However, a good portion of the criticism strikes home because it addresses problems with Obama’s leadership. James Carville, the long-time Democratic political consultant and Louisiana native, lambasted Obama last week. Carville said on Good Morning America, “You got to get down and take control of this, put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving. We’re about to die down here.” He continued, “These people are crying, they’re begging for something down here. It just looks like he’s not involved in this.”

People might expect too much of Obama. A new Quinnipiac University poll shows 42% of Americans disapproving of Obama’s handling of the oil crisis, with only 39% approving. However, Obama has an odd unwillingness to create political capital for himself outside of elections. Why not go to Louisiana and show empathy? Why even allow critics to compare him to Bush’s actions after Hurricane Katrina?

Obama did visit Louisiana late last week, a necessary move but one that felt like he was simply responding to criticism. When Hurricane Betsy devastated New Orleans in 1965, Lyndon Johnson rushed to New Orleans and promised Louisiana the full power of the federal government to rebuild the city. In doing so, he made a moral and political calculation. Helping Louisiana was the right thing to do. Johnson also intended it as an appeal to Louisiana voters to stay with his party after alienating white voters through civil rights legislation.

Obama seems unwilling to make these political calculations. He also doesn’t seem to understand that Americans want to see their presidents demonstrate strong and vocal leadership in times of crisis.

Americans are demanding strong leadership on the oil spill. They are angry that corporations dominate American life. They don’t want to see dead dolphins on the beach. They hate canceling their Gulf vacations. For residents of Louisiana, they want to know that the president cares about their plight. They want to know what he is going to do to ensure this never happens again. They want to know how he will help the fishing and tourism industries recover.

Obama consistently fails to provide that vocal, powerful leadership that inspired so many Americans to vote for him and his mission of change. He simply doesn’t seem to understand what Americans want and need, nor how to take advantage of events to shape the political agenda and expand his electoral coalition.

Time after time Obama has allowed others to take control of the discourse surrounding the major issues facing the nation, including health care and financial reform. His reticence to take on immigration has allowed racists like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to set the agenda.

Despite Obama’s campaign rhetoric about change, what we elected is a technocrat who believes in expertise and consensus above all. But in a nation that may not want consensus, Obama has not shown the political acumen to respond to the oil spill or other issues in ways that satisfy the nation.

Obama’s technocratic nature seems to lead him to defer to corporations who can claim expertise on particular problems but who really just work for their own benefit. Both the banking crisis and the oil spill are fantastically complicated issues that require the expertise few can provide. But by not positioning himself as outraged by those corporations, Obama seems to be in bed with them rather than protecting the American people from their rapacious ways through a powerful and activist central government.

Obama has learned just enough history to massively overcorrect for the errors of past administrations. He knew Bill Clinton made a mistake when he dictated health care reform to Congress in 1993. So instead he allowed Congress to form health care policy. Without active presidential leadership, critics of the plan took the initiative and shaped the debate.

Obama has also learned from George W. Bush. Rightfully disdainful of Bush’s cowboy approach to the presidency, Obama has refrained from making emotion-driven broad statements that might later prove damaging. Certainly this strategy has worked well in Obama’s foreign policy. While Iran has proven more intractable than Obama might have realized, overall, Obama has improved the nation’s standing the world.

However, many Americans liked Bush’s grandiosity. Bush’s Manichean view of the world appealed to America’s evangelical leanings that have shaped the country since its founding. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech was profoundly stupid because it was wrong. But his rhetoric was good politics at the time.

Obama has had ample opportunities to speak to these tendencies in the American psyche but has consistently refused. Americans have historically responded to strong leadership, often regardless of actual policy—whether from Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama during his presidential campaign.

While we have to explain political shifts in more complex terms than leadership, Americans have consistently supported politicians who inspired them. Barack Obama convinced millions of Americans to vote for him not because of his health care plan but because he made them believe he would make their lives better. But when he took office, Obama forgot about this. His lack of vocal and inspirational leadership opened the door for the Teabaggers, oil companies, and special interests to fill the leadership vacuum, possibly threatening his presidency.

Fighting in built-up areas, street fighting, urban combat, call it what you will, is the real horror of modern warfare. Just ask the Germans in Stalingrad, the British in Northern Ireland and the Russians in Grozny. Civilians mingle with combatants, the three-dimensional battleground promises limited fields of fire, and there are deadly bottlenecks and excellent cover for snipers and booby traps.

The overwhelming superiority of professional armies in mobility and firepower are largely negated by cities. Behemoth tanks cease being the scourge of the infantryman and become multi-million dollar death traps at the mercy of shaped charges. Gun elevation, depression, and rotation are severely limited, and visibility is restricted.

“Lebanon” focuses on one tank crew as they participate in Israel’s 1982 invasion of the Southern part of that country. Director Samuel Maoz suffocates his young conscripts in the oily belly of their fearsome machine, rarely allowing his camera to probe the outside world. Everything they spy is seen through their gun sights or night vision equipment, turning their battleground into a real life version of the old Atari game, “Battle Zone.”

