Guide to the Perplexed

2009-06-17T15:16:00.004-04:00

17 June 2009 - Obama Is Missing a Historic Opportunity

The outcome of the democratic uprising in Iran is not yet certain--though without at least rhetorical support from the west, it is likely to be crushed.

This far, President Obama has failed to stand up for democracy. His first response indicated that he would continue his policy of "engagement" with a regime that had been wholly exposed as illegtimate. He also upheld the pretense that this election, absent vote-rigging; would have been valid. He this indcated that his administration understands neither the root of terror in the Middle East, nor the opportunity to defeat it that has arisen (and which may soon be lost). Even his revised response yesterday, which at least acknowledged that Mousavi was not the reformer that the U.S. administration has hitherto portrayed him to be, did not stand up for the people or principles at stake.

Iran is not only a nuclear threat--as belatedly admitted by Mohammed ElBaradei--but also a major sponsor of terror and tyranny through it's proxies, Hamas and Hizbollah. If the regime could be toppled, not only could nuclear war be averted, but terror against Israel couod effectively be stopped. It was never possible or desirable to pursue regime change through an external, aggressive military strategy. But it was possible to use pressure from without to encourage change from within. That moment of change has now arrived, earlier than many expected--perhaps driven by economic conditions, perhaps driven by social frustration, perhaps encouraged by the knowledge that Israel was preparing to strike or that the U.S. would remain in Iraq and Afghanistan after all or even by Obama's own inspiring election and rhetoric.

The point is that the U.S. has the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, through strong words that suggest the potential for strong action. (If ever there was a time for "tough diplomacy," it is now.) The revelation in today's Jerusalem Post that Iran is using Hamas thugs to attack pro-democracy demonstrators is proof not only of the weakness of the regime (since Iranian soldiers are becoming reluctant to repress their fellow citizens) but also the depravity of the would-be Palestinian rulers. We could defeat both threats, and protect our allies and interests for generations, without firing a shot, if we simply stood up for our values.

But Obama--like Thabo Mbeki on Zimbabwe, whose "Zimbabwe must solve its own problems" approach doomed that country's future--refuses to stand up for human rights and democracy, preferring the false comforts of stability and "talks." He has made engagement an end in itself, proving John McCain's charge that Obama did not know the difference between tactics and strategy. We may yet see freedom winin Iran. If not, we will long regret Obama's failure.

Note: I apologize for any typos or rushed language; I had to compose this entry by iPhone.

2009-04-19T23:22:00.002-04:00

19 April 2009 - Once again, credit where it is due

I don't approve of President Obama glad-handing Hugo Chavez. But at least he decided to pull out of the Durban 2 conference. He never should have considered going in the first place, but the decision is welcome nonetheless.

2009-04-06T08:54:00.002-04:00

06 April 2009 - An Obama statement to agree with

I still disagree with many aspects of his foreign policy, including his obsequious approach to the Arab and Muslim world, but at least President Obama has come out against the canard that Israel is the reason Al-Qaeda hates America:

Al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is-- al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is, you know, don't fool yourselves because some people say, well, you know, if we changed our policies with respect to Israeli/Palestinian conflict or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly, these organizations would stop threatening us.

That's just not the case. It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect and changing our language and changing our tone. It is true that we have to work very hard for Israeli/Palestinian peace.

But what is also true is that these organizations are willing to kill innocent people because of a twisted distorted ideology and we, as democracies and as people who value human life, can't allow those organizations to operate.

2009-04-06T07:51:00.002-04:00

06 April 2009 - Goldstone's twisted idea of justice

Richard Goldston, newly-appointed head of the inquiry into "war crimes" in Operation Cast Lead, reveals why neither he nor his tribunal can be trusted. Fast-forward to 8:12:

Q: What is this sense of justice that moves you?

A: What moves me is the effect that justice has on victims. It's really the victims that are the customers, or should be the customers. They are often forgotten. But justice is for victims, whether it's in domestic ocurts, or whether it's in international courts, it's the victims who need the acknowledgment. And that's what justice gives them. Whether it's prosecutions or truth and reconciliation commissions, it doesn't matter. Victims are craving for the public acknowledgment of their victimhood, what happened to them. And I've seen this time and again in South Africa, and Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo--it's a very important aspect of justice.

There are two fundamental problems here. One is that if justice is for victims, then the outcome of court decisions must depend on who is defined as the victim. This turns justice into a perverse political contest. In the Gaza case, it's clear that Goldstone and his UN colleagues believe that Palestinians are the principal victims and Israelis the main perpetrators. Hence justice is for Palestinians, and punishment for Israelis. The outcome is determined in advance by institutional prejudice.

The second problem is that justice is not only for victims, alleged or otherwise. Justice is for both sides--for the plaintiff and the defendant, for the victim and the accused. In law-abiding countries, criminal courts are particularly concerned with protecting the rights of the defendant. If judicial proceedings were all about victims, we would see many more wrongful convictions, many serious cases turned into show trials. There is a reason that justice is often depicted as blind: courts are meant to be concerned with truth, not with sentiment.

The fact that Goldstone could claim otherwise is reason to question his fitness to serve not only on this tribunal but on any other.

2009-04-03T06:58:00.005-04:00

03 April 2009 - Richard Goldstone must recuse himself

South African judge Richard Goldstone, prosecutor in the Yugoslavia and Rwanda war crimes tribunals, has been appointed to investigate claims of war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

The investigation is a farce, drummed up by anti-Israel activists and their willing dupes, including Goldstone himself. A few weeks ago, he signed a petition calling for just such an investigation. His co-signatories included people of noted anti-Israel views, such as Desmond Tutu, as well as the likes of Dumisa Ntsebeza, noted for whipping up racial hatred in the South African legal profession and defending AIDS denialist Matthias Rath.

When the petition was first reported, I contacted Judge Goldstone, amazed that he could lend his name and reputation to so spurious an endeavor. The following is our complete correspondence, which I publish here because I believe it in the public interest. E-mail addresses have been redacted.

From: Joel Pollak
Sent: Mon 3/16/2009 6:11 PM
To: Richard Goldstone
Subject: Questions about Gaza commission

Dear Hon. Goldstone:

I would be interested in speaking to you about your recent signature on a
petition calling for an international commission to investigate the recent war
in Gaza. I would like to know more about why you signed it.

Kind regards

Joel Pollak

***

On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:02 AM, "Richard Goldstone" wrote:

Dear Mr. Pollak,

I am not teaching in the US tis semester and I regret that we therefore cannot meet. I signed the letter because an independent and even-handed inquiry into the Gaza events is necessary and in the interests of peace in the Middle East.

Best wishes,

Richard Goldstone

***

From: Joel Pollak
Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 7:14 AM
To: Richard Goldstone
Subject: Re: Questions about Gaza commission

Dear Hon. Goldstone:

Thank you for your reply. I had hoped you might respond in greater detail.

To me, such a commission seems an empty gesture at best, an anti-Israel show trial at worst. Israel acted in conformity with international law against a terrorist force that continues to target Israeli civilians while using Palestinian civilians as human shields in violation of the Rome Statute. Its response was proportional to the military objective of reducing rocket fire and it daily shipped in humanitarian aid to assist the innocent residents of the Gaza Strip. What more is there to discover? What purpose would a commission serve except to allow people with avowed anti-Israel views, like Tutu and Ntsebeza, to vent their spleen?

I do hope you reply in greater detail to the above. I am interested in your own
reasons and motivations, because I cannot understand how so esteemed a judge
would lend his reputation to such an enterprise.

Kind regards

Joel Pollak

***

From: Richard Goldstone
Sent: 3/17/2009 12:16:04 PM
To: jpollak@law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: Questions about Gaza commission

Dear Mr. Pollak,

I would respond to your e-mail only by suggesting that you are assuming the truth of facts that are very much in issue. I do not wish to debate this matter further by way of e-mail correspondence.

Kind regards,

Richard Goldstone

Whether Goldstone knew he would be appointed to lead the investigation he was calling for (and it seems clear to me now that he did), his appointment is completely unjust and inappropriate. It is like allowing plaintiff in a lawsuit also to serve as the judge and jury.

Goldstone's appointment makes the inquiry even more of a farce than it already is. He has irreparably damaged his credibility by agitating for, and serving, a show trial whose sole purpose is to demonize Israel and gratify its rights-delinquent enemies. He ought to come to his senses and recuse himself immediately.

2009-03-17T23:18:00.002-04:00

17 March 2009 - The worst outcome?

I have to agree with Jeffrey Goldberg here . The appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as Israel's foreign affairs minister is both wrongheaded and just plain wrong.

It's wrong because of Lieberman's bigoted stance towards Israeli Arabs, whom he says ought to be required to take an oath of loyalty to the state. He also has views on democracy that are strongly objectionable, including his desire to increase the power of the executive relative to the judiciary.

It's wrongheaded because Israel is facing an unfavorable international climate, including an American administration whose commitment to Israeli security is uncertain and global public opinion that has already been inflamed against the Jewish state. Lieberman's views make him a poor choice as Israel's chief emissary.

Perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu is gambling that Lieberman will soon be removed from his post anyway, due to criminal investigations against him. He may hope to hold Lieberman's party in the Likud's governing coalition even if its leader is gone (as happened with Aryeh Deri's Shas party).

Even so, it is a huge risk to take, and not worth the price of Israel's moral integrity. Some of Lieberman's ideas, such as territorial swaps with the Palestinians have some merit--provided that the resident populations agree. Israel Arab leaders also bear some of the blame for the mistrust that made Lieberman's success possible. Still, this appointment is a mistake.

Those are my initial thoughts. I look forward to comments on the above.

2009-03-13T02:42:00.000-04:00

13 March 2009 - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Isfahan

Proof that the Iranian regime is dangerously, desperately mad.

2009-03-09T17:21:00.003-04:00

09 March 2009 - Another reason to cheer the demise of the New York Times

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen is cheered by the fact that western countries are beginning to see terror groups like Hamas and Hizbollah as legitimate parts of Middle Eastern political systems.

He writes:

Britain aligned itself with the U.S. position on Hezbollah, but has now seen its error. Bill Marston, a Foreign Office spokesman, told Al Jazeera: “Hezbollah is a political phenomenon and part and parcel of the national fabric in Lebanon. We have to admit this.”

Hallelujah.

Precisely the same thing could be said of Hamas in Gaza. It is a political phenomenon, part of the national fabric there.

The use of "Hallalujah" in praising Islamist terror groups is either an attempt to be cute or a betrayal of Cohen's total ignorance about radical Islam. And never mind the fact that both groups are armed and funded by an outside imperialist force--Iran--or that both hold hostage their respective populations (Lebanese and Palestinians, respectively). No--their use of force against civilians entitles them to recognition.

Israeli force, on the other hand... even in self-defense...

Speaking of violence, it’s worth recalling what Israel did in Gaza in response to sporadic Hamas rockets. It killed upward of 1,300 people, many of them women and children; caused damage estimated at $1.9 billion; and destroyed thousands of Gaza homes. It continues a radicalizing blockade on 1.5 million people squeezed into a narrow strip of land.

At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions.

"Sporadic" rockets? Try thousands of rockets and mortars over a sustained 7-year period. 1,300 people? Women and children? Estimated by whom? Blockade? I have never previously felt so shamed by America's "newspaper of record," not since Bob Herbert's bogus claims of racism and phallic imagery in last year's American presidential campaign. Cohen's swallowed the propaganda and regurgitates it for all to see.

Newspapers of all political stripes are suffering, but the Times's indulgence of this sort of terrorist fantasy is the main reason many readers like myself have become former readers. When you hold yourself out as the most objective source of news in the country, and then deliver garbage no different from what is screamed by foaming-at-the-mouth protesters in Harvard Square, you deserve to fail.

2009-03-05T09:05:00.004-05:00

05 March 2009 - Obama administration undermines justice for Hariri

In its foolish attempt to appease the Syrian regime and thereby to "pressure" Iran, the Obama administration is apparently prepared to throw justice and international law under the bus.

As his emissaries head to Damascus, they come bearing an offer: in exchange for Syrian "cooperation," the U.S. will allow Syria to undermine the special tribunal established by the UN Security Council in The Hague to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Not only is this strategy going to fail (how weakness towards one autocracy is meant to show strength to another is a mystery), but it is also going to undermine international law and cooperation in the pursuit of justice across national boundaries.

This administration came to office promising to change America's relationship with the world--to honor international law and human rights, and to represent the ideals embraced by all humanity, in a way it claimed its predecessor did not.

But the new White House has already thrown aside human rights in China and Burma, and now it is apparently prepared to crush any attempt to hold Syria accountable for its actions and discourage future assassinations.

The Obama administration treats its relationship with enemy dictators like Assad with greater urgency than it does the relationship with steadfast democratic allies like the UK. That is its prerogative; that is what he promised during the election, after all--and he won.

What cannot be excused is the Obama administration's attempt to throw democracy, human rights and international law overboard in its return to "realist" paleoconservatism dressed in the rhetoric of touchy-feely humanitarian internationalism.

It is a farce and it will set our world back twenty years. Diplomacy is great, but dictators should be come crawling to democracies to beg for talks, not the other way around, and not on the basis of demands for injustice.

2009-03-05T08:57:00.002-05:00

05 March 2009 - Ishmael Khaldi rebukes the "apartheid Israel" crowd

Check out this excellent post by Israel's consul general in the Pacific Northwest, Ishmael Khaldi--an Arab, Muslim representative of the State of Israel--on the outrage that is the Israel-apartheid analogy (H/T IAS):

You deny Israel the fundamental right of every society to defend itself: You condemn Israel for building a security barrier to protect its citizens from suicide bombers and for striking at buildings from which missiles are launched at its cities - but you never offer an alternative. Aren’t you practicing yourself a deep form of racism by denying an entire society the right to defend itself?

Your criticism is willfully hypocritical: Do Israel’s Arab citizens suffer from disadvantage? You better believe it. Do African Americans 10 minutes from the Berkeley campus suffer from disadvantage - you better believe it, too. So should we launch a Berkeley Apartheid Week, or should we seek real ways to better our societies and make opportunity more available.

You are betraying the moderate Muslims and Jews who are working to achieve peace: Your radicalism is undermining the forces for peace in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. We are working hard to move toward a peace agreement that recognizes the legitimate rights of both Israel and the Palestinian people, and you are tearing down by falsely vilifying one side.

To the organizers of Israel Apartheid Week I would like to say:

If Israel were an apartheid state, I would not have been appointed here, nor would I have chosen to take upon myself this duty. There are many Arabs, both within Israel and in the Palestinian territories who have taken great courage to walk the path of peace. You should stand with us, rather than against us.

2009-03-05T01:14:00.003-05:00

05 March 2009 - Hillary buys a whopper

Hillary Clinton slammed Israel yesterday for its plans to destroy Arab homes in a section of East Jerusalem.

Anti-Israel activists have described the demolitions as "ethnic cleansing," yet another example of Israeli cruelty.

And Hillary bought it, saying that the move was "unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road map'."

There's only one problem: the whole story is a lie.

According to Israel's left-wing daily, Ha'aretz, the homes are in fact an "illegal Palestinian outpost," built on an ancient site of acknowledged Jewish historical and religious significance.

They were built illegally, and in the face of attempts by the Israeli authorities to resolve the issue peacefully and fairly, anti-Israel groups used the issue to incite outrage.

Hillary Clinton bought their story, and their demonization of Israel. Not exactly "tough diplomacy." And not a good sign for the future.

2009-03-04T09:46:00.005-05:00

04 March 2009 - Why not just wear a swastika?

Adidas is not just using "communist chic" to sell its clothes; it's actively celebrating the Soviet Union in all its totalitarian awfulness:

The ad for the hat actually exhorts consumers to "Show your love for the former USSR." This goes beyond Beatles tongue-in-cheek humor to actual adulation.

Apparently, mass famine, executions, forced labor, antisemitism, environmental destruction, tyranny and political persecution are now fashionable.

2009-03-04T08:57:00.005-05:00

04 March 2009 - SASHRIP's misleading website

I'm not going to blog much more about this crowd, but I think it's worth pointing out a misleading campaign on the "South Africans Supporting Human Rights in Israel and Palestine" (SASHRIP) website.

The title of the group's home page, and the apparent focus of its activism at the moment, is "Open Shuhada Street," which the site incorrectly describes as "the main street of Hebron."

Shuhada street is a main drag in the Israeli part of Hebron, which constitutes only about one-fifth of the whole city of Hebron. The 1997 Hebron Agreement, signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, grants control over the rest of the city to the PA. The vast majority of Palestinians in Hebron live under a Palestinian government in a zone where the main streets are Bir Al-Saba Road, Al-Salam Street and Jerusalem Road - not Shuhada Street as claimed on the SASHRIP website.

The website also neglects to mention the Palestinian suicide bombing on Shuhada Street in May 2003:

The main reason, historically, for the street's closure has been the desire to prevent violence between Jews and Arabs. To be sure, Arabs have borne the brunt of the cost of these preventative measures, but simply to leave facts like the suicide bombing out of the historical analysis is just intellectually dishonest.

In reality, Hebron presents many complex problems, in which human rights and conflict resolution are interwoven. But SASHRIP and its allies in the global anti-Israel movement use examples like Shuhada Street to reinforce the false "Israel=apartheid" analogy. The purpose of that analogy is to demonize, and ultimately dismantle, Israel. Whatever the intentions of the SASHRIP website, good or otherwise, its misleading characterization of Shuhada Street encourages intolerance, not peace.

2009-03-03T07:39:00.003-05:00

03 March 2009 - Subsidizing terror

Hillary Clinton and several other no doubt well-meaning foreign emissaries gathered in Sharm-El-Sheikh recently to discuss the future of Gaza. They pledged a staggering $4.5 billion in aid for the "rebuilding" of Gaza, $900 million of which will come from the US--in the midst of a profound economic crisis, mind you.

Amazing. Hamas provokes a war by launching rockets at Israeli civilians, then continues to do so at war's end, and instead of bearing the cost of repairing the damage--to Gaza and to Israel--the world rewards it with a massive sum of cash.

