ROUND-UP: STORIES I MISSED

I only blog so often. Once a week, or so, a story holds enough of my attention to warrant the full treatment. But the news that I write about is an imperceptible fraction of the news that I consume. Naturally, I assume that you care just enough about politics to sound like you know what you're talking about at parties. So read on; get conversational on a few topics that can be difficult to follow in depth while I brush up on stories that have made it on my radar, but not onto the page.

--------------------

Israel v. Palestine

After a year spent rattling sabers at the Iranians, I must admit that it was with some small amount of inappropriate relief that violence escalated once again with Palestine. For all the troubles of this, the world's most intractable and hope-dashing conflict, at least Palestine is a predictable enemy. Israel v. Palestine does not involve sleeper cells on American soil, does not threaten the world's oil market, and does not require the direct involvement of the U.S. military.

As I followed the news, I was reminded of the real problem: the Palestine fight didn't just come back; it never went away. The last major fighting between these two peoples ended in early 2009. Since then, Israel reports 2,500 rocket attacks from Gaza militants. 2,500 during a time of what passes for relative peace. Israel's official response came sharply on November 14, with an airstrike that killed Hammas military chief Ahmed Jabari. American press took notice again. Both sides believe that were they to put down their guns, they would soon cease to exist. Both sides have a point.

Two developments this week:

First, the U.N. voted for the first time to officially recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state" instead of a "non-member observer entity." The vote is purely symbolic, but at an alarming 138-to-9 count, has the added effect of distancing the world from the U.S. on the issue of Palestinian statehood and unilateral Israel support.

Second, a reminder that while the arrow of progress may always move forward, it does so slowly through a barricade of human shit. Today, Israel approved the construction of 3,000 new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem--an act which violates the only real Palestinian condition for peace talks.

Meet Egypt’s New Boss—Same as the Old Boss?

We in the U.S. were very encouraged by the 2011 Egyptian revolution--so much so that we didn't mind so much that the ousted dictator was our friend and his replacement was not. If ever there was a moment for that new-democratically-elected-leader smell to wear off, it was last Tuesday, when the unpredictable Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi generously granted himself broad, unchecked new powers.

The sad truth is that this may be as bad as it looks, but context still matters. As Huff Po's Neil Hicks writes, a lot of former-dictator Hosni Mubarak power structure is still in place (particularly in the military), and the judiciary isn't nearly as insulated from the nascent and volatile political process as you'd want. Morsi has a constitution to draft and faces obstruction at every turn.

The goals of his power-grab are unsurprising: Morsi needs the power to overrule the judiciary, draft the constitution he wants, and strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood. Equally unsuprising, the public reaction--and so, once again, thousands of protesters fill Cairo's now-famed Tahrir Square.

Obama's New Strategy

Republican operatives leaked Obama’s first proposal to avoid the “fiscal cliff” (a foretold economic disaster resulting from the simultaneous expiration of the Bush tax cuts, a decision on the debt ceiling, and the massive and varied sequestration spending cuts). The notable thing about this proposal is that it’s essentially the same thing Obama offered in his budget. Republicans are angry—for four years they have gotten used to a democratic President who offers them most of what they want, then asking for more. As Ezra Klein writes, the president seems fed up with hopingthat Republicans and the media will appreciate his moderation and, essentially, “negotiatingwith himself.”

 --------------------

That doesn't do it for the week. It is easy after reading a brief news story to think that you know it all, that the affairs for the world are so big, brush your hands and say "that's just that, end of story." I assure you, that is almost never case. I encourage you to read more, poke around the Sunday papers and reputable news sites, go to your local library and borrow an actual book. For everyone else, the story will end; yours will be just beginning.

GETTING IN THE GAME: SUSAN RICE

U.S. United Nations ambassador Susan Rice had another bad day today on Capitol Hill when one more top Republican left a meeting with the presumptive Secretary of State-nominee unconvinced of her innocence in the Benghazi affair. Sen. Susan Collins's comments, that she "still [has] many questions that remain unanswered," echo those of Sen. John McCain yesterday following a closed-door meeting with Rice and (strangely) the Acting CIA Director, Michael Morell.

To be clear, no one claims that Susan Rice had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four Americans, including an ambassador. Accusations of negligence leading up to the attack rest squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. State Department. State, bear in mind, is conducting an internal investigation led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Secretary Clinton has promised not to fulfill her desire to leave her position until the investigation is concluded and she personally reports to Congress.

Susan Rice's role in this affair is tangential and very limited. Two months ago, days after the attack, Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to field questions on Benghazi. She was given CIA-written talking points. Evidence suggests that the answers she gave reflected her best knowledge at the time; no evidence has emerged to suggest otherwise. After that... there is no after that. I just described the entirety of Susan Rice's involvement.

You may be wondering, at this juncture, why Rice is holding a series of meetings with Senate Republicans to explain in hours what I just explained in a single paragraph. That's a good question. Theories abound.

• It could be because the Benghazi incident is biggest stain on Obama's foreign record to-date and even though the election is over, Republicans think they can control the news cycle as long as the scandal isn't allowed to end.
• It could be as simple as a moral victory for opposing Obama's first high-profile, 2nd-term appointment opportunity.
• It could be that Sen. McCain, the most outspoken critic of the administration's handling of the incident, also happens to be fading from political relevancy. He is not a young man, he has lost a presidential election and, term-limited out of his ranking spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, he will have no clear authority left over foreign policy. In fact, he seeks to create a new committee dedicated entirely to investigating the Benghazi incident--one he would be likely to chair.
• It could be that Republicans want a different choice for Secretary of State: Sen. John Kerry. Of course, if Sen. Kerry were to accept any position, his MA seat would be open to a special election. Scott Brown, a Republican, won such a special election in 2010 before losing a real election to (D)Elizabeth Warren a few weeks ago.

There you have it: the game as it is played. Republicans have a lot to win and nothing to lose by shutting that whole Susan Rice thing down.

The real reason behind all of this could certainly be all or none of the above. The only thing that's certain is what this is not about: this is not about Susan Rice. Republican's don't need "more answers" from her. The sum of all questions you could ask her about Benghazi wouldn't outlast a trip to the water fountain. It's time that we pretend to talk about something else.