Chris Van Hollen vs. Israel. This is a stunning development. Chris Van Hollen, our Democratic congressman here in Congressional District 8, has put Israel's security on the table. Quoted in the Washington Post on February 20, 2007, Chris Van Hollen called for a congressional vote on the "full" Baker Commission proposal as a Democratic alternative to the Bush plan. Van Hollen's Democratic constituents cheered his latest swing at George Bush at first, but then, oh no, wait! Wasn't the Baker Commission's requirement of major security concessions the very downfall of the Baker Plan? It's not hard to forget. The day the Baker Commission announced its proposal, the Washington Post was declaring it a defeat for George Bush. Then, as people studied the details, they found it tied everything to concessions by Israel. Suddenly, the Post said, 48 hours later, that Bush ought to ignore the Baker Plan, and the national Baker-mania evaporated faster than the integrity of a Maryland election.

Chris Van Hollen's demand for the "full" Baker Plan means that Chris Van Hollen has endorsed the full Baker Plan. Ergo, Chris Van Hollen has endorsed the Israeli concessions that are fundamental parts of the Baker Plan. That's strange, considering I was at the Candidates Forum at a Potomac synagogue last year, and heard Van Hollen pledge his full support for Israel.

Would the real Chris Van Hollen please stand up?