February 9, 2010
Council speak 02/09/10
Don't be in denial check the Watcher's Council's latest winners!
Winning Council Submissions
- First place with 2 1/3 points! - Mere Rhetoric - Yahoo Wipes "Ariel, Israel" Off The Map, Replaces It With "Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories"
- Second place with 2 points - Bookworm Room-Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America's religious freedoms *UPDATED*
Winning Non-Council Submissions
- First place with 2 points! - Atlas Shrugs - From Himmler with Love: "His Eminence, the Grand Mufti, In Remembrance"
- Second place with 1 2/3 points - Pamela Geller @ Big Government - Obama Recruiting Radicals in High Schools
- Second place with 1 2/3 points - Plumb Bob Blog - A New Political Term: Debt Reduction
Congratulations to all the winners!
To see a complete list of Council entries see here.
For more Watcher's Council, check out the National Journal's latest blogger poll. At this point, I don't believe that the Republicans will take the House. JoshuaPundit disagrees.
Jewish baltimore blogging
If you're interested in finding about Orthodox Jewish Baltimore, there's a new site JewishByte that has the community covered. Created and maintained by AJ Bulua, JewishByte keeps up with community events and issues. Many posts are illustrated with photographs. (The closeup up of a shoveled sidewalk - I think - is quite impressive.)
He's also graciuosly invited me to contribute and has published my first submission.
Keep up the great work.
Jewish blogging this week
On my recent trip to Israel, I had the pleasure of meeting Snoopy the Goon who took me to the stalactite cave near Bet Shemesh. This week he hosts the latest edition of Haveil Havalim. He included two of my posts and lots of great stuff from Fresno Zionism, The Augean Stables, The Texas Scribbler and lots more. Great eclectic stuff!
February 8, 2010
I'm m-e-e-lt-i-n-g
This wasn't so difficult. The icicle was melting pretty quickly and new droplets were forming in quick succession. I didn't have to time the shot, I just had to click, and was pretty much assured of catching a drop dripping. (or is that a drip dropping?)
Crossposted on Yourish.
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow
One interesting aspect of a large snowfall is the way the snow layers itself. Somehow it even can create a fabric like texture. Look at the way the snow drapes itself over the edge of this roof.
I zoomed on this "fabric;" it came out even better than I realized.
This is the same overhang; with the one on the left zoomed in.
 |  |
It's also interesting how the snow layered itself on trees.
And here's a "snow turtle."
I wanted a patch of undisturbed snow. Funny but when I took the picture, I didn't pay much attention to the sun.
Goldstone vs Groucho
I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member
On the other hand, it is interesting to note what groups Judge Richard Goldstone is a member of. After all, we are constantly being reminded that Goldstone is Jewish and a Zionist--though considering the broad range of people who support the Goldstone Report, it would be interesting to note their differing interpretations of just what that term means.
In Arguments "Ad Hominem" and 'By Ethnic Identify" in Defense of Goldstone Report, Alan Dershowitz notes:
Even before the Goldstone Report was released, Richard Goldstone was arguing for its credibility by invoking his Jewishness, his Zionism, his daughter's residence in Israel and his connection to Hebrew University. It was the mirror image of the classic fallacy known as the argument ad hominem, which is defined as follows: A substantive argument should not be rejected solely because of who has offered it.
It follows of course from this fallacy that an argument should also not be accepted because of who offered it.
A close relative of the ad hominem fallacy is what I have called "the argument by ethnic identity," which I have defined as follows: An anti-Israel argument is made stronger if offered by a Jew. ("See, even a Jews agrees that...)
...The Goldstone report should be rejected on its demerits. The added fact that it was authored by a Jew -- selected precisely because he is a Jew with aspirations to be honored by the international community -- should diminish, rather than increase, its credibility.
But even putting aside the claim that the Goldstone Report is unimpeachable because Goldstone is a Jew and a Zionist, there is the issue of Judge Goldstone's associations--associations that are all the more pertinent because he and his supporters have made his background an issue from the very beginning.
Recently, New Israel Fund (NIF) has come under intense scrutiny in Israel because so many of the groups it funds lent support to the composing of the Goldstone Report. But putting that issue aside, there is another point that is made by Im Tirtzu, the group that broke the story on NIF's associations:
"To our great surprise," [Ronen] Shoval [Chairman of Im Tirtzu], said, "we found that three organizations that Goldstone is a member of are patently anti-Israeli ones."
