Soccer Dad

Shame on dershowitz

Yesterday, Jennifer Rubin asked:

Where is the outrage in the U.S. -- especially among the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama? Where are the major Jewish institutions that in the past offered rhetorical and political support for a vibrant pro-Israel policy?

In answering the question, she, of course, credits Martin Peretz for speaking out against President Obama's anti-Israel policies. But, I've wondered, where's Alan Dershowitz been? Why doesn't he speak out. Well now he has, and I wish that he'd remained silent. He answers "Has Obama turned on Israel?" with an emphatic "no."

First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a "natural growth" exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.

I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one -- results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.

A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.

I have no idea the source of his assertion that a majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel do not favor settlement expansion. But to write off Prime Minister Netanyahu is disingenuous. Given the spectrum of his coalition, Netanyahu represents a vast majority of Israelis. President Obama isn't just opposing one man, he is opposing the national consensus of Israel. (Even Jackson Diehl acknowledges this.)

Furthermore, by pressuring Israel on settlements and not pressuring the Arab world for any substantive reciprocal action he is eroding Israel's diplomatic position and, yes, that does pose a security risk for Israel.

It's nice of Dershowitz to object to linkage.

The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.

This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.

But the Obama administration has made it clear that it could live with a nuclear Iran. So Dershowitz's next paragraph isn't exactly comforting.

The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.

All I'll say is that John Bolton disagrees.

And this brings us to Dershowitz's less than compelling conclusion:

There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.

Of course even if "getting tough on settlement expansion" doesn't hurt Israeli security, doesn't it strike Dershowitz as odd that this is the one foreign policy issue he sees fit to confront? President Obama has been looking for dialogue with Iran's leaders and friendlier terms with Syria. But when it comes to Israel he seeks to put Israel on the defensive diplomatically. Maybe he hasn't done anything yet to hurt Israel's security, but if his choice of battles is any indication, it shows that he has no real concern for Israel.

In short, Deshowitz's argument for President Obama is that settlements are not a significant issue so those who are pro-Israel shouldn't be bothered by his words and actions, but on the significant issue of a nuclear Iran, he hopes that Obama will do the right thing for Israel (and the world.) Seems that his defense of Obama comes down to lots of hope, given that the substance of the President's actions point in the other direction.

Perhaps Dershowitz really needs to convince himself that President Obama is pro-Israel after his endorsement last year. But the qualifications in his op-ed are such that I find it hard to believe that he really believes his own arguments. Clearly he is capable of better, else he wouldn't be a world famous law professor. I have a hard time believe that this apologia would convince anyone of the Obama administration's positive feelings towards Israel. I really wonder if he convinced himself.

UPDATE: The current version of this post differs slightly from the original version. I have edited for (hopefully) clarity.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Human wrongs watch

Yesterday the New York Times reported on a recent Human Rights Watch report that claimed that during its campaign in Gaza Israel killed 29 civilians in six separate attacks.

Twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in what appeared to be six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, according to a report released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch. The group questioned whether Israeli forces had taken "all feasible precautions" to avoid civilian casualties.

Israel's military has never acknowledged using the remotely piloted planes to fire missiles. In a statement released Tuesday, it said that it had used an assortment of weapons and technologies to minimize the risk to Palestinian civilians.

There are two obvious problems with this report. The first is that Marc Garlasco wrote the report for Human Rights Watch. Garlasco doesn't have such a good record when reporting on Israel. Yet the New York Times fails to acknowledge his spotty record.. Also the Times cites PCHR uncritically. Anyone who has been reading Elder of Ziyon recently knows that PCHR is not reliable.

When Elder of Ziyon, looked at the report itself, he showed why skepticism towards Garlasco and he PCHR was warranted - HRW's report was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, including the identification of dead terrorists as civilians leading him to conclude.

However, HRW either ignored evidence that some of the "civilian" victims they are talking about were actually terrorists or it didn't do any reasonable research (typing the names into Google should have been enough.) This is either sloppy work or it is purposeful deception on HRW's part.

The NYT story on the HRW report concludes:

P. W. Singer, the author of a recent book on military robots called "Wired for War," said Israel might also be finding that using the drones "certainly raises the bar of expectations."

"Because you can target more precisely, people hold you to a higher standard," he said.

This is perverse. Israel's being singled out because of HRW's animus towards Israel. Frankly a report on the thousands of Qassam fired into Israel wouldn't have generated the same kind of buzz. This isn't holding Israel to a higher standard; it's holding Israel to a standard and holding Hamas to none.

Mere Rhetoric noted that HRW has a really poor record on Israel and, in fact, raised money for its activities in the human rights unfriendly regime of Saudi Arabia. NGO Monitor observed:

Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW's role in anti-Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations, boasting that this propaganda campaign was instrumental in the UN's "fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza," to be headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, who was also a member of HRW's board at the time. (He resigned after the investigation began; as NGO Monitor noted, his membership on HRW's board was a conflict of interest.)

So HRW used a "researcher" whose bias had already been established and itself, as an organization, had demonstrated its bias by using its anti-Israel bias as a selling point to collect funds one of Israel's enemies. Yet the NYT, reported the story of HRW's report without raising any questions as to the organization biases and record of anti-Israel advocacy. Human Rights Watch? How about Human Wrongs Watch instead?

Crossposted on Yourish.

What Are The Chances For Peace If Abbas Cannot Recall--Let Alone Accept--What He Is Offered

Yossi Alpher, co-editor at bitterlemons.org, writes about the chances of any Israeli leader being able to negotiate a real peace with "moderate" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas--based on Abbas's re-interpretation of the offers Olmert made to him during negotiations. He refers to an interview Abbas did in the Washington Post on May 29 and one that Olmert did on June 13 in Newsweek--and compares what the two leaders said about an Arab right of return.

Jackson Diehl recounts:

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.

However Olmert's account--backed by Saeb Erekat--differs:

At the end of Olmert's term he tried one last maneuver in an effort to secure a legacy. Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories, along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a "humanitarian gesture," a small number of returnees, although "smaller than the Palestinians wanted--a very, very limited number."

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, confirmed that Olmert had made the offer. "It's very sad," Erekat said. "He was serious, I have to say." Erekat said that he and Abbas studied the materials and began to formulate a response, coordinating with the Americans. But time eventually ran out. A few months after Olmert presented his offer, war erupted in Gaza. Shortly after that, Olmert was out of power.[emphasis added]

Yossi Alpher finds Abbas's unrealistic expectations and twisting of Olmert's offers a major impediment in the search for real peace:

Every so often, a national leader makes statements in an interview that redefine his position on the world stage. Abbas appears to have done this. Abbas chose to interpret whatever statement of empathy Olmert made about the refugees--the effort the Israeli leader apparently undertook to offer the Palestinians some sort of psychological closure regarding the events of 1948--as acceptance of the right of return, while the Israeli prime minister understood he was saying the opposite and rejecting the right of return. Abbas looks at an offer of virtually the entire territory of the West Bank, internationalization of the disputed holy sites in Jerusalem and (according to him) the right of return, turns it down and says "the gaps were wide".

Can we Israelis be blamed for suspecting that we really do not have a partner for a two-state deal?

