July 31, 2006
Haveil Havalim UPDATE
Late word is that Perspectives of a Nomad has graciously volunteered to host Haveil Havalim #81 next week (8/6/2006). E-mail him with your entries at scottage at rochester dot rr dot com.
Or use Blog Carnival or Conservative Cat to submit your entries.
Pleaes remember that this week's Haveil Havalim appears in two sections due to a technical glitch. There's 80 and 80a.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
With us?
Undoubtedly one of the important institutions of a free society is a free presss. Unfortunately what we see of the press in America is too credulous when reporting about terrorists. Take for example "Acting with a clear conscience" by Karl Vick.
Vick profiles Daoud Salahuddin, formerly known as David Theodore Belfield, who, some 26 years ago, killed an associate of the Shah at the behest of his Iranian masters. He fled to Iran afterwards where he lives in freedom.
While I suppose that Vick could be forgiven for profiling Salahuddin, it's the beginning of the article that's particularly troubling. He starts by using Salahuddin's e-mail address as a platform to compare him to the fictional "Fugitive." It betrays a lack of seriousness. Rather than trying to understand his subject, it make Vick appear to be admiring him.
On a similar theme there's Many Arabs Laud Hezbollah
Hezbollah's fight with Israel, viewed widely here as a battle between the militia's David and the Jewish state's Goliath, has solidified support for the militant group and left U.S. credibility, already at an all-time low, in tatters. The conflict has highlighted how far apart the United States and the majority of Arabs stand on the most visceral conflict in the Middle East.Arabs see the U.S. refusal to press Israel, its ally, for a cease-fire as a clear bias toward the Jewish state and against Arabs. They also believe that U.S. delivery of weapons to Israel makes the United States complicit in the deaths of civilians.
It isn't just what Israel does that matters. It matters that the Arab world views American support for Israel and that America has not credibility with the Arab world.
Of course Powerline noted something strange about yesterday's protests in Lebanon. There's a huge picture of Sec. Rice. The amount of time that it would have taken to produce that poster makes it clear that it wasn't just created spontaneously after the building collapsed in Qana.
So when a Washington Post reporter is interviewing Arabs who now hate Israel, you have to wonder, what would have happened if Israel hadn't struck back. If he'd gone to the same people after the soldiers were kidnapped and Hezbollah started launching Katyushas, would they have expressed their admiration for Israel? Or would they have been expressing their admiration for Hezbollah for fighting the Zionist enemy?
The feelings that the subjects of the article (and many like them) have for Israel and the United States precede the collapse of the building in Qana. As much as the press wishes to present Israel's "overreaction" to attacks on its citizens and the diplomatic cost that it exacts is this even a fair representation of the conflict.
Consider the NY Times and Washington Post articles on yesterday's events. Is there anything in these articles that supports Israel's position?
1) Is there a mention of the IDF's statement about the threat that was emanating from Qana? The IDF's weebsite shows that Qana was the source of missiles attacking 4 cities. Also at the website is a video of the rockets being launched and the launchers traveling into buildings.
2) Is there any mention that the building in Qana apparently collapsed 7 or 8 hours after the Israelis struck the building as YNet reported? Why weren't the people in the building evacuated? Did the building collapse because something else exploded?
3) Finally where's the mention of the photographs published in an Australian newspaper showing Hezbollah placing themselves in middle of civilian neighborhoods? (Especially the first photograph. Think the guy in the blue shirt looks a little scared?)
A discussion appears here.
Vital Perspectives reminds us of the international law that the presence of civilians does not confer immunity onto legitimate military targets?
There's a joke about lawyers that if they don't have the facts they should argue the law, if the law isn't on their side, they should argue the facts.
So it is with the media. It has its accepted story line. Anything that conforms to that story line is news; anything that doesn't isn't. So the storyline here is that the Israel overreacted and innocents are suffering.
Does it matter that this is the storyline that's approved by Hezbollah? Does it matter that Hezbollah is legally responsible for the destruction? (Remember how sacred international law is when it comes to "occupation"? Where's the international law now that it's on Israel's side?) Does it matter that it likely wasn't the Israeli bomb that destroyed the building?
Nope. What matters is building the perceptions that bolster the media's storyline. And in doing so the media are furthering the causes of terror and repression and working against the freedom they claim to be defending.
Technorati tags: Media Bias, Israel, Hezbollah.
July 30, 2006
Haveil Havalim #80
Welcome to Haveil Havalim edition #80. The purpose of Haveil Havalim is to feature the best Jewish and Israel related blog posts of the past week.
Of course many Jewish and pro-Israel bloggers have been writing about the war. But there have been other items of note.
Did you hear about the ancient psalter found in an ancient Irish blog? Apparently blogs have been around longer than anyone realized.
And while this is a time of trouble for Israel, this time of year has been a time of mourning. This week Jews observe the fast day of Tisha B'Av to commemorate the destruction of the two Holy Temples.
Not Quite Perfect, the official artist of Haveil Havalim has produced a haunting graphic.
Elie's Expositions reflects on this time of the year. And on to the regular stuff.
The UN helps those who won’t help themselves and blames those who do
Crossing the Rubicon2 is considering starting a John Bolton fan club.
Has Greetings from French Hill found the ideal usage of the acronym UN?
Aliyah Blog asks if the UN can be trusted in Lebanon.
Ocean Guy demonstrates a contrast between two groups of refugees.
Elder of Ziyon shows that it is possible to provide for your own, without making them into a political symbol.
Anti-Zionism etc.
Aliyah Blog discusses the recent paper that finds that anti-Zionist sentiments predict antisemitism.
A Simple Jew discusses Jewish anti-Zionism.
Ajay's View offers a few thousand words demonstrating the peaceful demonstrations of the religion of peace.
The Ignoble Experiment has early information on the hate crime in Seattle.
Admit that you're Jewish or support Israel? Not always a good career move according to Kesher Talk. (h/t Pillage Idiot)
Blogging etc.
Life-in-Israel was interviewed. Kol Hakavod.
In an attempt to internationalize Haveil Havalim, The Ignoble Experiment has sent in a link to a Russian blog. (Is Akrav Hebrew - in which case it means "scoripion" or is Russian?)
The Ignoble Experiment recounts her (telephone) encounter with Rep. Steve Israel (along with a number of other bloggers.)
Perspectives of a Nomad sees hope in chat rooms.
Israel’s fight
My Right Word corrects a false impression tossed out so casually by the media on Israel's obligation to Lebanese civilians.
Treppenwitz calculates the odds.
Life-in-Israel offers his thoughts on watching the results of an attack on Kiryat Shemona.
The Ignoble Experiment summarizes the current conflict in a nutshell as a result of an ADL event she attended.
Life-in-Israel has sympathy for former PM Ariel Sharon whose medical situation has deteriorated even further.
West Bank Mama says Hurray for testosterone.
Israel Matzav says that nothing less than all out war will stop Hezbollah.
Israel Matzav explains why Israel had to bomb Tyre.
Meryl Yourish observes that Israel's changing its strategy toward Gaza, for the better.
Kesher Talk wonders if Israel will have the wherewithall to do what's necessary to defeat Hezbollah.
Remember the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983? Those killed weren't just part of a news story for Ocean Guy. They were his comrades and friends.
It's Almost Supernatural recalls an old Charles Krauthammer column on how to judge Israel.
Knocking on the Golden Door calculates that Israel must do what's best for its citizens.
Haifa a "settlement?" IMRA has the goods. (h/t My Right Word)
Blog Free laments that the trend of the growing number of internal Israeli refugees.
Life-in-Israel comments that Sheikh Nasrallah wasn't expecting such a harsh response from Israel.
ConservaJew explains why Israel fights.
Kesher Talk provides a snapshot of life and links to find many more.
Boker Tov Boulder carries a report that longer range missiles may have hit Afula.
Bint Jbeil
Israel Matzav describes the battle of Bin Jbeil.
Occidentality presents a satellite photo of Beit Jbeil, where eight Israeli soldiers were killed last week.
Meryl Yourish provides many new details including, that it wasn’t an ambush. (And thus no reason to trumpet Hezbollah’s great military prowess.)
Jewish Life
A mother in Israel says that there are no lactation police.
Cross-Currents updates the Bloggers praying for Israel initiative.
SerAndEz wonders why some people put more effort into finding the right mate than in working to support that mate.
Me-Ander appreciates the great number of Kosher restaraunts in the NY area.
Velveteen Rabbi discusses the purpose of prayer.
We'd like to welcome Daf-Notes to the Blogosphere. It is devoted to discussions of the daily study of the Gemora (Talmud.)
R' Chaim HaQoton discusses some of the laws of observing the Sabbath.
Letters of Thought thinks about what it means to be Jewish.
The state department
Ben Yehuda wonders why the United States is picking up the bill for rescuing Americans who were warned away from Lebanon by the U.S. government.
Jon Swift wonders to what degree Lebanese civilians should be immune to the violence.
Shiloh Musings hears Secretary Rice discussing the New Middle East. Where has she heard that before?
Supporting Israel
Daled Amos recounts the recent trip of Rabbi Avi Weiss to Israel.
Ajay's View (another new blog) asks (and answers) why we support Israel.
Crossing the Rubicon2 recommends a musical way to support Israel.
The lighter side
Shiloh Musings is impressed with a recent American TV show she watched. (Though I've never watched it I'm wondering from the description if it's JAG.)
There are no feminists on a sinking ship is appalled by the behaviour of Mets fans.
American Jewish History links to a Moment magazine article remembering the Beatles' manager Brian Epstein.
Last week Life-of-Rubin noted that Bill Maher supports the President's support of Israel. He wasn't the only one to notice. Day by Day also noticed the similarity between the PA and the UN.
Thoughts on Life
Phish Aliyah's looking for a good new last name.
ConservaJew ponders eternal life.
Perspectives of a Nomad reflects on his past.
Jewish Blogmeister wonders why bank errors never seem to happen to him.
The Ignoble Experiment shares her burden with us.
Treppenwitz frets over changing his vacation plans.
There are no feminists on a sinking ship considers the importance of a dollar.
Greetings from French Hill wants to get away. To Hawaii.
My Right Word wonders why feminists don't get more exercised about the lack of equality in the Muslim world.
If you would like to submit one or two of your best Israel or Judaism related posts send me an e-mail at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using either Conservative Cat's handy dandy submission form or the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
(Note the change in the operation of Conservative Cat's submission form. It takes you directly to Haveil Havalim.)
Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion. (And please don't submit everything or nearly everything you posted in a week. Winnowing out your best posts takes time.)
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#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
Haveil Havalim #80a
EXTRA! EXTRA! I've been very frustrated for too long. I had uploaded Haveil Havalim #80 as a draft with the intention of adding the final links. What happened, for some unknown reason, is that after trying to update it as "publish" baltiblogs reverts to the main menu without saving the new stuff. I'm not sure if it's because the post is too big, or because something else is wrong.
So here are the posts that Batliblogs is refusing to upload right now. If I can integrate it later I will. If it makes you feel any better my links to Haveil Havalim daily didn't make the cut either.
Sorry.
AbbaGav took pictures of refugees that haven’t made it to Yahoo! News. Or that the UN has cared to provide for.
Cozy Corner asks why UNICEF doesn’t provide for Israeli children. And gets an unsatisfactory response.
LGF reports on a reason why the UN should be grateful to Israel. But I wouldn’t wait for the gratitude.
And Mere Rhetoric observes that if Hezbollah heeded the observers, the observers would have been safe.
Bookworm Room writes that many sophisticates don’t want Israel to win.
Déjà vu gives Thomas Friedman a well deserved keyboard thrashing for his immoral equivalence.
Pillage Idiot knows that Condi's a woman of faith, but which faith?
Does supporting Israel mean supporting President Bush who supports Israel? The answer according to Pillage Idiot is no.
DotCoDotIl writes about grass being greener.
DotCoDotIl also wonders whatever happened to Mark Hamill.
If you liked this roundup, as long as the war continues I will try to do daily updates. I managed to do 4 last week. July 24, July 25, July 26 and July 27. Haveil Havalim daily has no real connection with the weekly edition. While I've been giving a roundup, I also use the daily format to highlight a specific issue in depth and to provide fodder for other bloggers to write about.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Qana again
Ten years ago Israel responded to Hezbollah rockets launched in close proximity to a UN shelter, an errant shell struck that shelter killing nearly 100 civilians. The resulting furor and diplomatic storm forced Israel to abandon its attempts to protect its civilian population and sue for a ceasefire while leaving Hezbollah intact. (The Hezbollah rockets had forced tens of thousands of Israelis in the North from their homes.)
Of course there was plenty of condemnation for Israel and none for Hezbollah. In one of those little known bits of information a UN peacekeeper was shot in the chest when he tried to get Hezbollah rocket launchers to move away from the protected compound.
Now, unfortunately it has happened again. No doubt that most of the blame will be directed toward Israel when it is Hezbollah that deserves the blame. (Yes according to international law Hezbollah is culpable. Elder of Ziyon gives chapter and verse.)
If the law isn't enough for you, I'd like to point you to a Washington Post editorial from April 1999 called Air War Accidents. Here's the synopsis
A STARK DIFFERENCE divides the atrocities deliberately committed, and still being committed, by the Serbs against the Kosovars from the accidents of NATO air power that have taken additional Kosovar lives. It is a difference of scale: the Serbs have taken thousands of lives and have either deported or uprooted and harassed more than a million Kosovars, practically all of them, while the NATO-inflicted toll is measured in the hundreds. It is also a moral difference: The Serb depredations are vile and unjustified, a violation of fundamental human rights, while NATO's airstrikes are necessary and justified to defend a people under continuing merciless attack. People who ignore these fundamental distinctions are lending themselves wittingly or not to Serbian propaganda and to a general moral obtuseness.
While the scope argument doesn't hold here, the moral one does. (Especially since Hezbollah sets up near civilian buildings, something that didn't apply in the NATO case.)
The editorial does go on to say that if many more mistakes happen then NATO will have to explain how so many are happening.
I wonder if the Post will be so understanding to Israel tomorrow?
Technorati tags: Washington Post, Israel, Hezbollah, Media Bias.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
July 28, 2006
Haveil havalim daily edition 07/27/2006
In depth: The Washington Post and New York Times today reported on the war crime committed by Hezbollah terrorists.
One of Hezbollah's most troublesome position from which it fired upon soldiers was the towering mosque in the village."There were maybe 30 terrorists [in the mosque]," Shalom said.
Whoops, that was Ha'aretz, which also described the heroic efforts of the soldiers sympathetically.
The Washington Post reports from a different angle Hezbollah Proves a Formidable Foe.
But Israeli military officials say they have not been surprised by Hezbollah's prowess in the cramped towns and hilly, forested terrain that the Shiite Muslim militia has controlled since Israel left southern Lebanon six years ago. Instead, many of them say, losses such as these expose the limits of a modern national army pitted against a well-schooled guerrilla force fighting amid a civilian population that largely supports its goals
Well schooled? By whom? Perhaps it's less the weakness of Israel than the strength of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is underwritten and armed by a rogue state or two (mentioned at the end of the article) and is willing to flout international norms of warfare (ignored in the article).
The Post only uses quotes from analysts not from anyone on the battlefield.
The article gives the impression that Israel is fighting a losing battle. An interesting note is that a fellow named Timur Goksel is quoted. He's described as being someone
... who watched Hezbollah grow into a potent force during 25 years as a senior adviser to the U.N. observer force along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
Interesting that the peacekeepers are described as observers who watched Hezbollah build its strength, apparently unhindered.
Overall the Post approach is to show what a difficult time Israel will have.
The New York in contrast actually talks to Israeli officers in the field. And while it focuses on the difficulties Israel is facing it gives context (totally lacking in the Post article)
Several officers said the military’s losses must be considered against those suffered during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when about 100 Israeli soldiers died in the first days of the war. Tens of thousands of soldiers went across the border in that invasion, bypassing major towns and villages until they reached the Litani River, more than 20 miles inland in some places.
But what's lacking from the two American newspapers is the use of a mosque by Hezbollah. Also there's a failure to mention that many of the injured Israeli soldiers were injured not in combat but as they transported their wounded comraded to safety. Both are mentioned by Ha'aretz.
And however bleak Ha'aretz paints the picture, it quotes a soldier at the end"Even after a day like this, the morale is higher," said Ram Boneh, a 20-year-old resident of Hadera who was lightly wounded by shrapnel. "I want to go out and return to active duty."
And it even concludes on an optimistic note
"At 12:30, [Boneh] called and told us he was in Rambam and that we shouldn't worry," Boneh's mother, Heska, said. "We came here immediately from Hadera. It's very hard for me [to deal] with what is happening. I'm Dutch and I wasn't educated on the army, and it's very difficult for me to deal with the fact that he's a fighter. But I am with him and I trust him as well as the entire army."
Jewlicious isn't so positive but makes an important point
This is not just Hizbullah - the tactics, arms and training are too sophisticated. This is a proxy arm and by extension, apparently, a part of the Iranian army. They have spent years planning for an Israeli incursion, building fortifications and tunnels, arming themselves to the teeth and preparing for a rocket and missile attack on Israel’s population centers. The IDF seems to have seriously underestimated the extent of Hizbullah’s development as a force and has fought this war accordingly.
Meryl also opts for the positive.
Regular Stuff:
Occidentality notes that Hezbollah is quick to claim kills of Israeli soldiers, even exaggerated ones, but is strangely reticent about its own losses. That and much, much more.
Israel Matzav points to a poignant article by Rabbi Yehonoson Rosenblum that emphasizes that all Israelis are in this together.
Hegemonic Discourse wants the UN to investigate ... itself.
The astute blogger gloats that Nasrallah doesn't have any privacy. I'd be thrilled if Astute's prediction pans out, but it seems a bit optimistic.
Colossus of Rhodey.Hube went to and reports from Delaware's Rally for Israel.
(via Cosmic X) Jumping on the bandwagon pays tribute to his fallen friend.
The first Shabbat we were in the army, we were given the weekend off, but two soldiers had to stay on base. We all looked at each other, no one wanted to be the guy stuck there on our first weekend off. But not a moment passed before Amichai's hand was in the air. "Ani mitnadev", he said. I'll volunteer. Those words defined who he was, always volunteering first to do the things no one else wanted to do.
While I don't agree with the whole thing, Deja Vu translates a Joschka Fischer opinion piece. (also available here.)
Assignment desk:
The one thing that's clear so far is that Rice believes that allowing Israel to decimate Hezbollah and drive what's left of the group out of southern Lebanon is such a valuable step toward her "new" Middle East that it's worth crippling a nascent Arab democracy with hundreds of civilian casualties and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage.
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.
Compare/Contrast/Discuss
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Haveil Havalim Daily.
Clueless ten years on
What is wrong with these paragraphs?
In April 1996, when Hezbollah again launched rocket attacks on Israel's northern border, the Israelis countered with Operation Grapes of Wrath, sending 400,000 Lebanese fleeing from southern Lebanon. Errant Israeli bombs hit a U.N. refugee camp at Cana in southern Lebanon, killing about 100 civilians and bringing the wrath of international public opinion down upon Israel.This time Shimon Peres, who had become prime minister after the assassination of Rabin, sought our help. In response, we launched an eight-day shuttle to Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem that produced a written agreement bringing the hostilities to an end. Weeks later, the parties agreed to a border monitoring group consisting of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, France and the United States. Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.
If someone didn't know better he wouldn't know that the Hezbollah rocket attacks in 1996 sent tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes in northern Israel. It was, certainly, a sufficient reason for Israel to retaliate against Hezbollah positions.
If someone didn't know better he wouldn't know that the errant shell that hit the UN building was fired in response to a Hezbollah rocket launch within yards of that building.
(While the UN report on the shelling of Qana rejects Israel's claims it contains this nugget:
About 15 minutes before the shelling, they fired between five and eight rounds of 120 millimetre mortar from a location 220 metres south-west of the centre of the compound. The location was identified on the ground. According to witnesses, the mortar was installed there between 1100 and 1200 hours that day, but no action was taken by UNIFIL personnel to remove it. (On 15 April, a Fijian had been shot in the chest as he tried to prevent Hezbollah fighters from firing rockets.)As far as I know Hezbollah was never condemned for shooting that Fijian.)
And finally, what bugs me about those paragraphs is the last sentence:
Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.
Absurd. It prevented nothing. It allowed Hezbollah to re-arm unharrassed (especially after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon.) It didn't prevent hostitilies. It set the stage for further hostilities. The fruits of which are just starting to be reaped.
The op-ed in question was written by the clueless Warren Christoper who served as Secretary of State during the first Clinton administration. The point of the op-ed is to show how short sighted Sec Rice is for not trying for an agreement that would allow Hezbollah to re-arm and prepare for its next assault on Israel years down the road.
And like David Ignatius and Thomas Friedman, Christopher believes that the road to peace runs through Damascus
Finally, Syria may well be a critical participant in any cease-fire arrangement, just as it was in 1993 and 1996. Although Syria no longer has troops in Lebanon, Hezbollah's supply routes pass through the heart of Syria, and some Hezbollah leaders may reside in Damascus, giving the Syrians more leverage over Hezbollah's actions than any other country save Iran. Syria has invited a direct dialogue with the United States, and although our relations with Syria have seriously deteriorated in recent years (we have not had an ambassador in Damascus for more than a year), we do not have the luxury of continuing to treat it with diplomatic disdain.
Yes let's not forget the Syria option, Mr. Secretary.
The Clinton Administration has pursued Syrian participation in the peace negotiations for some time. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher's 20 or more visits to Syria were more than he made to any other country. In January 1994, President Clinton met with Assad in Geneva in a summit that accomplished little except to boost Assad's international standing and insulate Syria from charges that it was a rogue state like Iraq, Iran, or Libya.
Tell me, is there any indication that the younger Mr. Assad wil be any more reasonable than his father was?
Because Hezbollah has positioned itself as the "David" in this war, every day that the killing continues burnishes its reputation within the Arab world. Every day that more of the Lebanese infrastructure is turned to dust, Beirut's fragile democracy becomes weaker, both in its ability to function and in the eyes of its people.
Actually op-eds such as this one have the effect of legitimizing a terrorist group. Nice going.
