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.

The Apartheid campaign against Israel has another revealing feature. It rarely deals with the massive abuse of human rights or cases of real Apartheid elsewhere in the world. In other words, it singles out Israel with a false accusation. For example, President Carter
has spoken about Israeli Apartheid but is careful about how he describes the conflict in Darfur, where Sudan’s Arab regime has been slaughtering black Muslims with the backing of many Arab states.68 The campaign against Israel is not based on a concern with the universal application of human rights, but on something else. This treatment of Israel is nothing less than an effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, by attributing to it the most heinous crimes. Michael Ignatieff, the head of Canada’s Liberal Party who served as a professor of human rights policy at Harvard University in previous years, made this very point in March 2009:

“International law defines ‘Apartheid’ as a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel as an ’Apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.”69

Perhaps the most chilling indication of the real purpose behind the “Israel is Apartheid”
campaign is revealed in one of the most active websites behind the campaign. They write
that among the goals of “prosecution for the crime of Apartheid is to force Israel to –
(4) Enable the true majority to return to power over their own lands, while protecting
the rights of ethnic minorities.”70

In other words, the real goal behind the Apartheid campaign is the denial of the
legitimacy of the State of Israel and the determination that the only status the Jewish
population in Israel can hope for is that of a “protected” ethnic minority in an Arab
Palestinian state.

At the same time there is this effort to deny Israel’s right to exist, Iran has been supporting Israel’s enemies with shipments of arms – most recently emphasized by Israel’s capture of the Francop. Matthew Levitt argues that greater scrutiny must be paid to ships that are carrying shipments from Iran.

Given Iran’s history of deceptive financial and trade activity, extra scrutiny should be given to any ship that has recently paid a call to an Iranian port. Countries should be encouraged to require ports and/or authorities to collect detailed, accurate, and complete data regarding all cargo being shipped to or through their countries (especially from risk-prone jurisdictions like Iran), to conduct rigorous risk assessments, and to proceed with actual inspections as necessary. According to press reports, the Francop docked in Egypt before it was boarded some 180 kilometers of the coast of Cyprus.

Recent events show that even as the Obama administration seeks to engage Tehran, the Islamic Republic has continued to work to undermine Western interests and to support anti-Western elements around the world, as demonstrated by its ongoing efforts to resupply Hamas and Hezbollah and assist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disrupting Iran’s ability to arm allies and surrogates hostile to the interests of the United States and its allies would enhance Washington’s leverage in possible negotiations with Tehran, contain Iran should such diplomatic efforts fail, and prevent Iran from contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond.

Of course the continued shipments to Hamas (and Hezbollah) has improved Hamas’s military capability

As a result of Hamas’s development of a long-range rocket force, future military conflicts with Israel will almost certainly be more intense, cover a broader geographic area, and produce more destruction in both Israel and Gaza as the IDF acts to destroy the rockets. Hamas’s new rocket capabilities must also be seen in the context of Hizballah’s acquisition of rockets with a 300-km range. In a possible two-front war, this means that most of Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, would be within the range of Hamas or Hizballah rockets.

Through its growing rocket capabilities, Hamas is weakening the measure of deterrence established by Israel through Operation Cast Lead. And while Hamas has been careful since Cast Lead to avoid actions that would lead to renewed hostilities, its growing military capabilities may generate internal pressure to use its rockets or undertake other destabilizing actions. In December 2008, Hamas miscalculated gravely with respect to Israeli intentions and its own capabilities, sparking an intense conflict. There is no guarantee this will not happen again.

The creation of a long-range rocket force reinforces Hamas politically by enhancing its image as a “resistance” movement and its role as a spoiler and competitor to Fatah. Expanded military capacity also lends greater weight to the organization’s hard-line “military wing.”

From Israel’s standpoint, the potential political effects of threats to large population centers will likely make the government more willing to deal decisively with a revamped threat from Hamas. This would probably mean a comprehensive air and ground offensive throughout Gaza — one that would far exceed the scope of Cast Lead.

