heart. He said that he had been seduced by the euphoria of a new job in a new administration but came to realize that after 30 years of working independently and making decisions himself, he couldn’t be a part of a team. “I said yes. That was my mistake,” Mr. Gregg said at a late-afternoon news conference. “I did not handle this the way I usually handle issues, which is definitively and quickly.” Better he did so now.

There will be plenty of questions about both sides of this collapsed merger. Mr. Obama has been clear on what he wanted in the stimulus package since the November election; nothing there could have come as a surprise to Mr. Gregg. On the other hand, Mr. Gregg’s concern about potential changes at the Census Bureau, particularly news that the census director would report to the White House instead of the commerce secretary, are understandable: Either this administration trusts me or it does not, he might fairly have felt.

For the Obama administration, Mr. Gregg’s withdrawal represents another bump at a particularly unhelpful time. Mr. Gregg said yesterday that he had told the White House several days ago of his decision. If so, you have to wonder why the administration did not take better control of the situation, instead of waiting for the news to detonate and then issuing a statement that looked peeved and churlish as it insisted that Mr. Gregg had come calling for the job, and not the reverse.
Here’s Barack Obama being a little “peeved and churlish” while talking about Lincoln:

The Obama administration wants to portray Gregg as a Judas who betrayed the One, but that’s only going to sell to the true believers. Even if Gregg did come to them, one has to ask what it was that convinced Gregg that the effort was no longer worth it. Gregg had no particular reason to hearken to Senate Republicans, especially since he’s apparently decided that he will end his public career at the end of this Senate term. Why not stay at Commerce?

The reason is because it became increasingly apparent that Obama wanted him only as window dressing. The Democrats made no effort to work with Republicans in any substantive manner on the stimulus bill, which would become one of Gregg’s main responsibilities after passage. His own ideas had largely been ignored; even if the broad outlines were known before his acceptance of the position, which is certainly true, Gregg may have expected Obama and the Democrats to welcome more input into the final product. After all, if they didn’t want that, why have him on board at all?
From a couple of sources around Capitol Hill, I’ve gotten the sense that the effort by Rahm Emanuel to strip the Census from Gregg was just the final straw and not the prime motivator behind his decision. It rendered Gregg even more of a political eunuch than the lockout on the stimulus plan, and underscored the fact that even as a Cabinet member, he would not have inside status with the Obama administration. Gregg would get trotted out as the Bipartisan Pony when Obama needed a beard. Some of us predicted just that when he accepted the position, and Gregg found out the hard way that he never should have done so.

The Post’s editorial board correctly notes that the Obama White House looked very poor in this instance. Gregg told them in advance that he would leave, and yet they got caught flat-footed at the announcement. Instead of presenting a calm and rational reaction, they looked petty and unprepared, while Obama gave a Snarker-in-Chief performance at a non-political event. Bad form, and once again, the Obama adminstration got exposed as amateurish and out of their depth.

6) Hamas' Ceasefire – Smoke and Mirrors



Duped again by a Hamas promise to negotiate a long-term truce, Israel reacted by stepping up its air attacks over the Gaza Strip from Friday, Feb. 13, to hold down a fresh upsurge of Palestinian violence.

After spreading false reports that an 18-month truce and a deal for the release of the captive Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit were "hours away", Hamas jerked the carpet from under the Cairo talks in spite of Israel's over-generous concessions. Last week, Israel was persuaded by the Egyptian intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman to let Hamas leader Mahmud A-Zahar travel from Gaza to Cairo, Damascus and Qatar on the understanding that he would override hardline Khaled Meshaal and sign an extended truce deal.

Instead of signing, Hamas used the time gained to restock its arsenal after the beating it took from Israel's Gaza operation last month and regroup for a fresh cross-border offensive.

Early, Saturday, Feb. 14, the Israeli Air Force bombed two foundries turning out missiles near Jebalya outside Gaza City, injuring 6 Palestinians, after a week of spasmodic launchings.