One such organization is the International Center for Transitional Justice, which accuses Israel in its website of grave violations of international law, including 'extrajudicial executions, prolonged administrative detention, torture, forced displacement (often repeated), extensive property confiscation and destruction, movement restrictions, and collective punishment, much of this within the framework of a four-decade-long occupation.'"
Goldstone has been a member of the ICTJ's Board of Directors since 2004. Shoval added that Goldstone is a signatory on a document issued by ICTJ six months before he was appointed to head the famous UN committee of inquiry, in which the ICTJ expresses "shock at the crimes against civilians" in Operation Cast Lead. The group received $7.5 million from the Ford Foundation in 2006-7.
In addition, Shoval charged, Goldstone is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Human Rights, which accused Israel of war crimes before the Goldstone Report was issued. It, too, is funded by the Ford Foundation.
As exposed by Professor Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor, Goldstone was also a member of the Board of Directors of a third group, Human Rights Watch as late as July 2008. The organization accused Israel of war crimes well before the Goldstone Commission was appointed. HRW also receives hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from the Ford Foundation.
To his credit, Goldstone did resign from the board of Human Rights Watch--after NGO Monitor pointed out the clear conflict of interest. However, there is no indication the Goldstone ever resigned from the other 2 groups.
One could argue that Goldstone's membership is one such anti-Israel group is not necessarily an indication of where Goldstone stands on the issue of Israel and its fight against terrorism, but the fact that Goldstone belonged to 3 such groups, did not come to the conclusion on his own to distance himself from any of these groups--that indicates a lack of objectivity and of sensitivity to what his position as head of the commission required.
Is it any wonder that Goldstone defended Christine Chinkin from charges of bias based on her signing an open letter accusing Israel of war crimes? To have admitted bias in that case would have rendered his own position as head of the group questionable as well.
Judge Goldstone is free to be a member of any group he sees fit--but his membership in those 3 groups and his clear statement of his position on Israel's Operation Cast Lead in advance of his being appointed to head the fact-finding commission, renders his judgement questionable. This is especially true when his supporters lavish praise on his judiciary career.
Groucho Marx is quoted as having said:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
And whatever else one may say about the Goldstone Report, it is all about politics.
by Daled Amos
Human Rights Watch Has No Sense Of Irony
The growing harshness of attacks by Israeli government officials on nongovernmental organizations poses a real threat to civil society in Israel, Human Rights Watch said today.
The most recent attacks center on the New Israel Fund (NIF), which supports a wide range of Israeli civil rights and social welfare organizations, including some that provided information to the United Nations fact-finding mission under Justice Richard Goldstone that investigated abuses by both sides in last year's Gaza conflict.
"What we're seeing in Israel is a greater official intolerance of dissent," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "One of Israel's outstanding strengths has been its vibrant civil society and its flourishing public debate, so these developments are particularly worrying." ..."The government's encouragement of attacks on NIF and Breaking the Silence should not be seen as aberrant or in isolation," said Whitson. "A clear pattern of official efforts to suppress voices critical of government policy is emerging."-
It all started in May when the Arab News reported on a delegation from Human Rights Watch visiting Saudi Arabia where they were given a 'welcoming dinner' in Riyadh:
HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on Israel violating human rights and international law during its war on Gaza earlier this year."Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions. "US President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel and the Hamas authorities in Gaza to cooperate with the United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza. The mission will be headed by the reputable Justice Richard Goldstone."
At the dinner, Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW's International Board of Directors, requested funding for the group.
In June, David Bernstein wrote about what Human Rights Watch was doing recently in Saudi Arabia:
A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations."[emphasis added]
Jeffrey Goldberg picked up on the story in the Atlantic and notes that Whitson wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal rebutting Berstein's claim that while in Saudi Arabia, HRW said "not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country." What Whitson does not address, however, is the accusation that she tried "to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's 'battles' with the 'pro-Israel pressure groups'?"
Goldberg wrote to Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch to find out if that particular claim was true. After exchanging numerous messages with Roth in search of a straight answer, Roth finally responded:
That's certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn't a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story--part of that pitch--is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.
