A new study in Nature released this week indicates that your pooch is most likely a descendant from Middle Eastern wolves. The study evaluated genetic traits from 85 breeds of dogs and 200 wild wolves, and researchers found that dogs are probably most closely related to the Middle Eastern gray wolf.

Israelis are nicknamed ’sabras’ in a reference to the juicy cactus fruit that is prickly on the outside and sweet in the center (that analogy is truly up for debate).

Alright, I’ll admit it. This breed of wolf lives throughout the Middle East, including the fertile crescent. Therefore, most likely, these wolves mingled mostly and adapted with non-Jews in the region.

Then again, when Fido snatches food off the table or doesn’t make room on the couch, he’s showing quite a bit chutzpah and might, just might, have an uncanny urge to find the afikoman during Passover.

That said, Fido also loves bacon.

I’ve written extensively on Israel as a model for airline security, particularly following the failed Christmas Eve terror plot. While the Obama administration has changed some policies that shift the security profile toward a system that mirrors some elements of Israeli policies, the technologies developed by Israeli firms are the top of the line.

This report from the Homeland Security Newswire outlines some of the most game-changing technologies developed by Israel.

And some of these technologies could replace devices that are facing some serious questions and opposition due to potential privacy concerns, particularly the full body scanning devices. For example, one system detects trace particles of explosives that are loosened from clothes.

The Dept. of Homeland Security has also looked into technologies that use behavioral effects to ferret-out potential terrorists. These technologies would detect elevated heart beats, nervousness, or other factors associated with terrorism. One Israeli firm is developing technology to measure sweat on an individual, which could be an indication that there is a pending terror plot.

Regardless of whether the U.S. decides to deploy any of these technologies, it is crystal clear that Israeli high-tech firms are at the forefront of security innovation.

The pro-Israel establishment, including Israel’s allies in Congress, are fuming over the recent row between the White House and the Netanyahu administration. They are condemning the Obama administration for inappropriately chastising Israel and holding the Jewish state to higher standards. These criticisms of U.S. policy are nothing new, and only took a new form following the visit of Vice President Joe Biden to the region.

However, these critics of the Obama administration forget the root cause of the recent tiff. Prior to Biden’s arrival in Israel, he planned to deliver a speech on the never-ending bond between the two countries. The speech, eventually scheduled for delivery at Tel Aviv University, was a reaffirmation of the shared values and mutual goals of Israel and the United States and should have capped a trip that exemplified that mentality.

Instead, Israel — not the U.S. — threw a wrench into the cogs of that plan by approving highly controversial settlements in disputed territory. Even though Netanyahu was apparently unaware the approval would occur in the midst of Biden’s visit, spinning this situation against the United States is simply inaccurate. By approving the settlements, which were viewed as a major insult to Biden, Israel forced the White House to react.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) said it right:

“The Administration had real justification for being upset with the timing of the settlements announcement. A process was supposed to be in place to keep the United States from being blindsided by just such a development, and yet once again we were blindsided. The Israeli leadership needs to get this right and put a system in place so it won’t happen again.”

Critics of the Obama administration had it wrong when they question why the Obama administration would defend itself to such a glaring insult from the Israeli government, whether or not it was intentional.

The insult from the Israeli government to the White House — already amid a tense relationship — is also indicative of Israeli policies that undermine the peace process and sabotage U.S. efforts to establish two side-by-side states. While both the Palestinians and Israel should implement policies to further the goals of a two state solution, continuous terrorism from Palestinians or renewed settlement activity from Israel do nothing but undermine peace talks and complicate any future agreement.

Recently retired former congressman Robert Wexler, president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, also said it right:

“The housing policy is, however, a barometer of the policy of the government that [Netanyahu] oversees. The problem is, while the United States is seeking to bring the parties to proximity talks, no party should be creating facts on the ground that complicate the start of negotiations or the ultimate resolution of the final status issues. And the announcement by the Israeli government was a rather striking example of an action that makes creating trust and developing the formula for an end of conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis more difficult.”

Explanations of why Netanyahu insulted Biden continue (Of note, read this one and this one). Moreover, outrage from Israel supporters is only intensified by recent comments from State Department and White House officials who chastised Israel for throwing the first punch.

Allies don’t always agree on everything. And, occassionally, those allies must publicly rebuke one another. But criticism that the White House should have used back channels to chastise Israel is simply a way to difuse the situation. Special Envoy George Mitchell has engaged in shuttle diplomacy to the region for a year. In closed-door discussions, I’m sure Mitchell expressed the White House’s displeasure with settlement activity. After a year of expressing the administration’s position and with only a limited Israeli halt on settlement activity, the White House reacted publicly following a major public insult to the government’s number two.

