I have family over. We’re looking at pictures.
Damn, I was a cute little kid.
Maybe I’ll scan some in.
03/13/2010
03/12/2010
Eat an Animal for PETA
I totally forgot about EATAPETA Day until Sabba Hillel reminded me. There have been a lot of things on my mind lately that rather drove it out, but don’t forget to eat lots of tasty animals on March 15th!
Here’s the background.
PETA’s still as offensive as ever. I will be dining with friends on Monday night. I think veal may be on the menu.
Friday briefs
Hell hath frozen over: The EU released a statement demanding the immediate release of Gilad Shalit. No, really. Wait, there has to be a catch. Oh, here it is. They’re also calling on Israel to make “substantial release of Palestinian prisoners.” Phew, snowballs are still melting in hell.
Rockets in, missiles out: More kassams in Israel, so the IDF bombed a tunnel and a weapons lab. Watch for the screams from the Israel-haters. Oh, and the AP managed to put this in the last paragraph of its latest article about the 1600 new units in east Jerusalem:
In Gaza, ruled by the Islamic militants of Hamas, Israeli aircraft struck twice early Friday, retaliating for rocket fire into Israel on Thursday. No one was hurt in any of the incidents.
I will reiterate that the last graf of an article is the first to go when a newspaper needs the space.
A store opens in Israel, a protest opens in Europe: Filthy capitalists! Opening a store that was so much desired that Israelis nearly trampled two babies (!) to get in. Of course there will be protests throughout Europe and Canada. Listen to this brilliant protestor’s explanation:
“The Goldstone Report was published recently, and we think that one cannot open a store in Israel until it starts obeying international law.”
That’s what I like about Israel’s foes. They’re so smart, you have to wonder how they manage to dress themselves in the morning. Really, Israel-haters lead pretty pathetic lives. Imagine obsessing about something that really has nothing to do with living your life, to the point of gettting enraged by a store opening thousands of miles away in another country. Or a pro-Israel blog. To paraphrase, the vast majority of Israel haters have lives of pathetic desperation.
Iranians and Turks with fake Israeli passports
I have read first two reports: by Kateland and by colleague Elder of Ziyon, both based on a Maariv article (in Hebrew). The essence of the reports is that:
…three Iranians were caught at an airport in Seychelles trying to use stolen Israeli passports. The Iranians were sent back on a flight to Nairobi, Kenya, from where they came.Seychelles authorities passed the information to Israeli authorities, who found that the passports were stolen from Israelis who traveled to Thailand last year.
The general concern, which I fully share:
Israeli authorities fear that this was the precursor to a terror attack in the archipelago, which has been advertising heavily to attract Israelis on Passover vacation this year. Charter airlines now go directly to Seychelles from Israel.
Maariv also carries an attractive picture of the island:
I am not sure, though, about its relevance, but why not? In addition, Maariv claims that 15,000 (fifteen thousand) Israeli passports disappear every year. Wow…
Anyhow, I have decided to wait for a while with that story, and indeed, a new article in Ynet (in English this time) looks somewhat better researched.
In the past few weeks, more then 10 Iranian nationals were caught carrying forged Israeli passports, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday. The information came from reports relayed to Israeli embassies in Japan, Thailand, and India. In the last several months, Pakistani and Turkish citizens were also caught with fake Israeli passports.
And the reason seems to be not necessarily related to the terrorism business, rather to business business:
The Israeli passport is considered to be one of the easiest passports to forge and can be purchased in Asia, and especially in Thailand’s markets, for anywhere from USD 500 to 2000. The Israeli passport is in great demand because people carrying it can enter Asian countries without a visa.
Of course, the threat of terrorists using same passports for their nefarious purposes shouldn’t be discounted. On the other hand, there is no need to exaggerate the situation, like Maariv had done, since:
In 2004, six hundred Israelis reported their passports stolen in Asia. In 2005, the number increased dramatically.
Still, it’s a far cry from 15,000. Another article, from Sky News Blogs, seems to settle (at least) the issue of the three Iranians caught in Seychelles:
A Israeli government source has told Sky News it understands the incident happened but does not believe there was any terror threat. The Iranians are believed to have been refugees who were using the passports in order to enter the Seychelles with a view to travelling on to a first world destination in search of a better life.
I would say that in a case like this we shouldn’t be too prissy and mind a few forged passports… like some other people I don’t want to mention here. The more the merrier, I would even add.
Now to the comic element of the story. From Ynet:
Another Iranian who was caught in Japan with a fake Israeli passport was caught when the name in his passport belonged to a female. The Iranian replaced the picture, but didn’t bother changing the name.
Beef up on your Hebrew next time, doofus…
And from that Sky News blog – its headline says: Forged Passports: Is It Catching On?
Such naivety from a seasoned journalist… surely forged documents are as old as the first clay tablet… nay, as a first stone tablet… oh well…
Cross-posted on SimplyJews
03/11/2010
When honoring terror is “conciliatory”
The AP has the most fascinating pro-Palestinian spin. The PA cancelled an anniversary ceremony that was supposed to honor a terrorist who helped her people murder 35 Israelis who were traveling on a coastal highway. Here’s the AP spin:
The Palestinian Authority has called off a ceremony honoring a woman involved in the deadly hijacking of an Israeli bus.
The Palestinians had planned on Thursday to name a square in the West Bank city of Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi for her part in the 1978 hijacking on Israel’s coastal highway. Thirty-eight people were killed in the assault.