Earlier, six tunnels running under the Philadelphi border corridor were destroyed in the middle of smuggling fresh supplies of arms, and a duo was struck on a motorbike near Khan Younis on its way to a terrorist attack in Israel. One was killed, two others injured. They claimed membership of the al Qaeda wing of the Popular Resistance Committees.

Jerusalem reacted in this way after agreeing to Cairo's request last week to hold its hand against a slow spate of Hamas missiles. The request came from Gen. Suleiman, Egypt's senior negotiator with Hamas, through the defense ministry official, Amos Gilead. Defense minister Ehud Barak accordingly ordered Israeli air bombardments to be confined harmlessly to abandoned buildings and sand dunes in the hope of convincing Hamas of Israel's good will.

Israel also acceded to Suleiman request to temper its demand for Hamas to observe a 500-meter cordon sanitaire behind the Gaza-Israeli border, reducing the depth of this sterile belt to 300 m.

Israel also agreed to a 70 percent reopening of the border crossings.

Hamas played for time by raising new demands the while conspiring with al Qaeda's cell in Gaza to mount a large-scale terrorist attack near Kissufim on the Israeli side of the border. Hamas supplied the explosives and intelligence but planned to deny responsibility so that Israel would have no justification for ditching the phony, indirect negotiating track in Cairo.

The plot was discovered Friday, Feb. 13, and Barak finally ordered the Israeli Air Force to go into action. Now that its machinations are exposed, Hamas is fully expected to revive its missile and rockets attacks on Israel full blast together with sabotage incidents along the border fence.

7)Israel's PM Office: No truce deal or opened Gaza crossings until Gilead Shalit is free




The Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem issued its first ever official announcement on Saturday, Feb. 14, the Jewish Sabbath, registering its exceptionally high importance.

The statement said: "No Gaza crossings will be opened unless Gilead Shalit (the Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas since his June 2006 abduction) is free" Israel's position as clarified to Egypt is that deals which fail to end Hamas attacks and release its soldier are unacceptable. "Every effort will be made to achieve those top-priority goals."

By this statement, prime minister Ehud Olmert blew away the spate of reports put out by Cairo, Hamas, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak's advisers and the Arab and Israeli media alleging the imminence of a long-term truce accord. The PMO added that a decision on this issue Sunday would relate also to the outcome of the general election of Tuesday, Feb. 10. Political sources note Barak's Labor dropped to fourth place in the poll while the three lead parties, Kadima, Likud and Israeli Beitenu, pledged to abjure diplomacy of any kind with terrorists.

The Cairo truce talks ran aground, high-placed military sources explain, after Egypt's attempt to blend two conflicting drafts into an accord and presenting one to Israel and negotiating a separate one with Hamas. Egyptian mediator Gen. Omar Suleiman advised both to pretend to accept the other's terms and then go their own way. He asked Amos Gilead, who shuttled between Cairo and Jerusalem on behalf of the defense minister, to formally accept Hamas' terms to reopen the crossings to the Gaza Strip – and effectively end Israel's embargo – and then keep them shut. Hamas negotiators Mahmoud A-Zahar and Mussa Abu Marzuk were similarly advised to agree to halt arms smuggling but not to follow through.

There is no truth in Hamas' claim that Israel reneged on its consent to an 18-month truce. The fact is that it was put forward by Cairo as part of its double-talk negotiating strategy.

Olmert's move has had the effect of pulling the rug from under defense minister Barak and his policy of leaving key security issues relating to the Gaza Strip in Egypt's hands.

8) Enter the Netanyahu government
By Caroline B. Glick



Who won the election on Tuesday night and what do the results tell us about the composition of the next government?

Israeli voters decided two things on Tuesday. First, they decided that they want the political Right to lead the country. Second, leftist voters decided that they want to be represented by a big party so they abandoned Labor and Meretz and put their eggs in Kadima's basket.

These two decisions - one general and one sectoral -- are what brought about the anomalous situation where the party with the most Knesset seats is incapable of forming the next governing coalition. Despite Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's stunning electoral achievement, she cannot form a coalition. Binyamin Netanyahu will be Israel's next prime minister. The Likud will form the next coalition.