How much of that money will actually be spent on the needs of ordinary Palestinians? Hardly any, if the past is any indication. What's even more amazing is that $4.5 billion is more than twice the sum ($1.9 billion) that Palestinians themselves estimated they needed--and that figure is likely on the high end. This report by Yvonne Green suggests Gaza may not need much help at all: "From what I saw and was told in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead pinpointed a totalitarian regime's power bases and largely neutralized Hamas's plans to make Israel its tool for the sacrifice of civilian life," she writes. It was not a war that targeted civilian infrastructure.

The international community has pledged exactly $0, by the way, to fund the rebuilding of Sderot and Ashkelon and Beersheva , in Israel.

I'm not opposed to pumping billions of dollars in investment into a nascent Palestinian state. But to do so while terrorists are in charge--terrorists who, moreover, have a long track record of misappropriating aid for violent purposes--is simply stupid.

We are subsidizing terror with our tax dollars. And we will continue to do so until we demand that the Palestinian regime--whether Hamas or Fatah--bear responsibility for its actions and for the future of the people it governs.

2009-03-01T20:17:00.003-05:00

01 March 2009 - Obama's Durban double-cross

Once again, I spoke too soon. Yesterday I praised the Obama administration for pulling out of the Durban 2 conference. Taken alone, it was the right thing to do. But as Anne Bayefsky reports, not only has Obama offered to "re-engage" negotiations, but the administration has also announced that the US will be joinng the UN Human Rights Council as a consolation to anti-Israel groups.

So... we leave a conference whose sole purpose is to attack Israel, only to join an organization whose sole interest is attacking Israel. And while Jewish leasers are told one thing, Arab groups are apparently told another.

The administration is behaving as if it doesn't understand what's at stake here. And there really aren't any excuses anymore.

2009-02-28T20:47:00.001-05:00

28 February 2009 - Obama makes the right choice

The U.S. has pulled out of Durban 2. Finally. Question: would it have been better to avoid the negotiations in the first place, or is the opposition to Durban 2 stronger now that Obama has made a show of his attempt to change it? Follow-up question: did Obama intend to withdraw all along, or was vocal opposition the reason he changed his mind?

2009-02-25T07:50:00.002-05:00

25 February 2009 - Antisemitic trade union begs for end to debate

Mr. Bongani Masuku, who is the international spokesman of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, has been ranting against Israel and Jews for several weeks now via e-mail. Now that several of his recipients have responded, Mr. Masuku has asked for the debate to end. This morning, he sent the e-mail below, with the subject heading "FINAL WORD." It is a testament to the hatred and ignorance at the core of the anti-Israel left. I have included it in full and unedited.

Now that almost everyone has fully understood what I stand for and what I mean when I say we shall support the cause of justice till end, could I humbly request that no more Zionist communication with me any further. I want to repeat the following in case of doubt;

1. Israel supported apartheid South Africa and assisted in the murder of many of our comrades and still works with the most reactionary and murderous regimes the world over, including Colombia (also financed by the US)

2. All Jews who have risen above the fascist parochial paranoia of Israel have changed our views on Jews, as we thought all of them are inhumane, hence our respect for Kasrils, Friendman and all of them. But we still believe the majority of them continue to vote the Likuds, Kadimas, Yisraelis who have blood in their hands and are equally guilty of murder

3. The source of the war is the occupation of Israeli and not rockets of Hamas or Al-Aqsa matrys. Any people who are occupied have a duty to fight as we all did, we would never support people who only submit to invaders, but will actively support those who are fighting against colonialists and settlers, who have one intention, occupation to steal other people’s land. No jew, however much his hatred will ever deny that FACT that occupation is evil and an injustice

4. Finally, in the world where there are progressives who stand on the side of justice and progress, on the one hand, and enemies of peace and justice who support wars OF OCCUPATION IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PALESTINE, etc, one the other, we stand on the side of those who stand for justice and are victims of colonial bigotry and wars of greed. Israel is the client and puppet of US imperialism and responsible for protecting the oil interests of the west, which itself was stolen from the Arabs

A humble reminder therefore, Israeli as an apartheid state deserves the fate of all its preceding fellows and friends. Apartheid is a crime against humanity, so is colonialism and invasion.

With these words, I dearly apologise to all friends of justice and comrades who were angry at me for even wasting precious time with enemies of justice, agents of apartheid and friends of Hitler, instead of attending to more urgent things with people of justice and freedom from occupation. I finally rest my case and request that we are not seeking to change your poisonous views, we only wanted you to know that finally justice will prevail.

It is now official, may I plead with all of you, as you have accepted we are enemies of each other, you stand for apartheid, we stand for justice, to please keep away and no more shall I need your communication or anything ever from you. Beyond this level, it would mean something else.

2009-02-22T21:57:00.002-05:00

22 February 2009 - Obama getting ready to abandon Israel?

So says Anne Bayefsky, after witnessing U.S. negotiators in (in)action at the Durban 2 negotiations:

...The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following: the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial, a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets, broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation, vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims), and numerous attacks on free speech.

This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms. It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction.

But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?

If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.

2009-02-18T09:19:00.003-05:00

18 February 2009 - Are American Jewish leaders being duped?

American Jewish leaders were told by the Obama administration Monday "that Washington's decision to participate in the [Durban II] conference was being coordinated with the Israeli government."

Really?

On the same day, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni was telling American Jewish leaders exactly the opposite:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday appealed to the U.S. not to participate in the UN-sponsored conference. Speaking before a delegation of visiting American Jewish leaders, Livni said that "Israel expects the free world not to participate in Durban II."

It's clear that American Jewish leaders are being asked to believe--and some seem rather eager to believe--that Israel actually supports America's involvement. The Obama administration may have notified Israel of its participation in Durban II, but to call that "coordination" is to stretch the truth.

Unless American Jewish leaders call this bluff, and start applying real pressure on this issue, Durban II may mark the first rift in U.S.-Israel relations under the Obama administration, as well as an acceleration in the decline of American leadership on human rights issues worldwide. (There are even hints that the U.S. is about to ease sanctions on Burma.) It's time to protest America's involvement in Durban II. In a few weeks, it will be too late.

2009-02-15T11:43:00.003-05:00

15 February 2008 - Obama administration to help plan Durban II

Via the Jerusalem Post comes the most unwelcome news that the Obama administration is going to help plan the Durban II conference--the follow-up to the disastrous World Conference Against Racism in August-September 2001 in South Africa, which became an antisemitic hate carnival and launched the worldwide movement to equate Israel with apartheid.

This is a very bad decision and suggests astonishing naivété. It is far too late for the Obama administration to make a difference. The conference's draft declaration already includes references to "apartheid Israel" and anti-Israel regimes are trying to make things even worse. As Anne Bayefsky reports:

Negotiators have now put on the table claims that (1) a homeland for the Jewish people is racism - a "racially based law of return," (2) Israel is guilty of "apartheid" and (3) the veracity of the murder of one-third of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is subject to question. A reference to Holocaust facts has now been "square-bracketed" because Iran and Syria have questioned the numbers of Jews that died and consensus is the only guiding principle governing the decision-making process.

Read the document itself, and see just how bad it really is: linking discussion of the Holocaust to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, condemning Israel for "racial discrimination" against Palestinians and Syrian residents of the Golan (!), insisting on the Palestinian right of return, referring to the security barrier as the "segregation wall," etc. (more below).

The Obama administration will give such ideas legitimacy by haggling over them. There is no way to save Durban II, and the only conscionable reaction must be to boycott it, as Canada has already decided to do (along with Israel). Apparently the White House wants to have it both ways--to participate in talks without necessarily endorsing the final conclusions--but the Bush administration made the same mistake in 2001.

At some point, no matter how sincerely the U.S. tries to show the rest of the world its friendship, at some point a line must be drawn and evil must be recognized for what it is. I sincerely hope that the leaders of the American Jewish community, as well as American civil rights and human rights organizations, are going to speak out against this decision and prevent Obama from wasting his credibility on this hatred.

The relevant section of the draft document:

(Holocaust) [proposal to change title]

29. [Affirms that the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, along with numerous members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice; recalls again that the Holocaust must never be forgotten;]

ALT: Recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten;

[NEW PARA: Recalls and urges States to implement United Nations General Assembly resolutions 60/7 and 61/255 which observed that remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide, condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urged all Member States to reject denial of the Holocaust as a historical event either in full or in part or in any activities to this end;] [proposal to move to section 5]

[(Middle East)] [proposal to delete cluster]

30. [Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as [Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan] [other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories] which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence and prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, and renews the call for the cessation of all such practices;]

31. [Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self determination and that, in order to consolidate the [Israeli] occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes [with concern] that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied [Arab] territories [since 1967];]

32. [Reaffirms that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, laws based on racial discrimination with the aim of continuing domination of the occupied territory[y][ies], as well as the practice of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, villages and cities from one another, [totally] contradicts the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations [and constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a crime against humanity, a contemporary form of apartheid and serious threat to international peace and security] [and violates the basic principles of international human rights law];]

[NEW PARA: Expresses deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return. It recognizes the right of return of Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, and calls for the return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right;]

33. [Reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people [as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories] under foreign occupation, [including the obstruction of the return of refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall,] and urges respect for international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, and calls for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;]

34. [Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for [Palestinian] civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;]
[Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided]

2009-02-10T17:09:00.002-05:00

10 February 2009 - Congratulations to Tzipi Livni

It appears that Tzipi Livni and Kadima have won Israel's elections, contrary to what polls suggested and my own expectations. Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud is a close second. Overall, the right-wing advanced but the center may govern.

Now the coalition game begins. The right could put a governing coalition together, but President Shimon Peres will probably let Livni try first. She failed the last time she tried, but now she has a stronger mandate to lead.

Kadima and Likud--cut from the same cloth before the 2005 disengagement--could reunite in government but will still need one other party, perhaps Ehud Barak's Labour, to form a government if they go for the national unity approach.

There is also another coalition partner to consider--Barack Obama, who will exert a significant influence over Israeli affairs (like it or not). Livni is a good foil for him--better, probably, for the U.S.-Israel relationship than Netanyahu.

It is gratifying--though admittedly somewhat superficial--to observe that Israel has once again chosen to give a woman the chance to lead. In that respect Israel is far ahead of the U.S., and perhaps a more elusive target for the haters.

Best of luck to Livni in forming a government and in leading Israel and the region through the difficult months ahead. She is a relatively new face at a crucial moment. She may yet prove to be a great leader and peacemaker.

2009-02-07T20:20:00.002-05:00

07 February 2009 - South African Jews under direct attack

Anti-Israel protesters in South Africa--including the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), and former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils--have made it clear that they are specifically targeting Jews in their campaign against Israel.

According to reports, they marched on the Jewish community headquarters in Johannesburg on Friday, burned an "Israeli" flag (with a swastika in place of the Star of David) outside a synagogue, and declared a boycott against Jewish-owned stores.

Some quotes:

"We want to convey a message to the Jews in SA that our 1.9-million workers who are affiliated to Cosatu are fully behind the people of Palestine," said Cosatu's Bongani Masuku.

"Any business owned by Israel supporters will be a target of workers in South Africa."

Ronnie Kasrils, the former minister of intelligence, said the ongoing "butchering" of Palestinians in Gaza was unacceptable.

"What Israel is doing in Gaza is creating concentration camps because people have nowhere to run. It is reprehensible that we have Zionists here who support Israel."

2009-02-04T19:21:00.003-05:00

04 February 2009 - I take that back

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies has now backed down in the most disgraceful manner:

The president had accepted Hajaig's withdrawal of the comments and her unqualified apology and there would be no further action against her.

"The deputy minister has owned up to the mistake she has committed and government is satisfied," Maseko said.

SA Jewish Board of Deputies national chairman Zev Krengel said Hajaig's apology on Wednesday was fully accepted.

"We are very happy with the apology and happy that the cabinet and the president took it seriously.

"We can thank cabinet and the president for getting her to apologise as she did," he said.

The deputy minister could not bring herself to apologize to the community, but one private apology to the president and the community's leaders back down.

How completely useless and indefensible. South African Jews really are in danger.

UPDATE: Perhaps I spoke too soon, again. See comment below.

2009-02-04T09:18:00.003-05:00

04 February 2009 - This is how the left should respond

Finally, an appropriate response from a Jewish opponent of Operation Cast Lead to the ongoing wave of global antisemitism. Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, who opposed Operation Cast Lead, points out what should be obvious: criticism of antisemitism that insists Jews should distance themselves from Israel is insincere and objectionable.

Nathan Geffen, Doron Isaacs, Jonathan Berger, Farid Esack et al. should take note: this is how you guys ought to have done it if you wanted to be taken seriously.

As British Jews come under attack, the liberal left must not remain silent

It should be perfectly possible to condemn Israel's brutal action in Gaza while taking a stand against antisemitism

by Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian Wednesday 4 February 2009

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 2001 and July 7 2005, a noble impulse seized the British liberal left. Politicians, commentators and activists united to say to their fellow citizens that, no matter how outraged they felt at the loss of civilian life they had just witnessed, they should under no circumstances take out that anger on the Muslim community. Progressive voices insisted that Muslims were not to be branded as guilty by association, just because the killers of 9/11 and 7/7 had been Muslims and had claimed to act in the name of all Muslims.

They urged Britons to be careful in their language, not to generalise from a few individuals to an entire community, to make clear to Britain's Muslims that they were a welcome part of the national life. One week after the 7/7 London attacks, a vast crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square to hear a call for unity led by then mayor Ken Livingstone, who said Londoners should not start looking for "who to blame and who to hate".

It was the right reaction and I am glad that, writing on these pages, I shared it, denouncing the surge in Islamophobia that greeted either a terrorist attack or the revelation of a terror plot. Yet there's been a curious silence in the last few weeks. Once again many are outraged by the loss of civilian life they have witnessed - this time in Gaza. Yet there has been no chorus of liberal voices insisting that, no matter how intense their fury, people must not take out that anger on Britain's Jewish community.

It's worth stating the obvious - that Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7, that Israel is not al-Qaida - and noting that the silence has not been absolute. In a very welcome move, a group of leading Muslims wrote an open letter condemning apparent Gaza-related attacks on Jews. Meanwhile, Labour's Denis MacShane, in a passionate article for Progress magazine, urged those on the left not "to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews".

Otherwise, it has been eerily quiet. Those who in 2001 or 2005 rapidly spoke out against guilt by association have been mute this time. Yet this is no abstract concern. For British Jews have indeed come under attack.

According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, the four weeks after Cast Lead began saw an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier. It reports 250 incidents - nearly 10 a day - the highest number since it began its work 25 years ago. Among them are attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, "This is for Gaza", as they punched and kicked him to the ground.

Blood-curding graffiti has appeared in Jewish areas across the country, slogans ranging from "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz." Jewish schools have been advised to be on high alert against attack. Most now have security guards on the door; some have a police presence.

The threat is real, and yet barely a word has been heard from those who pride themselves on their vigilance against racism. But there is more than a sin of omission here.

Take last month's demonstrations against Israel. Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, describes in a joint edition of the Guardian's Islamophonic and Sounds Jewish podcasts how at one demo she heard the cry not only of "Down with Israel" but "Kill Jews". An anti-war protest in Amsterdam witnessed chants of: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."

At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."

Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is a Nazi state? Even those with the scantest historical knowledge know that the Nazis are the embodiment of evil to which the only appropriate response is hate. How surprising is it if a young man, already appalled by events in Gaza, walks home from a demo and glimpses the Star of David - which he now sees as a latter-day swastika - outside a synagogue and decides to torch the building, or at least desecrate it? Yet Galloway, along with Livingstone, who was so careful in July 2005, did not hesitate to make the comparison (joined by a clutch of Jewish anti-Israel activists who should know better).

The counter-arguments here are predictable. Some will say they take pains to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. Intellectually, that's fine; in the seminar room, it holds water. The trouble is, it doesn't mean much on the street - at least not to the man who saw a group of Manchester Jews leaving synagogue on January 17 and shouted "Free Palestine, you motherfuckers," before giving them the Nazi salute.

The liberal left should know this already. After all, when Jack Straw wrote his notorious piece about the hijab, full of qualifications, progressives understood that none of that would matter: it would be read as an attack on all Muslims. And so it was. For all Straw's careful phrasing, Muslim women whose heads were covered were attacked. Liberals warned Straw that he was playing with fire. Today's anti-Israel activists need to realise they are doing the same.

Besides, this business of distinguishing between good and bad Jews has a long history. Anthony Julius, author of a definitive study of English antisemitism, says that, with the exception of the Nazis, Jew-haters have always made distinctions. Christian antisemites accepted Jews who were ready to convert and rejected those who refused. A century ago, Winston Churchill drew a line between homegrown British Jews and those spreading Bolshevism. Now the dividing line is affinity for Israel.

But the logical corollary of this is that, if Jews refuse to dissociate themselves from Israel, then they are fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant. Liberals rightly recoil from the constant pressure on Muslims to explain themselves and denounce jihadism or even islamism. Yet they make the same implicit demand when they suggest Jews are OK, unless they are Zionists. The effect is to make Jews' place in British society contingent on their distance from their fellow Jews, in this case, Israelis.

Nor is it good enough to say that most Jews support Israel. Yes, most have a strong affinity and family ties to the Jewish state. But that doesn't mean they support every policy, including the one that led to such mayhem in Gaza. And do we think that those who kicked the man in Golders Green first stopped to ask his opinion of the merits of Cast Lead?

I know that some will say that even raising this is an attempt to divert attention from the real and larger issue, Israel's brutality in Gaza and the colossal number of civilian deaths that entailed. I won't accept that. Regular readers know that I denounced Cast Lead from the beginning. But I shouldn't have to say that. These two matters are separate. It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel's current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it's about time liberals and the left said so.

freedland@guardian.co.uk

2009-02-04T00:51:00.002-05:00

04 January 2009 - South African Jewish Board of Deputies finds its courage

The Board wisely and bravely rejected a false "apology" from the Deputy Foreign Minister:

Jewish Board rejects Hajaig's apology
Peter Fabricius

The row over allegedly anti-Semitic remarks by Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig refused to die after she issued an "unequivocal apology" - which the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) immediately rejected as very equivocal.