But they decided Wednesday to put it off. They offered no official explanation and it was not immediately clear if the ceremony would be rescheduled.
And here’s Ynet’s view:
On March 11, 1978, 11 Fatah terrorists infiltrated Israel’s coast using a rubber raft. They murdered photographer Gail Rubin and proceeded to hijack a bus while shooting at passing vehicles. They shot at the passengers and al-Mughrabi blew up the bus.
Altogether, 35 people were killed and 71 injured in the massacre, which to this day remains the deadliest terror attack in the State of Israel’s history.
Thirteen of the dead were children. I wonder why Joe Biden didn’t condemn the anniversary ceremony that was to take place today? He sure condemned Israel quickly for the crime of—building in east Jerusalem.
It is, as always, Israeli Double Standard Time. But not to worry: That only happens on days that end with a “y.”
An unbelievable protest
The Lede blog of the New York Times writes in a post, “Palestinians against terror,” that plans to honor terrorist Dalal Mugrabi in Ramallah have been met with opposition from Palestinians who favor the living alongside Israel in peace.
Plans to build a square in honor of Dalal Mugrabi the female terrorist who was involved in the coastal highway terror attack that killed 37 people has been met by protests by Palestinians who find it inappropriate to honor a terrorist while trying to make peace with Israel.
One of the Palestinians at the demonstration against the honor in Ramallah on Saturday, a woman named Fatima, told The Jerusalem Post that “…terror belongs in the past.” She added: “I imagine if the government of Israel was honoring those who deliberately killed Palestinians outside the context of war, that we would be offended.
The demonstration on Saturday followed the notice that the government of the PA including its moderate leaders, Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad were planning to honor the terrorist.
Palestinian writer Daoud Kuttab who was also at the demonstration added, “Some Palestinians protest the declaration of the Tomb of the Patriarchs or Rachel’s Tomb as important Israeli heritage sites. I don’t understand this myopia. If we don’t respect the Jewish heritage of Israel, how can we expect them to respect our heritage?”
Of course the Times didn’t report on such a protest. There wasn’t one. It did find a protest to highlight though.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
03/10/2010
A matter of trust
Last week Daled Amos wondered:
It will be interesting to see just what kind of tone Biden takes with Israel this time–and whether Netanyahu is up to dealing with Biden from strength the way Begin did–or like Olmert.
Now we don’t need to wonder anymore. At least about the first part. (via memeorandum)
“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem,” Biden said. The American vice president added that the “substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I?ve had here in Israel.”
As a side point is there anything that the Palestinians do that doesn’t undermine trust?
Ramat Shlomo was never supposed to be an issue with the ‘Palestinians.’ Abu Mazen had agreed with Ehud Olmert in 2008 that it would remain part of Israel in any future settlement.
JoshuaPundit puts it succinctly:
It seems the US cares more about denying Jews their religious sites and the right to build homes than it does about the Palestinians building facilities with our money honoring terrorists who’ve killed Americans.
Funny, but the NJDC doesn’t say a word about the Vice President’s condemnation of Israel. Will they continue to ignore it or spin the condemnation as to how it’s somehow pro-Israel?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Wednesday snarks
But Islam is a religion of peace: Jihad Jane, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed American woman who converted to Islam, was arrested for plotting to murder a Swedish cartoonist and enlisting terrorists to the cause. But “jihad” means inner struggle, so that can’t be true.
But the Obama administration is Israel’s friend: Joe Biden strongly condemned the announcement of new buildings in east Jerusalem, an area that the Palestinians had already agreed was going to be Israel’s. No word yet on whether the White House is going to condemn Iran for once again threatening to destroy Israel. Also no condemnation of the Egyptian murders of Sudanese refugees trying to escape to Israel. But boy, can the Obama administration tell it to Israel or what?
But the Palestinians want peace: So, if you’re committed to peace, you should be committed to peace because, well, war is bad, right? Everyone seems to think so. And yet, Mahmoud Abbas said in response to Joe Biden’s statement that the Pals deserve a “viable state” that he was committed to peace for a different reason:
Abbas, for his part, urged Israel to commit to the peace process. “The Palestinians remain committed to peace as a strategic choice,” he said.
What that strategy is, he did not elaborate. You need to read what he says to the Arabic press for that. Here’s a hint: It’s a two-part strategy, and the second part is “from the river to the sea.”
03/09/2010
Instransigence: a single use word
Mitchell, who in January boasted that a peace deal could be done within two years, said he hoped the indirect talks would lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible and encouraged the parties “to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”
Just such a thing happened Monday when Israel announced construction of 112 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Ilit. The administration had pushed hard — but unsuccessfully — last year for a complete freeze on settlements, and Israel’s new announcement came as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was meeting with Mitchell.
Now if Beitar Illit will remain part of Israel, why would building 112 houses there “inflame tensions?” I would think that orchestrating riots and honoring a terrorist are more obvious statements of contempt for peace.
In a similar vein we see in a Washington Post editorial:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has resisted direct negotiations partly out of a conviction that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is intransigent. And Mr. Netanyahu regularly offers evidence that this is so. He recently appeared to rule out Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, which previous Israeli governments have conceded to a future Palestinian state, and he allowed new Jewish settlement construction to proceed in the West Bank despite the “freeze” he announced several months ago. Mr. Abbas, for his part, already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.
The New York Times though, clarifies something:
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports two states but wants the Palestinian side to be demilitarized and to accept an Israeli military presence on its future eastern border to prevent the import of weapons and rockets that could be aimed at Israel’s population centers.
The Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, then, is a precaution. After being burned time and again by the Palestinians after withdrawing from territory, Netanyahu talks about protecting his country from that happening again. That’s a sign of intransigence?
But more generally that paragraph is disturbing. To defend Abbas claims that Netanyahu is being “intransigent” is dishonest. The editorial itself acknowledges that Abbas “…already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.” That, to me, is the definition of intransigence. Yet somehow the adjective, “intransigent” in its various forms somehow only describes Israeli leaders.
The Post’s editors can lament that Netanyahu isn’t as generous as his predecessors. But the reason there is no peace that Abbas and Arafat before him rejected generous offers. If they are demanding that Netanyahu accept deals that were previously rejected by the other side they are in fact rewarding intransigence, not advocating for peace.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Tuesday snarks
The Obama administration is fine with risking Israeli lives: Hey, great! Our vice-president wants Israel to “take risks for peace.” Because it’s not like they, say, gave the PA control over most of the West Bank and Gaza and were answered with terror; withdrew from Lebanon and were answered with war; withdrew from Gaza and were answered with rockets; and eased checkpoints and were answered with terror attacks. So yes, absolutely, Joe, Israel should takes risks for peace. Because it’s worked so well so far!
You have our permission to build on your land: The State Dept. told Israel that an exception will be made to the “settlement” freeze. How kind of them.
Are real Iranian sanctions starting? Three major oil companies cut their ties with Iran. Hm. Double hm. (Here’s hoping!)
Ew! Jew Cooties! Turkey has rejected Israel’s offer of earthquake aid. But Turkey wants to mediate Israeli-Syrian talks, and are bragging that they’ve been chosen. Netanyahu has denied this. Hey, Turkish dudes, here’s a tip: Cozying up to Iran and Syria aren’t going to make you best buds with Israel.
03/08/2010
Back home, tired, and there’s work to do
I am back in my home sweet home, with my cats yowling for attention in the background. I’m currently cleaning up a mess on the blog. I have a ton of real work to do, and though I had a great weekend, I will be busy the next few days. Posting may be light.
I do have some random thoughts though.
Alice in Wonderland was brilliant. If you liked Edward Scissorhands, you will love Tim Burton’s version of Alice. I want to see it again. And again. And again.
The Neil Patrick Harris song opening the Oscars was mean, nasty, stupid, and unfunny. Here’s a suggestion for the Oscar writers: Cut the opening number. And get rid of the dance numbers. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
So glad Kathryn Bigelow won the Oscar for Best Director. Ditto Sandra Bullock, because she’s one of my favorites. (Funny speech!)
Now I have four more movies to see: Crazy Heart, Avatar, Hurt Locker, and District 9 (not in that order). Plus, I have to see Alice in Wonderland again. Oh, and reread the books. I didn’t catch enough of the references because it’s been too long since I read them. I got bored. Burton made me interested again. Probably because he wove a narrative that doesn’t exist in the novels, and made it far more interesting and a little less a compilation of bizarre and disparate scenes. I really liked the narrative. It made the story so much better. That, and Helena Bonham Carter, Johnny Depp, and a fantastic cast, the special effects—I kept wondering “How did he do that?” every time I saw the red queen’s bulbous head—I highly recommend the film.
Back to the usual stuff later.
When a terrorist is less controversial than a religious shrine
via memeorandum
Barak Ravid of Ha’aretz reports on a report apparently circulating among Israel’s diplomats:
“The recent American statements point to the adoption of wording in line, even if partially and cautiously, with Palestinian demands in regard to the framework and structure of negotiations,” the report stated. “Still, the [U.S.] administration is making sure to avoid commenting on its position on core issues.”
U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell arrived in Israel last night for what is expected to be a final series of talks before the official announcement of the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in an indirect format.
While Obama will be subject to a lot of restraints from Congress on domestic policy in the second scenario, there is very little Congress can do to prevent Obama from doing things like convening an Annapolis-type conference and trying to shove a ’settlement’ down Israel’s throat. A ‘Palestinian state’ would be a wonderful legacy for Obama, especially if (as is likely) creating one results in a second Nobel Peace Prize that could be used to fund his Presidential library and post-Presidential activities.
And indeed, Vice President Biden will snub Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman:
US Vice President Joe Biden, expected to arrive this afternoon, is scheduled to meet with Israel’s most senior leadership during his three-day visit, with the glaring exception of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
But the Palestinians who just took the provocative action of naming a public square in memory of a terrorist, will suffer no such indignity. This leads Dr. Aaron Lerner to ask:
Where are the comments from American officials – and others – that it is “inappropriate” for the PA to do this the same week that V.P. Biden is visiting. That its the “wrong time” and “counterproductive” to celebrate the murder of civilians the same week that the launching of proximity talks with Israel are being finalized?
