But the deeper error was strategic: Obama’s assumption that he could resume where Clinton left off in 2000 and pursue the land-for-peace idea at the heart of the two-state solution.

This approach ignored the deep scars inflicted in the past decade: the killing of 992 Israelis and 3,399 Palestinians between the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 and 2006; the Israeli Army’s harsh reoccupation of most of the West Bank; Hamas’ violent rise to power in Gaza and the accompanying resurgence of annihilationist ideology; the spectacular spread of Jewish settlements in the West Bank; and the Israeli construction of over 250 miles of a separation barrier that has protected Israel from suicide bombers even as it has shattered Palestinian lives, grabbed land and become, in the words of Michael Sfard, an Israeli lawyer, “an integral part of the West Bank settlement plan.”

That’s a pretty awesome list of what went wrong. Think Roger will devote any space in the rest of his column to the Palestinian terror attacks? The rockets from Gaza? Hamas’ constant warring with Israel?

Of course not. The rest of the article is about the fence, and about how Israelis are psychologically scarred and can only see themselves as “victims” of the Palestinians. Victims. Really? I thought they saw the Palestinians for what they are—a people who celebrate the mass murder of Israeli schoolchildren, killed while they were studying Torah in the heart of Jerusalem.

Gaza’s streets filled with joyous crowds of thousands on Thursday evening following the terror attack at a Jerusalem rabbinical seminary in which eight people were killed.

In mosques in Gaza City and northern Gaza, many residents went to perform the prayers of thanksgiving.

Armed men fired in the air in celebration and others passed out sweets to passersby.

But it’s the settlements. And the fence. Oh, and racism.

As Ron Nachman, the founder of the sprawling Ariel settlement, comments in René Backmann’s superb new book, “A Wall in Palestine,” the wave of Palestinian suicide attacks before work on the barrier began in mid-2002 meant that: “Israelis wanted separation. They did not want to be mixed with the Arabs. They didn’t even want to see them. This may be seen as racist, but that’s how it is.”

Really? Because I’m pretty sure there are well over a million Arab Israelis within Israel’s borders. But those “Palestinians” don’t count in any census except for the one where the rest of the world warns Israel that if they don’t negotiate a peace soon, the one-state solution will be forced upon them because Jews will make up a minority in the land formerly known as Palestine. Oh, and they mention them when they accuse Israelis of racism.

There’s one more bit of fantasy that all [anti-]Israel pundits like to promote. The fantasy that Mahmoud Abbas truly wants peace. (Plus, please… touting the Nobel given for nothing? We really are in Fantasyland here.)

Obama, who has his Nobel already, should ratchet expectations downward. Stop talking about peace. Banish the word. Start talking about détente. That’s what Lieberman wants; that’s what Hamas says it wants; that’s the end point of Netanyahu’s evasions.

It’s not what Abbas wants but he’s powerless. Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist, told me, “A nonviolent status quo is far from satisfactory but it’s not bad. Cyprus is not bad.”

Mahmoud Abbas pays lip service, in English to peace. But when he speaks to his fellow terrorists at the Fatah convention, it’s a whole different story.

“Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance, legitimate under international law,” Abbas said in a policy speech, using a term that encompasses armed confrontation with Israel and non-violent protests.

“Resistance” also encompasses suicide attacks. And when he’s not talking about “resistance,” he’s sending condolences to the family of dead Hizbullah fighters, and congratulating mass murderers like Samir Kuntar.

But these things never pop up on the radar of the anti-[Israel] pundits. They don’t exist. There is no Palestinian intransigence, only Israeli intransigence, and Palestinian intransigence caused by Israeli settlements—which is Israel’s fault, of course. The [anti-]Israel pundits simply refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter, unless those facts damn Israel and praise Palestinians.

But if you’re a regular reader of this, or any other pro-Israel blog, well, you’re aware of that. Preaching to the choir here. But sometimes, someone else reads my posts and starts thinking.

I seriously doubt the Roger Cohens of the world will. But hey, he’s great post fodder.

It is one of the most watched pieces of real estate in the world, 35 acres where an under-the-breath prayer or a whiff of a rumor can rouse warnings of war.

