Soccer Dad

Bullying the neighborhood bully

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him, 'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac. He's the neighborhood bully.

Neighborhood Bully - Bob Dylan

Scott Wilson writing on the web for the Washington Post posits that Israeli leaders are not likely to win diplomatic battles with the United States.

Next, think back to 1992. Picking a fight with the Bush administration cost Shamir his job. Who succeeded him as prime minister?

Rabin, who immediately pledged to cease construction of what he called "political" settlements in the territories. Perhaps he, too, remembered 1975.

Of course one could also point to Ehud Barak who did all he could to cooperate with the Americans to the point of making an unprecedented offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Arafat rejected the offer and, two months later, launched a war against Israel. None of President Clinton's goodwill towards Barak helped him as months later he went down to the worst electoral defeat in Israel's history.

The two previous paragraphs, though, give a hint to Wilson's premises and the limitations of his analysis.

First, it's worth keeping in mind that opinion polls often show that a majority of Israelis supports the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. That is the Obama administration's policy, which Israeli building in the territories severely undermines.

Moreover, secular Israelis view religious settlers as a drain on the national treasury and certainly not worth a fight with a superpower ally that provides the Jewish state with $3 billion a year in military aid.

Of course, building in Jerusalem is different from building in the territories. (And even Wilson's unsupported assertion that building in the territories "undermines" a Palestinian state is dubious.) It was expected - even by the Palestinian Authority - that Israel would continue building in Jerusalem. It was only when the Obama administration made an issue of Israeli building in Jerusalem, that it became an issue with the PA. And in this way, despite Wilson's finesse, that the Obama administration differs quite a bit from Israeli public opinion.

Daniel Pipes offers a number of reasons that he expects Netanyahu to survive this crisis, but the fifth one is the best:

A recent poll of American voters shows an astonishing 8-to-1 sympathy for Israel over the Palestinians, so picking a fight with Israel harms Obama politically - precisely what a president sinking in the polls and attempting to transform one-sixth of the economy does not need.

A point that Pipes does not make is that over the past 16 and a half years Israel has made concessions; nearly every single one of them was met with violence or greater intransigence on the part of the Palestinians. Analysts like Wilson have been preserved in amber going back to 1992. They forget this. But Israelis remember. If it wasn't Camp David that was followed by the "Aqsa Intifada," it was the withdrawal from Lebanon that led to the 2006 war with Hizballah or the withdrawal from Gaza that led to Operation Cast Lead. Israelis are skeptical of the peace process now and won't be well disposed to an American President who shows sympathy to their foes and ignores Israeli sensitivities.

Similar to Wilson is Mark Landler of the New York Times who writes in "Opportunity in a fight with Israel."

For President Obama, getting into a serious fight with Israel carries obvious domestic and foreign political risks. But it may offer the administration a payoff it sees as worthwhile: shoring up Mr. Obama's credibility as a Middle East peacemaker by showing doubtful Israelis and Palestinians that he has the fortitude to push the two sides toward an agreement.

Pay attention to that opening paragraph. Note how he wrote "two sides." Here's what's included in the rest of the "analysis"

Mrs. Clinton did keep up the pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to demonstrate that he was committed to negotiations with the Palestinians

A senior administration official said the harsh rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu, delivered in a phone call last week by Mrs. Clinton, was important "to demonstrate we mean what we say when we enter these talks." The announcement of a housing plan, the official said, undermined trust just as the United States was trying to open indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
...
Taking a tough line with Israel helps the administration counter a perception that it folded last summer when Mr. Netanyahu rebuffed Mr. Obama's demand that Israel freeze all construction of Jewish settlements. When Mr. Netanyahu countered with an offer of a 10-month partial freeze on the construction on the West Bank, Mrs. Clinton praised the offer as "unprecedented."

That soured the Palestinians and left much of the Arab world wondering whether Mr. Obama would ever deliver on the promise in his speech in Cairo of a new approach to the Muslim world. American officials worried that this credibility gap could hinder their campaign to rally support from Persian Gulf countries for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
...
That message was echoed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of the military's Central Command, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the lack of progress in the Middle East was a large challenge to American interests.

"The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel," he said.

In all three instances, Landler writes (in different ways) that it's necessary for the United States to pressure Israel - not "two sides" as he expresses in his opening paragraph. (And Gen. Petraeus, never said that line that's attributed to him. It was in the briefing that was presented to the Armed Forces Services Committee, but it was not in his statement. For more on this point please see, JINSA, Barry Rubin and Max Boot.)

Landler does quote Rep. Ackerman on getting both sides to talk peace, but mentions no specific instance of putting pressure on the Palestinians.

Landler, like Wilson, is living in the past. Charles Krauthammer neatly shines a bright light on this willful ignorance:

Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.

In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.

Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.

So not only have the Palestinians refused to make any substantive concessions for peace, they are surrounded by a cocoon of sympathetic journalists, academics, diplomats and politicians who ignore every single step made by Israel and pretend that it's Israel that's intransigent. They then insist that Israel must do more for peace, which only convinces Israel's enemies to sit tight.

Or worse.

Lee Smith writes in Slate (via memeorandum):

When the Obama administration promised to engage the adversaries that the Bush White House had isolated, U.S. allies followed the strong horse's lead and also changed course. Most notably, the Saudis patched things up with the Syrians after five years of intra-Arab discord. Riyadh pushed its Lebanese allies to reconcile with Damascus, and with Beirut's pro-democracy and pro-United States March 14 movement now all but dead, Washington no longer has a Lebanese ally. When President Barack Obama indicated that the most important thing concerning Iraq was to withdraw U.S. forces, the Syrians and Saudis found a shared interest in attacking Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Even as Maliki, his Iraqi security officials, and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, explained that the Syrians were behind a series of mega-terror attacks in Baghdad, the White House hushed them up for fear that identifying Syria as responsible for the attacks would jeopardize its efforts to engage Damascus. It is lost on no one in the region that Washington left two allies out on their own. But it gets worse.

Some U.S. commentators have praised the Obama administration's recent condemnation of Israel for announcing, during Vice President Joe Biden's visit, that it intended to build 1,600 apartment units in East Jerusalem. The White House's response, they argue, sends a strong message that Washington won't be bullied. In the Middle East, however, there is nothing that reeks so much of weakness as beating up on an ally in public. Moreover, this tongue-lashing comes shortly after the White House swallowed the open taunts of its adversaries. At a recent Damascus banquet featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas' Khaled Meshaal, Syrian President Bashar Assad openly mocked Secretary Hillary Clinton. He joked that he had misunderstood her demands that Syria distance itself from Iran, so instead, said Assad, he was waiving visa requirements for visitors from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Of course, Washington shaming Israel will please the Arabs--even U.S. allies like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, that cheered on Jerusalem when it took on Iran's assets Hezbollah and Hamas. Remember, the Arabs have been compelled by the American strong horse to swallow their pride for decades. But given that Arabs do not air their own dirty laundry for fear it will make them look weak, our public humiliation of an ally will earn us only contempt.

