I’ve disabled all comments plugins. Please let me know if you’re still having trouble publishing comments. Also, if you were one of the people having multiple comments post before, tell me if the problem has cleared up. Thanks.

Sarah is teaching her children to be warmongers and monsters. I think there’s a little sexism thrown in, too, as it’s obvious she could have talked her daughter into a soldier costume as well. Ask any RadFem. No, wait, they’d be horrified at the militarization of our American youth, and go into a long, windy lecture on the anti-animal rights attitude reflected by Rebecca’s choice of a [mythical] animal for Halloween.

This is a new kid on the block. I haven’t read more than a couple of posts, but hey, this blogosphere is big enough for all sixty gazillion of us regardless of whether or not someone writes things I agree with. Okay. He’s out sick today. Scroll down and see if you like the content.

This is the guy who shared the BBC World Have Your Say program with me. He has a website, and ohmigod, is it really orange? Dude! Black type on white background is there for a reason. OUR EYESIGHT. My eyes! My eyes! I think I’m blind! (I’m going to email him a link to my rant about reverse type on the web.)

This post is a freebie, folks. Plug your own blog in the comments and tell people what you’ve been writing about.

I went on-staff officially at Northern Virginia Company yesterday. My benefits with NVC started yesterday. So what am I dreaming last night? That I had to go to the emergency room and my medical plan didn’t pay a dime.

Sigh.

Stupid subconscious.

But no more COBRA payments for me. And paid holidays again, and vacation time, and 401k, and, well, the very much missed feeling of actually belonging to the place I’m working. Temp jobs tend to wear on you after a time, especially when you’re working for a place you really like, but don’t get on staff due to company cutbacks (that happened twice) in the last two-three years or short-term contracting.

But all’s well that end’s well. NVC is a great place, and I’m working with a good team, and I get to use the skills I’ve built up over the years. I used to think that I’d wasted my programming degree from the Chubb Institute. Not any more. If you know how SQL works, you get a much better idea of what SharePoint is and does (not to mention even a simple blogging tool like WordPress).

I really am in a place that’s about the polar opposite of where I’ve been for much of the last couple of years, and not just in terms of income and security. Although that probably has a major influence on my state of mind. I keep thinking of that last line in the Gene Wilder version of Willy Wonka: “You know what happened to the boy who got everything he wanted?” “What?” “He lived happily ever after.”

Yes, it’s a much better frame of mind.

I can take Monday off if I like. I may just do that. My first paid holiday in six years.

Whoa.

Yes, once again, the losers are dictating terms to the winners:

The Palestinians will only participate in the US-sponsored peace conference expected to be held next month if general agreement is first reached with Israel on all the fundamental issues, Palestinian Authority officials here said Monday.

They said that in addition to Jerusalem, the borders of the future Palestinian state and the problem of the refugees, the PA was also seeking agreement on water, security and settlements.

[..] The officials also denied that the PA had agreed to discuss an exchange of land with Israel and limiting the number of refugees who would return to Israel proper. They said the PA’s official position remained that Israel must withdraw from all the territories captured in 1967, including east Jerusalem, and that there would be no concessions on the “right of return.”

PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said he was unaware of any land swap agreement. He called on the media to refrain from publishing any unofficial documents or unauthorized statements.

One official told The Jerusalem Post the Palestinians were convinced that a joint declaration of principles could be achieved before the conference.

What’s going to happen if Israel doesn’t meet these Palestinian demands? Gee, let’s take a page from the Arafat playbook, which is the playbook that Mahmoud Abbas learned from—at the knees of his mentor and friend, Yasser Arafat. I’m guessing more terror, more attacks, and more world condemnation for Israel because Israel refuses to accede to every Palestinian demand.

These are not negotiations. These are the opposite of negotiations. Palestinians are offering nothing and demanding everything. Not once in a single news report have we heard a commitment to stop the incitement of Palestinian schoolchildren against Israelis. Not once have we heard a firm and unyielding commitment to ending terror as a Palestinian practice. There has been absolutely no word of stopping the rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza—quite probably because Abbas has no authority in Gaza. Unless, as some have written, the whole Hamas/Fatah war was yet another setup.

These are not negotiations. These are uncompromising demands. The Palestinians refuse to give up the “right of return,” which would flood Israel with millions of third-generation Palestinians.