You’d think that honoring a terrorist bodes less well for peace than expressing a commitment one’s religious shrines wouldn’t you?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
03/07/2010
Just in case you were still in doubt
From the Mitchell Report:
The GOI asserts that the immediate catalyst for the violence was the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000 and the “widespread appreciation in the international community of Palestinian responsibility for the impasse. In this view, Palestinian violence was planned by the PA leadership, and was aimed at “provoking and incurring Palestinian casualties as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative.”[8]
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) denies the allegation that the intifada was planned. it claims, however, that “Camp David represented nothing less than an attempt by Israel to extend the force it exercises on the ground to negotiations,”[9] and that “the failure of the summit, and the attempts to allocate blame on the Palestinian side only added to the tension on the ground …[10]
From the “Green Prince” (via Instapundit)
As a spy, Mr. Yousef wasn’t fully activated until the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000. A few months before at Camp David, the late PLO chief Yasser Arafat had turned down the Israeli offer of statehood on 90% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as the capital. According to Mr. Yousef, Arafat decided he needed another uprising to win back international attention. So he sought out Hamas’s support through Sheikh Yousef, writes his son, who accompanied him to Arafat’s compound. Those meetings took place before the Palestinian authorities found a pretext for the second Intifada. It came when future Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Mr. Yousef’s account helps to set straight the historical record that the uprising was premeditated by Arafat.
Mr. Yousef tells me that he was horrified by the pointless violence unleashed by politicians willing to climb “on the shoulders of poor, religious people.” He says Palestinians who heeded the call “were going like a cow to the slaughterhouse, and they thought they were going to heaven.” So, as he writes in the book, “At the age of twenty-two, I became the Shin Bet’s only Hamas insider who could infiltrate Hamas’s military and political wings, as well as other Palestinian factions.”
UPDATE: Related see memeorandum and Backspin.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Time out for a station break
I am several hundred miles north, in the wilds of NJ, visiting family and friends (and buying kosher corned beef and Italian bread!). Ergo, the paucity of posting.
Dowd of Saud?
It’s often hard to know what to make of a Maureen Dowd column. She’s so interested in sounding snarky, it’s often hard to know when she’s being serious. She’s in Riyadh now, acting as a stenographer for Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.
Here’s her setup:
Actually, the president didn’t say all the right words in his speech. He created an obstacle for himself by demanding that Israel stop expanding settlements when it was not going to do so — even though it should — and when that wasn’t the most important condition to Arabs.
Now Obama seems ineffectual, as Israel pushes ahead on 600 more new homes in East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want their capital, despite the White House protest in November about 900 other houses that Israel plans to put up there.
Then she gets the Prince’s comments:
I asked Prince Saud if he thinks America has less influence over Israel than it used to.
“You’re asking me about something that has tickled our imagination,” he replied. “If the settlements are illegitimate, the least you would expect is that the aid the United States gives to Israel would cut that part that is going to build settlements. Israel is getting away without implementing the Geneva Convention as an occupying authority. Now if it were somewhere else, in Burma or somewhere like that, hell would be raised.”
It’s probably a sign of progress that Prince Saud calls it “a border dispute.” Unless it’s just his understated way. He also refers to “the 9/11 incident” and alludes to the Holocaust obliquely as “World War II.”
Now there’s nothing in that comment about a “border dispute,” so it must be from a comment the Prince made that she didn’t transcribe. Dowd doesn’t dispute the Prince’s dubious use of “occupying authority.” In an earlier paragraph it’s clear that she doesn’t approve of Israelis living in any territory that wasn’t part of the country before 1967.
But then Dowd writes:
Despite repeated attacks by Arab states and Arab and Iranian-backed militant groups, and a call for Israel’s destruction by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prince Saud suggested that Israel might be overreacting about security because of “World War II” and that this prevented a peace deal.
“There are no troops arrayed on the border of Israel waiting for the moment to say, ‘Attack Israel,’ ” the prince said. “Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace. But they didn’t accept that. So it makes one wonder, what does Israel want?”
If anyone deserves to be paranoid, of course, it’s Israel. But Israel can’t be paranoid because paranoia is the mistaken perception that people are out to get you.
Now, it’s clear that she has a different opinion of Israel than I do, but did she just diss the Saudis in their own home by acknowledging that Israel’s fear of its Arab and Islamic neighbors is well-founded?
Crossposted on Yourish.
03/05/2010
… and israel’s unpopularity among some americans
Given Israel’s popularity in America, that popularity is not universal. So those who don’t share pro-Israel views need an explanation. Walter Russell Mead explains:
While I say nothing because I know nothing about the motives of particular people, it’s impossible to understand the popularity of ILS or Israel Lobby Syndrome (the belief that the organized, insistent power of American Jews as deployed through organizations like AIPAC is primarily responsible for American support of the Jewish state) without assigning a role to a lingering whiff of anti-Semitism in the American air.
At a time when most of America’s Jewish leadership was strongly anti-Zionist, American gentiles overwhelmingly supported the Zionist cause. And today American gentiles are generally more hawkish on Israel than American Jews who on this issue, like so many others, tend to skew toward the center-left band of the American political spectrum.
Some ILS victims have a ‘clever’ explanation for this disturbing fact: Jewish media power. The insidious, overwhelming power of those sneaky Jews in the mainstream media feeds a steady stream of pro-Israel propaganda disguised as news to the idiot gentiles out in the boondocks and the dumb hicks and yokels swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Again, I say nothing about the motives of individuals, but only entrenched, unconscious anti-Semitism could make an opinion this dumb seem so credible to so many otherwise intelligent people.
Let us take, for example, Sarah Palin, who formerly kept an Israeli flag in her office while serving as governor of Alaska. How much influence does the mainstream media have on her thinking about abortion? About global warming? About US relations with Cuba?
