To read today's story in the NY Times about the terrorist attack in Syria you get a sense of uncertainty.
Western and Arab analysts said they were puzzled over what could have been a motive for a terrorist attack on Syria, which fiercely opposed the American-led war in Iraq and has praised the violent insurgency there as legitimate resistance to an occupying force.Though the Times probably has as many details as anyone its two reporters are unwilling to speculate on a motive.
It would be in Syria's interest to portray itself as a victim of terrorism. It might reduce some of the scrutiny of Syria's own activity supporting terror. Then Syria could engage in its best diplomatic tactic - obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.Mannes of course urges that Syria not be given any benefit of the doubt and be treated as a pariah until it gives up its very real support for terror.
I first discovered this story via Amish Tech Support via Baseball Crank. Of course Little Green Footballs carried it too. LGF asks this important question:
No mention in this story of the question I’m sure is on everyone’s mind: does he still get the virgins?
The robbers forced the bomber to lie on the ground and tried to steal the bomb, but the militant detonated it, killing all three. The other Hamas man and the guide escaped.I'm not surprised that a Hamas spokesman these day would prefer not to draw attention to himself. Here's how the Washington Post covered the story:There have been cases of rival groups stealing each other’s explosives, but no group claimed the two gunmen, and their families did not go to the hospital to take the bodies, indicating that the two were not militants, who are revered in Palestinian society.
A Hamas official said that whatever their intention, the two should be considered agents of Israel.
“Anyone who tries to stop a fighter from doing his work is a collaborator,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Also in Gaza, an unusual confrontation late Monday resulted in the deaths of three -- a Hamas militant and two armed men who tried to steal the militant's explosives, according to Hamas and Palestinian security officials.
In other developments, in central Gaza, three Palestinians were killed in a mysterious explosion late Monday night. The militant group Hamas claimed that one of its suicide bombers had blown himself up, killing two Palestinians who had confronted him and tried to prevent the attack."...confronted him and tried to prevent the attack?" Give me a break. The Hamas spokesman simply derided the robbers as "collaborators" because they prevented the terror attack; but there's no evidence that there was any noble intent here.
Bet you didn't know:
The man who would be president takes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches — on whole wheat, strawberry jelly preferred to grape — twice a day on the campaign trail. He wears $15 reading glasses, off the rack at CVS. Before bedtime, he starts but rarely finishes movies like "Seabiscuit" and "The Blues Brothers" in his hotel suite.See John Kerry's a common man just like many of us. He only differs in the net worth of his wives, the number of homes he owns and the number of SUV's he drives. But he's really quite ordinary. (Yes, I know that the article is about Senator Kerry's chief of staff not about him, but that first paragraph just comes off as phony.)
Ever notice how reporters are unable to escape from the hobgoblins of their limited world view? After Israel killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin the Washington Post reported:
The day after Israeli helicopter pilots assassinated Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader and founder of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, Israelis awoke to the kind of pervasive atmosphere of fear that hasn't been felt here in months.One of the interviewees in the article is quote as saying though she's glad that a terrorist is dead, she wonders if it's worth the number of Israelis who will die in a retaliation.
The morning's first dose of anxiety arrived with the daily newspapers: "ALERT" warned the headline dominating the front of the daily tabloid Maariv.
"The worst thing is a headless Hamas," said Eyad Sarraj, a prominent Palestinian psychiatrist and human rights advocate who has closely monitored the role of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. "A headless Hamas means too many heads, too many agendas. Then you can't control exactly what happens."Huh? That makes no sense. An organization devoted to terror will do its most effective work when it is organized. Remove the organizers and the terror group will not be as effective.
But Eran Lerman, a former deputy director of military intelligence who now represents the American Jewish Committee in Israel, said the struggle between Hamas and Israel's forces has fundamentally changed.''It took a long time, but now these people can't drive from one place to another" without Israeli intelligence knowing it, Lerman said.
''This requires a complex grid of human and signal intelligence, which takes time to establish, but after a while you get a grasp on what's going on. We had this. We lost it in 1993" when the Oslo peace accords were agreed to, ''and we had to get it back."
Now, Lerman asserted, Israel has every reason to exert maximum pressure on Hamas.
''It is the law of diminishing marginal hatred," Lerman said. ''What is the additional hatred you get for killing Rantisi after you have killed Yassin? As a friend of mine in the [security services] says: 'The Palestinians might get really mad. They might even start blowing up buses.' "
"It's now clear that [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has decided to change the rules of the game," said a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City. "Now we understand that the assassinations are directly linked to his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Sharon himself has said that he wants to 'clean' the area before he leaves. This means he wants to liquidate as many Hamas leaders as possible so that the withdrawal would not be portrayed as a retreat. Of course he is mistaken and Hamas will prove to him that the killings will only strengthen us."Maybe Hamas isn't so strengthened. Abu Toameh also wrote this nugget:
Yet the general assessment in the Gaza Strip is that while the assassinations have boosted Hamas's popularity, the movement is now facing a serious leadership crisis. Moreover, Hamas's credibility has suffered a major blow because its followers have failed to avenge the killing of Yassin as promised. Rantisi was the first to threaten an "earthquake" in Israel in retaliation for the killing of his predecessor.
Although he had repeatedly expressed a desire to die as a shaheed (martyr), Rantisi, like most of the Hamas leaders, did everything possible to avoid death.Two observations: 1) despite the bluster, Rantisi was a coward and 2) Hamas took advantage of Israel's humanitarian instincts.
Long before he was chosen as successor to Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas who was killed in a similar air strike last month, Rantisi avoided appearing in public unless he was surrounded by a handful of aides and supporters. He knew very well that Israel would not target him when he was flanked by a large number of people to avoid harming innocent civilians.
Victor Davis Hanson has, as usual, an excellent column today. But let's just concentrate on a single paragraph:
The Palestinians will, in fact, get their de facto state, though one that may be now cut off entirely from Israeli commerce and cultural intercourse. This is an apparently terrifying thought: Palestinian men can no longer blow up Jews on Monday, seek dialysis from them on Tuesday, get an Israeli paycheck on Wednesday, demonstrate to CNN cameras about the injustice of it all on Thursday — and then go back to tunneling under Gaza and three-hour, all-male, conspiracy-mongering sessions in coffee-houses on Friday. Beware of getting what you bomb for.As they say in the blogosphere: read the whole thing.
Greg just posted his own coming attractions; I'd like to add one of my own.
A lecture in memory of Rabbi Dr. Azriel Rosenfeld to be given by Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz (Professor of Law at University of Maryland Law School) on the subject of stem cell research is scheduled for 7 PM, Sunday May 2, 2004 at Yeshivat Rambam. For an article by Rabbi Breitowitz on what appears to be a similar subject check this out.
UPDATE: The lecture is titled "Halachic Considerations of Human cloning and Stem Cell research" and Mincha (afternoon prayers) are scheduled at 6:45.
I didn't know Rabbi Dr. Rosenfeld very well, but he was the father of one of my closest friends. Rabbi Dr. Rosenfeld was a master of both Torah (religious knowledge) and Mada (secular knowledge or science). Many subscribe to the idea of mixing both; but few have done it as well as Rabbi Dr. Rosenfeld did.
For all the furor over the killing of Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi. I also recall there was quite a bit of outrage over the killing of Dr. Thabet Thabet. Did any of these people mourn Dr. Shmuel Gillis? The Washington Post merely referred to him as a "settler," even though he was known as compassionate to all his patients, Jew and Arab alike. What about Dr. Mario Goldin and Dr. Moshe Gottlieb? And how could I forget the terrible crime of killing Dr. David Applebaum? His death at least got some mention in America. But it hardly provoked any outrage.
Funny the Middle Eastern doctors who get the most attention are the terrorists.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Guess what. One fine restaurant considered carrying cicadas on the menu:
At Fahrenheit, a restaurant in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Georgetown, cicadas almost made the menu this year. "The soft-shelled cicada, it's done just like a soft-shelled crab," says executive chef Frank Belosic, describing how freshly molted cicadas should be rolled in flour, pan-fried in olive oil, and finished with a sauce of white wine, butter and shallots. Served as an appetizer, the dish would have cost diners $10 or so."Higher-ups," Belosic adds, crushed the idea, in order not "to scare people away."
David Ignatius was none too impressed with President Bush's statement supporting Israeli PM Sharon last week.
But Bush ignores the fact that there can be powerful reasons not to say the obvious -- and that studied ambiguity is an important part of successful diplomacy.But "studied ambiguity" was not a highlight of his predecessors' approach to the Middle East. President Bush's father was famous for complaining that he one "lonely little guy" fighting the powerful influence of the Israel lobby. President Clinton sided with Yasser Arafat's interpretation of the Oslo Accords when they clashed with that of the Israeli government. (Certainly in the case of Netanyahu; I believe it also may have happened when Rabin was PM.)
In Middle Eastern diplomacy, where symbolism is as important as substance, the message of the day was loud and clear. Clinton convened a high-profile ceremony and luncheon with the two Labor icons the same week that he said he was too busy to meet with the current Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.And this was his reward in 2000"It's clearly a message that this administration wishes that things were different and that the players in Israel were different," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "If nothing else, the luncheon was a very clear statement that the president had four hours to spend on nostalgia, and no time to meet with the prime minister," said Foxman, who attended last Friday's celebration.
The refusal of Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, to negotiate away his claims to Jerusalem may have dashed American hopes of a Camp David peace agreement today, but it allowed him to return home with his credibility among Arab and Muslim leaders intact, Middle East analysts said. . . . During the last few days, a number of Arab leaders like Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudia Arabia and President Mubarak have joined with Mr. Arafat's domestic opponents in Islamic militant movements to weigh in on the issue. They all but threatened Mr. Arafat with political excommunication if he accepted Prime Minister Ehud Barak's proposals for administrative control over parts of the city and access to -- but not sovereignty over -- the major Muslim sites.(In fairness, David Bernstein, who linked to the above article also linked to this one.)
What makes Bush's abandonment of long-standing U.S. positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so unfortunate is that it was unnecessary. The Israelis have powerful security reasons for withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza and dismantling their settlements there. It's not a concession that the United States should have to buy by sacrificing its own negotiating leverage; it's something most Israelis want because it's in their country's interest.The problem with this statement is that just because something is good doesn't mean that it is without cost or that it is not dangerous. Most Israelis may support a withdrawal from Gaza but as the Oslo Accords demonstrated, giving ground to a terrorist is a recipe for disaster. Will a withdrawal from Gaza lead to more terror? It's a real possibility. (It will happen unless Israel has so degraded the capabilities of the terrorist groups in Gaza that they are incapable organizationally of launching a sustained campaign against Israel.) Ignatius is so certain he is right. But given previous experience there is no reason to assume that he is.
Given Mr. Dankner's onetime status as a member of Israel's "peace camp," it might be appropriate for Mr. Ignatius to demonstrate a little humility when he proclaims he knows what's good for Israel.
Even supporters of the disengagement plan, like myself, should not have the hubris to accept it with complete confidence, belittling and ignoring our opponents. The fact that we believe that we are right does not mean that we should totally disregard the fact that they may have valid points. We need look no further than Oslo to see the results of false pride, when one side believes it and it alone has a monopoly on wisdom and prescience.
In the gay, optimistic days of the Oslo Accords, the vast majority of the media lauded Oslo and its initiators, giving them unrestrained support, and assisting them in convincing the Israeli public that any mines along the path were either duds or small ones easily defused. In the end those duds exploded in our faces, taking the life out of the process and leaving us to mourn hundreds of Israeli victims of terror.
This past Sunday was garden day. One of our tasks was to take down our old rusted swingset. My children were great helping out. Among other things they found a bunch of cicadas getting ready to come to the surface. We also discovered that a tree root had insinuated itself into one of the legs of the swingset. Well we got it out and my wife found someone to haul it away today.
My biggest task was to prune tree limbs away from the house. With the coming of the warm weather we've been seeing more carpenter inside the house. My wife thought that they were getting onto (and then into) the house off of the branches touching the house. So I borrowed a pruner on a pole from a neighbor. As I lopped up some of those high branches, unsure of where they were to fall, I kept on envisioning myself as an eventual Darwin award winner if a large enough branch would find its mark. Fortunately, I exercised enough care (and in one case moved fast enough) that needn't have worried.
I forgot why I did a search on "Uruk Hai," but I did and found this "news:"
The Uruk-Hai Anti-Defamation League (UADL) announced that it would be boycotting the premiere of The Return of the King, and would picket theaters because they are unhappy with their portrayal so far in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Kidnapping of short movie-goers was also threatened.
The NY Times was none too pleased with Bush's backing for Sharon as its editorial "Settlements over Peace" makes clear.
So much for the constructive mediator. In a costly blow yesterday to America's credibility as an honest broker for a Middle East peace, President Bush endorsed Israeli plans to retain some West Bank settlements and to essentially reject the Palestinians' "right of return."I have little with which I agree with Sen Schumer on but on the subject of the Middle East, he has few peers as he wrote the next day.
I was surprised to find that in your April 15 coverage, analysis and editorial about President Bush's endorsement of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's withdrawal plan, there was not a single mention of the Palestinian rejection of the peace agreement endorsed by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2001.If only my two Democratic Senators (not to mention my Congressman Benjamin Cardin) from Maryland who are purportedly pro-Israel would speak out so forcefully and sensibly. Sigh.That proposal would have resulted in Israel's vacating virtually all the settlements in exchange for peace.
Yasir Arafat's rejection of this offer showed that settlements are not the casus belli of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but rather an excuse for Palestinians like Mr. Arafat who will never accept a two-state solution.
Truthfully, there's are not so many points to dispute in "Gaza First, but Not Last." It's mostly boilerplate rhetoric masqurading as analysis. But there's this:
While there is no effective Palestinian Authority to deal with right now, ultimately there can be no realistic substitute for a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.Now seven years of negotiations left the situation worse than when it started. Negotiations only work when both sides are acting in good faith. That has been noticeably absent from the Palestinian side.
In "Gaza First, but Not Last" (editorial, April 13), you devote six paragraphs to Israel's responsibilities toward peace, and do not devote a single sentence to the question, "What must the Palestinians do?"
Well it was nice to be mentioned by InstaPundit. Even if he got my first name wrong. I wrote to recommend an article "The Intelligence Mess: How It Happened, What to Do About It" by Andrew McCarthy in the current issue of Commentary. (Either buy it, or download it now during April while it is free.) Andrew McCarthy helped prosecute Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, so he's aware of the various failings of American intelligence agencies. One of his observations is that Congress has placed many limits on domestic intelligence gathering that have ill served the country. McCarthy's article has the advantage of having been written before Richard Clarke testified.
I'd like to point out another article about the failures that allowed Al Qaeda to perpetrate its crimes against America on September 11, 2001.
One is "Terrorism on Trial" by Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson. Pipes and Emerson reviewed much of the material from the 1998 embassy bombing trials and noted the wealth of material about Al Qaeda operations in America. Had the government ordered the FBI to start keeping tabs on the cells already extant at that time in the US it is possible that it would have picked up on the activity of the hijackers. (It's also possible that the hijackers would have operated independently of other Qaeda cells to reduce the possibility of detection.) The prescription that Pipes and Emerson offer was to treat the threat of terrorism as a war. That was something that according to Condoleeza Rice that the Bush administration was working on. When the hijackers struck the plan was implemented. Eight years of Clinton yielded no such determination. A couple of Tomahawks with no followup does not constitute a sustained counterattack. I remain skeptical that President Al Gore would have responded the way the Bush administration did. I trust that John Kerry would be good as his word and start undoing some of the Bush adminstration's efforts.
The possibility of building tiny motors on the scale of a molecule has been brought one step closer by researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). In the latest issue of the prestigious journal Science, they described how they were able – using light or electrical stimulation – to cause a molecule to rotate on an axis in a controlled fashion, similar to the action of a motor.