Israel Is Looking More And More Like China

In Meeting The Chinese Giant, Rabbi Shalom Salomon Wald writes about Steven Spielberg's resignation as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympic Games and the statement issued by 168 rabbis calling for a boycott of the Beijing Games, based on China's relationship with Sudan and its actions in Tibet.

Hmmm, next thing you know, groups will be issuing calls for divestment...

In response to worldwide--and Jewish--criticisms of China, Rabbi Wald issues a familiar rebuttal, noting that:

the list of countries that offend human rights is long. Why single out one country, China, and ignore others? In June 2008, the Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights asserted that since 2002, approximately 7,500 detainees have died in Indian police custody; that is four per day, many of them under torture. Even the most severe critics of Chinese human rights violations have never suggested anything close to such numbers.

But in contrast to China, India is a democratic country where such abuses can be criticized by a free press and public. More importantly, India is a pro-Western country that is not yet seen as a challenge to American power. The point is: no Jewish protests have been raised against India. Nor have any been raised against Muslim or Arab countries that seek contacts or peace with Israel, even if their human rights record is anything but spotless. In other words, American Jewish condemnations of human rights violations are selective, and are colored by other motivations, including the tenor of America's overall relations with that country. American citizens single out China for condemnation because their government, media and business interests feel threatened by the Red Giant. But Israel's strategic position is different, and there are more heinous human rights abuses on which Israelis and Jews should focus their attention.

Regarding Rabbi Wald's claim about criticizing abuses in India--as he himself points out, as a democracy India is itself capable of addressing such issues. As far as criticizing human rights abuses in the Arab world--has Rabbi Wald ever attended a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council?

But there is a third, and to me more interesting comparison between China and Israel--the comparison between Taiwan and Jerusalem. Eric Olander writes about the well-known and strong feelings China has about Taiwan. Olander writes:

What really surprises me though is that despite China vast differences across economic, social, ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic and even political lines, 99.9% of all Mainlanders have one thing in common: Taiwan. While a student at Beijing University, I onced asked my professor why it was that everyone from the taxi driver on the streets of Changsha to the highest government official in Zhongnanhai was uniform in their determination on the Taiwan question, it was simply put to me: "Taiwan is our Jerusalem." China, my professor explained, is simply not complete without the re-unification of Taiwan with the Mainland. He went to say that if Taiwan was to ever to formally declare its political independence Beijing would have no choice but to claim the island by force for the Chinese leadership very legitimacy would be at stake. No Chinese leader, he concluded, could stay in power overseeing the formal end to the dream of a unified country. It just won't happen he demured. [emphasis added]

If only Israel's attachment to Jerusalem was declared as openly and forcefully--without hint of concession--as China's attachment to Taiwan. You can argue about the legitimacy of China's feelings about Taiwan and the actions China has taken as a result, but I would like to see the Israeli government declare itself and act just as unambiguously.

by Daled Amos

American reaction to olmert's announcement

Not surprisingly the Washington Post's coverage of Olmert's announcement that he would step down after the Kadima primaries, focuses on the peace process.

Palestinian officials reacted cautiously, with Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki saying that Olmert's decision would not change much, the Associated Press reported. "It's true that Olmert was enthusiastic about the peace process and he spoke about this process with great attention, but it has not achieved any progress or breakthrough," Maliki said.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority, whose influence is limited to the West Bank, renewed peace talks at a U.S.-sponsored conference in Annapolis, Md., in November, after a seven-year hiatus. More recently, Israel has renewed indirect peace talks with Syria, with the latest round, mediated by Turkey, concluding Thursday.

Olmert said he would continue to push for peace as long as he is in office, but it appears unlikely that Israel will make any major decisions on concessions to either Syria or the Palestinians until a new government is formed.

Surprisingly though, the reporter failed to mention that Shaul Mofaz is also contending to succeed Olmert as head of Kadima, and mentions only Tzipi Livni as the frontrunner.

At the end of the article Kadima's viability was questioned:

Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, said the most likely scenario was that Israel would go to new elections. That would pit Livni against former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party. Polls show Netanyahu with a 10-point lead over Livni if the elections were held today.

"She will have a hard time convincing voters that she has the necessary security experience," Steinberg said. "We're talking about issues like a possible war with Iran or Hamas in Gaza. These are difficult situations."

Thursday's announcement could also bode ill for Kadima. The party was founded by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in November 2005 to advocate for a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Olmert was thrust into the leadership of Kadima in January 2006 after Sharon suffered a massive stroke.

"Kadima is a very fragile structure that Sharon put together, and it could well shatter after the primary," Steinberg said.

Daniel PIpes said the same thing, two years ago.

I was skeptical of Kadima from the very start, dismissing it just one week after it came into existence as an escapist venture that "will (1) fall about as abruptly as it has arisen and (2) leave behind a meager legacy." If Sharon's career is now over, so is Kadima's. He created it, he ran it, he decided its policies, and none else can now control its fissiparous elements. Without Sharon, Kadima's constituent elements will drift back to their old homes in Labour, Likud, and elsewhere. With a thud, Israeli politics return to normal.

Well that didn't happen as Olmert proved to be able to keep Kadima afloat. However, I suspect that that's because he's an excellent political operator. Losing a half to two thirds of the party's Knesset representation will likely turn it into a circular firing squad.

While focusing largely on the peace process, the NY Times's report is a lot more comprehensive than the Washington Post (and doesn't ignore Mofaz. It also brought this quote:

Mr. Olmert's drive for diplomatic achievements "might frighten some," said Abraham Diskin, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There are Israelis who do not believe in agreements, and others who support the peace effort but do not feel comfortable having their leader negotiate desperately with an eye on the clock. "I belong to that second category," Mr. Diskin said.

While the NY Times mentions that the PA claims that the announcement is an internal Israeli matter, the doctor of Holocaust denial has thrown an tantrum and declared that he will go home if no one pays attention to him. No one noticed.

Still neither the Times nor the Post seem much concerned with the threats Israel faces from Iran and its proxies, just the peace process, which I suppose is reflective of the American view.

Crossposted on Yourish

Olmert odds and ends

With the end of his political career at hand (or perhaps in a half year) it's hard to remember that there was a time when Ehud Olmert was considered an up and comer in the Likud party. (He did rise to the top, of course. But as Prime Minister he never electrified.)

Back in April 1988 he participated in Nightline's famous "townhall meeting" between Palestinians and Israelis. The New York Times reviewed the meeting. It recounts perhaps the most dramatic point in the event:

What was inescapable, though, was that on some matters they seemed as united as the Palestinians. After Mr. Erakat's impassioned speech, Mr. Zucker attacked him. He said, equally impassioned, that Syrians and Jordanians had killed more Palestinians than had Israelis.

The audience of Arabs and Jews in the theater - getting the audience together may have been the act of a sovereign power, too - responded with murmurs and applause. Some of the Jews, obviously, wanted to back up Mr. Zucker.

''I don't need your applause,'' he said curtly to the audience. He also said the Palestinians ''won't recognize my right to live.'' The Palestinians didn't look at him, although all four Israelis stared intently at them.

In Erakat's "impassioned" speech he explicitly compared Israel to Nazi Germany. That was too much even for Peace Now advocate Zucker, who said that he might be able to make peace with the others but not with Erakat.

(Previously I blogged about this townhall here. I was a bit premature.)

If there's been a feeling that Olmert might hold on indefinitely in the face of this investigation, it's been because we've been here before.

In 1996 after Binyamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, he was stymied in his attempt to form a government as 3 men he had wanted in his cabinet were in legal jeopardy. The NYT reported:

Adding yet another complication to Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu's tangled efforts to form a coalition, the Attorney General has advised him that two candidates for senior Cabinet positions face legal problems.

The notices coincided with reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to replace Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair, who was appointed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. But Mr. Netanyahu denied the reports, and it was unclear whether the legal actions or the leaks came first.

The affected candidates were Jerusalem's Mayor, Ehud Olmert, one of the most popular members of Mr. Netanyahu's party, the Likud, and Rafael Eitan, a right-wing former general who allied his small Tsomet Party with the Likud on the promise of a senior Cabinet post.

The other cabinet member whose appointment was stopped by Ben Yair was Yaacov Ne'eman who was eventually acquitted and was appointed Finance Minister later. The charges against Gen. Eitan, if I remember correctly, didn't even make it to court. And Ehud Olmert was acquitted.

Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert has charged that former attorney-general Michael Ben-Yair indicted him "because he [Ben-Yair] is a wicked person."

"I am convinced that Ben-Yair had premeditated ulterior motives, because that is the kind of person he is. Everyone who knows Ben-Yair knows that he acted out of evil intent, to settle personal accounts and pave his own way to political options," Olmert was quoted telling the Bar Association's journal, Halishka.

Olmert was acquitted on September 28 by Tel Aviv District Court on charges of campaign finance fraud in connection with the 1988 Knesset election and the 1989 local council elections, when he was the ...

I think that Ben-Yair's efforts were politically, not legally motivated, but given the similarity in his outrage now, to his outrage then, I wonder if maybe Olmert was lucky the first time. Maybe he figured that if he was innocent the first time, he's innocent now.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Don't let the door hit you, ok?

Judging from many of the reactions to PM Olmert's announcement that he would not run again to lead his party, Kadima, it would possible to say that he'd envy President Bush's level of popularity.

Yossi Klein Halevi writes (h/t Shalem Center):

Olmert is the embodiment of what has been, for Israel, the year of scandal: a president accused of rape, a finance minister accused of massive embezzlement, a deputy prime minister found guilty of forcing his tongue into the mouth of a young woman soldier. Olmert, two years after assuming office and promising to make Israel a more "fun" place to live, leaves us a nation in shame. He went to war in Lebanon to restore our military deterrence and destroy Hezbollah's military capacity. Instead, he shattered Israeli self-confidence in our ability to defend ourselves, and empowered Hezbollah as the strongest force in Lebanese politics, with an arsenal three times larger than it possessed before Olmert's war.

Olmert is the first Israeli leader--perhaps the first democratic leader anywhere --to threaten his own country with destruction if it rejected his policies. Israel, he warned, is "finished" if it didn't withdraw from the West Bank. Yet in failing to defeat Hamas, he has insured the impossibility of a two-state solution for the foreseeable future, leaving us without a political or military option.

Perhaps Olmert's greatest offense was in debasing our public discourse with terms like "Talansky's envelopes" and "Olmert Tours," diverting our attention from the imminent nuclearization of Iran and the growing power of Hezbollah and Hamas. Instead of focusing on Israel's survival, we have been preoccupied with the melodrama of Olmert's survival.

Clearly from his address to the nation Olmert didn't get how out of touch he was.

In the area of security, we strengthened the IDF - we bolstered its strength and allocated enormous resources it had not received in the past. The North is quiet and does not face an immediate threat. Israel's deterrent capability has been incomparably bolstered.

Jewish Current Issues though cites an expert who presents a much different view of things:

Also, the Iranians have very cleverly created two proxy armies on Israel's border, one in the north called Hezbollah, and one in the south called Hamas. It is now estimated that Hezbollah has about 42,000 short-range missiles in rockets. Remember a couple of years ago when Israel went to war briefly with Hezbollah. Maybe the estimate then was about 15,000. They have re-armed, they are armed to the teeth, and Israel knows that if it strikes at Iran's nuclear facilities, that Hezbollah is going to be able to launch an extraordinarily violent retaliatory strike that will probably depopulate the north of Israel. So regardless of who does it under these scenarios, whether it's the United States or Israel, Israel is going to be the one that's going to pay the short term price.

But what does Olmert's announcement mean? Nothing. At least nothing yet. Ynet describes what will eventually take place. Once the Kadima primary takes place and a new leader is chosen for the party:

Olmert's resignation will entail the resignation of the government in its entirety. The responsibility for the next move will be on President Shimon Peres. After holding consultations with representatives from the various political factions in the Knesset, Peres will be required to task one of the MKs with establishing a new government.

Most chances are that individual will be the chairman-elect of Kadima, if only because it remains parliament's largest political party.

In any event, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is also chairman of the Labor party and Olmert's key coalition ally, cannot be called upon to form a government because he is not an elected member of the Knesset.

Israel Matzav points out that Olmert could hypothetically remain in power (of a caretaker government) until March.

Hashmonean (very fortunately) emerged from hibernation to show what things might be like until new elections are called:

Now, in the running for Kadima Foreign Minister Livni, and former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. Each will try to seize the leadership of the Kadima party and then the unenviable task of trying to construct a coalition for governing. The likelihood of Livni accomplishing this appears to me slim should she be elected leader of Kadima, as she will be forced to rely on the existing coalition partners and as exhibited today, that partnership is a farce in name only. Insane amounts of social legislation, benefits packages & assorted goodies & gimmes totalling billions were put to votes today in the Knesset despite official coalition positions not in support, what resulted was wide passing of these proposals (some in only initial first reads) and the dissolution of the coalition members from official position, in effect the largest non-confidence vote imaginable.

Israelly Cool! notes one more insult.

Meryl comments:

Ever the gentleman, he's leaving office the same way he stayed: Without taking personal responsibility for any of his actions.

(While the Jerusalem Post praised the announcement and speech, A dignified end, I saw it more the way Meryl did.)

And we'll give the last word to someone who hasn't posted in a while, Mere Rhetoric:

You know what's really awesome? An Israeli political crisis just as the window on stopping Iranian nuclearization is closing.

more discussion at memeorandum.
Crossposted on Yourish.

In The End--Olmert Made The Most "Painful Concession" Of All

From Arutz Sheva:

Olmert Won't Run, Will Resign in September

At a sudden press conference, the Prime Minister announced he will not participate in his party's primaries. He said he would resign when a new party leader is chosen, "in order to enable the new leader to form a new government."

Kadima's primaries are to be held on September 17.

Olmert began his speech, timed to coincide with the national televised evening news broadcasts, by boasting of his administration's economic successes, such as low unemployment. He added, however, that he believes that peace with the Arabs is the most important mission he faces. 

In retrospect, you can say it was a forgone conclusion that even Olmert could not go on like this forever, but still--in the back of your mind, didn't you wonder if Olmert might be able to hang on even longer?

by Daled Amos

Check out Israel Matzav, who liveblogged Olmert's speech.

A passive aggressive national ethos

The other day I commented on a story from the Washington Post that Arab states were failing to fulfill their commitments to fund the Palestinian Authority.

Since then a few other bloggers have written about the story as well as a related story in the Jerusalem Post.

Boker Tov Boulder points out that by focusing on what wasn't paid to the PA, the story misses the bigger picture: what's been paid to the PA and gone for naught. In fact 3 weeks ago, we learned that $1 billion in international aid had been disbursed to the PA in 6 months. (This is something that Boker Tov Boulder followed up on.)

The international community has paid out nearly a billion dollars in direct aid to the Palestinians in six months, officials of the International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State said here late Monday, while hitting out at Israeli restrictions on movement by Palestinians.

Commenting on the Jerusalem Post story Israel Matzav offers some advice to the PA:

I know one place they could cut back - they could stop paying 'salaries' for all their 'employees' in Gaza who haven't come to work in over a year. At least 40% of the 'Palestinian Authority's 'budget' is spent in Gaza, which they do not even control.

That's right, a significant amount of foreign aid sent to bolster the "moderate" Fatah government gets funneled to the "militant" Hamas government. The claims that we must fund the PA in order to bolster the moderates is undermined by the very moderates we're supposedly helping.

Elder of Ziyon boils it down to:

The rich Arab oil barons do not consider the PA to be a good investment.

(There's a lot more to his argument, but that's the bottom line. So read the whole thing.)

If there was a Zionist ethos, it could be summed up as "making the desert bloom." While the reality was not necessarily so romantic, it underscores a devotion to being independent. Palestinian nationalism, if it has an ethos it's "let's be wards of the international community." Palestinian statehood has become everyone's responsibility but the Palestinians.

The nations of the world must give them money. Israel must give them land and free terrorists.

Palestinians nationalism could be described as a passive-aggressive national movement. Why is there an International Donor's conference to mark the progress towards creating a Palestinian state? Why isn't Abbas or Fayyad presenting a state of the state message to their many donors explaining how they've promoted an industrial infrastructure, instituted government accountability, implemented a legal system that observes high standards of human rights or an educational system that promotes liberal thought? The Palestinians have no responsibilities and nothing is demanded of them.

Everyone everywhere (including numerous Israeli politicians) claim that Israel's very legitimacy rests on the creation of a Palestinian state. But how can that be when the Palestinians don't take the necessary steps to create such a state? Why should Israel's legitimacy be dependent on the behavior of the Palestinians?

And when President Bush says that a stable Middle East depends on having a Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace, why does it matter more to him than to the Arab states who won't put their money where their mouth is? (Remember that one of the complaints that the Arab world has against the United States - repeated ad nauseum - is that it doesn't do enough for the Palestinians. But how can the United States do enough, if the Palestinians don't take the basic steps to create a state themselves? And why doesn't the United States turn to the Arabs and say, why should we support Palestinians nationalism if you won't?)

The current trends in diplomacy only encourage Palestinian dependency. At what point will this be recognized and the onus of independence be placed on the ones who claim they want it?

UPDATE: Writing about a trend of Arab countries to invest directly in the Palestinian people and not the government, Daled Amos observed (similar to Elder of Ziyon):

I blogged earlier this week about how contrary to the West that insisted on pouring more millions into the Palestinian Authority to no effect, the Arab countries knew better and have resisted giving money to the PA that they have previously promised. Now it seems that the Arab countries are even smarter than that--they have approached the situation as capitalists, investing in the people instead of squandering it on the leaders.

And from the Arab side of things, Zohir Andreus writes in Killing the Dream:

It is difficult for me to be a Palestinian-Arab these days, because I'm simply ashamed. The conduct of my people in the "liberated" Gaza Strip and in the occupied West Bank does not leave room for any doubt: The dream of establishing a democratic and secular Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel is dissipating. My people is the only one in the world that has no state and, thank God, two governments.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Meme thanks

There's been a meme going around about 7 favorite bloggers. I have been named on three of them so thanks to Me-Ander, Rubicon3 and Elder of Ziyon for their very generous praise. It means a lot to me. I am very far behind on memes these days. Hopefully I'll take it up. One of these days.

And congratulations to friend and co-blogger Daled Amos on being named at Backspin!

Submitted 07/30/08

While the Watcher's Council awaits a new watcher, council members have volunteered to host the voting. This week's hostess is Bookworm Room. Here are this week's entries:

Here's my response to Jack Markell's commercial
The Razor offers a video response Jack Markell's campaign commercial. Maryland had been doing OK, but except from 2002 - 2006, it has suffered from the same problem as Delaware: it's a one party state.

Us and Them
Done With Mirrors explains that using violence to achieve specific limited goals can actually be productive.

Stop The Destruction of Our Environment -- Drill Now
Wolf Howling presents a brilliant, counterintuitive argument for offshore drilling. It's aslo a reminder that some environmental issues are not as simple as they appear.

An Awful Idea for Renaming a Perfectly Good Mountain
Cheat-Seeking Missiles objects to a plan by California's Senators to re-name a mountain after David Brower. My guess is that they didn't look to closely at his statements. Still CSM is right to object. People support initiatives like this out of ignorance, even if they should know better.

And Phil Gramm got grief? How come?
The Colossus of Rhodey targets a number of whiners with spot on rebuttals.

Ooh-ooh-ooooh!
The Glittering Eye takes aim at Sen. Obama's reluctance to acknowledge the good that the surge accomplished and points out that it damages his case to be President.

Obama Desecrates Holiest Site In Judaism
Rhymes With Right criticizes the Obama campaign for using Judaisms holiest site - the Western Wall - as a campaign prop. Ma'ariv has apparently retracted its claim that it got permission to publicize the note, so it appears that Sen. Obama's campaign was not guilty on that count.

"Ich Bin Ein Beginner!"
Joshua Pundit points to various missteps the Obama campaign made during his recent "world tour" and concludes that these show that he's unready to be President.

China
Hillbilly White Trash offers a variety of explanations about China's assumption of American debt. After giving those views, he explains the risk inherent in China's action and what we need to do to be free of that risk.

Nobody here but us biased chickens
Bookworm Room casts a jaundiced eye upon the campaign coverage of the LA Times. The excuse that the LA Times ran strikes as typical journo-speak: You mere mortals cannot possibly understand the way our infallible editors came to their conclusions. It's a problem that all ombudsmen/public editors/readers' representatives suffer from.

In my entry Hating israel more than loving palestinians, I went off after Nicholas Kristof for his one sided criticisms of Israel. Other who have done so are Noah Pollak, the Augean Stables and My Right Word. Previously JoshuaPundit wrote about him here.

My non-council nomination this week is Maryland Conservatarian's, Visiting Poland: A warning about why American criticizing tourists might be disappointed visiting Eastern Europe.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Obama explained

Markus Feldenkirchen, writing in Der Spiegel, has sipped from the Obama fountain and he's a bit tipsy. He observes: "If Barack Obama accomplished one thing in Berlin, it was to make it painfully obvious just how uninspiring German politicians are." American Politician John Kerry is sleep-inducing, he avers, and Angela Merkel is metaphor-challenged. What does he like about Obama?

This is how French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery once described the key to instilling passion into people: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, ... teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." Obama has made this sentiment his mantra.

What explains that quality?

Obama, notwithstanding his unique abilities, is a typical product of American culture, the outcome of an approach to developing a child's personality that begins in kindergarten. In the United States, even three-year-olds are encouraged to bring their favorite things to school and explain them to other children. In high school, the art of giving presentations is a fixed part of the curriculum. The goal is to teach young Americans early on how to talk about one thing above all else: themselves . . .

I'd say that's an apercu. (Hat Tip: Lucianne)

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Values of classical journalism

via memeorandum

I wanted to believe the worst of the Obama campaign. I wanted to believe that they had released the note that the candidate had place in the Kotel (Western Wall) to two newspapers.

There was some indication that the paper making the claim, Ma'ariv was being honest.

Not anymore.

The New Republic's blog that had previously accepted Ma'ariv's story, has dug a little deeper and found:

I just got off the phone with a Ma'ariv spokesman who says that the accusation is "completely false," and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma'ariv. "No official spokesman for Ma'ariv told this to any of the papers." I've got some calls in to these papers to find out where they got the quote. (I'll update here when I hear back.) He told me definitively that "the Obama campaign did not give us a copy of the letter or approve it for printing."

Hot Air writes:

Something's fishy with Ma'ariv, though. TNR notes that unnamed "spokesmen" pushing the "Obama approved it" line were quoted by three different Israeli papers last night. And today?

Last October Ehud Asheri wrote in Haaretz:

Ofer Nimrodi, owner of the mass-circulation daily newspaper Ma'ariv, has been experiencing something unfamiliar these days: rare esteem and praise is greeting the appointment of the editors-in-chief Doron Galezer and Ruthie Yuval, the likes of which the battered publisher has never enjoyed.

Fifteen years after he bought the newspaper, there appears at long last the possibility that he will be extricated from his outsider position in print journalism and will earn equal status in the exclusive club of the veteran publishers who, unlike him, were born into the industry.

The change in the way the wind is blowing can be attributed first of all to what Galezer and Yuval represent: traditional, independent, investigative journalism that is not linked by umbilical cord to wealth, does not habitually hobnob socially with politicians in the places they frequent, and is not tainted by obsequious populism.

Both of them grew up in the solid school of the Haaretz group, and both have proven that it is possible to maintain the values of classical journalism even in the commercial environment of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, and television's Channel 2.

Those "values of classical journalism" were on full display during the recent controversy over Sen. Obama's note in the wall.

I'm sorry I fell for it.

See also Rubicon3.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Has The Washington Post Stopped Giving Obama A Free Ride?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that Factcheck.org notes that a recent Obama ad

touts three bills that Obama "passed," and once again we're not told whether the bills were products of the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate. We'll fill you in: In this ad, all three pieces of legislation mentioned were passed in the Illinois Senate.

I thought about this purposeful vagueness of Obama's campaign when I read this from Richard Cohen:

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position back when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular, and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once it (or he) becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.) [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Jennifer Rubin marvels that it has taken this long for Cohen to make this, and other, reservations about Obama--while being gratified that he has come around.

Actually, Richard Cohen may just be reflecting a view that his paper--The Washington Post--is coming around to.

The National Review noted earlier this month an editorial from The Washington Post that blasted Obama for his arbitrary 16 month timetable for pulling out of Iraq:

After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq...

The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

...American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves.

That National Review piece toys with the idea that the Post might be headed in the direction of endorsing the first Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower. That is a big jump, but at the very least, it would be gratifying to see Barack Obama being held accountable for what his ideas and his record.

by Daled Amos

Presumptuous is the new haughty

Dov Bear makes the ridiculous assertion that "presumptuous" has become the new "uppity".

Anyone familiar with the 2004 campaign knows that Republicans attached the adjective "haughty" to Sen. Kerry. (Check out the archives of Best of the Web Today for confirmation of this.)

"Presumptuous," is simply the new "haughty."

There's nothing more sinister than that going on.

There are a few reasons why Sen. Obama is described as presumptuous, none having to do with his skin color.

For one he created a faux presidential seal. And while Sen. McCain has traveled abroad
it hasn't been with the the three major network anchors in tow. Planning a transition to the White House right now might not be entirely unreasonable. Except taken with other demonstrations of presumptuousness, it can't be so easily dismissed.

Finaly, I'm aware that a year and a half ago another blogger showed that Dov Bear failed to attribute quotes. I see that things haven't changed that much. Check out the last few quotes from Dov Bear and check this out. Notice that the quotes taken from the AP and Boston Globe are identical? (Except that Dov Bear added an ellipsis to the beginning of the Globe quote.)

I don't believe that this is plagiarism as he didn't copy someone else's writing, just someone else's editing. It would have been proper to credit Cesca.

Tahadiyeh

The other day Ynet reported that Hamas refused further talks over Gilad Shalit because of continued Israeli violations of the truce.

Mahmoud Al-Zahar denies reports that Hamas, Israel engaged in talks aimed at securing release of abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit; senior Hamas figure slams Israel, says it has failed to adhere to Gaza Strip ceasefire agreement

The same day Ynet reported that another Qassam hit the Negev.

After several days of relative calm, rocket fired from Gaza at western Negev; no injuries or damage reported

.

This is typical of Hamas: demanding Israel adhere to its interpretation of the ceasefire agreement while failing to uphold its end. It's pretty typical of Israeli agreements with Arab parties. The Arabs agree to receive something from Israel and refuse grant any tangible return for Israel.

Still, the Qassams have decreased during the past month, so the problematic Hamas violation isn't the Qassam but what else Hamas has been up to. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center just released its one month report about the lull. They give Hamas credit:

Hamas's conduct thus far has clearly shown that it is interested in upholding the lull, hoping to enjoy its fruits, primarily opening the crossings between the Gaza Strip and Israel and Egypt . Opening the crossings, the "lifeline" of the Gaza Strip, would ease the economic and social pressure exerted on the Gaza Strip since Hamas seized power in June 2007.

However

The cessation of the IDF's operational activity in the Gaza Strip, as stipulated in the lull arrangement, is being used by Hamas and other terrorist organizations to advance their military buildup and increase their readiness for a likely scenario of a future confrontation with the IDF. Since the beginning of the lull, weapons and ammunition have been smuggled into the Gaza Strip on a similar scale to the pre-lull times, despite an improvement in the Egyptian activity against the smugglers. Furthermore, Hamas has significantly accelerated its training activity and its military buildup, publicly announcing it on Palestinian and Arab media.

This is not a stable situation, contrary to what Aluf Benn claims:

"The lull is fragile and will be short-term," Olmert warned. That is why the common interest in continuing it must be nurtured, and it must be understood that occasional outbursts of violence do not necessarily spell the end of the tahadiyeh. The cease-fire in the North survived the Second Lebanon War and was resumed immediately at its conclusion. That can happen in the South, too.

It could happen in the south. But all that means is that Israel will tolerate a certain level of violations before it is forced to act. The cycle will repeat unless Israel takes decisive action against Hamas wiping out most of its terrorist capabilities, just as it did to Fatah during Operation Defensive Shield.

The point of the tahadiyeh from Hamas's standpoint is to allow itself to re-arm and prepare for its next campaign against Israel.

It's also reasonable to assume that Hamas has no intention of releasing Gilad Shalit anytime soon. Despite its political and military gains from the tahadiyeh, if Hamas is brazen enough to claim that Israel isn't keeping its side of the bargain while it flagrantly violates the truce (by rearming), it wants a lot more from Israel before it will release Shalit.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Ready for a rumble

Yesterday I expressed skepticism that Fatah and Hamas were headed for a civil war. Maybe I was too quick. There are indications that things have indeed heated up. Whether they've reached a plateau or will continue to escalate remains to be seen.

Elder of Ziyon was on top of the escalation. (And I missed it before I posted.)

The NYT reports that Arrests Increase Tensions Between Palestinian Factions. Again I wonder if the arrests increase the tensions or reflect the tensions.

Tensions between the main rival Palestinian groups, Hamas and Fatah, spread from Gaza to the West Bank on Monday with reports of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority security forces detaining more than 50 activists and academics associated with Hamas.

The timing of the detentions, which were focused in the northern West Bank city of Nablus, smacked of retaliation for a broad Hamas sweep against Fatah members and institutions in Gaza over the weekend.

(more links at yesterday's Daily Alert.)

I think it's safe to assume that those arrested won't be getting married, allowed conjugal visits and given university educations. ABC News reports:

Two human rights groups on Monday decried widespread torture of political opponents by bitter Palestinian rivals Hamas and Fatah, and Associated Press interviews with three victims and a doctor backed the reports of abuse.

The findings emerged as the two sides carried out fresh arrest sweeps in the West Bank and Gaza -- highlighting deep tensions in the Palestinian territories after a flare-up in violence over the weekend.

The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Fatah hasn't escaped the notice of Lebanon's Daily Star, which observes in an editorial:

Over the past few years, the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah has rapidly made its way up the list of threats to the Palestinians' existence. In some circles, it is still fashionable to blame Israel for all of the Palestinians' troubles, but in this instance, the leaders of Hamas and Fatah have committed crimes of equal magnitude against their own constituents. Not only have scores of people died at the hands of their armed forces, the fighting has also served to greatly undermine the Palestinian cause. It has become increasingly difficult for the international community to feel sympathy for the Palestinian people when their own leaders provide so much media ammunition to distract the world from their plight. The image of lawlessness and internecine warfare conveys the image of a people who are simply not ready for self-governance or an independent state.

Or as Lee Stevens puts it, a bit more generally:

But here's another way to look at it: The Palestinian Authority is neither a nascent state nor a failed state project. Rather, it is a clan system of frequently competing interests that no Palestinian leader in his right mind would try to turn into a state, regardless of how much financial incentive the international community makes available. The problem is not that the Arab state system is breaking down, but rather that it never existed. And the proof is unfolding before us in, among other places, Hamas' Islamic Republic of Gaza, the autonomous Hezbollah regions of Hezbollah Lebanon, and perhaps even someday soon in Iraq, as the Arabs redraw the borders of the region to their own taste with little concern for the international state system.

(h/t Instapundit)

I still doubt that Abbas was responsible for that blast on Friday. Hamas has strength in Judea and Samaria too, so it would be foolish of him to order something so brazen.

Even without further escalation, Hamastan will continue to be a source of instability for the foreseeable future.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Want another empty interview with a prominent Iranian?

This seems to be the season for worthless interviews with Iranians. In an interview with Morris Motamed, the sole Jewish representative in Iran's parliament, the interviewer, Trish Schuh, fails to elicit any concrete information at all about the treatment of Jews in Iran. No surprises there since it appears at the ultra-leftist Counterpunch site. The following is typical of the interview:

What is most difficult about life in Iran?

There is no difference between the way of life of the minority communities and the main body of the society, which means the Muslims.

The interview veers into the despicable in the following exchange which asks Motamed to comment on a now-debunked canard:

Recently, an Israeli government official has threatened the Palestinians in Gaza with a "Holocaust". Could you comment on the use of this word in this context?

Because of what is going on nowadays in Gaza... where we are witnessing the killing and injuring of innocent people -- old men, children and women -- as a representative of the Jewish community, I'm very sorry. We have set forth our revulsion on this matter, with a declaration. 'Holocaust means 'genocide'. Here's a person who knows what occurred during the second world war by Holocaust, and who now himself wants to bring up the specter of another Holocaust. This kind of statment is shameful and embarassing.

In one interesting moment, the interviewer evidently seeks confirmation of the Juan Cole interpretation of Ahmadinejad's remark about "wiping Israel off the map":

Please comment on the alleged statement of Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map". What did he actually say in Persian?

One of the basic principles of democracy is freedom of speech, so that a person can freely express his ideas and viewpoints as did Mr. Ahmedinejad. So after his speech we observed that some Iranian political authorities talked in a different manner ad said that Iran doesn't seek the wiping out or destruction of any nation from the page of history or from the map.

Is that Motamed not playing along? In a "footnote" at the end of the article, the interviewer adds a few facts about recent instances of Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric and the destruction of seven synagogues. That's better than nothing although not by much. The interview itself is worse than nothing.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

May an American Comment on Israel?

That is the title of Daniel Pipes' article in response to an article by Yoram Schweitzer, Not That Bad A Deal, on the topic of the Kuntar deal.

Schweitzer is described as "the director of the Terrorism and Low Intensity Warfare Project at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies and was a member of the prime minister's special task force that looked for the Israeli MIAs. www.labat.co.il"

Schweitzer writes:

Daniel Pipes is a distinguished Middle East scholar. Yet even the most penetrating eyes can ignore painful truths, and the contents and tone of his latest article, "Samir Kuntar and the last laugh" (The Jerusalem Post, July 21), are patronizing and insulting, overlooking as they do the fact that the government and public have the right to decide for themselves to which of the conflicting principles and values that arise in blackmail situations they will adhere, and to shoulder the resulting price.