Smart diplomacy at work.

Crossposted at Yourish.

With friends like these ...

Robert Kagan argues that Israel shouldn't feel like it's been singled out.

Israelis shouldn't feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the "special relationship" with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security. Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union's new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them -- despite his six trips to Europe -- and is more of an Asian president.

The Asians, however, are not so sure. Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can't be counted on for the long term. In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China. Although the Obama administration promised to demonstrate that the United States "is back" in Asia after the alleged neglect of the Bush years, it has not yet convinced allies that they are the focus of American attention.

(Note to the NJDC, instead of arguing that the current crisis between Israel and the United States isn't the worst between the allies in 35 years - there is clearly a crisis - just argue that this how President Obama treats all his friends. Thanks to the Hashmonean for the pointer)

That's because, as David Harsanyi points out the President has new friends he needs to cultivate.

Not long after President Barack Obama gave his conciliatory speeches to the Islamic world, he chose not to meddle in the sham election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact, he offered not a word of support for the men and women who took to the streets against that totalitarian regime.

Then, as "manmade disasters" continued to erupt spontaneously around the world -- including at a United States military base -- the administration held steadfast in using non-offensive euphemisms, lest anyone be slighted by our jingoist need to use words that mean something.

And when the president was given a chance to fulfill a campaign promise and acknowledge the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians by Turks during World War I, he instead did everything he could to block the resolution.

These days, as Christian farmers are being slaughtered by Muslim machetes in Nigeria, outrage from the White House is difficult to find -- though it made sure to instruct our Libyan ambassador to apologize to "Colonel" Moammar Gadhafi after he offered some mildly critical comments about the dictator's call for jihad against Switzerland (true story).

I guess that alienating friends and forgiving enemies is the "smart diplomacy" we've heard so much about.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Putting out fires with a gas bag

Barack Obama in his "Rev. Wright" speech (two years ago exactly!):

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

I love the display of false humility with the adjective "imperfect," given that the rest of the speech is less a repudiation of Rev. Wright, than a campaign spiel promising how, as President, Obama would heal all racial wounds by making ours a more just society.

But today, that imperfection, especially on matters of race, is manifest. The WSJ reported yesterday:

With his wavy bouffant and medallion necklaces, the Rev. Al Sharpton famously confronted government officials on behalf of black Americans. Now he has found a new role: telling black leaders to quiet their criticisms and give the government a chance.

President Barack Obama has turned to Mr. Sharpton in recent weeks to answer increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy. Some black leaders are charging that the nation's first African-American president has failed to help black communities hit hard by the downturn, leaving party strategists worried that black Democrats will become dispirited and skip November's congressional elections.

Mr. Sharpton has emerged as an important part of the White House response. On his national radio program, he is directly rebutting the president's critics, arguing that Mr. Obama is right to craft policies aimed at lifting all Americans rather than specifically targeting blacks. One recent on-air fight with Tavis Smiley, a prominent talk show host and Obama critic, grew so heated that it has created a small sensation among black leaders.

So to argue that his policies help all Americans, not just African Americans, the President has turned to a man who has made his career by preaching racism (against "white interlopers") and antisemitism (against "Jewish diamond merchants") within the African American community. I guess that if the gig's prominent enough, Sharpton won't turn it down.

But two years ago, when candidate Obama repudiated Rev. Wright wasn't he saying that he was rejecting such people?

Instapundit observes:

Kinda like if Bush had brought in David Duke to solidify things in the South . . . .

Welcome to post-racial America.

Little tommy's big plans

Thomas Friedman in 1996

Arafat, belatedly, came to understand that Israel could never keep up the momentum of peace without Palestinians making a 100 percent effort to guarantee Israeli security, and Mr. Peres came to understand that Mr. Arafat could never guarantee security unless the peace process continued its momentum. Because they agreed on the big issues, and had forged a strategic partnership, the little issues never led to massive blowups. The violence that did occur was the Israeli and Palestinian extremes against the Israeli and Palestinian mainstreams.

Thomas Friedman today:

Fayyad is the most interesting new force on the Arab political stage. A former World Bank economist, he is pursuing the exact opposite strategy from Yasir Arafat. Arafat espoused a blend of violence and politics; his plan was to first gain international recognition for a Palestinian state and then build its institutions. Fayyad calls for the opposite -- for a nonviolent struggle, for building noncorrupt transparent institutions and effective police and paramilitary units, which even the Israeli Army says are doing a good job; and then, once they are all up and running, declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank by 2011.

Is Friedman implicitly acknowledging that Arafat never truly gave up terror? All the years when he berated Israel, he never truly acknowledged that Arafat hadn't changed. Now is he acknowledging the truth only to foist another mirage on us.

Fayyad sounds great. Really. Here's more:

The strategy of Fayyad -- and his boss, President Mahmoud Abbas -- is gaining momentum and is in "direct conflict with the network of resistance: Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas," said Gidi Grinstein, the president of the Reut Institute, one of the premier Israeli policy research centers.

That assumes a few things that aren't currently in evidence. One, it assumes that Fayyad has any real power. He doesn't. Part of Arafat's toxic legacy (enable by the likes of Friedman) was to make "resistance" an acceptable response to dissatisfaction with Israel. Consequently the majority of Fatah consists of those who still espouse terror as a way of getting their way with Israel. The other assumption is that Fayyad's institutions will be stable and devoted to peace. Again that's far from assured.

So to conclude, as Friedman does, that encouraging Fayyad will weaken Iranian influence is - like his promotion of Yassser Arafat as essential to the peace process - an illusion based on his own wishful thinking.

I wonder how long it will take him to acknowledge the folly of his ways.

The clinton replay

Meryl writes:

Here's why I think the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure over 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of northeastern Jerusalem that will almost certainly remain Israeli in any future agreement with the Palestinians: The Obama administration is trying to topple the Netanyahu government. The Clinton administration did its level best to prevent Bibi from being elected in 1996, and worked very hard to get him thrown out as soon as possible thereafter. The Obama administration has found a stick, and they're using it to beat the Netanyahu administration in the eyes of the world. The Chicago Machine lies and smears have gone out to the appropriate media outlets. The hyperbole is rising as the Machine cogs hit the media trail. It's an all-out assault on Bibi and his administration.

Noah Pollak, in a similar vein:

It should be obvious, at this point, that Obama is trying to manufacture an immense political dilemma for Netanyahu by forcing him to choose between two crises -- one with the United States should he accept the demands, the other with his coalition partners and the Israeli public should he reject them. For Netanyahu, this is a no-win situation. The only choice is between less damaging options.

Netanyahu should reject the new demands, because they are not made in good faith, they are a reversal of previous Obama commitments, and, most important, the proximity talks themselves are a trap.

And finally, Jeffrey Goldberg (via memeorandum):

I've been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it's fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America's relations with Israel; he's trying to organize Tzipi Livni's campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I'm not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it's clear to everyone -- at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog -- that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman's far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai's fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu's surpassingly fragile coalition.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni's centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It's up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel's best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all -- people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- but he'd rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.

Goldberg, I think, is right about what's going on, but his view of Israeli politics is skewed. Shas, for example, has been known to support the peace process, much to the chagrin of other religious parties. Eli Yishai wasn't announcing a plan for a new community on a remote hilltop, but rather expanding the housing stock in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.

And to call Avigdor Lieberman's party "far right" when the party at least believes in territorial compromise is a woeful misnomer. Lieberman holds some views that are characterized as such, but his party, overall, is part of Israel's mainstream.

Goldberg's promiscuous use of "right" to describe Netanyahu and the current Israeli government, ignores what's really happened. Robert Satloff writes:

At the same time, it is also true that a quiet revolution has been going on inside Israel on the peace issue. What has been lost amid the histrionics about construction permits in Jerusalem and Israel's habit of delivering concessions to Washington weeks after the Obama administration wanted them is that Binyamin Netanyahu has led the Likud-led government into totally uncharted waters. With his Bar-Ilan speech, he became the third "revisionist" prime minister in a row to adopt the "two states for two peoples" paradigm, effectively consigning Greater Israel advocates to the margins of Israeli politics, where they have no national champion. Moreover, with his decision on a West Bank settlement moratorium, Netanyahu made a commitment that no Israeli prime minister since Oslo -- Rabin, Sharon, Peres, or Barak -- ever made, and in the process tacitly rolled back forty years of Israeli policy that rejected the idea of settlements as an obstacle to peacemaking. The result is that mainstream Israeli debate on the peace process now centers on the fitness of the PA as a negotiating partner and the extent of Israeli territorial demands -- 2 percent of the West Bank? 4 percent? 6 percent? -- and not on the more basic question of a repartition of Palestine that would leave the other side with the vast majority of West Bank territory in an independent and more-or-less sovereign state. Over time, these developments will be recognized as seismic.

Goldberg's also wrong when he writes, "this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success" (i.e. a coaltion with Kadima instead of Yisrael Beiteinu). Israel had such a coaltion in 2000 and Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's offer at Camp David. It had such a coaltion in 2008 and Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert's offer as the coalition was unraveling.

The problem hasn't been Israel. The problem has been the Palestinians.

And Meryl's correct to recall the machinations of the Clinton administration. Netanyahu got his cabinet to approve the Hebron Accords given the assurances of Dennis Ross that Israel would be allowed to determine the future extents of its withdrawals. But though Arafat never kept any of the terms he agreed to back then, the administration spent the next year and a half (until Wye) battering Netanyahu politically and working to undermine his political support. Here's Charles Krauthammer:

But even more significant than the absurd arbitrariness of this number is its very existence. Under the Oslo Accords, these interim "further redeployments" are left to Israel's discretion (unlike the "final status" talks, at which Israel and the Palestinians will together negotiate their final borders).

Indeed, just 16 months ago the Clinton administration reaffirmed this principle. At 11 p.m. on the night of Jan. 15, 1997, as Netanyahu's cabinet was agonizing over the proposed withdrawal from Hebron, it received an urgent memo from then-ambassador Martin Indyk stating the official US position that "further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. The letters of assurance which secretary Christopher intends to provide to both parties also refer to the process of further redeployments as an Israeli responsibility."

Sixteen months later in London, Albright tells Israel that its 9 percent is no good. The withdrawal must be 13.1 percent - or else she walks away. She gives Netanyahu three days to give his answer. He tells her: "I don't need three days. The answer is no."

So now we have a crisis. And though it was manufactured by State to put pressure on Netanyahu, it reveals instead a crisis of credibility for this administration: How can Israel make ever more dangerous concessions to the Palestinians when the American assurances it receives to offset those concessions are so perishable?

LAST week at the National Press Club, Albright gave a hastily arranged speech to explain her position. Its essential, tendentious theme was that all of the problems in the peace process are traceable to Netanyahu. Everything has gone to pieces, she averred, "in just two years." You don't need to be a CIA codebreaker to understand what that means: Netanyahu was elected prime minister two years ago this month.

The historic Hebron withdrawal, in which Netanyahu single-handedly brought Likud and the Israeli Right into the land-for-peace Oslo process, received nary a word. That's because the only praise offered in her speech was reserved for Arafat.

Albright credits him for making "substantial changes in {his} negotiating position." He had wanted a 30 percent Israeli withdrawal but was willing to accept 13.1.

How generous.

One of the great illusions of the peace process is that every few years, Israelis elect a right wing prime minister whose intransigence halts or reverses the success of the "peace process." But as Satloff and Krauthammer observed, Israel's "right wing" prime ministers since Oslo have all moved the "peace process" forward, though their concessions are pocketed by the Palestinians and ignored by the rest of the world. It is, I guess, easier to blame an Israeli Prime Minister who is subject to political pressure, but that hardly moves the "peace process" when the Palestinian leader refuses to make the smallest concession to Israel or even to peace.

Meryl, Noah Pollak and Jeffrey Goldberg are all correct in their reading of President Obama's motives. It's happened before. Goldberg, however, is wrong in his reading of the Israeli government and offers support to ongoing Palestinian intransigence.

Crossposted on Yourish

Submitted 03/17/2010

This Week's Watcher's Council submissions are up. To also see the non-council submissions check out the Watcher.

Council Submissions

• Wolf Howling - AP Goes APE Over Texas School Book Changes
• Mere Rhetoric - Confirmed: Anti-Israel Jewish Groups Scapegoat Israel For Obama's Manufactured Crisis
• The Razor - The United States of Venezuela
• Rhymes With Right - Why Is This Not A Major National Story?
• The Colossus of Rhodey - On the Texas textbook controversy
• The Provocateur - The Untold Story of Non Profit Hospitals
• Right Truth - Violence Against Israel, Blame It On Obama, Biden, and Clinton
• Bookworm Room - God and Gaia; or, the difference between a religion that serves man and one that serves Nature
• The Glittering Eye - What Next?
• Joshuapundit - The Prince And The FOX
• American Digest - The Plague of Locusts Presidency

Read. Enjoy. Be informed.

Letting lebanon slip away

If the UN were capable of irony, Barry Rubin noted an ironic circumstance the other day:

If you want a good example of the ridiculous, shameful ironies in the terrible era we're living in here it is. The UN-Habitat organization, part of the United Nations, has initiated a Rafik Hariri Memorial Award. The award is named after the former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated by Syria in February 2005.

The first winner is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Of course, Erdogan is an Islamist who is an ally of Syria, the murderer of Hariri.

In other Lebanon related ironic news, Walid Jumblatt, who also was orphaned by Syria, has apologized to --- Syria.

As another step towards reconciliation with Syria and in preparation for his visit to Damascus, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt expressed regret for the criticism and insults he leveled in the past at Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Max Boot explains why Jumblatt would humiliate himself, its to ingratiate himself to the strong horse, Syria, and survive.