The impact is not limited to Lebanon or Israel. Every day America gives the green light to further Israeli violence, our already tattered reputation sinks even lower. The reluctance of our closest allies in the Middle East even to receive Secretary Rice this week in their capitals attests to this fact.
Charles Krauthammer, writing after the Qana tragedy expressed his admiration for the Clinton administration's defense of Israel against the terrorist group Hezbollah, but he wrote that that was about to change (For Syria's Treachery, The Washington Post, Apr 19, 1996)
Typical for Hezbollah, whose rocket attacks on northern Israel, undertaken under cover of south Lebanese villagers, sparked the current ugly and tragic mini-war in south Lebanon. Hezbollah's strategy is as cunning as it is cruel: Either Israel refrains from responding, in which case it renders itself defenseless; or it responds and runs the risk of causing the kind of terrible civilian harm that occurred yesterday. . . . The usual Middle East script calls for the following: Terrorists fire into Israel. Israel retaliates. The U.N. Security Council protests loudly. The United States exerts pressure for Israel to stop. Isra\el stops.Up until Qana, the Clinton administration had defied the script. It had not pressured Israel to stop its mini-war with Hezbollah. Instead of the usual invocation of moral equivalence, the ritual deploring of the "cycle of violence," Clinton placed the blame squarely on Hezbollah for starting this savage little war. Instead of immediately calling for "restraint" on all sides, the United States called for an end to Hezbollah terror. As a result, the U.N. Security Council, which usually grows voluble and morally agitated at any sign of Israel rising to its own defense, had been a model of inaction.
. . .
After Qana, however, even Clinton will be forced to sign on to some even-handed U.N. condemnation of the violence on both sides and a call for truce, however unstable.The one thing sure not to be included in any such pious declaration is condemnation of Syria for its part in this affair. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, now on his way to the Middle East, will carry on the now-universal charade in which Syria is accorded the role of peacemaker in Lebanon.
Ten years ago Christopher went about his job appeasing the dictator of Damascus. It didn't achieve much. Assad the elder went to his grave refusing to make peace even if it meant achieving over 90% of what he sought.
Ten years later, clueless as ever, Christopher still doesn't realize that appeasing tyrants and terrorists doesn't convince them to see thing your way; it convinces them that you're seeing things their way.
UPDATE: (via memeorandum)Christopher's old boss feels the same way. Riehl World View disagrees
If someone breaks into your home wielding a knife and you have a gun, what's more important ... to get him to sit down on the sofa and sheath the knife, or undertaking whatever action is necessary to see that the knife is no longer a threat to you and won't soon be again?
Maryland Conservatarian saves me the trouble of having to smack down another "Peace is through Damascus" moonbat.
Technorati tags: Warren Christopher, Washington Post, Israel, Syria, Lebanon.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Beirut/Jenin
(via SerAndEz, KesherTalk, Yourish ) Vital Perspectives presents a map showing the destruction that Israel has caused in Beirut. If this map is accurate it further suggests that many in the media are simply doing Hezbollah's bidding and not just innocently reporting the news.
But if this seems familiar, it should. Do you remember the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002? There were many claims about how much destruction Israeli rained down on the refugee camp. (Not just the specious charges of killing children.) Except when you saw the the IDF's aerial photographs of the area, you realize that Israel targeted only a small portion of the camp.
(I found an organization that's critical of Israel called Global Security that claims that the Israeli estimation of the combat zone in Jenin was low and it was actually four times the size of the initial Israeli claims. But even Global Security claims that this represents only 6 percent of the Jenin refugee camp.)
Exaggeration is a tool of Israeli's enemies. And there are too many "responsible" parties who are all too willing to ply this tool against Israel.
Technorati tags: Beirut, Jenin, Propaganda, Media Bias.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
July 27, 2006
Disappointing
(via memeorandum )According to Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post
The US is "counseling" Israel to negotiate a possible withdrawal from the Mount Dov (Shaba Farms) area with Lebanon as part of a long-term arrangement for Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.This issue was one of the focuses of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's talks in Jerusalem Tuesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
The problem with this is that the US is counseling Israel to negotiate with Lebanon and the UN has said that the area belongs to Syria. Syria refuses to negotiate with Lebanon over it until Israel withdraws. And you can bet that the Syrians are also going to want to negotiate over the Golan Heights at the same time - something Israel will refuse to do.
ISRAEL SHOULD REFUSE . THE UN DECIDED IT WAS SYRIAN LAND. END OF STORY.
Given that the administration supports the need for there to be peace in the Middle East, it's more than a little disturbing that they'd even bring up Shebaa Farms. It was captured by Israel in 1967 from Syria. Syria deeded the area back to Lebanon just so that Hezbollah would still have a pretext to attack Israel after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Even discussing Shebaa farms is handing a victory to Hezbollah and Syria.
Ceding Shebaa Farms to Hezbollah is not a way forward. At least the Bush administration understands that Israel must win this war. David Ignatius thinks that it's best for Israel to stop with a job half done.
Lebanese sources outlined for me the compromise package they say was discussed Monday when Rice met with Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, and Nabih Berri, the parliament speaker and leader of the Shiite militia known as Amal. The cornerstone of this package, according to my sources, is that Hezbollah would agree to withdraw its armed fighters from south Lebanon and accept an international force there that would accompany the Lebanese army. Israel, for its part, would agree to halt its attacks and lift its air and sea blockade. The United States would call for negotiations over the return of a disputed territory known as Shebaa Farms, claimed by Lebanon even though the United Nations ruled in 2000 that it was Syrian.Within 24 hours after a cease-fire, there would be an exchange of prisoners as part of this package: Hezbollah would give up the two Israeli soldiers it captured in the July 12 border raid that started the crisis; Israel would release Lebanese prisoners it holds.
Not just does Ignatius want Israel to validate Hezbollah's claim, but he considers a prisoner exchange a compromise.
Who should be included? Samir Kuntar?
When Israel agreed to release Palestinian prisoners as part of the Oslo accords it was supposed to be part of a bigger deal. Israel was acknowledging that the PLO was a legitimate organization and therefore those involved in political activity on its behalf would be forgiven. It was never supposed to include actual terrorists, though the Palesitnians have insisted on it and the world has encouraged the Palestinian side.
I suspect that Ignatius not only wants Israel to legitimize Hezbollah by ceding Shebaa farms but by freeing actual terrorists too in order to gain the freedom of its kidnapped soldiers. He wants an Israeli surrender.
The Bush administration's position isn't as bad, but it's still troubling.
Technorati tags: Shebaa Farms, Israel, Hezbollah.
July 26, 2006
Haveil havalim daily edition 07/26/2006
In depth: The Rome Conference failed to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
(next 3 via buzztracker)
Dependable Renegade sums it up Heckuva job, Condi.
The Middle East has already been deeply scarred by such superficial measures – Secretary Rice is correct to reject an immediate cease-fire, and the interests of the entire free world lie with the destruction of Hizb’Allah.
Charming just Charming isn't too disappointed and leaves with this thought
And by the way, Mr.Annan, if I was an Israeli General and saw your U.N. observers obviously supporting Hezbollah..such as they have done in the past, I would order them blown away. Instead of being part of the solution the peace keepers have been part of the problem. I would suggest that you pull them before more get hurt.
In Endgame in Lebanon the editors of the Washington Post correctly understand
The truth is that there is no reasonable compromise to be made with the extremists who began this war: Either they will retain an extra-governmental military force that can attack Israel whenever it suits the interests of the Iranian or Syrian regimes, or they will lose that capacity.In doing so they adminster a well-deserved rebuke to Kofi Annan who wish to give Syria and Lebanon a role.
Understanding that the crisis isn't the fighting but having a malignant terror organization on Israel's border that is arming for the next opportunity to strike is essential to appreciating the American insistence on no half measures. (And makes the editorial's earlier complaint that "the cost in civilian casualties has been disturbingly high" puzzling. Given that Hezbollah bases itself in civilian neighborhoods, that's unfortunately going to happen. But that can't stop Israel from defending itself effectively. )
Regular stuff:
Media
Jack's Shack and NRO's Media Blog note a remarkable admission by Anderson Cooper.
“And while that may be true, what the Israelis will say is that Hezbollah has their offices, their leadership has offices and bunkers even in residential neighborhoods. And if you're trying to knock out the Hezbollah leadership with air strikes, it's very difficult to do that without killing civilians."and
“Civilian casualties are clearly what Hezbollah wants foreign reporters to focus on. It keeps the attention off them — and questions about why Hezbollah should still be allowed to have weapons when all the other militias in Lebanon have already disarmed."
Keep that in mind when you read something like that there have been (so far) 391 Lebanese killed, most of them civilians. And when the Washington Post adds that conflicting reports make it difficult to get an accurate total for the death toll you have to wonder how inaccurate the total actually is.
Backspin also acknowledges Cooper's admission but it takes a back seat to colleague Nic Robertson's admission that he had been a tool of Hezbollah.
Life of Rubin wonders if these admission are part of a bigger trend that perhaps Israel is starting to turn back the tide of anti-Israel bias in the media.
Support
Out of Step Jew headed up north with Out of Step Son to bring some relief to residents of the north. (With pictures below.)
Saba Yeshayah recounts how Israeli are helping each other including
I received an email from my wife's family's congregation in Modiin that they are providing housing to families in the North and they have sent people to the North to cheer up children living in bomb shelters. Even former residents of Gush Katif still living in temporary caravans are inviting fellow citizens from the North to stay with them.
Unenlightenment links to a NY Times story that includes a description of Chassidim making sure that there are not atheists in Israeli foxholes.
Aishel has an account of Tuesday's rally supporting Israel in Baltimore. He also links to some pictures.
PostWatch rebuts Deborah Howell's defense of the WaPo running the Haniyeh op-ed.
Howell cites other, pro-Israeli columns, but Charles Krauthammer writing in favor of Israel doesn't balance a terrorist writing against it. There is no balance to be achieved there. If Rudy Giuliani wrote an Op-Ed on crime, I wouldn't look for a rebuttal from Charles Manson.
Would she still advocate giving Haniyeh space if she knew that his government wasn't exactly a great respecter of press freedom?
Abdullah Issa, publisher and editor of the on-line magazine Donia al-Watan, was summoned Monday morning to the offices of the PA attorney general in Gaza City, where he was questioned for several hours about the story following a complaint from Zahar, who is also one of the Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip.
Kevin Sites, though, seems quite willing to do Hezbollah's work.
Kofi. Again.
With SecGen Kofi Annan charging, with no proof other than his own baseless prejudice, that Israel deliberately targeted the UNIFIL troops, It's important to read the Belmont Club
If each of the press releases is read in their entirety is manifestly clear that UNIFIL is performing none of these authorized missions. Instead it has become a kind of ambulance and relief service for the killed and injured on the Lebanese side of the border. The releases are peppered with accounts of UNIFIL personnel escorting what are described as civilians and villagers to places of safety. This is not really part of its mandate, which is not to say that it is immoral or wrong.(h/t Roger L Simon)All the incidents of IDF fire reported in the press releases are clearly related to some kind of nearby combat with the Hezbollah. In one case the IDF fired on a village into which the UNIFIL had gone, but rockets had originated from the vicinity of the village prior. In another case, an Israeli aerial bombardment detonated mines all around a UNIFIL position. Those mines were presumably not planted by UNIFIL, but they were so close to it that the UN position caught fire. The UN observation post in Maroun al-Ras was hit by artillery, but we know from press reports that Maroun al-Ras was the epicenter of heavy fighting and the location of a Hezbollah bunker complex. The UN even ran a convoy from the Hezbollah "capital" of Bint Jubayl to another area. Bint Jubayl is well known to be the target of an IDF attack. Yet the UN felt that it was possible to move convoys through such areas, albeit at considerable danger.
One reason that they could was that UNIFIL was evidently in contact with the IDF. In a sentence which speaks volumes we learn that "One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa." This strongly implies that UNFIL was able to coordinate their movements with the IDF and that the IDF was willing to risk men and aircraft to help UNFIL.
Seraphic Press reminds us that Kofi's malfeasance has made him culpable for many more deaths than your average bureaucrat.
The Hedgehog Report's none too impressed with Kofi either
Hezbollah is indiscriminately bombing civilian targets on a daily basis and you practically have to beat a condemnation out of Kofi Annan and the United Nations about Hezbollah’s actions.
Hot Air summarizes one of the problems with Kofi's UN
The UN was founded to keep peace and promote democracy, but by elevating the Hezbollahs of the world onto the same moral plane as its own member states, the UN ends up fostering conflict and war. Under Annan’s corrupt and incompetent watch, the UN has become even more a part of the world’s problems than it already was.
Hot Air links to LGF who notes that Hezbollah was firing from the vicinity of UN position.
Linkfests
A Barbaric Yawp! finds more to like in this week's Richard Cohen op-ed than in last week's. He also list others who agree.
Partisan Times links to quite a few bloggers as he makes his case against Kofi.
Did you know that the latest Carnival of the Insanities was a special Middle East edition?
LawHawk has been doing comprehensive news and commentary roundups.
History
Joshua Pundit writes about history biting back. I figured out where he was going with this. 25 years ago Stephen Plaut wrote an essay in Commentary "Israel 1981, ......" (I can't fill in the rest of the title without giving away the surprise.) (h/t Israel Matzav )
Whenever you come accross a Palestinian (or just about any other Arab)spokesman discussing Israel you'll no doubt read some comment to the effect of "well yes the Holocaust was terrible but nothing compares to occupation." Of course as Daled Amos points out occupation is pretty common feature of conquest in the Arab world. (Nothing about the conquest of the Najran province of Yemen by Saudi Arabia, though.)
Misc.
The Patriette also remembers Major Benjy Hillman.
View from a Height critiques Luttwak's realpolitik. (Odlly it sounds a lot like Thomas Friedman.)
Assignment Desk: I had another response for my original assignment yesterday's assignment, Crossing the Rubicon2 let loose with both barrels blazing. She especially takes issue with the premise that the media is objective or non-judgmental
Now, the WaPo has an opinion. I would be willing to bet that if a poll were taken of the writers and editors and boardroom of the Post, we'd find out that the majority don't favor the foreign policy of President Bush. The majority are not likely to be conservatives. The majority are not likely to vote Republican.
And though she wasn't addressing Washington Post article, West Bank Mama had an excellent critique of the role the media plays in Israel as opposed to the role it should be playing
It is the job of a journalist to ask pointed questions. It is not the job of journalists to further their own personal political agenda using the microphone entrusted to them. This, unfortunately, is what too many reporters in Israel do. This is not my own right wing bias talking. They admit it themselves.
The difference is, I suppose, that in Israel the media may admit their biases, but in the states the media maintains a myth of impartiality.
No new assignments as this feature hasn't been as popular as I'd hoped. However here's some more reading material courtesy of the Shalem Center.
First is Yossi Klein-Halevi's Drawing the Line (registration required)
I don't agree entirely with the article but it contains an excellent observation
The tendency of much of the international community to excuse every Palestinian failure has helped convince Palestinians that victimization--even when it is self-willed--affords immunity from responsibility. Many foreign journalists with whom I've spoken in recent weeks accept the Palestinian argument that the rocket attacks from the 1967 Gaza border into sovereign Israel are legitimate, or at least understandable, given that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank. Yet that argument ignores the historic Palestinian failure to exploit the Gaza withdrawal, which created the first sovereign Palestinian territory. Had the Palestinians shown the most minimal effort at statebuilding--for example, applying foreign aid to rehabilitate refugee camps--the Israeli public would have supported a return to the negotiating table. Instead, the Palestinian national movement proved again that it is more keen on subverting the Jewish state than on creating a Palestinian state. And so one more opportunity for a negotiated end to the conflict was lost.
Michael Oren has written One Nation Under Attack in the LA Times
What makes this Lebanon war different from the last one?To begin with, Israelis, too, are under fire this time. During the last few weeks, Hezbollah has shot more than 2,500 rockets and mortars at Israel, killing at least 17 civilians, wounding 500 and forcing more than half a million people to flee. The attacks from Lebanon coincided with aggression from Gaza, where Hamas terrorists fired about 1,000 Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and farms.
On both fronts, Israeli soldiers were the victims of unprovoked ambushes and kidnappings. And these attacks have come despite the fact that Israel is no longer occupying any part of either Lebanon or Gaza. The war, Israelis now know, is not about borders but about the existence of the Jewish state.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Haveil Havalim Daily.
Nerve of steele
Apparently Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for Senate in Maryland made some anonymous, critical comments about the national Republican Party as well as President Bush.
Now that he admits being the source, a number of bloggers have commented on his indiscretion.
Bullwinkle Blog diverts attention away from Steele's comments and focuses it instead on the offensive campaign being directed towards him.
Before Lt. Gov. Steele admitted that he made the comments, Rhymes with Right criticized the then anonymous candidate for being cowardly. After Steele owned up to the comments RwR notes that the comments were taken out of context and concludes
We know that with Michael Steele we will get a moderate-conservative -- not a liberal like certain New England senators, but not a hard-right ideologue.
But I think there's more here that people are missing. This has been a regular strategy of Steele. Robert Novak noted a few months ago that Steele was purposely distancing himself from national Republicans. It certainly seems that he's trying to establish his independence or possibly he's saying whatever he needs to get elected.
Needless to say, I don't think that these recent comments should be dismissed or excused so quickly.
Technorati tags: Michael Steele, Maryland Politics.
Haveil havalim daily edition 07/25/2006
In depth: I was going to write about this even before the airstrike that killed the UN Observers yesterday. Of course news reports are going to quote Kofi Annan who will be understandably upset and since it was his men who were killed.
But when dealing with Hezbollah, Annan should have no credibility. Six years ago, three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah with the connivance of UNIFIL troops. Later it was discovered that there was a videotape that may have helped Israel locate its missing soldiers. The UN refused to let Israel see the tape until after they had an opportunity to conceal the identities of the members of Hezbollah on the tape. In other words Annan's UN chose to protect terrorists over defending the soldiers of a member state.
So when Annan demands an investigation into yesterday's incident; remember this is not a disinterested individual, but someone who has actively worked against Israel.
Daled Amos and the Volokh Conspiracy.David Kopel have more.
AbbaGav observes that even when the UNIFIL troops haven't been betraying Israel, they haven't been particularly effective. It's something to keep in mind when Annan or some other world class diplomat intones about the need for an international peacekeeping force. If the current one had done its job, Israel' wouldn't have invaded Lebanon.
Roger L. Simon wonders if Israel's refusal to accept UN troops on its border signals the end of any pretense of UN or Annan usefulness.
Regular stuff:
Israel's enemies
Daniel Pipes credits Tony Snow with a nice catch.
Secular Blasphemy blogs about the goals of Iran and Hezbollah.
Critical Mastiff wonders if the Arab world is starting to regret championing the Palestinians, as it now seems that they are strengthening Iran.
Are an anti-Zionist or an antisemite? or both?
Disagree with the protestors even in America, at your own risk.
Death and life in a time of war
Benjy Hillman, z'tl. Hero of Israel
Just three weeks ago, 600 of us celebrated as Benjy and his long-time girlfriend, Ayala Burger, finally got married after going together for many years. The pure joy of the two families who had become good friends over the long on-off courtship, was palpable. Ayala, accompanied by her happy parents and radiant in her beautiful wedding dress, walked down the path toward Benjy, who waited for her under the chupa with his trademark shy smile.Today, in the military cemetery of his home town of Raanana, Ayala walked toward Benjy again.
(via Greetings from French Hill)
Rabbi Emmanuel Feldman tells of the sensitivity that some Israeli children have for their counterparts up north.
Tune in to Pillage Idiot.
Finally the incongruity of an origami get together in the middle of a war zone is hard to imagine.
Richard Cohen. Again.
Israel Matzav finds an improvement in Richared Cohen's latest.
Boker Tov Boulder also gives Cohen some credit this week.
Judeosphere isn't so forgiving as it appears that Cohen's "mistake virus" is spreading.
Pay attention to the ruins
Hezbollah officials escorted journalists around their southern Beirut stronghold to show the damage to what they said were civilian residences.
The hazard with these escorted tours is
A CNN reporter is taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings is a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. The reporter repeats the allegation as fact. He has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center.
To be fair the Washington Post's reporters made it clear that the claim was the claim of Hezbollah. Still they offered no alternative possibility.
Biur Chametz appears again to do some myth busting of his own.
And Elder of Ziyon notes dishonesty on the part of AFP.
Strategy
Another hibernating blogger has stuck his head out. Out of step jew describes what Israel's military strategy is in Lebanon. (No it's not only bombing civilians and buildings.)
Bill Roggio at the Counterrorism blog goes into a bit more detail.
Assignment Desk: I had a single taker for yesterday's assignment. Cozy Corner who disposes of the "both sides are upset we must be balanced" excuse nicely
Now, we have a balanced article - if journalism were about finding common ground, and advocating that both sides have an equivalent viewpoint. And Ishmael comes along, and says, "What? You left out the part where Yitzhak's children shoot little puppies? How dare you!" And Yitzhak comes along and says, "What? How could you not point out that our killing of Ishmael's uncle last week was because he had a missile launcher pointed at us!" And HFMSMR says, "I must be unbiased, because both of them are upset!"
Today's assignment critique/defend/compare/contrast:
1) Cameron Brown
In short, by unifying the ranks and eliminating self-doubt, withdrawing to recognized borders has in many ways actually bolstered Israel's core security.Indeed, if the history of warfare over the past two centuries has taught us anything, it is that a people's ability to win in wartime is not due primarily to technological prowess, but stems first and foremost from the shared belief that one's cause is just and that there is no choice but to stand and fight.
And it is such a belief which animates Israelis right now. It is why people here will withstand all the missiles and rocket fire, why men will leave their families behind without hesitation as they are called up to the reserves to fight.
All this is not to suggest that the opponents of these withdrawals were entirely mistaken either. As many claimed at the time of the Gaza withdrawal, if one listens to what is being said in the Arab and Muslim world, it is undeniable that the lesson drawn from Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon has been that violence against Israel may yet prove effective.