What slowly dawned on me as I read Pipes--and double-checked in Schweitzer--is that this is not a criticism that Jews who want to criticize Israel should make Aliyah. This is an argument that no one outside of a country have the right to criticize the decisions made by that country and their government.

To his credit, Pipes takes the argument more seriously than I do and addresses it accordingly--but I wonder if this is what Israel is slowly coming to: telling the world to bud out of Israel's business.

I'm not sure that is such a bad thing in general, but it would be more meaningful if Israel would tell the UN or the EU to go take a hike. Telling pundits not to criticize Israel is easy and safe--and will have absolutely no affect. On the other hand, being able to to tell the organizations and countries (including the US) that feel perfectly free to lecture Israel on what is in her best interests to bud out--that would do Israel a world of good.

by Daled Amos

Israeli columnist: hamastan is a good thing!

When I saw the following link at Ha'aretz - Aluf Benn: 'Hamastan' is prototyope for future Palestinian state, I was surprised. Benn is a committed leftist, and I was surprised that he was acknowledging the danger of strengthening Hamas. Then I read it.

Three years after the disengagement, 15 years after Oslo, Israel faces an independent Palestinian entity with full security and civilian responsibilities for a contiguous area in which there are no Israeli soldiers or settlers. Finally there is someone prepared and able to manage Gaza "with no High Court and no B'Tselem," as Yitzhak Rabin hoped. Finally there is an authentic Palestinian leadership that rose from the grassroots and demonstrates discipline and enforcement abilities. Finally the buds of mutual deterrence are emerging that may bring calm to the border.

For better or worse, "Hamastan" is the pilot program of the Palestinian state - the laboratory for a permanent-status agreement.

This column isn't one of despair. Benn really thinks it's a good idea. In fact he sees it as following another success:

The model for the tahadiyeh is based on the arrangement developed by Ehud Barak and Hassan Nasrallah, who created it around the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from Lebanon in 2000. At its heart is Hezbollah's willingness to enforce quiet on the Lebanese side of the border without giving up its hostile ideology and bellicose rhetoric. Hamas insisted it would not be the "policeman of the occupation," and refused to restrain other groups until it gave in to the weapons of hunger and closure and to the temptation of receiving indirect recognition of its rule in exchange for enforcing quiet.

Hamas and Hezbollah are not only Iran's proxies on Israel borders; every time Israel reaches an agreement with either, they are gearing up for the next conflict. The failure of Israel to insist on the disarming of Hezbollah after 2000 is the cause of the 2006 war. The kidnapping of Regev and Goldwasser wasn't an isolated incident. It was one more breach of the international border by Hezbollah. Each violation was more brazen, threatening Israel to respond.

Aluf Benn lives in a fantasy world where enemies don't mean what they say, where Iran isn't spoiling to control more and more of the Middle East and where there is an acceptable level of terrorism.

Coincidentally, when I saw the Benn article there was another article about a failure to confront evil at an early date, when taking appropriate action might have prevented greater destruction later.
"

Hitler vor Gericht" (Hitler on Trial) explores the 1924 trial of Adolf Hitler in Munich for his part in an abortive coup d'etat that could have earned him the death penalty.

Instead, he served just nine months in prison and was able to rebuild the shattered Nazi party soon after his release.

Had Hitler been given a long sentence, the history of Europe might have been very different, said Ian Kershaw from the University of Sheffield in England.

Living with Hamas and Hezbollah is no prescription for peace and calm. The longer these malignant groups are allowed to thrive, the more damage they will cause. Aluf Benn is an arrogant and blind fool to believe that it's good thing that Israel's borders are controlled by these terrorist organizations.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Is there a civil war brewing?

Elder of Ziyon was likely one of the first bloggers to note Friday's bombing in Gaza, which brought the death toll of Palestinians killed by Palestinians this year up to 122.

Israel Matzav wondered if there's a harbinger of civil war in Gaza. LGF makes a similar observation. Meryl noticed a double standard.

But the NYT headline had me wondering.

Blasts in Gaza Stoke Tensions Between Factions

Did the blasts stoke tensions, or reveal them?

Hamas, the Islamic militant organization, blamed the mainstream Fatah for the deadly blast that followed two smaller explosions in Gaza on Friday, issuing a statement accusing the Fatah leadership in the West Bank, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, of concealing "a conspiracy to kill and assassinate and terrorize" Hamas security forces.

In other words, Fatah's terrorists and assassins are being accused of targeting Hamas's terrorists and assassins. To me this looks less like a crisis than a win-win situation.

I find it interesting in that the Times's Jerusalem Bureau Chief was in Gaza last week reporting on a museum, and apparently was unaware of any simmering tensions between Fatah and Hamas. It's possible that he wasn't looking for a story on those tensions. Or it's possible that the tensions weren't there.

Other than the arrests and threats against Fatah there doesn't appear to be much movement on this since Friday. For now, I'll assume that it was an isolated incident and not the start of a bigger conflict between Fatah and Hamas.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Arab states don't fulfill commitments to the palestinians

The Washington Post reports Arab Aid to Palestinians Often Doesn't Fulfill Pledges.

In 2002, when oil prices were hovering around $21 a barrel, nearly two dozen Arab nations joined to pledge yearly contributions of $660 million to support the Palestinian Authority's annual budget. Now, even with oil prices more than six times higher and the Palestinian Authority bordering on financial ruin, only a handful of Arab countries are sending even a small portion of the money they promised, according to data examined

Out of 22 Arab nations that made pledges, only three -- Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- have contributed funds this year, while oil-rich countries such as Libya, Kuwait and Qatar have sent nothing and still owe the Palestinian government more than $700 million in past-due pledges.

The Palestinian Authority uses the contributions to help pay salaries for civil servants, health-care specialists and other workers in the Palestinian territories. European governments, the World Bank and the United States have provided more than three times as much money as Arab countries this year to keep the government afloat, but officials said the Europeans and the World Bank have virtually depleted their resources, leaving a funding gap of about $800 million for the rest of 2008.

First of all, it's questionable whether this aid even helps the Palestinians. Or does it have the effect of making their government less accountable to its citizens - leading to massive corruption.

Corruption seems to the number one answer why Arab states have not contributed more.

Arab diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said there is little trust that the Palestinian Authority will use their contributions wisely, even though Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a veteran of the International Monetary Fund and, during his time as finance minister, introduced new standards of accountability and financial management. Arab diplomats said they also resent the tight grip that Israel has maintained on the Palestinian territories during the peace talks.

And of course no explanation would do without some gratuitous Israel bashing.

"Most of them make the pledges reluctantly, on the basis that the United States wanted them to do it," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland. "There is frustration that nothing is happening in the peace process, and so they would be throwing good money after bad."

Telhami professes all kinds of excuses for Arab intransigence against Israel. He does not profess peace, so his title is really deceptive. He doesn't even consider Palestinian responsibility for the lack of contributions.

The Post provides an interesting graphic accompanying the article. It notes that a number of the countries that pledged support for the Palestinians actually accelerated payment of the aid between 2006 and 2007 after Hamas won the legislative elections. So if they were comfortable making payments that would strengthen Hamas, that undermines their claim that the lack of progress on the peace process is a reason that they're withholding funds. Clearly they had no problem funding a party opposed to the peace process dedicated to the destruction of Israel. (Aside from that, Fatah funds Hamas.)

According to this table, Arab commitments to the Palestinians since 1999 have just as good a chance of still being commitments as being fully paid. This isn't really new. (You can go to the ReliefWeb website and put together your own table.)

One of the specific commitments of Saudi Arabia from 2001 was for:
"...supporting the Jerusalem uprising fund." In other words this aid was designated for funding the so-called "Aqsa intifada." (It does not indicate if this pledge was fulfilled.) This is one more indication that funding for the Palestinians is often not about nation building or peacemaking but about continuing the fight against Israel.

But if the idea that funding the Palestinian Authority would bring peace suffers from scrutiny of what's actually given by the Arab world to the Palestinians, another myth is also undermined.

We regularly hear about how the United States is not sufficiently committed to the Palestinian cause; but the United States contributes huge amounts to the Palestinians. It is, of course, a bad investment. But the Americans are backing up their words about supporting a Palestinian state with money. Which is more than what the Arab world is doing.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Ramattan: "Fatah lawmaker holds Israel responsible for Gaza beach blast"

The article ends up calling it a "vague blast":

Fatah parliamentarian Asharaf Juma on Saturday held Israel responsible for Gaza Beach explosion which resulted in the death of six Palestinians.

"I strongly condemn the blast, this is a crime against the Palestinian people, and I call for a national committee to investigate the incident" Juma said in an exclusive interview with RNA.

He called for an immediate meeting between Fatah and Hamas lawmakers to discuss the chaos that erupted after the blast and to work on solving crisis between the two parties.

Fatah parliamentarian demanded Hamas to be patient and to stop all arrests of Fatah members and attacks against Fateh and PLO establishments in Gaza.

Six Palestinians, including five Hamas activists, were killed and more than 20 injured on Friday night in a vague blast in West Gaza strip at Gaza shore.

Along with the claims mentioned in the following Jerusalem Post article (h/t: EOZ), that makes three completely contradictory claims coming from various Fatah-affiliated entities:

A Fatah-affiliated group called Al-Awdah claimed responsibility for the explosion that killed the five Hamas men.

However, Fatah officials in Ramallah strongly denied responsibility and said the killings were part of a "settling of scores" among Hamas militiamen.

There's no excuse for sloppy propaganda.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Update: Islam Online now has an online forum which asks readers to present their opinions of who was responsible. Following several commentators who finger the Zionist entity, one obviously fed-up wag suggests it was the Seven Dwarfs.

Juggling carnivals 07/27/08

Incoming Carnivals

Check out the latest Carnival of the Insanities. Links to many fine bloggers including Simply Jews (the very first link!), Yid with Lid, Rhymes with Right, Wolf Howling, Israel Matzav, LGF, Judeopundit, Gateway Pundit, Betsy's Page, Miriam's Ideas and more!

The latest Haveil Havalim is at Frume Sarah's World. Jack's developed a "Wordle" for it.

The latest Carnival of Maryland is up at Rotus. Regrettably, I didn't participate, but it looks very good. Check it out!

Sideshow

Tomorrow Musical Monday #54 is scheduled at Elie's Expositions, so go check it out. Tomorrow.

blog carnivals.

Sen. obama's jpost interview

via memeorandum

The Jerusalem Post interviewed presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama during his trip to Israel. Despite the praise, the editor David Horovitz gives the candidate:

And on Wednesday evening, Obama answered my question about whether Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank, for security, religious, historic or other reasons, with a vigor and detail that also seemed to confirm Olmert's assessment of where conventional friendly wisdom stands and that expanded significantly on his brief settlement remarks in the AIPAC speech.

In a later editorial, the paper (presumably written by Horovitz and other members of the editorial board) sounded a little less positive:

We asked Obama whether he too could live with the "67-plus" paradigm. His response: "Israel may seek '67-plus' and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party."

Without that "buffer," the strategic ridges of the West Bank that overlook metropolitan Tel Aviv and the country's main airport would be in Palestinian hands. Eighteen kilometers - or 11 miles - would separate "Palestine" from the Mediterranean, the narrow, vulnerable coastal strip along which much of Israel's population lives.

Israel Matzav hopes that

... after reading the interview one can only hope that it was done before Obama went on the helicopter trip pictured above. If the interview was after the helicopter trip, Obama is even more hopelessly naive than any of us ever thought.

One may assume that the friendliness demonstrated by Sen. Obama to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu would not necessarily extend to a future Pres. Obama and PM Netanyahu.

Remember what Sen. Obama once said:

Barack Obama faulted elements in the pro-Israel community that he says equate being pro-Israel with being pro-Likud.

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."

(The NJDC did not see fit to publish my comment making this point on their blog.)

I think it's pretty clear that where Sen. Obama stands. One more time (from the interview):

Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations. Israel may seek "67-plus" and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.

UPDATE: And a relevant cautionary note about Sen. Obama from Shmuel Rosner:

It is true that Obama is an exciting candidate, more interesting than McCain. If elected, he will be our American friend, like most of his predecessors. If he is not elected, McCain will be that friend. Obama's greatest shortcoming when it comes to Israel is a strongly rooted opposition to the use of force - an unavoidable necessity for a country like Israel. His relative advantage is greater credit in Arab countries, at least at the start. Perhaps that credit will translate into trust, accompanied by a willingness to make progress. But there is room for suspicion that it will translate instead into manipulation of a president known for his naivete.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Diggin' the digging

Ethan Bronner reports Museum Offers Gray Gaza a View of Its Dazzling Past

It may sound like the indulgence of a well-fed man fleeing the misery around him. But when Jawdat N. Khoudary opens the first museum of archaeology in Gaza this summer it will be a form of Palestinian patriotism, showing how this increasingly poor and isolated coastal strip ruled by the Islamists of Hamas was once a thriving multicultural crossroad.

Bronner, of course, reports on how Khoudray perseveres and thrives against many obstacles, mostly Israeli.

History offers not only legitimacy, of course, but also a framework for coping with the present. Gaza is under an Israeli and international siege aimed at weakening Hamas, widely viewed in the West as a terrorist group. But this is not the first time Gazans have faced a squeeze.

"Gaza has suffered more than most cities," Mr. Khoudary noted. "There was the siege of Alexander the Great and of the Persians and of the British. At the end of the day this siege will be a footnote."

After taking us through the problems with acquiring the necessary artifacts for the museum, Bronner reports on an irony.

Mr. Khoudary said he had visited the Israel Museum and hoped that one day some of the Gaza collection could come back here "after we have a qualified government and the capability to protect the heritage of Gaza." He said Dr. Dothan "did us a favor because it would all be gone or destroyed today."

Of course we know from Joseph's tomb and the Temple Mount how good the Palestinians are at preserving antiquities. Still my suspicion that there are elements of Gaza's history that Mr Khoudary won't be publicizing.

The history of Jews in Gaza. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)

For example:

During the first ceasefire of the 1948 War, Egyptian forces regularly sniped at Kfar Darom. Two days before the ceasefire collapses altogether, David Ben Gurion orders Kfar Darom to be abandoned, due to an insufficient number of soldiers and arms, and so the kibbutz is destroyed by the Egyptian army without resistance. Map
The members of Kfar Darom found Bnei Darom, a new kibbutz East of Ashdod.

It serves an another reminder that the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force is applied only when said acquisition is made by Israel, even in the course of defending itself.

Crossposted at Yourish.

The answer my friend ...

Today Thomas Friedman takes from Texas to Tel Aviv.

What would happen if you cross-bred J. R. Ewing of "Dallas" and Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club? You'd get T. Boone Pickens. What would happen if you cross-bred Henry Ford and Yitzhak Rabin? You'd get Shai Agassi. And what would happen if you put together T. Boone Pickens, the green billionaire Texas oilman now obsessed with wind power, and Shai Agassi, the Jewish Henry Ford now obsessed with making Israel the world's leader in electric cars?

You'd have the start of an energy revolution.

The only good thing to come from soaring oil prices is that they have spurred innovator/investors, successful in other fields, to move into clean energy with a mad-as-hell, can-do ambition to replace oil with renewable power. Two of the most interesting of these new clean electron wildcatters are Boone and Shai.

I could do without Friedman's cute characterizations of each. I'm also not impressed by his premise that government ought to be doing more or his characterization of us being "addicted" to oil. (Agassi uses the term too.) In fact rather than looking at alternative energy technology as "the only good thing" to from rising oil prices, look at it as a sign of the entrepreneurial spirit. I realize that the effect is the same, but the vantage is different. Friedman sees this as a sign of a failure of government; I see it as a (possible) triumph of private initiatives.

Still Shai Agassi would likely approve of the comparison to T. Boone Pickens as indicated in his blog.

Electric cars and windmills are the most complementary products in the green world. Windmills generate a lot more energy at night, as wind picks up when the air cools down. Unfortunately, when you get a lot of wind most people are asleep and the electricity needs to be rerouted elsewhere. Cars are parked at night waiting to get electricity into the batteries - which is a perfect match to the electricity profile of wind generation.

Business Week has more on how Project Better Place got rolling:

The high-risk plan came together through an unusual collection of business and government leaders. Former software executive Shai Agassi, chief executive of Better Place, conceived the plan. He was formerly a top executive at German software giant SAP (SAP). Israel President Shimon Peres got behind it. Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated policy and tax changes to favor green vehicles. Carlos Ghosn, chairman of Renault and Nissan, saw it as a stepping stone into alternative-fuel cars. And Idan Ofer, chairman of holding company Israel Corp., the largest oil refiner in Israel, backed the project with more than $100 million of the $200 million in the first round of funding for the project.

Until now, Nissan and Renault had been among the laggards in alternative-fuel research. While rivals Toyota and Honda pioneered hybrid technologies, Nissan and Renault held back. Now, the two companies are placing bets on all-electric technology. In fact, Ghosn says that as a result of this project the Nissan-Renault Alliance has made electric autos its top priority. The companies expect to initially produce electric cars for Israel and other countries by adapting some of their current models, and to eventually introduce new models designed from the ground up to run on batteries. "This is a unique situation," Ghosn says of the Israel project. "It's the first mass marketplace for electric cars under conditions that make sense for all the parties."

Israel sees a shift away from gasoline engines as vital to its economic and security. To encourage the purchase of green vehicles, the country just boosted the sales tax on gasoline-powered cars to as much as 60% and pledged to buy up old gas cars to get them off the road. "I believe Israel should go from oil to solar energy," says Peres. "Oil is the greatest problem of all time--the great polluter and promoter of terror. We should get rid of it."

OK, so it's not all private initiative.

Anyway for more on how Project Better Place views themselves, check out their website and/or promotional video.

For more on how electric cars would work and the technical issues that need to be resolved check this out.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Qantas still hasn't crashed

Qantas airlines had a pretty incredible save the other day The NYT reports:

The jumbo jet, which carried 346 passengers and 19 crew members, landed safely on Friday and those on board left without injury. As a piece of fuselage the size of a sedan ripped from the plane, the jet, Qantas Flight 30, had been forced to descend steeply to 10,000 feet from 29,000 feet.

Passengers described hearing a loud bang and seeing debris fly into the cabin. As the plane depressurized, oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling and cabin crew members shouted to passengers to put them on.

Here's the part that's particularly incredible:

He said passengers were not in danger from the depressurization because aircraft that fly above 10,000 feet are generally required to carry oxygen systems. The atmosphere is thin above that altitude, and people can function for only a few minutes without oxygen before becoming groggy and losing consciousness.

Pilots are trained to bring a plane down swiftly to 10,000 feet, where passengers and crew can breathe without assistance. Given that the Qantas jet was at 29,000 feet, the plane dropped roughly a mile a minute, "not the kind of descent you would normally subject passengers to," Mr. Mann said.

The Times also lists other Qantas close calls and a similar incident from 20 years ago.

Qantas has also had some close calls. In 1999, a Qantas jet ran off a runway in Bangkok while landing in heavy rain. There were no reports of serious injuries.

More recently, a Qantas-operated Boeing 717 was damaged in February when it sustained a hard landing at Darwin, Australia. The landing gear, tires and fuselage of the plane, flown by QantasLink, the airline's regional carrier, were damaged.

In 1988, a gash opened in a Boeing 737 belonging to Aloha Airlines at 24,000 feet on a flight from Hilo to Honolulu, Hawaii. A chunk of the plane's roof and the cockpit door were blown out. One flight attendant was killed when she was swept out of the plane, and 65 passengers and crew members were hurt.

Federal investigators said the accident was caused by metal fatigue, exacerbated by corrosion caused by salt water.

The Times mentions the famous Qantas claim and the scene in Rain Man that popularized it.

The Times points out that in its early years before it was incorporated as Qantas it did lose some jets. USA Today's airline blog has more on how the airline has protected that claim.

The Guardian notes Qantas "paid a reported $100 million to repair it, way above the value of the Boeing 747-400, apparently so it could preserve its 'never lost a jet' status." The airline has had several other incidents during the past decade, but -- so far -- none have resulted in the loss of a jet.

The cynical tone doesn't seem right. Even if Qantas has to declare a plane a loss, it's still a pretty incredible safety record. Last week's heroic piloting should be a reason to emphasize the record, not question it.

(h/t Mrs. Soccer Dad)

Crossposted on Yourish.

Lone Wolf Terrorism in Israel; Connecting the Dots

The following is the English version of Dr. Joel Fishman's article, "Lone-Wolf Terrorism in Israel; Connecting the Dots," which appeared in this morning's edition of Makor Rishon.

The article deals with the question whether the recent terror events in Jerusalem were isolated and random acts, or could they have been a series of individual acts resulting from an intense atmosphere of religious and political incitement.

Joel Fishman
Makor Rishon
25 July 2008

Lone Wolf Terrorism in Israel; Connecting the Dots

On Tuesday afternoon, July 22, Jerusalem experienced another act of terror, when a citizen of East Jerusalem commandeered a bulldozer and in order to use it as a weapon against innocent civilians. The media initially reacted by calling the attack a "copy-cat" crime, modeled after the attack on Jaffa Road in downtown Jerusalem on July 2, when another East Jerusalem driver deliberately plowed a bulldozer into vehicles, including a passenger bus, murdering three and injuring dozens of people. The police labeled this and the previous bulldozer attack as acts of a terrorists acting on their own. In a brief article entitled "The Myth of the Lone Terrorist," Makor Rishon, July 4, I argued that it is impossible to know whether the terrorist acted on his own and that one cannot separate acts of terrorism from their perpetrators' environment, namely the long- term influence of incitement to hatred and violence. If we take into account the murder of eight students at Jerusalem's Merkaz Ha-Rav Yeshiva on March 6, which, according to the police, was also perpetrated by a lone terrorist, and the shooting of two policemen on patrol near the Lions' Gate on July 11, it is clear that we are confronted by a series of individual acts of terror, and not random events.

Does this mean that we are now facing a new kind of terrorism which apparently takes place without a leader or an organization?

Perhaps we are. Recent reports published in the United States have examined the problem of "lone wolf terrorism," "lone wolf extremism," or "leaderless resistance." According to Wikipedia, "the 'lone-wolf' terrorist usually shares an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but does not communicate with the group he or she identifies with. While the 'lone-wolf's' actions are motivated to advance the group's goal, the tactics and methods are completely conceived and directed by the 'lone-wolf' without any outside command or direction. In many cases ... the 'lone-wolf' never even has any personal contact with a larger group. Because of this, lone-wolf terrorism poses a particular problem for counter-terrorism officials, as it is considerably more difficult to gather intelligence on compared to conventional terrorism."

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Alex Curtis, a white supremacist living in San Diego articulated this method, which may have existed beforehand without a proper label. Curtis advocated disengagement from underground racist organizations in order to evade the criminal justice system. An article on the ADL website, which appeared in July 2002, states that Curtis "envisioned a two-tiered hate movement in which 'divisive and subversive' propaganda would be widely distributed and would guide a revolutionary underground. This underground would consist of 'lone wolves,'--racist warriors acting alone or in small groups who attacked the government or other targets in 'daily' anonymous acts.' Curtis saw himself as a propagandist sowing the seeds of a racist revolution...."

Furthermore, writing in the Washington Post (June 2005), retired FBI informer Mike German held that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing (19 April 1995), is the classic example of the "lone wolf." His act of terror killed 168 people and injured hundreds. According to German, "'lone extremism' is not a phenomenon; it's a technique, a ruse designed to subvert the criminal justice system. McVeigh acted as a lone extremist and was trained to do it this way ... But his act of lone extremism was part of the ongoing conspiracy that continues to inspire violent attacks to this day... It is a matter of connecting the dots..."

Similarly, Eyad Kishawi, a Palestinian activist living in San Francisco, published a manual in January 2006 which called for a boycott of Israel and proposed a new strategy of political warfare. Kishawi recommended that the efforts of anti-Israel activists be de-centralized in order to avoid the reach of the American law enforcement agencies and "Israeli extra-judicial and illegal activities." Notably, he emphasized the need for individual initiatives. It is not such a big step to take this principle - as applied to political activism - and transform it into a tactic of terrorist warfare. In fact, Kishawi's approach is essentially the same as the "lone-wolf" terrorism of the white supremacist, Alex Curtis.

If we examine the recent examples of terror in Jerusalem in light of the principle of "lone-wolf" terrorism, it is possible to appreciate how apparently isolated events could be linked, even in the absence of an organization or a leader. Indeed, there is a cultural connection between ongoing incitement and specific acts of terror. Therefore, it is necessary to deconstruct the cultural environment which incites individuals to perform crimes of hatred. Some positive measures would include sustained police action, rebuilding the education system, rewriting of school textbooks, and censorship of the sermons in the mosques. Further, there must be heavy penalties both for those who incite to violence and those who perpetrate terrorist acts.

Those in charge of safeguarding the security of Israeli civilians must find new means - and resourcefully apply the old ones -- to break the links of the chain which connect religious and political incitement with those who act according to the principles of "lone-wolf terrorism." In addition, the State of Israel must insist on exercising its sovereignty in the capital and throughout the country. Otherwise, it will face a situation similar to that which prevails in France and other European countries where there are "lost territories of the Republic," districts and neighborhoods which the local residents have rendered inaccessible to the law enforcement authorities. Ultimately, Israel must vigorously enforce the law of the land everywhere within its borders if it intends to protect its citizens and assure its continuity.

The author wishes to thank Mr. Bennett Ruda of Elizabeth, NJ, who provided valuable information for this essay.

Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem.

Maliki's machinations

IN today's column, Charles Krauthammer declares that Maliki votes for Obama (or here).

Whether warranted or not, Maliki's confidence allows him to set out a rapid timetable for U.S. withdrawal, albeit conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation -- a caveat Obama generally omits. But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president, whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency.

So Maliki is looking ahead, beyond the withdrawal of major U.S. combat forces, and toward the next stage: the long-term relationship between America and Iraq.

Krauthammer believes that Maliki is confident enough that if the situation in Iraq deteriorates again, the Americans will be there to bail him out, regardless of who is sworn in on Jan 20, 2009.

However JoshuaPundit sees things a little more risky for Maliki than Krauthammer does. (JoshuaPundit reads the situation giving Maliki confidence pretty much exactly as Krauthammer does.):

In doing this, Maliki probably has made a couple of classic mistakes. First of all, he may be pricing himself out of the market, especially given the political climate today in America, and that could come back to haunt him. In rushing to get rid of one foreign presence, Maliki may simply be making an exchange for an even worse master, and cutting the ground out from underneath him and his government. Lebanon is a good example of the way the Mullahs play this particular game, and with the Americans gone, if Maliki is insufficiently pliant and submissive he's history.

As in six feet under.

Second, while he may feel he has to take Iran and the pro-Iranian factions in his government into account, the Americans could likely care less. If Maliki and the Shi'ite factions of his government renege on their earlier agreement to provide the US with bases there, the Americans will simply declare victory and leave. Just like the Iranians did, I'm pretty sure the Americans probably told Maliki that he can be a friend and ally of the US or of Iran, but not both.

Another thing Maliki may not be considering is the effect of an American withdrawal on the Sunnis and Kurds. Both factions consider the Americans the guarantor of their rights in the Iraqi federation, and an American withdrawal might just spark the need to be out from under the Shi'ites collective thumb that's been smoldering since the fall of Saddam..especially among the Kurds.

Max Boot (and advisor to Sen. McCain) however takes a different view. He thinks that Maliki is bluffing.

With provincial elections coming up in the fall, there is every incentive for Maliki and other Iraqi politicos to show they are not puppets of Uncle Sam. They are driving a hard bargain in the negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement and a Strategic Framework Agreement that will set the future conditions of the U.S. military presence. And they are blustering about the need to withdraw U.S. troops-eventually. But note that, unlike Barack Obama, they are not attaching any timelines to this withdrawal. Certainly they are not calling for U.S. troops to be gone by 2010, a pledge that the Democratic candidate once made and hasn't quite renounced.

The point that Maliki isn't calling for an immediate withdrawal is one that Krauthammer makes too. But that's a subtlety that's likely lost on many voters. And it doesn't change the fact that Mailki has clearly handed Sen. Obama a political victory. The cost of that maneuvering though, is still to be determined.

But even if Maliki's embrace of Obama helps the latter get elected, it may carry a cost as Right Wing Nuthouse observes:

If he is elected, Iraq will be seen as "Obama's War." Don't believe me? Ask Dick Nixon who despite taking office in 1969 with America fully and fatally committed by his Democratic predecessor to the survival of South Viet Nam's government, he ended up being blamed for circumstances not of his making nor of his choosing. By the time we landed on the moon, columnists and opinionmakers were writing it was "Nixon's War" and that he was responsible for bringing Viet Nam to a successful conclusion despite the fact he didn't start it, didn't prosecute it, had nothing to do with troop deployments that placed more than half a million Americans in Viet Nam, and wasn't involved in the sham "peace negotiations" in Paris.

Unless one wishes to argue that Obama's plan exists in a political vacuum and he should get credit for Maliki embracing it but no blame if, when implemented, it is proved less than successful, then the alternative is that on the day he takes the oath, Iraq will become his tar baby and the briar patch will still be a long way away.

There's one other irony:

Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.

Michael Yon feels that it is the time to declare victory, and casts Maliki's stubborness (or, as he calls it, toughness) in a positive light::

The center of gravity in this war has always been the Iraqi people. And when you talk to them, as I have over the past three and a half years, you realize that victory is at hand. They no longer live in fear. Despite sectarian conflicts that are now political rather than military in nature, the feeling of Iraqi nationalism is palpable. Yes, they are Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds, but they are also Iraqis. Just like we are Floridians and New Yorkers, but also Americans.

Relations between Iraqis and Americans are very good and continue to improve. This does not mean that we will always agree on every issue. The Status of Forces Agreement, for instance, is particularly nettlesome, and the fact that the Iraqis are hanging tough in negotiations shows how confident the Maliki government is about its own sovereignty. Good for them.

Baseball Crank feels that it's necessary to give the Iraqis the initiative, even if it incurs risks.

It seems unavoidable that for our larger long-term project in the region to succeed, we have to step back and give them the chance to determine their own path, even if it's against our better judgment, just as we have stood by with only periodic and limited interference as the post-Communist and Communist-aligned states have gone their many different ways since 1989. The job will never be done in Iraq, any more than it is done today in Ukraine or Nicaragua.

In a nutshell then, the surge championed by McCain has enabled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to embrace a withdrawal largely on the terms of McCain's rival for the office of President, Obama. And while the McCain strategy is apparently helping Obama, had the U.S. followed Obama's path, Maliki would not be so secure today.

NOTE: In preparing this, I linked to a number of posts that were cited in this week's Watcher Council vote. The Watcher's council is undergoing some changes in the coming weeks, but if you want to stay on top of the important news of the day, stay in touch with the Watcher's Council!

Al Ahram takes note of that New Yorker cover

The infamous New Yorker cover featuring Obama in Islamic garb and Michelle toting a machine gun has got to be the coolest thing to hit the public sphere in a long time. Consider this: the cartoon is subtle and cleverly executed. It has a message which is disparaging towards conservatives, but liberals are unhappy anyway. More remarkable still, they are unhappy with some justification. It just doesn't get better than that. Try telling that to Al Ahram, though. They'll never see it. The article compiles quotes from a number of writers, inclucing a point that I find interesting, a lament that the cartoon wasn't cruder:

Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle told Politico: "I think, as a piece of satire, it utterly fails." Anderson believes that the cover might have been more effective if it had included the title of the cartoon, "The Politics of Fear," on the front of the magazine.

The article goes on to hand-wring:

It would not be too much to say that depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as militants and terrorist sympathisers "feeds into the terrible rise in anti-Muslim sentiment" during this election season. The problem with this kind of so-called "spoof" -- which taps into deep and far-reaching racist imagery -- is that a lot of people just won't get the joke (or won't want to), and will use it deliberately for their own Islamophobic purposes. Playing into the worst fears of voters with the image is not thought provoking; it's just hate provoking or fear provoking.

Let's say we don't think Islamophobia is the world's greatest problem, is there nevertheless some artistic failure in the cartoon? Did it it fail to get its message across to anyone but a tiny audience? I don't think so. I think the cartoonist has fun with the image-manipulation. It isn't sneering at conservatives so much as poking them in the ribs a bit. "Wait 'til the Obamas get into office and your worst fears are realized . . . just kidding!" it seems to say. It may be that the audience that can really savor the cartoon's playful approach is small, but that isn't necessary a failing. The audience for Proust is also small. Is that kind of artistic success worth the risk that an angry mob incited by Sean Hannity will hang Obama from the nearest lamp-post or worse still, not vote for him? Sure--anything for art's sake.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

The council has spoken 07/25/08

The Council has spoken and voted Who Knew? by Done with Mirrors the top council pick of the week. Soldiers Recount Deadly Attack On Afghan Outpost by Stars & Stripes was the winner among the non-council entries. Congratulations to the winners!
Council results

1	Done with Mirrors - Who knew?	4
2t	Wolf Howling - Deconstructing the Socialists War On Law & Order In Britain	1 2/3
2t	Bookworm Room - The moral of the story	1 2/3
4	Soccer Dad - Horribly Wrong Part II	1 1/3
5	The Razor - Speak truth to power - just not to educators	1
6	JoshuaPundit - Why Maliki Suddenly Wants A US Withdrawal From Iraq	1/3

Non-Council results

1	Stars and Stripes - Soldiers Recount Deadly Attack On Afghan Outpost	2 1/3
2	Right Wing Nuthouse - When it's Obama's War	2
3t	Confederate Yankee - "Obama Overflies Iraqi Mass Graves"	1
3t	Colonel Robert Neville ... - Spot the Smiley Fascism	1
3t	Michael Yon -The War is Over. We Won	1
3t	Baseball Crank -Are We There Yet? Victory in Iraq and the 2008 Election	1
7t	Confederate Yankee (2) - Mac & P.C.	2/3
7t	Alien - Chizumatic - Ghosts of My Past	2/3
9	SF Gate (Cinnamon Stillwell - San Francisco: Sanctuary City Gone Awry	1/3

There are changes afoot in the Watcher's council. Keep your eyes peeled for a big announcement coming up. Next week's hostess of the council vote is scheduled to be Bookworm Room.

Hating israel more than loving palestinians

Today Nicholas Kristof pleads for Tough love for Israel?
Before he gets to his conclusion though he writes:

Granted, not everybody sees things this way, and discussions of the Middle East usually involve each side offering up its strongest arguments to wrestle with the straw men of the other side. So let me try something different.

Then he proceeds to create a legion of straw men as he responds to the eminently sensible pro-Israel critics of a previous column. (Critics in italics; Kristof's response in regular font.)

Jews lived in Hebron for 1,800 years continuously ... until their community was murdered in 1929 by their Arab neighbors. The Jews in Hebron today -- those "settlers" -- have reclaimed Jewish property. So I don't see what makes them illegitimate or illegal. (Irving)

True, Jews have deep ties to Hebron, just as Christians do to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but none of these bonds confer any right to live in these places or even visit them. If Israel were to bar American Christians from Jerusalem, that would not be grounds for the United States to send in paratroopers and establish settlements. And if Israel insists on controlling the West Bank, then it needs to give citizenship to Palestinians there so that they can vote just like the settlers.

Huh? But when the world accepts the notion that it is unacceptable to acquire land by force, isn't it hypocritical to accept the forced Jewish exodus from Hebron and the Etzion Bloc? The only reason that Jews weren't living in Hebron post 1935 and the Etzion Bloc post 1948 (until 1967) was because they were forced out by violence. So the Jewish absence from those areas is acceptable to Kristof, even if that absence occurred in a manner that would violates the standards he applies to Israel.

The paratroopers argument is just plain silly.

And Israel has ceded parts of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians. We're not talking about occupation anymore but borders.

One side is a beautiful, literate, medically and scientifically and artistically an advanced society. The other side wants to throw bombs. Why shouldn't there be a fence? (Mileway)

So, build a fence. But construct it on the 1967 borders, not Palestinian land -- and especially not where it divides Palestinian farmers from their land.

Well why not demand that the farmers fight the terrorists? Israel does have to conform to court rulings that often compromise the effectiveness of the fence. What law do the terrorists follow?

While I do condemn this type of violence, it pales in contrast to Palestinian suicide bombers, rockets and other acts of terror against Jews. (Jay)

B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, reports that a total of 123 Israeli minors have been killed by Palestinians since the second intifada began in 2000, compared with 951 Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces.

This proves what? That Israeli is indiscriminate in its application of force? I'd suggest that it proves that the Palestinians sent teenagers out as fighters without uniforms in violation of international law in order to blur the distinction between combatant and non-combatant. This is an important distinction that B'Tselem doesn't make. Additionally, how many of those 951 were targeted while doing nothing? Every single one of those 123 Israeli minors was targeted by a terrorist.

To withdraw from the West Bank without a partner on the Palestinian side will find Israel in the same fix it has once it withdrew from Gaza: a rain of daily rockets. Yes, the security barrier causes hardship, but terrorist attacks have almost disappeared. That means my kids can ride the bus, go to unguarded restaurants and not worry about being blown up on their way to school. Find another way to keep my kids safe, and I'll happily tear down the barrier. (Laura)

This is the argument that I have the most trouble countering. Laura has a point: The barrier and checkpoints have reduced terrorism. But as presently implemented, they -- and the settlements -- also reduce the prospect of a long-term peace agreement that is the best hope for Laura's children.

Well ignorance and bias didn't stop Kristof from trying his hand with the other arguments, so why should it stop him now? No, it is the failure to accept Israel's right to exist and consequently, the honor accorded the terrorists who kill Israelis by Palestinian society (and Arab society in general) that reduces the prospectgs of a "long term peace agreement."

Kristof continues:

If Israel were to stop the settlements, ease the checkpoints, allow people in and out more freely, and negotiate more enthusiastically with Syria over the Golan Heights and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi peace proposal, then peace might still elude the region. But Israel would at least be doing everything possible to secure its long-term future, rather than bolstering Hamas.

I'm sorry, but Israel got removed the occupation from one area: Gaza and that's where Hamas is strongest. Israel also withdrew from southern Lebanon and that, in turn, strengthened Hezbollah. The Saudi peace proposal was a sham.

If there is no two-state solution, there will be a one-state solution -- and given demographic trends, that will mean either the end of Israeli democracy or the end of the Jewish state. Zionists should be absolutely clamoring for a Palestinian state.

As I mentioned above. Israel's withdrawn from a number of cities in Judea and Samaria, leaving them under control of the Palestinians. There is already a two state solution. The question is only what borders it will finally have. Kristof's view seems to be that unless it conforms to the demands of the Palestinians, Israel's concessions mean nothing.

Laura is right about the need for a sensible Palestinian partner, and the failures of Palestinian leadership have been legion. At the moment, though, Israel has its most reasonable partner ever -- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas -- and it is undermining him with its checkpoints and new settlement construction.

As Eric Trager notes:

Well, here's something that's very much within Abbas's control: his mouth. Today, as Israel received two black coffins in exchange for a notorious-and very much alive-murderer, Abbas took the opportunity to "offer congratulations to the family of Samir Kuntar, the chief of Arab prisoners." With this remark, Abbas demonstrated that, far from being the Great Palestinian Hope, he is merely the latest Palestinian leader who sees glorifying terrorists-and reaching out to their families-as an acceptable, if not principled, political strategy.

Abbas is, at best, ineffective. At worst he is Arafat with a suit. This is a point that was generalized by Elder of Ziyon regarding Marwan Barghouti:

Here we have the Palestinian Arab story in a nutshell. Historically, they have been led by incompetent, corrupt and selfish leaders. Yet their most competent and least corrupt leaders are still unrepentant terrorists.

And it cannot be any other way. Since the Palestinian Arab psyche is so heavily invested in making murderers into heroes, it is impossible to imagine in this generation that an effective leader could emerge who is not a terrorist. Simply put, if you haven't spent time in Israeli jails for murder, you have no street cred.

Back to Kristof:

Peace-making invariably involves exasperating and intransigent antagonists and unequal steps, just as it did in the decades in which Britain struggled to end terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland. But London never ordered air strikes on Sinn Fein or walled in Catholic neighborhoods. Over time, Britain's extraordinary restraint slowly changed attitudes so as to make the eventual peace possible.

Well that's just plain ignorant. There is a separation fence in Belfast that gets credit for reducing violence. And I don't recall that Sinn Fein launched a military campaign on the level of Fatah and Hamas. Israeli restraint hasn't brought a reduction in the will of its enemies to launch a war against it.

Furthermore, the peace in Ireland isn't a function of British restraint; it's a function of the terrorists' goal. The IRA never wanted to destroy Britain, they just wanted their independence. Palestinian nationalism - despite wrapping itself in the mantle of "independence" - is predicated on the denial of the Jewish state.

Overall, reading the Kristof column I'm left wondering: when will there be "tough love" for the Palestinians, telling them that their continued support for terror makes peace impossible.

As for Palestinian apologists like Kristof, I wonder why is it that circumstances that would lead them to declare Israel illegitimate are perfectly acceptable for a Palestinian state founded on those very same circumstances. My Shrapnel (playing devil's advocate) observed:

"Why should we have to? We have an Palestinian minority; why can't a Palestinian state have a Jewish minority? The people living there could become citizens of the Palestinian state. Or we could do a land exchange".

Israel has an Arab minority and gets criticized for discrimination. Palestine, whenever it is created will not have a Jewish minority, so such niceties as minority rights won't need to be observed. (Whether other freedoms such as the press, religion or due process will be observed in Palestine is also a real question.)

Yet people like Kristof have no concerns about such matters. Israel must be a perfect democracy in their books or not deserve to exist, while they take it for granted that Palestine would deny its citizens the very rights they demand of Israel. More incredibly they believe that Israel's legitimacy depends on creating the little tyranny of Palestine.

Kristof, for his talk of "tough love" for Israel, is silent on the talk of "tough love" for the Palesitnians. Kristof and his fellow travelers don't tell the Palestinians that they need to give up terror, incitement and Israeli denial. They indulge the terror, making excuses for it. As such they are at least apologists if not accomplices in the bloodshed. And yes, their excuses rather than "tough love" prolong the conflict.

Israel has changed a lot in 20 years. What's now mainstream in Israel regarding the Palesitnians was the leftist fringe in 1988. Where's been the reciprocal movement? Until Kristof and his ilk start demanding it there will be none. Despite his posturing, Kristof hates Israel more than he loves the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Obama Talks About Commitment To Israel While Pointing To Imaginary Accomplishments

The New York Times has the transcript of Obama's speech while at Sderot. At one point, he reacts to a question about his flip-flop on Jerusalem. Note the example that Obama gives as proof of the strength of his commitments:

First of all, I didn't change my statement.

I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon. [emphasis added]

But as Powerline points out, it is not so easy to look at Obama's deeds as there is a fundamental problem with the example Obama provides--it is not true:

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."

The question is whether this is an example of the kinds of silly errors Obama has made in the past, such as saying there are 57 states in the US or more recently claiming he'll be president for the 8 to 10 years--or is this another example of Obama taking credit for something he did not do.

In Would You Hire a President Who Padded His Resume? Jennifer Rubin refers to Factcheck.org which notes more discrepancies:

Obama's latest ad repeats an often-stated claim, saying he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." We know Obama took out loans to get himself through school. But the campaign provided information on just two jobs Obama had in those years, and they were both in the summer.

The ad also says he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Actually, the Illinois law was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Welfare rolls did go down by nearly as much as the ad says, but Obama can't claim sole credit.

...The ad begins with the announcer telling us that Obama "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." Actually, Obama took out loans to get himself through college, as we heard in a 60-second ad his campaign began running last month. We don't know how much assistance his family provided.

But "worked his way" through college and law school? The only back-up the campaign provided for this claim was a quote from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" having to do with a construction job he had one summer while he was in college, and an article mentioning his job as a summer associate one year at a big Chicago law firm.

...As in his last ad, this one touts three bills that Obama "passed," and once again we're not told whether the bills were products of the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate. We'll fill you in: In this ad, all three pieces of legislation mentioned were passed in the Illinois Senate.

The continual flow of discrepancies in Obama's claims are a big enough issue--even if the media plays them down or ignores them. However, when Obama points to imaginary accomplishments as evidence of the strength of his commitment and ability to support Israel--that should be cause for concern.

Submitted for your approval - 07/23/08

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the disposition of the Watcher's Council resulting from the Watcher's retirement, there's a lot of excitement behind the scenes. In the meantime the various council members will alternate hosting until a permanent replacement is found. Last week JoshuaPundit hosted. Drawing on his experience, JoshuaPundit was a very helpful guide for my stint this week. Next week's scheduled hostess is Bookworm Room. Education Wonks is beset by computer problems that will hopefully be sorted out soon, so he didn't participate.

Usually I like to offer synopses of the posts, but since I'm hosting I'd rather not tip my hand in any way. If you're interested in synopses, check out JoshuaPundit, Wolf Howling and The Glittering Eye over the next two days as they usually give their takes on the entries. And of course read the entries. All of them!

1. Wolf Howling - Deconstructing the Socialists War On Law & Order In Britain  
2. Done with Mirrors - Who knew?
3. The Glittering Eye - "Vice President Gores 'Space Race' Energy Plan (Updated)"
4. Bookworm Room - The moral of the story
5. Rhymes with Right - Dems Email Hillary Supporters: We Own You -- Now Support Barack!
6. Cheat Seeking Missiles - Obama in Berlin: Wrong City, Wrong Time
7. JoshuaPundit - Why Maliki Suddenly Wants A US Withdrawal From Iraq
8. Colossus of Rhodey - Yet another rant
   
9. Hillbilly White Trash - Can America "Get it back?" 
10. The Razor - Speak truth to power - just not to educators 
11. Soccer Dad - Horribly Wrong Part II
    

1. Stars and Stripes - Soldiers Recount Deadly Attack On Afghan Outpost by Stars & Stripes  
2. SF Gate - San Francisco: Sanctuary City Gone Awry
3. Confederate Yankee - "Obama Overflies Iraqi Mass Graves"
4. Confederate Yankee (2) - Mac & P.C.
5. Colonel Robert Neville ... - Spot the Smiley Fascism
6. Alien - Chizumatic -  Ghosts of My Past
7. Michael Yon -The War is Over. We Won
8. Chronicle of Higher Education - Gone and being forgotten
   
9. Right Wing Nuthouse - When it's Obama's War
10. The Pirate King - Scientists are now admitting climate fraud
11. Baseball Crank - Are We There Yet? Victory in Iraq and the 2008 Election
    

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Juggling carnivals 07/23/08

Incoming Carnivals

Check out the latest Carnival of the Insanities.

The latest Haveil Havalim is at Esser Agaroth complete with the sad history of Shiva Asar b'Tammuz.

And I hosted the latest Kosher Cooking Carnival.

blog carnivals.

Making the world safe for ostracods

When discussing global warming we usually hear what a disaster it would be.

According to a recent discovery there's a kind of animal that would benefit from global warming: an ostracod.

"Present conditions in this Antarctic region show mean annual temperatures of minus 25 degrees C (Celsius) [minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit]," said Mark Williams of the University of Leicester, co-author with Ashworth of the fossil-find report in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. "These are impossible conditions to sustain a lake fauna with ostracods."

The authors think the ostracods and the habitat they lived in were the last vestiges of a tundra ecosystem, similar to those found in Patagonia, that once thrived in Antarctic coastal regions, before an intense period of cooling gave rise to the Antarctic environment we see today.

So increase that carbon footprint. Save the ostracods!

Losing wars and campaigns

Time blogger Joe Klein applies the label "meltdown" to some recent McCain comments. He quotes McCain:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

He then comments:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

That's a "scurrilous statement"? There is a great deal of pacifist rhetoric out there on the left. Anyone who terms the war "illegal" is implying that America should cease and desist, not win. Does Obama think like this? I hope not, but too many of his political allies do think like this to call the charge "scurrilous."

McCain's statement might be regarded as incoherent, however. What would it mean to choose losing the election over losing the war? Does that mean winning the war in some sense? I guess he means he would rather stick to expressing his convictions about winning the war than win the election. In practice, that could actually mean losing the war. How did we end up with candidates like McCain and Obama?

Crossposted on Judeopundit

(Hat Tip: Memeorandum)

Second Bulldozer Attack In Jerusalem

From YNetNews.com

Bulldozer driver a relative of Hamas lawmaker

Man who carried out Jerusalem attack named as Ghasan Abu-Tir of east Jerusalem. His relative, Palestinian Parliament member Muhammad Abu-Tir, is jailed in Israel

Palestinian sources in Jerusalem reported Tuesday that the man who carried out the bulldozer attack on Jerusalem's King David Street was Ghasan Abu-Tir, 22, of the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Umm Tuba.

Abbas adds a nice touch. He was at a meeting with Peres during the attack:

"We always oppose terror incidents," said Abbas at the end of the meeting, "and we call out against such incidents. We pray for the injured people's recovery."

That's quite a balancing act Abbas has there--praising terrorists like Samir Kuntar while 'always opposing terror incidents.' What kind of condemnation would Abbas have issued if he did not have Peres standing next to him?

David Hazony observes:

It is always the second hit that causes the harshest response. In June 2006, the soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas, but it was only when Hizbollah repeated the trick a few weeks later, kidnapping Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, that Israel unleashed its army on southern Lebanon. The first hit, one figures, might just be a one-off. The second represents a new strategic reality.

Israel will respond now to tractor terror because it has to. When the problem was coming from terror organizations across the border, the answer was war. But now it looks like copycat terror coming from individual Arabs who no longer need bomb belts to do their work. This time, the answer will likely come in the form of much harsher restrictions on access to heavy equipment. A lot of people will either be out of work or need to go through careful security checks. Construction in Jerusalem may be temporarily halted. The biggest victim, as with other terror, will be the population that produces these monsters and encourages them, and in so doing positions itself as an enemy of the society that pays for its infrastructure, schools, and welfare.

Israel will be painted as the racist oppressor, yet again, for the simple reason that it does not have the luxury of putting PR before personal security. But the Arab community in Israel needs to take some responsibility for its own bad apples. They can start by dumping their current political leadership and electing officials who support Israel and the country's efforts to live a safe life. Any new clarifications on Jerusalem, Barack?

Seems that the Arab and Israeli communities have something in common.

UPDATE: Remember how the first attack was right outside of where the media was staying? Now McClatchy reports:

Hours before Sen. Barack Obama was scheduled to arrive in Jerusalem, a Palestinian construction worker went on a rampage outside the hotel where he is scheduled to stay.

[Hat tip: Hot Air Headlines]

by Daled Amos

I'd rather we didn't win

It's hard following the ins and outs of Prime Minister Maliki's statement and the effect it will have on Sen. Obama's trip to the Middle East and, consequently, the campaign.

Max Boot (who's advising the McCain campaign) sees Malki's statements as largely an internal matter.

John Podhoretz feels that Sen. Obama has hit a home run (or had a home run hit for him.)

But in the annals of candidate luck, there has scarcely been a more fortuitous one than the gift handed to Barack Obama by Nouri al-Maliki in his interview with Der Spiegel. Clearly, Maliki didn't intend to throw an incendiary device into the middle of the American presidential race by seeming to endorse Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan; if he had, he would have spoken more clearly. But whether he meant he would like to have American troops out in 16 months or he needed them out in 16 months or that it would be nice if they were gone in 16 months if that were possible -- none of that matters. Obama can fairly claim to have staked out a position acceptable to the legitimate government of Iraq. And with that, McCain's job of convincing the American people that Obama is a novice who cannot be trusted to hold power just become far more difficult.

The very next item (or physically the one right above it) by Jennifer Rubin takes the exact opposite approach. Sen. Obama whiffed.

That certainly wasn't the point of Barack Obama's trip, but it may be the unintended consequence. Can you imagine a network news anchor now saying that Iraq is hopeless or there is no chance for a robust, independent functioning government? The terms of the debate have shifted dramatically and the Obama trip may be responsible to a large degree for that shift.

I was seeing John Podhoretz's point, until I heard an excerpt of an interview of Sen. Obama by Terry Moran. Jake Tapper excerpts:

If you had to do it over again, Moran asked, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

"No," Obama said. "These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and one that I continue to disagree with is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

I heard the audio, Sen. Obama hemmed and hawed getting that answer out. His response was neither practiced nor scripted. His use of "hypothetical" is a dodge. This is a question that he should have expected and he seemed unprepared for it. This response is something the McCain campaign should use.

Peter Wehner is correct when he writes:

This must surely rank as among the most misinformed, ideological, and reckless statements by a presidential candidate in modern times. The McCain campaign should do everything they can to make Obama pay a high price for it. That one word answer, "No," should be advertised in bright neon lights. It should become Exhibit A that Obama not only doesn't have the "judgment to lead;" he has now supplied us with evidence that few people possess judgment as flawed as his.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

How will all this play? It depends if the American people, after learning of the surge's great success and the brilliance of our commander there, find it troubling that the candidate with no national security experience would throw it all away and disregard knowledgeable advice. It is peculiar in the extreme to have a nominee who when presented with potential victory says " I wouldn't have tried to win." One can imagine that a victory he would not himself have pursued himself (and is apparently sorry we did) is one he has little interest in securing. Hence, his light regard for the advice of Petraeus.

(emphasis mine)

And for all of Sen. Obama's talk about the failure to destroy Al Qaeda, Ralph Peters, who has some military experience sees Al Qaeda as defeated (after having unsuccessfully made Iraq its central battleground for its global jihad.

The partisan hacks who insisted that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda have missed the situation's irony: Things are getting worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go.

Al Qaeda isn't fighting to revive the Caliphate these days. It's fighting for its life.

And if the United States had followed Sen. Obama's lead that might not be the case. And he hasn't acknowledged that the success of surge is change that he can believe in.

The complain, cajole, concede cycle

The NYT makes this sound like a bad thing: Mideast Sees More of the Same if Obama Is Elected

"What we know is American presidents all support Israel," said Muhammad Ibrahim, 23, a university student who works part time selling watermelons on the street in the southern part of this city. "It is hopeless. This one is like the other one. They are all the same. Nothing will change. Don't expect change."

Across the border, in Israel, Moshe Cohen could not have agreed more. "Jews there have influence," Mr. Cohen said, as he sold lottery tickets along Jaffa Road in Jerusalem. "He'll have to be good to Israel. If not, he won't be re-elected to a second term."

And of course to the NYT, that's a bad thing.

Mr. Obama, who will be here on Tuesday, has promised change. He has offered to begin dialogue where the current president has refused, in places like Syria and Iran. But when he stepped into the Middle East, he walked into a region where public expectations were long ago set. The Bush years have supercharged those sentiments, especially in the Arab world, where there is little faith that the United States can ever again serve as a fair broker between the sides.

How about a different reason for supporting Israel: it actually has more in common with the United States than any Arab state or nation.

For example there's an effort to pardon Ahmad Dakamseh in Jordan.

In the wake of Israel's release of despicable murderers of Jewish children, prominent Jordanians are asking King Abdullah to do the same.

And we know that even the reformist March 14th coaltion in Lebanon welcomed back Samir Kuntar - with honors.

The "March 14" movement is a political vehicle for Lebanon's liberals, democrats, free-market capitalists, human rights activists, and those who want an exit from the seemingly endless war with the "Zionist entity." Unfortunately, that is not all it is. It's also a political vehicle for hard-line Sunni Arab Nationalists and other political retrogrades who only oppose Hezbollah and the Syrian Baath regime because they hate Shias and Alawites as much as they hate Jews.

And of course the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas also sent a congratulations to Kuntar's family and condolences to Hezbollah. And his government. And his "moderate" Fatah faction named a summer camp after a terrorist whose body was returned last week.

In the meantime an Israeli soldier who didn't kill an Arab but violated the army's procedure for dealing with suspects is being investigated by Israeli authorities.

And of course, whatever the Times reports about perceptions in the Arab street and how disappointed they are with the United States belies the fact the the United States is pushing Israel to make more and more concessions even in the light of undiminished Arab enmity and threats:

And then there is Israel. We learn today from Haaretz that U.S.-Israel relations are being strained by the State Department's busy-body routine on behalf of all manner of Palestinian complaints, such as Hanan Ashrawi's daughter's desire to receive special treatment from the Israeli government over her residency paperwork (Ashrawi's whining to Rice apparently caused David Welch, the assistant secretary of state, to snap to attention and harass Israeli officials). . . . Ah, so the American general doesn't like the security posture that the Israeli military has determined it must assume in order to protect Israeli lives. And he doesn't like it that the IDF doesn't take seriously the Palestinian Authority security services, which are dangerously incompetent, but which the United States has been deeply involved in training. Question for General Jones: Would you put the PA security services in charge of protecting American lives from Hamas?

(That's a rhetorical question, but as I recall the U.S. sent troops to Ramallah to protect the president and didn't rely only on the PA security services.)

This leads Daled Amos to comment:

The US is so used to trampling over Israeli interests and needs, that apparently stuff like this is becoming second nature, while still maintaining that everything is normal.

Over and over again we hear from the Arabs and their cheerleaders that the United States can't be an "honest broker" because it favors Israel even while the Arabs show an undiminished level of hostility to Israel. The United States finds some pretext to pressure Israel in the name of "confidence buliding." Israel, unwilling to buck its main benefactor relents and allows concessions that are often inimical to its security.

Israel and the United State end up on the defensive, unwilling to justify their alliance.The Arabs get their way without paying a price or giving any credit. And the media (and assorted peace processors) act like an injustice has been righted and that peace is now closer at hand.

Crossposted at Yourish.

Veneer of tolerance

Late last week, the NY Sun reported that the recent Saudi sponsored conference on religion ended on a "sour note." A statement read by the sponsoring organization at the end of the conference, wasn't the same one that participants had agreed upon.

The final statement, which was read by an official with the Muslim World League, Abdul Rahman Al-Zaid, rankled several of the conference participants because it differed from an earlier agreed upon draft. Under pressure from a conference participant, William Vendley of Religions for Peace, a second version was subsequently drafted which attributed the communiqué to the "conveners" of the conference and not the participants, as the earlier version had.

One complaint, which two participants voiced on condition of anonymity, is that the communiqué called for the Muslim World League to select some of the delegates for the suggested upon United Nations conference on interfaith dialogue.

The major complaint of many participants was that the document appears to have been revised at some stage without the consent of members of a drafting committee. And the vast majority of participants never had a chance to review any version of the statement before Mr. Al-Zaid of the Muslim World League read it aloud.

This might be a consequence of how Muslims - or at least Saudi Muslims - view other religions. Anne Applebaum observes:

Among other things, the Saudis sponsored an interfaith dialogue this week, one that all participants hailed as a great breakthrough -- despite the fact that the meetings took place in Spain, apparently because it would be too embarrassing for Saudi Arabia to host Christian and Jewish religious leaders on its own soil.

The point of Applebaum's column though wasn't the conference but Saudi produced textbooks that teach students to despise adherents of other religions.

Here, for example, is a multiple-choice question from a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook, "Monotheism and Jurisprudence," in a section that attempts to teach children to distinguish between "true" and "false" belief in God:

Q. "Is belief true in the following instances:

(a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.

(b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.

(c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers."

The correct answer, of course, is (c): According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn't enough to simply worship God or just to love other believers; it is important to hate unbelievers, too. By the same token, (b) is wrong as well: Even a man who worships God cannot be said to have "true belief" if he also loves unbelievers.

This test and other outrages Applebaum points out, come from the new edition of the Saudi textbooks that were supposed to reflect a

"comprehensive revision . . . to weed out disparaging remarks toward religious groups."

These textbooks are an issue because they are used in Saudi sponsored schools all over the world.

Shrinkwrapped notes how Islam-Online characterized the conference:

Spain Meet For Criminalizing Blasphemy

Shrinkwrapped continues:

There is only one religion whose adherents continue to criminalize blasphemy today. It is also a religion whose adherents consistently define terrorism to exclude attacks on non-Muslims.

A dialogue designed to avoid a clash of civilizations must be a two way dialogue; the alternative is referred to as surrender.

...which goes a long way towards explaining why the Saudis didn't consult the participants before changing the final statement.

Marc Gopin, who apparently was at the conference, saw it as a positive step.

Throughout the three days, and even after the event has concluded, some of us are still deeply engaged with the Muslims present, exchanging information and opening up worlds of information to each other, from information on the inner workings of American Jewish politics to the inner realities of the Madrassas of Pakistan. We have been in in-depth conversation with Saudi journalists, Saudi sheikhs, and Pakistani activists. I was also on Saudi Television last night and was amazed by the respect that I was shown. This is the essence of how and when religion can become a bridge of piece in a complicated world.

It would seem, though, that the respect accorded to Rabbi Gopin and other attendees was personal. The failure of the organizers to consult the participants and the failure of Saudi officials to change the textbooks, show a general level of disdain for adherents of other religions.

Daled Amos provides a list of actions and words that demonstrate the superficiality of the tolerance purportedly demonstrated by the conference including:

Islam's idea of 'open dialogue' appears to be building as big a mosque as possible in Rome while denying any open display of any other religion in all of Saudi Arabia.

Which raises the question: just what does Saudi Arabia want out of these discussions, anyway?

And the answer is that it wants participants like Rabbi Gopin who don't look past the veneer of tolerance at the conference and will vouch for a changed (or at least changing) Saudi Arabia. Such ambassador's of goodwill would serve as a counterpoint to the still intolerant textbooks.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Horribly wrong part II

Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy's Israel correspondent, lets all know where his sympathies lie, with Samir Kuntar.

As Israel was getting ready to free Kuntar last Wednesday, the Lebanese militant told guards that he didn't want to walk to freedom in a prison uniform.

When the Israeli guards refused, Kuntar said he told them to call off the deal.

"I've kept my dignity for 30 years," Kuntar said he told his jailers, "I'm not going to give it up in the last half hour."

The standoff lasted until the guards called their superiors, who eventually agreed to let Kuntar go free in civilian clothes.

Once free after nearly 30 years, Kuntar traded the civilian clothes for military fatigues and delivered a defiant threat to return to his militant mission.

Dignity?

Accepting a wife and an education and plenty of food from the evil Zionists for 30 years didn't compromise his dignity? Why the hell did the authorities give in?

Though Israel recently released long-secret court records with eyewitness testimony and medical reports to support Kuntar's conviction for shooting an Israeli dad in front of his daughter and then smashing the 4-year-old girl's head with his rifle butt, Kuntar denies killing either one.

From his 1980 trial to to this day, Kuntar has said that the two were killed by Israeli bullets in a firefight as he tried to flee. Kuntar contends that he meant to take hostages in an attack that went awry.

"This was a military operation," says Kuntar's younger brother, Bassam, who led a long PR campaign to free Samir. "We have to accept the reality of what happened, but we will never accept that this operation was aimed at children."

It wasn't aimed at children? So why the hell did he take Einat Haran out to the beach? Come on. Nissenbaum, at least challenge the less plausible claims. And why not tell your audience that there was an eyewitness to the atrocities on the beach and that the evidence you link to, physically tied Kuntar to the murder of Einat. His fingerprints were on the rifle that had her brain tissue. (That also contradicts his claim that Danny and Einat Haran were killed by Israeli bullets.)

And for dessert, Nissinbaum let's a Lebanese "political analyst" (actually Hezbollah mouthpiece from other articles I've seen by this woman)

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Beirut-based political analyst and Hezbollah specialist, said people here simply don't accept Israel's version of events.

"I don't think all Lebanese believe he actually killed the child," she said.

For others, there is a certain callousness in their replies.

"How come they have the right to feel sad for one or three people when they killed thousands in the south," said the woman in the market, who criticized Israel for bombing Lebanon during the 2006 war in a 34-day campaign that killed 1,200 Lebanese civilians.

So they don't believe he killed Einat Haran, but they do believe that he killed a policeman and Danny Haran, don't they? Isn't there something offensive about a society that lionizes murderers?

Nissenbaum surely knows that 1200 Lebanese civilians weren't killed in the war two years ago. At least half were members of Hezbollah. (Yes Hezbollah claims the number is less than 200. But do you really trust Hezbollah?) But that was a war in which Israeli civilians were targeted and killed. It's not like Israel simply took civilians from their homes and killed them, the deaths occurred in the context of war. There is a difference.

Just what role Kuntar will play in the coming days, weeks and months isn't clear.

For now, he is a potent symbol of Hezbollah's ascendant power.

And he is a reminder of the emotionally-charged divisions that will make it difficult for Lebanon and Israel to make peace any time soon.

Nice equivalencing Nissenbaum. The fact that a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which is a pawn of Iran, is now in control of Lebanon's government is the reason that there will be no peace. Forget the "emotionally-charged divisions." That's poppycock. It's the declaration of a man with no moral compass, incapable of judging right from wrong. It's the declaration of someone who romanticizes terrorists and who incapable of objectivity.

Nissenbaum you are an f---ing bastard. Why the hell don't you draw your salary from Nasrallah? After all you're doing his work.

UPDATE: Thanks to LGF, Israel Matzav, Elder of Ziyon, JoshuaPundit for picking this up. Also linked at memeorandum.
There was a great comment at LGF. Also check out the comments on Nissenbaum's post, the comments - such as this one - are almost all condemnatory of his moral obtuseness. BTW, I forgot to mention that the reason this post was part II was because I'd already made a similar complaint about the NYT.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Kosher cooking carnival #32 - the look but you better not eat edition

kosher cooking carnival - July 20, 2008

Welcome to the July 20, 2008 edition of kosher cooking carnival and since I'm putting this together on Shiva Asar B'Tamuz I'll call it "the look but you better not eat edition."

Judeopundit reports that Americans eating bagels to counter depression.

However Weight Loss Dude asks Why Don't You Just Eat Less?. and answers just because you eat fewer bagels doesn't mean that you'll lose weight.

However if you eat at the places me-ander took pictures of in I Can Blog Forever..., you will certainly gain weight. Lots of it.

Brain Blogger presents Food Additives, Hyperactivity, and Common Sense,
saying, "A BMJ editorial recently covered how the EFSA did studied how
some food additives lead to childhood hyperactivity. It was questioned
later that there wasn't enough evidence to back this up; the studies
were re-evaluated. The editorial mentioned that there is strong
evidence backing up two therapies for this problem: drugs and dietary
modification."

Ill call Baila solves a problem by calling in the experts in About the Tomato Sauce Thingie.....

me-ander contemplates Preparations  saying, "There's a sort of recipe here at the end. It just shows how creative and worry-free cooking can be. Nu?"

anything kosher!

Elder of Ziyon writes about a new Kosher cooking school opens in Brooklyn.

where you might like to study if you'd like to join SerandEz in hosting the BeyondBT/SerandEz Shabbaton 

but if you're going to be a guest not a host follow The Muqata جميل في المقاطعة's advice how to behave in Hosting Guests for Shabbat in Israel.

Juggling Frogs presents We're having oysters for dinner tonight! (*) but wait, hey, this is the Kosher Cooking Carnival! Whoops, read on: "adventures in growing mushrooms from a kit"

Juggling Frogs presents Cold brew coffee saying, "Great method for Shabbat, or for iced coffee. This method makes a "coffee essense" that can be diluted with hot or cold water."

Makes sense. (Ha!)

Here in HP traipses across the world In Search of Brown Rice. (psst! She's hosting next month edition.)

me-ander traipses the other way across the ocean Eating Out Kosher.

