Who? Well, if you have to ask, you weren’t here back in the bleginning. Er, beginning of blogs.

Welcome back, Doc.

The following is one of the reasons that a friend of mine goes crazy at work on a daily basis. And by “goes crazy at work” I mean, “Is driven utterly bananas by many of the people she has to deal with.” The situation is changed to protect our privacy, but the gist of it is true.

Friend: I’d like an apple, please.
Vendor: No problem. Here’s a gardener who can plant apple trees, prune them, and grow them.
Friend: Sorry, I’m only budgeted for an apple. Please sell me an apple.
Vendor: Okay, how about this one? He sets up apple farms, educates your people on how to set up and cultivate apple farms and keep them green and growing for a long, long time.
Friend: NO! I need an apple! ONE apple!
Vendor: How about this guy? He ate an apple once.

Elder of Ziyon notes that, today, schools in Gaza are expected to be open and comments.

It’s almost as if they don’t expect any indiscriminate and disproportionate rockets of the evil, genocidal, Nazi Zionists to be fired at their schools and endanger their lives while kids are in class.

Omri Keinan writes about how students at Sapir college have no similar reassurances.

In a country where students have gone on strike because of very small amounts of money, the students of Sapir are living in a mad reality that is not described in any academic literature (and by the way, this reality is only 40 minutes away from Tel Aviv.) I invite you to visit campus, so you can see it for yourself. What you will find if you come to Sapir is reinforced police presence, red signs that include instructions for cases of emergency, and loudspeakers that on occasion sound a hair-raising alarm that gives us less than 10 seconds to seek cover in the face of incoming rockets. At Sapir College you will not find students sitting on the grass. They are scared to be left without shelter should rockets land. But you will find great fear here.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

The New York Times offers its advice about what to in the Middle East, in “Slipping Away”

For the first time, an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader seem genuinely committed to peace. They set a deadline for a deal by year’s end. Yet the likelihood of achieving the two-state solution they have embraced diminishes with every rocket lobbed into Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza and with every Israeli military strike or squeeze on civilian life in Gaza.

For the first time? I’m assuming that the Times means that both are committed to peace. Certainly, Yitzchak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were committed to peace. And certainly Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon did more to promote the peace process than anyone of the Palestinian side. (Though I doubt the Times would agree to the latter point.)

Of course the end of the paragraph is troubling. Israel’s civilians are being attacked and the Times is implying that Israel 1) not strike back militarily and not even 2) take non-military actions to defend its citizens and territories.

Does the Times then believe that a country under attack ought to allow its citizens to remain targets and not make any effort to defend its citizens? Or is this a demand it would only make on Israel?

The political and security situation is growing more desperate. Since last Wednesday, at least 100 Palestinians and 3 Israelis have been killed. On Sunday, the violence spilled over to the West Bank, as Palestinians there protested Israeli attacks on Gaza. A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said contacts with Israel would be temporarily suspended. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rightly decided to go forward with a visit to the region this week. If she is to salvage the United States-led peace talks, she must push urgently for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. And she must press key Arab states to do a lot more to support Mr. Abbas and to pressure Hamas to halt the rocket attacks.

Abbas, of course, has condemned Israel for defending its citizens. He’s also done more than that, effectively repudiating the premise of the peace process. The reporter for the Times, Steven Erlanger, noted that Abbas was reserving “armed conflict” as an option. There’s no reason that his editors wouldn’t be aware of that outrageous remark.

But why is the suspension of the peace talks so catastrophic? Clearly Hamas didn’t much care about the talks and was targeting Israelis regardless. And why is the Times arguing for more support for Abbas, when Abbas’s sympathies are clearly with Hamas? That’s a much bigger problem than the lack of talks.

The violence is making it even harder for Mr. Abbas and Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to negotiate the core issues. Right-wing members of Mr. Olmert’s government have threatened to bring down his coalition if he attempts to negotiate the sacrosanct issue of Jerusalem. Many Israelis who do support negotiations look at Gaza — from which Israeli forces withdrew in 2005 — and legitimately ask how Israel can surrender control of the West Bank under current conditions. Mr. Abbas’s security forces are weak and show little interest in, or capability of, disarming and detaining militants there.

Damn those “right wing members” of the Israeli government. If not for them, what? However, I can’t argue with the latter part of the paragraph. Why don’t the editors of the Times give it more importance? Abbas’s forces have no interest in disarming terrorists. Neither does Abbas. All the talks in the world won’t change that. And it’s more than just Israelis who can “legitimately” ask how Israel can surrender any more land given 1) Israel’s experience in withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza and 2) the lack of commitment even the “moderate” Fatah has shown towards peace.

Israel must protect its people, but a sustained ground assault on Gaza could ensnare the army indefinitely. Mounting civilian casualties from Israeli strikes, and an Israeli embargo that has deepened the suffering in Gaza, only add to the desperation and Hamas’s popular support.

“Israel must protect its people” is directly contradicted by the rest of the paragraph. Elder of Ziyon notes that Gaza schools are expected to be open today showing that Israel’s attacks, while “sustained” have been limited. Nor do I believe that the Israeli embargo is the main motivation that feeds “Hamas’s popular support.” It’s Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel that makes it popular.

Egypt has sought to broker a possible cease-fire. Ms. Rice also must press Egypt to get serious about increasing military cooperation with Israel and developing a plan to stop Hamas from smuggling weapons and supplies into Gaza. Other Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, which for years urged President Bush to get involved, and Qatar, which provides some Hamas funding, also need to exert their influence. We have been told again and again that Ms. Rice considers a peace agreement her legacy. Time, and good will, is running out.

Why would Egypt start now? Egypt despite its “moderate” reputation has done all it can to undermine the peace process in recent years and paid no diplomatic price. In the end what the Times fails to understand is that while it may want peace, the Arab states it’s exhorting want Israeli withdrawals. If they get those withdrawals, then they might deign to make peace with Israel. (Might, but probably will just make more demands.)

What’s lacking is a change of heart in the Arab world. And no amount of good will from the Times or from Secretary Rice will change that.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Toldja they read my blog. The AP is finally admitting that Israeli casualties are civilian casualties. Of course, they still uncritically pass along the bullshit line that Palestinian deaths were at least half civilian. Yeah, right.

In all, 117 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the fighting erupted last Wednesday, according to militants and medical officials. Roughly half the dead were civilians, the officials said. One Israeli civilian was killed by a rocket, and two Israeli soldiers were killed in the Jebalya fighting.

The AP also says that the withdrawal is due to Condi Rice’s visit. But that’s not what the military is saying.

IDF officials did not rush to conclude the operation, hinting that it would be continued.

“It’s wrong to use statements of victories and occupation, but there is no doubt that the extent of casualties on the Palestinian side, among the terror organizations, is significant and sends a clear message,” a military source said.

Hamas is claiming victory. Uh-huh. Because they’re still firing Grads at Ashkelon.

The Hamas Islamists who control the coastal enclave declared “victory” and vowed to continue firing rockets into Israel, launching one into the main southern city of Ashkelon shortly after the troops withdrew. No one was hurt.

A senior Israeli government official said the conflict had entered a “two-day interval” for a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

I say, give it a few more weeks. So does the IDF.

A senior military source told Ynet on Monday morning that “one operation had ended, but many more are on their way.”

Addressing the rockets fired at Ashkelon and the Gaza vicinity communities after the end of the operation, the source said, “One operation cannot bring about a change in the situation. However, there is no doubt that in a series of activities, while exerting patience, the terror organizations will suffer a heavy blow and this will also bring a change in the situation, in terms of Qassams as well.”

Exit question: How long before the IDF heads back in?

The Holocaust envy syndrome has never been so frankly expressed as in the recent days.

Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal denounced Israeli attacks against civilians in the Gaza strip on Saturday, describing it as “the real holocaust.”
“Israel wants to exaggerate the holocaust and make from it a tragedy such that no other can have their own tragedy,” he said. “The Palestinian people are the victims and Israel is the hangman and killer.”

Fatah (Hamas-light) leader Mahmoud Abbas echoes the sentiment:

Denouncing the attacks as “more than a Holocaust,” Abbas called for “international protection for the Palestinian people,” claiming that IDF attacks were aimed at “innocent women, children and old people.”

Not to be forgotten: Abbas’ “scientific” career was made denying the Holocaust as the thesis of his doctoral degree.
Of course, the chief Holocaust expert, Mahmoud the Mad joins the unholy trinity:

“I already said last year that the real Holocaust was in Palestine,” Ahmadinejad told state television in an interview, alluding to his oft-repeated doubts about the magnitude of the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.

But after this barrage of hateful nincompoopery, another wave of nauseating propaganda follows. And the Hamas’ chief ideologist, the under-assassinated vermin Khaled Mashaal, really takes the cake this time, leaving the other contenders in the dust:

“We are an occupied people,” he continued. “We did not attack anyone. We are the victims and Israel our executioner….we do not want to fight, or for our people to be killed, but we are acting in self-defense against an occupier that has forced this impossible situation on us.

We did not attack anyone… be a fitting epitaph for his tombstone.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.