In both Judaism and Islam, the area known respectively as the Temple Mount and the Noble Sanctuary is considered a formative location. Jews believe it to be the site of Solomon’s Temple and key biblical events. Muslims regard it as the spot where Muhammad was brought by the angel Gabriel before embarking on a trip to heaven to visit the other prophets.

It also remains a flash point, and a series of disturbances there this fall showed just how difficult it will be for Israelis and Palestinians to reach agreement on an area over which they negotiate not just as political entities but also as representatives of two faiths with an often-troubled relationship.

I wish he were stronger in terms of the Jewish claim. Archaeology has confirmed the Temple. It’s more than just a Jewish “belief.”

However later on there are a few things that bother me.

If the Palestinians “want to let go of an area in the West Bank, no one from the outside is going to say anything,” said Abdul Fattah Salah, Jordan’s minister of religious affairs. “But when it comes to Jerusalem, they can’t. It is tied to all Muslims.” The Jordanian ministry employs 500 people who staff the Jerusalem compound.
ad_icon

Salah said the hope is that if part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state, Muslims from any country will be able to begin visiting a site where it is considered a special blessing to pray — access that he said Israel is unlikely to grant if it maintains sole sovereignty over the city.

First of all, Schneider lets stand the exaggerated claim of the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem. Yes Jerusalem is holy to Muslims, but for much of Islamic history Jerusalem was ignored. Even the Crusades aroused little interest at first. This leads Daniel Pipes to conclude:

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; “belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem,” Sivan rightly concludes, “cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam.” Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The other point Schneider should have challenged Salah on was his claim that until Jerusalem becomes part of a Palestinian state, Muslims from around the world won’t be able to visit it. I expect that Muslims from Arab countries that are hostile to Israel won’t be able to visit Jerusalem easily. So there is a solution. Make peace with Israel. (And of course the Jordanian doesn’t acknowledge that when his country ruled the Old City, Jews were forbidden from visiting their holy site!)

And then at the end of the article Schneider writes:

Given recent history, the fall riots were viewed by some here as a cause for optimism. They were on a comparatively small scale, led to no deaths on either side and, after a tense period from Yom Kippur through late October, appear to have dissipated without consequence.

Far worse has happened: Dozens of people died in 1996 in clashes that erupted after access was opened for tourists to a tunnel that ran on an ancient street alongside the wall. And a visit to the area by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 helped trigger the multi-year uprising known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Let’s give a little more detail as to what happened in 1996 and 2000. Barry Rubin recently recalled:

In 1996, the Israeli government opened a tunnel which tourists could walk through and see certain features of the ancient wall and Jerusalem. Rumors that the Jews were trying to destroy the mosques were orchestrated by the Palestinian leadership with many lives lost and the peace process placed in jeopardy. As a result, too, 85 Palestinians and 16 Israelis were killed, and more than 1,300 people–mostly Palestinians–were wounded, a terrible bloodshed for no rational reason whatsoever.

In 2000, a brief tour of the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon—he merely walked through for about an hour, looked around, and then left—was the rationale used to set off an intifada that lasted for about five years and cost several thousand lives.

Afterward, Marwan Barghouti, leader of Fatah on the West Bank, described in detail how he used this as an excuse to set off the uprising. This violence took place about the time that President Bill Clinton, with Israeli agreement, proposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state which would, among other things, control most of east Jerusalem.

Schneider uses “erupted” and “triggered” to describe how the violence started in those circumstances. But in both cases as Prof. Rubin observed, the violence was incited. Worse in 2000, the Arafat-PA orchestrated violence came after rejecting a peace offer that would have given the Palestinians significant control over the Temple Mount.

Left unsaid by Schneider and unfortunately not even implicit in his article is that there’s no peace in the Middle East, because the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically, refuse to make peace with Israel. Jerusalem might well be a sticking point, but it’s because the Arab world has chosen to make it one, rejecting any compromises with Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

One would assume that enough is enough and that Mr Cohen will do his best not to mention this professional fiasco. Even after the ominous sentence he dropped in one of the after-election pieces:

I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.

(We have already seen the attempt to outreach – quite according to Cohen’s wishes – and the results of this attempt. But this is not about the current administration. It is about Mr Cohen.)

