Soccer Dad

350 Page Report Debunks Goldstone Claim Hamas Didn't Use Human Shields Or Mosques

A new 350 page report debunks the Goldstone Report and its findings on the use of human shields and mosques by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF.

The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

The IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) cooperated with the report's authors and declassified hundreds of photographs, videos, prisoner interrogations and Hamas-drawn sketches as part of an effort to counter the criticism leveled at Israel in the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report.

...The report points to four basic flaws in the Goldstone Report: It does not deal with the nature of Hamas - its terrorist aspects and ideology; it minimizes the gravity of the terrorist attacks against Israel, focusing on rocket fire during the six months before Operation Cast Lead while devoting little space to the rocket and mortar fire that began in 2001; it does not deal with the Hamas military buildup in the Gaza Strip in the year preceding Cast Lead that threatened Israel, but at the same time did provide extensive historical coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and it ignored the role Iran and Syria play in Gaza by aiding Hamas and supplying it with explosives and weaponry.

A copy of the report can be found here [PDF].

Here is the introduction to the report (all emphasis in the original):

March, 2010

Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip 

The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings 

-------------------------------------------------------

Introduction: main findings

1. This document provides the main findings of a study which examined how the Goldstone Report dealt with the nature and activities of Hamas in the Gaza Strip before and during Operation Cast Lead.

2. The first part of the study examines how the Report relates to the terrorist threat as it developed in the Gaza Strip in the years before Operation Cast Lead. The subsequent parts deal with the various aspects of Hamas' strategy and combat tactics during the operation, emphasizing the massive use it made of Gazan civilians as human shields. The study does not deal with specific cases of IDF actions, which the IDF has examined separately.

3. The study compares the findings of the Goldstone Report with the actual events on the ground. It is supported by a vast amount of reliable, varied information which originated in the Israeli intelligence community, as well as open-source information, including statements made by Hamas elements.

4. The comparison clearly indicates four basic flaws in the way the Goldstone Report relates to the period before Operation Cast Lead:

Drunk on his own eloquence

In Driving Drunk in Jerusalem Thomas Friedman warns PM Netanayahu:

In sum, there may be a real opportunity here -- if Netanyahu chooses to seize it. The Israeli leader needs to make up his mind whether he wants to make history or once again be a footnote to it.

What opportunity?

This whole fracas also distracts us from the potential of this moment: Only a right-wing prime minister, like Netanyahu, can make a deal over the West Bank; Netanyahu's actual policies on the ground there have helped Palestinians grow their economy and put in place their own rebuilt security force, which is working with the Israeli Army to prevent terrorism; Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are as genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find; Hamas has halted its attacks on Israel from Gaza; with the Sunni Arabs obsessed over the Iran threat, their willingness to work with Israel has never been higher, and the best way to isolate Iran is to take the Palestinian conflict card out of Tehran's hand.

His description of Abbas and Fayyad as "genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find" underscores a problem. I don't think that guys who are burning Israeli products are that serious about a solution. But more importantly, they're about as moderate as the PA comes and thus have no real power. Hamas has halted its attacks, but that's been due to Cast Lead. But finally we get to Friedman's analysis of the Sunni Arabs. Well if Iran is so important to them, why don't they become more concilliatory towards Israel? (In fact, what's going on in Israel may be of less importance to them than Friedman thinks.)

When you read Friedman's recommendations for the Middle East, recall that he predicted that once Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah would lay down its arms as it would no longer have any grievance against Israel. That worked out really well didn't it?

As for Friedman's contention:

Biden -- a real friend of Israel's -- was quoted as telling his Israeli interlocutors: "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and endangers regional peace."

Mere Rhetoric has the particulars about Biden's pro-Israel credentials.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Fanning the flames

The Obama administration continued to turn up the pressure on Israel yesterday, sending political director David Axelrod onto the Sunday talk shows. (via memeorandum) As Axelrod said to Jake Tapper:

The issue, Axelrod said, is a "flare point throughout the region" and puts U.S. interests at risk. "It is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue," Axelrod said.

Meanwhile, the PA, Israel's "peace partners" are calling for Arabs to defend "al Aqsa" (via memeorandum)

Top Fatah official and holder of the Jerusalem portfolio Khatem Abd el-Kader called Palestinians on Sunday to "converge on al Aksa to save it" from what he called "Israeli attempts to destroy the mosque and replace it with the [Jewish] temple." Khader was speaking ahead of a dedication of a renovated synagogue in the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, planned to take place Tuesday.

He called Israel's renovation of the Hurva Synagogue a "provocation" and warned Israel that it was "playing with fire."

If the administration thought that putting pressure on Israel was the way to bring peace to the Middle East, it was terribly wrong. All it is doing is encouraging its (and Israel's) enemies.

Heckuva job.

An Annotated List Of Islamist Attacks Around The Globe In 2009

180

24 has had a series of characters who seemingly have no real purpose but act as plot devices.

Until Season 8, seemingly the worst of these was Erin Driscoll, the head of CTU LA in Season 4 for the first half. Driscoll was bland (though she rescued Jack after he was arrested for holding up a gas station) and the subplot was progressed interminably. The whole point to Driscoll was to put off the Tony/Michelle reunion until the second half of the season. Introducing that dynamic too early wouldn't have worked.

Season 4 also introduced (and dispatched) Paul Raines, Audrey's (sort of ex-)husband. Amazingly he was both a real estate mogul and a software wiz. Thus he could be a red herring bad guy (and get tortured, but forgive Jack) then run off to expose a corrupt defense contractor and, finally, protect Jack. The unbelievable combination of talents suggest that he was invented to fill a number of roles, not to be real person. James Frain, however, did a great job in this thankless role.

