When you read Condoleeza Rice’s words on how she will “leave no stone unturned” in the quest for Middle East peace, you have to wonder: Does she not get reports on what the Islamists are saying?

She also pledged further US commitment.

“Until that moment when I leave office, I will leave no stone unturned to see if we can finally resolve this conflict between peoples,” she said. “It will mean that the region can finally overcome the many, many differences and the many, many conflicts that it has, to live as a region that should be building on the potential of its people, not going down to their worst fears.

“And it will mean that the international community could finally put behind it this seminal conflict and turn to a world that is certainly more hopeful, more peaceful, more democratic, and more secure.”

We can finally resolve this conflict between peoples? Click on the “Hamas” category to see what Hamas thinks about peace with Israel. Here’s a hint: They don’t want peace. They want Israel destroyed.

Hamas, you may remember, are the rulers of the Gaza Strip. The ones that have connected the smuggling tunnels to the electric grid, which is supplied, as Omri pointed out, by Israel. The ones who are smuggling weapons and explosives at a mighty pace, now all registered and run by Hamas.

Earlier this week, the AP reported, Syria and Lebanon Set Up Formal Ties:

The initiative by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria ends six decades of nonrecognition and meets a demand by the United States that Syria act to help achieve stability in the region, even as Syria pursued indirect peace talks with Israel. Syria and Lebanon said they planned to open embassies by the end of the year.

Just peachy, right?

And the article concludes:

Syria has dominated Lebanon for decades and long kept a military presence there, regarding it as a Syrian province.

Note that the word “occupation” is never used. Also note the uncertain tense of that sentence. Does Syria still regard Lebanon as its own? The AP won’t tell you that, but Jonathan Spyer will. In An iron fist in a velvet glove, Spyer writes:

Lebanese commentators are expressing cautious optimism. However, the more likely prognosis is that Syria will continue to exercise its will in Lebanon through a combination of diplomacy and other means. Syria apparently expects that the Lebanese opposition will make significant gains in the elections scheduled for March.

Damascus is also understood to expect that a Barack Obama victory in the US presidential election will mark the end of Syrian international isolation.

The independent military capacity wielded by Hizbullah - pointed at Israel and, where necessary, at pro-Western forces in Lebanon - continues to be supplied via Damascus. This capacity holds the final word in Lebanon. Nothing can happen without its consent.

Nothing’s changed. Syria’s making a cosmetic change for international consumption but isn’t giving up its designs on Lebanon.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s report on Israel and Hezbullah illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the way that the world looks at any conflict that involves Israel.

A report released Thursday by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described Hezbollah as a threat to Middle East security, and called for both the Lebanese militant group and Israel to stop threatening each other through the media.

The report, sent to the members of the UN Security Council, also criticized Syria for allowing weapons smuggling to Lebanese militias.

Ban’s report indicates that Hezbollah continues to maintain a militia separate from the Lebanese government.

[...] “I therefore reiterate my call on Hezbollah to comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions, and urge all parties which maintain close ties with Hezbollah and have the ability to influence it, in particular Syria and Iran, to support its transformation into a political party proper,” it said.

The report also cited the “the urgency and importance of ensuring that the Government has the monopoly on the use of force in Lebanon.”

This is all well and good. The report calls Hezbollah out for being in violation of two UNSC resolutions (as opposed to Israel, which is in violation of zero UNSC resolutions, in spite of the anti-Israel crowd’s insistence otherwise). But here’s where the logic gets all blown to hell:

Ban also leveled criticism at the remarks made by GOC Northern Command Gadi Eisenkot to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth several weeks ago regarding the Israel Defense Forces’ plans to use “disproportionate force” should war again break out with Lebanon or Hezbollah.

In response, senior Hezbollah figures told the media the organization would respond forcefully to any Israeli attack.

“I am disturbed by the repeated exchanges of threats, through the media, between Israel and Hezbollah. I urge all parties to cease this public discourse, which creates anxiety among civilian populations on both sides,” he said.

Get it? Hezbollah threatens Israel with thousands of missiles, an illegal militia, and has stated quite clearly that it wants to destroy Israel. These are unquestionably threats. Israel says she will defend herself strongly against an attack. This is considered a threat, both by Israel, and by the AP, which wrote this article. Look at the language in bold. Israel was responding to the Hezbollah threat. The AP structures it as a threat by Israel to the Iranian proxy army.

Language matters. This is the sort of thing that gets picked up by the left, swallowed whole, and then repeated—until it becomes conventional wisdom. Israel is exchanging threats, not declaring that she will defend herself strongly in the event that Hezbollah launches another attack on her.

This is one reason why Israel is so hated in the world. The cards are stacked against her from every organization, and every angle.

Daled Amos has an example of an American failure to stand up to the Palestinian Authority.

This isn’t a matter of failing to defend Israel, but of failing to defend American citizens; or even to call those responsible for their murders to account. It’s one in a number of failures of the American government to demand even the most basic display of responsibility from the Palestinians.

This has been a failure of the Bush administration. (And it was a failure of the Clinton administration before it.)

Evelyn Gordon lays out an even more damning case against the outgoing administration.in Just another bit of fish wrapping:

Does anyone still remember George W. Bush’s April 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon? At the time, it was touted as Israel’s main quid pro quo for uprooting 25 settlements, expelling some 10,000 Israelis from their homes and withdrawing the army from Gaza. Yet today, it is never mentioned - and for good reason: In the ensuing four years, the Bush and Olmert administrations between them have systematically eviscerated every “achievement” it allegedly granted Israel.

(It would appear that the Washington Post need not have worried so much. William Safire had a much different take at the time.)

But there’s a name that’s very important in Gordon’s opening paragraph: “Olmert.” What would have happened if Ariel Sharon’s successor had insisted that the United States make good on its pledges? Well here’s how Gordon describes one:

THE LETTER also pledged that “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations,” if Gaza did prove “a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means” than diplomatic pressure. In reality, Washington pressed Olmert to avoid anything beyond ineffective, small-scale military operations. But there, it was pushing against an open door: Olmert wanted a major operation as little as Bush did.

(Though, it seemed that the United States would have allowed a more decisive Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in 2006 than PM Olmert was willing to risk.)

And in the matter of the American pledge that all Palestinians would be settled in Palestinian territory, Gordon writes that the United States never much mentioned it again, but didn’t back down from its words. However …

Olmert, however, single-handedly gutted this achievement by offering to absorb some 20,000 Palestinian refugees under any deal. And as everyone knows, the minute you concede the principle, the price is negotiable.

Predictably, therefore, the world is already pressuring Israel to raise the figure. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, for instance, declared earlier this month that not only must Tzipi Livni honor Olmert’s offer, she might even have to increase it: “I don’t know how many [refugees Israel must accept] - 10,000 or 100,000, I don’t know,” he said.

While there’s no excusing the Bush administrations reversals; I wonder if things would have been different if Ariel Sharon hadn’t been incapacitated. More generally, is Israel’s well being more dependent on who is elected American President or on who is elected (or succeeds as) Prime Minister of Israel?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.