This skewed view of the world is the gunner Shmulik’s alone. It is his conscience that can choose whether or not to obliterate a speeding Mercedes or a rickety poultry farmer’s van. Should he machine gun a position that may contain civilians even when under orders? How does a conscript react when he’s only previously shot barrels before?

Through his sight the absurdities of war becomes apparent; a weeping mule takes its last breath, a flaming woman is stripped naked, and stylised posters of foreign tourist destinations (Twin Towers, of course) catch the eye. Every time the gun sight zooms in, it makes an audible ‘pop’ like a child’s viewfinder, only the pictures of London or Paris are now replaced with ones of Lebanese carnage.

Maoz also shows how language in war is altered to appease the international community. Banned from using phosphorous shells, the tank crew’s direct commander orders the use of ‘Flaming smoke’ – a direct comment on the IDF’s contentious use of white phosphorous in the Gaza conflict earlier this year.

We’ve seen this intense claustrophobia before in Kevin Reynolds’ movie “The Beast of War” about Soviet tankers in Afghanistan, but “Lebanon’s” refusal to come out of the tank takes us on a more visceral journey. The vehicle itself seems to sweat diesel and blood as the crew comprehend the fact they may have been cut off from the main force. One blind night attack is filmed with such kinetic violence that we find ourselves wanting to duck for cover.

War on a budget is tough to pull off, just ask Gordon Brown, but “Lebanon’s” unique point of view almost pulls it off despite some lapses in suspense. The subjective camera makes us question our take on the conflict and all other wars beside it. Maoz gives an even handed account that is well suited to the complexities of the Middle East and offers no answers other than the horrific scenes that we view down the barrel of a gun. We can only wonder when they will be enough.

As the soldiers decide whether to take or not take the shot, a figure materialises from the shimmering haze. Like a deep-sea diver traversing a desert ocean floor, the figure approaches a burnt-out car or a pile of rubbish with the grace of a ballet dancer. The temperature inside the suit is unbearable, radio chatter buzzes about like trapped hornets, and all the while the figure must disarm multiple IEDs. Who said men can’t multi-task?

Welcome to the world of “The Hurt Locker” – Kathryn Bigelow’s palm-shredding return to form. We follow a three-man Bomb Disposal squad in Iraq during their last 38 days before rotation. The new leader, Sgt. William James, is a wild maverick, brilliant but reckless with his life and the lives of his protection team, Sgt. JT Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge. Sanborn and Eldridge are still mourning the death of their previous boss, the dependable Sgt. Thompson.

Bigelow orchestrates each set piece with multiple camera angles so that every balcony or alley becomes a potential death trap. The abstract soundtrack hisses and cracks, mirroring the unconventional nature of Baghdad’s urban battlefield. James is a cowboy, a gunslinger striding down the street with only eyes for the bombs he must defuse and the men who might detonate them. Sanborn and Eldridge have it the roughest as everyone or everything could be a target and they are not helped by James’ blatant disregard for protocol.

We get the sense that an extended sniper battle is almost a welcome relief for Sanborn as he has a definite enemy to fire at. Bigelow expertly bonds the three men in this sequence as they work to save themselves and a bunch of British mercenaries. She reveals the symbiotic relationship between professional military men as their training kicks in, whilst the mercenaries crumble under fire. In one touching moment James gets a drink for Sanborn, who has just killed the enemy marksman and is still scanning the horizon for other hidden dangers while obviously fatigued.

Sanborn’s state of mind is just one explanation for the ambiguous title. Is it the area that their operations take place in, the rows of clinical white lockers that house the dead soldiers personal artefacts, or, like Sanborn, the way each soldier compartmentalises their personal experience of war? Is it the crestfallen look on the face of an Iraqi boy? Or is it simply the deadly array of defused detonators that James keeps under his bed? As he says, “This box is full of stuff that almost killed me.”

The image of James venturing out into the empty desert from the confines of civilization is as powerful as anything in recent modern American film industry. He is the new breed of Ethan Edwards from “The Searchers,” a warrior only useful in war, too dark and disturbed to be useful in peace.

Typically a bunch of mismatched guys, each with a unique martial skill are dispatched to blow the hell out of something very big and end the war by Christmas. Toss in a couple of beautiful female agents, a double-crossing bastard, and the obligatory all-star cast and you have the classic World War II adventure yarn as penned by Jack Higgins or Alistair MacLean. Here are the finest examples:

“The Dirty Dozen” – Robert Aldrich

The Mission: 12 US Army prisoners are given a final shot at redemption by exterminating a chateau full to the brim of German Officers.

Top Dog: Real life Marine Lee Marvin as the anti-authoritarian Major Reisman.

Best Scene: The musical plan to destroy the chateau. You’ll be humming it for hours.

Heroic Death: Former American Football star Jim Brown shot down after igniting the explosives.

Has it got Telly Savalas or Donald Sutherland in it? You lucked out! It has both of them! Savalas as the unhinged Maggot and Sutherland as the comic relief Pinkley.