The answer, of course, is that whatever the sources of Ms Palin’s opinions on a very wide range of subjects, the mainstream media has not played a major role in her intellectual formation. And what is true for her is true for a great many other Americans who disagree with the mainstream media virtually across the board. They are more likely to disagree with the mainstream media than to mindlessly parrot its views — so why does it seem even remotely credible to assert that Palin and so much of the rest of the country is pro-Israel because of Jewish media power?
Again, a deep and unreasoned belief that powerful Jews control things and that the powerful Jewish media shapes public opinion could lend broad social credibility to ideas with so little support or coherence.
The whole idea of a powerful Israel lobby, then, is a construct designed by people who can’t understand why Israel is so popular in America. Mead demonstrates why this is belief is nonsense.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Israel’s popularity in America
The latest Gallup poll on American attitudes shows that by a ratio of 63 – 15, those who have an opinion, favor Israel as opposed to the Palesitnians. The New York Jewish Week opines:
Analysts no doubt will find any number of reasons for the numbers coming out the way they do, but it seems clear that the Palestinian Authority does not instill confidence among Americans, who gave it the lowest approval rate among 20 countries listed.
On the plus side, the poll is a reminder that, despite large doses of paranoia in the Jewish community from time to time, most Americans identify with Israel as a bastion of democracy in a chaotic Middle East.
It should also be noted that for all the criticism of the mainstream press among pro-Israel advocates in this country, most Americans get their news and views about the Mideast from the very same news media so often perceived of as biased against Israel. Somehow a positive message must be getting through.
That last bit is nonsense. There is a cost to the poor media coverage. Nearly one in four Americans have no opinion or favor neither side. If the media were balanced, there’d be many fewer doubters. It’s also important to note that these numbers are somewhat volatile.
For example in 2002, when Israel launched Defensive Shield, the prefer neither/no opinion component of the population was close to the pro-Israel sentiment. Right now with things pretty quiet, Israel’s support is growing. In the past though, during times of crisis poor reporting has diluted American popular support of Israel.
I can’t disagree with the Jewish Week’s conclusion though.
Since these polls have been recorded the ratio of pro-Israel to pro-Palestinian has generally ranged from 3 or 4 to 1. Right now with support for Israel so high, the ratio is now over 4 to 1.
The encouraging survey results do not mean that we should, as a community, ease up on our advocacy for Israel. But we should keep our work in perspective, mindful of and grateful for an American society that appreciates the importance of Israel as a strong and loyal ally in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.
We are fortunate in that respect.
Barry Rubin explains the implications of Israel’s popularity.
Two fascinating questions arise from this analysis: What does all this matter, since public opinion doesn’t make foreign policy, and why is there such a gap between the most vocal elites and masses on Israel?
The answer to the first question is that it matters to members of Congress who are running for election in November and know that voters don’t want to see them bash Israel or support a president in doing so. Indeed, as President Barack Obama’s popularity has fallen and even the media has become more critical, Congress is reclaiming an independent role on foreign policymaking.
And of course the White House, too, is watching the polls. This is one of the most elections’ conscious, always campaigning presidencies in history—and the standard there is very high—and clearly attacking Israel either isn’t seen as beneficial for its ambitions. This isn’t the only factor affecting its behavior but it is one of them.
As to the second issue, there are many factors but let me try to list them briefly. Those who are unhappy with the status quo—that is, the U.S.-Israel special relationship, are going to be noisier. Another is the concept of “Realism” which is, unfortunately, extraordinarily unrealistic, the idea that all governments think alike, defining interest the same way regardless of all other factors. To assume that type of government, political culture, distinctive history, and ideology plays no rule in Arab politics ensures you don’t understand them. And so much of the Western elite assumes Israel is the only problem preventing Arab rulers and Islamist revolutionaries from loving the West.
Another issue is narrative, with much of the elite believing that the conflict is one of Palestinians and Syria desperately wanting peace but Israel saying no. In the American elite, there is also more of a yearning to be like Europe.
But American public opinion has more common sense to see through these myths. It understands that there are huge differences between democracies and dictatorship. It knows demagoguery and extremist ideology on sight and doesn’t like them. Thus, matters are precisely the opposite of what much of the elite thinks: public opinion, not elite institutions, accurately predicts where policy on these issues will go in future.
To see how Israel polls in the Arab world (and more) see JoshuaPundit.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Muslim ERA watch: Hamastan bans hairdressers
In 2007, the New York Times happily published a lying op-ed by Ahmed Yousef that said, among other things:
“Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve.”
[...] Our stated aim when we won the election was to effect reform, end corruption and bring economic prosperity to our people. Our sole focus is Palestinian rights and good governance. We now hope to create a climate of peace and tranquillity within our community
This was a blatant lie, but that didn’t stop the Times from continuing to publish Hamas’ lying op-eds. As for the freedom Hamas talk about? Well, if my hairdresser worked in Gaza, he’d be out of a job today.
Gaza’s Islamic Hamas government on Thursday banned men from working in women’s hair salons, the latest step in its campaign to impose strict Islamic customs on Gaza’s 1.5 million people.
And here is the AP twisting itself into knots trying to whitewash the constant stream of Hamas trying to force Islamic law on Gaza:
Since seizing Gaza in 2007, Hamas has taken steps in that direction while avoiding a frontal assault on secularism. The majority of Gaza residents are conservative Muslims, but Hamas is under growing pressure from more radical groups to prove its fundamentalist credentials by imposing ever harsher edicts.