Goldberg, who also writes that "I'm not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel," concludes:
In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity. [emphasis added]
Back at The Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein has blogged about reaction to his Wall Street Journal article--which started out as a post on the blog--Bernstein takes a slightly softer approach:
I'd put it differently then Goldberg. There's no evidence that HRW's pursuit of dollars has compromised its integrity, at least not yet. Rather, HRW's pursuit of dollars has starkly revealed the underlying biases that it previously has denied having. But really, anyone who has been paying attention shouldn't be surprised that HRW's credibility onIsrael-related issues approaches zero. [emphasis added]
One thing seems certain, HRW seems incapable of rational discourse on the topic of Israel when they should be doing their utmost to present an image of neutrality.Not all NGOs go to Saudi Arabia to make their pitch for funding, but from the report below from NGO Monitor (available as a Word document), it is clear that the funding of these NGOs--a number of them based in Israel--rely to an enormous degree on foreign countries, resulting in these NGOs being nothing more than foreign agents who know exactly what they need to say in order to keep the money coming.
It is all very well for HRW to lecture about tolerance of dissent, but Israel is under no obligation to tolerate dissent-for-hire, neither from Human Rights Watch nor anybody else.
UPDATE: Evelyn Gordon notes that apparently, those reacting against Israel's investigation into NIF believe that
it is critical for the NIF and other groups with similar views to promote these twin canards: that freedom of information -- i.e., shedding light on what they actually do -- constitutes "incitement," which is legally suppressible, and that freedom of speech requires funding even speech you oppose. For unless they can either suppress knowledge of just what speech they are enabling or convince donors that liberal values require funding such speech even if they oppose it, their own funding is liable to be endangered.
It is understandable that NIF and some of its supporters would criticize the scrutiny that NIF now finds itself--as Gordon notes:
Freedom of speech means letting people or groups say what they please without fear of prosecution. It does not require anyone to help them do so by giving them money. The minute you donate to a group, you are not just "supporting its right" to speak; you are supporting the content of its speech. After all, the NIF doesn't fund Im Tirtzu; does that mean it doesn't support Im Tirtzu's right to speak?
The problem for the NIF is that many donors might not support this particular content. Indeed, the Forward reported that when the NIF sought statements of support from other major Jewish groups, only three had complied as of February 3: Americans for Peace Now, J Street, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
It is the search for these facts that Human Rights Watch is so quick to label dissent.
February 5, 2010
Paralyzing, crippling, reh-c-o-o-r-d brea-ay-ay-king storm
Here's AccuWeather's dispassionate report on the storm currently blowing through Baltimore. (h/t Meryl)
It's not just the black ice. It's not just the drifting. Current predictions are running between 20 and 30 inches - or possibly more. If this snow fall reaches 30 inches combined with December's record breaking snowfall and assorted smaller storms, this winter will challenge for the snowiest in Baltimore (and Maryland) history.
According to this listing, the record snowfall for a Baltimore winter was 62.5 inches in 1996, which surpassed the previous records 52 inches in 1963-4 and 51.1 inches in 1899.
In case you didn't get enough snow pictures the other night, here are a few new ones.
Here's a hackneyed shot of a grill covered by snow. I wonder what it will look like tomorrow
Here's a close up of an icy yew.
And here are our cars. How much of them will be visible Sunday morning?
What do my mother and todd palin have in common?
Their spouses have both gone rogue.
My father's new Nissan Rogue.
171 - 176
Season 8 of 24 is upon us and Jamie has the lowdown on the latest episode.
Let's do a rundown of some of the character so far.
Brian Hastings - The director of CTU New York. He seems to be very much a political creature in the mold of George Mason. He looked really slimy asking Ortiz to fudge his responses if there was an investigation.
One of the (many) implausibilities of 24 is that a higher authority would review the procedures of a subordinate one during an ongoing operation. Hastings' request may have been slimy, but given how little there was to go on, his approach wasn't unreasonable. (It was wrong, but we, the audience knew that because he disagreed with Chloe; but his premise was as reasonable and speculative as hers.) For an organization like CTU to be subject to instantaneous reviews is unreasonable and counterproductive. He differed from Mason only in that he admitted to Chloe that she was right!