“Where Eagles Dare” - Brian G Hutton

The Mission: British and American agents parachute into Bavaria to rescue an American General, but from there on in it gets complicated.

Top Dog: Richard Burton at his Shakespearean best as Major Smith.

Best Scene: The over-complicated but brilliantly realised “master list” sequence. Nothing short of genius.

Heroic Death: None. The double agents die a traitor’s death!

Has it got Telly Savalas or Donald Sutherland in it? Neither, unfortunately, but it has got an up-and-coming Clint Eastwood.

“Kelly’s Heroes” - Brian G Hutton

The Mission: A rag-tag platoon led by Clint Eastwood’s demoted officer plan to steal a fortune in gold deep behind enemy lines.

Top Dog: Eastwood’s coolly intelligent Kelly playing lightly with his Man With No Name archetype.

Best Scene: The platoon manoeuvring into position in an expertly crafted 20-minute set piece. A filmmaking master class.

Heroic Death: Corporal Job’s tragic demise in a minefield still pulls at the heartstrings.

Has it got Telly Savalas or Donald Sutherland in it? Bingo! Both pull off classic performances. Savalas is at his wisecracking best as Big Joe and Sutherland is the iconic proto-hippie Oddball.

“The Eagle Has Landed” – John Sturges

The Mission: Michael Caine’s disgraced German Colonel and his remaining paratroopers are sent to England disguised as Polish soldiers to assassinate Winston Churchill and bring about a negotiated peace for the Nazi’s.

Top Dog: Michael Caine, so good you almost want him to succeed.

Best Scene: J.R Ewing from “Dallas”… *cough* I mean, Larry Hagman’s inexperienced Colonel leading a disastrous attack on the Germans in the middle of an English country village. “Midsommer Murders” meets “Saving Private Ryan.”

Heroic Death: One of Caine’s men dying on a waterwheel whilst saving a little girl from drowning, revealing their true identity.

Has it got Telly Savalas or Donald Sutherland in it? Sutherland plays I.R.A. member Liam Devlin who has time to woo naive Jenny Agutter amongst his duties for the Nazis.

“The Bridge At Remagen” – John Guillermin

The Mission: Exhausted American Soldiers reluctantly try to take the last bridge across the Rhine intact.

Top Dog: George Segal’s world weary Lieutenant Hartman is as cynical as they come.

Best Scene: The German’s failure to destroy the bridge. An excellent metaphor for Hitler’s refusal to surrender and save further suffering.

Heroic Death: Robert Vaughn’s Major Kruger gallantly facing the firing squad for a trumped up charge of desertion. Watch him reach for his lost cigarette case.

Has it got Telly Savalas or Donald Sutherland in it? Not this time, but Ben Gazzara does a pretty good Savalas impression as the body looter Sgt Angelo. Gazzara was also a regular in John Cassavetes’ independent films, and Cassavetes was himself Oscar Nominated for his role in “The Dirty Dozen.”

Holding an unarmed protester. Photo ⓒ Umayyah Cable.

There are no words to describe the feeling of adrenaline spiking through my system right now. There are no words to describe the feeling of being pushed by a police officer, someone who is paid with your tax dollars to serve and protect you.

Yesterday, in San Francisco, on the 6th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, what started out as a peaceful demonstration against war and oppression rapidly escalated into a violent clash between aggressive riot police and the substantially outnumbered and unarmed civilian demonstrators. The demonstration, sponsored by ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), was peaceful and calm. It was not unlike many other anti-war demonstrations that have taken place there on many occasions. Sadly, yesterday was different.

Child being detained. Photo ⓒ Umayyah Cable

The chaos broke out after a boy who was probably between 8 and 10 years old was detained under suspicion of carrying rocks in his backpack. I never saw a rock in anyone’s hand, for that matter. We are in San Francisco after all, not Palestine.

I didn’t actually see what happened that caused the police to single the boy out, but I watched as he stood crying between two police officers and several ANSWER organizers who were arguing about whether or not he was going to be arrested. Then, suddenly and without cause, the police began charging the crowd with their batons.

The police were yelling “Get back! Get on the sidewalk! NOW!”- All while pushing people with their batons. Because there was an old subway entrance on the edge of the sidewalk, there was no place for people to go, even if they could have stepped back. The police proceeded to knock people over and violently shove them with their batons up against the metal fence of the old subway entrance.

There were several demonstrators and ANSWER organizers on the ground, the police were pushing against the demonstrators, and the demonstrators were desperately trying to retreat but had nowhere to retreat to. People were screaming, cops were swinging their batons, and all the while a line of baton toting officers was forming around this small area, thus sealing us off from the rest of the rally. It was then that I noticed that the majority of people quarantined in this police pit were Arab American youth.

The police in action. Photo ⓒ Umayyah Cable

Anyone watching the chaos unfold at yesterday’s march could see that the group of Arab American youth who were being corralled were no match for the throngs of well trained, baton-wielding cops. Furthermore, I believe the tactic of trapping us with a flanking line was a method of provocation and thus the cause of further altercations.

