Here’s the main problem. Nearly nine years into the conflict, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) still lacks a coherent strategy for attaining NATO’s goals. President Obama may describe the recent appointment of General David Petraeus to lead the NATO forces in Afghanistan as a “change in personnel, but not a change in policy”, but the reality is that the policy is flawed.

The summer offensive in Kandahar by US-led forces has been delaying, leaving much pressure on Canada’s soldiers in Afghanistan’s south. Corruption and division are still rampant throughout the country, and stopping the Taliban insurgency has proved much more difficult than expected. Possibly worst of all, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has indicated that he is distancing himself from working with with the West in favour of negotiating with the Taliban and the Pakistani government.

No one wants another Vietnam. NATO forces can’t afford to stay in Afghanistan for over twenty years. If the current strategy centered around Kabul remains in place, we’ll be digging ourselves into a quagmire. This is especially the case, seeing as Western forces, for cultural and political reasons, are incapable of building an Afghan democracy and economy on their own.

Our most important goal between now and the summer of 2011 should be to lead a major eastward offensive against the Taliban to force them back over the border into Pakistan. After this point, border-control becomes the most critical of points, seeing as the last offensive only temporarily kept the Taliban out of Afghan territory. We need to be able to train Afghan forces to effectively secure the border with Pakistan on their own, since we know that for reasons of strategic depth, Pakistan won’t effectively curb the mobility or influence of radical groups such as the Taliban.

After the offensive, pull out and portray it as a victory. We have no choice. Canada has lost nearly 150 soldiers in this war and it can’t drag on for much longer. Furthermore, US-led operations in Somalia have proven that no matter how much funding and resources one pours into a failed state, instability is inevitable. Whether countries like Canada choose to maintain a small presence after the offensive in order to enhance education, living conditions and the training of armed-forces is up to them, and is certainly a worthwhile endeavour.

Over the years, Western-led initiatives have cleared the way for Iran to extend its influence in the region. Winning the Cold War removed pressure to Iran’s north. Invading Afghanistan removed pressure to its east, and Iraq to its west. We now remain paralyzed by the politics of a corrupt president in the form of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and an Iranian-backed  prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq, while Iran continues to inch toward obtaining nuclear weapons.

We have to do what we can, where we can. The economic and geopolitical interests of the democratic community are at risk if Iran’s  radical regime obtains nuclear weapons. Dialogue with theocrats hasn’t and won’t work. Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent but an incentive for mullahs who adhere to an eschatology-based ideology. If the democratic community doesn’t bring Iran’s nuclear program to a standstill through economic measures, and if the leader of the free world doesn’t abandon his fantasy of Israeli-Palestinian peace, we’re in for a rough ride.

Zach Paikin is a student at McGill University.

As a Canadian, I cherish our uniquely Canadian values of peace, order and good government. With those come freedom, justice and human rights.

When immigrants come to Canada, they bring a culture with them. I’m proud of our multiculturalism. But I’m also proud of our Canadian values. Those values should never be sacrificed.

Islam is a beautiful faith. Islamism is a radical ideology. “Honour killings” will never be tolerated in the country that I am proud to call home.

Political correctness embraced by the left and its media outlets has gone too far. It’s time to denounce the radical ideology of Islamism once and for all.

Murder is wrong. Oppression is wrong. If we don’t identify the root cause of the problem, we’ll never find the solution.

Now, Mr. Obama is failing the world on a more practical level. And we have every reason to be concerned.

Sixteen months into his presidency, Mr. Obama continues to undermine the legitimacy of his allies while attempting to appease his enemies. His diplomatic attempts at engaging Iran and Syria have failed. His promised sanctions against the fundamentalist regime in Iran are coming eight months late. Worst of all, Iran is creating a new world order and the US can’t do anything about it.

In an attempt to paralyze Western powers, Iran recently signed a deal with Turkey and Brazil in which Iran would send some of its uranium to Turkey which it would enrich and transform into fuel rods for peaceful use. This is the exact same deal offered by Russia and France this past fall, which Iran rejected.

Iran orchestrated this deal for three reasons.