Jumblatt, as I mentioned, is known above all for being a survivor, and if he now feels compelled to distance himself from the March 14 coalition (something he has been doing to some degree since 2008) and to propitiate Bashar al-Assad, it is an indication that the balance of power in the Levant is shifting in Assad's favor. That is bad news, indeed. Assad has shown no willingness to give up his support of terrorist groups (notably Hezbollah and Hamas) or to sever links with Iran. And why should he, when the Obama administration is trying to court him despite his unwillingness to change his ways?

Jumblatt knows which way the wind is blowing. This most sensitive of weather vanes indicates that American interests in the region are suffering serious setbacks. But the administration is probably too busy beating up on our most reliable ally in the area to notice.

Good to know that the administration has its priorities in order.

When the washington post notices

There are three recent Washington Post editorials abour the Middle East worth mentioning.

Last July the Washington Post ran an editorial Tough on Israel which observed:

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.

A month ago the Post's editors warned, Don't expect progress from talking to Syria:

Not a few have come away hopeful, at first. Ms. Pelosi memorably declared that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Yet none so far has produced the slightest change in Mr. Assad's behavior or in his unacceptable ambitions. Having carried out a campaign of political murder in Lebanon, including the killing of a prime minister for which he has yet to be held accountable, Mr. Assad continues to insist on a veto over the Lebanese government. He continues to facilitate massive illegal shipments of Iranian arms to Hezbollah, dangerously setting the stage for another war with Israel, and to host the most hard-line elements of the Hamas leadership. He continues to harbor exiled leaders of Saddam Hussein's regime and to allow suicide bombers to flow into Iraq for use by al-Qaeda.

Now the Post's editors are once again focused on Israel, The U.S. Quarrel with Israel:

But Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels -- as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama's quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don't always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits. The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders. If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends.

A few observations:
1) The administration's outreach to Syria was answered with a mocking response from Syria, causing not the slightest reaction from the administration.
2) This is in sharp contrast to the administration's response to Israel, over plans for Israel to build in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.
3) The disparate responses of the admininstration to these two incidents are so severe that even a paper like the Washington Post - which is not what anyone would call "pro-Israel" notices.

RELATED: Richard Cohen writes:

To my knowledge, there is no square in Israel named for the mass murderers of civilians. Palestinian society, in contrast, honors all sorts of terrorists.

This is not a minor point. The veneration of terrorists says something unsettling about Palestinian society. An Israeli can recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian aspiration and appreciate the depth of the calamity that befell the Palestinians in 1948. The Palestinian intellectual Constantine Zurayk coined the term "al-Nakba" (the disaster) for their 1948 debacle -- and there is no doubt it was. But for Palestinians, that disaster has only been compounded by an Arab intransigence and belligerence that has played into Israel's territorial ambitions, particularly the annexation of East Jerusalem. The reliance on terrorism has had cinematic charms and given the Palestinians a certain cachet among the West's kaffiyeh set, but it has caused Israelis to dig in their heels. The adulation of Dalal Mughrabi and other terrorists is bound to give your average Israeli parent a certain pause: Is this the state we want next to us? Didn't pulling out of Gaza produce a steady drizzle of rockets and, in due course, another war?

His perspective is skewed. Palestinian belligerence doesn't play into anyone's hands, it shows a mindset that is hostile to Israel and the idea of peace with Israel. But the central point is correct.

Crossposted on Yourish.

350 Page Report Debunks Goldstone Claim Hamas Didn't Use Human Shields Or Mosques

A new 350 page report debunks the Goldstone Report and its findings on the use of human shields and mosques by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF.

The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

The IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) cooperated with the report's authors and declassified hundreds of photographs, videos, prisoner interrogations and Hamas-drawn sketches as part of an effort to counter the criticism leveled at Israel in the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report.

...The report points to four basic flaws in the Goldstone Report: It does not deal with the nature of Hamas - its terrorist aspects and ideology; it minimizes the gravity of the terrorist attacks against Israel, focusing on rocket fire during the six months before Operation Cast Lead while devoting little space to the rocket and mortar fire that began in 2001; it does not deal with the Hamas military buildup in the Gaza Strip in the year preceding Cast Lead that threatened Israel, but at the same time did provide extensive historical coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and it ignored the role Iran and Syria play in Gaza by aiding Hamas and supplying it with explosives and weaponry.

A copy of the report can be found here [PDF].

Here is the introduction to the report (all emphasis in the original):

March, 2010

Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip 

The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings 

-------------------------------------------------------

Introduction: main findings

1. This document provides the main findings of a study which examined how the Goldstone Report dealt with the nature and activities of Hamas in the Gaza Strip before and during Operation Cast Lead.

2. The first part of the study examines how the Report relates to the terrorist threat as it developed in the Gaza Strip in the years before Operation Cast Lead. The subsequent parts deal with the various aspects of Hamas' strategy and combat tactics during the operation, emphasizing the massive use it made of Gazan civilians as human shields. The study does not deal with specific cases of IDF actions, which the IDF has examined separately.

3. The study compares the findings of the Goldstone Report with the actual events on the ground. It is supported by a vast amount of reliable, varied information which originated in the Israeli intelligence community, as well as open-source information, including statements made by Hamas elements.

4. The comparison clearly indicates four basic flaws in the way the Goldstone Report relates to the period before Operation Cast Lead:

Drunk on his own eloquence

In Driving Drunk in Jerusalem Thomas Friedman warns PM Netanayahu:

In sum, there may be a real opportunity here -- if Netanyahu chooses to seize it. The Israeli leader needs to make up his mind whether he wants to make history or once again be a footnote to it.

What opportunity?

This whole fracas also distracts us from the potential of this moment: Only a right-wing prime minister, like Netanyahu, can make a deal over the West Bank; Netanyahu's actual policies on the ground there have helped Palestinians grow their economy and put in place their own rebuilt security force, which is working with the Israeli Army to prevent terrorism; Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are as genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find; Hamas has halted its attacks on Israel from Gaza; with the Sunni Arabs obsessed over the Iran threat, their willingness to work with Israel has never been higher, and the best way to isolate Iran is to take the Palestinian conflict card out of Tehran's hand.

His description of Abbas and Fayyad as "genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find" underscores a problem. I don't think that guys who are burning Israeli products are that serious about a solution. But more importantly, they're about as moderate as the PA comes and thus have no real power. Hamas has halted its attacks, but that's been due to Cast Lead. But finally we get to Friedman's analysis of the Sunni Arabs. Well if Iran is so important to them, why don't they become more concilliatory towards Israel? (In fact, what's going on in Israel may be of less importance to them than Friedman thinks.)

When you read Friedman's recommendations for the Middle East, recall that he predicted that once Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah would lay down its arms as it would no longer have any grievance against Israel. That worked out really well didn't it?

