Calling all Conservative Jewish readers: My congregation is going to be conducting a rabbi search over the next few months, and I may need some input and assistance from various readers around the country. If you would email me or comment on this post, it will help us find the absolute best rabbi we can find for our synagogue.

I’m trying to get on the rabbi search committee. So far, no luck, but you never know.

I rarely send you folks over to give people money, but Chris Muir, the creator, writer, and artist who gives us one of the best comic strips since Bloom County (and one of quite the opposite politics, for the most part) deserves your contributions. If you’re a regular reader of Day by Day, go on over and spend a few bucks. You can get the book for free, you know.

Israel Matzav has a nice roundup of links demonstrating the Palestinian culpability in their own misfortune in 1948. (See also the American Thinker. Both via memeorandum.)For a relevant article see Benny Morris’s Reign of Error by Efraim Karsh.

Dennis Mansfield has a nice rebuttal to many of the charges brought against Israel regarding the U.S.S. Liberty.

In the course of reviewing Judge Cristol’s “the Liberty Incident” 4 years ago I got into contact with him. What Mansfield writes about the hate packets is right. Various anti-Israel groups have co-opted the Liberty survivors.

By far the point that I find most convincing is the one about the Israelis failure to use the 500 lb. iron bombs.

A few years ago there was a symposium at the State Department about the 6 Day War. One part of it had to do with intelligence. It featured Judge Cristol, James Bamford and Michael Oren.

Bamford had arranged quite a following including a number of folks who were casting aspersion on Judge Cristol. Judge Cristol, unfortunately was mostly on the defensive that day. Bamford was slick. But Dr. Oren saved the day when he started by describing a friendly fire incident in which his company was strafed by Israeli planes in 1982 killing some of his friends.

Judge Cristol’s debunking here is quite effective. For a longer article consider Michael Oren’s Case Closed.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Looks like the Iranians put on their big boy pants again.

In what is being called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, officials said Monday.

U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats ended the incident and turned and moved away, said a Pentagon official.

“It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we’ve seen yet,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday as a U.S. Navy cruiser, destroyer and frigate were transiting the strait on their way into the Persian Gulf.

“Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers,” the Pentagon official said.

If they think there’s going to be a repeat of the Iranians capturing British marines and sailors, only this time with American sailors as the chumps, the Iranians might want to think again.

“There were no injuries but there very well could have been,” he said, adding that the Iranian boats turned away “literally at the very moment that U.S. forced were preparing to open fire” in self defense.

He said he didn’t have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but the Iranians radioed something to the effect that “we’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple minutes.”

Test run? Chest-thumping? An attempt to boost Ahmadinejad’s appeal ahead of Iranian elections, now that Khatami seems to be coming back to the fore?

And oh yeah—typical AP spin. Note the headline:

Pentagon Says Ships Harassed by Iran

I believe the proper word is “threatened.”

I’m sure that my friend Snoopy is going to hit me back hard for this, because he’s a fan of Burston. But I gotta say this.

Bradley Burston’s Here’s to the ‘67 borders, the new middle of the road is a load of hooey.

It’s not that I disagree with him that somehow the notion that Israel retreating to more or less its 1967 has become the mainstream in Israeli political discourse. At least among those running the country that appears to be true. And it’s something that I’ve said for a long time.

What I disagree with is that it’s a good thing, something that Mr. Burston seems to believe.

There was a time when the mention of 1967 lines was met with nothing more than one version or other of Abba Eban’s 1969 comment to the German newspaper Der Spiegel:”We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”

Many of those who cite the “Auschwitz borders” quote as a bulwark against giving up all occupied territory, conveniently forget that Abba Eban was an outspoken and unabashed dove.

Many of those who oppose territorial compromise of all kinds turn a blind eye to Abba Eban’s comment that an Israel which refuses to consider ceding land is “tearing up its own birth certificate.

“Israel’s birth is intrinsically and intimately linked with the idea of sharing territory and sovereignty,” Eban declared.

Actually I think that most people who quote Mr. Eban realize that he was a dove. And that’s what made the quote so compelling.

No I wasn’t aware of the other comment. But again, that’s not what’s at issue. Even so-called hard liners like Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon ceded land.

The question is how much land to cede.

I’m glad that Burston acknowledges

It’s important to note that in an era of land-for-Qassams in Gaza and deadly Palestinian internal strife, any accord over borders is a distant prospect at best.

Of course he doesn’t accord this observation the importance it’s due.

At the same time, there is growing awareness among Palestinians that maximalism, in particular the forms of long-distance Islamic extremism exported by Iran and Osama Bin Laden, could in the end kill the prospect of a Palestinian state altogether.Even Hamas officials have spoken of being “able to live with” an interim situation of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines. “Where the Hamas Charter speaks of “an end to the conflict and the end of the occupation,” Hamas, from Khaled Meshaal on down, is speaking clearly of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas official Razi Hamid told Army Radio in 2006.

“This is a new page today. We agree to an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders,” Hamid said. “Today there is an opportunity to reach a political settlement.”

“Live with an interim situation?” How someone can torture statements by Hamas into some sort of pragmatism is beyond me. The Palestinians haven’t been convinced that maximilism costs them anything. If they had there’d be a real difference, perhaps, between Fatah and Hamas. But there is none. These two terrorist organizations differ only in methods not in aim. (One could even go so far as to praise Hamas for its honesty that it seeks Israel’s destruction openly. Fatah has no such saving grace.)

Israel’s polity has changed over the past 40 years tremendously. On the other side we’ve seen no movement.

A few weeks ago Daniel Pipes offered some guarded praise for PM Olmert.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as “a Jewish state,” Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.”He confirmed these points a day later, describing the “recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people” as the “launching point for all negotiations. We won’t have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people.” The Palestinian leadership, he noted, must “want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state.”

Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations. Since nearly the birth of the state, these have focused on the intricacies of such subsidiary issues as borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations.

Of course, Pipes points out that nearly ever major member of Fatah denies that Israel is or could be a Jewish State, and PM Olmert thus finesses the issue

“My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself,” Olmert said. “If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.”

Daled Amos acidly observes

Olmert has not just lowered the bar on what is required of a peace partner. He has removed it.

Again, the point is that while Israel’s political position has become more accommodating there has been no reciprocal movement on the Palestinian side. Worse, Israel has gained little in the arena of public opinion. Perhaps the most dramatic Israeli action since 1993 has been the withdrawal from Gaza. Not only did Israel forcibly remove thousands of its own citizen giving the Palestinians their own contiguous territory, since then Israel has suffered thousands of rocket and mortar attacks into its undisputed territory. Despite all this, Israel is still portrayed negatively in the media.

Although Israel’s leadership expressed an expectation that Israel’s unilateral disengagement would improve Israel’s image as an occupier and an oppressor, and would decrease demands by the international community for major territorial concessions to the Palestinians, it appears that the opposite is in fact the case.The research, conducted by Dr. Tamir Sheafer and Itai Gabai from the Departments of Politics and Communications & Journalism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that in Britain and the United States, Israel was represented in a more negative light after the disengagement in comparison to the period that preceded it.

(via Backspin.)

And so Mr. Burston concludes

So here’s to the all new middle of the road, an especially useful view - and test of Palestinian intentions and aspirations - at a time when Bin Laden chooses to stake out the maximalist ground of a one-state all-Palestinian, all-Islamist solution.Maximalists on both sides would have us believe that compromise invites murder. It’s time for the quieter majority to stand up and point out that its maximalists who do the great majority of the killing around here.

A test of Palestinian aspirations? Isn’t that Ehud Barak said he was testing at Camp David in 2000 after it blew up in his face? Palestinian moderates have been tested and revealed to be maximalists. No different from Bin Laden, though they may be more polished in their presentation.

And it’s not maximalists on the Israel side who believe that “compromise invites murder.” Rather it’s not a matter of belief. It’s a fact. This is something that Mr. Burston even acknowledge in passing - when he commented on “land for Qassams.” Israel has compromised and - for better or worse - will continue to compromise, but there’s no reason to suggest that anything short of the 1967 borders is a failure to compromise. But that’s exactly what Mr. Burston is doing. And that’s exactly why his analysis is nonsense.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Today we are treated to a lecture by Prof. Madeleine K. Albright, “Confidence in America.” Dr. Albright, whose most famous exploits as Secretary of State were chasing after Yasser Arafat and officially changing the designation of “rogue states” to “states of concern.”

Martin Peretz wrote

The Democrats were the ones who were always elevating Arafat. He was at the very center of their road map. After he stalked out of a meeting room in Paris during cease-fire talks in late 2000, Albright actually ran in breathless pursuit to lure him back. It was the Democrats who perpetuated Arafat’s demonic sway over the Palestinians, and it was the Democrats who sustained him among the other Arabs. And so the cause of Arab democracy was left for the Republicans to pursue. After September 11, the cause became a matter also of U.S. national security.

We know how well glorifying Arafat worked and how well letting down our defenses again radical Islam worked. So what does Prof Albright have to tell us?

We are 4 percent of a planet that is half Asian, half poor, one-third Muslim and by and large far more familiar with recent American actions than with our country’s past accomplishments. To many, the Bush administration is America. Our reputation is in disrepair. We will not recover by acting out of fear but by educating ourselves about the world around us, learning foreign languages, appreciating other faiths, studying the many dimensions of historical truth, harnessing modern technology to constructive ends and looking beyond simplistic notions of evil and good.

Regardless of the current president’s shortcomings, of which there are many, the previous president - with the support of his advisors - Dr. Albright included - simply kicked those problems down the road. Yes, there can be simplistic notions of evil and good, but turning a blind eye to evil, or, if you prefer, threats isn’t exactly a great way to operate. Prof Albright’s plea at the end for the next president is, of course, for Sen. Clinton to be elected. I guess she’s looking forward to a return to power despite her absolutely dismaying record.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

That Latin stuff (that could be loosely translated as “fear the gift-bearing Greeks”) does not have anything to do with the Greeks in this case. Neither does the phrase “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” have much to do with horses in this story, but these two are fairly tearing me apart at the moment.

On one hand, we have the friendly folks from the British Council who want to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the State of Israel. Which could be considered as a gift, surely. On the other hand, to celebrate this event, they choose no one else but Judy Price, a British filmmaker who is characterized by some as “a radical left-wing member of the London-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians“, which is a delicate way to say “a fringe member of a fringe group of nutcases”.

And probably, not being fringe enough to her taste, Ms Price tried to recruit a certain professor Haim Bresheeth - a most rabid and open Israel-hater. He, at least, had the grace to refuse the mission.

So, while we here will celebrate the sixty years jubilee, Judy Price will do her best to transform it into a mourning for the “Naqba”, according to David T quoting from her e-mail:

The British Council is trying to operate with integrity, not to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel but to mark it in a critical way along with the Naqba.

Says it all, doesn’t it? With friends like these…

On the other hand, why worry? We shall celebrate and they shall mourn. Who gets a better deal?

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

I find myself in a mood I have not been in for a long, long time.

Please.

Somebody cross me this week.