Powered by WebAds

November 20, 2009

A Myth In The Making: Israel Broke The Cease-Fire On Novermber 4, 2008

In conjunction with the Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes, there has been a move to blame Israel for the breaking of the truce which led to the commencement of the war itself.

Typical is this opinion piece from The Irish Times by David Morrison of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

IN JUNE, Israel agreed a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. Until December 27th, no Israeli, civilian or military, was killed as a result of rocket or mortar fire from Gaza.

None. Not one. And there was very little rocket or mortar fire out of Gaza until Israel broke the ceasefire in early November.

Those key facts have been missing from most of the reporting of Israel's slaughter of nearly 300 Palestinians in Gaza, which began on December 27th.

Israel's claim that it had to act in order to protect Israeli civilians from being killed by rocket or mortar fire from Gaza is bogus.

Putting aside that odd notion that firing rockets at Jewish town is OK as long as no one gets hurt. Continuing along this fanciful line of thought Morrisson claims:

From the point of view of protecting Israeli citizens, the ceasefire was a success. If the Israeli government had the protection of Israeli civilians as its first priority, it would have done its best to have the ceasefire continued indefinitely.

But it didn't. On the contrary, it broke the ceasefire by killing six Palestinians in Gaza on the night of November 4th, while the world was watching the election of Barack Obama.

Only in the Middle East can on not only claim that a ceasefire that allows for the continued one-sided firing of rockets at a civilian (not military) target is not only acceptable--but is also something that should continue indefinitely.

Here is an idea of the kind of the status quo Morrisson condemns Israel for refusing to accept:

From the start of the ceasefire at 6 AM on June 19 till the incident on November 4th cited by CNN, the following attacks were launched against Israel from Gaza in direct violation of the agreement:

  • 18 mortars were fired at Israel in this period, beginning on the night of June 23.
  • 20 rockets were fired, beginning on June 24, when 3 rockets hit the Israeli town of Sderot.
  • On July 6 farmers working in the fields of Nahal Oz were attacked by light arms fire from Gaza.
  • On the night of August 15 Palestinians fired across the border at Israeli soldiers near the Karni crossing.
  • On October 31 an IDF patrol spotted Palestinians planting an explosive device near the security fence in the area of the Sufa crossing. As the patrol approached the fence the Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles.

However, Morrisson's account--typical of the pro-Palestinian apologists--not only lacks common sense. It is also lacking in truth. Morrisson forgets to mention what other activities Hamas was engaged in: for all the talk about how Israel took advantage of the November 4th election night to hide what it was doing, just what was Hamas doing then? Make attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers. From CAMERA:

The first came to light on Sept. 28, when Israeli personnel arrested Jamal Atallah Sabah Abu Duabe. The 21-year-old Rafah resident had used a tunnel to enter Egypt and from there planned to slip across the border into Israel. Investigation revealed that Abu Duabe was a member of Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and that he planned to lure Israeli soldiers near the border by pretending to be a drug smuggler, capture them, and then sedate them with sleeping pills in order to abduct them directly into Gaza through a preexisting tunnel. For more details click here and here.

• The second abduction plan was aborted on the night of Nov 4, thanks to a warning from Israeli Intelligence. Hamas had dug another tunnel into Israel and was apparently about to execute an abduction plan when IDF soldiers penetrated about 250 meters into Gaza to the entrance of the tunnel, hidden under a house. Inside the house were a number of armed Hamas members, who opened fire. The Israelis fired back and the house exploded - in total 6 or 7 Hamas operatives were killed and several were wounded. Among those killed were Mazen Sa'adeh, a Hamas brigade commander, and Mazen Nazimi Abbas, a commander in the Hamas special forces unit. For more details click here.

It was when Israel aborted this imminent Hamas attack that the group and other Palestinian groups in Gaza escalated their violations of the ceasefire by beginning to once again barrage Israel with rockets and mortars.

Now it is of course possible that Morrisson considers the Hamas policy of kidnapping Israeli soldiers to be acceptable--along with the threat of rockets. Then again, the fact that Morrisson does not make mention of those attacks indicates he knows full well that his argument can go only so far.

The real question is how far the media is willing to go to present an accurate picture of what the terrorist group Hamas is really up to.

In the meantime, the myths continue.

by Daled Amos


11:10 AM | Permalink |

The perverse equivalence

In a paper on how the term "apartheid" is being used to deny Israel's right to exist, Robbie Sabel concluces:

The Apartheid campaign against Israel has another revealing feature. It rarely deals with the massive abuse of human rights or cases of real Apartheid elsewhere in the world. In other words, it singles out Israel with a false accusation. For example, President Carter has spoken about Israeli Apartheid but is careful about how he describes the conflict in Darfur, where Sudan's Arab regime has been slaughtering black Muslims with the backing of many Arab states.68 The campaign against Israel is not based on a concern with the universal application of human rights, but on something else. This treatment of Israel is nothing less than an effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, by attributing to it the most heinous crimes. Michael Ignatieff, the head of Canada's Liberal Party who served as a professor of human rights policy at Harvard University in previous years, made this very point in March 2009:

