Soccer Dad

Jewish easter eggs

Bloghead's "Easter Eggs of our own" gives a nice overview of the custom to have colored eggs on Lag B'Omer (the minor holiday that was observed this past Friday.)
I have my own Jewish Easter Eggs. I hang out stores after Easter and stock up on their half price Easter M & M's. (I do the same thing Nov 1, Dec 26 and Feb 15 buying up stashes of half priced holiday M & M's.) And no, I'm not addicted I can stop anytime I want.
Not Quite Perfect's "Ice Flower" has a nice array of colors (pastels), an appropriate winter counterpart to the rainbow that is associated with Lag B'Omer. (She's in New Zealand where winter is coming.)
(Somehow I inadvertantly deleted a similar post when I meant to save it on Friday. So this is a little out of date.)

The campaign for terror

On May 17, 2005, Reuters reported "U.S. security envoy Ward praises Palestinian Authority reforms":

U.S. security envoy General William Ward praised the Palestinian Authority on Tuesday for reshaping often rival security services, whose mission he said must include keeping militants in check.

"The Palestinian Authority has taken essential steps to... restructure its forces, to cause a single line of authority to exist," Ward said after meeting Interior Minister Nasser Yousef in the West Bank city of Jericho.

"That will enable a more effective mechanism for dealing with law and order on the streets as well as for combating terrorists," he said.

Ward hailed Abbas' public calls for "one authority, one law and one gun" but said there was "more to be done, to be sure".

That seems like qualified support. Alas you would get no idea of that from a recent Washington Post editorial, "A boost for Mr. Abbas":

U.S. Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, who has been monitoring the Palestinian security efforts, delivered a mostly positive assessment to the White House, countering an Israeli campaign to portray Mr. Abbas as having failed to act.

Israel has a campaign to malign Abbas? Really?
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times reported last week, "Abbas's Gamble: Pulling a Foe Into Palestinian Politics". In the article he asks:

It is a considerable gamble. Will democracy help bring Hamas into the mainstream? Or will Mr. Abbas empower a terrorist group that could sweep him away and reignite warfare with Israel?

Those clever bits of misdirection hide what should be the main thrust of the article: that President Abbas is openly defying one of his principle obligations according to the "Road Map:" to confront and dismantle Hamas. Instead he brazenly tries to co-opt the organization.
(In fairness to the PA, the Middle East Media Research Institute's "Abu Mazen's Presidency: An Interim Assessment" shows some progress made by Abbas. None of it convinces me that he is yet worthy of unqualified support.)
There is a campaign afoot. But it is one in the media to whitewash Abbas's failings.
Incidentally, if Gen Ward's commendation was so convincing why wasn't it reported in the Washington Post? I searched the Post's archive and there was no mention of Ward's report on or about May 17.
The beginning of the editorial starts of with another dubious claim:

THE FIRST ATTEMPT by Mahmoud Abbas to lead Palestinians toward a peaceful settlement with Israel two years ago failed in part because of the obstructionism of Yasser Arafat. But it failed also, as many in Washington and Israel later conceded, because President Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not do enough to support the Palestinian leader.

Who are the "many in Washington and Israel?" Are they the starry eyed peace processors who refused to acknowledge Arafat's true nature until he was gone and it was needed to demonize him in order to boost Abbas by comparison?
Since the Post feels that a prisoner release will boost Abbas why doesn't it at least acknowledge that Israel boosted Abbas with a prisoner release two years ago?
The notion that a prisoner release will somehow bring peace is, of course, patent nonsense. Would the Post recommend as a solution to the growing problem of violence in Prince George's County an early release of several hundred convicts? In fact many of those terrorists Israel releases return to terror their promises to reform notwithstanding.
The reason that the prisoner releases are so important to the Palestinians is because it is a way of saying that extremism in the cause of Palestinian nationalism is not terror. Apparently that's a sentiment that the Post's editors agree with.
No is it clear that ceding land to the PA will help the cause of peace:

The Israeli leader will be preoccupied for the next several months with the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, itself a major step toward peace.

How so? Israel withdrew from Bethlehem, Ramallah, Shechem, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Jenin in late 1995. In early 1996, Israel was struck with an unprecedented wave of terror. If withdrawals help peace that episode surely doesn't demonstrate.
It's also important to remember that terror from Jenin wasn't reduced until Israel sent soldiers in to route out the the terrorists.
A withdrawal can only bring peace if the PA takes action to secure the areas Israel withdraws from. That hasn't happened since 1993; there is no evidence that it will happen now.
The editorial ends with a flourish:

But if the final settlement Mr. Bush aspires to is to remain a possibility, Mr. Sharon cannot limit himself to Gaza: He must also begin to engage seriously with Mr. Abbas and diminish rather than expand Israel's presence in the West Bank. Palestinian reform and disarmament remain necessary preconditions to a successful peace process. But as Mr. Bush seemed to recognize this week, the best chance of achieving those goals is to empower the Palestinian leader who supports them.

No it isn't. Can a Palestinian leader be more "empowered" than Yasser Arafat was? Yet he chose not to make peace. Not to accept the generous deals he was offered. Arafat learned well, he knew that his perfidies would be whitewashed in order to keep the "peace process" going, so he continued promoting violence against Israel as long as he lived.
The only way to peace, if it is possible, is to show the Palestinians that they have obligations and hold them to those obligations. Letting up pressure the moment they say or do something right is the surest way back violence. The terrorist groups aren't disarming; they're building their arsenals. Waiting for the moment that the PA says that Israel's demands are too great or concessions are not enough. Waiting until they will once again be allowed to strike Israeli civilians and be excused by the world for their righteous anger. If after the past (nearly) thirteen years, the editors of the Post are morally blind and, yes, supporters of terror. Whether they realize it or not.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

41, 42, 43

Sixteen years ago, during the AIPAC convention, Secretary of State James Baker gave a speech that was widely hailed on many editorial pages in which he said:

For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated in a settlement based on Resolution 242. Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbours who deserve political rights.

There were those who hailed Baker's willingness to confront Israel at its annual lovefest. (These remarks were the most quoted though he also said:

For many Israelis it will not be easy to enter a negotiating process whose successful outcome will in all probability involve territorial withdrawal and the emergence of a new political reality. For Palestinians, such an outcome will mean an end to the illusion of control over all of Palestine, and it will mean full recognition of Israel as a neighbour and partner in trade and in human contact.

Let the Arab world take concrete steps towards accommodation with Israel, not in place of the peace process, but as a catalyst for it.

And so we would say, "End the economic boycott. Stop the challenges to Israel's standing in international organizations. Repudiate the odious line that 'Zionism is racism."'

Surely, though, he knew which line would get repeated and the effect it would have on the Shamir government.)

Though in the speech Baker said, "And I believe that the best way to be productive is through consultation rather than confrontation" the term of the first President Bush was marked by confrontation with Israel rather than consultation. And it wasn't just when Yitzchak Shamir was Prime Minister. When Israel expelled some four hundred members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad after the kidnapping and killing of soldier Nissim Toledano, the United States signed onto a Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli action.

The Clinton administration's approach was decidedly different. It was generally co-operative and friendly when Israel had a Prime Minister in charge. But when Binyamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister it was exceedingly hostile to him. Seemingly the president's motivation was a desire to be a peace maker and Netanyahu kept on bringing up instances of Palestinian violations bad faith. Netanyahu wouldn't shut up, so he was inconvenient to the president's ambitions.

(Some time back The Town Crier asked: "when was the last time and U.S. president went for a stroll with a foreign leader, holding hands?" My answer is here. I know they're not holding hands in this picture but there were other pictures where they were: President Clinton, PM Peres, President Mubarak, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat. It was at the "Summit of the peacemakers" a blatant attempt to boost PM Peres's sagging electoral fortunes and whitewash Arafat's complicity in the 1996 terror. The only reason that Assad wasn't there is that he apparently had too much pride to even pretend that he was interested in peace. It's not that Clinton didn't want to wash the blood from his hands too.)

But the greatest damage that Clinton did was elevating Yasser Arafat's status in the world. By making Arafat the most received head of state in the White House he effectively made Arafat a moderate no matter how immoderate his behavior. All of his bad faith was whitewashed so that Clinton could achieve his Nobel Peace Prize.

Now this week two momentous events occur for the Middle East. There's the AIPAC conference during which President Bush receives Mahmoud Abbas. Until now the President's record on Israel had been mixed but generally good. After all those years of whitewashing Arafat it was good to hear:

I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.

Not only did the President utter these words they marked his policy from the start of his administration until Arafat's death - he refused to meet with Arafat.
In April of last year he met with PM Sharon and stated his belief that Israel should not have to return to its 1967 borders.
However his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas represented a significant step backwards. Despite the claims of an editorial in the Washington Post:

U.S. Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, who has been monitoring the Palestinian security efforts, delivered a mostly positive assessment to the White House, countering an Israeli campaign to portray Mr. Abbas as having failed to act.

(A quick perusal of the Post's archive shows no report to this effect.) there is ample evidence that after clamping down on inciting preachers, the antisemitic screeds have returned to Friday sermons, and most of the antiterrorist efforts have come from Israel not from Abbas. So Abbas has done nothing and President Bush seeks to reward him. That's not good for peace.
Worse, President Bush has brought 1949 up for discussion and:

Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. As we make progress toward security, and in accordance with the road map, Israeli forces should withdraw to their positions on September the 28th, 2000.

Israel has adjusted the route of the fence in accordance to a (flawed) High Court of Justice decision for just this purpose. Bush fails to acknowledge that. At its heart, Palestinian nationalism is grievance dressed up national aspirations. When Israel has preemptively sought to reduce a grievance, President Bush's obligation is to acknowledge Israeli efforts not further feed the Palestinian grievances.
For now Mahmoud Abbas's sole qualification as a moderate is that he isn't Yasser Arafat. President Bush has an obligation to Israel (and to his own antiterror efforts) to make sure that Abbas is a lot more than that. Whitewashing Palesitnian perfidies didn't bring peace during President Clinton's terms in office it won't now either.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Haveil Havalim #22 is UP

Mystical Paths has produced the the latest edition of Haveil Havalim (plus a new transliteration!). Follow a very non mystical link to Haveil Havalim #22. (Did you know that if you search for Mystical Paths using MSN search you get a shop for Wiccan paraphenalia?)

For next week your not so humble and somewhat obedient servant plans to play host to Haveil Havalim. (Unless I get a volunteer in the next day or two.) So e-mail me with your submissions at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.

Mirty's Place has graciously agreed to host Haveil Havalim (#24) on June 12. e-mail her at TexasMirty at gmail dot com.

As always, if you're a blogger and wish to host Haveil Havalim please e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com. If you found an interesting Jewish or Israel post during the week - whether it's your own or someone else's - please e-mail the suggestion to host of the week or to me and I'll be happy to forward it.

There are a number of blogs that track the Carnivals. For example there's Blognitive Dissonance. Science and Politics blog also tracks the "Carnivals."

Conservative Cat has a submission form for your carnival entry. And yes one of the choices is Haveil Havalim. The form will e-mail your entry to me and so that I may forward it to the appropriate host.

As always continue reading to see past editions.

#21 Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers
#20 Shiloh Musings
#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

The unacknowledged weakness of disengagement

In a typically snide and classless article about PM Sharon seeking support for disengagement, the Times's Clyde Haberman (a former Jerusalem bureau chief) writes:

Opinion polls make that clear. They are long weary of sending their soldier children on often-lethal missions to protect a tiny minority who insist on clinging to beachfront property in the name of biblical imperatives.

Opinion polls as Arutz-7 - not a disinterested party - has noticed have been showing weaker support for disengagement in recent months. Of course the same could be said of Lebanon, which the Israeli foreign ministry celebrated the other day:

Five years ago yesterday, on 24 May 2000, Israel completed a unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The UN Security Council certified that the withdrawal was in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 425. Today, Israel’s primary objective regarding Lebanon remains the same as five years ago - ensuring the security of Israel and its citizens and promoting stability and peace in the region. Israel believes that these goals can be achieved through the full implementation of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

The problem is that since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon none of those "relevant" UN resolutions have been followed, (except nearly five years later the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon). The Lebanese government has not fulfilled its obligation to take control of its southern territory and Hezbollah still attacks Israeli positions (military and civilian) accross the border.
Worse, Hezbollah, no longer defending itself on its own territory, has expanded its operations as is regularly reported these days and was documented back in 2003. (Israel's proving that "the best defense is a good offense" by its absence.)
There are those who focus on how Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was a victory of Hezbollah. While that's certainly important, it's not the main reason to be skeptical that disengagement from Gaza will carry a high price for Israel in loss of its security. If a "victory for the terrorists" was the major concern, Guy Bechor's argument, "Leaving mistakes behind" would carry a lot of weight:

Palestinians arriving in Gush Katif after the pullout should find vacant land, just as it was left. Moreover, instead of building Palestinian youth and leisure centers, perhaps, for the first time in their history, they would direct their attention to rehabilitating their refugees.

If that were the end of it, one of the most serious objections to disengagement would be answered. Alas that's not the case. Now that Hamas will no longer have to worry about defending its home base in a few months its planning to expand its operations even more. The Jerusalem Post reports, "Report: Hamas moving most of operations to W.Bank":

Hamas was relocating its headquarters with the consideration that once Gaza is under Palestinian authority, their battlefront would move to Judea and Samaria, Army Radio quoted sources in the security establishment.

In other words, Israel won't be silencing a dangerous flashpoint by withdrawing, it will be opening a new front. Not only will Hamas be able to shoot its Kassams without harrassment, Hamas will be able to expand its operations against other parts of Israel from its new base of operations.
Israel's presence in Gaza wasn't just about the biblical views of a few people. For one thing, many of Gaza's residents aren't religious (such as Aryeh and Datya Yitzchaki) and they appeal to Israel's historical connection to Gaza. Many also previously gave up their homes for peace by leaving the Sinai. But the most important reason for staying in Gaza is to contain Hamas. Haberman obviously wouldn't want to admit or consider any of this. It's more important for him to mock the anti-disengagement folks he overhears than to give serious thoughts to what might be the flaws of the plan he so enthusiastically endorses.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

The wrong horse

Aaron David Miller is at it again. Recently cited for a mistake in a couple of op-ed columns, he wrote a new op-ed column a couple of days ago in the Washington Post, "Israel's Lawyer." His thesis is:

I'm not a lawyer by training, but I know one when I see one. For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.

He goes on to write that he understands why the United States favors Israel but says that it undermines America's ability to act as an honest broker.
It's easy to quibble with that argument. I hardly think that President Clinton was more favorably disposed toward Binyamin Netanyahu than he was toward Yasser Arafat. In fact it was during that time the Mr. Miller came up with the idea of politicizing the Holocaust museum by suggesting that Arafat visit it.
The problem wasn't that America (or the world) acted as Israel's lawyer. The problem was that Arafat wasn't interested in peace. No matter how much Mr. Miller and his fellow peace processors tried to finesse the issue, Arafat stubbornly refused to change.
Nor was Arafat alone. In the year 2000 Israel, under Ehud Barak, tried to make peace three times and was rejected each time. Early in the year President Clinton flew to Geneva to make a peace offer on behalf of Israel to Hafez Assad. It was rejected. A few months later Israel withdrew its troops from Southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government refused to fulfill its obligation to take control of its southern border and Hezbollah didn't disarm. And finally Israel made a significant offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David that Arafat rejected. A few months later he started a new intifada. All this shows that what's really needed is for Israel's enemies to change their outlook. Until Miller and his ilk realize that it is not Israeli actions but Arab attittudes that are at the center of the Middle East conflicts there is no hope for progress.
The question as far as the Palestinians are concerned is whether those attitudes have changed under Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas came to power with the qualification that he wasn't Arafat. Is that enough to mark a substantive change in attitude? Caroline Glick's conclusion: unfortunately not.
For over a decade Miller and his pals put their money on Yasser Arafat. Arafat never changed from his belief that terror paid. By showing him respect and giving him a veto they ensured that the peace process would not be successful. The problem was not the wrong client but the wrong horse.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Okrent's farewell and follow up

In his farewell column, Daniel Okrent took issue with some of the foibles of the Times's op-ed columnists. For example:

Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

Now thanks to Mystery Achievement a few more people have that evidence. In "Why Did We Invade Iraq Again?" Mystery Achievement translates an Italian news item, "Allawi: Zawahiri was in Iraq in 1999. From the translation:

"Al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to participate in the 'Ninth Islamic People's Congress'": revealed former Iraqi Premier, Iyyad Allawi, to the Arab daily, "Al-Hayat". The Shiite political figure supplied to the newspaper certain information discovered by the Iraqi Secret Service in the archives of the previous regime which clarify the ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations. "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri," said Allawi, "[who at the time] was vice president of the Council of the Direction of the Revolution, in order to participate in the congress along with 150 Islamic authorities coming from 50 Islamic countries."

A new doubting thomas is up

Flacking for the Prince my latest Doubting Thomas is up.

Off track or never on?

Instapundit links to an article critical of skewed polls:

Did Kerry narrow the gap with his debate performance? Was he really the closer that many in the media had suggested he was? Newsweek was basing its headline "The Race is On" and accompanying story on a comparison between its two most recent polls. The problem, though, was that the polling data was inconsistent.

I have a different concern. What about Howard Dean? In early 2004 he was the surprise favorite. Until there were actual primaries. John Kerry went from front runner, to surprising also-ran back to front runner. Isn't anyone the least bit skeptical about the short time that Dr. Dean was the front runner?
I don't think that Howard Dean's campaign tanked. I don't think it ever had traction. But somehow poll after poll showed him in the lead. Except where it really mattered. At the voting booth.

Get some color

Last week I was in the car listening to the news. I kept hearing how teens get tans even though it's not good for them.

Almost 80 percent said they knew tanning can be dangerous and that childhood sunburns increase risks for skin cancer. Yet 66 percent said people look better with a tan, nearly half said tans look healthier, and 60 percent said they got sunburned last summer.

Girls were more likely than boys to wear sunscreen (53 percent versus 33 percent) and to say they were at least somewhat careful about protecting themselves from the sun (59 percent versus 36 percent).

The results echo previous teen surveys and indicate that despite efforts to get the word out about the dangers of tanning, teens aren't getting the message, said Dr. Darrell Rigel, a New York University dermatology professor involved in the survey research.

Not so fast. Secular Blasphemy links to an article that says:

So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse.

No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" - 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen - is not only possible but helpful to health.

Or as Instapundit notes, tongue in cheek:

COMING SOON, new research on the health benefits of whiskey and cigars. (He also has a link to an article from a year ago on the same subject!)

Posted by SoccerDad at 5:43 AM

Reel news

Crossing the Rubicon has asked me to do the movie meme thing. Sort of like a blogging chain letter.

Total # of films owned on DVD:
If the question was video casettes, I wouldn't be able to answer it. However DVD's I can answer. "The Wrath of Khan," "The LOTR trilogy" (a b-day present from my father in law), The 3 Harry Potter movies, "Finding Nemo" and "Lilo and Stitch." Plus two stupid children's movies. I guess that makes 10. (Bonus answer, though not part of the meme: DVD I most want to own: "The Incredibles.")

The last film I watched: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (The last film I watched in a theater? I don't remember. Maybe "Return of the King?" Last film I rented, "Frequency" featuring a pre-passion Jim Caviezel. A great first half of the movie that somewhat unravels toward the end.)

Most recent DVD purchases:

"Finding Nemo" and "Lilo and Stitch." In advance of a trip to NY with a 3 year old.

5 films that mean a lot to me or that I watch a lot.
1) Going to "The Little Mermaid" was turning point in our dating. That was the night things became a lot more serious.
2) We watched "Big" the night before our first child was born.
3) I went to see "The Wrath of Khan" with someone who seemed important to me at the time. (And yes it's my favorite Trek movie. Something about Kirk yelling "Khan" from deep within the asteroid. Captured the best elements of Star Trek the original series.)
4) I don't think that I'll ever tire of watching "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I liked the fact that it followed the book so closely. Exactly why critics tended not to like it. Favorite scene: Hermoine meeting Harry and Ron in the train. My oldest daughter has memorized it and can do it in a spot on English accent to boot.
5) Saw "The Return of the King" with two of my children, my father in law and a very good friend.
Now who do I designate. (At least when I got "tagged" I wasn't told that people who broke the chain were hit by a car or lost a fortune.)
How about Mirty gets Married, Devarim, Penny Stock, Presence, and Pillage Idiot?

From time immemorial

One of the nice things about the blogosphere is that occasionally there's someone who takes the initiative to do his/her own original research. Elder of Ziyon has taken such a step; and gone to the archives of the Palestine Post and other newspapers to get a sense of when the term "Palestinian" started to refer Arabs alone. His conclusion:

So while the word Palestinian as referring to Arabs who lived in the area does seem to predate the 1964 establishment of the PLO, it is not by much - and it seems pretty clear that the impetus towards the establishment of the PLO came from Egypt and other Arab states, not from the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

I don't think I'm spoiling a surprise here, because reading the excerpts he has provided is enlightening and well worth the read.
Elder of Ziyon goes back to the archives this week to show the historical aversion of Arabs to allow Jews to own land in Israel, "The More Things Change":

I have long held that there is a common denominator in the Arab side of the Israel-Arab conflict: the fact that Arabs do not want Jews to own land in the Middle East.

It is not that they don't want any Jews there, because historically there have been Jews in Arab lands. It is simply that they cannot abide Jews owning land in the area, no matter how legally it is acquired. I believe this is because the Arab Muslim psyche is so heavily invested in the idea that Jews are weak dhimmis, as they acted this way for centuries, and this was some sort of validation of the supremacy of Islam.

He backs this up with a clipping from 1939.
It's worth mentioning that in the Post Oslo years the Palestine Legislative Council passed a law making it "high treason" for a Palestinian to sell land to a Jew. This law was once on the website of the PLC, but that website is no longer complete. To the best of my knowledge it has never been repealed. In the Sept 1999 issue of the Middle East Quarterly, Carol Greenwald writes:

The PA passed legislation in 1998 making Israeli ownership of Palestinian real estate a "harm to national security" that constitutes a "crime of high treason" punishable by death. 33 The murders of five Palestinian land dealers who sold property to Israelis indicated that the Palestinian Authority was not simply using rhetoric.

IIRC the moderate who was implicating in ordering the deaths of the real estate agents was Tawfiq Tirawi.
Crossposted in Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Do you believe in magic

Dov Bear does not.

But he's also wrong.

The Ramban is not one of them. He clearly beleived in supernatural powers, but he didn't beleive that Billam had them. Despite what the Talmud says, the Ramban (who undoubtably had passed his eyes over the Talmud at least once) rules that Billam was no prophet. He calls him a soothsayer, which is someone who performs magicians tricks, and pretends that he posseses real powers, when in fact he does not.

Actually since the Ramban used the term koseim (soothsayer) to describe Bilaam and elsewhere describes a kosem as someone as having powers that are non-Divine in origin. (As I noted in my earlier post on the subject.) Not someone who possesses no powers at all and merely pretends to as Dov Bear asserts.

Earlier Dov Bear has written:

Superiority? Let's not project our feelings of insecurity, ok?

Well acutally I didn't write the following words:

You see, the (other) dirty secret of Jewish education is that most of your top Middle School and High School instructors never tell you that Rashi's view on the subject is often rejected by other authorities. I would be glad to suggest that this is because they don't know that Rashi isn't the final word on biblical exegesis but that would be disrespectful, and I am all about the respect.

If that's not an expression of superiority I don't know what is.

Haveil Havalim #21 is up

The Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers has posted the new Haveil Havalim, #21.

The scheduled host for May 29 is Mystical Paths. e-mail him with your submissions at akivam at gmail dot com.

As always, if you're a blogger and wish to host Haveil Havalim please e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com. If you found an interesting Jewish or Israel post during the week - whether it's your own or someone else's - please e-mail the suggestion to host of the week or to me and I'll be happy to forward it.

There are a number of blogs that track the Carnivals. For example there's Blognitive Dissonance. Science and Politics blog also tracks the "Carnivals."

Conservative Cat has a submission form for your carnival entry. And yes one of the choices is Haveil Havalim. The form will e-mail your entry to me and so that I may forward it to the appropriate host.

As always continue reading to see past editions.

#20 Shiloh Musings
#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

A blatant ceasefire violation by Israel

(Hat Tip Sha!)
The IDF has released a video of a drone or helicopter targeting and firing on a group of Hamas social workers and garbage collectors.
(Thanks to Secular Blasphemy for pointing out that my direct link to the video didn't work. The video may be viewed directly in the YNet article or a link to the video can be found at Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)
Apparently at least one was killed.
I couldn't figure out what those puffs of smoke were earlier in the video but Ynet reports:

The video features several small explosions, marking the mortar shells fired by the terrorists, followed by a large blast, marking the impact of the missile fired at the terror cell.

Oh those were mortar shells. And those guys weren't social workers? Whoops.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

I'm sure the trains run on time too

In "In Gaza, New Hamas-Dominated Council Attends to Basics" Molly Moore describes the wonderful job Hamas is doing in providing services to its constituents:

Ali, 63, the father of 16 children and a longtime loyalist of the late Yasser Arafat and his secular Fatah political movement, gives all the credit for the improvements in his family's daily life to the newly elected mayor and town council, now dominated by the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas.

"It's all about honesty," said Ali, his sinewy frame draped in a long white robe, his jaw covered with white bristle. "All these years, where did the money go? We haven't seen any of it. The leadership of Hamas is straightforward -- they don't discriminate between rich and poor, weak or strong."

Such nobility. (And while we're on the subject of Hamas's non-discrimination policy, it should be noted that they don't discriminate against which Israelis they target either. Real progressives these guys from Hamas.)
Alas, Moore points out, not everyone appreciates Hamas's good works:

Hamas -- with its armed wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades -- is condemned by the United States as a terrorist organization and reviled by Israel as the perpetrator of some of the deadliest suicide bombings of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. At the same time, Hamas has won respect among Palestinians by providing education and health programs. Now, when the U.S. and Israeli governments are demanding greater democratization of the Palestinian Authority, voters in the West Bank and Gaza are handing a sizable share of power to a group that many U.S. and Israeli leaders associate more closely with terrorism than with political reform.

Surely though "U.S. and Israeli leaders" could possibly be mistaken. After all:

In Beit Hanoun, and in communities across Gaza and the West Bank, Islamic politicians are earning wide support using old-fashioned tactics valued the world over: fixing potholes, picking up garbage and turning on the lights.

Moore can't get the stars out of her eyes long enough to ask any Israeli official or academic if Hamas's popularity is a good or bad thing. Well, it didn't take me too long, but I did find a dissenter. Granted I didn't have to do much work as the article appeared in my Inbox.
Barry Rubin in "Hamas Victorious" gives short shrift to the idea that Hamas's popularity derives from its constituent services:

Hamas did not win the election because of moderation but through its terrorist attacks, demands for total victory, and opposition to a negotiated peace agreement. While the movement’s social services and reputation for less corruption also helped, no Hamas leader is concluding that the victory requires abandoning extremism. On the contrary, the vote is a mandate for intransigence.

Moreover he looks at the political equation and finds that the gains Hamas made a few weeks ago bode ill for progress in peace talks:

The essential issue is this: If Abu Mazin was too afraid to crack down on terrorists, to moderate Palestinian ideology, or negotiate a compromise peace with Israel when he had all the power, he will now be even more timid. Who cares if Fatah is still in control if it does nothing and changes nothing? If he would not disarm Hamas or use force against terrorists before will he act against such a powerful organization now?
Two examples from before the election. Palestinian terror attacks rose 54 percent between March and April due to Abu Mazin’s passivity. When his forces arrested one Hamas member for firing a rocket at Israel , Hamas simply closed down Gaza with demonstrations for a few hours and threatened government officials’ lives until they released him. Is anyone going to be constrained now from attacking Israel or defying the Palestinian regime?

While many excused Abbas for not acting against Hamas because he didn't have the strength, Rubin argues the opposite: his strength was never greater than just after his election and he allowed the opportunity to act positively to fade away.
What's particularly galling about articles such as Moore's is that they make peace less likely. By portraying Hamas simply as political opposition whose works are good and views could be moderated she gives the terror organization a boost.
(This isn't the first time that the Washington Post has done this sort of terror boosterism. I've noted it before.)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Republican dirty tricks

Throughout the Joseph Steffen scandal, the local newspapers have been very compliant in framing the incident as a Republican dirty trick. While Steffen may have played a role in spreading the false rumor about Mayor O'Malley's infidelity, he did not originate it. But the media's approach to it taints their coverage of the upcoming statewide races: the 2006 Senate and Gubernatorial elections. Here's a snippet from an article about Kweisi Mfume speaking to the greaduates of Howard University:

"The Republicans want this seat at all costs," Miller said. "They'll have $10 million for a 'Swift boat' committee that will try to drive up the negatives of the Democratic candidate. When you start out giving them ammunition like this, you can just imagine what it will be like."

That's Maryland Senate President Mike Miller. Now I don't see what was wrong about Swift Boat ads. They questioned aspects of Sen. Kerry's record. However, the article was discussing the allegations that when Mfume was president of the NAACP he favored women with whom he or his son had romantic interests.
The source of those allegations were NAACP insiders and they were published in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, hardly precincts where Republicans are found in great numbers. So the statement is out of place and the reporter, Matthew Mosk sees no point in challenging or qualifying the statement. Why? Because it fits the way he is presenting the race. It will be Democrats vs. those nasty Republicans who bring up dirt. But do they?
Now it's been discovered that the first public appearance of "O'Malley cheating" rumors came from none other than Judge O'Malley - Katie O'Malley is a judge - in an interview with the Washington Post.
So how does the Sun deal with it?

"There's a big difference between public wonderings about a young couple thrust into the spotlight of being the city's first family, and a premeditated, orchestrated and relentless campaign run by dirty trick operatives close to the governor funded on state taxpayer dollars," O'Malley said during a City Hall news conference yesterday.

"I'm calling upon the governor to end this cowardly abuse of power," the mayor continued. "I'm calling upon the governor to fire the remaining members of his taxpayer-financed dirty tricks team. And I'm calling on the governor to stop right now the politics of character smear and character assassination that apparently he learned at the elbow of Newt Gingrich."

And the denial:

Ehrlich said he had no comment on the substance of the mayor's allegations but said that "O'Malley points fingers."

Is there any evidence that Ehrlich has been running "a taxpayer-financed dirty tricks team?" Why doesn't the Sun's reporter challenge that statement? Or is the "dirty tricks team" just one of those pieces of receieved wisdom that needs no corroboration?
Despite that problem the article actually doesn't do a bad job on another aspect of the controversy. Yesterday some e-mail written by Katie O'Malley's brother came to light. They seemed critical of Judge O'Malley. And the Mayor of course blamed the governor for releasing the e-mails. The problem, as the Sun reports is:

The e-mails from Commissioner Curran were obtained by WBAL Radio in response to a public information act request the station made to the Public Service Commission on May 11.

While the Sun gives play to accusations from O'Malley about how anyone knew about his brother-in-law's e-mails and treats Craig Chesek to a cheap shot it's hard to have sympathy for Max O'Malley. If those e-mails were written on a government computer they're fair game.
In a related scandal story, WBAL-TV seems to be the only media outlet interested in the identity of MD4BUSH. Jayne Miller reported two weeks ago that Joseph Steffen has brought a suit to get FreeRepublic to reveal what it knows about the identity of MD4BUSH.
This isn't trivial. If MD4BUSH has ties to O'Malley specifically or the Maryland Democratic party generally it shows that the dirty tricks team is a Democratic one, not a Republican one. The fact that the O'Malley campaign knew in advance that the Washington Post would publish the article showing that Steffen may have been spreading rumors about Mayor O'Malley. If there was any co-ordination between a news organization and a political operation that's even worse.
Finally, I previously wrote that I expected the Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas Gansler was angling to replace Doug Duncan as County Executive. Pillage Idiot notes that according to the Washington Post, Gansler wishes to replace Judge O'Malley's father, Maryland Attorney General, Joe Curran.
UPDATE: A point I left out (and that Frank of Sean and Frank just made was that in 1999 the rivals who would have spread rumors about candidate O'Malley in the race for mayor were not Republicans. Yet the gist of the article focuses on the unsupported allegation that Ehrlich is responsible for the recent spreading of rumor. The newspapers though have a powerful weapon for next year's elections - supposed Republican dirty tricks. It will be a theme we'll be reading about for the next year and a half. Democratic dirty tricks will be ignored or minimized even if there is stronger evidence of them going on.

To boldly split infinitives

Hube's Cube points to a new test to see which Starfleet Captain you most resemble. See who I am:

Captain Benjamin Sisko- You struggle with the most
difficult of ethical decisions. You feel lost
in a life that you feel have no control over.
The fact that you're right doesn't ease your
pain any. Ironically, you are also considered
the spirtual guide to the people of Bajor.


Which Star Trek Captain are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

I'm not surprised. I knew that I wasn't Kirk when I didn't figure that seducing Orion women was the way to rescue someone from the Orions. I knew I wasn't Picard when I didn't figure that I'd follow the Prime Directive like a religion.
But I'm really disappointed with Hube's Cube. The guy's a teacher and he titles his post, "To Boldly Go ..." Doesn't he know not to split infinitives? Who knows what other mistaken or subversive ideas he'll teach his students?
One of the Star Trek movies had an ad that simply said, "Boldly Go." Even that's slightly awkward. "Go Boldly" is a lot more direct. Of course then it's not a paraphrase of our culture's most famous split infinitive.
UPDATE: Crossing the Rubicon has also taken the test. And she's Kirk. As is my wife. My wife managed Kirk even without seducing the Orion girl! (I would have pegged my wife as Picard because she is so organized.)
Mirty wonders who Mackenzie Calhoun is. Sometime commenter SabbaHillel told me that Mackenze Calhoun is a captain in the Star Trek novelizations.

Around the web

It's been a rough couple of days. Not Quite Perfect's fractal art has been a great pick me up. She's celebrating her first anniversary of blogging.

The New York Times apparently is once again going to restrict even more of its contents. Jumping to Conclusions tells us that soon the Times will be charging for its op-ed columnists. I guess that will kill Doubting Thomas.

It's Almost Supernatural comments on one more person lecturing Israel. His points are important because there are still those (like Yossi Beilin or Gershon Baskin) who know or are trying to figure out what Israel has done wrong. But the essence of the problem is that the PA hasn't changed. Israel has changed tremendously since 1993. Even the Abbas improvement is mostly that he isn't Arafat not that he's made any improvements on his own. It's Almost Supernatural says it very well:

The Labour government tried their very best to create a peace partner even though they knew one did not exist. The extent of the Israeli leap of faith in Oslo was mind boggling. Aafat persistently violated the agreements and the Israelis would complain but in order to create a peace partner they would close their eyes to the violations and proceed regardless. After pressure from the Israeli public to end the negotiations on the basis of the terrorist attacks in 94 Shimon Peres said “we close our eyes, we don’t criticize because for peace we must produce a partner.”

I would add that Netanyahu, despite his detractors, also moved the "peace process" forward despite the violations; he just did it more slowly and demanded improvement. The Clinton administration and the league of peace processors considered the demand for progress on the Palestinian side to be obstructionism.

Michael Freund takes the lesson of Newsweek's misreporting and applies it to Israel:

Too often, and especially when it comes to Israel, journalists pounce on a story because it suits their political beliefs, inevitably tossing facts to the wind and causing inestimable harm to innocent people. And then they rarely, if ever, acknowledge their mistakes.

I still recall the Jan 14, 1998 report in the NY Times about how Israel had made new demands on the PA. There were no new demands, it's just that Arafat was upset because Netanyahu actually demanded that he abide by the terms of the previous year's Hebron Accords and the reporter Serge Schmemann bought the "new demands" complaint. He even mischaracterized the "Note for the Record" that was part of the Hebron accords. Yes the NY Times printed a small correction the next day. As in the case of the attorney who overstates his case this doesn't help much. The sustained objection can't make the jury unhear the unfair statement. The correction doesn't erase the first impression.

Mediacrity acknowledges the damage done by the Newsweek story but defends Michael Isikoff:

Well, I hate to throw cold water on all the outrage, but I have to say: What these two reporters did was not especially unusual in journalism, and met minimal journalism standards. A source misled them. Newsweek may have rules requiring multiple sourcing in such instances. But if only one source is allowed by Newsweek's procedures--well, then you can't go out and hang the reporters involved. The culprit here is a scoop-hungry Newsweek, but I'd hate to see two good reporters get fed to the wolves as a result.

Remember that Isikoff was hot on the Lewinsky story back in the days when it was politically correct to turn a blind eye toward Clinton's transgressions. So he is definitely a top guy in the business, not a third-rate chump trying to make the administration look bad.

My only point of disagreement here is that if you search on "Isikoff, Hosenball and Thomas" you'll find lots of anti-administration articles. They've outdone themselves discrediting Chalabi, neo-conservatives and Rumsfeld. A lot of those articles haven't stood up very well. While I'll give Isikoff credit for uncovering Lewinsky, I'm not convinced of his benign intentions.

Baruch Dayan HaEmes

Yaakov Menken called me about an hour and a half ago.
My friend's son, Aaron Rosenfeld, passed away this evening.
Tehei Nafsho Zrura Bitzror Hachaim.

How do I know that my children are smarter than me?

I was testing my 6th grader on state capitals last week.
Me: Delaware
6th grader: Dover
Me: Florida
6th grader: Tallahassee
Me: Georgia
6th grader: Tiblisi

At which point I started laughing uncontrollably.
He realized his mistake and said Atlanta.
His teacher this year makes sure that the class knows Geography, History and Vocabulary. He had already had three tests/quizzes on European capitals so he made his mistake. But it wasn't a mistake of ignorance, but of knowing too much!

Refuah Shlaima

I'd like to second Yaakov Menken's request for all to say Tehillim (Psalms) for Refael Aharon Elimelech ben Pninah Leeba.

Penny Stock similarly has requested Tehillim for Serach Dina Tikvah Bas Meira Malka.

Haveil Havalim #20 is up

The muse has been operating at Shiloh Musings who has posted a wonderful, informative and creative Haveil Havalim #20 in honor of Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Hazikaron. There are some problems with the links. If you have a problem, copy the shortcut, paste it into the location bar and strip out all the stuff before the final URL. Shiloh Musings has promised to fix the problem. The links are working just fine.

The scheduled host for May 22 is Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers or RACHAK for short. e-mail him your submissions by Friday May 20 at Rachack at futurecities dot com.

The scheduled host for May 29 is Mystical Paths. e-mail him with your submissions at akivam at gmail dot com.

There was a Yom Ha'atzmaut blogburst. Check it out at Sky Watching My World.

There are a number of blogs that track the Carnivals. For example there's Blognitive Dissonance. Hopefully as the day goes on I'll get you links to other similarly minded blogs. Science and Politics blog also tracks the "Carnivals."

Conservative Cat has a submission form for your carnival entry. And yes one of the choices is Haveil Havalim. The form will e-mail your entry to me and so that I may forward it to the appropriate host.

As always continue reading to see past editions.

#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

Sniper II

Pillage Idiot notes with some cynicism that the Washington area snipers may be headed to his jurisdiction for another trial. He notes that a lot of his neighbors are just as non-plussed by this development.
Of course this is good news for Doug Gansler, the state's attorney for Montgomery County. The extra TV time should just about seal his coronation as County Executive next year after current executive, Doug Duncan launches his race for governor. Sniper John Allen Muhammad is not co-operating with the publicity stunt though. The one positive aspect of this trial is that Malvo and Muhammad are to be tried together. Army snipers operate in teams:

Snipers work and train in 2-man teams. One sniper's primary duty is that of the sniper and team leader while the other sniper serves as the observer.

If they had been tried together in Virginia, we wouldn't have heard the silly speculation as to how important it was to establish who actually pulled the trigger. They were both essential to the operation.

Free Muslims against terror

According to AFP, yesterday's march against terror didn't draw a big crowd. I guess it's not too surprising. According to a short item in the "Metro in Brief" section of the Washington Post, about 60 people attended.
The Post had a much longer article about the founder, Kamal Nawash, in Friday's paper. Reading it, I get the uncomfortable feeling that I wouldn't be very comfortable with all his views on the Middle East, which he doesn't discuss at all. A link from Kesher Talk, confirms my misgivings. Free Muslims against Terror recommends a binational state. Not a binational state in the normal sense, but essentially two states that make up a whole. A federation.
The argument presented is that the idea of two states hasn't worked yet, so it's time to try something new. But there is a reason that two separate states haven't worked so far, and it's not at all clear that that problem would be solved by a bi-naitonal state.
I find it encouraging that groups like CAIR object to Nawash. However according to a critical commenter at a Islamic blog, he seems to have been so anxious to get sponsors that he didn't vet his groups very well. LGF notes another discordant element..
As far as unfree Muslims supporting terror go, apparently they are largely our friends the Saudis. For many of the Jihadist in Iraq 9-11 marked a "religious awakening."

My wife loves me

For the past two years we have had these awful Motorola cellular phones. The chargers had an awful plug that broke every few months. The operating system was pathetic. About the only good thing about these phones is that the batteries didn't drain nearly as fast as with our previous phones from Nokia.
Well my wife went this week to Cingular, and upgraded the phones to some spiffy Sony/Ericsson flip camera phones. And to top it all off, Cingular has a Star Wars promotion going on, so not only can we get 4 free tickets to "Revenge of the Sith" we also get Star Wars wallpapers, Star Wars ring tones and even a short video from "The Empire Strikes Back." (Yes I can set my ring to the sound of Tie Fighters or C3P0 saying:

Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field are approximately 3,720 to 1.

(Shouldn't the word be "probability?")
But these phones, with a graphical interface are really nice. And I can get a signal inside work now! The only major downsides are the ease with which files can be erased accidentally, the lack of good games and I really don't like ringtones. But overall this like going from DOS to Windows 95 without suffering through W3.1 in between. And C3P0 to boot. Thanks dear.
Other Star Wars miscellany: My 14 year old, by the way, does a really good imitation of Darth Vader's breathing. And I enjoy imitating James Earl Jones saying: "Join me Simba and we can rule the universe as father and son." One of my sons has added "...using Verizon DSL."
For Seder presents I got my 2 older boys plastic light sabres. Yes, I tried to throw them to the ground and make the blade come out, sort of like a staff turning into a snake. (Yes, that's the relevance to the Seder.) Of course, then the 6 year old wanted one too.
Finally, the ex Mrs. Simon has not aged well. And I think the jokes are a little tasteless.

Mrs. Rubin leaves 60 minutes

Christiane Amanpour is leaving "60 minutes." This is the type of story that I usually ignore. Certainly not blog about it. But what got me was the end of the article:

"60 Minutes" is television's first and still most-popular newsmagazine, and an on-air role is such a golden gig that leaving one is like quitting the Rolling Stones. The last correspondent to leave "60 Minutes" was Meredith Vieira in 1991.

Never mind that Bill Wyman left the Rolling Stones and is quite happy. Meredith Viera did not leave on her own. She was forced out when she got pregnant in a pretty apparent case of sexual discrimination.

"Dov"devan picking

What happens when you want to show that your community is populated by a bunch of small minded people infinitely capable of taking dictation but not even minutely capable of independent thought? Well you slay a sacred cow. Or show that a deeply held belief is mistaken.
Take, for example, Bilam. So many Jews believe that Bilam was a prophet. But that's wrong. Absolutely wrong. How do we know that? Because the Ramban (Nachmanides) tells us (Bamidbar/Numbers 22:31):

"... if he were a prophet he wouldn't have required the 'revealing of his eyes' in his seeing the angel..."

Later the Ramban also notes that the Jews slew Bilam and objects that if Bilam were a prophet of G-d, he couldn't have been killed.
So the belief that Bilam was a prophet is incorrect. And we ought to accept the view of the Ramban.
(In truth it isn't so simple. Even the Ramban concedes that Bilam experienced a prophecy and according to the Gemora/Talmud in Megila a single prophecy qualifies one to be called a prophet. But let's accept this state for now.)
The Ramban, is indeed, quite an authority on a number of things. Including magic. Why on Devarim/Deuteronomy 18:9 he writes:

... and this is the secret of magic and its strength, that they (the Rabbis) said of them, they contradict the Divine agencies that is to say that they are the opposite of the plain forces and contradict the (Divine) agencies indirectly and therefore it is proper that they should be forbidden ..."

In other words there is a power to magic but it is something that is improper to utilize because it circumvents the natural order of things.
Pretty impressive, no?
No.

There's a fine tradition of insulting people who believe in magic. Both the Rambam and the Ibn Ezra call them fools, simple minded and worse.

This is the day that G-d made let us rejoice

Two years ago my parents took my family and brother's family to Israel to spend the Yom Tov (holiday) with my brother's family in Beit Shemesh.
We had the opportunity to tour the country in a way I never did when I was in Yeshiva. And for some reason I saw Israel in a new light.
One thing in particular that impressed me were the cisterns. There was a cistern on Massada. There was a cistern on Har Habayit (the Temple Mount) in Yerushalayim. There was a cistern in Zippori. (I'm sure there were others, these were just the ones I saw. All these were signs not just of inhabitants, but of society.
It was a society that was destroyed and its people exiled nearly two thousand years ago.
Fifty seven years ago those people reconstituted a new society. This rebirth is something that hasn't happened any other time to any other nation in the history world. Most dispersed people lose their identities and assimilate.
Perhaps this is possible because Jews constitute both a nation and a religion. Even without the land we still have practices that allow us to maintain our identity.
But fifty seven years ago, through an unlikely combination of events - including recognition of the nascent state by the Soviet Union - a new Jewish state was founded. It is a state that has had to fight for its life since it was founded. It is a state that even nowadays must justify its existence to the rest of the world - ironically and outrageously because of the claims of organized despots and monarchs who do not rule with the consent of the governed.
The Palestinians do not simply claim Israel's land. They deny Jewish history. And usurp it for their own. (The Palestinians claim a "diaspora." They refer to Israelis as Nazis - even as they often deny the crimes of the real Nazis. A book review I read over twenty years ago noted that a Palestinian newspaper was called "Al Fajr" or "The Dawn" taking the name from a Zionist publication.)
The problem isn't one land for two peoples. The problem is that one of those people deny the history of the other people. That's because their best claim to the land is to argue that their land was taken by Europeans, not by the people who lived there prior to the Muslim occupation of the Levant. (It's funny how someone who denies a decade of Jewish history is usually considered beyond the pale; someone who denies two thousand years of Jewish history, though, is considered a partner for peace. It's also funny how Israelis are now the "occupiers" when the Muslim presence in the Middle East outside of the Arabian peninsula is the result of the Muslim occupation of 1300 years ago. Ask the Copts and Chaldeans.)
What is celebrated today is the miraculous reconstitution of the Jewish state against all odds. But not just its rebirth, but all of its accomplishments in such a short time.
Judaism has benefitted from the new opportunities for Jews of all ages to go to Israel and learn Torah. The Jewish people have benefitted from the haven that Israel provides, Jews from France, Canada, Ethiopia, Russia, Siberia, Chile Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, the United States and more have been gathered in to the land that their ancestors were expelled from. The world has benefitted from the many scientific breakthroughs achieved in this small country that is still under siege.
Despite its many detractors, Israel has succeeded beyond its founders' dreams. It is this miracle that is celebrated today.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Arabs for Israel

Just after I received the latest from Daniel Pipes, "Pro-Israel Palestinians", (derived from his "The Hell of Israel Is Better than the Paradise of Arafat" I saw a reference to a website "Arabs for Israel." (I don't remember the source.)
This recalls that in the early 1980's, Prime Minister Begin appointed academic Menachem Milson to head the civilian administration over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Milson had written an article in Commentary, "Peace with the Palestinians" in which he argued that Israel should cultivate a Palestinian leadership that it could work with.
The Palestinian elections in 1976 (?) had brought pro-PLO politicians to power at the expense of the old line pro Jordanian ones. This had greatly radicalized the Palestinian political landscape. Milson's job was to undo the results of those elections somehow.
However the world accepted the outcome of the Rabat conference that the PLO was the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." It mattered little that the Rabat conference was essentially a declaration of war against Israel's existence the support for the PLO became the norm. Somehow the idea of Palestinian statehood became so important the means by which it would be obtained no longer mattered.
So Milson's approach was heretical. He was villified by the likes of Flora Lewis and Anthony Lewis in the NY Times. Arabs who cooperated with his "village league" idea were routinely reported to be "corrupt."
Yet even now I wonder what would have happened if Milson had been able to continue. (He resigned his position after Operation Peace for the Galilee.) Were there enough moderates that he would have had a critical mass of Palestinians to do business with?
I also remember that in the mid to late 80's that there was an Arab soda factory that hired Yeshiva students from Bet El (yes, settlers) to give Hashgacha on their product so it could be sold in Israel.
What if initiatives between Arabs and Jews had been cultivated on a grass roots level circumventing the PLO? Might the death and destruction of the Oslo years have been prevented?
In his column "Israel Draws the Line" arguing for disengagement, Charles Krauthammer wrote:

And the Israeli left has grown up too, being mugged by the intifada into understanding that you do not trust the lives of your children to the word of an enemy bent on your destruction.

I disagree. The Israeli Left does not, even now, acknowledge its error. It still thinks it was correct. Nor does anyone in the international arena who deodorized Arafat apologize for the resulting mayhem that was the all too predictable result of legitimizing a terrorist organization.
It's too late now to reverse the damage. But are these people enough? Or are they doomed to the margins risking being denounced as collaborators?
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Refusing to throw good money after bad

Last week Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reported "Restrictions imposed on aid to Palesitnians." Naturally this was cast in the worst possible light:

Congress imposed the tight restrictions on aid to the Palestinians that President Bush had announced with fanfare in his State of the Union address, possibly dealing a blow to U.S. efforts to support new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Mystery Achievement celebrates the news by declaring this an instance When Democracy is Beautiful. Alas not everyone is happy.
Edward Abinton a paid consultant for the PLO is not happy:

Edward G. Abington Jr., a consultant to the Palestinian Authority, said the congressional action is a "huge slap in the face to Abu Mazen," whose party faces a strong challenge in the upcoming municipal elections. He said it was a "pretty startling setback" for Abbas because Abington believes the aid restrictions are now more stringent than when Arafat was alive.

The PA, naturally, claims that the restriction amount to "A slap in the face."
Not surprisingly we find the editors of the NY Times upset at "A no-confidence vote for Mr. Abbas.":

A few months ago, President Bush announced that he would ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic and security reforms. Following on his word, he did just that, in his budget proposal to Congress.

But last week when the House approved $200 million of the aid, it attached enough strings to strangle those good intentions. President Bush had requested that the first $200 million go directly to the Palestinian Authority, whose new president, Mahmoud Abbas, has been struggling to rein in extremist factions.

The problem is the Times's implicit premise that more money means an easier road to peace. However, it that were true, we would have had an Israeli-Palestinian peace long ago, as Daniel Pipes noted in "Palestinians Don't Deserve Additional Aid", the Palestinians are the highest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world.:

Aid-wise, residents of the West Bank and Gaza have hardly been neglected until now. They receive about $300 per person, making them, per capita, the world's greatest beneficiaries of foreign aid. Strangely, their efforts to destroy Israel have not inspired efforts to crush this hideous ambition but rather to subsidize it. Money being fungible, foreign aid effectively funds the Palestinian Arabs' bellicose propaganda machine, their arsenal, their army, and their suicide bombers.

So not only hasn't foreign aid helped create the conditions for a Middle East peace, it likely has been counter-productive. What's been lacking has been accountability, not money.
The Times seems particularly exercised over an intersting irony:

Adding insult to injury, the House then gave $50 million to Israel to build terminals for people at checkpoints surrounding Palestinian areas. House lawmakers directed an additional $2 million to Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. So a quarter of Congress's Palestinian aid disbursement so far is actually going to Israel.

So Congress has greater confidence that Israel will use the aid to help Palestinians than that the PA will! Elder of Ziyon emphasizes that point:

Congress is making clear what everyone knows but no one wants to say: Like most pre-teens, the Palestinians are not mature enough to handle their own money.

(And note, according the excerpt reproduced on EoZ, apparently the Bush administration is not going to fight Congress on this. President Clinton would have never gone along with this.)
So until Mr. Abbas shows that he is committed to fighting rather than co-opting terrorists, there is no reason to support his "reforms." Let him show that he is willing to live up to his commitments. Else with the lack of accountability his government will be just as corrupt as his predecessor's was. There's no reason not to demand performance from him. Good for Congress.
UPDATE: What does the PA need the money for?
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad

May the farce be with you!

via the essential Secular Blasphemy. It dices! It slices! No it's not a late night ad for Ginsu knives. It's a light saber - how it works and its many household uses explained right here!

Haveil Havalim #19 is up

"Ailu hadevarim ..." means "These are the words of." These are the words of Devarim, hostess of Haveil Havalim #19. Please go and check out her hard work in compiling this week's Haveil Havalim.
(Senior moment admission and apology. I wrote up a whole post yesterday. But I can't find it. I must have forgotten to click on "Save" before exiting.)

The following week, May 15, Shiloh Musings has graciously agreed to host Haveil Havalim. E-mail her at shilohmuse at yahoo dot com. If possible we'd like a focus (not an exclusive one) on Yom Ha Atzmaut. Shiloh Musings asks for

Each post should have a line of explanation, also because of Yom Zicaron, they should first indicate if it's memorial, history, celebrating or humor or misc.

The scheduled host for May 22 is Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers or RACHAK for short. e-mail him your submissions by Friday May 20 at Rachack at futurecities dot com.

And as always, to check out previous editions, Continue Reading ...

#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

Ambiguity everywhere but not a drop of irony

Last week the Washington Post explained the problems that President Mahmoud Abbas is facing in "For Abbas, a Crisis of Perception". The sub-headlines clarify things a little.

Reform Plans Stymied by Difference in Palestinian, Israeli Views of Security Forces

First paragraph (emphasis mine):

The entryway of the Nablus police headquarters is plastered with posters memorializing dead comrades. Some were killed by Israeli tank fire. Others were picked off by Israeli army sharpshooters. In addition to being police officers, most were members of Palestinian militant organizations.

Second and third paragraphs:

In the drab hallways of the Nablus station house, the policemen on the posters are considered heroes, resistance fighters who died defending their homeland against an occupation army.

In Israel, they are considered terrorists.

Wouldn't their membership in a "militant" organization qualify them as terrorists by an objective standard? If these organizations are committed to the destruction of Israel and target civilians where's the doubt? Why is balance needed here?
Indeed, if we look at much of the reporting in the article it backs the Israeli assertions that many members of the Palesitnian security forces are terrorists or members of terrorist organizations and that President Abbas wishes to incorporate terrorists into his security forces instead of arresting them as he is obligated to do. Consider:

"We're part of Fatah -- we're already part of the security forces," a senior Nablus commander in the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Abbas's Fatah political movement, said of the president's proposal. The commander declined to be identified by name because he is wanted by Israel.

Of course it was preceded by:

But for many Palestinians as well as Israelis, it is often difficult to distinguish between Palestinian militants and Palestinian security officers.

Difficult to distinguish? But didn't the "militant" admit that he's a member of the security services?
Then there's:

And in some cases, Palestinian security officers were militants who participated in attacks on Israeli civilians, settlers and soldiers. In one case, a Bethlehem policeman blew himself up on a city bus in Jerusalem in January 2004, killing 11 people.

But the next paragraph:

For the Israeli public, the weapons ban effectively equated Palestinian police with terrorists; for Palestinians, it undermined the authority of the police, because every time a police officer spotted an Israeli patrol, whether or not he was a militant, he ran to hide.

But that's right after noting that some security officers have been involved in terrorist acts. The weapons ban was a result of actions that led the Israeli public to associate Palestinian police to terrorists, not the other way around.
The article ends off with a number of other disturbing items:

Militants themselves are not fully behind Abbas's integration plan.

"The backbone of al-Aqsa see themselves as involved in a political struggle," said Rabbani, of the International Crisis Group. "They took up arms against the occupation, and the idea of disarming before the underlying causes are addressed -- telling them, 'Lay down your weapons and we'll give you a salary' -- is insulting."

It's insulting? To whom? To people who believe that terrorists should be disarmed and brought to justice? Somehow I don't think that's what he means.
Finally at the end of the article we get our obligatory quote from Saeb Erakat:

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator with Israel, said complaints that Abbas was not moving quickly or forcefully enough were "nonsense."

"We've done so many things . . . as far as aborting suicide attacks and other attacks, and they know it," he said. "The quiet and cessation of violence is Abu Mazen's doing, stopping the rockets in Gaza, reconfiguring the security operations in Gaza, preparing for legislative elections. I'm not saying we've done everything or that we've finished, but it's a start."

The timing of his statement could not have been worse. The previous day the Jerusalem Post reported "Terror attacks increase 54% from March to April" and the Israeli cabinet showed their confidence in the PA's security measure "44 communities near Gaza to be classified as 'front-line' towns". No Dr. Erakat, you haven't done everything, in fact it would be fair to say that you've done just about nothing.
The article is anxious to take a "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist approach." Unfortunately, the way it does that is to obfuscate the real reporting and make excuses for the PA's inexcusable inaction. The problem in the Middle East is that the PA's security forces are populated with terrorists and Abbas's plan to confront terrorists means to recruit even more of them into those security forces! The problem here is that too many news organizations refuse to acknowledge that Abbas is failing in his commitments and instead make excuses for him. This is not reporting it is advocacy.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Kingdom of PC

I've found much of the media attention to the recently released movie "Kingdom of Heaven" to be more than a little annoying.

There were uneasy rumblings among Arab groups that obtained an early treatment of the script a year or so ago. They found the film potentially fraught with stereotypes about 12th century Muslims fighting Christians for control of Jerusalem, negative images that might have inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was among those worried groups, but half a dozen members came away greatly relieved after a "Kingdom of Heaven" screening arranged for them by Scott.

"It's one of the better representations of Muslims we've seen out of Hollywood," said Laila Al-Qatami, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based group. "We thought that he did a good job tackling a potentially volatile subject and avoided doing a simplified, stereotyped story of Muslim vs. Christian."

I find it hard to be worried about Muslim sensibilities at the times of the Crusades. Whether or not the Muslims were attacked unfairly, the Crusades that were Christian vs. Muslim were armies vs. armies.
The Pact of Umar a few centuries earlier had anticipated the Nazi practice, by more than a millenium, of forcing "protected" minorities to attach a yellow cloth to their clothing. (The requirement was later changed to blue for Christians.)
But the Jewish fate under Christians during the Crusades was much worse. Jews did not have armies, unlike the Muslims, and were subject the persecutions of the Crusaders who decided that need not wait to rid Jerusalem of infidels when there were so many living closer by.
There is a concept in Judaism of "kiddushei ketana" or the betrothal, by the father, of a minor daughter. There is a Tosefos (a commentary on the Talmud) on Daf (page) 41A in the Tractate of Kiddushin. It says:

...and now that we are accustomed to betroth our daughters, even minors, that is because every day the exile becomes more oppressive and if a person can afford now to provide a dowry for his daughter perhaps later he won't be able to afford it and his daughter will never get married."

(attempted translation mine.) The life of the Jews in the Rhineland at the time of the Crusades was that tenuous. Kiddushei Ketana, something that has generally been forbidden was allowed then because a family might never get a second chance to marry of their daughter.
An article Christianity Today, deals with this aspect of the Crusades in an unltimately unconvincing manner:

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

Collateral damage is when the target is just but is near innocents. The Jews who were killed were the targets of the mayhem, there was nothing "collateral" about their deaths.
Maimon Schwarzschild and Tom Smith debate the Crusades over at the Right Coast.

Not so difficult

Quoting approvingly from a subscriber only article, "Ivan the Terribly Difficult to Identify" that appears in the Atlantic, Outside the Beltway wonders:

It's phenomenal to me that the U.S. government has ruined this man's life, been proven woefully wrong by a source hardly sympathetic to Demjanjuk, and continues to hound him.

Actually the Israeli court hardly said that the charges against Demjanjuk were wrong. It just refused to convict him of them.
Judge Alex Kozinski reviewed the case against Demjanjuk in a piece entitled "Sanhedrin II" in The New Republic in 1993 and praised the Israeli court's restraint. Why?

The Israeli Supreme Court's decision to free Demjanjuk rests on two key rulings. The first concerns the sufficiency of the evidence that Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible--the operator of the Treblinka gas chamber where thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Jewish men, women and children perished. This, the court held, was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, the court decided not to pursue the lesser charges that Demjanjuk served as a guard at the extermination camp at Sobibor and the concentration camps at Flossenbuerg and Regensbuerg--charges the court found were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, indeed beyond all doubt. An American court would probably have ruled otherwise on both issues.

Yet in the first case Judge Kozinski writes:

Evaluated by American legal principles, the opinion is hard to defend; our own Supreme Court--even in the heyday of Warren, Brennan and Marshall--likely would have reached a different result.

Though Demjanjuk had been identified by several inmates as Ivan the Terrible, the Israeli High Court of Justice allowed the introduction of KGB files of dubious credility. Still that was enough for the court to acquit him of that charge.
As to the second charge the court did not convict because it did not feel that Demjanjuk had the opportunity to defend himself adequately. Since it was a lesser charge, the court, though convinced of his guilt, did not feel he had the opportunity to defend himself because he was focused on the more severe charge.
Early on, Judge Kozinski explained why John Demjanjuk survived his trial:

In resolving this tension, the Sanhedrin developed rules and practices that were remarkably favorable to the accused. All inferences consistent with innocence were to be indulged; the accused was given the benefit of every doubt, reasonable or not. As a consequence, the Talmud tells us, a Sanhedrin that upheld an execution in seven years or even in seventy years was scorned as a bloody court. It is to this tradition that Ivan Demjanjuk owes his life and freedom.

It is important to remember that it is the impossible fairness of the Israeli court that freed Demjanjuk, not any significant doubts as to his identity. It's clear what he was doing during WWII. There is no reason to have sympathy for him.

Haveil havalim reminder

It's been a few weeks so here's a reminder that the hostess of the next scheduled Haveil Havalim, this Sunday, May 8, is Devarim. E-mail her with your suggestions and submissions at vov at gorfajn dot com.

The following week, May 15, Shiloh Musings has graciously agreed to host Haveil Havalim. E-mail her at shilohmuse at yahoo dot com. If possible we'd like a focus (not an exclusive one) on Yom Ha Atzmaut. Shiloh Musings asks for

Each post should have a line of explanation, also because of Yom Zicaron, they should first indicate if it's memorial, history, celebrating or humor or misc.

Matza ball eating contest

The Human Guinea Pig, Emily Yoffe, went to the Friar's club right before Pesach/ Passover to engage in the first annual Matzo ball eating contest. It's a great story.
[How do I make Matzo balls? The best recipe I found (ie the one that yielded the most consistent results) was the one from the Spice and Spririt of Jewish cooking. It calls for 4 eggs, 4 tbsp oil, 4 tbsp water and 1 cup of Matzo Meal. My daughter's home ec teacher recommended a variation: 2 eggs, 2 tbsp oil, 2 tbsp water and 2 tsp baking powder to with the cup of Matzo Meal. (For different amounts keep the proportions the same.) The latter recipe makes for fluffier Matzo balls. They also don't seem to stick together as well.
I used to prefer cooking the Matzo balls in the soup itself feeling that it gave them a bit more flavor; but lately I've been boiling them separately.]
Any Ms. Yoffe offers a great regurgitation - um - recapitulation of her advendture in "Great Balls of Matzo".
Speaking of Pesach related food, did anyone know that Presence is your #1 source for information on T. Abraham's Crispy-O's? What a distinction!

The Washington Post and Governor Ehrlich

The Washington Post has weighed in with and editorial "Mr. Ehrlich and the Press." The point of the editorial is to chide the governor once again for his failure to play by the media's rules:

Rather than suffer the impudent professional doubters who populate newspaper staffs, Mr. Ehrlich has tried to disseminate his message directly, through submissive talk radio programs. He also has gone further, issuing an order last year forbidding all state officials from speaking with two Baltimore Sun journalists who irked him by writing critically.

Actually if Governor Ehrlich were banning reporters for writing critically, he would have banned reporters from the Washington Post too. In the two cases in question David Nitkin apparently had written articles that the governor deemed unfair but the sticking point was a mistakenly labelled map that accompanied one of his articles. In the case of columnist Michael Olesker, Olesker suggested that he had been at a news conference that he had not been at. So the issue is imprecision (or mendacity) not criticism.
Of course precision when it comes to Governor Ehrlich is not really what the Washington Post is interested in. Here are two recent items from the Post about the governor. First there's "Members of the First Family All on the Same Page" by John Wagner and Matthew Mosk:

"They lie," she said, according to news accounts of a stump-style speech to the Republican central committees of Worcester, Wicomico and Somerset counties. "I would punish my son if I caught him in a lie, and they need to be punished."

The governor clarified later in the week that his wife was referring to the Baltimore Sun and The Washington Post. There was no word on the appropriate punishment.

He has had a long-running feud with the Sun that resulted in a ban on two of the paper's journalists last year. The Sun responded with an unsuccessful lawsuit, which is on appeal.

"We refer to them as 'the plaintiff,' " Ehrlich said in his remarks Thursday to the business group.

The governor's disdain for The Post has been more selective, but it intensified after the newspaper reported that a longtime Ehrlich aide, Joseph Steffen , acknowledged spreading rumors about the personal life of Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D).

Then there's "Maryland's Eventful Assembly" by Michele Dyson:

Then there is the case of the self-described Prince of Darkness, Joseph Steffen. It's hard to calculate what benefits his bosses thought could be gained by parachuting him into various state agencies to ferret out, intimidate and fire state employees he alone considered disloyal to the administration; but it's easy to figure out the cost to Ehrlich. Once the rock was lifted on his chat-room rumors regarding Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's alleged infidelity, the harsh light that was cast on the rest of his "work" ended up tarnishing Ehrlich's image.

Ehrlich managed to come through the two previous sessions with his poll numbers and image intact. But the Sun poll now has Ehrlich trailing O'Malley 45 percent to 39 percent. And while this last session may have roughed Ehrlich up a bit more than previous ones, his own people may have thrown him under the bus.

These are apparently news items; neither appeared on the editorial page. Each is filled with speculation and spin intended to make the governor look bad. And each withhold a critical piece of information.
In the first article, the reporters boast that Governor Ehrlich's "disdain" for the Washington Post "intensified" after the Post reported that an aide of the governor's disseminated rumors about Baltimore Mayor O'Malley's personal life. What the Washington Post hasn't written about is a report appearing on WBAL-TV two weeks ago showing that Steffen's role in the rumors is a lot murkier than originally reported. In fact e-mails reported by David Collins of WBAL-TV showed that Steffen resisted the spreading of the rumors despite being egged on by someone else. It's still unclear why Steffen resigned if the charge wasn't true, but it does appear that what the Post first reported needs clarification the Post has not followed up on the WBAL report at all.
Nor has it followed up on the report by Collins the next day that a member of Mayor O'Malley's staff apparently had advanced warning of the Washington Post article on Joseph Steffen. The apparent co-operation between the Post and a politician should have forced the Post to follow up and see if there was any impropriety or carelessness on the part of its staff.
Of course neither of Sunday's articles acknowledged either of the WBAL reports. The reason for that is, as Dyson noted:

Once the rock was lifted on his chat-room rumors regarding Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's alleged infidelity, the harsh light that was cast on the rest of his "work" ended up tarnishing Ehrlich's image.

Both WBAL reports cast doubts on the completeness of the earlier reporting and suggest that Steffen (and by extension Ehrlich) was somewhat less culpable in the rumor spreading than originally reported. Of course then the tarnish on Ehrlich's image wouldn't be as severe. And as we know, in eighteen months the Post will be endorsing a candidate for Governor of Maryland and we know that that candidate will not be Robert Ehrlich.
Of course for that endorsement to have meaning the Post will have to demonstrate that is coverage of the governor has been fair and above board. So far it has failed miserably. It was perfectly willing to publish damaging information about the governor but has refused so far to follow up on publicly available information that might be exculpatory. It also has failed to investigate the possibility that one of its staffers carelessly released information to the staff of one Governor Ehrlich's rivals giving that rival a political boost. Until the Post comes to terms with its selective coverage of the governor, its endorsement in November 2006 will mean nothing.
UPDATE: When I sent Washington Post reporter Matthew Mosk a link to my post, he responded saying that Collins's report contained nothing new and pointed to his report of Feb 11. That report, though, does not include:

MD4Bush: "If some of my friends and I were interested in keeping the story floating, do you have suggestions for us on how best to do it?"
Steffen: "I cannot and will not offer suggestions that may be considered unethical concerning what you should do, campaign wise. This is especially true concerning MOM's (Mayor O'Malley's) personal life. Work to hit the mayor constantly in letters to the editor (about city issues, not personal issues), call in radio shows etc."

Even reading Mosk's report, it looks more like Steffen is boasting about being aware of the efforts to spread rumors about O'Malley, possibly even something he was aware of as it happened, but not necessarily something that he was involved in. Still Mosk had no problem using a an unchallenged Democratic quote to establish the tone of the coverage in an article a few days earlier:

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery) said he will ask top lawmakers to grant him subpoena power to conduct hearings into what he called "the Watergate-style dirty tricks" used to smear O'Malley, a Democrat who is laying the groundwork to run for governor in 2006.

Steffen is being used as a proxy for Ehrlich. In order to do that it must be established that Steffen was a dirty trickster who also fired many people for a lack of ideological purity. The fact that only 280 out of 7000 political appointees were fired by the Ehrlich administration mitigates against the charge that Ehrlich has been firing Democrats with abandon. The additionaly e-mails (or more likely postings) that Collins reported on cast further doubts on Steffen's role. While I appreciate Matthew Mosk's e-mail, I still think that the events are less clearcut than have been reported.
Finally, Mosk didn't address the issue of how the O'Malley campaign knew in advance about the Washington Post report. Incidentally, while Collins reported on that two weeks ago, Chip Franklin was already asking about the connection between the O'Malley campaign and the Post when this story first broke.

Can I get excited yet?

The Yankees are now 7 1/2 games out of first place, their worst deficit since ....?
Why September 1997. The last time the O's won the division (or appeared in the playoffs, for that matter.)
And Peter Gammons tells us that the O's 16-7 record as of the end of April suggests that they have a better than 50% chance of making the playoffs. (Remember the 17 - 7 record is as of May 1, not April 30)

Through Sunday, Baltimore has the second-best record in the majors at 17-7 (a .708 winning percentage). The White Sox have the best at 18-7 (.720). Since 1976, 13 teams have finished April with a .700 (or better) winning percentage, and 10 have made the playoffs. The following is the gross data, and teams that were at those percentage levels heading into Sunday:

The O's have scored more runs than anyone else in the Majors powered by an awesome .865 team OPS (nearly 100 points higher than last year's respectable but hardly extraordinary .777 OPS.)
Also I see that the O's are 27 for 31 in stolen base attempts and lead the league in successful steals. (Only Boston 7-0 and SF 15-2 have a better percentage of success.)
With 144 runs scored and 113 allowed the O's have a projected winning pct (using the "Pythogorean" method (144 ^ 2) / ( ( 144 ^ 2) + (113 ^ 2) ) ) of .619 that translate to about 15 wins, so they aren't overperforming by that much. (Though over the course of a whole year such an overperformance would translate to about 13 wins - a signifcant amount.) However the O's won't win 70% of the games they play the rest of the year. No one does. The question is how much they will come down.
Right now they're ten games over .500 so if they split their remaining games they'll end up 86-76. I could live with that. I'd prefer to see playoffs, but a respectable season would be such a welcome surprise at this point, I'd find my interest in the team significantly renewed.
What are the reasons for concern. On the whole an .865 OPS is high and it can't be expected to continue. In terms of individual performances, Brian Roberts and Luis Matos are significantly overperforming so they can be expected to return (somewhat, at least) to earth.
On the pitching side, Erik Bedard has been tremendous (with one exception). Rodrigo Lopez is showing that 2003 was the fluke and Bruce Chen finally seems to be realizing the potential so many thought he had. However the pitching staff still is allowing way to many baserunners. Allowing nearly 1.5 runners per inning as they did last year is more consistent with the 5+ ERA that the team had most of last year than with this year's 4.58. (In fairness, last year's ERA ended up at 4.70, not much higher than this year's current measure.) And with one of the lowest number of ground-out double plays, the O's should reasonably expect their runs allowed to rise.
It's safe to assume that the Orioles will run into some rough patches this year. They will score runs less frequently and allow them more frequently as the year goes on. How much that will hurt them isn't clear right now. As I noted above, I don't think that 86 wins is too incredible to believe right now and that would be wonderful.