You have to head down nine paragraphs before the AP writes:
Fares said Hamas’s new ruling takes away one of the last remnants of a more liberal lifestyle in Gaza that flourished decades ago, when the territory had cinemas and bars. All cinemas and bars were closed years ago.
Let me just repeat the Hamas spokesliar’s words from 2007:
“Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve.”
Many probably do want that. But Hamas does not.
03/04/2010
A note to the blowhards in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran
The Axis of Stooges that met in Damascus a few weeks ago and subsequently issued threats of Israel’s death and destruction probably will not like to hear that Israeli high school students are choosing combat service over noncombat service positions at a record rate. So much so that the IDF has to balance out the noncombat needs with the combat needs.
Some 76% of new army recruits with combat qualifications want to serve in field units according to Ground Forces data collected ahead of the March round of enlistment to commence next week.
IDF elements are pleased with the record number but admit that the situation causes a problem in manning non-combat positions. “We are starting to look for solutions in order to find the right balance in manpower assignment,” a senior Ground Forces officer said.
Every so often you read a jeremiad about how Israel’s youth don’t want to serve in the IDF, that Israel’s morale is down, that Israelis are a doomed people thinking they live in a doomed land.
Shyeah. And then you read the truth, which is quite the opposite. Am Yisrael chai.
Negotiation is its own reward
A few years ago Treppenwitz observed:
Has anyone else noticed that most civilized countries don’t list any designated ‘negotiators’ among their dignitaries? Last time I checked, none of the EU members, the U.S., nor any top tier Asian nations lists among their top political echelon anyone described as a ‘negotiator’.
Yet if you look at the countries and entities who seem to have appointed themselves as designated thorns in the side of civilization, each of them has several prominently placed ‘negotiators’ listed on their letterhead.
For example, the Palestinian Authority has the perpetually shrill Saeb Erikat as their chief negotiator, the North Koreans have Kim Kye-gwan named as their chief nuclear negotiator and the Iranians have Saeed Jalili, installed as their top nuclear negotiator.
Doesn’t it seem just the tiniest bit odd that these entities profess a desire for nothing more than peaceful coexistence yet seem to have mounted what amounts to pre-emptive defense strategies, complete with designated council, designed to block all attempts at indictment?
These oleaginous negotiators are invited by the world to sit smugly at polished conference tables wearing bespoke suits and sipping mineral water while playing us for the fools that we apparently are. Their intention seems to be to use the trappings of diplomacy to the same ends that the PLO, Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof Gang used grenades, AK-47s and hijacked passenger airliners back in the ’70s.
In short, while they seem to have climbed a few rungs up the sartorial ladder and mastered the mind-numbing language of diplomacy, these self-described ‘negotiators’ seem to be nothing more than the same old practitioners of extortion, writ large.
Instead of doing their negotiating via angry communiqués handed out of hijacked airplane cockpits or published in left-wing Italian newspapers, they now deliver their ultimatums across polished conference tables in blasé Oxford-accented tones.
What brings this observation to mind is the recent news that the Arab world has allowed the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel.
Mussa said that the Arab ministers had called for a four-month deadline for the indirect talks.
“Despite a lack of conviction over Israel’s seriousness, (Arab foreign ministers) will give indirect talks a chance, for the final time, in order to facilitate US efforts, within four months,” he said.
“There was a consensus that Israel is not interested in peace, the proof being what is taking place on occupied land… acts which are meant to provoke the Arab and American sides,” he added.
Since 1993 Israel has been negotiating with the PLO and PA. It has done so at great risk to itself and suffered increased terrorism as a result of the concessions it made in the course of those negotiations. The negotiations are aimed at creating a Palestinian state and yet the Palestinians and the Arab world generally treat these negotiations as a favor that they doing for Israel!
It is like Treppenwitz observed, negotiation is merely terror by a different name.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Thursday snark briefs, all-Dubai hit edition
Time for your daily AP article on the Dubai hit: You’d think that the assassination victim was some kind of worldwide hero or something, for this much media attention, but you would be wrong. Israel supposedly did it, so the “Jews is news” rule is in effect. Yesterday’s article? All about the bank that supplied the prepaid credit cards for the assassination team. Ooh, fascinating stuff. Maybe tomorrow they can tell us the kind of ink that was used to forge the passports! Today’s article: The Dubai hit will never be repeated. Wanna bet?
A Dubai hit the world is mostly ignoring: So this rich Egyptian hired a hit man to slit the throat of his ex-lover in Dubai. They caught the killer on security camera, then allowed the man who paid him to leave Dubai and be tried in Egypt. Egypt has just ordered a retrial (surprise, surprise, since the guy is tied to the dictator’s son). I’m wondering why the Dubai police chief isn’t sending out daily press releases about this murder, or talking about how Dubai will not allow Egyptian assassins to run free. (No, not really, because Israeli Double Standard Time is always in play.)
Everybody comes to Rick’s Dubai: Your daily Reuters Dubai hit piece, which glorifies Dubai as a nation that asks few questions and attracts real lowlives as a matter of course. It’s a “tradition of openness,” you see—allowing mass murderers to hide out safely in its borders. Ah, double standards. They’re simply everywhere.
Australian police hit and run: An apt metaphor. The Australian officers in Israel to interrogate the dual nationals whose IDs were used in the Dubai assassination hit a cyclist in Israel and didn’t stop to see if she was all right. The thing speaks for itself.
03/03/2010
Hell freezes over: UN notices Egypt is shooting Sudanese refugees
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights actually came down on Egypt for shooting unarmed migrants by the dozens over the past few years. And the release didn’t mention Israel once! Hell, even the AFP article doesn’t mention Israel.
High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay underscored the need for an urgent independent inquiry into the killings of some 60 people – and the wounding and disappearance of dozens more – on the Egyptian side of its Sinai border with Israel since summer 2007, when the two countries agreed to bolster border controls.
“While migrants often lose their lives accidentally while traveling in over-crowded boats, or trying to cross remote land borders, I know of no other country where so many unarmed migrants and asylum-seekers appear to have been deliberately killed in this way by Government forces,” she said.
“It is a deplorable state of affairs, and the sheer number of victims suggests that at least some Egyptian security officials have been operating a shoot-to-kill policy. It is unlikely that so many killings would occur otherwise. Sixty killings can hardly be an accident.”
The tally is nine killed so far this year. I would point out that the year is only two months old. I would also point out that it is highly unlikely that Egypt either stops the killings, or launches an independent investigation into them. Or that the UN does anything beyond having Navi Pillay send out a press release on the issue. I would also point out that I will be very glad if I have to eat these words. But I doubt I will.
Not a mistake but a liberal democracy
I don’t agree with everything that Richard Cohen argues, but his central thesis about charging Israel with apartheid is unassailable:
What can be said about others who apply the term to Israel in general? No apology has come from them — and the way things are going, none will be forthcoming. The use of the word has become commonplace — Google “Israel and apartheid” and you will see that the two are linked in cyberspace, as love and marriage are in at least one song. The meaning is clear: Israel is a state where political and civil rights are withheld on the basis of race and race alone. This is not the case.
The Israel of today and the South Africa of yesterday have almost nothing in common. In South Africa, the minority white population harshly ruled the majority black population. Nonwhites were denied civil rights, and in 1958, they were even deprived of citizenship. In contrast, Israeli Arabs, about one-fifth of the country, have the same civil and political rights as do Israeli Jews. Arabs sit in the Knesset and serve in the military, although most are exempt from the draft. Whatever this is — and it looks suspiciously like a liberal democracy — it cannot be apartheid.
The West Bank, more or less under Israeli military rule, is a different matter. But it is not part of Israel proper, and under every conceivable peace plan — including those proposed by Israeli governments — almost all of it will revert to the Palestinian Authority and become the heartland of a Palestinian state.
The problem is that though anti-Zionism (and with it, its attendant antisemitism) is that it has been made respectable by Palestinian nationalism. After all, who can object to “national aspirations” or “self-determination?” So the Nazi inspired hatred and rejection of Israel has a fig leaf. And as the reality of Zionism has appeared more reasonable and sympathetic harsher and harsher terms are needed to condemn it.
If anyone had told you twenty years ago that Israel would cede Gaza and withdraw from southern Lebanon and that would strengthen Hamas and Hezbollah, no one – except for “right-wingers” – would believe you. And that’s exactly what happened. Israel not only talked to but negotiated with the PLO and got an “Aqsa intifada” in return. The point is that Israel has indeed liberalized with regards to the Palestinians over the past sixteen years – at great cost – and is still treated as a pariah by much of the world. The Arabs haven’t changed but hide behind the pretext of “Palestinian rights” to justify their continued rejection of the Jewish state.
The now annual Israel Apartheid Week on college campuses is no noble enterprise. It is a continuation of the demonization of Israel by its implacable enemies; it is not advocating for anyone’s freedom.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Yes, it is anti-Semitism
The chief of police of Dubia, whom the world media have been quoting on a daily or near-daily basis (the AP alone finds it necessary to update us that the Australian police have gone to Israel to interview the former Australian citizens whose IDs were stolen for the hit, because they can tell them—uh, that their IDs were stolen for the hit).
And when the AP chose to report that the Dubai police commissioner said he would use “profiling” to “detect Israelis,” here’s what they wrote:
Dubai police will use voice and face profiling to detect Israelis arriving on foreign passports, the police chief said Monday.
[...] Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim said that now travelers suspected of being Israeli will not be allowed into the Gulf country even if they arrive on another passport.
[...] He did not explain what procedures would be used to identify the Israeli visitors, except that the police will “develop skills” to recognize Israelis by “physical features and the way they speak.”
Except that isn’t really what the police chief said. This is:
He said we will train our personnel in the passport of the forms and features of the Jewish people and their names, noting that no one can hide their features of Jewishness. He asked the appropriate departments to prepare nationality and residency sessions to familiarize the staff with [Jewish] forms and names, especially since most Jews hold dual passports [with Israel.]
As always, the world media whitewashes the naked anti-Semitism of the Arab world. The above could be taken directly from an official of Hitler’s Germany. But you wouldn’t know that from the mainstream media.
Oh and by the way he was smuggling arms
Mohammed Nassar, who was an aide to Mabhouh, spoke to Hamas’ al-Aqsa radio in Gaza from Damascus. A transcript was released Tuesday.
. . .
Nassar says Mabhouh “never stopped thinking about how to fight the occupation by supplying quality weapons to the Palestinian fighters
(h/t Dolly World)
Ynet continues:
Meanwhile, Dubai’s Chief of Police Lt. Gen. Dhahi Khalfan Tamim said he has submitted an official request to the UAE Ministry of Justice to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad Chief Meir Dagan in relation to the assassination.
Khalfan Tamim said the involvement of Mossad was certain, adding that the decision to submit an international request for the arrest of Netanyahu and Dagan depends on political authorities.
Not really surprising for someone who seemingly believes in Jewish conspiracies. I like Tamim’s statement:
He also said he did not believe Israel’s prime minister would be arrested as a result, but emphasized that “whoever gave the order for the assassination is a murderer.”
And whoever protects a terrorist smuggling arms is a terrorist too. That would make the assassination, if committed by Israel, a legitimate killing not murder.
One further observation. The New York Times focused on the Dubai police and provides some interesting details, but as Elder of Ziyon observed, remained silent about the blatant antisemitism expresses by police chief Tamim.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
03/02/2010
The I’m too tired open thread post
Long day in NorVA, beginning with some asshat trying to see if it were true that two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time (my Jeep vs. his sedan; the horn of my Jeep won), an 18-wheeler cutting me off (from the right lane, lovely), and ending in driving through a nasty snowstorm causing extremely low visibility and slippery roads. I think it’s time for a round of Plants vs. Zombies.
Although, dinner with the department was nice, especially since the boss paid for it.
Seif at first
The New York Times featured a paean to Libyan pretender to the throne, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi. While the end of the article explains why a government controlled economy is bad, that part of the article is there to show what the younger Qaddafi hopes to change.
Yet that is the goal of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the son and possible successor to Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, as he sets out to dismantle a legacy of Socialism and authoritarianism introduced by his father 40 years ago.
“It is hard work reinventing a country,” he said in an interview last month, as he slouched on a sofa in his villa in the hills above Tripoli, picking at a tray of fruit including fresh dates brought to him by a black-suited waiter. “But that is what we are doing. We will have a new constitution, new laws, a commercial and business code and now a flat tax of 15 percent.”
In the last few years, Mr. Qaddafi, 37, who has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, flawless English and a bold independent streak, has emerged as the Western-friendly face of Libya and symbol of its hopes for reform and openness. When he was nominated last year to lead a powerful government body overseeing tribal leaders, analysts saw it as a sign of his father’s endorsement.
Barry Rubin trashed this uncritical treatment of the friendly face of tyranny.
… the once-great newspaper of broken record now gives us a long article about how great the Libyan regime and son-of-Qadhafi are. Here you can see the pattern that prevails elsewhere: taking for granted as truth the lies that dictatorial regimes and radical movements tell while endlessly explaining that just about everyone in the world except Usama bin Ladin is a moderate.
For all of the kind words used to describe Seif Qaddafi, the profile neglects to mention his role in the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. After all if you’re showing Sief to be a moderate, why ruin it with the cynical business venture that freed a mass murderer, who wasn’t nearly as sick as we were told.
As The Lede noted last week, in 2008 the younger Mr. Qaddafi said in this extraordinary interview with the BBC that Libya had “accepted responsibility” for the actions of Mr. Megrahi and paid compensation for the Lockerbie bombing simply to bring about an end to international sanctions, but “that doesn’t mean we did it.” In the same interview, Mr. Qaddafi called the families of the Lockerbie victims “very greedy” and said, “Instead of wasting their time blackmailing us,” they should now work with the Libyan government “in order to find the real criminal who was behind that attack.”
That would have ruined the mood, wouldn’t it?
UPDATE: If the New York Times wanted to give Saif Qaddafi an unchallenged forum for his views isn’t the op-ed page the place for that not the news section?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
03/01/2010
Goldstone’s last gasp?
While the UN General Assembly voted to renew its demand that Israel and Hamas investigate themselves as demanded by the Goldstone report, a New York Times report observed:
… other ambassadors suggested that repeated resolutions with little effect was more likely to be a sign of the report’s slow, bureaucratic death.
(Israel has been investigating the IDF’s conduct during Cast Lead, the General Assembly just hasn’t acknowledged that.)
Normally I wouldn’t give a whole lot of credence to a throwaway line in a news report, but I read this interview with Nick Kaufman, who argues that the path forward to condemning Israel, is not as straightforward as Israel’s enemies believe.
“I don’t understand how the United Nations Security Council has made a decision to transfer the case to the international criminal court at The Hague, because I think in any event, the United States will veto the decision.”
“The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he was satisfied with the investigation Israel has conducted, but the Arab League and other unidentified countries have insisted that a new investigation be conducted in the next 5 months. I don’t see it going beyond this.”
“On the other hand, I don’t believe the senior prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, will yield to the Palestinians request and order an investigation against Israel: For him to accept the Palestinian request to recognize their court authority to try and judge the violations committed on their land, he would first have to recognize the Palestinian Authority as an independent country, and I cant see him making such an extreme decision. I just don’t see it happening.”
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
A repentant troll?
Wow, you guys need to check out this comment. I think my anti-Semitic comment troll has seen the light!
For all your terrorist news
Fred Pruitt’s Rantburg has been around for a long, long time. I’m on the daily newsletter list, and this is why:
Besides the wealth of information, there are the comments. Fred’s aren’t the only funny ones. (But they are the funniest.) All this, and classic movie stars (mostly women, but he added Cary Grant when I requested it).