Hajaig apologised for any pain she may have caused to South Africans and particularly the Jewish community with her recent remarks about "Jewish money power" controlling the West. She denied that she was anti-Jewish though she admitted she had "conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence" in her controversial statement.

But the SAJBD said she had "failed to address, let alone repudiate" her "blatantly anti-Semitic sentiments" and so it was pressing ahead with a complaint against her for anti-Jewish hate speech which it laid last week with the SA Human Rights Commission.

Click here!

However, some members of the Jewish community felt that Hajaig's apology, even though "mealy-mouthed" should be accepted.

The row first blew up over Hajaig's statement - at a pro-Palestinian rally in Lenasia on January 14 to protest the Israeli assault on Gaza - that the control of the US and most other Western countries was in the hands of "Jewish money".

"Sometimes I feel that America and [its] people - and most of them don't think anyway - are completely led by their nose, by the Israeli interests that surround the Zionists that are in America," she was reported as saying then.

"They in fact control, no matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic whether Barack Obama or George Bush, inclined to be the same, the control of America just like the control of most Western countries is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else."

Hajaig has not denied making these remarks.

The SAJBD, the American Jewish Committee, the Democratic Alliance and other organisations condemned her remarks for playing into historic, racist stereotypes about Jews that had sometimes led to "tragic consequences".

Hajaig said in a statement issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs yesterday, that she had been opposed to apartheid and all forms of racism - including anti-Semitism - all her life. But she had also been "cognisant of the immense suffering that the Palestinians have experienced" as a result of Israel action, including the recent Gaza war.

She had addressed this suffering in her Lenasia speech where she had also deplored "the attempts of Zionists to justify policies" including "unmitigated state violence directed against unarmed civilians; as much as I deplore indiscriminate attacks against Israeli unarmed civilians.

"At a singular point in my talk, and entirely unrelated to any South African community, I conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence. I regret the inference made by some, that I am anti-Jewish. I do not believe that the cause of the Palestinians is served by anti-Jewish racism.

"As a member of the South African government and a committed member of the ANC, I subscribe to the values and principles of non-racialism, and condemn without equivocation, all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism in all its manifestations and wherever it may occur.

"To the extent that my statement may have caused hurt and pain, I offer an unequivocal apology for the pain it may have caused to the people of our country, and the Jewish community in particular."

But the SAJBD said in a statement in response that it was pressing ahead with its complaint to the SA Human Rights Commission against Hajaig. It said it had received no communication from her.

It said her statement "failed to address, let alone repudiate, the blatantly anti-Semitic sentiments originally expressed by her, but merely apologised for any hurt it might have caused to the Jewish community. The bulk of the statement, in fact, focused on the Middle East situation and Ms Hajiag's viewpoints in this regard.

"It can only be concluded that Ms Hajaig stands by her previous statement that the United States and most other Western countries are controlled by Jewish money power. As such, her latest statement does not constitute an acceptable apology but, in fact, serves to compound the original insult to the Jewish world, the people of South Africa and the United States government.

"The SAJBD urges the South African government to unequivocally distance itself from the false, inflammatory and racially offensive allegations made by Deputy Minister Hajaig."

SA Human Rights chairperson Jody Kollapan confirmed last night that he had received the complaint from the SAJBD and intended to meet the board's leaders on Monday to discuss the complaint and the outcome they hoped for.

He declined to comment on the substance of the case.

Hajaig's apology seems rather similar to the condemnations issued by Isaacs, Geffen, et al. in their refusal to address the issue of antisemitism without attacking Israel at the same time. The attempt to separate Jews from Israel continues. Congratulations to the Board for standing up to it.

2009-02-04T00:00:00.003-05:00

04 February 2009 - Wanted: Your Gaza Atrocity Stories

"Breaking the Silence" is circulating this ad:

They seen to be pretty desperate. Hard to find Israeli war crimes, I guess.

2009-01-29T22:30:00.002-05:00

29 January 2009 - South African minister's antisemitic rant exposed on TV

Per the suggestion of the bloggers at IAS:

Kudos to e-TV for airing the story--though they can't resist establishing a "context" of Israeli violence and Arab rage. (And what is up with the anchor's silly question: "In what way was she being antisemitic?" Huh?)

The segment features Aids activist Zackie Achmat, who along with Nathan Geffen and others spoke out against the minister several days ago. Commendable, yes--but again, IAS points out, they began their protest by attacking Israel.

What will it take for South Africa's leaders--and the human rights activists among them, who ought to know better--to simply condemn antisemitism, plain and simple?

2009-01-22T10:41:00.001-05:00

22 January 2009 - Fake Palestinian casualty figures

The truth is beginning to emerge about all those "war crimes." From the Jerusalem Post:

The number of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead did not exceed five or six hundred, Lorenzo Cremonesi, a correspondent for Italy's Corriere della sera reported on Thursday.

Cremonesi based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties. He also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,000, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.

"It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don't add up," he wrote.

In the European hospital in Rafah, one of the facilities which would presumably be filled with wounded from the "war of the tunnels," many beds were empty, according to Cremonesi. A similar situation was noted in the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, and in the privately-run Amal Hospital Cremonesi reported that only five out 150 beds were occupied.

Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza shouting at Hamas and Islamic Jihad men, "Go away, go away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill us all? Do you want our children to die under their bombs? Take your guns and missiles with you."

"Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting the Zionist Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?" the religious fanatics of Hamas reportedly responded.

Other Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman identified as Um Abdullah, 48, spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas.

2009-01-22T10:23:00.002-05:00

22 January 2009 - Obama's first call: Mahmoud Abbas

It should go without saying that support for the Palestinians and support for Israel are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, if you really believe in the two-state solution, you have to believe that the right thing to do is support both as they move towards peace.

At the same time, it's clear that the Obama administration wants to send a signal--not just about its commitment to the peace process and the two-state solution, but to a shift in U.S. policy away from firm support for Israel and towards closer ties with the Palestinian Authority:

President Obama placed the Middle East at the forefront of his first hours in office yesterday as he sought to make good on his promise of “ushering in a new era of peace”.

In a flurry of telephone calls from the Oval Office, he reached out to leaders in the region and vowed to engage immediately in pursuit of a permanent Arab-Israeli settlement.

The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign statesman since taking office. Mr Obama also spoke to President Mubarak of Egypt, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, and King Abdullah of Jordan.

2009-01-22T05:21:00.003-05:00

22 January 2009 - Geffen accusing everyone now

Nathan Geffen, in the comments section at It's Almost Supernatural:

...it is precisely this allegation that Pollak absurdly makes against me, even suggesting I might be responsible for some unspecified dreadful action in the future:

“For the past several months, Nathan, it is you–yes, you!–who have engaged in a campaign of lies, falsely alleging conspiracies among Jews and Jewish organizations in South Africa and around the world to support “crimes” in the Middle East and beyond. It is not a far leap to conclude that your acts and speech have encouraged South African Muslims to see Jewish organizations and businesses as fair targets for boycott, protest, and–who knows?–even worse. You have never been satisfied merely to criticise Israeli policy. You have set the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders at the very top of your agenda.”

I really do encourage people to read Pollak's latest blog. I can't follow its logic. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Finally, I notice the incredibly distasteful use of the movie title "Don't mess with the Zohan" at the top of Pollak's blog in support of Operation Cast Lead. This was a military operation in which massacres and war crimes took place. Pollak's attempt at comical celebration of it renders rather vacuous the claim frequently made by some of the people who comment on this site that Jews never celebrate the deaths of Palestinians, in contrast to Palestinians celebrating the deaths of Jews.

My response:

Get real.

The post of the movie title is intended to mock the empty claims of the Israeli government that it achieved "deterrence" in the Gaza War.

If you had bothered to read my other blog posts about the war, you would know that I have been highly skeptical of "deterrence" as a war aim in and of itself.

While I supported the war I did so hoping that the outcome would be one in which Israel stopped rocket attacks against its civilians, either by achieving a cease-fire agreement germane to that outcome, or by military means if no such cease-fire was possible.

I specifically mourned the loss of civilian life on both sides. I have never celebrated the loss of civilian life--not ever, in any conflict, and I have specifically and publicly protested past Israeli actions, such as the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon, that led to civilian casualties that were entirely avoidable and disproportionate to any legitimate military objective.

I can only regard Geffen's complaint as yet another attempt to avoid engaging the substance of my criticism.

I'm not sure if Geffen has even seen the movie, but it's about an Israeli who tries to avoid fighting and is nevertheless pursued by terrorists everywhere he goes. Jokes and satirized Israeli machismo aside, there's a truth to it.

Geffen has now attacked me twice on two blogs other than this one. Maybe he's afraid of driving up my traffic.

In any case, the "logic" is simple.

Geffen has not simply criticized Israel. He has specifically singled out the organized Jewish community and accused it of being part of a "system" that facilitates Israel's "crimes."

I find that unacceptable and I will continue to object to it.

2009-01-20T03:04:00.002-05:00

20 January 2009 - Official Motto of Operation Cast Lead

2009-01-19T13:34:00.006-05:00

19 January 2009 - The hypocrisy of the anti-Israel Jewish left

In response to a post at It's Almost Supernatural (referred to earlier) in which blogger Steve Magid criticized the alliance between Muslim antisemites and left-wing anti-Israel Jews, Nathan Geffen of the South African Human Rights Delegation (SAHRD) accused Magid and IAS of "anti-semitism" [sic] and "defamation."

Geffen went further, circulating a letter in which he accused Magid of "us[ing] lies to discredit members of the community."

Here is my response (to which Geffen has not replied), followed by a few additional comments.

Dear Nathan

Your attempt to accuse Steve Magid of "us[ing] lies to discredit members of the community" is disgusting.

On his blog, "It's Almost Supernatural," Steve has provided a forum for open debate in the South African Jewish community and beyond for the past several years.

Yesterday he commented on an attempt by the Muslim community to organize a boycott of Jewish businesses. Because members of your group were explicitly exempted from the boycott, he commented that persons wishing to get themselves off the boycott list should contact you.

In return, you accused him of "a much more dangerous and insidious form of anti-semitism [sic] than most other kinds in existence today"--a ridiculous charge on its face, and an especially ironic one, since you and your group have constantly excoriated the Jewish community for allegedly using accusations of antisemitism to defend Israel. (Source) You and Doron Isaacs are now attempting to intimidate Steve into taking down his post, using veiled but empty threats of legal action for defamation.

In my view, Steve's accusation was fair comment--especially given your relentless campaign against the leadership of the South African Jewish community and against Jews in general, which has gone far beyond legitimate criticism and has certainly contributed to anti-Jewish hostility.

Last year, for example, after returning from your trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, you acknowledged antisemitism and Holocaust denial within the Muslim community, but declared: "the failure from within my own community is far more severe." (Source) It is an absurd claim, since South African Jews have never attempted to march on Muslim Judicial Council headquarters, attack the Islamic faith or praise the murder of civilians, while leaders of the Muslim community have endorsed terror groups and engaged in vicious anti-Jewish rhetoric. In retrospect, your unsubstantiated contention that Jewish behavior has somehow been worse certainly opened the door to the open condemnation of Jews, as Jews.

Furthermore, in an open letter published in December 2008, you accused the worldwide Jewish community as a whole of supporting "the crimes committed or sanctioned by the state [of Israel]" and "the dehumanisation of Muslims and Arabs." (Source) In language reminiscent of the worst antisemitic conspiracy theories, you accused the organized Jewish community of forming a "particular system that has created the conditions that have led to this pogrom [in Hebron] and the many other less newsworthy atrocities that take place daily in the occupied territories." You specifically invited the public to consider "the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and the SA Zionist Federation," as well as independent supporters of Israel such as Mike Berger, part of this "system" and hence guilty of atrocities against not just Palestinians but Arabs and Muslims in general.

Even in distancing yourself from the latest boycott, you refer to the chief rabbi as a "fundamentalist." That is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but in communication with a member of the Muslim community who is clearly given to antisemitism it amounts to incitement.

For the past several months, Nathan, it is you--yes, you!--who have engaged in a campaign of lies, falsely alleging conspiracies among Jews and Jewish organizations in South Africa and around the world to support "crimes" in the Middle East and beyond. It is not a far leap to conclude that your acts and speech have encouraged South African Muslims to see Jewish organizations and businesses as fair targets for boycott, protest, and--who knows?--even worse. You have never been satisfied merely to criticise Israeli policy. You have set the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders at the very top of your agenda.

Your response to the boycott campaign appropriately flags it as antisemitic and destructive. It is well past time, however, that you examined your own rhetoric and behavior rather than accusing your critics of being liars and antisemites.

Steve Magid is to be commended for drawing you into a debate in which your intolerance of criticism has been revealed and you will finally have to defend your own views rather than simply accusing others of aiding and abetting "crimes."

Essentially, what Geffen and his comrades believe is that Jewish leaders and organizations--and even individuals like myself--facilitate antisemitism by supporting Israel.

In crude terms, that amounts to blaming the victim. Viewed more charitably--in light of a history that I'm not even sure they are fully aware of--their view is a distant echo of the opinion of those Zionists, like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, who supported a Jewish cultural revival in Palestine but opposed Jewish statehood. They took that position not merely for practical reasons but for ideological ones: they believed that political sovereignty was anathema to the "true" essence of spiritual Judaism, which was to connect human beings to the universal and not to stand for yet one more version of religious particularism. To them, political Zionism was a form of antisemitism.

That view led them to further absurd conclusions and positions. Buber and Magnes blamed Jewish immigration into Palestine for the conflict between Jews and Arabs there, minimizing the role played by Arab leaders in inciting violence and religious hatred. So fervent was their belief in this one-sided fallacy that as Nazis were persecuting Jews in Europe, Buber and Magnes rejected a proposal by the socialist Jewish organization HaShomer HaTzair for a binational state that would allow for unrestricted Jewish refugee immigration into Palestine while facilitating a joint political arrangement between the Jewish and Arab communities there. They refused to see the practical consequences of such restrictions, as well as the hypocrisy of demanding that the door be shut after they themselves (Buber in particular) had found refuge.

Today, Israel not only provides Jews with a safe haven from persecution; it has also bolstered the institutional strength and self-confidence of Jewish communities in the Diaspora. It is partly for that reason that Jewish organizations and Jews support Israel in its various conflicts. Other principles also sustain that support, including not only close religious connections but also shared values of democracy and human rights--as against the anti-humanistic ethos of Israel's autocratic neighbors and the fanatical terror groups that threaten Israel and the west alike.

It is, theoretically, possible to oppose the existence of Israel without opposing Judaism as such. That is the position taken by some groups of ultra-Orthodox Jews (including some living in Israel itself), as well as radical communists or anarchists who view all nationalism with equal suspicion. However, most forms of anti-Zionism today blend with explicit or implicit hostility towards Jews. Even left-wing "post-modern" opposition to Israel is at a loss to explain why the Jewish state should be the first to give up its identity. Such antisemitism is rife in some of the groups that Geffen, Isaacs and the SAHRD have chosen to align with. That is not to say they are necessarily complicit in Muslim antisemitism, but Geffen's particular history of accusations aimed at the organized Jewish community shows, at the very least, a casual disregard for the possible consequences of his inflammatory and unjustified claims.

What Geffen, Isaacs and the SAHRD are entitled to demand is an open discourse within the Jewish community in which they can air their views and challenge those of the Jewish mainstream. What they are not entitled to demand is that their views be given unique protection, right or wrong and regardless of facts. And for all the attention they demand from the community, they are rarely willing to debate their views or learn from past exchanges. (Note that the SAHRD website limits comments to delegation members only.)

Instead, they have resorted to attacks on the community, its leaders and institutions. That is not the way to build bridges, either within communities or between them.

2009-01-19T11:51:00.004-05:00

19 January 2009 - South Africa's deputy foreign minister attacks Jews

South Africa's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatima Hajaig, launched into an anti-Jewish tirade at a recent political rally organized by the Congress of South African Trade Unions. As David Saks reports:

Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig informed a deliriously cheering crowd that America, as well as other Western countries, was in the grip of Jewish money power.

What the honorable FJ actually said was: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else”.

Comrade Fatima’s brazen invocation of the spectre of Jewish money exercising its malign behind-the-scenes influence in shaping world events was greeted with a particularly enthusiastic roar of appreciation by the audience. She even used the words “Jew” and “Jewish” rather than the code-word “Zionist”.

Hajaig also verbally abused the Israeli ambassador to South African in December. The fact that she has not been rebuked for her behavior can be taken as a sign that her actions and views are tolerated--perhaps even encouraged--by the president and the ruling party.

2009-01-19T11:23:00.003-05:00

19 January 2009 - How Hamas lost

Happy MLK, Jr. day, by the way.

Here's a good analysis from the Jerusalem Post of how the IDF routed Hamas--and how Hamas behaved under fire:

The simple fact is that Hamas was not fighting in the areas penetrated by the IDF, even though its defensive doctrine - drawn up under Iranian supervision with the assistance of Hizballah - is based on an attempt to stop the IDF's infantry brigades outside of Gaza City, or at least to detain them.

Hamas abandoned the heart of "Qassamland" - the areas surrounding Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun and Atatra - almost without resistance. The offensive array of bunkers and tunnels, booby-trapped buildings prepared for detonation from afar, and all the other tricks adopted by Hamas were captured intact. From the perspective of the people of Gaza, Hamas simply abandoned the arena and fled into the crowded neighborhoods.

Once there, since the second day of the campaign, Hamas fighters have hurriedly shed their uniforms. Many of them simply deserted and returned to their families, taking their guns with them. In some locations, Hamas prevented civilians from leaving neighborhoods that were in the line of fire; overall, it invested great effort in blocking civilians who wished to flee to the south of the Strip.

