“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

This, for instance, won’t go over well:

Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

Now, people who don’t obsessively follow Israeli politics will probably read Peled’s description of Obama’s positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and ask what’s so controversial about asking Israel to “stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state,” all of which are either longstanding international obligations or principles that previous Israeli governments have accepted in writing. And they’ll probably really not like to read that a foreign government and ally believes it should intervene in U.S. elections in order to weaken the popular president so he won’t compel that ally to act on such longstanding international obligations. As for American Jews, about 77 percent of us voted for Obama. And when a Politico story suggested that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) might face a conservative-Jewish-sponsored primary challenger because of her outspoken views on peace, the progressive Jewish lobby group J Street raised $15,000 for her in four hours.

Farley, in patient terms, outlines why Israel has so much more to lose from this than the United States does, which is so obvious that it means Peled is shouting into the wind here. Netanyahu isn’t foolish enough to act on this memo, since his longtime closeness with the America means he understands that Israel’s indispensable diplomatic asset is its U.S. ally.

So there’s only the slimmest mathematical possibility that anything Peled suggests here going to become reality. The question is why he would allow a letter so damaging to U.S.-Israeli relations to become public. If Netanyahu’s trying to play an inside-outside game, he may want to think twice about the consequences for Israel of causing needless U.S. acrimony.

From The Washington Post:

A top Hamas leader was killed Thursday in an Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip, as violence entered its sixth day and a Hamas rocket destroyed part of an apartment building in the Israeli port city of Ashdod.

Nizar Rayyan, a cleric who was one of Hamas’s most hardline political leaders, had called for renewed suicide bombings inside Israel and refused to go into hiding, as other Hamas leaders had done. His death, confirmed in a statement issued by Hamas on Thursday, marked the first known fatality of a senior leader of the militant group since Israel began air strikes on Saturday. [...]

Israeli aircraft and naval forces attacked about 20 Hamas targets in Gaza Thursday, including a government complex, the Israeli military said. The death toll in Gaza rose to at least 410, including dozens of civilians. More than 1,600 people in Gaza have been wounded.

According to The Post, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said a ground assault remains “an option.” The New York Times quotes an unnamed Israeli military official saying that a “limited ground operation aimed at destroying remaining sites was likely once the wet weather cleared.”

From a pool report today:

About a half dozen demonstrators had assembled near the security checkpoint fronting the entrance to the $9 million rental home where [President-elect Barack] Obama and his family are staying.

Some carried signs urging Obama to address U.S. Foreign policy when he takes office.

Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel, wore a T-shirt that read: “We will not be silent” and carried a sign that read: “Change U.S. foreign policy. Yes we can.”

Wright, 62, of Honolulu, said the demonstrators represented various groups, including her organization Veterans for Peace.

Other signs read “War is Terror” and “Free Palestine.”

Right about now, President George W. Bush must be enjoying his increasing irrelevance a bit more.

“There is no room for a cease-fire.”

“The government is determined to remove the threat of fire on the south,” he said, referring to rocket attacks on southern Israel by Hamas forces. “Therefore the Israeli army must not stop the operation before breaking the will of Palestinians, of Hamas, to continue to fire at Israel.”

What’s fueling Sheetrit’s rhetoric isn’t just the Qassam missile threat to Sderot and neighboring areas of southern Israel, which despite its relentlessness has killed fewer than 20 people since 2001. It’s the prospect of exorcising the ghosts of the 2006 Lebanon invasion that failed to destroy Hezbollah. Hence the rhetoric of not stopping until… well, until some absurd metaphysical condition called “broken will” is achieved. This is not a clear mission. What happens after the bombardment stops and Hamas lobs another Qassam — or, worse, infiltrates a suicide bomber to Sderot or elsewhere? Forty years of occupation couldn’t “break” Palestinian “will.” How much bombardment can do the trick?

Defense Minister Ehud Barak distinguishes himself, though, talking about an “all-out war” to the “bitter end” in advance of his campaign for prime minister. It’s too pat to say that because Barak offered Yasir Arafat a far-reaching peace deal in 2000 that he’s inconsistent for supporting the pummelling of Gaza. Sometimes it’s right to make peace and other times it’s necessary to defend yourself. An “all-out war” that will do neither in the long run, however, is a catastrophe and should bar someone from qualifying for high office.

The United Nations wants a ceasefire. Even the Bush administration wants a ceasefire, though the way it expresses that — “In order for violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable cease-fire,” in spokesman Gordon Johndroe’s words — will sound like capitulation to the Palestinians. The smartest thing Israel can do is arbitrarily declare that Hamas’ will has been broken and stop the bombing.

“You talk a progressive game but what do you say when Obama isn’t signaling a direction on the Middle East?” said a progressive Jewish official. “Is him being president a good enough sign of change? Or are you going hold him to certain policies?

More on this — in a different direction! — from me tomorrow. For now read Sam’s piece.