Anyone with any common sense would know that physically barricading a group of frightened and angered young people will only serve to escalate a situation. I myself was inside this police barricade and when I politely attempted to exit, I was yelled at and told to find a different exit. This was impossible given the fact that this small area was completely surrounded.

Coincidentally, this place was directly across the street from the Zionist counter-protest. Given the outrageously large number of police officers stationed in front of the counter-protest, I cannot help but wonder if this violent attack by the police was instigated by a local Zionist lobby.

What’s more is that earlier during the event, when several Arab American youths made their way over to the counter protest, the police pushed and shoved them back to the other side of the street. But when a counter-protester made his way into the ANSWER rally and began taunting people, the police stood by and did nothing. The blatantly hypocritical stance of the police was despicable. This, coupled with the outright police brutality against Arab American youths, is evidence of systematic bigotry within the San Francisco Police Department.

I have been attending protests for my entire life. Until yesterday, I had never been pushed, shoved, charged, or otherwise aggressively touched by a police officer. It saddens me that on the 6th anniversary of the Iraq war, instead of successfully raising awareness about ending the war and freeing the Middle East, we must struggle to survive something as simple as our right to freedom of assembly.

How are we supposed to feel safe when the people who are responsible for our safety are intimidating and hurting us? How are we supposed to exercise our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly when there is a government police force standing by to punish us for it? Who are these people who make up the San Francisco Police Department, and every police department for that matter, who see demonstrators as a menace that need to be physically squashed for the good of society? Where is the justice?

It’s all fairly confusing, so let’s parse out the winners and losers.

Avigdor Lieberman – Winner:“Yvet”, as he’s known in Israel, has one major thing going against him: he’s under investigation for corruption, and an indictment might force him to step down from the government just as his moon is rising.

Otherwise, everything is going the Moldavian immigrant’s way. Riding on his fascist-like slogans about the need for state loyalty, his party (Yisrael Beiteinu) took 15 seats in this Knesset, giving Yvet a firm grip around Bibi’s balls in the coalition negotiations. While both knew they needed each other, and Yisrael Beiteinu has conceded on some demands (concessions included allowing controversial Justice Minister Daniel Friedman to be replaced, relinquishing demands to reform the government, the much-ballyhooed loyalty oath idea, and offering civil marriages to their Russian base), the party still came out of this looking stronger than anybody. Likud members are grumbling about how many ministers YB is receiving, and the whole world cringes at the thought of Lieberman becoming Foreign Minister.

If Lieberman can stay above the wave of crime allegations, this new position of power offers him more than a fleeting opportunity. With the right moves, Yvet could consolidate and confirm the prophecies of many pundits who see him as a future Prime Minister.

Which leads to…

Political Civility – Loser: Lieberman made news last October for saying that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak could “go to hell”. Fortunately, it seems Egypt is going to judge Israel by what their actions, not their words, but whether that discretion will be shared by other countries is questionable. That any discretion will be sorely tested several times, however, is not.

Bibi – Unclear: Likud will be the most powerful group in the next coalition, and Bibi will be at least an equal partner as Prime Minister. Considering Likud’s struggles after Kadima split off in 2005, this should signal an unequivocal success for Bibi and the center-right.

But this isn’t Bibi’s first time in the PM chair, and he learned a few lessons. In his narrow, non-unity government of a decade ago, Bibi had little margin for error and didn’t last through the whole term.

What does the 2009 election leave him with? A narrow right-wing majority, with slim chances of bringing Kadima or Labor in to create a unity government. And within that, he’s relying on Lieberman and the volatile, internationally unpopular religious parties. As we say in Hebrew, ze lo tov (this is no good) for Bibi.

As far as the election goes, Bibi is a winner, but the broader outlook for success is not so clear.

Ehud Olmert – Loser: The outgoing PM isn’t really affected by the coalition negotiations, but his efforts deserve mention regardless.

Magnum Force psp

After a term marked by bold words towards peace and little progress towards anything but inconclusive wars, a term cut short by corruption allegations, Olmert is trying to save face by saying he tried to forge peace, and shooting for a deal that will win the release of Gilad Shalit. His progress: an utter refutation from the other side and daily headlines on the new deadlines and extensions and deadlocks in the Shalit case, with no hint that a deal will ever be reached. In other words, Olmert is proving himself a crook, a liar, a blowhard, and a guy with bold ideas and no way of achieving them. So, given Israel’s political mores, expect his return to the PM chair in 2 elections or so.

Hamas – Winners: Hamas and Fatah are working on a unity government, which if achieved, will ameliorate Hamas’s position internationally. If Israel is left with a right-wing government that is skeptical towards peace, Hamas doesn’t look as bad in comparison.

It’s possible that Hamas will slowly moderate their position to fit this new image. One can hope. But whether they do it or not, they’re looking more and more attractive as a partner. Or at least, more and more inevitable.

Fatah – Losers: It looks like Fatah is going to get caught between a rock (Hamas) and a hard place (Israel), with little room to plow ahead. Again, if Hamas moderates itself, or if greater forces (ahem, West, ahem, Arab world) take over the peace process, Fatah might get some of what they want. But their power appears to be tapped.

