What do you want to see? I really have no idea, at this moment, what my readers want. I know a lot of you are still happy with what I’m doing, but I’m not nearly as happy doing it as I was a few years ago. Change has been the raison d’blog—when this blog gets stale, it must change or die. I don’t think I’m ready to give it up. So help me figure out how to change it.

You can add your own suggestions in the “Other” field. Please take the time if you have an idea for me.

Your input is critical, even if you never, ever comment here. If I get only a few dozen answers, well, that’s not exactly representative of the thousands of visitors I get per day. So come on, take a minute to click on the poll buttons.

You have to understand something: I’m tired of my own blog. That means that I may not want to continue blogging if I can’t change it to something that I’m happy about again. If you want me to keep blogging, well, help me out here. Because although I don’t want to quit blogging, that, too, is an option. It would free up a whole lot of time in my life.

Vote, please.

First, Miss Gracie, in one of her rare goofball moments.

I actually missed her during one of her funniest, yet strangest habits. She loves chlorine-based cleansers. And I mean loves. They affect her like catnip. If I used a bleach-based cleanser, which I did this morning to clean the garbage can (and then to kill some ants in my kitchen, thus putting the scent on the kitchen floor), she will stop, sniff the place, and then make mad, passionate love to it. She will rub and rub and rub her face on the area, and then roll around in bliss. I really do have one of the strangest cats in existence.

Next: Where’s Tig?

I needed to find Tig before leaving the house the other day. This is a new spot. All of a sudden, he’s sleeping with Gracie under my bed. That’s her regular spot to the left, and he’s decided to take over the right-hand side.

Two days ago, I found him in his usual position—his bottom half underneath something. Alas, I didn’t get the camera in time, but I’m sure I’ll have another chance at getting Tig’s butt hanging out from under the bed. Or the bureau. Or the shower curtain. Really, he’s not very good at hiding, but he sure must think he is.

He also has a tendency to use very hard items for pillows. I’ll have those at a future date.

Well, Netanyahu won. And he’s the Prime Minister. And Israelis are pretty happy with what he’s doing right now.

In other news, 43 percent of Israelis think the Benjamin Netanyahu government is doing a better job than its predecessor, as opposed to 30 percent who said it is faring worse than the previous Ehud Olmert-led government, according to a poll published Friday in the Haaretz daily.

The Dialog poll also found than Netanyahu himself enjoys a 49 percent approval rating from the public, with 52 percent saying he is best suited to lead the country, as opposed to 34 percent saying opposition leader Tzipi Livni was a better fit.

Israel’s proponents have been saying this all along—the Obama administration’s attempt to repeat what Bill Clinton did to Netanyahu in the 90s will fail. Netanyahu was elected by the will of the people, and is doing what his people want him to do. Those are pretty high numbers for a man who was elected without a party majoriy in the Knesset.

The Ha’aretz spin is negative, of course, since Ha’aretz wanted Tzipi Livni. But here are the salient facts:

The survey by Dialog, conducted Thursday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University, found Netanyahu’s approval ratings were 18 percent higher than Tzipi Livni’s - a much larger margin than when they were competing for prime minister. Asked who was better suited to be prime minister, 52 percent said Netanyahu, while only 34 said Livni.

[...] Netanyahu’s approval ratings may have jumped 5 points since the last Dialog survey, on June 15. In the most recent survey, 49 percent of the 500 respondents said they were satisfied with Netanyahu’s performance.

So Netanyahu’s approval ratings are going up, more than half of Israelis think he is the right man to lead the country, and Livni’s approval ratings are dropping like lead.

Say, President Obama: Netanyahu won.

The defense establishment recommends easing the siege on Gaza, mainly at the crossings, in order to advance the talks aimed at securing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit’s release.

The recommendations – some of which have already been approved by the defense minister and will be brought to the political echelon’s approval – have been obtained by Ynet and are revealed here for the first time. They include allowing the transfer of coffee, tea, soup and canned food into Gaza, as well as fuel for electricity production.

[...] Beyond the aim of securing the kidnapped soldier’s release, the ease of restrictions is a response to the increasing international pressure to improve the situation in Gaza, repeated appeals by Egypt, the ongoing smuggling of humanitarian equipment through underground tunnels at the Philadelphi route, and US President Barack Obama’s historic speech in Cairo.

The AP puts it this way:

Israel’s Defense Ministry has recommended a partial lifting of the embargo on the Gaza Strip as a goodwill gesture toward the Palestinians to spur talks to free a long-held captive soldier, an Israeli news site reported Friday.