In Season 5, the plot device character was the hobbit, Lyn McGill. On one hand he brilliantly saves a rescue mission by realizing that Jack was using an obsolete code word. On the other hand in a fit of mind numbing stupidity gets mugged and allows a deadly infiltration of CTU. I guess both events had to happen, but that the same person who could be so brilliant in the former and stupid in the latter absolutely boggles the mind.

Season 8, the plot device character is Dana Walsh. Up until the last episode it appeared that her role was to distract Cole long enough to allow Jack to take over the operation. Well she and Cole returned to CTU and she apologizes to Hastings, assures him that she won't be stupid again, then leaves and promptly answers a cell call from an unknown number at 2:30 AM in the middle of a national security crisis. (CTU, I would assume is a top secret operation, the idea that its employees can talk on unmonitored personal cell phones makes no sense. Certainly they couldn't just allow anyone know where they're located.) I have a feeling that her meeting with the "parole officer" will lead to tragedy. Hopefully she'll get offed. (Though that would not be a tragedy.)

One of the rules about 24 is that characters portrayed in a physical relationship die. (Or something bad happens to them: Olivia went to jail last season. The weaselly reporter was shut up.) The only person who seems to survive physical relationships unscathed is the indestructable assassin, Mandy. So it was clear that Tarin and Kayla would not end well. I had guessed that she was the surprise bad guy; oh well.

Still two things from the last episode puzzle me. After CTU realized that their video feed was compromised they cut it off. So the only way the bad guys knew that Marcos had chickened was visually. And yet Jack didn't order a sweep of nearby buildings to look for them. The other thing is what is the chance that a low level operative like Markos would know that the identity of the top guy?

Finally, when Jack tells Marcos that he's an ex-Federal agent, did it remind anyone of SNL's classic "Ex-police" skit?

Here are a couple of reviews of the latest.

'Diaspora' Palestinians Copy Jewish-Agency

Apparently their goal is not your father's Palestinian state:

Jewish-Agency-style 'Palestine Network' launched in Bethlehem

Palestinians from 23 countries organize to build a "sustainable, democratic, secular" Palestinian state.

...The state of Palestine does not exist; the courts are still not working, local government has numerous problems, not to mention health care, education and infrastructure. Representatives of Palestinian communities abroad have come to Bethlehem to kick off the independent "Palestine Network."

"Welcome to your second home," announces Ramzi Khoury, executive director of the Palestine Network. "You are representatives from 23 countries who have chosen to be engaged in building this Palestinian state and not just talking about it. This is a do tank, rather than a talk tank. This is not a political club."

Of the estimated 10 million Palestinians living today, at least half live in what Palestinians call its diaspora - away from the region. According to Khoury, the Palestine Network is establishing chapters across the world that will serve as a conduit for professionals, entrepreneurs and intellectuals to lay the foundations for a Palestinian state.

"If you want to build a democratic state, you need to tackle all the sectors of that state," Khoury says. "So doctors need to come down here and revamp our health system, engineers need to come here and help us build, lawyers and judges need to come and help us create an independent judiciary and a state of law, and we need educators."

The Palestine Network is not just another charity or source of funding. The Palestinians have many economic backers. In 2008, global financial aid to the Palestinian Authority exceeded $2 billion, including about $526 million from Arab countries, $651m. from the European Union, $300m. from the US and about $238m. from the World Bank, according to the Arab League's 2009 economic report.

The founding conference, sponsored by the governments of Germany and Belgium, was held in the opulent Convention Center on the outskirts of Bethlehem, hub of Palestinian culture and tourism.

The network's goal is to use expertise from Palestine's diaspora communities to develop the local economy, judiciary, education and health infrastructures in what will be the future state.

I thought this was interesting:

The Palestinians are the first to admit they have borrowed from the Israeli experience, which set up the Jewish Agency to build Israel.

"It is a model, why not," Khoury says. "It was a network like this that established the Jewish-state idea. What they did is create all the programs on the ground to bring in Jews into Palestine and create the infrastructure that is still needed for the State of Israel today.

"Today there are many networks out there which are there to support Israel," he continues. "Some of them are left-leaning, others are right-leaning. You find them clashing and arguing and they are not harmonious. But at the end of the day they are there to support Israel... and this is what Palestine needs."

Yeah, he'll learn.

Read the whole thing.

Also, check out the video from The Media Line News Agency

Considering their declared goal of a secular democratic Palestinian state, the Palestine Network may very well find their greatest opposition coming not from Israel, but from the leadership of their own people.

UPDATE: The fact that Palestine Network copies the Jewish Agency does not mean that they recognize the history behind the Jewish Agency and the Jewish state.

The Palestinians are the first to admit they have borrowed from the Israeli experience, which set up the Jewish Agency to build Israel.

"It is a model, why not," [executive director Ramzi] Khoury says. "It was a network like this that established the Jewish-state idea. What they did is create all the programs on the ground to bring in Jews into Palestine and create the infrastructure that is still needed for the State of Israel today.

Actually, Mr. Khoury, the idea of a Jewish state dates back to over 3,000 years before the Jewish Agency--going back to the Torah.