Here was Olmert, as liberal and willing a leader as Israel is likely to ever produce and Abbas who is considered to be as moderate a leader as the Palestinian Arabs are likely to have--and it is unlikely that any Israeli leader will be willing to make the concessions that Olmert was ready to make.

And therein lies the problem:

Be that as it may, I can only hope that somewhere, waiting in the wings, is the Palestinian leader capable of broadly accepting at least Olmert's offer--and without distorting it. Or that some sort of international leadership, Arab or American, will prove ready and able to persuade the Palestinian leadership and public to make the necessary concessions. Otherwise, the chances of a successful two-state breakthrough in the near future were definitely reduced by Abbas' statements.

Read the whole thing.

Abbas knows that with the mantel of "Arab moderate" comes protection from criticism and feels no pressure to change his tactics.

by Daled Amos

Krauthammer on the president and honduras

Krauthammer at the Corner about President Obama's stance on Honduras:

Look, a rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.

For the latest on Honduras, check with Fausta. (via memeorandum)

Barak meets mitchell

At the end of an article about Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's meeting with American Middle East envoy, George Mitchell the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler writes:

There are more than 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank that are legal under Israeli law but not internationally. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified in 1951, forbids an occupying power to transfer "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies," but Israel disputes that this provision applies to settlements. Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Why the difference between Israeli law and "internationally?" (Interesting that Kessler doesn't write "international law." Maybe he's suggesting that the opposition to "settlements" is more political than legal.)

After explaining how only Israel is described as an occupying power in the course of a territorial dispute, Dr. Dore Gold explains the reasoning behind Israel's claim that building on the territory captured in 1967 is legal:

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (emphasis added) (Article II.2).

As noted above, in many other cases in recent history in which recognized international borders were crossed in armed conflicts and sovereign territory seized, the language of "occupation" was not used -- even in clear-cut cases of aggression. Yet in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, where no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existed, the stigma of Israel as an "occupier" has gained currency.

And while Kessler writes "...Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war," suggesting that Israel was the aggressor, Gold presents a timeline that shows otherwise:

Here the historical sequence of events on June 5, 1967, is critical, for Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines. Jordanian attacks began at 10:00 a.m.; an Israeli warning to Jordan was passed through the UN at 11:00 a.m.; Jordanian attacks nonetheless persisted, so that Israeli military action only began at 12:45 p.m. Additionally, Iraqi forces had crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, the temporary armistice boundaries of 1949 lost all validity the moment Jordanian forces revoked the armistice and attacked. Israel thus took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war.

On another diplomatic front, French premier Nicholas Sarkozy has decided to dictate the makeup of the Israeli government.

According to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Sarkozy told Mr. Netanyahu that he should remake his government so that he, Ms. Livni and the defense minister, Ehud Barak, could produce historic breakthroughs for Middle East peace.

He was reported to have said, "I've always received Israeli foreign ministers. I met with Tzipi Livni in the Élysée Palace, but with that one I simply can't meet. I'm telling you, you need to get rid of that man. Get him out of the government and bring in Livni. With her and with Barak you can make history."

It's funny, because Lieberman has actually advocated territorial compromise, so it's unclear how he stands the way of making history. It also appears that Sarkozy is offering a lifeline to Livni. No word if the Doctor of Holocaust denial offends Sarkozy's sensibilities.

UPDATE: There are two points worth emphasizing.
The first is that the notion that settlements are "illegal" is more an assertion than a reasoned legal conclusion. Recently reporter Glenn Kessler wrote about a legal opinion written in 1979 declaring settlements illegal. But as Daled Amos shows, the State Department lawyer who wrote the opinion based his conclusions on an earlier opinion that declared settlements legal.

The second is an example of Dr. Gold's claim that occupation is a sin ascribed to Israel alone. In a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Yisrael Medad of My Right Word wrote:

Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh -- and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 -- is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.

In other words, the acquisition of territory by force is admissible, as long as those who are displaced are Jews. There's a word for this sort of double standard.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Drawing down

Ralph Peters sees it as a good thing. (via Instapundit):

As our troops leave Iraq's cities today, their commanders know that still more bloody trials lie ahead. Now and then, the Iraqis will "shoot the red star cluster," calling for our help. But today isn't just a day for Iraqis to celebrate -- it's a good day for us, too.

And it's a day of vindication for a former president who saw clearly, but spoke poorly (to the delighted mortification of the media).

Now we have a president who expresses himself beautifully, but seems blind to international reality. And it's up to him to determine whether Iraq was a new beginning or a dead end.

The Washington Post is a bit more cautious:

Such risks could be lessened by aggressive U.S. efforts to help Iraqis reach political accords in Kirkuk and elsewhere, to minimize meddling by Iran and Syria, and to promote arrangements for the elections that will discourage sectarianism. Mr. al-Maliki ought to be reaching out to Sunni leaders and making sure that those who fought against al-Qaeda are given the jobs they were promised. But neither government is following through. The Obama administration is lavishing diplomatic attention and resources on the Israeli-Arab peace process, where there is scant chance of an early breakthrough, while leaving Iraq to a new ambassador with no Middle East experience. If there are to be more days to celebrate in Iraq, this policy of quiet neglect must end.

However Michael Rubin sees disaster on the horizon:

By telegraphing a desire to leave, Mr. Obama reverses the dynamic. In effect, his strategy is an anti-surge. Troop numbers are not the issue. It is the projection of weakness. Not only Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani have also reached out to the Islamic Republic in recent weeks.

In Cairo, Mr. Obama said the U.S. had no permanent designs on Iraq and declared, "We will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron." Indeed. But until the Iraqi government is strong enough to monopolize independently the use of force, a vacuum will exist and the most violent factions will fill it.

Power and prestige matter. Withdrawal from Iraq's cities is good politics in Washington, but when premature and done under fire it may very well condemn Iraqis to repeat their past.

To be sure, both Peters and the Washington Post sound cautions, but Rubin sees the American victory slipping away.

Omer and omer

Dion Nissenbuam (Twice in one day? Yes.) highlights a friend's efforts to expose an Israeli conspiracy.

Ashraf, a friend who was one of the many talented reporters to be laid off as a result of the economic implosion of the newspaper industry, has written a journalistic exploration of the challenges facing reporters covering the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Calling it a "sobering glimpse" of Jerusalem journalism, Ashraf focuses on his frustrating attempts to report on an incident last year at the Israel-Jordan border where Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer said he was assaulted by Israeli security.Ashraf

"In the end," Ashraf writes, "the truth of what happened to Mohammed Omer was sacrificed on the altar of the false deity known as 'balance.'"

As Ashraf notes, it was impossible to divine "the truth" of the incident because there were competing versions and few independent views.

You see, last year Mohammed Omer was detained by Israeli security forces as he entered from Jordan. Omer claimed that he was mistreated by security personnel. An Israeli review of the incident found no wrongdoing.

Calling Omer a journalist is a stretch. He writes for the viciously anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. In other words there's no calumny against Israel that's too outrageous for him to write about. If there's a reason there hasn't been a further investigation, it hasn't been in worship of "balance," it's been in large part because the person making the charges has no credibility.

IMRA, covered the results of the investigation, I won't quote them all, but I found this particularly damning.

