Tag: Israel

Review of “Covert Action in Irregular Wars: Unraveling the Case of Timber Sycamore in Syria (2012–2017)” by Jonathan Hackett

Introduction
Jonathan Hackett’s article, published in Small Wars Journal, offers a critical examination of the CIA’s Timber Sycamore operation, a covert program aimed at overthrowing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime through support for rebel forces. Drawing on declassified documents, government records, and interviews, Hackett—a former Marine Corps interrogator and special operations specialist—argues that Timber Sycamore’s failures underscore systemic issues in U.S. covert operations, including oversight gaps, inadequate vetting, and accountability lapses. The article serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of blending Title 50 (covert) and Title 10 (military) authorities in irregular warfare.

Summary
Hackett traces Timber Sycamore’s origins to the Arab Spring, detailing how the CIA and SOCOM collaborated to train and equip Syrian rebels under competing objectives: regime change (CIA) and countering ISIS (SOCOM). The operation, funded by Congress and Gulf states, faced immediate challenges:

  • Weapons Diversion: Bulgarian and Romanian arms intended for “moderate” rebels were funneled to ISIS and Salafi-jihadist groups via black-market networks, including Jordanian intelligence intermediaries.
  • Vetting Failures: Trainees with ties to extremist ideologies, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra), infiltrated the program.
  • Bureaucratic Friction: Parallel State Department efforts and SOCOM’s costly Syria Train and Equip Program (STEP) created redundancies, with STEP spending $500 million to field fewer than five combat-ready fighters.

The operation’s nadir came with Russia’s 2015 intervention, which shifted U.S. focus to counter-ISIS efforts. Timber Sycamore’s legacy was further tarnished by human rights abuses by U.S.-trained forces and the ironic 2024 rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa (a former ISIS-linked figure) to power after Assad’s ouster—a outcome Hackett frames as a pyrrhic victory.

Analysis
Strengths:

  1. Primary Source Rigor: Hackett leverages FOIA disclosures, weapon lot numbers, and congressional records to substantiate claims of diversion and mismanagement. His military background lends credibility to critiques of interagency coordination.
  2. Legal Nuance: The article clarifies the blurred lines between Title 50 and Title 10 authorities, particularly “sheep dipping” (military personnel under CIA direction), and highlights exemptions from Leahy vetting laws that enabled human rights abuses.
  3. Historical Context: Comparisons to past failures (e.g., Phoenix Program, Iran-Contra) contextualize Timber Sycamore within recurring patterns of covert action overreach.

Weaknesses:

  1. Geopolitical Simplification: While Hackett notes Russian and Iranian support for Assad, he underplays their role in thwarting U.S. objectives. A deeper analysis of external actors could enrich the failure narrative.
  2. Bias Potential: The author’s special operations background may skew perspectives on CIA-SOCOM tensions, though he acknowledges both agencies’ missteps.
  3. Outcome Dichotomy: The article frames al-Sharaa’s rise as purely negative, yet briefly notes U.S. engagement with his regime. This paradox warrants further exploration: does pragmatism sometimes override ideological concerns in foreign policy?

Conclusion
Hackett’s article is a timely contribution to debates on U.S. covert operations, emphasizing the perils of lax oversight and short-termism. While dense, its empirical rigor and actionable insights—such as calls for stricter vetting and interagency transparency—make it essential reading for policymakers. However, the analysis would benefit from addressing how global power competition (e.g., U.S.-Russia tensions) shapes covert action efficacy. Ultimately, Timber Sycamore’s legacy—a fractured Syria under jihadist leadership—stands as a stark warning: without accountability, even well-resourced covert campaigns risk backfiring catastrophically.

Rating: ★★★★☆ (4/5)
A compelling, well-sourced case study that balances detail with broader lessons, though slightly constrained by its U.S.-centric lens.

