Soccer Dad

Ghost of a chance of peace

Some twenty years ago a Palestinian soda company started hiring students from the nearby Yeshiva in Beit El to certify that the soda was Kosher for sale in Israel. It seemed like a good idea at the time but then reality intervened. The first intidfada started and, as far as I know, that sunk the project.

I don't know if the project in this article - Israelis and Palestinians Launch Web Start-Up - will last any longer. Maybe it will:

Nibbling doughnuts and wrestling with computer code, the workers at G.ho.st, an Internet start-up here, are holding their weekly staff meeting — with colleagues on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.

They trade ideas through a video hookup that connects the West Bank office with one in Israel in the first joint technology venture of its kind between Israelis and Palestinians.

“Start with the optimistic parts, Mustafa,” Gilad Parann-Nissany, an Israeli who is vice president for research and development, jokes with a Palestinian colleague who is giving a progress report. Both conference rooms break into laughter.

If some sort of co-existence is possible it will have to come from the ground up, where practical concerns weigh more heavily on the parties than politics.

I have no doubt that cooperative efforts such as this will be more productive than international conferences pledging billions to the Palestinian Authority. Such conferences have only fed the corrupt, irredentist government in the past, and I have little hope than those in charge have the authority to change the culture of corruption.

A better indication of whether (or when) there will be peace will not be by the dollars pledged but by the proliferation of joint business ventures or other private (non government and non NGO) cooperative enterprises.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

Greeley's disappointment

On May 16, 1868 the senate failed to impeach President Andrew Johnson.

Two weeks later Harper's Weekly featured a cartoon showing the president's joy and publisher ( of the New York Tribune) Horace Greeley's despair.

I find it interesting that the Times played up this cartoon. As I noted two weeks ago, the Times ran a flattering profile of Sen. Benjamin Wade who later would be in line to have taken Johnson's place had the Senate convicted the President. My guess is that the New York Times was similarly unhappy with President Johnson.

I also think it's interesting because for all the talk about how nasty politics have gotten, the cartoon that the Times printed suggests that politics has always had a nasty streak. It's not a modern variation.

Five hundred seventy seven years ago

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.

In May 1430, the Burgundians laid siege to Compiegne, and Joan stole into the town under the cover of darkness to aid in its defense. On May 23, while leading a sortie against the Burgundians, she was captured. The Burgundians sold her to the English, and in March 1431 she went on trial before ecclesiastical authorities in Rouen on charges of heresy. Her most serious crime, according to the tribunal, was her rejection of church authority in favor of direct inspiration from God. After refusing to submit to the church, her sentence was read on May 24: She was to be turned over to secular authorities and executed. Reacting with horror to the pronouncement, Joan agreed to recant and was condemned instead to perpetual imprisonment.

Ordered to put on women's clothes, she obeyed, but a few days later the judges went to her cell and found her dressed again in male attire. Questioned, she told them that St. Catherine and St. Margaret had reproached her for giving in to the church against their will. She was found to be a relapsed heretic and on May 29 ordered handed over to secular officials. On May 30, Joan, 19 years old, was burned at the stake at the Place du Vieux-Marche in Rouen. Before the pyre was lit, she instructed a priest to hold high a crucifix for her to see and to shout out prayers loud enough to be heard above the roar of the flames.

The Al-Dura Case: OUR Next Step

While France2 has indicated they will take their appeal to the Cour de Cassation, Philippe Karsenty writes in an email about the next step that we have to take:

The next battle will be political; we will have to ask the French government to demand that the state-owned TV channel admit that the al Dura news report was a fraud and issue a public apology for broadcasting a staged "killing" and, therefore, an apology for being the party to a colossal historical hoax.

It is well within the government's responsibility to take these steps. As the de facto CEO of France 2, Sarkozy has the power to conduct an internal investigation of the TV station in order to separate the truth from the lies. I call on you, my friends and supporters, to notify all of your contacts, and the relevant organizations you support, to join me in demanding that Sarkozy exercise his authority to make amends on behalf of France 2. Only then can one even attempt to redress a wrong that has resulted in death and injury to so many innocent people.

In his personal blog, Enderlin characterized Karsenty's defense as not bringing any proof of hoax or staging:

But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that Karsenty had the right to virulently criticize this report, the subject having created a notable emotion, and recognized that he had carried out his investigation that permitted the Court of Appeals to grant him the benefit of doubt in the matter of his good faith.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Al-Dura and Philippe Karsenty.

Drinking buddies

Not only do they travel together (h/t instapundit):

In her campaign stops, Clinton customarily pauses to praise McCain for his service to the country before going on to criticize his policy positions and cast them as a continuation of the Bush administration. But as she campaigns in South Dakota in advance of its Tuesday primary, Clinton added an extra recollection to her intro. “I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together,” she said. “And I honor his service to our country and his patriotism.”

They're drinking buddies:

Two summers ago, on a Congressional trip to Estonia, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting that the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest.

Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much — that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. “One of the guys” was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.

Hmm. If the Times really wants to spin this to McCain detriment they could report it again, with some slight changes:

According to sources familiar with the incident, on a "fact-finding" trip to the Balkans Sen. McCain got Sen. Clinton drunk.

hillary clinton

john mccain

A new worker's paradise

Charles Krauthammer sees dead ideologies (or here):

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Krauthammer shows that the global warming hysteria is just a mask for governments asserting unreasonable control over their respective citizenries.

Progress will proceed, governed by the markets. Imposing drastic measures on the citizens will likely serve to incur their wrath without speeding up the process of change. Take Thomas Friedman's op-ed (more here) from two days ago. Even thought it is about oil, the principle is the same: We have a crisis we must impose drastic measures.:

We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a “price floor” for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today. Washington would declare that it would never let the price fall below that level. If it does, it would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.

To ease the burden on the less well-off, “anyone earning under $80,000 a year would be compensated with a reduction in the payroll taxes,” said Verleger. Or, he suggested, the government could use the gasoline tax to buy back gas guzzlers from the public and “crush them.”

But the message going forward to every car buyer and carmaker would be this: The price of gasoline is never going back down. Therefore, if you buy a big gas guzzler today, you are locking yourself into perpetually high gasoline bills. You are buying a pig that will eat you out of house and home. At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders to oblivion.

Imposing such a measure on the population won't make electric cars appear any faster. It will however allow the government to exert even greater control the nation.

Perhaps that's a bigger driving force behind these schemes than any goal to make us cleaner or less dependent of foreign oil.

Full of fulbright

Four and a half years ago three Americans were killed as they crossed into Gaza:

From the wreckage, it appeared that the explosion had occurred directly beneath the driver's seat of the second of three American vehicles, ripping off the engine, as well as the front axle and wheels. The blast, which left a crater about 15 feet wide and 5 feet deep, threw the vehicle into the air and cast it to the ground upside down, in a tangle of crumpled steel. Debris, blood and human tissue were spread over a wide area, with the bodies of one of the Americans thrown nearly 40 feet away, according to witnesses at the scene.

The Americans who were killed were identified by the State Department as John Branchizio, 37, from Texas; Mark Parson, 31, from New York State; and John Martin Linde, 30, from Missouri. The three men were employees of DynCorp, a Virginia-based defense contracting company, who were assigned to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv. The men were traveling in the same car as the wounded diplomat, who was not identified. The diplomat was taken to the Soproka University Medical Center in Beer Sheva, where hospital officials said he was in stable condition after surgery.

But these Americans were traveling in Gaza to help Palestinians:

He said the Palestinian Authority should give its prime minister control over all of its security forces to suppress further violence, but noted that a change in control was being blocked by Mr. Arafat. Ahmed Qurei, the new prime minister, threatened to resign last week over a dispute with Mr. Arafat over who would be interior minister and control the security forces.

''The failure to create effective Palestinian security forces dedicated to fighting terror continues to cost lives,'' Mr. Bush said. ''The failure to undertake these reforms and dismantle the terrorist organizations constitutes the greatest obstacle to achieving the Palestinian people's dream of statehood.''

He noted that the Americans who were attacked were not on a military mission. American Embassy officials were visiting Gaza to interview young Palestinian candidates for Fulbright scholarships to study in America.

''This is another example of how the terrorists are enemies of progress and opportunity for the Palestinian people,'' he said.

In the next year the Palestinians had failed to take any decisive action in the case.

The attack occurred near a manned Palestinian checkpoint. Immediately after the attack, journalists photographed Palestinian police officers standing by as onlookers cheered and roamed the crime scene, destroying critical evidence.

Adding insult to injury, Musa Arafat, the head of Palestinian military intelligence in Gaza and a cousin of Mr. Arafat, announced last month that Palestinian authorities know the killers -- "some Palestinian factions," in his words -- but would not arrest them because "clashing with any Palestinian party under the presence of occupation is an issue that will present many problems for us." According to him, "the Americans have started recently to understand our position."

A State Department spokesman called Musa Arafat's comments "totally unacceptable and outrageous," adding, "If it's true that the PA knows the identities of the murderers, we expect immediate action to be taken to arrest, prosecute and convict them."

Beyond such protestations, the United States has done little to press the PA to cooperate with the FBI in the investigation. In addition to the $5 million reward offer, the State Department banned travel to Gaza by U.S. officials and suspended funding for two water development projects there. Unfortunately, these meager actions incurred little cost for the PA -- certainly not enough to compel Palestinians into action on an issue they appear keen to avoid.

To the best of my knowledge the investigation is proceeding at the same pace as OJ's to find his wife's killers.

Flash forward another three and a half years and the news story is: U.S. Withdraws Fulbright Grants to Gaza (via memeorandum)

The article doesn't mention anything about the events of 2003.

The American State Department has withdrawn all Fulbright grants to Palestinian students in Gaza hoping to pursue advanced degrees at American institutions this fall because Israel has not granted them permission to leave.

And lest anyone be lulled into thinking that this isn't Israel's fault.

A letter was sent by e-mail to the students on Thursday telling them of the cancellation. Abdulrahman Abdullah, 30, who had been hoping to study for an M.B.A. at one of several American universities on his Fulbright, was in shock when he read it.

“If we are talking about peace and mutual understanding, it means investing in people who will later contribute to Palestinian society,” he said. “I am against Hamas. Their acts and policies are wrong. Israel talks about a Palestinian state. But who will build that state if we can get no training?”

Some Israeli lawmakers, who held a hearing on the issue of student movement out of Gaza on Wednesday, expressed anger that their government was failing to promote educational and civil development in a future Palestine given the hundreds of students who had been offered grants by the United States and other Western governments.

“This could be interpreted as collective punishment,” complained Rabbi Michael Melchior, chairman of the Parliament’s education committee, during the hearing. “This policy is not in keeping with international standards or with the moral standards of Jews, who have been subjected to the deprivation of higher education in the past. Even in war, there are rules.” Rabbi Melchior is from the Meimad Party, allied with Labor.

Yes, there are rules in war. One is that a country isn't obligated to allow its enemies free passage. Then there's this:

But when a query about the canceled Fulbrights was made to the prime minister’s office on Thursday, senior officials expressed surprise. They said they did, in fact, consider study abroad to be a humanitarian necessity and that when cases were appealed to them, they would facilitate them.

It's interesting that the State Department made its decision before consulting with the Israeli government. But then you wouldn't necessarily have a conflict or an excuse for claiming that Israel was preventing the flourishing of the best and brightest from Gaza.

The article is seasoned with plenty of criticisms of how Israel is handling the situation. I'm skeptical that this was an intentional Israeli effort to stifle promising young men and women. It also appears that had the State Department bothered to consult with the Israeli government, Israel might well have allowed the Fulbright scholars safe passage. Instead it handled the issue in a way to embarrass Israel.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 05/30/08

The council has spoken.

Winning a tiebreaker decided by the Watcher, Bookworm Room finishes first among the council members for Why Jews Are Right To Suspect Obama's Advisers. It's an excellent reminder of what to worry about in face of an organized campaign to label anyone who doesn't support Sen. Obama as parochial, ignorant or just plain racist.

I was the council member who was tied for "Dear Mr. Hoyt."

Third place was also tie (but not broken) between the Glittering Eye's Strange Device, a review of God and Gold by Walter Russell Mead and In which it gets worse by Done with Mirror. I guess you could say that those two posts represented the best and the worst of American thought.

If you're a blogger and you like what you see, please consider submitting your own post to the competition. Just follow the rules here.

watcher's council.

On the non-council side the winning entry was Kaboom's Deep Thoughts with Biggie Smalls, the views of an Iraqi translator. The runner up was a tie between my nominee Return to Sender by IowaHawk and Over red coffee cans and cigarettes, ruminations about Sen. Obama's views of diplomacy, by the Paragraph Farmer.

Congratulations to all the winners!

Local flora

All the following pictures are from earlier in the month:

From the flower box.

The Dogwood.

The willow (aravos).

Who stole the cookies ...?

That's who!

My blog as refrigerator

She's now 6 1/2.

Previously
My blog as refrigerator (12/2007)
My blog as refrigerator (4/2007)
Family Portrait

A batty trade

Minor league pitcher, John Odom, was traded for 10 bats.

During three years in the low minors, John Odom never really made a name for himself.

That sure changed this week—he’s the guy who was traded for a bunch of bats.

“I don’t really care,” he said Friday. “It’ll make a better story if I make it to the big leagues.”

For now, Odom is headed to the Laredo Broncos of the United League. They got him Tuesday from the Calgary Vipers of the Golden Baseball League for a most unlikely price: 10 Prairie Sticks Maple Bats, double-dipped black, 34-inch, C243 style.

That actually was good news for the small company, Prarie Sticks.

News of pitcher John Odom's trade to the Laredo Broncos of the independent United Baseball League, which became necessary when Odom had trouble crossing the border into Canada, was just a few hours old when it began to spread like a virus across the Internet. It moved to television, then even deeper into cyberspace once video became available. And at every turn, the name Prairie Sticks popped up.

The proof was in the PDA when Greenberg and Zinger woke up to resume their trip home.

"All these orders came in between midnight and 5 or 6 a.m. while we were sleeping," Greenberg said.

People from California to Connecticut wanted Prairie Sticks bats.

Odom shouldn't be too insulted, future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson was once traded for baseballs!

Baseball men often will say of a washed-up player, "You couldn't trade him for a bag of balls." Technically, the Dodgers didn't trade for Rickey Henderson. But they did give up a bag of balls. The Newark Bears, an independent minor league team, were contractually obligated to release Henderson, 44, if a major league club wanted him. But when Henderson departed, the Bears made a special request of the Dodgers, asking for a shipment of balls. The Dodgers happily obliged with six dozen, establishing a new going rate for a future Hall of Famer: approximately $130,000--the prorated portion of the minimum salary the Dodgers will pay Henderson--plus 72 balls.

Crossposted on OTB Sports.

R-i-i-i-i-i-i-p

In order to show the progress that the Palestinian police are making, news services often provide pictures of them in amusing physical poses and give a caption that they're undergoing training.

There were a couple of pictures yesterday, that defied categorization. The recently trained (in Jordan) Palestinian police just returned to Jericho and were demonstrating their "martial arts skills."

First we have this guy. I'll call him the perfectly parallel Palestinian policeman. (Or in relation to his sparring partner perfectly perpendicular Palestinian policeman.) I'm no expert in martial arts, but I've never seen a move like this.

And then there's this guy. The spreadeagled guy in front, specifically. What happened? Did he spreadeagle too far? I see Paris, I see France ...

(see also Elder of Ziyon.)

Speaking of ripping and the Palestinian police, one Steven Smith who was involved in the training really ripped into them in the pages of the IHT.

Many of the Jordanian instructors were pressed into service and simply didn't have the expertise, equipment, or the time to provide good instruction. A first-aid instructor teaching CPR had never taken CPR himself and taught his students to give chest compressions on the abdomen of a retail store mannequin instead of a CPR dummy.

The firearms training failed to include failure drills, discretionary shooting, the use of cover and concealment and weapons cleaning. Only a few students demonstrated skill at assembling and disassembling their firearms. Students firing just 60 rounds of ammunition at close range who could hit the target were pronounced qualified.

The congressional investigators and journalists I saw were steered clear of any training that was substandard as well-rehearsed students put on demonstrations of police skills designed to impress laymen.

(h/t My Right Word)

Well I hope that you laymen were impressed.

I'll remind you that Gen. Kenneth Dayton was in charge of the training. The Muqata provides a sobering reminder of past accomplishments of the Palestinian police.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

Fifty five years ago

On top of the world

The British expedition has conquered Mount Everest, a radio message flashed from Namche Bazar to the British Embassy here said today.

The message said Edmond Hillary, a New Zealand beekeeper and mountaineer, and Tensing Norkay, the famous Sherpa guide, had reached the hitherto unscaled summit from Camp Eight last Friday.

Derfner digs deep

My contempt for Larry Derfner goes back a ways. In the 90's he was one of the Israel correspondents for every Jewish American weekly. As an extreme leftist, he used that platform to present Israel in the worst possible light.

But with is critique of the al-Dura case he's hit a new low (h/t LGF linkviewer).

Yet while it's pure Jewish paranoia to claim that Enderlin and his co-conspirators knew all along that the Palestinians killed al-Dura, and it's way beyond paranoia to think the Palestinians killed the boy deliberately or that he never died at all, there is an apparent element of truth in the outcry. Aside from the paranoids and the politically self-interested, there are credible, impartial investigators who have also concluded that the IDF did not kill that poor, terrified boy.

THE MOST authoritative is James Fallows, one of America's most prominent journalists. After coming here and talking to a lot of Israelis and Palestinians and seeing a lot of evidence, he wrote in the June 2003 Atlantic Monthly that Mohammed al-Dura and his father, Jamal, could not have been shot by IDF soldiers at Netzarim junction - as Enderlin and many others reported - because they were completely shielded from IDF fire by a big, impenetrable concrete block. The al-Duras had to have been shot from another direction, or directions, Fallows writes, and while he doesn't suggest who did shoot them, the people doing the shooting from those other directions were Palestinians.

But as for the conspiracy theories, he [Fallows] writes: "The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious." Referring to Nahum Shahaf, one of Yom Tov Samia's investigators and the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania, Fallows continues: "Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day."

As I've pointed out before, shortly after the supposed killing of Mohammed al-Dura, Israel's Foreign Ministry put out an annotated view of the scene. Not a single news organization looked at that picture and concluded that the IDF could not have seen the al-Duras and could not have hit them. They took France 2's report at face value. (The Guardian published a diagram of the intersection too, but it is so out of proportion that it looks like that al-Duras were only a few feet from the IDF.)

There was a conspiracy and it was one of silence. It goes to the use of stringers by every single news organization. The stringers are inherently unreliable. Any news organization that would question its own reporting of the al-Dura case would have to review its news gathering procedures. None has an interest in seeking or publicizing the truth because it would open up its credibility to too many questions.

In a subsequent blog post, Fallows wrote:

My general experience in life makes me skeptical that large-scale conspiracies can be pulled off -- and kept secret for seven years, which is how long it has been since the original event. So based on what I have personally seen (not having devoted myself to the story for the last few years), I am not ready to say: Yes, for sure, this was a huge, big-lie, blood-libel, conspiratorial hoax. But Landes et al seem more fervent about turning up all available evidence and getting to the bottom of things than their antagonists do, which tells me something.

Yes, he does express skepticism of the conspiracy, but he also notes that France 2 and its allies were very keen on keeping all the information from getting out. From a commenter at the Augean Stables, (h/t In Context) the translation of the verdict is a lot more damning than Derfner claimed. (I also expressed some doubts initially based on less than comprehensive summaries of the verdict.)

So while Derfner may mock, there is no news organization in the world that wants any level of scrutiny into the way they gather and present news in Israel. Their credibility would be shot. So instead of looking to apportion the blame appropriately, Derfner chose to shoot the messengers (metaphorically). He is incapable of escaping his leftist cage.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

The pariah

From the Times of London (h/t Backspin)

Some Israelis object to this program. They remember that Saddam Hussein fired Scuds into Israel during first Gulf War and find it offensive that Iraqis now seek their help but had no objection when the late Iraqi leader was trying to kill them.

Shatha’s friend, an Iraqi Kurd from Kirkuk who was too afraid to give her first name, also travelled to Jordan so that her son, Ahmed, could be assessed for a heart operation. She too turned down the free treatment offered by SACH.“Now I can sleep with a clear conscience. I’m able to hold my head up high and not be ashamed by having my son treated in Algeria,” she said.

Save a Child's Heart has a list of results from the organization. What's interesting is that 2007 ( the last year that they have results from) the number of successful operations on Iraqi children was up - by a lot - in 2007. Twenty five Iraqi children were save by the organization last year. The previous high was 8. Maybe the reporters were finding a handful of parents whose hatred of Israel was so great that they'd risk their children's lives. But SACH's statistics show that more parents are agreeing to having the surgery done in Israel.

Elsewhere,

Egypt's Culture Minister Faruq Hosni, a candidate to head UNESCO but under fire from the Jewish state, said on Tuesday he "dreams" of normal ties with Israel once it has made peace with the Palestinians.Hosni has drawn fire from Israel and the Wiesenthal Centre for saying he was prepared to burn Israeli books.

"I'd burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt," the minister said in parliament on May 10 in reply to questioning from an opposition MP.

Hosni says he only used "a popular expression to prove something does not exist": Israeli books in Egyptian libraries.On Tuesday, he went a step further, telling AFP it was "a big mistake that Israeli books have not yet been translated (into Arabic). I have officially asked for it to be done. If people protest, I don't give a damn."

But he opposed a normalisation of cultural ties with Israel before it has made peace with the Palestinians."It is a dream. We must wait for the right moment to come when Israel will have signed peace with the Palestinians. If it happens tomorrow, I will be in the front row the next day for this normalisation," he said.

And this week, we have another Nobel Laureate making nice with an organization devoted to Israel's destruction. Jimmy Carter's fellow addled "elder," Bishop Tutu embraced Ismail Haniyeh, the man whose forces fire rockets at Israeli civilians and at the fuel depot that supplies Gaza.

Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu on Tuesday held talks with a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip where he led a UN fact-finding mission into the killing of 19 Palestinian civilians in an 2006 Israeli artillery attack.Tutu met Palestinian former prime minister Ismail Haniya, who was dismissed by moderate president Mahmud Abbas last June when Hamas seized control of Gaza from forces loyal to the president.

The army said it had been aiming its artillery at an area from which Palestinian militants were firing rockets at Israel, but due to the technical problem the shells instead hit two homes.

And finally, when Israel deported Norman Finkelstein, Finkelstein was allowed to argue that Israel was violating his academic freedom by deporting him. But as HonestReporting UK points out, Finkelstein was deported for his actions not his ideas:

Israel, however, did not deport him for his political opinions. It deported him because his activities - which include meetings with Hezbollah leaders - make him a threat to Israel's security.Any democracy, including the UK, US and Israel, has the right to refuse entry to foreign nationals whose presence may not be conducive to the public good. Israel has every right to consider Finkelstein's presence to be a security threat and thus to prevent his entry into the country. The Guardian's report minimises this to create a false context behind the incident.

If the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was simply about building a Palestinian state, it would have been done by now. Rather it is just as much about destroying the existing Jewish state. The propaganda war, actively joined by the media and international organizations, is one front in that war for Israel's destruction.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

Submitted 05/28/08

The Watcher's Council submissions have been posted.

First I'd like to welcome the newest member of the council, The Razor to the weekly vote. His inaugural submission is Memorial Day 2008 in which he pays tribute to Arden Yoder.

In Which It Gets Worse
Done With Mirrors expresses his disdain for what passes for education in his son's high school: analyzing Billy Joel's "We didn't start the fire."
Cowbama Diplomacy and Iran
Wolf Howling makes the case against engaging Iran diplomatically. He sums it up:

The bottom line, after years of meetings with Iran, after years of their continuous and on-going attempts to foment instability and spread their revolution, there appears nothing that we can offer as a carrot to the theocracy that could possibly both stop their deadly expansionism and their rush towards nuclear arms. That indeed is also the conclusion of Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, who called for low level talks with Iran in 2004 but who now sees no carrot with any chance of changing the theocracy’s actions. Thus, the questions McCain must be asking are not whether to hold Presidential level talks with Iran, but far more fundamentally, what Obama intends to offer Iran and what he proposes to do differently than previous administrations that would change the inherent nature of the theocracy and move them from their current course?

In a normal situation, the Obamanites might have a point. Ordinarily, if the world were focusing like a laser on a dispute between two small, bordering countries about riparian rights (or trade agreements, or power plants, or any of the ordinary disputes that might rile adjoining nations), it would be fatal to a peaceful conclusion if the external mediators entered with a preconceived bias in favor of one of the countries. But what Obama and his fellow travelers fail to understand is that the relationship between Israel and her neighbors is not a garden-variety dispute about concrete matters such as borders and water. Instead, it is a binary, existential dispute that demands the answer to a single question: Does Israel have the right to exist?

I've been inside before, and I've never once passed by without reflecting on the young men and women buried there. They had faith in something bigger than themselves, though many of them probably didn't articulate in quite that way. All of them wanted to live, but they were willing to die,if necessary so that the rest of us could.

My non-council submission was Iowahawk's Return to Sender. (h/t Instapundit), which was a riot.

I'd also like to acknowledge last week's non-council winner The Whited Sepulchre for his gracious tribute to the Watcher's Council!

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

"Blasphemous" exam question leads to "seething"

This is from Tehran Times although an identically worded article appears in several Indian news sites. Is the reader here presumed to be unwilling to endure knowing what the question was?

The Muslim Organizations in India have launched strong protest and demanded action against a Professor who set a blasphemous question in the History Paper of MA in Ranchi University.

Despite passage of three weeks, Muslim residents of Ranchi, the capital city of Jharkand, are seething in rage and demanding to know the identity of the professor who committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

The language used in the paper so incensed the Muslim students that they immediately assembled in large numbers and attacked the university building where the examination was being held. Police had to resort to baton-charge to bring the situation under control and tension prevailed in the city where communal rioting was feared.

Later delegations from the Muslim community met the administration and university officials to demand action against the perpetrator of the crime. The university officials refused to disclose the name of the culprit who set the inflammatory question, for reasons of his personal security even though he had been debarred from the examiner panel.

Coming in the wake of blasphemous occurrences in Holland and Denmark, framing of a blasphemous question, totally irrelevant to the course of study, is indicative of the insensitivity shown to religious feelings of the 15 percent Muslim segment of the Indian population, opine observers.

According to a local newspaper, the question on a master’s history exam was: "Prophet Muhammad began his career as a trader and ended as a raider. Comment."

Mccain covers the beach boys

There's a joke that a Jew goes to a judge in Nazi Germany to change his name.

The judge roars at Mr. Adolph Cohen, "I can tell this is one of your Jew tricks. You want to change your last name so the authorities won't know your identity. But you can't fool me, your request is denied.

Mr. Cohen, in response, stammers sheepishly, "But your Honor, it was my first name that I wanted to change."

Seeing the byline Mohammad Cohen on this story reminded me of that joke (via memeorandum).

The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

My guess is that the anonymous source is Col. Larry Wilkerson, actually the Gen. Powell's chief of staff who faults the Bush administration for not engaging Iran diplomatically.

Newshoggers fingers Richard Armitage as the source.

I wonder, does he have inside information he's leaking here or is he just shilling for the War Party again in trying to drum up a narrative for bombing Iran?

Clearly Cernig didn't read the Asia Times article very carefully, because it's clear that the source was against any use of force against Iran. (In my mind that makes it plausible that Armitage is the source as - despite Newshoggers' claim to the contrary - he would likely oppose such attacks.)

iran

Orioles taking flight?

I'm tempted to say that things are looking up for the Orioles right now, especially after winning the first two games of the series against the Yankees.

(Here's On the Yankee Beat's coverage of the game. via Ballbug.)

But then again, we're not out of May yet and last year the Orioles were 27 - 27 at the end of May, finishing up the month on a 5 game winning streak and in second place, 10 games behind the eventual World Champion Red Sox.

An 8 - 18 June was the first of three months in which the team didn't even play .350 ball. (They went 9 - 19 in August and 10 - 19 in September, too.)

So right now the question is: Is it an improvement that the Orioles are fighting for 4th place with the New York Yankees instead of the Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays?

baltimore orioles.

How Religion--And Darwinism--Evolved

According to the headline: Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests. Of course, the fact the software was written by an evolutionary anthropologist may have helped:

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

"If a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community," says James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, US, who wrote the program – called Evogod (download the code here).

Dow is by no means the first scientist to take a stab at explaining how religion emerged. Theories on the evolution of religion tend toward two camps. One argues that religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks.

Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

...To simplify matters, Dow picked a defining trait of religion: the desire to proclaim religious information to others, such as a belief in the afterlife. He assumed that this trait was genetic.

The model assumes, in other words, that a small number of people have a genetic predisposition to communicate unverifiable information to others. They passed on that trait to their children, but they also interacted with people who didn't spread unreal information. [emphasis added]

Ah, and so evolved the Darwinists--and stockbrokers.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Out of school

The NYT citing a Reuters report doesn't seem to feel that this is any big deal.

Former President Jimmy Carter said Israel held at least 150 nuclear weapons, the first time a current or former American president had publicly acknowledged the Jewish state’s nuclear arsenal.

Eldoer of Ziyon points out that it's a big deal from Carter's standpoint:

This is not some investigative reporter coming up with these numbers, this is an ex-president. As such, they appear to have more inside information behind them.

If a former Israeli prime minister would tell a public venue about US spies found in Israel, or perhaps about US military capabilities and weaknesses discovered during joint exercises, what would be the US reaction? If Tony Blair announced the exact location of US submarines when he was prime minister, what kind of an uproar would that cause? Because this is exactly what Jimmy Carter just did to Israel.

He just gave priceless information to Iran about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Heads of state are privy to many state secrets. Perhaps Carter's betrayal of that trust ought to lead to the drafting of laws specifically criminalizing such betrayals and making them subject to enforceable penalties. Carter is not and should not be above the law.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Mengistu's fate

It has been decided by an Ethiopian court that former dictator Haile Marriam Mengistu deserves the death penalty.

Ethiopia’s Supreme Court sentenced the former dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam to death, agreeing with the prosecution that a life sentence he received last year did not match the seriousness of his crimes.

Genocide, of which Mengistu was convicted is just a word. According to this report the famine, exacerbated by Mengistu:

Despite massive assistance from the West, it claimed the lives.of one million Ethiopians. According to the best estimates three-quarters of those victims died from starvation caused when Mengie*d'F forced resettlement and forced labor interrupted planting.

Arguably he was the worst tyrant of the 1980's that no one knew about. More here.

Mengistu's brutality also led to the greatest humanitarian efforts of our time Operations Moses, Joshua and Solomon.

Of course as long as his pal Mugabe stays in power, Mengistu will evade the punishment he so richly deserves.

How significant was the al-dura verdict?

Richard Landes comments on the court's decision in the Karsenty/Enderlin case.

Generally speaking, I think this is a devastating decision. The judges go out of their way to criticize everyone involved on the side of France2 (including some backhanded swipes at the lower court), but especially to point out the pervasive “incohérences” not only in Enderlin’s initial broadcast, but his subsequent explanations and actions. In particular, after emphasizing the sharpness of both Karsenty’s language and his accusations — which indeed are defamatory and strike at Enderlin’s and France2’s honor and reputation — the judges assert that, given the evidence he had every right to make these statements, in particular given the importance of the case, the damage it did worldwide, and the fact that Enderlin, as a professional of information with a high public profile has to expect to be subjected to this kind of criticism from co-citizens and colleagues.

(h/t Daled Amos)

In Context's (in new digs) had a somewhat more limited feeling of vindication.

So the French court has vindicated (for the time being) the right of Karsenty and, presumably, anyone else to bring those facts to light. Nevertheless (and until the written opinion is released tomorrow it's not entirely clear), it sounds as if the court did not base its ruling upon a finding that Karsenty was or likely was telling the truth. Rather, the court appears to have held that Karsenty had the right to voice his opinion, whether it was true or not, because and only because he was able to demonstrate that he had conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation and assembled sufficiently convincing evidence to establish that he thought he had a reasonable basis for making the claims he did.