As to the Complainant's allegation that he was compelled to stand on his feet for twelve hours, we point out that according to our records, the Complainant arrived at the Allenby Crossing at approximately 11:00, and the entire incident ended at approximately 14:00. Thus, this claim is also baseless.

Elder of Ziyon has a lot more about Omer and the incident.

As far as Nissenbaum and "balance" is concerned, just remember that his idea of balance is producing a flattering portrayal of an "unrepentant child killer." We knew that Nissenbaum had a soft place in his hearts for terrorists, now we know that simple liars have his sympathy too.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Truth in journalism

A few weeks ago Dion Nissenbaum was outraged at a stunt pulled by Israeli journalist Ben Caspit. Caspit put words in the mouth of Sen. George Mitchell, have the envoy say,

"Our policy is simple," US Middle East envoy George Mitchell was quoted as saying. "The Israelis lied to us all these years. And now it's over."

The problem is that Mitchell didn't use those words. Or at least as a later article by Caspit makes clear, he didn't use those exact words and he didn't say anything similar in the meeting Caspit reported on. However, Mitchell apparently did say something similar in a telegram.

It is interesting that Nissenbaum is so exercised by Caspit's taking liberties here. For one thing the administration has pretty clearly lied about American commitments with Israel. And apparently Ambassador Kurtzer has changed his story to suit the administration. This doesn't make Caspit's deception (or "fake but true" reporting) correct, but Nissenbaum's outrage at Israeli journalism seems rather selective.

Strangely, too he seems none too outraged by articles appearing last week claiming that Gilad Shalit was about to be released. ("imminent" one headline read.) Nissenbaum writes:

Reports like these pop up in the Israeli media about once every three or four months.

Israeli journalists rely on anonymous sources who reportedly suggest that a "breakthrough" has been made and that only a few details need to be hammered out.

But the "imminent" story I wrote about last week was a lot more than a report about the possible release of Shalit. (Clearly, I should have been a lot more skeptical of the report.) It was seemingly advocating the strengthening of Hamas, the isolating of Salam Fayyad and cast PM Netanyahu as the heavy. (In other words, all the stars had aligned and all that was required was for Netanyahu to be a little less stubborn and agree to Hamas's terms.)

And It was based on a single "reliable" European source. Will this source be referred to as "reliable" in the future?

Nissenbaum claims that such reports appear frequently in the Israeli media. This sort of reporting seems a lot worse than Caspit's breach. Of course it is typical of reporters all around. They'll find a source who will provide them with a story they wish were true. Then they'll quote the source and write how the possibility could come about. Well the story is "true," because the news is that the source said it, not that the content of what he said was true. Caspit, at least, accurately conveyed the feelings of the Obama administration.

Crossposted on Yourish.

More "revenge-vowing meetings" in North Korea

They're into hate-rallies in North Korea. On June 23 Korean News reported on a "A revenge-vowing meeting of school youth and children." Taking place on a date evidently associated with the Korean War, the article states "the departed souls of many people mercilessly killed by the Yankee wolves are still furiously crying out for a thousand-fold revenge upon the Yankees." The next day a headline read "Agricultural Workers Vow to Take Revenge upon Enemy." The next day a headline read "Korean Women Vow to Take Revenge upon American Murderers." The latest example: "Korean People Vow Vengeance on U.S. Imperialists." Let's sample this sucker:

The Korean people are hardening their mind to take revenge upon the U.S. imperialist aggressors, the sworn enemy, a thousandfold on the occasion of the "June 25, the day of the struggle against U.S. imperialism."

This year lots of servicepersons, working people, school youth and children have visited the Central House of Class Education, a place for indicting the crimes of the U.S. imperialists and a center for class education.

Listening to the explanation of the brutal atrocities committed by the U.S. imperialists while invading Korea century after century since the intrusion of the aggression ship "General Sherman", the visitors firmly vowed to take revenge on the enemies without fail.

At the Sinchon Museum where more than 4,000 pieces of data, remains and lethal weapons are on display, the visitors keenly realized once again that the U.S. imperialists are the only horde of brutes in the world.

Looking round the place where the ghouls machine-gunned and threw hand-grenades at people and burnt their bodies to ashes right before their fleeing, the torture room, the slaughter-site and others at the House of Class Education in Susan-ri, Kangso County, the visitors expressed their resolution to wipe out to the last one the pernicious murderers, wolves in human shape, if they pounce upon the Korean people again. [...]

Whew! After that, an article entitled "DPRK Lauded as Invincible Country" is almost a let-down:

The U.S. should be well aware that the DPRK is an invincible country with the powerful military deterrent and that no force on earth can break the single-minded unity of the Korean army and people closely rallied around their great brilliant commander, which is stronger than nuclear weapons.

The DPRK will always emerge victorious and strikingly demonstrate its dignity as an invincible socialist power in the future, too, as there are the Songun leadership of Kim Jong Il and the revolutionary army and people strong in mental power.

Another day, another reference to North Korean "mental power."

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Can A Suspect Be Described As "Of Jewish Or Eastern European Descent"?

Last Wednesday, the following story in Vail Daily caused an unexpected backlash from its readers:

Keep your windows locked when you are not home, is the message the Eagle County Sheriff's Office says it wants citizens to hear after multiple homes in Miller Ranch in Edwards, Colorado were broken into over the weekend.

At one home, an unknown number of suspects broke in through a window that was left cracked open by cutting through a screen. One of the residents was home during the burglary and saw a suspect.

He is described as a male, approximately 5-foot-9, 150 pounds with dark hair, large nose, pierced ears, narrow face and eyes that were close together. He was wearing a dark-colored baseball cap.

The part that caused angry responses from readers is no longer in the article. One of the editors explains in an apology to the readers:

Some of our readers were very offended by an article in Wednesday's paper in which a suspect in house break-ins in Edwards was described as "of Jewish or Eastern European descent."

According to a press release from the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, the witness also told investigators the suspect had "dark hair, large nose, pierced ears, narrow face and eyes that were close together."

The "large nose," unfortunately, is an old and reviled Jewish stereotype which readers felt we have perpetuated. While some found the article misguided and insensitive, others found it downright appalling and anti-Semitic, comparing it to something the Nazis might have produced. And we are sorry for opening old and deep wounds.

As a Jewish American and one of the editors of the press release, I apologize to those who were offended. We will not argue with your outrage, we can only explain how the phrase "of Jewish descent" got in the paper with the consent of at least two editors.
[emphasis added]

The crux of the explanation is that although the use of the phrase "Jewish descent" was inappropriate because Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity--nevertheless many Jews consider Judaism to be their ethnicity and their culture. The editor writes that while claiming that all Jews look a certain way is 'reprehensible', describing an alleged burglar as 'looking Jewish' was offensive and merely the result of poor editing.

New Job Market For Orthodox Jewish Women In Kosher Supervision

Jewish Blogmeister has an interesting post on the developing job market for Orthodox Jewish women in kosher supervision as Mashgichim:

Orthodox Jewish Women generally have different considerations to take into account when seeking a career or employment. Many will try to find jobs that are family friendly, allowing them time to care of their children and as well as help with religious holiday preparations. For the longest time these jobs examples would be wig stylist, teachers and more recently speech therapy, OT, PT etc.. A new job market is opening up that could prove to be another opportunity for Jewish Orthodox women: Kosher Supervisor AKA Mashgiach

He links to an article on the website of The Jewish Federation of the Berkshires:

As the kosher food industry continues to swell, so does the number of female kosher supervisors. And now they are receiving professional recognition.