UNDERSTAND WHY THE ARABS ARE NOW CONDEMNING KING ABDALLAH OF JORDAN

Some Arab political pundits have criticized King Abdullah II of Jordan for meeting with President Donald Trump and endorsing his policy proposal on Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict for several reasons. These criticisms often stem from political, ideological, and regional perspectives, as well as concerns about the implications of Trump’s policies for the Palestinian cause and Arab unity. Below are the key reasons for such condemnation:

1. Perceived Alignment with U.S. Policies Unfavorable to Palestinians

  • Trump’s Pro-Israel Stance: President Trump’s administration was widely seen as heavily biased in favor of Israel, exemplified by decisions such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and endorsing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These actions were viewed as undermining Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem and the two-state solution.
  • The “Deal of the Century”: Trump’s Middle East peace plan, often referred to as the “Deal of the Century,” was criticized for favoring Israeli interests at the expense of Palestinian rights. Many Arab pundits saw King Abdullah’s engagement with Trump as tacit approval of a plan that they believe marginalizes Palestinian aspirations for statehood and self-determination.

2. Erosion of Jordan’s Historical Role as a Defender of Palestinian Rights

  • Jordan’s Unique Position: Jordan has historically positioned itself as a key advocate for Palestinian rights, partly due to its large Palestinian population and its custodianship of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. Critics argue that meeting with Trump and appearing to support his policies undermines Jordan’s moral and political standing as a defender of the Palestinian cause.
  • Perceived Betrayal: Some pundits view King Abdullah’s engagement with Trump as a betrayal of Jordan’s historical commitment to the Palestinian struggle, particularly at a time when the Palestinian leadership rejected Trump’s proposals outright.

3. Regional and Domestic Political Pressures

  • Arab Public Opinion: Across the Arab world, there is widespread sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and Trump’s policies are deeply unpopular. By meeting with Trump, King Abdullah risks alienating not only Palestinians but also broader Arab public opinion, which sees the U.S. approach as unjust and one-sided.
  • Domestic Concerns: Jordan has a significant Palestinian population, and any perceived shift away from supporting Palestinian rights could provoke domestic unrest or criticism from political factions within Jordan.

4. Concerns About Normalization with Israel

  • Normalization of Israeli Occupation: Trump’s policies, particularly those related to Gaza and the West Bank, are seen as attempts to normalize Israeli occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories. Critics argue that King Abdullah’s engagement with Trump could be interpreted as endorsing this normalization, which contradicts the Arab consensus on the need for a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict.
  • Impact on Arab Unity: Some pundits fear that Jordan’s actions could encourage other Arab states to follow suit, further fragmenting the Arab position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and weakening collective bargaining power.

5. Lack of Palestinian Inclusion in the Process

  • Marginalization of Palestinian Voices: Trump’s policies were crafted without meaningful consultation with Palestinian leaders, leading to accusations that the U.S. was imposing a solution rather than facilitating a negotiated settlement. Critics argue that King Abdullah’s engagement with Trump legitimizes a process that excludes and disempowers Palestinians.
  • Undermining the Palestinian Authority: By engaging with Trump, King Abdullah risks undermining the Palestinian Authority’s position and weakening its ability to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people.

6. Geopolitical Implications for Jordan

  • Balancing Act: Jordan walks a fine line between maintaining its strategic relationship with the U.S. and upholding its commitment to the Palestinian cause. Critics argue that King Abdullah’s meeting with Trump prioritizes U.S. ties over regional solidarity, potentially isolating Jordan within the Arab world.
  • Regional Rivalries: Some pundits suggest that Jordan’s actions could be seen as aligning with U.S. and Israeli interests at the expense of broader Arab and Islamic solidarity, particularly in the context of regional rivalries involving countries like Iran and Turkey.

Conclusion

The condemnation of King Abdullah II by some Arab political pundits reflects broader concerns about the direction of U.S. policy under President Trump and its implications for the Palestinian cause. Critics view Jordan’s engagement with Trump as undermining its historical role as a defender of Palestinian rights, legitimizing a one-sided peace process, and risking regional and domestic backlash. While Jordan may have sought to balance its strategic interests with its commitment to the Palestinian cause, the perception of alignment with unpopular U.S. policies has fueled criticism and skepticism among Arab commentators.

Ultimately, the controversy highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the challenges faced by Arab leaders in navigating competing pressures from domestic, regional, and international actors.