For a year, the White House has attempted to encourage Israel to halt highly contentious settlement activity. Israel publicly embarrassed the administration using the issue of highest tension. The White House reacted and defended itself. While the Obama administration has mismanaged certain elements of foreign policy, particularly those regarding the peace process, the White House handled this Israel-created crisis nearly flawlessly.

Even though cigarette smoking in the United States is on the decline, the Middle East is rife with individuals who just want to light up after a long day of work, an excessively delicious meal, or an exhilarating night of…

Israel recently introduced a ban on cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants. But, as anyone who has traveled to Tel Aviv knows, Israelis haven’t seemed to notice and puff away as they drink their lukewarm cocktails and take shots, err half shots, known as chasers.

Well, it seems Israelis’ smoking habit could be inadvertently funding their enemies. It appears that terror groups have long used blackmarket cigarettes as a major source of income. These organizations — including Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda — even raise money in the U.S. before dispersing those funds to their local cells. Terror groups also harness the internet to dispense illegal tobacco products, and some U.S. lawmakers are not happy about it.

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act that provides the U.S. government with additional tools to crack down on illicit tobacco sellers, including terrorist.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) said in a statement:

“Tobacco trafficking is a lucrative business for criminals and terrorists, and costs our states billions of dollars in lost revenue.  Law enforcement has identified cigarette smuggling as a serious and growing problem, and the Internet has made it more challenging to stop.  This legislation will help cut off a reliable source of funding for those who wish to do us harm.”

The House passed its version of the legislation last year.

The State Department released today its 2009 Human Rights Report that outlines freedom of the press, religion, democracy, and a slew of other issues throughout the world. The section on Israel is quite lengthy and, while one would expect the bulk of the report to deal with Israeli actions toward Palestinians, significant sections are devoted to other domestic issues, including the role of the religious Jewish community.

Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner addressed questions on the Israeli section of the report and how U.S. officials considered the continued blockade on the Gaza Strip and last year’s Operation Cast Lead. The exchange, while not saying much, went like this:

QUESTION: I’d like to ask about your area of conflict, and I have to read the specific section on Israel a little more carefully. But you talk about – I mean, obviously, the human rights of Israelis in the conflict being killed by rockets and things is disturbing. But I’m wondering how you see the situation in Gaza and the lack of humanitarian aid or shortage of humanitarian aid. I mean, isn’t access to clean water, shelter, food, electricity, those type of things also a human right that people, regardless of whether they’re in the middle of a conflict, deserve?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Let me answer that in two respects. The broader discussion of Gaza in the last year, and it’s very much in the report, focused on Operation Cast Lead at the beginning of the year and the Goldstone Report that followed at the UN.

And our assessment of that from the beginning has been that there was an inadequate attention in that report to the nature of the conflict. It’s an urban conflict, an asymmetrical conflict where there needs to be an evaluation by the Israelis, by us, by everybody who is involved in those sorts of conflicts, in the way in which you can preserve and protect noncombatant civilians, including the humanitarian issue you describe. This is a subject that I think has not gotten the attention it deserves, and it ought to be the way we look forward.

We’ve also said to the Israelis and all the parties they need to review everything that happened in Cast Lead, conduct serious review and investigation, and have accountability mechanisms.

QUESTION: If I could just quickly follow up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean, I’m not – I guess I’m not even asking – I mean, does it really matter what the nature of the conflict is? And I’m not even talking about Operation Cast Lead and how it was conducted, and obviously, rights on both sides were violated. I’m talking about the kind of day-to-day, you know, quality-of-life issues. Regardless of who was at fault or, you know, things like that, I mean, you know, you talk in other areas of the report and – about, you know, places where people are suffering in Sri Lanka because of the conflict.

I mean, does it really matter, you know, that Hamas is ruling Gaza and, you know, they’re committing human rights – I mean, the fact that there are so many roadblocks and the inability to get aid in, I mean, is that a violation of human rights by Israel?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, let me come back to your initial question and try to answer it both ways. The issues – humanitarian access, humanitarian concerns are definitely part of what we are paying attention to. And Senator Mitchell, others in the U.S. Government are constantly in these discussions. I had some when I was in Israel in January. And the kinds of things you’re describing there is some movement on, but hospital conditions, access to food and medicine, all of that is clearly something that’s – that we favor and that we are trying to be supportive of. We’re supportive financially to UNRWA, which is feeding probably 70 percent of the population of Gaza.

It is more complicated, to be sure, to deal with humanitarian questions in a place where the – where Hamas is largely in control. It makes the effort more difficult. It does not mean that there isn’t a responsibility. It does not mean that we’re not going to continue to do what we can to promote humanitarian assistance and support.