The first known training course for mashgichot will be held this fall in Baltimore. Organized by the Star-K kosher certification agency, the weeklong seminar is aimed at women supervisors in the food service industry. It will include an overview of proper procedures, an analysis of kosher laws and policies, and field trips to working kitchens.

Mashgichim have enjoyed this kind of professional support for years, but women have had to train themselves.

The program is aimed at women who are already mashgichot:

WOMEN'S MASHGICHA CONFERENCE

Women's Mashgicha Conference -- Star-K is planning a two-day training program in our corporate office for women currently employed as mashgichos worldwide. The curriculum will include kashrus procedures, insect checking and visits to food service establishments. This program is tentatively scheduled for Fall 2009, if there is sufficient interest. Please contact our office at 410-484-4110 or star-k@star-k.org.

Though the course is designed for women already in the field, it is an indication of the growing number of women who are involved in kosher supervision--and the respect they get for their work.

If Obama Is Such A Fan Of The New Deal, He Should Leave Israeli Settlements Alone

When not being compared to Lincoln, Obama is often compared to FDR:

President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives - education, energy, health care -back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR's New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades. [emphasis added]

That being the case, one would think that he would see how the Israeli settlements have a 'New Deal' effect and leave matters be--because among those who are most eager to build those settlements are Palestinian Arabs:

Necessary, insufficient and 16 years late

Last week a number of news organizations focused on the growing security responsibilities of the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reported For Palestinian Forces a growing role in the West Bank:

Amid a marked decline in violence in and emanating from the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces said its troops would no longer enter Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho and Qalqilyah unless there are "urgent security needs." The agreement, struck at a Palestinian command center outside Bethlehem where commanders from the two sides gathered on Wednesday night, authorizes Palestinian police and security troops to remain in control of the four cities 24 hours a day. They had previously pulled back between midnight and 5 a.m. to avoid "friendly fire" encounters with IDF patrols.

The agreement stops short of recent demands by Palestinian officials that the IDF pull back fully from "area A" -- the mostly urban territory that, under the 1993 Oslo accords, was put under the authority of Palestinian forces. The Oslo arrangement unraveled beginning in 2000 when a violent intifada, or uprising, led the IDF to reestablish control over the entire West Bank and surround Palestinian cities with checkpoints and barriers.

Isabel Kershner of The New York Times also reported Israelis Cede More Control of West Bank Security:

Israel has agreed to give the Palestinian security forces more freedom of action in four West Bank cities, Israeli and Palestinian security officials said Thursday, a move that implies a reduction in Israeli military activity in those areas as the Western-backed Palestinian forces assert more control.

The Israeli military also recently removed several significant checkpoints inside the West Bank, in line with a policy of easing movement and improving daily life for the Palestinians so long as calm prevails. A Palestinian can now drive from Jenin in the northern West Bank to Hebron in the south without being stopped and checked at any permanent roadblock along the way, the military says.

The article also notes (similar to the Washington Post):

But Palestinian officials said that the Israeli measures did not go far enough. The prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Thursday that they did not meet Palestinian expectations, and that "what is required is a full cessation of military raids in Palestinian Authority areas."

Yaacov Lozowick observes:

It was always thus: Israel doesn't meet Palestinian expectations.

There are a few points worth elaborating.

Left unsaid in these articles is that the reason there's any semblance of order in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho and Qalqilyah, is because Israel destroyed most of the terrorist infrastructure during Operation Defensive Shield. Acknowledging that there is a military solution to terrorism is one of those things that's just not reported.

Also missing is a serious recounting of the "Aqsa intifada." At the time, Israel and the Palestinian Authority had joint security patrols and Israel allowed the Palesitnians a lot more freedom. However Arafat used that freedom to create a terrorist infrastructure. So when Israel reclaimed control of the areas it had previously ceded it wasn't because it was defending its citizens. This is typical of reporting on the Middle East: treating Israeli military or security actions as arbitrary and ignoring the very real reasons why Israel undertook them.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that this isn't 1993, but 2009. Even if the Palestinian efforts at building a civil society are successful, it's awfully late in the game. If Arafat had made similar efforts, we'd have peace by now. But the Clinton administration found it expedient to ignore Arafat's perfidies in the name of peace. And still the Palestinian Authority is a lot more inclined to make peace with Hamas than with Israel, still honors terrorists and is marginalizing its most moderate leader.

Daled Amos focused on articles in Pajamas Media and Ha'aretz. He concluded:

The face of the West Bank is changing--albeit very slowly, and with lots of external help. The West Bank still does not have the infrastructure to exist as an independent state, but it is not the impoverished and overpopulated hellhole that Palestinian apologists claim.

It's good that the Palestinians under Fatah have decided to create a civil society, however slowly that's proceeding. That's a necessary condition for peace. But it is not sufficient. They also have to create a society willing to co-exist with Israel. It is far from clear that they are creating such a society.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Where was i sunday night?

I think that the last one is a big hint.

I suppose that he'll ask oj for help

I mean OJ has lots of experience at finding the killers doesn't he?

Council speak 06/30/09

The Council has spoken.

This week's winning entry was Wolf Howling's Obama on Iran: A broken moral compass, A Distorted Perception Of Reality, part of his excellent, comprehensive coverage of the administration's failure in dealing with Iran. The runner up was part of the Provocateur's continuing investigations into ACORN, castigating conservative commentators for getting their facts wrong,

On the non-council side, the winning entry was the New Ledger's Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan. It's an incredibly apt critique, but be forewarned, it's quite a bit stronger than what I usually link to. The runner-up was Obama's 3 AM phone call by Dry Bones.

For my summary of this week's entries please see here.

Congratulations to all the winners.

Obama Is Not First President To Test His 'Meddle' In Israel

Many have commented on the fact that as opposed to his laid-back policy towards Iran in the aftermath of the elections there, Obama exhibits no such hesitation when it comes to Israel.

However, truth be told--Obama is not the first to try to manipulate Israeli affairs. Actually, while Obama is trying to pressure Israel to freeze the settlements, there is no more talk about how Obama is trying to manipulate Israeli politics and force the fall ofNetanyahu's coalition.

The same came not be said of previous US presidents.

Great news! "Ahmadinejad orders probe into Neda's 'suspicious' death"

Look at the compassion on that face! His government would never murder Neda, no never--it's all a plot of the World Arrogance:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked the Judiciary chief to conduct a through investigation into the death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, an Iranian woman who was shot dead in Tehran's post-vote protests.

In a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi on Monday, Ahmadinejad called for a serious probe into the "suspicious" death of Neda and recognizing elements behind her killing.

"Neda Aqa-Soltan was shot dead in one of Tehran's streets on June 20 by unknown elements in a completely suspicious way," said the president.

"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," he added.

Neda, 26, became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran and an international icon in recent days after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.

