Once Israel has visited as much destruction as possible in Gaza over the
next two weeks, Israel’s next prime minister, Palestinian Authority leader
Mahmoud Abbas and soon-to-be President Obama will proceed to craft
incremental agreements. Substantial resources will be committed to rebuild
the West Bank, while the war torn Gaza Strip is left economically and
politically isolated. In other words, the failed Two-State Solution will
devolve into a de-facto One and One-Half State Solution until such time as
Gaza is subdued and purged of its extremist efforts.

If this new strategic turn sounds highly unlikely, its far more feasible
than the prospects of Abbas and Al Fatah reconciling their differences
with HAMAS. HAMAS’s shocking electoral victory over Al Fatah in 2005, and
smashing Al Fatah in the Gaza Civil War in 2007 has left more bad blood on
the floor than can be overcome in the short run. Nor is reconciliation on
Abbas’s agenda. Israel’s strike to neutralize HAMAS’s leadership and
degrade its growing military capability was designed to elevate Al Fatah
to the only legitimate internationally recognized representative of the
Palestinian people. Thus the stage is set to engineer new talks favorable
to Israel and Abbas that will rise to the top of Obama’s crowded foreign
policy agenda when he takes office.

In the short run calls from the European Union, the United Nations and the
broader international community for a cease fire will fall on deaf ears.
Israel’s air and ground war will likely continue up to Obama’s
inauguration, or until international pressure for a cease fire outweighs
the military value of completing the mission. Tel Aviv’s phantom goal of
eliminating HAMAS’s capacity to launch rockets into Israel is a thinly
veiled justification for an open-ended invasion and occupation of Gaza.
Predictably the invasion was backed by U.S. Secretary of State Rice with a
familiar refrain that the U.S. wants a cease fire, but cannot support a
return to the “status quo ante.” Under the slogan of searching for a
“durable peace” the U.S. will stand by Israel until the job is done.

In a repeat performance of Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, the
Sunni-led Arab regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf
States are all supporting Israel’s actions in the hope that HAMAS will be
severely crippled or defeated. HAMAS’s downsizing will relieve the Arab
kings and sultans of the burden of hypocritically supporting HAMAS’s
anti-Israel and anti-U.S. leadership backed by Shiia-led Iran and enjoying
support on the Arab street.

It is not insignificant that today the three most popular leaders in the
Sunni majority Middle East are Shiia Muslims (Nasrallah-Lebanon’s
Hezbollah leader, Syrian President Bashir Assad and Iranian President
Ahmadinejad). More importantly, the Sunni Arab monarchs want to see Iran’s
support and strength diminished by the defeat of HAMAS which secures
funds, arms and political support from Tehran. Iran and Shiia Islam’s
influence that is metastasizing across the Middle East is a direct threat
to the Sunni monarch’s authoritarian rule. Another important component of
the invasion strategy to reduce Iran’s profile is to demonstrate to Syria
that its best interests would be served by jettisoning Iran and joining
Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Quartet’s new peace born-of-war
solution. For Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have invested a great deal in
promoting their own Israeli-Palestinian peace plans and cease fire
agreements, HAMAS’s defeat is critical to stopping Iran’s momentum.

Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah have resisted attempts to be drawn into
the conflict. While condemning the invasion Hezbollah will not unleash its
own rocket attacks against northern Israel unless HAMAS is in jeopardy of
being totally wiped out. Hezbollah’s priority is consolidating its
political gains from the 2006 victory against Israel and preparing to win
the parliamentary majority in Lebanon’s upcoming elections.

Despite the military setbacks HAMAS will suffer, it will survive and
rebuild its strength in Gaza. Iran and HAMAS are looking to the long run
and are confident that its Al Fatah rivals will lose support over time for
its complicity with Israel and the U.S. in supporting the invasion. Iran
will bide its time and settle for being the beneficiary of heightened
anti-U.S. sentiments that continue to deepen across the Middle East. In
the West Bank, al Fatah is attempting to suppress mass demonstrations by
Palestinians supporting HAMAS and Abbas has even blamed HAMAS for starting
the conflict, as if who shot first is the essential question at hand.