So imagine my surprise upon seeing the article The Hinge of History where not so jolly Roger takes another approach to Iran:

What if the vast protesting crowd of perhaps three million people had turned from Azadi (Freedom) Square toward the presidential complex? What if Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, had stood before the throng and said, “Here I stand with you and here I will fall?” What, in short, if Azadi had been Prague’s Wenceslas Square of 20 years ago and Moussavi had been Vaclav Havel?

This absolutely pathetic piece, which has nothing to do with what professional journalism is about, is just an exercise in mental and moral masturbation. It made me suspect that Mr Cohen nurtures an intent to leave the field of journalism, where the possibilities of rich pickings are somewhat diminished for him, exchanging it for the “what if?” quasi-SF domain. But better people have already cornered this market, so it could hardly be. I don’t have an explanation for this miserable excuse for an op-ed column, unless it’s a cry of a tortured soul (bleh…).

What I do have, though, is a question: what if Roger Cohen and many of his oh so progressive and liberal colleagues, instead of doing their considerable best to poison the Western minds by their warm and fuzzy about the nice Iranian regime during the years that led up to the current tragedy, tried telling (for a change) not what they desire to see, but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

But then, Roger Cohen is just another link in the long chain of the fellow travelers (or useful idiots, take your pick), one of whom produced that masterpiece in 1924 for NYT:

Sad.

P.S. I have already posted that snapshot of NYT article before. It bears repeating.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

But here’s a terrorist for you:

The man accused in the Halloween-night shooting death of a Seattle policeman remains hospitalized, and authorities were expected to talk more Monday about why they believe the suspect is a domestic terrorist who held a grudge against law enforcement.

See, it’s safe to call Americans terrorists, because we’re not going to get all offended-ethnic on your ass. We’re going to roll our eyes, write letters to the editor, and put up blog posts ridiculing you. Nobody needs to worry about anything violent happening.

Way to report the news, news media.

Nozette’s actions could be misinterpreted in ways that damage American impressions of Jews or provoke an overreaction that divides Americans.

Well actually the Post didn’t include any such line. It did note at the end of the article that prosecutors noted that Israel had nothing to do with Nozette’s espionage. But it did tell us this:

Sometime before Nozette took a foreign trip in January, he told a colleague that he would flee the United States if charged with a crime, the agent wrote. Nozette added that he would tell officials from an unidentified country and Israel “everything” he knew, the court papers allege.

This is, I suppose, part of the news story and legitimate news, but doesn’t it raise the specter of double loyalty that is often trotted out against Jews?

Yet here’s a story about Nidal Hasan.

A challenge for investigators is sorting out a potential thicket of psychological, ideological or religious motivations behind Hasan’s alleged actions. Hasan’s possible contact with extremists such as Aulaqi would complicate matters, suggesting that U.S. authorities may have missed chances to prevent the cleric from instigating this incident and others. But if it turns out that Hasan acted in the throes of an emotional breakdown, his questionable ties could be misinterpreted in ways that damage U.S. outreach to the Muslim world or provoke an overreaction that divides Americans.

Part of the Post’s reporting is to ensure that Americans don’t generalize from one man’s actions. While anti-Muslim hate crimes did increase after 9/11, they are back down again to very low levels. Why is it that when it comes to Muslims does the Washington Post (and American media in general) feel the need to tell us what to think?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other — a mood best summed up by a phrase making the rounds at the State Department: The Palestinian leadership “wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations” and Israel’s leadership “wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.”

It is obvious that this Israeli government believes it can have peace with the Palestinians and keep the West Bank, this Palestinian Authority still can’t decide whether to reconcile with the Jewish state or criminalize it and this Hamas leadership would rather let Palestinians live forever in the hellish squalor that is Gaza than give up its crazy fantasy of an Islamic Republic in Palestine.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with Friedman’s central premise that peace isn’t just around the corner. And he is also correct that the United States ought not to be making the peace process its central focus in the Middle East.

What I object to, is his characterization of Israel as being uninterested in peace. Israel, near as I can tell doesn’t possess the complete “West Bank,” as he calls it, having ceded the major cities there to the Palestinians during the 1990’s. Israel has taken quite a few significant steps for peace since 1993. But let’s go back to the scene of Friedman’s crime. (i.e. what the “Call Barack” line refers to.)

In 1990 then Secretary of State, James Baker expressed his frustration with the Israeli government. His pique was dutifully reported by the then New York Times diplomatic correspondent, Thomas Friedman.

If such new thinking is not forthcoming ”quickly” from Israel, Mr. Baker cautioned, then the Bush Administration is simply going to disengage from Middle East diplomacy. Washington, he suggested, will adopt the attitude that could be summed up as ”call us when you are serious about peace.”

To drive home that point to the Israelis, the Secretary of State gave them President Bush’s White House telephone number.

”I have to tell you that everybody over there should know that the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414,” Mr. Baker said. ”When you’re serious about peace, call us.”

(I believe that I’ve read the Friedman fed Baker the line about calling the White House, but have found no documentation of the charge.)

But continue reading the article.

In its coalition agreement, the new Israeli Government stipulated that Israel would not negotiate directly or indirectly with anyone affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization. It also excluded from the negotiations any Palestinians who are residents of Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.

Washington, as well as Israel’s Labor Party, has argued that to get Palestinians to accept negotiations, those Palestinians who are residents of both Jerusalem and the occupied territories should be allowed to take part, as well as those who might identify with the P.L.O. but have no formal affiliation with the organization.

Earlier today, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir added an additional condition: that Palestinian negotiators must formally embrace Israel’s idea that negotiations would be about autonomy for the occupied territories and nothing more, before talks could begin. The American position is that the talks should open with a discussion about autonomy, but then eventually move on to issues of final status.

Understand some things. In 1990, the only people in Israel who were advocating for a Palestinian state were those on the far left. Now even the supposedly “hawkish” Israeli Prime Ministers, Binyamin Netanyahu is working from that premise. In 1990, the discussion as to whether or not to negotiate with Palestinians affiliated with the PLO – there was virtually no one in Israel who, nineteen years ago, approved of negotiating with the PLO itself.

But these taboos have fallen by the wayside. The PLO is in charges of Palestinians living in “the West Bank.” The more extreme Hamas rules Gaza. And Israel is no closer to peace than it was back in 1990. In the name of peace, Israel has given the PLO land, money and even weapons. In the name of peace of the PLO has taken them, but made neither reciprocal nor concrete contributions to the “peace process.”

As Israel ceded territory to the PLO, the PLO under Yasser Arafat used its newfound freedom to create a “suicide factory” in the territories he controlled.

And after rejected Ehud Barak’s peace offer in 2000 at Camp David, Arafat launched a new war against Israel, that killed thousands until Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield to destroy the terror infrastructure Arafat built even whill being hailed as a “peace partner.” But how did Friedman react to the terror war that Arafat launched in 2000? This is what he wrote in “Arafat’s War.”

Mr. Arafat had a dilemma: make some compromises, build on Mr. Barak’s opening bid and try to get it closer to 100 percent ? and regain the moral high ground that way ? or provoke the Israelis into brutalizing Palestinians again, and regain the moral high ground that way. Mr. Arafat chose the latter. So instead of responding to Mr. Barak’s peacemaking overture, he and his boys responded to Ariel Sharon’s peace- destroying provocation. In short, the Palestinians could not deal with Barak, so they had to turn him into Sharon. And they did.

Of course, the Palestinians couldn’t explain it in those terms, so instead they unfurled all the old complaints about the brutality of the continued Israeli occupation and settlement- building. Frankly, the Israeli checkpoints and continued settlement- building are oppressive. But what the Palestinians and Arabs refuse to acknowledge is that today’s Israeli prime minister was offering them a dignified exit. It was far from perfect for Palestinians, but it was a proposal that, with the right approach, could have been built upon and widened. Imagine if when Mr. Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Mr. Arafat had ordered his people to welcome him with open arms and say, “When this area is under Palestinian sovereignty, every Jew will be welcome, even you, Mr. Sharon.” Imagine the impact that would have had on Israelis.

But that would have been an act of statesmanship and real peaceful intentions, and Mr. Arafat, it’s now clear, possesses neither. He prefers to play the victim rather than the statesman. This explosion of violence would be totally understandable if the Palestinians had no alternative. But that was not the case. What’s new here is not the violence, but the context. It came in the context of a serious Israeli peace overture, which Mr. Arafat has chosen to spurn. That’s why this is Arafat’s war. That’s its real name.

Not everything here is wrong or outrageous, but Charles Krauthammer identifies the underlying problem with Friedman’s observation.

We are now at Phase Two. This is the war Arafat has coveted all his life: the war against Israel from within Palestine. He tried first to make war from Jordan and was expelled in 1970. He then tried to make war from Lebanon and was expelled in 1982. And then in 1993, the miracle: Israel itself, in a fit of reckless high-mindedness unparalleled in the annals of diplomacy, brought him back to Palestine, gave him control of 98 percent of the Palestinian population, armed his 40,000 “police” (i.e. army), and granted him international legitimacy, foreign aid, and the territorial base of every city in the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet there are still observers in the West who remain puzzled by Arafat’s war. Taken in by Oslo for the entire eight years, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman, for example, now rationalizes the collapse of his illusions by characterizing Arafat’s war as senseless and self-defeating, “a grievous error” and an “idiotic uprising.”

This analysis is sheer nonsense. The war is the war Arafat always wanted. He has just seen Israel, facing guerrilla war in Lebanon, abjectly surrender and withdraw unilaterally. And now, after a year of his own guerrilla war within Palestine, the balance of forces with Israel has shifted dramatically in his favor.

Why was Friedman surprised? Had he not been paying to attention to Arafat’s perfidies over the previous 7 years? And yet Friedman thought it was conceivable that Arafat would see Barak’s proposal and make a counteroffer. Friedman refused to believe what happened since Oslo. He always figured that if Israel made enough concessions it would achieve peace. He accepted no evidence to the contrary.

Still even after that point, now nine years later, he still argues that Israel isn’t serious in peace. I notice that he didn’t write a column earlier this year after lame duck Israeli Prime Minister Olmert made an offer even more generous Camp David to “moderate” PA President Abbaas that was summarily rejected! Friedman who invested so much ink, pixels and prestige to (then) Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace ultimatum saying that it was significant (though the Saudi was vague about Arab commitments to Israel) refused to acknowledge a concrete Israeli peace offer that still didn’t bring peace.

That’s because no amount of land will satisfy the Palestinians, as long as Israel still exists. That has not changed in the sixteen years since Arafat and Rabin signed the Oslo Accords. Rather than acknowledge the sea change in Israeli politics that has occurred since then, Friedman chooses to retreat into his comfortable “plague on both their houses” approach. Sorry but all Friedman is doing, is validating the continued Palestinian rejection of Israel, ensuring that peace will remain remote.

Maybe one day Friedman will come to his senses. But for now he remains stuck in the glorious past when he was the Secretary of State’s favorite stenographer.

Related: see Meryl tomorrow (11/09/09).

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

But he’s not sorry for any of it, really.

Are you sorry about anything?

“I’m sorry there are so many lies about me. Like for example that they say I wrote that the soldiers hunted for youths so as to take their organs. It’s obvious that’s a lie. Even the Palestinians don’t make a claim like that. And the other side attributes anti-Semitism to me. I’m sorry about that. I’m sorry I’ve become a political tool. I’m sorry the article caused damage to the struggle for human rights here. And above all, I’m sorry that no one took the article seriously and that they did not examine the suspicions. In Sweden too they didn’t take it seriously.”

What. A. Tool. The human rights he’s talking about? Palestinians being killed by soldiers. The fact that the Palestinian that was killed, the one that inspired his story, was a terrorist battling the IDF seems to have been conveniently left out of Bostrom’s narrative.

Note that he’s not sorry at all that Israel’s enemies have another Mohammed al-Dura club to wield. What a jackass. This guy is considered a journalist in Sweden?

Do you think the IDF killed people to get body organs?

“I don’t think soldiers behaved like that. I don’t think they killed in order to gather organs. The truth is that they kill them without a trial and their bodies are taken to Abu Kabir. We don’t know whether they take out the organs. That has still to be further investigated. No one opened up the bodies after they were returned and only one man knows the truth, Prof. Yehuda Hiss, the director of the forensic institute. “

Actually, any medical doctor knowledgeable in transplants could tell you the truth: The organs that were “harvested” in such a way would be useless. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your spreading lies.

You have already had scandals at your forensic institute with other bodies, he says, and there is illegal trade in organs, so there is a need to investigate.

In other words: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Guilty until proven innocent. Except when Israel offers the proof, the world will still insist that Israel is guilty. And then there’s the fact that he’s being accompanied by a bodyguard, paid for, no doubt, by Israeli taxpayers. Why? Um. Because he was met by protesters at the airport. Oooh. Scary.

Then there’s the conference itself, where he was booed and challenged on his made-up facts:

Lapid shot back, “To say this without a shred of evidence, that Israel possibly harvested organs from Palestinians who disappeared, in other words, whom we kidnapped, killed, and robbed their organs, is a degrading and monstrous idea.”

In response, Bostrom said that he understands why people are angry, saying that everyone lies while at war. He said that it is difficult for reporters to distinguish between what is correct and what is a lie. “If it were just one family, fine. But there were many families. Mothers have a right to know what happened to their sons,” claimed Bostrom.

Bostrom was told to his face that he was an anti-Semite. Of course, he responded that not all critics of Israel are anti-Semitic. Kudos to Yair Lapid for this:

Lapid concluded, “You are an anti-Semite because you are prepared to believe that there is a possibility that the government and the authorities would take part in such a monstrous thing. The only thing I can say in your favor is that you don’t know you’re an anti-Semite.”

I don’t think that counts very much in his favor. In fact, let us all chant the Yourish.com mantra for our Swedish photographer who says he really, really, really likes Israel, no, really: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already.

In fact, one trouble is the profoundly emotional and irrational nature of many of the Arab demands and expectations—almost an inability to recognize the hard facts of life. The Arabs have seen Israel prosper on soil from which they barely scratched a living when they had it; Israel’s success is not only a blow to their pride but a constant rebuke to the dismal poverty in which most of the Arab world lives.

Then I started searching through Time’s archives to get a sense of how Time’s attitude towards Israel changed over the years. I’m just going to take arbitrary paragraphs. Some are from news stories; others from opinion pieces. And, of course, you can follow the links to see the whole context.

Israel and its enemies (June 22, 1970) focused on the threat presented by the Arab world armed by Russia.

It is on the ground that the odds are longest against the Israelis—at least in terms of numbers. With a population of 2,800.000 v. 51 million Arabs, Israel can mobilize an army of 275,000 against Arab armies of 398,000 men. The Israelis depend on air superiority and wits to protect themselves. One reason that Israeli soldiers have hunkered down for so long on the Bar-Lev Line under barely tolerable siege conditions is that their string of hedgehog forts and minefields serve as a kind of trip wire. The line, using relatively few men, is designed to delay any kind of major Egyptian cross-canal attack until troops stationed in the desert behind them can come up to help.

For a mobile army whose motto has always been “Attack,” the static warfare of the Bar-Lev Line is an often demoralizing experience. So is the war of attrition that Israel is being forced to fight on all its borders. Casualties have been heavy. In May, 61 soldiers and civilians were killed, the heaviest one-month toll since the 1967 war; on the basis of population, this is the equivalent of losing 4,300 U.S. troops in one month in Viet Nam. During the six days of the ‘67 war, 777 soldiers and 26 Israeli civilians were killed. Since the war, 558 soldiers and 112 civilians have died, and the nation is feeling uneasy. “Before the Six-Day War,” says Bar-Lev, “there was general danger but day-to-day security. Today we have general security but day-to-day danger.”

A Nation sorely Beseiged ( 1974) also seems rather sympathetic, but has a mention of the “occupied West Bank.”.

The weekend alert could prove to be merely the opening drum roll of yet another crisis. Nov. 30 is the expiration date of the mandate for the presence of some 1,250 United Nations troops stationed along the Golan Heights cease-fire line, placed there last June under the cease-fire agreement worked out by Kissinger. Israel emphatically favors renewal of the mandate by the Security Council and might in fact regard nonrenewal as a casus belli.

To the ultrasensitive Israelis, the present period is all too reminiscent of the situation that existed in May 1967. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser loudly proclaimed his revocation of the U.N. mandate in the Sinai, the Israelis mobilized, and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant precipitately withdrew U.N. forces, thereby setting the stage for the Six-Day War.

American Jews and Israel, ( March 10, 1975) I think, serves as a marker for when attitudes started to change.

Belatedly, the Arabs discovered public relations and began to cultivate U.S. opinion. For all of these reasons, Americans paid more attention to the area’s problems than ever before and began to examine the Arab cause more sympathetically.

Partly because of their continued insistence on security through territory, the Israelis suddenly seem intransigent to many people. The perception comes at a time when, globally, Israel is increasingly isolated. The nations of Western Europe appear willing to bargain away Israel’s security in return for access to Arabian oil. Arab petropower seems aimed at blacklisting Jews from many transactions in international finance, causing President Gerald Ford last week sharply to condemn such practices (see ECONOMY & BUSINESS). Last fall UNESCO voted to exclude Israel from some of its activities, and the United Nations General Assembly applauded the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Yasser Arafat, who frankly spoke at the U.N. of generations of war against Israel, as a legitimate spokesman for Palestinians.

In this atmosphere, minor and major events are seen as portents. Kissinger jokingly tries on an Arab headdress in Jordan; to some Jews this symbolizes his wooing of the Arabs (and because he himself is Jewish, he is believed by some other Jews to be bending over backward to demonstrate his impartiality). General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares that there is strong Jewish-Israeli influence on Congress (true) and that Jews dominate most U.S. banks and newspapers (false). The simplistic statement is seen as a harbinger of antiSemitism. There is also alarm when such longtime friends of Israel as Senators Charles Percy and Henry Jackson dare to urge Israel to be flexible.

(Charles Percy was once considered friendly to Israel! I didn’t know that.)

Stroke Talbott took a sharply anti-Israel stand in What to do about Israel ( September 7, 1981):

Israel argues that it is strong, stable and pro-Western, while most of the Arab states are weak, fractious and radical. But one reason the Arabs are that way, and becoming more so, is precisely because of their impasse with Israel. The tragedy and chaos that have engulfed the once peaceful, prosperous nation of Lebanon are a direct spillover of the Palestinian problem. Anwar Sadat’s position both within Egypt and among his Arab brethren elsewhere will remain precarious unless he can point to some success in the Palestinian autonomy talks initiated by the Camp David agreements and due to resume in three weeks. By and large Sadat has shown forbearance over Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and flexibility over the delicate issue of West Bank water rights. Israel, for its part, has done everything it could to prevent the West Bank Arabs from genuinely governing themselves—a goal set by the Camp David accords.

That’s a much different attitude from what was reported in 1967! In 1967 it was the lack of Arabi realism that was the main problem in the MIddle East, but fourteen years later it was Israel’s failings that were responsible for Arab radicalism.

And in an essay title Israel at 40: The dream confronts Palestinian fury (despite the date, it must be from 1988) we have this:

Herein lies Israel’s biggest dilemma. When the virtues of Israel are enumerated, almost the first to be mentioned by Israelis and their supporters is the fact that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. But when it comes to the Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, the Israelis are anything but democratic; Arabs have been denied fundamental civil and political rights. If present trends continue, Israel will have to choose between its democratic principles — which would eventually require sharing political power with Arabs — and its other profound ambition, to offer to Jews around the world a land they can always call their own. The Palestinian problem cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or obliterated by military force.

Finally, in the February 26, 1990, Charles Krauthammer took aim at the prevailing media biases regarding Israel, in Judging Israel:

Last fall Anthony Lewis excoriated Israel for putting down a tax revolt in the town of Beit Sahour. He wrote: “Suppose the people of some small American town decided to protest Federal Government policy by withholding their taxes. The Government responded by sending in the Army . . . Unthinkable? Of course it is in this country. But it is happening in another . . . Israel.”

Middle East scholar Clinton Bailey tried to point out just how false this analogy is. Protesting Federal Government policy? The West Bank is not Selma. Palestinians are not demanding service at the lunch counter. They demand a flag and an army. This is insurrection for independence. They are part of a movement whose covenant explicitly declares its mission to be the abolition of the state of Israel.

Bailey tried manfully for the better analogy. It required him to posit 1) a pre-glasnost Soviet Union, 2) a communist Mexico demanding the return of “occupied Mexican” territory lost in the Mexican War (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California) and 3) insurrection by former Mexicans living in these territories demanding secession from the Union. Then imagine, Bailey continued, that the insurrectionists, supported and financed by Mexico and other communist states in Latin America, obstruct communications; attack civilians and police with stones and fire bombs; kill former Mexicans holding U.S. Government jobs (”collaborators”); and then begin a tax revolt. Now you have the correct analogy. Would the U.S., like Israel, then send in the Army? Of course.

But even this analogy falls flat because it is simply impossible to imagine an America in a position of conflict and vulnerability analogous to Israel’s. Milan Kundera once defined a small nation as “one whose very existence may be put in question at any moment; a small nation can disappear and knows it.” Czechoslovakia is a small nation. Judea was. Israel is. The U.S. is not.

A recent ADL poll shows that Americans support Israel roughly at three times the rate they support the Palestinians. It’s quite remarkable that the ratio is that good given the propaganda that is so often passed off as news. It makes me wonder what support for Israel would be if the media made any effort to be evenhanded.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Addendum from Meryl: Then there’s this little gem from 1977 that made me cancel my subscription then and forever.

His first name means “comforter.”

Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin) has been anything but that to his numerous antagonists.

My grandfather had been telling me for years that Time was anti-Semitic. This was the item that proved it to me.

The horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank is being funded by British taxpayers.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has found that the forces responsible get £20million a year from the UK.

The victims – some left maimed – are rounded up for alleged involvement with the militant Islamic group Hamas, yet many have nothing to do with it.

I will be waiting for the UN to denounce this. But first, the Daily Mail, being the British press, must blame Israel for it somehow.

Not only are PA forces carrying out torture, the authority ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees. Last month at least 30 journalists, teachers and students were arrested – as the crackdown on Hamas was praised by a senior Israeli defence official as a necessary ‘iron fist policy’.

Say, do you think the Brits are aware that the Palestinians are using their money to pay torturers?

A British diplomat in Jerusalem said: ‘Obviously we are very aware of problems with the Palestinian security forces. We are working hard to improve their standards across the board – including human rights standards.’

This is some of what the Brits’ £20 million pounds per year is paying for:

The commonest ‘mini’ method, known as ‘shabah’, involves hanging up shackled victims by their arms. The teacher told how he was held in a cellar at Jenaid prison last month.

‘First they shackled my hands behind my back, tied a rope round the shackles and looped it over a beam. They pulled until I was standing on tiptoes, just still able to take some weight on my legs. Then they jerked the rope so it all came on to my arms and held me there until I was on the point of passing out. They were laughing, saying it would dislocate my shoulders. They did it over and over for five or six days.’

Sometimes sharp-edged sardine cans were placed under his heels, so that when weight came back on his legs, they inflicted deep cuts. Two other victims independently described this, too.

The Brits are now going to send intelligence officers into the West Bank to teach the PA torturers to stop torturing. Their initial budget? £100,000.

Interestingly, none of the wire services have managed to find this story worth picking up and spreading. Apparently, only Israel can be guilty of human rights abuses. Just imagine the number of headlines around the world media if it were the Israeli police forces that were abusing prisoners like this.

What time is it, kids? That’s right. It’s Israeli Double Standard Time.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt: George Mitchell says it’s too early to say that the Obama administration’s attempt to bulldoze Israel into giving concessions to the Palestinian—er, I mean, peace negotiations—has failed. You know, it’s really not.

Oh, yeah, like that’ll work: Don’t think that the truth means a thing in the world’s bias against Israel. Bringing foreign journalists into the tunnels under the Western Wall to prove that Israel isn’t digging under the wall to destroy al-aqsa? Feh. Who are you going to believe, them or the Palestinians’ lying mouths?

Egypt bans Israeli doctors, then un-bans them: It’s so good to know that Egypt is at peace with Israel, because then they’d never do anything as stupid as ban Israeli researchers from a long-planned breast cancer conference in Egypt. Oh, wait. They did. However, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure pushed until the Egyptians un-banned Israelis. Good for them. (Not the Egyptians. They’re asshats.)