First, as was the case in the fall deal, Iran will ship 2,640 pounds of uranium abroad for further enrichment. This would have represented 80 percent of Iran’s uranium stockpile in the fall. Yet it only represents 50 percent of its total uranium now, as Iran has increased its stockpile steadily over the past eight months. This leaves Iran with a large amount of low-enriched uranium which it says it will now enrich to 20 percent of U235 isotope concentration, which will allow it to reach 90 percent enrichment much faster, the level necessary to activate a nuclear weapon.

Second, if the uranium is not converted into fuel rods by Turkey within a year’s time, Turkey is obliged to return the uranium to Iran. With Turkey beginning to align itself with the “axis of resistance”, led by Iran, the latter trusts that the former will not convert the entire shipment of uranium, something that it could not expect from France.

Last, Iran seeks to undermine American influence in the region by signing a treaty with two countries traditionally viewed by the US as close allies: Turkey and Brazil. Furthermore, Iran is forcing the US to choose between accepting the deal, and hence doing nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons proliferation program, or rejecting it outright, and therefore appearing to undermine alleged Iranian attempts to peacefully reduce tensions between itself and the West.

The Obama administration responded to this deal by composing a set of watered-down sanctions against the Iranian regime, using the United Nations Security Council as its forum for passing them. As usual, the resolution speaks of economic sanctions and an arms embargo, yet has no concrete means of implementation.

The sanctions don’t touch Iran’s central banking system or its oil and gas industries. Nuclear inspections will proceed only with consent, as usual, allowing Iran to continue to hide many of its facilities. Worst of all, Russia will be allowed to continue to help Iran build an air defense system against a potential Israeli or American attack to slow down the regime’s nuclear program, seeing as surface-to-air missiles are exempt from the UN Register on Conventional Arms.

In summary, Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons which could be used against Israel and the West, and will spark a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Meanwhile, for ideological reasons, the Obama administration has made it rather clear that it doesn’t really intend to do anything about it.

We’re in trouble.

Zach Paikin is a student at McGill University.

Amidst the renewal of talks, we have begun to observe yet another dual narrative. This time, however, it isn’t a divide between Hamas and Fatah, but between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

President Abbas, whose term as president expired in January of 2009 I might add, is sticking to the Fatah position that has been maintained since Oslo. Mr. Abbas states that he wants a Palestinian state through negotiations with Israel. He places an emphasis on Jerusalem, refugees, and borders. Yet PA intransigence for the past sixteen months has clearly shown that his allegiance remains to Fatah, and not to the Palestinian people.

The strategy practiced by Arafat, Erekat, and now by Abbas is to avoid “peace talks” for as long as possible in order to (a) force more Israeli concessions and (b) receive more money from the international community. We’re talking about the same corrupt party that builds casinos instead of democratic institutions here.

Mr. Fayyad, an independent, on the other hand, is taking a different approach. He speaks of building a Palestinian state “from the bottom up”. This would include planning new cities, paving new roads, reforming the judiciary, and investing in a viable economy for the future. This way of thinking has annoyed Fatah cabinet ministers, who are now urging President Abbas to strip Mr. Fayyad of the finance portfolio.

Mr. Fayyad’s way of thinking is extremely refreshing. Yet he also speaks of “being ready for statehood by August 2011″. What does he mean by that?

The Hamas/Fatah divide combined with an impeding conflict between Israel and Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Syria will ensure that there will be no “solution” negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians by August 2011. Does that mean that Mr. Fayyad is planning a unilateral declaration of independence?

Such a declaration would be extremely dangerous. First, it would sever all economic, humanitarian and security-related arrangements between Israel and the PA. Second, due to the weakness of the PA, it would result in another Hamas takeover and renewed terrorism.

Therefore, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians seem to be the only concrete way of ever achieving Palestinian statehood at some point in the future. However, if Mr. Fayyad is to ever bring about the creation of a Palestinian state, he’ll need nothing short of the destruction of Hamas followed by an erosion of Fatah, which in turn will allow a Palestinian pro-democracy movement to gain legitimacy.

Such major changes don’t happen overnight. In the meantime, it seems as if renewed talks between Israel and the PA will simply serve as a basis for developing new ideas. With larger-scale regional issues currently in the mix, it seems as if Mr. Fayyad’s vision will remain on the backburner for now.

Zach Paikin is a student at McGill University.

Let’s forget that Syria has just shipped scud missiles with a range of 435 miles to Hezbollah, an Islamist group in Lebanon known in Canada, the US and elsewhere as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has in fact admitted that the group has an arsenal of 30,000 rockets and has the ability to strike anywhere in Israel.