But if Khoury limits the comparison between Jewish and Arab Palestinian nationalism, there are those who will bend over backwards to find parallels. In If I Am Not For Myself, Ruth Wisse writes:

The symmetry between Arabs and Jews that Amos Oz is still a little embarrassed to introduce, except by way of leading questions, is taken by Grossman as the premise of his chronicle The Yellow Wind. He devotes all his artistic powers to equating the moral energy of the Arab desire for Palestine with the Jews' age-old longing for Zion. When a sixteen-year old Arab girl talks to him about the city of Lod, "where the sky was always blue," he does not remind her that she is sitting only a few miles away but translates her nationalism into a Jewish longing:

I remembered the wistful lines of Yehuda Halevy, "The taste of your sand--more pleasant to my mouth than honey," and Bialik, who sang to the land which "the spring eternally adorns," how wonderfully separation beautifies the beloved, and how strange it is, in the barrenness of the gray cement of [the Arab refugee camp] Deheisha, to hear sentences so full of lyric beauty, words spoken in a language more exalted than the everyday, poetic but of established routine, like a prayer or an oath: "And the tomatoes there were red and big, and everything came to us form the earth, and the earth gave us and gave us more."

Grossman does not even pay attention to his own evidence: the contrast between Yehuda Halevy who is prepared to find the sand as sweet as honey and the Arabs who imagine the land that they don't possess to be more magically fertile than the land they actually cultivate. It does not occur to him to ask why, if there is such symmetry in the nature of Jewish and Arab "longing," Arabs should now be in possession of 250,000 squarer miles while the Jews have a mere 8,000, which Arabs still clamor to conquer. He is determined to prove equivalence--between the Arab boy playing on a comb and the fabled Jewish fiddler on the roof, between the Arab grandmother and his own Jewish bobenyu. One might ask why Grossman should travel among Arabs at all when they are so undifferentiated from the folks back home, but that would able to miss the political purpose of the book of which establishing perfect symmetry between Arab and Jew is but a first necessary step.

[Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

But if there are Jews who yearn for parallels between Jewish and Palestinian aspirations, Palestinians are having none of it:

The U.S. government, via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has provided support for a glossy 39-page "Palestine Guide Book." Just released by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Tourism, it declares on its first page, "Palestine lies between the Mediterranean Coast and the Jordan River." Not until Page 10 are we informed - under the heading "Country" - that "Palestine comprises the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

You only have to look at this excerpt of the booklet to see where they are going with this:

Personally, I think that line about how "Palestine has been a meeting point for diverse cultures since prehistoric times" is a nice touch. I suppose it is only a short jump from dragging a woman back to your cave and making her wear a hijab once you get her there.

by Daled Amos

What's new at MPAC.ie?

I have been interested in MPAC-UK (Muslim Public Affairs Committee) for some time as a sort-of window into the clash of civilizations. They have a blog-like website in which half the posts are often attacks on Israel and one of their founders once gave money to David Irving. Nevertheless, they were once invited by the BBC to provide a more democracy-minded alternative voice to that of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Recently, an Irish MPAC has appeared on the scene. The MPAC.ie website seems to be modeled on that of MPAC-UK. MPAC.ie, however, seems more extreme than its UK sister-organization. Their posts, for instance, are often liberally sprinkled with the word "Kuffar," which MPAC-UK seems to avoid. Let's take a little stroll into the world of MPAC.ie, shall we? One of the more interesting current titles proclaims "Saudis Help Christians to be more 'Christian.'" Really? How does that work?

[...] The Saudi ban on 'church buildings' has meant that Christians in that land have now partly returned to the New Testament model of worship (they still maintain many polytheist practices that have nothing to do with the religion that 'Isa (Jesus) brought) in the same way that the early Christians did, in small joyful gatherings.

Islam has once again demonstrated its position as the true criterion between what is right and wrong in the former religions. [...]

[...] The punishment for mocking the Prophet in an Islamic state is severe, both for Muslims and non-Muslims. However the situation for those in the Hereafter is far worse.

For while the Muslim who commits the grievous sin may repent, s/he will still be subject to execution in this life - their repentance will benefit them in the Hereafter. There is no such recompense for the non-Muslim. [...]

[...] What is wrong with Muslims that the Kuffar have now become the protectors of the Ummah's most vulnerable. Where are the men who once went to war over the honour of ONE Muslim woman?

Last year we subjected ourselves to Socialists who led anti-war marches against the onslaught in Gaza, they called for a socialist Middle east while Muslims were forbidden to chant our solidarity with those fighting the aggressive occupier in our land. What is wrong with us?

It's time to wake up and take a lead in these matters, if conscientious non-Muslims wish to come under OUR banner then they are most welcome, but it is WE who should dictate the direction of campaigns NOT them.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Of grievances and perceptions

Last week in an article about the eviction of two Arab families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, Isabel Kershner of the New York Times summed it up:

For those who want to see a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the eviction of the Ghawis has touched on two sensitive nerves: the fate of East Jerusalem, where Israel and the Palestinians vie for control, and the abiding grievances of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.

She mentioned two things: both sides are competing and the Palestinians have a grievance. In fact most of the article centers around the Palestinian claims and how even some Israelis support the Palestinian case. The history leaves out inconvenient details such as:

On April 13, 1948, a convoy of ambulances, armored buses, trucks loaded with food and medical equipment, and 105 doctors, nurses, medical students, Hebrew University personnel, and guards headed for Mt. Scopus. The convoy was ambushed in the middle of Sheikh Jarrah, the lead vehicle hit a mine, and gangs of armed Arabs attacked. Seventy-eight Jews were murdered, among them 20 women and Dr. Haim Yaski, the hospital director. In the following months the hospital and university ceased to function. After the Six-Day War, when the area was returned to Israel, a memorial was built in their honor in Sheikh Jarrah on the road leading to Mt. Scopus.

Compare Kershner's care in preserving the Palestinian narrative in the Sheikh Jarrah story to the way she handled the Israeli narrative in the case of honoring Dalal Mughrabi:

The woman being honored, Dalal Mughrabi, was the 19-year-old leader of a Palestinian squad that sailed from Lebanon and landed on a beach between Haifa and Tel Aviv. They killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children, according to official Israeli figures. Ms. Mughrabi and several other attackers were killed.

To Israelis, hailing Ms. Mughrabi as a heroine and a martyr is an act that glorifies terrorism.

But, underscoring the chasm between Israeli and Palestinian perceptions, the Fatah representatives described Ms. Mughrabi as a courageous fighter who held a proud place in Palestinian history. Defiant, they insisted that they would not let Israel dictate the names of Palestinian streets and squares.

Note that here the dispute is reduced to a matter of perceptions, as if a "bloody rampage" that claims the lives of "38 Israeli civilians" isn't the very definition of terrorism.

As Judith Apter Klinghoffer writes:

At no point does the reporter point out the sophistry of the position. There is nothing mysterious in the notion. It is an action designed to frighten a population. Hijacking a random public bus and murdering the passengers can have no other motivation but spreading fear, i.e., terror.

Kershner actually compounds her felony.

"We are all Dalal Mughrabi," declared Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, the party's main decision-making body, who came to join the students. "For us she is not a terrorist," he said, but rather "a fighter who fought for the liberation of her own land."

Who is Col. Tawfiq Tirawi? He has an interesting record.

The Palestinian Security Organs - such as Preventive Security, as well as the General Intelligence Service and its arm in the West Bank, under Colonel Tawfiq Tirawi - have been involved in other violent actions in breach of the agreements, such as the abduction or unlawful arrest of Israeli citizens (in some cases, Israeli Arabs suspected as "collaborators"), and the murder of Palestinian real estate dealers (suspected of selling land to Jews).

Tirawi's actions took place after the Oslo Accords were signed. The idea that he would deny that Mughrabi (or anyone attacking Israelis) is a terrorist is rooted in self interest. By any reasonable definition Tirawi, too, is a terrorist. Though I don't think that's what he means by "We are all Dalal Mughrabi."

If there's anything positive about these two articles it's that in the first one, Kershner writes about "Israel's long dormant peace camp." While I don't agree with the peace camp's position here, it's pretty clear that there is no parallel one among the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 03/14/2010

The council has spoken. Here are the winners and runners up.

One council member had 2/3 of a point deducted for not voting.

Winning Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! - JoshuaPundit - Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Religious Shrines


• Second Place with 2 points - Bookworm Room - Obama Care and abortions

Winning Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! Joel J. Sprayregen/ American Thinker - Obama's Iran Policy Collapses to the Accompaniment of Mockery Around the Globe
• Second Place with 1 2/3 points - Chicago Boyz - Seizing the Opportunity to Destroy Western Civilization

For a complete list of submissions see here.

Members of the Watcher's council participated in the latest National Journal bloggers poll. David Kopel presented his answer here; I think that my answers were pretty similar to his. I'm also reasonably sure that he was quoting the same NYT article that I did.

"Daylight Saving Time Increases Serious Heart Attacks, Decreases Returns on Investments in Week After Change"

From CBS News:

Daylight saving time begins at 2 a.m. Sunday. It's supposed to save energy -- pushing daylight later in the day means fewer lights turned on at night. Benjamin Franklin, annoyed by an early sunrise in Paris, first came up with the idea. Congress made it law in 1918 during World War I to conserve energy.

But when the country jumps ahead an hour Sunday morning, that one little lost hour of sleep has a big impact.

The number of serious heart attacks goes up 6 to 10 percent (PDF) on the first three workdays after the time change. On Wall Street, economists say sleep-deprived traders often produce "large negative returns" on that following Monday, once estimated at $31 billion.

"It turns out that it takes two to three days - sometimes even longer - to make up and to adjust to that extra hour lost," said Dr. Sonia Ancoli-Israel of the University of California San Diego School of Medicine.

Once we do make up for the hour, there's an upside: we're better drivers in daylight, reducing fatal car crashes and pedestrians getting hit.

In Losing Sleep At The Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly, by Mark J. Kamstra, Lisa A. Kramer and Maurice D. Levi write:

...it has been argued that an important thread connecting the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the near meltdown at Three Mile Island, the massive oil spill from the Exxon Valdez, and the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, is peopple making mistakes because of workshift changes and consequent imbalances of sleep. Equally tragic but less publicized consequences of sleep-related errors have resulted from accidents, which each year "cost the United States over $56 billion, cause nearly 25,000 deaths and result in over 2.5 million disabling injuries."

I don't suppose anyone ever thought of giving Monday off?

More importantly--are the risks really worth the rewards?

by Daled Amos

One man's conspiracy theory is another man's track record

The other day, I wondered how the NJDC would spin Vice President Biden's condemnation of Israel or would they just ignore it.

The answer: they spun it.

The reaction from the right-wing has been to trash Biden's pro-Israel bona fides and to concoct conspiracy theories that question the strong support for Israel's security that has been shown by President Barack Obama and his administration.

Conspiracy theories? Really.

The situation that unfolded last night represents a highly nuanced and complex issue that has rattled the current Israeli government. American and Israeli policies on this issue have differed for over forty years; if anyone thinks that Biden's statement was unprecedented, one only needs to look at the behavior of Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and the statements by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan regarding settlements.

Nuanced and complex. OK, but does the NJDC really want to compare the Obama adminstration to that of President George H. W. Bush? I can think of few presidents who were less friendly to Israel. As far as Reagan and George W. Bush, I know both didn't see eye to eye with Israel about settlements, but did either administration use the term "condemn?" That's what's unprecedented.

Look you don't need to be pro-Israel to conclude that Vice President Biden's treatment of Israel was shabby. Here's Jackson Diehl (via memeorandum)

Over the years U.S. envoys from Baker to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have learned that the trick is to sidestep such broadsides, expressing disapproval without allowing the toxic settlement issue to take center stage and derail peace negotiations. After all, most Israeli settlement announcements, including this one, are pure symbolism: No ground will be broken anytime soon, and even if the homes are eventually constructed they won't stand in the way of a Palestinian state.

By that measure, Biden flunked. Interrupted in the middle of what was supposed to be a day of love-bombing Israelis with speeches and other demonstrations of U.S. support, he kept Netanyahu and his wife waiting for 90 minutes into a scheduled dinner before issuing a statement that harshly criticized the interior ministry's announcement. Biden chose to use a word -- "condemn" -- that is very rarely employed in U.S. statements about Israel, even though he and his staff knew that Netanyahu himself had been blindsided by the settlement announcement. So much for love bombs.

On Wednesday, after meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Biden once again allowed the settlement issue to take center stage, declaring that the "Israeli government decision...undermines the trust we need right now in order to begin...profitable negotiations." That may be true. But part of the trust that has been missing has been between Israel and Obama, whose poll ratings in the Jewish state plunged to the single digits at one point last year. Many Israelis have resented the fact that Obama has visited Cairo and Riyadh as president, but not Jerusalem. Biden's trip was seen as partial compensation, and as a way of assuring Israelis that if they took risks in peace talks, this U.S. administration would stand behind them.

Mission accomplished? I would think not.

The NJDC makes one substantive point that should be addressed.

Settlements aside, it does appear that Biden made progress towards coaxing the Palestinians towards discontinuing their anti-Israel incitement. According to both Ha'Aretz and The Jerusalem Post, the Palestinian Authority (PA) cancelled a memorial ceremony for a terrorist who murdered Israelis along the Haifa-Tel Aviv Highway in 1978. The PA's announcement followed today's meetings between Biden and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayaad.

Well yes, the Vice President apparently did play a role in getting the dedication cancelled or postponed. But he was asked to do so.

Israeli news reported that PM Netanyahu asked George Mitchell and then Vice President Biden to put pressure on the PA to cancel the event. Late yesterday the Palestinian Authority cancelled today's event.

However, where did the condemnation of Israel come from? Martin Peretz:

In any case, Biden knew that his condemnation raised questions and objections, and not just from Israelis or Zionists or Jews. So he explained that he thought that the announcement of the construction "undermined the trust required to conduct the negotiations." And, therefore, "I--at the request of President Obama--condemned it immediately." This is all reported in a Jerusalem Post article, "US has no better friend than Israel," published today.

I was correct in my intuition that it was really Obama doing the condemning. You may draw your own conclusions.

Again, let's be clear. Martin Peretz is generally supportive of the President. He's certainly no right winger.

My friend, the Hashmonean drew his conclusions:

It's hard to escape the fact the speech was heavy on lecturing us in Israel, the bulk of it was seemingly devoted to this, Biden's personal anecdotes of friendship aside.

•How we don't do enough for peace
•How we don't risk enough for peace
•How we endanger peace.
•How hard Peace is & how we are making it harder.
As I listened to it, even the parts extolling our long friendship, I couldn't help but be struck at how superficial it all was. The personal anecdotes were the same ones delivered by Biden previously to AIPAC in other speeches, that's fine & understandable. It may have effected me nonetheless. I can't even fault Joe, he delivered his speech well. But I felt it's as if this White House is just going through the motions when it comes to Israel.

It's such a stark contrast to the genuine warmth we felt from Bush. When he spoke you could hear it in his voice & see it in his eyes he was true friend. You could feel the alliance pulsing, the passion that real friends or brothers have for each other. Shoulder to shoulder, thick & thin.

Put simply, to ask the PA not to incite against Israel required an external request; to condemn Israel for a disputed matter, the administration had the fortitude on its own to administer a very public rebuke that can only encourage Israel's enemies.

The NJDC insisted during the Presidential campaign that Barack Obama was a friend of Israel and attributed bad faith to those who would differ. At some point, I suppose, I could have given them the benefit of the doubt, but still I had little faith that someone who was preached to by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; who was friendly with Rashid Khalid and who was funded by Alan Solomont would be sympathetic to Israel. The President's record so far has borne out my fears. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it is a track record. And it is one that the President stated last year.

Crossposted on Yourish.

And The Award For Israel's Greatest Friend Goes To...Joe Biden?

Is anyone else getting tired of hearing about who is--or isn't--Israel's greatest friend? At one point, there were those who proclaimed that President Bush had won that award. Now we are told that Joe Biden is a winner in the Greatest Friend of Israel Ever to Have Been a Member of the U.S. Senate category.

Laura Rozen writes at Politico:

The Israeli press has been extremely critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government's behavior during Biden's visit. See these excerpts from a piece by Shimon Shiffer in Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth today, headline: "Biden: You're Jeopardizing Regional Peace":

Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel as a friend. As a matter of fact, he is considered to be the greatest friend of Israel ever to have been a member of the U.S. Senate. Legislation that he promoted over the years ensured the Israelis' security and welfare. It is that great friend of ours who now feels betrayed.

With all due respect, I think it is long past time to distinguish between US politicians who vote pro-Israel and those who actually walk the walk.

In a post I wrote on Soccer Dad, I mentioned there was a post in The New York Sun's now defunct blog, It Shines For All:

When hearing the name Biden, we always think of the famous exchange between Biden and Prime Minister Begin. As Moshe Zak recounted in a March 13, 1992, piece in the Jerusalem Post:

In a conversation with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, after a sharp confrontation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of the settlements, Begin defined himself as "a proud Jew who does not tremble with fear" when speaking with foreign statesmen.

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John [sic] Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us."

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.

Real friends criticize friends--but they do not threaten. So what did Biden say away from the public eye?

While standing in front of the cameras, the U.S. vice president made an effort to smile at Binyamin Netanyahu even after having learned on Tuesday that the Interior Ministry had approved plans to build 1,600 housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. But in closed conversations, Joe Biden took an entirely different tone.

...People who heard what Biden said were stunned. "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden castigated his interlocutors. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

So according to Biden, building on land that was captured during a defensive war--land that has never been part of a Palestinian sovereign state--is a threat not only to regional peace, but to the lives of American troops. How can that be? Biden explains:

The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.

So Israel is supposed to refrain from looking after the best interests of its own citizens because of the perceptions of the Muslim world. Putting aside the fact that such reasoning could be used to continue a building freeze indefinitely, what is left unsaid is that along with that perception comes a long history of Muslim violence in the region--Muslim violence that started immediately after the death of Mohammed and which has continued till today, including as many as 11 separate inter-Muslim conflicts during the 13 years from 1970 to 1983 along. Throw in the list at The Religion of Peace of deaths and casualties currently resulting from Muslim violence and terrorism around the world, and it is clear that Israel is not be held responsible for Biden's unnamed Muslim terrorism and violence.

Bidne's mis-perceptions of the Middle East are part of a long pattern.  A Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2008 notes that

• During the 1970s, Biden opposed aid to South Vietnam in its war against the North, contributing to the fall of an American ally.
  
• During the 1980s, Biden opposed both President Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras and Reagan's attempt to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which was battling the FMLN.
  
• Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"
  
• While he did vote to authorize the war to liberate Iraq, in 2006 Biden argued in favor of the partition of Iraq as a way to end the violence.
  
• In 2007, Biden opposed the troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake."

Based on these examples, the op-ed concludes:

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

A more recent bad assumption by Biden is mentioned in his comments at Tel Aviv University:

It's no secret the demographic realities make it increasingly difficult for Israel to remain both a Jewish homeland and a democratic country in the absence of the Palestinian state. Genuine steps toward a two-state solution are also required to empower those living to live in peace and security with Israel and to undercut their rivals who will never accept that future.

On the contrary, it is no secret that the old assumptions about the demographics were based on the exaggerated and inaccurate information provided by the Palestinian Arabs. IMRA has a translation of a Hebrew article by Yoram Ettinger:

There is a demographic problem, but it is not lethal, there is no demographic machete at Israel's throat, and the demographic tailwind is Jewish, not Arab. In fact, documented births, deaths and migration clarify that Jewish demography has become a strategic asset and not a liability. Hence, awareness of demographic reality could enhance the security, political, strategic, diplomatic and economic options of Israeli doves and hawks alike. [emphasis added]

Bottom line, Israel was careless in allowing a situation where Vice President Biden was embarrassed by poorly timed statements by the government. However, by the same token, it behooves Israeli leaders to be aware of who is a friend of Israel and who is not; who is reliable and consistent and who is not. Under the circumstances and given his track record, Biden just does not fit the bill.

by Daled Amos

I look forward to middle east diplomacy 103

In its Room for Debate blog the New York Times asked a number of "experts" about the Israeli challenge to the U.S.. A few of the responses are worth mentioning.

Daniel Gordis:

Israelis do not trust Barack Obama. Insisting that Israelis freeze settlement expansion without making some equally explicit demand of the Palestinians -- and using the same term "settlement" for both massive neighborhoods that are home to tens of thousands and for illegal outposts that most Israelis want dismantled -- Obama has convinced Israelis that he has no command of the issues, and that he is predisposed to pressuring Israel much more than the Palestinians. It is Obama who is unwittingly fueling the pro-settlement movement.

Nor do Israelis trust the Palestinians. For years, Mahmoud Abbas negotiated with Israeli governments without insisting on a settlement freeze.

But Obama has afforded him an excuse to avoid the critical concessions Palestinians will have to make for peace, and Abbas is exploiting it cynically and fully. Few Israelis believe the Palestinians have the stomach for a genuine deal.

Gordis also faults Netanyahu for not imposing greater discipline over his government.

Michelle Dunne writes:

Although Prime Minister Netanyahu most likely was blindsided by the announcement, others in his coalition apparently thought it unproblematic to insult Biden and by association Obama.

And why should they? President Obama has shown Israelis neither consideration nor resolve. He failed to visit and use his much-vaunted powers of persuasion directly on Israelis last spring when he visited Egypt and Turkey; Obama also failed to show strength by imposing some consequence on Netanyahu when the Israeli leader refused to order a real freeze on settlements.

I assume that she means he failed to use his powers of persuasion to get Turkey and Egypt to act in a moderate fashion when it came to Israel.

In its own editorial, Middle East Diplomacy 102, the editors of the Times write (They flunked Diplomacy 101):

It must be noted that Mr. Obama and Mr. Mitchell also failed to persuade Arab leaders to agree to make any gestures to Israel in return for a settlement freeze.

That's after apportioning the majority of the blame for failed peace talks on Israel and President Obama's failure to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu to be reasonable. So Arab commitment to peace is an afterthought.

But for all of the hyperventilating about what must be done, Barry Rubin writes:

Note that it is important for the two sides to meet but the reason is to deal with far more immediate tasks: coordination on economic and security issues particularly. I guess I'm going to have to go on for decades saying that there won't be a comprehensive peace agreement for decades.