Her death first became suspicious after revelations that she was killed by a small caliber pistol -- a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.

A small caliber pistol! Everybody knows that's a World Arrogance weapon. Will Mahmoud ever look like this again?

Stay tuned!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

In 2005, Daniel Kurtzer Admitted There Was An Agreement On Settlements

In an op-ed in The Washington Post on June 14th, Daniel Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel wrote in The Settlement Facts

Today, Israel maintains that three events -- namely, draft understandings discussed in 2003 between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley; President George W. Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Sharon; and an April 14 letter from Sharon adviser Dov Weissglas to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- constitute a formal understanding in which the United States accepted continuing Israeli building within the "construction line" of settlements. The problem is that there was no such understanding. [emphasis added]

In regards to President Bush's letter, Kurtzer explains:

President Bush's 2004 letter conveyed U.S. support of an agreed outcome of negotiations in which Israel would retain "existing major Israeli population centers" in the West Bank "on the basis of mutually agreed changes . . . ." One of the key provisions of this letter was that U.S. support for Israel's retaining some settlements was predicated on there being an "agreed outcome" of negotiations. Despite Israel's contention that this letter allowed it to continue building in the large settlement blocs of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, the letter did not convey any U.S. support for or understanding of Israeli settlement activities in these or other areas in the run-up to a peace agreement. [emphasis added]

That is now. But back on March 25, 2005--in an interview with Israel Television Channel Ten while he was ambassador--Kurtzer said something different:

QUESTION: So President Bush is willing to leave settlement blocs in Israeli sovereignty in the future agreement just as Clinton was?

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: He said it clearly in the letter of last April - I can
say it again to the people of Israel. The President remains committed to
what he said in that letter: That in a negotiation on final status, the
outcome is going to mean that Israeli major population areas in our view
should remain within the State of Israel....

I believe there is full understanding between the Prime Minister and the
President and between the Prime Minister's office and his advisors and the
President's office and the President's advisors. Our discussions with the
Prime Minister, with Dov Weissglas, Shalom Turgeman, with all of the
officials who are associated with the Prime Minister's office have been very
clear and quite specific and that is what allowed us last April to reach a
very specific understanding that was then incorporated in a letter that the
President signed and was able to make public. So, I do not believe there are
any misunderstandings between us.

QUESTION: So, when Dov Weissglas says it is about Maale Adumim, about Ariel,
about all the big settlement blocs, it is okay, you stand behind this thing
he said.

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: The Government of Israel is going to make its
statements, the American government will make its statements. When we reach
understandings as we do have understandings, these are incorporated in
documents such as this letter. That letter remains the President's policy,
unquestionably.

... I think it is critically important, particularly now, the Prime Minister
is about to go to Washington again, to understand that the United States and
Israel do not have misunderstandings with respect to U.S. commitments. Those
commitments are very, very firm with respect to these Israeli major
population centers, our expectation that Israel is not going to be going
back to the 1967 lines. This is the President's policy. This President has
been very determined in having consistent and sure policy throughout his
time in office. That is the reality, that is the truth.

confirmed to Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post in April 2008, that he had opposed accepting an April 2004 letter from Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, reconfirming U.S.-Israeli understandings that restrictions on the growth of settlements would be made "within the agreed principles of settlement activities," which would include "a better definition of the construction line of settlements" on the West Bank. Weissglas also confirmed that a U.S.-Israeli team would "jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements." Kessler reported, "Daniel Kurtzer, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said he argued at the time against accepting the Weissglas letter. 'I thought it was a really bad idea,' he said. 'It would legitimize the settlements, and it gave them a blank check.' But the White House did accept the Weissglas letter. In the end, Kurtzer said the White House never followed up with the plan to define construction lines. 'Washington lost interest in it when it became clear it would not be easy to do,' he said.

So these dueling op-eds by Kurtzer and Abrams are a continuation of a policy war withing the Bush Administration, a war that Kurtzer lost at the time but is trying to win now. [emphasis added]

The Obama administration really should heed the advice of the Washington Post this morning, and stop pushing on the issue of the settlements. At the very least, it will allow the administration to stop contradicting itself.

by Daled Amos

Who Is In Breach Of International Law: Israel--Or The US?

Caroline Glick makes a compelling case that not only is Israel not in breach of signed agreements--or international law--on the issue of settlements, the US is breach of both international and domestic law.

Diehl me out

Jackson Diehl's End the Spat with Israel, is a very important op-ed. It's also interesting that both Diehl and David Ignatius are showing skepticism of the administration's tactics regarding Israel. That's not to say Diehl's column is perfect - it isn't, but he makes some very important observations:

But, starting with a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in May, the administration made the mistake of insisting that an Israeli settlement "freeze" -- a term the past three administrations agreed to define loosely -- must mean a total stop to all construction in the West Bank and even East Jerusalem.

This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the administration's objective -- whatever its merits -- is unobtainable. No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one.

Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary. While further settlement expansion needs to be curbed, both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous U.S.-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel -- since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement. Before the 2007 Annapolis peace conference organized by the Bush administration, Saudi Arabia and other Arab participants agreed to what one former senior official called "the Google Earth test"; if the settlements did not visibly expand, that was good enough.

(I'm not sure I buy the "Google Earth test" as presented by Diehl; the Saudi "peace plan" makes no exceptions, even for sections of Jerusalem such as Ramat Eshkol, Ramot or Gilo.)

Diehl doesn't come out and say it, but the Obama administration has taken a strong anti-Israel posture in its dealings with in the Middle East. The premise of the Obama administration is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the heart of the instability in the Middle East, that Israeli intransigence is largely responsible for prolonging the conflict, so that pressure on Israel is the most effective way to solve the problems plaguing the Middle East. In other words, the Obama administration has fully adopted the premises of J-Street/ Peace Now/ Israel Policy Forum. (President Clinton subscribed to this view also, but since there was a Labor government in power when he became President, he was able to work with Israel with few excuses until 1996.)

Diehl's also saying that adopting this position is self-defeating. He also realizes:

The result of such posturing is that the administration now faces a choice between a protracted confrontation with Israel -- an odd adventure given the pressing challenges from Iran and in Iraq, not to mention the disarray of the Palestinian camp -- or a compromise, which might make Obama look weak and provide Arab states further cause to refuse cooperation.

However, there's a lot that Diehl gets wrong. For example:

Pressuring Israel made sense, at first. The administration correctly understood that Netanyahu, a right-winger who took office with the clear intention of indefinitely postponing any Israeli-Palestinian settlement, needed to feel some public heat from Washington to change his position -- and that the show of muscle would add credibility to the administration's demands that Arab leaders offer their own gestures.

Israel has changed a lot since 1996. Netanyahu - who wasn't even such a right winger then - is certainly not one now. Still the portrayal of Netanyahu shows a myopic view of the Middle East that is so prevalent in the Washington press corps.

Barry Rubin writes:

Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he's relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues.

But his own people don't listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in.

So here's the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there'd be some hope for peace. Since he's so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he's highly restricted by what's permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA's failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinian political culture is so far removed from the Western premises of peaceful coexistence that it really doesn't matter who the Israeli Prime Minister is. If Tzippi Livni had been able to form the most recent coalition, we would be no closer to resolving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. And yet, even as Diehl argues that the administration's pressure on Israel is excessive, he refuses to see the other side: the Palestinians in the nearly 16 years since Oslo are no more prepared to live peacefully with Israel than they were in 1993.