Rechovot: A Place to Expand presents Of Meaning, Pleasure, Liver, Ice Cream, Fasting and Kugel.Live and ice cream in the same post? This is the Kosher Cooking Carnival! Oh, they're difference approaches. And you don't have to wait 6 hours between reading each suggestion.

breakfast

Tip Diva presents Tip Diva | Top Ten Tip - Cooking Perfect Deviled Eggs saying, "Deviled eggs are the perfect party food - easy to make,
requires little, if any, cleanup, and can quickly be consumed without a
fork or knife. Here's how to make the perfect deviled egg" It looks easy enough that even I could do it.

desserts

How to Measure the Years presents Decadent Brownies. If a recipe has both words "decadent" and "brownie" in the title, it sounds like something I should recommend to my daughter.

Ilana-Davita. presents Banana Cake  No chocolate?

Here in HP presents Cookie Contest saying, "I'll put the answer up when I announce the KCC." Wait a second, I saw that photo before somewhere.

dinner

Here in HP presents Kid-Friendly Noodle Kugel. Make that "kind and heart friendly."

lunch

Ilana-Davita presents Asian Salmon. It probably would be a nice alternative for Gefilte Fish.

Life in Israel presents Life in Israel: Gishmak! corned beef and pastrami on rye with mustard!.

Before I go ... despite efforts at 6 braided Challahs and 4 braided Challahs, I'm still most comfortable with the standard 3 braided Challah.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
kosher cooking carnival
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

kosher cooking carnival, blog carnival.

Knocking off those who would help you

Before Tony Blair was at risk for an assassination attempt, apparently President Bush was.

Two Arab citizens of Israel and four Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were charged with planning to set up a network of Al Qaeda in Israel, said Shin Bet, the internal security agency. It said one of the accused, Muhammad Najam, 24, a student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, contemplated bringing down President Bush's helicopter as it approached a landing pad in the university's stadium earlier this year.

Admittedly, it appears that the Bush plot wasn't too far along. But why knock off world leaders who are committed to a Palestinian state? Wouldn't that work against those "national aspirations?"

Crossposted on Yourish.

It's a numbers thing

Sen. Obama plans to be President over the next 8 to 10 years - over all 57 states!

Musical Monday #53

There could be a single word answer to this one.
Anyway, you know the drill. No googling. Guess the songs and the theme.
1. ... days of magic still so close to me
2. ... back in school she could turn all the boy's heads
3. It's imagination we lack
4. I lusted in my heart
5. Now I need a place to hide away
6. When they played I'd sing along
7. I reminisce about the days of old
8. But if I'd only known how the king would fall
9. No, there will never be another red-headed stranger
10. I love to take a photograph
11. I had a jukebox graduate for first mate, she couldn't sail but she sure could sing
12. Wheat fields as far as I could see
13. My momma raised five children, four girls then there was me
14. Walking home every day over Barnegat Bridge and Bay
15. She was going to be an actress
16. Morning walks and bedroom talks
17. Eisenhower, vaccine, England's got a new queen
18. B.B. Bumble and the Stingers, Mott the Hoople, Ray Charles Singers
19. When I was a little boy, (when I was just a boy)
20. By someone the devil's best friend
21. You sheltered me from harm
22. Collect the dreams you dream today
23. Once upon a time, there was a tavern
24. Songs that made the Hit Parade.
25. I remember skies reflected in your eyes
26. Scattered pictures, of the smiles we left behind

I used to think that the lyrics in "Bad bad Leroy Brown" were "His wife was jealous man."
Obviously that was wrong, but there's a word for that, check out Oyvay Blog.
I knew that Tom Petty had once declared bankruptcy. Now I know why. I understand that Tom Petty (and some of the Heartbreakers) were part of a group called Mudcrutch, which has now released a new album. Maybe Ocean Guy knows the details.

Previous answers below.

Answers for Musical Monday #52 are up Elie's Expositions. What a card!
Here are the answers for Musical Monday #51. I thought I'd have some fun by presenting it in the form of multiple choice questions. I get the impression, that it didn't go over really well. I have a second set of these, let me know if you'd ever like to see that.

1) What makes you think you're the one?
a) I won't stand down
b) I shot the sheriff
c) I can see for miles
d) I know what boys like

2) Do you love me?
a) I want you
b) I need you
c) PS I love you
d) I'm not in love

3) Do you want to make love?
a) It's the right time of the night
b) Feel like making love
c) Never
d) Will you love me tomorrow?

4) Why do fools fall in love?
a) Maybe it was Memphis
b) Something in the air
c) Heat of the moment
d) Dancing in the moonlight

5) When will I be loved?
a) Sundown
b) Monday Morning
c) Tuesday Afternoon
d) In the year 2525

6) Do ya?
a) I do, I do, I do
b) I don't want to know
c) I can see clearly now
d) (Everything I do) I do it for you

Yemen Times: "Why some men prefer marrying uneducated women"

This is the second part of a series of articles. In Part One we learn of the following unhappy scenario:

An educated woman . . . realizes everything around her. She can not be deceived or easily convinced if she believes in something else. "If the husband does not allow his educated wife to go on a picnic with her friends, for example, she will make lectures on humanity, the psychology of humans, human rights and so on", said that husband. If this is the case, such a husband should accept either to let her go, or to let her go after being forced to listen to a number of lectures which may continue some days after going on that picnic.

Part Two continues:

"Uneducated women rarely ask questions," notes one husband of an uneducated woman, adding that his wife never asks where he's going or from where he's coming. This first reflects her trust in him and second, it indicates that she recognizes her husband's mood, avoiding anything that may agitate him.

According to this same husband, this is what the husbands of educated women suffer. As an example, he tells of his friend who always tries to escape his home because there he must answer "obligatory questions" about everything his wife may think of.

The author concludes (for now):

Every part of this topic can create a framework, particularly for men, so they can make the right choice. Once acquainted with the positive and negative aspects of each side, a man may make the choice suitable for himself in an effort to have a life free of family problems.

Additionally, choosing either an educated or an uneducated wife, a man won't be surprised by the consequences he may face after marriage because he - and I think everyone of us - will be aware of the positive and negative aspects of each choice.

Finally, I apologize for attacking some critical aspects of educated women, although some men consider these positive attributes. Don't worry, dear educated women, because next week, I'll discuss how useful and good it is to marry an educated woman.

See there, he's not so biased . . .

Crossposted on Judeopundit

In another vain

Following up on Charles Krauthammer's much commented upon column on Friday, Joan Vennochi follows up today with the Audacity of Ego.

Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him.

He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.

A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America's top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, "Vero possumus" - "Yes, we can"?

In response to Krauthmmer's column, I wrote:

I'm wondering if this will be a major point of attack by the Republicans.

Vennochi goes one better and explains why it might work:

But McCain has one thing going for him: the appearance of modesty.

Part of it is physical. McCain is stiff and awkward, the result of age and injuries from his years as a prisoner of war. That, too, is a contrast to Obama's sleek physique, the consequence of youth and a George W. Bush-like passion for working out.

But with McCain, there's also the sense of a man who made mistakes in life and acknowledges them.

McCain's humility comes through in his book, "Faith of my Fathers," which he wrote at age 63, after completing a career in the US Navy and moving onto politics. Obama wrote the more self-reverential "Dreams from My Father," after he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.

The Gilderoy Lockhart of candidates? Indeed!

The word of scum

Last week Elder of Ziyon noted a report by David Bedein, that Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev had been captured alive by Hezbollah, and concluded that, therefore, Hezbollah must have murdered the two.

After some commenters (myself included) noted that the IDF now believes that the two were killed or critically wounded in the initial attack, Elder of Ziyon asked:

As my commenters have noted, Israeli sources are now saying that Regev and Goldwasser were killed during the initial attack.

So, were Jesse Jackson and the others lying?

LGF believes that was the case.

Looking at the contemporaneous account that LGF cites, Jackson did not actually meet with the captives. He simply was taking the word of terrorists with an agenda. Maybe he didn't lie, but he was taking the word of untrustworthy scum.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Rats redux

Hot Air observes about the supposed subliminal message in a McCain ad:

They're using the overreaction of elitist imbeciles earlier in the week not as a cautionary tale for everyone to mellow out but as reason to ratchet up the paranoia. Think of it as a negligence case, with the insane uproar over the New Yorker cover serving as the new legal standard of reasonableness: Because the leftist intelligentsia is (a) nuts, and (b) known to fly off the handle for political advantage at any opportunity, it was therefore foreseeable that they'd scrutinize McCain's ads for subliminal messages, which in turn makes McCain negligent for not vetting his ads to make sure they're safe for nuts to watch. Is it too soon for another vacation?

(via memeorandum)

ABC's Political Radar asks:

What do you think? An oversight? Meaningless? Or "RATS" part two?

I think all three, It was meaningless oversight just as "RATS" was. What's the "RATS" story?

After being mentioned two weeks earlier by Brit Hume (who got a good laugh out of it), the New York Times ran a story on its front page in September 2000.

At first glance, the Republican television commercial on prescription drugs looks like a run-of-the-mill attack advertisement.

The announcer starts by lauding George W. Bush's proposal for dealing with prescription drugs, and criticizes the plan being offered by Vice President Al Gore. Fragments of the phrase ''bureaucrats decide'' -- deriding Mr. Gore's proposal -- then dance around the screen.

Then, if the viewer watches very closely, something else happens. The word ''rats,'' a fragment of the word ''bureaucrats,'' pops up in one frame. And though the image lasts only one-thirtieth of a second, it is in huge white capital letters, larger than any other word on the commercial.

How'd the Times find out about this?

According to the Gore campaign, the word was spotted by Gary Greenup, a 64-year-old retired Boeing technical writer in Seattle. To be sure of what he saw, Mr. Greenup taped the commercial soon after it was first broadcast in late August and slowed the tape down to reveal the word.

''It somehow caught my eye,'' he said. Usually, he added, ''I don't look this closely at ads -- mostly I'd just as soon not view them.''

Mr. Greenup called the King County Democratic Party, which alerted the Gore campaign.

Mr. Greenup said that while he was a Democrat, he was not active in local politics. ''I'm not working in the party,'' he said. ''I contribute a little annually -- it's very, very small.''

In other words, two weeks after it was first noted publicly, the Times ran a front page story scattered with carefully chosen quotes made to portray the insertion of "RATS" as intentional on the say-so of the Gore campaign. If it was an issue, it was one when Brit Hume noticed it, but no one at the Times thought anything of it until they got a copy from the Gore campaign. (I guess its possible that no one at the Times watched Fox News.)

This front page non-story was followed the next day by a smarmy self-righteous editorial.

Smart Republicans know that, all kidding aside, this is a fraught moment for the Bush campaign. The governor's malapropisms are becoming standard comic fare. Yesterday he referred four times to ''subliminable'' techniques. Meanwhile a conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, features on its cover a worried-looking Mr. Bush beside the slightly panicky-sounding headline ''How Bush Can Win.'' Being an object of doubt and ridicule can quickly become a serious problem for a presidential candidate. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

So the Times editorial page added to the Gore campaign's effort to make the then-Texas governor like an imbecile. Then it was followed by this non-sequitir.

Forceful damage control would be Mr. Bush's smartest move. He has already pulled the ad. But since subliminal messages are regarded as unethical by the ad industry and unfairly deceptive by the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Bush should go further. He needs to find out how it got on the air in the first place, especially since Alex Castellanos, who produced the commercial for the Republican National Committee, has not kept his story straight.

Mr. Castellanos originally told Richard Berke of The Times that the use of the word was ''purely accidental.'' Yesterday he said he was using a ''visual drumbeat designed to make you look at the word bureaucrats.'' That sounds to us like a declaration of intent to use subliminal techniques by Mr. Castellanos, who is known as a creator of attack ads.

How are the two statements of Mr. Castellano's inconsistent? If he was trying to emphasize "BUREAUCRATS" why would he distract from that by emphasizing "RATS?" The way the Times played up this non-story, undermined any pretense it had of being objective. The Times chose to attack the candidate it opposed in blatant effort to help the candidate it supported.

I wonder how many MSM outlets will now promote the "Al Qaeda" fantasy to show that John McCain is a weasel who is trying to portray Barack Obama as a terrorist.

World and 9/11 enigmas to Guardian writer

This is from the Guardian, responding to an earlier article critical of conspiracy theories:

[...] What happened on 9/11 is, in the end, a matter of fact - whatever our worldview might incline us to consider plausible or possible. The true authorship of the attacks is as difficult to establish as anything else about the world of international terrorism and espionage.

For myself, I have no idea what happened, because I have no more idea of how the business-intelligence-political nexus works than I have about what chess grandmasters are up to when they are staring at the board, looking all thoughtful.

The attacks on the US on September 11 2001 were part of a web of events that interconnect with oil, drugs, money, organised crime, imperialism, existing institutions and us. And religion, and a lot more money.

That's quite a bit of certainty for a professed know-nothing. I wonder what those "existing institutions" are.

It might feel wise and sensible to declare that any explanation that differs from the official account requires hundreds of impossibly tight-lipped bureaucratic killers. But that presupposes that we know how the world works, and we don't.

Maybe the 9/11 attacks were all about a small team of terrorists who managed to hold it together in a world otherwise characterised by crossed wires and blundering incompetence. But I don't know . . .

Maybe this article was about a small writer who managed to hold it together in a world of clumsy reasoning and murky writing, but I don't know . . .

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Just one more iddy biddy concession and they'll love you

Before Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote a column, The Morning After the Morning After, in which he argued that the population of Lebanon would eventually turn on Hezbollah when it realized the costs that the war imposed on the country and how little Hezbollah gained. I dismissed it at the time.

To some degree, now, nearly two years later we're seeing small stirrings of this sentiment. But it's hardly leading to a weakening of Hezbollah's position as Friedman suggested. In fact Friedman's belief overall seems like a lot of wishful thinking:

Israel needs to keep its eyes on the prize. It's already inflicted enormous damage on Hezbollah and its community, but Nasrallah will only have to pay the full price for inviting all that destruction once the guns fall silent on the morning after the morning after. So let's get there as soon as possible. That will deter him. What would deter him even more, though, would be if the U.N. would go ahead and impose sanctions on Iran for its illicit nuclear bomb program. After all, it was Iran, Nasrallah's master, that ordered up this war to distract the U.N. from doing just that. It would be nice to say to Iran: You ravaged Hezbollah for nothing.

"That will deter him." What a sick joke.

Still some are starting to complain about the war. The Jerusalem Post reports. Arab media mock Hizbullah victory:

While Hizbullah on Wednesday went to great lengths in its attempts to paint the prisoner swap with Israel as a victory, emphasizing the fact that Nasrallah had kept to his word and managed to release murderer Samir Kuntar, a leading Arab paper ridiculed the perceived "victory."

"The Radwan deal," the headline of the London-based pan-Arabic daily Asharq Al Awsat cynically ran on Thursday, "cost Hizbullah over $7 billion, more than 1,200 dead and 4,500 wounded Lebanese citizens." The paper referred to the exchange by the name given it by Hizbullah.

Radwan was the nom de guerre of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hizbullah terror mastermind killed several months ago in a car bombing in Syria.

(via memeorandum)

Noah Pollak points to another such argument made graphically.

Still these seem like few voices in the wilderness, not the start of rebellion against Hezbollah. James Taranto in fact notes that one newspaper was perfectly willing to present Hezbollah's line:

The [Lebanese] government declared a national day of celebration, closing all government offices and banks, and many private businesses closed as well. The president, the prime minister and others tried to present the swap as a triumph for Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, which is considered a terrorist group by the United States. But there was no disguising the fact that, in the eyes of its followers and many others, Hezbollah had scored a historic victory.

Guess which one. In fact what's really striking is not the resistance to but the number of "moderates" who showed their solidarity with Hezbollah.

Noah Pollak again:

All of this is not just disgraceful, but should trigger nothing less than a crisis in U.S.-Lebanon relations. If being a safe haven for child-murderers is something the Lebanese prime minister considers a "national goal," the United States should reevaluate its support for Lebanon's government, which both rhetorically and symbolically has made itself an ally of Hezbollah in defining Lebanon as a state which exults in terrorism against Israel. Such a crisis in relations will not happen, of course, and it is perversely ironic that on the same day the Lebanese government was popping corks with Hezbollah, the Bush administration announced an increase of over $32 million in aid to the Lebanese army.

The President Bush of 2002 might have, but not the President Bush of 2008. Israelly Cool! presented a trivia question, that Meryl Yourish answers. Again, there will be *no* consequences for this perfidy. The only people who are concerned about this solidarity for terror is the pro-Israel crowd. The folks who are constantly hectoring Israel to make sacrifices for goodwill don't seem to notice or care that more and more Israeli concessions don't bring goodwill. The Washington Post had a good editorial An unwelcome hero, unfortunately the editorial pretended that the only support Kuntar got was from the fringes:

This turn of events does, however, tell us a lot about Hezbollah and about those within Lebanon's political culture who either support it or can't quite bring themselves to oppose it.

And in the end the editors were right there demanding more Israeli concessions:

Israel must make territorial compromises and foster a dignified future for the Palestinians.

The idea that those Palestinians to whom Israel must make more territorial compromises are those who lionize the likes of Kuntar. That there is something wrong with that picture, is something that the Post's editors just can't bring themselves to acknowledge. Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 07/18/08

The Council has spoken.

The winning council submission this week was Wolf Howling's fisking of Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed Critiquing The Obama Manifesto On Iraq. Runners up were JoshuaPundit's speculation  Will Israel Attack Iran? and Bookworm Rooms It's official: Obama doesn't flip-flop, he just does nuanced "rephrases" .

On the non-council side the winning entry was Sleepwalking Into Islamization by Melanie Phillips and the second place finisher was my submission from Doug Ross Let Me Put It In Pictures For Our Progressive Friends.

Many thanks to JoshuaPundit for hosting the first post-Watcher edition of Watcher's Council voting. He stepped up to ensure that we didn't miss a beat.

And congratulation to all the winners for their great entries this week.

watcher's council.

German engineering

The mediator who arranged the swap of live terrorists for dead soldiers is a German official. No wonder he was skilled with dead Jews.

Anyway Israel Matzav observes that Hamas is quite happy with his work and would now like to retain him to blackmail Israel for the return of Gilad Shalit.

Israel Matzav notes:

After all, the Germans just got Hezbullah a great deal (live terrorists - including one with 'blood on his hands' in a major way) for two dead Israeli soldiers. Hamas is still holding a live Israeli soldier..

To which I'd add, since Resolution 1701 called for the "immediate and unconditional release." Given that it's two years since the war, their release was not immediate. That Israel had to surrender anything to get back Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, means that their release was not unconditional. Ban Ki Moon ought to be careful not to break his arm, patting himself on the back for ensuring that 1701 was fulfilled.

Regardless, the furor over the release of Samir Kuntar has ensured that Marwan Barghouti will the next big fish returned to the terrorist sea.

Crossposted on Yourish.

(Democratic) party like its 1999 and other campaign considerations

An article in the Weekly Standard reports that

With a burn rate of $42 million a month, Obama's campaign can just barely sustain its current levels of spending. And what's leftover may not be adequate to run the kind of campaign he needs to win. Just consider despite all the money he's raised, Obama has been outspent on television by 3 to 1 in the last two months. All the stagecraft and theatrics has come with a hefty cost.

(h/t LGF linkviewer)

"Burn rate?" That brings back memories of the Internet boom of the late 90's. Still Marc Ambinder thinks the spending is for a good cause, and it's reason for the Republicans to worry.

These expenses aren't unusual. Sending 15 paid staffers to Texas is "flushing money down the toilet?" No. It's about organizing volunteers for New Mexico and other border states, and about helping Democratic candidates down the ballot. 2,000 field staff? Honestly, Republicans have reason to fear that number. Note that the Obama campaign will pay for most of its field staff directly, which is not normally how this happens. In 2004, most GOP field operatives came from the RNC; most Democratic field operatives were paid by the DNC.

The Obama campaign intends to run the equivalent of 18 major Senate race campaigns. Expensive? Yes. Unprecedented. Yes. Centrally controlled? Yes. Risky? Yes. Leaving nothing to chance? Yes.

(via memeorandum)

And here's a concrete example of that strategy.

(via memeorandum)

The Other McCain dismisses Ambinder's arguments. In the course of doing so he links to John Dickerson who is contemplating Sen. Obama's foreign excursion next week. After listing the positive aspects of the trip including:

Barack Obama has found a great new way to help voters imagine him as an occupant of the office he doesn't have yet. He's dropped the widely mocked faux presidential seal, but when he heads overseas Sunday, he'll take an accessory with real power: three television network anchors.

The anchors are a big coup for Obama as he heads to Europe, the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They confer instant legitimacy. McCain, like Hillary Clinton before him, is arguing that Obama isn't qualified to be commander in chief, but the networks are treating him like he's already got the job.

Dickerson observes some of the risks such as:

Hubris Alert: Who does Obama think he is? He's not the president. He's not even his party's official nominee yet. Obama has no shortage of self-confidence. If the trip looks a little too presumptuous, voters who have doubts about his experience might wonder where he gets off acting a part they haven't given him yet.

...which is exactly the subject of this week's Krauthammer column, Obama's greatest admirer (or here)

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

I'm wondering if this will be a major point of attack by the Republicans.

Instapundit notes that some of Sen. Clinton's major contributors have been meeting with Sen. McCain's campaign. I noted a story 10 days ago that about 300 of Sen. Clinton's most generous supporters had not yet come around to support Sen. Obama. I wondered at the time how significant that was. If Sen. McCain can make enough common ground with them, I'd guess that it would be rather significant.

Finally there's the matter of a recent Washington Post editorial critical of Sen. Obama's prescriptions for Iraq. The tone of the editorial leads NRO's Campaign Spot to speculate:

It's really hard to picture the Post endorsing McCain this year, but Obama is making their instinctive endorsement of the Democrat much more difficult. (According to Fred Hiatt, the last Republican that the Post endorsed for president was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Then the Post didn't endorse anyone until 1976 (Carter), and it hasn't endorsed a Republican since. It issued no endorsement in 1988.)

In the eyes of the Post, Obama has been wrong about the biggest and most pressing foreign policy decision facing the country, and continues to double down on a wrong position. Can they endorse a man who they have concluded is "ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome"?

This is something that I discussed a bit with Maryland Conservatarian who wrote:

In fact, is there any doubt as to how most newspapers will be writing their endorsements in the weeks leading up to the November election? I'd be willing to wager a healthy sum of money that collectively - without a single "maverick" among them - all the following newspapers will enthusiastically be touting the redemptive opportunity that America is presented with if only the populace will follow their editorial lead and vote for Barack Obama:

The New York Times; The Washington Post; The Baltimore Sun; The Philadelphia Inquirer; The Boston Globe; The LA Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Again, if just one of those newspapers deviates, I lose the bet. Think anyone in Vegas would take the bet?

I didn't bring up the possibility as a game. As Maryland Conservatarian noted, the Post did endorse incumbent Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich over Democrat (and winner) Martin O'Malley, and I believe it could happen here. True, the Post will have to overcome its strong pro-Democratic bias, but if it regards Iraq as a or the major issue of the campaign they'll have a hard time endorsing Obama. That's especially true given the treatment they gave Michael Steele in his unsuccessful race against Ben Cardin for the Senate, whom the Post endorsed two years ago.

The other candidate, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, deploys platitudes and gauzy rhetoric to disguise a tissue-thin grasp of policy.

My guess is that the Post won't show the courage of its convictions and punt the endorsement, writing that both candidate have significant flaws. Steele deserved better.

If the Post would endorse McCain it would be damaging to Obama. The endorsement wouldn't be as important as what it would signal. If McCain gets the Post's endorsement it will show the Obama isn't reaching hawkish Democrats.

There you have it. These are four potential problems for Sen. Obama: his finances, (perception of) his ego, his failure to reconcile with Sen. Clinton's supporters and/or his failure to convince hawkish Democrats of his seriousness. I don't know that any of these are kryptonite. But they all have some potential to hurt him.

Dennis anyone?

via memeorandum

Time Magazine reports on the Middle East expert who will be accompanying Sen. Obama to the Middle East next week Obama's Conservative Mideast Pick: Dennis Ross.

Though he served under James Baker in the Bush 41 administration I'd hardly characterize Ross as conservative.

As a practical matter the article recommends Ross because:

In one way, the message is simple: Ross, a career foreign service officer, was lead negotiator on Israeli-Palestinian issues for Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and he got the two sides as close as they've come to a peace deal before stepping down after the 2000 election.

And was the Middle East safer after the 2000 election? The Clinton administration's failure to hold Arafat to any of his commitments was undoubtedly one of the factors that gave Arafat confidence that he could get away with launching an intifada after the Camp David talks collapsed.

"[C]lose as they've come..." simply means that Israel conceded a lot more territory and history at Camp David before Arafat - with the backing of even Arab "moderates" - rejected the offer.

The choice of Ross is being played as a sop to the Jewish (or pro-Israel) community and the reporter notes:

After he left government, the 59-year-old diplomat headed up a hawkish pro-Israel think tank in Washington, and signed on as a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. A former colleague, Dan Kurtzer (an Orthodox Jew and former U.S. ambassador to Israel who also supports Obama), published a think-tank monograph containing anonymous complaints from Arab and American negotiators saying Ross was seen as biased towards Israel and not "an honest broker". Ross has been hawkish on Iran, but he agrees with Obama's pledge to start talks. "We need to work hard to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state," Ross says, "but the Bush approach isn't working."

Not an honest broker because he was biased towards Israel? What baloney! Ross wasn't pro-Israel. He is a peace processor, which means that he's genetically disposed to believe that if Israeli cedes just enough territory he might get a Palestinian leader to say insincerely that he'll accept the deal and stop the terror.

And yet he went to work for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy but not everyone there is "hawkish" (or realistic, in my view) and Ross is clearly on the "unrealistically dovish" end of the spectrum among those at the Washington Institute.

Still, it is somewhat surprising to see Ross emerge as an official member of Obama's team. (Neither Ross nor the campaign would comment on his role in the still-unannounced trip, but several sources in the campaign confirmed details for TIME.). When Ross left the State department in 2000, he was so critical of Yasser Arafat
that some friends thought he was considering working for George W. Bush, who cut ties with the late Palestinian leader. "At the beginning of the Administration he hadn't excluded the possibility of working for a Republican again," says one. Ross supported the Iraq war, though he opposed some of the Bush Administration's policies for post-war
reconstruction.

Ross was so critical of Arafat because he saw Arafat turn down an overly generous offer (though Ross probably didn't consider Barak's offer overly generous) from Israel and subsequently launch a terrorist campaign against Israel. In any case, Bush didn't cut ties with Arafat until some time later, so this paragraph is more than a little misleading. In fact Bush's first major pronouncement on the Middle East was that he supported the idea of a Palestinian state. So Ross's aversion to Arafat, likely put him at odds at President Bush at the start of his term.

At the end Time's reporter writes:

After all, the process orchestrated by Ross for the Clinton Administration failed

Well, duh. But did it fail for the lack of Ross's efforts? Or because the premise that the Palestinians had changed to the point that they'd accept Israel's right to exist is false.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Charlie and space shuttle

Somehow this reminds me of a certain children's story.

Mathilde Epron, 32, said she had bought a Kit Kat chocolate bar at her local supermarket but initially threw the wrapper in the bin, telling herself that "it's only others who win."

Two hours later, thinking back to the competition, she decided to try her luck and fished the wrapper out of the bin, only to find a code marked inside.

I know her name's not Charlie, and she didn't find a dollar bill, but this still involves chocolate and a special prize.

There's another story of finding discarded items that have relevance to a rocket - or rather to the Rocket:

Convicted steroid dealer Kirk Radomski looked under his television last weekend and found overnight mail slips from packages he claims were used to send human growth hormone to Roger Clemens' house, according to the lawyer for Brian McNamee.

Even if this ends up being a prize for McNamee, this story isn't nearly as heartwarming.

A soldier's view

In emphasizing criticisms of the trade Israel made to get the return of the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, I've ignored a certain constituency: that of an Israeli soldier.

Simply Jews, an ex-soldier writes:

As an ex-soldier, I can safely say in the name of most of us that our unshakable belief that IDF and, indeed, the nation, will get us back from captivity, alive or dead, makes the service bearable. Without this belief IDF will not be what it is. The army that does not take care of its POWs is not worth serving in and the nation that forgets it sons is not worth fighting for.

After acknowledging the problem

It is not an easy vote to justify--but it is one that Israeli politicians have been forced to make time and again. Israel released convicted murderers in exchange for hostages in 1985, it returned live prisoners in exchange for body bags in 1996, it has repeatedly negotiated with terrorist organizations for similar purposes. The problem is not that the current deal creates a new precedent but, rather, that it reinforces a well-established weakness: When it comes to the return of hostages, Israel tends to throw all strategic considerations out of the window. The famous example of Entebbe--when Israeli commandos raided a Ugandan airport 32 years ago and liberated dozens of hostages in one of the most heroic forays of the Israel Defense Forces--was the exception, not the rule. The truth is that in most cases, Israel will pay any price to get its soldiers back.

Shmuel Rosner offers a similar answer:

But these are false distinctions. Israel is a society in which everyone knows everyone, in which every soldier's fate matters to every citizen. It is a society that demands that every young man and woman perform military service, a society in which a state of war is a 60-year habit, in which national solidarity is always an existential question. For such a society, looking into the eyes of the father or wife of a kidnapped soldier and telling them that the price is just too high is something no leader is able to do. So, in the case of Israel--a country with a never-ending need for public trust in the military--the "emotional" can be the most "calculated" approach of them all.

I can't say that I'm totally satisfied with the answer, but I'm not the one on the line.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Helping others while standing in quicksand

Recently Daled Amos observed that When Weak Leaders Need To Be 'Bolstered,' Israel Is The Go-To Guy.

PM Olmert was counted on to boost Siniora in Lebanon, who is planning to welcome back Samir Kuntar tomorrow,

But Olmert's own weakness may be working against a "peace prospect."

Syrian analysts told Haaretz that Assad senses that he is currently in an advantageous position and has no intention of relinquishing his preconditions regarding the framework of the talks.

"The indirect negotiations will continue so long as there is no American partner. Assad will also not make, at this stage, any gesture of good will to the Israeli prime minister, not even a handshake, because there is no reason to grant such a gesture to a weak prime minister," a Syrian official said.

So Olmert's called on to strengthen other leaders. Other leaders refuse to strengthen him, so how do we interpret Olmert - The closer to indictment the closer to peace?

It appeart that this march to "peace" is simply a matter of Olmert surrendering more and more until he gets to "yes."

And what would be a good caption here?
"Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a shove? Just a little one?"

Crossposted at Yourish.

Watcher's council in transition 07/16/08

After many years of devoted service to the blogosphere, the legendary Watcher announced his retirement. As the remaining members of the Council try to figure out the best arrangement for continuing, Joshuapundit has graciously volunteered to host the first post Watcher Watcher's Council voting.
1.JoshuaPundit: Will Israel Attack Iran? - This week's Council Host examines the question of how Israel could possibly attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Last year a pair of researchers at MIT suggested a plan of attack. Daniel PIpes summarized their findings here. Pipes also investigated what could happen if Iran retaliated.I thought that the retaliation scenario was rather exaggerated. Seraphic Secret concurs with Joshuapundit. He also mentions the photoshopped Iranian missile launch. It may be that the photoshopping was done to suggest that Iran has an operational Shahab-3 when, in fact, it has not figured out how to launch it successfully.
2.Soccer Dad:The Army's Top 10 inventions And The Legacy Of Harry Diamond - My post this week is about the army's top 10 inventions of 2007 and the one invention of those that continued the work of Harry Diamond, the inventor of the proximity fuze.
3.The Glittering Eye: Sen. Obama Re-States His Plan for Iraq - The Glittering Eye reviews Sen. Obama's op-ed in the NYT proposing a withdrawal from Iraq. He notes that Obama does not propose a full troop withdrawal and suggests that he wishes to leave some troops in Iraq to cover himself just in case things still go wrong. He also questions the matter of how much money Sen. Obama thinks the U.S. will be saving by the withdrawal.
4.Cheat Seeking Missiles: Laundry Guilt
Cheat Seeking Missiles looks at "green" ways to do laundry and keep iPods powered. 5.BookWorm Room:It's official: Obama doesn't flip-flop, he just does nuanced "rephrases"
Bookworm Room comments on Sen. Obama's efforts to re-define his position, especially concerning Jerusalem. See yesterday's op-ed in the NY Sun by Rick Richman for more.

6.Rhymes With Right: Ny Times Sides With Border Jumping Immigration Criminals - Rhymes with Right takes issue with a NYT editorial that condemned the authorities for raids on Iowa slaughterhouses that netted hundreds of illegal immigrants.To the Times they were committing victimless crimes. RwR points out that the violations of the law were not, in fact, victimless.
7.Wolf Howling: Critiquing The Obama Manifesto On Iraq
I had wanted to critique Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed. Wolf Howling did a much more exhaustive critique than I would have managed. He demolishes nearly all of Sen. Obama's claims.
8.The Razor:What Can We Do To Reduce Oil Consumption?
Using spreadsheets the Razor investigates ways for indivicuals to reduce oil consumption.One conclusion: drive less.

9.Done With Mirrors: Poetry Matters
Poetry's discussed at Done with Mirrors
I don't know if matters
If it doesn't rhyme.
10The Colossus Of Rhodey:The Latest - Global Warming Causes Kidney Stones!
You can tell when a "bogeyman" argument rather than a scientific argument is being made. When every single ill in the world is attributed to something then you have a bogeyman. Global Warming causing kidney stones is a perfect example.
11.Hillbilly White Trash:What To Do About The Dollar
Hillbilly White Trash provides a list of steps to take to strengthen the dollar.
12.The Education Wonk: Texas Teacher Shortage?
The Educations Wonks suggest that Texas needs to raise the salaries it pays teachers.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Lawrence of Cyberia gets a D+ in Ahmadinecology

Lawrence of Cyberia asserted recently that Ahmadinejad's ravings about the Holocaust actually contain a valid point that was also made by Arnold Toynbee. He explains:

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of the Holocaust: "If you (Europeans) committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?", most of us in the U.S. didn't hear anything beyond the initial "if". We heard that "if", and immediately launched into a cacophony of "If? What does he mean 'If'? Is he saying it never happened? He's a Holocaust denier!".