Hamas forcefully appropriated the few international aid deliveries, hijacked ambulances in order to move from one location to another, and carried out public executions of Fatah activists. In many cases, Hamas fighters showed "forgiveness" and made do with shooting the Fatah men in the legs.

All of this was going on while the entire political leadership of Hamas was hiding in the basements of hospitals such as Shifa in Gaza City or Kamal Adwan near Beit Lahiya.

Sporadically, they released videos from their places of hiding. The rather pathetic impression they created is that of a leadership that abandoned its population and was busy trying to save its own skin.

2009-01-17T21:52:00.008-05:00

17 January 2009 - The Jewish extreme left and Hamas denialism

Doron Isaacs, former Zionist youth leader and now radical critic of Israel, demonstrates the phenomenon of "Hamas denial" that is prevalent among members of the Jewish extreme left in a letter to the Sunday Times attacking South Africa's chief rabbi.

Before addressing the rabbi's arguments, Isaacs tries to cover himself by acknowledging some of Hamas's flaws--though he does his best to minimize them:

Hamas is an authoritarian organisation whose legitimate opposition to Israeli occupation and aggression too often blurs with vicious anti-Semitism...

To say that Hamas's antisemitism "blurs with" its "legitimate" objectives is to deny that antisemitism is in fact one of its core objectives. Isaacs has taken this line before, even denying the genocidal aims of the Hamas charter.

(Note that in the source referenced above, Isaacs also mistakenly cites the Qur'an as the source of the infamous "rocks and trees" quote, which actually comes from the Hadith. It's yet another example of a member of the Jewish far-left claiming to bring Jews and Muslims closer together yet actually misrepresenting Islam's core text.)

Isaacs's Hamas denialism is intellectually similar to former South African president Thabo Mbeki's Aids denialism. Mbeki acknowledged that the "syndrome" of immune deficiency existed, but denied that a virus was the cause. Instead, he pointed to poverty as the real cause.

Poverty certainly leads to conditions in which HIV is more likely to spread. But one does not need to be poor to contract HIV and develop Aids, a fact Mbeki apparently was unable to acknowledge even when the disease killed some of his close associates.

Similarly, there are legitimate Palestinian grievances, but in Gaza those grievances were removed and Hamas remained as committed to killing Jews as ever. And while antisemitism is not the sole factor in Palestinian hostility to Israel, it is essential in determining the fanatical and exclusively violent way in which Hamas pursues its objectives against Israel. As Hitler diverted essential supplies from the war effort to the killing of Jews, so too has Hamas prioritized killing Jews over reasonable steps to improve the welfare of Palestinians. The fact that the organization puts hatred of Jews in its founding charter is proof enough that antisemitism is at the core of its identity, its tactics and its goals.

Isaacs makes his own charges of denial, accusing the chief rabbi of denying the "fact"--an article of faith on the left--that the occupation of Gaza continued after the disengagement. That distorts the very meaning of the word "occupation," just as Mbeki distorted the term "syndrome" to suit his own purposes.

The Fourth Geneva Convention--the critical instrument of international law on occupation--applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party."

Leaving aside the question of whether Hamas is a "High Contracting Party" (even the status of "Palestine" as a High Contracting Party is in doubt), the Geneva Convention specifically refers to territory. It does so again, numerous times, throughout the text of the document.

So Isaacs, not the chief rabbi, is on the wrong side of international law--and reality. To say that Hamas merely "blurs" its goals with antisemitism is to blur the boundary between criticizing Israel and siding with its most radical antisemitic enemies.

Finally, an interesting note: the blog It's Almost Supernatural has reported on an effort in the South African Muslim community to boycott Jewish businesses. The boycott specifically exempts any business associated with those Jews who have criticized Israel publicly. The bloggers at IAS suggested, rather snarkily, that Jews who want to avoid the boycott should contact Nathan Geffen, who along with Isaacs has led Jewish criticism of Israel lately.

Geffen responded to IAS by accusing the blog of "anti-semitism" [sic], as if criticism of one particular Jew is criticism of all Jews! Some of the same activists routinely accuse Jewish leaders of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but criticize them and you're an antisemite!

I think it is commendable for Geffen to criticize the organizers of the boycott, as he has now done. But when the "not in my name" Jews spend much of their time attacking those Jews who don't agree with them (he calls the chief rabbi a "fundamentalist," for example, in his letter of protest), and very little effort critiquing Muslim antisemitism, while indulging in Hamas denialism, they do have something to answer for.

2009-01-17T20:10:00.002-05:00

17 January 2009 - We all live in Durban now

This is what it was like in South Africa in 2001. Now it's everywhere.

2009-01-17T18:15:00.005-05:00

17 January 2009 - The cease-fire that isn't--and its consequences

Israel has declared a unilateral cease-fire that will take effect in 45 minutes. Prime minister Ehud Olmert has warned Hamas that Israel will retaliate against any further rocket attacks: "If [Hamas] return to their unruly attacks they will be surprised again by the hand of Israel - I don't advise them to try it," he said.

Meanwhile, Hamas has continued to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. And Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announced that Egypt will not be bound by the agreement Israel signed with the United States to increase efforts to stop weapons smuggling on the border between Gaza and Egypt.

So: as the rickets continue to fly, Israel is putting down its weapons, satisfied by declarations from discredited politicians that Hamas has learned its lesson. Well, perhaps it has--the same lesson it has always learned: if you kill Jews for long enough, eventually the world will come around, and the Jews themselves will give up and give you whatever you want, even their lives, in the hope that you'll leave them alone.

Why did this happen?

It is simple: Barack Hussein Obama is going to be inaugurated on Tuesday as the 44th president of the United States. And Israel's leaders decided they did not want to rain on his parade. They know he is not favorably inclined towards Israel's position. They made the calculation that preserving the U.S.-Israel relationship is more important than preserving the security of Israel itself.

It is a calculation that is doomed to fail, because the people backing Obama most vigorously have a fundamentally different idea about what the U.S.-Israel relationship must be. For them, it must be one in which the U.S. presses Israel to make concessions, regardless of Israel's legitimate interests, and regardless of the immediate dangers at hand. This is almost certainly going to lead to tensions.

Israel's leaders have made that even more likely with this cease-fire, because in leaving the field of battle without a definitive victory over Hamas and without any real international agreement to shape the future of the Gaza Strip, they have left Israeli citizens vulnerable to the whim of terrorists once again--and thus they have ensured that the next Israeli prime minister will be Benjamin Netanyahu.

Last April I cited a report by Ha'aretz's panel of experts that predicted that the worst possible political alignment for Israel was if Netanyahu was prime minister and Obama (or Hillary Clinton) was president of the United States. (Given the fact of Obama's presidency, the best Israeli leader would be Tzipi Livni, but that is just not going to happen--not now, not in the future.)

The reason this alignment is bad is that American Democrats and the Israeli Likud have--generally speaking--fundamentally different ideas about how to fight terrorists. Left-wing Democrats approach terror the same way they approach crime: by addressing its "root causes." (There are some who recognize the importance of "law and order" approaches but they have been sidelined by the party.)

The Likud believes that you fight terror through strength. This philosophy has taken a variety of different approaches, from harsh military responses to actively encouraging settlements in occupied territory. At its best the Likud has included someone like Natan Sharansky, for whom "strength" means a commitment to human rights. At its worst it has included various religious-nationalist demagogues who have thrown reality out the window.

We're not sure which Likud will show up in office after Israel's elections in February (just as Obama has left his exact intentions rather vague). And it's quite likely that no matter what the outcome of the Gaza War would have been, we would have seen both Netanyahu and Obama in office. The difference now is that Israel has failed--prior to this political change--to fully assert its right to defend itself against terror, to balance security and diplomacy the way Kadima had promised to do when elected in 2006.

Israel may never get the chance again.

2009-01-16T11:48:00.002-05:00

16 January 2009 - No to cease-fire in Gaza

Israel is currently negotiating the terms of a cease-fire, signing agreements with the United States and talking to Egypt, which is an intermediary for Hamas in Gaza. At the same time, the Damascus wing of Hamas is meeting its Iranian and Syrian patrons at a summit in Doha and promising "victory."

Never mind, for the moment, the conditions of the cease-fire now under discussion. The process is deeply flawed and not one that will lend itself to any sort of successful agreement, whether short-term or long-term. Ironically, perhaps, the best alternative for long-run peace is continued war.

I am not one of those who thinks Israel's goal in Gaza must necessarily be to get rid of Hamas, nor do I think Israel must press for victory at all costs (though I don't think Israel should simply be satisfied with re-establishing its deterrent force, either).

But there is simply no way a cease-fire is going to achieve anything when there are two separate sets of negotiations going on--and where the reason for that is that the dominant powers in the region, the U.S. and Iran, are at odds and the latter has no interest in an overall peace process.

That will not change even after January 20. President-elect Obama and Secretary of State Clinton may want to "engage" Iran, but Iran does not want to "engage" the U.S.--and may not have any reason to, if it is as close to developing a nuclear weapon as some people seem to think it is.

(The term "tough diplomacy," by the way, which was sold by Obama to the public during his election campaign and which Clinton has now enthusiastically embraced, means nothing. It is an oxymoron, a weasel word. Diplomacy achieves nothing unless it is backed by rewards for progress and threats against failure.)

So at the moment we have two negotiations going on, each stage-managed by one of the regional powers, each purporting to describe the region as each side would like it to be: the U.S. maintaining the façade of an overall peace process, Iran issuing its usual threats about wiping out Israel.

Neither picture corresponds to reality. There is no longer a meaningful peace process, despite the best efforts of the U.S. to pretend otherwise. And Israel's impressive military and psychological victory over Iran's Gaza proxy has set Iranian ambitions in the region back significantly.

The only way a real peace process can begin to come together is if Iran realizes that it has to reduce tensions with the U.S.--and not just because the new American administration plays nice, but because the Iranian regime begins to realize it has no other choice if it wants to have a chance at survival.

During the American election, two alternatives were presented. One, championed by McCain, called for containing Iran through both diplomatic and military pressure. The other, proposed by Obama and now Clinton, proposed unilateral gestures of compromise and reconciliation to appease the Iranian regime.

It is not too late for Obama to reverse course and simply adopt his rival's policy, since it is the more sensible one. (He has already done so on Iraq.) But either way, both approaches depend on a largely unknown factor: the strength of internal opposition to the Iranian regime.

It is in America's best interest to bring about internal change in Iran, much as it did in the Soviet Union. Reckless hostility to Iran could serve the regime's interests by giving it a reason to crush dissent; but consistent military and political pressure combined with openness to diplomacy could help the regime's internal opponents.

Lately, Iran's weak opposition has been emboldened by public frustration with the regime's support for foreign terror groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, which drains resources from the Iranian economy and has worsened the country's economic and political isolation from the west.

The worse Hamas fares in Gaza, the stronger that opposition grows in its contention that Iran's vast expenditures on its proxies are a waste of money and life. That is why Israel's success thus far in Gaza is so important: it has not just made Israel look stronger but Iran weaker--especially to Iranians.

If there is no real peace process, but just a meaningless sentimental display in Washington and an even more ridiculous parody of talks in Doha, then the only way to bring both sides together is to create a new military and political reality that both regional powers have to acknowledge and take an interest in.

That new reality--there is no alternative--has to be Israel's ability and willingness to crush the extremist threat on its borders while there is no willingness on the Arab side to accept reasonable peace terms or even acknowledge the obvious military and political realities on the ground.

Perhaps a short-term cease-fire would allow that reality to sink in, and present the opportunity of an end to this war, to the great relief of both Palestinian and Israeli civilians. But if Iran--and especially the U.S.!--cannot see the cease-fire "talks" as the sham that they are, then Israel must continue crushing Hamas.

2009-01-16T03:39:00.002-05:00

16 January 2009 - A.B. Yehshua's retort to the Not In My Name crowd

It needed to be said like this.

The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.

Read the rest here.

2009-01-15T22:04:00.002-05:00

15 January 2009 - Responding to Jewish critics of Israel in South Africa

Last week, several dozen left-wing South African Jews signed a letter protesting the Jewish community's solidarity with Israel.

My response, below, appeared in several South African newspapers this week.

While I respect the feelings of those South African Jews who signed the letter (above), first published in the Cape Times earlier this week, protesting against Israel's military operation against Hamas in Gaza, and I empathise with their call for a ceasefire, they are incorrect in their claim that "Israel's response is an inhumane and disproportionate collective punishment, prohibited under international law".

Israel has not only suspended its military activity daily to allow humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians in Gaza, but it has also provided much of that aid.

Its response is not "disproportionate", but fully in line with the doctrine of proportionality as outlined in the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Court.

According to these instruments of international law, proportionality is measured relative to the legitimate military objectives of each side, not by weighing the numbers of casualties on either side. Given Hamas's incessant rocket attacks against Israeli civilians over the past several years, and Israel's exhaustion of every other reasonable means to resolve the conflict, stopping Hamas from carrying out further attacks is certainly a legitimate military objective.

The majority of Palestinian casualties have been Hamas fighters, not civilians, indicating that Israel's use of force is neither reckless nor disproportionate to the goals it seeks.

As for "collective punishment", it is in fact Hamas that has "collectively punished" Palestinian civilians by refusing to abandon its policies of terrorism and incitement, which have led to Gaza's international economic and political isolation.

It is interesting to note that many of those who signed the letter did not protest when Hamas killed Palestinian civilians in launching a coup against the elected Fatah executive, nor do they cite Hamas's numerous violations of international law, including the use of human shields and the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.

They attack the Jewish communal leadership, but do not criticise the blatant anti-Semitism that has accompanied anti-Israel protests.

Their double standards undermine the sincerity of their call for peace. A ceasefire is urgent - but not just any ceasefire.

An agreement must commit Hamas to end all rocket fire into Israel and provide concrete measures to stop any future arms smuggling into Gaza.

Only those conditions will protect civilians on both sides from the terrible costs of war in future.

Joel Pollak

Harvard Law School

2009-01-14T16:04:00.003-05:00

14 January 2009 - Solving the cease-fire puzzle

Now that Hamas has agreed to a cease-fire "in principle," let's evaluate the different negotiating positions of the various parties to the conflict. The key question for each is: what is each party's best alternative to a negotiated agreement? That will define the least each side can accept. We also need to consider the risks of an agreement to each side, as well as what each side would like to achieve in the long term and in the current conflict.

Hamas
Long-term goal: Destroy Israel, create Islamic state of Palestine
Goals in current conflict: End to Israeli operation; open borders & continue smuggling
Best alternative to negotiated agreement: Israeli withdrawal after heavy IDF casualties
Risk of agreement: Loss of legitimacy, funding, weapons

Israel
Long-term goal: Peace with neighboring states
Goals in current conflict: Restore deterrent force, end to rocket fire, smuggling
Best alternative to negotiated agreement: Continue destroying Hamas military capability
Risk of agreement: Legitimizing Hamas rule; probability that Hamas will renege

Egypt
Long-term goal: Control over Egypt
Goals in current conflict: Keep Gaza from collapsing; deny Hamas propaganda victory
Best alternative to negotiated agreement: Israeli withdrawal without IDF casualties
Risk of agreement: Confronting Hamas at border strengthens internal Islamist opposition

Iran
Long-term goal: Regional hegemony
Goals in current conflict: Prevent Israel from destroying Hamas
Best alternative to negotiated agreement: Israeli withdrawal after threat of 2nd front
Risk of agreement: Diminished ability to threaten Israel through Gaza

United States
Long-term goal: Stability
Goals in current conflict: Rescue peace process; ease transition for new administration
Best alternative to negotiated agreement: Israeli withdrawal without IDF casualties
Risk of agreement: Poor relations with new Israeli right-wing government

There are also various views-within-views. In the U.S., the Pentagon might like to see Israel keep fighting, while the State Department would prefer an immediate cease-fire. The Gaza wing of Hamas is open to a cease-fire under ambitious conditions, while the Damascus wing wants to keep fighting. In Israel, Olmert wants to keep fighting, Barak wants a cease-fire agreement, and Livni wants withdrawal without a deal; even the IDF is split between those who want to make do with having restored Israel's deterrent force and those who want to guarantee that Hamas can never threaten the south again.

There are also political considerations in the U.S. and Israel to watch. These did not determine the start of the conflict, but they may have something to do with its end. Israel would prefer not to test the commitment of the Obama administration to its security; it believes--as is clear on the face of the evidence--that Obama is far less sympathetic to it than Bush and it would rather endure a few more years of empty rhetoric and "tough diplomacy" than an a substantive confrontation in the midst of a war (the present spat over Condoleezza Rice is superficial, but bad enough). Livni and Barak are also positioning themselves for the elections against an opposition that will invariably charge them with failing to do all they could to destroy Hamas. They need a sound alternative they can sell to Israeli voters, and they are starting to develop clear positions and extensive justifications thereof. The public disagreements on all sides--inside Israel, between the U.S. and Israel. etc.--are really shameful and if it were not for the evident progress of the IDF one would think Israel was actually losing the war. Hamas may even hope to get a better deal from an Obama administration and meanwhile must certainly be grateful for the Israeli infighting.

Having considered all of that, here is my analysis:

Hamas is not ready for a cease-fire. A truce is still worse than its best alternative to a negotiated agreement--namely, continuing to fight in the hope of inflicting some sort of graphic harm on Israel that it can turn into a propaganda victory. Israel has denied Hamas the opportunity thus far, largely through the excellent performance of the IDF and by keeping its own aims rather vague, which has denied Hamas the chance to "win" by simply banking on Israeli failure. Regardless, Hamas probably still wants to take the chance--the more civilian lives at risk, the better for propaganda purposes.

Israel is ready for a cease-fire, but what it absolutely cannot do is accept one that allows the border crossings to open, unless such a deal is sweetened by formal recognition from Hamas and/or the freedom of Gilad Shalit. It will continue to fight as long as Hamas does--but not only for that reason: fighting is still better than a negotiated agreement that does not end rocket attacks and smuggling. Without achieving that basic aim, Israel will have to slowly step up its operation, taking greater risks (for potentially greater gains), waiting for the politicians to sort themselves out.

