If you’re wondering why Soccer Dad seems to be the heart and soul of this blog these days, it’s because I still have The Plague That Struck Richmond. Apparently, there’s a Round Two. That means, you get better, and then you get knocked off your feet all over again and set back to the beginning. Round Two struck over the weekend. So today, I’m right about where I was on, oh, Thursday.

I had just about enough energy to get to the supermarket yesterday and buy things like fresh vegetables. And more Gatorade.

My leftover energy goes into my paying job. So thanks to Soccer Dad for keeping this blog going, because without him, you’d have had all of two posts in the last four or five days.

In this past week’s Baltimore Jewish Times, Dr. Robert O. Freedman analyzed the chances of peace “Beyond Winograd.”

The primary alternative to Olmert, former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is likely to freeze the peace process by not permitting further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, thus preventing the contiguous Palestinian state that Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has been demanding.

Those of us who remember when Netanyahu was Prime Minister, remember that he withdrew Israeli troops from Hebron. So to argue that he would certainly not withdraw from any territory is simple propaganda. Prof Freedman, a vocal member of Americans for Peace Now is simply promoting the view that PM Olmert is good for Israel because he’s most likely to cede territory to the Palestinians.

What’s remarkable about the article is the absence of assigning any responsibility to the Palestinians for peace. To Dr. Freedman peace can only come from acceding to the demands of the Palestinians.

Since Barak wants to return as prime minister, he cannot afford to appear weak on the Palestinian issue. This is the case because Netanyahu has argued that the withdrawals from southern Lebanon (under Barak) and Gaza have led to disasters.

Note the qualification “Netanyahu has argued.” Except it’s pretty clear that Netanyahu is correct. After Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was afforded the opportunity to build its forces in southern Lebanon eventually becoming intolerable in the summer of 2006, forcing Israel to strike back. And the continued barrage of rockets emanating from Gaza certainly suggests that the withdrawal from Gaza was not an unqualified success.

The strongest opposition to Olmert’s plan for a two-state solution will come from the so-called “Hilltop Youth,” children of the Religious Zionists who settled the West Bank in the 1970s and 1980s. The largest group of Israelis opposing further withdrawals may be called “security pragmatists,” individuals who oppose further withdrawals from the West Bank. This group forms the bedrock of Netanyahu’s support.

This is a nice way of marginalizing Netanyahu. Netanyahu is a tool of an extremist group. Well why don’t we look at recent polling from Israel. Here’s a poll from February 7.

If elections were held today how would you vote (expressed in % and mandates based on those with opinion) Actual Knesset today in [brackets] 06% 11 [29] Kadima 10% 19 [19] Labor 18% 34 [12] Likud

So then Likud, according to this poll, has more support than Labor and Kadima combined. Likud (and its leader Netanyahu) is not the fringe party that Freedman seeks to marginalize. Rather he is trying to promote his own extreme agenda by defining anyone who disagrees with it as outside the mainstream.

Surrendering territory to Fatah or Hamas has not yet brought peace. Nothing Freedman writes can change that.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

My co-blogger Judeopundit takes Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman to task for his argument that Israel hitting Imad Mughniyah was likely counterproductive in “Bracing for revenge.” In two sentences he neatly disposes of Mr. Bergman’s argument:

Obviously terrorist groups are capable of horrendous operations for reasons other than revenge. The consequences of not crossing “red lines” could be to allow a terror organization to build its capabilities and then take the initiative when it feels ready.

The Terror Wonk dealt with the question in Will Hezbollah retaliate? He lays out the information supporting the possibility and against he possibility of retaliation. While he feels that Israeli and Jewish organizations ought to exercise increased vigilance, he doesn’t (seem to) feel that revenge is automatic.

And there are indeed counterexamples to show that killing the right terror bosses will effectively reduce terror.

Last year, Elder of Ziyon noted that the Israeli killing of Sheikh Yassin and Dr. Rantisi had likely been a factor in the reduction of terror deaths Israel suffered in recent years. Also during the “Aqsa intifada” Israel hit a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Afterwards, terror attempts by the group were marked by failure. (In one case the terrorist entered a store and showed of his explosive belt warning everyone in advance of the explosion.)
There seems to be plenty of evidence that when Israel kills a terror leader who is skilled in launching operations (recruiting, training and planning), it will see less terror rather than more.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Esser Agaroth puts a lot more than 2 cents worth of effort into this week’s Haveil Havalim #154, the Jewish/Israel blogging carnival. Check it out! (I was surprised to learn that Esser Agaroth is a waffler!)