But what sort of governing coalition will Netanyahu form? That is today's sixty-four thousand dollar question.

During the campaign, Netanyahu said he wants to form a broad governing coalition. Until Tuesday, he planned to bring the Labor Party led by Ehud Barak into his government while leaving Kadima out in the cold. It was his hope that as the odd man out, Kadima would be destroyed as a viable political entity.

The public though had other plans. On Tuesday voters wiped out David Ben Gurion's party as a political force in the country. Labor's senior leadership reacted to their defeat by declaring that the time has come to move into the opposition. There will be no coalition with Labor.

That leaves Kadima. If Netanyahu wants a leftist party in his government, he will need to bring in Kadima. Such a coalition would be based on a tripartite partnership between Likud, Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu.

Although Netanyahu clearly prefers such a broad coalition, it is not his only option. The other option is to form a government with his rightist political camp. A coalition of Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, the National Union and the Jewish Home parties would constitute a stable governing majority that could withstand attempts by Kadima to bring down the government in the Knesset.

The question is which coalition is best for Likud? The answer to that question is debatable. But to begin to understand what should drive Netanyahu's decision, it is necessary to recognize his top priorities in office. Netanyahu has made clear that his top priorities are preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, defeating Hamas and strengthening the economy.

Netanyahu's free market economic philosophy is shared by Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu. It is not shared by Shas or Jewish Home. The National Union for its part is neutral. So to cut income taxes by twenty percent, as Netanyahu has pledged to do, a coalition with Kadima is preferable to its rightist alternative. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu will probably be able to push his economic policies through the Knesset with either governing coalition, particularly if he proposes them quickly.

This leaves the issue of Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza. Here the situation becomes more complicated. In a conversation Thursday morning, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz argued in favor of a coalition with Kadima by noting that as the Kadima-led government's wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and its destruction of the Iranian-financed, North Korean built nuclear installation in Syria in September 2007 show, Kadima shares Likud's willingness to use force against Israel's enemies.

At the same time, Steinitz acknowledged that Kadima used force in both Lebanon and Gaza to advance diplomatic aims that are diametrically opposed to Likud's diplomatic aims. In Lebanon, Livni was the architect of the ceasefire with Hizbullah that paved the way for Hizbullah's rearmament, reassertion of control over South Lebanon, and its effective takeover of the Lebanese government as a whole. In Gaza, the Kadima-led government is about to agree to a ceasefire that will in the end strengthen Hamas's grip on power and legitimize the terror group as a political force.

Moreover, unlike Likud, Kadima has made establishing a Fatah-led Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza its most urgent strategic goal, followed only by its ardent desire to give Syria the Golan Heights. Likud opposes both of these goals.

In contrast to Kadima, the rightist parties in Netanyahu's voter-made coalition share the Likud's philosophy both in terms of when to use force, and in terms of the diplomatic aims the resort to force are supposed to achieve. The rightist Knesset bloc would not agree to a ceasefire agreement in which Israel is required to release a thousand terrorists, including mass murderers from prison. They would not agree to ceasefires that enable Hamas and Hizbullah to continue to arm, control territory or attack Israel. They would not agree to a national strategy that advocates subcontracting Israel's national security to international forces. And they oppose transferring Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Arab control.

The disparity between Kadima's and Likud's strategic goals makes a rightist coalition seem like the best option. But there are reasons why an observer could reasonably reach a different conclusion. The existential threats Israel faces today from Iran and its proxies are exacerbated by the fact that the West's position on Israel is swiftly converging with the Arab world's position on Israel. Throughout Western Europe, elite opinion has swung against Israel. Today not only can Israel expect no support from Europe for its moves to defend itself from its enemies. It can be all but certain that Europe will actively seek to weaken it. The only question is what means Europe chooses to adopt against Israel.

Presently, Europe suffices with threatening to prosecute Israeli military personnel and political leaders as war criminals, levying partial embargos on the sale of military equipment to Israel, supporting anti-Israel resolutions in international forums, and refusing to end its trade with Iran. In the future, the EU is liable to end its free trade agreements with Israel, seek Israel's delegitimization as a "racist" state, and perhaps join Russia in supplying Arab armies and Iran with advanced weapons and nuclear reactors.