In short: despite what has been agreed "in principle," the fighting will continue for several more days at least, at least until Obama's inauguration. This round of fighting will in many ways be "diplomacy by other means," especially since Israel and Hamas are both reluctant to talk directly to one another. Hamas will use desperate tactics to cause at least some sort of harm to Israel; it may even directly target its own civilians in a massive way not seen before. Israel will proceed carefully, hoping to strike valuable Hamas targets without getting too bogged down in battles--but without giving Hamas the chance to claim Israel was scared of a real engagement.

It's a precarious situation. Israel has won the Gaza War until this point, but the closing days of the war are going to be the most important in determining what follows.

2009-01-14T01:07:00.002-05:00

14 January 2009 - This says it all, doesn't it?

2009-01-13T21:29:00.004-05:00

13 January 2009 - A queer boycott by queer activists

A group of gay activists in San Francisco is demanding that a local filmmaker boycott the Tel Aviv International Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Film Festival in June because of Israeli "apartheid."

They've sent a letter to Shamim Sarif asking her to withdraw. My favorite bit:

LGBT Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, like straight Palestinians, are denied their basic human rights. This brutal occupation perpetuates war crimes on a daily basis, especially in the two-year siege of Gaza where 1.5 million Palestinians have experienced almost a complete blockage of fuel, electric power, food and medicine. Simultaneously Palestinians living within the pre-1967 borders or the “green line,” including LGBT Palestinians, continue to experience systematic discrimination and segregation, without the rights of true citizenship simply because they are not Jewish.

Note how this does not address the actual abuses suffered by LGBT Palestinians at the hands of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. As James Kirchik noted in 2006:

Take just one story—in the May 2003 issue of Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide by Charity Crouse (who is described in the story as a “Jewish lesbian anti-occupation activist”). Tarek, a young Palestinian gay man suspected of homosexuality, was sentenced to a “reeducation” camp run by Muslim clerics under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. He said that for a period of two months he was “subjected to beatings with belts, clubs, and was forced to sit on bottles which were inserted into my rectum. I was hanged by the hands, I was deprived of sleep, and when I finally did sleep, my limbs were tied to the floor.”

The San Francisco activists of QUIT! ("Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism") treat LGBT Palestinians just like other Palestinians: there must be gay people in Gaza, people are suffering in Gaza, therefore LGBT Palestinians must be suffering just like other people, the logic goes.

But LGBT Palestinians suffer in very different ways from other Palestinians--in peacetime, not just in war. And needless to say, there is no LGBT Film Festival in Gaza City.

2009-01-12T20:58:00.006-05:00

12 January 2009 - Winning the peace, despite Ehud Olmert

Israel's apparent success in the Gaza War ought not distract from the abysmal performance of prime Minister Ehud Olmert over the last three years. Today, Olmert reminded the world why he is so unpopular when he risked harm to Israel's relationship with the United States by openly mocking outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. True, her performance at the UN Security Council was an embarrassment, and she probably deserved to be told so in public--but not by Olmert, who not only needs America's strong support but is something of an embarrassment himself.

Olmert's great contribution to Israel in the present military and diplomatic struggle has been his weakness. There are situations in which it is better to be perceived as weak--not necessarily as a victim, which is the standard Palestinian refrain in these conflicts, but as politically unable to do anything other than pursue the present option. In addition, the fact that Olmert faces indictment for corruption and is due to step down after the upcoming Israeli elections helped Israel create a false perception of military unreadiness that provoked Hamas into overplaying its hand.

Going into negotiations regarding a cease-fire, Olmert's weakness will again prove an asset, since he can plausibly use his own abysmal approval ratings as proof that Israelis will not accept anything less than a full cessation of terror attacks and weapons smuggling into Gaza. Olmert's political fragility is complemented by the overwhelming strength of the Israeli Defense Force, which has won the battles on the ground necessary to establish a commanding position at the negotiating table. Israel will likely achieve its current demands.

With today's announcement by Gaza-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh that he is willing to accept a cease-fire of sorts, but that he is determined to fight on regardless, Israel has a golden opportunity to get even more out of an eventual agreement. The unreasonable determination of the Hamas leadership to continue fighting a losing battle provides Israel with a valid reason to continue destroying the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, while the folly of Hamas's cries of victory from underground bunkers has started to undermine its political credibility in the Arab world.

(Here's my favorite example, from a Reuters report earlier today:

"Fear is the last thing we could be accused of," Hamas parliamentarian Mushir al-Masri said on Sunday. "Martyrdom is our dearest wish, but God has ordered us not to pose ourselves as easy prey for our enemies."

Offering innocent women and children, to these fanatics, is perfectly fine, but they can't be bothered to risk their own lives. The message is slowly getting through to ordinary Palestinians and the Arab "street.")

Meanwhile, Haniyeh is still demanding that Israel re-open border the Gaza crossings as a condition of a cease-fire. There is no way that Israel should agree to do so as a condition of peace. But Hamas's demand may give Israel a chance to ask for something important in return: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an acceptance of all prior agreements with the Palestinian Authority, and a complete end to terror and incitement. These were the original demands of the international community when Hamas took power in 2006, and Israel can reissue them now.

Of course Hamas is unlikely to accept these terms, and its refusal would again allow Israel's military to continue destroying the terror organization. The question may then become whether Israel is prepared to aim for completely eliminating Hamas in Gaza--for "regime change" that might bring Fatah back to the territory, or perhaps an international trusteeship of some sort. Israel's track record in this regard is not good; a similar attempt to knock over the Lebanese government and sign a peace deal with its replacement fared badly after Israel's initial victories in the 1982 Lebanon War.

Haniyeh may well be gambling that Israel does not have the will to go that far again. And there are definite risks in doing so--not least of which is that regime change alone will not solve the problem. The fact that Hamas was democratically elected is not an argument for its legitimacy: any election where the respective political parties are committed to armed conflict is a sham, and Hamas destroyed any claim to legitimacy anyway when it launched a coup against Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah-led executive in 2007. But its popular support is a reminder that the constituency Hamas represents, not Hamas itself, is the enduring and perhaps irresolvable problem.

The hatred for Israel among many Arabs and especially Muslims is deep--so deep that there may be no way to overcome it through negotiation. The Durban racism conference of 2001 is being re-enacted on a global scale on city streets around the world, with Arab and Muslim demonstrators dressing up in Hamas outfits and shouting "Death to the Jews" and worse (while clueless leftists march alongside them). Fundamentalist religion does not admit compromises--and if it is forced to compromise for pragmatic reasons, it certainly sees no value in compromise itself.

Israel hopes for peace, but the most it may be able to achieve in the medium term is an end to war, until the region becomes safe for democracy and human rights, in which case governments will have less need for external enemies and less support for warlike behavior. That, in turn, may depend on a fundamental reformation of Islam, which is an even more uncertain prospect. The most important factor will continue to be Israel's deterrent capability, which thus far this war has help re-establish (though the threat of a nuclear Iran looms larger than ever and is undiminished by Israel's efforts in Gaza).

Perhaps Israel's best option in the days ahead is to fight until Hamas exhausts its ammunition and withdraw to the international boundary without any agreement at all. That way Hamas will get nothing out of this conflict--not even indirect recognition from Israel--except the severest indication of what will happen to it if it tries to attack Israel again. Then again, that may not be good enough. Fanatical enemies tend to treat every outcome short of total destruction as an absolute victory. Allowing Hamas to remain in control of Gaza may not be worth the risk. Let us hope Israel's leaders are up to the challenge, this time.

2009-01-12T02:58:00.001-05:00

12 January 2009 - A must-read from Dore Gold

The False Symmetry of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (Jerusalem Post):

Despite the language of the resolution, most international observers agree that Israeli civilians should not have to face rocket attacks from Hamas in the future, and hence Hamas must halt this activity. But in Resolution 1860 there is a demand of Israel in parallel, "to ensure the sustained reopening of crossing points" between Israel and Gaza. It is as though the cessation of rocket fire and the opening of the crossing points are symmetric demands that are increasingly mentioned in the same breath by commentators. This is like asking for a quid pro quo for Hamas stopping terrorism.

THIS IS moral equivalence at its worst. Israel should not pay anything to get Hamas to stop firing rockets which is an act of outright aggression against the Jewish State.

2009-01-12T00:25:00.003-05:00

12 January 2009 - What next for Israel?

Two camps are forming on either side of the Gaza War. Hamas is divided between the Gaza-based leadership, which favors a cease-fire, and the Damascus-based leadership, which has categorically rejected any deal with Israel. On the Israeli side, Ha'aretz reports that foreign minister Tzipi Livni and defense minister Ehud Barak favor a deal to end the war, while prime minister Ehud Olmert wants to seize the military advantage.

The diplomatic ball is clearly in Hamas's court, which is good for the Israelis. In one way, the Gaza-Damascus split is really a proxy for an Egyptian-Iranian split in the Middle East, which suits Israel's interests for the near term. Israel holds all the military cards at the moment, but has some important decisions to make. If it stalls its offensive, it may give Hamas a chance to regroup. If it presses ahead with the third and most invasive phase of its plan, it may encounter fierce resistance and suffer casualties.

There are several apparent unknowns here. Has Hamas really prepared to make a tough stand in Gaza City, or is it just blustering? Even in its most brazen claims, Hamas admits that it has lost 40 percent of its military capacity. Can Israel hold its current position for long, or must it keep moving to retain the advantage, as David Horovitz has argued? If the next phase of the conflict proves indecisive, who will benefit diplomatically? And what will the cost be to civilians on both sides if Israel presses ahead--and if it doesn't?

There are plenty of leaks going 'round--some of them intentional, no doubt--and there is no real way to know what is going on. But while the majority of Israelis back the war, the majority of Israeli analysts seem a bit leery of advancing. Perhaps the memory of Lebanon is strong. And perhaps they know much that is not apparent to those of us watching from the outside.

Certainly if Israel could obtain its preferred terms for a cease-fire--no rockets and international monitoring along the Egypt-Gaza border--it should stop the war. It will have won a real and substantive victory, in more ways than one. The delicate task, it seems, is to escalate the military campaign enough to keep Hamas on the run--and press the advantage if the Tehran line wins out over Cairo's pleas for a deal--without incurring losses of Israeli soldiers or among Palestinian civilians that could tip the diplomatic scales.

2009-01-10T23:39:00.002-05:00

11 January 2009 - Anti-Israel protester admits protests have become antisemitic

David Rosenberg, posting at "Socialist Unity," is very enthusiastic about protesting Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza.

But he's troubled about a feature of these protests that he's honest enough not to deny:

Some of the negatives that need to be addressed:
* The stewarding was very poor. The failure to move people on past the Israeli embassy as darkness was falling and the riot police were tooling up made a confrontation almost inevitable and will give the media an excuse to skew the reports around the violence rather than the numbers, strength and demands of the demo.

* Although the vast majority of placards were clearly in line with the demands of the demonstration (end the siege, stop the killing) there were more than a sprinkling of placards this week with Nazi analogies etc that were more than borderline antisemitic and will be used by opponents to discredit the protest. Again the organisers/stewards need to think about how to deal with this.

* The SWP colonised a large section of Speakers corner where the march was gathering and were bellowing puerile slogans through their megaphones at the demonstrators as they arrived, appealing to them to “destroy Israel” (and presumably among them the Israeli anti-war movement) and calling on Zionists to “Go back to New York”. Not sure which aspect of socialist theory they think that comes from. But if they think the problem is Israeli/Jewish people rather than the oppressive Zionist state then they really have a lot of learning to do.

Perhaps Mr. Rosenberg ought to re-consider whether the problem is really "the oppressive Zionist state" and not the murderous Hamas terror organization and the disgusting antisemitism it promotes worldwide.

2009-01-10T18:08:00.002-05:00

10 January 2009 - Has the UN become an active participant in hostilities?

We already know that UN refugee camps in Gaza have housed active terror groups; that Palestinian UN employees have been actively involved in rocket attacks against Israel; that Hamas and other armed groups have used UN ambulances to transport troops and weapons; and that the same groups have used UN schools as launchpads for rockets aimed at Israeli civilians.

Now the UN may have been caught smuggling military gear to Hamas in humanitarian aid shipments:

At the same time, Hamas continues to attack humanitarian aid convoys and steal food and medical supplies, while the UN blames Israel for targeting its shipments--a claim the IDF has denied. (The UN's claims help it escape a situation in which it might be seen to be enabling Israel's attacks against Hamas by boosting Israel's humanitarian image.)

So, paradoxically, while its personnel are being attacks by Hamas, and its institutions are being used to launch terror attacks and endanger Palestinian civilians, the UN is not only asking Israel to stop fighting but may be actively assisting the Hamas propaganda and war efforts.

I don't find this too hard to hard to believe--I have had classmates and colleagues who have gone to work for the UN in Gaza, and all of them have been hard-core anti-Israel activists. That's why they choose that assignment over those in the region and elsewhere that are far more compelling on humanitarian grounds.

2009-01-09T09:49:00.003-05:00

09 January 2009 - Earth to Jackson Diehl

He begins his column today:

Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip is failing...

Uh... no.

See Edward Luttwak in today's WSJ:

It seems that most of the West's news reporters and pundits agree with Islamists everywhere that an Israeli victory in Gaza is impossible. They decry Israel's defensive attack on Hamas, prophesying an inevitable strengthening of Islamism among Palestinians and a dark future for the Jewish state.

How do our commentators come to this conclusion? They point, most frequently, to Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and echo Hezbollah's claim that it won a great victory. Indeed, this narrative goes, in launching their rockets at Israel, Hamas leaders were imitating Hezbollah's winning strategy.

In fact, Hezbollah was thoroughly shocked by the Israeli bombing campaign, and its supporters, who mostly live in southern Lebanon, are not likely to tolerate another wave of destruction caused by another Hezbollah attack. Even the inconclusive Israeli ground actions in Lebanon, which never involved more than six companies (roughly 600 men), resulted in the loss of some 400 Hezbollah fighters in direct face-to-face combat while Israel suffered only 30 casualties...

With few exceptions, Israeli ground forces are not advancing frontally but are instead mounting a multiplicity of raids. If their target intelligence remains as good as it was during the air attack, they will run out of targets in a matter of days. That is when a cease-fire with credible monitoring would be possible and desirable for both sides as the only alternative to renewed occupation.

Hamas will claim a win no matter what happens, but then so did Hezbollah in 2006. And yet, for the most part, Hezbollah remains immobile and the Israeli northern border with Lebanon remains quiet. If Israel can achieve the same with Hamas in Gaza, it would be a significant victory.

I think even Luttwak underestimates Israel's progress. Try Charles Krauthammer in your own paper, Mr. Diehl:

This is not about killing every last Hamas gunman. Not possible, not necessary. Regimes rule not by physically overpowering every person in their domain, but by getting the majority to accept their authority. That is what sustains Hamas, and that is what is now under massive assault.

Hamas' leadership is not only seriously degraded but openly humiliated. The great warriors urging others to martyrdom are cowering underground almost entirely incommunicado. Demonstrably unable to protect their own people, they beg for outside help, receiving in return nothing but words from their Arab and Iranian brothers. And who in fact is providing the corridors for humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians? Israel.

In the first four minutes of this war, the Israel Air Force destroyed 50 targets, taking down practically every instrument and symbol of Hamas rule. Gaza's Potemkin leaders were marginalized and rendered helpless, leaving their people to fend for themselves. At such moments, regimes are extremely vulnerable to forfeiting what the Chinese call the mandate of heaven, the sense of legitimacy that undergirds all forms of governance.

The fall of Hamas rule in Gaza is within reach, but only if Israel does not cave in to pressure to stop now. Overthrowing Hamas would not require a permanent Israeli reoccupation. A transitional international force would be brought in to immediately make way for the return of the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate government whose forces will be far less squeamish than the Europeans in establishing order in Gaza.

The disintegration of Hamas rule in Gaza would be a devastating blow to Palestinian rejectionists, who since the Hamas takeover of Gaza have been the ascendant "strong horse" in Palestinian politics. It would be a devastating blow to Iran as patron of radical Islamist movements throughout the region, particularly after the defeat and marginalization of Iran's Sadrist client in Iraq. It would encourage the moderate Arab states to continue their U.S.-allied confrontation of Iran and its proxies. And it would demonstrate Israel's irreplaceable strategic value to the U.S. in curbing and containing Iran's regional ambitions.

Either way, Mr. Diehl, get a clue.

2009-01-08T19:32:00.003-05:00

08 January 2009 - Obama wants to talk to Hamas?

So says the UK Guardian, so take it with a grain of salt. But there's no reason to deny that it's something president-elect Obama is considering--especially given the views of his Middle East advisers, and his stated belief that Hamas has "legitimate" aims.

For the benefit of the new administration, here are five very good reasons not to talk to Hamas:

1. The "realist" reason: Hamas is not interested in talks, except as a way of stalling while it arms itself.

2. The "geopolitical" reason: Hamas is being funded by Iran, which is not interested in talks even if Obama is.

3. The "domestic" reason: Until all extremist groups are disarmed, Hamas won't talk, lest it be outflanked.

4. The "precedent" reason: No talks in recent history have succeeded when one side refused to suspend violence.

5. The "human rights" reason: No regime that abuses its own citizens' rights can be trusted to make peace.

The Gaza War offers a unique opportunity for the west to contain Hamas or destroy it, depending on what Hamas does in the next few days.

If Obama extends a hand to Hamas before it complies with basic international demands, he will cancel the gains of the last two weeks, which have been won at considerable cost, and make peace even harder to achieve.

2009-01-08T18:42:00.003-05:00

08 January 2009 - Appeasers never learn

What is it about the urbane, educated, comfortable elite that makes it so enamored of violent fascism?