(In Context was working off a summary of the verdict, not the whole verdict. So it's possible that she'll change her view. She did express what I thought. The seemed less a victory for Karsenty specifically and more for free speech in general. Thus - at least the preliminary summary of - the verdict didn't seem to be the repudiation of Enderlin that I would have like to see.)

UPDATE: In Context e-mailed me that I had based my assessment on her post based on a Jerusalem Post article, when he actually read the summary, she was rather more encouraged.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

A kick against progress in iraq

From the NYT.

Soccer’s world governing body suspended Iraq’s national soccer association on Monday, leaving the players on Iraq’s national team who had united a divided country fearing that they will not be able to participate in the 2010 World Cup.

The diverse national squad of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, which overcame daunting social and athletic odds to win the 2007 Asian Cup, came off the field after an exhibition match in Thailand to find itself caught up in political wrangling at home.

What's the reason?

The suspension by soccer’s governing body had its roots in a decision last week by the Iraqi government to disband the Iraqi Olympic Committee. The cabinet determined that the committee was operating illegally, because it lacked a quorum and had failed to hold new elections, a government spokesman said.

Government officials also accused some Olympic committee members of corruption and of reneging on a promise to hold new elections. The committee has been replaced by a temporary organization appointed by the Minister for Youth and Sports. Iraqi Olympic athletes were not the only ones affected by the decision.

The international governing body for soccer, which is known internationally as football, announced Monday that its executive committee had suspended the Iraqi Football Association because the Iraqi Olympic Committee and all other national sporting federations had been disbanded.

So an organization devoted to unifying the country of Iraq was suspended because the Iraqi government took steps to clean up corruption. Astounding.

It wouldn't be the first time that the FIFA has acted politically.

Israel is used to being singled out for unjust criticism and subjected to startling double standards by the United Nations, the European Union, much of the Western media and numerous academic bodies. But now FIFA — the supposedly nonpolitical organization that governs the world's most popular sport, soccer — is getting in on the act as well.

FIFA has condemned Israel for an air strike on an empty soccer field in the Gaza Strip that was used for training exercises by Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. This strike did not cause any injuries. But at the same time FIFA has refused to condemn a Palestinian rocket attack on an Israeli soccer field last week which did cause injuries.

Just try and remember what Iraqi sports used to be like. (graphic descriptions of torture follow.)

In 1997 FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, sent two investigators to Baghdad to question members of the Iraqi national team who'd allegedly had their feet caned by Uday's henchmen after losing a World Cup qualifying match to Kazakhstan. The investigators spoke only to people whom Uday had selected. The result: a report exonerating Uday.

"Did the torture of those players happen?" asks Sharar Haydar, a longtime Iraqi soccer star who participated in 40 international matches for the national team and was a teammate of many of the victims. "Absolutely. But when you interview athletes who are under Uday's control, what else do you expect them to say?

"I know what they went through," adds Haydar, who escaped from Iraq in 1998 and now lives in London. "I was tortured four times after matches. One time, after a friendly [match] against Jordan in Amman that we lost 2-0, Uday had me and three teammates taken to the prison. When we arrived, they took off our shirts, tied our feet together and pulled our knees over a bar as we lay on our backs. Then they dragged us over pavement and concrete, pulling the skin off our backs. Then they pulled us through a sandpit to get sand in our backs. Finally, they made us climb a ladder and jump into a vat of raw sewage. They wanted to get our wounds infected. The next day, and for every day we were there, they beat our feet. My punishment, because I was a star player, was 20 [lashings] per day. I asked the guard how he could ever forgive himself. He laughed and told me if he didn't do this, Uday would do it to him. Uday made us athletes an example. He believed that if people saw he was not afraid to beat a hero, that they would live in greater fear."

Crossposted on Yourish.

iraq, soccer.

Seventy five years ago

Walt Disney's "The Three Little Pigs" was first released May 17, 1933.

The tide of post World War One prosperity had ebbed and the mood of the country was bleak. The bottom had fallen out of the stock market. Editorial cartoons showed bankers jumping out of windows rather than face the questionable economic future. Lines of people looking for work stretched for blocks in some cities.

Ironically, the one business that the depression had not seemed to affect was the movie studios. People were still looking for distraction among the confusion of the times. Disney never specifically intended to create a cartoon to lift the country out of it's doldrums. But, when The Three Little Pigs made its appearance on May 27, it was, in every sense of the phrase, an overnight sensation.

"Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" was the first hit song to be taken from a movie.

And there's this:

This short was remade in 1941 for the National Film Board of Canada as an advertisement to support the war effort and entitled "The Thrifty Pig." In order to make the metaphor apparent, the Big Bad Wolf was shown wearing a Nazi armband, and all the bricks in Practical Pig's house (including the piano) were made from Canadian War Bonds.

The Al-Dura Verdict--And Enderlin's Version Of It

Richard Landes of The Augean Stables has provided a rough translation of the actual court decision that dismissed the libel charges against Philippe Karsenty.

He sums it up nicely:

Generally speaking, I think this is a devastating decision. The judges go out of their way to criticize everyone involved on the side of France2 (including some backhanded swipes at the lower court), but especially to point out the pervasive “incohérences” not only in Enderlin’s initial broadcast, but his subsequent explanations and actions. In particular, after emphasizing the sharpness of both Karsenty’s language and his accusations — which indeed are defamatory and strike at Enderlin’s and France2’s honor and reputation — the judges assert that, given the evidence he had every right to make these statements, in particular given the importance of the case, the damage it did worldwide, and the fact that Enderlin, as a professional of information with a high public profile has to expect to be subjected to this kind of criticism from co-citizens and colleagues.

Inserting relevant passages from the court's actual verdict, here is what Enderlin wrote:

M. Karsenty was condemned by the tribunal in Paris for having said that France2 and i, myself, produced a fake news report.

The Appeals court ruled:

1 That these accusations were, in fact, defamatory.

[True the nature of the charges leveled by Karsenty--if without justification--would be considered defamatory by their nature:

Considering the defamatory character of these accusations, which the tribunal (i.e. the first court) justifiably considered that the deed of knowingly fooling and disseminating and/or causing to disseminate a false report containing images that do not reflect reality, in representing a “false death”, even if the author took care to accompany his accusation with a certain number of explanations, unquestionably such an accusation strikes at the honor and reputation of information professionals, and that all the more when the defamatory deed is accentuated by the use of terms like “masquerade,” “imposture,” “deception,” to qualify the attitude of FRANCE2 and “staged scenes,” “pure fiction” to qualify the initial reporting;]

2 That M. Karsenty did not bring proof of this supposed “staging” and the lying character of the report.

[In fact, according to the court's written verdict, proof is exactly what would be required from Karsenty:

But considering that, as the first judges recalled, to produce a exculpating effect provided for by article 35 of the law of 29 July 1881, the proof of the truth of the defamatory claims must be perfect, complete, and corresponding to the defamatory accusations in their materiality and their weight;

The decision then outlines the various proofs and witnesses brought by Karsenty and dismisses none of it--the same can not be said for France2 and Enderlin.]

3 But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that Karsenty had the right to virulently criticize this report, the subject having created a notable emotion, and recognized that he had carried out his investigation that permitted the Court of Appeals to grant him the benefit of doubt in the matter of his good faith.

[On the contrary, according to the court--the only doubt rests with France2 and the evidence and proof that they brought:

Considering that, if none of the arguments of the accused – neither the conclusions of the inquiry conducted at the personal initiative of General SAMYA (counter-offer of proof #12), nor “the imprudent affirmation” of Charles ENDERLIN already discussed – seemed sufficiently decisive to the first judges to make a judgment about the disputed report, it seems on examination, in the case of the appeal, of the `18 minutes of rushes that Talal Abu RAMAH, communicated by FRANCE2 does not permit one from dismissing the opinion of the professionals heard during the course of the procedure or having given their contributions to the debate, theses attestations produced by the care of the cameraman (counter-proof, #5-10) cannot, on the contrary given their presentation as well as their content, be considered perfectly credible ;

This goes alot further than giving Karsenty a bye on the basis of 'good faith'.]

Obviously we do not share this last analysis and we are planning to appeal this to the highest court (Cassation).

[Landes writes that is exactly what France2 and Enderlin are going to do]

Let's hope this actually does go to the French Supreme Court--we could use the publicity.

by Daled Amos

[Hat tip: JoshuaPundit]

Technorati Tag: Al-Dura and Karsenty.

Gee, You Think WSJ Should Have Mentioned This?

In How to Have Successful Negotiations, Dennis Ross writes that to write off negotiations with Iran is to ignore what negotiations are all about:

A basic tool of statecraft, negotiations are used in every facet of foreign policy: to prevent conflict, to conclude hot or cold wars, to reconcile with former enemies, to build coalitions against possible aggressors, to mobilize donor efforts for reconstruction after conflicts or natural disasters, to forge or alter trade agreements, to persuade others to transform their behavior, and so on.

Negotiations certainly can be treated as a reward for those whose behavior one wants to change – and that is basically the way the Bush administration has approached them with adversaries. But if you approach negotiations this way, it means denying yourself a basic means to alter the behavior of others.

It also means denying yourself a basic tool to learn about those whose behavior you want to change. Direct talks offer a window into the psychic and political world of others – their aims, wants, needs and fears, as well as their readiness and capability to change.

While some thought the president had Barack Obama in mind because of his readiness to talk to Iran and Syria, his words could more appropriately be applied to John McCain's reaction to Hamas's election victory in 2006. At that time, Sen. McCain felt that Hamas should be engaged because the election indicated it was a reality that had to be dealt with.

Ed Morrissey quotes from a statement McCain made in January 26, 2006:

In the wake of yesterday’s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.

Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.

So what led to Ross's sloppiness in claiming otherwise?

According to the bio info that the WSJ supplies at the end of the op-ed:

Mr. Ross, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was special Middle East coordinator in the Clinton administration. He is the author of "Statecraft and How to Restore America's Standing in the World" (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2007).

Obama: I get my Mideast advice from Dennis Ross

Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a group of Jewish communal lay leaders that he is receiving advice on Middle East issues from Dennis Ross.

The Democratic presidential hopeful made the disclosure during a closed meeting in New York with 25 Jewish leaders, according to a Jewish organizational source familiar with what was said at the gathering. It comes, as the senator's campaign is making a concerted effort to reach out to the Jewish community across the country.

The JTA article notes:

Ross, who served in the State Department of both Bush administrations and the Clinton administration, has displayed a rare ability to command respect from a wide swath of the political spectrum within the Jewish community.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Dennis Ross and Obama.

Broken toe

Ripstik - $77 at Amazon.

A trip to the emergency room - Don't know, haven't seen the insurance statement yet.

Spending quality time with my 14 year old waiting for the "urgent care" professional - priceless.

Our son really wants a Ripstik - an he'll probably get one.

Last night, my wife called and said that he needed to be picked up from Yeshiva because he thought that he broke his toe.

So I drove there and picked him and he hobbled to the car. He didn't need my shoulder. Clearly he was in discomfort.

After driving for about 5 minutes, I asked how did it happen? He told me. He was showing a friend how to ride a Ripstik; he accidentally mounted it with his left foot first (the friend he was demonstrating for is a lefty) the board slipped out from under him and he landed on his toe.

I asked him if a Ripstik was the item he wanted us to get for him for his Afikomen present. (He is planning to lay out some of the money for it himself.) He smiled sheepishly and said, "yes."

We got to the hospital. Admitting and getting the X-ray, went pretty quickly. It looked like we'd be out in an hour like the triage nurse told us. But then we had to wait for an "urgent care" doctor to look at him. That took about two hours. During that time we were able to talk and joke. I don't get to see or talk to him that much because he's at Yeshiva most nights and every other Shabbos. I miss him a lot. (In previous years we'd play catch when it was dark out by the front lights; even that opportunity doesn't exist these days.)

So last night we got to spend quality time together, which was great.

Among our children he's the only one to go to the emergency room multiple times. The first was when he crashed into a fence and gashed his forehead. (He has a lightning shaped scar there. There is no truth to the rumor that Hillary Clinton disappeared immediately after this incident.) Two years ago he broke his finger. And last night he broke his toe.

He did tell me that if he has his choice of limbs to break in the future, he would choose the finger instead of the toe. Good to know, but hopefully he won't break either in the future.

In the meantime, we have to schedule an appointment with an orthopedist tomorrow. And we'll wait on getting him that Ripstik.

Thinking of the troops

In his column today, William Kristol writes in Remember to Remember:

One retired general I know urges civilians to go out of their way to say thank you to servicemen and women they happen to encounter. At first I thought such a gesture might be intrusive, or awkward, or unwelcome. I was wrong. When civilians walk over to express appreciation to men and women in uniform, in airports or restaurants or the like, the recipients seem a little embarrassed — but grateful. So perhaps we all should be less shy about thanking our troops for their service.

The men and women in the military know their fellow citizens are grateful to them. Many of them say, though, that they’re not confident their countrymen are aware of what they’re accomplishing.

Airports?

How about this?

Crossposted on Yourish.

memorial day

Changing tides in the war on terror

Two months ago Paul Berman wrote, Why Radical Islam just won't Die. In it he lamented:

But that was then. In today’s Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for Western consumption.

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

However, in a recent column Fareed Zakaria points to a study that claims that terrorism is down worldwide.

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study's view, is the "extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years." These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists' tactics and world view, the less they support them. An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years. With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. "This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world," writes Mack. "Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated."

And an article in the New Republic, the Unraveling (via memeorandum) makes similar observations.

In December, Al Qaeda's campaign of violence reached new depths in the eyes of many Muslims, with a plot to launch attacks in Saudi Arabia while millions were gathered for the Hajj. Saudi security services arrested 28 Al Qaeda militants in Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh, whose targets allegedly included religious leaders critical of Al Qaeda, among them the Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abd Al Aziz Al Sheikh, who responded to the plot by ruling that Al Qaeda operatives should be punished by execution, crucifixion, or exile. Plotting such attacks during the Hajj could not have been more counterproductive to Al Qaeda's cause, says Abdullah Anas, who was making the pilgrimage to Mecca himself. "People over there ... were very angry. The feeling was, how was it possible for Muslims to do that? I still can't quite believe it myself. The mood was one of shock, real shock."

According to these articles, the brutality of Al Qaeda had turned many Muslims - including one-time supporters, against the organization. But neither article claims that bringing the fight against terror to the Middle East, in any way weakened Al Qaeda.

To be sure Zakaria seems to dance around this point. He argues that reports showing an increase in terror focus too much in Iraq. But that implies that the forces of terror have focused their efforts on Iraq, in essence confirming that there's been a "flypaper" effect. Admitting that explicitly, would mean that Zakaria would have to credit President Bush, something, I suspect, he has no interest in doing.

Still despite the claims with (Zakaria) or without (TNR) numbers, one does have to be careful before embracing the idea that terrorism is down. Daniel Pipes showed, a few years ago, that a State Department report making that claim was highly politicized. While the report claiming that terrorism has decreased is heartening, it must be viewed with some skepticism.

Still Gordon Chang points out that America must continue to lead the fight.

UPDATE: More thoughts at Instapundit.

terrorism

Alternative universe in Delaware

Bassam Naeem writes in Hamas condemns the Holocaust

And at the same time as we unreservedly condemn the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe, we categorically reject the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists to justify their crimes and harness international acceptance of the campaign of ethnic cleansing and subjection they have been waging against us - to the point where in February the Israeli deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai threatened the people of Gaza with a "holocaust".

Within 24 hours, 61 Palestinians - more than half of them civilians and a quarter children - were killed in a series of air raids. Meanwhile, a horrible crime against humanity continues to be perpetrated against the people of Gaza: the two-year-old siege imposed after Hamas won the legislative elections in January 2006, which is causing great suffering. Due to severe shortages of medicines and food, scores of Palestinians have lost their lives.

There is some truth to what he wrote. Gen. Vilnai stupidly used rhetorical excess. And 61 Palestinians in Gaza were killed the next day by Israeli air strikes. (I have no idea if his percentages are accurate. Hamas terrorists do not wear uniforms in contravention of international law making it easy to have "dual purpose" martyrs. They may fire rockets or mortars at Israel in plain clothes and fulfill their roles as terrorists. But if Israel hits back and kills them, since they are not readily identified as combatants, it gives Hamas a chance to claim that civilians were killed.

Naeem also fails to tell you that the Israeli air strikes had been launched after a civilian in Sderot had been killed and a rocket had hit Ashkelon. In other words Israeli didn't simply invade Gaza, round up a bunch of Palestinians and throw them into gas chambers. Israel was striking back at identifiable military targets that were located in civilian areas. (Again in contravention of international law.)

I wouldn't normally respond to such garbage. But I had seen it on blog called Delaware Watch. Delaware Watch also highlighted this garbage from Naeem:

The Jews are for us the people of a sacred book who suffered persecution in European lands. Whenever they sought refuge, Muslim and Arab lands provided them with safe havens. It was in our midst that they enjoyed peace and prosperity; many of them held leading positions in Muslim countries.

Well yes there are Jews (or I believe a Jew) who serves in the Iranian parliament. He serves at the whim of his betters, who suffer his company, as a token.

The Muslim/Arab world, 60 years ago was home to about 850,000 Jews. Now fewer than 7700 remain. This is not one's usual definition of "safe haven."

Whatever Naeem writes in the unrefereed "comment is free" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

The point of Delaware Watch's post is not simply that Hamas is a reasonable organization and that, therefore, Israel and the rest of the West ought to hold talks with Hamas. And of course, relying on this single op-ed, he draws these conclusion.

But the valuable work of Palestinian Media Watch shows that official Hamas television recently broadcast a program that claimed that Zionists were fully complicit in the Holocaust, as it was a plot to rid themselves of the weak and disabled. You don't have to dig too deeply to show that Naeem's arguments are bogus.

So too is his argument that Palestinians were, in no way, responsible for the Holocaust. The actual implementation maybe not, but the Palestinian leader at the time, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was preparing for a final solution of the Jews in what was then called Palestine. (Before the founding of the modern state of Israel, the term "Palestinians" referred to the Jews living in the territory.)

Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

During the Second World War in Yugoslavia, many Muslim clerics in Bosnia and Kosovo were willing accomplices in the genocide of the nation's Serbian, Jewish and Roma population. From 1941 until 1945, the Nazi-installed regime of Ante Pavelic in Croatia carried out some of the most horrific crimes of the Holocaust, killing over 800,000 Yugoslav citizens - 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 Roma. In these crimes, they were helped by Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia and Kosovo who were openly supported by the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Husseini openly encouraged Muslims to join Nazi units that would be later implicated in genocide and crimes against humanity - the infamous Hanjar (or Handschar) 13th Waffen SS division.

If the Mufti didn't do more to kill Jews, it wasn't due to lack of effort. It was due to the Allies successfully repelling the Nazis in Africa, before they could reach Palestine.

I've spent more time on this than I should. It's shocking that reckless views such as those promulgated in Delaware Watch are, in any way, mainstream. If I didn't say it explicitly, let me say now: Hamas is not made up of a bunch of cuddly misunderstood clerics. It is made up of people dedicated - by word and deed - to the destruction of Israel. To pretend otherwise, one must be ignorant and ill-informed.

Israel.

Jimmy Carter tries to think of reasons why Israel might want to limit the flow of arms into Gaza, can't think of one

Jimmy Carter's moral dementia has progressed considerably. From AFP:

Former US president Jimmy Carter on Sunday described Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip as "one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth."

In a speech at a literary festival in Hay-on-Wye, in Wales, the 83-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner said: "There is no reason to treat these people this way," referring to the blockade, in place since the Islamist Hamas movement seized Gaza in June 2007 . . .

Earlier this month, Carter held two meetings in Damascus with exiled Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal. Both the United States and the European Union regard Hamas as a terrorist group, despite its victory in the 2006 elections, and refuse to talk to the radical movement.

Since then, both Palestinian and Israeli officials have tried to downplay the importance of the meetings.

Carter also said the United States had to begin holding direct talks with Iran over the Islamic Republic's controversial nuclear programme, which the West believes is aimed at developing a nuclear bomb, despite Tehran's denials.

"We need to talk to Iran now, and continue our discussions with Iran, to let Iran know the benefits, and the detrimental side, of continuing with their nuclear programme," he said.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Ninety six years ago

The actor who played the Lone Rangers partner was born.

Jay Silverheels was born on a reservation in Canada to a Mohawk chief. He was a star lacrosse player and a boxer before he entered films as a stuntman in 1938. He worked in a number of films though the 1940s before he gained some notice as the Osceola brother in Humphrey Bogart's film Key Largo (1948). Most of his roles consisted of bit parts as "Indian." In 1949, he would work in a movie called The Cowboy and the Indians (1949) with another "B movie" actor named Clayton Moore. It was later that same year that Jay would he hired to play the faithful Indian companion, Tonto, in the television series "The Lone Ranger" (1949). This role, while still playing the "Indian," would bring Jay the fame that his motion picture career never did. As Tonto, on his horse Scout, Jay could show up where the Ranger could not and some of the time he would be shot at or beat up for his trouble. Jay would play Tonto in all the episodes except for those that he missed when he had his heart attack. In those episodes, he was replaced by the Ranger's nephew, Dan. However, Clayton Moore would miss the third season when he was replaced by John Hart. Jay would reprise the role of Tonto in two big-screen color movies with Moore, The Lone Ranger (1956) and The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold (1958). After the series ended in 1957, Jay could not escape the typecasting of Tonto. He would continue to appear in an occasional film and television show, but he would become a spokesman to improve the portrayal of Indians on TV.

Acknowledging Jay Silverheels, gives me the opportunity to share one of my favorite jokes.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are riding along, when suddenly they are surrounded by Apache warriors on all side. No escape is visible.

The Lone Ranger turns to his friend and says, "We have a problem Kemo Sabe."

To which Tonto responds, "What do you mean 'we,' paleface?"

The punchline is always a good retort who volunteers you for something.

Qualities of mercy

This picture and caption is infuriating:

Bassam Kantar, the brother of Samir Kantar, the longest-held Lebanese in Israel, imprisoned since 1979 for killing three Israelis, gestures as he holds a picture of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah during a rally to commemorate the prisoner's day in the southern town of Khiam, Lebanon, Friday, May 23, 2008.

The caption tells us is that he's the "longest held Lebanese in Israel" but gives no detail about his crime, other than he killed three Israelis.

Read the whole thing, but let me just quote the worst part of his crimes:

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

Any normal country would place such a monster behind bars for the rest of his life. (Most countries that don't reward such activities also don't have the death penalty, which is what Kuntar so richly deserves.) To somehow make an issue of the length of the times he's served mocks the severity and depravity of his crimes as well as his victims. AP is simply engaging in misplace mercy.

Shrinkwrapped adds perspective about Kuntar - from two years ago. I also looked at how Kuntar was whitewashed by the Washington Post two years ago.

I saw the following story at NRO's media blog. Israelis discovered that the Barzilai medical center in Ashkelon was build on a site that was holy to Shi'ites. So how did the Israeli authorities deal with that discovery? Why they built a prayer area for pilgrims to pray.

In case you don't remember, an Iranian made Grad missile landed near that hospital two months ago.

Think about it Israel keeps a brutal murderer in jail and some observers consider it unfair. Israel, on the other hand, respect the religion of those terrorizing it and it barely merits a mention. The asymmetry between the two stories is amazing.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

Justifying the prediction of the surgeon general

Bradley Burston in The Palestinians' time is running out.

You have justified every last claim and prediction of the Israeli right.

Ponder that for a moment.

Let me digress. Say that you hear tha a friend of yours, Smoky Joe, a smoker for 40 years has lung cancer. You'd of course be sad. But would your reaction be "It's a shame he justified the prediction of the Surgeon General?"

If you were callous enough, wouldn't it more likely be "It's a shame he didn't heed the Surgeon General's warnings?"

Burston demonstrates that he is unable to admit what is obvious: the Israeli right's assessment of the Palestinians was correct. They said don't trust Arafat. Israel did and brought him into Gaza and then Ramallah.

They said don't give territory to our enemies. Israel did in 1995, 2000 and 2005 and in doing so strengthened Fatah/Hamas, Hezbollah and Hamas, again, leading to increased terror from each area.

(What did work? The military solution as Moshe Arens recalled last week:

But once the Israel Defense Forces and the security services began to seriously tackle Palestinian terror, following the massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya in the spring of 2002, it quickly became clear that terror could be defeated by force. As a matter of fact, it could be defeated only by the use of force. The terrorists view any hints of Israeli willingness to give in to a portion of their essentially limitless demands as a sign of weakness, which only serves to encourage further acts of terror.

Noah Pollak, who linked to Arens, observed:

The extent to which Israel’s military victory in the intifada is simply not acceptable for discussion in enlightened quarters is amazing as a matter of cultural psychology. But this refusal also has a crippling effect on Israeli politics, as the military option against Hamas is continuously framed as a foreordained failure.

Worse than acknowledging that his political opponents were correct, by dismissively referring them as "the right" Burston shows that he's learned nothing.

Jeffrey Goldberg, who cited Burston, isn't much better (h/t Instapundit):

I've been writing recently about the existential threat that Israel will face if a Palestinian state isn't created. What I neglect to note is that the Palestinians already live in a state of national non-existence.

So Israel's fate is dependent on the Palestinians creating their own state, a task they have refused to engage in over the past 15 years. And yet Goldberg has been arguing that Israel has a moral necessity to see that such a state gets created. Why should Israel's legitimacy be subject to veto by its enemies?

If Gaza under Hamas were functioning, Goldberg would have to acknowledge that since Gaza was essentially a Palestinian state, the questionable demographic threat he fears, would at least be delayed. (In fact David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue that Israel doesn't occupy Gaza anymore.) But Goldberg will have none of that. The Palestinians claim that Gaza is still occupied and he apparently accepts that.

By tying a Palestinian state to Israel's legitimacy, Goldberg has given Fatah and Hamas and their related thugs the final say in whether or not Israel should exist.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel.

Thirty one years ago

Thirty one years ago in a land not so very far away:

On this day in 1977, Memorial Day weekend opens with an intergalactic bang as the first of George Lucas' blockbuster Star Wars movies hits American theaters.

The incredible success of Star Wars--seven Oscars, $461 million in U.S. ticket sales and a gross of close to $800 million worldwide--began with an extensive, coordinated marketing push by Lucas and his studio, 20th Century Fox, months before the movie's release date. "It wasn’t like a movie opening," actress Carrie Fisher, who played rebel leader Princess Leia, later told Time magazine. "It was like an earthquake." Beginning with--in Fisher’s words--"a new order of geeks, enthusiastic young people with sleeping bags," the anticipation of a revolutionary movie-watching experience spread like wildfire, causing long lines in front of movie theaters across the country and around the world.

I didn't get caught up in Star Wars immediately, though, at the time I was the perfect demographic. I didn't see the movie until later that summer (after the crowds had died down.) I did love it.

A few years ago I watched it. I was a lot more bothered by the atrocious acting (especially by Carrie Fischer) than I remembered. Maybe now with TV shows capable of even better special effects than Star Wars had, the novelty didn't impress me. Or maybe I was just grumpy when I saw it.

Here's the official site. And here's a trailer for "A New Hope."

(It's funny, when I talk to my children I can't refer to the first Star Wars movie, I have to call it the fourth or "A New Hope.")

Obama Will Talk To Iran, But Not To Farrakhan

Writing about Obama's appearance at a Florida synagogue, Jennifer Rubin writes about

his jaw-dropping comment that he has been fighting anti-Semitic statements in the African American community. Excuse me, but did he rebuke Reverend Wright for the Israel is a “dirty word” remark (before Wright’s National Press Club attack on his political sincerity) or when Wright launched into his tirade about a fantastical ethnic bomb created by Israel?

Obama reminded the crowd that he'd denounced his church’s praise of Farrakhan, saying, "I’ve been very clear about saying that was wrong. And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have."

First off, when has Obama spoken out at all against anti-Semitism outside of generic “hope and change” rhetoric about the tone and tenor of politics? He hasn’t been an activist for anti-Semitism even in his own church. He claims he didn’t agree with Jeremiah Wright’s honoring Farrakhan, but he didn’t speak out against it until people pressed him for a reaction to it. How about when his church reprinted Hamas propaganda in its bulletins? Did his fierce opposition erupt in protest? Uh, no.

And now “nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism” than Obama? That’s not just absurd, it insults the intelligence of everyone who heard it. Many people have spoken out eloquently on anti-Semitism on many more occasions than Barack Obama, which isn’t a difficult threshold to meet.

...In this case, Obama got so caught up in the moment that he transformed himself into the leading voice against anti-Semitism.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism and Obama.

"The Shahid Is Not Only The Individual, But The Regime Itself." Maybe.

So writes Amnon Rubinstein in The Jerusalem Post:

This may sound like an extreme conclusion but, as Ari Bar Yossef, retired lieutenant-colonel and administrator of the Knesset's Security Committee, writes in the army journal Ma'arachot, such cases of Islamist national suicide are not uncommon. He cites three such examples of Arab-Muslim regimes irrationally sacrificing their very existence, overriding their instinct of self-preservation, to fight the perceived enemy to the bitter end.

• The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest by allowing UN inspectors to search for (the apparently non-existent) weapons of mass destruction wherever they wanted. Yet Iraq's ruler opted for war, knowing full well that he would have to face the might of the US.

• The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000, who after the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks had two options: continue talking to Israel - under the leadership of Ehud Barak, this country's most moderate and flexible government ever - or resort to violence. He chose the latter, with the result that all progress toward Palestinian independence was blocked. The ensuing loss of life, on both sides, testified to Arafat's preference for suicide over compromise.

• The third case is that of the Taliban. Post-9/11, their leadership had two options: to enter into negotiations with the US, with a view to extraditing Osama bin Laden, or to risk war and destruction. The choice they made was obvious: Better to die fighting than to give up an inch.

In all three cases, the conclusion is plain: prolonged war, death, destruction and national suicide are preferable to peaceful solutions of conflicts: Dying is preferable to negotiating with infidels. The same conclusion, of course, is applicable to the Palestinians voting for Hamas and its suicidal path, and to Iran's decision to confront the Security Council in its insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons.

Or maybe we have 3 cases where the Muslim world underestimated whether a democracy--the US or Israel--had the stomach to react militarily to provocation. We have already seen Nasrallah admit to a similar misjudgment in its war with Israel 2 years ago.

And given examples in history such as the Iranian hostage crisis and the appeasement of Middle East dictators by the US--not to mention Israel's reluctance to do what it has to do in Gaza--such a misjudgment is understandable. And may yet be justified.

Hand in hand with their exaggerated sense of the timidity of democracies is our sense of the resoluteness of the Muslim world to sacrifice itself no matter what the cost in order to defeat the infidel. Let's not forget that some of those who scream the loudest about their willingness to die for the cause are still alive, sending others on suicide bombings while their children are safe.

And how does the average Palestinian Arab feel about all this?

Check out Israel Matzav's post: 50,000 Arabs have left Gaza since last June.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Palestinians.

Negotiating in the dark

When reading about the Israeli-Syrian negotiations it's easy to dismiss them on account of Olmert's legal trouble or because it isn't even clear that Israel stands to gain anything from ceding the Golan to Syria. It's also reasonably clear that Syria's positions cannot be reconciled with Israel's.

Even the past has shown that every once in a while (even with Assad Sr.) news would leak out about a "Syrian track" and then fade to nothing.

Asad's goal, then, is not peace but a peace process. He participates in negotiations without intending that they reach fruition. Engaging in apparently serious talks wins him improved relations with the West without having to open up his country. He can wink at us while maintaining his ties to Iran and hosting a wide range of terrorist groups. He offers the occasional flourish (such as his call last week to Mr. Clinton as the latter was eating lunch with Shimon Peres) but does not change the substance.

Of course today, the negotiation, unlike what Pipes is describing seem to be intended for Israel, not the United States. Or perhaps to drive a wedge between the two countries.

So despite the record and Olmert's political weakness, which convince some that nothing will come of these talks, Ethan Bronner of the NYT, thinks that there might be more going on.

A senior government official, who said he could not speak for attribution on such a politically delicate topic, agreed in part. He said that what Mr. Olmert was doing with the Palestinians “is much less than meets the eye.” Nonetheless, he, like others, contended that the new Syrian talks could prove significant.