Dana Walsh - If Hastings is Mason reincarnated, Dana appears to be Lyn McGill reincarnated. Like McGill she has a huge vulnerability in her personal life. McGil's sister was a junkie. That led to his mugging and eventual death in an attack on CTU in season 5. Dana because of her past seems to be in a similar position. And while she has apparently now been caught in the act, I wonder if she still has a plan for turning the tables on Kevin. Or will her being compromised be the source of an attack on CTU New York?
And there's a general quesiton about CTU New York: In every of year of 24, (except for season 3) there was a traitor and/or attack on CTU. (In season 3, the traitors were really unercover good guys.) Last year there were two traitors in the FBI. Aside from Dana, who else is a mole in CTU? My guess is Arlo.
And how did Dana hide her past in order to get a clearance. We had the same thing with Kim Bauer who injured a policeman as she and her boyfriend avoided (a mistaken) arrest for murder in Season 2. How does a top secret organizaiton like CTU miss these obvious problems?
President Hassan - A noble (or apparently noble) but flawed character. It's interesting that President Taylor is putting pressure on him to go easy on his disloyal opposition. His position is untenable. He's way out in front of much of his country, but he needs to be firm. Liquidating opponents may not appeal to the West, but it might be the only way for him to survive. Still if he ends up torturing his UN ambassador on American soil (not really, it would be in the privacy of his consulate), I can't see how President Taylor will continue to stand by him.
Returning characters:
Chloe O'Brian - Bill Buchanan's immortal line still holds:
Chloe, we're in an active code. We don't have time for your personality disorder, you understand me?
Jack Bauer- OK he's back. We knew that would happen. But still his recovery has an air of "She turned me into a newt ..... I got better."
Kim Bauer - Still annoying; though her daughter is adorable.
President Taylor - She still hasn't grown on me. She's too idealistic. But her divorce from Henry makes sense. It was clear that he disapproved of her decision to allow Olivia to be arrested. Nice touch to make Ethan Kanin Secretary of State. He wouldn't be the first to be both chief of staff and Secretary of State. James Baker had both jobs. (I see that he was also Secretary of Defense in Season 6. So he was SecDef for Democrat Wayne Palmer and had the other two positions for Republican Allison Taylor.)
Renee Walker - There's a theme in 24 that there's a karmic payback for everything Jack does. Sure Jack saves the day, but everyone around him dies. Several characters say this to Jack's face. Last season it was Larry Moss's turn. He added something else:
Renee will not end up like you.
Moss was defending his (ex-)girlfriend. But in Season 8, it picks up and Renee is just like Jack. Remeber the disheveled Jack at the beginning of Season 2? That's Renee now. She lost her (ex-)boyfriend. She got some measure of revenge, but lost her job for getting it. Last year, every step of the way until the end, Renee fought being like Jack. When someone she had guaranteed protection too dies, Renee blamed Jack. When she had to hold a woman and her baby hostage she detested the job. But now Renee is Jack. She has ended up like him.
Actually she's worse than him. Jack may not be able to control everything, but under Vlad's command, Renee is powerless. Even when Marwan Habib had him shackled to the wall, Jack was not powerless.
One thing about Renee's character that doesn't quite make sense is that last year she was reluctant to adopt Jack's methods. Now we learn that before last year she was undercover with the Russian mob. In order to survive it's inconceiveable that she did everything by the book when she was undercover. This new backstory undermines her operational innocence last year.
We're only a quarter way through season 8 and it is shaping up very well. Here's a nice essay on 24's storytelling. And in these two posts Gregg Easterbrook has fun with some of 24's implausibilities.
February 4, 2010
Goldstone is the result of 40 years of the perversion of international law
Not only has Israel prepared a defense of its conduct during Cast Lead in response to the Goldstone Report, so, too, has Hamas. Jonathan Dahohah Halevi writes:
Hamas' line of defence vis-à-vis the Goldstone report has been shaped by a group of Palestinian jurists headed by Diya Al-Din Muhsin Al-Madhoun, former legal adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas Prime Minister) and today chairman of the Tawtheeq (documentation) organization that was the key factor assigned by Hamas' government, on which the Goldstone committee relied for sources of information in its fact finding mission. In series of interviews to the media, Madhoun elaborated as follows Hamas' main legal arguments of its would be response to the Goldstone report assumed to be delivered in the near future to the UN secretary general.
