Peace Talks, and Talks, and Talks.

For the nth time in umpteen years, Israelis and Palestinians are sitting down together to talk about peace. What does it mean, no one yet knows. But both sides left agreeing to come back, which is always a good start.

One significant difference between these talks and the talks hosted by our last two fearless leaders, Clinton and Bush, Jr., is the fact that President Obama did not wait until the last few minutes of his term, as the ink was drying on the inauguration invitations for the next guy, to announce an attempt to make history and solve one of the world's most intractable conflicts. So that is something.

And THAT's the good news.

Netanyahu is holding his coalition together with both hands and some duct tape. He does not currently have the ability to make any significant concessions, lest his coalition, stacked heavily-although not entirely-to the right, finally take its ultimate plunge into the abyss of Israeli history books. Netanyahu is not the first Prime Minister in Israel to be given a second shot at the position, but it is hard to imagine Bibi getting a third shot at the prize in the foreseeable future.

Now we have to remember, for all of Netanyahu's edge and stance, he is also one of the only Israeli Prime Minister's to accede territory, however small (the other two being through-and-through righties Begin and Sharon). He is a pragmatist, even if he wishes that Israel, the world, and President Obama would forget it.

So Netanyahu's juggling act comes out in a repeat of his imaginative claim from last year that, new to the ether of peace talks, it would be unacceptable for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians without a full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

On the surface, this is simple enough. Israel is the Jewish state, let whoever wants to make peace with them say it out loud. But this was not asked of Sadat of Egypt nor King Hussein of Jordan, and Israel willingly signed treaties with both of these parties.

Why ask the Palestinians, who have no (and will continue to have no) standing army, potentially no control of their borders or air space, and certainly no right of return beyond whatever is specifically spelled out under any ultimate peace plan, when the same was not asked of Sadat-the-Giant, or King Hussein, over whom Israel had no such control.

The answer of course is because they can. Well, if they are less concerned with peace than constituency that is. Time Magazine's Karl Vick just wrote an interesting, if not perfect, cover story about why Israel has moved on from peace (an excerpt can be read here). The question here is really less about Israel than about Netanyahu. Netanyahu does not have the coalition to allow him to make serious concessions. Requiring Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state as, well a Jewish state, is tantamount to asking them to take their beating and say "uncle" all the same.

Before you go jumping to the comments section to tell me that I hate Israel and/or that I am ignorant and/or that I should die, and so on, give me a second. Please. In any real peace, a peace that can be accepted by either leader and brought back to the people without outright riots and secession, both sides are going to have to make serious concessions. Israel is going to have to dismantle SOME settlements and outposts, accept SOME leniency with Palestinian borders and find SOME way to allow the Palestinians to claim Jerusalem a shared city, even if mostly only on paper.

For the Palestinians, they are going to have to accept that some settlements are not settlements, but permanents, that they are never going to receive any real semblance of the Right-of-Return, that they are (at least for now) not going to have an army or any real control over their borders or their airspace, and that Jerusalem is never going to be as "theirs" as they had hoped.

This is going to be painful for both sides. Decades (nearly a century) of war, and hardship, and talks, and brutality, and vitriol, and anger, and everyone is going to be unhappy. But that is what compromise is. If everyone cannot be happy, then everyone needs to be the least amount of unhappy as possible.

When all is said and done, the best case scenario for a future Palestinian state is going to be hard-to-swallow, difficult-to-sell and a work-in-progress state that might never stop being a work-in-progress. It IS going to be noncontagious and indefensible. It IS going to be a shard of what the Palestinians feel is their deserved state. But, God and Allah and Jesus and Glenn Beck and whoever-you-choose-to-bow-down-to willing, it is going to be a state.

To then ask the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that within it their are over a million Palestinians (about 1/5 of the population of Israel) and that the Palestinian state will be full of people who still wear necklaces with keys to their old homes in Haifa, Jaffa and so on (cities that will certainly remain a part of Israel), is akin to kicking them while they are down.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, I understand the sentiment. You have been fighting so long for the Jewish state. Essentially you are asking someone to tell you that you were right, that your brother and your friends did not die in vain, that your life's work mattered, that you, and your people, are real and legitimate.

But it is never going to happen. Just like you are never going to accept the Right-of-Return for a significant number of Palestinians, they are never going to lower their head and grant you this victory.

But honestly, that is not really the point, is it? You are not demanding this for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. You are doing it for your coalition and for President Obama. If you somehow defy the odds and reach peace, your coalition is doomed to fail. If you cannot give a good reason for reaching peace, you are going to piss off on angry, dumped-on American President who has been getting beaten up from every side recently and may (he just may) decide that you are a battle worth fighting.

And who knows what happens then.

To all of those of you who have been waiting patiently, you can now tell me to die, and all that fun stuff. I will try not to take it too personally.

I'm on Twitter and Sarah Palin Does Not Want to Know What I think.

I just created my Twitter account. Follow me on there. My handle is, you guessed it: BiFocalPoint. (Are you seeing a trend yet?) You will get all of my humor, my sass and my wit without all of those pesky characters (letters, numbers and punctuation, not people). Nw wtch me lrn 2 abrevi8!