“This seems bigger than any one individual,” he said. “Olmert is, in a way, committing his successors who, by the way, may be coming in soon. I don’t think he will be the one to complete this. His motives may be suspicious. But something has happened here that will probably go beyond this prime minister.”

The idea that a lame duck could obligate his successor in a deal that he's making in secret is one that's very frightening.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 05/23/08

The council has spoken.

Congratulations to Wolf Howling for his sobering critique Republicans Ponder The Abyss, the winning Council post this week.

Runners up were Rhymes with Right's Seattle Times Writer Defends Hitler's Aggression! and my look at the changing foreign policy polarities of the major parties: George Bush Isolationist. Thanks.

The winning non-council post was Blog For Human Rights -- May 15th, 2008 by The Whited Sepulchre, a clever use of pictures and words.

Runners up were The William Ayers Plan To Turn America's Schoolchildren Into Maoists and How Barack Obama Helped Him by Pundita, a look at the real practical radicalism of William Ayers today. My nominee, Dow Jones: Israel Means Business by The Elder of Ziyon, gives numbers to Israel and Iran in an attempt to show which is thriving and which is not.

Thanks to my fellow council members and congratulations to all the winners.

Remember there's a seat open on the council, if you blog and wish to apply follow these rules.

If you're a blogger and you like what you see, please consider submitting your own post to the competition. Just follow the rules here.

watcher's council.

My plastic metastatic gaffe

Charles Krauthammer in Obama's Metastatic Gaffe (or here) dissects Sen. Obama's argument for engaging enemies in dialogue.

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

But then Krauthammer rips into Sen. Obama and declares that he may well be a John Kennedy.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

As NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS recounted the other day in the NYT:

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Krauthammer goes on to press an important point:

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

There are few better examples than Camp David in 2000. President Clinton thought he had everything worked out in advance. Ehud Barak was willing to go further than any other Israeli Prime Minister in attempting to come to agreement with Arafat. Arafat though was unwilling and unprepared even to make a counteroffer. He probably thought that the purpose of the summit involved the President pressuring the Israeli PM to accede to his (Arafat's) demands as what happened in Wye. The summit failed and two months later Arafat launched the "Aqsa intifada."

What Krauthammer shows is Sen. Obama's lack of real world experience and knowledge. How much that will matter in November is uncertain right now.

One hundred thirty five years ago

A law was passed to establish the North West Mounted Police
1873: The North-West Mounted Police (now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) is established as Canada's national police force; officers are popularly called Mounties.

From the RCMP website

an overview of the early history:
* conception: Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister and Minister of Justice
* inspiration: the Royal Irish Constabulary and the mounted rifle units of the United States Army
* objective: to bring law, order and Canadian authority to the North-West Territories (present-day Alberta and Saskatchewan)
* legal authority: Act of Parliament (36 Vic, ch 35), May 23, 1873; Order in Council 1134, August 30, 1873
* organization: appointment of officers and recruitment for the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) commenced September 25, 1873, and concluded in the spring of 1874
* deployment: the great "March West", approximately 275 officers and men, with horses and equipment departed Dufferin, Manitoba on July 8, 1874, and arrived in present-day southern Alberta in October

Nell would be so thrilled!

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

That's about it for Bananas

The Independent's Johann Hari, author of a particularly fragrant editorial about Israel, is back, and he has cast himself in the role of the Ahmadinejad of the banana.

Below the headlines about rocketing food prices and rocking governments, there lays a largely unnoticed fact: bananas are dying. The foodstuff, more heavily consumed even than rice or potatoes, has its own form of cancer. It is a fungus called Panama Disease, and it turns bananas brick-red and inedible.

There is no cure. They all die as it spreads, and it spreads quickly. Soon – in five, 10 or 30 years – the yellow creamy fruit as we know it will not exist. The story of how the banana rose and fell can be seen a strange parable about the corporations that increasingly dominate the world – and where they are leading us . . .

Not long after Panama Disease first began to kill bananas in the early 20th century, United Fruit's scientists warned the corporation was making two errors. They were building a gigantic monoculture. If every banana is from one homogenous species, a disease entering the chain anywhere on earth will soon spread. The solution? Diversify into a broad range of banana types.

The company's quarantine standards were also dire. Even the people who were supposed to prevent infection were trudging into healthy fields with disease-carrying soil on their boots. But both of these solutions cost money – and United Front didn't want to pay. They decided to maximise their profit today, reckoning they would get out of the banana business if it all went wrong.

So by the 1960s, the Gros Michel that United Fruit had packaged as The One True Banana was dead. They scrambled to find a replacement that was immune to the fungus, and eventually stumbled upon the Cavendish. It was smaller and less creamy and bruised easily, but it would have to do.

But like in a horror movie sequel, the killer came back. In the 1980s, the Cavendish too became sick. Now it too is dying, its immunity a myth. In many parts of Africa, the crop is down 60 percent. There is a consensus among scientists that the fungus will eventually infect all Cavendish bananas everywhere. There are bananas we could adopt as Banana 3.0 – but they are so different to the bananas that we know now that they feel like a totally different and far less appetising fruit. The most likely contender is the Goldfinger, which is crunchier and tangier: it is known as "the acid anana". [...]

Crossposted on Judeopundit

More On The Al-Dura Verdict (Updated)

The written verdict has not yet been handed down, but HonestReporting--has some of the observations of someone who was in the courtroom and spoke to some of the lawyers who saw a copy of the judgement:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

At the time of writing, the full judgment had not been released to the media. However, Take A Pen's Endre Mozes was in the courtroom delivering firsthand accounts of proceedings to HonestReporting [see his report here]. Mozes spoke with some of the lawyers involved who had seen a copy of the judgment prior to its forthcoming release.

Amongst his observations and the comments from these lawyers was the court's acceptance of the argument that protagonists operating in non-democratic regimes such as the Palestinian areas are inherently less reliable and should be carefully scrutinized as should have been the case with Talal Abu Rahma.

Essentially, the court decided the level of doubt associated with the al-Dura footage warrants deep analysis. It is perfectly legitimate to question it, not libelous.

Philippe Karsenty's efforts have opened up France 2 to scrutiny and serves as an example of how the media should be held accountable for their material and the consequences of their reporting. France 2's al-Dura footage has been shown in court to be unreliable and possibly fake. Along with a number of investigations concluding that Israel was not responsible for the bullets that allegedly killed the boy, the icon that is al-Dura - the edifice upon which so much hostility has been directed at Israel, aided and abetted by a willing media - comes toppling down.

M. Karsenty was condemned by the tribunal in Paris for having said that France2 and i, myself, produced a fake news report.

The Appeals court ruled:

1 That these accusations were, in fact, defamatory.

2 That M. Karsenty did not bring proof of this supposed “staging” and the lying character of the report.

3 But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that Karsenty had the right to virulently criticize this report, the subject having created a notable emotion, and recognized that he had carried out his investigation that permitted the Court of Appeals to grant him the benefit of doubt in the matter of his good faith.

Obviously we do not share this last analysis and we are planning to appeal this to the highest court (Cassation).

UPDATE: On Pajamas Media, Phyllis Chesler reacts to the coverage by The New York Times--which has a response in a blog, but does not cover the story in the paper itself. In response to the 'evenhanded' analysis, Chesler writes:

The piece quotes Karsenty and his “supporters” in the media who claim a victory–but it also quotes France 2’s lawyers and Charles Enderlin himself who claim that the decision merely allows Karsenty to hold his “strident” point of view without considering it “libelous.” According to them, the court decision has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, which includes footage which shows that the child is still alive on camera even after he has been pronounced dead.

You see: Both sides make good points, both sides are equally worthy, moral. According to Nizza, the “court has not released its decision, increasing the likelihood that this round in a continuing debate is far from over.”

According to the Times, nothing has been proven. To them, this all-too-academic debate continues.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Al-Dura and Karsenty.

We Bloggers Knew This All Along!

From Scientific American, no less:

Blogging--It's Good for You
The therapeutic value of blogging becomes a focus of study

Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.

Scientists now hope to explore the neurological underpinnings at play, especially considering the explosion of blogs. According to Alice Flaherty, a neuroscientist at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, the placebo theory of suffering is one window through which to view blogging. As social creatures, humans have a range of pain-related behaviors, such as complaining, which acts as a “placebo for getting satisfied,” Flaherty says. Blogging about stressful experiences might work similarly.

Flaherty, who studies conditions such as hypergraphia (an uncontrollable urge to write) and writer’s block, also looks to disease models to explain the drive behind this mode of communication.

by Daled Amos

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Blogging.

NYT: yiddishe bubbies are ill-informed, parochial bigots who would never vote for that shvartze

The NYT today reports Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama:

“The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel,” Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

“They’re going to vote for McCain,” she said.

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend’s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

“They’ll pick on the minister thing, they’ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color,” she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

At least the reporter, Jodi Kantor seems to have met the two progressive members of the club.

In the middle of the article, Kantor takes the unusual step of debunking many of the misconception about Sen. Obama that Jews seem to have.

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

Of course if she'd chosen a different list of faults it wouldn't have been as easy to dismiss.

He has only two years of experience in the Senate.

He has no record of bipartisanship in his career.

He is friends with Rashid Khalidi.

He is the choice of Hamas.

One of his advisers until recently is the only American at Camp David who blamed Barak, not Arafat for the summit's failure.

He saw nothing wrong with Rev. Wright's sermons for twenty years until they became an issue.

The point of the article then, wasn't to illuminate a trend as much as it was to mock a portion of the population.

The one saving grace to the article was this bit of irony.

Younger Jews have grown up in diverse settings and are therefore less likely to be troubled by Mr. Obama’s associations than their elders, said Rabbi Ethan Tucker, 32, co-founder of a Jewish learning organization in Manhattan and the stepson of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Rabbi Tucker said he had given money to Mr. Obama and would vote for him in the fall. “If association was the litmus test of identity, everyone would be a hopeless mishmash of confusion, or you’d have no friends,“ he said.

Senator Lieberman is expected to spend plenty of time in front of Jewish audiences, in Florida and elsewhere. A Democrat turned independent, an Orthodox Jew and one of Mr. McCain’s closest friends, Mr. Lieberman will promote Mr. McCain’s strong national security résumé and centrist stances.

Finally there's this:

Until now, Mr. Obama’s efforts to win over Jewish voters have been low-profile. He made a speech to Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, shortly after declaring his candidacy, but for months afterward, he concentrated his energies on Iowa and New Hampshire, not exactly hotbeds of Judaic life. Even as the primaries in New York, New Jersey and California approached, Mr. Obama left most of his outreach to intermediaries who met with small groups of community leaders.

Actually his outreach has been through surrogates who have launched a campaign to show that those Jews who oppose Sen. Obama are out of touch and ill informed. This article seems like one more of those efforts. Unfortunately, in this case, Sen. Obama's surrogate is a newspaper.

Please also see Judeopundit's take on this.

via memeorandum

ps I would not use the pejorative Yiddish term in the title of the post, except that the profile is so condescending I could almost imagine the reporter putting that word into the mouth of one of her subjects.

UPDATE: Thanks to Political Byline and Slate for mentioning my main argument.

Pillage Idiot had this take on the article:

If you read the piece I wrote on the hidden Jewish vote, you'll see a discussion of what Judith Weiss called "the condo wars." In 2004, this same group of older Jewish voters was fighting with each other, and the hostility directed at Bush voters was boiling over. Some of these Bush voters decided to shut up about it to avoid the hostility.

What interested me about today's article is that these older Jewish Floridians were more willing to discuss in public the possibility that they would commit heresy by voting for the Republican.

Have things changed that much in four years? Pillage Idiot also links to Ace who has the same misgivings about the article that I do (expressed more concisely).

Boker Tov Boulder was bothered by the same thing but actually did the work to back up all of the allegations.

My other co-blogger Daled Amos also weighed in as does JoshuaPundit.

Plus scroll down for reaction from Best of the Web Today.

Dear mr hoyt

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

In her valedictory from the Middle East, Deborah Sontag wrote "Quest for Mideast Peace: How and Why it failed." In it she tells a story:

But Palestinians drove away from that dinner with something else on their minds -- Mr. Sharon's coming visit to what Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary and Jews know as the Temple Mount. Mr. Arafat said in an interview that he huddled on the balcony with Mr. Barak and implored him to block Mr. Sharon's plans. But Mr. Barak's government perceived the planned visit by Mr. Sharon, then the opposition leader, as solely an internal Israeli political matter, specifically as an attempt to divert attention from the expected return to political life by a right-wing rival -- Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

On the heels of very intricate grappling at Camp David over the future status of the Old City's holy sites, Mr. Sharon's heavily guarded visit to the plaza outside Al Aksa Mosque to demonstrate Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount set off angry Palestinian demonstrations. The Israelis used lethal force to put them down. The cycle of violence started, escalated, mutated and built to a peak between mid-May and June 1 with the Israeli use of F-16 fighter jets in Nablus and the terrorist bombing outside a Tel Aviv disco.

Let's go back to September 27, 2000 and see another report also written by Sontag, Arafat's Visit to Barak's Place Broke the Ice, Both Sides Say:

It was just a little suburban dinner party, nothing fancy. The host and his guest of honor cracked jokes. They strolled in the garden for an intimate chat. And then the host kissed his guest goodbye, walked him to a waiting Israeli military helicopter and waved as the guest, wearing his trademark kaffiyeh, flew back to Gaza City.

A senior adviser to Yasir Arafat said the late-night supper, at Prime Minister Ehud Barak's private home in Kochav Yair on Monday, was the single best meeting ever between the Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

Does that sound like Arafat "implored" Barak to prevent Ariel Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount? Or put differently, if Arafat had expressed such a concern and Barak had ignored it, would Arafat have described the meeting as the "best" one he ever had with Barak?

Of course not. The later account was Arafat's revisionism. Sontag reported it uncritically. Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount wasn't a concern. In retrospect it became an alibi for Arafat. The so-called "Aqsa intifada" wasn't a spontaneous response to the Sharon walk, but an organized war (or mini-war) against Israel organized by Arafat. His historical revisionism, abetted by the New York Times reporter was his way of evading the blame for his responsibility.

Do you remember Tuvia Grossman? Tuvia Grossman was a young man who at the beginning of the "Aqsa intifada" was set upon by an Arab mob and beaten. Yet when his picture appeared on the front page of the Times, he was identified as a Palestinian. The picture seemed to show a young man who had just been beaten by an Israeli policeman. In fact, it was Tuvia Grossman and the policeman had been chasing off his attackers. Once one of Grossman's relatives recognized him and informed media outlets a correction was made. Still the initial impression of most news organization led to an erroneous caption. The organization HonestReporting was founded in response to this journalistic error.

In both these cases, a narrative governed the reporting of the Times. The narrative in short was: the violence of the "Aqsa intifada" started in response to Ariel Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount and Israel responded with disproportionate an lethal force.

There was a another event that marked the early days of the violence. That was the killing of Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli troops. Al-Dura's death became a focal point of much of the violence and tension. Or as Ms. Sontag's husband, William Orme reported, he became A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence.

A few hours later Muhammad was dead, shot in the stomach as he crouched behind his father on the sidelines of an intensifying battle between Israeli and Palestinian security forces.

The father, shouting that his boy had been killed, was also hit, taking four bullets in a volley that he later said had come from Israeli soldiers. A local ambulance driver, Bassam al-Bilbeisi, who was trying to come to the aid of the wounded father and son, was also killed by the gunfire. The entire horrific scene was filmed at close rage by a France 2 television crew.

Shown repeatedly on the Saturday evening news programs in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Israel, and throughout the Middle East, the shooting turned the 12-year-old boy into a potent new symbol of what angry Palestinians contend is their continued victimization by Israeli occupiers.

Though 11 other Palestinians were killed in the day's fighting -- most of them while taking part in the rock-hurling clashes with Israeli troops -- the enduring image of the violence was a terrified Muhammad al-Durrah trapped by Israeli gunfire and then slumping lifeless into his father's lap.

But now the narrative of Mohammed al-Dura has been called into question. A media watchdog named Phillipe Karsenty alleged that the whole scene was staged and didn't happen. He was sued by the station that taped the scene and first reported the shooting, France 2. Karsenty was found to have libeled France 2 and its reporter Charles Enderlein. But yesterday, Karsenty's appeal was accepted and a Paris court threw out the judgment against him.

There's a lot to this case, not just its implications to the Middle East. For one thing, Karsenty showed during his appeal that France 2 had lied in court. There is plenty in this case that is newsworthy. And yet the New York Times has not seen fit to report on it except in its blog, even though the paper's current Paris correspondent just completed his tour in the Middle East.

The Times's oversight is troubling. As I've shown above the Times accepted a narrative that shaped a lot of its reporting at the time. One piece of that narrative was exposed quickly. In another case a Times reporter used a highly suspect statement of an interested party to support the narrative. Now another part of the narrative has been shown to be suspect. At least in the name of accuracy one would hope that the Times would look into the case and what it implies.

In addition to the immediate issue of the origins of the "Aqsa intifada", the case calls into question the widespread use of local stringers who may be more interested in promoting an agenda than in accuracy. The Times's lack of curiosity in this case reflects poorly on its commitment to getting the story correct.

Sincerely,
David Gerstman

ps I have posted this on my blog. If I receive a substantive response, I will post it unedited.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Two hundred six years ago

The first First Lady died.

On May 22, 1802, the first of first ladies, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington died of a severe fever. When she married George Washington in January 1759, she was twenty-seven years old and a widowed mother of two. She was also one of the wealthiest women in Virginia, having inherited some 15,000 acres of farmland from her deceased husband, Daniel Parke Custis.

A prosperous farmer himself, George Washington ably took over the Custis estate, but moved Martha and his newly-adopted stepchildren Martha ("Patsy") and John Parke ("Jacky") to his own home, Mount Vernon, outside Alexandria, Virginia. There, the couple delighted in raising their children (though Patsy died of an epileptic seizure in 1773 at the age of seventeen, while Jacky died of camp fever during the Revolution in 1781) and entertaining Virginia society. It is estimated that between 1768 and 1775 over 2,000 guests visited the Washingtons, some staying for extended periods.

Reading that second paragraph is a reminder that life was a lot more tenuous two centuries ago.

Submitted 05/22/08

The Watcher's Council submissions have been posted.

Before I get to this week's business, be aware that a seat on the Watcher's Council has opened. If you blog and have an interest in joining this weekly blog review follow the instructions here.

Is Human Moral Progress Inevitable?
The Colossus of Rhodey argues that moral progress is a function of the greater wealth and freedom we gain as time goes on. It's a debatable proposition, but it's one of those posts that makes you think. While he uses Battlestar Galactica as a jumping off point for his thoughts, I was surprised that he ignored a different approach. When we were introduced to the world of the Silver Surfer, the Silver Surfer was bored because his society was so advanced that there were no challenges left. The society had become morally lazy because of its wealth and technological advancement. While it's certain that an advanced society can improve morally, I don't think that it's a given.
Net Loss
Done With Mirrors gives two examples of the problematic use of the web in today's world.
Renaming the Paradigm *UPDATED*
In a discussion with her mother, Bookworm Room eschews "right" and "left" for term with more meaning.
No One Will Solve Our Energy Problems For Us
Hillbilly White Trash recommends using our own resources to solve the energy crisis precipitated by rising prices.
Time To Remember The "Global" In The War On Terror
Cheat Seeking Missiles recommends opening up new American fronts in the war. I don't necessarily disagree in principle. Practically (and politically) I don't know how possible it is. But it did remind me of this article by Charles Krauthammer:

Pick up the newspaper, and look at the map. Where are the great explosions of ethnic and religious violence? Follow an arc from east to west then south: Kashmir, Azerbaijan, Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Lebanon, the West Bank. Along this new "arc of crisis" some of the most violent, volatile conflicts in the world are being played out. The explosions appear random. But a deep historical current runs through them all

All of these conflicts are rooted in the same grievance: a Moslem population is demanding sovereign control over a piece of territory in which it constitutes a local majority. The Moslems are fighting for (1) dominion over their province and (2) domination over the local non-Moslem minorities. In all but Lebanon (which long ago achieved sovereignty), they demand (3) separation from the non-Moslem country to which they are now joined and (4) independence or unification with the Moslem heartland.

My non-council submission this week is Dow Jones: Israel Means Business by The Elder of Ziyon using business information to show that if there is a dying society as Ahmadinejad alleges, it's not Israel.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

New York Times discovers high incidence of Obamically incorrect thoughts among aged Jews

This exploration of new Journalistic horizons is called "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama." Obama is obviously the kind of candidate favored by the NY Times, and the Times editorial staff demonstrates boundless condescension when the subject of retired Jews comes up. Maybe the retirees are onto something.

At the Aberdeen Golf and Country Club on Sunday, the fountains were burbling, the man-made lakes were shining, and Shirley Weitz and Ruth Grossman were debating why Jews in this gated neighborhood of airy retirement homes feel so much trepidation about Senator Barack Obama . . .

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.) [...]

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Al-Dura Case Is Overturned!

From Augean Stables:

Karsenty Wins Court Decision!!

More details to follow. But word from Paris is that the court dismissed charges against Philippe Karsenty today. Now we get to see how the French (and Western) MSM handle this. It’s a stunning victory for Karsenty and loss for Enderlin and France2 who initiated this case when they didn’t have to.

In order for an appeals court to reverse a decision, they must have strong evidence to the contrary.

The fact that they did indicates that their written decision will be very critical of France2. The implications of this decision are immense. We’ll be following up in the days, weeks and months to come.

Even in Israel, where this the importance of this story should be a appreciated, it is not getting the reaction it deserves. Israel Matzav writes:

I don't know how this has been reported elsewhere in the world, but here in Israel, I have not seen the story on any of the major newspapers' English-language websites (JPost, Haaretz and YNet) nor, more surprisingly, on Arutz Sheva. Other than the first report just after 3:00, I did not hear it on Israel Radio's 4:00 news (I was on a work call at 5:00). And the correspondent who reported from Paris was someone who - according to Yitzchak Noy, the host of the international news hour - 'is working with us on this case.' He is not Israel Radio's regular Paris correspondent. That would be Michel Zlatovsky.

The defamation trial passed almost unnoticed in Israel, to the apparent detriment of Mr. Karsenty's case. In his ruling in favor of France 2, judge Joël Boyer five times cited the absence of any official Israeli support for Mr. Karsenty's claims as indication of their speciousness.

Israel's decision to stay on the sidelines was unfortunate because the truth always matters. The al-Dura incident wasn't the only media report to inflame passions against Israel in recent years, but it was the one with the highest profile. Moreover, if, as Mr. Karsenty and others have claimed persuasively, the al-Dura incident is part of the insidious trend in which Western media outlets allow themselves to be manipulated by dishonest and politically motivated sources (recall the Jenin "massacre" that never was, or the doctored Reuters photos from Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006), then France 2 must be held accountable.

The bottom line is that the mainstream media outside France is ignoring the case because they know that they are guilty of the same fraud of which France 2 is guilty: They use 'Palestinian' stringers rather than their own real reporters in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and in other 'war zones' like Iraq.

the Jerusalem Post reported that two of the largest wire services ― Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Associated Press (AP) ― have employed journalists with inappropriately close ties to the Palestinian Authority. Majida al-Batsh was a Palestinian affairs correspondent for AFP for many years, while simultaneously being on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority as a reporter for the PA's official organ, Al-Ayyam.

If this is not evidence enough of impropriety at AFP, last year Batsh announced she would actually run for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority. The Post reports:

Her colleagues claim that shortly before she joined the race [for PA president], Batsh resigned from the news agency, saying she wanted to devote her time to the election campaign. However, they add, this did not prevent her from seeking the agency's help in her campaign.

"One day she showed up and asked to use the fax machine to send some documents," reports one coworker. "The agency did not object."

Batsh isn't the only AFP reporter receiving a PA salary on the side:

One of the agency's correspondents in the Gaza Strip is Adel Zanoun, who also happens to be the chief reporter in the area for the PA's Voice of Palestine radio station.

The AFP bureau chief in Jerusalem, Patrick Anidjar, refuses to discuss the issue, saying, "I don't understand why you have to have the name of our correspondents." Pressed to give a specific answer, he says: "I don't want our correspondents' names to go into print. I don't want to answer the question. What is this, a police investigation?"

Meanwhile, Muhammad Daraghmeh ― who turns out near-daily reports from Ramallah or Jerusalem for the Associated Press ― also works for the PA's Al-Ayyam, according to the Jerusalem Post (and a pro-Palestinian site).

Note: Just keep in mind--the libel suit against Karsenty has been overturned. But that does not mean the court will rule that the film itself if a hoax. The damage done over the years by the Al-Dura incident will remain, and those with a personal interest in saying that the film is authentic will continue to do so.

By Daled Amos

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Karsenty and Al-Dura.

Pictures Of The Gaza 'Intrafada' Are Popular

So, what does the average Palestinian Arab do for fun?

A popular pastime in Gaza is swapping gruesome footage of dead or dying victims of the Strip's incessant violence.

The images used to be almost exclusive legacies of clashes with Israeli forces but last year that changed. Now being far more keenly traded are snapshots of Palestinian fratricide, gruesome images taken by "militia-cams' that record scenes for posterity.

Spend any time near the emergency ward of Gaza's Shifa Hospital and security staff or ward workers will offer a look at their mobile phones, which they'll quickly switch to video mode to show images of victims of intra-Palestinian clashes being wheeled in agony from ambulances.

Sit in a town square for more than five minutes and you'll be quickly encircled by youths clamouring to outdo each other with images of death and mayhem.

A veritable library of the "intrafada" now exists in Gaza among militias and clans. Most were added during 2007, when the numbers of intra-Palestinian deaths jumped by 800 per cent - from 55 to 439 - almost all of the deaths in Gaza.

"Subject, oppressed, or embattled peoples throughout history have commonly turned on themselves," wrote [Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group member, Bassam] Eid.

"Because Palestinians are accustomed to seeing weapons and are also exposed to verbal and physical abuse of the military occupation, verbal disagreements easily turn into fist fights and sometimes even escalate into gang or family feuds. Growing up in a spiral of violence means that individuals find it harder to determine the limits of aggression.

But Eid is being far too modest: the history of Arabs killing Arabs long predates the reestablishment of the State of Israel. In The Arabs In History, Bernard Lewis provides a time line at the end of the book (p. 179). Here are some early events in the history of Islam:

632. Death of Muhammad
656. Murder of 'Uthman--beginning of first civil war in Islam.
657-59. Battle of Siffin
661. Murder of 'Ali--beginning of Umayyad dynasty.
680. Massacre of Husain and 'Alids at Karbala.
683-90. Second civil war
685-87. Revolt of Mukhtar in Iraq--beginning of extremist Shi'a.

How about more recently? Raphael Patai, in an updated chapter in his book The Arab Mind has a list of Arab conflicts--not including Israel--taking into account just the 13 years from 1970 to 1983:

1. Intermittent disputes involving border warfare and assassinations between South Yemen on the one hand, and North Yemen and Saudi Arabia, on the other since the early 1970's. A brief but fierce border war between the two Yemens took place as recently as March, 1979.

2. A major and bloody, albeit brief, conflict between Jordan and Palestinian guerrillas in 1970, complicated by Syrian intervention.

3. Fighting between the Kurds and the Iraqis, which lasted several years.

4. A bloody conflict between Northern and Southern Sudan, 1956-1972.

5. Clashes between South Yemen and Oman, linked to the Dhofar rebellion, 1972-1976.

6. A tripartite conflict between Algeria on the one hand and Morocco and Mauritania, on the other, over the control of the former Spanish Sahara, beginning in 1976 and subsequently transformed into guerrilla warfare against Morocco by the Polisario, the freedom fighters of the Western Sahara, supported by Algeria and Libya, which was still in progress in 1982.

7. Intermittent hostility, and actual border fighting, including air attacks, between Egypt and Libya in 1977.

8. The Lebanese civil war, which began in 1975, involving two outside parties, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization, still unresolved in early 1982.

9. The invasion of Chad by Libya in 1980.

10. The war between Iraq and Iran, which began in the fall of 1980, in which Iraq is supported by Jordan and Iran by Syria, making it in effect, an inter-Arab conflict. It was still in progress in early 1982.

11. In February, 1982, a conflict flared up between the Syrian government and Muslim fundamentalists in the Syrian city of Hama, in which several thousands were killed and major parts of Hama were destroyed. [p.357-358]

Bassam Eid should know that historically--and currently--Islamists do not need Israel in order go around killing Jews, Arabs, Muslims and any non-Muslim.

Forget about cellphones--there's enough to fill an awful lot of scrapbooks.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Islamists and Palestinians.

Positive news from iraq, in the nyt

With plenty of cautions the NYT reports on the Iraqi success in Sadr City:

Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.

This was a hopeful accomplishment, but one that came with caveats: In both cities, the militias eventually melted away in the face of Iraqi troops backed by American firepower. Thus nobody can say just where the militias might re-emerge or when Iraqi and American forces might need to fight them again.

iraq

Healing words

I never thought I'd recommend anything that Jesse Jackson said, but his column today is well worth reading. He sums up his feelings nicely:

But America's glory is not that it is perfect, but that it continues to grow. This takes courageous leaders and independent struggle, leadership not from the top down, but from the bottom up. King galvanized a nation, but his movement depended on the courage and sacrifice of unsung American citizens, white and black, deciding to stand up against great odds, to remain disciplined in the face of brutal reaction, to keep on keeping on even when the dark seemed to shut out the light.

Well said.

u.s. politics

Dura-bull

Knowing that the verdict in the Karsenty-Enderlin trial is due today, I looked for some news. But when I googled "Karsenty" I got precisely one result in the news section. It had to do with a talk Phillipe Karsenty gave a few weeks ago.

However when I did a blog search, there were plenty of results.

Israel Matzav explains why the MSM is so uninterested in the verdict:

The bottom line is that the mainstream media outside France is ignoring the case because they know that they are guilty of the same fraud of which France 2 is guilty: They use 'Palestinian' stringers rather than their own real reporters in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and in other 'war zones' like Iraq.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Neil Netanel wrote in a similar vein a few weeks ago:

The kind of media manipulation to which the al-Dura incident points is all too common in reporting from the region. Recall the initial Palestinian reports in September 2000 of an Israeli massacre of 3,000 Palestinian civilians in Jenin, broadcast without question by CNN, NPR, the BBC, and others, while the truth turned out to be 52 Palestinians killed, most of whom were armed combatants. (See here and here.) More recently, Hamas has staged and Western media reported electricity shortages in Gaza, replete with candles purporting to provide needed light while, as it turned out, screens blocked sunshine from streaming in through the window.

Certainly, some media outlets seem all too eager to transmit reports of Israeli atrocities. But the problem is far broader and deeper than that. Both broadcast and print journalists face tremendous pressure to produce under a highly competitive 24/7 news cycle. At the same time, many news organizations have sharply reduced their staff of foreign correspondents. As a result, they are increasingly reliant on local stringers and camera operators to report on local stories. In areas of conflict, it is inevitable that more than a trivial percentage of local reporters will be partisans and that video footage will be designed or doctored to favor one side or the other.

One hopes that major news organizations are able and willing to weed out the vast majority of questionable reporting, just as CNN refused to broadcast the al-Dura footage. But there are, of course, no guarantees. And, as I emphasized in an ealier post, fact-checking, like quality original reporting, costs a lot of money.

For their part, bloggers do an admirable job of exposing media failures. At the same time, for better or for worse, the Internet serves as an unfiltered outlet for the stories and footage that media organizations deem insufficiently trustworthy to carry.

(BTW, the Jenin libel occurred in April 2002, not Sept 2000.)

It's not just the general problem of relying on notoriously unreliable (truthwise) stringers, it's that most of the media was complicit in spreading the al-Dura libel.

The media's ignoring the Karsenty-Enderlin case shows their lack of accountability for their own actions. They refuses to divorce itself from their "rough draft of history" fantasy; that all they're doing is acting as stenographers in good faith. But they're not; they are agenda driven, interested only in advancing causes to which they are sympathetic.

In the al-Dura case the narrative of an Israeli overreaction was too compelling to ignore. They swallowed the story whole, without a second thought. Even now they are too convinced of their on righteousness to have second thoughts nearly eight years later.

The MSM lives on its arrogance. Its declining fortunes is one of the reason for its continued decline.