"International law defines 'Apartheid' as a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel as an 'Apartheid' state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself."69

Perhaps the most chilling indication of the real purpose behind the "Israel is Apartheid"
campaign is revealed in one of the most active websites behind the campaign. They write
that among the goals of "prosecution for the crime of Apartheid is to force Israel to -
(4) Enable the true majority to return to power over their own lands, while protecting
the rights of ethnic minorities."70

In other words, the real goal behind the Apartheid campaign is the denial of the
legitimacy of the State of Israel and the determination that the only status the Jewish
population in Israel can hope for is that of a "protected" ethnic minority in an Arab
Palestinian state.

At the same time there is this effort to deny Israel's right to exist, Iran has been supporting Israel's enemies with shipments of arms - most recently emphasized by Israel's capture of the Francop. Matthew Levitt argues that greater scrutiny must be paid to ships that are carrying shipments from Iran.

Given Iran's history of deceptive financial and trade activity, extra scrutiny should be given to any ship that has recently paid a call to an Iranian port. Countries should be encouraged to require ports and/or authorities to collect detailed, accurate, and complete data regarding all cargo being shipped to or through their countries (especially from risk-prone jurisdictions like Iran), to conduct rigorous risk assessments, and to proceed with actual inspections as necessary. According to press reports, the Francop docked in Egypt before it was boarded some 180 kilometers of the coast of Cyprus.

Recent events show that even as the Obama administration seeks to engage Tehran, the Islamic Republic has continued to work to undermine Western interests and to support anti-Western elements around the world, as demonstrated by its ongoing efforts to resupply Hamas and Hezbollah and assist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disrupting Iran's ability to arm allies and surrogates hostile to the interests of the United States and its allies would enhance Washington's leverage in possible negotiations with Tehran, contain Iran should such diplomatic efforts fail, and prevent Iran from contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond.

Of course the continued shipments to Hamas (and Hezbollah) has improved Hamas's military capability

As a result of Hamas's development of a long-range rocket force, future military conflicts with Israel will almost certainly be more intense, cover a broader geographic area, and produce more destruction in both Israel and Gaza as the IDF acts to destroy the rockets. Hamas's new rocket capabilities must also be seen in the context of Hizballah's acquisition of rockets with a 300-km range. In a possible two-front war, this means that most of Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, would be within the range of Hamas or Hizballah rockets.

Through its growing rocket capabilities, Hamas is weakening the measure of deterrence established by Israel through Operation Cast Lead. And while Hamas has been careful since Cast Lead to avoid actions that would lead to renewed hostilities, its growing military capabilities may generate internal pressure to use its rockets or undertake other destabilizing actions. In December 2008, Hamas miscalculated gravely with respect to Israeli intentions and its own capabilities, sparking an intense conflict. There is no guarantee this will not happen again.

The creation of a long-range rocket force reinforces Hamas politically by enhancing its image as a "resistance" movement and its role as a spoiler and competitor to Fatah. Expanded military capacity also lends greater weight to the organization's hard-line "military wing."

From Israel's standpoint, the potential political effects of threats to large population centers will likely make the government more willing to deal decisively with a revamped threat from Hamas. This would probably mean a comprehensive air and ground offensive throughout Gaza -- one that would far exceed the scope of Cast Lead.

Showing that it has priorities in order, the administration this week, condemned an Israeli plan to build new housing in the Gilo section of Jerusalem. Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reported:

City officials moved forward Tuesday with a plan to build 900 homes in a disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem, prompting sharp criticism from the White House, the Palestinians and others who feel it will further undermine the chance of renewing peace talks.

The new units will expand the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo, one of several built on land taken by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community.

What does the international community recognize? The right of Iran to arm Hamas? And what of the American administration? Does it believe that construction in Gilo is really the most pressing issue to resolve in order to restart peace talks? Or as Barry Rubin observes:

Obama said that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters the Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, antisemitic views, and terrorist acts; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama's express request to do so; breaking its promise on not to be a sponsor of using the Goldstone report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

(A related point:

Yesterday Daled Amos noted that the State Department was boasting that it had done more to promote peace in the Middle East than the Bush administration did in eight years. Barry Rubin also noted:

Having sabotaged negotiations by escalating the construction-on-settlements issue, the Administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand. Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens. And since Israel won't stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won't--unlike the Administration--back down--Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire four-year term in office. In fact, he's probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place, much less succeed.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner, and the Administration keeps making that corner smaller!

The administration's mis-steps continue to discourage peace making.)

By highlighting the proposed construction in Gilo, the administration is giving further ammunition to those who would deny Israel's right to exist by perverting international law. This, in turn, emboldens Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. It's astonishing that to some people construction by Jews is an element that reduces Israel's legitimacy, but that terror by Arabs continues to make their grievances worthy of being addressed. It is this perverse equivalence that the administration is encouraging.