Nicholas Kristof revives the appeasement rhetoric of the 1930s in a spineless piece in today's NYT on the Gaza war. After blaming Israel for Hamas's existence and for its support among Palestinians, Kristof offered suggestions for Israeli responses to thousands of incoming rockets:

So what could Israel have reasonably done? Bombing the tunnels through which Gazans smuggle weapons would have been a proportionate response, if Israel had stopped there, and the same is true of airstrikes on certain Hamas targets. An even better approach would have been to ease the siege in Gaza, perhaps creating an environment in which Hamas would have extended the cease-fire.

Kristof clearly knows nothing about the doctrine of proportionality, which he takes as some sort of ghastly body count. (I've covered this topic elsewhere.) What's worse is his suggestion that giving in to Hamas's violent attacks on Israeli civilians would have made Hamas more willing to negotiate a cease-fire.

This is the naked logic of appeasement, and it is even more grotesque today than it was at Munich in 1938, because we ought to have learned something from history.

So why are wise fools like Kristof such easy prey for the false comfort of appeasement?

George Orwell believed that the left intelligentsia of his age, who also fell for the appeasement or pacifist view, did so because they were following the communist line (after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), because they believed that fascist victory would still allow them to enjoy their material comforts, or because they simply worshiped and romanticized power in its crudest and hence most "authentic" form. Sylvia Plath had a similar idea in her poem "Daddy":

I have always been scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You--

Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

Whatever the reason, I am afraid this sort of moral confusion may be taking over at a time when we can least afford it. Even our president-elect has described Hamas as a group with "legitimate" goals. Here's a reminder to Kristof (and our incoming government) of what Hamas is really about and what the costs of appeasement are likely to be:

2009-01-08T14:38:00.003-05:00

08 January 2009 - CNN runs fake video of boy's death?

Via LGF, here's CNN featuring a video that is a likely fake:

Charles Johnson and some of the comments point out a number of problems with the video, including the shoddy re-enactment of CPR and the fact that the attending doctor is an open advocate of Hamas (and the 9/11 hijackers).

There is an additional piece of evidence: the presence of women at the funeral procession and the grave, visible towards the end of the clip.

Islamic funerals are restricted to men only. I have seen several Muslim funerals--I used to live near a Muslim cemetery--and the barring of women from funerals is one of the many complaints raised by Muslim feminists such as Nadia Davids.

It seems almost certain to me that this video is a fake.

2009-01-07T19:55:00.002-05:00

07 January 2009 - You can't have it both ways

Anti-Israel activists have adopted a curious and paradoxical propaganda line. On the one hand, they want the fighting to stop. On the other hand, they regard the Hamas rocket attacks as a natural response to the international blockade of Gaza. So they want the war to stop, but they want the war to continue.

You can't have it both ways. If you launch rockets into another country's sovereign territory, you have initiated an armed conflict against them. A blockade is also an act of war, but the blockade itself was a response to rocket attacks, terrorism and arms smuggling by Hamas and other extremist groups.

The anti-Israel crowd argues that rocket attacks are mostly harmless. They do this not only to argue that Israel's response is "disproportionate," but because they generally support the rocket attacks and want to minimize the damage these cause in order not to be seen as encouraging violence against civilians.

They also call the blockade "Israeli," but in truth it is an international blockade, held in place because Hamas refuses to stop terror and renounce its goal of destroying Israel. Hamas could very easily end both the war and the blockade by giving up terror. But it won't, and so the fighting continues.

I find it interesting that the anti-Israel crowd has sided with Hamas so easily and comfortably, expressing few (if any) reservations about its ideology, its cruelty, its use of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Instead they are content, as usual, to invert facts and wail against Israel.

This is a conflict in which, as Orwell might have said, to be "subjectively" anti-war is to be "objectively" pro-Hamas. Those who cry out for an immediate end to Operation Cast Lead were silent, almost without exception, about the attacks against Israeli civilians over the past several years.

Those few who did condemn the rockets typically condemned the blockade as well. But the latter did not cause the former. The Gaza War is a conflict between two clear goals: one side wants the destruction of Israel at any cost, and one is willing to pay almost any price for peace and security.

Israel's peaceful and diplomatic options were completely, and painfully, exhausted. The best outcome for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region would be the disarming of Hamas. Whether that is achieved through a cease-fire, or through further war, is now entirely up to the Hamas leadership.

The IDF has generally acquitted itself well in this war. There have been mistakes, and any number of civilians killed or injured that is greater than zero must be a cause for deep regret. But the Hamas infrastructure has been smashed, and its image has suffered as its leaders cower behind schoolchildren.

Hamas may even have begun to doubt itself. According to MEMRI, Hamas TV viewers last night were treated to six minutes of Polish erotica as a technician, bored with the usual footage, flipped through the European channels. Its leaders vow to fight, but its troops are likely tired, distracted and demoralized.

It is too early to declare victory, and the worst fighting may yet be ahead, but Israel is winning. And despite the usual protests that greet any attempt by Israel to defend itself, the Gaza War has made one thing clear: you can't have it both ways. You can be pro-Palestinian, or pro-Hamas, but you can't be both.

2009-01-07T09:35:00.001-05:00

07 January 2009 - Israel following the Powell Doctrine?

Elder of Zion has a very interesting post on General Colin Powell's doctrine for US military action:

The doctrine is summarized as follows:

1) Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target;
2) The force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy;
3) There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and
4) There must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

Perhaps the Powell Doctrine didn't apply to Israel in 2001, as that was the very start of the mortar and rocket attacks towards Israeli towns in the Negev and massive force may not have yet been considered a "last resort."

But while we do not yet know Israel's exit strategy, the first three points are exactly in line with what Israel is doing today.

2009-01-07T02:15:00.003-05:00

07 January 2009 - The west gives up, just as it is winning

For once, I agree with an observation by Juan Cole--though I'm not as enthusiastic as he is about what is happening in the western media:

The Israeli propaganda blitz around their attack on Gaza has been greeted with uncharacteristic skepticism by the American public and even by some of the mainstream US press. Even the Jewish American community is uneasy about this one, in a way perhaps unparalelled since the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon and siege of Beirut. Jews for Peace in Los Angeles are actively protesting the Gaza atrocities, and newspaper articles from around the US on local protests held this weekend often mention mixed Arab-American and Jewish-American rallies.

Ironically, just as the west is giving up on Israel--in anticipation of Barack Obama's ascent, no doubt--the Arab media is beginning to show an unusual amount of skepticism and irritation towards Hamas (even though it continues to stoke hatred against Israel). To some extent this is the result of fear among "moderate" Arab governments that Shia Iran and the Sunni extremists pose a direct threat to them as well as Israel.

But there seems to be some grudging support for Israel among ordinary people in the region as well, under-reported though it may be. Even Iranian dissidents have caught the bug, and are condemning--at heavy cost--their own government's role in supporting Hamas:

Israel's current crimes in Gaza are strongly condemned - but it is equally [important] to condemn the terror organizations that use kindergartens and hospitals as a shield against the [Israeli] attacks. [Hamas's use of human shields] prepares the ground for intensified bombardment [by Israel] and for the killing of children and civilians, and [therefore] it is an inhuman act.

Unfortunately, we see that in Iran itself, a faction that outwardly pretends to be sympathetic to the Palestinians [actually] regards the [Gaza] tragedy as an opportunity to stifle the voices of the [Iranian] human rights [organizations]. [This faction] has launched harsh attacks against human rights activists and against political factions critical [of the regime].

It would be almost fitting for the west, having miscalculated at almost every turn in its relations with the Arab world, to give up on Israel just as the Middle East is coming to terms with the probability of its victory. We see signs of this in Obama's continued, mumbling equivocation; in Condeleeza Rice's support for a premature cease-fire; and in the various protests around the world, at which grim-faced lefties are marching arm-in-arm with determined Islamist radicals screaming religious slogans and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting.

The Gaza Strip is now the front line in the battle for civilization, a fact that has dawned on those in the Middle East who value their own civilization and realize it cannot survive in the possession of fanatics who send their children to die as suicide bombers and human shields but cower in hospital maternity wards rather than fight with courage or surrender with honor.

2009-01-06T11:11:00.002-05:00

06 January 2009 - Human rights activist commits human rights violation

This speaks for itself:

A protestor from the Adalah human rights organization demonstrating outside the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem against the IDF operation in Gaza threw a stone at a vehicle in the area after the driver shouted, "Shame on you" to the protesters.

The stone hit the head of a police officer in the area and he was evacuated for medical treatment. The stone-thrower was arrested and the demonstration was scattered.

2009-01-05T22:18:00.004-05:00

05 January 2009 - Is Israel winning the media war?

Pesach Benson of MediaBackspin has asked me and several other bloggers to answer the following two questions:

1) Is Israel winning the media war?

2) What more could Israel be doing on the media front?

My answers:

1) What is the objective of the “media war”? If the point is to affect public opinion, then Israel is losing. As it must: there are billions of people whose only sources of media are state-produced or state-censored--and whose only alternatives offer radical, not liberal, critiques. And the free media of the democratic world offer, at best, “balanced” coverage that gives both sides equal weight--if Israel’s lucky.

If the objective of the “media war” is to affect elite opinion in the democratic world, Israel is faring even worse this time than last, because what’s important to mainstream journalists and pundits is not truth or right, but power. And many sense--or hope--that the incoming Obama administration is going to change U.S. policy towards Israel, so they are emphasizing anti-Israel attitudes in anticipation.

But if the goal of the “media war” is to provide the political cover Israel needs to achieve its military goals, it is indeed winning. The point is not only to win debates but to give those already inclined to support you good reasons for doing so. That means not only the U.S. government but also anti-jihad Arabs, Iranian dissidents, etc. In that regard, Israel’s performance is an improvement over the last war.

On a personal level, I believe “winning” the media war means standing up for objective truth, especially the truth of words. When Israel’s enemies distort words like “proportionate” and “militant,” they create a propaganda world that frustrates dialogue and peace. I want to see a two-state solution emerge, which means setting boundaries around violence--violence against people and violence against language.

2) The most important thing Israel can do on the media front is to achieve its military goals. Again, the world respects power above all. So Israel must defeat Hamas thoroughly and humble it if possible. Minimizing civilian casualties is important for its own sake, and also for PR purposes, but the best media victory is one in which--Saddam-style--the fanatical enemy is seen to give up without a fight.

Israel must continue to explore the possibilities of new media. The use of YouTube by the IDF has made a real impact, especially the videos of secondary explosions and humanitarian aid. New videos of how Hamas treats Palestinian civilians have started to emerge and they are also important. In addition, Israeli consulates have started using Twitter to great effect, as have Israeli bloggers. This must continue.

Israel's supporters should not simply use new media to win public debates (though it helps), but also to connect like-minded people to one another, so they can share information and quickly translate it into action (protests, lobbying, fundraising etc.). Meanwhile, the best media warriors remain the men and women of the IDF. Only victory with honor can change the terms of the debate, where there is one.

I should add that the true tests of Israel's media effectiveness are yet to come. The first will be when an Israeli strike causes (or Hamas stages) large numbers of civilian casualties. The second will be when Barack Obama takes office on January 20. Regardless of where the Gaza War is by then, Israel is going to have to develop new media strategies to deal with a new and challenging American political reality.

2009-01-05T21:38:00.002-05:00

05 January 2009 - Obama votes "absent" on Gaza - again

Given the opportunity to address the Gaza War, Obama declines again:

How difficult--or disruptive--would it be to say: "I support Israel's right to defend itself"?

Or even: "We need a cease-fire as soon as possible"?

Something?

Not ready to lead.

2009-01-05T20:42:00.002-05:00

05 January 2009 - Joe Klein attacks "Jewish neoconservatives"

I'm puzzled by Joe Klein's descent into antisemitic conspiracy theory-land as he responds to Bill Kristol of the NYT. Klein says:

...Kristol is a cagey guy. He benefits from the delusion of Iranian potency. The more menacing and evil Iran seems, the stronger the arguments for the war that Kristol and many other Jewish neoconservatives really want: a U.S. attack on Iran to make the world safe for Israel (as if such a war could or would accomplish that). He comes very close to endorsing that in his last paragraph.

I'll leave, for the moment, Klein's silly belief that Obama will be able to unite the world against Iran more easily because America will suddenly become more likable. I'll even disregard his total distortion of Kristol's position on Iran.

But his reference to Kristol's Jewishness is disgusting, no less so for having been done by a fellow Jew. There simply is no cabal of "neoconservatives," Jewish or otherwise, manipulating American power for Israel's benefit. Klein's comment is the stuff of extremist hate sites, not reasoned analysis.

Perhaps this is a sign of how far gone the American media establishment really is.

2009-01-05T10:10:00.004-05:00

05 January 2009 - Obama does not support Israel in Gaza

Despite the best hopes for president-elect Obama's administration--and though I supported McCain, I wish him well--it is clear he does not support Israel in its fight against Hamas in Gaza. Israel's opponents wish he would be outspoken about his opposition. Nonetheless, his silence is deafening.

Obama's given excuse--that there is "one president at a time"--would not matter if he agreed with President Bush, who has fully supported Israel. Many other leading U.S. politicians from both parties have spoken out (as did Obama, on the campaign trail). They have spoken with one voice, in support of Israel.

The only way America could appear to have two presidents at once is if Obama openly disagreed with Bush, separating himself from the broad American consensus in support of Israel's right of self-defense. He has certainly spoken out on other issues on which he wanted to draw a contrast with the status quo.

His reluctance to speak on the Gaza War indicates that he does disagree, at least in part, with Bush and with Israel. He doesn't want to provoke the stiff opposition that open condemnation of Israel would invite. But I expect he will express his true feelings once he has the reins of power.

Ironically, Obama's coyness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--studded with contradictions, and abetted by media cover-ups such as the Khalidi affair--may have encouraged Israel to respond to Hamas now, before Obama takes office, in order to avoid disagreement with the new U.S. administration.

2009-01-05T09:29:00.004-05:00

05 January 2009 - Robert Fisk can't even lie correctly

Writing about the Gaza War, Robert Fisk repeats the lie about the Jenin "massacre" that wasn't.

And what's more, he gets the date wrong. Israel's Operation Defensive Shield happened in 2002, not 2000.

Here's a screenshot of his willful stupidity before it gets corrected:

And here's the quote (h/t Backspin; my emphasis):

But the last time Israel played this game – in Jenin in 2000 – it was a disaster. Prevented from seeing the truth with their own eyes, reporters quoted Palestinians who claimed there had been a massacre by Israeli soldiers – and Israel spent years denying it. In fact, there was a massacre, but not on the scale that it was originally reported.

It's sad that some people still take this guy seriously.

2009-01-04T14:16:00.002-05:00

04 January 2008 - Iran: "$1 million for Mubarak's head"

Proof that the Iranian regime is mad:

According to media reports, the Iranian government has offered one million dollars for the assassination of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Question: why aren't they offering a reward in Iranian currency? Could it be because one million Iranian rials only equals 100 U.S. dollars?

2009-01-04T10:27:00.004-05:00

04 January 2009 - The most important video of the Gaza War

Palestinians using ambulances flying UN colors as troop carriers:

Also, Hamas is hiding its top leaders, as well as their largest stockpile of Grad and Katyusha rockets, in the basement of Gaza's main hospital.

These are war crimes.

UPDATE: Pamela of Atlas Shrugs points out that this video may be an old one. And, indeed, it dates from 2004, as I found upon further investigation. Still, the point stands.

2009-01-04T09:37:00.002-05:00

04 January 2008 - Sri Lanka invades Tamil territory

A must-read from Tom Gross at the National Review:

Prof. Steven Plaut of Haifa University in Israel emails me the following:

The jets bombed the bejeebers out of them. The ground forces invaded. They at long last suppressed the terrorists, who had conducted a long campaign of suicide bombing and planting bombs, and put an end to any notion that the terrorists and their sponsors would be granted their own state.

Many civilians were killed and wounded, yet not a single protest was made against the invasion anywhere. I am of course referring to the conquest by the army of Sri Lanka over the past few days of the last hold-out city of the Tamil independence rebels.

Kilinochchi was the last town held by the Tamil “Tiger” Rebels, considered to be a terrorist group by the United States. With it fell the last Tamil hope of setting up an independent state or even of getting autonomy inside Sri Lanka. The Tamils have their own state inside India but were not satisfied with that manifestation of “self-determination.” Kilinochchi, 579 kilometers north of Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo, was until recent months the center of political power for the rebels.

Meanwhile not a single Solidarity-with-the-Tamil-Tigers protest has been organized on a single Western campus or in a single downtown square. Mobs and “academics” have not taken to the streets to demand an end to the war of aggression against the Tamils. Leftist web sites have not proclaimed every injury of a Tamil civilian to be a Nazi-like war crime and an act of genocide.

Eurocrats have not pontificated about how the Sri Lankan response to the terror was out of proportion. The International Solidarity Movement has not sent in protesters from the West to try to defend the terrorists. Communists and fellow travelers have not organized flotillas of boats carrying aid to the terrorists. Israeli politicians have not lectured the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka about how the whole problem is that they are insensitive to the needs of the “Other.”

None have proposed dividing Colombo and handing over half to the Tamils. Virtually no one knows that 65,000 civilians have died in the fighting and the media have no interest in covering the story.

2009-01-04T09:02:00.003-05:00

04 January 2009 - As ground war advances, 10 things to remember

Here are a few things to remember to survive the persistent, ignorance- and prejudice-driven media bias over the next several days:

1. Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, dragging its own citizens from their homes to do so.

2. Hamas and other terror groups continued to fire thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians.

3. After winning the 2006 parliamentary elections, Hamas used its power to arm itself and incite its citizens against Israel, not to improve Palestinians' lives.

4. Hamas refused to comply with the basic demand of the international community that it give up terror.

5. In 2006 Hamas infiltrated Israel and kidnapped an Israeli soldier whom it is holding under conditions that violate international law.

6. In 2007, Hamas launched a bloody coup against the Fatah executive, killing many Palestinian civilians in the process.

7. Humanitarian aid, worth billions of dollars in cash and supplies, has continued to flow to Gaza in spite of all that has happened.

8. Hamas unilaterally refused to renew a truce that had held since the middle of 2008 and launched hundreds of rockets at Israel when the truce expired.

9. In the Gaza War, Israel's response has not targeted civilians and has not been disproportionate to the military objectives it seeks: ending Hamas rocket fire.

10. Even now, Hamas alone rejects a truce. It continues to execute and maim its own people. Its objective remains Israel's destruction.

2009-01-02T10:01:00.002-05:00

02 January 2009 - Missing In Action in Gaza: Obama

The Gaza War is almost a week old, and there is one man still missing in action: Barack Obama.

He has said nothing in support of Israel--and his left-wing supporters are incensed that he has said nothing condemning it.

In lieu of any actual comment from our MIA president-elect, pro-Israel bloggers and protests have been featuring the following quote, which Obama delivered from Israel in July, when he was running for president:

If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.

I think it's smart to tie Obama to that position. But it won't work, any more than tying him to his promise in June to keep Jerusalem united. He reneged the very next day. And support in the abstract, when there is no war on, is not the same as support in the particular circumstances of an armed conflict.

We also know that there is another Obama quote out there, which anti-Israel demonstrators would be waving around at their rallies if they could.

I'm talking about what Obama said at the 2003 farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, which the L.A. Times has on a tape that it refused to release, based on the bogus claim that they were protecting a source.

Whatever Obama said, or assented to, must have been pretty explosive. That's the best we can infer, anyway, from the newspaper's bizarre behavior in a year when it did all it could to promote its favorite candidate.

Obama has found time to tend to the internal affairs of the Democratic Party, commenting recently on the appointment of Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate.

Would it really be that hard to issue a statement supporting Israel in its struggle against terror?

Of course not. And the fact that Obama has said nothing, says everything.

2009-01-01T12:07:00.002-05:00

01 January 2009 - Shalom, Helen Suzman

Helen Suzman, leader of the liberal struggle against apartheid, died this morning in her home in Johannesburg.

She was 91 and ready to make her peace.

I visited her about 7 weeks ago and she looked healthy and vivacious. We enjoyed an afternoon of tea and scotch and conversation as she scolded her beloved dogs.

My father raised me on stories of Helen'a heroism, telling me how she stood up to the Nationalist regime, virtually alone, for so many years.

She was proud of her Jewish heritage and denounced attempts to equate Israel and apartheid.

The world will miss her dearly. I am sad she is no longer with us but grateful that I was able to share her friendship.

2009-01-01T09:23:00.002-05:00

1 January 2009 - America's top 10 most corrupt politicians

The conservative non-profit Judicial Watch has released its list of the top 10 most corrupt American politicians on the national level. The list includes 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton make the list. John Edwards gets a "dishonorable mention."

A must-read for anyone who believes, as I do, that corruption is becoming a serious problem in the USA.

2008-12-31T13:56:00.003-05:00

31 December 2008 - HuffPo flies the Hamas flag, defiantly

That great bastion of liberalism, the Huffington Post, shows its allegiances on its front page today:

How valiant.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that the same photo ran on an Israeli news site. Point taken, though some of HuffPo's contributions have left little doubt about where they stand.

2008-12-31T09:56:00.005-05:00

31 December 2008 - Misunderstanding the proportionality doctrine

The Gaza War, like the Lebanon War of 2006, has provoked a controversy about whether Israel's response to Hamas rockets has been "proportional." French president Nicholas Sarkozy condemned Israel's "disproportionate" use of force, and a few journalists and bloggers, such as Michael Totten, have responded with appropriate contempt:

So what do they have in mind? What would a legitimate and "proportionate" response actually look like? Surely they don't believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.

While I sympathize with Totten's point of view, the word "proportional" actually has a meaning in international law, and it is not what either side in this debate seems to think it is. (UPDATE: Totten revisits the proportionality idea in an excellent post here.)

"Proportionality" does not refer to the number of deaths on either side. Rather, it refers to the military objective to be achieved. A "disproportionate" response is one that causes death in substantial excess of what might be necessary to attain a particular (legitimate) military goal.

So the question is not how the number of Palestinian deaths compares to the number of Israeli deaths, but whether the number of Palestinian deaths is excessive given the legitimate and legal military goals Israel is trying to achieve, namely, to stop rocket attacks against its population.

Let's look at the relevant international law. Israel is not party to the 1977 First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, but Israel's High Court of Justice has held that certain provisions of that protocol have been incorporated into Israeli law because they are customary international law. The relevant provision here is Article 51, which describes an attack as "indiscriminate" if it

may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete an direct military advantage anticipated. (emphasis added)

Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes a long list of war crimes and violations, which includes intentionally targeting civilians (as Hamas has done and continues to do) and launching an attack in the knowledge that the damage will cause death and destruction

"which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" (Article 8(b)(iv); emphasis mine).

So, as Dore Gold points out in the Jerusalem Post, to consider whether Israel's responses to Hamas have been "disproportionate," we have to consider its military goals, how its targets correspond to those goals, and the intent of the military commanders in carrying out the attacks. Sheer numbers are not the primary factor, though they can offer clues to intent.

Given that the worst casualty estimates put civilian deaths in Gaza at about one-sixth of the total, Israel is obviously not targeting civilians, and its commanders have clearly attempted to minimize civilian casualties. Israel's response hardly qualifies as disproportionate, even if only a small number Israelis have died. Indeed, given the fact that Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel, more fighting may be necessary to achieve Israel's legitimate military objectives.

As long as Israel continues to target combatants, and does so with due regard for civilian lives and infrastructure, it will have international law on its side. Proportionality is not, primarily, a numbers game. It is, firstly, about distinguishing between legitimate military objectives and illegitimate ones. And by that standard, Israel is acting with legitimate and proportionate force.

2008-12-30T19:59:00.001-05:00

30 December 2008 - Winner: Dumbest thing said about Gaza War

From Lorelei Kelly at the Huffington Post:

It's like the US Army fighting the Salvation Army.

2008-12-30T12:49:00.002-05:00

30 December 2008 - Under Israeli fire, Palestinians killing each other

Justice and human rights in Gaza today. From the NYT (emphasis added):

GAZA–At Shifa Hospital yesterday, armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roved the halls. Asked their function, they said they were providing security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.
In the fourth floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late twenties asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Hajoj was carried out of his room by young men pretending to transfer him to another hospital section. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head. A bit of brain emerged on the other side of his skull.
Hajoj, like five others who were killed at the hospital in this way in the previous 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges, and when Israel destroyed the prison Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.
A crowd at the hospital showed no pity after the shooting, which was widely observed. A man in his thirties mocked a woman who expressed horror at the scene.
"This horrified you?" he shouted. "A collaborator that caused the death of many innocent and resistance fighters?"

"Short-circuited" is a glib way of describing a judicial "process" through which people already denied the presumption of innocence are brutally denied the right to life.

When a society behaves this way in times of external pressure, it has completely collapsed from within.

2008-12-29T16:30:00.005-05:00

29 December 2008 - Where is Obama on the Gaza War?

President-elect Barack Obama's response to the Gaza War, according to the New York Times:

He and his advisers have deferred questions — critics could say, ducked them — by saying that until Jan. 20, only President Bush would speak for the nation as president and commander in chief.

This marks the second international crisis in a row during which Obama has been on vacation in Hawaii. He's entitled to his rest--though it does seem rather inappropriate to be luxuriating while the rest of the country faces job losses and recession. But when he was still running for president, Obama at least emerged from his beach house to say something about Russia's invasion of Georgia.

President Bush was in charge then, too, and that didn't stop Obama from reacting. He was eager to prove his leadership credentials--but that was before he had victory in hand. Back then, he also touted himself as a great friend of Israel--but he's yet to issue a statement of support. And on the campaign trail, he attacked Bush's foreign policy in vicious terms--but now he is prepared to defer to Bush's judgment.

The election is over, so let's move on--but not before recognizing that Hillary Clinton and John McCain were right about Barack Obama, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned. The 3 a.m. call came, and Obama was on vacation, not ready to lead. Furthermore, he's not ready to offer Israel unconditional support against terrorism. That was already apparent during the campaign, when he spoke of Hamas's "legitimate claims," but no one noticed.

Instead of wondering about Obama's silence and inaction, the press is lamenting that the Gaza War may have made Obama's job as president more difficult. As if it should have been easy, as if simply electing the man ought to have made all of the world's problems go away, as if he deserves (or needs) more slack than any of his predecessors have had. How much effort does it require to take a clear stand--to say something like the following:

"I stand together with Israel in its fight against terror. For years, Hamas defied the basic demands of the international community by continuing to attack innocent civilians. Israel has shown exemplary patience and has been careful to avoid civilian casualties where possible. Ultimately, the solution to the conflict must be found at the negotiating table. Israel understands that. The Palestinians must as well. I will continue to monitor the situation."

Is that really so hard? And if it is--why? Deferring to Bush is not an acceptable answer, not even on vacation.

2008-12-29T11:16:00.007-05:00

29 November 2008 - The media does its part to help Hamas

Israel has continued to strike Hamas targets in Gaza with a high degree of accuracy. The UN claims that 50 civilians have been killed. If true, that's 50 too many, but it also means that with over 300 total deaths, more than 85% of them have been combatants. As Dore Gold points out in this excellent post about international law and the Gaza war:

What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."

Meanwhile, the international media is playing its usual role: demonizing Israel and sanitizing terror. Let's take as an example an article from this morning's New York Times, by Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner, among others (including someone identified merely as "an employee of The New York Times from Syria").

When the article was first published in the wee hours of the morning, it was entitled: "Israeli Troops Mass Along Border; Arab Anger Rises." We'll call that Version 1. This morning the article appears on the newspaper's website as "Israeli Aircraft Continue Raids on Gaza; Arab Anger Rises." That's Version 2.

Version 1 began:

Israel troops and tanks massed along the Gaza border and the government said it had called up reserves for a possible ground operation, as the death toll increased to nearly 300 after Israeli aircraft pounded Gaza for a second day on Sunday.

Note that the article does not mention whether the dead were Israeli or Palestinian, military or civilian. Version 2 adds more information about the attacks but still fails to distinguish among the dead:

In a third straight day of deadly air strikes against the emblems and institutions of Hamas on Monday, Israeli warplanes pounded targets in Gaza including the Interior Ministry while the Israeli Army declared areas around the beleaguered enclave a “closed military zone.”

The attacks brought the death toll in Gaza to more than 300, according to Palestinian medical officials.

Here at least the newspaper cited a source for its figure, but still failed to distinguish among the dead, which is critical for judging the legality and morality of Israel's campaign.

Next, we read about the justification for the attacks. Version 1:

The continued strikes, which Israel said were in retaliation for sustained rocket fire from Gaza into its territory, unleashed a furious reaction across the Arab world, raising fears of greater instability in the region.

Where to begin? The authors refuse to admit that the Israeli attacks were a response to Hamas; they have to frame that fact in subjective terms, as a mere claim by Israelis, vulnerable to potentially valid counter-claims from the other side. They also throw in the word "retaliation," as if Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" is mere tit-for-tat violence, morally equivalent to Qassam rockets aimed at civilian population centers in Israel, rather than a military operation with a clear military objective of ending Hamas's capability to launch rockets in the future.

Note, too, how Israel itself is blamed for the "furious reaction" in the Arab world, rather than the hatred and demonization in in Arab countries that causes any legitimate attempt by Israel to defend itself to be seen an unspeakable outrage. Also, the reaction hasn't even been that "furious," since several Arab countries are openly blaming Hamas for the violence. And the result of all of this, we are told by the journalists, is potential "instability"--whatever that means. Actually, if Israel crushes Hamas's ability to wage war, that will have the effect of increasing stability. But never mind. Let's see how this segment was cleaned up in Version 2:

Israel says that its onslaught — its most ferocious against Palestinians in decades — is designed to prevent Palestinians from attacking towns in southern Israel with missiles. But a rocket fired from Gaza killed a man and wounded seven in the Israeli town of Ashkelon on Monday, the Israeli Army said. Three Israelis were also stabbed by a Palestinian in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, the army said.

This version actually reports Israel's aims accurately. But not without editorial commentary: we have to be told--mid-sentence--just how "ferocious" the attacks are. Not extensive, or widespread, or intense: just "ferocious," like the expression of some primordial animal rage. And the result? Complete failure, the newspaper suggests, because Hamas was still able to fire a lethal rocket from Gaza. Note that the tone of the sentence suggests not only that the operation has been a practical failure, but that the justification provided by Israel is somehow suspect.

It gets worse. Here's Version 1 on Israel's successful bombing of Hamas's tunnels under the Egyptian border:

At dusk on Sunday, Israeli fighter jets bombed over 40 tunnels along Gaza's border with Egypt. The Israeli military said that the tunnels, on the Gaza side of the border, were used for smuggling weapons, explosives and fugitives. Gazans also use many of them to import consumer goods and fuel in order to get around the Israeli-imposed economic blockade.

The bias here is staggering: Israeli claims about the uses of the Gaza tunnels--fully and extensively documented by the international media on several previous occasions, by the way--are reported as subjective opinion; Palestinian claims about the uses of the tunnels are reported as objective fact. The article also gets the embargo against Gaza wrong: it's not "Israeli-imposed," but endorsed by the entire civilized world because of Hamas's refusal to give up terror; and furthermore, it's not an economic blockade but a comprehensive military blockade whose primary aim is to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons and which allows for the massive importation of humanitarian aid. Again, let's look at Version 2:

Footage recorded from Israeli warplanes showed bombs striking the entrances to tunnels allegedly used to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Egypt.

Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly! What is wrong with these people? Hamas itself has admitted it uses the tunnels to smuggle weapons--as reported one year ago by Kershner herself:

A Hamas representative in Gaza acknowledged on Wednesday that the group brought in weapons through tunnels.

Sigh. This article is just one example of the bias and willful idiocy that infests every major news source whenever Israel defends itself. It's getting so tiresome, and so silly, that one almost imagines people have stopped taking these reports seriously anymore. But they do, and the New York Times, despite its declining circulation and sinking revenues, still sets the tone for the intellectual and policy elite.

Please do yourself a favor and get your news from other sources. Here's one place to start.

2008-12-27T23:10:00.002-05:00

27 December 2008 - The Gaza War is a Just War

It’s been a while since I blogged regularly here, due to my involvement in the McCain election effort (sigh), the launch of my book, and my third year of law school in general. But when I saw the headlines this evening, I knew it was probably time to crank things up again, in time to fight the ritualistic hatred that is roused every time Israel exerts its right to defend its citizens according to international law.

The Gaza War is a just war. It is a war to defend Israeli lives and Israeli sovereignty against attacks targeting Israeli territory and Israeli civilians. It is a war against a terrorist organization—Hamas—that has violated international law in its aggression against Israel, in its repeated attempts to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, and in its treatment of Palestinian civilians living in Gaza.

Hamas brought this war upon itself. In the very recent past, it marked the end of a truce with Israel by firing rockets at Israeli border towns. Hamas and other terror groups encouraged or tolerated by it have also launched thousands of rockets at Israel over the last three years. They have kidnapped an Israeli soldier and refuse to permit visits from the International Red Cross; they have tried to kidnap others.

There are already protests from the usual crowd about “war crimes” and “baby killers,” as well as claims that Israel is trying to wipe out the Gaza Palestinians as a follow up to its ongoing blockade. Following the pattern we have seen in the past, these cries will increase in their shrill intensity until an atrocity occurs—or until one is manufactured for the cameras—an international opinion begins to shift.

Israel should avoid killing civilians if possible—for moral reasons first of all, and also because it is imperative that Israel stay on the right side of international law. But the most important thing Israel must do is maintain a clear strategic objective. If the goal is to end Hamas as a threat, ground troops will be needed. This is not a war that can be won from the air. The Lebanon experience cannot be repeated.

As for the critics: they are right insofar as they insist that Israel do its utmost to protect innocent human life. But that applies on both sides of the border, and it does not extend to Israel doing nothing or giving in to Hamas’s demands. In this war, the more important critics to watch will be those who do not say anything—those who are no friends of Israel but who tacitly hope Israel destroys Hamas.

2008-12-26T15:47:00.007-05:00

26 December 2008 - Harvard Menorah Vandalized

This afternoon, while walking through town, I discovered that the menorah (chanukiah) displayed every year by Harvard Chabad on Cambridge Common had been vandalized:

One of the branches was broken, and six of the eight light bulbs (the ninth had not yet been mounted, apparently) had been smashed:

In addition, the entire structure had been tilted, and the electricity wires had been cut:

This is apparently not the first time the display has been vandalized. According to the rabbi's wife, the "Happy Chanukah" signs around the menorah have been torn up every night this week.

Harvard and Cambridge consider themselves beacons of tolerance, yet this destructive and apparently antisemitic act happened in the open, a stone's throw away from campus.

If you have information about the attack, please call the Cambridge police at (617) 349-3300.

The light of hope will not be extinguished.

2008-11-27T15:28:00.010-05:00

27 November 2008 - Indo-Jew Bowl IX: Jews 14, Indos 7

Today the residents of Skokie, Illinois continued a time-honored tradition: the Indo-Jew Bowl, a Thanksgiving match-up between two communities not usually known for their football prowess. The game was started by friends from Niles North High School, Class of 1998, and many of the original players come back year after year for good times and friendly competition.

In recent years the Indo-Jew Bowl has enjoyed attention from Sports Illustrated and other national media. Past games have featured canned food drives and even a guest appearance by former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit.

This year the game was special. On the other side of the world, in the Indian city of Mumbai, terrorists had launched a rampage the day before that killed over one hundred innocent people, and were still holding a rabbi and his wife hostage, as well as several other Israeli Jews. The organizers of the Indo-Jew Bowl briefly considered canceling the event, but decided to go ahead and play--to celebrate diversity and friendship in a great American hometown.

The weather was perfect--crisp and sunny--and the game got under way. The Jews won the coin toss but the "Indo" defense held. Then it was the Jews' turn to shut down the Indo attack. Each team traded punts for much of the first half and the game reached halftime in a scoreless tie. In the second half, the Jews broke the game open with a screen pass that became a sprint to the end zone after several broken tackles in the backfield. The Indos responded on their next possession with almost exactly the same play.