So why not challenge Clark Hoyt ( public@nytimes.com ) or Deborah Howell ( ombudsman@washpost.com ) to get their papers to cover the trial and take a long overdue look in the mirror?

Crossposted on Yourish.

media bias.

Staying in the center while everyone else moves left

Sen. Lieberman on what's wrong with the Democratic Party:

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

(This is adapted from the speech he gave at the Commentary Fund Dinner.)

John Podhoretz, yesterday, explained why Sen. Lieberman is not - as some of his critics assert - a hack:

By remaining steadfast on the war in Iraq when others in his party fled their vote and then blamed their inconstancy on the supposed “lies” of the administration. And by refusing to join the jackal-like feast on George W. Bush’s reputation, Lieberman earned the hatred of many fellow Democrats. That hatred caused a hugely rich man in his state to spend millions of his own money to oust Lieberman from his own party’s nomination after serving three full terms as senator.

And yet there he remained, and remains, unbending. This is the opposite of hackery. It is the antithesis of hackery. It is the quality everyone says he yearns for in Washington — principled consistency, a willingness to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, and a refusal to kowtow to the loudest voices merely because they are so loud. Last night, at the annual dinner of the Commentary Fund, Lieberman said he remained a Democrat precisely because he believes the strong foreign policy he espouses must have a bipartisan foundation.

California Conservative adds his thoughts. One nitpick though: He casts Clinton with other pacifists. Clinton, at least in the case of the NATO war against Serbia was willing to go to war to spread freedom. It was a stance that Sen. Lieberman praised in his speech.

Crossposted on Yourish.

foreign policy.

One hundred twenty seven years ago

American Red Cross founded

Barton, born in Massachusetts in 1821, worked with the sick and wounded during the American Civil War and became known as the "Angel of the Battlefield" for her tireless dedication. In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln commissioned her to search for lost prisoners of war, and with the extensive records she had compiled during the war she succeeded in identifying thousands of the Union dead at the Andersonville prisoner-of-war camp.

She was in Europe in 1870 when the Franco-Prussian War broke out, and she went behind the German lines to work for the International Red Cross. In 1873, she returned to the United States, and four years later she organized an American branch of the International Red Cross. The American Red Cross received its first U.S. federal charter in 1900. Barton headed the organization into her 80s and died in 1912.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is hopelessly politicized. The American Red Cross does some good work, but it's probably best known for its blood services.

At my work, in recent years though, it hasn't been the Red Cross running blood drives. It's been the Armed Services Blood Program doing the blood drives. I wonder how much the ASBP has encroached on the American Red Cross's work.

Aaron's third yahrzeit

Elie posted the poignant dvar torah he gave at the siyum commemorating Aaron's third yahrzeit.

When I realized that Aaron's yahrzeit approaching I re-read, Saying Goodbye; it is still powerful beyond words.

Buchanan: Chamberlain Was Right!

From One Jerusalem:

Hitler, Buchanan, and Bush

In a provocatively titled column, Bush Plays The Hitler Card Pat Buchanan takes historical revisionism to new heights. In his narrative, the rational political operatives are Adolph Hitler and Neville Chamberlain. The warmongers are George Bush and the Poles who did not appease Hitler.

I give Buchanan credit for criticizing Bush's Knesset speech from a different angle. Obama and Clinton huffed and puffed at what they interpreted as Bush's criticism of them but Buchanan uses this topic to defend Hitler!

Buchanan credits British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain with having the right policy of negotiating with Hitler which, in Buchanan's historical imagination, led to peace. You see Hitler had these legitimate gripes, Buchanan maintains, he just wanted to repatriate German's living in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Buchanan's take on the causes of World War II leads him to conclude that negotiating with Hamas, Iran, Hezzbolah, and I guess Al Queda is the road to piece and security.

If you visit the Townhall website that has published this Buchanan fantasy you will be encouraged to see that readers have given the lowest rating to Buchanan's piece. Perhaps you would want to grade him as well.

Contrary to Buchanan's claim, Bush did not call the leaders who negotiated "deluded fools"--he said the policy was a foolish delusion, and claimed that such a policy, specifically of negotiating with aggressors to get them to stop--a policy that has been discredited by history. Historically, appeasement has not stopped the aggressors it was intended to stop.

Does Mr. Buchanan really believe that negotiating with Syria, China, and Hamas has resulted in their moderating their policies?

He himself acknowledges the need for the threat of force:

But did not Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Evil Empire, as he rebuilt America's military might, bear fruit in a reversal of Moscow's imperial policy and an end to the Cold War?

In his eagerness to bash Bush, Buchanan has put together an argument that just does not hold up.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: President Bush and Pat Buchanan.

About first words

Kate Shatzkin of the Baltimore Sun kindly invited me to share some insights on parenting at her Charm City Mom blog. I reflected on first words.

Thanks for the opportunity!

George bush isolationist

James Taranto (and others - via memeorandum) discussed Sen. Lieberman's speech for the Commentary fund. Those attending were very impressed, but one comment of Lieberman's sticks out:

Lieberman argued that in many ways, the 2000 ticket of which he was a part was more hawkish than its Republican counterpart.

This was very true. In fact it was one reason I preferred Gov. Bush. He seemed cautious about the use of military power.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.

GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.

BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.

Now I realize that Bush was trying to make a point here: the military had been neglected during the Clinton presidency. Still he very clearly rejects the idea of using the military for nation building. Yet, if there's one policy that marks his presidency it's been nation building. First in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

As the article about Sen. Lieberman points out, 9/11 changed everything. President Bush realized (or at least believed) that those countries that couldn't function became breeding grounds for terrorist organizations. Nation building was now a matter of national security.

It is ironic that President Bush's critics claim that he is rigid in his thinking. Yet on the defining issue of his presidency he clearly changed his mind based on the information available to him.

(On a related issue, he also, eventually, apparently took the Gore-Lieberman approach. During the 2000 campaign Al Gore argued that AIDS was a security crisis. Whether or not President Bush accepts that premise, he has acted as if he believes that to be the case. I believe that here, too, he was informed by the belief that AIDS was a factor in much of the unrest in Africa so he acted to fight the disease.)

Reading this article by Gen. Kilcullen brings the point home that the military, now, have added "nation building" to their job description.

On the face of it, road-building appears to be a generally-recognized form of force projection and governance extension, hence the extreme frequency of its historical use by governments, colonial administrations, occupying powers, and counterinsurgency forces through history. It is also worth recognizing that there is little that is specifically American (or Afghan) about the engineering aspects of the approach described above.

But the effects accrue not just from the road itself, but rather from a conscious and well-developed strategy that uses the road as a tool, and seizes the opportunity created by its construction to generate security, economic, governance and political benefits. This is exactly what is happening in Kunar: the road is one component, albeit a key one, in a broader strategy that uses the road as an organizing framework around which to synchronize and coordinate a series of political-military effects. This is a conscious, developed strategy that was first put in place in 2005-6 and has been consistently executed since. Thus, the mere building of a road is not enough: it generates some, but not all of these effects, and may even be used to oppress or harm the population rather than benefit it. Road construction in many parts of the world has had negative security and political effects, especially when executed unthinkingly or in an un-coordinated fashion. What we are seeing here, in contrast, is a coordinated civil-military activity based on a political strategy of separating the insurgent from the people and connecting the people to the government. In short, this is a political maneuver with the road as a means to a political end.

Actually it's not all that surprising that Democrats now are less hawkish; they don't control the executive branch. There are two major ways that politicians can show that they are doing something: by spending or by making war. So the party in power is more likely to be hawkish and the party out of power is likely to be more cautious in the use of force. (If our next president is Barack Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if he found a conflict at some point during his term that, according to his principles, necessitated military action.)

I'm not saying that the use of force is motivated by cynical calculations. I certainly don't think that's true in the case of Iraq. (If Al Gore had been president in 2001, I'm sure he still would have gone after the Taliban. He may have even attacked Iraq.) However the use of force or "hawkishness" tends to be a trait of whomever is in control of the executive.

foreign policy.

We know what's best for you 2

Jeffrey Goldberg nearly breaks his arm patting himself on the back for his op-ed article Israel's America problem.

My op-ed in the Times has provoked a certain amount of unhappiness in people who believe it to be an attack on AIPAC.

Apparently, we are all supposed to behave as if Israel has never made a mistake in its 60 years of existence.

This isn't even logical. The criticism was that his prescription hasn't exactly worked as well as he seems to think it has. Consider Max Boot who has the quality of admitting admiration for Goldberg:

How can he argue with a straight face that more territorial concessions on Israel’s part will “buttress” Palestinian moderates when we’ve seen just the opposite happen in the recent past? Israel unilaterally evacuated southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, in the latter case dismantling settlements as Goldberg urged. (I was in favor of this move, too.) The result, as we all know now, was to empower Hezbollah and Hamas–not the “moderates.” Why Goldberg thinks the result of a West Bank pullout would be any different is not readily apparent from his Times essay.

Worse, even as he dismisses those who disagree with him as unthinking Barry Rubin notes that those who hold Goldberg's views hold them despite years of experience that show them to be wrong:

Given this experience, someone might conclude that concessions didn't work and that the Palestinians and Syria were not ready for peace. But such a conclusion is not permissible for those wedded to certain notions. Instead, they say: ignore all that because no matter how high the price you must make concessions and take risks in order to survive. Is this obvious nonsense? Yes. But obvious nonsense backed by the New York Times and Maclean's in Canada, etc., drowns out the point that it is obvious nonsense.

Second, of course, this expresses wishful thinking. A lot of people want Israel to disappear and thus feel good in asserting it is going to happen. The line in "pro-Palestinian" circles in the West seems to be that it doesn't matter that they lose all the confrontations, that their state-building effort has collapsed, and that the movement is more split than at any time in the last forty years. More important, they say, they now have control of the narrative. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

There are also some ideological reasons on the left, or what passes for it nowadays, that have invested heavily in the idea of Israel disappearing. One is that nationalism is obsolete.

This is clearly absurd. It might be disappearing in Western Europe--I mean European nationalism, not that of the new immigrants--yet it is not a generalized global phenomenon. Quite the opposite. But the people who think this way want nationalism to die in their own countries very badly and detest those who have pride in their heritage.

And while he isn't addressing Goldberg's assertion that Israeli needs American pressure to survive, Rubin makes clear that those who question Israel's (future) legitimacy aren't exactly harmless:

It assures radical Islamists and radical Arab nationalists that they will win. Thus it encourages Arabs, and especially Palestinians, to keep fighting rather than to make peace and act moderately or constructively.

It promotes terrorism, recruitment to terrorist groups, violence against moderates, and dictatorships. After all, if victory is in sight why stop fighting? If triumph is possible than it follows logically that anyone who wants to make peace is a traitor who should be killed.

Goldberg may congratulate himself on his perceptiveness and sophistication, but it he, not his critics, who unthinkingly prescribes a disastrous policy. And he doesn't possess the awareness to realize how wrong and counterproductive he is.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel

Nineteen years ago

Sunday Silence won the Preakness.

On May 20, 1989, Sunday Silence edges by Easy Goer to win the closest race in the 114-year history of the Preakness Stakes by a nose. Sunday Silence had already beaten Easy Goer in the Kentucky Derby by two-and-a-half lengths, putting the horse one victory away from winning the first Triple Crown since 1978. Come June, though, Easy Goer had his revenge, beating *Sunday Silence* by eight lengths in the Belmont Stakes.

I'm not a horse racing fan, but with Big Brown's victory Saturday at the Preakness, the question is how likely is it that he'll win the Belmont Stakes and, thus, the Triple Crown?

There hasn't been a Triple Crown winner since Affirmed in 1978. During that time according to Wikipedia:

As of 2008, the current drought of 30 years, since Affirmed won in 1978, is the longest drought between Triple Crown winning horses. Since 1978, eleven horses have won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes. Of those, Real Quiet has come the closest to winning the Triple Crown, losing the Belmont Stakes by a nose in 1998. Charismatic led the Belmont in the final furlong in 1999 but broke his leg in the final stretch and fell back to third. The three most recent to win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness but lose the Belmont were War Emblem in 2002, Funny Cide in 2003, and Smarty Jones in 2004. War Emblem tripped at the start of the Belmont, Funny Cide lost the Belmont in the slop to fresh horses, and Smarty Jones lost by only a length. In addition, several horses have won two of the three races since the last Triple Crown win, most recently Afleet Alex in 2005, who lost the Kentucky Derby but won the Preakness and Belmont.

From what the people who know the sport say, Big Brown was dominant in the first two races, so maybe this is the year for the Triple Crown drought to end.

triple crown.

Arab leaders get whiplash

First
Bin Laden lashes out at Arab leaders (h/t Instapundit)

Then this:
Bush criticizes Arab nations for repression

Did you ever think that President Bush and Osama bin Laden would agree on anything?

OK, the actual criticisms are much different. Just enjoy the headlines and ignore the actual news. It's a lot more fun.

Heck, if a "real" news organization can tailor the news to fit a certain mold, why can't I?

(via memeorandum)

arab world, media bias.

The maltese remake

There's so much blogging going on, I shouldn't be surprised when two very disparate blogs cover the same territory.

Seraphic Secret who is a screenwriter (Robert Avrech) and Hollywood historian, has been profiling lesser known Jewish actors. (Not necessarily that these actors weren't stars, but that it wasn't widely known that they were Jewish.)

Today he profiled Ricardo Cortez in which he wrote:

Cortez's portrayal of detective Sam Spade in the original Maltese Falcon (1931) is an absolutely stunner. Cortez is far more dangerous and sensual than the lip-curling and deeply mannered Bogart. There's a great moment when Cortez suspects leading lady Bebe Daniels of stealing money and hiding it under her clothing. Casually, with an amused but sharp-as-dagger delivery, he orders Daniels to strip naked. The delight he takes in the bad girl's oh-so-shocked expression is just priceless. He's playing a game with her, but she knows it's a game with deadly consequences. It's a beautifully modulated performance—one minute silken, the next steel—and Cortez is in charge of every inch of the frame.

I never know that the Maltese Falcon was a remake.

But then The Glittering Eye did a post on movie remakes.

I think the all-time greatest remake was probably The Maltese Falcon. You know, the one with Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet, and Mary Astor. It was a remake of 1931’s The Maltese Falcon, which featured Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels. That was actually a pretty decent picture itself but nothing like as good as John Huston’s remake.

Now I don't know if they'd disagree about the relative merits of each movie or about the performances of the leading men. Still it's fascinating that they both covered the same bit of information from different directions.

the maltese falcon, movies.

Viva La Revolucion!

Actually I am not sure what to make of this:

When I spoke to Mr. Olmert a few days after his meeting with the Conference of Presidents, he made only brief mention of his Diaspora antagonists; he said that certain American Jews he would not name have been "investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government of Israel."

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert.

Musical monday 45

You know the drill. Musical Monday alternates between me and my friend Elie's Expositions. No googling. Figure out the lyrics and this week's theme.

1) Running around as you do with your head up in the clouds
2) Everything you do has been done, And this won't last forever
3) Give me time, To realize my crime
4) No one will be watching us
5) Can anybody love anyone so much that they will never fear
6) You said you'd give to me, soon as you were free
7) He's acting shy looking for an answer
(Please forgive me for #7)
8) Ill be here til the end of time
9) L.A. is a great big freeway
10) Are you sorry we drifted apart
11) Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?
12) Why does my heart skip a crazy beat?
13) Now the walls say your name, And the pictures are haunted
14) She touched his face and shook her head
15) 3 a.m. sit up straight in my bed
16) I've seen babies dancing in the midnight sun,
17) Give me no reasons, give me alibis
18) Yesterday, and days before, sun is cold and rain is hard,
19) Clouds of mystery pourin' confusion on the ground.
20) How can you stop the rain from falling down?
21) I'm very tired, and I'm not feeling right
22) I woke up in a soho doorway
23) Used a cobra snake for a neck tie.
24) He made my baby, Fall in love with me
25) ...yearning, burning yearning ...

I'm going to probably get another Musical Monday out of this theme, so I'll stop here. (I hope Elie hasn't done it in the past.)

Plus here's a bonus.
26) Between the silence of the mountains, And the crashing of the sea,

Any songs you're embarrassed that you like when you were younger?
I didn't mention it, but I used to really like Lobo. Anyone remember him?

Bring back the music of the 70's. No not disco.

What was #1 the week you were born?

pop music, trivia.

Bestowing legitimacy

John Bolton in today's WSJ:

At first glance, the idea of sitting down with adversaries seems hard to quarrel with. In our daily lives, we meet with competitors, opponents and unpleasant people all the time. Mr. Obama hopes to characterize the debate about international negotiations as one between his reasonableness and the hard-line attitude of a group of unilateralist GOP cowboys.

The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

This is also of note:

When the U.S. negotiates with "terrorists and radicals," it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake. State sponsors use others as surrogates, but they are just as much terrorists as those who actually carry out the dastardly acts. Legitimacy and international acceptability are qualities terrorists crave, and should therefore not be conferred casually, if at all.

As much as the Palestinian vilify America in their media, they still desperately crave the legitimacy American contact confers upon them. The same applies to many other rogue regimes.

Twenty four years ago

The Oiler dynasty begins

On May 19, 1984, one dynasty ends and another begins when the Edmonton Oilers defeat the New York Islanders 5-2 to win the Stanley Cup. The Oilers had been swept by New York in the finals the year before, but the team’s talent had matured, and their offensive onslaught overwhelmed the four-time defending champs.

The now legendary Wayne Gretzky led the 1983-84 Oilers with 87 goals and 205 points; this was the second time he had scored 200 points in a year, a feat no one else had yet accomplished. Gretzky’s main partner on the ice was center Mark Messier, who had 101 points in 1983-84. The team’s other stars included right wingers Jari Kurri and Glen Anderson, with 113 and 99 points, respectively, and the high-scoring defenseman Paul Coffey.

The dynasty eventually faded. Gretzky wound up in LA and Messier with the Rangers.

I noticed that Gretzky is now coach of the Phoenix Coyotes. It doesn't seem that he's had quite the success that another icon of 80's sports, Larry Bird had with coaching. (No Bird never got the Pacers to the championship, but he did get them pretty far in the playoffs three straight years.)

What makes a pro-israel president?

In Obama and the Jews Thomas Friedman writes:

What does that tell you? It tells me several things. The first is that America today has — rightly — a bipartisan approach to Arab-Israeli peace that is not going to change no matter who becomes our next president. America, whether under a Republican or Democratic administration, is now committed to a two-state solution in which the Palestinians get back the West Bank, Gaza and Arab parts of East Jerusalem, and Israel gives back most of the settlements in the West Bank, offsetting those it does not evacuate with land from Israel.

That of course the final deal that Friedman "knows" everyone accepts. At this point I'd ask what "offsetting land?" If that wasn't enough to get Arafat to stand down from the Aqsa intifada in early 2001, why should it even be on the table at this point?

But I don't agree that there's a bi-partisan agreement. Part of the difference will be what aspects of the peace process will be emphasized. Sure President Bush (as Friedman notes) has complained about Israel building on its own territory. But that hasn't been his emphasis. I suspect that it would be the emphasis of a President Obama, so emphasis is not trivial, because it will presage how well the President will work with Israel and with how much tension.

President Bush, as Friedman doesn't point out, did lay out what he saw were Palestinian obligations. These are points that President Bush doesn't emphasize enough anymore. Peace will not come, as Friedman would have it, if Israel would just stop building "settlements." There needs to be a change of mindset among the Palestinians that has not happened. Nor is it likely to happen any time soon.

Friedman then goes on:

The notion that a President Barack Obama would have a desire or ability to walk away from this consensus American position is ludicrous. But given the simmering controversy over whether Mr. Obama is “good for Israel,” it’s worth exploring this question: What really makes a pro-Israel president?

Personally, as an American Jew, I don’t vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It’s not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America.

And while granting that President Bush's empathy for Israel is a positive he writes:

But what matters a lot more is that under Mr. Bush, America today is neither feared nor respected nor liked in the Middle East, and that his lack of an energy policy for seven years has left Israel’s enemies and America’s enemies — the petro-dictators and the terrorists they support — stronger than ever. The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq and to develop alternatives to oil.

This is convoluted. Two of the things that have led to the growing Iranian influence in the Middle East have been the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and from Gaza, strengthening both Hezbollah and Hamas two Iranian proxies. These two retreats are policies that Friedman supported without reservation. It would be nice if he were capable of admitting his mistake.

The failure in Iraq isn't what's strengthened Iran. It has given Iran a new battleground. Still it was the deposing of Saddam that's strengthened Iran. At least for now. But would a strong Saddam still in power be less of a threat?

As far as the oil argument it's totally in the realm of science fiction. No president can decree that alternatives can be found. These are works in progress. Science does not advance in response to fiat.

The first, and most important, is the situation on the ground and the readiness of the parties themselves to take the lead, irrespective of what America is doing. Anwar Sadat’s heroic overture to Israel, and Menachem Begin’s response, made the Jimmy Carter-engineered Camp David peace treaty possible. The painful, post-1973 war stalemate between Israel and Egypt and Syria made Henry Kissinger’s disengagement agreements possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union and America’s defeat of Iraq in the first gulf war made possible James Baker’s success in putting the Madrid peace process together.

What all three of these U.S. statesmen had in common, though — and this is the second criterion — was that when history gave them an opening, they seized it, by being tough, cunning and fair with both sides.

What got Anwar Sadat to got Jerusalem? Why it was Jimmy Carter's efforts to draw the Soviet Union back into the Middle East peace making after Sadat had expelled the Soviets. Jimmy Carter was the beneficiary of his own incompetence.

And James Baker got the Madrid conference going. What exactly did that accomplish? It perhaps set the table for Oslo, which then enabled Arafat to launch terror from immediately on Israel's borders and eventually to the Aqsa intifada. Again, what exactly did it accomplish?

I don’t want a president who is just going to lean on Israel and not get in the Arabs’ face too, or one who, as the former Mideast negotiator Aaron D. Miller puts it, “loves Israel to death” — by not drawing red lines when Israel does reckless things that are also not in America’s interest, like building settlements all over the West Bank.

I know about the second. That's been a theme of Friedman's ever since he's had an op-ed column (and perhaps even longer.) However he does indeed agree with the former. Here's Friedman from 1996, putting words into President Clinton's mouth:

''In the meantime, some free advice. First, surprise everyone: Close the tunnel door. Announce that while Israel is fully within its rights as the sovereign power in Jerusalem to open the new tunnel door, this issue has become so inflamed, and become such a distraction from your real objective of building a secure peace, that you have decided to review the tunnel-door issue and will close it meanwhile. Yes, some of your hard-line colleagues will criticize you, and the press will say you flip-flopped. But the majority will see it as a real act of statesmanship. It will deprive your critics of the argument that you're out to scuttle peace and it will force everyone to give you a second look.

What had just happened. Netanyahu had presided over the opening of a tunnel in Jerusalem. Arafat had, in response, organized a response of terrorism, known as the "tunnel riots." According to Nadav Shragai, Netanyahu had cleared the tunnel opening with the Wakf in advance. So Netanyahu took a step, that should have been uncontroversial, Arafat betrayed his commitment to forswear terror and Friedman thought it correct for Clinton to lean on Israel and not get in Arafat's face.

Back to the present, and Friedman's conclusion:

It’s a tricky business. But if Israel is your voting priority, then at least ask the right questions about Mr. Obama. Knock off the churlish whispering campaign about what’s in his heart on Israel (what was in Richard Nixon’s heart?) and focus first on what kind of America you think he’d build and second on whether you believe that as president he’d have the smarts, steel and cunning to seize a historic opportunity if it arises.

I've been pretty open about my misgivings about Sen. Obama. This so-called "whispering campaign" is simply a new synonym for "criticizing Sen. Obama."

I don't know what was in President Nixon's heart, but when the chips were down in 1973 he did send weapons to Israel. And for all his professed love of Israel, President Clinton in 2000, when Israel responded to the Aqsa intifada signed onto a condemnation of Israel in the UN. Who would I expect a President Obama to be more similar too?

In comments below, my co-blogger Daled Amos had a very sensible way of looking at the candidates:

I agree that McCain is preferable to Obama, but I would not go so far as to say that McCain "loves" Israel--I would not even go so far as to say that he is a friend of Israel. McCain is pro-Israel to the degree that he sees that the interests (and existence) of Israel dovetails with the interests of the US. That is the most that we can expect of any US candidate/President.

That's a lot more realistic and honest that anything Thomas Friedman wrote:

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

Juggling carnivals 05/19/08

Incoming Carnivals

Thanks' as always to Dr. Sanity for linking to me in her most recent Carnival of the insanities. Also look for links to Judeopundit, Gateway Pundit, Fausta's Blog, Yid with Lid and Wofl Howling.

Though not strictly speaking a carnival Wolf Howling posts an occasional "interesting post around the web." He kindly included a post from me (and several other fine ones) in his edition yesterday.

There's a fine Carnival of Maryland up at Greenbelt. I meant to submit my Daniel Cabrera post. Oh well. It's still well worth checking out especially if you live in Maryland.

Sideshow

Miscellanea

blog carnivals.

Some Nakbalogy and Nakbalotry from Joseph Massad

Crossposted on Judeopundit

We know what's best for you

Jeffrey Goldberg know what ails Israel and tells us in Israel's America Problem:

When I spoke to Mr. Olmert a few days after his meeting with the Conference of Presidents, he made only brief mention of his Diaspora antagonists; he said that certain American Jews he would not name have been “investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government of Israel.” But he was expansive, and persuasive, on the Zionist need for a Palestinian state. Without a Palestine — a viable, territorially contiguous Palestine — Arabs under Israeli control will, in the not-distant future, outnumber the country’s Jews.

“We now have the Palestinians running an Algeria-style campaign against Israel, but what I fear is that they will try to run a South Africa-type campaign against us,” he said. If this happens, and worldwide sanctions are imposed as they were against the white-minority government, “the state of Israel is finished,” Mr. Olmert said in an earlier interview. This is why he, and his mentor, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, turned so fiercely against the Jewish settlement movement, which has entangled Israel unnecessarily in the lives of West Bank Palestinians. Once, men like Mr. Sharon and Mr. Olmert saw the settlers as the vanguards of Zionism; today, the settlements are seen, properly, as the forerunner of a binational state. In other words, as the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy.

Except what this ignores is that every effort to separate Israel from the Palestinians has succeeded in strengthening those who deny Israel's right to exist.

First of all, now that Israel has cut all ties with Gaza the demographic problem - if it exists - has been put off some. Israel is not responsible for Gaza. But the "disengagement hasn't helped Israel. More of Israel is subject to frequent rocket fire. Israel is condemned for defending its citizens and Hamas has been strengthened. Exactly what has Israel gained by this set of consequences?

Israel has long ago ceded control of Bethlehem, Jericho, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Jenin, Ramallah, Nablus and most of Hebron to the PA. Ceding control of those cities to the PA led to the increase in terror in 1996 and made the "Aqsa intifada" possible. Again, it's hard to see why Israel is responsible for these areas anymore. That the Palestinians have failed to create a functioning government is not Israel's responsibility.

So all this talk about "apartheid" Israel is not out of concern for Israel, but rather to blackmail Israel into ceding territory to its enemies, not just in the name of a chimeric "peace" but also to save its soul; regardless of the cost to its body.

PM Olmert certainly is being dramatic when he accuses some American Jews of seeking to "overthrow" the Israeli government. American Jews have been involved in Israeli politics for a long. time. Nor would I be surprised if Mr. Olmert also had plenty of support from American Jews in one fashion or another. (I don't believe that it's legal for foreigners to donate directly to Israeli campaigns, so this help - financial and otherwise - is not necessarily direct. But then PM Olmert is no doubt familiar with what's legal and what isn't.)

Goldberg goes on to show his sophisticated grasp of the issues facing Israel:

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.

And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project. The dismantling of settlements is the one step that would buttress the dwindling band of Palestinian moderates in their struggle against the fundamentalists of Hamas.

So why won’t American leaders push Israel publicly? Or, more to the point, why do presidential candidates dance so delicately around this question? The answer is obvious: The leadership of the organized American Jewish community has allowed the partisans of settlement to conflate support for the colonization of the West Bank with support for Israel itself. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel.

Since 1993 Israel has been openly (longer still if one counts the preliminary negotiations conducted in contravention to Israeli law at the time) involved in a "peace process" with the Palestinians. Since that time we have seen Fatah strengthened, then Hamas. (Hezbollah too, if indirectly.) We saw more and more terror result from Israeli concessions until Israel fought back in 2002 and reduced the terrorist infrastructure created by the "moderate" Fatah movement.

The position of the Israeli government now is quite a far cry from the Israeli government of twenty years ago. What was then a vision of the far left wing group, Peace Now, is now the mainstream view in Israel. No Israeli government will refuse to negotiate with Fatah even though the group never disavowed the terror that was to be a precondition for its achieving legitimacy. And it's hard to say that this softening of Israel's position has made it more secure or accepted.

On the Palestinian side we've seen no softening of positions. Oh sure Arafat would say just enough to be awarded, legitimacy, army and money, but his actions never comported with hits professed declarations of accepting Israel.

No, the single biggest impediment to a Palestinian state is the Palestinian rejection of the Jewish one and the attendant terror. Mr. Goldberg's mantra about settlements has been repeated for decades, but what happened when Israel abandoned Gaza? (Asked and answered above.)

Palestinian nationalism isn't about self determination or freedom. It's about destruction. The failure of the Palestinians to create a functioning society to live in peace beside Israel has nothing to do with a lack of contiguity but a lack of interest in building such a society.

The unthinking supporters of Israel, as Goldberg would have it, were right about Arafat. They were right about the Palestinian commitment to peace.

Finally there's another question that Goldberg begs. He accuses AIPAC of not pushing Israel to dismantle settlements. But every action for peace that Israel has engaged in, AIPAC has been supportive. AIPAC supported Oslo. AIPAC supported the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. AIPAC supported disengagement. Exactly how has AIPAC's agenda differed from Goldberg's over the past fifteen years is a mystery.

The people of Aipac and the Conference of Presidents are well meaning, and their work in strengthening the overall relationship between America and Israel has ensured them a place in the world to come. But what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel. Barack Obama and John McCain, the likely presidential nominees, are smart, analytical men who understand the manifold threats Israel faces 60 years after its founding. They should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.

But this won’t happen until AIPAC and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen.

So Goldberg considers it important for AIPAC to lecture Israel, to tell Israel what it must do. (Even if the past fifteen years have shown those policies to be counterproductive to peace.) Goldberg's honest about his arrogance: I know what's better for you than you do, and AIPAC ought to understand that too. I don't know if that makes him pro-Israel. (In fact I dispute it.) It does make him (and his J-Street allies) a smug know-it-all.

Related thought (with different targets) at YidWithLid.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

One hundred twelve years ago

Separate but equal

In a major victory for supporters of racial segregation, the U.S. Supreme Court rules seven to one that a Louisiana law providing for "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races" on its railroad cars is constitutional. The high court held that as long as equal accommodations were provided, segregation was not discrimination and thus did not deprive African Americans of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, which indicated that the federal government would officially tolerate the "separate but equal" doctrine, was eventually used to justify segregating all public facilities, including railroad cars, restaurants, hospitals, and schools. However, "colored" facilities were never equal to their white counterparts in actuality, and African Americans suffered through decades of debilitating discrimination in the South and elsewhere because of the ruling. In 1954, Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down by the Supreme Court in their unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Ironically, it was 58 years later, almost to the day, (a day early) that the Supreme Court rejected the separate but equal doctrine.

In a major civil rights victory, the U.S. Supreme Court hands down an unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, ruling that racial segregation in public educational facilities is unconstitutional. The historic decision, which brought an end to federal tolerance of racial segregation, specifically dealt with Linda Brown, a young African American girl who had been denied admission to her local elementary school in Topeka, Kansas, because of the color of her skin.

In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" accommodations in railroad cars conformed to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. That ruling was used to justify segregating all public facilities, including elementary schools. However, in the case of Linda Brown, the white school she attempted to attend was far superior to her black alternative and miles closer to her home. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took up Linda's cause, and in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka reached the Supreme Court. African American lawyer (and future Supreme Court justice) Thurgood Marshall led Brown's legal team, and on May 17, 1954, the high court handed down its decision.

More details about Brown are here.