Instead of pushing for a peace agreement that won't happen, why don't the editors of the Times push for a real change: a change in the Arab approach to Israel? Without that there will never be peace.

Yaacov Lozowick notes:

The Palestinians want all Israeli settlement activity to cease? That's easy. Agree to make peace with Israel, and there will be no more "illegal" settlements. it's that simple. Really.

That would require the change that no one seems to be demanding.

An amazing protest

The Lede blog of the New York Times writes in a post, "Palestinians against terror," that plans to honor terrorist Dalal Mugrabi in Ramallah have been met with opposition from Palestinians who favor the living alongside Israel in peace.

Plans to build a square in honor of Dalal Mugrabi the female terrorist who was involved in the coastal highway terror attack that killed 37 people has been met by protests by Palestinians who find it inappropriate to honor a terrorist while trying to make peace with Israel.

One of the Palestinians at the demonstration against the honor in Ramallah on Saturday, a woman named Fatima, told The Jerusalem Post that "...terror belongs in the past." She added: "I imagine if the government of Israel was honoring those who deliberately killed Palestinians outside the context of war, that we would be offended.

The demonstration on Saturday followed the notice that the government of the PA including its moderate leaders, Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad were planning to honor the terrorist.

Palestinian writer Daoud Kuttab who was also at the demonstration added, "Some Palestinians protest the declaration of the Tomb of the Patriarchs or Rachel's Tomb as important Israeli heritage sites. I don't understand this myopia. If we don't respect the Jewish heritage of Israel, how can we expect them to respect our heritage?"

Of course the Times didn't report on such a protest. There wasn't one. It did find a protest to highlight though.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Crediting Obama With A Major Turnaround In Middle East Peace (Yes, Really)

OOPS! PA Boycott Of Settlements Violate The Gaza-Jericho Agreement

Biden And The Abbas School Of Diplomacy

With all due obsequiousness

Perhaps you recall:

The welcome was another slight for Washington, which had sought strenuously to persuade Libya not to permit a hero's welcome for Mr. Megrahi and had opposed his release.

Still protesting his innocence and offering "sincere sympathy" to the families of those who died in the bombing, Mr. Megrahi was granted his freedom under the terms of Scottish laws permitting the early release of prisoners with less than three months to live. The Scottish authorities and his lawyers say he has terminal prostate cancer.

And perhaps you recall that six months later:

Doctors in Libya supply monthly medical reports to Scottish authorities who can speak to Megrahi whenever they want. The conditions of his early release stipulate he must not leave Libya.

Megrahi, is now living in a spacious two-storey villa with his wife and their five grown-up children in a prosperous suburb of Tripoli, the Libyan capital.

The property has a spacious garden and an area where the family erects a large tent to entertain visitors for celebrations.

The property has a security gate and there is often a uniformed police officer sitting on a white chair outside.

The Megrahis, who are part of a prominent tribe, are well off and it is understood that his family was paid substantial compensation by the Libyan Government after he was jailed for life.

They are known to have urged Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, to get Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, freed from his jail.

Remember from death's door to the lap of luxury in spite of the United States.

Now look at who's hurt (via memeorandum)

The US state department has apologised for comments made about Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's call for jihad against Switzerland.

Department spokesman PJ Crowley, who made the dismissive comments, said they did not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend.

So Qaddafi rewards a killer of Americans and expects no consequence. A State Department official makes a dismissive (and accurate) comment about Libyan dictator and Qaddafi is furious. Am I missing something?

Fausta's not impressed:

Might as well stick a fork in the State Department, because they're done: The US State Department has apologized for slighting terrorist Gaddafi, he of the traveling tent, the Lockerbie bomb, the sartorial flourishes, and the many spellings...

Gateway Pundit points out that this isn't the first Libyan suck up.

In September it was reported that the Obama Administration planned to give $400,000 in funding to a Libyan charity run by the Gadhafi family.

I did miss something. It's worse than I thought.

Submitted 03/10/10

This week's Watcher's Council submissions are UP!

Council Submissions

Colossus of Rhodey - More "logic" from that wisher of death upon Republicans

Wolf Howling - The UK Through Labour's Looking Glass

Rhymes with Right - Nomination Of LaRouchie By CD22 Dems Points To Failure Of Houston Media

Bookworm Room - Obama Care and abortions

The Provocateur - Ideological Wars Bore Me

American Digest - Massa's Reason for Resigning. Doing (or not doing) Barney Frank's Job

JoshuaPundit - Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Religious Shrines

The Glittering Eye - The Nightmare Scenario

Right Truth - History of Insurance

Non-Council Submissions

Reason.com - A Libyan Charm Offensive SUBMITTED by Colossus of Rhodey

Big Lizards - Palin and Reagan: Together Again for the First Time SUBMITTED by Wolf Howling

The Volokh Conspiracy - Could National Juries Alleviate the Problem of Political Ignorance? SUBMITTED by Rhymes with Right

Chesler Chronicles - It's International Women's History Month and Where is Secretary Clinton? SUBMITTED by Right Truth

American Thinker - Defeat vs. Repeal SUBMITTED by Bookworm Room

Chicago Tribune/John Kass - 24 Has Jumped the Shark SUBMITTED by The Provocateur

Sippican Cottage - Sippican the Rag Man SUBMITTED by American Digest

Joel J. Sprayregen/ American Thinker - Obama's Iran Policy Collapses to the Accompaniment of Mockery Around the Globe SUBMITTED by JoshuaPundit

Chicago Boyz - Seizing the Opportunity to Destroy Western Civilization - SUBMITTED by The Glittering Eye

Read. Enjoy. Be informed.