Finally Yaacov Lozowick sounds a warning that would serve the administration well:
American Pressure on Israel can Cost Lives.

I'm skeptical that this administration would take Diehl's or Lozowick's warnings to heart. It is too ideologically committed to its positions. I don't believe that the President believes that a "spat" with Israel is counterproductive or a distraction from more pressing matters

Crossposted on Yourish.

Musical monday #99

Wow, Musical Monday has been going on for better than two years now. Let me thank the regulars, Gail, Laura, WhichwaySJ, Yitz, TRN, RAL, Benjie and Clayton for keeping Musical Monday going. Thanks also to Malibu Stacy, Apollo C. Vermouth and Benjie for contributing clues. And most of all thanks to Elie for being my partner and adding a level of creativity to Musical Monday.

A few months ago Elie proposed an idea for Musical Monday. I liked the idea, but as I looked at it I realized that there were lots of possibilities and it could well make up two weeks worth of clues. I think it actually provided quite a bit more than two weeks worth, so in honor of the (99th and) 100th editions of Musical Monday, we will have two straight weeks of expanded entries. I have not received funding for cash prizes, though :-), so you'll just have extra songs this week and next to celebrate!

(Answers to MM #97 to be posted, hopefully, tonight.)

1) My mixed emotion at my thoughtlessness,
2) But it's knowing that you're looking back, that's really killing me
3) Now if you were in my shoes, wouldn't you have done the same thing too?

4) ... his bowtie is really a camera
5) This lady may have stumbled but she ain't never fell
6) School bus driver in a traffic jam

7) When friends are there, you feel a fool.
8) ... the bees envy me
9) you've got your nuclear boots

10) ... and no money in our coats
11) Folks hoping you'd turn out cool

12) 'till i become that part of the wind
13) Now that it's over, I realized, those sweet words you whispered, were nothing but lies
14) And she never had dreams, so they never came true

15)Like seven inches from the midday sun
16) I only wish my words could just convince myself
17) We move in space with minimum waste and maximum joy.

18) Better let them have their toys
19) I know your game, what youre about
20) You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way
21) I'm in love but I feel like I'm wearin it out,
22) When my woman left home with a brown eyed man,

23) I've got to keep on chasin' a dream
24) Love will abide, take things in stride

25) She'd tell him about her dreams - he'd just shoot 'em down
26) The book of love will open up and let us in.

27) We can't go on, just running away
28) And When The Cupboard's Bare
29) And I won't require you

30) And he was just like a great dark wing
31) When I feel cold, you warm me

32) It's a fact that people get lonely, ain't nothing new
33) When you snap your fingers, or wink your eye

34) Counting stars against the black
35) Sings rock and roll in the shower
36) Streaming, flaxen, waxen
37) I been one poor correspondent,

38) You bounce my heart around
39) The roller-coaster ride we took is nearly at an end

40) My nerves all jumpin', actin' like a fool
41) Tell me now baby is he good to you

42) Wondrin, what in the world did I do
43) The gentle, sweet singin' of leaves in the wind

44) But that's me, stumbling away
45) If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown

46) Who's gonna plug their ears, when you scream
47) ... just to buy you some shoes

48) Till you're out on a midnight run
49) When all you've got is one thin dime
50) Singin them straight to the heart songs.

51) Out beyond the neon lights
52) All around people looking half dead

53) Stranger, stranger, stranger, stranger
54) Stranger dressed in black, she's a hungry child

55) and the grand facade, so soon will burn
56) Listen to the tide slowly turning, wash all our heartaches away

57) Somewhere in her smile she knows,
58) Shes around me now, almost all the time.

59) I thought the major was a lady suffragette
60) Say, Candy and Ronnie, have you seen them yet

61) Do I look familiar? If I don't well I should
62) And the eyes in his head, see the world spinning 'round.

63) Tear are fallin' and I feel the pain
64) I was a key that could use a little turnin'

65) Forever let me wake to see you each and every morning
66) Or the highlights in your head that catch your eyes I have been blind

67) What do you want to say, And are you just another liar
68) Give me no reasons, give me alibis

69) There is no sense in pretendin, your eyes give you give away
70) Owes a million dollars tax.

71) When you used to be nine years old
72) Just like I knew you would (knew you would wooo)

73) Come out of your half-dreamed dream
74) Then every head turned with eyes that dreamed of being the one

75) Well, how can you, you're stuck in four walls.
76) And the Kings and Queens around my room with their quiet dirty looks
77) Feel the city breakin and everybody shakin,

78) And make the best of what you've left to me, left to me, left to me
79) The telephone cant take the place of your smile
80) I've written you letters, that I'd like to send

Iran implements Obama Doctrine

What might be called the "Obama Doctrine" has emerged from Obama's recent statements on Iran: National sovereignty is sacrosanct and inviolable while human rights are negotiable. Expressing opinions about what is going in other countries and promoting one's own values is meddling. Therefore anyone who expresses opinions on what is going in Iran must be extremely circumscribed in his opinions; otherwise he crosses the line into meddling. This has obvious corollaries for news reporting and embassy staffs, and Iran has obviously taken it to heart. According to the BBC:

[...] Iranian media reported the detention of eight local staff at the UK mission over their alleged role in the unrest.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband dismissed the allegations as baseless.

Relations between the countries are strained since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the UK of stoking post-election protests, which London denies.

Iran has repeatedly accused foreign powers - especially Britain and the US - of meddling after the 12 June election, which officially handed him a decisive victory. [...]

At Iran's Press TV the release of some Embassy staff members is the headline:

Iran says certain members of the British Embassy staff in Tehran have been released after preliminary investigations but others will remain in custody.

"The British Embassy played a crucial role in the recent (post-election) unrest both through its local staff and via media," IRNA quoted Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje'i as saying on Sunday.

"We have photos and videos of certain local employees of the British Embassy, who collected news about the protests," he added.

"The Embassy sent its local staff to rallies and inculcated ideas into the protestors and the society," said the minister. [...]

Ideas! How meddlesome!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Sarah channels emo

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns... You've heard of the elephant man. He was kind of like that, he had a, well, you could say he had the head of a horse. And my heart went out to him.
I said, "Why the long face?"
He said, "'Cause all my life people have called me mean names like horses-head or Flicka or chess-piece or Trigger..."
I said, "Well, don't worry about it, Ed. It can't be that bad."

Emo Phillips

'John Kerry, why the long face?

Sarah Palin

When I first read about John Kerry's joke, I didn't think it was very funny.

But now, I think we know why Sen. Kerry went into politics, instead of stand-up. If you have to explain it, it isn't funny (via memeorandum).

Spokeswoman: "We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot. Lately it's been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven't met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor."

Actually when the explanation is unintentionally a lot funnier (and you have to check out Don's photos) than the original, maybe you're better off skipping the explanation.

The fact of the matter is liberals cannot handle strong, independent women. I remember the 2008 Democratic primary season in which Hillary Clinton was called a "ho" and worse by Barack Obama's supporters.

No, "Ed" Kerry, comedy is not pretty.

About those "settlements"

In an op-ed that is fully supportive of the administration, What a Freeze Can't Do, David Ignatius lets a little inconvenient truth slip out.

That doesn't mean any breakthroughs are imminent, however. The more the administration pressures Israel, the more concessions the Arabs seem to want.

Of course at the end of the article Ignatius writes something that requires a little expansion:

The settlements issue illustrates why the Arab-Israeli problem drives people crazy. Even if you achieve a breakthrough, there's always another snag ahead. White House officials grumble about Israeli intransigence, but they're also worried about "squishy" Arab promises and demands for preconditions. "Don't keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002," complains the senior White House official.

Let's be clear about something: All the major concrete breakthroughs have come from Israel: recognizing the PLO, ceding control of seven cities to the Palestinians in 1995, completely withdrawing from southern Lebanon and Gaza. The responses have been the strengthening the likes of Al Aqsa Martryrs Brigades, Hamas and Hezbollah, not peace.

But of course the harping on "settlements" has given the Arab world an excuse for never moving beyond "squishy" words.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

You've got me. It is the triumph of ideology over reality. And it is evidence as to just how deceitful was Obama's campaign rhetoric with regard to Israel and the Middle East. We know what he said then. It bears no resemblance to the current approach. Had he revealed his hand during the campaign certainly then-candidate Clinton, who professed to be a great friend of Israel, would have seized on the issue.

There's more to that too. Those of us who questioned how someone with Barack Obama's ideological background would be pro-Israel were regularly dismissed as misinformed, if not racist, cranks. Now President Obama's hand has been revealed. Is anyone paying attention?

Crossposted on Yourish.

The j-blogosphere this week

This week's Haveil Havalim is hosted by my friend Simply Jews and he starts if off in incomparable fashion - with an image from Not Quite Perfect, that is quite perfect for his theme. Lots of great stuff, organized topically. A great way to waste spend your Sunday, unless your wife has a really extensive "honey do" list.

Also please check out J-Pix Spring Review Edition at Leoraw's and the Kosher Cooking Carnival S. S. Mein Kind edition at the Real Shaliach - who is preparing for his upcoming wedding and still has time to do blog carnivals.

Ahmadinejad: "June 12 polls was end of liberal democracy"

I think Ahmadinejad means that "liberal democracy" is done for in the world at large. He is given to those sorts of pronouncements. "Liberal thoughts" are also kaput:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the June 12 presidential election in Iran which has promoted and strengthened the government was the end of liberal democracy and liberal thoughts.

Addressing a national gathering of judicial officials, the President said, "the Iranian nation favors dialogue and wisdom as well as constructive and cultural interaction."

Referring to the recent interference in Iran's internal affairs and insulting comments of certain Western states on Iran's dealing with rioters after the 10th presidential election in the country, President Ahmadinejad said, "From now on, we will bring you to justice at any international meeting."

"How is it possible that those whose hands were stained with the blood of innocent people, are now talking about human rights and believe that they could damage Iran's Islamic system and establishment with their hollow and satanic statements and with their propaganda against Iran's clean and humane system?"

President Ahmadinejad made the remarks commenting on the recent statements of US President Barack Obama about Iran's riots following the country's presidential election.

President Obama had said on Friday that the way that Tehran has dealt with those involved in recent riots in the country was "outrageous."

President Ahmadinejad noted that IRI does not expect a few European countries (Germany, Britain and France) to follow a logical way but it expects US President Barak Obama to be more logical.

"Americans say they wish to talk with Iran but then show such a conduct. They have no more thing to hide from other nations. They showed to the world that they have yet to change," the President said, alluding to Obama's main solgan of change.

Stressing that Iran's electoral system was one of the most popular, safest and cleanest in the world, the President termed the remarks made by his US counterpart as "far from international rules and norms and also impolite."

The president advised Western states to stop addressing the Iranian nation with impolite literature and correct their behavior.

Another IRIB article features "First Vice-President Parviz Davoodi" with the headline "Riots nerve centers located in West." Iran has developed a super-weapon which turns Western intellectuals into palm trees:

He added that the global arrogance is scared and terrified by the fact that their scholars and thinkers have grown frond of Iran's religious democracy.

The horror . . .

Meanwhile, at Press TV we learn that Ahmadinejad has added threats of retaliation to the meddling-accusations that Obama's meddling-denials evidently inspired:

Ahmadinejad downplayed Obama's slogan of change, saying his actions are at odds with his statements and went on to ask the White House to "change its tone and approach."

"If you continue your meddlesome stance, the Iranian nation's response will be crushing and regret-inducing," warned Ahmadinejad.

Oh well, Obama's good at regret.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Demilitarized State? Palestinian State vs. Pre-WWII Germany

In Demilitarized Palestinian State?, Prof. MK Arieh Eldad reacts to Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech--specifically Netanyahu's acceptance of the two-state solution that would result in a Palestinian state. Bibi accepted the idea conditionally, one of the conditions being that the state would be demilitarized.

Prof. Eldad does not find this reassuring:

The more I listened to this and said to myself that there is no such thing, I was reminded of something quite bothersome. Was there once such a state? And then one of my friends reminded me there had been.

"It will be forbidden to Germany to maintain or build fortifications... in this territory (West of the Rhine).... It is forbidden for Germany to maintain an army.... the German army will not include more than seven infantry divisions.... It is forbidden for Germany to import or export tanks or any other military hardware.... The German naval forces will be limited and are not to include submarines. The armed forces of Germany will not include any air forces.... In the political realm, Germany is forbidden to enter into any treaty with Austria."

So it was written and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, as part of the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. Essentially, Germany became a demilitarized state and was also limited from a political perspective.

So what happened? Did the "demilitarized" status prevent the Second World War and, worst of all, the destruction of European Jewry?

By 1922, an agreement between Russia and Germany had been signed in the Italian city of Rapallo. The agreement was open and met the terms of the Versailles Treaty, but the conference that prepared it was secret; and there, Soviet Russia and Germany agreed on joint establishment of weapons factories, poison gas and ammunition. German army officers were sent to Russia to be trained in the use of weapons that were forbidden to be maintained in Germany. In Germany, civilian factories were refurbished into arms factories, funded, as it were, by private individuals, not the state.

In a previous post, I wrote about an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres that explained that there is no way to legally enforce the demilitarization of a Palestinian state--even if they agree to it beforehand.

Prof. Eldad points out that there is no way to prevent the demilitarization of a Palestinian state politically either:

The lesson being that there is no political power that can prevent a sovereign state from doing whatever it wants.

Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle.

Netanyahu knows that if ever a Palestinian state should, Heaven forbid, be established, Israel will not be able to declare war on it if it should choose, for instance, to sign an international tourism agreement with Cyprus or a transfer-of-technology agreement with Iran. If pipes are manufactured in Tulkarm, Israel will not be able to start a war that can be justified in the eyes of the world if steel cutters turn the pipes into Kassam rockets. Since nothing other than Israeli force could possibly preserve demilitarization, Netanyahu is deceiving the people of Israel and promising them something that cannot be delivered.

He concludes:

Imminent? maybe. costly? for sure.