2) Daniel Pipes
By 1993, this record of success imbued Israelis with a sense of overconfidence. They concluded they had won, and ignored the inconvenient fact that Palestinian Arabs and other enemies had not given up their goal of eliminating Israel. Two emotions long held in check, fatigue and hubris, came flooding out. Deciding that they had had enough of war and could end the war on their own terms, Israelis experimented with such exotica as "the peace process" and "disengagement." They permitted their enemies to create a quasi-governmental structure (the "Palestinian Authority") and to amass hoards of armaments (Hezbollah's nearly 12,000 Katyusha rockets in southern Lebanon, according to the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat). They shamelessly traded captured terrorists for hostages.In this mishmash of appeasement and retreat, Israel's enemies rapidly lost their fears and came to see Israel as a paper tiger. Or, in the pungent phrasing of Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in 2000: "Israel, which has both nuclear power and the strongest air force in the region, is weaker than a spider's web." As I wrote in 2000, "their earlier fear of Israel has been replaced with a disdain that borders on contempt." As Israelis ignored the effect of their actions on enemies, they perversely seemed to confirm this disdain. As a result, Palestinian Arabs and others rediscovered their earlier enthusiasm to eliminate Israel.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Haveil Havalim Daily.
July 25, 2006
Haveil havalim daily edition 07/24/2006
Since this isn't the regular Haveil Havalim I thought I might try a few different features.
In Depth: Yesterday Israel Matzav blogged
Middle East Newsline is reporting that Iran has spent the last six months planning Hezbullah's current war against Israel...
This timing meshes with an observation at the Counterterrorism Blog
Nasrallah admitted that it took five months of preparation to plan this operation.
I guess the question is whether the Hamas attack was coordinated with Hamas or if Hezbollah just took advantage of the front that had opened in the south.
What is clear is that the Hezbollah war against Israel is being run out of Iran. Gen. Moshe Yaalon and Prof. Fouad Ajami both mention this.
A lot of media coverage expresses concern that Israel's campaign could damage Lebanon's delicate democracy. Unfortunately Deja Vu and Meryl Yourish point out that the Lebanese government isn't exactly an innocent bystander.
BuzzTracker has more on the topic, leading off with Captain's Quarters.
Regular Stuff: Just one Minute and Mediacrity take off on Nicholas Kristoff's specious Spanish comparison.
Brain Terminal writes about why this war was inevitable.
Maryland Conservatarian looks for context in all the wrong places - the Washington Post that is - needless to say, he doesn't find it.
Contrasting John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Who'd have thunk it?
Assignment desk: Critique "Two Views of the Same News Find Opposite Biases." I wrote a little about this yesterday and hope to write some more. If you have ideas, blog a critique and e-mail me a link. Hopefully tonight I'll link to all those did. Write Assignment Desk in the subject line so that I'll know what it is. This is one of those efforts of the media to innoculate itself against charges of bias.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism, Haveil Havalim Daily.
July 24, 2006
Jeff jacoby meet the late michael kelly
Jeff Jacoby writes in response to the charge that he's a chicken hawk that
You don't need medical training to express an opinion on healthcare. You don't have to be on the police force to comment on matters of law and order. You don't have to be a parent or a teacher or a graduate to be heard on the educational controversies of the day. You don't have to be a journalist to comment on this or any other column.
This recalls a several year old column by the late Michael Kelly as he dismissed the chicken hawk argument in his own inimitable way
I am myself not technically a "chicken hawk," as I was, thank God, a few years too young to serve during the Vietnam War and too old and too untrained to be of any military use during the next significant war, the Persian Gulf War of 1991. But I suppose I fit the spirit if not the letter of the slur. I am certainly now a hawk, and during the Vietnam years I was certainly a dove. What changed me was in fact experience of war -- but not as a soldier.I covered the Gulf War as a reporter, and it was this experience, later compounded by what I saw reporting in Bosnia, that convinced me of the moral imperative, sometimes, for war.
. . .
That was the beginning of the making of me as at least an honorary "chicken hawk." After that, I never again could stand the arguments of those who sat in the luxury of safety -- "advocating nonresistance behind the guns of the American Fleet," as George Orwell wrote of World War II pacifists -- and held that the moral course was, in crimes against humanity as in crimes on the street corner: Better not to get involved, dear.
I have left out the gruesome scene that Kelly described. But you may follow the link if you wish to read it.
Regardless, sometimes, unfortunately it is necessary to fight. There are those of us who may advocate violence as a course of action to prevent more violence. But that hardly makes us immoral for suggesting that it is the best option.
UPDATE: Despite a minor objection Q and O approves of Jacoby's column
But that aside, Jacoby makes a compelling argument which, as far as I'm concerned, drives the necessary wooden stake into the heart of this tired canard. He supports his argument logically and historically. While he essentially uses the same sort of examples we've argued over multiple posts and comments over many months, he uses them powerfully.
Blue Crab Boulevard likes it too.
UPDATE II: Captain's Quarters weighs in but takes the opposite approach of Q and O:
``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer.
I believe that Q and O is correct that soldiers or ex-soldiers tend to be more reticent about going to war.
Sister Toldjah offers this advice
Here’s another way to stymie those in the anti-war ‘movement’ who invoke the “chickenhawk” argument: Ask them if they supported us going into Afghanistan after 9-11. 95% of the time, you’ll get a yes answer. In response to that, ask them when exactly it was that they served time in Afghanistan, since they supported going in in the first place. Chances are, they didn’t serve at all.
The military serves the people, the people does not serve the military, nor does the military serve itself. If it would, it wouldn't be an honor to serve because the military would be no different than most (private-owned) companies.
No, the military serves the people. Not just individuals who once served in the military, but everyone.
Because the military serves the people, the people has the right to say what they believe the military should do.
Combs spouts off wants to reward Jeff Jacoby
I think Jeff Jacoby deserves one of those cool FreedomDogs T-shirts. I assume Jacoby is in the Boston area. I'll pledge $10 if someone from that area can find out what size and how to get it to him. Heck, if someone makes it dead simple for me --i.e., all I have to do is fill out a PayPal form -- I'll cover the whole thing. Anybody want to help make this happen?
Technorati tags: Jeff Jacoby, Michael Kelly, Chicken Hawk.
Barone is right again
There's an excellent Michael Barone article A Refreshing Approach to Mideast Crisis. He is absolutely correct
The formula of land for peace has not worked as well with others. Bill Clinton devoted much of his vast psychic energy and negotiating skill to making a land-for-peace deal between first Yitzhak Rabin and then Ehud Barak of Israel, and Yasir Arafat of the PLO. In 2000, he got Barak to offer Arafat the lion's share of the West Bank and Gaza in return for peace. Arafat refused and launched the Second Intifada instead. Rabin and Barak, both distinguished military leaders, imagined that Arafat wanted land enough to make peace. But Arafat preferred the armed struggle that left him in control of Palestinian Authority funds. He encouraged the Palestinian people to continue to lust after the destruction of Israel.
For all the talk about how President Bush must do something about the crisis in the Middle East there's little or no acknowledgement of how this crisis developed. It developed of course by those peace processors who, in their naivete or cynicism, decreed that Israel must trade land for peace. Israel could never cede enough land to satisfy its enemies, because its enemies weren't interested in real estate but offended by Israel's existence. Any time Israel failed to respond satisfactorily to its enemies demands Israel was judged as coming up short. Hezbollah learned in 2000 that it could cross the international border with Israel and strike at Israel with impunity. It learned its lesson well and kept up periodic attacks accross the internationally sanctioned borders and suffered no real consequences.
The guiding impulse of most leaders in Europe and of many in the United States is to seek some sort of negotiated compromise. That is what Bill Clinton did when Hezbollah attacked Israel 10 years ago, and he sent Secretary of State Warren Christopher to negotiate with President Hafez Assad of Syria. But today, even the Europeans recognize that this approach is not only futile, but dangerous. Syria is a cat's-paw of Iran, and Iran, with its missiles and possible warheads, is an existential threat not only to others in the Middle East, but to Europe. Appeasement is possible when the attacker stands ready to be appeased, as Sadat and King Hussein were. It is dangerous where there is no such willingness, as seems to be the case for Iran's mullahs and its batty, Holocaust-denying president.
And of course President Bush doesn't seem to subscribe to the delusions of these others and may even be able to convince them that the old way don't work. I don't agree 100% with President Bush's approach to the Middle East, but he seems to be serious about allowing Israel to fight for its survival.
UPDATE: Nice observation from Bullwinkle Blog
Israel was the buffer from Islamic extremists for the rest of the world since it’s founding. All that has changed in the last few years, the Madrid train and London tube bombings, the riots in Paris, things Europe wanted believe were reserved for Israel and the US. The game has evolved with Iran’s missiles and nuclear ambitions and the game plan has become clearer — it’s now clear it’s not just Israel and the Jews that radical Islam hates, it’s every who isn’t a radical Islamist no matter who or where they are. Israel has served as the trip-wire but technology and necessity have done away with trip-wires. Israel isn’t nearly as soft of a target as Paris, London, Madrid or any other European city.
Catholic Analysis adds What Barone points out is that the Bush administration is right to do things differently this time: no pressuring of Israel to stop military action prematurely, no rushing to engage in shuttle diplomacy that is an unmistakable signal of weakness to the Middle Eastern mentality, and no more pleas for Israel to give up land. Appeasement did not work with Hitler because Hitler would never give up his ambition of conquering all of Europe. Appeasement does not work with those now attacking Israel because they will never give up their ambition to destroy Israel.
UPDATE: Welcome Buzztracker readers.
Technorati Tags: Bush, Israel, Middle East.
Howell-er
I've already complained about Deborah Howell's A mideast maelstrom of complaints, and I have to say, the more I think about the more bothered I am by it.
She starts off with
Reporting on Israel is the third rail of American journalism. Touch it critically and you excite strong emotions. It was no surprise that the war in Israel and Lebanon brought a volley of visceral, negative e-mail. Writers -- most of them strong supporters of Israel -- reacted especially vehemently to two commentaries, but they also picked at news stories, headlines, a Post Magazine piece on the Israel lobby and KidsPost.
First of all she admits that supporters of Israel were most bothered by the Post's coverage. But the recent letters sections of the Post shows about the same number of letter pro- and anti- Israel. See (here, here, here and here.) So what the paper decides to publish does not necessarily reflect proportion of letters it received.
I'm also bothered that the pro-Israel letters published often came from people writing in official capacity whereas the anti-Israel letters were more frequently from "regular" people. If Ms. Howell is correct, there's much greater grass roots support for Israel than the Post is letting its readers see. The Post not only disguised the relative support of each position, but also the broad support for Israel in its choice of letters.
She goes on to explain
The Post had two skilled war correspondents in the region from the start of the fighting -- Scott Wilson in Israel and Anthony Shadid in Lebanon -- and dispatched more reporters last week. The coverage has been comprehensive and deep and particularly moving when dealing with the uncertainty and fear of the Israeli and Lebanese people.
Good war correspondents should be explaining war goals and achievements of the Israeli army. (As well as the goals and achievements of Israel's enemies.) If people are suffering because of the war, it's not enough to tell us that. The reporting should explain why people are suffering. Is Israel simply inconveniencing the Lebanese or is accomplishing something?
West Bank Mama writes (for example)
The IAF has been doing a great job of destroying the amunition that Hizbalah has in the northern parts of Lebanon - but the katyushas are still falling and killing our people. After the first fight in south Lebanon between IDF ground forces and Hizballah they found that the terrorists have built bunkers and tunnels - sometimes under civilian houses - where they have stored the rockets. They come out periodically, shoot them into Israel, and then go back in. The IDF can bomb just so much from the air - but at some point they have to go in by foot, find the tunnels and bunkers, and kill Hizballah. Everyone knows it is going to be bloody.
Or last night's IDF report tells us
During the day IDF carried out more than 120 aerial attacks in Lebanon, on targets including the following:More than 80 missiles-launching areas.
The Al Manar television station in Beirut that serves the Hezbollah terror organization.
Approximately 20 vehicles suspected of serving the Hezbollah terror organization in the launching of missiles at Israel, and were seen fleeing from or staying at missile-launching areas.
Missiles launchers used to fire missiles at Israel.
Structures serving Hezbollah terrorists for hideout and storage of Hezbollah weaponry.
Today Anthony Shadid reported Civilian Toll Mounts in Lebanon Conflict that features the following quote from a Lebanese man who was injured in Israeli airstrike
"It's nothing more than revenge, revenge on civilians," Zabit said from his bed.
Shadid is reporting on the war, and produces a piece filled with pathos. But it provides no context. Where is the Israeli army's explanation for the reason it shot at certain cars? The reporting from Lebanon has been focused on the toll it takes on the Lebanese and on the diplomatic efforts to prevent Israel from destroying Hezbollah. Nothing, or next to nothing, on the Israeli war aims and how much Israel has accomplished. A good war correspondent should be able to provide more and that's missing from Shadid's account (and in general from the Post's war coverage.)
Howell's excuse for the paper running a piece of propaganda by the leader of terrorist organization and an absurdly ignorant op-ed by one of their regular columnists is
Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking. Cohen's and Haniyeh's pieces indeed were provocative. But there were plenty of pro-Israel op-ed pieces, including one by Charles Krauthammer, who urged Israel to invade Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. And Post columnist David Ignatius is a must-read on the Middle East. The Post's editorials have expressed concern that Hamas and Hezbollah not be given legitimacy; that Israel not overplay its military hand; that Syria and Iran's influence be curtailed; and that the United States, its allies and the United Nations should be involved to find a way toward peace.
Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by the United States government and it is currently engaged in armed conflict with an American ally. Of course the Haniyeh piece goes beyond simply being provocative. It was a slick propaganda piece. If there were any rough edges to it that might have turned Americans off to the Hamas leader's view, they were smoothed out as Edward Abington told James Besser
“Haniyeh has a media unit comprised of American-educated Palestinians,” he said. “They’re the ones writing this kind of stuff.”
It was propaganda filled with code words designed to appeal to a liberal American audience by a decidedly illiberal terrorist leader. Hamas wanted an outlet to convince and the Post gave it a platform.
Forgetting for a moment whether or not the Haniyeh op-ed was provocative or not, why should that matter. I noticed that the Post never ran an op-ed by Slobodan Milosevic. Why not? Wouldn't that have "broadened the thinking" of Post's readers? Did the Post ever feature an op-ed by P.W. Botha or any other member of his apartheid government in order broaden our thinking? (Maybe, but I doubt it.) Or does the Post arbitrarily decide who's a good guy or, at least, within the pale? Hamas is terrorist group by definition in the United States. That would seem to be an objective criteria that the paper could use to exclude op-ed comments by Haniyeh. Not using any criteria makes the Post irresponsible not contributing the debate.
Given the overwhelmingly negative the reaction to Cohen's article you would think that the Post would have said, "You know. We blew it. It's his opinion of course but it was poorly expressed." But instead Howell proudly proclaims it provocative. An army of bloggers refuted a longtime columnist's insipid argments without breaking a sweat; I would think that the paper might show a little shame.
Some readers didn't like The Post Magazine piece by Glenn Frankel examining the Israel lobby and felt it was poorly timed. I liked it. Production on the magazine closed June 30, before the war began. One could also say that piece couldn't have been more aptly timed.
I think that the Frankel article was not appropriate at any time given that it was more about the reaction to the Walt and Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" article than about the article or the authors themselves. This gave Frankel an excuse to confirm the basic thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer but claim that he was balanced in exploring the issues it raised. In fact Walt and Mearsheimer deserved a lot more scrutiny. Frankel wasn't brave enough to explore them or their essay though.
Another reader was disturbed that KidsPost didn't label Hezbollah a terrorist group and charged that "a pro-Arab, anti-Semitic terrorist cell" must be to blame. Expect a piece this week explaining the complex issues to children.
While I won't make the same charge the reader did, it's baloney to call this a complex issue. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Hezbollah was supposed to have no more pretext to attack Israel after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. That it has attacked persistently in the past 6 years shows its motivation was not the Israeli presence in Lebanon but Israel's very existence. There is nothing complicated unless one values adding shades of grey to a situation.
At the end Ms. Howell confirms implicilty what she wrote above
There were a few letters from readers critical of Israel.
The majority of complains have been from supporters of Israel. Might that make the paper's ombudsman think that maybe, just maybe, be tilting to one side? There was an admirable article in the Post For Troops, A Sense of Moral Clarity There is, of course, nothing wrong with clarity. Unfortunately the Post doesn't seem to value it in its editorial judgments of the Middle East.
Finally, Howell's observations undercut another recent article in the Post Two Views of the Same News Find Opposite Biases. This article is one of those typical "well we must be right because we antagonize people on both sides of the conflict." Aside from questionable methodology (how much weight should perceptions of 20+ year old news stories be given attitudes have changed a lot since then) the premise of the "study" is flawed. In the Mideast the media strives for balance between a democracy one side and a host of monarchies, dictatorships and terrorist organizations on the other.
Instead of comparing the reactions of each side, why not compare the coverage of the Middle East to NATO/Serbia/Kosovo or to ANC/Apartheid. The question isn't what the balance should be but rather is it a balanced situation. In the Middle East it assuredly is not. But, again, the media would prefer to obfuscate than to clarify.
This was not an encouraging outing by the Post's ombudsman at all.
Technorati tags: Washington Post, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Media Bias.
Haveil havalim news
Just to let you know that I plan to host Haveil Havalim next Sunday, July 30.
Please get your submissions in. Unfortunately, due to the war, I expect a very busy week again. I'm also going to try to institute Haveil Havalim daily with a few posts each night (Mon - Thursday) to keep people up to speed on the daily events from Israel.
Technorati tag: Haveil Havalim.
Jews in green - military monday 9
Even though Israel is famous for its military, Jews are not especially well known for being soldiers. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any Jewish soldiers.
My father enlisted 1957. When he learned that his mother was sick he received a compassionate transfer to Fort Dix. After she passed away, my father told me that the Orthodox soldiers always made sure that he had a minyan, a quorum of ten, to say kaddish, the Jewish prayer recited in memory of a close relative.
About ten years ago, when there was enough interest at my place of work, my brother and I were in charge of arranging the minyan for afternoon prayers. It seemed like we had been given the opportunity to return the favor.
An effect of my father's army service was to give him a positive view of Orthodox Judaism.
Elie's Expositions tells the story of his grandfather who fought in WWI, for the other side.
And American Jewish History tells us about the life of chaplain Rev. Louis Werfel.
There is a blog devoted to Jews in the Military called Jews in Green. Unfortunately it hasn't been updated in a while. But they are looking for soldiers and veterans to interview for a High Holiday story. It was also interesting to learn about Aaron Spelling's army career and about a chaplain celebrating his 50th year of service.
The US Army's website has a whole section devoted to recent Medal of Honor winner Cpl. Tibor Rubin. Tibor Rubin not only demonstrated great bravery during the Korean War, he also survived the Holocaust. From President George W. Bush's remarks about Cpl Rubin:
Corporal Tibor "Ted" Rubin's many acts of courage during the Korean War saved the lives of hundreds of his fellow soldiers. In the heat of battle, he inspired his comrades with his fearlessness. And amid the inhumanity of a Chinese prisoner of war camp, he gave them hope. Some of those soldiers are here today, and they have never forgotten what they owe this man. And by awarding the Medal of Honor to Corporal Rubin today, the United States acknowledges a debt that time has not diminished. . . .Born in Hungary in 1929, Ted and his family were rounded up by the Nazis and taken to concentration camps when he was just 13 years old. He was taken to Mauthausen Camp in Austria, where an SS officer told the prisoner, "You, Jews, none of you will ever make it out of here alive." And many did not. Before the war was over, both of Ted's parents and one of his sisters were lost in the Holocaust. Ted Rubin survived the camp for 14 months, long enough to be liberated by U.S. Army troops on May the 5th, 1945.
But right now when I think of Jewish soldiers, I'm generally not thinking of American soldiers, though I know of a few who have served in Iraq. I'm thinking of Israeli soldiers who are fighting for the survival of the Jewish state.
Willow Tree's son, the Wit has been called up to serve in Lebanon.
I hope that he and all the other soldiers return home safely and successfully.
Technorati tag: Military Monday.
July 23, 2006
Haveil Havalim #79 is UP!
Life of Rubin volunteered a few weeks ago to host Haveil Havalim. Little did he know how things would change so fast. He had so much to go through this week to put together Haveil Havalim #79. He put a lot of work into it, and it shows. It's an excellent resource for anyone who wants to keep up with what's been happening in Israel and among its supporters.
On a general note, if you're interested in Jewish and Israel related blogging a number of Jewish bloggers have been doing they're best to stay on top of events.
Israelly Cool!, the Muqata, Greetings from French Hill.
Israel Matzav and Meryl Yourish are blogging ferociously too.
West Bank Mama's somewhere in the middle.
Daled Amos has been compiling lists of organizations devoted to helping.
There's an Israelly Rally Central at JBlogosphere. (The anti-Israel rallies made the news yesterday at CBS.) There's also a call for e-mails for English speaking soldiers. And for a more complete list check here.
And finally, as mentioned before, Cross-Currents has initiated a prayer initiative.
At this time of peril for it's impressive the way the Jewish blogosphere's come together to provide information and support. Who
In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using either Conservative Cat's handy dandy submission form or the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
(Note the change in the operation of Conservative Cat's submission form. It takes you directly to Haveil Havalim.)
Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion. (And please don't submit everything or nearly everything you posted in a week. Winnowing out your best posts takes time.)
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#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
Voices for terror
Well the Washington Post, having given Ismail Haniyeh a platform, has now given a platform to a Hezbollah apologist. Hezbollah's Apocolypse Now by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is by a fellow who claims to be "...a scholar who has devoted much of my career to following Hezbollah." But to read the article is to read a brief for Hezbollah.
I'm sure that Hezbollah had envisaged, though perhaps not expected, a response of this kind. By provoking its southern neighbor, Hezbollah knew it would present Israel with a ghastly choice. Hezbollah is a popular social movement, and it is well aware that it can be destroyed only if the Israeli army is prepared to commit mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing -- use whatever unpalatable term you will -- against the entire Shiite community.
Now for those with a slightly broader view of things, say Gen Moshe Yaalon, see Hezbolalh reacting to orders from its Iranian masters. Of course, by presenting Israel's choice in such stark terms it gives Mr. Ms. Saad-Ghorayeb the opportunity in a few months to declare that Israel didn't achieve its goals.
Of course for Israel to achieve its goals, it will have to kill a lot of people. It will have to capture or destroy many weapons.