As for the US, the Obama administration's interest in courting Iran and the Arab world place Jerusalem on a collision course with Washington. Given the high priority the Obama administration has placed on appeasing Iran, its decision to end US sanctions against Syria, and its intense desire to establish a Palestinian state, it is fairly clear that Israel cannot expect to enjoy good relations with Washington in the coming years without adopting policies that would endanger its survival.

It is common wisdom in Israel that the Israeli Left is capable of limiting the level of hostility directed against Israel from the US and Europe. Livni exploited this popular belief during the electoral campaign when she warned that a rightist government would destroy Israel's relations with Washington. Apparently convinced by her warnings, some voices in Likud argue that with Livni and Kadima in the government, the US and the EU will think twice before adopting openly hostile policies.

Unfortunately, this view is demonstrably false. As foreign minister in Ariel Sharon's government during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, Shimon Peres did not prevent the international Left in Europe and the US from accusing Israel of committing war crimes. The Kadima-led leftist government was unable to secure European support for Israel in the Second Lebanon War. The fact that Israel was led by the leftist Kadima-Labor government during the wars in Lebanon and Gaza did not improve the West's negative reaction to the fighting.

The generally ignored truth is that international hostility towards Israel is driven by factors extraneous to Israel. Consequently Israel's governments have little ability to influence how foreign governments treat it regardless of who forms those governments.

There is one intrinsic advantage that leftist parties bring to rightist-led coalitions. Leftist parties are capable of mobilizing the support of the domestic leftist elites for the government's actions.

Because the Left was in the government in 2003, 2006 and 2009, the media supported Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. And because it was in the opposition during the 1982 Lebanon War and during the Palestinian uprising from 1988 to 1990 as well as during 2003 when Sharon led a rightist coalition, the political Left colluded with the leftist elites in the media, in Peace Now and its sister groups, as well as with foreign governments to undermine the government. Since Tuesday night, both the local media elites and Kadima leaders have made clear that they will consider a Likud-led rightist government illegitimate and will work to destabilize it with the intention of overthrowing it within a year or two.

It is true that it is hard to imagine that either Kadima or the leftists in the media would oppose a decision by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran's nuclear installations. But it is also true that they would seek to minimize any strategic advantage Israel might gain either locally or internationally from removing this clear and present danger to Israel specifically and to international security generally. In the aftermath of such attacks, Kadima would unquestionably blame the government for whatever punitive steps Washington and Brussels implement against Israel in retaliation for the attacks.

More disturbingly, in the event that Kadima leads the opposition, it is easy to imagine Livni and her cohorts in Kadima and in the media attacking the government for refusing to give land to Fatah in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and for refusing to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria. Kadima's leaders will have open invitations to travel to Washington and Brussels to delegitimize the Netanyahu government's policies towards the Palestinians and the Syrians, and more likely than not, they will use them.

On the other hand, it is far from clear that the situation would be much better if Netanyahu were to bring Kadima into his coalition. Livni can hardly be expected to set aside her obsession with establishing a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria, particularly given that she seems convinced that she won the elections.

In short, given their disparate strategic goals, as a senior coalition partner, Kadima can only be relied upon to support Netanyahu in implementing a limited set of policies. As Netanyahu considers his options for forming a coalition, he needs to answer four questions:

First, can Kadima's cooperation be assured in the event that the government decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities?

Second, will having Kadima in the government bring Israel significantly more leverage with the Americans in the run up to or the aftermath of such a strike than not having it in the government?

Third, will the Likud be weakened more if Livni attempts to advance her Palestinian policy from within the government or outside it?

And finally, as Likud's senior coalition partner, will the damage Kadima causes Likud through its devotion to Palestinian statehood and willingness to transfer the Golan Heights to Syria outweigh the advantage gained by its partnership in attacking Iran?

How Netanyahu answers these questions should determine the nature of his governing coalition.

























See my latest memo posting at http://dick-meom.blogspot.com/. Updated daily.