Let’s also forget about Islamic fundamentalism and acts of terror in Iraq, Yemen, and across the Middle East and North Africa. Let’s not even mention Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Now that we’ve got all of those issues out of the way, let’s talk about President Barack Obama’s plan for what he views as the central issue in the region: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. Obama has officially commanded Israel to do the following: extend the ten-month settlement freeze in the West Bank (due to expire on September 27th), freeze all construction in East Jerusalem as well, release a bunch of Palestinian terrorists to please Fatah officials, and withdraw to the borders of 2000 before the outbreak of the second intifada. This is apparently going to solve the conflict.

The first two of those requests will accomplish nothing, as the Palestinian Authority has already proved its intransigence on the issue. Barack Obama has hardened the Palestinian negotiating position by ordering a full freeze on construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That means that PA President Mahmoud Abbas can demand nothing less.

The last two will result in an increase in terrorism that will endanger Israeli, American, and Canadian lives. Any uncooperative withdrawal in an area where undemocratic Islamist forces are present results in an increase in terrorism. Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 saw the rise of terrorist acts committed by Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, which in turn forced wars in 2006 and in 2008-09.

So essentially, Barack Obama’s plan for peace in the Middle East is to pressure Israel as much as possible into acquiescing to all Palestinian demands. This won’t solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it won’t solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, it won’t improve America’s ties with the Arab world, and it won’t weaken radical Islamic groups in the region.

In fact, if anything, peace right now between Israel and any Arab entity will strengthen Islamism. If any society controlled by Arab nationalists makes peace with Israel at the present time, the ruling powers will be accused of treason, will subsequently be overthrown, and Islamist entities will take over and nullify any peace deal, bringing us back to square one, the only difference being the new-found presence of more volatile regimes.

So basically, we’re in it for the long run. President Obama has made it clear that he has no interest in ever criticizing the Palestinian Authority, nor does he intend to address the issue of Hamas’s growing influence over Palestinian politics and society. The PA refuses to negotiate for fourteen months, renames streets after suicide-bombers, and teaches their children to hate Jews, yet Mr. Obama is more concerned with a few new apartments in Ramat Shlomo.

Islamic fundamentalism is a global problem, and it threatens both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is a radical ideology that is gaining more and more support and that calls for a genocide against the Jews and world domination.

Mr. Obama, Islamic fundamentalism is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East, not Israel. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you’ll notice that it isn’t only Israel’s security that is at risk, but America’s as well.

Zach Paikin is a student at McGill University.

Fatah and Hamas have both struggled to hold power and influence since Arafat’s death, the former for practical reasons and the latter for ideological ones. This political and societal divide within the disputed territories has rendered the Israeli-Palestinian peace process extremely difficult to manage. Yet it isn’t simply the divide in itself that makes things complicated.

Fatah, whose name in Arabic means “victory”, hasn’t exactly been able to provide it. As a faction of the PLO, an organization repeatedly denounced as terrorist, it was built up as a resistance movement and not as a political party. When it came time for multiparty elections within the Palestinian Authority, Hamas seized the opportunity by running under the banner of change and reform. The Islamic Resistance Movement won.

Fatah has since been eradicated from the Gaza Strip and has seen its influence wane in the West Bank, at the hands of both Hamas militants and Israeli forces. Yet, because of its history as the leading faction of the PLO, its unconstitutional stranglehold over the PA presidency, and the fundamentalist ideology of Hamas, it is viewed as the continued “legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” and hence represents the Palestinian side at the negotiating table.

It is well known that the PA/Fatah has no influence over the Gaza Strip. Its inability to act in the face of Operation Cast Lead just over a year ago proves it. But what of its influence in the West Bank?

A new Israeli military order, designed to seek out Hamas operatives, allows soldiers to transfer or detain Palestinians without proper identification in certain areas of the West Bank, the idea being that they would have arrived illegally from the Gaza Strip. Even Jordan is making a fuss about it. But Fatah officials remain silent.

There are two possibilities. The first is that Fatah has lost so much control over Palestinian society in the West Bank that it is incapable of taking action against this military order. The second is that it may be capable of taking action, but would prefer to see Hamas be weakened in any way possible.