When I hear a Palestinian leader swear that there will be peace, and that the Palestinians will no longer try to kill Israelis, I will consider these negotiations. Failing that, it’s just the same old song, different time period, and yes, the talks are doomed to failure—because the Palestinians won’t do a thing other than demand the same thing they’ve demanded for the past sixty years: An end to the Israeli presence in “Muslim” lands. Let’s not pretend they want anything else.

According to another PA official, the Palestinians want the declaration of principles to include an Israeli commitment to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. “As President Mahmoud Abbas stated last week, we have no intention to compromise on any of our rights,” he said.

The pre-1967 borders are the 1949 Armistice Lines. That’s only a step away from the 1947 borders, and no state of Israel.

israel, palestinians,

It is never late to admit that I have been wrong. And I have been wrong in siding with Debka (for a change) in this post.

Today the military censor allowed the following formula to be released:

…the Israel Air Force carried out an air strike against a target deep in Syrian territory on September 6th.

Which puts the version presented by Debka where it belongs - in the garbage bin. Which teaches me a lesson - never quote Debka unless in a post belonging to the series titled Oh Debka, Debka…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

In today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) Natan Sharansky applauds the Israeli decision to deny responsibility for the killing of Mohammed al-Dura seven years ago. The change was triggered by a lawsuit filed by Philippe Karsenty against French TV station France 2 and is reporter Charles Enderlin.

To its credit, Israel has come to recognize that it must play an active role in uncovering the truth. The IDF recently sent a letter to France 2 demanding the release of Talal Abu Rahmeh’s 27 minutes of raw footage, asserting the implausibility of IDF guilt for the death of Mohammad al-Dura, and raising the possibility that the entire affair may have been staged. Tragically, there is no way to repair the damage inflicted on Israel’s international image by the France 2 report, much less restore the Israeli and Jewish victims whose lives were exacted as vengeance. It is possible, however, to deter slanderous news reporting — and the violence that often accompanies it — by setting a precedent for media accountability via the handover of Talal Abu Rahmeh’s full 27 minutes of raw footage. Encouragingly, the judge presiding over Mr. Karsenty’s appeal has now requested the tapes. France 2 must make a full public disclosure. If there is nothing to hide, why should it refuse?

There’s a bigger problem with the Al-Dura case. There was available information to show that Israeli soldiers were not purposely firing on civilians. Israel almost immediately released a captioned photograph of Netzarim junction showing the positions of the participants in supposedly fatal the gun battle. There were Palestinian positions both in front of and behind the al-Duras. It would appear with that picture and the picture of the father and son hiding behind a barrier that the position that had the clearest shot at the al-Duras was the Palestinian position behind them. Because the Israeli soldiers were returning fire to positions both in front of and behind the al-Duras its impossible they could have realized that they were there.

Yet there was no journalistic investigation immediately to determine the accuracy of the imagery. The Israeli government surely failed by failing to act decisively, but the international media also failed miserably. Curiosity, which is supposed to be their hallmark, was totally absent.

It’s because the media has a tendency to rely on narrative. The narrative here was that Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount provoked a spontaneous, justified outbreak of violent riots by the Palestinians.

The first effort by the media to find a victim of Israel’s overreaction to the rioting failed. The Israeli policeman, it turned out, wasn’t beating the bloodied Palestinian. Rather he was rescuing the Yeshiva student who had been set upon by a mob not seen in the picture.

Chastened by the mistake, the media admitted error and actively sought a new symbol of Palestinian grievance and Israeli overreaction. They found one in the death of Mohammed al-Dura provided by France 2. The “Aqsa Intifada” was not spontaneous. It was weeks in coming having been planned by Arafat to bring diplomatic pressure on Israel as David Samuels reported:

The second intifada also began with the intention of provoking the Israelis and subjecting them to diplomatic pressure. Only this time Arafat went for broke. As a member of the High Security Council of Fatah, the key decision-making and organizational body that dealt with military questions at the beginning of the intifada, Nofal has firsthand knowledge of Arafat’s intentions and decisions during the months before and after Camp David. “He told us, ‘Now we are going to the fight, so we must be ready,’” Nofal remembers. Nofal says that when Barak did not prevent Ariel Sharon from making his controversial visit to the plaza in front of al-Aqsa, the mosque that was built on the site of the ancient Jewish temples, Arafat said, “Okay, it’s time to work.”

The start and consequences of the “Aqsa Intifada” have been protected by a false narrative for 7 years now. Philippe Karsenty’s lawsuit has a attacked a crucial element of that narrative. Will the unraveling of the al Dura myth lead to a fundamental re-telling of the early days of the violence? The media, though it puffs itself up as a “rough draft” of history is resistant to acknowledging and correcting its mistakes. It will be up to others to drive the quest for the truth.

Further background: James Fallows, Scott Shuger.

Related thoughts: Augean Stables, Smooth Stone, Mere Rhetoric, Yourish, A blog for all, Israel Matzav.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad
israel, media bias.

Jim Hoagland writes in A small outbreak of Mideast Hope

Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that will isolate the Hamas radicals who control the Gaza Strip have brightened measurably in recent days, according to European officials visiting here. The real news is that the Europeans report this possible outcome without a frown.

So the point of “peace” then, is not peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but rather strengthening Fatah at the expense of Hamas. A deal between Israel and Fatah will “save Gaza.” There’s something rather cynical about this. There’s no word on how this will help Israel or the PA. But it will isolate Hamas. That’s a step but that should be a goal irrespective of peace. (Or part of a goal as the destruction of Hamas and Fatah should be preconditions for peace.)

Abbas is said by diplomatic sources to be resigned to such an accord being his swan song as leader. He will be ready to step aside in a generational change that would accelerate if Israel then releases the popular imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences for murders committed under his command.

Yes, swapping a long term aider and abettor for an actual murderer will go a long way toward enhancing peace in the Middle East. Nothing Hoagland’s written suggests any obligation on the part of the Palestinians.

Olmert’s motivation for dealing is to stay, not to go. A peace accord is his best bet to reverse woefully low approval ratings sparked by the mishandled military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon last year. If he can get Abbas to acknowledge the inevitable — to grant formally that Israel will have a decisive say in the administering of a “right of return” by Palestinian refugees to Israel — Olmert could be the peace candidate in Israel’s next elections.

The first obligation or compromise asked of the Palestinians: Allow Israel to “administer” the right of return. And say that happens, and Abbas or Barghouti or whomever succeeds Abbas isn’t happy with Israel’s decisions, will he say, “sure whatever you say” or will he say “Israel is violating our agreements” and unleash a terror attack until the world prevails upon Israel to be more “reasonable.” (i.e. to accede to every Palestinian demand regardless of the risk to Israel.) We know that the unpopular Olmert continues to govern because there’s not enough members of his government are so dissatisfied with him to risk losing their positions by bringing the government down. But that last sentence reeks. I’m not going to say that Olmert thinks that way, but that Hoagland suggests it is disturbing. Olmert wants an agreement so that he can be the “peace candidate.” Not that any agreement will enhance Israel’s security or diplomatic standing, but so that he could win re-election. That’s what the peace process has been reduced to: a campaign jingle. (What would Olmert’s slogan be? “I know how to use the IDF effectively against our own citizens but not our enemies?”) Hoagland’s observations about Europe are also telling.

Arab officials are dismayed by the dramatic change that has occurred in France since Nicolas Sarkozy’s election as president in May. Sarkozy has openly expressed his intent to offer Israel greater support internationally. He has also indicated that he will move away from the pro-Arab policy established by Charles de Gaulle in 1967 and pursued with vigor by Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac. But it is not only France. When Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi visited Israel this summer, he made clear his coalition government’s backing of the Quartet’s initiative, which now features former British prime minister Tony Blair as a special envoy. “We see exactly what you are doing,” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told a European official recently in a dismissive manner, according to notes of the conversation taken by the official. “You will lose a lot in the Arab world.”

I haven’t been following Sarkozy enough, though he seems more reasonable than Chirac whom even Hoagland characterizes as pro-Arab. Prodi says that he support the Quartet, which could hardly qualify as being pro-Israel. And yet Hosni Mubarak, the leader of the largest Arab country to make peace with Israel, considers it an affront that European nations are no longer fully on the Arab side of diplomacy. The implication is that the “peace process” championed by the Arab world had nothing to do with “peace” and plenty to with pressure - on Israel. Hoagland concludes:

The Saudis at least seem to have a more activist approach. Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told reporters in New York on Wednesday that an Israeli “moratorium on the building of settlements” in the West Bank “will be a good signal to show a serious intent” to reach peace. He suggested it would enable Saudi Arabia to come to the conference. U.S. encouragement of a meaningful moratorium by Israel now is a key step in rescuing Gaza from Hamas this winter. So is full U.S. support for Blair’s ambitious effort to engage moderate forces in Gaza. Circumstances may be just desperate enough for reason and good will to break out suddenly.

Now a moratorium that would meet with Saudi Arabia’s approval would include Sanhedria, Ramot, French Hill and Gilo. (Somehow, withdrawing from Gaza didn’t show “serious intent.” Maybe the Saudis ought to show that they’re not funding anti-Israel terror before their commitment to peace is considered “serious.”) And what moderates are there to engage in Gaza? Hoagland’s column demonstrates what’s wrong with the peace process. It’s not about peace. It’s about bringing pressure to bear on Israel. It’s about re-labeling terrorists. It’s about diplomatically playing ball with the Arab world. It’s about “peace” that only a cynic could love.

Related thoughts: The Hashmonean, This Ongoing War, Solomonia, Mere Rhetoric, Daled Amos.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad
israel, peace process.

Israel is finally getting on the stick regarding the Mohammed al-Dura hoax. The IDF has finally denied responsibility for the death of the boy. Of course, the world won’t believe them. But it’s a start.

“The Israeli claims of invented myths and mythology are simultaneously ridiculous and irritating,” said Jamal al-Dura in response to the official position announced by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office regarding the death of his son, Muhammad, in a clash between IDF soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in 2000.

“All the inquiries proved without a shadow of a doubt that the bullets were Israeli bullets. It has already been said that the Palestinian Authority didn’t use that type of ammunition,” al-Dura told Ynet.

Yeah, no they didn’t.

Israel’s position and Seaman’s comments are based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops’ fire could not have hit the child or his father and that there are key moments missing from the footage.

Several top former Israeli spokesmen have faulted Israel’s conduct in the media immediately after al-Dura’s death, saying that Israel should not have apologized for the incident without having studied the allegations. The former officials said however that the truth must be investigated, even seven years after the incident.

I’m thinking the release of these statements is to buttress the case against France’s Channel 2. We shall see what happens.

israel, al-dura.

Say, those 80 Hamas terrorists that Egypt let through the Rafah crossing? Turns out they got military training in Iran. Peachy.

Israel has issued a message to Egypt expressing the seriousness with which it regards Cairo’s decision to allow at least 80 Hamas members to cross into Gaza last Sunday, because some of those who crossed have recently undergone extensive military training in Iran and Syria, security sources said.

And oh, yeah—Egypt is lying about breaking its peace treaty with Israel.

An Israeli spokesman said that Egypt appeared to want to play down its level of coordination with Hamas, and Israel was told that those who crossed on Sunday had broken through the border fence.

Those crossing into the Gaza Strip included senior members of the organization’s political leadership, Palestinian sources told Haaretz on Monday.

Say, Jimmy Carter, where’s your sense of outrage over this? Oh, no, I didn’t really mean it. Everyone knows you only get outraged when Jews are the ones doing something that you see as wrong.

Also in the group were members of Iz al-Din al-Qassam, the military wing of Hamas, who had undergone training in camps in Iran and Syria.

Israeli security sources expressed concern that these “experts” were allowed into the Strip because of their ability to bolster terrorist organizations in specialties such as rocket and mortar attacks, sophisticated explosive devices, sniping, and commando raids.

So why did Egypt suddenly decide to let them back in after months of refusing? Bribe.

However, the independent Palestinian news agency Maan reported Monday that Egypt had agreed to the crossing of the Hamas members following a deal that had been struck between Egyptian intelligence and the group.

According to the report, an Al-Qaida militant who had fled to the Gaza Strip from Asyut, a city in southern Egypt, had been handed over to Egyptian authorities by Hamas. In return Egypt allowed the entry of dozens of Hamas members into the Strip.

And why did the terrorists want so badly to come back now? Gee, let’s think. Why would Hamas need Iranian-trained terrorists specializing in rocket and mortar attacks, IEDs, sniping, and commando raids.

Earlier Wednesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel was moving closer to carrying out a large-scale military operation in Gaza in order to put a stop to cross-border rocket and mortar barrages into Israel.

Uh-huh.

No way this ends well.