But of course Ahmadinejad didn't just say, "If it happened...". He said "If......, then why.....?". If Europeans did it, why are Palestinians paying? If Europeans were responsible for the Holocaust of the Jews, and the Holocaust is justification for a Jewish state, then why isn't that state in Europe? And that's a different issue altogether than simply denying the Holocaust took place.

He goes on to quote Toynbee:

If the creation of a new state of Israel was judged to be a legitimate form of compensation to the surviving Jews, the territory for this state should have been taken from the Europeans, not from the Arabs.

Same point, right? Not if you actually follow Ahmadinejad's train of thought. The historical truth of the Holocaust and the justification for the founding of Israel are indeed two different subjects. So there is an apparent odd lurch in focus involved in coupling whether the Holocaust happened and whether it justifies the founding of Israel. Unless, like Ahmadinejad, you think that the claim that the Holocaust occurred is a lie that was created expressly for the purpose of cheating the Palestinians and that otherwise nobody would ever entertain such a notion.

Holocaust denial, after all, is a giant conspiracy theory, and every conspiracy theory includes a notion of what the conspirators are trying to accomplish. Here is an account of Ahmadinejad's views from Iran's PressTV:

Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a pretext to occupy Palestine and displace millions of peoples, therefore its aspects should be studied. "They displaced the Palestinian nation under the pretext of the massacre of the Jews; if it is revealed that the Holocaust has nothing to do with the issue of Palestine and the figures in this regard are exaggerated, they will have nothing to say."

So in Ahmadinejad's mind he is delivering the ultimate gotcha point--that World Arrogance lie, he is proclaiming triumphantly, doesn't even serve the justification it was created for. As an abstract point, Toynbee is saying something that has a certain validity: one person should not pay for another person's sins. Ahmadinejad's point, however, is all part of the Holocaust-denying fun.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Not All Lebanese Celebrate Kuntar's Release

Lisa Goldman, who blogs at On the Face, has a post on Pajamas Media, where she notes that not everyone there is celebrating:

"How," asked several Israeli friends, "Can the Lebanese celebrate the release of a child murderer?"

In fact, there is ample evidence to show that not all Lebanese are cheering the return of Samir Kuntar.

Comments from Lebanese reader in response to the Naharnet report of the national celebrations are contemptuous, with many describing Kuntar as a child killer and a disgrace to Lebanon. Lebanese blogger Abu Kais quotes an editorial published on the Now Lebanon site:

The prisoner swap is not the whole deal, just the final clause. Conveniently forgotten are the reams of gory appendices in a much larger and bloodier contract written out almost exactly two years ago, with all of Lebanon as collateral. Indeed, the full audit is still ongoing.

How much is the Resistance's pledge worth? Add to the two Israeli bodies the bodies of 1,200 Lebanese civilians, nearly 400 of them children under the age of 13, sacrificed by Hezbollah to secure Kantar's return. Add to that the 4,400 wounded civilians, of whom almost 700 are permanently disabled. Add to that those killed and wounded, most of them children, by the cluster bombs still littering large swaths of South Lebanon. Add to that the billions of dollars in destroyed homes, infrastructure and livelihoods.

In the final tally, Kantar - whose alleged taste for violence far exceeds the remit of the typical heroic freedom fighter - is a very expensive man. For make no mistake, his release is the sole profit weighed against the thousands of Lebanese dead and wounded. The four other Lebanese prisoners to be released were themselves captured on his account during the July War, and the number and names of the Palestinians to be freed are entirely at Israel's discretion.

So Kantar will be freed, and Hezbollah's word is once again proven to be Lebanon's bond. We hope and pray that any Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails come at a cheaper price in the future. If each is as expensive as Mr. Kantar has been, they may find themselves heroically repatriated to a desolate wasteland.

And rather than comment directly, Lebanese blogger Jeha posts a poem that "welcomes" a "child killer."

Now Lebanon notes that with all of Nasrallah's bragging about his accomplishment, the fact remains that Nasrallah has failed to address the issue of captured Lebanese:

While Lebanon celebrates becoming "the first Arab country in the Israeli-Arab struggle to close its detainee file," as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah put it in a July 3 speech, many Lebanese still languish in Syrian prisons.

The exact number of prisoners and detainees is not known, and Syrian authorities have a history of keeping silent on the issue. During the civil war, approximately 17,000 people disappeared. Following the war, the arrest and disappearance of those expressing opposition to Syria's continued presence was common.

As far as what the future holds for Kuntar, The Lebanese Political Journal notes that political office may be in Kuntar's future:

Now, we hear in al-Akhbar newspaper that Hezbollah wants Qantar to run for parliament. Obviously, Druze leader and PSP chief Walid Jumblatt might oppose this. However, Qantar might run with Hezbollah's support.

Nothing would say more about Hezbollah's ethics than for them to nominate Qantar. The party claims moral legitimacy, but their actions defy their rhetorical claims.

Not all Lebanese agreed with Hizbollah's claim of victory in the war with Israel 2 years ago--realizing the enormous cost. Now too, the Lebanese may realize that this 'victory' of Hizbollah comes at a cost as well.

by Daled Amos

New Pro-Israel Group Takes Campuses By Storm

There seems to be a radically new approach to battling anti-Israel propaganda on campus--and it seems to be working:

Over the last couple of years, the Zionist Freedom Alliance (www.zfa.org.il) has been slowly taking American college campuses by storm with a message of Jewish rights not heard for many decades. Led by veteran IDF soldiers and activists in Israel, the ZFA presents Zionism to the youth as a revolutionary struggle for national liberation.

It is an approach that is different if for no other reason than that is is unapologetic:

o "Unlike most pro-Israel advocacy organizations that present Israel as a democracy or focus on the Jewish state's willingness to surrender territory, ZFA speaks of Israel as a Middle Eastern nation with a legitimate moral and historic right to its land."

o "While some mainstream Jewish groups focus on Israel's security needs, [ZFA leader Yehuda] HaKohen's message to campuses is one of Jewish rights. "We must make the world understand that the Jewish nation, like any other nation on the planet, has a right to self-determination in our country. Not in half of our country, but in our whole country."

o "While other pro-Israel organizations attempt to rationalize or depreciate the stridently nationalistic aspects of Zionism in order to court the favor of high-profile skeptics and to make their message palatable to wealthy and influential benefactors, HaKohen says that his group has learned out of necessity to work on a shoestring budget rather than alter their message. ZFA activists take no pains in concealing their belief in the unequivocal right of the Jewish nation to the entire Land of Israel. And the movement puts forward this message in a clear and simple yet powerful language that resonates with young people across North American campuses."

Another difference is that the group does not preach to the Right, but instead addresses the Left--and speaks in terms of their issues:

"there is nothing 'Right-wing' or 'Conservative' about wanting to keep our homeland free from foreign rule. If we are truly the indigenous natives in the conflict, then our cause should really be championed by liberal students everywhere. Especially since the Bush administration that occupies Iraq and imposes a Patriot Act on the American people is the very same administration pushing to ethnically cleanse the Jewish people from portions of our homeland." [emphasis added]

This is not a rhetorical device or a political ploy to gain the trust of the Left either--the ZFA bears strong opposition to American policies:

While this message has angered many American Jewish groups who tend to see Israel and America as allies in a global war against Islamic terrorism, it has actually earned the ZFA support from students who oppose globalization and America's War in Iraq. And it has neutralized anti-Israel voices who accuse "Zionists" of pushing America into a war that benefits Israel. In fact, most ZFA leaders oppose the Iraq War and see it as an aggressive act of neo-imperialism. And many of the students joining the ZFA today are young Jews who view themselves on the political Left. HaKohen attributes this support not only to his group's unique message, but also to their efforts to reach beyond the Jewish community.

For all of the success the ZFA is having, their biggest problem is not that it is not catching on with the students on campus, but rather that is not catching on with the Jewish establishment:

The ZFA's cutting edge message and methods have proven successful in taking the wind out of anti-Israel sails. But the movement is small and has been unsuccessful at persuading more established Jewish groups to follow their revolutionary lead. Therefore, says HaKohen, the movement works slowly, one campus at a time, to promote the Zionist revolution as a politically correct struggle for social justice.

Read the whole thing.

It has been said that Israel's dependence on the US and on its goodwill weakens it. According to the ZFA, this dependence goes so far as to weaken the idea of Zionism itself.

And who is to say they are wrong.

UPDATE: Compare the ZFA approach with The New York Sun's review of Natan Sharansky's new book, Defending Identity:

Mr. Sharansky writes that although identity can be "used destructively," it is also "a crucial force for good." Strong identities, he says, "are as valuable to a well-functioning society as they are to secure and committed well-functioning individuals. Just as the advance of democracy is critical to securing international peace and stability, so too is cultivating strong identities."

ZFA is proving that cultivating a strong Israeli identity without apologies (or discussing Israeli ties with the US) may provide the strongest defense of Israel on campus.

Further support that ZFA may be onto something comes from a poll back in March:

An article in the Jerusalem Post reports that Israel does not have an image problem in the US, based on a phone poll conducted by The Israel Project:

"Support for Israel has significantly increased" said Laszlo Mizrahi, noting a figure of 60% who declared themselves to be Israel supporters, 27% strong Israel supporters, 31% Palestinian supporters and only 8% neither or undecided.

The odd thing is that US support for Israel was not necessarily dependent on viewing Israel as 'moderate':

Iran was generally regarded as the most extreme, with 84% of respondents categorizing it as extreme, and Hamas was seen as extreme by 72%. Hizbullah was seen as extreme by 64% while 68% thought the Palestinian Authority was an extremist organization.

On the other hand, 40% of respondents said that Israel is extreme, and, even when compared to the others listed above, only 54% said Israel was the most moderate, followed by the Palestinian Authority, 21%, Iran 12% and Hamas and Hizbullah 10% each.[emphasis added]

According to the poll, Israel does not have to go out of its way to appear moderate in order to garner the support of Americans. If accurate, it may indicate that there is some value after all in unashamedly standing up for Israel's right to exist and sticking to the facts--without relying on pictures of half-naked Israeli women in popular men's magazines.

by Daled Amos

[Hat tip: Smooth Stone]

Kuntar release roundup 07/16/08

Boker Tov Boulder lists a number of prisoner releases and some of the crimes committed by the released terrorists.

Elder of Ziyon finds that the "moderate" country of Lebanon is celebrating the release of the murderer Kuntar.

Israel Matzav looks into the malaise Israel suffers from that led to the release.

This Ongoing War contrasts Israel's values with that of its enemies.

Daled Amos has misgivings about Misgav.

Israelly Cool presents Trivia Time. The answer, I'm sure is someone who is usually described as pro-Western or "moderate."

Meryl wishes Israel would lavish a generous parting gift on Samir Kuntar.

Treppenwitz weighs in with Let the enemy decide the rules:

These useful idiots pleaded for the IDF to spare the poor, hapless Lebanese who were caught between Israel's mighty army and Hezbollah's well entrenched forces... pointing out that the Lebanese deserved mercy because they are a modern, secular people just like us.

'Moderate' Lebanese blogs were linked, and the grand old days when Beirut was known as the 'Paris of the East' were invoked repeatedly... while doctored photos of burning Beirut neighborhoods became like fixed wallpaper behind the media's talking heads who dutifully read Hezbollah scripts about Israeli atrocities.

Ignored was the fact that these cosmopolitan Lebanese had watched approvingly for decades as Hezbollah set up rocket batteries and supporting military infrastructure in their towns and villages. Ignored was the cover and support these poor secular Lebanese willingly provided to Hezbollah for a generation.

Ha'aretz illustrates the kidnapping. The Regev and Goldwasser families put on a brave face.

Shlomo Goldwasser, the father of Ehud Goldwasser whose body was returned to Israel Wednesday morning as part of a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, said after seeing the his son's coffin that he and his wife did not want to see their son's body because they prefer to remember him as he was.

Background on the mediator.

Officially, Conrad's mediation effort has been on behalf of the UN secretary general, because the return of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser is part of Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the Second Lebanon War.

Except that the return of Regev and Goldwasser according to 1701 was supposed to be unconditional. Not only has Hezbollah re-armed under the watchful eye of UN forces, the UN refuses even to insist that the terms of 1701 be obeyed in this case. Not to mention that the kidnapping itself and the presence of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon violate 425.

Ron ben Yishai on the speech we won't hear from Olmert.

Therefore, even though we recently acquired credible information that Goldwasser and Regev are no longer alive, the government decided, on my recommendation, to approve the deal and ignore the warnings issued by the Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs. Had the Second Lebanon War ended in clear victory, had the Winograd Commission not criticized my conduct, and had my public and moral status not been eroded in the wake of the Talansky affair, I may have acted differently. Yet in my current status, I had no choice.

Danny Haran's brother feels "defeated."

Israel gets ready to pay interest on the transaction:

The feeling is shared by many in the IDF Northern Command, where senior commanders estimate that after two years of quiet, Hizbullah may use the period immediately following the swap to strike at Israel. While the possibility of another kidnapping attack against IDF soldiers is being taken into account, there is also a fear in the IDF that Hizbullah may try to infiltrate an Israeli town along the northern border.

No wonder it's being called Hezbollah's ultimate victory.

Crosposted on Yourish.

"horribly wrong"

From the NYT:

Hero's Welcome Expected in Lebanon for Captive of Israel
Perhaps Israel's most reviled prisoner, Samir Kuntar, will return to a hero's welcome when he crosses into Lebanon this week, 29 years after he left its shores in a rubber dinghy to kidnap Israelis from the coastal town of Nahariya.

That raid went horribly wrong, leaving five people dead, a community terrorized and a nation traumatized. Two Israeli children and their father were among those killed.

The Times then goes on to humanize Samir Kuntar pleading that he had a hard childhood. It also gives a rather abbreviated summary of the trial, quoting a doctor who testified that Einat was be

Point 1: Headline should read: Hero's Welcome expected in Lebanon for Mass Murderer.
(See Elder of Ziyon)
Point 2: "Horribly wrong?" When armed terrorists infiltrate a country and attempt to take hostages it's not surprising that people - often innocents - will die. The deaths of Danny Haran, his daughters and policeman Eliayhu Shachar were not unforeseen consequences of Samir Kuntar and his confederates. It's not like he was driving to his prom, took his eyes off the road and plowed into a crowd of pedestrians. That would be something gone horribly wrong. The gang of terrorists entered Israel intent on committing acts of violence. They succeeded in committing violence, even if they had other plans in mind.

The Times goes on to recount the unfortunate circumstances of Mr. Kuntar's youth and then provides a skewed summary of Kuntar's trial designed to raise doubts about his role in the murders of Danny and Einat Haran. (A more complete account of the trial is available at Israel's MFA website. h/t Backspin.)

It doesn't just take 30 years of hindsight to humanize a murderer Honest Reporting notes that news organizations were doing it immediately after the bulldozer attack in Israel two weeks ago.

There was no excuse for the story in the Times. The reporter consciously made every effort to minimize Samir Kuntar's guilt and raises no serious questions about societies that lionize such monsters. It's not like Kuntar is remorseful.

Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, whom Israel has agreed to free as part of a possible prisoner swap deal with Hizbullah, has vowed to continue engaging in terror after his release.

(h/t Solomonia)

Something did go horribly wrong. When a newspaper loses all its moral bearings and effectively defends the indefensible it loses its moral authority.

Kuntar deserves no sympathy, just some lead.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Goldberg via memeorandum:

If the raiders had succeeded in kidnapping Israeli civilians without murdering children, in other words, would it have gone just fine, by Craig Smith's standards?

Alternatively James Taranto asks:

What does the Times think would have happened if the "raid" had gone right?

Crossposted on Yourish.

Google Maps: What's Good For Israel Is Good For Iran

Last year an op-ed on YnetNews.com opined that:

We must get used to new reality where Google Earth uncovers our top secrets

The identification of sensitive strategic and security sites in Israel is a major objective for countries such as Iran and Syria. The intelligence gathering ability of Arab states in Israel is rather limited, particularly in all matters pertaining to the gathering of military intelligence via cutting-edge technologies. Until now, these countries were forced to rely on superpowers and commercial companies, which usually sold low-resolution images.

...However, now that we have this strip show, Arab states find it easier to point to the location they are interested in. When this website is used by an expert, who knows exactly what he's looking for at the sensitive site, the quality provided by the site may be enough to confirm or reject the existence of one site or another or of certain capabilities attributed to Israel.

Of course, the same tool should work in the other direction as well--shouldn't Google Earth make it possible to uncover facts about Iran as well. True, there shouldn't be anything of note that Google Earth can reveal about Iran that the US's own spy satellites can't uncover, but who is to say that the US is always going to be willing to share with Israel all of the intelligence they come up with. It's good to have other resources.

That point is illustrated by a post by James J. Robbins on National Review Online about Google Maps:

I was putting together a crisis decision making scenario for my Summer Seminar on Intelligence which posits a possible (and in my opinion inevitable) Iranian nuclear weapons test. Some open source analysts believe that the secret nuclear development site is near the town of Parchin, which is southeast of Tehran. The suspected facility is near a ridge a few kilometers east of the town. Down a road to the south is an area that might be a test site under preparation. It seems to fit the characteristics listed by the Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program (DTIRP). Looking further south I came across this very interesting high security compound with what looks like a communications tower. I hadn't seen this compound noted in other writings on Parchin, but it certainly piques one's interest, particularly the fact that it is walled off. I'm writing about it because I'm continually amazed at the public tools available these days that one can access from one's desktop, and also because while the parties who ought to know about that compound probably do, I have spent enough time in government to know that it never hurts to point things out in case they don't. [emphasis added]

Or in case the government is not in a sharing mood.

It's good to know that Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that is so easily accessible via Google--you know, just in case Israel decides to pay a visit.

by Daled Amos

Military Might and the Iranian Imagination

This may be an example of Iranian propaganda at its silliest, but it is also a revealing glimpse of what military might means to Iran, and it seems to involve the depopulation of Israel. From Ynetnews:

Iran continues to enjoy the dubious success of the military missile drill, which the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard held last week. The Iranian news agency IRNA reported to the country's residents on Monday that the Israelis were so terrified by the display of power that it has sparked a mass emigration.

Iran's national news agencies have become famous for their hyperbolic reports on the state's successes, and this time was no exception. According to recent reports, there has been an increase in "massive emigration from Tel Aviv following the military maneuver."

The report was not actually referring to the bustling city, but rather using Tel Aviv as a general term signifying Israel, which Iran has refused to recognize or mention by name.

"Following the successful maneuver executed by Iran last week, which included the firing of new missiles, Zionist residents living in occupied Palestine have begun to flee from there," the report said. "The residents told their illegitimate government that this was the reason they refused to go on living there." [...]

(Hat Tip: Eye on the World)

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Update: These things are always so much more fun coming straight from the horse's mouth. So without further ado, take it away Fars News!

Israelis have begun to fearfully evacuate occupied Palestine following the last week military maneuver and missile tests by Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

Iran's display of power has terrified Israelis so deeply that they have started mass emigration.

So where are they headed to? Iran?

Public enema #1

This is just weird:

Alexander Kharchenko, director of the Russian spa says the world's first monument to enema treatments has been unveiled at the spa in the southern city of Zheleznovodsk. The bronze syringe bulb, weighs 800 pounds and is held by three angels.

I just had to post it so I could use the title.

Crossposted on Pillage Idiot.

Tony's tolerance of terror has limits

The other day the Palestinians condemned two men to death for supposedly "collaborating" with Israel to target terrorists. These men weren't convicted by Hamas, but by the "moderate" Fatah faction that is in charge of Jenin.

Reacting to this story, Elder of Ziyon observed:

It's been about three years since a death penalty has been carried out in the PA, and most of them have been for "collaboration with the enemy" (the list is here.)

In other words, the internationally recognized government of the PA, who is supposedly Israel's peace partner, actively supports and defends known terrorists ("resistance fighters") , and rather than punishing the actual terrorists, it punishes those who try to stop them.

To put it bluntly, the PA is the enemy and there is no distinction between the Palestinian Authority and the terrorists whom it actively supports and defends.

So if Israel needs to act against terror threats, who can it depend on? Apparently only itself.

Israeli troops arrested seven Hamas figures Tuesday, including two municipal council members, in a widening crackdown on the Islamic militant group in Nablus, residents said.

The Israeli military confirmed that it arrested seven Palestinians in the city but did not elaborate.

And apparently Tony Blair depends on Israeli security too.

Israel's Shin Beth domestic intelligence agency warned Blair shortly before his arrival at the Gaza border that a "terror organisation" was planning to attack his motorcade, an agency official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

But the Islamist movement Hamas, which had welcomed the visit, said it had made the appropriate security preparations and accused Israel of pressuring Blair into cancelling the trip.

(h/t LGF)

(The headline of this "news" item gives credence to the Hamas claim by enclosing "threat" in scare quotes.)

Tony Blair (the guy pictured doing the Macarena) is someone who has regularly asked Israel to relax its security measures. It absolutely defies belief that he'd heed a warning that he didn't think was serious. I have no doubt he is concerned about his own welfare; his concern for Israelis is somewhat less certain.

Still Hamas's claim that Israel was somehow conniving to keep Blair from seeing the utter devastation visited upon Gaza by the Israeli blockade has some credibility with a particular gullible segment of the population: supposedly skeptical reporters.

Plus, we're talking about Tony Blair here, a href="http://www.yourish.com/2008/07/15/5099">who even braved untamed Iraq, presumably he doesn't scare easily..

Noah Pollak comments:

Don't you see? The Israelis, hoping to cover up their crimes, invented a "security threat" -- they lied, in other words -- to prevent Blair from going to Gaza and drawing attention to the "catastrophe" for which Israel is responsible. McGirk's evidence of this? Literally none.

No evidence, but McGirk was parroting the words of Hamas.

"The Israeli occupation exerted great pressure to prevent Tony Blair from visiting the Gaza Strip because they did not want him to see the size of the disaster caused by the unjust blockade," Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu said.

(McGirk's credibility takes another hit for writing:

Abbas is already playing second banana to Hamas in Gaza and is sulking over the fact that Hamas in large part has managed to keep up its end of the bargain and stop militants from lobbing rockets into southern Israel --upping their credibility among Palestinians and Arab states.

- emphasis mine - Hamas has control of Gaza, other than this week's ostentatious arrest of three Fatah affiliated rocket launchers, Hamas has taken no action to prevent attacks on southern Israel. Like Sunday.

Palestinians on Sunday fired two mortar shells into Israel from the Gaza Strip, the Israel Defense Forces said, in another violation of the fragile truce between Israel and Hamas in the coastal territory.

The shells, which Israel Radio said landed near the security fence, caused neither casualties nor damage. There was no word if Israel would retaliate for the mortar strike.

h/t Rubicon3)

Of course if Gaza's so badly off how can they afford to maintain horses for racing? What catastrophe is there for Tony Blair to see?

Crossposted on Yourish.

Strengthening hezbollah

Last month Nicholas Noe argued in the NYT:

Unfortunately, even though the Bush administration has provided more than $300 million in tactical aid to Lebanon since the Syrian withdrawal of 2005, it still apparently refuses to provide the kind of strategic weapons -- guided rockets, tanks, modern artillery and intelligence-gathering equipment -- that are desperately needed in this task. During her visit to Beirut this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't even mention the issue.

The reason for this, American and Lebanese officials say privately, is a longstanding prohibition against supplying Lebanese forces with advanced equipment that could be used against Israel.

This "red line" remains even though Hezbollah has far more dangerous weaponry, and despite Washington's commitment to build up the authority of the state. It is a testament to how short-sighted and contradictory the American approach to Lebanon has been.

David Schenker disputes Noe's claims and adds:

In the coming weeks, Washington may choose to modify its aid package to the LAF. If this occurs, it will be because of Hezbollah's recent political and military gains, not Israeli complaints. By blaming Israel for a weak LAF, Noe is essentially repeating Hezbollah's justification for retaining its army and arsenal.

It is in Washington's long-term interest to see the LAF develop into a strong national institution. But it's important to understand that the strength of this institution does not primarily rely on its capabilities, but rather on its will to take on difficult missions on orders from the democratically-elected government of Lebanon. No amount of U.S. military assistance will change this current dynamic.

Israel Matzav mentioned this dispute and adds:

Schenker apparently ignores the deep connections between the LAF and Hezbullah. The LAF will never be a national force until it is willing to challenge Hezbullah. Not only is that not happening (and I don't expect it to happen), but with a two-thirds Shiite composition, the LAF is assisting Hezbullah in its arms buildup by allowing Hezbullah to set up positions inside Shiite villages in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL cannot go without LAF escort, and then warning the terrorists when UNIFIL is coming to inspect. But then that continues a tradition of LAF collusion with Hezbullah that went on throughout the war two summers ago and even before it.

via memeorandum

On another front Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison argue that Israel's imminent trade of prisoners for corpses with Hezbollah strengthens Hezbollah politically.

The extra-legal behavior of the proxy organizations has two implications for the law applying to prisoners taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts. On the one hand, the organizations themselves illegally defy the laws of war by depriving Israeli POWs of their protected rights such as the right to contact Red Cross representatives and communicate with their families. On the other hand, the organizations' fighters are unlawful combatants who are not entitled to the protected status of POWs, and are subject to prosecution as war criminals. Indeed, these organizations fall under the definition of terrorist groups under such instruments as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and Israel - like other states - is legally obliged to take a variety of steps to foil the terrorists' activities and bring them to justice.

By exchanging prisoners with the proxy organizations as if they were law-abiding states, Israel can be seen as upgrading the status of the organizations' unlawful combatants from terrorists and war criminals, giving them the same rights as lawful soldiers, without demanding from them the reciprocal obligations. At the same time, Israel downgrades the rights of its own captured soldiers by overlooking the organizations' systematic depravation of POW rights for Israeli soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. The damage this does to both international law and the international criminal justice system is considerable.

Given that Hezbollah is a proxy army of Iran (and Syria) and that Iran is the major threat to the region, one would hope that the world appreciated the danger of strengthening Hezbollah militarily or politically. Given that Israel is the primary target of Hezbollah, one would assume that Israel would be most aware of the peril.

And yet it is others who are arguing the best way to fight Hezbollah, while Israel unilaterally entered into a deal with it. It makes no sense.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Will the barn door be closed in time?

John Bolton on Iran:

Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they're not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons.

Reliapundit thinks that possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities are overblown.

Were there any bad results when Israel destroyed Osirak - Saddam's nuke plant?

* Nope. Privately, everyone else in the region was grateful.

Were there any bad results after Israel destroyed Syria's nuke plant?

* Nope. Privately, everyone else in the region was grateful.

It will be the same after Israel destroys Iran's nuke assets.

And as Bolton points out: if Israel acts the United States will be blamed anyway, so the U.S. should support Israel's efforts.

via memeorandum

Crossposted on Yourish

Juggling carnivals 07/14/08

Incoming Carnivals

Haveil Havalim #173: The Wait For Avrech To Name It Edition is up at Jack's Shack; and enjoy the great photoshops. This just in: It's been named: Haveil Havalim #173: The Evelyn Keyes Edition

Carnival of Maryland #37 is up at Monoblogue, focusing on local, state and national politics. And I've received a submission from Executed today in the past for Haveil Havalim. In this case, it's a really fascinating bit of history (warning pictures of hangings) in the aftermath of LIncoln's assassination. One of the best bits of writing I've ever seen in a magazine was an examination of Dr. Mudd's guilt in the Weekly Standard by Andrew Ferguson.

And finally there's the Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities which has graciously included a post of mine, but focused at first on the Iranian fauxtography this week. Also I see posts from Israel Matzav, Yid with Lid, Simply Jews, Judeopundit, Wolf Howling, Don Surber and many more.

Upcoming Carnivals

And I guess I might as well let you know that I'm scheduled to host the next Kosher Cooking Carnival, so get your posts in. If you have a picture of the food, let me know if it's OK for me to grab it and use it to illustrate your post. While you're at, it check out the latest KCC at West Bank Mama.

Side show

Musical Monday #52 is up at Elie's Expositions. And be sure to check out the "stated" answers for Musical Monday #50.

blog carnivals.

Still unanswered

Newsbusters takes the NYT to task for ignoring the result of the Enderlein-Karsenty case. (Newsbusters acknowledged that the result was covered half-heartedly in the NYT's blog.)
Newsbuster's author Warner Todd Huston asks:

So what gives, New York Times? Why the reluctance to cover this new twist in the al-Dura story that you have used so many times in the past to support Palestinian terrorists? You have used this tale to beat the Israelis up for 8 years, now. But, we have final proof that this is a faked video. The Jews didn't kill little Muhammad al-Dura.

( via memeorandum )

Instapundit answers (with a question):

Because it opens the door to suggestions that this wasn't an aberration, but the norm in Mideast coverage?

It's a topic I wrote to the Times's public editor about two months ago. At the time I wrote:

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.

I still have not received a response from Clark Hoyt. I don't think that accuracy is the main goal of the NYT.

This failure doesn't just apply to the NYT but to nearly every major media outlet in American.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Ordinary evil

Rochus Misch is nostalgic about his former boss.

Misch recalls:
"He had a deep and quiet voice. There was no need to be scared if you made a mistake"

His boss

particularly enjoyed the parties thrown by his wife

and the boss was something of an egalitarian:

Nobody saluted their higher-ranking colleagues within the building.

And given that he worked for his boss in Berlin during the Nazi era, well, his boss was quite open minded. One of his boss's

favorite songs was composed by a Jew, and revealed that his personal cook was not a "real Aryan"

His boss even "had a small fund of jokes,"

His boss though wasn't a terribly sensitive sort as he

"... cracked jokes about concentration camp inmates."

Actually Rochus Misch's boss was Hitler, who was evil incarnate. By presenting these impressions through Mr.Misch's eyes news organizations are minimizing the enormity of Hitler's crimes.

And no, the sentence:

The war crimes that occurred under Hitler's leadership, including the Holocaust, go almost unmentioned in the book.

doesn't sufficiently detract from the narrative of an old man reliving the glory of his youth.

Back in 1983, Commentary magazine published "Interrogating Eichmann" taken from a book by Avner Less, who's job it was to build the case against Eichmann.

The book itself was reviewed by the New York Times. Two paragraphs in the review stick out in particular. First there's Less's description of Eichmann.

''My first reaction when the prisoner finally stood facing us in the khaki shirt and trousers and open sandals was one of disappointment. I no longer know what I had expected -probably the sort of Nazi you see in the movies: tall, blond, with piercing blue eyes and brutual features expressive of domineering arrogance. Whereas this rather thin, balding man not much taller than myself looked utterly ordinary. The very normality of his appearance gave his dispassionate testimony an even more depressing impact than I had expected.''

Then there's this incident which still boggles my mind:

There is unexpected drama in the relationship between the police captain and his prisoner. Eichmann respected his interrogator while trying to save his own neck. He felt that one uniform was speaking to another, that rank had its privileges, even for a prisoner. The reader watches for the cat-and-mouse interplay. When Captain Less tells him that his father had been deported to Auschwitz by Eichmann's own headquarters, Eichmann opens his eyes wide and cries out: ''But that's horrible, Herr Captain! That's horrible!''

So the Nazis did not come out of central casting. If anything their appearances seemed to have inspired Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" observation. But in Avner Less's telling, the ordinariness of Eichmann served to underscore the enormous evil he had committed. In the recollections of Rochus Misch, the ordinariness he describes allows him and the reporters covering him to put a soft focus around the Holocaust. They are sentimentalizing genocide.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Support Harry's Place Blogburst

For background, read Harry's own post, We're Being Sued By Hamas UK

Support Harry's Place Blogburst

Harry's Place, a UK blog dedicated to promoting the ideals of freedom and democracy, is being sued by Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, which has been linked to Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood, both terrorist organizations.  The blog reports that Mr. Sawalha, according to the BBC...

"master minded much of Hamas' political and military strategy" and in London "is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas' armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah".

In their revelation of the impending lawsuit against them leveled by Mohammed Sawalha, they write:

Mr Sawalha claims that we have "chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word". In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha's speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from "Evil Jew" to "Jewish Lobby", we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.

Mr Sawalha has been the prime mover in a number of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood associated projects. He is President of the British Muslim Initiative. He is the past President of the Muslim Association of Britain. He was the founder of IslamExpo, and is registered as the holder of the IslamExpo domain name. He is also a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque....

...Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase "Evil Jew" to him implies that he is "anti-semitic and hateful". Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas.

It looks like Harry's Place is going up against some pretty top-notch lawyers on this one, and they've got guts, but as the post goes on to say:

If Mr Sawalha persists in attempting to silence us with this desperate legal suit, we will need your help.

We won't be able to stand up to them alone.

This is why we've started this blogburst, to get the word out that we won't let members of Hamas or any radical terrorist group censor us or any of our fellow bloggers.

If you'd like to add your site to the blogroll, simply email us at admin@neoconstant.com, and include your site's URL.

Then copy and paste this (or write your own) entry into one of your posts.  Future posts will be emailed to you.  Thanks, and don't forget to head over to Harry's Place to show your support of their freedom of speech!

by Daled Amos

... thank you for the hezbollah view

Extreme Mortman rounds up Tony Snow's best bouts with Helen Thomas.

Here's the complete transcript with a link to the video of the "...thank you for the Hezbollah view" exchange.

In the LA Times obituary of Tony Snow, it mentioned this:

On June 13, when Compton was traveling with Bush in Paris, she received an e-mail from Snow inquiring about legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who had been ill.