MODERN DAY HUMAN ATTROCITIES

Joe Biden can’t end Israel’s war with Hamas. Here’s why he shouldn’t even try

Middle East

Ultimately, most involved know there’s only one long-term solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict — but neither side is prepared to pursue it.

By JONATHAN TEPPERMAN, FOREIGN POLICY

MAY 20, 2021

AFTERMATH OF ISRAELI AIRSTRIKES ON GAZA CITY (AP PHOTO/KHALIL HAMRA)

Impossible problems tend to inspire outlandish solutions. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a case in point: just consider the Uganda Scheme (the early-1900s proposal to create a Jewish homeland in Africa) or former political adviser Jared Kushner’s more recent but equally absurd attempt to buy off the Palestinians with a little cash.

The Biden administration should keep the history of such gambits — and the fact that all of them failed — in mind this week as pressure mounts to intervene in the fighting.

It’s easy to understand why leaders around the world want the United States to do something: the skirmish between Israel and Hamas has already killed more than 227 Palestinians and 12 Israelis, trashed Gaza’s decrepit infrastructure, sparked the country’s worst intercommunal violence since the 1930s, and torpedoed the formation of a historic Israeli left-right-Arab governing coalition to replace Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the recent election.

Horrible as the situation is, however, getting too involved now would still be a mistake for Washington. While the two sides can be convinced to hit pause, there’s only one way to actually solve their fundamental dispute: a two-state solution. And that’s not on the cards any time soon.

Elephant in the room

The notion that a two-state solution — the creation of an actual, viable country called Palestine alongside a physically secure Israel — is the only way to finally resolve this very long, very bloody conflict may seem obvious. But it bears restating because it’s a truth all key leaders — in Israel, the US, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the broader Arab world — have recently forgotten or simply ignored.

Let’s start with Netanyahu. For years, he has tried to convince Israeli voters only he can protect them — whether from war, terrorism, or the coronavirus — and safe behind their walls, they could disregard the Palestinian question while enjoying their comfortable prosperity.

This is not a fight between identities. How can it be when one side is secure, the other fighting for its very existence?

Read More

Once a grudging supporter of the two-state option, more recently Netanyahu has tried to sideline and diminish the salience of the Palestinian question in Israel’s national debate while focusing instead on bolstering his country’s vibrant economy, vaccinating its citizens, and normalising ties with Arab states.

Under former president Donald Trump, the US worked hard to facilitate this agenda. The Abraham Accords, which established formal relations between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, were premised on the belief these and other Arab countries had come to care more about their own economies and security than they did about solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

And as 2020’s diplomatic breakthroughs showed, Netanyahu and Trump read the region right. After standing by the Palestinians for many years — during which the PA rejected one deal after another — Arab officials in the Gulf and North Africa had decided they were no longer willing to put that issue ahead of their own priorities. At the same time, they’d become increasingly frightened by Iran and recognised the fact that their enemy’s enemy could prove an enormously powerful asset and ally in this regional cold war.

Preserving power

Even Palestinian leaders effectively abandoned independence and the two-state solution. Although Mahmoud Abbas, the PA’s president, still nominally supports it, he’s now sick, 85 years old, and 16 years into a four-year term — and so far more concerned with preserving his own power than he is about making peace.

As for Hamas, it’s never cared about resolving the conflict. What it wants, instead, is to use an eternal armed struggle to justify its oppressive, undemocratic rule and corruption.

As the Biden administration now fields ever-louder calls from Europe, the United Nations, and left-leaning members of the Democratic Party to intervene, its decision-making should incorporate the hard truth that there’s only one way to really resolve the fundamental battle between Israel and Palestine — and none of the key parties are interested in making the sacrifices such a deal would entail.

Meanwhile, Biden should keep two lessons from the 20th century in mind. The first is as countries from Ireland to Israel to India to Indonesia have shown, the desire for national self-determination can’t be ignored or suppressed forever — no matter how much dominant powers may try to do so. The second truth, however, is combatants rarely if ever make peace before they’re ready — no matter how much outsiders push and cajole them.

That doesn’t mean Biden should do nothing. Israel has already accomplished its primary goals: degrading Hamas’s military capacity and reestablishing deterrence by reminding the Palestinians it will respond ferociously to any provocation. More fighting will just cause more carnage and more misery without achieving other strategic objectives. So it’s time for Washington to start pushing for a ceasefire, as Biden did yesterday on a call with Netanyahu.

As it does, however, Washington should be realistic about the limits it’s likely to achieve and should avoid the temptation — so seductive to past US presidents — to get drawn into a larger peace process. While the two sides can be pressured into holstering their guns for now, their underlying conflict will drag on until their fundamental grievances are addressed.

The only plausible way to do that is with a two-state settlement. But neither side has the capacity or is in the mood to strike such a deal right now — no matter how much Washington or other outside powers might wish they would.

Jonathan Tepperman is Foreign Policy’s former editor-in-chief. He tweets at @j_tepperman.

WHEN INJUSTICE, DOUBLE STANDARDS AND HYPOCRISY ON PALESTINE MADE PERMANENT BY WEST?

DEM. REP. ILAN OMAR

Haaretz: Israel breathes its last while we face the most difficult Prime Time Zone [people]

12/05/2021

The Israeli newspaper “Haaretz” published an article by the famous writer (Ari Shebet), in which he bites fingers of remorse over the occupation of historic Palestine, saying (It seems that we are facing the most difficult Prime Time Zone in history, and there is no solution with them except recognition of their rights and ending the occupation).

Why did he say (there is no taste to live in this country, no taste for writing or reading)

The Israeli writer began his article by saying (It seems that we have passed the point of no return, and it is possible that Israel can no longer end the occupation, stop settlement activity and achieve peace, and it seems that it is no longer possible to reform Zionism, save democracy and divide the Prime Time Zone in this country).

If this is the case, he added, there is no taste for living in these countries, and there is no taste for writing in “Haaretz”, and no taste for reading “Haaretz.” You should do what Rogel Alpher suggested two years ago, which is leave the country. If “Israeli” and Judaism are not a vital factor in identity, and if every “Israeli” citizen has a foreign passport, not only in the technical sense, but also in the psychological sense, then it is over. Say goodbye to friends and move to San Francisco, Berlin or Paris.

Look at Israel breathes its last

From there, from the countries of the new German ultra-nationalism, or the countries of the new American ultra-nationalism, one must look calmly and watch the “State of Israel” breathe its last. We must take three steps back to watch the democratic Jewish state sink. The matter may not be established yet.

Also read: The occupation soldiers document the extreme terror that they lived, and the resistance missiles over their heads are heading to Tel Aviv

Perhaps we have not passed the point of no return yet. It may still be possible to end the occupation, stop settlement activity, reform Zionism, save democracy and divide the country.

And the writer continued, I put my finger in the eyes of Netanyahu, Lieberman and the neo-Nazis, to wake them up from their Zionist delirium, that Trump, Kouchner, Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not the ones who will end the occupation.

It is not the United Nations and the European Union that will stop settlement activity. The only power in the world capable of saving “Israel” from itself, are the “Israelis” themselves, by inventing a new political language that recognizes the reality and that the Palestinians are rooted in this land. I urge you to find the third way in order to survive here and not die.

A lie invented by the Zionist movement

The writer in Haaretz newspaper affirms: that “the Israelis”, since they came to Palestine, have realized that they are the result of a lie invented by the Zionist movement, during which it used all the deception of the Jewish character throughout history.

By exploiting and amplifying what Hitler called the Holocaust, the movement was able to convince the world that Palestine is the “Promised Land”, and that the alleged temple is under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, thus turning the wolf into a lamb suckling from the money of American and European taxpayers, until it became A nuclear monster.

The writer sought the assistance of Western and Jewish archaeologists, the most famous of whom was Israel Felinstein from Tel Aviv University, who emphasized that “the temple is also a lie and a fairy tale that does not exist, and all excavations have proven that it has completely disappeared thousands of years ago, and this was explicitly stated in a large number of Jewish references. And many Western archaeologists have confirmed this.