Ironically, too that fifty four years after Brown was decided, a chapter of the |NAAC|P applauded these sentiments.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of who's words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like the (greos) in Africa who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people's history and like the oral tradition which passed down the first five book in our Jewish bible, our Christian Bible, our Hebrew bible long before there was a written Hebrew script or alphabet. And repeat incredulously long passages like Psalm 119 using mnemonic devices using eight line stanzas. Each stanza starting with a different letter of the alphabet. That is a different way of learning. It's not deficient, it is just different. Somebody say different. I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing how we see other people who are different.

McCain Favored Talks With Hamas In 2006 (UPDATED!)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone found something in McCain's past to rebut his claim that Hamas support for Obama was pertinent.

James P. Rubin writes in The Washington Post about an interview he had with McCain in 2006:

But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

"There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution. John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment."

This week, Senator John McCain took heat because of an interview that he granted two years ago to Amir Oren, a credible journalist from the Israeli newspaper HaAretz, on May 1, 2006, in which Mr. McCain declared that his administration "would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East .... "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."

Mr. McCain added "I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides."

When Mr. Oren asked Mr. McCain if that meant a "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications? McCain nodded in the affirmative."

To deflect criticism that he has encountered on the 2008 campaign trail, the McCain campaign has been quoting an article by John B. Judis., senior editor at The New Republic who wrote in an article in that publication on October 25, 2006 that Mr. McCain was "miffed at his portrayal in HaAretz," saying that "after reading the HaAretz article and subsequent report in The Jewish Press [in New York]," he felt the need to "clear up several serious misimpressions." Mr. McCain said that "in contrast to the impression left by the HaAretz article, I've never held the position that Israel should return to 1967 lines, and that is not my position today."

The senator repeated this week what he said to the New Republic which was that "in the course of that brief, off-the-cuff conversation, I never discussed settlement blocs, a total withdrawal, or anything of the sort."

McCain is entitled to change his mind, but if in fact he has, he has done so in a clumsy way that will only undercut him if he really means to challenge Obama in the way he seems ready to do.

UPDATE: After posting, I saw that Israel Matzav is all over this story--the bigger story being that Rubin's account is inaccurate and the video being offered of McCain's willingness to talk to Hamas has been spliced.

Check out his post.

By Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: McCain.

Council speak 05/16/08

The council has spoken.

This week I was honored by being |(narrowly) voted to the winning entry by my fellow council members for "Evolution" = "Growth|".

The entries I won out over were JoshuaPundit's Lebanon becomes Hezbollahstan and Wolf Howling's The Audacity of Newsweek. The former was a blow by blow account of how Hezbollah took control of |Lebanon |(Was it only two years ago that everyone seemed to think that |Israel's self-defense was the worst thing that could happen?|) and the latter is a fine fisking of one of the |MS|M's most egregious examples of |Obama worship.

In the non-council section of the voting there was a tie, broken by the Watcher himself, with first place going to Numb from Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal. |It's easy to say that a war needs to be fought. But there are real people who fight it and who sacrifice their physical if not mental well being to do so. The runner-up was Baseball Crank's |Yes, Experience |Matters, my nominee.

Thanks to my fellow council members and congratulations to all the winners.

If you're a blogger and you like what you see, please consider submitting your own post to the competition. Just follow the rules here.

watcher's council.

Krauthammer on israel's 60th

Interestingly Charles Krauthammer starts his column about Israel's 60th birthday (or here) on May 14th (well the English date anyway) by recalling an event that preceded the Lewis and Clark expedition that started May 14, 1804.

Before sending Lewis and Clark west, Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis to Philadelphia to see Dr. Benjamin Rush. The eminent doctor prepared a series of scientific questions for the expedition to answer. Among them, writes Stephen Ambrose: "What Affinity between their (the Indians') religious Ceremonies & those of the Jews?" Jefferson and Lewis, like many of their day and ours, were fascinated by the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and thought they might be out there on the Great Plains.

They weren't. They aren't anywhere. Their disappearance into the mists of history since their exile from Israel in 722 B.C. is no mystery. It is the norm, the rule for every ancient people defeated, destroyed, scattered and exiled.

With one exception, a miraculous story of redemption and return, after not a century or two, but 2,000 years. Remarkably, that miracle occurred in our time. This week marks its 60th anniversary: the return and restoration of the remaining two tribes of Israel -- Judah and Benjamin, later known as the Jews -- to their ancient homeland.

He also nicely demolishes the narrative of today's "nuanced" foreign policy sophisticates.

During its early years, Israel was often spoken of in such romantic terms. Today, such talk is considered naive, anachronistic, even insensitive, nothing more than Zionist myth designed to hide the true story, i.e., the Palestinian narrative of dispossession.

(LGF has been cataloging the many nakba celebrations going on this week. For a term that didn't come into wide usage until about a decade ago, it's getting quite a workout.)

Finally Krauthammer shows how the new "history" of Israel's founding is matched by tendentious reporting today:

Israel prevailed, another miracle. But at a very high cost -- not just to the Palestinians displaced as a result of a war designed to extinguish Israel at birth, but also to the Israelis, whose war losses were staggering: 6,373 dead. One percent of the population. In American terms, it would take 35 Vietnam memorials to encompass such a monumental loss of life.

You rarely hear about Israel's terrible suffering in that 1948-49 war. You hear only the Palestinian side. Today, in the same vein, you hear that Israeli settlements and checkpoints and occupation are the continuing root causes of terrorism and instability in the region.

However, Krauthammer didn't mention the dispossession of Jews from Arab countries that affected a similar number of people.

Finally though, Krauthammer gets to the point of it all.

One constantly hears about the disabling complexity of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Complex it is, but the root cause is not. Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Two hundred forty years ago

President Benjamin Wade? If one more senator had voted for impeachment.

In May, 1868, the Senate came within a single vote of taking the unprecedented step of removing a president from office. Although the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson was ostensibly about a violation of the Tenure of Office Act, it was about much more than that. Also on trial in 1868 were Johnson's lenient policies towards Reconstruction and his vetoes of the Freedmen's Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act. The trial was, above all else, a political trial.

Andrew Johnson was a lifelong Democrat and slave owner who won a place alongside Abraham Lincoln on the 1864 Republican ticket in order to gain the support of pro-war Democrats. Johnson was fiercely pro-Union and had come to national prominence when, as a Senator from the important border state of Tennessee, he denounced secession as "treason."

Here's the Congressional record of the Johnson impeachment trial.

Here's a rather flattering portrayal of the Sen. Wade by the New York Times from July 1, 1867.

UPDATE: Whoops, the post should have been titled One hundred forty years ago. I feel really stupid.

andrew johnson, benjamin wade.

The real palestinian collaborator

Often you'll hear Palestinians complaining that Israel was founded due to European guilt over the Holocaust, but since they had nothing to do with the Holocaust, why should the Jews be allowed to create a state that dispossesses them? The Holocaust was European and the Palestinians argue they're paying the price.

While there were many forces at work to allow the return of the Jews to Israel and the (re-)creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, certainly sympathy for the Jews after the Holocaust played a role. The status of the refugee demonstrated the need for a Jewish homeland. (A point that was emphasized by the expulsion of Jews from their homes in Arab lands after the UN approve the partition plan.)

The political leader of the Palestinians, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, lived in Nazi German during WWII, trying to enlist the Nazis to impose their final solution on Palestine once they swept through Africa.

Finally there's proof that the Mufti not only wanted the destruction of the Jews of Palestine, but was fully aware of the destruction of the Jews of Europe.

According to Wisliceny, at the beginning of 1942 Eichmann made a detailed presentation to al-Husaini on the "solution of the European Jewish question." The presentation took place in Eichmann's "map room" in Berlin: "where he had collected statistical graphics on the Jewish population in the various European countries." The Grand Mufti, Wisliceny recalls, was "very impressed." Furthermore, al-Husaini is supposed to have put in a request to Himmler to have Eichmann send one of his assistants to Jerusalem after Germany had won the war. The representative of Eichmann was to serve as the Grand Mufti's personal advisor: i.e. when the Grand Mufti would then set about "solving the Jewish question in the Middle East."

We can infer from other documentation that this was not just a vague idea. A declassified document on Nazi war crimes from the National Archives in Washington indicates that as of mid-1942 a special SS commando unit had plans to liquidate the Jews of Cairo following the capture of the city by German forces. (See detail below.) Gen. Erwin Rommel was supposedly disgusted by the proposition. The head of the SS unit, Walter Rauff, had earlier been involved in developing vans that served as mobile gas chambers. It should be noted that he was a German and not a Pole, as suggested in the U.S. government document.

In his memoirs, however, the Grand Mufti feigns astonishment at Himmler's remark. On his account, Himmler asked him how he would solve the problem of the Jews in his country. Amin al-Husaini says that he answered that they should go back to where they came from. To which Himmler is supposed then to have replied: "Come back to Germany -- we will never allow them to do that." But the Grand Mufti is here white-washing his own role in history. After all, in Berlin on November 2, 1943, he publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example of the Germans, who had found a "definitive solution to the Jewish problem."

So when the Mufti was enlisting Nazi help for the Middle East, he knew full well that they were capable of. His wasn't just an idle dream.

When a Palestinian is accused of helping Israel he's called a "collaborator." Even though he's been working to fight terror, the media uses the Palestinian term in order to cast a pall on his noble deed. The term "collaborator" is an obvious reference to those who helped the Nazis against their own countries.

This is more proof that the real Palestinian collaborator was the father of modern Palestinian nationalism. It is also revealing that despite the lofty rhetoric of independence and self determination, Palestinian nationalism is, at its root, a genocidal ideology.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel, mufti.

Terror attack in ashkelon

via memeorandum

A Grad missile hit a shopping mall in Ashkelon yesterday injuring 15.

Israel believes Islamic Jihad is getting the Grads from Iran. "It's part of the Iranian war against Israel," former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio.

That's pretty clear. And it's been with Egypt's connivance.

Israel Matzav observed:

Peres is now speaking in front of Bush. The part about "we'll respond at the right time" and wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded was said in Hebrew, not in English.

A Blog for All adds:

Number of days since last Israeli injured by rocket/mortar fire: 0
Number of days since last Israeli killed by rocket/mortar fire: pending updates.

The Washington Post barely covered the attack, focusing instead on President Bush's visit to Israel.

Four Palestinians were killed in Gaza during clashes with the Israeli military. Medical officials said that two of the dead were civilians. Later, a rocket fired from Gaza slammed into a busy shopping mall in the coastal city of Ashkelon. Sixteen people were wounded, three of them seriously, including a mother and her daughter, according to Israeli hospital and police officials. A group affiliated with Hamas took responsibility for the attack.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the attack "entirely intolerable" and said Israel will "take the necessary steps so that this will stop."

The violence was a reminder of the obstacles facing negotiators as they attempt to cobble together a peace deal -- one that Bush has said he wants completed by the end of his term in January.

By this account, a firefight between the IDF and terrorists is as much a problem as a terror attack against civilians.

President Bush did make a nice statement.

"I suspect if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land," Bush said after meeting with Peres. "I doubt people would have been able to see the modern Israel, which is one reason I bring so much optimism to the Middle East, because what happened here is possible everywhere."

Bush elicited a raucous standing ovation from a crowd that included other world leaders and prominent Jewish figures at a ceremony Wednesday night marking the U.S.-Israel alliance.

And I suspect that if you went back 15 years and anticipated what the nascent Palestinian state would look like it would look like you wouldn't necessarily be surprised. It was foolish to trust Arafat. The changes necessary in the Palestinian world for their to be peace have yet to take place. As long as Palestinian nationalism is motivated more by the destruction of Israel than the building of a society, that society won't be built.

The New York Times focused more on the terror attack and picked up this amusing bit.

The timing, though, has been difficult for Mr. Bush, in part because Mr. Olmert is the subject of a corruption investigation that some say could cost him his job. When Mr. Bush arrived in Tel Aviv Wednesday morning, Mr. Olmert’s banter with the White House national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, was picked up by a sensitive microphone.

“Holding on, holding on. Don’t worry,” Mr. Olmert was overheard telling Mr. Hadley.

No word if Secretary Rice accepted DM Barak's invitation.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Two hundred eight years ago

Philadelphia ceases to be the seat of the American government.

After Congress adjourned its last meeting in Philadelphia on May 15, Adams told his cabinet to make sure Congress and all federal offices were up and running smoothly in their new headquarters by June 15, 1800. Philadelphia officially ceased to serve as the nation’s capital as of June 11, 1800.

At the time, there were only about 125 federal employees. Official documents and archives were transferred from Philadelphia to the new capital by ship over inland waterways. President and Mrs. Adams did not move in to the (unfinished) president’s mansion until November of that year. Settling in to the White House was a challenge for the new first lady. In December, Abigail Adams wrote to a friend later she had to line-dry their clothes in what eventually became the East Room.

Currently there are more than 1.8 million civilian federal employees with only about 10% of them working in the Washington DC area.

federal government, john adams.

How to sound like you're writing in all caps, even when you're not

A pro-Hillary guest post at the Taylor Marsh blog takes issue with a number of other bloggers sympathetic to Obama, including one who writes that "it's probably too much to ask" for Obama to comment on "the often-sexist viciousness Clinton has faced." "Grey" replies:

That is astonishingly wrong, and all the more disappointing since it comes from Walsh who, normally, gets it just about right. A "contentious" campaign is neither a reason nor an excuse not to address sexism, just as it gives no cover not to address racism, something Sen. Clinton, also in the middle of a "contentious" campaign, has done, and several times, just as she should have. Has it occurred to anyone that one of the reasons the campaign has been so contentious is that the chauvinism has run rampant and unchecked? Sen. Obama has not only not addressed sexism, but benefited from its ill-effects and engaged in some of his own; giving him a hall pass on it because he's busy and tired is shocking.

Look, you ludicrous, pseudo intellectual, self-promoting, pontificating, meandering quack: this is a political campaign, not a bluegrass revival, okay? Clinton is running for President and, as a candidate, she has every right to question her opponent, his positions and his deficiencies, of which there are many. It is not her job to make Obama glimmer so you can adore him a little more, nor is it her responsibility to make what is unsavory about him palatable to the masses. It is wholly and absurdly disingenuous to act as though the Republicans would have no idea how to go about beating him if only it weren't for Clinton, passing them notes during class. Give me a break already, and grow the hell up.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Half witte

As the successor to Scott Wilson, the Washington Post's Israel correspondent Griff Witte had some mighty low expectations to meet in terms of reporting objectively. Witte has very quickly managed to establish himself the equal of Scott Wilson in terms of adopting the Palestinian narrative. A recent Q & A about Israel's 60th birthday is very revealing.

The first question he actually handled quite well.

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Witte, you write that "Israel remains an unfinished project" and I am frankly glad that it is. Can any nation on the face of this earth truly be deemed a "finished project"? Wouldn't that mean stasis and stagnation? But please do not attribute this status of Israel to the lack of a constitution -- Israel is far from alone among the nations of the world to operate without a constitution. Great Britain, for one, comes to mind.

Griff Witte: An excellent question, so thank you. You're right that no nation ever truly is finished, but I think there's more debate in Israel than there is in most places about the nature of the state. What are Israel's borders? How does Israel handle the Palestinian territories? Are its neighbors friend or foe? Is Israel just for Jews, or is it multireligious? Within Judaism, how does Israel balance the needs of the ultra-Orthodox against the needs of the secular?

All of these are questions I hear being batted around this Independence Day. Of course, Israel's relative youth may account for a good part of the uncertainty.

Another possibility is that Israel has a very strong and vocal left wing that has its own newspaper.

But then we get to the second question.

Oslo, Norway: A common complaint against Israel is that they "kicked out the Arabs." Not only do Arabs still live in Israel, but there are more Arabs living in Israel now than in any other time in history. What is the reason for the continuation of this myth?

Griff Witte: I don't know that this is a myth. It has been well established by historians that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to leave their homes -- either directly or through intimidation from the advancing Israeli forces. They ended up in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and many other places beyond.

It's also well-established, and hardly a secret, that there's a significant Arab minority still living in Israel. About 20 percent of Israel's population is Arab.

No mention that most of the Arabs left on their own accord or were encouraged by their leadership to leave their homes.

Then he gets to this:

Concord, N.H.: It seems to me that the founding of Israel has resulted in 60 years of war, fractured relations with the rest of the Middle East and contributed to an ever-rising U.S. debt, at the expense of several hundred thousand Palestinians who had lived on that land for hundreds of years and now exist in poverty. Why does Israel deserve the billions of dollars we send to them? How are their aggressive military actions any less terrorist than the rest of those we condemn in the Middle East?

It is amazing to me that a race/religion of people who have borne so much pain at the hands of ethnic cleansing agendas so easily would commit such crimes against the Palestinians -- yet we not only give them a free pass to do so, we arm their efforts. They are not innocent in this endless fighting. What gave them the right to banish all of those people from their homes -- people with centuries of history on that land?

Griff Witte: This is certainly an argument one hears quite a bit from Israel's critics. I think Israel's defenders would point to its record as a staunch U.S. ally, the Jewish people's historic ties to the land, and the attacks carried out almost daily by radical Islamist groups such as Hamas against civilian targets.

Not an argument we're going to solve here today.

"Israel's critics"? No it isn't an argument that he's going to solve, but he could have been more forceful. Every single thing that Witte wrote is accurate, so why does he qualify it with "Israel's defenders." The questioner was more than a critic of Israel, he was opposed to Israel's existence.

UPDATE: And as LGF observes, Palestinians represent one of the fastest growing populations in the world. It's a point worth mentioning to someone who brings up "ethnic cleansing."

Wheaton, Md.: Why is there so much hostility against Israel among the Arabs? Arabs occupy 80 percent of the Middle East and half of Africa. Do they really think is such a "grave injustice" that Jews have a tiny country of their own?

Griff Witte: Ahh, here's another point often made by Israel's backers: It's a small country, and it's the one true homeland that Jews can call their own.

"Israel's backers." Witte treats Israel's critics and backers equally regardless of the accuracy of their assertions.

Memphis, Tenn.: There seems to be no hope of peace so long as the Palestinian economy is in ruins. If people had jobs to go to instead of bomb factories, wouldn't there be a better chance of peace? Why are the U.S. and Israel so determined to cripple the Palestinian economy? We made friends of Germany and Japan after World War II by building their economies, not by destroying them.

Griff Witte: This is one of the questions being batted around a lot these days, even inside Israel. The policy of the U.S. and Israel toward Gaza, in particular, has been one of isolation. The idea is to marginalize Hamas by not talking to it and by imposing strict economic sanctions on Gaza, with the hope of turning the people against the group. I've been to Gaza several times in recent weeks, and one point people there made to me over and over was that the sanctions actually have strengthened Hamas by making the population more dependent on the group for jobs, aid, etc.

"Marginalize Hamas?" No the point of the sanctions to is to reduce the resources that Hamas has so that Hamas can't strike at Israel as easily. Of course Hamas's priority is to attack Israel, not provide for its own people, so the precious resources go more for guns than for butter.

Washington: Why has there been no support for a plan that would have Egypt absorb Gaza and Jordan absorb parts of the west bank? This makes a lot more sense than a non-contiguous and practically-anarchic state of Palestine. Egypt and Jordan need to do more to help their brothers, rather than keeping them in the same old situation.

Griff Witte: This is an idea that's floated from time to time by Israeli politicians, particularly those on the right. The problem with it is that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza want their own state. They don't consider themselves Jordanians or Egyptians -- they consider themselves Palestinians.

They do consider themselves Palestinians, but that doesn't obviate the point that Egypt and Jordan could do more.

Memphis, Tenn.: The Palestinian refugees have been severely maltreated by all parties; no other refugee population has been confined to refugee camps so long. Isn't it time to start finding a solution for the refugee problem, rather than arguing about assigning blame?

Griff Witte: Not a bad idea.

If the Palestinians wanted a solution to the refugee problem they'd have had it by now. If Arafat in the past and Abbas and Fayyad currently had been dedicated to building an economy, fought terrorism and encouraged reconciliation, I don't see how any Israeli government wouldn't have acceded to the creation of a Palestinian state. (Not that I think it would have been a good idea.)

Arlington, Va.: Can one not celebrate the successes of Israel based on shear will to become the technological leader it has become today, and not try to contrast it with the sympathy cause of the Palestinians? One could assume based on this premise that Israel was granted the ability to succeed, while Palestinians were forced to suffer these 60 years. However, Israel's success is evident from their persistent will to succeed, unlike their Palestinian counterparts who rather would invest in guns to kill Israelis than invest it in their infrastructure and research.

Until the Palestinians realize they cannot live like the Israelis without first investing in their infrastructure, they will continue to suffer. It took 60 years for Israel to get where it is today; Palestinians have a long way to go before they can get to the point where they can consider themselves equals with Israel. However, it starts with ending funding for guns and using the money for infrastructure.

Griff Witte: Thanks for the comment.

About 20 percent of Israel's population is Arab: And they have the right to vote? The right to hold any job including membership in the legislature and in the government? The right to serve in the military and other defense organizations including intelligence? They have the right to settle in any part of Israel? Yes?

Griff Witte: You're basically right on these points. I'll just add, however, that Palestinians living in Israel feel strongly that they're not treated equally, and that discrimination against them -- in terms of where they live, how they fit into the democratic process, etc. -- is on the rise.

And I'd add that if Jews were living in a Palestinian state. Oh never mind, that would never happen.

New York: Israel expelled Arabs, true. And all the Arab countries expelled their Jews. And the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported the Nazis. Israelis bulldozed Arab villages, and the Arabs said they'd "push the Jews into the sea." The young Menachem Begin was a terrorist, and so was the young Yasser Arafat.

It seems like there's enough blame to go around. Why can't the Israelis and Palestinians get past all this tit-for-tat recitation of reciprocal injustices and try to look to some sort of future? The idea that Palestinians think they have a "right of return" goes contrary to all of human history -- it's like saying the Turks should give Asia Minor back to the Greeks.

Griff Witte: Thanks for your comment.

In terms of the future, right of return is certainly an issue, but hardly the only one. In the U.S.-backed negotiations going on as we speak, there are a whole host of final status issues that need to be addressed before there can be a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Among them: What are the borders? Who controls Jerusalem? Where is the capital of the Palestinian state? What assurances does Israel have about security? How do you deal with Gaza? There are many more. But point is, it's not simple.

Here he ignores the historical comments to focus on the Palestinian "right of return."

Washington: It's often said in certain circles that one gets far more honest and forthright coverage of Israel and Palestine in some Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz, than one does in most U.S. news outlets. Excepting the work of The Post, of course, do you find this to be true? If so, why?

Griff Witte: Haaretz and other papers here do a commendable job in their coverage, but as a rule, I wouldn't say that's so. We write for different audiences -- theirs is primarily (though not exclusively) internal; mine is mostly external. We focus on different things, perhaps, because of the different audiences, but I wouldn't say one is more honest and forthright than the other.

Actually I'd argue that Ha'aretz in some ways is more forthright than the Washignton Post. Ha'aretz, though no doubt it galls some of its staff often does publish material that's inconvenient to the Palestinian cause. The Post of course will usually cherry pick and not include those items. (Very little mention of the Grad hitting the shopping mall in Ashkelon yesterday.)

Chevy Chase, Md.: I have a problem with how you characterize Israel's Independence Day as a "day of mourning" for the Palestinian Arabs. It's like you and other reporters can't say one without the other in the same sentence or paragraph. Do we say "today is Columbus Day, a day of mourning for Native Americans" or "today is the Fourth of July, a day of mourning for the United Kingdom." (Actually that could be a day of mourning for Native Americans too. And unlike the Jews in the Land of Israel, Europeans were always the colonialists. The Jews had at least some continuous presence in the land of Israel for 2,500 years, even if it was not a sovereign presence.)

The fact is, as Richard Holbrooke reminded us in his op-ed piece yesterday, the founders of the Jewish state favored two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and that's even though the Arabs of the Palestinian region already received a state carved out from the Ottoman Empire -- (Trans)Jordan. Problem was that Jordan got its rulers from the Hashemites of the Arabian Peninsula, so the Palestinians did not get to rule their state, and the other post-Ottoman Arab rulers rejected a Jewish state in the midst of their many Arab states.

They created and have wallowed in the fetid and violent bed they have laid in for 60 years. It's time they acknowledge that, stop using terrorism and wars to try to solve their problem and work on a peaceful solution with the State of Israel. Even the rest of the Arab and Muslim world (see Iraq) cannot overcome their tribalism. Palestinian Arabs have enormous potential to be a modern, prosperous, democratic state in the Middle East, if they only would seize the opportunity.

Griff Witte: Thanks for the comment. There are two peoples living on this land, and we cover both.

I don't agree with him, but this was less a question than a speech. A fine speech. But it really wasn't in search of an answer.

Memphis, Tenn. (hey, great discussion): The Israeli press is far more diverse than the U.S. press; minority and differing views turn up regularly even in papers like Haaretz, but rarely get reported in the U.S. Why is it that being "pro-Israel" in the U.S. has become so identified with being "pro-present Israeli government." I can be pro-U.S. but not like Bush administration policies; why can't I be considered pro-Israel if I support peace for Israel, and therefore oppose present Olmert policies?

Griff Witte: Thanks. You raise a good point -- neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can be seen as a monolith. The split in Palestinian society is far more dramatic right now -- Fatah in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza -- but there are some pretty serious divisions in Israel, too. Whenever we can, we try to include voices from various points on the spectrum within each society.

Of course there's one point that both Fatah and Hamas agree on and that's the acceptability of terrorism if the Palestinians don't get their demands fulfilled.

Witte is a lot more accepting of the Palestinian narrative than he is of the Israeli one. It's little wonder that his coverage has been so skewed since he started.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel,

IRNA: Electoral College "creates an appropriate environment for Jews"

A new article from Gholam Waltmearjanstani:

On May 14 1948, Israel declared independence after occupying Palestinian territories. The new Israeli government needed international recognition and support to maintain its existence.

At the time, the United States, one of the two super powers after the World War II, immediately recognized the newly established Israeli government. The then US president Harry Truman explaining reasons for Washington's move -- although it could impact US ties with oil-rich Arab countries -- said that Jews would have more votes than Arabs in future US presidential elections.

Truman's move easily indicates the impact of Jewish lobby in the US power system, particularly foreign policy, and also shows a kind of tradition in American presidential elections since 1948.

Successors of Truman are still following up this tradition, after 60 years of the foundation of Israel.

In this regard, following points are interesting to know:
1) A belief of the Jewish influence on the American presidential elections has become a tradition in the US, given the fact that Truman emphasized it as a general rule, and his successors attached much more importance to the rule, as is clearly seen in the current presidential elections.

2) According to the US federal constitution, the president and vice president are elected based on a system known as 'Electoral College' in which any candidate who receives half plus one of the whole 538 votes will become president.

The system creates an appropriate environment for Jews as 89 percent of them reside in 12 states which have the highest representation in the Electoral College.

3) Americans have a low political participation, while Jews massively participate in various elections -- sometimes Jewish participation reaches 90 percent -- and draws the attention of presidential candidates.

In addition to a high political participation, Jews having a strong hand in financial, media and campaigning can easily act in favor of or against any candidate.

Jews spend huge amount of money in the campaign for their favorite candidate, while other American classes cannot afford this.

4) Given Israel's position in the US foreign policy, presidential candidates have to keep in mind Israeli interests when they campaign for presidency, and they have to define their future policies in accordance with Israel's interests in the Middle East and the world too. That is why the candidates spare no effort in this regard, especially when the issue of the 60th anniversary of Israel's foundation is there; otherwise any candidate's ignoring Israel and issues related to it is tantamount to turning a blind eye to Jewish votes and their financial, political and media support.

5) But the reality is: although Jewish influence is crucial for US presidential candidates, their role is not always determining.

Jews usually support Democrats and cast more ballots for them.

But, Republicans while being aware of this fact always try to attract more votes from Jews.

In the US presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, Jewish votes for George Bush were less than 20 percent, but Bush won the elections, and of course he made efforts to take more Jews votes in both rounds.

All the above-mentioned issues indicate Jewish dominance over US presidential elections, as the candidates use every possible opportunity to gain support of Israel and Jews.

The coincidence of the 60th anniversary of Israel's foundation with the important stages of the US presidential campaigns is an event which, on one hand, proves the candidates' support of Israel and Jews, and on the other hand, has created a kind of competition among them to gain more support and votes by Jews.

The Jewish agency has announced that all US presidential hopefuls have joined the US-based Committee to honor 60th anniversary of Israel's foundation. The committee, set to hold various ceremonies across the United States, has definitely provided presidential hopefuls Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain with the opportunity to declare their support of Israel.

On the other side, Israel and the US Jewish bodies are using the ceremonies as a chance to assess the candidates on their stance toward Israel.

The honoring ceremony of Israel's foundation is not the only tool candidates use to attract Israeli and Jewish support. They are using other opportunities to reach their goals.

For example:
1) Prior to attending the ceremony, the only Republican candidate John McCain visited Israel where he met senior officials and prime minister Ehud Olmert. As a part of efforts to reach his candidacy goals, McCain announced support for an attack on Iran, in case of any Iranian threat on Israel and Tehran's attaining of nuclear weapons.

There, McCain called Iran a big threat to security in the Middle East and the world. He repeated his support for Israel, saying Tel Aviv has the right to self-defense against the Lebanese Resistance Movement, Hezbollah.

2) Democrat candidate Barack Obama, among other pro-Israeli-and- Jewish efforts to gain support, has launched a weblog in Hebrew, with the aim of informing Israelis of his plans to expand ties between Washington and Tel Aviv, as he said.

Although Jews say Obama is Muslim, with a Muslim father, he has denied it, carrying out many pro-Jewish religious activities. Calling for Jews' support, Obama has not ruled out military action against Iran which he has set as a red line; although he advocates an active policy along with tough sanctions against Tehran.

3) Many rabbis in the US consider Hilary Clinton, another Democrat presidential hopeful, as the candidate supporting Israel.

She has been able to gain 24 percent of votes by supporting Jewish ideals in the US.

Clinton's official stance is: Israel, with its capital Beit-ul-Moqaddas, has as a Jewish government with defendable borders.

It has the right to exist and should be immune from anti-occupation movement of the Palestinians.

Measures and remarks by US presidential hopefuls are indicative of the old attitude of American officials about Jews and their influence on presidential elections.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Two hundred four years ago

Lewis and Clark embarked on their famous expedition.

Even before the U.S. government concluded purchase negotiations with France, President Thomas Jefferson commissioned his private secretary Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, an army captain, to lead an expedition into what is now the U.S. Northwest. On May 14, the "Corps of Discovery"--featuring approximately 45 men (although only an approximate 33 men would make the full journey)--left St. Louis for the American interior.

The expedition traveled up the Missouri River in a 55-foot long keelboat and two smaller boats. In November, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian fur trader accompanied by his young Native American wife Sacagawea, joined the expedition as an interpreter. The group wintered in present-day North Dakota before crossing into present-day Montana, where they first saw the Rocky Mountains. On the other side of the Continental Divide, they were met by Sacagawea's tribe, the Shoshone Indians, who sold them horses for their journey down through the Bitterroot Mountains. After passing through the dangerous rapids of the Clearwater and Snake rivers in canoes, the explorers reached the calm of the Columbia River, which led them to the sea. On November 8, 1805, the expedition arrived at the Pacific Ocean, the first European explorers to do so by an overland route from the east. After pausing there for the winter, the explorers began their long journey back to St. Louis.

Industrial zones for peace

Writing about an industrial zone on the border of Gaza set to open nearly ten years ago, William Orme of the New York Times reported:

Now, hailed by all sides as the first tangible achievement of the current phase of the tortuous Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process, the Gaza Industrial Estate is expected to be operating before the end of the year. It will employ up to a thousand Palestinians, and eventually more, in several small-scale manufacturing ventures.

What was hailed here as a diplomatic and economic breakthrough would almost anywhere else in the world be an unexceptional, small step in industrial development.

Still, it is a measure of the Gaza Strip's isolation and economic desperation that this tentative, modest project looms so large for Palestinian planners.

Orme, of course, notes how Israel was likely to render the success of such a project unviable.

Gaza's exports are routinely obstructed by border closings and security checks, further skewing a chronic trade imbalance. For every five trucks that arrive here from Israel, only one goes out, and it typically goes out very slowly.