Destruction is terrible but it is sometimes necessary. Israel has a hostile terrorist force on its northern border. For some time that force, Hezbollah, has been gaining strength. Armed by Iran and Syria it's been a proxy army on Israel's border using its host for immunity from effective retaliation.
But now Israel has struck back with the goal of destroying Hezbollah, or, at the very least, destroying its offensive capability. How does Saad-Ghorayeb view this possibility?
Leaving Israel to significantly weaken Hezbollah's military infrastructure would have equally perilous consequences. If there is anything more dangerous than a strong Hezbollah, it is a weak Hezbollah. One can only imagine what would happen if the organization were left bereft of leadership, clinging to its remaining weapons and operating underground, while the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer. As one Hezbollah member said, "All hell would be let loose."
This is one of those non-sequitirs that is so often passed off in the media as sagacity. Of course a weakened Hezbollah is less of a threat to Israel than a strong Hezbollah. A weakened Hezbollah has fewer planners, fighters and weapons. It can accomplish less. Only in the Washington Post's world where motive is more important than means or opportunity does this make any sense.
The only reason for publishing such tripe is to give a voice to Hezbollah. Give them a sense of legitimacy. Of course the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell denies that is what is going on.
In a Mideast Maelstrom of Complaints Howell wrote about the hazards of reporting on the Middle East. She gets lots of angry letters. My, my.
Still she insists that the Post's coverage and editorial policy is on the up and up.
The Post's editorials have expressed concern that Hamas and Hezbollah not be given legitimacy; that Israel not overplay its military hand; that Syria and Iran's influence be curtailed; and that the United States, its allies and the United Nations should be involved to find a way toward peace.
Of course given today's Outlook article and the Haniyeh op-ed it is clear that giving Hamas and Hezbolah legitimacy is not something that concerns the editors of the Post. They gave a voice to a terrorist and to terror apologist. As I pointed out in my e-mail to Howell the Post never gave Slobodan Milosevic a chance to speak on their pages.
She defended last week's disgraceful op-ed by Richard Cohen
Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking.
Yes but they should at least be historically literate. Cohen's op-ed was definitely not.
As far as defending last Sunday's article about Walt and Mearsheimer in the Washington Post Magazine Howell writes
One could also say that piece couldn't have been more aptly timed.
One could say that. If
(1) one believed that that the Post were an honest broker. But Howell notes something at the end of her defense that is very telling
There were a few letters from readers critical of Israel.
I love how newspapers (and other media) defend their even handedness by noting that they receive complaints from both sides. Here Howell implies that the vast majority of complaints were directed towards the Post by supporters of Israel. Doesn't this give lie to the claim that the Post's coverage is fair.
(2) one believed that the sole reason for supporting Israel is because its lobby has twisted the minds of the country's leaders. Of course we this in the Post's reporting. Pillage Idiot made an excellent observation about a recent Post article. But there were some disturbing aspects to that article. After the part that Pillage Idiot quotes, the reporter writes
Many Mideast experts warn that there is a dangerous consequence to this worldview. They believe that Israel, and the United States by extension, is risking serious trouble if it continues with the punishing air strikes that are producing mounting casualties. The history of the Middle East is replete with examples of the limits of military power, they say, noting how the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in the early 1980s helped create the conditions for the rise of Hezbollah.
The reporter then goes on to quote a representative of the New Israel Fund whose military expertise is never mentioned and Robert Malley the Arafat apologist who blames the failure of Camp David on PM Barak. (See whose story is it anyway for an example.)
Given that the Post's editorial premises - followed slavilshly by reporters - include (according to Howell) "that Israel not overplay its military hand" an article exaggerating the influence of AIPAC, is very appropriate.
While I believed that Howell is a step up from her predecessor Michael Getler, my esitmation of her is quickly falling. Israel is being attacked on two fronts by terrorist organizations - the election of one the Post supported.
Pointing to a Charles Krauthammer article as a sign of balance is a very weak defense for giving aid and comfort to Israel's enemies.
Technorati tags: Washington Post, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah.
July 21, 2006
Pieces of peace
One of the most famous and highly regarded episodes of Star Trek is City on the Edge of Forever. In the episode Dr. McCoy jumps through a time portal and changes history so that the Enterprise never exists. Saved from the time disruption because they're on the planet with the portal, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock go through the portal to try and undo the damage wrought by their colleague. They end up in Chicago in the 1930's.
Soon, they discover that they are at a critical moment in history. There are two paths. One which the Allies win and history proceeds in its proper course. The alternative the Nazis win and Earth never develops space travel.
While they try to figure out how to keep history on its proper path, Captain Kirk falls in love with a noble woman named Edith Keeler who takes care of the poor. Soon they realize that Edith Keeler is the key to the future. To their horror, though, they realize that she must die so that her pacifist movement will not keep the United States out of WWII until it is too late to stop the Nazis.
Captain Kirk is tested, having to choose between the woman he loves and the world as he knows it.
I bring this up because of Thomas Sowell's excellent Pacifists versus Peace in which he writes
The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.
Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.
Of course the context of his article is the current clamoring for a ceasefire in the Middle East. About this idea Sowell writes
Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.
While he's correct, unfortunately he doesn't give the whole story with Hezbollah. In 2000, Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon and the withdrawal was certified as complete by the UN. Within months Hezbollah violated the border and kidnapped and killed three Israeli soldiers. The world was silent. The UN even protected the terror organzation Hezbollah rather than the member state, Israel. In the end Israel was encouraged to trade hundreds of members of Hezbollah to get back the bodies of its three soldiers. Without an Isreali presence in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to build up its arsenal in anticipation of the day when it would unleash its missiles on Israeli population centers at the behest of its masters in Tehran.
It's clear that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon did not bring it the peace it was promised. Rather it set the stage for this war six years later.
And the cheerleaders who advocated an Israeli withdrawal were silent when Hezbollah created a new pretext to attack Israel, claiming that Shebaa farms was Lebanese not Syrian territory. (Even now, ignoramuses are claiming the Israel should be reasonable and cede Shebaa farms to Hezbollah. They have learned nothing!)
The fictionaly Edith Keeler was portrayed as noble if naive. The more I see of pacifists who ignore the violence of terrorists and encourage others to give more whetting the terrorists' appetites, the harder I find it to call them noble. They are pacifists, but very selective in what they call peace. And there is little noble about them.
UPDATE: Dr. Sanity channels Edwin Starr. Watersblogged channels Rodney King.
The Squiggler reminds us of the true aims of Israel's enemies. (WARNING: Graphic Holocaust photographs.) Chas' Compilations isn't impressed with Lebanon.
Technorati tags: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah.
The project genesis prayer campaign
Rabbi Yaakov Menken of Project Genesis and Cross-Currents asked me put up this link to Project Genesis learning and praying initiatives for the merit of Jews around the world, especially at this time of trouble in Israel. Click on the picture below and follow the instructions. And if they get a new subscriber due to my link, I or the subscriber would be entered into a drawing with a prize of a trip to Israel.
7th anniversay celebration of Shalom USA
Jay Bernstein and Larry Cohen
Last night Shalom USA the Baltimore area Jewish oriented radio program hosted by Jay Bernstein and Larry Cohen celebrated its 7th anniversary on the air. The dinner was held at the Royal Resteraunt in Baltimore.
After introductions, ackonwledgements for their supporters and words of Torah by Rabbi Chaim Landau of the Ner Tamid Congregation, the assembled guests heard from two generals.
The first was retired General Yehiel Gozal who spoke about the support his organization, Friends of the IDF, provides to Israeli soldiers and their families.
The second general to speak was the headliner, former Head of Military Intelligence and Chief of Staff, Moshe Yaalon.
Gen. Moshe Yaalon
Gen. Yaalon's remarks were less about Israel's military operations than his view of military doctrine. He was less concerned with the specifics of how Israel and the West will win the war but what they must believe in order to win.
He said that Israel needs clarity to understand what it is fighting and what it is fighting for. Though he judged today's soldiers to be superior to those in the days when he was a soldier he described how one soldier didn't know that Israel was founded in 1948 after five Arab attacked.
For Gen. Yaalon the history is too real. His mother came to Israel in 1946. Her family had been murdered in the Holocaust. His father's family came to Israel in the 1920's after one of their sons had been killed and another arrested.
But he doesn't just view Israel as a refuge, it is the historical homeland of the Jews. His wife's family had lived in Tzfat since the 1500's.
Israelis must know their history if they are to fight their enemies successfully.
On the other side education is important too. Gen. Yaalon said that in August 1995, when he was head of military intelligence, he met with Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin a"h and told him that there was no reconcilliation on the part of the Palestinians. He said his knowledge of this didn't come from any of his fancy sources but from what he saw when he went to the UNRWA schools. He saw the pictures of martyrs that were platered on the wall. That told him that the Palestinians were not teaching reconcilliation.
And history too. Gen. Yaalon recounts the reasons that Hezbollah and its masters in Tehran thought they could get away with attacking Israel. Since 1983 the way they see it, Hezbollah chased America out of Lebanon, Islamic fighters chased the Soviets from Afghanistan, Hezbollah chased Israel from Lebanon, Islamic terrorists chased Spain from Iraq and Hamas, last year, chased Israel from Gaza.
With these perceived successes to inspire them, Iran started a war against the West starting with Israel. What's needed in Israel is a national resolve.
The West must also understand that this is a war against them and wake up.
(The above represents many of the points that Gen. Yaalon made. My notes are not all that legible. Also I changed the order a bit.)
The speech was well received. If you read any of Gen Yaalon's writings or interviews many of the ideas he mentioned at the dinner were not new. However he clearly adapted them to the current situation. The big revelation was his belief that Iran was behind the war and that it was the first skirmish in a larger war against the West.
Although there are those who want him to go into politics - including one of the questioners, I don't see it. He seems more interested in ideas than in policies.
It was a credit to Jay and Larry that they were able to get such a high profile speaker. It's a sign that over the years of doing their show and interviewing hundreds of people that they've built up plenty of contacts and credibility.
So if you live in the Baltimore/Washington area and you're free on Sundays listen to them on 1370 AM from 9 - 11.
Technorati tags: Shalom USA, Moshe Yaalon.
Israel and american public opinion
From Rasmussen Reports
A week into the renewed violence between Israel and Lebanon triggered by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, 56% of Americans say that Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah is to blame for the conflict. Just 18% place the blame on the government of Lebanon and 12% say Israel. Men and Republicans are more likely than women and Democrats to blame Hezbollah.. . .
A plurality of 46% say protecting Israel's right to exist is more important than securing an immediate ceasefire. Again, men (55%) and Republicans (62%) are more likely than women (37%) and Democrats (36%) to say protecting Israel should be the priority.
The Democracy Project observes
This poll may also be something to remember at the New York Times and TV networks who focus on bemoaning casualties in Lebanon, by and among those who harbor terrorists.
Right Wing News concludes that this reflects the American sense that Israel is in the right
When the American people think Israel is not the party to blame for the fighting by a more than 6 to 1 margin and they are killing terrorists with American blood on their hands, it's not exactly a tough political call for an American politician to support Israel right now.
(via RCP blog) On the Left, Tapped sees support for Israel more nefariously
Here's the roll call for today's House resolution on the Mideast crisis. What Israel lobby?
Commenter Laura gets in a good rebuttal to a statement by Nancy Pelosi.
The bottom line is that the media and the Left don't see that support for Israel is possible unless there's some ulterior motive. Or undue pressure. That reticence to see Israel as the good guy in the Middle East puts these groups at odds with most Americans. (I suspect that American support for Israel would be even greater, if it weren't for the distortions of the media.)
Kevin Drum recently addressed why the liberal blogosphere doesn't concern itself with the Middle East that much. His reasons are mostly dodges in which he overcomplicates the situation.
For example he makes mention of Shebaa Farms. Shebaa Farms was captured by Israel from Syria in 1967. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Syria effectively deeded Shebaa Farms to Lebanon so that Hezbollah would still have a pretext to attack Israel. Syria took this action despite the UN certification that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon. And of course the UN (and much of the world) did nothing when, a few months later, Hezbollah violated the newly certified border. Shebaa Farms is emblematic of the shifting standards that allow Arab terror against Israel but demand that Israel be completely pure when striking back causing no collateral damage. Drum just dismisses Shebaa farms as too complicated.
In the Middle East Israel may not be perfect. But it is the good guy. Most Americans appreciate that.
Technorati tags: Israel, Public Opinion.
July 20, 2006
Some genocide
http://www.yourish.com/2006/07/20/1728Define Genocide (I'm not recommending folliwing this link.)
Well this isn't it.
At Karni crossing, 145 truckloads of basic food items were transferred to Gaza. At the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, the following quantities of fuel and natural gas were transferred: 500,000 liters of diesel, 90,000 liters of Gasoline, 175 tons of natural gas (for cooking).
Nor is this.
Approximately 115 trucks and 24 containers basic equipment and food products crossed during the past day from Israel into the Gaza Strip with the facilitation of the Coordination and Liaison Administration. In addition, 700,000 liters of diesel fuel, 100,000 liters of benzene and 175 tons of gas were brought into Gaza.
And not this either.
Last week, more than 200 truckloads of basic food items, more than 1,500,000 liters of fuel, and more than 400 tons of natural gas passed into the Gaza Strip through the different crossings. Over the past three days, more than 2,000,000 liters of fuel and 496 tons of natural gas were passed into the Gaza Strip through the Nahal Oz crossing.More than 90 tons of milk products, 40 tons of flour, 15 tons of oil, 120 tons of sugar, a truckload of medicines, 134 gas balloons used for medical purposes, 65,000 liters of chlorine, more than 1,000,000 liters of fuel and 170 tons of natural gas, were passed into the Gaza Strip through the different crossings.
The water supply from Israel to the Gaza Strip continues uninterrupted.
And, finally, not this.
Eleven tankers carrying 440 thousand liters of diesel fuel, two tankers carrying 100 thousand liters of benzene and eight gasoline tankers were allowed into the Gaza Strip through the Nahal Oz crossing. From indications from the field and in view of these supplies, it is quite evident that there is no humanitarian trouble and no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.By IDF estimates, with the current influx of goods there will be no shortage of supplies in Gaza for the next two weeks even if the IDF is forced, against its will, to continue operating against terror organizations there to bring home the kidnapped soldier and stop terrorism and rocket attacks against the people of Israel.
The IDF opened the Karni crossing to allow critical supplies to reach the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, despite repeated terror threats against the crossing. It is plain to see that the motivations and actions of Palestinian terror organizations stand contrary to the interests and needs of the Palestinian population.
UPDATE: More on this phony baloney exaggeration at the Hashmonean. (Thanks for the mention.) Others chiming in are Elder of Ziyon (with a nice takedown of Richard Cohen wannabe Lou Dobbs), Meryl Yourish, and It's Almost Supernatural.
Technorati tags: Israel, Humanitarian Aid.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Voinovich sees the light
Will the Democrats?
From "Why I'll vote for Bolton"
My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally. In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States.I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to "my instructions" from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations.
While I welcome Senator Voinovich's change of heart there is a discordant note in the op-ed.
My original concerns about Bolton involved his interpersonal skills. Also of concern was his reputation for straying off message and a tendency to "go it alone" instead of working to build consensus with his colleagues.
Like I said, I'm glad the Senator came around, but these objections seem unserious. It seems like instead of seeing Bolton, Voinovich saw a caricature.
Amb. Bolton's statement last week is a wonderful example of what he's brought to the U.N.
Establishing the foundations for a lasting peace, however, will require us to focus our attention not just on Hamas, but on the state sponsors of terror who back them -- particularly Syria and Iran. Let us be clear that without the financial and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations. We call upon Syria and Iran to end their role as state sponsors of terror and unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, including this kidnapping. We yet again call upon Syria to arrest the Hamas ringleader, Khaled Meshal, who currently resides in Damascus. We stress again our condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hizballah, which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon.
I appreciated it at the time. I'm happy that Senator Voinovich appreciates this and much more too.
Technorati tags: John Bolton,United Nations, Israel.
Good sense from the washington post
Earlier this week the Washington Post editorialized in "The War with Extremists"
SOMEWHAT remarkably, the world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg managed to grasp the most important point about the current Middle East crisis: It "results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace." In other words, the current warfare in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel stems not from Israel's occupation of Arab lands or its holding of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, but from a blatant bid by Iran and Syria and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon.It follows that the only satisfactory outcome to the conflict would be a decisive defeat for those extremist forces. Should Hamas and Hezbollah fail militarily, Arab democrats and those who favor the creation of a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel would see the removal of their largest obstacle, while the pernicious influence of Iran and Syria in the region would be curtailed.
The sentiments are good, but not perfect. The first goal should be to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. It really doesn't matter if it encourages moderates or not. (I would argue that Fatah, too, is ripe for destruction, but I'm sure the Post wouldn't agree.) These groups have been tolerated for too long and will only cause more death and destruction.
The Post even rejected the easy solution on the minds of the UN, Europeans and even many in the State Department
The worst result would be that suggested yesterday by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki following consultations with his allies in Damascus: "a cease-fire followed by a prisoner swap." Such an outcome would legitimize the terrorist operations by Hamas and Hezbollah that began the conflict and further empower their rogue military organizations at the expense of the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority. It would restore Syrian influence in Lebanon and grant Tehran the ability to ignite a new Middle East conflagration at its convenience.
Unfortunately the conclusion isn't all that satisfying
The middle course between allowing Israel to take the fight to Hamas and Hezbollah and pressuring it to accept Tehran's terms is that suggested by Britain and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan: an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. It's worth noting that such a force already exists -- and has failed miserably in its nearly three decades of existence. Success would require Western troops and a very different mandate: in particular, authority to prevent launchings of missiles and raids against Israel from Lebanon, and to enforce Security Council Resolution 1559, which ordered the disarmament of Hezbollah. An international diplomatic initiative that allows Hezbollah to preserve and eventually restock its military wing would be worse than none at all.
Of course it's good that the Post rejects a UN force as the current one has only served the interests of the terrorists. But why should Israel be prevented from doing what it needs? Preventing missile launches is an inferior solution (if it is a solution at all) to destroying the missiles.
The conclusion that fears the re-arming of Hezbollah is welcome.
Today the Post, again, showed more sense than the NY Times in "Diplomatic Traps"
AS FIGHTING in the Middle East continues, the Bush administration is coming under pressure to launch some sort of diplomatic initiative. These calls sound reasonable; the loss of innocent life in Lebanon and Israel is tragic, the dangers of further escalation are real and U.S. shuttle diplomacy has been instrumental in halting previous conflicts. The problem is this: The usual options in the State Department's playbook would hand to the extremists who launched this war exactly the results they have hoped for.
The editorial rightly rejects sending Secretary Rice to Syria and beg baby Assad for his help in curtailing the violence. It also rejects the idea of another UN peacekeeping force. But it's too pessimistic about Israel's possibility of defeating Hezbollah.
The editorial concludes
The Bush administration does have one good diplomatic option, though not much has been heard about it this week. That is to insist on the passage by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium. The council's five permanent members and Germany promised to take such action last week after Tehran refused to respond to a package of incentives. The unprovoked attack across an international border by Iran's client Hezbollah succeeded in turning the world's attention from the nuclear crisis to the Middle East -- just as Iran must have hoped. The best response is to shift the focus back -- and make clear that the United States and its allies will not be intimidated through war-by-proxy.
There is a lot to recommend this. But diplomacy without a credible threat of force will do just as much to restrain Iran as it did Hezbollah or Hamas or Fatah. There's a need to show that the West is willing to confront Iran - with force if necessary - and has the resolve to continue the confrontation until Iran is rendered impotent. Diplomacy alone cannot accomplish that.
Technorati tags: Israel, Iran, Washington Post.
July 18, 2006
Walt-Mearsheimer retrospective in the washington post
In the Sunday between publishing an op-ed by the leader of Hamas and an op-ed by a regular columnist declaring the existence of Israel a mistake, the Washington Post undertook another sticky topic regarding Israel in its magazine. It revisited the Walt-Mearsheimer paper in an article, A Beautiful Friendship? by former Israel correspondent Glenn Frankel.
I'd have to agree with questioner (from a subsequent Q & A with Frankel, who wrote
As a Jewish American with deep connections to Israel, I began your article expecting to be outraged and finished only mildly annoyed.
Unfortunately Frankel, while generally balanced, never really addressed the content of the Walt/Mearsheimer paper directly.
In March two distinguished political scientists -- Stephen Walt from Harvard and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago -- published a 42-page, heavily footnoted essay arguing that the Bush administration's support for Israel and its related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security."
Yes it was heavily footnoted. It was also extremely selective. A critique that Benny Morris wrote in the New Republic dealt with the selective nature of the paper. Or I could link to an excellent critique on a single point by Jewish Current Issues. The problem with that unless one acknowledges the sloppiness of the paper, one isn't going to question the motives of the authors.
This is troubling.
In an e-mail Pillage Idiot wrote:
The basic issue is whether the position a "lobby" espouses is correct. These people are saying that a lobby whose position they oppose HAS TOO MUCH POWER. That's a wholly different thing. What is power, anyway, but the ability to persuade? Was Bush duped into supporting Israel? Was he bribed into supporting Israel? Doubt it. He actually believes in what he says.
For Frankel to address the question of the power of the Israel lobby, implicitly he is acknowledging that he disagrees with the aims of that lobby. He wouldn't look too critically at the contents of the Walt/Mearsheimer paper because he, at least, accepts that part of their premise.
But let's assume supporting Israel is against American interests. Therefore the $3 billion in annual aid is a waste. Well does anyone ask about whether the $2 billion annual aid the U.S. gives to Egypt? Or the millions that went to the PA over the past 13 years? And does support of Egypt or the PA really advance American interests?
Israel's enemies and America's enemies are largely the same. Egypt and the PA embrace those enemies. Israeli votes roughly 90% of the time with the United States; Egypt about 20% of the time. (Actually no country votes with the United States more than Israel. Wouldn't that suggest that their interests are similar?)
But despite the antagonism shown to the U.S. by Egypt in a number of ways the American monetary support of Egypt isn't subjected to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as aid to Israel. (About the only time the Washington Post editorially opposes the aid to Egypt is in reference to its suppression of the opposition - including the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.)