Crossposted on Yourish.

6:29 AM | Permalink |

A discriminating education

The New York Times has a fawning article about the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). If you read the article you'd learn that the biggest challenge the university is the possibility of students mingling.

Not long after the lavish opening ceremony with thousands of guests and dozens of heads of state, a member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars, an official body appointed by the king, criticized the university. Most of the uproar focused on his condemnation of "mingling," which he called "a great depravity." But the critic, Sheik Saad al-Shathry, also called for the creation of a religious committee to ensure that the curriculum was consistent with Islam.

King Abdullah promptly, and with great effect, fired Sheik Shathry from the council. But at the university, some staff members and students said they were wondering how long they had before the king decided, for political expediency, that he must bow to the nation's powerful religious forces.

But there's another challenge that the kingdom will never address and the Times will never mention: KAUST, won't allow any Israeli faculty or students, even though Israel has some of the best academic programs in the fields that KAUST will be specializing in. Keeping Jews out doesn't much bother anyone.

One of KAUST's trustees is former Irish President and human rights advocate, Mary Robinson. She is the one who presided over the Durban Israel bashfest in 2001.

But her signature moment in history came when, as chairwoman of the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, she allowed the conference to be hijacked by extremist groups. The meeting devolved into an ugly anti-American and anti-Semitic debacle and gravely wounded the cause of human rights.

Durban was no big tent of tolerance. Rather, it was a launching pad for demonizing the United States, Israel and any Jews with the audacity to openly identify themselves as Zionists.

Serving as a trustee at a university that excludes Jews doesn't trouble this honored member of the human rights community.

But to look at the University's values, you don't see "equality." There is "diversity," but I suspect that it excludes members of one religion and one country. It doesn't bother Mrs. Robinson and, I suspect, not the New York Times either.

12:19 AM | Permalink |

November 19, 2009

Goldstone Reports's Col. Desmond Travers: 'Hey, They Never Laid A Glove On Me!'

But not a glove has been landed on the report itself ... It cannot and will not be buried. It will not go away.
Col. Desmond Travers, participant in the Goldstone fact-finding mission


And neither will the analyzes, criticisms and refutations of that very same Goldstone Report--critiques that Col. Travers claims do not exist.

Among the sources of analysis online is Understanding The Goldstone Report, which has a section featuring Open Letters To Judge Goldstone, including:
And that is not even including Israel's in-depth response.

If Col. Travers cannot even recognize the fact that in-depth, critiques of the Report exist that deal with the actual facts, what are we to think of the Goldstone Report in which he participated?

by Daled Amos
12:58 PM | Permalink |

Negotiating by tantrum

About two weeks ago when Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said he was quitting, Daled Amos observed that this less a dramatic announcement than standard operating procedure noting 14 times that he has threatened to quit since 2003. This isn't an ultimatum for Abbas, but standard operating procedure. Knowing that he's perceived as an irreplaceable "moderate," when he doesn't get his way he threatens to quit, hoping to be induced by incentives to stay. Think of it as negotiating by tantrum.

Barry Rubin outlined the elements of Abbas's strategy:

t's really funny how the story about Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas supposedly-going-to-call-elections-and-resign story was covered. Everyone in the Middle East knew he wouldn't resign and he wouldn't call elections. It was a blatant bid to get something from the Americans and pretend that he was tough. But the Western media reported the story as if it were true.

This technique borrows from Egyptian President (dictator) Gamal Abdel Nasser after he lost the 1967 war. Step 1: Announce your quitting. Step 2: Organize big demonstrations begging you not to quit. Abbas added to this a Step 3: Get Westerners to give you goodies and demand more concessions from Israel so that you'll stay.

So the media played along and took it seriously. In the process we were given the mainstream view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize the Palestinian side. Well, you can knock Hamas but not the PA. In fact, the more one-sided the reporting, the better.

But it wasn't long before it was clear he'd stay on as the PA's head and there won't be any elections.

If you thought it was over, it isn't. Today Ethan Bronner of the New York Times writes:

The Israeli security establishment is in a state of alarm over the possible departure of Mr. Abbas, whom it considers a genuine moderate. Some of its top members are urging their government to make far-reaching offers -- "not just lifting a few roadblocks," in the words of one -- that would persuade him to stay in power and resume negotiations with Israel on a solution that involves creating an independent Palestinian state.

Palestinian leaders are looking elsewhere for salvation. Aware of their own weakness, but also of rising disillusionment abroad with Israel over West Bank settlement growth and its war in Gaza in January, they are hoping to turn frailty to their advantage by appealing to the international community to come to their rescue.

Note how Abbas's strategy is stated explicitly. He's not getting what he wants so he's using the threat to resign as a cry for help to the international community. The twist here is the "state of alarm" of Israel's security establishment. Can it be that Israel's security establishment really fears Abbas's resignation? One would think like the boy who cried wolf, Abbas doesn't have much credibility.

Later on Bronner inadvertently touches on the real problem of Palestinian leadership: there's no real moderation there. Relatively speaking, Abbas is a moderate, but last year he rejected a peace proposal from then PM Ehud Olmert that went beyond Ehud Barak's proposal to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Knowing that Olmert would soon no longer be Prime Minister, Abbas didn't see the urgency of accepting his proposal. Instead he rejected a peace offer in hopes that the international community would pressure Israel to cede even more!

The problem is that most of the rest of the Palestinian leadership is even more extreme than he is. Here's more from Bronner:


Mr. Abbas has not groomed a successor. The American and Israeli dream would be Mr. Fayyad, but besides having no political base, he is not a member of Fatah, so Palestinians consider the prospect highly unlikely. More possible, a few say, would be for Mr. Abbas to remain president while allowing Mr. Fayyad to carry out his reform plan.

Two former security chiefs, Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, are also possibilities, although there seems to be no groundswell around them and plenty of opposition. Muhammad Ghneim, a founder of both Fatah and the P.L.O. who came to the West Bank this past summer from exile, is considered a possible place holder if the job suddenly becomes vacant. And Nasser al-Kidwa, a nephew of Mr. Arafat and former Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, is also mentioned by some as a possible future candidate.

But there is no appetite for a succession struggle as everyone waits to see whether the peace process deadlock can be broken.

Those who read Barry Rubin know that the candidate who emerged the strongest from this summer's Fatah election was Ghneim. Here's what Prof Rubin wrote about Ghneim (Ghanem):

Ghaneim has a definite appeal for Abbas as ally and successor. He is one of the few remaining original founders of Fatah and has wide contacts throughout the movement.

On the one hand, he possesses Arafat's seal of approval historically but on the other hand he is so hard-line as to appeal to that powerful tendency in Fatah. In addition, as someone who has been outside the PA politics for 15 years he was seen as a neutral figure in many petty and personal disputes.

But this is not the man to choose if your top priorities were making peace with Israel and maintaining good relations with the West. He is the man you would choose if you intended to reject compromise, rebuild links to Syria and Hamas, and perhaps return to armed struggle in future.

On arrival at the Allenby Bridge crossing from Jordan on July 29, 2009, just before the Fatah Congress, Ghaneim was picked up by Abbas' personal limousine, taken to his office, and welcomed in a ceremony.

At the reception, Ghaneim stated: "The struggle will continue until victory" and that if political means did not win Palestinian demands the movement would return to armed struggle. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 30, 2009). It is clear how Ghaneim defines victory and it is not a West Bank-Gaza state with its capital in east Jerusalem living alongside Israel in perfect harmony.

That Ghaneim would give up demands that all Palestinian refugees and their offspring must be allowed to live in Israel or that he would make any territorial compromise, or that he would end the conflict permanently in any peace agreement is extremely unlikely. These are things--all necessary for peace--that even the less extreme Abbas has rejected.

So the problem isn't that the Israel might lose the one "moderate" peace partner, it's that such a partner doesn't truly exist. And even if one wants to point to someone such as Salam Fayyad, the problem is that he has no political base. There's no real constituency for moderation in the PA.

The media and selected members of Israel's security establishment can take Abbas's threat to quit seriously, but in the end it really won't affect things much one way or another. It's just one more tantrum.

Crossposted on Yourish.

5:44 AM | Permalink |

Submitted 11/19/09

Here are this week's Watcher's Council submissions:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

5:43 AM | Permalink |

November 18, 2009

Passively described aggression

In some ways there's little to quibble with in Howard Schneider's To two faiths, a holy patch of land; to the world, a powder keg in the Washington Post. It begins:

It is one of the most watched pieces of real estate in the world, 35 acres where an under-the-breath prayer or a whiff of a rumor can rouse warnings of war.

In both Judaism and Islam, the area known respectively as the Temple Mount and the Noble Sanctuary is considered a formative location. Jews believe it to be the site of Solomon's Temple and key biblical events. Muslims regard it as the spot where Muhammad was brought by the angel Gabriel before embarking on a trip to heaven to visit the other prophets.

It also remains a flash point, and a series of disturbances there this fall showed just how difficult it will be for Israelis and Palestinians to reach agreement on an area over which they negotiate not just as political entities but also as representatives of two faiths with an often-troubled relationship.

I wish he were stronger in terms of the Jewish claim. Archaeology has confirmed the Temple. It's more than just a Jewish "belief."

However later on there are a few things that bother me.

If the Palestinians "want to let go of an area in the West Bank, no one from the outside is going to say anything," said Abdul Fattah Salah, Jordan's minister of religious affairs. "But when it comes to Jerusalem, they can't. It is tied to all Muslims." The Jordanian ministry employs 500 people who staff the Jerusalem compound. ad_icon

Salah said the hope is that if part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state, Muslims from any country will be able to begin visiting a site where it is considered a special blessing to pray -- access that he said Israel is unlikely to grant if it maintains sole sovereignty over the city.

First of all, Schneider lets stand the exaggerated claim of the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem. Yes Jerusalem is holy to Muslims, but for much of Islamic history Jerusalem was ignored. Even the Crusades aroused little interest at first. This leads Daniel Pipes to conclude:

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam." Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The other point Schneider should have challenged Salah on was his claim that until Jerusalem becomes part of a Palestinian state, Muslims from around the world won't be able to visit it. I expect that Muslims from Arab countries that are hostile to Israel won't be able to visit Jerusalem easily. So there is a solution. Make peace with Israel. (And of course the Jordanian doesn't acknowledge that when his country ruled the Old City, Jews were forbidden from visiting their holy site!)

And then at the end of the article Schneider writes:

Given recent history, the fall riots were viewed by some here as a cause for optimism. They were on a comparatively small scale, led to no deaths on either side and, after a tense period from Yom Kippur through late October, appear to have dissipated without consequence.

Far worse has happened: Dozens of people died in 1996 in clashes that erupted after access was opened for tourists to a tunnel that ran on an ancient street alongside the wall. And a visit to the area by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 helped trigger the multi-year uprising known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Let's give a little more detail as to what happened in 1996 and 2000. Barry Rubin recently recalled:

In 1996, the Israeli government opened a tunnel which tourists could walk through and see certain features of the ancient wall and Jerusalem. Rumors that the Jews were trying to destroy the mosques were orchestrated by the Palestinian leadership with many lives lost and the peace process placed in jeopardy. As a result, too, 85 Palestinians and 16 Israelis were killed, and more than 1,300 people--mostly Palestinians--were wounded, a terrible bloodshed for no rational reason whatsoever.

In 2000, a brief tour of the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon--he merely walked through for about an hour, looked around, and then left--was the rationale used to set off an intifada that lasted for about five years and cost several thousand lives.

Afterward, Marwan Barghouti, leader of Fatah on the West Bank, described in detail how he used this as an excuse to set off the uprising. This violence took place about the time that President Bill Clinton, with Israeli agreement, proposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state which would, among other things, control most of east Jerusalem.

Schneider uses "erupted" and "triggered" to describe how the violence started in those circumstances. But in both cases as Prof. Rubin observed, the violence was incited. Worse in 2000, the Arafat-PA orchestrated violence came after rejecting a peace offer that would have given the Palestinians significant control over the Temple Mount.

Left unsaid by Schneider and unfortunately not even implicit in his article is that there's no peace in the Middle East, because the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically, refuse to make peace with Israel. Jerusalem might well be a sticking point, but it's because the Arab world has chosen to make it one, rejecting any compromises with Israel.

Crossposted on Yourish.

5:51 AM | Permalink |

Palin on "settlements"

Israel Matzav observes about a recent American criticism of Jewish construction in Gilo - that's part of Jerusalem.

Obama's not going to let up on this, but given the broad consensus within Israel, I doubt Israelis are going to yield to Obama on it either. A year from now, if election results favor the Republicans, maybe Obama will be forced to let up, but for now, we Israelis are going to have to live with this criticism without getting all hysterical about it. While Obama may want to make a radical change in US relations with Israel, it's doubtful that he has the support in Congress or in American public opinion to make it.

He's right. If Congress changes hands it will probably make a difference. Republicans, in general, are more sympathetic towards Israel. Sarah Palin, in her interview with Barbara Walters, demonstrated that difference. (via memeorandum)

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

It's true that Palin's expressed beliefs are quite a bit more supportive of Israel than those of the average American and I doubt that she'd be able to act on those beliefs even she achieved higher office. Still it's a refreshing contrast to an administration run by someone who used to be close with Rashid Khalidi.

Crossposted on Yourish.

5:12 AM | Permalink |

Bringing mohammed to new york

When called upon by CBS, legal analyst Andrew Cohen often states the obvious and occasionally adds an interesting insight about legal matters that are in the news. But when the law and politics intersect, he can be counted on to take the stand of the Democratic Party on the issue. Take the issue of holding terror trials in New York. In a recent op-ed he claims to debunk myths surrounding having the trials in New York as opposed to military tribunals.

Let's see his third "myth."

Three: Trying Mohammed in New York will significantly raise the risk of another terrorist attack there. Fact: No one can determine how big that increased risk would be. But New York has long been able to safely host trials of terrorism suspects -- including the trial that followed the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- and its security systems are among the world's finest. I have seen, during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, just how intense security can be in terrorism cases. It's awe-inspiring.

What Cohen dismisses, former AG Michael Mukasey, point out, exacts a very high cost.


The challenges of a terrorism trial are overwhelming. To maintain the security of the courthouse and the jail facilities where defendants are housed, deputy U.S. marshals must be recruited from other jurisdictions; jurors must be selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse under armed guard; and judges who preside over such cases often need protection as well. All such measures burden an already overloaded justice system and interfere with the handling of other cases, both criminal and civil.

Judge Mukasey is not employed simply by being paid for his opinions, but has actually presided over some of these cases.

Worse, as Mukasey wrote earlier, the openness of these trials incurs serious security risks by allowing potentially damaging information out.

In fact, terrorism prosecutions in this country have unintentionally provided terrorists with a rich source of intelligence. For example, in the course of prosecuting Omar Abdel Rahman (the so-called "blind sheik") and others for their role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other crimes, the government was compelled--as it is in all cases that charge conspiracy--to turn over a list of unindicted co-conspirators to the defendants.

That list included the name of Osama bin Laden. As was learned later, within 10 days a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum, letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.

Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost.

Cohen set up and knocked down straw men, while ignoring the real costs and risks associated with trying terror suspects in federal court.

Related: Please see Seraphic Secret:


Military tribunals are a time honored and effective method of dealing with foreign combatants. The U.S. has made use of military tribunals since The Revolutionary War.

Jonathan F. Keiler

The Goldstone report and the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court undermine fundamental principles of law accepted in the West since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The Westphalian peace and the body of law that followed empowered the armies of nation states and weakened non-national armies associated with religious movements or ideologies, as well as the mercenary bands and bandits that had plagued Europe for hundreds of years.

The ideologues on the left who represent Guantanamo inmates and write reports on Gaza -- call them pre-Westphalians -- are committed to empowering just the opposite: religious and ideological terrorists, criminals, bandits and other non-state actors who thrive on anarchy. They do this under the color of promoting "humanitarian law" and protection of individual rights.

and James Taranto who catches on to an inadvertent admission by Gov. Paterson of New York.

5:02 AM | Permalink |

November 17, 2009

Mahmoud Abbas Enters The Twilight Zone

Submitted for your approval...

Meet Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority--a position he has threatened to resign from for years.

And yet Mr. Abbas has found himself strangely drawn to power, claiming that after his 4 year term expired this past January--that he can still continue in office, based on a technicality.

Mahmoud Abbas: torn between quitting his job--or staying indefinitely.
Unsure which path to take.

But today, The Twilight Zone will make the decision for him...

Mahmoud Abbas's term as Palestinian president will be extended by the supreme body of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) when it meets in December, senior PLO officials said on Tuesday.

Abbas, the Western-backed leader committed to negotiating peace with Israel, will stay in office, they said.

Though Abbas has said he does not want to run again for the presidency, several members of the PLO Central Council interviewed by Reuters said the body would effectively extend his tenure to avoid a vacuum when it expires on January 25.

Following his November 5 announcement that he did not want to stand again for the presidency in elections he had called for January 24, the PLO urged Abbas to stay on.

However the debate over his candidacy was rendered largely irrelevant last week when the independent election commission advised him to postpone the vote. Cancellation of the election is now seen as a mere formality.

The commission told Abbas it could not organise presidential and legislative elections, mainly because they had been banned in advance by the Islamist Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, which disputes Abbas's legitimacy.

So his threat not to stand will not arise.

"The Central Council has only one solution and it is to entrust the president, as head of the PLO, with continuing as president of the Palestinian Authority until it is able to hold presidential and legislative elections," said Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior official in the Fatah movement, also led by Abbas.
Meet Mahmoud Abbas, who can can now hold the position of President of the Palestinian Authority indefinitely, as a possible position of President For Life has now turned into President For Eternity...

In The Twilight Zone.


By daledamos
3:52 PM | Permalink |

Of drones and doctrines

Given the acknowledgment in Sunday's Washington Post editorial that the guidelines for asymmetrical warfare are lacking, there are two recent stories of note.

The first is from the National that describes the American efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Predator attacks are controversial, but they are getting increasingly close to the senior leadership of both the Taliban and al Qa'eda. Commander Faqir can have no doubt by now that he is in the sights of the US drones.

The Predator MQ9, with its deadly armoury of two Hellfire anti-tank missiles, is known as the Reaper, for good reason. The use of the Reaper is an extension of a well-tried US special operations technique known to its proponents as "taking down the mountain", used to hunt such figures as Pablo Escobar, the Colombian drugs baron, and the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

It combines the collection of extensive intelligence with an operation to hunt the target's associates, removing them one by one, forcing the main target on the run and out into the open, where he can be targeted. It has already been used against one senior al Qa'eda leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al Qa'eda in Iraq, killed by the US in June 2006.

However, the reporter notes:

There are problems with these attacks. The first concerns the number of civilian deaths. The most authoritative assessment of the attacks, by the New America Foundation, estimates that about one third of more than 1,000 people killed were civilians, fuelling anti-western feeling inside Pakistan.

The second is the dubious legality of the attacks under international law. To justify killing an enemy in a military operation, it is necessary to be under threat from that enemy. Critics say the US airman operating the Predator remotely from an operations room in the Nevada desert is scarcely under threat from the Taliban or al Qa'eda.

The second objection is nonsense. Even if the Predator is operated from Nevada, there are still American troops nearby. Still it does indicate a problem: it is a tactic that its critics are trying to undermine. The Goldstone Report was an effort to prevent Israel from defending itself against its enemies. America's enemies are no doubt looking as to how to apply Goldstone or similarly selective legal reasoning to restrain the American military.

And has Goldstone constrained Israel? After reporting on the improved military capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, Amos Harel claims, that yes, Israel's military doctrine is being constrained by fears of future legal actions.


According to a report by Nahum Barnea in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, Netanyahu has already drawn his conclusions from the Goldstone report: Israel must fight only short wars, which will end before the international community wakes up. This is a systematic doctrine whose chief advocate in the General Staff is the head of the Planning Branch (and a former fighter pilot), Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel. "Short" is almost code for "aerial." It takes far longer to mount a meaningful ground maneuver than to bomb Beirut from the air. At the moment of truth, Israel will face a serious dilemma: Should it initiate a massive blow to remove the danger, despite the major international damage this would cause?

I have no idea how accurate Barnea's report is, but I suspect that he's at least identified one of the considerations Israel will take into account in future military campaigns against terrorists. It would seem that Goldstone has accomplished his goal: he's constrained Israel's military options. Hopefully we'll never have to find out how severely.

Crossposted on Yourish.

7:13 AM | Permalink |

The dictator and the models

This is just odd. Muammar Qaddafi was just in Italy, so he sent invitations to a group of beautiful women.

The women, all between the ages of 18 and 35, assembled in a Rome hotel before being screened by both metal detectors and the fashion police, who turned away anyone in a miniskirt or provocative clothing, according to Paola Lo Mele, a journalist for the ANSA news agency, who answered the modeling agency's request and went undercover to the event. The women were each paid $75 to attend.

As far as I can tell there was nothing untoward about Qaddafi's intentions.

The women who made the cut were bused to a villa in Rome, ANSA reported, where they waited an hour, unsure of what was to follow, before the famously late Libyan leader arrived.

"All the girls expected a party with a gala dinner," Ms. Lo Mele reported. Instead, Colonel Qaddafi "made a 45-minute speech on Islam and women's role in Islam." He gave the women a copy of the Koran and said that he would pay for them to visit Mecca, the duty of every Muslim, if they converted.

And as a lovely parting gift he gave them copies of his Green Book.

4:34 AM | Permalink |

November 16, 2009

"Media; a lever of int'l Zionism to dominate the world: Ahmadinejad"

That should be a colon after the word "Media," but I'm not fixing ISNA's punctuation for them.

The establishment and employment of media is the lever of the international Zionism to dominate the entire world, said Iran's President.

During a meeting with members of the Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies (OANA) in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the media which belong to the Zionism magnify the slightest issues in Asian countries to pressurize their governments but do not reflect plenty of the ugliest measures in the US and occupied territories of Palestine.

The media are bombarding humans mind, Ahmadinejad noted and called for OANA to communicate the message of friendship, peace and brotherhood to the world. [...]

What's so haram about peace, love, and understanding, eh? The Fars version of this story is entitled "President Warns Nations about Zionists' Media Plot to Destruct Culture." IRIB also has an article based on the same speech:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday evening expressed hope that the media of Asia and the Pacific region would overcome Zionist- and the Arrogance-held media in the next few years by appropriate understanding the international scene, resistance and interaction.
Once an "appropriate understanding" of "interaction" takes hold, all Zionist plots are doomed!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

10:34 PM | Permalink |

Cry "conspiracy" and let slip the dogs of human rights

Recently the member of a group resigned and accepted an assignment from the UN that further promoted the group's agenda. The group then endorsed the result of that assignment. Faced with criticism, the group turns to a sympathetic newspaper that uncritically reports on its plight.

The group's efforts, then, have the support of the UN and a media outlet. So what's its complaint? That there's a conspiracy against it!

There's an element of chutzpah for Human Rights Watch (HRW) to complain that there's a conspiracy against it. Those of us who have been criticizing HRW are motivated by a similar disgust with its anti-Israel agenda and its dishonest methodology. So how does HRW defend itself? By complaining to the anti-Israel Guardian and resorting to dishonest arguments!

Given that those of us who have been criticizing HRW don't have the resources of the UN or even of the Guardian at our disposal, why would HRW fear a "conspiracy?" Might it be that the criticism its receiving has been effective because its been accurate? Perhaps what it really fears is scrutiny.

I was particularly struck by the following section of the Guardian's report (h/t Solomonia):


Criticism has particularly focused on the director of HRW's Middle East division, Sarah Leah Whitson, over a visit to Saudi Arabia.

NGO Monitor accused Whitson of attempting to raise money from Saudi officials by highlighting HRW's criticism of Israel, a charge also made in a comment piece for the Wall Street Journal online that was subsequently widely distributed by the most powerful of the pro-Israel lobby groups, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). Shortly afterwards, the director of policy planning in the Israeli prime minister's office, Ron Dermer, denounced Human Rights Watch.

"We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity," he said.