As for Friedman's contention:

Biden -- a real friend of Israel's -- was quoted as telling his Israeli interlocutors: "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and endangers regional peace."

Mere Rhetoric has the particulars about Biden's pro-Israel credentials.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Fanning the flames

The Obama administration continued to turn up the pressure on Israel yesterday, sending political director David Axelrod onto the Sunday talk shows. (via memeorandum) As Axelrod said to Jake Tapper:

The issue, Axelrod said, is a "flare point throughout the region" and puts U.S. interests at risk. "It is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue," Axelrod said.

Meanwhile, the PA, Israel's "peace partners" are calling for Arabs to defend "al Aqsa" (via memeorandum)

Top Fatah official and holder of the Jerusalem portfolio Khatem Abd el-Kader called Palestinians on Sunday to "converge on al Aksa to save it" from what he called "Israeli attempts to destroy the mosque and replace it with the [Jewish] temple." Khader was speaking ahead of a dedication of a renovated synagogue in the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, planned to take place Tuesday.

He called Israel's renovation of the Hurva Synagogue a "provocation" and warned Israel that it was "playing with fire."

If the administration thought that putting pressure on Israel was the way to bring peace to the Middle East, it was terribly wrong. All it is doing is encouraging its (and Israel's) enemies.

Heckuva job.

An Annotated List Of Islamist Attacks Around The Globe In 2009

180

24 has had a series of characters who seemingly have no real purpose but act as plot devices.

Until Season 8, seemingly the worst of these was Erin Driscoll, the head of CTU LA in Season 4 for the first half. Driscoll was bland (though she rescued Jack after he was arrested for holding up a gas station) and the subplot was progressed interminably. The whole point to Driscoll was to put off the Tony/Michelle reunion until the second half of the season. Introducing that dynamic too early wouldn't have worked.

Season 4 also introduced (and dispatched) Paul Raines, Audrey's (sort of ex-)husband. Amazingly he was both a real estate mogul and a software wiz. Thus he could be a red herring bad guy (and get tortured, but forgive Jack) then run off to expose a corrupt defense contractor and, finally, protect Jack. The unbelievable combination of talents suggest that he was invented to fill a number of roles, not to be real person. James Frain, however, did a great job in this thankless role.

In Season 5, the plot device character was the hobbit, Lyn McGill. On one hand he brilliantly saves a rescue mission by realizing that Jack was using an obsolete code word. On the other hand in a fit of mind numbing stupidity gets mugged and allows a deadly infiltration of CTU. I guess both events had to happen, but that the same person who could be so brilliant in the former and stupid in the latter absolutely boggles the mind.

Season 8, the plot device character is Dana Walsh. Up until the last episode it appeared that her role was to distract Cole long enough to allow Jack to take over the operation. Well she and Cole returned to CTU and she apologizes to Hastings, assures him that she won't be stupid again, then leaves and promptly answers a cell call from an unknown number at 2:30 AM in the middle of a national security crisis. (CTU, I would assume is a top secret operation, the idea that its employees can talk on unmonitored personal cell phones makes no sense. Certainly they couldn't just allow anyone know where they're located.) I have a feeling that her meeting with the "parole officer" will lead to tragedy. Hopefully she'll get offed. (Though that would not be a tragedy.)

One of the rules about 24 is that characters portrayed in a physical relationship die. (Or something bad happens to them: Olivia went to jail last season. The weaselly reporter was shut up.) The only person who seems to survive physical relationships unscathed is the indestructable assassin, Mandy. So it was clear that Tarin and Kayla would not end well. I had guessed that she was the surprise bad guy; oh well.

Still two things from the last episode puzzle me. After CTU realized that their video feed was compromised they cut it off. So the only way the bad guys knew that Marcos had chickened was visually. And yet Jack didn't order a sweep of nearby buildings to look for them. The other thing is what is the chance that a low level operative like Markos would know that the identity of the top guy?

Finally, when Jack tells Marcos that he's an ex-Federal agent, did it remind anyone of SNL's classic "Ex-police" skit?

Here are a couple of reviews of the latest.

'Diaspora' Palestinians Copy Jewish-Agency

Apparently their goal is not your father's Palestinian state:

Jewish-Agency-style 'Palestine Network' launched in Bethlehem

Palestinians from 23 countries organize to build a "sustainable, democratic, secular" Palestinian state.

...The state of Palestine does not exist; the courts are still not working, local government has numerous problems, not to mention health care, education and infrastructure. Representatives of Palestinian communities abroad have come to Bethlehem to kick off the independent "Palestine Network."

"Welcome to your second home," announces Ramzi Khoury, executive director of the Palestine Network. "You are representatives from 23 countries who have chosen to be engaged in building this Palestinian state and not just talking about it. This is a do tank, rather than a talk tank. This is not a political club."

Of the estimated 10 million Palestinians living today, at least half live in what Palestinians call its diaspora - away from the region. According to Khoury, the Palestine Network is establishing chapters across the world that will serve as a conduit for professionals, entrepreneurs and intellectuals to lay the foundations for a Palestinian state.

"If you want to build a democratic state, you need to tackle all the sectors of that state," Khoury says. "So doctors need to come down here and revamp our health system, engineers need to come here and help us build, lawyers and judges need to come and help us create an independent judiciary and a state of law, and we need educators."

The Palestine Network is not just another charity or source of funding. The Palestinians have many economic backers. In 2008, global financial aid to the Palestinian Authority exceeded $2 billion, including about $526 million from Arab countries, $651m. from the European Union, $300m. from the US and about $238m. from the World Bank, according to the Arab League's 2009 economic report.

The founding conference, sponsored by the governments of Germany and Belgium, was held in the opulent Convention Center on the outskirts of Bethlehem, hub of Palestinian culture and tourism.

The network's goal is to use expertise from Palestine's diaspora communities to develop the local economy, judiciary, education and health infrastructures in what will be the future state.

I thought this was interesting:

The Palestinians are the first to admit they have borrowed from the Israeli experience, which set up the Jewish Agency to build Israel.

"It is a model, why not," Khoury says. "It was a network like this that established the Jewish-state idea. What they did is create all the programs on the ground to bring in Jews into Palestine and create the infrastructure that is still needed for the State of Israel today.

"Today there are many networks out there which are there to support Israel," he continues. "Some of them are left-leaning, others are right-leaning. You find them clashing and arguing and they are not harmonious. But at the end of the day they are there to support Israel... and this is what Palestine needs."

Yeah, he'll learn.

Read the whole thing.

Also, check out the video from The Media Line News Agency

Considering their declared goal of a secular democratic Palestinian state, the Palestine Network may very well find their greatest opposition coming not from Israel, but from the leadership of their own people.

UPDATE: The fact that Palestine Network copies the Jewish Agency does not mean that they recognize the history behind the Jewish Agency and the Jewish state.

The Palestinians are the first to admit they have borrowed from the Israeli experience, which set up the Jewish Agency to build Israel.

