Soccer Dad

Around the web, 10/24/05

Some of the commenters on a recent Israpundit posting, mentioned the disturbing Bush / Abbas press conference. It's one thing for President Bush to mutter some platitudes about peace but another to warmly embrace a man who is unwilling and likely unable to bring about that peace unconditionally:

And I believe that's where we're headed. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of West Bank was a bold decision, with historic significance. President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority contributed to the success of the withdrawal in significant ways. Mr. President, thank you.

Through the active coordination and ground-level cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces, the disengagement has been completed successfully and calmly. Israeli withdrawal creates new opportunities, creates responsibilities for the Palestinian people.

Given that Abbas couldn't even prevent the destruction of the greenhouses that were supposed to help his people or condemn the wanton destruction of former Jewish synagogues, he hardly deserves such praise. And when one of his chief security officials declares on the eve of Abbas's trip to the US that he has no intention of disarming Hamas - effectively spitting in the face of America's President, one would hope that the American president would be a bit more reserved in his praise, if not outrightly rebuking Abbas.

(Shortly later the President made a statement that I can't fully comprehend:

The way forward must begin by confronting the threat that armed gangs pose to a genuinely democratic Palestine. And those armed gangs must confront the threat that armed gangs pose to lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

In the second sentence, who are the "armed gangs" of the subject? Is he referring to the PA's security services? If so does he realize what he said? - I would say that that's an accurate description of those services. Of course then does he really expect "armed gangs" to secure democracy?)

On the other hand Daled Amos asks "Is There A Bizarro White House?" and cites a DEBKA story that "reports" that not all was sweetness and light between the two Presidents:

According to our sources, the US president laid down a new set of rules, unfamiliar to the Palestinians. In a word, no one will help the Palestinians if they don’t help themselves – and that goes for me, the US President, too. If you think you can disarm Hamas by letting them take part in elections, go ahead, but you are on your own. We think you are making a big mistake, but we don’t interfere. But there is a price to pay. A regime dominated by terrorists cannot expected to be treated as a democracy.

And I'd continue to be skeptical (because if President Bush really did this it would be nearly everything I believe he should have done) except that the NY Sun effectively (also via Daled Amos) confirmed the DEBKA account:

President Bush yesterday privately told his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, that while it was up to him as to whether terrorist groups could participate in upcoming municipal and parliamentary elections, America would have no contact with terrorists in his future government.

(Daled Amos points out further that if President Bush is really taking this stand, it's not just because he's siding with Israel or because it's a good idea, he's doing it because it's the law:

Under U.S. law, Washington would be unable to deal with any foreign government controlled by groups deemed by the State Department to be terrorists.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been designated terrorist organizations, and the former intends to run in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006.

"Hamas has already been in government in the Palestinian Authority," Welch said. "Under American law, we can't deal with them. I don't see that law changing after January."

If you're interested in Israel and media mis-representation of the situation in the Middle East, Daled Amos might be the best blog you're not reading.

I've been a bit busy lately. There are two other posts that I've been meaning to hype. (Not an Instalanche, just a soccer kick.)

One is Postwatch's "An Enigma Inside A Riddle Wrapped Around a Political Hit Job" in which he quiotes from an online chat at the Post:

On this point, I tend to be more believing of the White House line. It has always seemed clear to me--and the evidence coming out over time has strengthened the point--that the White House motive in talking about Plame was not "to get back at Wilson." This was not about revenge. It was about trying to persuade reporters not to write about Wilson's allegations or take them seriously, because his mission to Niger was a low-level endeavor that had been cooked up lower down in the bureaucracy (with the assistance of his wife) and was not something that was done with White House knowledge. Remember, at the time, Wilson's suggestion was that of course the vice president knew about the results of his trip to Niger, because he had ordered it.

I'd add not only that, but Wilson (and his knee-jerk supporters) acted as if his was the only intelligence on the matter. But as the Senate committee on intelligence report made clear, Wilson's trip was the source of some information used, but not all of it. Nor was it considered to be overly reliable.

Finally, Pillage Idiot's Harriet Miers: dreams and nightmares is quite amusing. Is it possible that to some she might appear as Bill Gates?