Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal on Saturday said the Palestinian militant group would accept an Egyptian-mediated cease-fire with Israel but it would only be a "tactic" in the group's conflict with Israel.

"It is a tactic in conducting the struggle - It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people's interest... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit," Meshal said in an interview with pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television.

In reality, the Palestinians have only demonstrated once again their unmatched ability to play to the media. Those with short attention spans for the conflict and little understanding of its past may forget that this is neither a new offer from Hamas nor any sign of moderation. In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi offered the same deal with the explanation that it would be "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." (Emphasis added.) The hudna as used by the Palestinians is not a peaceful gesture; it is a strategic move. By binding the Israelis from destroying its terrorist infrastructure for 10 years, Hamas is able to continue importing arms from Iran and training its fighters there. Then, when the time is right, the hudna -- if it has even been enforced -- can be broken off and Hamas will be in a better position to inflict damage on Israel.

Today we see the same discernible sentiments from the Hamas leadership. The AP article says this about the offer from Hamas head Khaled Meshaal -- emphasis added again:

Mashaal says Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — an implicit acceptance that Israel would exist alongside that state.

But Mashaal says the group would never outright formally recognize Israel.

2. Smuggle half of fuel deliveries from said country so that you can wage war against said country.

3. Wage war against said country, forcing it to suspend fuel shipments temporarily. Feign shock.

4. Cease attacks for a short time. Pretend you're interested in a peace deal. Replenish military arms in the meanwhile.

5. Wait for said country to give in and resume fuel shipments.

6. Repeat steps 2 through 5.

" Nevertheless, lifting the ban on buying computers came as a surprise.  Officials have long regarded the internet with suspicion.  The government has set up a Cuban intranet, which is all that is available in schools and universities.  Internet accounts are available only to foreigners, or to favoured Cubans for research purposes.  Officials blame this on a lack of bandwith.  They have a point: the United States government has blocked plans for a fibre-optic link to an undersea cable in American waters (so Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is now building a similar link to his country.)" 

 The purported (and only legitimate) goals of our wranglings with Cuba are to secure a better standard of living for its people and a democratic ally for ourselves.  These ends are hurt, not helped, by continuing to push its leadership and its people further from us and closer to Venezuela, who is emerging as far more of a threat to American interests than Cuba.  Interestingly, this paradoxical trajectory is similar to the one taken by our leaders in the War Against Terror.  We go after our enemies, then we go after anyone who looks like they might be our enemy, then we go after -- wait, who are we going after again?  At any given moment, U.S. foreign policy decisions are made not because they are optimal, nuanced responses to evolving conditions, but because they drum up political support against a recognizable foe, sometimes long after the foe is the same threat that it was once estimated to be.  It doesn't matter whether the bogeyman happens to be Fidel Castro or Osama Bin Laden, the sorry effect is the same: the alienation of our allies, the cementing of our potential enemies as actual enemies and poverty and chaos persisting for the unfortunate citizens we claim to "liberate."

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote in an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal:

"Today NATO needs clarity of purpose. A display of timidity in Bucharest could derail its recent progress in adjusting to the demands of the still new 21st century. Moving decisively beyond NATO's traditional mindset is a strategic imperative if the alliance is to remain relevant to the challenges it is likely to face."

The two top issues at the summit will be NATO’s role in Afghanistan (where the alliance is leading operations) and the memberships of Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Georgia and Ukraine. Rumsfeld went on to write:

"There is no better way for NATO to move forward than by extending full membership invitations to Albania, Croatia and Macedonia and by beginning the process to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance in the future through membership action plans (MAPs). At a time when European commitments to the NATO mission in Afghanistan are being questioned, the determination of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to contribute to tough missions is clear. Collectively, the three Balkan nations have more than 650 troops currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Keep an eye out for more news on this…

They have accelerated their demolition of the "hutongs," working-class neighborhoods, in the center of Beijing.

In fact, they have increased the number of homeless crammed together in the shantytowns, because there is no clear policy on relocation or housing--further underscoring the phenomenon of urban poverty they were supposed to be fighting.

They have jailed thousands of suspected dissidents, often without trial. Citing Article 306 of their Criminal Law of 1997, they have incarcerated, arrested, kidnapped or otherwise neutralized courageous lawyers suspected of "manipulating or destroying evidence."

The Darfur situation also lurks. Levy's solution to the issue is to have the United States not attend the Olympics as a political statement. He anticipates that the astute reader will remember that the Soviet Union did not withdraw from Afghanistan in 1980 despite a U.S. boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow. His response?

Beijing won't give in? Boycotts in general don't work? Well, I say to naysayers, we will never know if we don't try. We have nothing to lose if we do try--and the Chinese and Tibetan people have so much to gain!

Unfortunately, here he is wrong. There is much to lose and not much to gain. And because we only have one shot here, we shouldn't screw it up. The Chinese have an upward trajectory on the world scene, and pissing them off with something like this now will probably damage bilateral relations for a long time to come. And given how much effort the Chinese have put into these Olympics, we know how much of an insult they will take to a boycott to be. Not that it would change their behavior, though. China will not be seen as caving into U.S. demands for the Chinese Olympics just so that Beijing can be graced by the presence of the Americans. We can also be fairly sure that other countries will not follow us if we decide to boycott. It's not as if the Chinese will be competing solely with the North Koreans and Cuba by the time the contests roll around.

Another thing Levy fails to realize is that precisely because America will be at these Olympics is this story drawing so much attention in the American media. The story of the Tibetan monks protesting the Chinese rule of Tibet would not be as saucy a story without the looming Olympiad. The games will provide Chinese dissidents the rare opportunity to be heard to a certain degree. We can already see this happening. Take a story from yesterday, when monks approached a government-guided tour of Lhasa for foreign journalists and aired their complaints. With newsmakers right there, the Chinese police were unable to commit egregious crimes against the monks; they were yelled at to disperse and then pushed away.

The world is watching China very closely now, which means a chance for Chinese to show up their government without as much fear of another Tiananmen Square. A threatened U.S. boycott of the Olympics will not persuade the Chinese government to be lighter on Tibet or on Darfur, but it will set back American-Chinese relations for years. Bernard-Henri Levy has his heart in the right place, but if he has his way he will only make matters worse for Chinese dissidents.