The bottom line is that Hamas claims - without accepting the 1947 UN partition resolution - that Israel has no right to be anywhere not designated for the Jewish state by the 1947 UN partition resolution, and that therefore it has no right of self defense.
Elder of Ziyon noted earlier on that this necessarily skewed the Goldstone report as the commission was taking testimony from Hamas itself.
The following two items from Jonathan Halevi though are worth noting.
The armed struggle is legitimate Madhoun asserts that all historic Palestine is an occupied land and that the international law legitimizes the right of self defence and resistance of the Palestinian people, who are living under 61 years of occupation. Therefore, Madhoun argues that "resistance operations conducted by the Palestinian resistance organizations, including launching rockets and mortar shells at the occupying Zionist forces, and all other military operations, are legitimate according the international law under the principle of defending our people and liberating our occupied land."Israel has no right for self defence
Madhoun entirely rebuts Israel's claim for self defence arguing that it constitutes a grave violation of the Palestinian people's right for self defence as reflected in its armed struggle to liberate the land of Palestine. And in his words (translated from Arabic): "the war against Gaza was illegitimate... as the international law rules that there isn't legitimate defence [of the occupier] against the legitimate defence [of the occupied] embodied in the defence through struggle."
This unfortunately is the result of decades of corruption in the UN. The late Jeane Kirkpatrick noted 20 years ago in How the PLO was legitimized:
NOT long after Khrushchev articulated these distinctions, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted them. Where the Charter permitted force by member states only to defend themselves against attack, GA Resolution 2708 XX (1970) created a new category of "legitimate" force which could be used against member states. This new right was confirmed in subsequent resolutions approving the struggle of "liberation" groups against "colonialism" by "all necessary means at their disposal." Step by step the new doctrine was codified in the General Assembly. In 1970, with U.S. and Western support, the General Assembly adopted the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Nations" which further expanded the rights of "peoples" and restricted those of states by providing, inter alia, that "all peoples have the right freely to determine without external influences their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."
Moreover: "Every state has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peopIe ... of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against resistance to such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter" (emphasis added).
With this declaration, the General Assembly, more clearly and unambiguously than ever, took the position not only that "peoples" had rights superior to those of member states, but that states resisting the rights of "peoples" could themselves become a "threat to peace." The General Assembly thus subordinated the principle of the "sovereign inviolability" of states to the struggle of "peoples" against "colonialism" and put important new restrictions on the right of states to selfdefense.
The UN - at the time recalled above, under the influence of the Soviet Union - has been twisting international law to empower terrorists. The Goldstone report is the product of this perversion of law and order orchestrated by the very organization that was supposed to build the foundations of world peace.
What should international law look like? Prof. Asa Kasher:
•We in Israel are in a key position in the development of customary international law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.
Will the West realize that its success in dealing with continued threats means taking a stand and defending Israel against international organizations dedicated to its destruction?
Crossposted on Yourish.
Submitted 02/04/10
This week's Watcher's council nominees are UP!
JoshuaPundit focuses on the Obama administration's failure to deal with Iran; Wolf Howling outlines its anti-terror failures. Colossus of Rhodey suggests that a form of amnesia or denial has been behind these failures.
The Glittering Eye argues that all recent administrations have failed to deal with the country's economic problems.
Bookworm Room argues that separation of church and state is being mis-applied by critics of religious conservatives. Rhymes with Right makes a surprising point about pregnant women who are irresponsible.
The Provocateur produces an e-mail sent by Dr. Anna Chacko revealing her future plans.
Right Truth thinks that the Republicans mis-handled their Q & A with President Obama.
American Digest produces a photo and poem.
Mere Rhetoric shows how Yahoo! has polticized its weather reports. And I show how how Judge Goldstone ignored evidence that he himself cited.
On the non-council side, my nominee, Daled Amos shows how the New York Times failed to understand the Gaza War and now strives to teach children its own ignorance.
Read. Enjoy. Be informed.
Recent jewish blogging carnivals
First of all let me congratulate Batya on the 50th edition of the Kosher Cooking Carnival. One aspect of blogging is creating a community, nothing does that better than running a carnival. And while it may not be appreciated, it takes a lot of persistence and work to keep things together. 50 monthly carnivals means that she's been doing this for more than 4 years which is eons in blog years. That's both rare and well done.