"If you are in touch with her, would you please pass on my love?" Snow wrote of Thomas, one of the press corps' most outspoken war critics. "I think she knows how much she means to me, and to millions of others."

Practical or tacky?

A wedding hall ATM:

Guests at an Israeli wedding hall can now insert a
credit card into a machine at its entrance, tap in a sum and leave a gift for the bride and groom.


"It's new in Israel and the world," Aya Alon Kaufman of the Gan Oranim hall in Tel Aviv said on Israel's Channel 10. "It's very convenient ... guests can give a gift even if they forget their checkbooks."

Crossposted on Yourish.

I agree with andrew sullivan ...

on blogging:

I think Appell misunderstands the nature and appeal of blogging. It's a form of conversation, not a medium of absolute authority.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately as I noted the other day, the conversation has become dominated by professionals squeezing out the amateurs. (Of course, many of today's "professionals" did start out as amateurs.)

Shed my skin

Jack Kelly on Sen. McCain and a successful campaign issue (via instapundit).

The winning theme is obvious. We're paying roughly twice as much for gas as we should have to pay because the Democrats in Congress won't let us develop our energy resources. Sen. Barack Obama opposes drilling for oil, mining for coal, building nuclear power plants. If he's elected president, gas prices will rise to $5 a gallon or higher.

On the positive side there's this:

Mr. McCain has said (for him) some remarkably sensible things recently about energy. He's for drilling off our coasts. He wants to build more nuclear power plants. He's one of the few members of Congress to have opposed from the get-go the biofuels fraud, which, according to a recent World Bank study, has forced up global food prices 75 percent while only negligibly reducing demand for oil.

Opinion polls show a large majority of Americans favor drilling off our coasts, and comfortable majorities favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and building nuclear plants. A majority (even in Iowa!) now opposes ethanol mandates. Energy policy could be a game changer, as potent an issue for Republicans in 2008 as the war in Iraq was for Democrats in 2006.

Unfortunately:

But Mr. McCain has been Hamlet when he needs to be Henry V. He is discarding a strong hand through mixed messages and equivocation. He supports drilling on the outer continental shelf, but opposes it in ANWR. He backs a "cap and trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that would devastate our economy. Nuance is important in policy-making, but can be disastrous in political campaigning. If the trumpet be uncertain ...

(Larry Kudlow thinks that McCain has abandoned his support for "cap and trade.")
Kelly concludes:

Mr. McCain needs to decide, pronto, which is more important to him: Winning the election or receiving an occasional kind word from liberal pundits who will vote against him.

My only quibble with Kelly's diagnosis is that distancing himself from the environmental movement may be hard for McCain. He has been known to be very strong on environmentalism. One of his early political patrons was Mo Udall.

In order to take the positions that Kelly recommends, Sen. McCain will essentially have to say, "environmentalism as it exists is a luxury we can no longer afford." It won't simply be promoting a number of measures that are politically popular, but rejecting a big part of his political pedigree. Not every candidate can shed his political skin that easily. (via instapundit)

The army's top 10 inventions and the legacy of harry diamond

Harry Diamond was credited with developing the proximity fuze for artillery shells. (.pdf)

About a year before Pearl Harbor, the United States became interested in the development of the proximity fuze. It was calculated (and borne out in combat) that a fuze which would explode a projectile near a plane, or at the best height above a target on the surface, would increase lethality by a factor of five or ten.
Initial work was at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism. Two or three months later, the National Bureau of Standards was brought into the program, and Harry Diamond was given responsibility for this phase of the Bureau's work. Within about four months of the start of the program, Diamond's group established feasibility of the radio proximity fuze through conclusive tests in bombs dropped at the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren, Va. Throughout World WarI I, this group acted as the central laboratory of Division 4 of the National Defense Research Committee, and Diamond was the central figure of the group. Much of the basic proximity fuze technology was developed under his direction.

This invention was extremely important to the ground war in Europe but was used effectively in a number of scenarios.

During 1943 approximately 9,100 rounds of proximity-fuzed and 27,200 rounds of time-fuzed 5-inch anti-aircraft projectiles were fired. Fifty-one percent of the hits on enemy planes were credited to VT-fuzed projectiles. The proximity Fuze equipped shells success in repelling air attacks against fleet units reached its peak when a task group in the Pacific reported the destruction of 91 of 130 attacking Japanese planes. This high level of effectiveness was to save many servicemen's lives from the onslaught of Kamikaze attackers. Had not these Samurai minded pilots been removed from the air, they would have rammed their planes onto the decks of our navy vessels causing the death of many servicemen. The VT Fuzed shells were also used with great success in the Mediterranean and Atlantic theaters.
...
During 1944 the intense warfare in the European theater of operations necessitated the lifting of the ban against the use of the fuze where it might be recovered by an enemy. On 12 June 1944 the first V-1 "buzz bomb" fell on London marking the start of Hitler's massive effort to level the city by rocket. The all-out valiant effort of the Royal Air Force was not able to devise a good defense against this new weapon.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff reluctantly agreed upon the necessity of using the proximity fuze in the defense of London. Large numbers of anti-aircraft guns were moved to the channel coast where they could fire at the bombs over water. Success in destroying the V-1 rocket bombs by gunfire increased proportionally with the increase in the use of VT-fuzed projectiles. In the last month of the terrifying 80 days, 79 percent of the bombs engaged were destroyed as compared with the 24 percent destroyed during the first week of the attacks. On the last day of large-scale attacks only 4 Of 104 bombs succeeded in reaching their target. Some of the 100 destroyed are credited to the Royal Air Force and to the barrage balloons, but the majority of the V-1's were victims of proximity-fuzed projectiles. There was little profit to the enemy with such a small percentage of success so Hitler turned the weapon on the port of Antwerp, which at that time was vital to the Allied supply lines. In the autumn of 1944 the devastating damage wrought while the Allies were redeploying anti-aircraft guns threatened to close the port. As the number of guns firing the proximity fuze increased, the damage decreased and the Allies were able to move their guns closer and to assume the offensive against the aerial targets. The defense of Antwerp resulted in the Combined Chiefs of Staff removing all bans against the use of the fuze which was most fortunate for the allied soldiers fighting there.

And it was so recognized. (.pdf)

The War Department later described inventor Harry Diamond's proximity fuze as "one of the outstanding scientific developments of World War II ... second only to the atomic bomb" in military importance

I bring you this bit of history as an introduction to the recent announcement of 2007's top army inventions.

Every spring, the U.S. Army designates a set of top inventions from the preceding year. Rather than radical, out-of-the-blue creations, the list tends more toward refinements on existing gear, but that doesn't make them any less significant for the soldiers who use that gear in battlefield conditions.

The top inventions for 2007, honored in a ceremony last month, like last year's bunch has an emphasis on ways to reduce the threat of, or the damage from, improvised explosive devices. This year's group also recognizes a novel technique for saving the lives of severely injured soldiers.

One of these inventions is an improvement upon existing fuzing technology, the XM982 Excalibur precision-guided artillery projectile. (relevant pictures here and here.)

The targeting information of the shell is programmed by a setter immediately before firing and further information is transmitted in flight.

The recognition of these advances comes from soldiers in the field.

Nominations were submitted from across the Army laboratory community and evaluated by Soldier teams from the Training and Doctrine Command and Army divisions.

"The Army's greatest inventions are chosen by our customers - Soldiers who use the equipment in war zones and whose lives depend upon having the best equipment," said Dr. Joseph A. Lannon, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center director.

"There is nothing more satisfying and motivating to our workforce than knowing they have made a difference to our Soldiers on the battlefield," Lannon said.

The Army's 10 greatest inventions program was initiated in 2002.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Seattle Greenies: Please take our money

What a bash! What greater spectacle of happiness could there be than a person with a child named "Sequoia" contemplating a "green-fee" for grocery bags?

Standing with her 5-month old son, Sequoia, in her arms, Ravenna resident Liz Tatchell told a Seattle City Council panel what members would hear from citizens throughout the night -- Seattle is ready to bag the grocery bags.

"I think it's a great step in the right direction," Tatchell said Tuesday during the first public hearing on a proposed ban on foam food containers and a fee for disposable grocery bags. "It's more than just the bags -- it's a lifestyle change."

Like Tatchell, nearly all of the dozens of Seattleites who spoke during the lively hearing supported the proposal. Representatives of the grocery industry were less sanguine, with most arguing for a flat fee rather than a per-bag charge.

At issue during the hearing before the council's Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities Committee was a total ban on polystyrene containers and a fee on disposable bags, be they plastic or paper.

The hearing served as a coming out party for the proposed regulations, which were floated by Mayor Greg Nickels in April. If enacted, the new regulations would ban not-so-green food containers -- from polystyrene to-go boxes to plastic sauce cups and forks -- and would assess a 20-cent-per-bag "green fee" on shopping bags.

Since its unveiling, the proposal has been received alternatively as a bold step toward a sustainable Seattle or an attack on Seattle's poor and middle-class residents.

Tuesday's event got off to a silly start, with a short statement by a Shoreline city councilwoman accompanied by a woman wrapped in 400-plus plastic bags. Her presentation was followed nearly two hours later by an appearance from the "Plastic Menace" -- one Jake Harris of Wallingford, wrapped in plastic bags.

Members of the activist organization Raging Grannies belted out a slightly revised version of the Woody Guthrie standard "This Land Is Your Land" that urged conservation. [...]

Oh, to have been there . . .

Crossposted on Judeopundit

When Weak Leaders Need To Be 'Bolstered,' Israel Is The Go-To Guy

Welcome to the Sarkozy plan--"a new initiative that calls on Jerusalem to hand over the Mount Dov/Shaba Farms area to the United Nations".

The idea to hand over the land to the UN was reportedly raised during meetings Sarkozy held with the newly-elected Suleiman during a visit to Beirut early last month. The thinking behind the initiative is that by relinquishing the land Israel will erase Hizbullah's excuse to use force, namely, returning the Shaba Farms to Lebanon.

In addition, it is thought that this could bolster US-backed Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. [emphasis added]

Sure, after the obvious success of bolstering Abbas, this is the next most obvious step.
I wonder if Condoleezza ever sells Olmert on this or that concession on the basis of how it will bolster President Bush in the waning months of his presidency.

Has the US ever requested that the Arab world return the favor and do something--anything--to bolster Olmert? Actually, yes. Back on January 12, 2006:

Olmert is also expected to become Israel's Prime Minister in the coming days, when Attorney General Menachem Mazuz declares that Sharon has become permanently incapacitated.

In addition, the U.S. has informed the PA and Arab countries that Olmert's stature must be strengthened as the elections approach in order that he "continue the process that Sharon started." So reports the PA's Arabic-language Al-Manar newspaper. [emphasis added]

For all the good it did anyone. Don't expect Rice to seriously call on the Arab world to do anything that might improve Sionara's image.

No, when it comes to supporting weak leaders, Israel is the one you go to.

by Daled Amos

How Much Can The Media Reports On Iran's Missiles Be Trusted?

Putting aside Thursday's headline in the Times Online -- Picture: Iran 'fakes' missile launch after misfire, just how reliable is the media when it comes to reports Iran's military capability? Apparently the Iranian missile launch was enough to trigger a spike in oil prices--but is too much weight being given to Iran's claims?

Blogging on Pajamas Media, Spook86 of In From The Cold asks Is Tehran Bluffing?

Secondly, reporting on the missile test -- or at least the information available so far -- ignores the salient question about the supposed "highlight" of the exercise: the launch of an extended range Shahab-3 that could target Israel. This is not the first time Iran has tested a longer-rage version of the Shahab-3; launches involving that type of missile date back almost a decade.

But many of those tests had something in common: they resulted in failures, ranging from missiles that blew up in flight, failed to achieve the desired range, or strayed badly off course. So far, Tehran hasn't provided details on Wednesday's Shahab-3 launch, only saying that it has a maximum range of 1250 miles and is capable of carrying a one-ton payload. If the extended-range Shahab-3 remains unreliable, it will pose less of a threat to Israel and other potential targets in the Middle East.

In fact, Iran reportedly stopped work on another missile program (dubbed the Shahab-4), replacing it with BM-25 intermediate range missiles from North Korea. The BM-25 -- based on an old Soviet SLBM design -- arrived in Iran more than a year ago but has not been operationally tested. Cancellation of the Shahab-4 and slow progress with the BM-25 suggest continuing problems with Tehran's intermediate and long-range missile programs.

Deficiencies can also be found among operational systems. Media reports on Wednesday's launch are wildly inaccurate in one important element: characterizing many of the missiles tested as long-range systems. The Shahab-3 is actually classified as a medium-range system; the other missiles tested appear to be short-range systems, capable of reaching targets less than 150 miles away -- and with only limited accuracy.

In fact, the three missiles that were launched simultaneously (and highlighted in press photos) are unsophisticated battlefield rockets, probably a Zelzal variant. Iran first introduced the Zelzal in the mid-1990s; it was based on the Russian Frog-7 design, which dates from the 1950s. Not exactly state-of-the-art. But the western press accepts Iranian military claims uncritically and often inflates the threat, much to Tehran's delight.

Read the whole thing.

Can the media, which accepts the claims of terrorists in the region as fact, be considered any more reliable when it comes to the claims of Muslim countries? On his own blog, Spook86 writes:

As we've noted in previous posts, Tehran's displays of armed might sometimes laughable, if you only bother to take a closer look.

But give Iran some credit. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to pass off a World War II torpedo as an unbeatable naval weapon, or advertise a 50-year old rocket design, coated with radar-absorbing paint, as a "stealth missile." And it takes a lazy, gullible press to fall for those claims, hook, line and sinker.

By the same token, the world cannot afford to turn a blind eye to what Iran is up to either. But a trained eye would be nice. The Wall Street Journal speculates on what kind of threat Iranian missiles offer down the road based on the Iranian test launch:

Replace the payload with a lighter one - say, a nuclear warhead - and the range gains 1,000 miles. Add a booster and the range can be extended even farther. North Korea did just that with its Taepodong missile - technology that it passed along to Iran. U.S. intelligence estimates that Iran will have a ballistic missile capable of reaching New York or Washington by about 2015.

Iran may already have the capability to target the U.S. with a short-range missile by launching it from a freighter off the East Coast. A few years ago it was observed practicing the launch of Scuds from a barge in the Caspian Sea.

With all of this, there is no relief from an op-ed in YnetNews.com which claims that Israel is not even the main target of Iran:

What Iran really wants is the Persian Gulf, which the Arabs refer to as the Arab Gulf. Iran emerged out of a great empire. Today, it wants to regain its place as the successor of this empire and of the Muslim empire. It united the two and ultimately it wants to take over Gulf states and Syria, and use Lebanon as a large seaport for oil.

The Iranians are an ancient people with a long history. They do not wish to become extinct. What they do want is the billion dollars a day earned by Saudi Arabia. The Iranians want ancient Islam and they are going for the jackpot with the common sense that is lacking among our Mofazes, our politicians, and our arrogant military officers.

Even if the Iranian missiles are to some degree a sham, while you can laugh at their attempts at Photoshopping, but you can't laugh off the ability of the Iranian government to control events in the region.

by Daled Amos

Americans eating bagels to counter depression

According to the Dissident Voice the real cause of the obesity epidemic is "mild depression." Later the article mentions stress and lack of sleep, but that isn't exactly depression. What are we depressed about? The Bush presidency? And what does the author have against bagels? Do you reach for a bagel in the same circumstances in which you would reach for some potato chips?

Contrary to what Americans have been led to believe, the epidemic rise of excess weight gain and obesity in this country is not the result of overeating fat laden foods. The obesification of America is the direct result of a mild depression that causes people to savagely crave, and then overeat, junk food carbohydrate (sugar).

Junk food is the trillion dollar food industries legal drug for this mild depression and, although it's been very profitable for the food companies, it's been devastating for the health of the American public. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 368,000 Americans died last year from obesity related illnesses. In comparison, fewer than 14,000 Americans die annually from all the illegal drugs combined. This epidemic is an ominous threat to our country's future.

America's overconsumption of the chips, bagels, sodas, pastries, sweets, fries, etc., stems from ferocious cravings that are triggered by low levels of a key neurotransmitter or chemical messenger in the brain called Serotonin. Serotonin is the feel good hormone that affects mood and cravings.

Depleted levels of Serotonin are caused by the contemporary lifestyle factors of stress, poor nutrition, and the lack of quality sleep. [...]

And we all know what causes lack of sleep: blogging!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

As the wrmea turns

When I first read about the plight of Gaza reporter Mohammed Omer, I was suspicious.

Omer claimed that when he returned to Gaza (via Jordan) after receiving a "journalism" award he was mistreated and beaten by Israel guards. The truth was that the pictures of Omer, didn't show someone who was in such bad shape. I wasn't the only one who noticed.

Snapped Shot for example noted that compared to the treatment some reporters suffered at the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah, this wasn't even worth mentioning:

Get a tiny scratch from the IDF, however, and it's time for weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Israel Matzav heaped on some more scorn:

I want you to look at this picture where Omer is holding up his left arm. Am I the only one who thinks that looks more like a 'hickey' than that someone beat him?

The Israeli authorities have looked into Omer's case and found his complaints to be without basis. HonestReporting UK has the scoop:

Regarding the Complainant's collapse, as it were, it should be noted that the paramedic who attended to him found no evidence of a physical cause of collapse. The Complainant's behaviour raises doubts as to the sincerity of the situation. In any event, the Complainant was sent to an infirmary and an ambulance was ordered for him.

As to the Complainant's allegation that he was compelled to stand on his feet for twelve hours, we point out that according to our records, the Complainant arrived at the Allenby Crossing at approximately 11:00, and the entire incident ended at approximately 14:00. Thus, this claim is also baseless.

Read the whole thing.

Ah, but you'll say, "Of course, Israel would claim this. It must defend the actions its security forces took against an award winning journalist."

Wait, stop right there. Mohammed Omer is not a journalist. He "reports" for the Washington Report on Mideast Affairs (WRMEA), a publication of the innocuously named American Educational Trust (AET). AET is a virulently anti-Israel (if not antisemitic) organization headed by former diplomats who represented the United States in the Arab world.

Since George W. Bush was elected President there have been occasional news stories about diplomats who have joined together to criticize President Bush for not pressing Israel more. These weren't spontaneous gatherings, but organized by AET or a related organization the Council on the National Interest. However in order to embarrass the president these criticisms were treated as news and not as the press releases from a highly biased organization.

Still what does this have to do with Omer's trustworthiness? AET didn't hire him as a reporter but as a propagandist. Take this article he wrote about Christian in Gaza.

Father Musallam explained why Christians in Gaza do not feel singled out or oppressed. "Palestinian Christians are not a religious community set apart in some corner. We are part of the Palestinian people," he asserted. "Our relationship with Hamas is as people of one nation. Hamas doesn't fight religious groups. Its fight is against the Israeli occupation."

When asked about Western media reports that Gaza's Christians are considering emigrating because of Islamic oppression, Father Musallam sighed. "If Christians emigrate, it's not because of Muslims," he emphasized. "It is because we suffer from the Israeli siege. We seek a life of freedom--a life different from the life of dogs we are currently forced to live."

This isn't reporting, it's propaganda. Father Musallem is often quoted in the media. And he can be counted on to criticize Israel and apologize for Hamas. I don't know if he's a coward or an accomplice.

Still this is false. Christians aren't moving out of the Middle East (and Israel specifically) because of Israeli oppression. In fact the numbers tell a much different story.

Midway through this century, Christians comprised about 80 percent of the population of Bethlehem. Christians now make up less than 15 percent of the town. This is a trend that mirrors the Christian flight throughout the Palestinian Authority. However, this exodus began long before Israeli checkpoints and the security wall. It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of the Christian population fled during the time when Jordan occupied the West Bank. The Christian population under the Palestinian Authority has suffered from a negative growth-rate and now number less than 50,000, or about 2.4 percent of the population.

In fact, the Christian population throughout the Middle East has been in rapid decline. In 1900, Christians comprised 20 percent of the population of the Middle East; now, they are less than 2 percent. While the Muslim population has expanded rapidly in Europe and the U.S., Christians in the Middle East have experienced a negative population-growth rate. The only country noting a positive growth rate for Christians is Israel.

To call Omer a critic of Israel is to sell him short. His false and easily refuted portrayal of Israel's oppression of Christian is not the work of a critic, it is the work of a hater. Of course he's writing for an organization that hates Israel (despite its claim of supporting resolution 242). Mohammed Omer is not trustworthy, so there's no reason to believe his claim.

This leads to one final irony. Elder of Ziyon observed that Omer was abroad to receive the Martha Gellhorn prize. Here's the truth about Martha Gellhorn:

Martha Gellhorn was an amazing journalist who did some groundbreaking reporting over sixty years, traveling to most major conflicts.

I've mentioned her views on Palestinian Arabs in the past, when she filed reports from 19611967. Even though she was a committed leftist, she had no patience for how the Palestinian Arabs had turned into pawns in the conflict nor for their wildly inflated claims as to what happened in 1948. She was passionately pro-Israel.

So she would be aghast at the fact that the award named in her honor has been going to people who she would have eaten for lunch in real life, such as Robert Fisk. The award committee includes such rabid anti-Israel advocates as John Pilger.

It's not enough that Mohammed Omer is a crude and dishonest anti-Israel propagandist. He has also been awarded a prize named for someone who supported the Zionist enterprise that he opposes.

UPDATE: Above I argued that Mohammed Omer should have had no credibility on account of his ties to WRMEA. There's a stronger argument, he was contradicted by a doctor in a Jericho hospital:

Dr. Diaa Husseini, who examined Omer at the hospital, said the journalist had no signs of physical injury. He said Omer had suffered a nervous breakdown brought on by emotional stress and was given stomach medication and released after two hours.

(h/t Noah Pollak)

Crossposted on Yourish.

A domestic libertarian case for mccain

Crablaw explains his opposition to Sen. McCain.

McCain favors a expanded, continued war, and war is the first, biggest and most corrupt government program.

However on the domestic front, Phillip Klein argues that Sen. McCain should have some appeal to libertarians. (Klein does concede, though, that he can understand libertarians opposing McCain on account of his foreign policy.)

The only thing that should matter is who is better on spending between Barack Obama and John McCain. During the Bush years, McCain opposed many of the spending initiatives that drove up the cost of government. He never requested an earmark, voted against the energy bill, and the farm bill, and even campaigned in Iowa against ethanol subsidies. Obama has the opposite view of McCain on all of these issues, and has proposed hundreds of billions in new spending, including a health care reform package that creates a new government run Medicare-like entitlement as an alternative to private insurance.

Easy to be soft

Reacting to a news story "Betancourt Vows Not to Cut Hair Until FARC Frees All Hostages", James Taranto yesterday noted sardonically, "That'll Show 'Em."

Such a move would no doubt be an expression of solidarity with the captives who were not rescued, but it will likely have no effect on speeding up their return.

In fact the show of solidarity is an example of what Charles Krauthammer calls soft power. He argues in How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated (or here) that soft power sounds great in theory, but it's hard power that actually gets the job done.

Unfortunately, karma does not easily cross the Atlantic. Betancourt languished for six years in cruel captivity until freed in a brilliant operation conducted by the Colombian military, intelligence agencies and special forces -- an operation so well executed that the captors were overpowered without a shot being fired.

This in foreign policy establishment circles is called "hard power." In the Bush years, hard power is terribly out of fashion, seen as a mere obsession of cowboys and neocons. Both in Europe and America, the sophisticates worship at the altar of "soft power" -- the use of diplomatic and moral resources to achieve one's ends.

Europe luxuriates in soft power, nowhere more than in l'affaire Betancourt in which Europe's repeated gestures of solidarity hovered somewhere between the fatuous and the destructive. Europe had been pressing the Colombian government to negotiate for the hostages. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez offered to mediate.

Of course negotiating with, what one of Betancourt's fellow captives accurately called, "terrorists" is of limited utility. Ask Israel when Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are coming home. (A few weeks ago Moshe Arens reminded us that in 2002, Israel did successfully defeat terrorists:

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.

Arens observes, however, that Israel's leadership has forgotten the lesson learned.)

But exercising hard power has its costs.

And who's going to intervene? The only country that could is the country that in the past two decades led coalitions that liberated Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Having sacrificed much blood and treasure in its latest endeavor -- the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from the most barbarous tyranny of all, and its replacement with what is beginning to emerge as the Arab world's first democracy -- and having earned near-universal condemnation for its pains, America has absolutely no appetite for such missions.

And even Betancourt, Krauthammer observes, didn't thank America for its help in gaining her freedom.

It may require hard power to get a job done, but for all the costs hard power incurs, it is, perhaps, easier to be soft.

Council speak 07/11/08

The Council has spoken.

The council and non-council votes both ended in ties, which were broken by the Watcher himself.

On the council side newcomer the Razor scored his second victory during his brief (so far) tenure with American Whining and the Culture of Dependency an fine lament on the lack of American self-sufficiency. Wolf Howling's excellent and encyclopedic Identifying Obama's Real Position on the Second Amendment (Updated) was another top finisher. I was honored that my post You May Now Assume the Risk critiquing Clark Hoyt's defense of the NYT's decision to publish the name of a CIA agent was tied at the top at the end of the voting.

On the non-counci side Is Gun Control Behind Our Loss of Civil Liberties? by Bishop Hill
won the tiebreaker over Former CIA Agent in Iran Comes In from the Heat at Pajamas Media.

Congratulations to the winners (and thanks to my colleagues for voting for me!)

watcher's council.

MPAC-UK asks "Will The Zio-Powers Attack Iran?"

You know, the Zio-Powers. The United States and Israel, the Big and Little Satan. The article is from Arab American News, but the title is fine vintage MPAC:

[...] Common sense tells you that at a time when the United States is already neck-deep in two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not likely to open another front in Iran. Especially when it's doing so miserably on both fronts.

And particularly when the U.S. and world economies are in such a mess and oil prices are shooting sky high. Besides, there are less than six months before this born-again president leaves the White House.

This is why the idea of an attack on Iran seems so utterly absurd and downright stupid. This is totally illegal too, because according to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - to which Iran is a signatory - every signatory state has a right to peaceful nuclear power. And uranium enrichment is part of this right.

Which is why even these sanctions - three rounds of them, which the E.U. and United States have imposed on Tehran - are illegal too. These sanctions have been inflicted on Iran despite the fact that it has taken every step of its nuclear program under the watchful eyes and cameras of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [...]

Last time around when they came for Iraq despite opposition from the U.N. and endless protests in Western capitals, a deafening silence descended on the Arab and Muslim world.

There was not a single voice of protest in the so-called Arab and Muslim street. And their leaders persuaded themselves that perhaps the Baathist dictator after all deserved this disgraceful end. They told themselves, okay, Iraq is different. They convinced themselves this wouldn't happen again.

And now they are preparing to take out Iran. And they will come again and again to take out everyone who stands up for one's rights and refuses to surrender to big bullies . . .

The world arrogance and bullying powers?

Crossposted on Judeopundit

More Explosive News: "Mysterious explosion," "third round" of Jewish Qassams

Life is full of mystery:

Unknown assailants blew up the headquarters of the Yabous Charitable Association in Rafah in the Gaza Strip in the early hours of Thursday morning.

Eyewitnesses said they heard a huge explosion at 2 am.

The huge explosion destroyed the entire building, but no one was injured.

The reasons behind the attack remain unknown and the de facto government's police force have begun an investigation.

Life is full of irony:

Israeli settlers, taking a page from Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, launched three homemade projectiles at Palestinian villages south of the city of Nablus, in the West Bank on Wednesday.

Palestinian security source told Ma'an: "The projectiles were launched on Tuesday evening from the settlement of Bracha at the villages of Burin and Madama, they landed near civilians' houses with no injuries reported."

This was the third such attack. The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israeli army are investigating the incident.

Information delivered by Israeli army to the PA says that the projectiles were launched by a group of extremist students at a theological school located in the settlement.

No arrests were made in the previous two projectile attacks.

Not to mention the thousands of rounds of projectile attacks going in the other direction.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Professional courtesy

There's an old riddle:

Q) What do you call it if a lawyer falls into the ocean and the sharks leave him alone? A) Professional courtesy.

When I read this I couldn't help thinking of that punchline.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill to limit shark finning, a practice that is "is driving their decline worldwide," according to the bill's sponsor.

Independents seem to vanish in the haze

Last October I made it to a very flattering list. Soccer Dad was listed as one of the 100 most influential blogs for 2006 in a study by Carnegie Mellon University. (I was ranked 22.) I'm not going to pretend that I understand the algorithm that produced these rankings. I believe that to some degree this list credited bloggers who linked a lot to other bloggers and who get linked. Going through the list, I'm reasonably certain that I had one of the smallest audiences of those 100. (FWIW, LGF was did not make the list.)

Two factors that I can think of led to my inclusion. One is that I was running a blogging carnival, Haveil Havalim at that time. The other is that at the end of the year I was accepted into the Watcher's Council. If CMU does the study again, I suspect that I'll be ranked lower in 2007. And I will not be ranked at all in 2008. Something's been changing in the blogosphere.

Outside the Beltway has noted a couple of the changes. For one there seems to be a decline in linking from other blogs. I think that means that blog linking may be done less frequently now. James Joyner's observations may hold true for himself, but for less visited bloggers (such as myself), I do think that's happening. He also notes that blogrolls are less important. That's been true for years. Once upon a time, bloggers used to value being mentioned on someone else's blogroll, but with bloglines and other readers that's just not as important anymore.

But there's another change going on. Go to memeorandum. Look at the sources. Of course you will see the major newspapers. But look at the websites cited. There's the Politico, the Atlantic (Ross Douthat, Marc Ambinder, Andrew Sullivan, Megan McArdle etc), Pajamas Media, Commentary, Talking Points Memo, The Huffington Post, Daily KOS and Salon are all prominently represented. The presence of independent bloggers has been reduced and that's only been in the past few months. I used to get traffic from memeorandum when I was the first to respond to an op-ed. Now it doesn't happen as frequently.

Another place that used to drive traffic to me was Buzztracker. That was because Real Clear Politics would publish the top few entries of Buzztracker on their front page. But in recent weeks Real Clear Politics scaled back Buzztracker's presence and added some links to blogs. But those blogs that get linked are almost always from the organizational blogs.

When I use the term independent, I mean blogs unaffiliated with an organization. I guess that Outside the Beltway still qualifies because it is a standalone blog. (I blog occasionally for the OTB Sports affiliate.) But Instapundit is not, because he's affiliated with Pajamas Media now.

 So if you haven't managed to get noticed and asked to join a network, you're fighting an uphill battle now trying to build an audience. It isn't as easy to get noticed because organizations are now blogging and it's squeezing the little guy. In addition some tools no longer are as reliable as they once were.

Instapundit recently noted that technorati is often down. Technorati used to be a tool I'd use to find out if others were blogging about the same topic I was, but it's become so unreliable I can't use it for that anymore.

Last year Meryl Yourish invited me to co-blog at Yourish, something for which I'm very grateful for it gave me wider exposure than I'd had before. Still, if you're an independent blogger the chances of getting discovered have decreased markedly in the past few months. To a large degree we've been squeezed by the MSM and other organizations that are increasingly defining the blog "conversation" going on and leaving us out.

Last year Me-ander mocked celebrity bloggers. At the time (though I agreed with her specific criticism), I thought it was good that blogging was catching on with the "establishment." Now I'm not so sure.

There are options. Right now I take advantage of Little Green Footballs' linkviewer to promote my posts and get a boost in traffic through that. I participate in a few blog carnivals and as mentioned above, I'm a member of the Watcher's Council. I guess that another way that other independent bloggers can increase their visibility would be organize a weekly competition along the lines of the Watcher's Council. That would result in more incoming links. Plus there are bigger bloggers out there who are receptive to tips and will credit you. If you see a blogger who's blogged something along the lines of what you blogged, send an e-mail. It may get you a mention.

And take on co-bloggers. Daled Amos and JudeoPundit add a lot here, covering items that I often don't get too. I think also that readers like having a variety of voices.

I guess I can't blame others. I've been at this for a long time (since December 2003) and I've only managed to draw a modest audience of regulars. Still it's a little galling that one of the things that's now inhibiting my growth are the very entities that I set out to challenge.

Once upon a time I was a small fish in a small pond, now I'm a slightly larger small fish in a much vaster pond.

International israeli influence (the good kind)

Newsweek's reporting (h/t Noah Pollak)

Borrowing television formats isn't new; some of our most successful franchises--"American Idol," "Survivor," "The Office," to name three--started in Europe. But with two shows hitting TV this year and another two in development, it's Israel that is fast becoming Hollywood's cheat sheet. "B'Tipul," a drama about a therapist and his demanding clientele, was adapted into HBO's critically acclaimed series "In Treatment." Premiering this fall on CBS is "The Ex List," which was adapted from the Israeli series "Mythological X." "List" is a romantic comedy about a woman who learns from a psychic that she has already dated--and broken up with--her soulmate, and if she can't narrow him down from her lengthy roster of suitors, she'll spend life as a spinster. It's no wonder Israel is such a close friend of the United States. To judge from their television shows, the Israelis are just as neurotic as we are.

And what about "All in the Family?" It's interesting that Israeli television has progressed to the point where American television seeks to emulate it.

Daled Amos points out that there are another couple of concepts in the pipeline too. (Also from the Newsweek article.)

Also forthcoming are adaptations of "Merhak Negia" ("A Touch Away"), a story of forbidden love between an Orthodox Jewish woman and a Russian immigrant, and "Loaded," an "Entourage"-like comedy about a quartet of dotcom millionaires. And as long as Israeli television shows combine high quality with low price tags, it doesn't take a psychic to predict that more television executives will be making pilgrimages to the Holy Land.

Interesting about those dotcom millionaires. I guess that show doesn't have as much to do with neurosis as American admiration for Israeli tech know-how.