In either case, the Palestinian side of the negotiating table is looking pretty grim. Has the PA been intransigent for over a year simply for ideological purposes at the expense of Israel? Or has it refused to negotiate in an attempt to prevent Hamas from taking over Palestinian society as a whole?

Both of the above explanations are depressing, because they both reaffirm a fact that the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” has consistently managed to prove. That fact is that they fail to legitimately represent their people. Unfortunately, that doesn’t look like it will be changing any time soon.

Zach Paikin is a student at McGill University.

I fear that this latest rift in Israeli-US relations isn’t jump another bump in the road. I really think that President Obama just doesn’t seem to get it.

To be fair, Mr. Obama has achieved some remarkable things. Despite their imperfection, economic stimulus and a comprehensive health care act managed to get through Congress. In my opinion, he has most certainly changed the political landscape of the United States for the time being.

But when it comes to the Middle East, I just don’t see his logic at work. My position is that Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest and most imminent threat to world stability. His position is that a few new apartments in Ramat Shlomo stand in the way of “peace”.

Barack Obama has essentially timed the peace process of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the US electoral calendar. He wants an historic deal in place before the end of his first term, propelling him to reelection in 2012.

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israel has shown repeatedly that it is committed to peace and is prepared to give up land as long as their security is ensured. This means an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, history has been a disincentive for the Jewish state.

Through the Oslo Accords, Israel transferred 42% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the newly formed Palestinian Authority. It was met by increased terrorism. Further attempts to acquiesce to Palestinian demands resulted in the outbreak of the second intifada.

Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 resulted in the rise of Hezbollah’s military influence in the south and an increase of its political power in Beirut. The former’s decision to leave the Gaza Strip in 2005 allowed Hamas to take over and increase rocket fire.

Now, Israel’s security is still at risk. Iran is developing a nuclear program and has made an incitement to genocide. Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations funded by Iran’s theocratic regime, soon may have the range to reach Ben Gurion Airport, downtown Tel Aviv, and Israel’s nuclear centre outside Dimona with their rockets.

Despite all of this, Barack Obama believes that it is in America’s interest to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right here and right now. His position is that Israeli settlement expansion is strengthening America’s enemies. My view is that America’s enemies are being strengthened by his incompetence.

Instead of proving to Al-Qaeda and Iran that he is a credible opponent, Barack Obama is simply alienating his only true ally in the region. That ally’s name is Israel, and it shares the values that we hold so close to our hearts: democracy, life, freedom, and security.

Israeli-US relations have always been a bumpy road, as the world’s superpower has always had a vested interest in the Middle East. Yet that bumpy road shouldn’t stand in the way of uniting against those who wish to destroy us.

A speech in Cairo won’t end Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. A disarmament deal with Russia won’t be an incentive for a country run by the Ayatollahs to halt its nuclear program. Removing the words “jihad” and “terror” from the vocabulary book won’t put an end to this radical ideology.

It’s time that President Obama realize that being pragmatic and realistic is more important than being ideological and politically correct. Our way of life is at stake.

Le Canada, le Québec, et l’Israël
Zach Paikin

Au niveau fédéral du monde politique canadien, le sujet du conflit israélo-arabe change de statut depuis ces dernières années. Ce changement peut s’identifier en deux phases.

La première phase a débuté avec la transition premier-ministérielle entre Jean Chrétien et Paul Martin. Avec cette transition d’un gouvernement centre-gauche à un de centre-droite, la question du conflit israélo-arabe a pu changer d’un problème pratique à un problème moral.

M. Martin a pu voir les liens moraux entre l’Etat d’Israël et son propre pays. Comme le Canada continuait sa mission nouvellement débutée en Afghanistan tandis que l’Israël était toujours confronté par la deuxième intifada, on a pu voir que le Canada et l’Israël tous les deux se battaient pour les mêmes valeurs : la démocratie, la liberté, et la vie.

En 2006, des élections du mois de janvier est émergé un gouvernement conservateur, avec Stephen Harper à sa tête. M. Harper a poursuit le chemin d’une politique pro-Israël, mais ce sujet a subit encore une transition. Cette dernière a donné le résultat d’une politique plus domestique qu’étrangère au niveau de ce conflit.

Nous nous retrouvons maintenant après une troisième élection consécutive productrice d’un gouvernement minoritaire. Les partis d’opposition, habitués à un système dans lequel ils sont capables justement de pouvoir « s’opposer », peuvent actuellement provoquer une élection n’importe quand. Pour cette raison, ajoutée à plusieurs autres, la politique partisane est devenue plus importante que la politique morale.

Les conséquences de ceci sont évidentes. Le parti conservateur et son homologue libéral, deux partis officiellement « pro-Israëls », ne peuvent se mettre d’accord sur comment combattre l’antisémitisme et les ennemis du seul état démocratique au Moyen-Orient. Par exemple, le parti conservateur ignore les actions du parti libéral contre le régime dictateur en Iran, notamment en refusant d’adopter comme initiative gouvernementale les projets d’Irwin Cotler, député libéral pour Mont-Royal.

Pourtant, le gouvernement Harper a pu réussir à défendre l’Etat d’Israël aux moments clefs pour la communauté juive au Canada, notamment lors de la confrontation avec Hamas il y a un an, ainsi que par leurs efforts au niveau de la commission parlementaire pour combattre l’antisémitisme et en opposition à la conférence Durban II.

Mais, au niveau du Québec, (la politique étrangère étant une responsabilité fédérale), le gouvernement de Jean Charest ne peut avoir autant d’influence au niveau du conflit israélo-arabe. Il faut aussi prendre en compte l’influence du Bloc Québécois, et de son chef Gilles Duceppe, qui ne cache jamais ses sentiments favorables envers l’Etat d’Israël. Ce parti, pourtant ayant ses sièges à Ottawa, possède une influence non-négligeable au niveau de la société et de la politique québécoise.

Malgré ceci, M. Charest augmente son profil aux niveaux national et international, peut-être pour mettre en place les fondements d’un retour éventuel à la politique fédérale. Le premier ministre du Québec se retrouve dans les nouvelles nationales grâce aux accords d’énergie hydraulique avec le Nouveau Brunswick. Il est visible aussi sur la plateforme internationale en raison de ces buts ambitieux pour réduire les émissions de carbone ainsi que sa présence à la conférence COP15 à Copenhague.

M. Charest doit maintenant choisir s’il veut utiliser cette influence nouvellement trouvée pour pouvoir souligner directement des conflits régionaux autour du monde. Son futur politique provincial et fédéral, ainsi que la position du Canada dans la communauté internationale, pourraient être altérés par sa décision.

Where We Stand
Zach Paikin

People often say that we are currently in a Cold War between the West and the Islamic world. This, however, ignores the Sunni-Shiite divide within the umma, which actually indicates a political rather than religious conflict.

Despite the theology of jihad against Dar al-Harb, (The House of War, i.e. the non-Muslim world) evident in acts of terrorism, we tend to forget that the Islamic Republic of Iran, a non-Arab, Shiite-Muslim nation, is at the root of the problem. The theocratic regime in control since Khomeini’s revolution of 1979, known as the velayat-e-faqih, poses a serious threat to regional stability.

We continue to discover secret nuclear facilities in cities such as Qom. This program has created the spectre of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and has already given Iran the capability of reaching Europe with its missiles.

Furthermore, Iran continues to defy international law by inciting genocide against the entire state of Israel, sponsoring terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and committing some of the worst human rights abuses in the world.

Moreover, looking at the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, we find a struggle that has persisted for decades. Perhaps the most intriguing issue right now is the impact of Iran on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If one thinks that Prime Minister Netanyahu offered a ten-month settlement freeze in the West Bank simply because he’s a nice guy, think again. Mr. Netanyahu knew that Mr. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority would reject the offer in an instant. The freeze (and the removal of two thirds of the checkpoints) serves the purpose of showing the West that Israel is dedicated to peace.

Mr. Netanyahu’s move worked. Now that the question of “peace” is out of the way, at least for now, President Obama and the West are more dedicated to dealing with Iran. Gone are the days of “preconditions for peace talks” between Israel and the PA set by the Obama administration. However, there are two major consequences of this shift in priorities.

First, Mr. Obama is shifting to the right policy, but taking the wrong approach. The threat that Iran poses must be addressed immediately. However, Mr. Obama, known for his left-of-centre politics, continues to use the United Nations and the P5+1 as his forum for dealing with this theocratic dictatorship. He fails to realize that the time for diplomatic action has passed.

