photo: David Furst/AFP/Getty Images

Considering that he shot and killed a much-loved Israeli prime minister, Yigal Amir had a cushy time of it in prison. In his cell, the unrepentant assassin was able to keep a library, a TV set and DVD player, an electric kettle for his afternoon tea, and even enjoy conjugal visits from his wife.

It's hard to imagine that in other countries, an assassin would have the celebrity and liberties that Amir did in Israel. But he is a unique case. In batty, rightwing circles Amir is hailed as a hero for killing Premier Yitzak Rabin at a 1995 rally. Rabin's death was a huge blow to hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and Amir, along with his extremist fans, likes to think that the killing was a job well done.

But Amir blew it. Furious wardens found out that he had given interviews to local Israeli television channels from the prison phone. They stripped him of his privileges and banished him on Friday to a high-security prison.

There's a cruel and no doubt unintentional irony to this transfer. Amir now resides in a prison where he'll be surrounded by Palestinian terrorists. No doubt he and his Arab inmates will have much in common; Amir shot Rabin for signing the Oslo accord with the Palestinians, and most of the terrorists locked up with him are also against peace, from the Palestinian side. In their bloody extremism and banality, their viewpoints are one and the same.

And, there go his perks: Amir was stripped of all but a bed, toilet items and a Bible. His conjugal visits are probably gone for a while, too.

Israelis were enraged over Amir's prison interviews –-and at the media for airing his rightwing diatribes. As Defense Minister Ehud Barak said: “Amir should not have any part in the public dialogue.” His pregnant wife Larissa was recently asked on army radio if she would tell her future child that his father was an assassin, she replied,: “I will tell him that his father sacrificed himself for the sake of his people." Chilling.

By Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

 Barack Obama and John McCain agree on the need to support and protect Israel, confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, withdraw troops from Iraq, protect strategic oil interests in the Gulf and bring stability to the Middle East. But there are notably sharp differences in how the U.S. presidential candidates would go about achieving those goals. Between them, Obama has proposed fresher ideas, which in turn are probably more likely to reverse the U.S. policy failures of the last 16 years. Here's my final parsing of the candidates' positions on the main Middle East issues:

 Overview: Obama highlights diplomacy, McCain force

 Obama: He believes that Iran poses the “greatest strategic challenge” in the Middle East, based on what he calls its support of terrorist groups and pursuit of nuclear weapons. He argues that Bush's failed Middle East policies have had the effect of actually strengthening Iran, weakening Israel, destabilizing Iraq, fanning Islamic extremism and undermining America's regional as well as global standing. Accordingly, Obama generally advocates a fresh, pragmatic approach to Iran and the Middle East that stresses diplomacy and multilateral cooperation over military force and unilateral actions—and refocuses the U.S. military effort on defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. 

 McCain: He believes that the “transcendent challenge” not only for the Middle East but “of our time” is “radical Islamic terrorism.” He assigns the U.S., a nation that he believes God intended for great purpose, a central role in shaping the world's future. A “realist” who has recognized the limits of American power, he is also a self-described “idealist” who has advocated “rogue-state rollback.” In concert with that overarching good-versus-evil view of today's world and America's role in it are McCain's regional priorities of defending Israel, achieving “victory” in Iraq and holding down Iran.

 Arab-Israeli Conflict: Obama emphasizes negotiations, McCain security.

 Obama: He defines Arab-Israeli peace as a core issue and “American national interest,” rather than a secondary regional or local matter. Obama says he will be actively engaged in peacemaking from “the minute I'm sworn into office,” in contrast with Bush's initial six years of holding back as the Israeli government refused to talk with Palestinians. Obama tells Israelis that their “real security” can only come through “lasting peace.” He calls for a Palestinian state that is “contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper.” He attempts balance, saying “Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to both make compromises.” Obama's recent reliance on advisor Dennis Ross is a question mark, given the high-profile Clinton negotiator's perceived pro-Israel bias as a mediator, though it does signal that Obama is strongly committed to a peace process if not a peace settlement. Whether Obama will go further to endorse parameters and spend political capital to reach and implement a fair, end-of-conflict deal remains to be seen.

 McCain: He also holds himself up as an unwavering friend of Israel. But McCain focuses almost exclusively on the threats Israel faces. He sees Israel's main challenge as defending itself against Iran and Tehran's Hamas and Hizballah allies rather than finding a peaceful compromise with Palestinians. McCain says he encourages peace talks yet underlines his doubts that Palestinian leaders are “willing and able to deliver peace.” In his speech to AIPAC in June,  McCain refrained from mentioning a Palestinian state, opining that “most” Palestinians “ask only for a better life in a less violent world.” McCain has gathered no notable peace negotiators on his campaign team, which appears influenced by neo-conservative thinkers who emphasize fighting terrorism and Arab reform as priorities over peace talks. McCain's emphasis on Israel's security precautions over peace negotiations—and lack of attention to Palestinian self-determination-- is a variation of past U.S. policies that have failed to bring security or peace. 

Iraq: Obama is in a hurry to withdraw, McCain is patient to stay

 Obama: He was an early opponent of the Iraq war, arguing that Saddam Hussein posed no direct threat, that the main post-9/11 fight should be against al-Qaeda, that an Iraq invasion was part of a neo-conservative Middle East agenda and that war risked unpredictable consequences like fueling more terrorism. Obama says his first priority will be will be a plan to withdraw—lately, he says “reduce”-- U.S. forces from Iraq over a 16-month timeline. He contends that war funds are needed for programs at home, more forces are required against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and that a pullout will benefit Iraqis by encouraging local factions to take responsibility for Iraq's future. Potentially, Obama's plan may succeed in scaling back a military deployment that is unpopular at home as well as in the Middle East. On the other hand, he has conditioned the withdrawal on the need to pull back in a “phased” and “responsible” manner, leaving himself the option of delaying the pullout to avert further civil war or Iranian intervention. What remains to be seen is how much strategic loss or political instability he will be prepared to accept within his definition of a “responsible” withdrawal.

 McCain: He was a strong original supporter of the Iraq invasion, believing that Saddam needed to be overthrown because he was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people and posed a direct danger to the U.S. He has been a lonely voice for continuing the war, which he says may see a troop withdrawal by 2013 though he has quipped that the U.S. could be in Iraq for “100 years.” McCain cites success made by Gen. David Petraeus's “troop surge” in presenting a positive outlook, arguing that political reconciliation is moving ahead, sectarian killing is down, Shi'ite militias and al-Qaeda terrorists are on the run. He says the U.S. must stay in Iraq to prevent all-out civil war, genocide, a failed state, intervention by an emboldened Iran, a terrorist victory and a U.S. defeat. The problem is that McCain's goal of a peaceful, democratic Iraq, free of Iranian and al-Qaeda interference, is wishful thinking in the short term, and Americans don't have patience for the long run. In declaring “victory” as his goal, McCain may be setting himself up for failure by making it difficult to adapt to changing political realities that may auger against such an unambiguously successful outcome.

 Iran: Obama prefers to talk, McCain wants to muscle

 Obama: His offer is unprecedented in the past three decades of U.S. diplomacy: presidential involvement in negotiations without preconditions with Iran's Islamic regime aimed at reaching a breakthrough. Obama proposes the talks as a way of convincing Iran to end uranium enrichment activities that the U.S. believes are intended for developing nuclear weapons. In return, he says he will offer Tehran “meaningful incentives—including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community.” He has also spoken of giving Iran security guarantees, but has not explicitly offered restoration of U.S. diplomatic relations. Obama's approach has merit: possibly ceasing Iran's nuclear threat and winning Iran's cooperation in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon; or, alternatively, rallying truly effective international pressure if Iran refuses the bargain. The danger is that if Obama bungles the delicate diplomatic enterprise, it could trigger an unpredictable escalation of Middle East tensions, or simply postpone a military showdown as Iran buys time.

 McCain: Like Obama, he sees Iran as a grave threat in the Middle East, yet calls for sticking to Washington's 30-year policy of pressuring the Tehran and ridicules Obama's proposed negotiations. To “create real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on,” he proposes more robust sanctions akin to the global anti-apartheid campaign of “moral clarity” against South Africa's white minority rule in the 1980s.  He doesn't explicitly call for regime-change but seems to rule out ever recognizing the Islamic government in the hope that it will eventually collapse. He warns that talks with Iran's president would “harm Iranian moderates and dissidents as the radicals and hard-liners strengthen their position.” The problem is that McCain falls into wishful thinking, ignoring that three decades of pressure has done little or nothing to prevent the steady rise of Iran's influence. Whether he intends it or not, avoiding negotiations at this point with a revolutionary regime suspected of developing nuclear weapons may be tantamount to resigning the U.S. to war with Iran.

 --by Scott MacLeod/Cairo