Tzipi Livni – Loser Flakes dvd : Tzipi remains the great left hope in Israel, even after she missed out on coalition opportunities in October, took part in the troika that went to War against Gaza, and struggled to find her voice as a leader. That doesn’t mean she’s in a good position now, either as a head of the opposition or in some partnership with Bibi. Either she is obstructing a unity government at one of the most dangerous times in Israeli history – with the threat of Iran going nuclear hanging over – or she is compromising her own values to gain power in a government that is still unlikely to heed her goals of achieving peace.

Xchange trailer

Peace Process – Unclear: And yet, among all those unfavorable conditions that the new coalition leaves us, the hopes for peace are not completely unrealistic. The Arab world seems to be consolidating, with hopes that the balanced equation will lean towards Egypt more than Syria. The Obama administration is presently talking about enforcing peace and creating grand alliances (reset with Russia, for example, and now reaching out to Iran) that will encourage those peace talks. While Iran’s nuclear plans pose an unappealing problem for the world, they also offer a common task, a means of galvanization.

With those global dynamics, it may be that an unstable right-wing government in Israel will not be given much margin for belligerence. It may be that the world gets its act together enough to tell Israel and the Palestinian parties that they need to get their act together, and that the act works. And arm-twisting the right wing might be better than condoning the center-left’s waffling.

The Little Mermaid psp

Now, with the global economic crisis, trends towards extremism in the Middle East rather than pragmatism, and the huge gaps that all sides will have to overcome to make peace, that scenario may be unlikely. But amidst all the apathy and disillusionment over Israel’s political scene right now, there are shards of hope. One has to pick them up carefully to avoid cuts, but there’s no use leaving them on the floor. Nobody wins, that way.

But one thing he said about the war stood out even from his prior speeches: “For seven years we’ve been a nation in war; no longer will we hide its price.”

This has many connotations, but one connection it draws is to the recent decision to allow the press to photograph flag-draped coffins returning from war. The price of the war can be ranked in dollars, but no matter the monetary cost placed on it, it pales in comparison to the price paid by those killed at war, American and Iraqi, soldier and civilian.The ban on photographing the human cost of war had been in place since the first President Bush’s Gulf War in 1991. According to the New York Times, the organization Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission opposed lifting the ban, citing respect for the soldiers who gave their lives. 64 percent of its members responded to an unscientific poll that they would have preferred the ban to remain in place.

“I am against the media being at Dover. As a mother of one of the Fallen, to have these photos used to turn Americans against our military and their mission would break my heart,” one mother said.

But not photographing the coffins was only one symptom of a pervasive problem since at least the beginning of the war in Iraq. Early on, we had Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, our heroes of the war, shaping the narrative in the proper direction. When those narratives slowly disintegrated under the weight of actual facts, the administration lost control.

As the wars have gone on, the stories are getting lost. Soldiers are killed, but aside from the occasional blogger who takes the time to list casualties individually (putting more effort in than former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who had an automatic signature machine for letters to the families of soldiers killed at war), we hear less and less about the people still dying overseas.

The Associated Press paraphrased Ron Griffin, a father whose son Kyle died in Iraq in 2003, as saying that “changing the rule would just turn soldiers killed during war into anonymous numbers, and put unnecessary stress on families. The media should report on the soldiers and their personal memorials, not their coffins, he believes.”

Obama’s promises of transparency made this an ideal time to remove the ban, but the point Griffin raised is a good one. The servicepeople who gave their lives should indeed be remembered as people, not as anonymous numbers in a box, and it is thinking of them as humans that will actually bring home the real cost of war.

Former U.S. Navy Photographer’s Mate, 2nd class, (AW) Philip Forrest notes that:

“I’m a combat vet. It’s who I am. If people don’t see coffins coming back, it’s just like America turning their backs on the identity of the soldiers or the military personnel. It’s not just them, it’s the whole community that they were in, and that community wants some type of recognition.”

Forrest pointed out that the military is a cross section of American society—Democrats and Republicans, people of many ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds, male and female, straight and gay. The servicemembers deserve to be remembered as people, but as a photographer and a sailor, Forrest believes that people need to see the pictures of what their military gives for them.

“I’m one of those people who is like, we have to show everything even though it’s not good. I’m not going to show pictures of dead people to kids, but when there is a war, people die. And most of those people happen to be innocent civilians, noncombatants. The world needs to know that. We don’t see enough of that,” Forrest said.

The Pentagon will now allow press to photograph the returning coffins if the families of the service members give their permission, a safe compromise for Obama and Defense Secretary Gates and one that shows respect for the families. As Forrest said, “You take pictures of dead Marines and stuff like that and the media eats it up, but then is it marginalizing what they died for, even if they didn’t believe in it?”

The administration should take pains to keep all of its promises of transparency on the wars, even as soldiers come home from Iraq and more are sent to Afghanistan. The American public needs to know not only the cost of war in dollars and national debt, but what happens to the people who go to fight. This includes not only photos of flag-draped coffins and funeral processions, but continued coverage of veterans issues for those who survive, as our technology has made it possible for soldiers who might have been in one of those coffins years ago to survive.