On a recent afternoon at the border checkpoint next to the industrial park, six Israeli customs inspectors examined a truckload of Gaza potatoes for hours, pallet by pallet, bag by bag, with hand-held metal detectors.

Unfortunately, one of the industrial zones bordering Gaza, Karni, was often the focus of terrorism.

In 2004 after Israel arrested an organizer of a terrorist attack in Ashdod where the terrorists were transported through Karni, Israel released some relevant information about the suspect:

Atallah noted that in the weeks prior to his arrest, the Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades tried to carry out another double suicide bombing into Israel, using the Karni crossing as the route for smuggling the suicide bombers. Atallah was responsible for arranging the release of the containers from the crossing; the suicide bombers were to be hidden under a double floor within a container. Atallah said that the terrorist organizations view the Karni crossing as a weak point, lacking full security checks, and providing an attractive route for smuggling terrorists into Israel. For that matter, the Hamas, assisted by Atallah, was planning to purchase trucks and establish a company for transporting containers from the Gaza Strip into Israel and use it as a guise for smuggling terrorists into Israel.

In a 2006 briefing a UNRWA official said:

Recent incursions into the Karni industrial zone have left the infrastructure severely damaged. This usually vibrant area is now empty and quiet. Many of the companies will struggle to get started again. Some of them might not survive. Last month the offices of many Karni based Gazan companies were demolished, even the motherboards of their computers were taken away.

"If violence stops there are other things to be done. This industrial zone has to be working again. Otherwise reconstruction will be unsustainable in Gaza", Mr Grandi said.

The problem is that Karni became a focal point for attack because of its vulnerability. In fact the idea - logical on the face - that facilitating commerce and economic opportunity between the Palestinians and Israel would cement peace between them, has worked out quite the opposite so far.

I bring you this background because Tony Blair knows that he can bring peace to the Middle East by following this path right now.

Mr. Blair, a former British prime minister and now the representative of the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers — the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union — announced plans for economic, social and security measures at a news conference. He said it would be “a mistake to think” that the political negotiations could work without changing the reality on the ground.

That, he said, meant easing conditions for Palestinians in their daily lives while assuring Israelis their security.

Among the measures, which Mr. Blair said he had been discussing with Israeli defense officials, were efforts to ease the movement of Palestinian people and goods; the development of two industrial parks; approval for new building in Palestinian villages in areas under Israeli control; and the creation of a special Palestinian economic and security zone in and around Jenin, in the north, as a testing ground for the rest of the West Bank.

Will Mr. Blair's initiatives pay off? The experience in Gaza shows that rather improving the lives of the Palestinians, the economic zones may well become targets for opportunistic terrorists. This is not to say that his effort will fail. Still past experience tells us that Mr. Blair's good intentions notwithstanding, the implementation of his plan may well make matters worse.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Submitted 05/14/08

The Watcher's Council submissions have been posted.

Making Capitalists- Bookworm Room introduces us to Horatio Alger and notes the divergence of his art from his life.
The Audacity of Newsweek - Wolf Howling takes a list of charges against opponents of Sen. Obama drawn up by Newsweek and refutes them one by one. The often incoherent Richard Cohen pulled the same thing yesterday when he argued in McCain in the Mud that McCain's mention of Hamas support for his possible rival for the presidency was mudslinging. Of course Cohen brings up the age issue before writing that he could understand that Hamas wants a president with a "supple" mind.
Curiouser and Curiouser- The Glittering Eye peers down the rabbit hole that is Iran today and sees the regime prepared to pursue legal action against the United Steates and Britain for an explosion at a mosque a month ago. The question is why the regime would wish to bring the matter before an international tribunal.
And People think George W. Bush Is a Moron - The Colossus of Rhodey dissects a statement from Jimmy Carter in which he whitewashes Hamas. I thank him for his kind words too.
BUMPED: McCain Ahead In Electoral Vote Race? - Rhymes With Right looks not at popularity but at the electoral map and sees that Sen. McCain has a real chance in November. Jennifer Rubin adds some comments to the topic.
Where we went wrong - Hillbilly White Trash traces the upcoming election of President Barack Obama to the continuing erosion of conservative principles by the Republican party at all levels.
Protecting Marriage - Done With Mirrors mocks "protection of marriage" legislation including pending legislation to limit divorce.
Los Angeles' Combat High School - The Education Wonks deplores the school authorities for failing to act against students who leave school premises to fight.
Lebanon Becomes Hezbollahstan - Joshuapundit lists the policy failures that led to the fall of Beirut. He's right that the 2006 ceasefire hailed in the media as restoring to normalcy to "the people with Lebanon" strengthened Hezbollah with no effective means of enforcement. Instead it became a license for Hezbollah to re-arm. David Kenner writing from Lebanon echoes the sentiments and laments the collaps of the Lebanese army.
And Tango Makes 420 - Cheat Seeking Missiles mocks the cultural indoctrination practiced by the American Library Association.
Poll: Aberica Is a Sucky Place To Live Right Now - Right Wing Nut House looks at a poll showing that 82% of Americans think that the country is on the "wrong track" and is, therefore, not nearly as hopeful of Sen. McCain's chances in November as Rhymes with Right is.
In my submission "Evolution" = "Growth", I critique a Washington Post article that claims that the relationship of the American Jewish community to Israel has "evolved." Unlike the reporter, I don't think that's a good thing.

My non-council submission was Yes, Experience Matters that notes that America has likely never had a candidate for President as unaccomplished (in terms of relevant experience) as Sen. Obama. I was all set to submit this as my non-council entry this week because it was so funny before I saw Baseball Crank's post.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Another Jewish Charter School And The Effects It May Have

The Jewish Voice And Opinion has an article in its May issue (PDF) about the proposed school, tentatively named The Englewood Hebrew Language and Culture Charter School, and slated to open in 2009--subject to approval by the State of NJ School Board.

Because of the nature of charter schools, some see them as the answer to how to give children a Jewish education with the enormous costs that are associated with it. According to the article:

Because they are public schools, charter schools are not allowed to charge tuition. They receive a little over $10,000 per student each year from a mixture of state and local funds, which represents 90 percent of what students at regular public schools cost taxpayers.

In addition, charter schools, once they are approved, receive $450,000 in federal seed money, designed to help the school’s parents find a building and pay for materials.

As non-profit corporations, the schools are entitled to raise money and accept donations.

“Following the rules of NJ charter schools, we will aggressively teach Hebrew as a language, Hebrew literature, and cultural material, such as Israel’s geography and history, Israeli dancing, and a major focus on the Holocaust and genocide studies. We have no intention of crossing any red lines,” said [founder] Mr. Bachrach.

And non-Jews are already showing interest in sending their children to the new school:

“Their reasons range from wanting their children prepared for a world that extends beyond their immediate culture, to recognizing that Israel, as one of America’s strongest allies and leading trade partners, offers great opportunities to those who speak Hebrew,” he [Bachrach] said.

One parent said she wanted her child to be immersed in one of “the few great classical languages and cultures.” “Hebrew has served as the foundation for the modern world. The three great monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—all trace their roots to the ancient Hebrews,” she said.

For example, one of the properties they are investigating abuts on the driveway of Englewood’s Yeshiva Ohr Simcha, a high school which offers a slew of religious programming open to the community. Presumably, parents at the new charter school could arrange to hold religious services and classes at the yeshiva outside of school hours.

At Ben Gamla in Florida, the school’s facilities are rented to religious organizations, such as the Orthodox Union’s NCSY, after the regular school day is completed.

Some observant-Jewish parents say the new school would enable them to save money on their children’s elementary education, freeing up funds for religious high schools and college.

“If my children went to regular public school, they wouldn’t be prepared for yeshiva high school. This way, they will be, especially with added private religious classes,” said one of the parents.

Jewish charter schools may not be the answer to how best to deal with the high cost of a good Yeshiva education, but it may be in the process of developing into one of the tools for dealing with it--strengthening Orthodox Judaism even as it weakens other denominations.

For more information on the proposed new charter school, Mr. Raphael Bachrach can be
reached at raphael@raphaelbachrach.com

By Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Judaism.

Twenty seven years ago

Pope John Paul II was shot.

Pope John Paul II is shot and wounded at St. Peter's Square in Rome, Italy. Turkish terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca, an escaped fugitive already convicted of a previous murder, fired several shots at the religious leader, two of which wounded nearby tourists. Agca was immediately captured.

Agca claimed that he had planned to go to England to kill the king but couldn't because it turned out there was only a queen and "Turks don't shoot women." He also claimed to have Palestinian connections, although the PLO quickly denied any involvement. Detectives believed that his confession had been coached in order to throw investigators offtrack.

Also though some initially assigned blame to the Bulgarian secret police for running Agca, Edward Jay Epstein later rejected that idea.

Technological enforcement

Ha'aretz reports on a new Israeli startup that has developed technology to detect terrorists:

Quietly, even stealthily, this unknown company has been working for five years now on one of the more interesting technological innovations to be created in these parts.

WeCU ("We see you," in case you are unaccustomed to SMS-speak) promises an automated system to detect people with mayhem on their minds. The system integrates methods and doctrines from the behavioral sciences with biometric sensors.

According to the company's founders, in under a minute it can screen an individual, without his or her knowledge or cooperation and without interfering with routine activities, and disclose intentions to carry out criminal or terror activity. It can identify subjects who are not carrying any suspicious objects, do not demonstrate any suspicious behavior, do not fit into a predefined social or other profile and do not arouse any suspicion.

Unlike systems currently in use, such as polygraphs or biometric systems based on identifying an individual under emotional pressure, WeCU does not attempt to determine whether the subject is lying, concealing information, under stress or feeling guilty. Instead, it seeks to identify concealed intentions by uncovering an associative connection between the subjects and defined threats.

What isn't clear is if this system would be deployed in public spaces or if it would utilized in interrogations. On the one hand the company's saying that it can screen suspects "without interfering with routine activities" on the other hand the CEO goes on to explain:

How does it work? Givon explains: "The technology is patented. We take advantage of human characteristics, according to which when a person intends to carry out a particular activity or has a great acquaintance or involvement with a particular activity, he carries with him information and feelings that are associated with the subject or activity. In effect, his brain creates a collection of associations that are relevant to the subject.

"When this person is exposed to stimuli targeted at these associations - such as a picture of a partner to the activity, items from the scene of a crime that he carried out, the symbol of the organization in whose name he is acting or a code word - he will respond emotionally and cognitively to these stimuli. The response is expressed with a number of very subtle physiological and behavioral changes during the exposure to the stimulus," Givon said.

If the system exposes the subject to "stimuli" how does it do that effectively unless it's in a controlled environment (such as an interrogation)?

The Guardian's technology blog wonders (where I first saw the story):

There's not much info on WeCU Technologies Ltd, but it is a Microsoft Partner and was "incorporated in August 2003". The partner page has a summary of the approach, but the link to its web page doesn't work.

While there are some questions about WeCU, one of the founders of the company, Prof. Shlomo Breznitz was previously involved with another startup, Mindfit Technologies that also focuses on cognition.

The trial was conducted at the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center of Tel-Aviv University in Israel, where researchers are taking a leading role in the study of age-related disorders. During the two-year clinical trial, doctors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study with active comparators of 121 self-referred volunteer participants age 50 and older. Each study participant was randomly assigned to spend 30 minutes, three times a week during the course of three months at home, using either MindFit or sophisticated computer games.

While all study participants benefited from the use of computer games, MindFit users experienced greater improvement in the cognitive domains of spatial short term memory, visuo-spatial learning and focused attention. Additionally, MindFit users in the study with lower baseline cognitive performance gained more than those with normal cognition, showing the potential therapeutic effect of home-based computer training software in those already suffering the effects of aging or more serious diseases.

"These research findings show unequivocally that MindFit, which requires no previous computer experience of users, keeps minds sharper than other computer games and software can," said Prof. Shlomo Breznitz, Ph.D., founder and president of CogniFit. "In fact, the same cognitive domains that MindFit keeps sharp are also central in most daily activities-including driving-that enable aging independently."

Breznitz continued, "These findings support CogniFit's belief that if you exercise your brain just as you do your muscles, you can build the speed and accuracy of your mental functions, significantly. 'Working out' with MindFit three times a week from the comfort of your home will yield similar results for your brain as exercising at the gym with that same frequency does for your muscles."

In unrelated news Prof Breznitz was saved from the Holocaust by being hidden at a Catholic orphanage.

In somewhat related news Japan is considering fielding a facial recognition device to determine if a person buying cigarettes from a vending is of legal age (20 in Japan) to do so.

Cigarette vending machines in Japan may soon start counting wrinkles, crow's feet and skin sags to see if the customer is old enough to smoke.

The legal age for smoking in Japan is 20 and as the country's 570,000 tobacco vending machines prepare for a July regulation requiring them to ensure buyers are not underage, a company has developed a system to identify age by studying facial features.

By having the customer look into a digital camera attached to the machine, Fujitaka Co's system will compare facial characteristics, such as wrinkles surrounding the eyes, bone structure and skin sags, to the facial data of over 100,000 people, Hajime Yamamoto, a company spokesman said.

And infra-red sensors give the Air Force an opportunity to detect and eliminate a threat to soldiers on the ground.

The sniper never knew what hit him. The Marines patrolling the street below were taking fire, but did not have a clear shot at the third-story window that the sniper was shooting from. They were pinned down and called for reinforcements.

Help came from a Predator drone circling the skies 20 miles away. As the unmanned plane closed in, the infrared camera underneath its nose picked up the muzzle flashes from the window. The sniper was still firing when the Predator's 100-pound Hellfire missile came through the window and eliminated the threat.

The airman who fired that missile was 8,000 miles away, here at Creech Air Force Base, home of the 432nd air wing. The 432nd officially "stood up," in the jargon of the Air Force, on May 1, 2007. One year later, two dozen of its drones patrol the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan every hour of every day. And almost all of them are flown by two-man crews sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of a "ground control station" (GCS) in the Nevada desert.

I suppose that there are those who will see in this increased use of video and recognition technology a manifestation of Big Brother. In the limited use they've been deployed so far, it doesn't seem that governments are getting too intrusive. Then again maybe it would be reassuring if governments limited this technology for really important stuff instead of (unsuccessfully) saturating society with it.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel, surveillance technology.

Usgs data on the sichuan quake

The USGS has a summary of relevant information on the Sichuan quake, such as the areas that felt the quake the hardest and the populations of those cities.

For a technical explanation of what happened:

The Sichuan earthquake of May 12, 2008, occurred as the result of motion on a northeast striking reverse fault or thrust fault on the northwestern margin of the Sichuan Basin. The earthquake's epicenter and focal-mechanism are consistent with it having occurred as the result of movement on the Longmenshan fault or a tectonically related fault. The earthquake reflects tectonic stresses resulting from the convergence of crustal material slowly moving from the high Tibetan Plateau, to the west, against strong crust underlying the Sichuan Basin and southeastern China.

On a continental scale, the seismicity of central and eastern Asia is a result of northward convergence of the India plate against the Eurasia plate with a velocity of about 50 mm/y. The convergence of the two plates is broadly accommodated by the uplift of the Asian highlands and by the motion of crustal material to the east away from the uplifted Tibetan Plateau.

The northwestern margin of the Sichuan Basin has previously experienced destructive earthquakes. The magnitude 7.5 earthquake of August 25, 1933, killed more than 9,300 people.

There was another more recent quake too.

Overall, structures in this region are vulnerable to earthquake shaking, though some resistant structures exist. A magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck the Sichuan, China region on August 23, 1976 (UTC), with estimated population exposures of 1,500 at intensity IX or greater and 5,700 at intensity VIII, resulting in 41 deaths.

(Above quoted text courtesy of the USGS.)

A little more interesting are the reactions of Chinese bloggers to the quake:

One famous Chinese blogger, the television reporter Luqiu Luwei, raised a few questions on her blog: Why were so many middle school students among the dead from the disaster? What did that say about the quality of those school buildings? Official media reported that hundreds of students died in the Sichuan earthquake, as they were pinned under the collapsing buildings.

Another blogger, Zeng XianNan, was suspicious about whether the quake could have been predicted based on seismic activity. "I saw the Sichuan Net news quoting Sichuan Earthquake Bureau official Deng Chang Wen saying before the earthquake no forecast indicated any macro anomolies," Zeng wrote. "If this was true, then it means that our technology is not strong enough. But wasn't [it true] that we have successfully forecast earthquakes before? If it were the case that it was detected but reporting was delayed, how would [they] explain that?"

In Baidu Post Bar, a popular Internet forum, thousands of people around China were posting their accounts on what was happening in their region, as if it could make them feel safer and better. Elsewhere online, three college students in Chengdu, the home of 11 million people, shot a short video during the earthquake and posted it on Tudou, a major user-generated video-sharing site in China. The video was later removed, but it was not clear why. (Tudou means potato in English.)

(h/t Instapundit)

earthquake.

Jimmy carter's comment is content free

Jimmy Carter in the Guardian's Comment is Free section:

The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.

This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.

Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza. Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel, plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.

As I've commented in the past, Jimmy Carter's say-so that elections are "honest and fair" is worthless as he's covered for elections stolen by Yasser Arafat and Hugo Chavez.

Still Carter, is not a lawyer and knows nothing about international law. However, David B. Rivkin and Lee Casey specialize in the subject and outlined Israel's rights and obligations according to international law.

It is because an occupying power exercises effective control over a territory that international law substantially restricts the measures, military or economic, it can bring to bear upon this territory, well beyond the limits that would be applicable before occupation, whether in wartime or peacetime.

The Israeli military does not control Gaza; nor does Israel exercise any government functions there. Claims that Israel continues to occupy Gaza suggest that a power having once occupied a territory must continue to behave toward the local population as an occupying power until all outstanding issues are resolved. This "principle" can be described only as an ingenious invention; it has no basis in traditional international law.

The adoption of any such rule (designed to limit Israel's freedom of action and give Hamas a legal leg up in its continuing conflict) should be actively opposed by the United States. Its adoption would suggest that no occupying power can withdraw of its own volition without incurring continuing, and perhaps permanent, legal obligations to a territory. This issue is particularly acute regarding territory not otherwise controlled by a functioning state -- failed states or failed areas of states where the "legitimate" government cannot or will not exercise effective control. Such places -- call them badlands -- were once rare. Over the past 15 years, though, there has been an explosion in the number of such areas, notably parts of Afghanistan, Somalia and portions of Pakistan.

I suppose that Jimmy should be flattered, they called his declaration that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself "ingenious." I don't think they meant it in a complimentary fashion though.

Furthermore restricting Israel's right to defend itself, has implications in relation to the United States.

Unduly handicapping states that intervene in such badlands -- whether to protect their own interests, those of the local population or both -- is unrealistic and irresponsible. Requiring agreement by the "international community" (whatever that may be) as a precondition for extinguishing such a designation is equally unproductive if the goal is saving lives. Consider the example of Darfur.

Even worse is pretending that groups such as Hamas are merely criminal gangs that must be dealt with as a local policing problem -- just one of the potential side effects of imposing an "occupied" status on a territory. This implicates U.S. interests directly, since America's ability to use robust armed force against al-Qaeda and similar non-state actors remains critical to defending our civilian population from attack.

Perhaps rather than lecturing us about international law, Jimmy ought to sit down and read a book or two on the topic before spouting off.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel, hamas.

"Evolution" = "growth"

One of the thing conservatives like me marvel at is the way the supposedly objective media will describe a conservative politician who adopts liberal positions as having "grown" in office. It doesn't really mean that the politician became more flexible, because a politician moving in the other direction would be described as "having become more conservative." What "grown" means is "he's become more like us."

That's how to approach the Washington Post's U.S. Jews' Relationship With Israel Evolves. "Evolves" in this case means the same thing as "grown" in the context mentioned above.

Growing up at Congregation Olam Tikvah, Michelle Pearlstein remembers how Israel was taught at religious school: "Black and white -- you can't trust anyone, and it was a united front in support of Israel." Today, Pearlstein, 35, is the Israel specialist at the Fairfax synagogue, where she teaches what is now the mainstream approach: "We call it 'Israel, warts and all.' "

The change in curriculum is but one manifestation of the changing relationship between American Jews and the Jewish state, even as the country celebrates its 60th birthday this week.

Multiple new polls show that younger American Jews feel less of a connection to Israel than older Jews. And while there is heated debate about some of the polls' methodologies and conclusions, most Jewish leaders are very concerned about the data. The leaders see them as a long-term byproduct of intermarriage, assimilation and controversial Israeli policies, including settlement expansion in the occupied territories.

I'd put that last bit differently, "... growing ambivalence, reflecting attitudes seen in the media, towards such non-controversial Israeli policies as defending itself against terrorist organizations." But of course emphasizing "settlements" as "controversial" underscores the reporter's belief that American Jews are becoming more like her.

Then there's this:

What affect would a weakening of the emotional link between Israel and American Jews have on U.S. policy toward the Middle East? Last month, a group of left-leaning Jews established a lobbying group hoping to counter the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has often lobbied U.S. governments to maintain a tough line toward Israel's adversaries.

J-Street is of course not the result of the "weakening" of an "emotional link," rather it is the expression of contempt by a segment of Jews towards Israel. Though masquerading as a leftist "pro-Israel' lobbying group, it features the likes of Henry Siegman who has made a career of ripping Israel and apologizing for the likes of Hafez Assad, Yasser Arafat and Hamas.

Experts in Jewish education describe replacing mushy classic ballads like "Jerusalem of Gold" from the 1960s with tracks from Israeli rappers who sing about immigration and sexuality, or jettisoning lessons about pioneering kibbutzim and replacing them with ones about Israel's technology wunderkinds.

While I can't disagree with the later sentiment, the first one is offensive. "Jerusalem of Gold" ("Yerushalayim shel Zahav") is not mushy. It's beautiful. At least to my (untrained) ear. More likely the problem with it is that it was written Naomi Shemer an Israeli who was associated with the political right and who was proud of her country. And those who wish to see the American Jewish relationship with Israel "mature" have no place for for feelings of nationalism and pride.

Pearlstein said much of the teaching material about Israel is outdated. Either it sticks to Biblical Israel and does not go beyond 1948, or it ends at 1967 -- the Six-Day War. "I think that's because recent years have been so negative," she says. Her main goal is to teach students to have a connection with Israel, "to show that Jews have always been in this land, we can see it in the Bible and we can see it today." But you have to do it frankly, she says, by showing "shades of gray, Israel's challenges as well as its achievements."

I don't have a problem with the "shades of gray." Israel is a country run by people, so obviously it won't be perfect. The problem is that those who see the importance of adding the "shades of gray" are looking for opacity; they're looking for for a really dark gray that will block out all light of achievement. (Pardon the cheap metaphor.)

Read (most of the articles in) the Forward or read James David Besser in most American-Jewish weeklies. I would argue that neither of them are pro-Israel. The problem isn't that they present shades of gray. It's that the image of Israel that they project is almost unremittingly negative. The problem isn't that education about Israel in the Jewish community is overly romanticized; it's that many of the public forums in the Jewish community unfairly criticize Israel.

The evolution hailed by the Washington Post is, in reality, a step back.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel, american jews.

Obama: Zionism Is For Holocaust Survivors

During an interview in The Atlantic with Jeffrey Goldberg’s Barack Obama came out with the following:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man — as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing...

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

What does that say for the rest of us--is our Zionism not justified?
Or is his understanding of history really that bad.

[Hat tip: Abe Greenwald]

By Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Thirty eight years ago

Mr. Cub hits his 500th home run.

On this day in 1970, Chicago Cubs slugger Ernie Banks hits the 500th home run of his career. "Mr. Cub" was known for his engaging personality and love of the game, traits on display even as the dismal Cubs suffered through losing season after losing season.

The Chicago White Stockings, as the Cubs were originally known, were a charter member of the National League, founded in 1876. They played their first game on April 25 and won, thanks to a shutout thrown by Arthur Goodwill Spalding, later the founder of Spalding Sporting Goods. Four months later, Spalding led the White Stockings to the first-ever National League pennant title.

Read the whole thing for more Cubs history.

Maybe the Cubs are rebounding, as of today they sit (tied) on top of their division.

Packaging nakba

The earliest reference I can find to the term "Nakba" (or "Naqba") in the New York Times is this article, from Israel's 50th birthday, a decade ago.

So for 50 years, the NYT didn't see fit to use the term to describe the Arab reaction to Israel's independence. It's only recently that the terms has come into widespread use.

My problem though is why is "Nakba" commemorated at the same time as Israel's Independence Day? Palestinians are largely Muslim, so why doesn't Nakba follow the Islamic calendar. By my estimation, the 60th anniversary of Nakba would have occurred in 2006 and this year's celebration would be about a month and a half away. (A strictly lunar calendar loses eleven days a year with respect to a solar calendar.)

So the recent introduction of naqba as a significant Palestinian day, is a PR move. It's a way of casting a shadow on Israel's celebration. If it were a true Palestinian observance it would be observed in another 40 days. Of course if the nakba was observed all around the year, as a regular Muslim observance would, it wouldn't have the same propaganda value than if it was always observed at the same time of the year for the rest of the world.

(Similarly, Abbas - and Arafat before him - would celebrate the first Fatah terror attack January 1, in honor of the event that occurred January 1, 1965. It's much better propaganda for those outside the Middle East if the observances are in familiar times.)

In the end, the absurdity of the situation shows the degree to which the Palestinians identify themselves with Israel, instead of aspiring to their own nationalism.

Stephen Plaut recently discovered that the term naqba, was originally used to denote the Palestinians loss of dependence, not their loss of (nonexistant) independence. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)

The authoritative source on the origin of “nakba” is none other than George Antonius, supposedly the first “official historian of Palestinian nationalism.” Like so many “Palestinians,” he actually wasn’t – Palestinian, that is. He was a Christian Lebanese-Egyptian who lived for a while in Jerusalem, where he composed his official advocacy/history of Arab nationalism. The Arab Awakening, a highly biased book, was published in 1938 and for years afterward was the official text used at British universities.

...

On page 312 of The Arab Awakening, Antonius writes, “The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.”

Yes, the answer to our little quiz is 1920, not 1948. That’s 1920 – when there was no Zionist state, no Jewish sovereignty, no “settlements” in “occupied territories,” no Israel Defense Forces, no Israeli missiles and choppers targeting terror leaders, and no Jewish control over Jerusalem (which had a Jewish demographic majority going back at least to 1850).

The original “nakba” had nothing to do with Jews, and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination, independence and statehood. To the contrary, it had everything to do with the fact that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians. They rioted at this nakba – at this catastrophe– because they found deeply offensive the very idea that they should be independent from Syria and Syrians.

Naqba then is less a commemoration of a vanished past than a ploy for sympathy. No doubt the Arabs of Palestine suffered as a result of Israel's War of Independence. But had their Arab brothers not sought to maintain a grievance against Israel, the Palestinian refugee problem would have been solved long ago.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

60th anniversary op-eds

I'm disappointed that Charles Krauthammer hasn't acknowledged Israel's 60th anniversary. 10 years ago, he produced one of the best articles on the meaning of Zionism and its importance, At last Zion.

Two columnists recently have celebrated Israel's 60th. First there's Jeff Jacoby who's scheduled to speak at my synagogue tomorrow night, who wrote the Triumph of Life and Hope.

THE BIRTH of the state of Israel 60 years ago this week was an astonishment. It is not unheard of for a nation to vanish from the map and later reappear. Poland, for example, was partitioned out of existence in 1795 and regained its independence in 1918. But the restoration of Israel was unlike anything the world had ever seen.
more stories like this

Jews had been deprived of their homeland for nearly 2,000 years, ever since the Roman devastation of Judea in the first and second centuries A.D. That upheaval had been cataclysmic. By the time the fighting ended in 135, half of Judea's population was dead. Of those who survived, hundreds of thousands were sold into slavery or expelled. Not until the Holocaust 18 centuries later would the Jewish people experience a more shattering catastrophe.

Yet through all the generations of dispersion that followed, the Jews never lost their self-awareness as a nation or their connection to the land of Israel. They expressed their longing for it in daily prayer and turned toward it when they worshiped. They collected charity to support the minority of Jews who had never left the land; and over the years others made their way back as well, often in response to Christian or Muslim persecution. By the 1860s, a majority of Jerusalem's population was Jewish once more. Zionism - an organized movement to renew Jewish independence in the Jewish homeland - was formally launched in 1897. Five decades later, against steep odds and every historical precedent, Israel was reborn.

Despite all this Jacoby acknowledges the irony:

Under siege since the day it was born, Israel has never known a day of true peace. It is the only nation in the world whose legitimacy is routinely called into question. It still has enemies who want it wiped off the map. Uniquely, the Jewish state came into being with the imprimatur of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. Yet time and again it is told it has no right to exist. Of course that is fatuous; few nations can present a birth certificate as storied as Israel's. Nonetheless, Israel's fundamental right to exist doesn't derive from UN votes, or promises in the Bible, or its own Declaration of Independence.

It's ironic too, that though the sympathy accrued to the Jewish people due to the Holocaust was one of the factors that enabled the acceptance of the new Jewish state, the ones whose leaders allied themselves with the Nazis now claim that the founding of Israel is a catastrophe rivaling that of the Holocaust. Of course they choose to stake their claim to the land not by building a parallel state but by trying to destroy the Jewish one. (Unfortunately, many, in the name of peace, see parallelism between the two aspirations.)

Bill Kristol weighs in with The Jewish State at 60. Though the essay revolves around a number of wonderful quotes, Kristol's conclusion is simply:

Still, even though the security of Israel is very much at risk, the good news is that, unlike in the 1930s, the Jews are able to defend themselves, and the United States is willing to fight for freedom. Americans grasp that Israel’s very existence to some degree embodies the defeat and repudiation of the genocidal totalitarianism of the 20th century. They understand that its defense today is the front line of resistance to the jihadist terror, and the suicidal nihilism, that threaten to deform the 21st.

via memeorandum

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Juggling carnivals 05/12/08

Incoming Carnivals

The new proprietor of Haveil Havalim (and birthday boy) Jack's Shack, has put forth another wonderful effort with 165th edition of Haveil Havalim the 60th birthday of Israel edition. And thanks for including two of my posts. I'd like to call your attention to a unique post as Blue Collar Jew introduces himself. I would like to sound one discordant note. DovBear's post "Is Israel a failure?" was a disgraceful way to commenorate Israel's 60th birthday. Unsurprisingly, after narrowly defining his terms of success, he answers in the affirmative. Stay away from the post. He doesn't deserve the attention.

Dr. Sanity graciously included a post of mine in the most recent Carnival of the Insanities along with posts from Mark Steyn, Wolf Howling, Yid with Lid and many others.

blog carnivals.

Eleven years ago

Man vs. computer ends badly:

On May 11, 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov resigns after 19 moves in a game against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by scientists at IBM. This was the sixth and final game of their match, which Kasparov lost two games to one, with three draws.

Garry Kasparov isn't just one of the great chess players of all time, he is also a brave political activist seeking real democracy for Russia.

According to the Russian Constitution, Medvedev is now in charge. But until there is evidence of his independence and authority, it is safe to assume that Medvedev still needs Putin's permission to use the Kremlin lavatory. The real "smooth transition of power" was moving Putin from the presidency to prime minister.

We can expect a few proclamations and perhaps even token policy changes. Unfortunately, the early signs show that Medvedev's statement about developing civil freedoms and ending "legal nihilism" were only a show for the West. Such displays are needed to offset elections with the results known in advance, lack of media freedom and businessgrowth that only benefits Kremlin loyalists. Otherwise, Putin's gang of oligarchs might lose easy access to billions in looted assets held in the West. So far, though, as Putin learned over the last eight years, there is no such danger. Russia pretends to be a democracy, and the United States and the European Union pretend to believe Russia is a democracy.

That morally repugnant pact is not working so well for those of us fighting for real democracy here. The day before Medvedev took power, several dozen people were arrested simply for being in the general area of a planned rally that had already been canceled. The police had promised that no one would be detained if the rally was called off; apparently they did not receive Medvedev's message about civil freedoms in time.

russia

Guns blazing

Jeffrey Goldberg (h/t Instapundit)

It's been a tough year already for Hezbollah's apologists; the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, the terrorist many of Hezbollah's friends denied existed until Hezbollah gave him what amounted to a state funeral, hurt the cause of those on the left, in particular, who wanted to whitewash Hezbollah's violent, anti-democratic program.