"It is a model, why not," [executive director Ramzi] Khoury says. "It was a network like this that established the Jewish-state idea. What they did is create all the programs on the ground to bring in Jews into Palestine and create the infrastructure that is still needed for the State of Israel today.

Actually, Mr. Khoury, the idea of a Jewish state dates back to over 3,000 years before the Jewish Agency--going back to the Torah.

But if Khoury limits the comparison between Jewish and Arab Palestinian nationalism, there are those who will bend over backwards to find parallels. In If I Am Not For Myself, Ruth Wisse writes:

The symmetry between Arabs and Jews that Amos Oz is still a little embarrassed to introduce, except by way of leading questions, is taken by Grossman as the premise of his chronicle The Yellow Wind. He devotes all his artistic powers to equating the moral energy of the Arab desire for Palestine with the Jews' age-old longing for Zion. When a sixteen-year old Arab girl talks to him about the city of Lod, "where the sky was always blue," he does not remind her that she is sitting only a few miles away but translates her nationalism into a Jewish longing:

I remembered the wistful lines of Yehuda Halevy, "The taste of your sand--more pleasant to my mouth than honey," and Bialik, who sang to the land which "the spring eternally adorns," how wonderfully separation beautifies the beloved, and how strange it is, in the barrenness of the gray cement of [the Arab refugee camp] Deheisha, to hear sentences so full of lyric beauty, words spoken in a language more exalted than the everyday, poetic but of established routine, like a prayer or an oath: "And the tomatoes there were red and big, and everything came to us form the earth, and the earth gave us and gave us more."

Grossman does not even pay attention to his own evidence: the contrast between Yehuda Halevy who is prepared to find the sand as sweet as honey and the Arabs who imagine the land that they don't possess to be more magically fertile than the land they actually cultivate. It does not occur to him to ask why, if there is such symmetry in the nature of Jewish and Arab "longing," Arabs should now be in possession of 250,000 squarer miles while the Jews have a mere 8,000, which Arabs still clamor to conquer. He is determined to prove equivalence--between the Arab boy playing on a comb and the fabled Jewish fiddler on the roof, between the Arab grandmother and his own Jewish bobenyu. One might ask why Grossman should travel among Arabs at all when they are so undifferentiated from the folks back home, but that would able to miss the political purpose of the book of which establishing perfect symmetry between Arab and Jew is but a first necessary step.

[Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

But if there are Jews who yearn for parallels between Jewish and Palestinian aspirations, Palestinians are having none of it:

The U.S. government, via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has provided support for a glossy 39-page "Palestine Guide Book." Just released by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Tourism, it declares on its first page, "Palestine lies between the Mediterranean Coast and the Jordan River." Not until Page 10 are we informed - under the heading "Country" - that "Palestine comprises the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

You only have to look at this excerpt of the booklet to see where they are going with this:

Personally, I think that line about how "Palestine has been a meeting point for diverse cultures since prehistoric times" is a nice touch. I suppose it is only a short jump from dragging a woman back to your cave and making her wear a hijab once you get her there.

by Daled Amos

What's new at MPAC.ie?

I have been interested in MPAC-UK (Muslim Public Affairs Committee) for some time as a sort-of window into the clash of civilizations. They have a blog-like website in which half the posts are often attacks on Israel and one of their founders once gave money to David Irving. Nevertheless, they were once invited by the BBC to provide a more democracy-minded alternative voice to that of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Recently, an Irish MPAC has appeared on the scene. The MPAC.ie website seems to be modeled on that of MPAC-UK. MPAC.ie, however, seems more extreme than its UK sister-organization. Their posts, for instance, are often liberally sprinkled with the word "Kuffar," which MPAC-UK seems to avoid. Let's take a little stroll into the world of MPAC.ie, shall we? One of the more interesting current titles proclaims "Saudis Help Christians to be more 'Christian.'" Really? How does that work?

[...] The Saudi ban on 'church buildings' has meant that Christians in that land have now partly returned to the New Testament model of worship (they still maintain many polytheist practices that have nothing to do with the religion that 'Isa (Jesus) brought) in the same way that the early Christians did, in small joyful gatherings.

Islam has once again demonstrated its position as the true criterion between what is right and wrong in the former religions. [...]

[...] The punishment for mocking the Prophet in an Islamic state is severe, both for Muslims and non-Muslims. However the situation for those in the Hereafter is far worse.

For while the Muslim who commits the grievous sin may repent, s/he will still be subject to execution in this life - their repentance will benefit them in the Hereafter. There is no such recompense for the non-Muslim. [...]

[...] What is wrong with Muslims that the Kuffar have now become the protectors of the Ummah's most vulnerable. Where are the men who once went to war over the honour of ONE Muslim woman?

Last year we subjected ourselves to Socialists who led anti-war marches against the onslaught in Gaza, they called for a socialist Middle east while Muslims were forbidden to chant our solidarity with those fighting the aggressive occupier in our land. What is wrong with us?

It's time to wake up and take a lead in these matters, if conscientious non-Muslims wish to come under OUR banner then they are most welcome, but it is WE who should dictate the direction of campaigns NOT them.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Of grievances and perceptions

Last week in an article about the eviction of two Arab families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, Isabel Kershner of the New York Times summed it up:

For those who want to see a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the eviction of the Ghawis has touched on two sensitive nerves: the fate of East Jerusalem, where Israel and the Palestinians vie for control, and the abiding grievances of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.

She mentioned two things: both sides are competing and the Palestinians have a grievance. In fact most of the article centers around the Palestinian claims and how even some Israelis support the Palestinian case. The history leaves out inconvenient details such as:

On April 13, 1948, a convoy of ambulances, armored buses, trucks loaded with food and medical equipment, and 105 doctors, nurses, medical students, Hebrew University personnel, and guards headed for Mt. Scopus. The convoy was ambushed in the middle of Sheikh Jarrah, the lead vehicle hit a mine, and gangs of armed Arabs attacked. Seventy-eight Jews were murdered, among them 20 women and Dr. Haim Yaski, the hospital director. In the following months the hospital and university ceased to function. After the Six-Day War, when the area was returned to Israel, a memorial was built in their honor in Sheikh Jarrah on the road leading to Mt. Scopus.

Compare Kershner's care in preserving the Palestinian narrative in the Sheikh Jarrah story to the way she handled the Israeli narrative in the case of honoring Dalal Mughrabi:

The woman being honored, Dalal Mughrabi, was the 19-year-old leader of a Palestinian squad that sailed from Lebanon and landed on a beach between Haifa and Tel Aviv. They killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children, according to official Israeli figures. Ms. Mughrabi and several other attackers were killed.

To Israelis, hailing Ms. Mughrabi as a heroine and a martyr is an act that glorifies terrorism.

But, underscoring the chasm between Israeli and Palestinian perceptions, the Fatah representatives described Ms. Mughrabi as a courageous fighter who held a proud place in Palestinian history. Defiant, they insisted that they would not let Israel dictate the names of Palestinian streets and squares.

Note that here the dispute is reduced to a matter of perceptions, as if a "bloody rampage" that claims the lives of "38 Israeli civilians" isn't the very definition of terrorism.

As Judith Apter Klinghoffer writes:

At no point does the reporter point out the sophistry of the position. There is nothing mysterious in the notion. It is an action designed to frighten a population. Hijacking a random public bus and murdering the passengers can have no other motivation but spreading fear, i.e., terror.

Kershner actually compounds her felony.

"We are all Dalal Mughrabi," declared Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, the party's main decision-making body, who came to join the students. "For us she is not a terrorist," he said, but rather "a fighter who fought for the liberation of her own land."

Who is Col. Tawfiq Tirawi? He has an interesting record.

The Palestinian Security Organs - such as Preventive Security, as well as the General Intelligence Service and its arm in the West Bank, under Colonel Tawfiq Tirawi - have been involved in other violent actions in breach of the agreements, such as the abduction or unlawful arrest of Israeli citizens (in some cases, Israeli Arabs suspected as "collaborators"), and the murder of Palestinian real estate dealers (suspected of selling land to Jews).

Tirawi's actions took place after the Oslo Accords were signed. The idea that he would deny that Mughrabi (or anyone attacking Israelis) is a terrorist is rooted in self interest. By any reasonable definition Tirawi, too, is a terrorist. Though I don't think that's what he means by "We are all Dalal Mughrabi."

If there's anything positive about these two articles it's that in the first one, Kershner writes about "Israel's long dormant peace camp." While I don't agree with the peace camp's position here, it's pretty clear that there is no parallel one among the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 03/14/2010

The council has spoken. Here are the winners and runners up.

One council member had 2/3 of a point deducted for not voting.

Winning Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! - JoshuaPundit - Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Religious Shrines


• Second Place with 2 points - Bookworm Room - Obama Care and abortions

Winning Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! Joel J. Sprayregen/ American Thinker - Obama's Iran Policy Collapses to the Accompaniment of Mockery Around the Globe
• Second Place with 1 2/3 points - Chicago Boyz - Seizing the Opportunity to Destroy Western Civilization

For a complete list of submissions see here.

Members of the Watcher's council participated in the latest National Journal bloggers poll. David Kopel presented his answer here; I think that my answers were pretty similar to his. I'm also reasonably sure that he was quoting the same NYT article that I did.

"Daylight Saving Time Increases Serious Heart Attacks, Decreases Returns on Investments in Week After Change"

From CBS News:

Daylight saving time begins at 2 a.m. Sunday. It's supposed to save energy -- pushing daylight later in the day means fewer lights turned on at night. Benjamin Franklin, annoyed by an early sunrise in Paris, first came up with the idea. Congress made it law in 1918 during World War I to conserve energy.

But when the country jumps ahead an hour Sunday morning, that one little lost hour of sleep has a big impact.

The number of serious heart attacks goes up 6 to 10 percent (PDF) on the first three workdays after the time change. On Wall Street, economists say sleep-deprived traders often produce "large negative returns" on that following Monday, once estimated at $31 billion.

"It turns out that it takes two to three days - sometimes even longer - to make up and to adjust to that extra hour lost," said Dr. Sonia Ancoli-Israel of the University of California San Diego School of Medicine.

Once we do make up for the hour, there's an upside: we're better drivers in daylight, reducing fatal car crashes and pedestrians getting hit.

In Losing Sleep At The Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly, by Mark J. Kamstra, Lisa A. Kramer and Maurice D. Levi write:

...it has been argued that an important thread connecting the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the near meltdown at Three Mile Island, the massive oil spill from the Exxon Valdez, and the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, is peopple making mistakes because of workshift changes and consequent imbalances of sleep. Equally tragic but less publicized consequences of sleep-related errors have resulted from accidents, which each year "cost the United States over $56 billion, cause nearly 25,000 deaths and result in over 2.5 million disabling injuries."

I don't suppose anyone ever thought of giving Monday off?

More importantly--are the risks really worth the rewards?

by Daled Amos

One man's conspiracy theory is another man's track record

The other day, I wondered how the NJDC would spin Vice President Biden's condemnation of Israel or would they just ignore it.

The answer: they spun it.

The reaction from the right-wing has been to trash Biden's pro-Israel bona fides and to concoct conspiracy theories that question the strong support for Israel's security that has been shown by President Barack Obama and his administration.

Conspiracy theories? Really.

The situation that unfolded last night represents a highly nuanced and complex issue that has rattled the current Israeli government. American and Israeli policies on this issue have differed for over forty years; if anyone thinks that Biden's statement was unprecedented, one only needs to look at the behavior of Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and the statements by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan regarding settlements.

Nuanced and complex. OK, but does the NJDC really want to compare the Obama adminstration to that of President George H. W. Bush? I can think of few presidents who were less friendly to Israel. As far as Reagan and George W. Bush, I know both didn't see eye to eye with Israel about settlements, but did either administration use the term "condemn?" That's what's unprecedented.

Look you don't need to be pro-Israel to conclude that Vice President Biden's treatment of Israel was shabby. Here's Jackson Diehl (via memeorandum)

Over the years U.S. envoys from Baker to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have learned that the trick is to sidestep such broadsides, expressing disapproval without allowing the toxic settlement issue to take center stage and derail peace negotiations. After all, most Israeli settlement announcements, including this one, are pure symbolism: No ground will be broken anytime soon, and even if the homes are eventually constructed they won't stand in the way of a Palestinian state.

By that measure, Biden flunked. Interrupted in the middle of what was supposed to be a day of love-bombing Israelis with speeches and other demonstrations of U.S. support, he kept Netanyahu and his wife waiting for 90 minutes into a scheduled dinner before issuing a statement that harshly criticized the interior ministry's announcement. Biden chose to use a word -- "condemn" -- that is very rarely employed in U.S. statements about Israel, even though he and his staff knew that Netanyahu himself had been blindsided by the settlement announcement. So much for love bombs.

On Wednesday, after meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Biden once again allowed the settlement issue to take center stage, declaring that the "Israeli government decision...undermines the trust we need right now in order to begin...profitable negotiations." That may be true. But part of the trust that has been missing has been between Israel and Obama, whose poll ratings in the Jewish state plunged to the single digits at one point last year. Many Israelis have resented the fact that Obama has visited Cairo and Riyadh as president, but not Jerusalem. Biden's trip was seen as partial compensation, and as a way of assuring Israelis that if they took risks in peace talks, this U.S. administration would stand behind them.

Mission accomplished? I would think not.

The NJDC makes one substantive point that should be addressed.

Settlements aside, it does appear that Biden made progress towards coaxing the Palestinians towards discontinuing their anti-Israel incitement. According to both Ha'Aretz and The Jerusalem Post, the Palestinian Authority (PA) cancelled a memorial ceremony for a terrorist who murdered Israelis along the Haifa-Tel Aviv Highway in 1978. The PA's announcement followed today's meetings between Biden and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayaad.