Levine said that Whitson's visit to Saudi Arabia was similar to trips by other HRW officials to Tokyo, Johannesburg and Tel Aviv to win the support of individuals interested in supporting human rights in their own countries and abroad.

But, tell me, would Whitson have gone to, say, Efrat to raise funds to promote the rights of women to drive in Saudi Arabia?

Whitson went to a country still officially at war with Israel to raise funds by advertising that her organization does the Saudis work for them. Sorry but there's no way to dress such an action up as benign. If HRW's critics attacked Whitson's fundraising, well that was well earned.

But if you think there was nothing wrong with Whitson's fund raising, read the sympathetic account in Arab News (h/t Daled Amos)

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."

Keeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia. The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.

Given the Saudi disregard for equal rights for women, due process or religious minorities, calling for great protection for domestic workers isn't even handed, but a fig leaf.

Just as HRW works with the UN, the Saudis and other anti-Israel organizations, so too Israel's defenders work together. Call it a conspiracy, but I'd prefer to have the resources that HRW and its allies have. Of course, they are missing one thing: integrity, and I and my friends are all too happy to point that out.

Elder of Ziyon and Augean Stables have more on the conspiracy.


7:00 AM | Permalink |

The cheers for the washington post

Yesterday the Washington Post editorialized in War Unchecked (h/t Prof Avi Bell):

IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.

Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?

These observations give some background for what comes next: a harsh repudiation of the Goldstone report.

A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.

But Israel refused to cooperate -- and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.

The contrast between the events described in the opening two paragraphs and the reaction to Israel's war against Hamas could not be clearer. The editorial correctly infers that Israel is being held to an impossible standard.

I could quibble with the editorial. How could the Post's editors describe Judge Goldstone as "respected" at this point, even as they show his absolute disregard for any legal standards? And did the Post's editors really expect anything else? After all if the investigation was about establishing international standards shouldn't the commission have investigated NATO's war against the Taliban or even the war against Serbia from a decade ago? Clearly the commission was convened specifically to hamstring Israel's efforts to defend itself.

Still this shouldn't take away from the importance of the editorial. The editorial should also serve as a rebuke to put upon NGO's like Human Rights Watch. If they were true to their mission they wouldn't have uncritically endorsed Goldstone. Rather Goldstone was doing their work for them; giving the imprimatur of the UN on a condemnation of Israel. What matters to HRW, is not the methods but the conclusion. If the conclusion damns Israel, it must be correct. Fortunately the editors of the Washington Post are more discerning.

Crossposted on Yourish.

5:43 AM | Permalink |

Musical monday #117

Welcome to the 117th edition of Musical Monday. Elie and I switch off hosting. The goal is to identify as many of the songs as possible and figure out the theme. No googling! Just use your memory (or CDs.) Check out Musical Monday #116, and you can still guess. Answers will likely be posted soon though!

1) You see I begged, stole and I borrowed
2) Please stop pulling at my sleeve if you're just playing
3) Two that wanna stone me
4) No you'll never change her, so leave it, leave it
5) No words of consolation will make me miss you less
6) At a half past a heartache, quarter to four
7) No fault no blame nobody done no wrong
8) You can even play them easy.
9) Against your skin so brown
10) Say sweet lovely things to him,
11) When I was broken in two it was all because of you
12) Who care about evil and social injustice
13) Darlin' in my wildest dreams I never thought I'd go
14) Well they tell me of a pie up in the sky
15) Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
16) You can always sit down and watch the color TV
17) Wouldn't wanna be swept away, far away from the one that I love.
18) It's a sad, sad situation, and it's getting more and more absurd
19) So why on earth should I moan
20) I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cos I get better looking each day
21) No not the same mistakes again
22) People tell me love's for fools
23) Don't you leave my heart in misery

Continue reading "Musical monday #117"
5:34 AM | Permalink |

November 15, 2009

When chrono-fowl collide

The Large Hadron Collider keeps having the wrong sort of collisions. According to a Time article, the latest mishap may have happened when a "passing bird . . . dropped the chunk of bread on an electrical substation above the accelerator . . . " Just a bit of unwanted randomness? Not according to some scientists:

While most scientists would write off the event as a freak accident, two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.
The article goes on to mention some objections to this theory, but in my inexpert opinion, the main problem is that nobody knows what the folks in the future might or might not find objectionable. It's all pure speculation. For all we know, the people in the future may have taken (will being ge-taken haven?) a vote, only narrowly avoiding a resolution to stop the creation of the latest Mattisyahu CD.

I'm picturing all this as actions taken by future people, no doubt missing the "complex mathematics" that this Time article is rendering as a big metaphor for the vast uneducated public. On the other hand:

Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."
You have to wonder why the "inverted commas" are necessary. I often think physics is catching up with religion. That's one way to think about it.

If the Collider is indeed on a collision course with a mysterious vanishing, then someone may have anticipated all this years ago:

Crossposted on Judeopundit

3:17 AM | Permalink |