And that's not to mention the news that Hezbollah has been caught re-arming in defiance of Resolution 1701.

The apologists are still hard at work, I was astonished the other day by the AFP reports.

A blindfolded pro-government detainee begs Hezbollah gunmen for mercy in west Beirut on May 9, 2008. Hezbollah fighters, their guns blazing, seized control of west Beirut after three days of street battles with pro-government foes pushed Lebanon dangerously close to all-out civil war. The sectarian fighting had eased by early afternoon and the army and police moved across areas now in the hands of Iranian-backed Shiite opposition forces who routed Sunni militants loyal to the Western-backed government.

(emphases mine)

That was one of a series of pictures with varying first sentences followed by the "Hezbollah fighter" boilerplate. Yes the heroic fighters with their "guns blazing" routed the "pro-government foes."

Perhaps that was the cost of reporting from occupied west Beirut.

When Hamas is involved we get to hear how awful it is to ignore the folks who won an election two years ago. So what's the excuse for cheerleading for Hezbollah who's fighting a democratically elected government? Oh, I get it the problem is that the government is "Western backed."

Snapped Shot puts it nicely:

Does that mean that Agence France-Presse is against the lawfully-elected Lebanese government?

Crossposted on Yourish.

hezbollah

City on the edge of wiki

A year and a half ago Elie's Expositions wrote about microfiction.

This reminded me of that.

(h/t Instapundit)

Friedman's mother

I'm not a big fan of Thomas Friedman, but his Mother's Day column is rather touching.

The ad popped up in my e-mail the way it always has: “1-800-Flowers: Mother’s Day Madness — 30 Tulips + FREE vase for just $39.99!”

I almost clicked on it, forgetting for a moment that those services would not be needed this year. My mother, Margaret Friedman, died last month at the age of 89, and so this is my first Mother’s Day without a mom.

Council speak 05/10/08

The Council has Spoken.

The winning entry this week was JoshuaPundit's Who cares about Israel anyway?, explaining exactly why we should care about Israel. The runner up was Right Wing Nuthouse's cautionary Party like it's 1968 all over again, in which he argues that Republican should see 2008, the way the Democrats experienced 1968.

The winning non-council entry was Losing our spines to save our necks by Sam Harris (and entered by JoshuaPundit) about the dangers of angering certain Muslims. The runner up was Iraqis Begin to 'Despise' the Mahdi Army in Baghdad's Rusafa District from the Long War Journal.

Congratulations to all the winners!

If you're a blogger and you like what you see, please consider submitting your own post to the competition. Just follow the rules here.

watcher's council.

Cabrera's improvement

Daniel Cabrera this year so far:

Daniel Cabrera the past two years:

In 2006 and 2007 he had WHIP's in excess of 1.5 both years. This year he's down to a respectable 1.2. His strikeout rate is down a little this year and he doesn't have a great K/BB ratio. He has a very low batting average allowed and that's what's seemingly makes the difference this year.

Given that currently the Orioles have the most efficient defense, perhaps the difference with Cabrera over past years is that the team is doing a much better job of preventing batted balls from becoming hits.

I had intended to credit Rick Kranitz and observe that he was able to make Cabrera effective where the great Leo Mazzone couldn't. But maybe it's the Orioles defense that deserves the lion's share of the credit.

Of course if he continues to pitch like last night (6 strikeouts, no walks, three hits) then it will be a sign that the improvement is more than just good fielding.

Baseball, baltimore orioles.

The hobgoblin of david ignatius

Yesterday David Ignatius wrote:

The game-changing events in the 2008 campaign are issues of war and peace. Both may be in play between now and November, in ways that add extra volatility to the presidential race.

And of course the "game changing" event in the Middle East that he refers to is peace:

The other wild card in the campaign is, happy to say, the possibility of Middle East peace negotiations. Bush administration officials continue to insist they have a chance of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement while Bush is in office. By this, they mean an agreement on paper -- one that would codify the outlines of the two-state solution that was negotiated but never finally concluded during the last days of the Clinton administration. This "shelf agreement" could be endorsed by the U.N. Security Council and provide a baseline for continuing talks next year about implementation.

A peace agreement -- even one that has no practical effect on the ground -- would be a feather in the cap for President Bush. But its political benefits for the GOP would be limited. Even a full-fledged peace treaty between Egypt and Israel failed to save Jimmy Carter from defeat at the polls in 1980. In that election, as perhaps this year, the Iranians played the role of spoilers.

Finally, there are noises offstage from Israel and Syria about a possible peace treaty. This would be the ultimate pragmatic bargain -- Israel likes the stability that Bashar al-Assad's military regime provides in Damascus, and it regards Syrian hegemony in Lebanon as an acceptable and perhaps desirable price. An important feature of the Syrian-Israeli dickering is that they have used Turkey as the key intermediary. If Turkey can broker peace between these two, it would reattach Ankara firmly to the Arab world for the first time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

Why Syria's hegemony over Lebanon is acceptable to Israel, Ignatius doesn't bother to explain. Still the visions of an Israeli surrender of territory really excites him.

Daniel Pipes thinks a little caution is in order.

The Middle East's deep and wide political sickness points to the error of seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict as the motor force behind its problems. More sensible is to see Israel's plight as the result of the region's toxic politics. Blaming the Middle East's autocracy, radicalism, and violence on Israel is like blaming the diligent school child for the gangs. Conversely, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict means only solving that conflict, not fixing the region.

To David Ignatius and many other Middle East navel gazers, an Israeli-Arab peace treaty (no matter how useless) will be a transformative event. To Daniel Pipes it is the transformation of the Middle East that is a prerequisite for peace.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Dissecting hillary

Jay Cost (a self described contrarian) doesn't think that it's over yet. He doesn't think that Sen. Clinton has much of a chance. However, he sees her possible salvation in the popular vote totals.

So, here's my question. What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. "Over" will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.

There are good reasons not to take Puerto Rico lightly, even though the press has continued to do exactly that. I would note: (a) Puerto Ricans vote in large numbers (2 million in the last gubernatorial election); (b) Puerto Ricans have never had this important a role in United States presidential politics; (c) Puerto Rico's politics is focused at least partially on how (if at all) to adjust its relationship with the United States; (d) Puerto Rico's is an open primary, and the residents of the Commonwealth, who are United States citizens, do not see themselves as Republicans or Democrats.

The inference I draw is that Puerto Ricans could turn out in huge numbers. If they do, and they swing for Clinton in a sizeable way, the popular vote lead could swing, too. Add 290,000 votes from West Virginia and Kentucky to 250,000 votes from Puerto Rico, account for expected losses in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.

Cost goes onto argue that he doesn't think this is likely, but using demographic data from other states argues that the scenario is plausible.

(I'm sure that Fiery Spirited Zionist is happy to read this!)

On the other hand Charles Krauthammer writes in Too late to the duck hunt (or here) that it's too late for Senator Clinton.

It wasn't until late in the fourth quarter that she found the seam in Obama's defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America and Obama's own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.

The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic left, he is so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist sentiments.

Clinton finally understood the way to run against Obama: back to the center -- not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun, off duck hunting with dad.

However

The lightness in Hillary's step in the days before Indiana and North Carolina reflected the relief of the veteran politician who, after months of treading water, finally finds the right campaign strategy. But it was far too late. And the gas tax overkill, one final error of modulation, sealed the deal -- for Obama.

If Krauthammer's correct, then:

There's only one remaining chapter in this fascinating spectacle. Negotiating the terms of Hillary's surrender. After which we will have six months of watching her enthusiastically stumping the country for Obama, denying with utter conviction Republican charges that he is the out of touch, latte-sipping elitist she warned Democrats against so urgently in the last, late leg of her doomed campaign.

That's important because as Ross Douthat observed (via memeorandum)

There are two important points to be made about these numbers, and the deeper reality they reflect. The first, which you hear around these parts a lot, is that the GOP is now a working-class party (with class defined by education and culture more than income, just to be clear; there are plenty of skilled craftsmen who make more money than teachers and journalists and academics), and that it needs to start acting like one if it's going to rebuild its shattered majority. The second is that the GOP can't only be a working-class party; just as the famous Judis-Texeira emerging Democratic majority is built around the mass upper class and the poor but depends on winning some working-class votes to put it over the top, so any future "Party of Sam's Club" Republican majority is going to need to win back at least some of the mass-upper-class votes that the party has hemorrhaged during the Bush years.

Sen. Clinton's success in portraying Sen. Obama as out of touch and elitist should resonate with Republicans. If Sen. Obama's the nominee he's not going to attract with a lot of Republican voters. Sen. Clinton will have to unmake the image of Sen. Obama that she created to challenge him for the nomination.

Follow the useful idiots

There's a group called Follow the Women that's organized a bike ride through the Middle East in the name of peace. Here's what a participant wrote last month:

Nearly 250 women, representing 30 nationalities from mostly Europe and the Middle East, but also the United States and Canada, arrived in Beirut last week for the third "Follow the Women" bike tour, which winds through Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and - Israeli government permitting- the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Started in 2004. One of the founders is a British woman named Detta Regan, "Follow the Women" is not a race, but a bike tour where women ride in the name of female empowerment and the aim of expressing solidarity with the Middle East. It is also a good place to break down cultural stereotypes and experience woman-to-woman diplomacy, away from official government positions and media hype.

Most of the Western women I cycled with expressed surprise at how calm Beirut is, and how beautiful. "It's nothing like how it is in the news," the British woman next to me exclaimed.

Note that the group didn't plan to show solidarity with the women of Israel. And also note that now that they are in Syria, things aren't so calm in Beirut anymore. And it's their current host who's fomenting the violence.

The utter cluelessness of these women was described nicely recently by Bret Stephens:

For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women's rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority. These are rights that exist in Israel and nowhere else in the Middle East. So why is it that the country that is most sympathetic to progressive values gets the least of progressive sympathies?

How welcome do you figure this woman would be in Tehran or Gaza?

But let them ride their bikes and give cover to the tyrants who are fomenting the strife in the Middle East.

Crossposted on Yourish.

follow the women.

Ninety four years ago

It wasn't Hallmark. It was President Wilson who created Mother's Day.

The idea for a “Mother’s Day” is credited by some to Julia Ward Howe (1872) and by others to Anna Jarvis (1907), who both suggested a holiday dedicated to a day of peace. Many individual states celebrated Mother’s Day by 1911, but it was not until Wilson lobbied Congress in 1914 that Mother’s Day was officially set on the second Sunday of every May. In his first Mother’s Day proclamation, Wilson stated that the holiday offered a chance to "[publicly express] our love and reverence for the mothers of our country."

Thanks to Wolf Howling ) (see comments below) that the House Republicans are now objecting to President Wilson's recommendation.

mother's day.

Ninety three years ago

The outrage that led the United States to enter World War I

Lusitania, the Cunard Liner under British registration, was sunk off the Irish coast by a German submarine on May 7, 1915. In the sinking, 1,195 persons lost their lives, of whom 128 were U.S. citizens.

That doesn't mean that President Wilson didn't try diplomacy first.

After prolonged negotiations, Germany finally conceded its liability for the sinking of the Lusitania and agreed to make reparations and to discontinue sinking passenger ships without warning. The immediate crisis between the United States and Germany subsided. The incident, however, contributed to the rise of American sentiment for the entry of the United States into World War I.

Did you feel it?

Map courtesy of the USGS

The above map shows the areas where Tuesday's earthquake centered near Annandale Virgina was felt. People actually felt it not far from where I work, but as far as I can tell no one at work felt it.

The USGS reports on the history of earthquakes experienced in Virginia. The earliest recorded one was:

On February 21, 1774, a strong earthquake was felt over much of Virginia and southward into North Carolina. Many houses were moved considerably off their foundations at Petersburg and Blandford (intensity MM VII). The shock was described as "severe" at Richmond and "small" at Fredericksburg. However, it "terrified the inhabitants greatly." The total felt area covered about 150,000 square kilometers.

Still quakes in the area are rare:

They occur about once per decade, although some decades have none and the 1990s had three. None are known to have caused damage since the arrival of European colonists. The corridor is between more seismically active regions to the southwest and northeast, and residents of Washington or Baltimore have felt several earthquakes that caused damage in those other, more active regions.

Because quakes around here are rare, it's hard for scientists to pinpoint exactly which fault is at fault.

At well-studied plate boundaries like the San Andreas fault system in California, often scientists can determine the name of the specific fault that is responsible for an earthquake. In contrast, east of the Rocky Mountains this is rarely the case. The Washington - Baltimore urban corridor is far from the nearest plate boundaries, which are in the center of the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean Sea. The urban corridor is laced with known faults but numerous smaller or deeply buried faults remain undetected. Even the known faults are poorly located at earthquake depths. Accordingly, few, if any, earthquakes in the urban corridor can be linked to named faults. It is difficult to determine if a known fault is still active and could slip and cause an earthquake. As in most other areas east of the Rockies, the best guide to earthquake hazards in the Washington - Baltimore urban corridor is the earthquakes themselves.

UPDATE: The Learning Channel has an earthquake simulator called Make a Quake that allows you to test different building and ground configurations with different level earthquakes.

earthquakes.

Today's insult

The Washington Post's Griff Witte, takes a device from Reuters and focuses on two men who, like Israel, were born in 1948. One is Israeli and one is Palestinian. In Born at the dawn of a new state

Witte is careful to emphasize the success of the Israeli with the haplessness of the Palestinian. But I guess it comes to the final two paragraphs:

With Nablus under Israeli military siege, Zaharan rarely leaves the city, and he has not been inside Israel since 1980. But if he had the chance, he knows exactly what he would say to any of his former Jewish neighbors about the past 60 years.

"I would say to him, 'Your life hasn't changed in the way my life has. You've made it. You've succeeded,' " he said. "And I would want him to say back to me, 'I recognize your rights.' "

As if Israel hasn't recognized his rights. Maybe not to return to Jaffa from where his family fled as it waited for the mighty Arab armies to destroy the nascent Jewish state so it could return. But certainly Israel has made greater efforts to create a Palestinian state than any other country in the world, only to find its efforts dismissed as not enough.

In the end there will be no Palestinian state unless the Palestinians choose to create a functioning government and society.

Update: The article contains the words "checkpoints" and "siege" but not "terror."

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Strategic planning for the rich and famous

Making up somewhat for yesterday's insult, The NYT today reported on At 60, Israel Redefines Roles for Itself and for Jews Elsewhere.

The conference seems like an extravagance:

But there is another form of celebration planned, and its sponsors believe it says something about the national character: a three-day conference of some of the best minds from around the world on some of the biggest challenges facing humankind — and especially the Jews — in the coming decades.

“The brain enriches the pocket, not the other way around,” Shimon Peres, Israel’s president and the patron of the conference, said in an interview. “We are a small land and a small people, but we can become a daring world laboratory, and that is our desire and plan.”

Nearly 700 guests are expected to take part next week in 35 discussion groups. They include statesmen like Henry A. Kissinger, Vaclav Havel, Tony Blair and Joschka Fischer, but also Sergey Brin of Google, Terry Semel of Yahoo and Rupert Murdoch, along with seven Jewish Nobel laureates and President Bush.

It's a chance, I suppose, for these people to act important. I have doubts that much will come of this conference outside of some really nice sounding declarations.

Still:

In fact, what are billed as global challenges — terrorism, Iran — seem to be somehow especially Jewish and Israeli ones. The organizers say this is not coincidental or unusual and point as an example to Hitler, who posed an enormous threat to the world but focused particularly on the Jews.

“Cataclysms always seem to affect Jews first,” remarked Stuart E. Eizenstat, a senior official in the Clinton and Carter administrations, who wrote an essay that forms a basis for the conference. “Go back to the Black Plague. It was not a Jewish issue, but it had particular impact on Jews because they were blamed for it.”

Not surprisingly the Arab leaders who were invited haven't accepted yet. In a triumph of absurd hope, the organizers anticipate that a few might be able to tear themselves away from Naqba celebrations to join a discussion on the future of the Jews (that would rather deny.)

However cynical I am about the value of the "strategic planning" likely to emerge from the conference, it reflects an important reality.

Today Israel’s Jewish population of 5.5 million is the world’s largest, just ahead of that of the United States, which is slowly declining through low birth rate and intermarriage.

Israel is, more and more, the center of the Jewish world.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

In honor of yom ha'atzmaut

Yid with Lid has put together a special one time carnival celebrating Israel's 60 years. Broken down into four categories: Israel in my heart, Israeli history, Israel's accomplishments and Israel's challenges he presents some of the best J-bloggers (and others) expressing their feelings over this milestone birthday of the Jewish state. Please give it a read.

And while you're at it, please check out today's Dry Bones.

UPDATE: There are few excellent essays about Zionism that I'd like to call your attention to. One is The end of Zionism? by Yoram Hazony from 1995. (It actually appeared in one of the very first issues of the Weekly Standard.) The other is Charles Krauthammer's At last Zion, also from the Weekly Standard, celebrating Israel's 50th anniversary. Finally there is Martin Peretz's The god that did not fail that is something of an ideological history of Zionism.

israel.

The necessary jewish state

A few days ago Media Backspin asked What is Israel's Greatest Accomplishment?

I was in grade school when the 6 Day War was fought. I remember seeing a film strip soon after. It was quite impressive. Though, as a 6 year old I don't think I comprehended the miraculous nature of the victory.

I was a teenager at the time of the Entebbe rescue. That was very exciting. I was fascinated by the level of planning that went into the raid and how it was executed nearly flawlessly.

I was spending a year studying in Israel when I heard that Israel destroyed a reactor in Iraq. I thought I'd been misinformed. Israel had been running raids over Lebanon, surely Israel hit a target in Lebanon. But no, it was Baghdad. I only recently raid a full account of that raid. Again it was an amazing, no, miraculous operation. It made the Gulf War in 1991 and the subsequent Iraq War in 2003 possible. Despite the criticisms directed at Israel, the destruction of the Iraqi reactor is an event that has changed history dramatically, including the eventual defeat of a brutal tyrant.

And of course going to a site like Israel 21c, I see how Israel leads the world in many areas of technology. If I go to the MASHAV website, I can see how Israel lends a hand to other countries (with little or no credit.)

As exciting as all these were, the action that makes me most proud has been the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, Beta Israel. Operations Moses and Solomon overall rescued about 35,000 Ethiopian Jews and brought them to Israel. I'm not going to pretend that everything's been perfect since then. The assimilation of the Ethiopians hasn't always been smooth. However it's the ultimate example of why Israel exists.

Jews were in danger. People don't remember but at the time of Operation Moses Ethiopia was one of the most brutal regimes in the world. The government of Haile Mariam Mengistu forced relocations of the country's population creating a famine that killed millions. The thousands saved by Israel, might well have died. Instead Israel rescued them, giving them a second chance.

Over the past 20 years, the center of the Jewish world has shifted slowly towards Israel, where the largest population of Jews in the world now resides. We are witnessing "kibbutz golyos" - the ingathering exiles - in our time. It may not be dramatic, but it is happening.

Attacks on Israel's legitimacy, are attacks on the Jewish people. Similarly doubts raised about the Jewish connection to the land, reject the notion and history of the Jewish nation.

In bringing the Jews of Ethiopia to Israel, Israel showed its commitment to a threatened Jewish community. Israel didn't just show that it's the Jewish state, but also why the Jewish state is necessary.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

Projecting from primaries

via memeorandum

In Feel the Mittmentum in Indiana!, Will Bunch writes:

But seriously, what to say about 5 percent of Indiana Republicans still voting for Romney, a candidate whose following was about as fanatical as supporters of the Los Angeles Clippers or the Florida Marlins. For all the punditry concern about division on the Democratic side -- and it is a legitimate issue -- I think the enthusiasm gap for John McCain is even more palpable.

Consider this: Indiana is a crossover state, and polling suggests that roughly one-in-10 of the 1.2 million voters in the Democratic primary was actually a Republican -- or 120,000 people. If that's correct, then in rough numbers a total of 530,000 Republican Hoosiers voted yesterday -- 320,000 who backed their party's candidate, John McCain, and 210,000 who voted for someone else. How many of those 210,000 will back McCain in six months?

In Maryland in 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend won the Democratic nomination against a little known challenger Robert Fustero: by a margin of 434,948 to 108,659.

The Republican nominee Bob Ehrlich won 92% of the vote in his primary, a total of 229,927 votes, or slightly more than twice as much as his opponent's little heralded rival.

Yet in the general election Ehrich beat Townsend by 879,592 to 813,422 in heavily Democratic Maryland. The analogy isn't perfect, but it does illustrate a point: trying to project general election results from primary results is a fool's errand. It's also why I give little credence to items like this:

And in Indiana, for example, less than half of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election, while one-third said they would vote for Mr. McCain. About one-fifth of Mr. Obama’s supporters in Indiana said they would vote for Mr. McCain in a general election should Mrs. Clinton get the nomination. Many of those Democrats can probably be expected to stay with their party in the end, but the figures suggest the intensity of the passion dividing Clinton and Obama supporters at the moment and the challenge facing the eventual nominee in uniting the party.

The dynamics of primaries and general elections are different. The relative lack of interest in McCain is likely because the Republican race is all but decided. That interest will likely return when there's something at stake in November. Similarly, Democrats who are frustrated now, will probably rethink whether they really wish to send a Republican to the White House in November.

Will Bunch is reading too much into the Indiana results.

john mccain.

Unhappy 60th

The New York Times isn't likely to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary with unadulterated joy, so it features an article showing how Israeli Arabs feel, After 60 years, Arabs in Israel are outsiders:

As Israel toasts its 60th anniversary in the coming weeks, rejoicing in Jewish national rebirth and democratic values, the Arabs who make up 20 percent of its citizens will not be celebrating. Better off and better integrated than ever in their history, freer than a vast majority of other Arabs, Israel’s 1.3 million Arab citizens are still far less well off than Israeli Jews and feel increasingly unwanted.

On Thursday, which is Independence Day, thousands will gather in their former villages to protest what they have come to call the “nakba,” or catastrophe, meaning Israel’s birth. For most Israelis, Jewish identity is central to the nation, the reason they are proud to live here, the link they feel with history. But Israeli Arabs, including the most successfully integrated ones, say a new identity must be found for the country’s long-term survival.

The question is to what degree is that outsider *status* enforced by the Israeli majority, and to what degree is it self-imposed.

While the reporter, Ethan Bronner writes about land issues, he also acknowledges

Antagonism runs both ways. Many Israeli Arabs express solidarity with their Palestinian brethren under occupation, while others praise Hezbollah, the anti-Israel group in Lebanon, and some Arabs in Parliament routinely accuse Israel of Nazism.

Still the focus on land is something that's bothersome. Barry Rubin in his recent debunking of an AP "celebration" of Israel's 60th wrote:

Yet most countries are founded on expropriation, often of Jewish property. For example, Oxford University, where recently debates were conducted calling for Israel's destruction, was started on property stolen from Jews expelled in 1290. Far more recently, many Arab states received a huge infusion of capital from the expropriation of Jewish property after Israel's creation. Does France's or Britain's or Belgium's independence day require discussion of colonial depredations? We don't read articles that Japan's independence day is blighted by Chinese or Korean suffering, though the Japanese did engage in mass murder of those people. What about the fact that every country in the Western Hemisphere is based on the suffering of the indigenous natives? Or even in the case of Russia, given Czarist and Soviet behavior? In no case, however, is far worse behavior said to have poisoned any other country's very existence.

A few months ago, David Hazony presented a survey showing that Israeli-Arabs are integrating into Israeli society at a higher rate than most would assume and that the Israeli-Arab members of Knesset are a lot more hostile to Zionist enterprise than those who elected them.

This is something that Bronner does address:

Arabs here reject that idea partly because they prefer the certainty of an imperfect Israeli democracy to whatever system may evolve in a shaky Palestinian state. That is part of the paradox of the Israeli Arabs. Their anger has grown, but so has their sense of belonging.

In fact, the anxious and recriminating talk on both sides may give a false impression of constant tension. There is a real level of Jewish-Arab coexistence in many places, and the government has recently committed itself to affirmative action for Arabs in education, infrastructure and government employment.

“We know that they need more land, that their children need a place to live,” said Raanan Dinur, director general of the prime minister’s office. “We are working on building a new Arab city in the north. Our main goal is to take what are today two economies and integrate them into one economy.”

It's a difficult issue that's handled reasonably well. Still why is this the article that defines Israel's 60th anniversary for the NY Times?

It also wasn't enough for critics of Israel. Mondoweiss writes:

The new historians suggest that Zionists did plenty of attacking on their own. This account is, plainly, one-sided.

Weiss is wrong in suggesting that Bronner is unfamiliar with the new historians. He wrote a positive review of the movement in the Times a few years ago.

Israel is a great success story, thriving in the face of adversity. In fact one of its great accomplishments was integrating the Jews who were forced from Arab lands. It's a shame that the media is seemingly incapable of accentuating the positive.

Submitted 05/07/08

This week's Watcher Council nominations have been submitted.

Death and the Madam - Done With Mirrors expresses his contempt for media navel gazing over the death of the "DC Madam."
Obama As Marley - Wolf Howling provides a thorough debunking of Sen. Obama's attempt to distance himself from Rev. Wright. He even provides a speech that would have constituted an honest attempt to explain why he differed from the Reverend. See Something Wasn't Wright about why Oprah Winfrey left the Trinity Church. (via memeorandum)
Whither? - The Glittering Eye takes issue with a column by the world's most overrated columnist, Thomas Friedman. He argues that the aspects of American society that Friedman finds so messy are those that make our country great. He also rips the notion that Singapore is a more advanced society than America because it has a nicer airport than JFK. (I thought that was pretty silly too.)
Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 - The Colossus of Rhodey writes about a segment on TV where a law professor stated that Al Gore won Florida in 2000. He patiently explains that according to most counts - including the count that the Gore campaign requested - Bush won, albeit by smaller margins.
It's Too Late To Turn Back Now - Rhymes With Right shows, by comparing Sen. Obama's two major speeches about Rev. Wright, that what really offends Sen. Obama about his (former) pastor is that the former pastor insulted him. As Rhymes with Right observes, it wasn't about principle, it was about his own ego.
Are You Ready To Be a Democrat? - Bookworm Room shares an e-mail she got about how to be a Democrat. It's very funny. In the mid 70's Commentary Magazine had a symposium about what it means to be a liberal or a conservative. Bookworm Room's list reminds me of the one by Max Frankel, then an editor at the NY Times, which pointed out inconsistencies in both positions.
Fatal Energy Policies - Cheat Seeking Missiles, like the Glittering Eye, takes apart a Thomas Friedman article. In this case he argues that Friedman's brief for developing alternative energy is correct in part, but that it's limited by Friedman's own (leftist) prejudices.
Merit Pay Chronicles: A Teacher Speaks! - The Education Wonks highlights an article complaining that those who develop educational policy don't know enough about what it is to be a teacher.
Random Thoughts - Hillbilly White Trash addresses a number of issues succinctly, including the Democratic primary race, Rev. Wright, global warming and metal detectors at courthouses.
Who Cares About Israel, Anyway? - Joshuapundit makes an impressive case that Israel is deserving of special treatment.
Party Like It's 1980 All Over Again - Right Wing Nut House argues that the political signposts show a lot of similarities between now and 1980. That isn't good for the Republicans. I don't want to admit that he's correct (and disagree with him on a few points) yet his post is sobering. See also The Shrinking Republican Base.
I Have a Nightmare- In my post I look at the implication of Rev. Wright's speech before the NAACP in Detroit. He wants to go back in time.

My non-council submission this week is Confederate Yankee's Another Gaza Media Moment
about the killing of a woman and her children by a secondary explosion and how poorly the media covered it.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Palestinians cry "canton"

One aspect of Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians that's constant is that whatever Israel offers will be dismissed as an insult or some other epithet.

Now that negotiations are coming down to nitty-gritty details like borders, the cries start anew. The Jerusalem Post reports:

"Today, it's clear to us that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from all the territories that were occupied in 1967," said one official.

"If the Israelis and Americans think that they will ever find a Palestinian leader who would accept less than the 1967 borders, they are living under an illusion."

Another top PA official said that maps presented by the Israeli government to the Palestinians in the past few weeks showed that Israel is planning to retain control over nearly half of the West Bank and large parts of eastern Jerusalem.

The Israeli maps, he said, "turn the Palestinian communities in the West Bank into cantons surrounded by Israeli military bases and large settlement blocs."

The official added: "We have made it clear to both the Israelis and Americans that they should throw away these maps. No Palestinian will ever agree to the presence of settlements or Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. This is in violation of [US President George W.] Bush's vision of two states living next to each other in peace."

First of all, even George W. Bush's vision of two states doesn't specify the boundaries. If the boundaries are unacceptable to them and the Palestinians refuse to make peace, then they're the ones who are are refusing to abide by the president's vision. Maybe they think they have a good reason for doing so, but they'd still be the ones preventing an agreement.

Then there's this:

"The Israeli government is not serious about the peace talks," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official closely associated with Abbas. "We don't believe that we can reach an agreement [with Israel] before the end of this year."

Abed Rabbo accused Israel of "deceiving" the Palestinians by continuing to build settlements while talking about the need to reach a peace deal.

"Israel does not want to change its policy," he added. "Israel wants to continue settlement expansion and the construction of the separation wall."

These statements are clearly designed to elicit Amerian pressure on Israel. By mentioning "the end of the year" - President Bush's goal - Abed Rabbo is effectively asking the Americans to get Israel to agree to the Palestinian demands rather than attempting to compromise.

The Spine observes that in Belfast, it's the separation wall that is widely credited with keeping the peace. (He also points out that the "cantons" charge is false.) But in the Middle East the "wall" becomes one more brickbat to toss Israel's way. Israel Matzav contrasts the (strategic) pessimism of the Palestinians with the expressed optimism of the Israelis.

(via memeorandum)

Of course the real problem might be that Israel wants to hold on to anything.

"The PLO is the sole legitimate representative [of the Palestinian people], and it has not changed its platform even one iota. In light of the weakness of the Arab nation and the lack of values, and in light of the American control over the world, the PLO proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."

(h/t Daled Amos)

But maybe Israel should at least fight for the life of Imad Sa'ad. I don't know that he really helped Israel, but that's what he's been convicted of. For all I know he looked at someone wrong and got denounced.

However, if Palestinians are executed for helping Israel fight terror, while terrorists are lionized the peace process is a sham. (Another deadly activity for Palestinians is selling land to Jews. Getting killed for real estate transactions is hardly conducive to coexistence.)

Still this is a point Israel ought to pursue. After all the PA considers terrorists worthy of release, Israel should, at least, demand freedom for someone who's been convicted of helping not harming.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

It's unwinnable if you don't fight to win

In War of the rockets, Jackson Diehl writes:

For months now, Israel has been mired in an unwinnable war against Hamas and allied militias in Gaza, who fire missiles at civilians in Israel and then hide among their own women and children, ensuring that retaliatory fire will produce innocent victims for the Middle East's innumerable satellite television networks. A growing number of the militiamen have been to Iran for training, and some of the missiles they launch are Iranian-made. Their objective is obvious: to exhaust Israelis with an endless war of attrition while making it impossible for Israel's government to reach a political settlement with the more moderate Palestinian administration in the West Bank.

First of all, when Diehl writes "unwinnable" he means "unwinnable using current tactics." There are those who disagree that it's unwinnable.

Senior IDF officers serving in Gaza are frustrated over what they describe as the army’s lack of resolve and limited action against terror emanating from the Strip.

“This week I returned from another standby shift at the combat helicopter base where I do my reserve duty,” lit.-Col. N told Ynet. “Again we did nothing, despite a Qassam and mortar barrage fired by terrorists at the entire sector.”

N says that he feels obligated to warn that the IDF is not doing enough to counter terrorism from Gaza.

“The Gaza Strip is a narrow area, almost entirely closed off, the terrorist forces are relatively small and their weapons – although they are improving every day as a result of our lack of action – still don’t constitute a significant threat to our forces.

(h/t Meryl)

Also Hamas's objective isn't to prevent a peace agreement, it's objective is to kill as many Israelis as it can.