When have goodwill gestures ever worked? The Palestinians take these “gestures” and then demand more before they will do anything on their side. Really, name one that worked. Just one.

Of course, this is going to get done. Israel has removed most of the checkpoints in the West Bank, the Palestinians are armed again, and there are no Israelis in Gaza. This will be the second time in recent history that the Palestinians have been given a chance at self-government. The last time, they launched the Al-Aqsa Intifada after Arafat refused the offer at Camp David in 2000, which would have given Palestinians control of more than 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem. Not in bantustans—that is a lie that Israel’s opponents spread. Israel offered peace, the Palestinians chose war.

Make no mistake about Palestinian intentions. There are no peacemakers on their side. They insist on the “right of return,” which would flood Israeli with millions of third- and fourth-generation descendants of the original refugees. The Arab world’s refugees were not settled anywhere by the UN—most of them move to Israel. Fifty percent of Israel’s population is made up of the original refugees and their descendants.

The blockade will be eased. And violence will resume. Hamas is restocking its weapons and has called off its rocketeers—proof that they have always had the ability to stop terror attacks, in spite of their pretense otherwise (and the uncritical media acceptance of such claims). So the calm right now has a purpose.

And one more warning: Hamas is now saying that they can’t guarantee that Gilad Shalit wasn’t harmed in the Gaza war. Prepare for the worst, because when have terrorists ever returned a live captive soldier to Israel?

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on Tuesday against attempts to impose Western values on the Arab world, praising US President Barack Obama’s recent efforts to reach out to the Muslims.

“There is something to learn from the Arab world,” Medvedev said in an adress at the headquarters of the Arab League in Cairo.

“And therefore mentorship, or democraticising, or all the more so direct involvement from the outside is asolutely unacceptable, in our opinion,” he said in remarks seen as thinly veiled criticism of the previous US administration.

“And understanding of this is growing in the world,” Medvedev said, adding that Obama’s speech in Cairo earlier this month provided evidence to that.

I’m so happy our president is making the Russians happy. Why, Hugo Chavez is about to jump on the Obama bandwagon after his stance on Honduras, and the Arab kings and dictators are already pretty happy with Obama’s submissive speech in Cairo. All that’s left is for Obama to somehow figure out a way to appease North Korea, Iran, and Syria and he’ll have all those dictator ducks in a row, thus showing the conservatives of the world that they were wrong to think that you can’t work with people who don’t believe in basic human freedoms.

As for the Russian respect for the Muslim world, well, see “Chechen, wars of” for the rank hypocrisy of Medvedev’s statements. Then read this fact:

Medvedev also said Russia was an “inalienable part” of the Muslim world and was keen to cooperate with the Arab countries in the future.

Earlier Tuesday, he signed a 10-year strategic cooperation pact with Mubarak, with both nations saying there were committed to the “building of a new multipolar world order, which will be more democratic, fair and safe for all countries.”

No, that’s not it. This is.

With trade of 4.1 billion dollars last year, Egypt is Russia’s largest commercial partner in Africa.

Russia has also expressed interest in a 1.5 billion-1.8 billion-dollar tender to construct Egypt’s first atomic power station, which would resume the country’s nuclear programme after a 20-year freeze.

That Cairo speech just keeps on giving dividends. To everyone but Israel, of course.

Where is the outrage in the U.S. — especially among the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama? Where are the major Jewish institutions that in the past offered rhetorical and political support for a vibrant pro-Israel policy?

In answering the question, she, of course, credits Martin Peretz for speaking out against President Obama’s anti-Israel policies. But, I’ve wondered, where’s Alan Dershowitz been? Why doesn’t he speak out. Well now he has, and I wish that he’d remained silent. He answers “Has Obama turned on Israel?” with an emphatic “no.”

First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a “natural growth” exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.

I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. “Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally,” he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build “up” rather than “out.” This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one — results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.

A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.

I have no idea the source of his assertion that a majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel do not favor settlement expansion. But to write off Prime Minister Netanyahu is disingenuous. Given the spectrum of his coalition, Netanyahu represents a vast majority of Israelis. President Obama isn’t just opposing one man, he is opposing the national consensus of Israel. (Even Jackson Diehl acknowledges this.)

Furthermore, by pressuring Israel on settlements and not pressuring the Arab world for any substantive reciprocal action he is eroding Israel’s diplomatic position and, yes, that does pose a security risk for Israel.

It’s nice of Dershowitz to object to linkage.

The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.

This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran — which would endanger the entire world — should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.

But the Obama administration has made it clear that it could live with a nuclear Iran. So Dershowitz’s next paragraph isn’t exactly comforting.

The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration’s point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.

All I’ll say is that John Bolton disagrees.

And this brings us to Dershowitz’s less than compelling conclusion:

There may be coming changes in the Obama administration’s policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran’s burgeoning nuclear threat, it’s important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel’s security — and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel’s security.

Of course even if “getting tough on settlement expansion” doesn’t hurt Israeli security, doesn’t it strike Dershowitz as odd that this is the one foreign policy issue he sees fit to confront? President Obama has been looking for dialogue with Iran’s leaders and friendlier terms with Syria. But when it comes to Israel he seeks to put Israel on the defensive diplomatically. Maybe he hasn’t done anything yet to hurt Israel’s security, but if his choice of battles is any indication, it shows that he has no real concern for Israel.

In short, Deshowitz’s argument for President Obama is that settlements are not a significant issue so those who are pro-Israel shouldn’t be bothered by his words and actions, but on the significant issue of a nuclear Iran, he hopes that Obama will do the right thing for Israel (and the world.) Seems that his defense of Obama comes down to lots of hope, given that the substance of the President’s actions point in the other direction.

Perhaps Dershowitz really needs to convince himself that President Obama is pro-Israel after his endorsement last year. But the qualifications in his op-ed are such that I find it hard to believe that he really believes his own arguments. Clearly he is capable of better, else he wouldn’t be a world famous law professor. I have a hard time believe that this apologia would convince anyone of the Obama administration’s positive feelings towards Israel. I really wonder if he convinced himself.

UPDATE: The current version of this post differs slightly from the original version. I have edited for clarity (hopefully).

UPDATE II: Several more have weighed on the Dershowitz op-ed. Jonathan Tobin, after crediting Dershowitz for defending Israel in fora not usually sympathetic to Israel, then criticizes Dershowitz for some of the particulars of his op-ed.

Dershowitz is also wrong about the settlements spat, not only because it is significant that this administration made it their top foreign-policy priority early on but also because they have sought to escalate the dispute rather than resolve it. The calls by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an absolute freeze on any settlement building, including those the Bush administration conceded would stay with Israel in any peace settlement, was a blow to the alliance between the two countries. While Dershowitz is right that most American Jews are not fans of the settlements, the State Department’s statement that such a freeze applies even to the city of Jerusalem is something that only left-wing extremists within the Jewish community would countenance.

Melanie Phillips has an extended critique of Dershowitz and hits him for some omissions. (h/t OyVay Blog)

Obama drew a vile – and telling – equivalence between the Nazi extermination camps and the Palestinian ‘refugee’ camps. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama’s statement that the Palestinians ‘have suffered in pursuit of a homeland’ was grossly and historically untrue, and again denied Arab aggression. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Equally vilely, Obama equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the resistance against apartheid in South Africa. On all of this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.

(I should point out that despite the President’s juxtaposition of the Holocaust with the Palestinians in his Cairo speech, in a follow up interview he emphatically denied any equivalence. However, I guess that the majority of his audience in the Arab/Muslim world heard the two events equated and felt a measure of vindication. The President may not have meant it, but you can be sure that his audience understood it.)

Omri also gives a detailed rebuttal and notes:

So having pretended that Obama’s policy is what Alan Dershowitz would like Obama’s policy to be, he now asserts that Jewish voters have no reason to worry. That seems almost intellectually dishonest. It’s also empirically dicey because there’s little to no Israeli support for a freeze in East Jerusalem or in the settlement blocs, which is what Obama is calling for. But it’s the argumentative sleight-of-hand that really rankles.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Apparently, it’s time for the UN to bring up the imminent disaster meme again. And it’s by our old friend, the viciously anti-Israel Karen AbuZayd.

Plight of Palestinians getting worse, UN warns
The blockade of Gaza is causing severe humanitarian hardship and the situation is getting worse every day, the head of the U.N. aid agency for Palestinian refugees warned on Wednesday.

[...] “Because there’s been no change and the borders are not open, things are deteriorating,” said Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

“People are in worse and worse condition every day, especially those who were affected by the conflict in late December and in January.”

AbuZayd, speaking to reporters in the Austrian capital, said many people were still living in the rubble of their homes. She also lamented the limited list of items the Israelis allowed in, saying it was making it impossible for people to lead normal lives.

“This is an urban environment, multistory buildings, people need all kinds of things in their homes - they need light bulbs, they need washing powder, children need new shoes - there’s no shoes allowed in,” she said.

Um—I thought we’re talking “severe humanitarian hardship.” Shoes? Light bulbs? These are the things that a person needs or s/he will die? But wait, let’s see what the AP chooses to put in the very last paragraph, the one that gets cut off in most newspapers:

AbuZayd added that while the Israelis were “very careful” to provide food and medicine, the amount of food coming in only covered about 60 percent of people’s needs.

So she admits that Israel is supplying humanitarian needs, but then qualifies that by saying Gazans are getting only 60% of what they need. Which means that Gazans should be starving, on almost half-rations. And yet, they are not. Imagine that.

Yet another one-two punch by the anti-Israel media and the anti-Israel UN. But not to worry. Israel Derangement Sydrome happens only on days that end with a “y.”

Twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in what appeared to be six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, according to a report released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch. The group questioned whether Israeli forces had taken “all feasible precautions” to avoid civilian casualties.

Israel’s military has never acknowledged using the remotely piloted planes to fire missiles. In a statement released Tuesday, it said that it had used an assortment of weapons and technologies to minimize the risk to Palestinian civilians.

There are two obvious problems with this report. The first is that Marc Garlasco wrote the report for Human Rights Watch. Garlasco doesn’t have such a good record when reporting on Israel. Yet the New York Times fails to acknowledge his spotty record.. Also the Times cites PCHR uncritically. Anyone who has been reading Elder of Ziyon recently knows that PCHR is not reliable.

When Elder of Ziyon, looked at the report itself, he showed why skepticism towards Garlasco and he PCHR was warranted - HRW’s report was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, including the identification of dead terrorists as civilians leading him to conclude.

However, HRW either ignored evidence that some of the “civilian” victims they are talking about were actually terrorists or it didn’t do any reasonable research (typing the names into Google should have been enough.) This is either sloppy work or it is purposeful deception on HRW’s part.

The NYT story on the HRW report concludes:

P. W. Singer, the author of a recent book on military robots called “Wired for War,” said Israel might also be finding that using the drones “certainly raises the bar of expectations.”

“Because you can target more precisely, people hold you to a higher standard,” he said.

This is perverse. Israel’s being singled out because of HRW’s animus towards Israel. Frankly a report on the thousands of Qassam fired into Israel wouldn’t have generated the same kind of buzz. This isn’t holding Israel to a higher standard; it’s holding Israel to a standard and holding Hamas to none.

Mere Rhetoric noted that HRW has a really poor record on Israel and, in fact, raised money for its activities in the human rights unfriendly regime of Saudi Arabia. NGO Monitor observed:

Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW’s role in anti-Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations, boasting that this propaganda campaign was instrumental in the UN’s “fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza,” to be headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, who was also a member of HRW’s board at the time. (He resigned after the investigation began; as NGO Monitor noted, his membership on HRW’s board was a conflict of interest.)

So HRW used a “researcher” whose bias had already been established and itself, as an organization, had demonstrated its bias by using its anti-Israel bias as a selling point to collect funds one of Israel’s enemies. Yet the NYT, reported the story of HRW’s report without raising any questions as to the organization biases and record of anti-Israel advocacy. Human Rights Watch? How about Human Wrongs Watch instead?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

That previous time, as you can see, the Guardian goat guy (GGG) was providing background to a discussion of financial ruin (on one hand) Gaza is experiencing, with a slightly contradictory statement of investment opportunities there on the other hand.

Today, it seems, GGG is embracing his goat in support of another topic:

Is hunger a legitimate way of defeating an enemy?

This is an interesting question, especially coming from a heir of European warriors. One would be tempted to remind the author, one Alex Renton, that his ancestors have besieged many a city or a castle, starving its defenders into surrender or death. One would be also strongly tempted to remind Mr Renton two words: Potato Famine… but of course, Mr Renton shouldn’t feel guilty for what his forefathers did so many years ago. Or should he? In any case, I am not going to answer this question today, rather, in that venerable Jooish tradition, I shall instead ask Mr Renton a few questions back. To ease the burden of answering this questions, multiple options are provided.

When IDF left Gaza strip, the purpose of this was:

1. To ensure Zionist control of the strip
2. To blockade 1.5 million of Gazans
3. To let Gazans manage their own lives and to become good neighbors
4. To free some military resources for upcoming war with Andorra

The airport built in Gaza strip was later destroyed by IDF because of:

1. Differences of opinion on the airport architecture
2. A need to create a new football field in the place
3. Continuing attacks on Israel from Gaza strip
4. Arafat piloting his plane in a way that clashed with FAA regulations

The plans for a seaport in the Gaza strip were scrapped because of:

1. Objections of environmental lobby in Gaza
2. Overabundance of jellyfish in the area
3. Growing use of the sea routes by Gazans to smuggle weapons
4. The area being too shallow for 6th fleet ships to anchor

The further deterioration of the situation in Gaza was caused by:

1. Bird flu
2. Hamas ascendance to power and sharp increase in flying objects crossing the border with Israel
3. Disagreements between Hamas and Israel on finer points of international cuisine (humus)

The closing of the border crossings between Gaza and Israel was caused by:

1. Insufficient manpower for management of the crossings
2. Continuing attacks over the border, including attacks on the crossings themselves
3. Lack of interest for employment in Israel on the side of Gazans
4. Clash between Muslim and Jewish religious holidays

The thousand of flying objects mentioned above are:

1. Doves, released by uncounted peace groups in Gaza to symbolize their desire for peace
2. Postcards from Gazan kids to the Israeli kids
3. A novel way to expedite the exchange of information between parties
4. Qassam rockets launched to kill Israeli citizens indiscriminately

The last but not the least, Mr Renton: you are saying “When I’ve written about this in the past on WoM, the orchestrated responses of the lobby groups have soon filled the comments slot…” - what precisely “lobby groups” you mean?

Now let’s stop the questions and give Mr Renton some time to ignore them. Let’s talk about some undeniable facts. First of all, GGG surely gets around. I predict his next goat-hugging appearance in a Guardian article titled Goats Against Tanks - Life on the Brink. Or summat…

Then another fact: today I can breath easily, having finally established that the animal in question is indeed a goat, because there was some controversy in the previous post where GGG starred.

Cross-posted at SimplyJews

There are more than 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank that are legal under Israeli law but not internationally. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified in 1951, forbids an occupying power to transfer “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,” but Israel disputes that this provision applies to settlements. Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Why the difference between Israeli law and “internationally?” (Interesting that Kessler doesn’t write “international law.” Maybe he’s suggesting that the opposition to “settlements” is more political than legal.)

After explaining how only Israel is described as an occupying power in the course of a territorial dispute, Dr. Dore Gold explains the reasoning behind Israel’s claim that building on the territory captured in 1967 is legal:

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as “occupied” or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention “is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.”

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan’s 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan’s insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: “no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (emphasis added) (Article II.2).

As noted above, in many other cases in recent history in which recognized international borders were crossed in armed conflicts and sovereign territory seized, the language of “occupation” was not used — even in clear-cut cases of aggression. Yet in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, where no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existed, the stigma of Israel as an “occupier” has gained currency.

And while Kessler writes “…Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war,” suggesting that Israel was the aggressor, Gold presents a timeline that shows otherwise:

Here the historical sequence of events on June 5, 1967, is critical, for Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines. Jordanian attacks began at 10:00 a.m.; an Israeli warning to Jordan was passed through the UN at 11:00 a.m.; Jordanian attacks nonetheless persisted, so that Israeli military action only began at 12:45 p.m. Additionally, Iraqi forces had crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, the temporary armistice boundaries of 1949 lost all validity the moment Jordanian forces revoked the armistice and attacked. Israel thus took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war.

On another diplomatic front, French premier Nicholas Sarkozy has decided to dictate the makeup of the Israeli government.

According to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Sarkozy told Mr. Netanyahu that he should remake his government so that he, Ms. Livni and the defense minister, Ehud Barak, could produce historic breakthroughs for Middle East peace.

He was reported to have said, “I’ve always received Israeli foreign ministers. I met with Tzipi Livni in the Élysée Palace, but with that one I simply can’t meet. I’m telling you, you need to get rid of that man. Get him out of the government and bring in Livni. With her and with Barak you can make history.”

It’s funny, because Lieberman has actually advocated territorial compromise, so it’s unclear how he stands the way of making history. It also appears that Sarkozy is offering a lifeline to Livni. No word if the Doctor of Holocaust denial offends Sarkozy’s sensibilities.

UPDATE: There are two points worth emphasizing.
The first is that the notion that settlements are “illegal” is more an assertion than a reasoned legal conclusion. Recently reporter Glenn Kessler wrote about a legal opinion written in 1979 declaring settlements illegal. But as Daled Amos shows, the State Department lawyer who wrote the opinion based his conclusions on an earlier opinion that declared settlements legal.

The second is an example of Dr. Gold’s claim that occupation is a sin ascribed to Israel alone. In a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Yisrael Medad of My Right Word wrote:

Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn’t live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn’t Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In 1929, Hebron’s centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh — and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 — is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.

In other words, the acquisition of territory by force is admissible, as long as those who are displaced are Jews. There’s a word for this sort of double standard.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.