The first person that I followed on Twitter was, naturally, Sarah Palin. Why go to CNN when I can just create a Twitter profile. It is all that anyone talks about these days. She is the news.

I clicked on follow her, and within just a few minutes, her Middle America hospitality (which I know a lot about being from the South) returned the favor and followed me right back. For a minute there, I thought that I might have been special.

But our love was not meant to be. Apparently she monitors that thing pretty closely and did not like my Joe Miller is HOW Conservative? post. I was hoping for a signature Sarah punchline for my little game, but alas, it is not to be. At least not tonight.

She stopped following me!

Just like that. Not even a warning or a :(

So internet world out there, its official. I did not wake up this morning prepared for it, I did not savor every moment of the days leading up to it, but it is official nonetheless: I am part of the problem. Which makes me sad. Won't someone out there write something out there to cheer me up. Preferably a story about Our Lady of Alaska, and definitely nothing that you would not want your mother to read. I look forward to it. The best story get immortalized... in my heart. So lay it on thick.

See you in the blogosphere.

Alaska's Joe Miller is so Conservative...

How conservative is he you ask?

Well forget about his Tea Party credos. Shortly after officially winning the Alaska GOP Senatorial primary, he admitted that Alaska has long been reliant of Federal money but foresaw what would happen to the State as the Federal coffers started to go dry.

His solution is as follows:

"We have to be prepared for that, and the way to do it, of course, is to progressionally transfer holdings of the federal government to us."

So the correct answer is:

Joe Miller is so conservative, he won't even USE the word Progressive (or any derivation therein). Congrats to all of you out there who got the right answer. Have another "correct answer" for how conservative Joe Miller is. Post it here. Wittiest answer gets all-out props on the BiFocalPoint...for at least a week. Guaranteed.

We Must Protect Ground Zero at All Costs!!!!

Ground Zero is under siege, that much is evident.  Unholy people are trying to take over the neighborhood, previously pristine, and taint it with their filth. Did you know that right now, at this very moment, it is possible for a man with the flu to walk right up to Ground Zero and spit on the ground. The very area could become contaminated indefinitely.

But this is America and there is always a way. We will protect this hallowed spot for our children and our grandchildren at any cost, won't we? If so, then there is really only one feasible solution and I have it for you. That is right, you heard it hear first. Others WILL co-opt my idea, but just remember that BiFocalPoint saved Ground Zero, and the nation that loves it, from terrorists, fanatics, abortionists and salmonella. My solution even solves that disgusting point of Mayor Michael Bloomberg that the area is not sacrosanct; it is currently surrounded by bars and shops selling pornographic materials. In America!!!!!!

Well, not for long. Soon enough, anyone who wants to visit Ground Zero will do so with the help of the Coast Guard or with a swim suit and snorkel.

If we could pick up Ground Zero and move it someplace safe, of course we would. Someplace flat where we could keep an eye on it from every direction. Preferably somewhere in the Main Land, where it could be observed and protected by good, hard-working Americans. And not by, ugh, New Yorkers. But that is ridiculous. Obviously. It would almost certainly be damaged in the move.

My next thought involved a Plexiglas bubble and a lot of duct tape, but I would not want to make it impossible for good, strong-valued Americans to ever again be able to enter this sacred area. No, that would be punishing us all for the crimes of some. That could never work.

I considered watch towers and armed guards, but then you would presumably need bathrooms right there at the site. At GROUND ZERO!!!!!! Unthinkable.

Where does that leave us? We cannot move it, we cannot enclose it with plastic or men. There is but one obvious solution. The time has come, once and for all, to build a moat around Ground Zero. It is really the only acceptable way to keep this spot, which saw so many Americans fall in the name of honor and pride, forever pristine and virgin from the slime and the filth of that disgusting city within which it happens to stand. No, New York is simply not good enough for Ground Zero.

We will build a moat, and much as its neighbor the UN, it will be a sovereign entity. When we go to the polls every two years, we will vote, as a nation, on its upkeepers. Any one who wants to visit will plead their case to the public and referendum will decide for whom the single drawbridge descends. Those in Washington will have no power on this sacred place, it will be unsullied by their unscrupulous ways.

The time has come to protect Ground Zero from the world. The moat must be built. Grab your shovels, your axes and your children and get to work America! Before New York allows it be just another nameless construction site, burdened motionless with red tape and bureaucratic incompetence and surrounded by encroaching filth on all sides.

Ground Zero belongs to us. Let us dig deep and let us dig wide so that no one can ever take that away from us. The time has come. Ground Zero, we are coming to save you.

Some light reading on Sarah "Barracuda" Palin

Click here to read a fascinating piece on the woman we all love to love. Or hate, fear or mock. Whatever the case may be, this article will help you get inside the head of the Thrilla from Wasilla, the Sasser from Alaska, the Queen of Mean and the always the Prom Queen. Parents be warned, while scant, there is a bit of salty language. But nothing vulgar. It's long, so get your popcorn ready in advance. It's a worthwhile read.

1 in 4 Americans is really kind of a lot, isn't it?