I don't think that Hamas opposes a peace agreement with Israel as it will undoubtedly give it more power than it already has. Hamas knows that Israel is anxious to conclude a deal with Abbas, regardless of the rockets. It persists because it knows that Israeli responses generally mean that Israel must defend itself usually to the scorn of the world. So Hamas not only get to kill Israelis, destroy their homes but gets a bonus too.

Given that the explosion in Gaza has now been shown to be the result of a secondary explosion not an Israeli missile, Diehl should have acknowledged as much at the start of his article.

In both these assertions, Diehl is imposing his own views onto events.

Elder of Ziyon outlined the evidence. Yaacov Lozowick wrote about why it's important. (The NYT deserves credit for reporting this result too.)

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

Entebbe audio

Israel has released some audio of the Entebbe raid. Ynet provides the audio and a transcript.

The missing passenger was Dora Bloch who had been taken to the hospital. After the rescue she was killed.

(h/t Jack's Shack)

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Honoring survival

In Honoring Survival, and Gifts to a Nation Isabel Kershner writes about a new exhibit at Yad Vashem devoted to the Holocaust survivors who escaped to Israel.

The gray walls of Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial here, have long documented the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis against Europe’s Jews. Now, an oddly vibrant exhibition at the memorial is telling a less known story of the renaissance of the survivors in Israel and the extraordinary role they played in shaping the character of the new state.

“My Homeland: Holocaust Survivors in Israel” opened in late April, in time for the 60th anniversary this week of Israel’s founding. Instead of gas chambers and ghettoes, it showcases designer beachwear and boldly colored posters that promoted potent Israeli symbols like the airline El Al.

Though she reports (without documentation)

Of 250,000 survivors in Israel today, 80,000 or more are said to be living on or near the poverty line.

Overall

... experts say the suffering of those left behind in their old age does not negate their immigration success story.

“The story of the Holocaust can be told from many different angles,” said Hanna Yablonka, a historical consultant to the exhibition. “To me, one of the most important aspects is the question of where you take such a huge disaster. You can turn to revenge, or to building.”

This was a particularly apt story:

“We came with nothing, without money, with nowhere to live,” Mrs. Gottlieb recalled, after viewing a movie about herself in a corner of the exhibition an hour before the official opening. “The first two or three years were very, very hard,” she said.

Petite and manicured, in a black pantsuit and sensible leather shoes, Mrs. Gottlieb recounted in still-halting Hebrew how she and her husband opened a raincoat factory like the one they had left behind in Europe. But for months “we saw no rain, only sunshine,” she said. So they founded Gottex, a swimwear company that quickly grew to become a leading Israeli brand abroad.

Mrs. Gottlieb, the company’s chief designer, would sometimes tell of an ugly memory from the past, said a grandson, Danny Shir, 37, like when she hid herself and her children in a pit behind the house of their gentile host after seeing a Nazi with a pistol outside.

Another remarkable aspect of the story is that of the estimated 500,000 survivors who made it to Israel, half are still alive.

I guess it would be snide to observe that the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are not also called Holocaust survivors.

In related news, Smooth Stone observes that Yad Vashem has put many of its photographic library online.

Crossposted on Yourish.

yad vashem, israel.

Abbas To Execute Arab For Fulfilling Agreement With Israel (Updated)

...cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on counterterrorism is a precondition under agreements for the relinquishment of land for a Palestinian Arab state. Eli Lake

Appeal Is Made to Bush To Save Arab Accused of Helping Israel Famed Refusenik Issues a Call To Save an Arab

By ELI LAKE

An officer in the Palestinian Authority’s National Security Forces, Imad Sa’ad, is led away after being sentenced to death by a Palestinian military court on April 28 for collaborating with Israel, court officials and security sources said.

WASHINGTON — A Palestinian Authority police officer accused of helping Israel with counterterrorism is facing death at the hands of a firing line unless a last-minute appeal to President Bush can save him.

The cause of the police officer, Imad Sa'ad, is being championed by a woman who became famous as a political prisoner in the Soviet Union before she moved to Israel in 1987, Ida Nudel. It comes as Secretary of State Rice this weekend arrived in Israel for another round of diplomacy aimed at creating an independent Palestinian Arab state before the end of the Bush presidency.

The case raises questions about the intentions of Prime Minister Abbas's Fatah government in the West Bank. Mr. Sa'ad, a former member of the Palestinian Authority's national security forces, is accused of providing the Israel Defense Forces with the whereabouts of four accused Palestinian terrorists Mr. Abbas's regime was unwilling to hand over to the Israelis. In a court in Hebron he was convicted of being a collaborator. But cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on counterterrorism is a precondition under agreements for the relinquishment of land for a Palestinian Arab state. What's more, the sentence against Mr. Sa'ad was meted out by a judge from Fatah, which is Mr. Abbas's Palestinian faction and the one that Ms. Rice hopes her diplomacy will strengthen against Hamas, the Iranian-backed terrorists who now control Gaza.

Secretary Rice in Ramallah yesterday praised Mr. Abbas, and particularly his leadership of the security services. "It takes some time to deal with the effects of the Intifada, but a lot of it has to do with responsible actions by the Palestinian government and the Palestinian Authority which are really now in place," she said. "And because of that, I think you are going to see improvements on the West Bank."

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: From Muslims Against Sharia

Muslims Against Sharia condemn, in strongest possible terms, death sentence for Imad Sa'ad, which shows the true nature of the Palestinian Authority. If Mahmoud Abbas and the P.A. were serious about combating terrorism, they would not be sentencing their security officers to death for counter-terrorism efforts.

Muslims Against Sharia call on the American government to cease all aid to the Palestinian Authority if Mr. Sa'ad's sentence is carried out. Imad Sa'ad is a true hero of the Arab people and the American government should demand his immediate release.

by Daled Amos

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Abbas.

Too early

In McCain Jindal, William Kristol sounds some caution:

Still, Obama is the likely Democratic nominee. Some conservatives are giddy at the thought — kidding themselves that the general election will therefore be easy, that Obama will be another Dukakis. I was struck, though, in several conversations this week with McCain campaign staffers and advisers that they’re pretty sober about the task ahead. About the Dukakis analogy, for example, one McCain aide said: If in 1988 Ronald Reagan had had a 30 percent job approval rating, and 80 percent of the voters had thought we were on the wrong track, Dukakis would have won.

Still I'm not at all convinced by his recommendation:

Maybe that’s why, in separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak.

It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.” I would add that it was after McCain spent considerable time with Jindal in New Orleans recently, and reportedly found him, as he has before, personally engaging and intellectually impressive, that the campaign’s informal name-dropping of Jindal began.

Jindal's got to be tempting. And I'll acknowledge that he's accomplished more than most politicians have in entire careers. (He reformed Louisiana's health care system.) Still I think that Baseball Crank is correct:

No Rookies: On the other end of the spectrum, a large part of McCain's argument, especially against Obama, will be that McCain is experienced, battle-tested, and ready to take the now-proverbial 3 a.m. phone call. But as I noted above, given his age, he'll be undercutting that argument if his running mate doesn't also clearly pass that 3 a.m. test - and that means no first-term Governors or Senators, no Lieutenant Governors or state legislators, no business people without government experience. It has to be someone who has more experience and credibility than the Democrats' presidential nominee.

(Read the whole thing.)

john mccain.

Careening towards peace

Why does it seem that when "peace" finally gets closer, events tend to become more chaotic.

Even as Secretary Rice goes to the Middle East to attempt to get a "peace deal" between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a lot that is out of her hands. Of course she can try to ignore what's going on, so that she still gets a piece of paper in the end. Unfortunately for that result, it's not supposed to be a "piece" deal but a "peace" deal, the latter being a lot more difficult to achieve (though the former is actually more common).

Right now the investigation surrounding Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert politically endangers the Israeli leader currently necessary for the deal.

via memeorandum

The NYT reports Political crisis overshadows Rice's trip

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a series of talks on Israeli-Palestinian peace here on Sunday, saying she believed an accord was attainable by year’s end. But the process was overshadowed by an intensifying police investigation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel.

Ms. Rice, who arrived here from a conference in London that focused on international donations to the Palestinian Authority, has held meetings with Mr. Olmert; the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas; and other top officials from both sides. In brief statements so far, all have been tight-lipped.

Abbas reportedly was happy about his meeting with Sec. Rice.

And the other event that's beyond the scope of what can be achieved in term of peace: Hamas attacked the Nachal Oz fuel terminal again. For all the complaints of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Hamas seems so unconcerned that they'll cut off their gas to spite their constituents. I guess they figure they can count on the world's outrage if Israel (reasonably) halts further shipments. (Hamas knows that they can count on the UNRWA.)

Still as Israel Matzav points out, PM Olmert has proved pretty resilient in the past:

For those of you who think this is the end of Olmert's government, please don't be overconfident. First, we have thought several times over the last two years that the end was nigh and unfortunately, it was not. Second, even if the Knesset disbands and elections are called, Olmert will remain in power as a caretaker unless he is forced to remove himself due to the criminal indictments (in which case Livni would take over, which might even be worse). During that interim period Olmert and Livni may continue to negotiate our future away. Ehud Barak tried doing that eight years ago at Taba while he was facing a special election. We're still suffering the consequences.

Martin Peretz writes:

But everybody understood and really understands that Israel would retain a few large settlement blocks and the land between Jerusalem and the 40,000-plus people in Ma'aleh Adumin. A "return to the 1967 borders" is a slogan. It is not a peace map. First of all, those are not borders. They were never recognized as borders by any of the Arabs; they were fragile cease-fire lines. Second of all, history doesn't stop for the convenience of the Palestinians. They have to deal with history as it was made, mostly because these Palestinians hope against all the odds that Israel would disappear by itself.

All in all, the United States wants peace, but events don't seem to be accommodating those wishes.

Heck, Fatah and Hamas can't even agree on television programming, how likely is it that either could agree with Israel on terms for peace?

Crossposted on Yourish.

Musical monday #41#43

Well it's back.

After a brief hiatus for Pesach/Passover, Musical Monday is back.

Guess the lyrics, figure out the theme. (NO googling)

I know I have to post the answers for a few past ones. Hopefully tonight, but no guarantees.

1) With them windshield wipers slappin time
2) Well I read some books and I read some magazines
3) That boy drank all that night don't know why
4) It's been the ruin of many a poor boy
4) Never have drifted down a bayou stream
5) Drums beating, cold English blood runs hot
6) Up in New York City
7) New York's got the ways and means; but just wont let you be, oh no.
8) But I never saw the good side of the city,
9) Leaving out of Nashville, Tennessee,
10) The honey suckle is bloomin on the honeysuckle vine
11) So he offered her a smile and a stick of Beech Nut gum
12) In 1814 we took a little trip
13) Illinois Central, Monday morning rail.
14) She lived in a world of magic
15) I'm gonna need two pair of shoes

I am really sorry, I thought I had more. If I can remember any more, I'll post them tonight.

If you figure out the theme and want to add more, please feel free to do so in the comments.

20 months

At 1:15 AM this morning she turned 87 weeks old.

The wonders continue.

In recent days she's gotten used to using implements for eating. She's not bad with a spoon right now. It was funny watching her eat macaroni yesterday. She hasn't always mastered the art of putting the food in her spoon, so I did that for her. She'd then lift the spoon to her mouth and manage to get most of the macaroni in, with just a few, every spoonful missing.

She also likes drinking with an open cup. We'd prefer covered cups as that's less messy. (She can drink fine. But sometimes she loses her concentration and she's not fully aware of how gravity works on liquids.)

She does like eating by herself. And she seems to prefer the table. It looks like the high chair might be on its way out. (She also is likely to dance in the high chair. That makes us nervous.)

Communication continues to improve. The other day she wanted grape juice. I told her she couldn't have any unless she put on a bib and she let me put on the bib. She didn't fight me off as I'd gotten used to.

And now she can talk in brief sentences. "I want pizza," is one. Yesterday she asked for breakfast.

One of her favorite books is Polar Bear, Polar Bear by Bill Martin Jr. and Eric Carle. I once saw her "reading" it. She obviously can't read the words, but she was babbling in the rhythm that we read the book to her.

When she was younger she'd do something called a "tushie dance." Now she has a variation on that. When she sees a box of diaper wipes, she'll start sitting down on it and then bouncing back up. She really enjoys that (and the attention it gets) and gives us great laughs when she starts bouncing.

On Shabbos, one of her brothers was singing. She went over to the couch where he was and started hitting the couch in rhythm with the song. Eventually she started trying to sing along with him.

Oh, and it looks like we finally have the first tooth. She's taken her good old time, but it looks like a tooth on the bottom is finally breaking through.

Previous related posts:
19 months,
18 months, 17 months, One month, two months, three months, four months, five months, six months,seven months,eight months, 9 months, 10 months, 11 months, One year, 13 months, 14 months, 15 months, 16 months.

Paul Newman, The Last Of The Epic Jews?

Kyle Smith writes in The New York Post about the different flavors of Jews that can be found in Hollywood:

American movies have given us tragic Jews ("The Pawnbroker"), cold-blooded Jews ("Rope"), devout Jews ("The Chosen"), sidewalk Jews ("Crossing Delancey"), intellectual Jews ("Enemies: A Love Story"), thrilling Jews ("Marathon Man"), ambitious Jews ("Avalon,"), showbiz Jews ("Funny Girl"), gangster Jews ("Bugsy"), JAPy Jews ("Private Benjamin"), political Jews ("The Way We Were"), funny Jews ("Biloxi Blues"), self-hating skinhead Jews ("The Believer"), hairy Jews ("Fiddler on the Roof"), scary Jews ("Oliver Twist"), Jews who couldn't have been less Jewy (Laurence Olivier yelping "I heff no son!" in 1980's "The Jazz Singer") and rough-and-tumble Jews: who can forget the sight of Woody Allen beating a guy senseless with a giant strawberry in "Sleeper"?

All of these are background acts, though, when compared to Hollywood's favorite flavor of Jew: the eternal victim. Another awards season, another Holocaust movie.

Paul Newman was no victim. He was an Epic Jew, the kind of stalwart, forceful, tireless nation- builder Hollywood can't seem to dream up anymore, though "Exodus" was the fourth-biggest box office hit of 1960.

If you asked filmmakers why they shy away from modern Israel, they'd respond, correctly, that there isn't much of an audience anymore for films about foreign countries or historical epics, plus the international sales (and Happy Meal profits) are bound to be minimal for a movie with political content. Parting the Red Sea makes for a much more cinematic experience than a meeting at Camp David.

But Jewish filmmakers are also silencing themselves because their pride in Israel is negated by their knee-jerk distaste for overdogs. Hollywood is the only place where billionaires fancy themselves outcasts fighting the system. Israel, for all its enemies, is a success story, but a complicated one. If the situation there were reversed - with the Palestinians in charge and the Israelis throwing rocks and submitting to checkpoints - there would be a Hollywood movie about it every other year.

Back in 2001, Edward Said wrote:

The main narrative model that dominates American thinking still seems to be Leon Uris's 1950 novel Exodus.

The work's real impact, however, lay beyond mere literature. For a great many people, the plot of the novel—and of the even more popular 1960 film—became the popular template for understanding the Mideast, especially issues involving the unending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Uris popularized Israel as a place of righteous refuge, solidifying a link between the Holocaust and Israel that is actually a matter of contention among Israel's own historians and intellectuals. This is not to say that his story was false; the refuge narrative is at least one valid Israeli theme. But Uris helped make it the primary such narrative, characterizing critics of Israeli policy in terms of that story, and setting the terms of debate for decades.

For example, academic Melani McAlister, in a recent analysis of the relationship between American culture and U.S. Mideast policy, argues that when the novel came out, "most Americans still knew little about Zionism or Israel," and that the Uris story was "a foreshadowing of what Israel was to come to mean to Americans."

By Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Apartheid in Lebanon--call Jimmy Carter!

It is pretty well known that the Palestinians in Lebanon are among the Arab world's most badly treated Palestinians, but the facts at the end of this Daily Star excerpt are stunning:

With inflation in double digits and the cost of living rising, the Lebanese government has proposed raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, but Palestinians say they continue to be marginalized in the labor market. Several hundred Palestinians protested at the edge of the Shatila refugee camp in south Beirut on April 30 ahead of the May 1 Labor Day holiday, traditionally a time for workers' to air their grievances.

"We are humans, we have the right to live," shouted the protesters. "We are half-humans in Lebanon."

Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in 70 professional vocations. They cannot work as lawyers and doctors, and cannot own or inherit property. [...]

Half a million Lebanese are self-employed and would not benefit from the wage increase, while Palestinians do not qualify as they are refugees, not citizens, in Lebanon. They are also barred from holding jobs in dozens of occupations. [...]

Crossposted on Judeopundit

New hope for Fatah-Hamas media unity? Evidently not.

Maan presents an account of an attempted conciliatory meeting between the "television directors" of the two principal Palestinian factions. It doesn't look promising:

The directors of rival Hamas- and Fatah-affiliated television networks held a public dialogue for the first time in months at a conference for journalists sponsored by the Ameen Netork on Friday.

Bassem Abu Summayya, the chief of Television and Radio for Fatah-allied Palestine TV spoke at the conference in Jericho, while Fathi Hammad, the director of Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV appeared via videoconference from Gaza.

Dr. Essmat Abdul Khaleq lay the grounds for the dialogue, saying that the conversation was aimed at strengthening professional and humanitarian values.

The journalists were also shown film clips of some of the most venomous and degrading material aired on both stations. Since fighting between Hamas and Fatah turned violent last year, both sides have used their media to demonize the other. Graphic images of Hamas fighters torturing Fatah leader Sameeh Al Madhun, for example, were some of the pictures that were used in Hamas' and Fatah's media battle.

The Palestinian Authority has banned Al-Aqsa TV from working in the West Bank, and Hamas has prohibited Palestine TV from operating freely in Gaza.

While both senior journalist said they welcomed the chance for dialogue, the conversation itself was not without accusations.

Bassem Abu Sumayya said, "Hammad and I depend on the political leaders to solve this situation as it was before the coup in Gaza. We used to interview some Hamas representatives until Hamas boycotted Palestine TV channel as well as forcibly seized our headquarters in Gaza. Unfortunately this was ordered by Mr. Hammad. They also decided to arrest any journalist who works for Palestine Television."

Abu Sumayya denied that Palestine TV blacklisted political leaders who are against Fatah.

Fathi Hammad said, "Our mission is to define our points of strength to the world." He also declared that Hamas is ready for any initiative regarding reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

Hammad added that the Palestine TV staff can return to their headquarters in Gaza after coordinating with the government and the security services in Gaza. He said that they will not allow any woman on television who is not wearing a hijab, a headscarf.

As the debate ended, the journalists at the conference were left wondering if Hammad and Abu Sumayya could do anything to resolve the present conflict?

Journalist Hamdi Farraj said that it would be unfair to consider the conflict between Hamas and Fatah to be between Hammad and Abu Sumayya, who actually cannot be held responsible for decisions made by political leaders.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Expensive speech

via memeorandum

The Australian reports:

THE cheque from the Saudi Government for $360,000 was enclosed in an envelope.

It was a donation, a gift, a part payment to subsidise the construction of a building that would become Sydney's Muslim heartbeat: Lakemba mosque. More than 35 years after Sydney cleric Khalil Shami received the cheque, he insists it came with no strings attached. But while the cheque had no tangible conditions in the form of written instructions or binding contracts, the cleric received a message from his donors several months after depositing it.

"They said: 'Please, can you mention the tragedy of the Palestinian people and what's happened to them in your sermon?"' Shami tells Inquirer. "Which is really a very noble cause, a very noble cause, I couldn't see a negative in their request."

The message Shami received from Riyadh brings into question the influence petro-dollars can have on their recipients, whether the money is bankrolling a religious centre, a clerical allowance or Queensland's Griffith University, which was exposed by The Australian last month for seeking a $1.37million Saudi grant, of which $100,000 was received, and offering to keep elements of the deal a secret.

See-Dubya (at Michelle Malkin) observes that this behavior isn't new or unique to Australia but:

To be clear, this aspect isn’t mentioned in the article, but I once heard Daniel Pipes discuss it in a lecture and I thought it was worth a mention.

Well here's one of the articles Pipes has written on the topic.

A range of public figures—former ambassadors, university professors, think tank experts – routinely opine in America about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia while quietly taking Saudi funds. They learnedly discuss Arabian affairs on television, radio, in public lectures, and university classrooms. Having no visible connection to Saudi money, they speak with the authority of disinterested U.S. experts, enjoying more credibility than, say, another billionaire prince from the royal family.

Saudi funding for opinion makers has been known but not its exact specifics. I can for the first time expose how the Saudis manage their covert publicity campaign in America thanks to a Saudi-employed public relations firm having incautiously contacted a senior professor at a major research institution. Although the professor did not accept the offer of the speakers, he showed enough interest to document the proposed transaction and then made the details available to me.

An employee at a leading public relations firm in Washington offered the professor Saudi-funded speakers for the lecture program he runs, doing so as part of a program to provide ongoing education to communities around the country about "the importance and value of strong U.S.-Saudi relations. … One of our campaign components is to implement a speaker's bureau program on behalf of the Kingdom that reaches into target markets across the nation. I think there is a wonderful opportunity," she gushed, "to develop a very stimulating event with [your speakers' series]."

(There is a follow up here too.)

Fausta adds her thoughts.

The Saudis get the best mouthpieces money can buy. I suspect that a disproportionate number of their interlocutors subscribe to the idea that Israel somehow unfairly skews the debate in America. (Though as far as I know neither Walt nor Mearsheimer receive Saudi funds. If they weren't so biased against Israel, Saudi influence would be the avenue they would pursue.)

UPDATE: After the fact, it occurred to me that there was a much better way to express my conclusion: Those who are so concerned with undue foreign influence on American policy are usually exercise about Israel's above board lobbying but tend to be silent about Saudi Arabia's covert influence. I suspect that they're less bothered by foreign influence than by the government they claim is exerting it excessively.

Crossposted on Yourish.

saudi arabia.

Community events

Tomorrow and Tuesday (5/6/08 and 5/7/08) Jared Fogle (that's Jared of Subway fame will be appearing at the new Kosher Subway in Baltimore. More here.

Jared will also be taking part in a discussion of Obesity in the Jewish Community at the Etz Chaim Center, Tuesday night at 7:30, along with Rabbi Eli Glaser, director of Soveya.

This coming weekend on Saturday night (10 PM) and twice on Sunday (11 AM and 8PM) will be showing Rabbi Berel Wein's new film, "The Miracle of Israel: 1945 - 1948."

Tuesday night, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby will be speaking on "Israel at 60: A nation that dwells alone." (More extensive archives are here.)

Admission for each event separately is $15. A ticket for both the film and Mr. Jacoby's talk is $25. Discounts for students and seniors are available.

Finally AIPAC is hosting a toast to its president Howard Tzvi Friedman on Sunday May 18 at 7 PM at Beth Tefiloh. For more information check out Shomrei Emunah newsletter and go to page 9.

baltimore jewish community.

Juggling carnivals 05/04/08

Incoming Carnivals

My esteemed co-blogger at Meryl's Simply Jews hosts this week's tremendous Haveil Havalim #164 (the no-name edition) with a special emphasis on Yom Hashoa.

UPDATE: Carnival of Maryland #32 is UP at Inside Charm City.

Upcoming Carnival

Carnivals Past

Last week's Haveil Havalim #163 was up at Tzipiyah.

And over Pesach Jack had a non-Haveil Havalim roundup a testament (as if any were needed) of his commitment to the J-blogoshphere.

I've also missed a couple of Carnivals of the Insanities.

There was a Carnival of the Insanities on April 20 that included my post about J-Street alongside one by Gateway Pundit.

Last week's Carnival of the Insanities included my post about peace talk surrounding Syria and Israel alongside a post by Ace.

I would have submitted one this week but Blogcarnival was down on Friday. So here's this week's Carnival of the Insanities.

Finally I'd like to bring your attention to Carnival of Maryland #31, which was posted two weeks ago at On the Red Line. When today's Carnival of Maryland is posted, I'll plan to note it above.

blog carnivals.

Last survivor of operation valkyrie dies

Philipp von Boeselager, Who Attempted an Assassination of Hitler, Dies at 90

Philipp Freiherr von Boeselager, believed to be the last surviving member of the inner circle of German Army officers who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler with a briefcase bomb on July 20, 1944, died on Thursday. He was 90 and lived in Altenahr, in the Rhineland-Palatinate.

It appears that he was pretty high up in the attempt, but he was enough removed from those who actually carried out the attempted assassination that he remained safe.

Mr. von Boeselager, disturbed by the Nazi campaign of extermination against the Jews and by German atrocities that he witnessed as a lieutenant on the Eastern Front, joined an anti-Hitler conspiracy in 1942 and later took part in the plot being organized by Col. Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, who, as chief of staff to Gen. Friedrich Fromm of Reserve Army Headquarters, routinely attended meetings at which Hitler was present.

Mr. von Boeselager, assigned to an explosives research team, was able to acquire top-grade English explosives. On July 20, Colonel von Stauffenberg carried a briefcase stuffed with plastic explosives and a timed detonator into a conference being held in the Wolf’s Lair, Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia, and placed it under a table being used by Hitler and more than 20 officers.

After making an excuse, Colonel von Stauffenberg left the room. In his absence, Col. Heinz Brandt, trying to get a better look at a map on the table, moved the briefcase, blunting the impact of the explosion. It demolished the conference room and mortally wounded three officers (Colonel Brandt among them) and a stenographer, but Hitler escaped with minor injuries.

Had the assassination succeeded, Mr. von Boeselager was supposed to lead 1,200 men back to Berlin and take part in a general uprising against the Nazi regime, code-named Operation Valkyrie. The bomb plot is the subject of the unreleased film “Valkyrie,” in which Tom Cruise plays Colonel von Stauffenberg. Mr. von Boeselager described his role in the wartime resistance in a recent interview with The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

It also wasn't the first time he had tapped to try an kill Hitler.

Mr. von Boeselager was first approached in 1942 to shoot both Hitler and Heinrich Himmler at close range. “It was no longer about saving the country, but about stopping the crimes,” he told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in a recent interview.

On March 13, 1943, with a Walther PP pistol in hand, Mr. von Boeselager prepared to assassinate both men, who were scheduled to hold a strategy session with Field Marshal Günther von Kluge, Mr. von Boeselager’s commanding officer and also a conspirator. When Himmler decided not to attend, Mr. von Kluge called off the missi

Fourteen years ago

Fourteen years ago.

On May 4, 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat reached agreement in Cairo on the first stage of Palestinian self-rule.

The agreement was made in accordance with the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington, D.C. on September 13, 1993. This was the first direct, face-to-face agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and it acknowledged Israel's right to exist. It was also designed as a framework for future relations between the two parties.

This lead to:

The Israeli Defense Forces withdrew from Jericho on May 13 and from most of the Gaza Strip on May 18-19, 1994. Palestinian Authority police and officials immediately took control. During the first few days there was a spate of attacks on Israeli troops and civilians in and near the Strip. Arafat himself arrived in Gaza to a tumultuous, chaotic welcome on July 1.

Here's Clyde Haberman's sentimental tribute to Arafat's arrival in Gaza from the NYT:

Yasir Arafat, the fiery, flawed and indomitable symbol of the Palestinian struggle for a homeland, entered the Gaza Strip today, completing his odyssey to territories that he hopes to turn one day into a state.

With tears in his eyes, Mr. Arafat knelt after crossing the border from Egypt and kissed the ground -- land he has not seen in decades and that for the first time has come under Palestinian authority and, for now, his personal stewardship.

Michael Kelly recalled the scene somewhat less charitably ("Promises but never peace, Washington Post, April 3, 2002)

On July 1, 1994, Yasser Arafat entered Gaza to establish the Palestinian Autonomous Region -- betwixt-and-between creature of the Oslo peace process that was supposed to become, under the guiding light of the Oslo peace process, the physical base of another ambivalent notion, the Palestinian National Authority. I went as a reporter to Gaza a few hours before Arafat arrived, and I stayed there for about five weeks, observing the early days of life and governance under the Palestinian Authority. Arafat 's entry into Gaza was an object lesson: a purposely uncaring display of brute power. He arrived from the Sinai in a long caravan of Chevrolet Blazers and Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs, 70 or 80 cars packed to the rooflines with men with guns. The caravan roared up the thronged roads and down the mobbed streets, with the overfed, leather-jacketed, sunglassed thugs of Arafat 's bodyguard detail all the time screaming and shooting off their Kalashnikovs to make their beloved people scurry out of their beloved leader's way.

This was the whole of the Palestinian Authority from the beginning, an ugly little cartoon of Middle East despotism. There was never any pretense of democracy, of rule of law, of a free press, of a working system of taxes or courts or hospitals. There was never any real government. No one ever bothered to build an economy or create jobs or even pick up the trash or pave the streets. There were only security forces -- many, many of these -- and villas by the sea for Arafat 's cronies, and millions of dollars in foreign aid that seemed to always turn up missing, and prisons and propaganda. And in the middle of it all: "President" Arafat sitting in a room -- surrounded by waiting sycophants and toadies and respectful ladies and gentlemen of the press -- and complaining.

Crossposted on Yourish.

palestinian authority.

"Unprepared" - to protect or to attack?

The Washington reports that Palestinian Recruits Hit Streets Unprepared

The first class of Palestinian security officers trained under a multimillion-dollar U.S. program to strengthen the Palestinian Authority is deploying to one of the West Bank's most restive cities without promised supplies of body armor, helmets or even flashlights after Israel blocked a shipment of equipment.

The shortage in U.S.-funded supplies threatens the Palestinian government's ability to provide security in the West Bank, which Israel has made a condition of future withdrawals from the occupied territories. There have also been significant problems with the training, including a final round that one American involved in the program described as "a complete fiasco."

Of course given the past "success" of training Palestinian security forces Israel's reticence is somewhat understandable.

This is accounted for in the article that observes:

Israeli officials contacted Friday said they could not immediately comment on what supplies had or had not been approved for the Presidential Guard. But they said Israel has been as cooperative as possible in approving equipment, given its own security needs.

A senior official in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said Israel had approved most requests related to the Palestinian security training -- "both weapons and equipment."

"Believe me, it wasn't easy," this official said.

Last month, an armored personnel carrier that had been donated to the Palestinian Authority years ago was used by Hamas fighters to attack a crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip, wounding 13 Israeli soldiers.

(Israel has in fact approved much more sophisticated equipment, so what has happened?)

Schwartz said the unit involved in that exercise "was given additional training before returning to the Palestinian Authority," adding, "It achieved the standard."

The American, who talked on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, also spoke of the training supervisors putting on what he called "a dog-and-pony show" when U.S. congressional delegations or other visitors came to the site.

Visitors "do a bus tour where they view various training sessions that are completely staged," the American said.

Dog and pony show? That's certainly the impression I've gotten from all those newswire photos. The Palestinian security forces have been trained but it looks like a lot of choreography.

Unfortunately the article fails to mention one other matter and that is the makeup of the Palestinian Presidential Guard. In response to the State Department's announcement of the training, the Skeptical Bureaucrat reminded us:

The Presidential Guard's personnel overlap to a large extent with al Fatah's Force 17 (of Black September infamy) and even with the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. So, watch for future news of U.S.-trained and equipped terrorists - maybe even HAMAS infiltrators in the Guard - committing atrocities against Israel.

I don't trust these security forces. Unfortunately, the State Department has a stake in ensuring that they succeed, even if it means denying their failures.

Isabel Kershner writes in Israel's tactics thwart attacks, with tradeoff.

Suicide bombings in Israel have dropped off so significantly that the nation’s security officials now dare to speak openly of success. But the very steps they are taking to thwart bombers appear to collide head-on with the government’s agenda of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

It is a classic military-political dilemma. The progress in stopping suicide bombers, the vast majority of whom cross into Israel from the West Bank, has brought enough quiet for Israel to resume peace talks with the Palestinian leadership there.

But the current calm is fragile, and to maintain it Israeli security officials say they must continue their nightly arrests and sometimes deadly raids in the heart of the West Bank — tactics at odds with a peace effort that envisions a separate Palestinian state, an eventual Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank and, in the meantime, a gradual transfer of authority to the Palestinian police.

“The price of staying out” of the West Bank, said one senior Israeli military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of military