If we’re going to send soldiers to war, we should be able to face the results.

It gets worse. Apparently, Olmert and his generals were not acting against the Palestinian people. According to Olmert, they were actually saving the Palestinians from Hamas! They say love comes in different shapes and sizes, but I am yet to hear of that version of love that comes in the form of mass death. It sure is an odd way to “save” the Palestinian people by massacring over 1300 of them, including over 400 children according to the United Nations. Not to mention that, whatever you may think of them, Hamas were the choice of the people in one of the freest elections in Arab history.

But as members of the Israeli government reflect on the war’s supposed success, they should ponder one more statistic, one that I am witnessing in every conversation amongst moderate, liberal and progressive Arabs around the world. There is one more corpse lying somewhere in the rubble of Gaza today. It is the lifeless body of the spirit of peace.

Arabs of all walks of life have had it with the murderous arrogance of successive Israeli governments, and stand totally convinced now that the Israeli establishment has no intention of working for a real and lasting peace. This is a fact that can be tested in almost every Arab home. And I am not talking here of the homes in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon that have lost loved ones to the raging Israeli war machine. I am talking of the homes of liberal and business-minded Arabs in Amman, Cairo, and Dubai. These are the same people who dared think in the mid 1990s that Israel is seriously seeking a just understanding with its neighbours, and that perhaps, just perhaps, we were about to witness the beginning of a new era of peace in the region.

But there are limits to the forceful pull of hope. The death of Yitzhak Rabin was probably the most consequential moment in road to peace so far. I am no fan of Rabin, but many Arabs saw something in him that they have not seen in any Israeli leader before him or since. He realized a most basic truth: The best hope for Israel’s future in the region is peace with its neighbors. He realized that guns and tanks can only go so far. But his assassin’s bullets have seemingly killed that type of wisdom in all Israeli leaders.

Livni, Barak and Olmert are back to the old and failed formula: terrorize the Palestinians to death. That’s right. Occupy them for over 40 years. Close off their borders. Blockade them to starvation. Deny them their democratic choice. And when they dare to lash out of their prison with rockets, bomb them into oblivion. An eye for an eyelash.

Of course the Hamas rockets are wrong. But what is forgotten in some media quarters is that every breach of the ceasefire was actually caused by a sudden spate of assassinations committed by the Israeli government, and not by Hamas.

Sign reads: "In the name of all religions, please stop attacking, and conspiring against our families in Gaza"

As the sense of outrage intensifies, the focus is shifting in the minds of Arabs away from the ever elusive and seemingly futile peace process, and towards the simple notion of human rights. Arabs in Palestine cannot be massacred with impunity. That is why Arab blogs and other forums are flooded with discussion of ways to bring Israel to account for the war crimes committed in Gaza. This is not the emotive type of talk that usually follows any war. This is a serious and practical discussion on what can be done to launch war crime claims against Olmert and others responsible for the murder of over 400 children.

Never mind the two state solution. We want a human rights solution. Forget the nitty gritty discussion of where the boundaries of a Palestinian state will or won’t lie, or what neighborhood of Jerusalem is Palestinian or not. What the Arabs want now is for the world to respect the simple rights of every Arab that lives either in Israel or in the occupied territories. And no one, other than a downright racist, can say that Palestinians are not entitled to fundamental rights just as the average Israeli, or any other human being.

This in turn is leading to a renewed discussion of the one state solution in the land of Palestine and Israel, where Christian and Muslim Arabs live side by side with Israelis in one democratic nation. The two state solution has been on the table for over 20 years, and it has led nowhere. Circumstances could never be more auspicious than they have been recently and yet Israel has reacted to the two – state solution with violent disdain. The current Palestinian leadership has done everything within its power to get Israel to accept the two state solution. Mahmoud Abbas is Israel’s favorite Palestinian and they could not have dreamt of a more obedient partner. The Arab League has offered Israel full and lasting peace in return for the two state solution. And how has Israel reacted to all those overtures and favorable circumstances? With Blood and tears.

Forget talk of boundaries and geography. Our people in Palestine and Israel are not to be slaughtered at will to win a few cheap votes in the Israeli election. We want justice. We will try every international law forum, every UN agency. We will stand up and won’t be cowed by murder in broad daylight.

And there lies another unintended consequence of the Israeli Government’s Christmas madness. Two days ago, the children of Gaza went back to school. There were images broadcast of several classrooms with missing children, killed by Israel, whose seats were left unoccupied. A simple note was left on their empty bench, with the name and age of the slain child.

I focused on the faces of those left behind, the children of despair in Gaza. My initial instinct was to feel sorry for them, for what they have gone through. But then I saw something else. A spirit of pride and defiance. The spirit of that unique indomitable character that shines through and guides the victims of injustice to victory.