The last of them was in 1968 AD, the British archaeologist, Dr. “Kathleen Cabinos”, when she was director of excavations at the British School of Archeology in Jerusalem. She carried out excavations in Jerusalem and was expelled from Palestine because of her exposing the “Israeli” myths, about the presence of traces of Solomon’s Temple below the Al-Aqsa Mosque …

Where I decided that there would never be any traces of Solomon’s temple, and I discovered that what the Israelis call “the building of Solomon’s stables” has nothing to do with Solomon or the stables in the first place. Rather, it is an architectural model of a palace commonly built in several areas in Palestine, and this is despite the fact that “Kathleen Kenyon” came from Before the Palestine Exploration Fund Association, for the purpose of clarifying what was stated in the biblical narratives, because it showed great activity in Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century on the history of the “Near East”.

Also read: Dimona is under fire .. Al-Qassam Brigades launch a missile strike on the Israeli nuclear reactor area

He stressed that the curse of lying is what persecutes the “Israelis”, and day after day, slapping them on their faces in the form of a knife in the hand of Maqdisi, Khalili and Nabulsi, or with a collective stone, or a bus driver from Jaffa, Haifa and Acre.

The “Israelis” realize that they have no future in Palestine, as it is not a land without a Prime Time Zone, as they lied. Here is another writer who admits, not the existence of the Palestinian Prime Time Zone, but rather his superiority over the “Israelis”, (Gideon Levy) the left-wing Zionist, saying: It seems that the Palestinians are different from the rest of humanity. We said, “A few years will pass, and they will forget their homeland and their land, and if their young generation explodes the 87 uprising … We put them in prisons and said we will raise them in prisons.”

Years later, after we thought that they had learned the lesson, if they returned to us with an armed uprising in 2000, it ate green and everything, so we said we would demolish their homes and besiege them for many years, and if they extracted missiles impossible to hit us with, despite the siege and destruction, so we started planning them with walls and barbed wire. .

And if they were coming to us from underground and through tunnels, until they thickened us with killers in the last war. We fought them with minds, and then they seized the “Israeli” satellite (Amos)? And they enter terror into every house in “Israel”, by broadcasting threats and intimidation, as happened when their youth managed to seize the second “Israeli” channel. In sum, it seems that we are facing the most difficult Prime Time Zone in history, and the only solution with them is recognition of their rights and an end to the occupation.

Why Obama’s Israeli Trip is One Big Mistake

NETANYAHU INSULTS THE PRESIDENT, BACKED ROMNEY, AND HASN’T MOVED THE PEACE PROCESS. NO WHITE HOUSE SHOULD REWARD BEHAVIOR LIKE THAT, NOT EVEN FROM AN ALLY.