Well yes, the Vice President apparently did play a role in getting the dedication cancelled or postponed. But he was asked to do so.

Israeli news reported that PM Netanyahu asked George Mitchell and then Vice President Biden to put pressure on the PA to cancel the event. Late yesterday the Palestinian Authority cancelled today's event.

However, where did the condemnation of Israel come from? Martin Peretz:

In any case, Biden knew that his condemnation raised questions and objections, and not just from Israelis or Zionists or Jews. So he explained that he thought that the announcement of the construction "undermined the trust required to conduct the negotiations." And, therefore, "I--at the request of President Obama--condemned it immediately." This is all reported in a Jerusalem Post article, "US has no better friend than Israel," published today.

I was correct in my intuition that it was really Obama doing the condemning. You may draw your own conclusions.

Again, let's be clear. Martin Peretz is generally supportive of the President. He's certainly no right winger.

My friend, the Hashmonean drew his conclusions:

It's hard to escape the fact the speech was heavy on lecturing us in Israel, the bulk of it was seemingly devoted to this, Biden's personal anecdotes of friendship aside.

•How we don't do enough for peace
•How we don't risk enough for peace
•How we endanger peace.
•How hard Peace is & how we are making it harder.
As I listened to it, even the parts extolling our long friendship, I couldn't help but be struck at how superficial it all was. The personal anecdotes were the same ones delivered by Biden previously to AIPAC in other speeches, that's fine & understandable. It may have effected me nonetheless. I can't even fault Joe, he delivered his speech well. But I felt it's as if this White House is just going through the motions when it comes to Israel.

It's such a stark contrast to the genuine warmth we felt from Bush. When he spoke you could hear it in his voice & see it in his eyes he was true friend. You could feel the alliance pulsing, the passion that real friends or brothers have for each other. Shoulder to shoulder, thick & thin.

Put simply, to ask the PA not to incite against Israel required an external request; to condemn Israel for a disputed matter, the administration had the fortitude on its own to administer a very public rebuke that can only encourage Israel's enemies.

The NJDC insisted during the Presidential campaign that Barack Obama was a friend of Israel and attributed bad faith to those who would differ. At some point, I suppose, I could have given them the benefit of the doubt, but still I had little faith that someone who was preached to by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; who was friendly with Rashid Khalid and who was funded by Alan Solomont would be sympathetic to Israel. The President's record so far has borne out my fears. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it is a track record. And it is one that the President stated last year.

Crossposted on Yourish.

And The Award For Israel's Greatest Friend Goes To...Joe Biden?

Is anyone else getting tired of hearing about who is--or isn't--Israel's greatest friend? At one point, there were those who proclaimed that President Bush had won that award. Now we are told that Joe Biden is a winner in the Greatest Friend of Israel Ever to Have Been a Member of the U.S. Senate category.

Laura Rozen writes at Politico:

The Israeli press has been extremely critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government's behavior during Biden's visit. See these excerpts from a piece by Shimon Shiffer in Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth today, headline: "Biden: You're Jeopardizing Regional Peace":

Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel as a friend. As a matter of fact, he is considered to be the greatest friend of Israel ever to have been a member of the U.S. Senate. Legislation that he promoted over the years ensured the Israelis' security and welfare. It is that great friend of ours who now feels betrayed.

With all due respect, I think it is long past time to distinguish between US politicians who vote pro-Israel and those who actually walk the walk.

In a post I wrote on Soccer Dad, I mentioned there was a post in The New York Sun's now defunct blog, It Shines For All:

When hearing the name Biden, we always think of the famous exchange between Biden and Prime Minister Begin. As Moshe Zak recounted in a March 13, 1992, piece in the Jerusalem Post:

In a conversation with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, after a sharp confrontation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of the settlements, Begin defined himself as "a proud Jew who does not tremble with fear" when speaking with foreign statesmen.

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John [sic] Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us."

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.

Real friends criticize friends--but they do not threaten. So what did Biden say away from the public eye?

While standing in front of the cameras, the U.S. vice president made an effort to smile at Binyamin Netanyahu even after having learned on Tuesday that the Interior Ministry had approved plans to build 1,600 housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. But in closed conversations, Joe Biden took an entirely different tone.

...People who heard what Biden said were stunned. "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden castigated his interlocutors. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

So according to Biden, building on land that was captured during a defensive war--land that has never been part of a Palestinian sovereign state--is a threat not only to regional peace, but to the lives of American troops. How can that be? Biden explains:

The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.

So Israel is supposed to refrain from looking after the best interests of its own citizens because of the perceptions of the Muslim world. Putting aside the fact that such reasoning could be used to continue a building freeze indefinitely, what is left unsaid is that along with that perception comes a long history of Muslim violence in the region--Muslim violence that started immediately after the death of Mohammed and which has continued till today, including as many as 11 separate inter-Muslim conflicts during the 13 years from 1970 to 1983 along. Throw in the list at The Religion of Peace of deaths and casualties currently resulting from Muslim violence and terrorism around the world, and it is clear that Israel is not be held responsible for Biden's unnamed Muslim terrorism and violence.

Bidne's mis-perceptions of the Middle East are part of a long pattern.  A Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2008 notes that

• During the 1970s, Biden opposed aid to South Vietnam in its war against the North, contributing to the fall of an American ally.
  
• During the 1980s, Biden opposed both President Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras and Reagan's attempt to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which was battling the FMLN.
  
• Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"
  
• While he did vote to authorize the war to liberate Iraq, in 2006 Biden argued in favor of the partition of Iraq as a way to end the violence.
  
• In 2007, Biden opposed the troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake."

Based on these examples, the op-ed concludes:

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

A more recent bad assumption by Biden is mentioned in his comments at Tel Aviv University:

It's no secret the demographic realities make it increasingly difficult for Israel to remain both a Jewish homeland and a democratic country in the absence of the Palestinian state. Genuine steps toward a two-state solution are also required to empower those living to live in peace and security with Israel and to undercut their rivals who will never accept that future.

On the contrary, it is no secret that the old assumptions about the demographics were based on the exaggerated and inaccurate information provided by the Palestinian Arabs. IMRA has a translation of a Hebrew article by Yoram Ettinger:

There is a demographic problem, but it is not lethal, there is no demographic machete at Israel's throat, and the demographic tailwind is Jewish, not Arab. In fact, documented births, deaths and migration clarify that Jewish demography has become a strategic asset and not a liability. Hence, awareness of demographic reality could enhance the security, political, strategic, diplomatic and economic options of Israeli doves and hawks alike. [emphasis added]

Bottom line, Israel was careless in allowing a situation where Vice President Biden was embarrassed by poorly timed statements by the government. However, by the same token, it behooves Israeli leaders to be aware of who is a friend of Israel and who is not; who is reliable and consistent and who is not. Under the circumstances and given his track record, Biden just does not fit the bill.

by Daled Amos