Showing that it has priorities in order, the administration this week, condemned an Israeli plan to build new housing in the Gilo section of Jerusalem. Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reported:

City officials moved forward Tuesday with a plan to build 900 homes in a disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem, prompting sharp criticism from the White House, the Palestinians and others who feel it will further undermine the chance of renewing peace talks.

The new units will expand the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo, one of several built on land taken by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community.

What does the international community recognize? The right of Iran to arm Hamas? And what of the American administration? Does it believe that construction in Gilo is really the most pressing issue to resolve in order to restart peace talks? Or as Barry Rubin observes:

Obama said that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters the Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, antisemitic views, and terrorist acts; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama’s express request to do so; breaking its promise on not to be a sponsor of using the Goldstone report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

(A related point:

Yesterday Daled Amos noted that the State Department was boasting that it had done more to promote peace in the Middle East than the Bush administration did in eight years. Barry Rubin also noted:

Having sabotaged negotiations by escalating the construction-on-settlements issue, the Administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand. Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens. And since Israel won’t stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won’t—unlike the Administration—back down—Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire four-year term in office. In fact, he’s probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place, much less succeed.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner, and the Administration keeps making that corner smaller!

The administration’s mis-steps continue to discourage peace making.)

By highlighting the proposed construction in Gilo, the administration is giving further ammunition to those who would deny Israel’s right to exist by perverting international law. This, in turn, emboldens Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s astonishing that to some people construction by Jews is an element that reduces Israel’s legitimacy, but that terror by Arabs continues to make their grievances worthy of being addressed. It is this perverse equivalence that the administration is encouraging.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Afterwards, we resolved to ask the question: what are the rules of British political behaviour that cause the Tory leader,his mass of MPs and parliamentary candidates to flock to the Friends of Israel lunch in the year of the Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure such an event passes without even being noticed?

During an investigation lasting several months, we have been able to reach several important conclusions. We maintain there is indeed a pro-Israel lobby in Britain. It is extremely well-connected and well-funded, and works through all the main political parties.

It’s the British version of Walt & Mearsheimer. But here, in my opinion, is the single action that blows “The Israel Lobby” meme in Britain out of the water:

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

“The Israel Lobby” contributes money to British politicians and supposedly affects the U.K.’s actions toward Israel. Yet the U.K. refused to vote on the Goldstone report, is refusing to sell arms and spare parts to the IDF for certain items, constantly chides Israel regarding the current situation, and British media (particularly the Guardian) regularly excoriates Israel. In the meantime, Muammar Ghaddafi offers BP an oil deal, and the Lockerbie bomber, who murdered 270 people, including 11 people on the ground in the U.K., goes free.

Tell me again how powerful The Israel Lobby is in the U.K., because I could really use a good laugh.

Erekat: Israel is not a partner for peace. Meryl: The record’s stuck. The record’s stuck. The record’s stuck.

State-sponsored British anti-Semitism: Britain’s Channel 4 just ran an “expose” on the influence of The Israel Lobby (da-da-DUM!). Wow, what state moneys can buy in Jew-hatred. They were charged with racial hate (or whatever that charge is in Britain) when they ran an expose on terrorists recruiting in British mosques. Any guesses on whether they’ll get charged with inciting racial hatred on this one? Shyeah.

Oh, no way this goes wrong: The CIA is launching a campaign to recruit Arab-Americans. If their screening is as strenuous as the FBI and the Army, we can expect a lot more Major Hasan incidents.

Barry Rubin outlined the elements of Abbas’s strategy:

t’s really funny how the story about Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas supposedly-going-to-call-elections-and-resign story was covered. Everyone in the Middle East knew he wouldn’t resign and he wouldn’t call elections. It was a blatant bid to get something from the Americans and pretend that he was tough. But the Western media reported the story as if it were true.

This technique borrows from Egyptian President (dictator) Gamal Abdel Nasser after he lost the 1967 war. Step 1: Announce your quitting. Step 2: Organize big demonstrations begging you not to quit. Abbas added to this a Step 3: Get Westerners to give you goodies and demand more concessions from Israel so that you’ll stay.

So the media played along and took it seriously. In the process we were given the mainstream view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize the Palestinian side. Well, you can knock Hamas but not the PA. In fact, the more one-sided the reporting, the better.

But it wasn’t long before it was clear he’d stay on as the PA’s head and there won’t be any elections.

If you thought it was over, it isn’t. Today Ethan Bronner of the New York Times writes:

The Israeli security establishment is in a state of alarm over the possible departure of Mr. Abbas, whom it considers a genuine moderate. Some of its top members are urging their government to make far-reaching offers — “not just lifting a few roadblocks,” in the words of one — that would persuade him to stay in power and resume negotiations with Israel on a solution that involves creating an independent Palestinian state.

Palestinian leaders are looking elsewhere for salvation. Aware of their own weakness, but also of rising disillusionment abroad with Israel over West Bank settlement growth and its war in Gaza in January, they are hoping to turn frailty to their advantage by appealing to the international community to come to their rescue.

Note how Abbas’s strategy is stated explicitly. He’s not getting what he wants so he’s using the threat to resign as a cry for help to the international community. The twist here is the “state of alarm” of Israel’s security establishment. Can it be that Israel’s security establishment really fears Abbas’s resignation? One would think like the boy who cried wolf, Abbas doesn’t have much credibility.

Later on Bronner inadvertently touches on the real problem of Palestinian leadership: there’s no real moderation there. Relatively speaking, Abbas is a moderate, but last year he rejected a peace proposal from then PM Ehud Olmert that went beyond Ehud Barak’s proposal to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Knowing that Olmert would soon no longer be Prime Minister, Abbas didn’t see the urgency of accepting his proposal. Instead he rejected a peace offer in hopes that the international community would pressure Israel to cede even more!

The problem is that most of the rest of the Palestinian leadership is even more extreme than he is. Here’s more from Bronner:

Mr. Abbas has not groomed a successor. The American and Israeli dream would be Mr. Fayyad, but besides having no political base, he is not a member of Fatah, so Palestinians consider the prospect highly unlikely. More possible, a few say, would be for Mr. Abbas to remain president while allowing Mr. Fayyad to carry out his reform plan.

Two former security chiefs, Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, are also possibilities, although there seems to be no groundswell around them and plenty of opposition. Muhammad Ghneim, a founder of both Fatah and the P.L.O. who came to the West Bank this past summer from exile, is considered a possible place holder if the job suddenly becomes vacant. And Nasser al-Kidwa, a nephew of Mr. Arafat and former Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, is also mentioned by some as a possible future candidate.

But there is no appetite for a succession struggle as everyone waits to see whether the peace process deadlock can be broken.

Those who read Barry Rubin know that the candidate who emerged the strongest from this summer’s Fatah election was Ghneim. Here’s what Prof Rubin wrote about Ghneim (Ghanem):

Ghaneim has a definite appeal for Abbas as ally and successor. He is one of the few remaining original founders of Fatah and has wide contacts throughout the movement.

On the one hand, he possesses Arafat’s seal of approval historically but on the other hand he is so hard-line as to appeal to that powerful tendency in Fatah. In addition, as someone who has been outside the PA politics for 15 years he was seen as a neutral figure in many petty and personal disputes.

But this is not the man to choose if your top priorities were making peace with Israel and maintaining good relations with the West. He is the man you would choose if you intended to reject compromise, rebuild links to Syria and Hamas, and perhaps return to armed struggle in future.

On arrival at the Allenby Bridge crossing from Jordan on July 29, 2009, just before the Fatah Congress, Ghaneim was picked up by Abbas’ personal limousine, taken to his office, and welcomed in a ceremony.

At the reception, Ghaneim stated: “The struggle will continue until victory” and that if political means did not win Palestinian demands the movement would return to armed struggle. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 30, 2009). It is clear how Ghaneim defines victory and it is not a West Bank-Gaza state with its capital in east Jerusalem living alongside Israel in perfect harmony.

That Ghaneim would give up demands that all Palestinian refugees and their offspring must be allowed to live in Israel or that he would make any territorial compromise, or that he would end the conflict permanently in any peace agreement is extremely unlikely. These are things–all necessary for peace–that even the less extreme Abbas has rejected.

So the problem isn’t that the Israel might lose the one “moderate” peace partner, it’s that such a partner doesn’t truly exist. And even if one wants to point to someone such as Salam Fayyad, the problem is that he has no political base. There’s no real constituency for moderation in the PA.