That same spirit that guided the founding fathers of the United States, the anti-apartheid campaigners in South Africa, and many others who have come through the worst injustices to claim their rightful place in history with pride. The Israeli aggression on Gaza of 2008 / 2009 has given the Palestinians their Leningrad. And just as the mountains of bombs that the Nazis rained on that city could never dent the Russian spirit of pride and resistance, so it shall be in Palestine. From the ashes of Gaza, a new future beckons.

Much of world opinion is pro-Palestinian as their propaganda machine cranks out photos and video tapes of the horrifying damage being done in Gaza by the Israeli military, or the IDF (Israeli Defense Force ). To date over 1000 Palestinians are said by medical personnel to have been killed by the Israeli air strikes and subsequent fighting, many of whom were civilians.

Israel remains convinced that their response in their air and ground assault is a correct one given the situation. “Where was the world when our cities were being rocketed for eight years?” asked an IDF tank commander.

In order to understand what’s going on the Middle East it’s necessary to cast a cold eye on these most recent events and leave the propaganda machines at home:

An arranged truce was broken by Hamas militants six months ago in order to poke a stick into Israel’s eye. Southern Israel, including the small coastal city of Ashkalon, were targeted by Hamas to remind Israel, among other things, that Hamas existed as the voice of authority among the Gazans. In addition, the rocketing of southern Israel may have been the bait Hamas used in order to draw an overkill response out of the Israelis. During the summer of 2006, Hezbollah, a group of anti-Israeli militants in southern Lebanon lured the IDF into a ground and air assault on its forces, an assault which made the Israelis look inept.

The Israeli response that summer was poorly planned and badly executed. While Hezbollah took grievous losses and lost ground, they nevertheless proved to have hit upon the one tactic they never tried before: goad the IDF into a swamp of confusion and stand up to their soldiers on the field of battle. From the point of Hezbollah, they stood up to the vaunted IDF and only lost the encounter because they had no air force or tanks. Hamas may have had the same notion as Hezbollah, and they acted upon it it.

Unfortunately for Hamas, Israel had learned its lesson and has not repeated the mistakes of 2006. There is no hesitation now, no delicacy of feelings about killing civilians. Hamas wanted war in the Gaza Strip and war is what they got.

Over a week ago, the IDF began its ground assault on Hamas concentrations, ammo dumps and chain of command. The latest information from UN observers indicates that Israeli Special Forces are already fighting near the center of Gaza City, the most populated part of Gaza, today.

Hamas has continuously called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. And to this end they have been trained, equipped and supported, Israeli and American intelligence services say, by Iran. Hamas has booby-trapped schools and apartment buildings; they store weapons and fighters in mosques.

What looks like a big bad schoolyard bully, Israel, picking on puny innocent little Hamas as seen on Al Jeezerah, an Arab TV news center, is viewed by Israelis as a war for their very existence. Thus the stakes for everyone in this conflict could not be higher.

Ordinarily, history says wars are never won, they are just lost. This time may be different. Israel, the evidence indicates, will not stop its forces in the Gaza Strip until Hamas has been crippled. Hamas can win, as Hezbollah “won” a Pyhrric victory in 2006, by not being shattered and spent. One of these two things is going to happen in Gaza: Israel will win by breaking Hamas, or Hamas will win by avoiding being broken.

Elliot Jager, editorial page editor of the Jerusalem Post, said Monday in Ashkalon “The most ethical moral imperative for Israel is to prevail in this conflict over an immoral Islamist philosophy.” In short, Israel is not going to accept anything short of militarily defeating Hamas’ ability to wage war ever again. They will refuse any and all permanent truces that do not include this proviso.

“Al Jazeerah ran a tape of the Hamas and civilian wounded coming into Shifa Hospital in Gaza City,” said Moshe Halbertal, an Israeli professor who helped write the IDF’s Soldier’s Code. ”So you have this great great Goliath crushing these poor people, and they are perceived as victims. But from the Israeli perspective, Hamas and Hezbollah are really the spearhead of a whole larger threat that is invisible. Israelis feel like the tiny David faced with an immense Muslim Goliath. The question is, who is the David here?”

The fighting has intensified. Although a quartet of of Middle East peacemakers, including the US, the EU, the UN and Russia has tried to halt the fighting, neither side appear to be willing to sit down to talk.

Recent rumors have it that secret talks between the Israelis and Hamas are taking place currently in Egypt. One self-described Hamas leader gives us pause, considering Hamas’ precarious situation: “Gaza will not break. Our victory over the Zionists is near.” Zionism, we recall, is a 19th century ideal of Jews who wanted by right or by force to create and occupy Israel in Palestine.

Hamas rockets continued to hit southern Israel on Wednesday, although they were much diminished in number and accuracy. Israel has called up reservists and sent them into line positions in the Gaza City fighting. The use of reserves sends a strong signal that the IDF plans to ratchet up the offensive which has already killed and wounded as many as four thousand or more. Israel reports 10 dead and more wounded. If they push on through Gaza City and succeed in cutting the Strip in two, it will be the IDF’s deadliest assault on militants in decades.