Another problem with Frankel's articles is that he lets Walt and Mearsheimer get away too easily with their dismissal of David Duke. Yet as even Walt's friend Shai Feldman observed "
You have to differentiate between them and their argument," Feldman replies. "They're not anti-Semites even if they have slid into an anti-Semitic argument. I think it all comes from their failure to prevent the war on Iraq."
Or, more pointedly, as Pillage Idiot e-mailed
If you mimic anti-semitic charges that have been made against the Jews for centuries and perhaps millennia, the burden shifts to you to prove you are NOT an anti-semite.
And in fact, though Walt and Mearsheimer rejected the support of David Duke a well know white supremacist in this country they were more than happy to submit to a sympathetic interview in England's Independent with Robert Fisk who isn't exactly well known in the United States. But Fisk's antagonism towards Israel is no less than Duke's. And in case anyone missed the point of the interview, the Independent ran a cover with an American flag where the star field replace 5 point stars with the six point Jewish stars. It was a visual representation of what white supremacist call ZOG - the Zionist Occupied Government.
(The cover photo of the Washington Post magazine had a similarly disconcerting image prompting a questioner to ask Frankel
But what has me most upset is the cover art on the magazine itself. The Washington Post gave every anti-semetic organization in the nation their new poster image. It is like something straight out of The Elders of Zion. I expect more from the Post.
Frankel answered I
understand your concern but I can't agree with your comment about the cover. Yes, it's a strong image, but if you look at AIPAC's own logo, it's a Star of David with American stripes going through part of it. Symbols do have power, and extremists often seek to hijack them for their own purposes. But that shouldn't stop us from engaging in free expression.
Except that AIPAC uses that imagery to show a confluence of interests. Israel's antisemitic critics use it to show that the Elders of Zion have hijacked American policy. Frankel at best is oblivious. And of course he says well, we can't not run such an image, that would curtail our right of free expression, latching onto another criticism of the Israel lobby: that it silences its opposition.)
(In a different context Hatemonger's Quaterly observes
By now, we all know the old saw: Zionists purportedly mean-spiritedly label opponents of Israel anti-Semites in order to shut them up. This helps silence the opposition in what is, we imagine, the most cacophonous silence in history—one hears more about this horrible silence more than one actually notes the non-existent silence.)
Then there's another matter of Walt and Mearsheimer's behavior that also makes it hard for me to give them the benefit of the doubt about their motivations.
In an interview published Friday with Forward, Prof. John Mearsheimer alleges that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and Stephen Walt would never have been able to find an American publisher for their paper.
Who is Walt kidding? I'm sure that the Village Voice, the Nation, the American Conservative or even the New York Review of Books would have been willing to publish "The Lobby." And if they were interested in book form, there's certainly Nation Books. Walt has no problem using the language of the anti-Israel crowd when it suits his purposes. For him and Mearsheimer to shrink from David Duke's praise is a little hyprocritical. They agree with the view, but don't want the stink of others who hold that view to stick to them.
Related articles about Walt and Mearsheimer in Soccer Dad.
Technorati tags: Walt and Mearsheimer, Israel, Washington Post, Glenn Frankel.
The library as resource
I know this is a topic I've mentioned in the past, but I finally decided to some research and make sure that I was correct.
What if someone mentions an article in a current publication but you don't subscribe? Is it possible to still read it and comment on it?
The answer is: "yes," if you have a library card. I know that Maryland library systems have paid for electronic access to magazines and newspapers that you can use at the libraries, or at home, if you have a library card.
But a check of other library systems shows that Maryland is not unique. There may be some limitations, but if you have a library card you probably have access.
Denver Public Library - go to the menu on the left and research resources which brings up a menu from which you would select "Find a Magazine or Journal." I picked Denver arbitrarily, but whichever system you choose, you'll have similar options.
If you're looking for Commentary Magazine you could either click on the "C" and then scroll down to the title or you could just enter the name of the magazine that you want.
I recently suggested to Colossus of Rhodey.Hube that he check his local library for the recent Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders by Michael 1. Krauss & J. Peter Pham. Guess what he found it at Prof Pham's academic website. Or, if you prefer, here's an HTML version of the article.
While there are sometimes limitations to the library approach, if you ever check it out you'll be amazed by the sheer number of publications that you can have access to. (Remember this access is paid for by the libraries.)
There are a few possible limitations.
1) If you're blogging about an article you can quote it but you can't link it.
2) Sometimes the access you're allowed is only from the library itself not from home. (You can only access the NY Times archives at the LA public library itself, not from home.)
3) I've discovered with Baltimore County that my security settings interfere with my ability to log on. There does seem to be documentation telling you how to get around this problem though.
When you find the article you want you can either save it to disk or e-mail it to yourself.
Now another approach to finding articles that are otherwise for pay for free is if the author is associated with an institution and publishes them on the institutions website. As Colossus of Rhodey.Hube discovered Pham and Krauss's article was saved to the Nelson Center's website.
Similarly a number Efraim Karsh's articles are avaible at his King's College Website. Also the Washington Institute for Near East Policy posts articles by its staff at its website. And as I will never tire of pointing out you can get How the PLO was legitimized by Jeane Kirkpatrick at the AEI website.
I realize that I've presented things from the standpoint of someone interested in Israel. But what I've outlined here, could be useful for any blogger wanting to avail himself or herself of the free resources his/her areas of interest.
Technorati tags: Technorati tag: Blogging, Research, Resources, Libraries.
Undiplomatic
Did you hear what Lance Armstrong said about the French soccer team in an unguarded (but Guardian) moment?
And by now you've heard President Bush express himself to Tony Blair on what Syria must do.
Cohen's mistake
The reviews are in on Richard Cohen's latest, "Hunkering Down with History" and the self selected ones I've seen have been uniformly negative.
At the Washington Post, Richard Cohen agrees with Hamas and Hizballah that “Israel is a mistake.”And he’s open to the argument that Israel is a “crime.”
Israel Matzav - his post is aptly title History Lesson
Cohen's article reflects a total ignorance of Jewish history, and of the Jewish connection to the land of Israel dating back to biblical times, which is inexcusable even for an assimilated Jew (which I assume Cohen to be). In fact, even Christians should be offended by Cohen's writing them out of the history of the Holy Land. Cohen adopts the Arab narrative of the last century of history lock, stock and barrel, without even considering that it might be false. Note, I said Arab and not 'Palestinian,' because the 'Palestinians' by their own admission are a fiction created by that Arab narrative.
Someone explain to me why anyone in their right mind would think that the "smart choice" is to pull back to borders that are not impervious, while terrorism continues, while "waiting and hoping" that history will "move on to something else"?!
The life he has cheerfully resigned himself to sacrificing might be your own, but that's what you get for being born in a mistake-state, right?
After reading the latest from Richard Cohen, we have to wonder what the Washington Post columnist has been smoking...
In it he calls the creation of Israel "a mistake". OK. That's fine. It would be surprising to my father, who is a 6th generation Jerusalemite. It might be insulting to my mother, a holocaust survivor who moved there from Germany after the war, but OK. I’ve read worse ...
So says the hysterical Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, in the first (current) case of a Jewish pundit desperately trying to feed Israeli Jews to the crocodile in the hope that he will be eaten last.
Hunkering down is never a strategy for winning a war. It is a way to die. Israel did not choose this war, it was thrust on them. Sitting back and taking it will not make it better and will not fix the underlying problems. I do not profess to know the ultimate solution, but I highly doubt it is the one Mr. Cohen charts.
Richard Cohen advises Israel not to be overly aggresive. He theorizes that Israel would be best serve to "hunker down" in a defensive position and wait for the nations which surround it to develop into peaceful neighbors. It is an excellent hypothesis provided one does not have to face the consequences of testing it.
Richard Cohen is a useful fool tool for Anti-Semites the world over.I can see the smile cross the face of the evil Ahmadinejad as he reads these words in a prominent American newspaper.
We should all weep for the lack of moral clarity in these times from many in America.
"Never Again" lasted all of sixty years.
Though not addressed to Cohen's column this recent Dry Bones provides a rebuttal to Cohen's argument.
And while I don't think that Cohen probably meant something less offensive than it sounds - when he calls Israel a mistake he probably means a historic accident given the unlikelihood of a third commonwealth being founded after 2000 years - it's hard to get past the article without feeling that he's giving ammunition to Israel's enemies.
But when Cohen writes
In his forthcoming book, "The War of the World," the admirably readable British historian Niall Ferguson devotes considerable space to the horrific history of the Jews in 19th- and 20th-century Europe. Never mind the Holocaust. In 1905 there were pogroms in 660 different places in Russia, and more than 800 Jews were killed -- all this in a period of less than two weeks. This was the reality of life for many of Europe's Jews.Little wonder so many of them emigrated to the United States, Canada, Argentina or South Africa. Little wonder others embraced the dream of Zionism and went to Palestine, first a colony of Turkey and later of Britain. They were in effect running for their lives.
you get the impression that he is providing ammunition to the Arabs and their sympathizers who argue that since the Holocaust is a European crime why should Europe repay Jews by taking the Palestinians' land from them. As President Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Der Spiegel (where he's clearly having trouble with the idea that the Holocaust did take place)
We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians.
Cohen doesn't mention the historical ties of Jews to Israel and no mention of persecution of Jews in Arab and Muslim lands. Nothing to provide a context that Israel is a refuge for Jews, not just from Europe, but from the world over.
To Cohen Israel's founding is a reaction to the Holocaust. Toleration of Israel is a sign of civilization and an acknowledgement of the wrongness of the Holocaust. But there are those who don't accept his premises. They too must be tolerated no matter how outrageous (and murderous) their behavior. Until they come around. Somehow that's not very comforting or convincing.
UPDATE: Welcome Memeorandum readers.
AbbaGav's title says it all Israel's Mistake: Existing. Remedy: Cower Passively, Hoping They Run Out of Rockets . Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.
Daled Amos writes of the many aspects of history that Cohen ignores ...
Or the history of Safed, the city in Israel that is currently known for being struck by Hizbullah missiles, but back in the 16th century was home to a Jewish community which included Rabbi Joseph Caro who wrote the compendium of Jewish Law used till today.
Winston Churchill knew Saudi Arabia was a mistake. Don't blame the Brits for letting Jews finally have tiny Israel back after they had repeatedly returned and gotten slaughtered and exiled again and again for 2000 years. Blame the Brits for giving Arabia to the Wahabis, arguably the mistake which has shaped the last 100 years more than any other.
On the topic of Kesher Talk's zinger read this.
UPDATE II: Welcome to Buzztracker readers.
Richard Cohen channels National Lampoon's "Deteriorata" in today's Washington Post opinion section in writing about Israel. He argues that since Israel's birth came out of the Holocaust and that many in the Muslim world refuse to acknowledge that genocide, Israel should "hunker down" and apparently allow terrorist groups to attack then without fear of reprisal.
And by all means check out Deteriorata. It's a riot.
In short Cohen agrees that the critics of the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were correct and that these moves were seen as weakness by Hezbollah, Hamas and company. Cohen also admits that UN peacekeeping troops are not the answer. His solution is to withdraw again to what he calls defensible borders. Isn't the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing over and over again with the hope that it will yield different results.
Right Wing News on noting the column sounds like satire
Maybe they can just replace Cohen with Frank J., Liberal Larry, Scott Ott, or Iowahawk. The conservatives would think it was funny, the liberals would have trouble telling the difference, and the bloggers would probably work much cheaper than columnists like Cohen.
Picture yourself perched in the turret of a tank, scanning the horizon with night-vision goggles, pondering whether the order that sends you north across the blue line is the order that might end your life. You’ll be sent over into Lebanon to take out a Hezbollah rocket cache, but it’s heavily defended and there’s every chance in the world that Hezbollah has an ambush waiting for you. At that moment, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen wants you to remember: Israel is a mistake.
But I will say this, far from being a mistake, Israel is the greatest miracle to have occured in the 20th century. The Jewish people returned to their ancient homeland and have created a vibrant society while at the same time defending itself in numerous wars from neighboring countries and from terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah.
LawHawk - expanding on KesherTalk's point
Israel's existence was a mistake? You could say the same thing about every border drawn by Europeans in Africa, the Middle East, and anywhere else for that matter, where countries were invented along borders that never existed before (Palestine, TransJordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey were all part of the Ottoman Empire until its breakup after WWI by the Europeans).
Common Folks using Common Sense in a similar vein
By the way, if Israel is a historical mistake, then so are Pakistan and Bosnia, and probably others. Anything noteworthy about them, Sir Cohen? Maybe we should return Iran to the Zoroastrians, Egypt to the Copts, Lebanon to the Maronites, western Turkey to the Greeks, Iraq to the Assyrians, and eastern Turkey to the Armenians. Why don’t we turn the whole world over to the Roman Empire?
After acknowledging in this very same column that 95.7 percent of Poland's Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, Cohen has the audacity to suggest that Israel wait and hope "that history will get distracted and move on."
Ah yes, if only those Europeans hadn’t foisted the Jews they didn’t manage to kill off on the poor Arab world where no Jews had been before. If only the few million Jews already living there under British rule and Turkish before that agreed to permanent dhimmitude under the enlightened Arab rulers after the British left there would be no troubles at all. I’m sure the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would have been happy to carry on the unfinished work of the Germans and then there would be no ‘problem’ with the Jews at all.
Or as Tinkerty Tonk puts it succinctly
Cohen would have Jews continue to run for their lives.
Others:
Iowa Voice
Gateway Pundit
Confederate Yankee
Shrinkwrapped
UPDATE III: TBIFOC gets some expert opinion on Cohen. Katz say, "meow."
If creating a nation of European Jews was a horrible mistake, I guess the morons who came up with the idea of expelling 600,000 Jews in Arab lands to force them to move there and cement the Jewish hold on those lands have got to be the dumbest, most ignorant people who ever lived.And he's soliciting. Opinions that is.
Maryland Conservatarian starts with
As of this writing, Richad Cohen’s column - Hunker Down With History - in today’s Washington Post has already generated 87 blog linkings according to the Technorati sidebar. A quick sampling of them indicates the trend is definitely anti-Cohen…and deservedly so because his column today is mind-numbingly inane.
(Emphasis mine) and he doesn't let up.
Partisan Times also noticed the similarity to Ahmadinejad and links to a few others.
Some general criticisms including Cohen:
Life of Rubin - the long version
Beit Frumpy Chic - the short version
UPDATE the final: I never mentioned any of Cohen's defenders. Here's Mahablog after noting that it isn't clear what Cohen wanted, writes
Righties, who have below-average reading comprehension skills at best, have variously interpreted this column...
Well yes there's a lack of clarity in the column and that would explain the various interpretations of Cohen. That's the fault of the writer, not the critics. But for the most Cohen was criticized for his ignorance of history. By focusing strictly on Jews coming to Israel after the Holocaust he was leaving out an awful lot of history. His central point was very weak.
Mahablog approvingly quotes Matt Yglesias “
Israel itself is a mistake . . . the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now” is a bit too quick and easy. … The “mistake” here would be Arab rejection of the UN partition plan which, at the time, I’m sure looked to them like a really clever piece preventative security gambit but obviously turned out to be a total fiasco. The lesson would be something about not pushing things too far, not rejecting reasonable favorable compromise proposals, not doing things with giant downside risk, etc.
But Cohen's column was directed towards Israel not the Arab/Muslim world. And Cohen seemed to be saying that the conflict won't end as long as Israel's viewed as a mistake so Israel better get used to it. If anything that seems to be encouraging Israel's enemies, not cautioning them.
Technorati tags: Israel, Richard Cohen.
July 17, 2006
Personality disorder test
| You Are An ISFJ |
|
The Nurturer You have a strong need to belong, and you very loyal. A good listener, you excel at helping others in practical ways. In your spare time, you enjoy engaging your senses through art, cooking, and music. You find it easy to be devoted to one person, who you do special things for. You would make a good interior designer, chef, or child psychologist. |
Interior designer, chef or child psychologist - if I could have picked 10 professions I had the least interest in, I suspect that those 3 would be among that list!
Technorati tag: Blog Fun.
Israel's solidarity
I found these contrasting views at Greetings from French Hill, The Country as One
This is one of the things I love about the great country I live in. Listening to Galatz (Israel Army Radio), they are listing telephone numbers of people opening their homes for the citizens up north that need a place to stay - they publicize their phone number on the radio for anyone who wants to call, in the last 10 minuted I have heard over 15 phone numbers of people.
Israel's enemy's too, have shown unity as Shlemazl blog observes. (h/t Greetings from French Hill)
Unfortunately, this is not a new observation.
Civilian support - military monday 8
The current war in the Middle East got me thinking about a different aspect of the military - civilian support from the home front.
In recent years an organization was founded to provide pizza for Israeli soldiers, appropriately named Pizza IDF. And there's a campaign that successfully raised enough money for a whole company.
I also see Pizza IDF has expanded operations to include BurgerIDF too.
Have you ever heard of a charitable organization that was so successful - it accomplished its goal and dissolved? That's the case of the Save our Soldiers fund. Back in 2002 Aaron Singer heard that the high fatality rate suffered by soldiers during Operation Defensive Shield were due to wounds to the torso. He learned that 30% of the soldiers killed could have been saved had they been wearing lightweight bullet-proof vests, so he set out to collect enough money to provide vests (about $1000 each) for the soldiers. A few years ago he reached his goal and dissolved the fund.
In general there's the LIBI Fund for supporting the health and welfare of Israeli soldiers.
The LIBI Fund, no doubt, sounds a lot like the USO, probably the most famous civilian organization supporting American soldiers. It's famous for the tours of entertainers that it arranges for American soldiers.
Soldiers' Angels is dedicated to ensuring that all soldiers get some support from home.
Operation Hero Miles provides a way for individuals with frequent flier miles to donate them to families of military personnel who were wounded. (It was originally to provide miles to help troops get home, but now the United States is covering those expenses.)
In a similar vein Military Exchange Prepaid Calling Cards provides means for deployed soldiers to call home.
Fisher House provides support to military families. And while actor Denzel Washington is a supporter of Fisher House, contrary to the popular e-mail he never paid for a whole new Fisher House, though he has contributed generously to their efforts.
There are, of course, many other organizations dedicated to making the lives of soldiers easier. This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list. But it is possible to support soldiers even without picking up a weapon.
Technorati tag: Military Monday.
July 16, 2006
Haveil Havalim #78 is UP!
Do not despair Haveil Havalim #78 is up at a Barbaric Yawp and read those passions that yet survive!
#79 - July 23, 2006 - Another multiple time host is returning to hosting duties. Life-of-Rubin has volunteered for another go-round. e-mail him at lifeofrubin at gmail dot com.
In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using either Conservative Cat's handy dandy submission form or the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
(Note the change in the operation of Conservative Cat's submission form. It takes you directly to Haveil Havalim.)
Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion. (And please don't submit everything or nearly everything you posted in a week. Winnowing out your best posts takes time.)
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#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 game's afoot
The editors of the NY Times are very protective of Israel, they don't want Israel to get caught Playing Hamas's Game
What they [Hamas and Hezbollah - sd.] more realistically hope for is that the inevitably fierce and devastating Israeli military response will hand them an opportunity to radicalize Arab politics and thereby pressure moderate Arab leaders to distance themselves from Israel and embrace the guerrilla cause. That is a tactic that secular Palestinian guerrilla groups like Fatah pioneered decades ago, and that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah now use for similar ends.This perverse dynamic is again coming into play after Israel’s wide-ranging forays into Gaza and Lebanon. Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out.
That is not fair. But it is the way things work in the real world, and the provocateurs of Hamas and Hezbollah and their allies in Damascus and Tehran understand how to use it to their long-term advantage. Israel’s political and military leaders need to understand it too and not let themselves be drawn into the provocateurs’ game.
Don't react too strongly, you'll just help your enemies. Don't destroy all their weapons. Don't destroy their infrastucture. Don't destroy their leaders. If you do that will only help them.
What is not fair is that the Times knows who is good and who is bad; who is right and who is wrong; but persists in pretending that there's some sort of an equivalency.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
If the "good men" here were doing nothing that would be an improvement. Instead the defender is equated with aggressors; the builder with the destroyers.
And of course the Times admits, "...that's not fair." And it isn't. So does the time, as a beacon of freedom acknowledge its responsibility to right that wrong? Um, no.
The Times has been doing this for years - on both its news and editorial pages - excusing the terror of the PLO as an undestandable response to occupation instead of condemning it unconditionally.
Well now the terrorists have governments or are part of governments. They use their new resources - to continue terror. What if Israel had stayed in Lebanon, might it have been able to disrupt the accumulation of 10000 missiles. And if Israel had remained in Gaza it could have struck more pre-emptive blows against those missile workshops.
The escalation we're seeing is the result of not doing enough. It is the result of trying to be even-handed in a situation which calls out for taking sides.
The Times though is more interested in preventing an Israeli victory. Allowing the bloodletting to continue. And allowing the terrorists to escape with their skins intact.
UPDATE: AbbaGav has very similar sentiments, though in a general sense.
Technorati tags: Middle East, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Hezbollah, New York Times.
Updates etc.
Want to know the latest from the Middle East?
Want to help Israel?
For an ongoing list of resource check out Live-Blogging the War & What We Can Do.
And check out the Pizza for the IDF appeal.
UPDATE: Tonight 7/16/2006 there is a city wide Tehilim planned in Baltimore. For details e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
Ahead of the curve with meryl yourish
I find it difficult to believe that he didn’t have some kind of Western help, what with the language in the column being completely, well, Westernized. Yes, yes, yes, newspapers have styles that you are expected to follow, but I would lay odds that Haniyeh didn’t write a quarter of what we see in the op-ed pages. I would love to see the drafts that went back and forth on this one.
The Haniyeh editorial was “clever and well done — and ambiguous on some points,” said Edward Abington, a former State Department official who has lobbied on behalf of the PLO. Chief among those points: the question of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.“You could read it either way,” he conceded.
The op-ed prompted rumors that the Hamas leadership had hired a public relations firm to make its pitch.
Abington said he doubted that, saying it would be illegal under current anti-terrorism laws for an American firm to advocate on behalf of the group, he said. But he agreed that the Hamas leader is getting some expert help.
“Haniyeh has a media unit comprised of American-educated Palestinians,” he said. “They’re the ones writing this kind of stuff.”
No it apparently wasn't the Carter center. And it wouldn't be legal to provide PR for terrorists for pay. But for free, it's OK. Still the observation about Western catch phrases was right on.
Proportionate: Dead Jews.Disproportionate: Any act of self-defense by Jews.
Letter to the editor of the Washington Post by WARREN H. MILBERG
Most nations urging such restraint also frequently characterize Israel's response as "disproportionate."The implication is that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah are "proportionate."
Technorati tags: Hamas, Hezbollah, Meryl Yourish.
The burdens of governing ...
Big difference with Hezbollah.
With Hamas too.
Technorati tags: Hamas, Hezbollah.
July 14, 2006
Summery stuff
First crape myrtle bloom of the season.
Another flower in the yard.
A few days ago I went out to start a barbecue. I followed the instructions. Once. Twice. Three times. Then I went to complain to my wife that the new grill wasn't working.
She came out and pointed to a tube and asked "What's that?" On inspection it was clear that the tube from the gas cannister to the grill had been severed. But how?
The two possibilities were human or animal. I was skeptical about the human possibility. The severing was not at all clear. I suppose someone might have done it with a really dull knife. Later I saw shards of ripped material on the shelf supporting the cannister. I guess a squirrel or some other creature thought the tubing was food.
My wife called the company and they sent out a replacement tube immediately. Now I have one more chore for Sunday.
Has anyone else ever had something like this happen?
Technorati tags: Summer, Crape Myrtle.
4 from the morning post
I anticipated that I'd object to the anticipated Washington Post editorial about the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East. However The Mideast Erupts showed a measure of understanding that wasn't apparent in some other editorials yesterday.
WHEN ISRAEL withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, it also issued a warning: Any cross-border provocations by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group, would elicit a severe military response. So there can be no surprise at the violent reaction to Hezbollah's ambush of an Israeli patrol Wednesday, in which three soldiers were killed and two others taken captive by the guerrillas. And there can be no doubt that Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's chief sponsors, bear responsibility for what has instantly become the most far-reaching, lethal and dangerous eruption of cross-border fighting in the Middle East in recent years.Europeans and others in the international community are already criticizing as excessive Israel's swift military response. Conspicuously they have said comparatively little about the volleys of dozens of rockets Hezbollah rained down on northern Israel yesterday. In fact, given the all-too-familiar patterns of violence and retribution in the Middle East, the Israeli attacks are entirely predictable, and precisely what Hezbollah and its patrons must have expected and even wanted.
Then the editorial gets lost
But for Israel, the pressing question must be whether its reprisals will be effective in achieving the desired results -- retrieving the soldiers taken hostage and reasserting Israeli deterrence in the north.
Actually, as will be discussed later this is an awfully unambitious agenda for Israel. Israel's goal should be the destruction or, at least, crippling of Hezbollah (and Hamas.) Israel's attacks are not (and cannot be) simply geared toward "reasserting ... deterrence."
Later the editorial brings up some other (mistaken) conventional wisdom that is equally suspect.
But even if Hezbollah is punished politically at home for its wild irresponsibility, the underlying problem -- its benefactors in Iran and Syria -- remains. That's where American and allied diplomacy and influence should be focused. Tehran should be called to account in the U.N. Security Council not only for its program to enrich uranium but also for its support of Hezbollah. Damascus, which hosts Hezbollah and Hamas, should also come under renewed international pressure, including sanctions. In all the diplomacy, the false lure of "evenhandedness" must not be allowed to obscure the fact that Hezbollah and its backers have instigated the current fighting and should be held responsible for the consequences.
I cannot quibble with the last two sentences, however the rest of the paragraph is disappointing. Diplomacy? Sanctions? These are courses of action that should have been taken years ago. Nearly six years ago to be precise.
In October 2000, after Israel withdrew from Lebanon and its withdrawal was certified by the UN, Hezbollah violated the international border and kidnapped and killed three Israel soldiers. It was a time that the world could have shown how much it believed in diplomacy. A terrorist organization violated an international border that a member state of the UN had retreated behind. But not a word. It turned out that the UN had, in fact, protected Hezbollah and lied about it. And there was not a word of protest or calls for the removal of Kofi Annan or Terje Roed-Larsen for their roles as accessories to the crime.
(A search of the Washington Post's archives showed that the Post didn't devote a single editorial bemoaning this violation of international law. It did, however, feature an editorial "Mideast escalation" (April 19, 2001) that criticized the new government of PM Sharon for "...its preclusion of all other, nonmilitary options." Of course if it had been honest it would have noted that diplomacy hadn't rescued those soldiers.)
Daled Amos takes a more jaundiced view of the editorial. With good reason.
But if there are a couple of paragraphs that recommend the Post's editorial, there is nothing to recommend op-ed columnists David Ignatius's Behind the crisis, a push toward war After making clear that he doesn't want Israel to fight back too much he lays out his principles of success in turning back Middle Eastern terror
The first is that in countering aggression, international solidarity and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States should work closely with its allies at the Group of Eight summit and the United Nations. Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and Israel. They would like nothing less than a strong, international coalition of opposition.
"[I]nternational solidarity and legitimacy matter," except, as noted above, when Israel is involved. Remember the UN sided with a terror organization over a member state, even though, if the UN truly wished to end Israel's "occupation" it would have acted to show that the retreat from Lebanon gained Israel international protection.
A second point -- obvious from Gaza to Beirut to Baghdad -- is that the power of non-state actors is magnified when there is no strong central government. That may sound like a truism, but responding wisely can require some creative diplomacy. The way to blunt Hamas is to build a strong Palestinian Authority that delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. The way to curb Hezbollah is to build up the Lebanese government and army. One way to boost the Lebanese government (and deflate Hezbollah) would be to negotiate the return of the Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms. That chance is lost for now, but the Bush administration should find other ways to enhance Siniora's authority.
Good grief! There was a strong PA. And what did it do? It encouraged terror against Israel and, at best, ignored groups committing terrorism against Israel; at worst, actively aided the terrorism.
And here he goes even farther than the UN. When the UN certified Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon it did not address Shebaa Farms that it regards as Syrian territory. The only reason that Hezbollah claims Shebaa Farms for Lebanon is because Syria (and, of course, Hezbollah) need a pretext to justify its continued terror against Israel. And Ignatius is saying: legitimize the claims of the terrorists.
A final obvious lesson is that in an open, interconnected world, public opinion matters. This is a tricky battlefield for an unpopular America and Israel, but not an impossible one. To fight the Long War, America and Israel have to get out of the devil suit in global public opinion. For a generation, America maintained a role as honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. The Bush administration should work hard to refurbish that role.
But it's difficult to be the good guy when institutions that should be supporting freedom are denigrating it. As a member of the fourth estate, Mr. Ignatius should so some responsibility and question the terrorists not shill for them.
The larger problem is why Israel still faces terror from Lebanon and Gaza when the grievances presumably driving terrorism from those areas have already been addressed. (I see that I've addressed this in the past.)
Charles Krauthammer addresses that question head on in Why They fight. The answer is
Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake.3 sentences address the problem precisely. All the rest is commentary, but darn good commentary. Read the whole thing.
Finally if the grievance is Israel's existence, no amount of diplomacy is going to help. (In fact "diplomacy" as practiced in the Middle East, more often than not, serves to legitimize the illegitimate designs of Israel's enemies.)
Michael Oren outlines Necessary Steps for Israel
Efforts by the United States, the United Nations and the European Union to dissuade Iran and Syria from activating their terrorist agents have consistently proved ineffective. Therefore Israel has no realistic option but to convince these states that the price of promoting aggression is prohibitive. If Israeli soldiers and civilians are the targets of Iranian- and Syrian-backed terror, then the Iranian and Syrian militaries must become targets for Israel.By eliminating the terrorist leaderships in Gaza and southern Lebanon and deterring Syria and Iran from prodding their proxies to war, Israel can restore a reasonable level of security to its citizens.
No doubt the editors of the Washington Post and pundits like David Ignatius would view Israeli actions that involve killing the heads of Hamas and Hezbolalh and striking at Syria and Iran as overly harsh. But by now it's way past the point of talk. What's at stake is not just peace and stability, but Israel's existence too.
Technorati tags: Charles Krauthammer,David Ignatius,Michael Oren,Washington Post, Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Undiplomatic diplomacy
US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, continues to justify his recess appointment to his current position. I guess the Democrats would rather the United States be represented by someone like Madeline Albright.
USUN PRESS RELEASE #165 (06)
From a Statement by Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Draft Middle East Resolution, at the Security Council, July 13, 2005
The United States worked hard with other delegations to achieve a more balanced text, one which acknowledged that Israeli military actions were in direct response to repeated rocket attacks into Southern Israel from Gaza and the June 25 abduction of Israeli Defense Force Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas. Regrettably, we were not able to reach consensus.
Note how Bolton's "balance" means justifying Israel's actions. I don't think that there should be balance when one side is right. But this is a rebuke to the Qatari resolution, which we know was unbalanced the other way.
Towards the end of the statement he also delivers a strong condemnation of Israel's (and the West's) enemies
Establishing the foundations for a lasting peace, however, will require us to focus our attention not just on Hamas, but on the state sponsors of terror who back them -- particularly Syria and Iran. Let us be clear that without the financial and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations. We call upon Syria and Iran to end their role as state sponsors of terror and unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, including this kidnapping. We yet again call upon Syria to arrest the Hamas ringleader, Khaled Meshal, who currently resides in Damascus. We stress again our condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hizballah, which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon.We further call on the Palestinian Authority government to stop all acts of violence and terror and comply with the principles enunciated by the Quartet: renounce terror, recognize Israel, and accept previous obligations and agreements, including the Roadmap. The failure of the Palestinian Authority government to take these steps hurts the Palestinian people.
That's nice and direct. And how does he address the UN Security Council?
We are obviously concerned about the duration of the present difficulties and the lack of a solution, but the issue for us is whether action by this Council makes such a solution more or less likely, not simply whether or not the Council seems to be "engaged".The United States remains firmly committed to working with others to establish the foundations for a lasting peace in the region -- a foundation that would have been undermined had this draft Resolution passed.
He's calling the Security Council irrelevant, though in uncharacteristically diplomatic language, accusing them of wanting to be "engaged" even at the expense of being efffective. Nice touch.
Technorati tags: John Bolton,United Nations, Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
July 13, 2006
Klein-halevi on israel's next war
In 2001, Yossi Klein-Halevi wrote a bleak assessment of Israel's situation "State of Despair." (The New Republic, August 6, 2001)
It's been ten months of unrelenting low-level war, and, in one sense, we're coping better than expected. While the intifada of the late '80s divided Israel bitterly, this time we're united. Yasir Arafat has restored to us a confidence in our basic justness. Most Israelis agree on what has happened: Twice the world has tried to resolve the Palestinian problem--in 1947 and in 2000--and twice the Jewish national movement has said yes and the Palestinian national movement has said no.But the unity conceals a creeping fear about Israel's survival. The fear is not quite about war--according to a recent poll, 76 percent of Israelis believe we will win a regional conflict. It is vaguer and deeper than that. Not since the time before the Six Day War, when Israel faced seemingly insurmountable security and economic crises, have Israelis questioned the long-term viability of the Jewish state. An old Jewish fatalism has seeped in. According to the poll, two-thirds of Israelis don't believe peace is possible. Nearly half have curtailed their lifestyles since the intifada began and report greater tension and depression. In conversations in recent weeks with Israelis across the country, especially in border areas, the phrase I heard most often was "We're losing the state."
It took a war (Operation Defensive Shield) and hundreds of deaths, but Israel restored order. Now, however, things must seem bleak again. Terrorist groups have violated Isreali territory, killed a number of Israeli soldiers and kidnapped three others. Israel is now responding harshly. The little old ladies of the media have no patience for Israel defending itself, but it's what must be done.
Now Yossi Klein Halevi writes about Israel's Next War (registration required)
The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.The goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Israel cannot coexist with Iranian proxies pressing in on its borders. In particular, allowing Hamas to remain in power--and to run the Palestinian educational system--will mean the end of hopes for Arab-Israeli reconciliation not only in this generation but in the next one too.
Of course this has been the case for quite awhile. Palestinian terrorism has been the proxy weapon of the Arab war against Israel. (And Palestinian grievance have been the means by which this war has been legitimized.)
However I can't agree with the next part
For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza--precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn--is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.
Not having the boots on the ground in Gaza has made it harder to defend against attacks emanating from there. Of course it didn't help that Israel didn't make much of an effort to do so.
So it wasn't the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel's tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders--including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert--when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel's withdrawal. That policy was not implemented--until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
Or will the international objections that are now starting to be heard stay their collective hand?
The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability--which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year--an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely. According to a very senior military source with whom I've spoken, Israel is still hoping that an international effort will stop a nuclear Iran; if that fails, then Israel is hoping for an American attack. But if the Bush administration is too weakened to take on Iran, then, as a last resort, Israel will have to act unilaterally. And, added the source, Israel has the operational capability to do so.
As noted above this has always been the case. Israel's occupation of Lebanon legitimized Iran and Syria's war from the north. Israel's occupation of Judea, Smaria and Gaza legitimized the PLO's war from the center and south. Now Israel cannot put off a response any longer. Let's hope that it doesn't fall short.
UPDATE: Shiloh Musings doesn't think much of the NY Times advice to Israel either
That's not how you win a war. It just fans the flame of terrorism.
Israel Matzav agrees with us
You got that folks? It's okay for us to go into Gaza to rescue one soldier who is being held hostage by Hamas, but not to rescue hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are being held hostage to the constant pitter patter of rockets raining down that are being shot by Hamas? Something is very wrong with that equation.
Technorati tags: Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah.
Sympathy from the media
The New York Times
Israel's Two-Front Battle
Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel’s borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians. In response to such unacceptable provocations, Israeli forces are now engaged in major military operations in Gaza, to the south, and in Lebanon, to the north.
"Horrible behavior?" Is it comparable to leaving your elbows on the table while eating?
These are not mere "provocations," they are acts of war (or terrorism). What will it take the NY Times to stop whitewashing those seeking to destroy Israel?
But even when acting justifiably in the face of aggression, Israel best serves its long-term security interests by acting wisely and proportionately. Its guiding principle must always be to focus military actions as narrowly as possible on those individuals, organizations and governments directly complicit in the attacks, while sparing the civilian populations that surround them.
"Long term security interests?" You mean that Israel shouldn't tolerate a terrorist group arming itself to the teeth on its border?
That is, of course, far easier said than done. Military actions in inhabited areas cannot be fine-tuned. Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel.
The issue though is not Arab anger at Israel. That seems to come about whatever Israel does. Israel negotiates with the Arabs but doesn't make enough concessions, that also get the Arabs angry with Israel. The problem is what do the Arabs do when they get angry. If they shoot rockets into Israel, that is very bad. The issue isn't the motivation; it's the capability. It is now Israel's job to reduce that capability; anger be damned.
It is too soon to judge how well Israel is hewing to this standard in Lebanon. The political context there is different from that in Gaza. Hezbollah, whose militia is to blame for the kidnappings and rocket fire, has deputies in Lebanon’s Parliament and ministers in its cabinet. But it is not the main party of government, as Hamas is in the Palestinian territories. And Lebanon, unlike Gaza and the West Bank, is a legally sovereign state. A great deal of international effort has been invested in trying to free it of foreign military and political meddling, and restore real content to its sovereignty.
Actually the political context isn't all that different. In both cases terrorist groups have control of territory and have been using their freedom to threaten Israel.
Obviously, that effort has not been fully successful. Hezbollah’s role as an autonomous militia controlling the international border with Israel makes that painfully clear, and Israel cannot be expected to put up with it. But in responding, it needs to make careful distinctions between Hezbollah guerrillas and Lebanese civilians; calling the rockets an “act of war” by Lebanon’s government was not a good idea.
Actually it was a very good idea. According to the Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)
21. I stated in my report of 22 May that the Lebanese armed forces should ensure that all national territory falls under the effective authority of the Government. The Government has said that it would consider deploying the armed forces in southern Lebanon once I had confirmed that Israel had met its obligations under Security Council resolution 425 (1978). The deployment of the armed forces is an essential element of the return of the effective authority of the Government in the area. This deployment should be conducted in coordination with UNIFIL's redeployment in its area of operations. Now that I can confirm Israel's withdrawal, I anticipate that the Government of Lebanon will systematically address this matter. I was pleased to learn on 12 June that, as an important first step, a composite special unit, comprising army and internal security personnel, is to deploy to the formerly Israeli-controlled area and establish its operational command at Marjayoun, and two regional commands at Marjayoun and Bint Jibayl.
In other words, Lebanon was resposible to establish order in the areas abandoned by Israel. It has never observed this obligation. It's fine to claim that your in favor of Lebanese sovereignty, but with sovereignty comes responsibility. The Lebanese failure to oust Hezbollah is its responsibility. Israel is correct to assign blame here.
In Gaza, where Israeli operations have been going on for two weeks and seem to be expanding day by day, it is not too soon to question Israeli military strategy, as many Israelis themselves are now doing. Israel’s initial foray into the southern part of Gaza, after one of its soldiers was kidnapped near the border, was appropriate, as were the initial airstrikes on bridges, meant to impede the movements of the kidnappers.But after these steps failed to produce their intended result, the operation seemed to lose its clear territorial and counterterrorist definition and began to take on a perverse momentum of its own. Israel should not back off its efforts to secure the release of its kidnapped soldier. But it needs to refocus its Gaza operations on that very specific goal.
"Perverse momentum?" A terrorist government was elected and installed in Gaza. It uses (as its predecessor did) the organs of government to inite against and attack Israel. Israel must reduce its capabilities to do so. The specific goal, the return of Gilad Shalit is not enough at this point.
The Baltimore Sun
Dual assaults occupy Israel
Israel's prime minister equates the kidnapping of two more of its soldiers to an "an act of war." The Islamic leader of the Lebanese kidnappers warns that if Israel "wants to escalate the confrontation, we are ready for it." An Israeli military commander counters with an ominous threat to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" if the soldiers are not returned.
Cross border attacks are acts of war. It's hardly on the level of the rest of the rhetoric presented by the editors.
And all the United States can muster in this escalating crisis is a call for restraint and a peaceful resolution. It was a pitiful response that underscores the Bush administration's indifference to the violence ensnaring Israeli forces, Hamas-led Palestinian militants and now the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.
Violence "ensnaring?" Hamas-led Palestinian militants? Hezbollah? Hamas and Hezbollah aren't ensnared by violence. They initiated it. And what is the Bush administration to do? Actually it would be better for the Bush administration to express its disgust over the terrorist acts perpetrated against Israel and express its support for Israel to achieve victory over its enemies. But I hardly expect that's what the Sun's editors meant.
In an effort to rescue its soldier from Gaza and end rocket attacks in its southern region, Israel launched punishing airstrikes and targeted assassinations. Its tanks entered Gaza for the first time since they withdrew from the Gaza Strip last summer. Palestinian towns have been battered and lives lost. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has refused to negotiate with the kidnappers for a prisoner exchange on the theory that such talks reward hostage-takers, but that calculation didn't keep Hezbollah guerrillas from sneaking into Israel at its northern border Wednesday, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two others.
How long is the memory of these people. In 2000 three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and killed in a cross border attack violating Israel's international border with Israel. Isreal didn't retaliate. The international community was silent in the face of the outrage. (The UN even aided the kidnappers by refusing to show Israel a video of the kidnapping that it had in its possession! Only when it had edited any information that would have helped Israel target the assailants did it show Israel the video.) A few years ago Israel traded hundreds of prisoners to get back the bodies of its three soldiers. I suspect that Israel's newfound resolve doesn't resonate as strongly as did its past capitulation.
The potential for a deeper, broader conflict - and more casualties - has increased with the Hezbollah assault, a calculated move timed to bolster Palestinian militants in Gaza and increase the pressure on Israel to accede to their demands. The dual assault has scuttled any hope of Egyptian mediators winning the release of the Israeli corporal and has prompted Israeli retaliatory attacks in southern Lebanon for the first time since its May 2000 pullout. But the more unsettling prospect is a conjoining of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists who will increase mayhem on Israel's borders.
The Egyptian mediation efforts failed before Hezbollah attacked.
If the United States truly cares about protecting innocents and civilian infrastructure, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contended recently, it no longer can remain on the sidelines in this conflict. It should take the lead and promote the appointment of an international envoy who would negotiate a cease-fire and return of the kidnapped soldiers. Lebanese officials, no longer dominated by Syria, should show their independence and work for a peaceful resolution, not in support of Hezbollah's brazen actions.
Where has the Sun been for the past 6 years? Has it been demanding that Hezbollah surrender its weapons and resptect Lebanese sovereignty? An international envoy will only serve to provide leverage to the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas. They should have no such leverage. Their way out is clear. Return the soldiers; lay down arms. No negotiations needed. Anything less will mean that Israel is merely putting off its day of reckoning.
Every day that the Israeli soldiers remain captive is another day for Israeli strikes against Palestinian and Lebanese targets. The more entrenched the violence becomes, the greater the risk of a regional intifada.
Another way of bemoaning the "cycle of violence." What the attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah have shown is that appeasing terrorists only encourages them. Don't bemoan the violence once Israel responds. If that's the only time you object you look like you only sympathize with Israel when Israelis are dying. That can't be your goal. Could it?
UPDATE: (whoops, I put this in a different post but meant to put it here!) Shiloh Musings doesn't think much of the NY Times advice to Israel either
That's not how you win a war. It just fans the flame of terrorism.
Israel Matzav agrees with us
You got that folks? It's okay for us to go into Gaza to rescue one soldier who is being held hostage by Hamas, but not to rescue hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are being held hostage to the constant pitter patter of rockets raining down that are being shot by Hamas? Something is very wrong with that equation.
(via Buzztracker ) Tom Bevan at RCP blog reacts to the Times's assertion that it was not a good idea for PM Olmert to blame Lebanon
Really? A terrorist group that is part of the ruling coalition of a sovereign government fires rockets into the terrority of another sovereign government killing soldiers and innocent civilians and it's a bad idea to call that an act of war? You've got to be kidding. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was an act of war. Just how fundamentally unserious can the Times' editorial page be when it comes to the global war on terror and matters of national security? Dont' answer that.