And, by all means, let your friends know! And, if you're a blogger, link!

The obama administration and israel - so close and yet so far

In the end it didn't go so well, but at first it did.

The announcement followed a day in which Mr. Biden, who will stay in the region through Friday, had made a concerted and highly public show of American support for Israel.

"Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel," he said, standing next to Mr. Netanyahu at the prime minister's residence. "There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."

Of course, this was just Vice President Biden posturing. The real view of the administration is:

Obama, according to participants, said his approach would build more credibility with Arabs, and he criticized the Bush administration policy of unwavering agreement with Israel as ineffective.

"He said, 'The United States and Israel were very, very close for eight years, and it produced very little,' " said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described as one of the more aggressive questioners during the 45-minute session.

So the President has made a point of reaching out to the Muslim world that has resulted in ...

Mubarak to Tell U.S. Israel Must Make Overture
Saudi Arabia Rejects Improved Israel Ties
Syria Responds To Obama's Engagement, Publicly Mocks Clinton And Embraces Iran

That worked really well.

The Obama administration has reached out to Israel's enemies - to no avail - and makes it clear that it expects Israel to take risks for peace. Is it any wonder that Israelis are wary of the administration?

And no, this has nothing to do with racism.

UPDATE: Related thoughts.

A matter of trust

Last week Daled Amos wondered:

It will be interesting to see just what kind of tone Biden takes with Israel this time--and whether Netanyahu is up to dealing with Biden from strength the way Begin did--or like Olmert.

Now we don't need to wonder anymore. At least about the first part. (via memeorandum)

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," Biden said. The American vice president added that the "substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I?ve had here in Israel."

As a side point is there anything that the Palestinians do that doesn't undermine trust?

Israel Matzav observes:

Ramat Shlomo was never supposed to be an issue with the 'Palestinians.' Abu Mazen had agreed with Ehud Olmert in 2008 that it would remain part of Israel in any future settlement.

JoshuaPundit puts it succinctly:

It seems the US cares more about denying Jews their religious sites and the right to build homes than it does about the Palestinians building facilities with our money honoring terrorists who've killed Americans.

Funny, but the NJDC doesn't say a word about the Vice President's condemnation of Israel. Will they continue to ignore it or spin the condemnation as to how it's somehow pro-Israel?

Crossposted on Yourish.

The extortion process

A few months ago Barry Rubin wrote:

Of course it is all political but this is a step toward delegitimization. The Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority, and left-wing governments that supported the resolution see this as a step not toward a compromise peace but an elimination of Israel altogether.

I am not saying that this is going to happen, or that the resolution will have any actual negative impact on Israel itself. Yet what is most important is that having tasted blood, these forces will not be interested in getting less. Why should they--including the Palestinian Authority--settle for a stable two-state solution when they believe they can get far more without giving up anything?

Now here's "moderate" Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat:

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator, told Israel's Army Radio that this seemed likely to be the last chance to achieve two states and indicated that if the effort failed, there would be no choice but to insist that Israelis and Palestinians share one state.

In other words, "Give us what we want, or we'll destroy you." With this threat, or Abbas's calls for a "third intifada", there's no concept of compromise.

So while it is clear that the Palestinians don't subscribe to the idea of Jewish state - ridiculously the diplomatic world insisted that Netanyahu explicitly declare his support for a Palestinian state - making peace impossible. Israel is expected to make all the moves for peace, in order to avoid violence.

This isn't a peace process, it's an extortion process.

UPDATE: Elder of Ziyon calls it the diplomacy of fear.

Intransigence: a single use word

The Washington Post reports:

Mitchell, who in January boasted that a peace deal could be done within two years, said he hoped the indirect talks would lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible and encouraged the parties "to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

Just such a thing happened Monday when Israel announced construction of 112 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Ilit. The administration had pushed hard -- but unsuccessfully -- last year for a complete freeze on settlements, and Israel's new announcement came as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was meeting with Mitchell.

Now if Beitar Illit will remain part of Israel, why would building 112 houses there "inflame tensions?" I would think that orchestrating riots and honoring a terrorist are more obvious statements of contempt for peace.

In a similar vein we see in a Washington Post editorial:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has resisted direct negotiations partly out of a conviction that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is intransigent. And Mr. Netanyahu regularly offers evidence that this is so. He recently appeared to rule out Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, which previous Israeli governments have conceded to a future Palestinian state, and he allowed new Jewish settlement construction to proceed in the West Bank despite the "freeze" he announced several months ago. Mr. Abbas, for his part, already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu's predecessor.

The New York Times though, clarifies something:

Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports two states but wants the Palestinian side to be demilitarized and to accept an Israeli military presence on its future eastern border to prevent the import of weapons and rockets that could be aimed at Israel's population centers.

The Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, then, is a precaution. After being burned time and again by the Palestinians after withdrawing from territory, Netanyahu talks about protecting his country from that happening again. That's a sign of intransigence?

But more generally that paragraph is disturbing. To defend Abbas claims that Netanyahu is being "intransigent" is dishonest. The editorial itself acknowledges that Abbas "...already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu's predecessor." That, to me, is the definition of intransigence. Yet somehow the adjective, "intransigent" in its various forms somehow only describes Israeli leaders.

The Post's editors can lament that Netanyahu isn't as generous as his predecessors. But the reason there is no peace that Abbas and Arafat before him rejected generous offers. If they are demanding that Netanyahu accept deals that were previously rejected by the other side they are in fact rewarding intransigence, not advocating for peace.

Crossposted on Yourish.