On Tuesday, Egyptian and Palestinian officials announced a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. Scheduled to take effect at 6am on Thursday, this truce, if it holds, will be the first step towards reunifying Palestine and a more permanent peace with Israel.

Israel just confirmed the truce. Before the confirmation, however, while Egypt was making the announcement that Hamas was ceasing hostilities, IAF jets bombed several targets in the Gaza Strip, killing at least six.

Though this bombing could be perceived as a measure of bad faith on the part of Israel, Hamas has withheld a response attack thus far. Since driving Fatah forces out of the Gaza Strip a year ago, Hamas has fired rockets into Israel on a daily basis. However, according to this agreement, those salvos will now stop.

According to a Hamas spokesman, the agreement includes “a cessation of fire, ending the blockade and reopening the closed border crossings of the Gaza Strip.” A separate report from the BBC says that, pending a successful cease-fire, negotiations will begin to return captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Tuesday’s bombing and peace agreement come in the wake of a bloody week of fighting. Israeli bombers have killed over 20 people in the past seven days, with Hamas launching over 90 rockets of their own, though with little effect.

In addition to stopping the cycle of violence, this agreement will ease the economic burden of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, who have been living under an Israeli blockade for over a year.

Opening the Egyptian-Gaza border is a first step towards stabilizing the isolated territory. And a stable Gaza Strip is necessary for a unified Palestine. Before a permanent peace between Israel and Palestine is reached the Arab factions—Hamas and Fatah—must work out their own peace. If the new truce holds, the next stages of peace are around the corner.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are up in arms at President Bush’s remarks yesterday in Israel that criticized those who want to appease terrorists. Although he wasn’t mentioned by name, Obama and others, such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, seem to think the president was referring to him specifically.

The Washington Times’ Jon Ward reports that Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president, told reporters aboard Air Force One today that he was “surprised and curious as to the reaction,” adding that the concern prior to the speech was that people would think the president’s comments were a slap at former President Jimmy Carter and his meetings with Hamas, not Obama and his foreign policy stance. Implying that the reaction by Obama and his fellow Democrats may have been driven by the media’s interpretation of the speech rather than the words in the speech itself, Gillespie went on to say, “We don’t necessarily live in a world where people just report what the president says, they have to report what they think it means.”

In response to former President Carter’s talks with Hamas this week, Rep. Sue Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina, has called for his U.S. passport to be revoked and for the Carter Center to be cut off from taxpayer money. “[Pulling his passport is] up to the secretary of state,” Myrick said yesterday on the Fox News Network. “But, frankly, I wanted to send a strong message, because we have a policy in this country about Hamas. And he is just deliberately undermining the policy, and it’s wrong.” The State Department lists Hamas as a terrorist group, which means that U.S. officials are not to meet with them.

Former President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to meet with a leading member of Hamas today, stressing that he wants to act “just as a communicator” and not as a negotiator in this conflict. Critics opposing him claim he is granting the militant group legitimacy and undermining moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempts for peace.

Yesterday, as Carter has toured Sderot, an Israeli town on the Gaza border constantly under rocket attack by Palestinian militants, he tried to show his diplomatic neutrality by reaching out to the Jewish community. But Carter has long been critical of the Jewish state, describing Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as “a system of apartheid.”

The Israeli military has stymied his plans to meet Hamas executive Nasser al-Shaer. They have refused to provide a security detail for the former president and blocked his entrance to the Gaza Strip Yesterday.

Though condemned by members of congress as well as Middle Eastern policy experts, Carter stressed Tuesday that he would also continue on to Syria later this week for a meeting with top Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to “get him to agree to a peaceful resolution of differences, both with the Israelis… and also with Fatah.” Carter argues that isolating Hamas is counterproductive to the peace process.

Yet, there are many who do not believe Hamas has a right to peace negotiations. The Boston Herald lashed out against Carter on Monday, saying,“The fact that his very presence rewards murder seems to be lost on the former president who continues to be an embarrassment to the nation he once served.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas needs to take a chance for peace. Facing the possibility of another lengthy conflict, Abbas needs to risk his Fatah party, condemn rival Palestinian party Hamas for its attacks on Israel, and stand behind, of all people, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Five days of intense Israeli counterinsurgency operations in the Gaza Strip proved fruitless Tuesday when Hamas Palestinian militants resumed their rocket salvos over the border, sparking a quick response from the Israeli Defense Forces. Since IDF sent troops into Gaza last week at least 110 Palestinians have been killed, many of them women and children caught in the crossfire.

Protesting civilian deaths and fearing a Palestinian backlash if he supports Israel, Abbas broke off peace talks and demanded a truce. Secretary Condoleeza Rice brought him back to the table yesterday.

Abbas’s attitude of public sympathy for Hamas is continuing the conflict, however. Hamas operatives continue to hide amongst civilians in Gaza, then point to the mounting death tolls and feed a spirit of revenge.

Olmert says the operation in Gaza will continue, and the Israeli Consular General of New York defended the assaults: “No other western country would tolerate such aggression against its own people, on its own soil… Israel must defend itself or Hamas will succeed in getting what it wants.”

Of course, what Hamas wants is violence. Abbas must rally the Palestinian people against Hamas, taking a clear stand for peace with Israel and against continued attacks on the homes of the Gazan people. Olmert must also take a chance and stand for peace with Abbas. The question for Israel remains: can Fatah stand strong in the face of Palestinian cries for revenge, uniting the people around an idea of an end to bloodshed?

For anyone who does not know, City Journal was the think tank behind Mayor Giuliani’s revitalization of New York City (perhaps “reconquest” is just as apt a word) in the 1990s. Peggy Noonan still calls it “the best magazine in America.”

Judith Miller has a story in the recent issue, “A SLAPP Against Freedom” following up on an issue I addressed in two of my Principalities and Powers posts, “Troubling Saudi Arms Deal” and “Follow-up on Saudi Terror Funding”. Well-funded Islamic organizations and individuals have found it more prudent in the West to silence their critics with libels suits than with violence. If nothing else, the victims pay your expenses. (And you can’t beat that!) Recent cases, however, at least in this country, have been discouraging that sort of legal brutality.

In 2006, Yale University Press published a book on Hamas by Matthew Levitt of the Institute for Near East Policy. KinderUSA, an Islamic charity, and its board chairman, Laila Al-Marayati, brought a libel suit against Levitt and Yale UP in California state court for linking them with the terrorist organization. In June, Levitt charged his accusers with bringing a SLAPP suit (strategic litigation against public participation), i.e. a suit designed not seriously to recover damages, but simply to intimidate. They won. KinderUSA backed off.

In May, the Islamic Society of Boston dropped a suit against the Boston Herald and others for claiming that they had been passing funds to terrorist organizations. In the course of the trial, it came to light that the ISB had in fact given money to two groups on the government’s list of terrorist organizations.

Earlier this year, six Muslim imams who had been removed from a flight for reportedly suspicious behavior sued US Airways, the Minneapolis airport and several passengers who had reported them. In August, they dropped their suit after Congress passed a law, sponsored by my Congressman, Rep. Peter King (R-LI), protecting such civic spirited tips from intimidating lawsuits. Plaintiffs must prove that the finger pointers lied or they must pay all court and legal fees.

That sounds like a series of victories for domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty. Were KinderUSA or the Islamic Society of Boston falsely accused? I am not in a position to judge with certainty, though I certainly have my inclinations on the matter. Either way, the remedy is not to shut down all public inquiry and discussion on the matter — which has been the effect of plaintiff-friendly libel laws in Britain. Rather, aggrieved parties should defend the truth by challenging and refuting their accusers in public debate.