Lawhawk rejects the Times's plea for Israel to use proportionate force
Sorry, but the Israelis have to win this war, not just act proportionately. Proportionality should have no meaning in this conflict, not when the terrorists exploit any slackening of force against them as a sign of weakness for exploitation. If Israel appears to lack a strategy in dealing with the situation in Gaza, it is because the number of empty buildings and ministry buildings is dwindling, and Israel must decide whether to eliminate the terrorists themselves with an increasing likelyhood of hitting civilians in the process, or maintain the status quo, which again only emboldens the terrorists to act.
Technorati tags: Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah.
July 12, 2006
His royal heinous
Below is an e-mail I sent to Deborah Howell the ombudsman of the Washington Post.
Dear Ms. Howell,
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Ismail Haniyah. As you can tell by the number of blogs commenting on it, this decision is one that could be described as controversial.
There are a number of reasons why the decision was wrong and it raises some questions.
First of all, while I can appreciate the need for a newspaper to keep its readers informed about all sides of controversies, Mr. Haniyeh is a terrorist, or, at least the member of a terrorist organization. The latter assertion is not an opinion, but a matter of a legal definition.
Blogger Pillage Idiot pointed this out not too long ago.
For the record, the United States also considers Hamas a terrorist organization. The Secretary of State has repeatedly designated Hamas as a "foreign terrorist organization," with all the legal consequences that such a designation has. Here is the most recent list of designated "foreign terrorist organizations," with a discussion of the legal criteria and legal ramifications.
Is it the policy of the Washington Post to give members of a terrorist organization the opportunity to air their views. Or only certain ones?
Blogger Kinshasa on the Potomac brings up another problem with the decision to publish Haniyeh:
All the WPost has done is show that they find his arguments - that America should abandon Israel, that Israelis are war criminals, that, eventually, Israel should cease to exist - a legitimate part of the debate.
The Post can't separate the man from the message. He is a representative of an organization that, in its charter, denies Israel's right to exist. In his column he referred to Israel as "'legitimate'" in quotes, indicating that this is still his belief. So is Israel's legitimacy, its right to exist, a debatable proposition? By including the op-ed the Washington Post signals that it believes so.
Finally, blogger Meryl Yourish asks if Haniyeh wrote the article himself. After astutely observing that the language of the op-ed contained many catch phrases she noted:
I have several questions for the WaPo that I do not expect to get answers to:
Did Haniyeh’s original draft include “Zionist Entity” every time Israel was mentioned?
Who really wrote the column?
Did the Carter Center have anything to do with it?
Did Jimmy Carter write Haniyeh’s column, by any chance?
I find it difficult to believe that he didn’t have some kind of Western help, what with the language in the column being completely, well, Westernized. Yes, yes, yes, newspapers have styles that you are expected to follow, but I would lay odds that Haniyeh didn’t write a quarter of what we see in the op-ed pages. I would love to see the drafts that went back and forth on this one.
So then even if one is a member of a terrorist organization and holds beliefs that are beyond the pale can that person still be published if he has the correct connections? Is it possible for someone heinous to be packaged as benign with the correct intercession?
In short what I'd like you to address (hopefully on Sunday) is: when is someone too heinous to be included in the op-ed page. I searched your archives and never found an op-ed from Joerg Haider, for example. Is that because he was beyond the pale? Or because he never sought the platform? Would you publish op-eds from Eric Rudolph or Abdullah Ocalan?
Why was Ismail Haniyeh allowed to publish his propaganda without challenge?
I am a blogger too. If you respond directly to me would I be allowed to post your response without comment on my blog? (I know that it's unlikely that you would be able to respond individually.)
Thank you for your time.
David Gerstman
aka Soccer Dad
UPDATE: Ms. Howell has neither responded nor addressed this in her Sunday column.
July 11, 2006
Giving a terrorist a platform
The Washington Post continues its shameful tradition of giving a soapbox to terrorist leaders. As I noted earlier when it was Moussa Abu Marzook who was allowed an op-ed column, apparently the unpleasant Joerg Haider was barred from the op-ed page, but men who openly advocate the destruction of Israel are given highly prized opportunities to promote themselves.
Today it's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh who has been honored with one of the greatest treasures of democracy: an op-ed column in the Washington Post Aggression under false pretenses.
A number of other bloggers have already commented on this outrage.
First of all there's Israel Matzav, from whose blog I learned of this, who writes in "Soapbaox for a terrorist"
You weren't 'besieged.' You were invaded. You were invaded in retaliation for invading Israel and for continuously shooting Kassams at Israeli civilians since last summer's surrender and expulsion of Jews. Why were you shooting Kassams? What were you hoping to accomplish? The only thing I can see that you were hoping to accomplish is to push the Jews out of Sderot and Ashkelon and the Kibbutzim that dot the pre-1967 side of the green line near the Gaza Strip. In other words, having reversed the results of the 1967 war, you now seek to reverse the results of the 1948 war. But if that's the case, you have to expect that your warlike actions are going to draw a warlike response. And that's what's happening now.
Israel Matzav also bothered to dig up and analyze past statements of Haniyeh to disabuse anyone of the notion that Haniyeh fits any definition of the term "moderate."
The Bullwinkle Blog does a nice job of fisking Mr. Haniyeh in False Pretenses abound in Palestine. Towards the end Bullwinkle Blog shines a light on Hamas's ideology
The slogan of Hamas is “God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur’an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes.” Hamas states that its objective is to support the oppressed and wronged and “to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed.” Hamas believes that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (trust) consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day,” and as such, the land cannot be negotiated away by any political leader. Hamas rejects “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences” as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, believing “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”
Like the Bullwinkle Blog, Erick's blog notes the generous use of scare quotes in Haniyeh's article. When referring to Gilad Shalit, for example. Asks Erick's blog
Why does Hamas describe the soldier they kidnapped as "kidnapped"? Do they dispute that he was kidnapped?
Occidentality neatly disposes of Haniyeh's pretense, if only Americans knew what was really going on they would sympathize with Hamas
Mr. Haniyeh, I'm an American, and I know who the men who led our revolution really were. In other words: I know George Washington, George Washington is a friend of mine, and you sir, are no George Washington.
Lately the media has been claiming that it should be the sole arbiter of what is proper to report and what is proper to keep quiet. I can't see any benefit in allowing Haniyeh a platform. As the Post's editors put it so well last week
But if Hamas wants to be equated with Hezbollah or define itself as at war with Israel, then Israel has every right to try to destroy the Islamic movement's military capacity, to capture its leaders (it has arrested more than 60 since Wednesday, including eight cabinet ministers) and to topple its government. Isn't that what happens in war?
But this week is a new week. And it's time to give the terrorist the oxygen of publicity he so desperately needs. This is a perversion of the democratic principles editors trot out when they justify publishing government secrets. Allowing Haniyeh a voice in a free press to claim his commitment to democracy when his party has stated its plans to impose a tax on non-Muslims is hypoctitical in the extreme. By allowing Haniyeh a voice on its op-ed page the Washington Post is perversion of the democratic principles it claims to protect.
UPDATE: Welcome to NRO Media Blog and BuzzTracker readers.
After noting that if the Post wanted to allow Haniyeh a forum it should have been in the form of an interview where the interviewer could challenge him, Kinshasa on the Potomac concludes with a couple of crucial questions
What does Palestinian propaganda, written by one of the senior members of one of the worst terrorist groups in existence, have to offer, when presented in such an uncritical format in a major Western newspaper? All the WPost has done is show that they find his arguments - that America should abandon Israel, that Israelis are war criminals, that, eventually, Israel should cease to exist - a legitimate part of the debate.
Captain's Quarters administers a thorough Fisking to Haniyeh concluding in response to Haniyeh's offer of a hudna
The hudna goes back to Mohammed, who used the device to gather his strength while weakening his enemy. Haniyeh knows full well what a hudna means, even if he thinks his audience does not. It's the final prevarication in a column full of lies and half-truths, hyperbole and hypocrisy. We leave Haniyeh's column more convinced than ever that Hamas has no intention of negotiating for Palestinian statehood along the framework of previous agreements, but intends to wage terrorism against Israel until it concedes.
Flopping Aces seconds the Fisking.
Boker Tov Boulder sees this decision of the WaPo as one more sign of insanity gripping the world. She's declaring a personal hudna. I hope she isn't going to take to long of a break we really need her sanity.
Fellow MBA member, Maryland Conservatarian didn't know how to react at first; for good reason
I first read his piece late last night and was struck by the sheer moonbatiness of it. It has all the intellectual gravitas of Cindy Sheehan…which is why I resisted immediately posting on it. I can’t improve on his effort here to come across as a wacko; some things just speak for themselves.
In an e-mail he added
If that Op-Ed was presented as a final exam question to discuss the errors and distortions therein...three hours wouldn't begin to be enough time.
Partisan Times upbraids Haniyeh effectively
Unfortunately, the prime minister fails to recognize that US foreign policy and American public opinion favor Israel for the simple fact that Americans do know the truth.and points out some of the propaganda techniques used in the op-ed.
Even the briefest skim over Haniyeh’s column reveals that we will not get the truth from Hamas, as Haniyeh manages to hit all of the Hamas talking points while oddly neglecting to mention their part in escalating the conflict into open war in Gaza.
Lawhawk wonders something else
Would they carry an opus by Osama bin Laden in the same way?
Alternatively the RCP blog asks
Would the Washington Post grant op-ed space to Hitler?
Little Green Footballs concludes
This is utterly disgusting. Has the Washington Post no shame?
In a similar vein PowerLine asks a modest question
Why on earth would the Post willingly serve as the vehicle for such terrorist propaganda?
TBIFOC has another excellent question
Is the use of "Gaza, Palestine" in the byline typical for the Washigton Post's identification of Gaza, or will they claim that editorials are held to a lower factual standard than actual news pieces?
Meryl Yourish concludes with refreshing directness
Way to go, WaPo. You just helped Hamas continue its Jihad against Israel.
To Blue Crab Boulevard The Washington Post is a Mouthpiece for terrorists now.
Backspin notes something that was noted above.
Judeopundit has put together a nice collection of links including a few moonbats (the first two).
Fred Fry International observes in general
This is the basis of the problem with the current Palestinian leadership. They want to be in control, but they also want to play the same old games as before when they were simply a militant organization. That just won't fly.
Technorati tags: Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas, Media Bias, Washington Post.
July 10, 2006
What's become of it - military monday 7
In previous editions of Military Monday I have featured soldiers who have sacrificed their lives. I have featured others who have sacrificed their health.
But even those who don't make those tangible sacrifices still sacrifice something that they will never get back - time. That's time for their loved ones. Time for their children. Time for their own ambitions.
A soldier in the army must sacrifice his or her own time - hours, days, months and even years - to the mission of the army.
I was reminded of this when I recently saw an item about a blogger I had followed in the past at the Muqata. When I last followed the Patriette she was preparing for her wedding.
Now, not only is she married, but she is now a mother too. Yesterday was their anniversary. The Patriette writes:
Today is our first wedding anniversary. It was one year ago today that Josh and I were married. It's been a crazy year. We went from our wedding in July to our honeymoon in August to coming home then saying goodbye in September as Josh left Minnesota to join his National Guard unit in Mississippi. The day after he left, I confirmed that I was pregnant. I got to see him again for two weeks in December. Josh has been in Iraq since February or so. Amy was born in May. After adding it up, I estimate that Josh and I have spent about 6 weeks together all year.
We look forward to the day when father can finally meet his adorable daughter, in person.
For today's entry, I asked the Patriette if she could forward me blogs by other service members who are away from their families and she provided me with a number. Many thanks.
Here are thoughts of Ray Vera
Everyday, I am surrounded by multiple screens and computers where it is easy for one to get hypnotized by the contant glow of the displays and the quiet hum of the machines. For what seems like hours on end, I am immersed in numbers, SIGACTs, maps, trends, and multiple reports that predict the gloom future for the people of Iraq. No matter how grim the situation is, the only thing that goes through my mind is to perform my tasks and do my part. I guess that's all anyone is really expected to do.But at the end of the day, I come home to my humble little trailer and spend the rest of my waking hours talking to my beautiful wife, Faith. I consider myself lucky to have found someone that cares about me and loves me unconditionally. I only hope that one day I can prove my love to her. She is all I ever think or dream about. Faith gives meaning to my life and helps me to get through the difficult times. It is because of her, I find the strength to wake up every morning, regardless of where my life leads me. I can't wait to wake up beside her every morning for the rest of my life. It is because of her, I know my life is not over.
The Patriette told me that he proposed to her at a Bowl Game. Here's the story.
Captain Mik reflects on 20 years of service.
Now I have to start wrestling with the pros and cons of whether to retire when I get home. I could stay in the Guard for another 10 years to max out my retirement, or even just another 4 or 5 so I could retire as a Major, but either option would most likely involve another deployment. I’m not sure I’m willing to give up that time from my family twice before my kids are even 10 years old. I am missing so much now, I think I would regret missing another year of their lives. Well, I’ve got at least a year to dwell on this subject. We’ll just have to see how it goes. I’m sure I’ll sway both ways depending on how I feel at different times during this deployment.Stay safe and tell your loved ones that you care. Don’t ever let them forget that.
Finally I'd like to introduce you to JusticeSoldier who writes "Why I fight"
I look into the eyes of my beautiful god daughter, and watching the little ones playing at the cabin every Sunday. Loving them, I cannot in good conscience watch them knowing that we failed to face a horrid evil, instead leaving it for their watch. No way. Children should be left to lead their innocent lives without the shatter and horrors of terrorism and evil. I am proud that we are facing this evil today so that they will not have to. It is with great pride that I walk forward to do my part to ensure the safety and security I grew up in will be extended to those beautiful little ones I watch every Sunday. I do not care if any more WMD’s are ever found in Iraq- I watch my reasons play every weekend. Everyone in life has a calling, and I could not be more proud of the role God has envisioned me to do.Some of you will be forced to explain to your children the facts of war before their time. Others of you will bear the burden of my absence. My parents and girlfriend will bear the tough role that comes with loving a soldier that goes to war. For all of this, I offer my apologies. I never want to burden anyone and with having to explain such things to loved ones, or to bear such a burden as that which accompanies war. Troubling others is harder than leaving.
Soldiers are trained to fight, to do a job that many of us can't or won't do. But they are, like us, human and have feelings. One need not give up his life or his health to make a sacrifice. The American troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere are protecting us. But they are doing it at the cost of furthering their own interests. They deserve our sincerest gratitude.
As difficult as it may be for a soldier to be separated from his loved ones, one thing that may make up for it is the sweetness of the reunion.
I hope that all soldiers will be rewarded for their devoted, selfless service with reunions with their families and the opportunity to continue their lives where they left off.
Technorati tag: Military Monday.
July 9, 2006
Haveil Havalim #77 is UP!
Haveil Havalim #77 is up with lots of wonderful stuff (did you know that the northernmost Jew blogs?!?) at Me-Ander (and Shiloh Musings). Given that she is also the creator of the Kosher Cooking Carnival and blogress (and veteran of hosting Haveil Havalim many times) not to mention, wife, mother, grandmother, and teacher, it makes the sheer volume of what she's included abslolutely amazing.
#78 - July 16, 2006 - Welcome to the Blogosphere, Barbaric Yawp. Tag, you're it!
UPDATE: #79 - July 23, 2006 - Another multiple time host is returning to hosting duties. Life-of-Rubin has volunteered for another go-round. e-mail him at lifeofrubin at gmail dot com.
I thank you for your support at JBlog Central, but I didn't do the work this week. Me-Ander did; Please vote for her and credit her excellent work.
In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using either Conservative Cat's handy dandy submission form or the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
(Note the change in the operation of Conservative Cat's submission form. It takes you directly to Haveil Havalim.)
Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion. (And please don't submit everything or nearly everything you posted in a week. Winnowing out your best posts takes time.)
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#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
Living with serious illness
(via Instapundit) SoxBlog who lives with cystic-fibrosis apparently just got a new lease on life.
Some time probably about 18 months ago, a CF doctor in Australia noticed that his patients who were surfers were far out-performing his patients who weren’t. Although the mechanisms that make CF such a destructive disease aren’t completely understood, it is known that the root cause of CF’s problems have something to do with the patient’s inability to process salt.
SoxBlog describes how this observation led to the treatment that is apparently clearing his lungs and what that has to do about his return to blogging.
(via JBlog Central) Balebossteh tells about her "... Brave Little Girl" Unfortunately, not everything is going well for 5 year old Amber
We have been really lucky, apart from delayed milestones and the problems mentioned, she has been pretty healthy most of the time. The last operation a couple of weeks ago gave us some results we were not hoping for, her risk of not making it through the next operation or being sicker than she is now, has just doubled what it was.
She was due to have her last open heart surgery at the end of this year (before she starts school next year), but with the last test results it seem this will not go ahead.
We can only pray that things will look up for Amber.
Technorati Tags: Medicine, Health.
July 7, 2006
Viewing hamas without blinders
Meryl Yourish and Media Backspin highlight an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, Hamas's War
. . . if Hamas wants to be equated with Hezbollah or define itself as at war with Israel, then Israel has every right to try to destroy the Islamic movement's military capacity, to capture its leaders (it has arrested more than 60 since Wednesday, including eight cabinet ministers) and to topple its government. Isn't that what happens in war?
(Vital Perspectives also gives a nice summary.)
By itself the editorial is excellent and it serves as a rebuke of much of what is reported and opined about the conflict between Israel and the PA.
Among those who stand rebuked are
1) The Post's own correspondent, Scott Wilson. Wilson has been whitewashing Hamas's culpability and parsing its statements to "prove" its moderation. (For more details read Maryland Conservatarian's excellent critiques of Wilson's reporting.)
In particular the editorial observed
It could behave like a civilized government -- and work to free the hostage -- or align itself with a terrorist operation. It chose the latter. Hamas government officials endorsed the militants' demand that Israel release Palestinian prisoners it has legally arrested in exchange for a soldier who was attacked while guarding Israeli territory.
And yet Wilson does all he can to whitewash Haniyeh and company
Washington, D.C.: Is a rift forming between the Gaza based leaders of Hamas and exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal? Also, is Mashal a target for Israeli reprisals because of his involvement in ordering the kidnapping?Scott Wilson: It's been forming for quite a while, since even before the January elections, but this prisoners' document and soldier issue has really exposed it. The split is fairly easy to understand: Hamas political leaders in Gaza have to deal with the burden of government, including economic sanctions, and the exiles do not have to compromise at all on their positions. Israelis believe Mashal may have ordered the Sunday attack that resulted in the soldier's capture in order to scuttle talks over the prisoners' document, which effectively commits Hamas for the first time to a two-state solution. . .
2) Other newspapers. The New York Times weighed in with "Hamas Provokes a Fight" which finds the arrest of members of the Hamas government, "unsettling." I guess the main point of praise for the NY Times editorial is that it criticized Hamas without really mentioning Israel too much.
In Deadlines and Demands the Baltimore Sun does much worse. It reduces the terror attacks against Israeli positions to political maneuvering.
Hamas leaders in Syria, the patrons of its suicide squads, are to blame for this latest confrontation, which began with a June 25 attack on an Israeli military outpost in which two soldiers were killed and a 19-year-old corporal captured. This provocation has served one real aim - to enhance the political standing of Hamas' exiled leaders while marginalizing elected Hamas moderates in Gaza who were left running for cover. Israel had to respond - it rightly recognized the June 25 strike and kidnapping as a resumption of Hamas' campaign of violence.
And Israel's attack not only played into the hands of Meshaal and company but hurt the wrong people.
And how would the Sun suggest that we combat the terrorists of Hamas more effectively?
The problem is that the United States and its European allies have isolated the new Palestinian leadership, politically and economically. Both have withheld aid to the Hamas-led government for its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce violence. The Bush administration's demonization of Syria, a patron of the Hamas military leadership in Damascus, hasn't helped matters, either.
Implicitly, then, it would appear that the correct approach (according to the Sun) is to re-engage Hamas and work with Syria. So when nations and organization work against peace, it's a cry for help; they need to be coddled and then they'll learn to play nicely.
3) The Washington Post itself. Throughout the past 13 years the Post's editors (and the Post has not been alone) has advocated a position of ignoring or minimizing Palestinian terror in the name of making progress in the peace process. The Palestinians have learned that there are no real consequences to their war against Israel. That Hamas feels no pressure to change shows how well the lesson has been learned.
So the end of the editorial leaves me a bit deflated
The restraint reflects recognition by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel stands only to lose if the Palestinian Authority is destroyed by force. Cpl. Shalit probably can be saved only by a Palestinian political decision, and Israeli forces will have trouble retiring from Gaza and stopping further rocket launchings and abductions, unless they can reach a truce with Hamas. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been trying to draw Hamas's political wing into an alliance with his secular Fatah movement, could still play a role in brokering such an accord. But he needs more help than he is getting from Egypt, other Arab states and the United Nations. Instead of fulminating about supposed Israeli war crimes, these actors ought to be demanding that Hamas -- and its sponsors in Damascus and Tehran -- stop their own acts of terrorism and war.
The Palestinian Authority's existence has never been a force for peace. And for the Post's editors to play up the differences between the political wing of Hamas, who may, in their eyes, be capable of making peace with Israel and the militant/terrrorist wing of Hamas shows how little they have learned. And it shows a great disconnect from the beginning of the editorial that showed an understanding that Hamas is a terror organization through and through.
Technorati tags: Washington Post, New York Times, Media Bias, Israel, Hamas.
Expiating israel's (original) sins
Daniel Pipes will forget about more about the Middle East than I'll ever know, but I can't agree with his recent entry Israel Does Not Need Palestinian Recognition?
I sympathize completely with this sentiment; there is surely something humiliating about Israel having to win the approbation of the Palestinians. But, nonetheless, I maintain that this is precisely the Israeli war goal. No matter how many times Israeli prime ministers assert Israel's existence, that is not assured until those who would eliminate Israel are finally convinced of the futility of their efforts. That means, however bitter it may be, that Palestinians must be convinced of the permanent existence of the Jewish state.
The acceptance Begin was talking about and and the acceptance Pipes is talking about are two separate things. Pipes wants the Palestinians to accept Israel's permanence. Until they do, there will be no peace.
But (acceptance of) Israel's legitimacy is something else. What Begin and Avner are appalled by is that Israel seeks to make concessions and undertake diplomacy in order to be deemed legitimate by the world. But the world's hechsher (approval) is denied by an Arab/Muslim veto. The Israeli government's actions that Pipes deplores are undertaken by Israeli leaders who seek that fleeting seal of legitimacy from the Arab/Muslim world.
When a country makes a mistake, it is rightfully criticized. But when Israel makes a mistake its legitimacy is questioned. (A reason that I find it hard to distinguish between anti-Zionims and antisemitism.) There are two faults of Israel that cannot be forgiven: occupation and demographics.
"Occupation" asserts that Israel's creation (and expansion) was (were)illegitimate. Israel was conceived in sin. The only way to expiate that is to withdraw from all of the land that the Palestinians deem theirs.
I'm not going to discuss "occupation" immediately, but if "occupation" questions Israel's past; "demographics" questions Israel's future. Israel prides itself on being both a Jewish and democratic state, but if it doesn't make adjustments to its borders it will cease to be one or the other. In one case it won't be Jewish anymore; in the other it won't be democratic and therefore not worthy of our support.
Yasser Arafat used to say "The womb of the Arab woman is my best weapon," and the inevitability of the eventual Arab majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River has been taken as a given.
An article "Israel's Demographic Geopolitics" - which is sympathetic to Israel - discusses the problem and writes
Some experts have predicted that the number of Palestinians in Greater Israel will exceed the number of Jews by 2015. Others think it could happen as early as 2010. Then, Palestinians could call for a *one-state solution,* saying that they want to take up Begin's offer while knowing they would end up taking control of this Greater Israel. (They couldn't do so immediately, since so many Palestinians are so young and below voting age.) In fact, then-Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia threatened to ask for one state in January 2004 if a two-state solution could not be negotiated. *We will go for a one-state solution,* he asserted.Israel's Haaretz newspaper estimates that Jews became a minority in Greater Israel this very year of 2005.
The author ties the demographic problem with the decision of Ariel Sharon and his successor Ehud Olmert to withdraw from territory and give that territory to the Palestinians.
In the upcoming Azure, Bennett Zimmerman, Roberta Seid and Michael L. Wise discuss many of the problematic premises underlying the urgency of Israel's need to deal with the demographic issue in "Voodoo Demographics" (registration required; a similarly themed paper by the same authors "The Million Person Gap" appears at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies webiste.)
The authors conclude that a combination of false assumptions, exaggerated projections and double counting have led to overcounting the Palestinian population and that the demographic issue doesn't present the immediate challenge that many believe.
So Israel's future may not demand immediate attention, but what about Israel's past? We routinely read of the evil of occupation. According to international law, Israel must cede the land to the Palestinians. Even last year as Israel forced its citizens from Gaza, the Washington Post reported that the disposition of the buildings left behind was governend by international law; Israel had to demolish the buildings and cart off the rubble in order to be in compliance with international law.
Unfortnately international law seems to be an infinitely elastic concept; not unlike Humpty Dumpty's definitions. If a nation's activities are deemed inappropriate a reference to a violation of international law is in order.
The problem is that international law isn't really so malleable, it's that people take the words of others for what constitutes international law. So Michael I Krauss and J Peter Pham have laid out in "Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders" (Commentary Magazine; July-August 2006) the legal justification for Israel's possession of its land, specifically to Judea and Samaria.
WITH RESPECT to Jewish settlement on the West Bank, the first document of any legal consequence dates from the San Remo Conference of 1920, where the victorious allied powers of World War I assigned the League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Great Britain. In doing so, they recognized, in the words of the mandate, "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for constituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the document even "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," land very much including the modern West Bank.*
From that starting point Krauss and Pham lay out a historical and legal case that Israel came into the possession of Judea and Samaria legally and have the strongest claims for those areas, the prevailing wisdom notwithstanding. Furthermore they argue that Israel in no way has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Naturally there's a problem with this; the Palestinians don't accept the premise.
Article 20:
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Regardless of its accuracy the Palestinian narrative is what's dominant in our political culture. Does it matter that the law is on Israel's side? Does it matter that not a single Arab state observes the legal niceties that they demand of Israel? (Look up Saudi Arabia and Najran for example.)
Actually it's most of the world that doesn't care about such legal niceties as Krauss and Pham observe at the end
IT IS beyond the scope of this essay to consider why much of the world (including, alas, the United States) has seen fit to assign to Israel the unhappy epithet of "occupier." But one of the most striking findings for those who do research in this area is that the term "occupied territories" seems to apply only to Israel's administration of the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza). The term is rarely if ever used in discussing other bitter, long-standing territorial disputes. Indian Kashmir, for instance, is merely a "disputed region" in the eyes of the U.S. Department of State. Nor is it easy to find international actors ready to point an accusing finger at "occupation forces" in Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus or, for that matter, in Quebec, Catalonia, and Ulster. When it comes to the concept of "occupied territory," Israel would appear—unjustly— to have a monopoly.
Both articles go a long way to show that in Arab-Israeli conflict Israel is mostly in the right. The problem is that I don't know if they will convince anyone who has made up his mind otherwise.
On the demographic issue, Israel Matzav has been commenting on the topic for a while now.
Jewish Current Issues has commented on it too.
My Right Word recommended a website with a lot of related information.
And Daled Amos wrote about it two weeks ago.
Jewish Current Issues also wrote about Israel's Legal Rights in the West Bank. He also notes that Krauss and Pham have just written another excellent article “The Non-Recognition ‘Recognition’,” which refutes another one of those widely held misconceptions promulgated by the media as fact: that Hamas has just recognized Israel's right to exist.
It's also worth mentioning that at the end of their article Krauss and Pham cite "What Occupation?" by Ephraim Karsh. It is (and a number of Karsh's other articles are) at Karsh's website at King's College, London.
Technorati tags: Voodoo Demographics, Israel, Israel/'s Right to Exist.
July 6, 2006
hh2r?
The Ignoble Experiment was the most recent hostess of Haveil Havalim. She was stung by a criticism that Haveil Havalim is too far to the right politically. It's a charge I won't deny. Most of the contributors are politically to the right as are most of the hosts and hostesses.
The thing is, though, Haveil Havalim is a voluntary exercise. You don't have to host and you don't have to submit.
Like all carnivals, Haveil Havalim was meant to be a display of the self selected best posts. However, if it only featured those who nominated themselves, it would only be 20 - 30 posts a week. The success of Haveil Havalim comes from the hosts who supply somewhere between 50 - 80 percent of the posts. (I hope my estimates aren't off.)
If the host tends to the right politically, then those host supplied posts are going to reflect that. In addition, those bloggers who have been most interested in Haveil Havalim have tended to be those from the right. When you're criticizing the makeup of Haveil Havalim, you're criticizing people for not taking the time or effort to participate.
If you want to know what I think is missing from Haveil Havalim is that there are not more posts like Life of Rubin's about Jan Murry, Jack's Shack about his grandfather or PsychoToddler about his father (to give 3 recent examples). Or many posts from AJ History. I really enjoy the slice of life posts that have no agenda except to honor or remember someone or the Jewish experience in general.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim.
July 5, 2006
Government's entitlement
Over at Just another Jewish Conspiracy, SerAndEz sings the praises of sin taxes.
I don't see sin taxes the same way he does. Especially not tobacco taxes. It's not that I like smoking; I don't. Tobacco taxes (and lawsuits) give politicians the chance to pose as protectors of the citizenry. But they're not. They're after a revenue stream.
One of the great perversities of the governmental war on smoking is the extent to which government profits from smoking. Jacob Sullum highlights the astonishing numbers in the May issue of Reason magazine. Last year, the tobacco industry's profit on a pack of cigarettes sold in the United States was 23 cents. On the same pack, the federal government collected 24 cents in taxes and the states collected an average of 36 cents. Incredibly, 72 percent of the net proceeds from tobacco sales goes not to Big Tobacco but to Big Government.
If smoking is as evil as portrayed by politicians they shouldn't be taxing tobacco. They should be banning it. The only reason smoking isn't banned is because it is the goose that keep on laying golden eggs for politicians who can't get their hands on enough tax revenue.
Here's an excellent illustration of that principle from "Addicted to Tobacco taxes"
Instead, the “cash-cow” coalition signed a national settlement that protected the profits of the tobacco giants so they can be milked periodically to replenish depleted state coffers.Now that same coalition is promoting Proposition 303, a statewide referendum on the November ballot to increase Arizona’s cigarette tax from 58 cents to $1.18 per pack—the nation’s fifth highest rate. The goal of 303 is to pay for a laundry list of programs, like expanded health insurance and funding for trauma centers. Those programs, desirable or not, are mostly unrelated to tobacco prevention.
...
In 1995, Arizona’s excise taxes were 58 cents per pack. According to Harvard economist Kip Viscusi, the state spent 1.12 cents per pack on tobacco-related medical care, and lost 1.55 cents per pack in payroll taxes due to smokers’ early mortality.Thus, the 58 cents per pack excise tax was more than 20 times the combined tobacco-related cost to the state of 2.67 cents. In short, smokers have more than paid their way.
Additionally the author of the essay points out that smokers are disproportionately poorer than the rest of the population so this is a regressive tax, to boot.
"Sin tax" is a label that confers a nobility to an enterprise that is little more than legal extortion.
I'm too cynical you think? Maybe. But lets consider another part of Sin tax post, the notion that government does good by making hybrid cars more affordable through tax credits.
In the case of hybrid cars, the government offers a tax incentive for people to buy a hybrid car over a regular car, by allowing a small tax deduction for those who own a hybrid car.
Yes it's wonderful that government seeks to make us more environmentally responsible. Yes it is truly noble. But what happens when government actually succeeds in this effort?
Let's pretend someone waves a magic wand and turns every car into a fuel-sipping, gas-electric hybrid. What difference would it make? The air would be cleaner.Oil imports would drop.
And the transportation budgets of Oregon, Washington and almost every other state would deflate like a punctured balloon.
In the end what's important is not whether behavior has been modified but whether or not the government gets the money it believes it's entitlted too. "Sin taxes" may sound good and noble, but in the end they're just another phrase meaning "government entitlement."
Technorati tags: Sin Taxes, Hybrid Cars.
Fun stuff 07/06/2006
Music
Crossing the Rubicon2 claims that there's "Always something there to remind me." Interestingly, that song (in the 80's) was by Naked Eyes.
Me-Ander reported that Matisyahu performed with Sting. (More on that concert from Boker Tov Boulder.)
And though Matisyahu sang "Roxanne" with Sting in concert ("don't wear that dress tonight, it's not tznius?"), Life-of-Rubin links to a video of him singing "Message in a Bottle."
Sting, unlike a different English rock counterpart, seems to have gotten over his anti-Israel stage. As I understand, along with his friend Garry Kasparov, Sting even visited Elkana, a "settlement" in the Shomron, because the school's chess team won a tournament.
And Israel Perspectives notes Matisyahu's future plans ...
Sports
Jewish Current Issues has cute pictures of Tee Ball at the Whitehouse. Truth be told those players don't look like my team as I encourage my players to run away from the ball. :-)
Fireant Gazette has a run down of who to root for in the Tour De France. Two of the expected leaders have been disqualified for doping.
Here's the official site.
And finally Colossus of Rhodey on the great injustice at Wimbledon.
Art
Longtime readers know that I am a big fan of the fractal art of Not Quite Perfect. And while this image is "Marred" it is quite nearly perfect.
Recently I've noticed Sarah's View, also from down under, that has some excellent and beautiful photography.
Time of the Season
As you can tell, I've been a bit behind things lately. Excellent background on the summer solstice at the Almanac of Miscellaneous Merriment that comes with this essential advice
Midsummer is a traditional bathing time. If you haven't taken your yearly bath, do so now.
Jack's Shack didn't miss the beginning of the summer either. He also didn't miss the cruel sense of humor some people have.
Technorati tags: Matisyahu, Sting, Fractal Art, Tour de France, photography, Summer Solstice.
Gaza and entebbe; the lessons
Charles Krauthammer who supported the withdrawal of Israelis from Gaza has written a remarkable essay in Time Magazine Remember What Happened Here pointing out that the violence we are currently seeing from the Palestinian Authority is not part of a cycle of violence, but, as he calls it, an arrow
That is no cycle. That is an arrow. That is action with a purpose. The action began 59 years ago when the U.N. voted to solve the Palestine conundrum then ruled by Britain by creating a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side. The Jews accepted the compromise; the Palestinians rejected it and joined five outside Arab countries in a war to destroy the Jewish state and take all the territory for themselves.
Missing from the article is any mention of whether or not he has reconsidered his position. Still an important reminder that disenagement, rather than reducing the grievance of the Palestinians has increased their opportunities to strike at Israel.
In a different look at Israel, Jeff Jacoby questions whether Israel still has the will to defend itself as it did 30 years ago when it raided Entebbe airport to bring back the hostages taken by terrorists.
Looking at the headlines from the Middle East, a Rip Van Winkle just waking from a slumber of nearly 30 years might suppose that Israel's mettle and resolve are as tenacious as ever. Last Sunday, Hamas gunmen from Gaza attacked a military outpost inside Israel, killing two Israeli troops, wounding several others, and capturing 19-year-old Gilad Shalit, the first Israeli soldier to be taken alive by Palestinians since 1994.In response, Israel moved into the Gaza Strip, pounding government buildings, taking out bridges, and vowing not to leave without retrieving Shalit. Simultaneously, 64 members of Hamas were arrested, among them 23 Palestinian Authority legislators and a third of the Palestinian cabinet. Israel even sent warplanes to buzz the residence of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad , who harbors Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus. ``If you are in the terrorist business," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, ``you can't be surprised if Israel acts against you."
But far from demonstrating that ``Entebbe rules" still guide Israeli policy, the latest crisis merely proves what folly it was to abandon them.
Both columnists come to similar conclusions. Krauthammer
... this war is not about occupation, but about Israel's very existence. The so-called cycle will continue until the arrow is abandoned and the Palestinians accept a compromise--or until the arrow finds its mark and Israel dies.
Jacoby
But Israel will either defeat its enemies or be defeated by them; ``disengaging" from them is not an option. In 1976, Israelis understood that in their bones. Thirty years later, do they still?
Technorati tags: Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, Israel, Gaza, Entebbe.
July 4, 2006
Maryland politics 07/04/06
I haven't done anything on Maryland politics in a while. The rate hike increase, the governor's veto, etc.
And of course Gov Ehrlich's selection of his disabilities secretary, Kirsten Cox, to be his running mate. Let's see other members of the MBA - Maryland Blogger Alliance.
Baltimore Reporter bundles that information with points about Mayor O'Malley's record and the disconnect between that record and the polls.
In essence Mayor O'Malley will have to say how he intends to fight crime and improve schools in the state despite the fact that public safety and education in his jurisdiction are judged unfavorably.
And while this has nothing to do with Gov Ehrlich's choice of a running mate, Monoblogue has a nice abit about Gov Ehrlich and his campaign stop at a baseball game in Maryland's outhouse.
Newest MBA member Crablaw makes a great point about Sec Cox
Interesting choice, and probably a smart one. Whether she is a good campaigner remains to be seen but if she is used to handling managerial and executive duties as state Disability secretary, without the convenience of reading administrivia and the occasional presumed citizen hate mail with her own eyes, she probably is a very capable executive.
(We'll come back to this soon ...)
Meanwhile the Washington Post reports the news and then does Mayor O'Malley's work for him
To many, Cox seemed a surprising option because she lacked some traits traditionally considered important in a running mate.The most important, said former attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Stephen Sachs, is to be widely perceived as someone who could step into the job of governor, if needed. "That has to be there," Sachs said, "and more importantly, the electorate has to believe it to be there."
And how exactly did the Post greet the selection of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend by Parris Glendening twelve years ago? (Washington Post, Jun 19, 1994 )
Glendening Picks A Kennedy as Running Mate;Move Will Bring `Star Quality,' Money to Race, Sources Say; [FINAL Edition]. . .
One source familiar with the candidate's thinking said Townsend "is the only one on the list and she has enthusiastically accepted."
"The general assessment of our allies is that she will be a wonderful asset to the campaign," the source said. "She brings star quality, the Kennedy mystique. She helps us in areas so important in the public's mind. She's very, very qualified and not part of the Annapolis clique."
. . .
Townsend mounted a spirited but unsuccessful campaign in 1986 against Rep. Helen Delich Bentley, a Republican who is relinquishing her seat in Congress this year to run for governor. Townsend raised about $800,000 and knocked on 13,000 doors in the 2nd District, but she suffered from being a relative newcomer to Baltimore County, garnering 41 percent of the vote in her first bid for public office.
. . .
Glendening, a bespectacled college professor known for a somewhat wonkish style, expects Townsend, who has been an ardent advocate of community service, to complement him, campaigning vigorously and perhaps with a bit more panache.
The choice of a daughter of Robert Kennedy, the U.S. senator whose 1968 presidential bid ended in his assassination, is apt to resonate well with African Americans in vote-rich Baltimore. That city's mayor, Kurt L. Schmoke, who endorsed Glendening in late April, has told Glendening he is quite satisfied with the selection of Townsend, sources said.
So Mrs. Townsend, despite having had no statewide experience, was enthusiastically greeted by a Washington Post article that seemed little more than a campaign press release. Now when Secretary Cox is selected by a Republican governor the Post sees fit to repeat a Democratic talking point that there's no perception that she could step into the Governor's job. But isn't being a cabinet secretary for three years a more relevant qualification for the job than any experience Kathleen Kennedy Townsend had? It's annoying that Gov. Ehrlich's choice is reduced by the Post to simply trying to appeal to women and de-emphasizing her qualifications for the job. But of course, that's because she's a Republican.
Meanwhile Stuart Simms who was left out in the cold by County Executive Duncan has found a new post to campaign for: Attorney General of Maryland. And what does he intend to do?
In appearances in Baltimore and Largo, Simms, 56, cited his experience as a former Baltimore state's attorney and cabinet member as he pledged to protect Maryland residents against crime, drug abuse and "corporate greed and excess."
Yes that corporate excess and greed kills nearly as many people as thugs in Baltimore. No doubt with an AG like him and Maryland's General Assembly, they should be able to accomplish great things keeping business out of Maryland.
The Sun Lies asks why the Baltimore Sun has, so far, refused to publish news of a poll that shows Kweisi Mfume ahead of Ben Cardin in the race for the Democratic nomination for Senate. I have to admit that I'm skeptical of the poll, until and unless I see a trend that confirms it. Still I would agree that this is newsworthy.
Technorati tags: Maryland Politics, Kristen Cox, Stuart Simms, Election 2006.
July 3, 2006
Commander in chief - military monday 6
President Bush's critics often accuse him of trivializing the sacrifices of the soldiers who fight for the United States. Whether it is Cindy Sheehan who uses her terrible loss as a credential to criticize the President or actor John Cusack whose recent movie criticized President Bush for not allowing cameras to record the return of the bodies of soldiers killed in the war to the United States.
Among the President's critics it's an article of faith that he cares little or not at all for the soldiers who are fighting his (illegitimate) battles for him. While I realize this story won't necessarily sway the President's critics but Staff Sgt. Christian Bagge jogged with the President.
I suppose that doesn't sound like much.
President Bush kept his promise to a wounded soldier yesterday, jogging around the White House running track alongside Staff Sgt. Christian Bagge, who ran with his new prosthetic running legs.
I suppose that Sgt. Bagge could have been bitter about his terrible fate. He could have blamed the man who sent him into war. But he didn't. He asked the President for a favor to give him the impetus to make the most of his life even after suffering an awful injury.
(An item with comments at Outside the Beltway.)
It's not the first time that the President has run with an injured soldier. In April 2004, he took a run with Staff Sargeant Michael MacNaughton, with a "bionic" leg.
(Snopes confirms the story as "true." The president made an offer and made good on his word.)
Sgt. McNaughton also accompanied the President to Cincinatti to throw out the first pitch of this baseball season. They were accompanied by
Paul Brondhaver, a recipient of the Bronze Star of Valor and Purple Heart after being injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and John Prazynski, whose son Taylor was killed in Afghanistan in May. Taylor was 20 years old and a graduate of Fairfield High School near Cincinnati.
A search on President Bush keeps promise to soldiers yields another worthwhile story
When he arrives today in Seattle, President Bush will take time to honor two local families who have sacrificed much.Sheryl Sheaffer of Issaquah, whose three soldier sons, and only children, now serve in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, will fulfill a longtime wish by joining the greeting party for Bush when Air Force One lands at Boeing Field.
Brian and Shellie Starr of Snohomish, meanwhile, have been invited by the White House to share a lengthier, private session with the president here.
Their son, Marine Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, was killed in Iraq on Memorial Day last year. A last letter Starr wrote to his fiancיe, intended to be found on his computer should he die, was shared by the family with the Seattle P-I and eventually came to Bush's attention. The president was visibly emotional as he quoted from it in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., on Nov. 30.
I know that these are only a few soldiers, but it's impossible to read this stories and conclude that the president has strong and sincere feelings of gratitude for the young men and women who are defending the United States. His critics are wrong.
UPDATE: A response for John Cusack from the Patriette's husband.
Technorati tags: Military Monday, Humanitarian Aid.
July 2, 2006
Haveil Havalim #76 is UP!
Sorry about the late notice due to a family trip coupled with computer problems I've been unable to post until now. I have no idea what's ignoble about the Ignoble Experiment, but perhaps she was experimenting how to get along for a week without eating, drinking or breathing, because it seems all she was doing was putting together Haveil Havalim #76 which is as complete as the carnival gets! (Yes and read the comments at the end; I'm not the only one who's amazed.)
#77 - July 9 - The creator the Kosher Cooking Carnival and blogress (and veteran of hosting Haveil Havalim many times) not to mention, wife, mother, grandmother, and teacher, Me-Ander. e-mail her at shilohmuse at yahoo dot com.
In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using either Conservative Cat's handy dandy submission form or the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.
(Note the change in the operation of Conservative Cat's submission form. It takes you directly to Haveil Havalim.)
Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion. (And please don't submit everything or nearly everything you posted in a week. Winnowing out your best posts takes time.)
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.
Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.
Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#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