The media and selected members of Israel’s security establishment can take Abbas’s threat to quit seriously, but in the end it really won’t affect things much one way or another. It’s just one more tantrum.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Not this.

A Gaza charity headed by the interior minister of the terrorist Hamas group on Wednesday offered $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who abducts a soldier.

The charity is not just Hamas-linked, as the AP headline states. It is part of Hamas, the current governing body of the Gaza Strip.

The Waad group from Gaza offered the bounty for Israeli soldiers in an e-mail sent to Palestinian media. The organization, which supports Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, is headed by Hamas’ Interior Minister Fathi Hamad. The minister did not return messages seeking comment.

The bounty is being offered in the typical Palestinian perversion of Israeli action.

Waad’s director, Usama Kahlout, said the bounty was in response to an Israeli group’s offer to pay Gaza residents for information on the whereabouts of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured more than three years ago by Hamas-allied terrorists.

Got that? An Israeli group is trying to rescue Israeli soldiers by offering rewards for information that might help get them released. The Hamas group responds by offering a reward for more kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Their actions are so despicable that words simply fail after a while. And so is the AP’s comparison:

Israel is holding some 7,500 Palestinian prisoners. Schalit is the only Israeli held by Hamas, while four Israelis who disappeared in Lebanon in the 1980s remain unaccounted for.

Why, exactly, are there 7,500 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails? Hm. Let’s think. It may have something to do with breaking the law. Why is there an Israeli soldier in Gaza? Because he was kidnapped in a raid from Gaza into Israel that killed and wounded other Israeli soldiers. But sure, all that really counts is numbers, not context. Obviously, Israel disproportionately imprisons Palestinians.

This is, remember, the group that Jimmy Carter and others insist will moderate its terrorism and settle down in a state next to Israel.

Sure. Because that’s just what groups that want to live peacefully with their neighbors do—offer rewards to kidnappers.

WTF kind of headline is this? Okay, you figure out what “post-election turmoil” means. The AP headline is “Iran sentences 5 to death in postelection turmoil.” The Iranian government sentenced five people to death whose only crime, apparently, was protesting the fraudulent election in June. So what’s the “postelection turmoil”? The fact that there was “turmoil” after the election (if you can call hundreds of thousands marching on the streets and shouting from the rooftops)? Were they sentenced for causing “turmoil”? Is the sentencing taking place in “turmoil”? Howsabout we change it to “Iran sentences 5 to death for protesting June election”? That would make it a hell of a lot clearer, and more truthful. Who writes these stupid headlines, anyway? Get someone better, AP.

Fight global warming with condoms. Seriously. The UN Population Fund says we can stop global warming by giving out free condoms and free family planning advice. See, if only there weren’t so many damned people, the world would not be suffering nearly as many ills. I propose eliminating only international bureaucrats. That’d fix the global warming problem in a hurry, since nobody else would really care about it.

Dogpile on Israelis! Dogpile on Israelis! The Gilo dogpile is on. Let’s see, the U.S., France, the UN and Britain–anyone else? Yeah, well, the suburb of Jerusalem will be building 900 new housing units. Deal with it.

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.

Obama’s not going to let up on this, but given the broad consensus within Israel, I doubt Israelis are going to yield to Obama on it either. A year from now, if election results favor the Republicans, maybe Obama will be forced to let up, but for now, we Israelis are going to have to live with this criticism without getting all hysterical about it. While Obama may want to make a radical change in US relations with Israel, it’s doubtful that he has the support in Congress or in American public opinion to make it.

He’s right. If Congress changes hands it will probably make a difference. Republicans, in general, are more sympathetic towards Israel. Sarah Palin, in her interview with Barbara Walters, demonstrated that difference. (via memeorandum)

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

It’s true that Palin’s expressed beliefs are quite a bit more supportive of Israel than those of the average American and I doubt that she’d be able to act on those beliefs even she achieved higher office. Still it’s a refreshing contrast to an administration run by someone who used to be close with Rashid Khalidi.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Articleis here. Note that the officer was not hurting the cat, just herding it. Or trying to.