A "political" solution usually requires the involvement of politicians. And that fact alone almost guarantees failure. Where are the "leaders" who can mobilize and inspire people against the machinations of the politicians?

Obama's silence is deafening.

Obama will have a lot to say about the Middle East after the boy emperor and his cohort of neoconservative handlers leave our government.

Uri Avnery (Special Forces soldier in the 1948 War, editor-in-chief of the newsmagazine, HaOlam HaZeh, a member of the Knesset and founding member of the peace movement, Gush Shalom) offers "A Memo to Obama on Israel":
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/avnery?re...

A summary of Avnery's memo:

Obama's predecessors since 1967 have played a double game -- "while paying lip service to peace, they have in practice supported the Israeli government moving in the opposite direction, giving tacit approval to the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories, each of which is a land mine on the road to peace."

"No Israeli government would dare to confront the concentrated political and material might of the settlers. Such a confrontation would need very strong leadership and the unstinting support of the President of the United States to have any chance of success."

" It is important for you [Obama] to make a complete new start, and to state this publicly. Discredited ideas and failed initiatives--such as the Bush 'vision,' the Road Map, Annapolis and the like--should be thrown into the junkyard of history. "

"I suggest that you, as president of the United States, come to Israel and address the Israeli people personally, not only from the rostrum of the Knesset but also at a mass rally in Tel-Aviv's Rabin Square. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Israel in 1977, and, by addressing the Israeli people directly, completely changed their attitude towards peace with Egypt. At present, most Israelis feel insecure, uncertain and afraid of any daring peace initiative, partly because of a deep distrust of anything coming from the Arab side. Your personal intervention, at the critical moment, could literally do wonders in creating the psychological basis for peace."

Obama has no problem with jumping ahead of the job of the "boy emperor" on domestic issues, but he will have a lot to say on the Middle East? There's no evidence of such and is more along the lines of demonstrating, as he has on other foreign issues, that he simply lacks the knowledge and experience to make meaningful commentary on the topic.

Well frankly, I'm relieved Obama 'jumped ahead' on domestic issues.
It's obvious the boy emperor thinks only about his retirement while the American economy goes into the tank.

When asked about the Israeli invasion of Gaza, Obama said,
"After the 20th, I'll have plenty to say about Israel and Palestine."
When it comes to foreign policy, it's important the world understands who speaks for America.
Until January 20, the boy emperor speaks for America, even though he has nothing to say.

Would you address the President of the US as "boy emperor" if he were in the room with you?

If I were in the same room as the boy emperor, I'd be tempted to throw a shoe or two at him.

I love watching the visceral hatred of liberals towards all things conservative, especially people. Human hypocrisy is alive and well!

The boy emperor attracts criticism from around the world -- from liberals and conservatives alike.
He's not hated because he's a conservative -- he isn't a real conservative. He's a radical.
The boy emperor is despised and hated for his track record of incompetence, arrogance and the incalculable damage he's done to world peace and global prosperity.

If you find hypocrisy fascinating, focus on the pathetic, post election soul searching within the Republican party.
You won't be disappointed.

jkc1945 says: "A website which is an obvious propoganda (sic) website is not worthy of a detailed response."

onenewsnow is such a website and Walid Shoebat is a phony.

I find it interesting that Obama has much to say about domestic issues and not venturing out to express how he plans on dealing with this issue. I also think that Gaza made a huge error in showing off their new elected officials by sending out the missiles as a show of strength The timing on Israel's part couldn't be better to retaliate, as we are mid administrations, and somewhat impotent. Both Bush and Obama are giving Israel a free pass to do as they will during this transitionary period.

We have to look seriously at a political one-state solution, too.

There's been a lot of focus on Obama. I surely hope he will exert real leadership after Jan. 20. My concern right now is what are Christian organizations like Sojourners doing? Jim is right that we need long range solutions. But we need cease fire and humanitarian aid NOW. Here is recent statement from Red Cross (N.Y. Times 1/8/2008) "The International Committee of the Red Cross reported finding “shocking” scenes during the first lull, on Wednesday, including four children, weak and emaciated, next to the bodies of their mothers. In a rare and sharply critical statement, it said it believed that “the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.”

Please, Jim, consider sending out a Sojourners action alert on this asking us to contact President Bush and our representatives. American politicians and mainstream media are so one-sided on Middle East peace issues. I hope the American religious community can do more.

While I fully support Palestinian statehood and reject most of the tactics of the Israeli goverment, how can there ever be peace when the founding charter of Hamas explicitly calls for the "elmination of the State of Israel," whether by violent or other means, and that nothing less is acceptable? Hamas leaves no room for treaties, truces (except temporary) or ANY solution that does not include the destruction, dissolution or other elimination of the State of Israel. So what makes anyone think that peace is even possible?

Until Hamas is ready to amend their founding documents and recognize the right of Israel to exist, the violence will continue, and no solution will ever be found.

Peace. (in our time...)

I agree with Maani. I don't think there is any room for an Israeli state in the eyes of the Hamas leaders. The hatred is so vitriolic that, short of an Israeli-Egyptian-like accord -- thank you former Pres. Carter -- there is little to be hopeful about. Perhaps Jimmy has a little left in him.........

I agree with Maani, too. And I think the hatred and destructiveness coming from Hamas is one of the reasons Israelis do not seem to want to give up the West Bank. If I were an Israeli, I would fear that what happened in Gaza - pullout of settlers, giving it back to the Palestinians, and then having them elect Hamas and start to attack Israel - would be exactly what would happen in the West Bank.

I think it's important to remember that the Jews and Muslims did not make the boundary lines in the Middle East. The same is true for Saudi Arabia, and I think also Iran and Iraq. Great Britain and France created the boundaries. And I think we should not ask Israel to make itself vulnerable to destruction - especially when they have so many Muslim haters in their vicinity - by asking them to give up the West Bank.

I'd like to see the Palestinians governing themselves, and thriving, too - but they just (in my opinion - correct me if I'm wrong) would have to give up the idea of destroying Israel, and separate themselves from other Islamic violence-mongers, and put their energies into building a real state for themselves. That - I think - would be the kind of attitude change that would give the Israels enough trust and faith to "give back" the West Bank.

Or - maybe the people of the region need to draw their own boundaries, not based on European or American ideas but based on the needs of the people who actually live there in the Middle East. If only they could be agreed-upon without violence, the way our states are! We, too, started out with states based on religion - Quakers (Pennsylvania), Puritans (Massachusetts), Anglican (Virginia), Catholic (Maryland) - and only later became united, with freedom of worship... I wish the Middle East could do that, too. Maybe they will, after this violent interpretation of Islam has come and gone.

who amoung you and jim, thinks that hamas will talk about anything? answer me that. a cease fire means no more rockets and suicides. not a chnace. how many times has isreal stopped bombing? pulled out of areas. opened borders. the result - hamas wants more. arafat turned down peace why shouyldd even more radical hamas do any different. why don't the palestnians run hamas off to stop the slaughter? why doesn't jim talk about hamas agression?

"why doesn't jim talk about hamas agression?"

I've often wondered the same thing, savvyguy. Listening to most of the media, you'd never know that over the last 3 years Hamas has launched 6,464 (column by Charles Krauthammer 1-6-09) rocket and mortar attacks against unarmed Israeli civilians. No one would tolerate that if it were done against their country. Also, no one talks about the arms stored in mosques, schools and so forth by Hamas. Both sides have committed war crimes. But we hear more about the Israeli's war crimes than those of Hamas.

I think the short answer to your question is simply political correctness.

Since every political solution that has been proposed, and tried has failed, why don't we stop with the politics. If you want a real, lasting, sustainable peace in the middle east, or anywhere in the world for that matter, why don't we try something that appears to have never been tried before? How about preaching the Gospel?

An Unnecessary War, by Jimmy Carter

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

excerpts:

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

This war will only create more suicide bombers.