World Affairs - Politics & Opinions, page 2.

There is a whole lot of fuss about health care these days, obviously. I am by no means the first to write on this subject, a quick Google search will not likely find my writing on the subject at the top of the list. Still, I am compelled to say my piece on the subject, and if I find more to say later, I will not hesitate.

A great deal about the so-called health care "crisis" hinges on the insurance numbers

California may just be ready for a shake-up. With a failing economy, a massive immigration problem, and brain-damaged Senator Barbara Boxer representing them in to the ground, fresh blood could be the answer for California’s woes.

Enter Carly Fiorina. A former Executive with AT&T/Lucent, she took that company to new heights being named the most powerful women in business by Fortune magazine in 1998. She continued this trend when she became the new CEO of Hewlett-Packard in 1999. Fortune kept her on their most powerful list during her entire stay with HP. Forbes listed her at #10 in their 2004 listing of the 100 most powerful women in the world.

From her humble beginnings as a receptionist at a small California company to her meteoric rise to the top of the food chain in Corporate America Carly Fiorina appears to be a focused, and dedicated businesswoman. Now with her bid to oust Barbara Boxer from the Senate it looks like She is ready to add another achievement to her already stellar list.

Fiorina for all her accolades is not without her detractors. She received harsh criticism for her actions as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. During her time the companies stock took a sharp drop in price due in part to the highly contested merger with Compaq computers. Market share fell and the company was heckled for lacking focus by having too large a product line to effectively support.

In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

But perhaps, too, the Obama administration has recognized an opportunity in the Ramat Shlomo crisis, an opportunity that required deepening rather than defusing the dispute – an opportunity to convey to the unloved Netanyahu, more starkly than ever before, the fateful choice he faces and the urgency of making it.

Does he want to expand home-building for Jews in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, maintain the support of the domestic political Right, offer less than the Americans would wish him to offer at the peace table should direct talks ever resume, and watch Israel’s ties to the United States falter even as Iran closes in on the bomb?

Or is he prepared to halt such building, marginalize the local hardliners, work to create a climate conducive to negotiated progress with the Palestinians, and bolster the partnership with the US, the better to ensure an effective response to the Iranian threat?

The subsequent escalation by Mrs. Clinton was clearly intended as a highly public rebuke to the Israelis, but its political and strategic logic is puzzling. The U.S. needs Israel's acquiescence in the Obama Administration's increasingly drawn-out efforts to halt Iran's nuclear bid through diplomacy or sanctions. But Israel's restraint is measured in direct proportion to its sense that U.S. security guarantees are good. If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the U.S. might react to a military strike on Iran.

As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians.