Abby Wisse Schachter delivers a devastating critique of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz

But Haaretz’s ideological crusade is not limited to the editorial or opinion pages. Its editors are only too happy to publish defamatory feature stories as well. On November 30, the weekend section of Haaretz (the equivalent of the New York Times’s Sunday Magazine) featured a cover story on the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think tank that, incidentally, used to employ Mr. Hazony. A shorter English version of the article is available here. So egregious were the mistakes and so blatant the inaccuracies that the Shalem Center posted the following response on its own Web site. Haaretz has thus far issued no correction nor has it provided space to rebut the claims made in its original article. And for good reason: The sole purpose of the story is to disparage a think-tank whose world-view the editors of Haaretz oppose. But instead of a feature analyzing the center’s stated beliefs versus its accomplishments, or even questioning the legitimacy of Shalem’s Zionist mission, the story deals in gossip, supposed improprieties, and the personal habits and salaries of Shalem’s founders. This is worth 4,500 words? It is when your goal is to defame an organization whose success you envy and whose vision you loathe.

As far as the idea that Ha’aretz is Israel’s New York Times she writes:

…the New York Times doesn’t stoop this low.

(I’m not so certain about that. But certainly it doesn’t stoop so low as frequently as Ha’aretz does.)

Not a good day for media as Honest Reporting issues its annual Dishonest Reporter awards for 2007. The winner this year is Mrs. Jamie Rubin - better known as Christiane Amanpour - for her series God’s Warriors. Congratulations Christiane.

The awards are well earned. (Though the spectacle of Clark Hoyt defending his paper’s decision to run an op-ed by Ahmed Youssef of Hamas didn’t make it.) I do have a quibble though with one item. Father Manuail Musalam is always good for an anti-Israel quote, he didn’t need to be strongarmed into anything.

And while we’re in an awards mode, check out Elder of Ziyon’s Splodie Awards. They’re like the Darwins but with limited eligibility.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Israel just released its own version of a national intelligence estimate, it is a post-mortem of last year’s war with Hezbollah. First the good news:

It is clear that Hizbollah’s balance statement at the end of the fighting was mixed. Politically, despite its efforts to portray the campaign as a “divine victory,” the organization incurred severe criticism at home. Furthermore, much of its military infrastructure was damaged. Its system of underground tunnels in the border area was exposed and in part destroyed. The organization’s array of defensive outposts on the border and its grip on the area were almost completely eradicated. A large portion of its medium range rocket system (Fadjr rockets and 220 mm and 320 mm rockets) was also destroyed. Above all, the Dahiya quarter in Beirut, the organization’s organizational, military, and political nerve center, was razed. As if that were not enough, Hizbollah’s mass of supporters, most of whom are concentrated in southern Lebanon, suffered heavy losses in property and personnel. It is likely that elements in the Iranian leadership also criticized Hizbollah once it was dragged into a premature violent confrontation with Israel that exposed its strategic capabilities, particularly with regard to rocket launches deep into Israel.

This seems largely consistent with what Gen Yaacov Amidror wrote at the beginning of this year.

* Hizballah casualties were not less than 500 and may have reached 700 - a figure greater than all the casualties Hizballah has suffered during the last twenty years. It will take Hizballah at least two years to rebuild its capabilities and to recruit and train new people.* Israel also developed a system which made Hizballah’s long-range rocket launchers good for one use only. Within less than five minutes of launch they were destroyed by Israel’s air force, an unprecedented achievement in modern warfare.

* The determination of Israel’s government to respond and to retaliate is a very important factor in restoring deterrence. Now those around Israel understand that Israel has certain red lines, and that if these lines are crossed, Israel’s retaliation will be intentionally disproportionate. As a small country, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of reacting proportionally.

* Middle East leaders understand that Israel is prepared to use military force, and that in the future we are not going to be as tolerant of attempts to act against us.

* Nasrallah said at the beginning of the war that there would be no international forces and no Lebanese army in south Lebanon. The entry of these forces is, from the Israeli point of view, the greatest success of the war.

* What is the real mood of the Israeli people after the war? It is that we are not suckers and we are not going to make the same mistake again. We are not going to put ourselves in danger if it is not necessary. We unilaterally retreated from Lebanon and didn’t retaliate for six years, and in the end we found Hizballah in a stronger position to fight against us. When Israel retreated from Gaza what was the result? More Kassam rockets on Sderot and Ashkelon.

(The last two items are clearly disputable at this point, though.)
Meryl Yourish emphasized the positive aspects of the report.

It’s good to read some hopeful news for a change. But the next year or two is fraught with potential existential threats for Israel. It would be much better to see some of the dictatorships in the region replaced with democracies. Too bad that won’t happen in my lifetime.

However, there is a “however” in the report.

On the other hand, the organization can claim success for its operational doctrine. Its forces inflicted many losses on the IDF in local combat, and above all, Hizbollah never ceased its bombardment of the Israeli home front, even in the face of massive air activity. The organization’s logistical forecasts also proved correct, given its success in preserving a large inventory of ammunition, thereby enabling Hizbollah soldiers to hit Israel with large numbers of rockets during every stage of the fighting (an average of 150-200 rockets per day were fired). From the organization’s perspective, these actions both brought about an end to the fighting and severely shook the “Zionist entity.” From this vantage, the operational balance was positive.

Noah Pollak emphasizes the negative and adds some points of his own.

First, the report misses one of the central, and most successful, pillars of Hizballah’s strategy, which was to use civilian casualties in Lebanon and the sensational media images resulting from them as a means of undermining the Israeli war effort. And second, Israeli strategists must think about a rather unconventional way to respond to Hizballah in the next outbreak of hostilities, which is to bypass fighting in Lebanon and go directly to Hizballah’s local source of weaponry, money, and support: Syria.

There is little doubt that Israel scored was successful in degrading Hezbollah’s offensive capabilities last summer. However it failed to strike a knockout blow against the organization. If Pollak is correct, then the next time a threat from Hezbollah appears imminent, Israel must strike, not at the puppet, but at its masters in Iran and Syria.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

“It was a small fish, actually, rather like a guppy.”

“No, no, Habibi Blair, it was more like a bluegill.”

“Ha, Monsieur Fayyad, it must have been a bass.”
“Herr Kouchner, I must disagree it was more like a salmon.”

Well the world just met to decide what amount ought to be given to the PA in order to keep it functioning. (Funny, but there was never any question whether it was a good idea to keep the PA as permanent mendicants to the international community. As Elder of Ziyon trenchantly observes, past history shows that the aid is conditioning, not conditional.)

The New York Times includes these two precious paragraphs in its report.

In a move significant both practically and symbolically, the Saudis pledged $500 million over three years.Many countries do not fulfill pledges that they make at such conferences. Egypt and other Arab countries are known for pledging funds to the Palestinian Authority that they do not deliver.

Last I checked Saudi Arabia was an Arab country. So if it behaves the way “other Arab countries” do, we can assume that the Saudi pledge was significant only symbolically.

The Washngton Post manages to pin the blame on Israel.

Events that followed the Nov. 27 Annapolis conference contributed to Palestinian resentment here and in the territories leading up to the Paris meeting. A week after both sides pledged to adhere to the U.S.-backed “road map” for peace — a plan launched in 2003 that calls for Israel to stop settlement activities and for Palestinians to disarm militant groups and boost security — Israel announced the construction of more than 300 homes on occupied land on the outskirts of Jerusalem.”I’ll be eager to implement all our commitments under the road map, and I expect the Israeli side to do the same, comprehensively, and without excuses from our side or theirs,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the delegates. “I expect them to stop all settlement activities, without exceptions.”

In the meantime the article reports that American aid will go to Gaza from where the Qassams are being fired into “non-occupied” Israe. Apparently having its innocent victims targeted is not cause for as much “resentment” as is building apartments.

Infidel Bloggers Alliance finds another reason to blame Israel.

I’m sorry, but how do roadblocks cause the Palestinians to lose their money? Is everything the Jews fault? I don’t get it.

According to the POMED Wire, the answer is “yes.”. (Professor Noah Feldman of NYU is on the advisory board of this group. Given that they don’t seem to hold the Palestinians accountable, they appear more interested in fostering dependency, corruption and terror than democracy.)

Boker Tov Boulder summarizes things nicely

I’m so stunned. How could this be, that Israel is out of luck, the “donors” are out $7.4 billion, and the Palestinians take all? They win everything? They don’t have to risk anything, contribute anything, or pay anything back? They just repeat the same old promises that they’ve already broken, pocket the $7.4 billion, make more demands, and continue to attack our children? Just like that?And how did they manage to get 32% more than they said they wanted?

YidWithLid again links to a chart showing a correlation between increased aid and increased terror.

“I love fish jokes. I hope they tell another one just for the halibut.”

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Once again, the world has shown that the Palestinians need not uphold a single portion of their end of the Road Map, or any other agreement, for the world to fawn at their feet. The sum total of Palestinian Pledge Week: $7.4 billion dollars for the next three years. And what do they have to do for it?

Promise to be better.

What is Israel supposed to do? Why put her people at risk for the sake of the Palestinian economy. No, really.

World leaders at the conference urged Israel to ease limits on Palestinian movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, following up on a warning from the World Bank that without an easing of the sweeping physical and administrative restrictions donors may be wasting their money.

Oh, and Israel is also supposed to stop building houses for Israelis if the Palestinians deem them to be on Palestinian property. Never mind that no agreement regarding the borders of the Palestinian state has been reached, let alone hammered out. It’s Israel’s fault that the Palestinians are suffering. Because Israel shouldn’t be building the fence and manning the checkpoints that stopped the wave of suicide bombings that were coming sometimes two and three per day in the bloody, bloody spring of 2002.

I have not forgotten that spring. Neither have the Israelis. The world, however, has. And certainly the AP has no sense of history.

Israel has been reluctant to lift scores of roadblocks in the West Bank, many of them put there by the Israeli military amid the street violence and suicide bombings by Palestinian militants that followed collapse of the last peace talks seven years ago.

The restrictions have left the Palestinian economy, always dependent on international help, in much worse shape since then.

You see? It isn’t the suicide bombings that caused the problem. It’s the checkpoints that were put into place to stop the bombings.

Say, let’s take a look at the donors. Because you know, those Arab and Muslim nations—the ones who talk incessantly about their Palestinian “brothers” and who are the first to offer weapons and money for weapons, what are they pledging?

United States: $555 million for 2008, though about $400 million has not been approved by Congress.

Arab League members: $1.3 billion over three years, including $500 million from Saudi Arabia and $300 million each from United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

European countries: more than $3 billion, including $650 million from the European Union alone in 2008, probably similar levels for 2009 and 2010.

Key European donors include Britain, $500 million for three years, pledged with conditions; Norway, $420 million over three years; Spain, $360 million over three years; France and Sweden, $300 million each over three years; and Germany, $290 million over three years.

Wow. Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million dollars over the next three years. That’s really generous from the state that produces 10 million barrels of oil per day, especially when oil is going for more than $90 a barrel. Wow, that’s more than half a day’s oil production pledged over the next three years! Holy cow, those Saudis couldn’t be more generous! And Kuwait too, gee!

The Saudi largesse towards their Palestinian brothers speaks volumes about how much they really care about helping the Palestinian economy. Probably about as much as they care about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.