The UN Human Rights Council passed a toothless resolution Monday, strongly condemning Israel for its Gaza operation. It called for an independent fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights law. Israel has come under international condemnation for its attacks while the Hamas rocket and mortar attacks, which precipitated the current chaos in Gaza, have gone largely unnoticed by the UN.

Doubtlessly, by the time readers have finished this article, the situation in Gaza will be different if not better or worse. One thing I know: this time, the Israelis are playing for keeps and to that extent, Hamas, it seems, has made an enormous blunder and will pay dearly for doing so.

UPDATE:

On Friday, the Israeli Central Command and Olmert’s administration decided to cease operations in Gaza and called upon Hamas to do likewise. Israel said it had “achieved all it’s goals” with it’s invasion of the Gaza Strip. They believe they have broken Hamas and therefore have come to a stop. Hamas denies it is broken and rejects a ceasefire against the IDF. A few rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel today. No injuries were reported. Prior to today’s declaration by the Israelis, the strongest condition on the Israeli menu was that there would be a complete halt in Hamas’ relentless rocketing of Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza’s northern border, Askelon and Sderot. More like big villages than cities, but Israeli land nevertheless.

Dear Palestine, I am sorry I cannot help you this time either.

I apologise for the non-existence of my support; my excuse is not the credit crunch but the crunch of my conscience. I am sorry that I cannot condemn the attacks because Hamas has killed four Israelis and so I cannot claim that this war is not just. I am also sorry that I cannot confess publicly that it is excessive; at best I can probably say – on every other day – that “an end to the hostilities in next few weeks would be recommended”.

I am also sorry that I cannot send you doctors and nurses, syringes and morphine, not even gauze bandages and antiseptics, as we are told that the Rafah border crossing is closed. We have spoken to the Egyptians and they will come back to us soon. You have to be patient and understand their concerns.

We cannot force them to bear the cost of looking after the refugees until they, together with Hamas, Fatah, Israel and a group of international observers, agree on a framework to manage the crossing. It’s not personal, you have to understand, but the logistics of security.

Dear Palestine, I am sorry I am jaded. Blame it on Nasser, yes the dead one. You really shouldn’t have banked on him and his revolutionary army, who never had a plan.

Blame it also on the division among your children, their factions and their ever-so varying flag colours. Blame it on Yasser Arafat’s disorienting legacy, and Mahmoud Abbas’s newfound bureaucratic vanity. And you can also blame it on Ahmed Yassin’s resistance fantasy and Khaled Meshaal’s lies and lack of strategy. The Hamas leader, in fact, often reminds me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraq’s always gung-ho information minister before the invasion in 2003.

Blame it also on the lack of a unified Arab identity, let alone a credible and effective lobby. We all should have done more; we all could have done more. Blame it on the weakness of the Arab states, their tribal mistrust, their pettiness, and their lack of vision. Blame it, too, on their lack of shame and honour.

Blame it on the offices of the Israeli representatives; on the foolish Arab agents of peace and pragmatism who offered all before receiving any indication of what they could hope to achieve in return.

Dear Palestine, you can also blame it on 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. You can blame it on George W Bush, and soon you will be able to blame it on Barack Obama. You can blame it on both, Tony Blair the protestant British Prime Minister and Tony Blair the Catholic official Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. You can blame it on Gordon Brown’s lack of interest in you. You can blame it on the European Union, on Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel; you can even blame it on the Czechs, who have just taken over the presidency of the EU.

You can blame it on the Jewish settlers, on Ariel Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan, on Ehud Olmert’s last action as Israel’s prime minister, on Ehud Barak’s comeback and Tzipi Livni’s Clinton-esqe ambitions. Blame it on the looming Israeli election.

Dear Palestine, blame it on Iran, which claims it is your ally but really supports you in the same way that the Soviet Union once supported the Egyptians and Iraqis. And don’t forget to blame it on the United Nations, which can’t even agree on a ceasefire resolution.

Dear Palestine, blame the lack of Chinese support on yourself; you do not have the gold, nickel, copper, tin or iron ore of Zimbabwe, nor do you have the forests of Cameroon. And, don’t blame the lack of Russian support on Vladimir Putin alone, because I know the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev doesn’t want to help either – not because either wishes you harm, but they are just too busy squabbling over Central Asia with China and Eastern Europe with Nato and the EU.

Dear Palestine, blame it on the coincidental conjunction of Hanukkah, Christmas and the Islamic New Year. It must have been most annoying for the Israeli Defence Force to see Santa’s sleigh pulling up in Gaza and people welcoming him at a mosque; such harmony should not be permitted.

Dear Palestine, blame it on all who watch you bleed, from your sons to your enemies and everyone in between. You are like Lebanon, another Arab state that has enemies within its borders and beyond them who will not permit her to exist as a nation in peace and prosperity. Your only hope may be celestial; angelic saviours yet to reveal themselves.

Dear Palestine, weep not for those whose blood has irrigated your farmlands, but for the emptiness, futility and lack of hope that the offspring of the fallen of your raped lands must feel.

Dear Palestine, forgive us not – for we don’t care.

Yours, shamelessly
The World