By Janine Zacharia, Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Iran is accelerating its nuclear program. Syria’s gruesome civil war is beginning to bleed across its borders. Two years after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, Egypt’s political transition is, at best, dicey. And yet according to deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, “more important” than all of that “in some respects” is that President Obama take this opportunity to “speak directly to the Israeli people.’’
I get the logic of whoever dreamed up the president’s trip to Israel this week: Send Obama to reassure the Israelis he’s got their back on Iran. Demonstrate he doesn’t prefer the Arabs—an impression left in his first term when he visited Cairo but didn’t stop by Tel Aviv. Pay his respects at the graves of Israel’s fallen and acknowledge the historical artifacts that show Jews’ ties to the land. Let them know he really admires their technological prowess. Then maybe Israelis will feel more inclined to make peace with the Palestinians knowing the relationship with their most important ally is solid.
But this trip—the timing and the script—makes no sense. And even more than simply being a big waste of Obama’s time at a moment when he has little time to waste, it’s burning crucial American political capital that ought to be reserved for moments that truly warrant it.
The White House says the president is going to hear out what the newly appointed Israeli government has planned. Here’s a quick preview:Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon wants to bomb Iran and Housing Minister Uri Ariel wants to build new settlements. If Obama wants to talk about drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews into the Israel Defense Forces or the price of apartments in Tel Aviv, he’ll find an audience. Those relatively marginal issues are what dominated Israel’s recent election, not the future with the Palestinians.
Three years ago, Vice President Joe Biden went to Israel tasked with a similar mission—reassure Israelis that Obama loves them. Biden hit all the right notes, saying that the bond between Israel and the United States was “unshakeable” and “unbreakable” so many times that we reporters who covered that trip started keeping a running tally. Then as the vice-presidential motorcade was leaving the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, news that Israel’s Interior Ministry had authorized 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem destroyed what should have been a pure celebration of American-Israeli ties. Biden returned to his hotel to consult with the White House on what to say, leaving Netanyahu waiting awkwardly at his residence for an hour and a half for dinner. When Biden arrived, he issued an unprecedented rebuke that embarrassed the Israeli prime minister as they sat down to eat.
American-Israeli ties remained sour. Two months after Biden’s visit, Obama refused to hold a photo op with Netanyahu when he visited the White House. The next year, when the president agreed to share the stage with Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu lectured him before the cameras in the Oval Office on why Obama’s (hardly original) idea that the 1967 borders could be a baseline for peace negotiations with the Palestinians was bunk. In 2012, Netanyahu—frustrated that he couldn’t goad Obama into saying when the U.S.would bomb Iran—publicly suggested the president had no “moral right” to stop Israelfrom taking action itself. All the while, Netanyahu, over the past few years, did nothing to further peace with the Palestinians. He floated via surrogates that he thought Obama was naïve on the Middle East. And he left the strong impression last year that he was rooting for Mitt Romney to win the U.S. presidential election.
n spite of all this, the president is headed to Tel Aviv. The anti-Obama peace-process skeptics can’t help but gloat. As Barry Rubin, a conservative, pro-Israel American pundit put it on his Facebook page: “I think we have just won a huge victory … Obama has admitted defeat on trying to bully, manipulate, or pressure Israel.”
The White House doesn’t want this trip to be about Netanyahu or his new government. That’s why Obama will address Israeli college students in a convention hall rather than speak to politicians in the Knesset. But when it comes to how this trip will be perceived inIsrael, it will be all about Netanyahu and his political fortunes. Netanyahu will be seen as the victor in his battle with Obama, rewarded not only for defying—or standing strongly against, depending on one’s political perspective—an American president. And Netanyahu will learn one powerful lesson from Obama’s visit: I don’t have to do anything on the Palestinian issue. I can continue to expand settlements, focus solely on Iran, and insult the U.S. president, and he will still come and thank me with a two-day dog-and-pony show.
It’s clear why the White House wants to avoid the thorny Israeli-Palestinian disputes ofJerusalem, settlements, and refugees. Past presidents have expended enormous time and energy on the matter and failed miserably. The last time Obama tried to articulate some guiding principles on borders, he got shouted down by Bibi. The United States “will always continue to be engaged in this process in terms of trying to move it forward,’’ Rhodes told reporters in a pretrip briefing that illustrated just how radically Obama has scaled back his ambitions since September 2010, when he said he thought peace could be achieved within a year.
So why is Obama going? Is it really an attempt at “repairing relations with America’s primary Middle East ally” as the Washington Post’s Scott Wilson wrote? Or as Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in a column for Bloomberg, to reintroduce himself to Israelis and convey to them that he understands their situation? Perhaps. But if it is, then this is truly a waste of time. Just as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel—whose nomination was held up by those who worried he wasn’t pro-Israel enough—wasn’t running for Israeli defense minister, Obama isn’t running for Israeli office (or any office for that matter). And anyone who knows Israelis and their current mindset on the Palestinians (Palestinians, who?) knows that a little ego stroking isn’t going to get that population behind a peace deal.
That doesn’t mean the trip couldn’t do some good. While the president is there ostensibly repairing the relationship with Israelis who’ve felt jilted, Obama may be sending an important signal to Tehran. The message: Just because I can’t stand Bibi doesn’t mean I won’t stand with him in preventing you from getting a nuclear weapon.
Since Obama is making the 12-hour flight, there’s one important thing he can accomplish if he wants to achieve something beyond simply making Israelis feel good. When he delivers his speech in Jerusalem on Thursday, he can remind Israelis that if they want their nation to be a nation like all others—one with internationally accepted borders, no longer targeted by divestment campaigns, and not facing a possible third Intifada—they need to stop saying they have no partner and make peace with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before it is too late. And if they can do that, he looks forward to coming back a second time as president—when they have a peace deal to sign.