Recent editions of Haveil Havalim have included #254 at the Israel Situation that includes a moving tribute to the mother of NY's Funniest Rabbi; #253 at the Real Shaliach that had many Israel/Haiti links; #252 is a wonderfully captioned masterpiece by administrator Jack; and #251 at Ima on and off the Bima, which starts off with a momentous event in the life a blogger.
February 3, 2010
Cairo nostalgia
David Ignatius wrote two weeks ago that the message of President Obama's Cairo speech is as important as ever. Specifically:
But in truth, the strategy that Obama proposed in Cairo is more important now than ever. Critics speak as if peacemaking and battling Muslim extremism should be seen as an either/or proposition. What Obama understood a year ago is that the two are linked. The best way to undercut extremists in Iran or al-Qaeda is to make progress on issues that matter to the Muslim world. Guns alone won't do it; if it were otherwise, the Israelis would have battled their way to peace long ago.
Except consider Israel's experience. Israeli withdrew from six Palestinian cities in late 1995 and two months later was hit with series of suicide attacks. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 only to face a Hezbollah buildup and war in 2006. And Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led to sustained rocket attacks on southern Israel and eventually a war with Hamas a year ago.
On the other hand, since Operation Defensive Shield and the building of the anti-terror wall, attacks from Judea and Samaria against Israel have decreased sharply.
In other words, recent history shows that fighting back, does help reduce terror. Peace making doesn't have such a good record.
At the time of the Cairo speech Barry Rubin wrote:
While Obama might have said it in a different way, his words echo those of the last five American presidents. In the way he argues, however, Obama reveals his weakness in dealing with these issues. First he says--and this sounds wonderful to Western ears:"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed," citing the American civil rights' movement as example. This sounds noble but it is silly because it ignores the social and ideological context.
Fatah believes it got control of the West Bank and leadership of the Palestinian people through violence and killing. Hamas in Gaza; Hizballah and Syria in Lebanon; and Iran's Islamist regime as well as the Muslim Brotherhoods believe that "resistance" works.
From the standpoint of Palestinian leaders, violence and killing are not failures. Moreover, violence and killing are commensurate with the goal of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian leadership, which is total victory. Their main alternative "peaceful" strategy is the demand--shared by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas--that pretty much all Palestinians who wish to do so must be allowed to live in Israel. A formula for more violence and killing.
For David Ignatius, addressing the grievances of the Muslim world is a prerequisite for peace. Experience has shown otherwise - prioritizing those grievances hardens the positions of the West's Islamic enemies.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Snowy night
Available light
Flash and zoom
Flash and no magnification
Not quite the density of a previous snow picture and still one of my most popular posts.
Settled science
The Lancet retracts a paper that claims that vaccines cause autism.
A prominent British medical journal on Tuesday retracted a 1998 research paper that set off a sharp decline in vaccinations in Britain after the paper's lead author suggested that vaccines could cause autism.The retraction by The Lancet is part of a reassessment that has lasted for years of the scientific methods and financial conflicts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who contended that his research showed that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine may be unsafe.
Included in Dr. Wakefield's malfeasances was a conflict of interest.
But an investigation by a British journalist found financial and scientific conflicts that Dr. Wakefield did not reveal in his paper. For instance, part of the costs of Dr. Wakefield's research were paid by lawyers for parents seeking to sue vaccine makers for damages. Dr. Wakefield was also found to have patented in 1997 a measles vaccine that would succeed if the combined vaccine were withdrawn or discredited.
Sound like anyone we know?
In this case, though, the way Gore makes that money is not quite the old fashioned way. (Although, in the sense of the world's oldest profession, it is.) Here is how it works.Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.
Step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.
Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.
Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.
Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.
With the latest revelations about collecting data to "prove" global warming, when will responsible scientists, journalists and politicians start admitting that the rubes were right all along?
And when will the Lancet retract its Palestinian wife beating paper?
Let's also remember that bad science can kill.
Meanwhile, Britain's child vaccination rates had plummeted to below 70% in some areas, down from more than 90% in the mid-1990s. The country has since suffered waves of measles outbreaks. In 1998 England and Wales had 56 cases; by 2008 the number was 1,370. In 2006, the first British child died of measles in more than a decade.