Update: It didn’t undermine them, it destroyed them.

What shows more chutzpah- making the prime minister of an ally wait for an hour and a half for your arrival or insulting an ally’s vice president by announcing a new policy welcomed by that ally, before subsequently undermining it?

Vice President Joe Biden is nearing completion of his Israel tour and was an hour plus late to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s house for dinner. While the White House did not supply a reason for Biden’s tardiness, he may have been delayed by managing an unexpected about-face from the Israeli government that could undermine efforts to restart peace negotiations.

Biden is preparing to deliver a speech tomorrow on the unbreakable bond between Israel and the United States based on shared values between the two countries. Plan for his speech and visit coincided with an announcement that Israelis and Palestinians would resume proximity talks with no preconditions, capping a year long effort by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Special Envoy George Mitchell and even President Barack Obama himself. Palestinians were initially reluctant to resume talks until Israel halted all settlement activity, but accepted the temporary and limited settlement freeze by dismissing preconditions to peace discussions.

However, a day following optimism that Palestinians and Israelis would return to the negotiating table, the Israeli government decided to approve construction in East Jerusalem of 1,600 homes, before that number morphed to 50,000 homes in greater Jerusalem. Palestinian and U.S. officials alike condemned the move as undermining the peace process. In a statement, Biden said:

“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians.  We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world.  Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues.   As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, ‘we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.’”

The strong statement from Biden is not indicative of any anti-Israel sentiment. Quite the contrary. Biden is an avid supporter of Israel and has decades-long relationships with key Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres. Biden visited the grave of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and toured Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial museum. After signing the guest book at Yad Vashem, Biden recalled a tour he took with his children to the Dachua concentration camp to understand the brutality of mankind, before bringing them to Israel to understand the ability of mankind to transcend adversity. According to pool reports, Biden said:

“I took my son here to Israel to let him know that the indomitable spirit of human beings is not able to be snuffed out.’’

Regardless of whether Israel should approve additional settlement construction in and around Jerusalem, announcing the plans in the midst of a major, long-time ally that opposes those plans is simply an insult.

Now that’s chutzpah.

Image from the NY Daily News.

With the announcement that Israeli and Palestinian officials intend to resume peace talks, stakeholders and analysts are chiming in with their interpretation of events. Because the Palestinian Authority agreed to drop peace talk preconditions that would entail a complete settlement freeze, the two sides will resume postponed talks through a negotiator.

The resumption of talks is somewhat of a victory for the Obama administration, with Vice President Joe Biden currently in the region, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visiting last year, and Special Envoy George Mitchell repeatedly attempting to forge a breakthrough to no avail until now.

Mitchell said:

“I’m pleased that the Israeli and Palestinian leadership have accepted indirect talks. We’ve begun to discuss the structure and scope of these talks and I will return to the region next week to continue our discussions. As we’ve said many times, we hope that these will lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible. We also again encourage the parties, and all concerned, to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”

J Street emphasized that negotiations for the sake of talks are not the goal, but instead a two solution is the eventual outcome that stakeholders should strive for. J Street said:

“J Street welcomes Senator Mitchell’s announcement today that Israeli and Palestinian leadership have accepted proximity talks.

We commend the U.S. administration for its concerted efforts to engage the parties and its strong commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

While these talks are a step in the right direction toward a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ending the conflict will require more than talk and process. It will take strong and sustained American - and international - leadership to bridge differences and to support all sides in making difficult, but necessary compromises for peace.

The window of opportunity for achieving a tenable two-state solution is nearly closed, and the coming years are the last chance to secure Israel’s future as a democracy that is a national home for the Jewish people. We urge a seriousness of purpose from all involved that reflects the gravity of what is at stake.”

Capping a long list of U.S. dignitaries travelling to Israel and the Palestinian territories, Vice President Joe Biden is currently en route to the region for meetings with various officials.

Biden’s visit follows a trip made last year by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and repeated efforts by Special Envoy George Mitchell to get Israeli and Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table.

While in the region, Biden will visit with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. On the Palestinian side, he will meet with President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Interestingly enough, Biden will go to the Nasser Stone Factory which the White House calls “an example of a successful Palestinian industry.” Both Fayyad and Netanyahu have trumpeted the Palestinian economy as a majopr challenge and priority. Fayyad launched his institution building plan that includes establishing a viable financial sector while Netanyahu has urged for an economic peace that would supercede, or at least work in parallel to, a political solution to the conflict.

Biden’s trip, as well as stops for his wife, looks somewhat like a Birthright trip as well. The trip includes visits to the grave of Israeli heros Yitzchak Rabin and Theodore Herzl and Masada.

Most importantly (partially because I went there), Biden will give a keynote address at Tel Aviv University on “The Enduring Partnership Between the United States and Israel.”

Who knows what the actual speech will say. In the face of increased tension between Israeli and U.S. leaders and the Israeli population questioning whether President Barack Obama supports the Jewish state, the speech could be a reaffirmation of shared values and mutual goals. Biden could attempt to quell concerns and deliver a message from Obama that the alliance between the two countries transcends other priorities, such as reaching out to the Arab world.

Or, Biden could echo previous comments from administration officials that the U.S. will support Israel, but there are serious concerns that must be addressed. He could pressure Israel to halt settlement activity beyond the limited settlement freeze. He could use U.S. influence to subdue war cries in Israel encouraging a strike on the soon-to-be  nuclear Iran. With the U.S. sending an ambassador to Damascus, Biden could encourage Israel to embark on a peace effort with Syria that includes a land swap.

Biden’s message will assuredly shed light onto the complex relationship between the U.S. and Israel that has evolved since Obama and Netanyahu took office. However, with the administrations generally unsuccesful efforts in Israel-Palestine thus far, the real question is whether Biden’s trip can change the status quo, by getting Israeli and Palestinian officials to resume talks.

Further, any pending actions on Iran will assuredly begin to take shape with Biden’s trip and Defense Minister Ehud Barack’s pending visit to the United States.

The virtually nonexistent peace process has been stalled and opposed by domestic factions in both Israel and Palestinian society, creating a cycle of apathy that has not been broken for a long time. Both Israeli and Palestinians have blamed each other for the delay in resuming talks, both citing the other sides intransigence in rejecting preconditions and good faith efforts, such as halting settlement activity.

Well, a summit in Italy between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres could take place soon, circumventing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu whose commitment to the peace process has been questioned.

However, the specter of peace talks has not quelled domestic opposition, particularly among Palestinians, echoing a concern from Israelis that they have no legitimate partner for peace.

Predictably, Hamas attempted to downplay potential talks, saying Abbas has sold “illusions” to the Palestinian people and calling for his ouster.

But, Abbas is also facing opposition from his own party on the resumption of talks. Long-time Palestinian negotiator Muhammed Dahlan said the residents of the territories are fed up with Israeli actions that continue to undermine peace efforts. He said:

“There is no benefit from either direct or indirect negotiations with the Israeli government as it continues settlement construction and attacks the holy sites of Palestine.”

Even though vocal, direct intra-party opposition to Abbas is less common, this jaded attitude has permeated Israeli and Palestinian circles for quite some time. On some level, it’s easier to reject the notion of a peace process, accept the status quo as permanent, and simply move on with other daily issues- attempting to forge a lasting peace may simply not be worth the effort.

This attitude is problematic in two ways: it’s impact and it’s solution.

The lack of domestic enthusiasm for the peace process does not pressure policy makers to enter negotiations, thereby continuing the cycle of hostility and hatred on both sides. And, to solve this problem, the population must see legitimate progress in peace talks, which is not going to happen until domestic pressure intensifies.

There’s the cycle of violence in the peace process. But there’s also the cycle of ambivalence.

One of the big stories in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti was the inability for supplies to reach patients and field hospitals. However, while international forces experienced efficiency challenges, Israeli medical workers used the most up-to-date technologies and exhibited unmatched success in treating the injured.

The head of Israeli response teams authored an article in the latest New England Journal of Medicine that outlines Israeli’s strategy and is an incredible read. The others detail the complex triage system used to determine which patients had the best chances for survival. Patients with expected kidney problems and intense infections were proiritized below other patients that had better chances of survival.

In order to treat the maximum number of patients, the medical workers added a second operating room and used a one-in one-out system of admittance versus discharges/deaths. Even though they had only 72 beds, Israeli medical workers treated over 100 people per day.

As I’ve pointed out before, Israelis have an unfortunate skill in dealing with mass casualty incidents. Terrorist incidents throughout the country and repeated wars keep trauma-related MCI skills fresh for emergency medical workers and the country’s health care training often focuses on triage. The authors write:

“This policy, while necessary, clearly did not allow us to provide in-house medical care for the duration for which we are accustomed to providing it in a nondisaster setting. Moreover, the problematic nature of early discharge was exacerbated by the unique environment in which we were working: there was no functioning health care system in the community, many patients were homeless, and many children in our care had no adult guardian. To discharge patients effectively, staff members engaged in discharge planning. We relied on the United Nations and other relief organizations to aid in the postdischarge management of care. With time, more and more groups started to operate, some of them backed by large facilities (such as the USNS Comfort). The presence of these groups allowed us to revise our discharge policies, since some of the groups opened referral centers.”

The account of the doctors is required reading for anyone in the health profession and a fascinating read for anyone else.