Because of this, the international community is not invoking the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA), a move that would invoke special international sanctions on Iran (SEMA has been used in the past to combat violently undemocratic regimes, such as South Africa). It is not illogical to fear that, because of this failure to apply sanctions, the time may unfortunately come for military action.

Second, this shift is at the expense of democratic development in the Palestinian territories. With the world’s focus on Iran, Hamas, which controls Gaza, is becoming increasingly popular at the local level in the West Bank. In these circumstances, neither Mr. Abbas nor Mr. Obama would want elections to take place, though they are overdue.

Despite these setbacks, a comprehensive Mid-East peace remains an important aspiration for all those who believe in a world that upholds democracy, freedom, and security. This dream will only be realized if our leaders take a stand.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has once again taken centre-stage, both on campuses across the world as well as through US diplomacy in the region. Yet there’s a slight disconnect between the attitude taken by the Palestinian side in the Holy Land compared to the Diaspora.

Across the world, in over forty different cities, Israel Apartheid Week has been running since the beginning of the month of March for the sixth consecutive year. Pro-Palestinian activists, or might I say “anti-Israel activists” rather, have been very clear: “Israel does not have a right to exist.”

For them, it’s all about the nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”) of 1948. When they speak of “occupation”, they don’t mean the results of the Six Day War. They mean the creation of the State of Israel. Of course, they don’t mention that, in 1922, from eighty percent of the Palestine Mandate was created the Kingdom of Transjordan, a state that hasn’t exactly taken steps to recognize Palestinian sovereignty.

But that’s beside the point. It’s all the fault of the Zionists, of course.

Meanwhile, US Vice-President Joe Biden has just arrived in Israel. Bad timing! Israel’s Interior Ministry has just announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem! This threatens the entire peace process!

Not the 11,000+ rockets fired by Hamas and their hasta la victoria siempre attitude. Not the billions of dollars wasted that Fatah should have spent on building democratic institutions instead of casinos. People seem to think that the lack of peace in the region is mostly Israel’s fault.

But at least we’re talking two-states. That’s a good start. Our friends on campus unfortunately disagree.

That being said, I’d like to briefly elaborate on an interesting comment made recently by IDC Professor Barry Rubin. Biden’s decision to visit Israel to facilitate negotiations with the PA, in his opinion, is rather intriguing. First, he says, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer the central issue in the Middle East. Second, this conflict isn’t solvable at the present time.

He’s right on both accounts.

On the first issue, in my humble opinion, the rise of terrorism and Islamism in the Arab world, the threat of a nuclear Iran, stabilizing the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, and combating Syrian influence in Lebanon are all more pressing issues. But, more importantly, President Obama would like to join Presidents Carter and Clinton as those who have had the privilege to have an historic treaty signed on the White House lawn.

On the second issue, we’re nowhere near being able to have “final-status talks” rights now. The Oslo peace process died ten years ago. It provides a framework for talks, but nothing more.

We’re much closer to three states right now than to two states, to be honest. No Palestinian leader since Arafat has been able to claim that his organization is the “sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”. I invite President Abbas to visit the Gaza Strip and see if he leaves with his head on his shoulders.

Leave the West Bank now and Hamas takes over. Israel knows that. Prime Minister Sharon learned that the hard way in 2005.

This conflict isn’t going to be solved by a document with the signatures of Obama, Netanyahu and Abbas on it. I’m not too sure that Hamas will give up its goal of destroying the state of Israel any time soon.

This conflict is one of generations. It isn’t going to be solved in a numbers of years. It’ll be solved, inshallah, in a number of decades.

First, Palestinians have to give up the “refugee” mentality. The reason the PLO/PA has rejected every single deal they’ve been offered by both Israel and Jordan is because the struggle needs to continue. That’s where the money comes from. But that’s not where a realistic and equitable solution is going to come from.

Second, Israelis need to realize that your average Arab Israeli isn’t the same as your average Hamas terrorist with a kassam rocket. Don’t make absurd generalizations. It’s time to learn to live side by side.

Give it time. If we want peace, then we need two legitimate partners ready to sit down and make some pretty tough concessions. Fatah and Hamas, at the present time, aren’t ready to be one of those partners.

Peace is a tough concept to grasp. But trust me, Mr. Obama, there’s no rush to get your photo-op in front of the most beautiful house on Pennsylvania Avenue.