In the final analysis there is not going to be a comprehensive
Israeli-Palestinian peace until there are peacemakers and peacekeepers on
both sides of the conflict. Between the Israelis, Al Fatah and HAMAS, the
invasion places the prospects for peace even further in the distant
future. That is precisely why the quest for reconciliation between HAMAS
and Al Fatah has been abandoned by the U.S., Israel and the Palestinian
Authority.

So what will the new Obama administration do? The conflict has forced
Obama’s hand. He cannot retreat or put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on
the back burner. Nor is it guaranteed that a cease fire will occur. Wars
have uncertain outcomes, and the West Bank could erupt even if Hezbollah
keeps its powder dry in Lebanon. Moreover, Obama has two wars to prosecute
in Afghanistan and Iraq that are far more strategic to the U.S. and its
allies. The Persian Gulf is still the critical ground zero of the Middle
East, and its oil is the lubricant powering a tottering world economy that
cannot withstand another short-term energy jolt.

With no prospects of a comprehensive peace in the Levant, Obama will have
to go slow and embrace the concept of extracting whatever short term
concessions he can out of the situation. The de-facto One and One-Half
State Solution will likely be his best option. Obama and the Europeans
could pursue a soft strategy of building agreements short of changing any
of the base terms of the Roadmap. Massive injections of capital and
economic development projects in the West Bank will be critical to
pacifying West Bank Palestinians and doing what hasn’t been done;
improving their daily lives. They are tired of empty talk, promises, and
peace plans that yield more violence and suffering.

Israel would have to agree to stop construction of its settlements in the
West Bank and roll back some of its roadblocks and checkpoints. Abbas and
the new incoming Israeli Prime Minister (most likely Netanyahu) would
agree to a cease fire in the West Bank. Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis would
need to invest in the West Bank development initiative with substantial
support from international NGO’s to monitor the Palestinian Authority
administration of finances and development projects. A small international
peace keeping force may also be inserted in the West Bank. In short, the
goal would be to economically and politically isolate Gaza and HAMAS, but
not militarily attack HAMAS. Presumably, Israel’s invasion would reduce
HAMAS’s capacity and appetite for conflict. Palestinians would therefore
have two distinct paths to choose from; a potentially prosperous and
peaceful West Bank or a struggling and chaotic Gaza.

The One and One-Half State solution is a roll of the dice, but it is a
chance to try something new to produce tangible progress in the West Bank
instead of more non-productive peace talks. It is a dangerous initiative
that would require patience to endure the blow back that will come from
turning Gaza into an island of desolation for an undetermined time. If
Obama is lucky, HAMAS’s may actually be forced concentrate on rebuilding
GAZA and defer on launching rockets into southern Israel. The struggle in
the Levant is moving to another level. Condoleezza Rice was correct when
she said there can be no return to the “status quo ante.” Going backwards
is not an option or possibility. The question is whether developments move
in the direction of peace and stability or towards a deepening of the
crisis. The hour for all sides to cast off unrealistic dreams committed to
paper in far away places like Oslo is at hand.

Of course, most Americans are preoccupied with the fact that the stock market dropped again today, housing prices continue to slump, consumer confidence is at record lows and we want a government that will do something about this, not be obsessed with who Barack Obama met a couple times years ago. Besides, this “news” is five years old. If Obama’s character is such an issue, why did they wait so long to bring this up?

John McCain and Sarah Palin could care less about what Americans need. Instead, they care about irrelevent things that Barack Obama did years ago and dividing Americans into us and them. It’s really a sad display of desperation and a book that keeps writing itself – “How Not To Run A Presidential Campaign.”

Did you hear the one about Obama being a Muslim? But, I thought he attended a church for years that employed an anti-American reverend. Since when do Muslims have reverends? The Republican ticket can’t even keep their nonsense straight anymore.