Anthony, the managing partner of New York-based venture-capital fund 21 Ventures, told a Montreal audience that Israel is "the single best place in the world to invest in technology ventures."

Anthony was the guest speaker at the inaugural Albert Einstein Business Forum, co-sponsored by the Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Government of Israel's Economic Mission to Canada. The guests came largely from Montreal's financial and investment sector.

He founded 21 Ventures four years ago when even high risk-tolerant investors were shying away from Israel after the tech bubble burst and the intifadah was still being waged.

He has investments now in 20 seed and early-stage technology companies in Israel and the United States, mainly in the physical security, clean energy and mobile software fields, and is actively seeking more.

(h/t NY Nana at LGF links)

Crossposted at Yourish.

They'll be working overtime at nasa's eeo office

The Dallas City Hall Blog reports via memeorandum:

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

Jammy Wearing Fool simply observes:

Seems we'll never escape this politically correct insanity.

A commenter at Michelle Malkin's wonders:

Commenter annursa: "I'm confused. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee insists that hurricanes should be given "African-American names" such as 'Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn.' Which natural phenomena are to be associated with a particular color or race ... and which aren't?"

I suspect that this will cause some problems at NASA.

Chandra observations of the galaxy NGC 1365 have captured a remarkable eclipse of the supermassive black hole at its center. A dense cloud of gas passed in front of the black hole, which blocked high-energy X-rays from material close to the black hole. This serendipitous alignment allowed astronomers to measure the size of the disk of material around the black hole, a relatively tiny structure on galactic scales. The Chandra image (shown in the inset) contains a bright X-ray source in the middle, which reveals the position of the supermassive black hole. An optical view of the galaxy from the European Space Observatory's Very Large Telescope shows the context of the Chandra data.

Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/INAF/Risaliti Optical: ESO/VLT

This composite image shows the jet from a black hole at the center of a galaxy striking the edge of another galaxy, the first time such an interaction has been found. In the image, data from several wavelengths have been combined. X-rays from Chandra (colored purple), optical and ultraviolet (UV) data from Hubble (red and orange), and radio emission from the Very Large Array (VLA) and MERLIN (blue) show how the jet from the main galaxy on the lower left is striking its companion galaxy to the upper right. The jet impacts the companion galaxy at its edge and is then disrupted and deflected, much like how a stream of water from a hose will splay out after hitting a wall at an angle.

Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/D.Evans et al.; Optical/UV: NASA/STScI; Radio: NSF/VLA/CfA/D.Evans et al., STFC/JBO/MERLIN

Results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, combined with new theoretical calculations, provide one of the best pieces of evidence yet that many supermassive black holes are spinning extremely rapidly. The images on the left show 4 out of the 9 large galaxies included in the Chandra study, each containing a supermassive black hole in its center.

The Chandra images show pairs of huge bubbles, or cavities, in the hot gaseous atmospheres of the galaxies, created in each case by jets produced by a central supermassive black hole. Studying these cavities allows the power output of the jets to be calculated. This sets constraints on the spin of the black holes when combined with theoretical models.

The Chandra images were also used to estimate how much fuel is available for each supermassive black hole, using a simple model for the way matter falls towards such an object. The artist's impression on the right side of the main graphic shows gas within a "sphere of influence" falling straight inwards towards a black hole before joining a rapidly spinning disk of matter near the center. Most of the material in this disk is swallowed by the black hole, but some of it is swept outwards in jets (colored blue) by quickly spinning magnetic fields close to the black hole.

Previous work with these Chandra data showed that the higher the rate at which matter falls towards these supermassive black holes, the higher their power output is in jets. However, without detailed theory the implications of this result for black hole behavior were unclear. The new study uses these Chandra results combined with leading theoretical models for the production of jets, plus general relativity, to show that the supermassive black holes in these galaxies must be spinning at close to the maximum rate. If black holes are spinning at this limit, material can be dragged around them at close to the speed of light, the speed limit from Einstein's theory of relativity.

Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC Illustration: CXC/M. Weiss

(Emphases mine, in the above captions.)

Remember "niggardly?"

UPDATE: Whoops, I forgot to credit Snapped Shot where I first saw this.

UPDATE II: Thanks to Kip (see comments) for a link to the video. And thanks to the great Taranto for finding the definition of a "white hole."

Submitted 07/09/08

The latest Watcher's Council nominations are up.

Che Away
Done With Mirrors enjoys the icing on the cake of the Colombian hostage rescue: the rescuers wore "Che" t-shirts to fool the FARC terrorists holding the hostages.
Identifying Obama's Real Position on the Second Amendment (Updated)
Wolf Howling thoroughly checks Sen. Obama's record on the 2nd amendment and shows that despite more recent moderate statements, Sen. Obama is in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership. Given that I see that NRA is planning on a major anti-Obama campaign this fall, this would be a pretty good starting point.
American Whining and the Culture of Dependency
The Razor tears into an AP July 4th article claiming that Americans are doing poorly. He points out that they're not doing poorly because of anything the govenrment did or did not do, but because they've failed to show initiative.
Another Disgusting Philly Inquirer Op-Ed
The Colossus of Rhodey fisks an editorial in the Philly Inquirer supporting Gen. Clark's attack on Sen. McCain. He nicely shows the hypocrisy of Clark as well as that of the editorial's writers.
Economic Illiteracy Venting
The Glittering Eye educates us on some basic economic principles that are too often ignored. I just wish that he had presented some of the actual claims he was referring to.
Some Hope for the High Court
Hillbilly White Trash points out that President McCain would not be able to appoint conservatives to the Court because the Senate is in Democratic hands, so even in that "best case" scenario, he proposes that Senate Republicans obstruct the appointment of new justices so that there will be a conservative majority.
Does Patriotism Matter?
The short answer Cheat Seeking Missiles gives is "yes." Read it to learn his reasoning.
Narcissism In Another Color
Joshuapundit explains why Rene Marie's recitation of "Raise Ev'ry voice ..." was not patriotism, but narcissism.
Socialized Medicine
Bookworm Room effectively provides proof that the Razor is right. When Britain's government tried to fix its socialized health care system it only made matters worse.
New Solution To An Old Problem
The Education Wonks finds a new paradigm of how to deal with bullying, but points out that Our Gang wouldn't be as  much fun if that example was put to use in yesteryear.
Obama Speaks -- Selectively -- Of His Faith Journey
Rhymes With Right observes that Sen. Obama neglected to mention the center of his religious transformation - Rev. Wright - in an article about his religious history and beliefs.

My own entry You may now assume the risk critiqued Clark Hoyt's defense of the NY Times' decision to publish the name of a CIA interrogator. Commenter SerAndEz noted one element of hypocrisy that I missed: The Times often relies on anonymous sources, why did the reporter feel that revealing his source was essential to the credibility of his report?

The non-council post I nominated this week was MPAC Person "Bulldozed By Al-Jazeera" by Judeopundit in which he noted a complaint that Al Jazeera was too pro-Israel. You can't make these things up.


Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Israel: cancelled

Those moderate voices from Iran continue to reverberate throughout the world:

Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel are almost routine these days. But for a former official of the Islamic Republic to call for the destruction of the Jewish state in the city where the Holocaust was planned adds a repugnant twist - especially as the German government sponsored the event that gave the man from Tehran a Western stage.

At a conference on the Mideast in Berlin on Wednesday, Muhammad Javad Ardashir Larijani said the "Zionist project," which has "created only violence and atrocities," should be "canceled." Mr. Larijani, a former deputy foreign minister, is the brother of Iran's former nuclear negotiator and current parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani.

And it would appear that their words speak to their intent:

I believed then, as I do now, that the mullahs would never abandon their ambitions, and that after 29 years of negotiations by Europe and world powers, the world has yet to understand that the mullahs will not change direction or behavior. In the early '90s, the senior Bush administration and the CIA finally realized they were being duped -- the mullahs' promises never materialized. The CIA asked me to look for an Iranian who could testify that Iran was in the process of making a nuclear bomb. That request was later withdrawn.

Iran remains the main sponsor of terrorism around the world. Iranian consulates, embassies, airlines, and shipping line offices are the main hub for terrorist activities. Money, arms, and explosives are transferred through these centers to fund terrorist groups and jihadists. Quds Force units of the Revolutionary Guards use the Iranian consulates as their command and control centers to plan and carry out assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist activities. The mullahs even transferred money and arms in state visits using their high-ranking officials, knowing full well that because of diplomatic immunity they would not be subject to search during such visits. As I reported to the CIA, these activities were closely coordinated through Iran's foreign ministry, the ministry of intelligence, and the Revolutionary Guards.

Crossposted on Yourish.

And the survey says ... old

Recently the Numbers Guy explained how Family Feud gets its survey responses:

Today, the show employs a polling firm, Applied Research-West, to conduct the surveys by telephone. The company's operators follows standard survey practices: They use random-digit dialing; try to ensure their sample is representative of the U.S. population, according to Census data; and dial cellphones to reach the growing landline-free population. The surveyers don't disclose that the questions are for "Family Feud." A typical phone survey includes 30 or 40 questions, culled from 100 submitted to Ms. Johnston daily by writers and consultants for the show. Topical questions may air as soon as three weeks after the survey responses have been collected and compiled.

These measures surprised professional pollsters who assumed a show seeking polling numbers for entertainment purposes wouldn't work very hard to get them.

"You're kidding," Paul J. Lavrakas, former chief methodologist at Nielsen Media Research, says.

"I'm just impressed that a game show goes through the trouble," says Ms. Mathiowetz.

The one weakness noted about this approach was:

The pollsters, however, aren't entirely won over by the methodology; 100 respondents doesn't make for the most reliable results. A poll that size typically has a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 10% for the No. 1 answers.

Scott Rasmussen, whose firm gathered polling data for a CBS show similar to "Feud" called "Power of 10," which is on hiatus, surveyed 1,000 people for each question. He says he thinks 100 is too small a number for polling results to be representative.

I wonder if the AP even did that much to get this result.

Now more than ever, it's the old guy against the agent of change.

Ask people to blurt out their first words about the two presidential candidates and one in five say "change" or "outsider" for Barack Obama and "old" for John McCain, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll released Monday. Those are not only the top responses for each man but the ones used most often since January, when fewer than one in 10 volunteered those descriptions.

Well apparently they did interview more people, but I wonder if this is an appropriate way to determine how people feel. And is this news, or an attempt to influence perceptions?

Meanwhile the approval ratings of the Democratically led Congress continue to drop. So for all the talk about the problems with the Republican "brand," why aren't the Republicans doing better?

So why are the Republicans running scared, and why aren't they going after the "new Democratic Congress" hammer-and-tongs? Beats me. Because they're idiots, I guess.

And when Congressional Democrats are insisting on political progress in Iraq, it's interesting that they have achieved none of their stated goals over the past two years. In other words the fledgling Iraqi government has been more successful than Congress.

Remarkably, despite everything, Sen. McCain only trails Sen. Obama by two points in the latest Gallup poll. (via memeorandum)

If the Republicans would start running more forcefully against the Democratic Congress, perhaps they could make some inroads too and we won't see the predicted shellacking in November.

Not mccain, nbc

Contrary to the column I mentioned the other day Michael Murphy is headed to NBC as an analyst and not to the McCain campaign. (via memeorandum)

Explosive Palestinian news coverage

Palestinian life and politics frequently involve explosives and explosions. According to Maan, the PA Attorney General escaped a car-bomb assassination attempt:

The Palestinian Authority's Attorney General Ahmad Al-Mghanni survived an assassination attempt on Tuesday.

A bomb detonated in the boot of his car in the Al-Maysoun neighbourhood of Ramallah in the central West Bank as Al-Mghanni started the engine of his car. He escaped unhurt.

Al- Mghanni told Ma'an that as he was starting his car, he heard an explosion, which damaged the fuel tank.

Palestinian police have opened an investigation.

Al-Mghanni said he did not know who was behind the attack and he was waiting for the results of the investigation.

The head of the Palestinian Supreme Court Judge Issa Abu Sharar condemned the attack. "The attempt to assault Attorney General is a serious attack aimed at paralyzing the judiciary and the prosecution," he said.

Meanwhile, at a Hamas training camp there was a "training explosion." Does that mean that a practice attack ended in a real work-accident?

Two militants of Hamas' Al-Qassam brigades were killed and another was injured on Tuesday during a training explosion in Khanyounis city, Hamas sources said.

Ramattan reporter said that a huge explosion took place in a training camp of Ezz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas movement in Khanyounis city, in southern Gaza strip.

Palestinian nedics siad that the injured was in seriously injured. Hamas sources identified the killed militants as Mohammed Abd Al-Shakour 28, and Weal Mustafa 30, added that the ambulance crews evacuated the casualties from the explosion site.

That was Ramattan. PalPress has some different details:

At least two members of Hamas lawless movement were killed while two others were injured after a big explosion shook a Hamas affiliated training military site western of Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.

The blast occurred at the freed settlement of Gani Tal western of Khan Yunis where the military position lies, and it resulted in the complete destruction of the building, medical crews are working on evacuating the dead and the injured.

Chief of the emergency and aids department in the Palestinian Health Ministry Dr. Muawiyah Abu Hassanein said that two dead and two injured where transferred from the area of the blast to hospital, not ruling out the possibility of finding more injured.

Today's blast is not considered the first of it's kind, several explosion shook Hamas affiliated training sites and military headquarters, the matter which resulted in killing and wounding many of it's members in addition to victims among civilians.

"Not considered the first of its kind"--we noticed.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Update: See EOZ .

Steelers for sale?

Not my usual beat but I noticed that Pittsburgh's Rooneys Quietly Shop the Steelers

Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney, the eldest of the brothers, wants to consolidate his control through a 10-year plan to buy out most of their shares, but a well-funded prospective buyer has emerged after some of Mr. Rooney's brothers and their children raised questions about his offer. Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire chairman of Pittsburgh's Duquesne Capital Management, has expressed interest in acquiring the Steelers, people briefed on the negotiations said.

The family disagreement that could lead to the sale is described:

In a statement Monday, the Steelers said Mr. Rooney "wants to stay in the football business while some of his four brothers plan to get out of the [National Football League] and focus their business efforts on their racetracks and other interests." The statement said that Mr. Rooney and his son, Steelers President Art Rooney II, are arranging a financing plan to buy the brothers' shares in the team in order to continue substantial ownership of the franchise by the Rooneys. "I will do everything possible to work out a solution to ensure my father's legacy of keeping the Steelers in the Rooney family and in Pittsburgh for at least another 75 years," Dan Rooney said in the statement.

Follow the link to a timeline of the Steelers franchise history as well as the valuations of recently sold sports franchises. Crossposted on OTB Sports

The first choice for second slot?

via memeorandum

Apparently the top two Democrats (or their supporters) still have some friction between them.

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, faces dissent from dozens of top fund-raisers and other supporters of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who are angry over how she was treated during their bruising primary battle and are hesitating to back Sen. Obama.

Some leading Clinton supporters are starting new Web sites or political action committees aimed at prodding Sen. Obama on issues or pressuring him to give Sen. Clinton a big role in the general-election campaign. People familiar with the matter say the effort involves dozens of the roughly 300 Clinton "Hillraisers," individuals who raised at least $100,000 apiece for her campaign.

Still it's uncertain how big a deal this will be:

Meanwhile, an analysis of campaign-finance records conducted for The Wall Street Journal by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics shows that in May, when Sen. Obama was widely believed to have clinched the Democratic nomination, only one Hillraiser had switched allegiance to the Obama campaign. And while 115 individuals who had donated at least $1,000 to Sen. Clinton made their first donations to Sen. Obama, another 115 former Clinton backers made their first big donations to Sen. McCain.

Unless there's a move of the top Clinton supporters, this probably won't make much of a difference.

Still it's in marked contrast to what's going on on the other side.

Mitt Romney is soliciting his donor list for contributions to the McCain campaign.

He sent a letter to supporters that came with a "Mitt Romney, Belmont, Massachusetts," letterhead but was paid for by McCain's campaign.

There's an obvious reason for this show of love.

A former Romney supporter in Colorado sends along the return card with a photo of the former rivals, hopeful that it bodes well for Mitt's veep chances.

If that's how Romney loyalists interpret it, McCain's finance team certainly won't dispute the point.

Getting the vice presidential nod can overcome a lot of animosity. Despite some of the speculation about others, I'd have to conclude from this that Romney is McCain most likely pick for the VP.

You may now assume the risk

One of the things that annoys me about the media, is their sense of entitlement. There's an arrogance that since they're work is so important they're allowed to operate with a different set of rules than everyone else.

After some recent media scandals, a number of papers, in order to restore the public's confidence appointed ombudsmen/reader's representatives/public editors to act as a layer of oversignt and serve to represent the public's interest in fair and distortion free reporting. (Some newspapers, like the Washington Post, already had an ombudsman for years.)

Often though, the public editor seems less interested in representing the public than in explaining to the public why certain news judgments, despite the appearance of subjectivity are really OK, if not honorable. When the public editor takes this stance, the underlying attitude seems to be: yes we understand your concerns, but you, the simple public can't possibly understand the noble considerations under which we, the media operate.

This past Sunday the public editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, embarked on such a mission. Recently the Times had published the name of the interrogator of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed and ran into a lot of criticism for doing this. So Hoyt, on Sunday, explained why the Times revealed this secret - not legally secret, but not generally known - information in Weighing the Risk. (via memeorandum)

The justification came down to:

Scott Shane, the reporter, and his editors said that using the name was necessary for credibility. Martinez was, after all, the central character in the story. They said that nobody provided evidence that Martinez would be in any greater danger than the scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda. Those include other former C.I.A. officers, the warden at Guantánamo, military prosecutors, the lawyer who wrote Justice Department memos justifying harsh interrogation techniques, and even a New York Port Authority policeman who helped arrest a terrorist.

Hoyt, though, did mention that one expert recommended against revealing the name:

But the reporter and editors said they were still worried about Martinez's fears and tried to assess how realistic they were. Shane said he repeatedly pressed the C.I.A. for more information. He called John Kiriakou, a former covert operative who was the first to question another top Qaeda terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou voluntarily went public last December, and Shane wanted to know what happened. Kiriakou mentioned a death threat published in Pakistan and didn't go into much more detail. Kiriakou said he advised Shane not to use the name.

Kiriakou received death threats and the publicity adversely affected his personal and professional life. Still the Times persisted and published the interrogator's name.

In the end Hoyt concludes that the paper acted properly:

The Times and other news organizations have been asked over the years to withhold stories for fear of harm. And they have done so when a persuasive case has been made that the danger -- whether to national security or an individual -- is real and imminent. In this case, there is no history of Al Qaeda hunting down individuals in the United States for retribution. It prefers dramatic attacks that kill indiscriminately. And The Times took reasonable precautions to prevent Martinez from being easily found.

Notice as Hoyt adopts the role of terrorism expert in order to justify the decision.

LGF dismisses Hoyt:

Notice that in the worldview of the New York Times, there are essentially no circumstances at all in which they would have withheld this information.

To call what they're doing "weighing the risk" is ludicrous. A better phrase would be "weighing the potential profit."

There's one other matter that casts the decision of the Times in a worse light. Max Boot writes:

Hoyt's defense might have been more convincing if he had made any attempt to distinguish Martinez's case from that of Valerie Plame. Recall, after all, how the Times editorialists and columnists hyperventilated for years about Plame's outing-an action that, in the immortal words of columnist Paul Krugman, was "both felonious and unpatriotic". But there was not a mention-not one-of La Plame in Hoyt's article. So it remains a matter of speculation how outing one CIA operative can be "felonious and unpatriotic," while outing another CIA operative-one who has made even bigger enemies-is necessary for "trying to tell the public about some of the government's most important and controversial actions."

So is the problem, that the Times was unhappy that they didn't get the chance to reveal Valerie Plame's identity? Actually not. Despite her denials, a Senate subcommittee found that she had a role in the decision to send her husband to Niger that resulted in her husband's famous op-ed in the Times questioning the decisions leading to the war in Iraq. Digging deeper into that decision makes the Times "scoop" a little less credible.

There are two more things that Hoyt writes that make his defense of the Times even worse.

One is that he notes at the end of the article that the reporter, Scott Shane received threatening e-mails in response to this article. It's as if he's saying, "even our reporter put himself at risk for this story, see how important it was to get the information out there." While I'm sure it's unpleasant to get nasty e-mails, there's no indication that these were from anyone other than cranks. The interrogator feared from threat from real live terrorists.

Two, as a postscript Hoyt writes:

In preparing this column, I consulted with Bob Steele, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. His discussion of the Times article can be found at www.poynter.org/nytcia.

The Poynter Institute is a media organization, so Steele isn't just an ethicist, he's a media ethicist. Note that "media" comes first. It certainly did for Hoyt. I can only assume that Steele approved of the Times's decision (if he didn't Hoyt would have mentioned that) and that Hoyt accepted his judgment over that of someone who had actually had a similar experience. The approval of the media ethicist is just further confirmation that the media feel that they operate with their own set of rules apart from the general public.

Colombian hostage rescue has added bonus!

One seldom encounters good news for righties at the Dissident Voice:

Amidst all the joy and celebration resulting from the Colombian military's successful rescue of 15 hostages last week, the fact that the tactics utilized in the mission will likely endanger the lives of journalists and aid workers in the future has been completely ignored. By having soldiers pose as journalists and aid workers in order to gain access to the hostages, the Colombian government has increased the already high risks faced by legitimate reporters and NGO workers. In a country that is already one of the most dangerous places in the world in which to work as a journalist or a defender of human rights, the armed actors will now be even more suspicious of anyone claiming to work in those fields. [...]

The tactics used by the Colombian government will undoubtedly increase the risks faced by journalists and NGO workers who operate in the country's rural conflict zones. Colombia's armed groups, particularly the FARC, will now be even more distrustful of anyone who claims to be a reporter or aid worker. This is likely of little concern to Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe, who has repeatedly endangered the lives of human rights defenders critical of his security policies . . .

Related: Everything you've been told about the rescue is a lie, a lie I tell you . . .

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Who and what mccain needs

John Podhoretz observes in Obama is passing the war test

There's every reason to believe he doesn't mean most of it. But so what? Particularly when it comes to Iraq, the real question about Obama's leadership has never been whether he would stick to an anti-war line, but what he would do when faced with the practical reality that the United States may be snatching victory from the jaws of what appeared to be a near-certain defeat just around the time he decided to run for president.

He doesn't have to convince me that he's changed and he won't. (Though I don't think he would govern as far to the left as some people fear even with a pliant legislature.) He does have to convince those undecideds that he's not so far out of the mainstream and he may be doing that.

William Kristol echoes the sentiment in "So where's Murphy?"

Even Obama's adjustments for the general election -- his flip-flops -- have served in an odd way to enhance his stature. Some of them suggest, after all, that he is at least trying to think seriously about what he would do if he were actually president. So Obama has achieved the important feat, as the campaign has moved on, of seeming an increasingly plausible president. McCain seems a less plausible president today than he did when he clinched the nomination.

(So how do you counter the assertion that Sen. Obama has adjusted his position based on new evidence presented to him? Argue that you got it right the first time, the presidency is no place for on the job training.)

Kristol hopes that soon McCain's campaign will complete its makeover by the addition of Michael Murphy.

"Murphy" is Mike Murphy, the 46-year-old G.O.P. strategist who masterminded John McCain's 2000 primary race against George Bush, helping McCain come close to pulling off an amazing upset. Murphy was then chief strategist for Mitt Romney's successful Massachusetts governor run in 2002.

Murphy remained close to both men, and as a result sat out the G.O.P. nominating contest this past year, not wishing to work against either of them. It was widely assumed, though, that if either McCain or Romney won the nomination, the winner would bring Murphy on board for the general election. So far it hasn't happened. I believe it soon will.

What should the McCain target (with or without Murphy)?

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write that while Obama struck first, his approach left him open:

But now, there is a heaven-sent opportunity for McCain to strike. In his effort to move to the center, Obama has distorted his own record, meager though it may be, and is taking credit for a program he strongly opposed. McCain should immediately run an ad in all of the states in which his opponent is advertising setting forth the facts and explaining Obama's distortion.

A good tag line for the ad would be: "John McCain: when you have real experience, you don't need to exaggerate."

The cost of not reacting could be prohibitive.

But, if McCain doesn't answer, or just replies with his own positive ad, he will let Obama move to the center, a key mistake from which he may never recover. If Obama can hold his 5-10 point lead until the conventions, he will have set in place a pattern that will be very hard to change. With his new ad, Obama could even elevate his lead to double digits.

From what Kristol writes about Murphy, it would appear that Murphy is well suited to the challenge. The question then would be whether he will join the McCain team in time.

22 months

This morning at 1:15 AM she turned 96 weeks old.

I should clarify the story about the puppy from last time. No one put the puppy on her skirt. The puppy saw her sitting on the floor and, apparently fascinated inched up to her. She was none to pleased by the attention and backed away.

Teeth. Did I mention teeth? We'd been worried since her teeth had been slow in coming in. In the past month they've been popping up. Strangely, her molars have come in fully first, so she still has a great toothless smile. (Well there's one front tooth now.

When she was just learning to walk, she had a "tushie dance." Now she has a variation on that. If she sees a diaper wipe box, she sometimes will sit up and down it, bouncing! And she thinks it's very funny, going up and down and laughing all the time.

With two months left until her second birthday, she's decided to start being a two year old. She often runs away when I try to change or dress her. Neither task is easy any more.

One interesting thing she does, is that sometimes when she's dirty she'll go "..gusting" and (as I've noted before) bring us the diapers and wipes.

I played hide and seek with her a few weeks ago. First of all when I didn't follow her, she changed direction to try and catch me. The other thing, she did was when she couldn't find me she'd call my name. When I'd answer she followed my voice.

Her words and expressions keep coming.

She seems fascinated with the rain and for a short time would announce to us that it was "rennin'" outside. Now it sounds more like "raining." When something isn't the way it should be she says it's "broken it." Last night in the bath she was playing with toy frongs and going "up and down" making believe that they were jumping.

She is improving with eating implements. And she's not bad with a pen, though we're trying to convince that it's better to write on paper than on her skin. (She does try out nearly everything that's in her reach.)

It's clear that she understands more and more. Last night my wife gave her some laundry to bring down to her sister.

I love watching her walk. She still has that uneven walk that's adorable. And her laugh is, of course, infectious. As I wrote above, she's almost two. It's hard to believe!

Previous related entries:
21 months,

20 months,

19 months,

18 months,
17 months,
16 months.
15 months,
14 months,
13 months,
One year, 
11 months,
10 months,
9 months,
eight months,
seven months,
six months,
five months,
four months,
three months,
two months,
One month,

Musical monday #51

OK, the ground rules change a little. You're not looking for a theme. Actually, it's more like you're looking for a few different themes. Each group is a theme. And I guess, if you want, tell me the format. In 5c, I took a liberty and used what the song is usually called and not the name given. This was meant to be a bit of a departure. And guess what? When I put this together, I got enough for two MM's. So you'll get similar two weeks from now! I hope you like this and don't find it too weird. When you get a group, you might want to put them together to see the results a bit better.

P.S. If you don't like this let me know and I won't do it again.

1) Everything you do has been done and this won't last forever
a) I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
b) Well, here's a poke at you
c) I laugh right at them
d) One day the bottom a-go drop out

2) I can mash-potato
a) The drunken politician leaps
b) And now you're gone, I guess I'll carry on
c) Treasure these few words till we're together
d) It hides a nasty stain that's lying there

3) I guarantee it will bring you down, If you try and fool yourself
a) Quarter moon walkin' through the Milky Way
b) And if I had those golden dreams of my yesterdays
c) You're hangin your head again, Cause somebody won't let you in
d) Can I believe the magic of your sighs?

4) Before I know it will reach defeat!
a) Read about you in a Faulkner novel
b) You can't dance and stay uptight
c) And that would wipe this smile right from my face
d) Call out the instigator

5) He always breaks my heart in two
a) In a room where ya do what ya don't confess
b) Friday I got travelin on my mind
c) Chasing the clouds away. Something calls to me.
d) You won't find a thing to chew

6) I've seen babies dancing in the midnight sun,
a) Love me or leave me, make your choice but believe me
b) Take a listen to your spirit
c) Don't tell me it's not worth tryin' for
d) All of the bad feelings have disappeared

At the end of May, we passed the first year of Musical Monday, so I wanted to ask you, do you have a favorite edition?

For me, my favorite was Elie's Musical Monday 34. Each edition takes a little cleverness and a little time. Given the layered approach, Elie obviously had to employ a lot of cleverness and quite a bit of time.

Finally here are a few music related posts. The Volokh Conspiracy had an item on law songs. As is the case with these groupings, country music doesn't get much consideration. Why not Ricky Van Shelton's "Crime of Passion?" More surprising, why the Who's "It's a legal matter."

Bookworm Room has some 80's videos. I really enjoy listening to Easy Lover.

Powerline give the back story to Save the last dance for me.

And check out Elie's 50 Favorites by artist. Go and discuss his choices or give him his own.


1) a-weem a-weh a-weem a-weh
The Lion Sleeps tonight - The Tokens
2) coo-coo-a-choo
I am the Walrus - The Beatles
3) goo-goo-a-jube
Mrs. Robinson - Simon and Garfunkel
4) ugga chukka
Hooked on a feelign - Blue Swede
5) itchy-gitchy-yaya
Lady Marmalade - LaBelle
6) grroosss
Don't bring me down - ELO
7) Eicay varé, eisé nardé
Saturday in the Park - Chicago
8) so-hu so-hu so-hu
Got to be real - Cheryl Lynn
9) De Do Do Do
De Do Do do - The Police
10) oh whey oh
Walk like an Egyptian - The Bangles
11) ooh mau mau
Surfing Bird - The Trashmen
12) a-wop-bop-a-loo-lop a-lop bam boo
13) boogie-dy, boogie-dy
The Streak - Ray Stevens
14) shing a ling a ling
Yesterday Once More - The Carpenters
15) rama lama ding dong
16) bo-birley
The Name Game
17) Be-bop a lula
Be-bop a lula -
18) Ob la di Ob la da
Ob la di Ob la da - The Beatles
19) Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang Walla walla bang bang
20) Boom shacka lacka lacka
21) In a gadda da vida
In a Gadda da Vida - Iron Butterfly
22) na na na na hey hey hey
Kiss him Good Bye - Steam
23) shoop shoop shoop
It's in his kiss (The shoop shoop song) -
24) Chang chang changity chang shoo bop
25) da-doo-ron-ron
26) roomy bop a doo wop
Sister Golden Hair - America
27) Bow bow bow
Rubber Biscuit - The Blues Brothers
28) Jingle Jangle
Mr. Tambourine Man - Bob Dylan, The Byrds
29) Ooh-ooh-ooh, whee
Undercover Angel - Alan O'Day
30) Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
The Break up Song - Greg Kihn Band

Pat a yellowcake

Douglas Feith last week wrote Why we went to war in Iraq. Among his arguments were:

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation - over Kuwait again or some other issue - appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.

(via memeorandum)
The Booman Tribune responded thoughtfully Feith is still the stupidest guy:

Feith pushes a false narrative on us, but it's a familiar one. We had no reliable intelligence in 2001 that suggested that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons programs.
His armed forces were weak, disloyal, ill-paid, ill-equipped, and totally unable to project force towards any of his neighbors. Insofar as the Intelligence Community worked on the issue of Iraq, they were mainly concerned with an international disinformation campaign to heighten the threat from Saddam in order to maintain support for a crumbling sanctions regime. Belief in Iraq's WMD's was nothing more than a convenient case of believing our own hype. How many times did the Bush administration point to misinformation put out by the Clinton administration to bolster their case for war (and to justify their decision after the fact)?

(via memeorandum)

The AP now reports:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program _ a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium _ reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" _ the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment _ was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad _ using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

(h/t Instapundit)

Admittedly, the AP report acknowledges that the yellowcake had not been obtained since 1991, but it is still evidence that Saddam had an interest in a nuclear program. In fact this news, despite the way it's being spun by the NYT

Headline: U.S. Helps Remove Uranium From Iraq

seems to support Feith more than it supports Booman.

Gateway Pundit, Don Surber, the American Thinker and others tie this all together.

The American Thinker links to an excellent article (by Rick Moran) from 3 years ago about the yellowcake. Moran effectively answers the charges of conservative mendacity. In essence, that the IAEA tolerated yellowcake in Saddam's hands is not a defense of Saddam as much as it an indictment of the IAEA.

Do dogwoods bloom late in knoxville?

I took this picture at the beginning of May. Dogwoods in Baltimore bloom from about the 3rd week in April and stay in bloom until mid-May.

Instapundit had a dogwood picture last week. Do dogwoods bloom later in Tennessee?

UPDATE: I got an answer by e-mail. The dogwoods were from his library, not current pictures.

Juggling carnivals 07/06/08

Incoming Carnivals

Check out the latest Haveil Havalim #172 hosted by my old friend (appropriate since it's the "old fogey" edition) Daled Amos. Truth is he's doing what he does daily anyway. If there's any blogger out there who's promoting the rest of the J-Blogosphere on a regular basis, I haven't seen him or her. Not only does Daled Amos regularly link to other J-bloggers, he also keeps Google Reader windows linking to Israel and Jewish related blogs. So if you want to know what Jewish bloggers are blogging about, Check out Daled Amos regularly.

Thanks also to hiatusing Dr. Sanity for linking to me in the latest Carnival of the Insanities. I haven't looked it over really carefully but I've seen that Judeopundit's brilliant post about Al-Jazeera's pro-Israel bias is up. Check it out.

Upcoming Carnivals

And I guess I might as well let you know that I'm scheduled to host the next Kosher Cooking Carnival, so get your posts in. If you have a picture of the food, let me know if it's OK for me to grab it and use it to illustrate your post. While you're at, it check out the latest KCC at West Bank Mama.

blog carnivals.

Celine dion on the middle east

I've learned many important things from Barry Rubin. Last week's column taught me something new: Celine Dion covered Eric Carnen's "All by myself." Dr. Rubin used the lyrics to illustrate the shifting sands of politics of the Middle East.

For more than a half-century, the region's politics revolved around Arab nationalism. Individual states sought to have influence, leadership, or just to survive. The Arab-Israeli conflict was an important issue in this framework, though not the sole or even the most significant one.

Now, as Celine Dion sings, "Those days are gone." Today, the centerpiece is a struggle between two blocs, one well-organized, the other weak and facing internal conflict. The former is the Tehran-led alliance of the HISH (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah); the latter is just about everyone else, call it the coalition of the unwilling.

So how do the moderate Arab states deal with this?

Still, their behavior is understandable. They want to use the radical appeal of Arab nationalism, Islamism, anti-Americanism, and xenophobia to divert attention from their own failings while mobilizing support for themselves as the true defenders against all those big and little satans out there. At the same time, they are happy to appease their foes if possible.

A particularly blatant example is Kuwait's foreign minister who denounced those who want to wage a false jihad at home. He explained that instead of murdering innocent Muslims, young people should kill Israelis instead. Much of the regimes' "anti-terrorist" rhetoric is merely really aimed at shifting the targets away from themselves.

On one hand, the Saudis host a global interfaith dialogue conference; float a peace initiative toward Israel, fight domestic terrorism, and battle Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon. On the other hand, they aid terrorists and spread extremist forms of Islam. Egypt is horrified by radical Islamism but refuses to go all-out against Hamas. The official media demonize the West and Israel, while the official Islamic religious apparatus endorses terrorism against Israel and in Iraq.

I'd say that this is a somewhat generalized form of what Dr. Rubin writes in "The truth about Syria," in that the Assads use all means at their disposal to deflect criticisms of themselves and preserve their family's tenuous hold on power.

So how does the West respond. I once wrote in a letter to the editor that every time Hafez Assad or Yasser Arafat sneezed it was interpreted as a signal of moderation. It appears that I was more or less correct.

By apologizing, conceding, refusing to defend themselves, or by negotiating, exaggerating the potential for moderation, and dropping sanctions, they can strengthen the extremists and undercut the regimes. When that happens, the regimes know they might better cut their own deal. So while there are arguable reasons to bargain with Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, or Syria, such a strategy splits the anti-HISH alliance and starts a race toward appeasement.

In the Dion song, "Love so distant and obscure, Remains the cure." But this is politics. The best one can hope for is the wisdom to build on coinciding interests and courage to stand up to unrelenting enemies

And strengthening the extremists, no matter how well they keep the trains running on time, does not help.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Il-libertarian

Rasmussen reports that Libertarians prefer Sen. Obama to Sen. McCain. (via memeorandum)

While Hot Air questions the classifications used by Rasmussen, I wonder if there might be something to this result. (UPDATE: I should point out that Hot Air makes the observation that if it's true that Libertarians prefer Sen. Obama to Sen. McCain, then Bob Barr may hurt the former even though he's vocally running against the former. That irony would be compounded if Barr's presence in the race would have the effect of turning the election to McCain by siphoning off enough votes from Obama in some states.)

Back in January, the Volokh Conspiracy asked for endorsements of the various Republican candidates at the time by Libertarians. Sen. McCain was the only major Republican not to net a single libertarian endorsement. (I noted at the time, with surprise, that my favored candidate, Giuliani even got a libertarian endorsement.) Maybe because he was deemed out of the race by then. Or maybe because McCain is really as anti-libertarian as a candidate can get.

Mat Welch at Reason has written Be afraid of President McCain. (Not everyone at Reason is frightened by McCain as Jonathan Rauch has dubbed the virtual Republican nominee "Mr. Conservative." But that's not a libertarian endorsement.) I'd also point out that the increasingly libertarian George Will has been a lot harsher on McCain than he's been on Sen. Obama.

While there might be questions about how Rasmussen classified libertarians, it would appear that there is plenty of animosity of McCain from some very public libertarians.

Booting hersh

Last week, Cheat Seeking Missiles went after Seymour Hersh for an recently written "expose" in the New Yorker. What troubled me is that CSM took everything Hersh wrote at face value. Hersh cherry picks some stuff, confuses some stuff, makes some stuff up and exaggerates the rest. It's hard to know exactly what's true in a Seymore Hersh story.

Max Boot read the same article and concluded that there's probably a nugget of truth in the article but the rest is speculation.

For my part I am skeptical that there are a lot of Special Operations raids occurring in Iran. It's probable that there are small penetrations of Iranian territory by CIA and Special Operations teams as part of the covert destabilization program to meet with Iranian "assets." There may even have been a few operations carried out against the Quds Force, but, given the risk-averse culture of the U.S. government, I doubt that it amounts to very much.

I find David Ignatius's analysis plausible. He writes:

In the new cold war between America and Iran, the U.S. appears to be running some limited covert operations across the Iranian border. But according to knowledgeable sources, this effort shares the defect of broader U.S. policy toward Iran--it is tentative and ill coordinated, and undermines diplomacy without bringing serious pressure on the regime.

He quotes "one Arab official familiar with the covert program" as saying, "There are attempts to cause mischief inside Iran and go after the Quds Force. Some things are being done, but not with the seriousness that's needed."

Boot adds:

He also perpetuates a myth that there is a major policy divide between the White House which supposedly favors a "military strike" on Iran and the armed forces which supposedly oppose such a move. It would be more accurate to say that there are some political appointees in the administration who favor a strike on Iran because they don't think that any other action will stop or even significantly slow its nuclear program. But there are also political appointees who oppose such a move. A similar division exists in the military, but you would never know it from Hersh who paints a crude caricature of hawkish civilians and dovish soldiers. No doubt he is partly a victim of his anti-Bush worldview and partly a victim of his sources: Since it's pretty obvious that no one who is reasonably hawkish or conservative will speak to a journalist with Hersh's reputation, he must be reliant on those who favor a softer line.

Boot also attacks a major premise of Hersh:

The biggest misunderstanding, or outright deception, in the entire article is its very premise: that the covert action program that Hersh describes is a prelude to a larger military action against Iran--that it is, as the headline has it, "Preparing the Battlefield." Actually it's far more likely that such a program, if it exists, is designed to be a substitute for military action.

Hersh unfortunately isn't the only writers engaging in such speculation. Tim Shipman of the Telegraph writes (via memeorandum):

American commanders worry that Israel will feel compelled to act within the next 12 months with no guarantee that they can do more than slow Iran's development of a weapon capable of destroying the Jewish state.

Gaps in the intelligence on the precise location and vulnerabilities of Iran's facilities emerged during recent talks between Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Israeli generals, according to an official familiar with the discussions who has briefed Iran experts in Washington and London.

The assessment emerged as Iran in effect thumbed its nose at proposals by the West to freeze its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for easing economic sanctions. In its reply, sent to the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate but only from a position of equality - and made no reference to the specific proposals.

Israel Matzav thinks that there is a gap between what Israeli and American intelligence know and that Israel may have better knowledge of where it needs to hit. Arthur Herman wrote that destroying the nuclear facilities may not be as important as crippling Iran economically and conventionally.

Still one gets the impression that Shipman cherry picks his sources to reach his conclusions and fills the rest in with speculation.

I wonder how much of the military threat against Iran is real and how much is Israeli or American disinformation. I can't believe that planning of a potential attack on Iran is such an open book in either country.

Two years ago I speculated that Israel would have a difficult time carrying out a raid on Iran as it did on Iraq, if for no other reason because it couldn't have the same secrecy that surrounded the attack on the Tamuz reactor.

All this speculation about what Israel might do, does nothing to alleviate my skepticism that Israel could pull off the same sort of attack again.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Israel considers bulldozing house, builds cute bomb-shelter for Sderot children

According to the BBC:

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has ordered the army to prepare to demolish the home of the Palestinian who killed three Israelis in Jerusalem.

The order follows advice by Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz that the proposed demolition could create legal difficulties, but would not be illegal.

An Israeli rights group has said such a move would be collective punishment. [...]

In what I see as a related story:

The children of Sderot will soon be able to run for cover from rocket attacks, even on the playground. The new bomb shelter will look playful, however.

The city is in the final stages of building a playground that includes a tunnel for a quick escape from Kassam rocket barrages, reports the Sderot Media Center (SMC).

According to construction manager Boaz Etzion, "The idea of the park is that when there is a Color Red [incoming rocket] alarm, the children can run quickly to safety in the tunnels" [...]

The escape tunnel, at a cost of 150,000 shekels ($46,000) is being built in the shape of a centipede to make it appear to be part of the playground and not like a bomb shelter. [...]

What do these two stories have to do with each other? They illustrate that Israel operates in a sort of weird gray area between tolerating terrorism and fighting it. Instead of building cute bomb shelters for Sderot children and wondering whether or not to destroy a building, Israel should go on the offensive militarily and not stop until its enemies--Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades, whoever else is foolish enough to keep fighting--are destroyed. I offer you Goodman's Law of Israel News Developments: Whenever Israel is accused of "collective punishment," it may or may not be guilty, but it is not acting in its own interests. Whenever Israel is accused of using "disproportionate force," it is acting wisely. (Hat tip: Israel Matzav)

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Fine arabian chargers

Horse racing appears to be really popular among the Palestinians.

Unfortunately there was an accident at the races today near Nablus.

A Palestinian man , left and a horse rider, lay on the ground after they collided during a horse race ...

More interesting is that they also have horse races in Gaza. Camel races too.

I wouldn't say that the animals in either case look particularly undernourished. How severe was the Israeli blockade really in terms of letting in food and necessities?

UPDATE: The German language Israeli blog Beer7 linked to this post. Since I don't understand German, the blogger, Ruth, e-mailed me a translation. Many thanks:

In the Gaza Strip under Siege

people are suffering very, very much. Therefore they are so desparate that all rocket and sniper attacks and any attempted suicide bombing is if not justified so at least understandable and comprehensible. At least this is consensus in the Western Media.

The news agency Reuters has done its part in spreading this perception, for example:

Gaza blockade creates new hurdles for gravediggers from January of this year. The population of the Gaza Strip cannot even bury its dead in deignity because of the evil Israelis!

Here, Reuters shows in a video clip how Gaza strip suffers under closure, adding already that they cannot possigly lend a hand to Hamas propaganda since the organisation denies the charge.

Then in March Russia calls on Israel to lift Gaza blockade

RAMALLAH, West Bank, March 21 (Reuters) - Russia called on Israel on Friday to lift its blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, saying it was "unacceptable".

"The blockade of the Gaza Strip is unacceptable and should be lifted to allow Gazans to have a normal life," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said after meeting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah

And in April obvioulsy Carter calls Gaza blockade a crime and atrocity

With this background I am expecting daily pictures of emaciated Palaestinians or half-naked children with swollen hunger stomaches, instead this shows up (hattip Soccer Dad):

with the caption

Palestinians ride horses during a competition in Gaza July 4, 2008.

and this:

titled

Palestinians ride camels during a competition in Gaza July 4, 2008

The only possilby explanation ist this: The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are saving morsels from their daily bread  to feed the horses and camels. And all this in order to celebrate the USA Independence Day in style!

Crossposted on Yourish.

Interesting euphemisms

Honor Guard

An honor guard stand to attention ...

These are members of Hamas brandishing (I think) AK-47's. Wouldn't the more appropriate term be "armed terrorists?"

Iranian diplomats

picture depicting the four Iranian diplomats who were kidnapped in Lebanon in 1982 ...

More likely they were intelligence officers tasked with coordinating Shi'ite militias at the time.

But this does make me wonder: If the Iranians are claiming that they were kidnapped by Christian and transferred to Israel, is this an implicit admission that the Iranians are/were holding Ron Arad. According to some rumors after he bailed out of his plane he was captured and eventually transferred to Iran.

Crossposted on Yourish.

More on the Jewish Refugees . . . er . . . um . . . Immigrants to the Zionist entity

In a Guardian article I recently posted about, Rachel Shabi, a progressive person of Iraqi descent by way of Israel, writes as follows:

Broadly, you could say that any Middle Eastern Jew ("Oriental" or "Mizrahi" Jew) who defines their migration to Israel as "Zionist" cannot also be a refugee: the former label has agency and involves a desire to live in the Jewish state; the second suggests passivity and a lack of choice.

Sometimes it's hard to have one's consciousness raised. Try as I might, I just can't help thinking of some Mizrachi Jews as refugees. So I thought I would do a post or a few posts in which I mournfully rehearse some of the historical facts that formerly led me to misuse the word refugee. Perhaps it will be therapeutic. Let's start with Operation Magic Carpet: Norman Stillman (The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times, p. 157) writes:

The Yemenite refugees poured into Aden at a rate and in numbers that were beyond anything that had been expected and overwhelmed the camp facilities and relief efforts. Many refugees arrived undernourished and in frightful physical condition after having trekked hundreds of miles over rough terrain, in many cases entirely on foot. Several thousand individuals were stricken with malaria, and 70 to 80 percent of all refugees were suffering from eye diseases. Approximately 600 people died in the camps, nearly half of these during September and October 1949, when the influx of refugees was at its height. Fearing the outbreak of an epidemic, the British authorities Aden closed the border for five weeks during this peak period, causing near starvation among the hapless refugees stranded on the other side. The situation demanded that the facilities be expanded and the refugees transferred as quickly as possible. Between June 1949 and September 1950, approximately 44,000 Yemenite Jews were brought from Aden to Israel in a dramatic airlift, dubbed Operation On Wings of Eagles (see Exod. 19:4), later renamed Operation Magic Carpet. The airlift was carried out by a specially formed American charter airline, the Near East Air Transport Company, in 430 flights, with at times as many as eleven planes flying around the clock during height of the exodus in the fall of 1949.

Another writer (Reuben Ahroni, Jewish Emigration from the Yemen, 1951-98: Carpet Without Magic) discusses a later stage:

The second phase of Operation Magic Carpet concentrated on the native Jews of Aden. These Jews had just emerged from the devastating pogrom of December 1947, in which 82 Jews were killed and 76 Jews were wounded. Faced with economic devastation, destruction of most of their homes, bleak prospects for recovery, and the dashed confidence in the ability of the British flag to safeguard their security, most of the Jews of Aden took full advantage of Operation Magic Carpet and left Aden for Israel.

There, I think I'm on the way to recovery!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Not the worst politician

Eric Trager had a post a few days ago The Worst Politician Every?:

Still, one might expect Israel's political leadership-which overwhelmingly approved the deal yesterday-to declare that Israel is achieving some sort of strategic benefit through the prisoner swap. After all, a prisoner swap only becomes a strategic liability when the adversary believes that it could achieve the release of more prisoners-and all the political benefits that come with it-through future kidnapping raids. For this reason, leaders typically spin prisoner swap deals as somehow enhancing their states' strategic outlook, aiming to undermine support for future raids among the enemy's constituency.

Yet Ehud Olmert is hardly your typical leader. Indeed, rather than making any argument for Israeli strength in the aftermath of the prisoner swap, Olmert has declared total failure...

Israel Matzav seconds that motion (via memeorandum):

What's amazing is that this time, for once in his life, Olmert is actually telling the truth. The 'swap' is a total failure, there will be (and is) much sadness and humiliation in Israel about Olmert's government's failure in the Second Lebanon War and thereafter, and there will be lots of celebrations on the other side when and if the 'swap' is carried out (as now seems inevitable).

He then suggests that PM Olmert draw the requisite conclusion and resign. However, I think that's where he (and Trager) underestimates Olmert. He is a failure, but not as a politician. As a politician he has managed to defy all expectations and political gravity, staying power despite microscopic popularity and scandals hanging over his head.

Now one of the authors of the Winograd Report, Prof. Yechezkel Dror has weighed in:

Professor Yehezkel Dror, member of the Winograd Commission which investigated the failures of the Second Lebanon War, launched a frontal attack Thursday against Ehud Olmert, clarifying that the prime minister has failed and cannot stay in office.

A year after the committee submitted its final report into the war, Prof. Dror wrote in a harsh article published in the Jewish-American Forward weekly that such a situation would not be possible in any other parliamentary democracy.

"I was sure the prime minister would resign. It's amazing this hasn't happened yet. This is not what I expected. It's beyond my nightmares," Dror told Ynet on Thursday morning.

Prof. Dror goes on to explain that given Olmert's political weakness he can't believe that the Prime MInister is weakening Israeli bargaining positions with no serious consultation.

Dror also expressed his criticism against Olmert in terms of the prime minister's recent conduct, which is not directly related to the war. He referred to Olmert's peace initiatives with Syria and the Palestinians as superficial maneuvers and even "a complete spin."

He explained that these initiatives lacked any deep, long-term and strategic thinking on the prime minister's part, which he said should be based on professional political-security staff work.

If Olmert had a sense of shame he'd resign, but he doesn't, so he stays in office. And his political foes have mutually exclusive aims, so that they can't or wont' present a united front and force him out. The media still considers him an etrog so the chances of building public outrage (despite the poor poll numbers) are virtually nil.

Olmert has made political survival his ultimate goal. Unless the state prosecutor indicts him, he will survive indefinitely because he's a great politician. He's just a lousy prime minister.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Never the twain shall meet

Griff Witte's report, Motives in Earthmover Rampage Debated in Jerusalem is striking for two things one that it says and one that it omits.

I

sraeli officials and media described Edwyat as a terrorist who had targeted Jews. But friends and relatives in East Jerusalem on Thursday described a man with no political affiliations or particular grievances against his Jewish neighbors. Instead, they said Edwyat had suddenly snapped for reasons they did not understand.

There is New York and there's West New York, however there's east Jerusalem and west Jerusalem. They are not separate municipalities.

The second is the way he frames the story between the perceptions of the Jews and the perception of the Arabs. He leaves out an important detail though:

"He shouted 'Allah Akbar.' At that moment I pulled the pistol that Oron carried and shot the terrorist three times in the head. After I verified that he was dead, I raised the pistol to make sure that passersby were not hurt," he recounted.

Shouting "Allah Akbar" is a signature of a terror attack. It might be that Edwyat wasn't handled by any terror organization and previously was on good terms with Jewish Israelis, but on Wednesday he, for some reason, chose the path of terror.

Crossposted on Yourish

Do the pivot

Charles Krauthammer's column in a single sentence:

Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."

It's the Obama pivot!

Join them and they can't beat you!

Interesting the New York Times portrays what to do in Iraq as much of a political problem for Sen. McCain as it is for Sen. Obama.

The evolving situation in Iraq has, in fact, tested both candidates.

Mr. McCain, whose support for the war helped him win the Republican primary campaign, now finds he must explain his position to an electorate largely weary of the war. And for Mr. Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril.

It wasn't McCain's support for the war that helped him win the Republican nomination. Heck, except for Ron Paul the Republican field supported the war. Of course when the media only report on the war when things are going badly, the public will weary of it. The Times is being too modest here as it clearly played a role in fostering that weariness.

Mr. Obama's positioning on this issue has been a critical component of his candidacy from the beginning. He, almost alone among the major candidates, opposed the war from the start, and that helped him beat a crowded Democratic field. And while he has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war.

With violence ebbing in Iraq, however, he has recently spoken less about withdrawal and has increasingly emphasized the failure to achieve political reconciliation in that country. In recent weeks he has also spoken more of the economic costs of the war and the fact that it limits the United States' ability to send troops to fight what he considers the nation's primary security threat: Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Remarkable, now, the reporters take Sen. Obama's absolute position and turn into something nuanced. Whereas Sen. McCain's solid support for the war has been turned into a negative.

Mr. McCain's support for the war, meanwhile, could pose problems for him in November. To that end, the Arizona senator, too, has shifted his emphasis. After being criticized for saying he would keep troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary, Mr. McCain gave a speech this spring suggesting he would remove most troops by 2013, without offering specifics. He now talks more about withdrawing, as he did last week when he said "we will withdraw, but we will withdraw with victory and honor."

Of course the criticism of Sen. McCain's "100 years" remark involved taking his words out of context, but that's not something that the Times acknowledges.

All in all it's fine piece of work from the Times, portraying Sen. McCain as an opportunistic flip-flopper and Sen. Obama as sticking to his original plan.

Council speak 07/04/08

The Council has spoken.

The winning entry was Patriotism an explanation by Hillbilly White Trash that should help the Left sort its feelings out. The runner up this week was The Supreme Court: Originalism, Activism, and America's Future
by Wolf Howling, his fine dissection of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Among non-council entrants the unsurprising winner was Sacramento Host Breakfast by 365 and a Wakeup, a tribute to his fallen commanding officer and friend. Right Wing Nut House's Is John Aravosis a Piece of Excrement Or What? was the runner up.

I'd also like to note a couple of changes in my fellow council members. First of all, Cheat Seeking Missiles has undergone a really nice makeover. It 's been redone by council alum, Okie on the Lam. Is it my imagination or does Laer look a little bit like Rush?

Also I've noticed that Wolf Howling's redid his blogrolls, so he not only links to the blogs, but also specifically to their most recent post. It's a nice feature. If you're interested in something similar, I have a preview of the most recent Watcher's Council posts via Google Reader. If you have an interest in knowing what we're up to I can share the code so that you can put it into your sidebar.

Congratulations to all the winners!

watcher's council.

Reflexively telling

Yesterday, Boker Tov Boulder aptly observed that following a terror attack:

... there's the attack by the media that inevitably follows. Then there's the aftermath, in which we can see the results of the first two, usually along the lines of Israel being weakened and our enemies further emboldened.

The attack she referred to was by the BBC.

It didn't take long elsewhere.

via memeorandum

The New York Time reported on yesterday's terror attack. There's nothing remarkable about the headline:

Palestinian Kills 3 With Construction Vehicle.

However that wasn't the original headline, that read:

Construction Vehicle Kills 3 in Israel Attack

However as we all know construction vehicles don't kill people, people kill people.

(h/t LGF's link viewer)

Similarly Meryl observed that the AP headline used words as if:

... it was an accident, instead of a deliberate, murderous attack.

McClatchy's Jerusalem correspondent showed his true colors with:

The video also shows a policeman shooting the lifeless man at point-blank range, a move that could spark questions from Israeli human rights groups about whether the officer's shot was necessary and if he might have unnecessarily killed the man.

(Though, from the footage, it looks as if the first shots probably killed him.)

My first thoughts on observing this action would have been amazement at the heroism of the shooters; his first thought was of the possible human rights violation. The truth is that Israeli security forces follow a protocol of "confirming the kill." This is especially important when terrorists may have explosives strapped to their bodies.

The Israelis intervening yesterday had no idea, of course, if the terrorist was indeed wearing explosives but it wasn't a chance they could take. And given that he was at the controls of a construction vehicle, if he were still capable of controlling it he presented a danger.

Just for a reminder here's what happened in Dimona a few months ago:

Shalom Bar Avi, a journalist speaking to Channel 10, said "I am here no longer as a journalist but as a simple citizen ... I pray and hope my wife is okay."

Bar Avi praised the police's quick response to the attack, and said Mor, the officer who identified the second attacker shot "four or five times ... he took no chances."

Later Mor's heroism was revealed in detail: He shot the terrorist in the head, and when the latter in his last breath still tried to press the detonator button, shot him four more times and killed him. Mor managed to kill the terrorist before he could explode and without hitting his explosive belt, thus preventing a much more devastating attack.

You don't take chances. And while this isn't the reason the terrorist was killed, Seraphic Secret notes:

Here's the good news: this is one Muslim terrorist who will not be used in a disgraceful and damaging prisoner swap.

The reaction to terror against Israel is telling of the mindset of those reporting the news. Though it was reported that the terrorist yelled "Allahu Akbar" most press accounts still try to raise doubts that this was a terrorist attack rather than an accident or criminal act.

(There are those who complained that Al Jazeera's coverage of the attack was too pro-Israel!)

Ha'aretz reports on the Israelis who stopped the attack.

"I approached the bus on my bicycle, and then began to run to the site, looking for a weapon to use against the terrorist," he told reporters yesterday. The military censor imposed a gag order on his identity.

Near the bulldozer the young soldier found a civilian, Oron Ben-Shimon, 28, a regional manager of a security firm in Jerusalem, who was armed. "Together we tried to neutralize the terrorist, at least to lift his feet off the pedals.

"He shouted 'Allah Akbar.' At that moment I pulled the pistol that Oron carried and shot the terrorist three times in the head. After I verified that he was dead, I raised the pistol to make sure that passersby were not hurt," he recounted.

"I went out on Jaffa Road," says Oron, "and as I was driving I saw a crowd of people shouting 'terrorist' and 'mad man.' I put on a police hat, and took my pistol and ran toward the bulldozer."

"I saw a policeman on the bulldozer with a drawn gun. I holstered my weapon and the policeman told me there was no need to shoot him because he passed out and we need to pull him out of the bulldozer.

"And then the terrorist woke up and grabbed the wheel and tried to run over more people. I was already on the bulldozer and I hit him with my fists in the face in an effort to take over the wheel. I shouted to the young man near me to shoot him. He drew my pistol from the holster and shot him three times in the head."

Oron confirms that the terrorist was dead when shot by the policeman. Still even here, the terrorist apparently out of commission started his attack again.

Then there's the heroism of a mother who saved her baby:

Seconds before being crushed to death by a bulldozer, 33-year-old Batsheva Unterman succeeded in unbuckling her 5-month-old baby from the car-seat and passing her out through the window to safety.

"Just as I took the baby out, he reversed on top of the car. The baby is okay, but not the mother," Jeremy Aronson, the man who helped save the baby, told The Jerusalem Post quietly as he sat alone in the waiting room of Hadassah-University Hospital in Mount Scopus.

I am amazed by those who can act quickly at times of crisis. Unfortunately Mrs. Unterman didn't survive.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Surrogate shifting

Four years ago in response to the charges of the Swift Boat Vets, the Washington Post editorialized:

At the same time, the Bush campaign's disingenuous response to the ads -- declining to condemn them but rather calling on all independent "527" groups to cease and desist -- has done no credit to the president, who finally said yesterday that Mr. Kerry "served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record." Resurrecting a tactic wielded against Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) four years ago, Bush surrogates have irresponsibly suggested that Mr. Kerry is dangerously rattled by the controversy, flinging about terms such as "wild-eyed" (Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot) and "losing his cool" (White House press secretary Scott McClellan).

Now the Post's editors don't seem nearly as concerned with attacks by surrogates:

ENOUGH ALREADY! The country's at war, the economy is struggling, oil prices are surging. The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have dramatically different approaches to all this and more. And we've just concluded Day Three of the latest surrogate pseudo-drama: "Gen. Wesley K. Clark: Stupid Comment or Deliberate Slight?"

Except I think that there was a serious issue with surrogates this time. First of all, James Johnson's role in the Sen. Obama campaign was significant, if only because Mr. Johnson represented the opposite of the new politics that Sen. Obama professes to practice.

But it's also worth pointing out that Gen. Clark's comments suggest that the criticisms of the general are not a problem of surrogates. Jennifer Rubin explains:

Eight times is no coincidence. It is fair to say that the Obama camp has used up its benefit of the doubt with regard to surrogates attacking McCain's military service. This time it is Rand Beers, no novice to government service or campaigns, slamming McCain for missing out on key foreign policy training and knowledge because of his time as a POW. First, the comment is plain ignorant. A reading of McCain's account of his years in captivity would have told Beers just how valuable a lesson it was in understanding the nature of totalitarian evil. Beers might consider what experience his own candidate has that is remotely equivalent.

Gen. Clark's remarks and similar one by others close to the Obama campaign are looking more and more like an orchestrated attack against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama's disavowals notwithstanding.

If we look closely at who's slinging the mud in this campaign, it's largely been coming from the Democrats. Now the Post isn't much interested in looking too closely at the charges or even expressing its concern that the 527's are almost exclusively Democratic affairs this year.
 
Nor does the Post appreciate that Sen. McCain is making an effort to keep things more civil.

In general the Post rejects mudslinging of a certain sort and would protest those attacks - if they were coming from a Republican. It appears that when a Democrat is implicated in dirty dealing, though, the Post deems it unimportant.

See Cheat Seeking Missiles for related observations.

MPAC person "Bulldozed by Al-Jazeera"

My favorite civil rights group, and yours too no doubt, MPAC-UK, is not pleased by press coverage of the bulldozer terror-attack in Jerusalem. "Bulldozed by Al-Jazeera" is their title:

I'm not really surprised when I see bias reporting on Fox, Sky, or even the BBC, but I was taken aback with what I saw on Al Jazeera English this afternoon.

Since its launch, Al Jazeera English has easily become my favourite choice of news coverage - a crusader for truth in the murky mass of Zionist influenced media.

However, today the bubble burst. I was aghast at the blatant lack of balance in Al Jazeera's 5pm top news bulletin regarding the Palestinian bulldozer attack in West Jerusalem, and more shocked to be savaged by one of their representatives when I telephoned to give my feedback . . .

"Savaged" here means "not taken seriously."

You need to see the TV coverage to understand my sentiments in full; I was genuinely sad about the needless loss of human life - three Israeli civilians dead and dozens injured. However, as I watched the coverage I became shocked at the pro-Israel bias, which included an interview with a representative of the Jerusalem Post . . .

The Jerusalem Post . . . horrors! Here's where the actual "bulldozing" occurs, I suppose:

I phoned Al Jazeera English to air my grievance and the initial point of contact listened courteously, acknowledged my comments and then put me through to someone who I understand has some editorial control. She was rude, abrupt and downright aggressive. She barked "Give me a break, lady" . . .

I wouldn't have been that polite. In case you didn't guess, I excerpted the article in such a way as to omit a great deal of pro-Palestinian hand-wringing, but go ahead and read the rest if you're so inclined. More on the press coverage of the attack here and here and here.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Submitted 07/02/08

The latest Watcher's Council nominations are up.

Obama's 8 Years As State Legislator Makes Him Better Qualified
The Colossus of Rhodey debunks Alan Ehrenhalt's claim that Sen. Obama's experience as a state legislator makes him better qualified to be President. In fact, according to Ehrenhalt, Sen. Obama even played in a bi-partisan poker game! (And Sen. McCain had a drinking contest with Sen. Clinton in Estonia; I think that trumps a poker game.) Pay attention to the final two paragraphs in particular because Hube nails the fundamental dishonesty of Ehrenhalts's column.

More On Jokes
Done With Mirrors presents with the history of the joke that makes up 17% of what we laugh at.

The Supreme Court: Originalism, Activism, and America's Future
Wolf Howling nicely summarizes the reasoning behind a number of case to show two approaches taken by the Supreme Court deciding cases. The most effective part is where he illustrates the difference between deciding the law based on subjective, arbitrary principles and deciding a case based on the text of the Constitution. He notes, of course, that this is one of the most important consideration when we vote for President this November.

The Rising Price of Oil: How High Is Up?
The Glittering Eye discusses the rising price of oil. I especially liked this observation:

For some governments, where revenues are flat or decreasing, that's a real disaster. For others, where their revenues are increasing right along with the price of oil, e.g. Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, it creates a positive feedback situation and, as we should all know, positive feedbacks are extremely dangerous.

Surreal Logic *UPDATED*
Bookworm Room discusses Gen. Clark's attacks Sen. McCain and by the way observes:

If this were the ordinary business world, all of us would recognize that Obama's resume items are insufficient to develop many leadership skills, nor to establish character.  That's entirely separate from the fact that Obama may actually be a born leader, or that his character may be stellar.  It's sufficient to say that, unlike McCain's resume, Obama's doesn't hint at either leadership or character qualities.

Fireworks and the Nanny State
The Razor uses prohibitions of fireworks to illustrate his frustration with laws designed to protect people from themselves. My frustration toward these excessive laws just came into play this week, when Maryland's new child safety seat law went into effect. Our 6 1/2 year old who was free from a booster for nearly a year, now must sit in one again. The legislature claims that injuries of children have declined since they passed the previous child safety laws, so they figure another law will save more children.

Patriotism
Hillbilly White Trash defines patriotism and observes that there's a difference between patriotism and wishing for a personal ideal that doesn't exist.

Witch Hunt For "Obama's A Muslim" E-Mailer
Cheat Seeking Missiles zeroes in on the hypocrisy of the Washington Post for tracking down the source of rumors that Sen. Obama is a Muslim but ignoring aspects of the e-mails that are true. Commenting on a James Kirchik article (more via memeorandum), James Taranto made a similar observation:

It is also worth noting that the Obama campaign does not necessarily have an interest in separating fact from fiction. Reread that passage from the Post piece, and you'll notice that two of the "rumors" it cites are true: Obama did refuse to wear an American flag pin, and he did have a racist pastor. Obviously Obama would rather have you think of him as the victim of a smear campaign than focus on those things about him that are both damaging and true.

The Obama campaign has been rather liberal with its charges of smears. As Cheat Seeking Missiles points out, so too has been the supposedly objective MSM.

Iraq Sues Over Oil-For-Food... And There's an Obama Connection
Joshuapundit comments on payback for all the years too many members of the international community benefited from Saddam's tyranny. Now with an independent Iraq, those years of coddling the dictator are being called to account in a court of law. Plus how it ties into the presidential campaign.

Principal Confirms Kids Sipped Margaritas
The Education Wonks discovers that some children have been imbibing in school and wonders about the adults in charge.

Impeach Anthony Kennedy
Rhymes With Right makes a novel argument that Justice Kennedy ought to be removed from office. His reading of the Constitution is original but I don't think it has much chance of being accepted.

This Deal Keep Getting Worse and Worse
is my critique of the deal the Israelis made with Hezbollah.

My non-council nomination was Reverberations of Al-Dura by ShrinkWrapped, an analysis of the implications of the false report. It's something, though discussed in certain precincts, is totally ignored by the MSM, who should use the incident as an occasion for some introspection.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.