Elder of Ziyon noted on Wednesday that Israel's release of Aziz Dweik - a Hamas politician - stirred rumors that a deal for the release of Gilad Shalit is in the works. But then he noted that a Hamas politician "authorized to speak on the issue" did not know if Shalit was alive.

Today Ha'aretz is reporting that Shalit's transfer to Egypt is "imminent." (via memeorandum)

The European source said Shalit's transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria's support.

The deal would put the Gaza Strip under the leadership of a joint committee subordinate to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, removing it from the control of the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

There's a lot here that's distasteful. Ha'aretz reports that Hamas is insisting on the release of prisoners with "blood on their hands." If Syria is supporting this deal, it suggests that the American decision to restore diplomatic relations with Syria is related to this deal. Also Jimmy Carter was apparently very much involved in the transaction.

Finally, while he's far from ideal, the only Palestinian official who has shown any capacity for governing is Salam Fayyad. Removing Gaza from his authority is a sign that Hamas has won a power struggle. Abbas is wholly ineffectual. Of course this also would show that Fayyad has absolutely no power base.

I have to say that there's a lot here to be skeptical about. Certainly, if the deal as described by Ha'aretz is accurate, and Shalit is released, Israel will have, once again paid an extremely high price for the return of a soldier. Additionally the deal will strengthen the positions of Syria and Hamas, which is not good.

But Ha'aretz reminds us that:

On Tuesday Palestinian news agency Maan quoted Egyptian sources as saying that Shalit was to be transferred from the Gaza Strip into Egypt within hours, a report that Israeli sources denied.

The Astute Blogger is skeptical. Michael Goldfarb is hopeful, but I think he's wrong that it will help Netanyahu, as I wrote above it will strengthen Hamas and Syria and it will vindicate (at least in the short term) the administration's efforts to reach out to extremists.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Pre-shabbos home bake shoppe

My daughter made these decorated cookies.

OK, here's a test. I accidentally left out an ingredient from the challah on the left. What did I forget? Note that it is a lighter color and its surface is not quite as smooth as the two on the right.

I mix the ingredients by heart. I rarely make mistakes anymore, but last week I did.

For the status quo

Michael Slackman reporting from Egypt writes:

The good-news thinking goes like this: With Mr. Ahmadinejad remaining in office, there is less chance of substantially improved relations between Tehran and Washington, something America's Arab allies feared would undermine their interests. At the same time, the electoral conflict may have weakened Iran's leadership at home and abroad, forcing it to focus more on domestic stability, political analysts and former officials said.

"When Iran is strong and defiant they don't like her and when Iran is closer to the West they don't like her," said Adnan Abu Odeh, a former adviser to King Hussein of Jordan.

Of course, such an outcome could also prove to be wishful thinking, political analysts cautioned. Other power centers in Iran, from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the military, can have more influence over regional policy than the president. It is also possible that a deeply divided leadership could aim to exacerbate regional tensions to distract attention from its domestic problems.

Most of this is speculation, but later in the article we read:

The Arab governments aligned with Washington are part of a camp that has promoted an Arab peace initiative with Israel. Iran, they have charged, has worked to undermine the peace process by financing Hamas and Hezbollah and by attacking those in the peace camp. Before the elections, Iran was increasingly flexing its geopolitical muscles, often in disputes with its much smaller Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf region. A former Iranian speaker of Parliament, for example, said that Bahrain was historically part of Iran.

Now, Arab leaders are looking to regain the momentum and slow Iran's spreading power and influence, analysts said. They are also looking to use the crisis in Iran to undermine political Islam in general. The Arab world is ruled by authoritarian leaders, kings and emirs -- and its greatest challenge to legitimacy and control is political Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan.

"Opponents of the Islamist movement go far in anticipating the collapse of the Islamic revolution and the end of the Islamist movements and their political project," said Mohammad Abu Rumman, research editor at the newspaper Al Ghad in Amman. "Anticipating the failure of the revolution is an anticipation of the failure of political Islam in general."

This is - perhaps unintentionally - revealing. So the anti Tehran axis is portraying itself as pro-American, or, at least pro-American agenda. But more than that, they oppose Tehran because they see it as a threat to their survival, if not directly, then because of the political Islam it encourages.

Eric Trager learns from the official news sources in the Arab world.

Yet on the other hand, the Arab world's authoritarian regimes fear that the Iranian protests will inspire dissidents in their own countries to organize. In turn, much of the Arabic press has sought to undermine the protesters' credibility by insinuating that they are foreign agents. (Not coincidentally, state-controlled Arabic newspapers typically use the same argument against Arab pro-democratic dissidents.) For example, in today's edition of the Egyptian daily al-Ahram, the top headline on Iran reads, "Khamenei refuses to bow to opposition pressure; Iran looking to reduce relations with Britain ... and accuses America of funding the protests." This portrays the Iranian leader as a bulwark against foreign intervention - an image that resonates with the way al-Ahram typically portrays Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Michael Slackman relying on those apparently close to the leadership, presents the Arab states as an ally of the United States. But, it appears, that their own governments actually fear the reformers more than they fear Iran. So it's not at all surprising that the Washington Post reports that Arab Activists Watch Iran And Wonder: 'Why Not Us?'

Across the Arab world, Iran's massive opposition protests have triggered a wave of soul-searching and conflicting emotions. Many question why their own reform movements are unable to rally people to rise up against unpopular authoritarian regimes. In Egypt, the cradle of what was once the Arab world's most ambitious push for democracy, Iran's protests have served as a reminder of how much the notion has unraveled under President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled the country for 30 years.

"I am extremely jealous," said Nayra El Sheikh, 28, a blogger and Sharkawy's wife. "I can't help but think: Why not us? What do they have that we don't have? Do they have more guts?"

The frustration comes against a backdrop of deep-rooted skepticism among pro-democracy activists that U.S. policies under President Obama will help transform the region, despite his vow to engage the Muslim world in a highly publicized speech here last month. Some view Obama's response to Iran's protests, muted until Tuesday, as a harbinger of U.S. attitudes toward their own efforts to reform their political systems. The Egyptian government, they note, is a key American ally, and U.S. pressure on Egypt for reforms began subsiding in the last years of the Bush administration.

"When Obama does not take a stance, the very next day these oppressive regimes will regard this as a signal. This is a test for his government," said Ayman Nour, a noted Egyptian opposition politician who was recently released from jail. "If they can turn a blind eye to their enemy, they can turn a blind eye to any action here in Egypt."

I will admit to some skepticism about Arab democracy advocates as they tend to be just as anti-Israel as the current elites. However, regardless of their orientation towards Israel, they do seem to want more openness in their societies. It does not appear that encouraging greater openness and freedom is part of the Obama administration's agenda. And it's not just a concern of those of us who disagree with him, even the editors of the Washington Post, who endorsed him, wonder.

Does instapundit want to kill us all?

In a post about Michael Jackson, Instapundit writes:

One day, everyone will have a built-in IED ...

I know it's a typo, but it's a heck of a typo!

Is that what Peter Gabriel meant by "My heart was going boom boom boom ..."

UPDATE: I guess that Instapundit wasn't amusedl he's changed IEd to ICD, with no explanation.