A new poll says that 26%, essentially one-in-four, Americans think that Sarah Palin is ready to be President. Just to be clear, 1 in 4 Americans think that she is ready to be the President - finger on the button, Commander-in-Chief - of the United States of America. Most reporting of this poll was done in the context of ONLY one-in-four, but to me, one-in-four Americans is A LOT of people. We are talking about approximately 75 million people who think that Sarah Palin, the woman who could not complete a term as Governor, is ready to take control of the country. 

Just for some perspective, I did a quick google search of "1 in 4 Americans" and here are a few things that came up.

1 in 4 Americans did not read one book last year. (As of 2007, but I would not imagine that has changed significantly since then.)

1 in 4 do not know from whom we declared our Independence.

Another dated one, but at the beginning of 2007, 1 in 4 Americans thought that Jesus' second coming would take place before the end of that year.

1 in 4 (teenage girl) Americans has a Venereal Disease. 

And of course, the clincher. I will not link this one, because it is EVERYWHERE, but 1 in 4 Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim. I never understood this one, after the massive scandal that erupted over Obama's Preacher at his long-time Church, but who am I to judge.

I was looking for context, I think that I found some. Please feel free to ad more to this list.

It's a First: Netanyahu Does Not Condemn Call for Genocide

 

Shas leader calls for destruction of Abbas and the Palestinians

Netanyahu is not alone amongst Israeli society in decrying Palestinian enticements to terror. When Palestinians recently planned to rename a square after a woman who had hijacked an Israeli bus, killing dozens, Israelis were understandably livid. This was all the proof that Israelis needed that ALL Palestinians were terrorists, not just those involved in the heinous acts. Fair or not, it is easy to follow Israel rationale as they move from point A to point B.

Over the weekend Ovadia Yosef, the founder and current chief spiritual leader of Shas, raised a bit of a ruckus. Shas is the political movement of the religious Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews of Israel (meaning essentially, Jews of Eastern descent). During a Shabbat sermon, he claimed that Abu Mazen and the Palestinians, along with all of the enemies of Israel, should perish. He was of course dramatic and biblical, claiming that a plague should strike them down. Now let us be clear, this is not like Dick Cheney rising from his defibrillator to decry liberals and terrorists, this is like Pat Robertson taking the air waves to tell his followers that 9/11 was caused by homosexuality and feminism. The call to arms, while all in the interpretation, cannot be pretty.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is Israel's immediate reaction to anyone talking about their own destruction. A serious discussion is raging in America today about Israel's right, and ability, to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic cover story is a serious account of the situation in Israel as to the probability and justification of just such an attack.

The argument against this comparison from some is obvious, Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, only one or two of which would be needed to wipe out the Jews in Israel at least for the foreseeable future. But is there anyone who doubts that Israel lacks the capabilities to do just this to the Palestinians in the region, should they so desire. PAY ATTENTION, I am not saying that they will, would, or even that they remotely want to. I am merely saying that they can.

Should Iran one day, in the near or distant future, gain the technological know-how to wipe Israel off the map, they know that it would be to their detriment. Should they choose to take the suicidal step of launching a nuke at Israel, either by missile or by proxy, they know that Israel has the ability to respond. If there was nothing left in Israel but dust and ash, Israel could still launch a nuclear warhead from a submarine directly at Tehran. Israel is gone, and Iran follows closely behind.

Does Israel have the same concern of Mutually Assured Destruction should they decide that the Palestinians have been a pain-in-their-tuchus (Jewish for ass) long enough and that it is time for them to go once and for all? Of course not. As far as PR and tourism and economy and diplomacy are concerned, it would almost certainly be a disaster for Israel, but would it mean the end of the Jewish state? Not necessarily.

Now the reason that I raise this comparison is not that an 89 year old Iraqi born Rabbi made a crazy claim asking God to strike down the Palestinians. Forget the fact that when this man speaks, he is seen by many, including 11 members of Shas who currently sit in the Netanyahu government, as orders from the highest of places. He is a spiritual Commander-in-Chief, if you will. But still, my concern is not that he said it, rather how Netanyahu reacted to it.

Now let's be clear, Netanyahu "distanced" himself from the statement, about that there is no doubt. Netanyahu's office released a statement saying that "Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's remarks do not reflect Netanyahu's views, nor do they reflect the stance of the Israeli government."

Great! It is good to hear that Netanyahu does not personally believe that all of the Palestinians should be struck down by plague. I suppose the next question one would need to ask were should this far-fetched plague to happen, might it not be out of even God Almighty's hands to keep it from spreading to the Jews who live, work and travel alongside these Palestinians on a daily basis?

Netanyahu is not a zealot or a nut. Obviously he does not agree with the statement. But is he really okay with the fact that 11 members of his coalition government see the man who made this comment as their spiritual leader? Can he really count on receiving their support next week, as peace talks resume after such a long overdue absence, when their Rabbi and leader says that the people on the other side of the negotiating table should be smote by plague from God. 

How can we hope to have peace when such a large contingency of Netanyahu's government comes from a party that is openly calling for a plague on the Palestinians. Can we at least get these guys Hazmat suits so that they can sign their names to their Knesset attendance sheet in the meantime.