With three minutes left, the Jews threw deep and scored on an amazing catch by Yuval Eisenberg, who earned his place in next year's squad. The Indos made it to the red zone on the return trip but could not convert for the score. At the whistle, the score was 14-7, giving the Jews an overall lead of 7-2 in the series. There were hugs and congratulations all around, and everyone went back home to enjoy their Thanksgiving dinner.

Almost everyone, that is. One of the Indos--who happened to be Muslim--was hit in the face by the football as he guarded the defensive line late in the game. A local Jewish doctor took the player home and treated him before arranging for him to visit an eye specialist at a nearby hospital. As he left, the player said: "That's what's great about this community. Everybody helps each other."

2008-11-16T10:47:00.003-05:00

16 November 2008 - Obama backs Saudi peace plan

Via HotAir and the Times of London comes a report that Obama will back the 2002 Saudi peace plan, updated in 2007 to become the Arab Peace Initiative.

The plan offers Israel peace and full normalization of relations in return for a return to the 1967 borders--i.e. giving up all of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The dovish Abba Eban called these the "Auschwitz borders" because they left Israel in a provocatively weak position against any attack by her neighbors.

In addition, the plan is ambivalent about the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, which was the reason many critics rejected it.

Obama's position here will be a disappointment to many of those who hoped he would be as pro-Israel as advertised.

First, it cements his flip-flop on the status of Jerusalem. Second, it gives away all of Israel's bargaining chips at the outset to regimes (especially Syria) that have not shown good faith in previous talks. And third, it undermines the understandings reached in ongoing negotiations with the Palestinians that there would need to be border adjustments and land swaps.

Change? You bet. But maybe not the change you voted for. Don't say you weren't warned.

UPDATE: Dennis Ross now says the reports of Obama's support for the Saudi peace plan are false.

2008-11-08T15:48:00.003-05:00

08 November 2008 - A timely lesson

Pirkei Avot 2:3 (the Chabad translation)

Be careful with the government, for they befriend a person only for their own needs. They appear to be friends when it is beneficial to them, but they do not stand by a person at the time of his distress.

2008-11-03T21:41:00.002-05:00

03 November 2008 - Best of luck for a great election

My fortune cookie this evening:

2008-11-03T02:12:00.003-05:00

3 November 2008 - Democrat: "Let them invade Georgia"

Appeasement is the order of the day among Obama's supporters.

2008-10-30T14:54:00.003-04:00

30 October 2008 - Americans in Israel back McCain

Early reports from exit polling among absentee voters indicate that Americans in Israel back John McCain over Barack Obama by a staggering 3-to-1 margin.

Even more astounding, if these exit polls are to be believed, is the fact that nearly half of all registered American Democrats in Israel are crossing over to vote McCain.

Within the last hour, the first exit poll of 817 Americans in Israel, who attended U.S. election voting events in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening to vote by absentee ballot, has been released.

A startling 76 percent of those polled said that they had voted for John McCain. This contrasts sharply with pre-election polls of American Jews in the U.S., which indicate a strong preference for Obama.

The exit poll findings of American voters in Israel are all the more surprising because less than one in four were registered Republicans, and 46% of registered Democrats living in Israel said they had crossed party lines to vote McCain. By contrast, the Republican crossover to Obama was minimal – just 2%.

The votes are significant as almost half of the 42,000 registered U.S. voters living in Israel come from key swing states including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Israel had the third-largest group of American voters abroad, after Canada and Britain.

The exit poll was commissioned by Votefromisrael.org, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting voter registration and participation amongst American citizens living in Israel.

The ynet poll earlier this week that showed McCain with a 12-point advantage among Israelis seems to have underestimated support for McCain in Israel by a wide margin.

On a related point: Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party is now even with Tzipi Livni's Kadima in the first Israeli polls that anticipate the election that will be held on February 10, 2009. If the election were held today, Netanyahu could probably form a right-wing coalition with a slim majority.

Netanyahu has been telling Israelis that if Obama becomes the US president, he is the only one who can stand up to American pressure to make unreasonable concessions.

As Obama's fortunes have risen in the US, Netanyahu's poll numbers have risen. The Ha'aretz panel of experts predicted months ago that this was the worst possible combination of events.

I'm not sure I agree--Netanyahu can't be that much worse than the current incumbents have been--but left-leaning American Jews who back Obama might want to consider the degree to which they are helping the Israeli right.

2008-10-28T14:38:00.003-04:00

28 October 2008 - Obama: A Positive Rights Disaster

Barack Obama apparently wants to create a "Second Bill of Rights" for the U.S. Constitution.

This would provide "positive rights" such as those enshrined in the South African Constitution--rights to health care, housing, work, a clean environment, et cetera.

It sounds lovely, and is a much-beloved dream of the legal academic left. Unfortunately, it is an absolute disaster.

History and present-day experience teach us that the best way to ensure that those rights are violated is to enshrine them in constitutional form.

Doing so allows politicians to claim they have achieved something simply by providing rights, without having to actually provide the substance of those rights. The rights themselves are unenforceable, and provide for a massive expansion of government power that undermines existing "negative" rights.

It is worth noting that the Soviet Constitution also had plenty of "positive rights." Look how well that worked out.

This whole subject requires far more extensive treatment than I have time for at the moment. For now, it suffices to say that Obama's dream of court-enforced redistribution is directly connected to the idea of "positive" rights--an idea, not coincidentally, that is shared by many of the Harvard Law professors who now claim credit for Obama's development and contribute heavily to his campaign.

2008-10-26T19:15:00.002-04:00

26 October 2008 - Senator Obama's anti-Israel past

The Jerusalem Post has done a little homework on Senator Barack Obama's past feelings about Israel, and came up with some interesting recollections:

Normally, Gendler recalls, Obama would be happy to stand in front of the building and talk but "when it came to Israel, it was not like that." Instead, he says, "when Israel started to become the topic, he became very cold. He always told me that we need a more 'balanced' approach, which in America is a code word for being too pro-Israel."

Yet he can point to no specific policy points or comments that Obama made to flesh out that attitude. "He would refuse to talk more about it, [but] he gave me the impression that we were far too pro-Israel."

Like other detractors, Gendler notes how affable and personable Obama was. "He was always positive. He never lost his temper. On a personal level, he was very nice."

Fellow Republican Ron Gidwitz also praises Obama for being "friendly" and "warm," but remarks, "I've probably known him longer than most of these people have, though maybe not as well... but I elected to support John McCain." Gidwitz and Obama once served on a school reform board together and as Gidwitz remembers it, "Barack showed up at meetings but was not terribly active."

Both men also think the adulation they hear heaped on Obama is overdone. "I want to laugh because they make him look like a half-god," Gendler says. "He's a regular guy. He's smart but he's not smarter than I am. He went to Harvard for grad school, but big deal. I went to the University of Chicago."

But what rankles Gendler most is the what he sees as Obama's brand-new attitude toward Israel. "Now it's like he wants to hug and kiss Israel every five minutes. That's completely not the Barack I had as a neighbor. That started this year, when he was trying to get elected."

And, continuing the pathetic behavior of Jewish leaders in this election, we have someone from the American Jewish Committee claiming that Jeremiah Wright got a raw deal in the media!

"You cannot possibly get a sense of what Trinity Church says or does or believes based on what you see in the media, because it was all cherry-picked," maintains Soloff. "The church got so abused by the media."

Earth to the AJC: Wright went to the National Press Club in April. Here's the transcript in case you were on a junket or something.

And you think the media abused him?

2008-10-26T12:52:00.003-04:00

26 October 2008 - It's the economy, stupid, not the banks or the Jews

A German economist has warned that we are repeating history:

BERLIN (Reuters) – A leading German economist compared the criticism of bankers over the global financial crisis to anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany, according to a newspaper interview released Sunday.

"In every crisis, people look for someone to blame, for scapegoats," Hans-Werner Sinn, president of the Munich-based Ifo economic research institute, told the newspaper Tagesspiegel.

"Even in the global economic crisis of 1929, no one wanted to believe in an anonymous system failure. Then it hit Jews in Germany, today it is managers," Sinn said, according to a transcript of an interview to be published in Monday's edition.
More than 60 years after World War Two, comments seen as qualifying the horror of the Holocaust, in which Nazis killed 6 million Jews, still cause a stir in Germany.

The newspaper said Sinn had authorised the quotes. No one was immediately available at the Central Council of Jews to respond to the comments.

Sinn welcomed the government's 500 billion euros (340 billion pounds) bank rescue plan and said that, if politicians had done nothing, as was the case in 1929, the results could have been a meltdown of the financial system and mass unemployment.

It could have led to the radicalisation of the Western world and eventually a crisis of confidence in the economic system, said Sinn.

"German history is with us and it is quite clear. The Nazis grew out of the crisis between 1929 and 1931. The Pied Pipers would be ready again today."

(Reporting by Madeline Chambers; editing by Andrew Dobbie)

2008-10-26T00:27:00.003-04:00

26 October 2008 - A warning to America

Mark R. Levin has it exactly right. I have had the most astonishing discussions with intelligent people who should know better than to get swept up in the Obama cult of personality. And they can't offer the simplest rational explanation for their behavior.

Please read this article and forward it.

The Obama Temptation [Mark R. Levin]

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

2008-10-23T17:53:00.001-04:00

23 October 2008 - Debating Dershowitz on McCain vs. Obama on Israel

Last week, Prof. Alan Dershowitz backed Obama in the Jerusalem Post.

This week, I backed McCain.

2008-10-20T10:22:00.002-04:00

20 October 2008 - Where is the Anti-Defamation League?

Via JammieWearingFool, here's this week's episode of "The Family Guy," featuring a Nazi uniform with a McCain/Palin button on it:

This is the second time in this campaign that a prominent voice has slandered the Republican ticket with the Nazi slur. Where is the Anti-Defamation League? Where are the Jewish leaders who were so quick to jump to Barack Obama's defense against "smears"?

I'm not holding my breath.

2008-10-19T13:14:00.002-04:00

19 October 2008 - Israel's Awful Negotiating Posture

Ehud Barak now says Israel is considering the Arab peace initiative first proposed by Saudi Arabia (actually, by columnist Tom Friedman) in 2002. The initiative called for full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries in exchange for full normalization of relations with the Arab world, but left the question of refugees uncomfortably open.

The reason to re-consider the plan, Barak is quoted as saying, is that separate negotiations with the Palestinians and Syrians seem to be going nowhere.

This is a classic example of bad negotiating tactics. One of the first lessons you learn in any decent negotiation course is never to bid against yourself. Yet that is exactly what Israel has just done. Because the Syrians won't let Israel keep a sliver of land near the Sea of Galilee, and the Palestinians won't let Israel keep a small percentage of the West Bank in exchange for land swaps elsewhere, Israel is now offering to give away all of that territory in order to sign a deal with the Arab League as a whole.

I am all for peace, but if there were ever a reason to reject the lame Labor-Kadima government, Barak has just provided it. The government's mandate has evaporated and it is competing with itself to offer ever more drastic concessions in exchange for the same old nothing. It doesn't even help the Palestinians to have such a weak negotiating partner, because now they can put off the internal reforms they need in order to be able to honor agreements and succeed as a political project.

2008-10-19T13:08:00.001-04:00

19 October 2008 - Crossing Swords with Doron Isaacs

I've been debating Doron Isaacs over at It's Almost Supernatural, which has posted the full text of our exchange.

2008-10-17T03:18:00.001-04:00

17 October 2008 - Speaking of comebacks...

Boy, did these guys get a return on their investment...

2008-10-16T02:25:00.002-04:00

15 October 2008 - How Can Jews Vote for Obama on Israel?

Dick Morris gets it right:

I was at a Sarah Palin rally recently in new Hampshire, when a man who saw my "Jewish Americans for McCain" button and rushed over. "God bless you," he asked, "but why are Jews voting for Obama? Don't they know what he's going to do to Israel?"

I know some Jews who are voting for Obama for other, independent reasons--and I could quibble with those--but on Israel McCain is the superior candidate, and claims to the contrary are simply wishful thinking.

2008-10-14T16:00:00.003-04:00

14 October 2008 - Jewish Anti-Semitism at New Voices

I don't like the phrase "self-hating Jew." Most so-called "self-hating Jews" actually hate other Jews and make exceptions for themselves.

Case in point: New Voices magazine, run by Jewish students and funded by Jewish donors.

This month's issue is an execrable rant against religious Judaism, as represented by the Lubavitch movement. I won't bother linking to it.

And they're promoting the issue with a "Black October" survey that asks: "As the global economy crumbles, New Voices, the national Jewish student magazine, asks, is it the Jews' fault?"

No, it's not funny. And I'm not even sure it's trying to be.

Check out the survey questions:

The New Voices Black October Survey

1. The Economic Crisis and Us

First, a few questions about the Jews and the economic crisis.

1. The ADL has warned that global financial crisis is already sparking anti-Semitism, and the Jewish press has followed up with a few breathless stories. Are such fears overblown?

-Yes

-No

2. Lehman Brothers was founded by three Bavarian Jews in 1850. Half of the CEOs of Godman Sachs since 1992 have been Jewish. Precisely what percentage of the responsibility for the collapse of the financial system rests on the Jews?

-95%

-99%

-99.9%

3. How will Jews benefit most from the New Great Depression?

-Government-sponsored golden parachutes for every Jewish banker

-Chasidic control of the fedora market

-Bailout funds secretly diverted to buy weapons for IDF

4. In July of 2007, two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed, helping to create the conditions for the current crisis. Throughout the week in which the collapses took place, Stearns CEO James Cayne was at a bridge tournament in Tennessee. What kind of Jew plays bridge?

-The kind who knows that, whatever happens, he can still walk away and sell his shares for $60 million

-The kind who, according to the Wall Street Journal, gets high in the bathroom after tournaments

-The kind who runs Bear Stearns, apparently

5. After years of adulation, the New York Times turned on former Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan last week, laying the financial crisis squarely on his shoulders. What's the worst thing about Alan Greenspan?

-His friendship with Ayn Rand

-His disastrous support for massive deregulation

-That he's one of us

6. Would the Jewish community be worried about being blamed for the economic calamity if we didn't feel a little guilty?

-Yes

-No

2008-10-10T17:51:00.001-04:00

10 October 2008 - Obama campaign meets with Hamas and Hizbollah supporters

Via Little Green Footballs and NBC news.

Please don't tell me this guy is better for Israel.

Gotta go light candles...

2008-10-06T07:14:00.003-04:00

06 October 2008 - Harvard Law School professor supports Bill Ayers

Radical academics are rushing to support domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, signing an online petition in which they claim that he merely "participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans."

To compare Ayers's acts of terrorism to the non-violent protest of those hundreds of thousands is disgusting. It mocks the memory and idealism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and all who placed themselves at risk in the march for equality in America.

One of the signatories is Professor Jacqueline Bhabha of Harvard Law School, Obama's alma mater and my own school. Prof. Bhabha is Executive Director of the Harvard University Committee on Human Rights Studies and teaches human rights law.

An international human rights scholar supports an unrepentant terrorist. Why am I not surprised?

2008-10-03T17:17:00.002-04:00

3 October 2008 - Don't be a Fabrenta Farshtunkena Yenta

Joe Biden can't tell the difference between the West Bank and Gaza, thinks Hezbollah was kicked out of Lebanon (with the help of the French!), and lied about Barack Obama's support for the elections that brought Hamas to power in 2006.

But because you're a Jew, you should vote for Obama, Sarah Silverman tells us. Or else you are a racist! And it will all be your fault if McCain wins.

Well, Jackie Mason has a message for you.

2008-10-01T19:13:00.003-04:00

1 October 2008 - Hasselbeck holds her ground

I've been in so many debates--on Israel, South Africa, the US election--when I have felt just like Hasselbeck must have felt today:

The last resort of nonsense is always to drown out truth. Hasselbeck stands up for herself.

Way to go!

2008-09-28T17:26:00.002-04:00

28 September 2008 - Happy New Year!

2008-09-24T20:52:00.002-04:00

24 September 2008 - Town of Chelm endorses Obama

Israelis don't trust these people to run their own country, so why would Americans trust them to chose the next president?

Among Israelis, McCain is widely favored over Obama. But the Obama campaign is planning to have "real, live" Israelis call Jewish voters in swing states to reassure them that "he is not a Muslim."

Why does the Obama campaign assume Jews a) believe Obama is a Muslim; b) care? It's his policies people are worried about.

2008-09-23T08:45:00.003-04:00

23 September 2008 - Did Obama oppose the anti-Ahmadinejad rally itself?

Conventional wisdom has it that the Democrats pulled the plug on Hillary Clinton's participation in yesterday's anti-Ahmadinejad rally because of the potential spectacle of Clinton sharing a podium with Republican phenomenon Sarah Palin, who has replaced her as the standard-bearer for women's hopes in the U.S. elections. The party and the Obama campaign then insisted that Palin herself be disinvited; it's only fair, etc.

The truth may be even starker. The Obama campaign may have opposed the rally simply because Obama supports direct talks with Ahmadinejad, and might actually look favorably on Ahmadinejad's arrival in New York, at least if he means what he says about diplomatic engagement. The probable fear in the Obama campaign was that Palin would use the occasion to attack Obama's position (her undelivered speech reveals she would have stuck to the issues.)

Some protesters did, indeed, take that opportunity, and reminded America that Obama favors talks with a man who has pledged to eliminate Israel. From Ha'aretz:

"One protester held up a sign reading 'JEWS AGAINST OBAMA & AHMADINEJAD." Another, identified by the Forward newspaper as Bill Rubin, stood apart from the crowd waving an Israeli flag and a sign that said, "Dems hate Sarah Palin more than they hate Islamo-fascists.'"

Tough language. But the problem here is not the opinions of the demonstrators. It is the tactics of Barack Obama and the Democrats, who preferred to suppress Palin's right to speak--as the New York Times quashed John McCain's right of reply--rather than opposing Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations.