A YouTube video showing a dancing Israeli soldier shimmying near a bound and blindfolded Palestinian woman went viral on the Internet this week, embarrassing the Israeli military and fueling fresh debate about morals and accountability in the armed forces.

In any organization there will be bad actors. But to take this case and generalize about the army is absurd. But that’s just what Greenberg does.

As even Greenberg notes, the army is now investigating this incident. But that’s not enough.

The conduct of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians had already stirred discussion this week after a military court convicted two former servicemen for using a boy as a human shield during Israel’s 2008-09 war in the Gaza Strip against the militant group Hamas. The soldiers had ordered the boy to open bags they suspected had been booby-trapped.

The conviction, the first for a combat action during the war, served as an indicator of how effectively the military is addressing alleged violations of international law a year after a U.N. fact-finding mission accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. The war left as many as 1,400 Palestinians dead, hundreds of them civilians. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed.

Again, what discussion? That Israel has a system of justice that deals with those violate society’s laws. And what does the disparity in casualties have to do with the issue at hand? For Greenberg it is presumably an implicit indictment that Israel’s army doesn’t take proper care to avoid civilian casualties. For objective people it would raise questions about the asymmetric nature of the warfare Israel is forced to engage in.

Israel’s civilians are targeted by terrorists who themselves hide among civilians. Israel thus has two choices: to leave its citizens unprotected or to fight its unscrupulous enemy.

Now presumably some of the deterrent effect of Operation Cast Lead has worn off and rockets are once again flying towards Israeli civilians. Does it say anything about Hamas that it targets civilians? Does it say anything about Greenberg that it doesn’t bother him?

For Greenberg though, his job apparently isn’t to report the news but to raise questions about Israel’s conduct.

After going through the various cases that Israel’s military justice system has adjudicated Greenberg writes:

Still, there is a wide discrepancy between the number of criminal prosecutions and the reported cases of killing and wounding of noncombatant civilians, as documented by human rights groups, the media and the U.N. fact-finding mission, which was headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone.

And why does Goldstone’s “fact finding mission” have any more credibility than the IDF? Because he accepted exaggerated figures from Hamas and its sympathizers without even bothering to check their accuracy? That he ignored evidence that was in his hands? That he ignored testimony from a victim of Hamas terror? To present the questions of organizations who routinely condemn Israel with the benefit of hindsight and unaffected by the fog of war as a contradiction to Israeli claims is dishonest. And Greenberg goes on to quote an Israeli IDF spokeswoman only to elicit dismissals from the professional Israel bashers. Presumably, B’tselem and HRW speak for Greenberg.

And that’s the problem. Two weeks ago, Greenberg wrote about questions about the killing of a member of Hamas. Nowhere in the article did he produce any evidence or even a credible suggestion that the IDF acted improperly. The questions Greenberg referred were his own, cloaked in phony gravitas.

In fact it appears that what bothers Greenberg is any action the IDF takes. The questions are his own. They are not news.

This is not to excuse the soldiers who were mocking detainees. But perspective is needed. Greenberg’s questions distort; they don’t enlighten.

Israelly Cool! points out that the claims of the detainee have changed quite a bit. While the scene recorded is accurate, would Greenberg spend any time investigating her claims and seeing which are true? Or is Israel the only party to such scrutiny?

Finally Charles Krauthammer wrote during Cast Lead:

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis — 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years — deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

To which James Taranto added:

The moral asymmetry is so great that Israel is on the right side even by Sting’s standards.

(Sting was the guy who sang “The Russians love their children too.”)

Folks like Greenberg – and B’Tselem and HRW – have made it their lifes’ work to deny the asymmetry. But that’s not reporting, that’s activism.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Nine years ago, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a speech on the Middle East in which he briefly called on Palestinians to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.” Powell doesn’t recall how the phrase ended up in his speech, but David Ivry, then the Israeli ambassador to the United States, says he persuaded an aide to Powell to slip it in.

From that small seed – the first time a U.S. official took sides on the issue – a significant and potentially insurmountable hurdle has emerged, one that could scuttle President Obama’s newly launched effort to promote a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

No. No. No. Declaring Israel a Jewish state is a fundamental necessity for any peace. The Palesitnian National Covenant explicitly denies the connection of Jews to the land of Israel. In order for there to be peace the Palestians need to stop denying history. Any American administration who believes in peace implicitly acknowledges Israel is a Jewish state. So no, the idea is not only nine years old.

The rest of the article paints the idea of Israel as a Jewish state as an Israeli belief with no strong support elsewhere, except in the United States. Effectively Glenn Kessler sides with the Israel deniers.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Today’s Washington Post features an editorial President Obama’s new Middle East course has promise:

FOR MUCH of the past 15 months, President Obama sought to advance his goal of a Middle East peace settlement through public pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The results were mixed. Mr. Netanyahu made significant concessions to the White House, including announcing for the first time his acceptance of Palestinian statehood and imposing a 10-month freeze on new construction in West Bank settlements. But Mr. Obama’s attempt to insist on further Israeli retreats in Jerusalem and his aides’ sometimes-harsh rhetoric produced a backlash both in Israel and in Washington — and encouraged Palestinians to escalate their own demands.

This is an excellent summary. In short: the President’s hamhandedness in approaching the Middle East has been counterproductive.

The editorial continues:

With U.S. midterm elections looming, Mr. Obama tried a different tack Tuesday, showering Mr. Netanyahu with public praise and encouragement during a White House visit. The president said he believes that the Israeli leader “wants peace,” praised his “restraint” on settlements and joined with him in calling on Palestinians to begin direct peace negotiations by September, when the settlement freeze expires. This switch may look craven to some of Israel’s critics — but in fact it is smart. By reaffirming U.S. support for Israel and pressing for direct talks, Mr. Obama has created an opportunity to put both Palestinian leaders and Mr. Netanyahu to the test and to discover who is serious and who is not about a two-state settlement.

This is what worries me. Has President Obama truly changed, or is his attitude influenced strictly by political concerns. The Post’s editors believe the former is true. I’m not convinced.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been assuring the administration’s envoys that he is ready to make peace. But until now he has been under no pressure to deliver. Instead Mr. Abbas has watched from the sidelines as Mr. Obama battled with Mr. Netanyahu, while raising his demands on settlements to match those of the Obama administration. Palestinians have hoped that the United States would extract further concessions from Israel or announce its own plan for a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now Mr. Abbas has a choice: Begin direct negotiations in exchange for prisoner releases and other “confidence-building measures” that Mr. Netanyahu has been offering — or show himself to be not so ready for peace, after all.

Now I don’t know why “confidence building measures” should be required to bring Abbas to the table. But we also know the answer to the question about his readiness for peace. He is ready for unilateral Israeli concessions but nothing more. The quesition is whether he will be held accountable for his failure to negotiate in good faith or whether everyone will cover for him as they did for Arafat.

If talks begin, Mr. Netanyahu, too, will be challenged. Mr. Obama’s counterproductive focus on issues such as Jewish housing in Jerusalem has allowed the Israeli leader to rally domestic support and delay spelling out where he stands on truly central questions, such as the borders of a Palestinian state and whether Jerusalem will be its capital. Mr. Netanyahu says that he needs guarantees that the West Bank will not become a base for Iranian influence and missiles aimed at Israel, as have southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. That’s not an unreasonable demand. But what will he offer Mr. Abbas in return? Only direct negotiations between the parties will make that plain.

If there’s a problem with the editorial it’s that it is specific about what Netanyahu (and Israel must do) but not what Abbas (and the Palestinians) must do. Sure they need to be involved in negotiations but do they need to accept Israel’s right to exist (as a Jewish state); do they need to accept less than 100% of Judea and Samaria; do they need to stop incitement? The Post’s editors spell none of that out.

Still, after yesterday’s Israel bash festival at the New York Times reading something this sensible is a great relief.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

WHICH OF the following is illegal under the law that bars providing “material support” to terrorists?:

1. Giving money to a terrorist organization.

2. Providing explosives training to terrorists.

3. Urging a terrorist group to put down its arms in favor of using lawful, peaceful means to achieve political goals.

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project the answer is: all three.

The material support law prohibits U.S. citizens from providing “services,” “personnel” or “training, expert advice or assistance” to U.S.-designated terrorist groups. It has long been understood that funding and providing weapons training were off limits. What was less clear was how far the law could reach to punish activities with no link to terrorism.

I understand what’s bugging them, but I find it hard to sympathize with the editors’ outrage. Here’s the final paragraph in the editorial:

Congress was right to criminalize the donation of money and tangible goods to terrorist groups; such resources can be used to further violent ends even if donors mean them for legitimate purposes. The same cannot be said of the kind of services the Humanitarian Law Project intended to provide.

By the Post’s own definition then it has been providing material support for terror groups. Four years ago the Post gave an op-ed to Ismail Haniyeh. Apparently to skirt the provisions of the material support law, the article was ghost-written by an American.

At the time, the Post’s ombudsman Deborah Howell defended the op-ed:

Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking. Cohen’s and Haniyeh’s pieces indeed were provocative.

Why the Post gave space to someone who has no respect for freedom of the press is beyond me.

By the editor’s acknowledgment today, though, giving Haniyeh (even with ghost writers) a chance to promulgate his agenda freed Hamas up to use its resources elsewhere. Now that they are effectively admitting that they abetted a terrorist organization, do you think they’ll apologize? Apparently Jimmy Carter won’t.

Eugen Volokh has been blogging about this decision.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The items listed by Elder of Ziyon, with Hamas’s increased oppression of Gaza through executions, house demolitions and general thuggery, have lead to a decline in Hamas’s popularity.

(Another indication that Hamas’s popularity had been declining is that we’ve stopped seeing stories in the media claiming that the blockade was counterproductive because it was boosting Hamas’s popularity.)

Given indications that Hamas is losing the support of its citizens, it’s disappointing that it’s apparently getting support elsewhere.

I know that Elder of Ziyon got to this first, but Khaled Abu Toameh quotes Moussa Abu Marzuk in the Jerusalem Post:

A number of Hamas leaders have hinted over the past few days that the US administration has begun talking to the Islamist movement through both official and non-official channels.

Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, was quoted on Sunday as saying that Washington was talking to the movement despite its declared policy of boycotting it.

“Their official policy states that there are no contacts with Hamas,” Abu Marzouk said during a visit to Algeria. “However, they are engaging Hamas for objective reasons.”

He added: “There are several open channels [between Hamas and the US]. Some are official and some are unofficial. All those who are talking to us receive permission from the US State Department and the White House. The US administration tells them to talk to Hamas but without causing a big fuss.”

Abu Marzouk claimed that the US administration had reached the conclusion that Hamas is a factor that can’t be ignored.

So is it any surprise that Hamas felt it had nothing to lose with this effort to break the blockade? In the end Hamas is convinced that the United States recognizes its importance, and wouldn’t pay a political price for challenging Israel. (Or having its stooges challenge Israel.)

This is the complete opposite of the Glenn Kessler’s presentation, Israeli assault complicates efforts to improve relationship with U.S. in the Washington Post (via memeorandum):

The worldwide condemnation of the deadly Israeli assault on the Gaza aid flotilla will complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to improve its tense relations with Jerusalem and likely will distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.

This “analysis” is from the school of “I don’t understand why Israel defends itself” thought, carefully taking only statements that reinforce the idea that Israel must not upset the Muslim world. Were the Israeli soldiers supposed to have courteously surrendered themselves to be beaten and thrown to the water?

And to suggest that Israel’s actions alienate Turkey are absurd. Turkey organized this stunt. Turkey, that has recently publicly snubbed the Obama administration and declared its fealty to Iran and Syria, is the problem. But not a single one of Kessler’s sources point this out. I guess for balance, he included a comment from Daniel Levy, who is Israeli, but not a single one of his sources could be considered pro-Israel.

By his choice of sources, Kessler demonstrated that this was a blatantly anti-Israel hit piece rather than any sort of objective analysis. If it belonged anyplace, it belonged as an op-ed, not in the news section.

The Obama administration, while seemingly criticized by Kessler for not being more forceful in its condemnation of Israel, could manage only to say that it is “working to understand” Israel’s reasons for fighting back. It is this sort of equivocation along with its fruitless outreach to our enemies that emboldens them.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

INDIRECT TALKS between Israelis and Palestinians appear finally set to begin, after a two-month delay that showed the Obama administration’s diplomacy at its worst. The trouble started with an errant announcement by Israel of new housing construction in East Jerusalem; President Obama chose to escalate what could have been a blip into a public quarrel, in the apparent hope of extracting a series of concessions from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The editorial also observes an irony:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas seemingly wants to postpone that day as long as possible. He has insisted on indirect talks even though he has participated in direct negotiations with Israeli leaders for two decades; in 2008, he refused to take up a far-reaching peace offer from former prime minister Ehud Olmert. The Palestinian leader now appears to be counting on the Obama administration to do his negotiating.

This analysis of the situation is excellent. The editorial, though, disappoints towards the end:

It’s true that Mr. Netanyahu’s current right-wing coalition is unlikely to accept some of the terms that would be necessary for peace, such as Palestinian sovereignty over part of Jerusalem. Even his current defense minister says Mr. Netanyahu needs to form a more centrist government.

What is “necessary for peace?” The terms necessary for peace were basically those offered to Abbas by Olmert that, the editorial noted, was rejected by Abbas. So the Post is advocating rewarding Abbas for his obstructionism – he gets the same deal that he rejected – and blames it on Israel. But as the Post noted Abbas wishes for the Americans to do his negotiating for him. And yet the Post says to indulge him.

The Post’s focus on the current Israeli government is misleading for other reasons. For one thing it is not “right wing.” Perhaps it is further to the right than the previous government had been, but the government represents a consensus of the Israeli public.

Second of all, nothing at all is mentioned of what wing the Palestinian government consists of. So let’s go back a year to an interview about the rejected Olmert offer. Here’s Saeb Erekat:

“They will never have this. Like President Abu Mazen said in front of President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert: I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.”

This is not the language of a moderate. This is the utter rejection of compromise. And while the Post is very good in exposing Abbas’s cynicism, it doesn’t recognize his intransigence.

In a similar vein, Barry Rubin wrote:

What is needed to understand the issue is precisely what is not presented by policymakers, academics, and all-too-much of the mass media: The PA neither wants nor is capable of delivering a compromise peace agreement.

Radicalism within its ranks, in public opinion, and the ever-present challenge from Hamas ties the hands of leaders who are not so moderate themselves.

Belief that if they continue the struggle or keep saying “no” or subvert Western support for Israel they will get everything they want without giving up much is too tempting.

Prof Rubin’s conclusion is that peace is not at hand but negotiations for a better working relationship between Israel and the PA could be useful.

This is the critical element that the Post misses. It is still looking at a peace deal mostly dictated by Palestinian demands. Until the Palestinians change, peace is just not possible.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Last July the Washington Post ran an editorial Tough on Israel which observed:

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu’s initial concessions — he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations — Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement “freeze.” Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the “confidence-building” concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration’s final year, have yet to resume.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world — a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him — and he must be tough on more than one country.

A month ago the Post’s editors warned, Don’t expect progress from talking to Syria:

Not a few have come away hopeful, at first. Ms. Pelosi memorably declared that “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” Yet none so far has produced the slightest change in Mr. Assad’s behavior or in his unacceptable ambitions. Having carried out a campaign of political murder in Lebanon, including the killing of a prime minister for which he has yet to be held accountable, Mr. Assad continues to insist on a veto over the Lebanese government. He continues to facilitate massive illegal shipments of Iranian arms to Hezbollah, dangerously setting the stage for another war with Israel, and to host the most hard-line elements of the Hamas leadership. He continues to harbor exiled leaders of Saddam Hussein’s regime and to allow suicide bombers to flow into Iraq for use by al-Qaeda.

Now the Post’s editors are once again focused on Israel, The U.S. Quarrel with Israel:

But Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels — as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama’s quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don’t always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama’s poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits. The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders. If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends.

A few observations:
1) The administration’s outreach to Syria was answered with a mocking response from Syria, causing not the slightest reaction from the administration.
2) This is in sharp contrast to the administration’s response to Israel, over plans for Israel to build in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.
3) The disparate responses of the admininstration to these two incidents are so severe that even a paper like the Washington Post – which is not what anyone would call “pro-Israel” notices.
RELATED: Richard Cohen writes:

To my knowledge, there is no square in Israel named for the mass murderers of civilians. Palestinian society, in contrast, honors all sorts of terrorists.

This is not a minor point. The veneration of terrorists says something unsettling about Palestinian society. An Israeli can recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian aspiration and appreciate the depth of the calamity that befell the Palestinians in 1948. The Palestinian intellectual Constantine Zurayk coined the term “al-Nakba” (the disaster) for their 1948 debacle — and there is no doubt it was. But for Palestinians, that disaster has only been compounded by an Arab intransigence and belligerence that has played into Israel’s territorial ambitions, particularly the annexation of East Jerusalem. The reliance on terrorism has had cinematic charms and given the Palestinians a certain cachet among the West’s kaffiyeh set, but it has caused Israelis to dig in their heels. The adulation of Dalal Mughrabi and other terrorists is bound to give your average Israeli parent a certain pause: Is this the state we want next to us? Didn’t pulling out of Gaza produce a steady drizzle of rockets and, in due course, another war?

His perspective is skewed. Palestinian belligerence doesn’t play into anyone’s hands, it shows a mindset that is hostile to Israel and the idea of peace with Israel. But the central point is correct.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Mitchell, who in January boasted that a peace deal could be done within two years, said he hoped the indirect talks would lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible and encouraged the parties “to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”

Just such a thing happened Monday when Israel announced construction of 112 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Ilit. The administration had pushed hard — but unsuccessfully — last year for a complete freeze on settlements, and Israel’s new announcement came as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was meeting with Mitchell.

Now if Beitar Illit will remain part of Israel, why would building 112 houses there “inflame tensions?” I would think that orchestrating riots and honoring a terrorist are more obvious statements of contempt for peace.

In a similar vein we see in a Washington Post editorial:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has resisted direct negotiations partly out of a conviction that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is intransigent. And Mr. Netanyahu regularly offers evidence that this is so. He recently appeared to rule out Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, which previous Israeli governments have conceded to a future Palestinian state, and he allowed new Jewish settlement construction to proceed in the West Bank despite the “freeze” he announced several months ago. Mr. Abbas, for his part, already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.

The New York Times though, clarifies something:

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports two states but wants the Palestinian side to be demilitarized and to accept an Israeli military presence on its future eastern border to prevent the import of weapons and rockets that could be aimed at Israel’s population centers.

The Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, then, is a precaution. After being burned time and again by the Palestinians after withdrawing from territory, Netanyahu talks about protecting his country from that happening again. That’s a sign of intransigence?

But more generally that paragraph is disturbing. To defend Abbas claims that Netanyahu is being “intransigent” is dishonest. The editorial itself acknowledges that Abbas “…already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.” That, to me, is the definition of intransigence. Yet somehow the adjective, “intransigent” in its various forms somehow only describes Israeli leaders.

The Post’s editors can lament that Netanyahu isn’t as generous as his predecessors. But the reason there is no peace that Abbas and Arafat before him rejected generous offers. If they are demanding that Netanyahu accept deals that were previously rejected by the other side they are in fact rewarding intransigence, not advocating for peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.

Was that toll “disproportionate” to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?

These observations give some background for what comes next: a harsh repudiation of the Goldstone report.

A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.

But Israel refused to cooperate — and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that “disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy” by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.

The contrast between the events described in the opening two paragraphs and the reaction to Israel’s war against Hamas could not be clearer. The editorial correctly infers that Israel is being held to an impossible standard.

I could quibble with the editorial. How could the Post’s editors describe Judge Goldstone as “respected” at this point, even as they show his absolute disregard for any legal standards? And did the Post’s editors really expect anything else? After all if the investigation was about establishing international standards shouldn’t the commission have investigated NATO’s war against the Taliban or even the war against Serbia from a decade ago? Clearly the commission was convened specifically to hamstring Israel’s efforts to defend itself.

Still this shouldn’t take away from the importance of the editorial. The editorial should also serve as a rebuke to put upon NGO’s like Human Rights Watch. If they were true to their mission they wouldn’t have uncritically endorsed Goldstone. Rather Goldstone was doing their work for them; giving the imprimatur of the UN on a condemnation of Israel. What matters to HRW, is not the methods but the conclusion. If the conclusion damns Israel, it must be correct. Fortunately the editors of the Washington Post are more discerning.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Here’s a good article on Hamas and how it’s a barrier to peace, with no illusions about the group moderating or being misunderstand. The article also points out how Hamas is responsible for continuing sanctions on Gaza and is uninterested in trying to improve the living standards of is own people.

Perhaps I’m nitpicking but I wasn’t so impressed with the article. There were two paragraphs that bugged me.

First, in the middle, there was this:

Hamas, which was founded as an Islamist alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization and whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, is considered a terrorist group by the United States for its sponsorship of suicide attacks and the launching of thousands of missiles and mortar shells from Gaza into Israel. The group draws financial and material support from Iran and Syria. Hamas says its attacks on Israel are defensive and a legitimate tactic in Palestinian efforts to establish a homeland.

“[I]s considered a terrorist group?” It is, by definition, a terrorist group for precisely the reasons stated. Second, when the reporter uses the term “legitimate tactic,” he allows that claim to stand unchallenged.

At the end of the article we read:

According to officials from Hamas and analysts of the group, those conditions are unlikely to be accepted, cutting as they do to the core of the group’s ideology and strategy. Just as there is no sense that the language of Hamas leaders has come close to meeting those requirements, despite talk of a possible compromise, there has been no obvious effort by Mitchell’s team to try to reshape the conditions.

What does “reshape the conditions” mean? And why does the article seem critical that Mitchell won’t? I’d understand the term to mean “water down the demands” and I see no reason for Mitchell to do so. And why should Mitchell “reshape the conditions?” So Israel will be forced to deal with an unrepentant terrorist organization?

Finally, the reporter, Howard Schneider compares Mitchell’s work here with his work with the IRA. There’s one important difference. The IRA wanted England gone from Northern Ireland; Hamas (and Fatah, for that matter) want Israel gone. Period.

I can’t disagree that Schneider hit on the points that Barry Rubin emphasized. I still find his packaging problematic.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad