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

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.

Naturally J-Street’s MJ Rosenberg (via memeorandum) started name calling:

Of course, the Washington Post is not an Israeli paper so its defense of even the most indefensible Israeli policy — the refusal to freeze settlements — is just weird. Fred Hiatt (the editorial page editor), neocon hero Charles Krauthammer and columnist Bill Kristol consistently defend Israeli policies with a zealousness they last demonstrated when pushing for war with Iraq.

Where was Rosenberg six months ago when the same Hiatt was questioning whether Israel ought to be fighting a war of self defense or giving op-ed space to Hamas apologists? I realize that Rosenberg considers anyone who isn’t as reflexively anti-Israel as he is to be pro-Israel and out of the mainstream. However the Post’s measured criticism of the President can hardly be considered a sign of it’s being pro-Israel.

If the Post’s editors are taking this stand, I think that a lot of it has goes back to their meeting Mahmoud Abbas two months ago. AS Jonathan Tobin recalls:

As Mahmoud Abbas, the supposedly moderate head of the Palestinian Authority, recently told the Washington Post, he has no intention of dealing with Israel. Instead, he will sit back and wait for Obama to keep applying the screws to America’s only democratic ally in the region.

Jennifer Rubin extrapolates:

Well, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Perhaps others in Congress and those still spinning so furiously for Obama (Alan Dershowitz included) can at least concede that whatever Obama thought he might be able to achieve by alienating our ally has proven to be counterproductive. He has lost the trust of the Israelis and encouraged intransigence among Palestinians and Arab states.

Israel Matzav adds that the President has lived down to expectations.

The editors of the New York Times, though, are all in favor of President Obama’s approach. Though initially concerned with Abbas’s performance, they seem to have gotten over it. Today they applaud the President’s pressure and beg him to keep it up in The Settlements Issue.

Mr. Obama and his negotiator, George Mitchell, have focused on settlements after prying loose a commitment — highly caveated — from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a two-state solution. The Palestinians insist they won’t return to talks until all construction halts. The Americans have decided that a freeze is needed to show Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel’s conservative government is serious about peace.

Given the makeup of the “moderate” Fatah party that Israel is supposed to make peace with, focusing on whether PM Netanyahu said the magic words seems to be a bit of misdirection. The following paragraph lets us know how dishonest the editors of the Times are:

Less visibly, but we hope just as assertively, the administration is pressing the Palestinians and other Arab leaders to take concrete steps to demonstrate their commitment to a peace deal. Those must clearly contribute to Israel’s sense of security.

“[W]e hope just as assertively…” If the pressure was “visible,” it could be just as assertive. The fact that it’s being applied privately (if at all) shows that it is clearly not as assertive. And as the editorial itself acknowledges towards the end, it hasn’t been effective at all.

President Obama and Mr. Mitchell claim they are making progress, but so far there is little sign of it. Saudi Arabia, which has pushed Washington hard to revive negotiations, has been especially resistant. Mr. Mitchell would do well to remind them that a prolonged stalemate will only feed extremism across the region.

So the Times supports the President’s “visible” pressure on Israel even though it acknowledges that the policy is yielding no diplomatic benefits. The editorial conclude:

Israeli leaders do not often risk being at odds with an American president, but polls show broad support for Mr. Netanyahu’s resistance. President Obama, a skilled communicator, has started a constructive dialogue with the Islamic world. Now he needs to explain to Israelis why freezing settlements and reviving peace talks is clearly in their interest.

The broad support is for PM Netanyahu’s policies so far which represent the views of the majority of the Israeli electorate.

Obama is a skilled (if overrated) orator. He is not a skilled communicator as he often does not listen to others. He hasn’t started a “constructive dialogue with the Islamic world,” as much as he as assured them and demonstrated to them that he intends to pressure Israel to accommodate their demands, while paying only lip service to the demands he makes on them. Naturally that has led to a hardening of their positions.

President Obama doesn’t need to explain to Israel why “freezing settlements and reviving peace talks is to Israel’s benefit. Plenty of diplomats, politicians, journalists and academics have been explaining things to Israel for the past 40 years. Since 1993 has heeded most of this advice only to see its security undermined and its diplomatic position in no way enhanced.

Perhaps what the President needs to do is to use his vaunted communication skills to convince the Arabs that they have more to gain by making peace with Israel even if Israel doesn’t accede to every demand of the Palestinians.

We’ve just seen a “teachable moment” in the history of Middle East diplomacy. The editors of the Washington Post seem to have learned something; the editors of the New York Times and the President seem not to.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Washington’s lobbying machine deprived Barack Obama of a valuable adviser.

I’m not going to bother with David Broder’s Chas Freeman’s withdrawal is a loss for the country.

However on the op op-ed page the editors of the Washington Post weigh in on Chas Freeman failed nomination with a fantastic editorial. (via memeorandum) I’m often critical of Hiatt and co. but today they were right on.

It wasn’t until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

While the editors of the Post seem now to have been bothered by the appointment, they found Freeman’s statement on his withdrawal confirmation of his unfitness. This is an important point. That statement was vicious and as Jake Tapper noted, it was in response to a pretty standard debate over a candidates fitness. Is there any Freeman supporter who read that statement and said, “Gee, this guy really is extreme?” If there were any, I haven’t read them yet. This gives further credence to the thought that Freeman’s supporters were driven more by his anti-Israel stands than for his “contrarian” views.

The Post scores another hit:

For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn’t bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman’s most formidable critic — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — was incensed by his position on dissent in China.

Damn that Chinese democracy lobby! (The Post’s reporter, Walter Pincus reported that an AIPAC official gave reporters negative information about Freeman when asked for background on the appointee.)

And this:

But let’s consider the ambassador’s broader charge: He describes “an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.” That will certainly be news to Israel’s “ruling faction,” which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.

The editors conclude:

But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges — and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.

Yes, they did become famous, didn’t they?

And Jennifer Rubin adds:

And that is where the story now leads us, they correctly note. How was it that Blair placed him in this role? And why should we now have confidence in his judgment?

And as far as Freeman’s famous contrariness, consider what James Fallows wrote:

For any of those roles, a man like Freeman might not be the prudent choice. But as head of the National Intelligence Council, my friend said, he would be exactly right. While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask “What if everybody’s wrong?”, to force attention to the doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as “groupthink.” As Dan Froomkin of NiemanWatch wrote in an item that called Freeman “A One-Man Destroyer of Groupthink,”

He has… spent a goodly part of the last 10 years raising questions that otherwise might never get answered — or even asked — because they’re too embarrassing, awkward, or difficult.
For him to be put in charge of what [Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy] calls “the intelligence community’s primary big-think shop and the lead body in producing national intelligence estimates” is about the most emphatic statement the Obama Administration could possibly make that it won’t succumb to the kind of submissive intelligence-community groupthink that preceded the war in Iraq.

Actually the website is called Nieman Watchdog. But I read Froomkin’s interview with Freeman there and his description of Freeman. I saw nothing to distinguish Freeman’s views there. I saw one Bush critic, Froomkin, admiring another Bush critic, Freeman. Their views were pretty standard anti-Bush views. I’m not sure what impressed Fallows so much.

On the Post’s electronic op-ed page, Charles Lane makes the same point in the Real Chas Freeman.

Now, you can agree or disagree with Freeman’s take — I think it’s rubbish. But one thing it definitely is not is original. Susan Sontag said more or less the same thing just after September 11, 2001. You can get some version of this “analysis” any day of the week in the blogosphere or the Middle East Studies programs of our major universities.

As best I can tell, what distinguishes Freeman from other retailers of these clichés is attitude. It’s not just that he believes what he believes, he insists on sneering at or questioning the intelligence and good faith of those who disagree — while trumpeting his own supposed intellectual bravery. This has its ugliest manifestation, of course, in his embrace of conspiracy theories about the “Israel Lobby.”

So while the MSM today seems to be missing the point about the Freeman controversy, the editorial pages of the Washington Post are home to some good points.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah’s mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.

(I pointed out back then the hollowness of these “benefits.”)

When Hamas won in Palestinian elections three years ago, the Washington Post hailed the result as presenting new “opportunities” in “Hamas’s Choice.”

THE VICTORY of Hamas in the Palestinian elections creates fresh opportunities as well as dangers in the Middle East. The Islamic fundamentalist movement will now come under extraordinary pressure to cease all acts of terrorism, help restore order in the turbulent Gaza Strip and moderate its rejection of Israel. The pressure will come not only from Western governments and aid donors but from its own constituents. Hamas’s leaders had hoped to use a minority position in the Palestinian legislature to exercise a veto over peace talks with Israel while avoiding disarmament and wider responsibility. As leader of the cabinet that will be formed under President Mahmoud Abbas, the Islamists will find their straddle of democracy and terrorism far more difficult to maintain.

The Post even gave Hamas honcho Mousa Abu-Marzook the space to opine, “What Hamas is seeking.”

We appeal to the American people’s sense of fairness to judge this conflict in light of the great thoughts, principles and ideals you hold dear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the democracy you have built. It is not unreasonable to expect America to practice abroad what it preaches at home. We can but sincerely hope that you use your honest judgment and the blessings of ascendancy God has given you to demand an end to the occupation. Meaningful democracy cannot flourish as long as an external force maintains the balance of power. It is the right of all people to pursue their own destiny.

So the election of Hamas and the subsequent disengagement from Gaza, gave Hamas the opportunity to rule territory, Gaza, and subsequently turned it into a source of terror against Israel. Anyone familiar with Hamas would have concluded that this was the likely path Hamas would take. If the Washington Post has regretted its promotion of Hamas or felt let down, its editors haven’t been that explicit. However what really bothers the Washington Post, is the result of the Israeli election as they let us know today in “Israel’s Step Backwards.”

ISRAEL’S ELECTION last week propelled the country back in time to a political era when the parliament was sharply divided between parties that favored or opposed a two-state settlement with Palestinians. As in the 1980s, the right has the upper hand: Likud party leader Binyamin Netanyahu appears to have the best chance to become prime minister, even though his party finished second behind the centrist Kadima. Americans who remember Mr. Netanyahu’s last stint as prime minister in the 1990s — and there are several in the Obama administration who were working on Mideast policy then — have to be concerned that he would repeat his strategy of seeking to delay or undermine all peace negotiations with the Palestinians. He might also press for Israeli or American military action against Iran, and he has promised to “topple” and “uproot” Hamas from the Gaza Strip.

As I pointed out the other day, Netanyahu was vilified for insisting that Arafat stick to his agreements. Apparently then the Post recognizes no obligations that the Palestinians have towards Israel (or even their own people). All that the Post requires for peace is Israeli acquiescence to international pressures to withdraw from ever more territory.

If the Post had published such a comparable editorial before the election of Hamas, it would have concluded,
“Hamas might also continue launching terror attacks against Israel.” In that case it would have been correct. Instead it presented terror as once of the choices before Hamas and expressed the vain hope that it would choose democracy.

Mr. Netanyahu has said that he hopes to form a broad government including Kadima and possibly even the left-wing Labor party, which finished fourth behind an ultranationalist ticket. That would mimic the Israeli governments of the 1980s, which paralyzed the peace process but not the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Kadima and Labor, which favor continued talks on a two-state deal with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, would be wise to stay out of a Netanyahu-led government.

Was the paralysis during the 1980’s really so bad? Israel made progress (by the Post’s reckoning) in the 1990’s and was rewarded with increasing terror. It’s also interesting that the Post abhors a Netanyahu government and yet dismisses the idea of having more leftist parties join the Likud. So does the Post really favor a right wing government in Israel? Finally, just remember that the Post welcomed the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinians government but positively fears a centrist government run by Likud. It says a lot about how the editors of the Washington Post judge concepts such as “extreme” and “moderate.”

Having promised more active diplomacy in the Middle East, the Obama administration will have to grapple with how to advance its aims despite what could be fundamental disagreements with Israel’s new leaders. One way to do so is to push for the conclusion by the outgoing Israeli government of a cease-fire with Hamas. Egypt was reported last week to be close to brokering a deal that would promise an 18-month halt in hostilities, the freeing of a captive Israeli soldier as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and the opening of Gaza border crossings. Such a deal could forestall the renewed military attack on Gaza that Mr. Netanyahu has been hinting at. It might also lead to an agreement between Hamas and Mr. Abbas that would restore a single Palestinian government.

BTW, it doesn’t appear that the outgoing Israeli government is the snag to a new ceasefire. Why isn’t the Post recommending that the new administration push Hamas? Or are pressure and concessions only applicable to Israel. And of course, the Post recommends restoring the Palestinian government by including Hamas.

The largest obstacle to these deals lies not in Israel but in Syria, where the hard-line leadership of Hamas is based. President Obama has promised a restored U.S. dialogue with Syria; a request for cooperation on Hamas would be a useful opening test of Damascus’s intentions. The administration may also be able to cooperate with the new Israeli government on improving the economy and security forces of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

So Israel gets pushed and the terrorists of Hamas (who are honored with op-eds in the Washington Post) should get a “request for cooperation.”

At the same time, the Obama administration should not adopt the Bush administration’s practice of accepting Israeli positions as givens. Whether or not the new government favors negotiations on a Palestinian state, Mr. Obama should challenge it to continue the process started by outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mr. Abbas. If Israel does not comply with its own commitments to dismantle illegal West Bank settlements, the administration should hold it accountable. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford another government that obstructs a Middle East peace.

Wow finally in the last sentence the Post gets it right! Neither Israel nor the United States can afford more Palestinian obstructionism! (I don’t think that’s what the Post meant.)

The Post mocks the Bush administration for “accepting Israeli positions as givens,” but in the 1990’s when the Clinton administration didn’t do that (especially when Netanyahu was Prime Minister – when it accepted the Palestinian positions as givens) that didn’t improve the prospects for peace. Looking at the end of the Clinton administration we can say that it did quite the opposite.

It’s ironic that the Post is more concerned with “illegal West Bank settlements” than with illegal terror. Or that it believes that only Israel ought to be held “accountable” but never the Palestinians. Or that only Israel needs to be “pushed” or “challenged.”

If the Oslo Accords had worked as advertised, Netanyahu would never have been elected in 1996 and Sharon never would have been elected in 2001. If the disengagement had worked Kadima would have won a decisive victory this year. This isn’t a matter of Israel moving to the right; it’s a matter of Israelis responding to terror threats. These have increased, not diminished since 1993. For the Post to pretend that Israel is the main reason that there’s no peace in the Middle East is ludicrous and counterfactual.

Last week I criticized a Washington Post report for equating Likud with Hamas. The Post’s editorial page goes further; it considers Likud worse than Hamas.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

In many ways, the deep split in the Israeli electorate mirrors the split within the Palestinian government, between the Fatah party that controls the West Bank and the Hamas organization that controls the Gaza Strip. Fatah favors a negotiated settlement with Israel; Hamas rejects Israel’s existence. Israeli and Palestinian societies are so divided, with such politically weak leaders, that few believe either the Israelis or the Palestinians can muster the will to reach a deal.

Fatah on one hand is headed by a Holocaust denier and another “moderate” who denies the historical Jewish ties to the land of Israel. There is no evidence that Fatah has fully rejected its terrorist past. Hamas is more explicit of its hatred towards Israel.

On the other hand, governments of Likud, Labor and Kadima have all ceded land and given resources to the PA to create their own state.

There is no mirror between the sides. This is not reporting but editorializing.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Israel’s leaders are on the verge of giving Hamas its wish. Its top leaders also rejected the U.N. cease-fire resolution passed Thursday night; now they appear to be debating whether to throw thousands of reserve soldiers into a street-by-street battle. It’s not clear what the aim of the new offensive might be. Some Israelis are calling for the overthrow of Hamas’s rule in Gaza; others urge a more limited operation to seize a strip of territory along the border with Egypt, which would allow Israel to more directly attack tunnels through which Hamas smuggles weapons.

The wish of Hamas, according to the Post, are higher civilian casualties so that Hamas can win the propaganda war. But as David Horovitz writes, the fighting is taking a huge toll on Hamas.

Israeli ministers were told on Sunday that at least some of Hamas’s leaders in Gaza are desperate for a cease-fire, on almost any terms. Hamas has sustained significant losses. Some of its fighters are going AWOL. Others have been captured. Amir Mansi, Gaza City’s Kassam commander, was reduced to firing his own rocket at Israel on Saturday, and was killed by the IDF in the process.

More and more Gazans, the intelligence briefing went on, though overwhelmingly blaming Israel for their plight and redoubled in their hostility, are nonetheless also furious with Hamas for having built bunkers and tunnels but not bomb-shelters; for looting aid supplies; for using civilians as human shields while the leadership hides away.

Two things to note about this. One is that Israel is successfully degrading Hamas’s ability to inflict terror on its population. And the second is that Hamas is losing political support. It’s hard to understand why either of these is a bad development, but the Post tells us that they are.

Either operation would probably do Israel more harm than good — while raising the already considerable political cost of the war for the United States as well as for Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s de facto allies against Hamas. Israeli officials have rightly been wary of taking action that would leave their troops bogged down in Gaza — but several of the options being considered would do just that. For now, there is no responsible Palestinian party to which Israel could hand control of Gaza or even the land near the Egyptian border; the Palestinian Authority, even if willing, remains too weak. Nor is it clear that Israel is capable of stopping either the smuggling or the rocket launches by military means. During the last several years before Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it was unable to do so.

That last sentence is extremely misleading. No Israel couldn’t stop all the smuggling before 2005. But since then and since Israel surrendered the Philadelphi corridor the smuggling got much worse. What the Post doesn’t appreciate is that Israel faced a threat and is now fighting to reduce the threat. If the Post objects to that, it might as well admit that Israel ought not to defend itself instead of hiding behind such transparent arguments.

But by looking to what will follow the fighting, the Post misses an essential point that Barry Rubin makes.

In addition, Israelis know that Hamas is totally dedicated to their personal and collective destruction. The group will not moderate, cannot be bought off, and will not respect any agreement it makes. As a result, the usual kinds of diplomatic tools–concessions, confidence-building, agreements, moderation resulting from having governmental responsibilities, will not work. Any solution short of Hamas’s fall from power will bring more fighting in future.

Rubin lays at six reasonable gains Israel can make from the current fighting. While he acknowledges that some of the positive results may be temporary. Still the chances of there being any long term gains if Hamas remains in power are virtually zero.

And yet it appears that the Washington Post wants Hamas to remain in power, ensuring ongoing instability.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Many Palestinians who voted for Hamas don’t support the Islamists’ fundamentalist agenda: Polls show that large majorities want an end to violence and a resumption of peace talks with Israel. Wednesday’s vote was not an embrace of extremism, but — as President Bush suggested yesterday — a rejection of the corrupt and incompetent clique of leaders left behind by Yasser Arafat. Since Arafat’s death more than a year ago, his Fatah movement had been unable to reform itself or control its violent elements, despite the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. Now, perhaps, a new generation of secular leaders will be able to purge Fatah and prepare to offer Palestinians a better alternative, while crooks and armed thugs are cut from the government’s payroll. Mr. Abbas himself should remain in office, as Mr. Bush urged yesterday, and will retain considerable power to check a Hamas-led government.

This is actually false, as Khaled Abu Toameh recently wrote:

Back then, Hamas ran in the parliamentary election under the banner of Change and Reform. Its leaders promised the Palestinians good government and an end to financial corruption. But Hamas also promised the Palestinians that it would “pursue the resistance against the Israeli enemy.” It also pledged never to recognize Israel’s right to exist in this part of the world.

To its credit, Hamas did not hide its agenda. Its leaders were very clear in the messages they sent to the Palestinian public and the international community. Hamas’s message was the same in Arabic and English.

Despite evidence to the contrary, at the time, the editors of the Post persisted in claiming that the election was about Fatah’s corruption not about Hamas’s commitment to destroy Israel. So later they wrote:

Hamas’s eagerness to avoid hard choices was evident in the swiftness with which its leaders proposed yesterday to form a “unity” government with Fatah despite the Islamists’ control of 76 of the 132 seats in the legislature. The two parties will have to forge some agreement on security, since each effectively controls its own armed forces, with those of Fatah now funded by the government; war between the two is a danger.

For the editors of the Post Hamas had a hard choice to make. After all they supported the election that brought Hamas to power. But if the editors of the Post thought that Hamas would have to choose between peace with pragmatism and continued terror, they were deluding themselves. An organization does not readily cede its raison d’etre.

Yesterday’s editorial, Escalation in Gaza, shows the same self-deception is still in play.

The problem is that Israel probably cannot end the rocket fire by military means alone. Nor, without toppling the Hamas government and reoccupying part or all of Gaza, can it unilaterally ensure that Hamas does not rebuild its arsenal once the current fighting ends. To win this mini-war, Israel will have to rely on the United States, Egypt, Turkey or possibly European governments to broker a settlement. By that measure, a victory for Israel still appears uncertain — and the ground attack may not help its cause.

Allowing Hamas to compete in the elections is one of the causes of the current violence. Hamas, in its campaign showed that it was not interested in accepting the niceties of democratic government. It won’t be easy for Israel to win, but defeating Hamas will have to be part of the solution. Diplomacy hasn’t worked.

Hamas is unreceptive because it hopes to replicate what it sees as the success of Hezbollah during its 2006 battle with Israel in Lebanon. The Shiite militia gained political power in Lebanon and prestige around the Middle East simply by surviving the Israeli assault. Israel has been drawn into escalating its offensive so as to force Hamas to settle. On Thursday and Friday it began bombing the homes of Hamas leaders, killing one senior figure; yesterday armored columns drove across the border to begin what will likely be a costly battle with entrenched Hamas fighters. While justified by Hamas’s continuing attempts to kill Israeli civilians, the invasion heightens the risks that Israel has faced all along. Even a defeat of Hamas on the ground might not end the missile threat, and it could be forced into a full-scale occupation of Gaza. That outcome would be a serious blow to Israel’s larger interests — and those of the United States.

Instead of conceding that a defeat of Hamas woujld be good for Israel (and for American interests) the Post’s editors fret about what would happen if Israel would re-occupy Gaza. I’m not convinced that that would be the disaster the Post’s editors feel that it was, but would it be worse than the disengagement was?

A defeat of Hamas, including the killing or capture of its leadership would be the first step. No it may not stop all rocket fire. On the other hand an organization that loses its leadership and specialists will be hard pressed to continue operating at top efficiency. Diplomacy, until now, is what’s allowed Hamas to build its threat against Israel. Recall that in late 2006, Israel was hesitant to open up all of Gaza’s border crossings.

Although tunneling in the area is as old as the border itself, Israeli military officials say higher-grade weapons are flowing through the passages to various Palestinian militias, whose arsenals until now have been relatively modest.

“These groups are constantly trying to expand and improve their weapons,” said Capt. Noa Meir, an Israeli military spokeswoman. “It would not be incorrect to say they are learning from Hezbollah.”

The Israeli military has presented little tangible evidence to support the claim. Palestinian officials say the military is citing the tunnels to argue for a large operation in Gaza that could help rehabilitate its reputation after the Lebanon experience. Israel’s security cabinet earlier this week ordered the military to prepare plans for a large operation.

Try as the Post’s reported did to dismiss Israel’s fears,the Israeli claim has been substantiated by events. Israel gave in to diplomacy and opened the Philadelphi corridor and that hampered its ability to stop the flow of weaponry into Gaza. So it is diplomacy and inaction that led to this war. Had Israel not had its hands tied from preventing the arming of Hamas, Israel’s citizens would not be under the threat they are now under. And Hamas would have neither the power nor the resources it now has. Those must be degraded for Israel to be safe.

It’s a little late in the game to hope that diplomacy will save Hamas. It is diplomacy that has strengthened Hamas and made it a threat to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The editors of the Post have learned nothing.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

First is Ephraim Sneh’s Why Israel is bombing Gaza. Sneh, though a former general, is also one of most dovish members of the Israeli government. The op-ed seems to be a statement of the Israeli government’s position. Sneh starts off with an excellent timeline:

In September 2005, Israel vacated Gaza, dismantled all the settlements in the Gaza Strip and did not leave a shred of a presence there.

In January 2006, rule over Gaza passed to the Hamas government under Ismail Haniyeh. Instead of bringing investors to Gaza, the Hamas government brought the guerrilla-warfare trainers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Instead of launching economic projects, this government launched rockets every day at Israeli towns and villages across the border. They smuggled in vast amounts of explosives, weapons and rockets; they prepared themselves for battle.

In June 2007, in a brutal and bloody military coup, Hamas took control of Gaza and soon killed or chased out the leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement. Gaza became nothing less than a military base for Iran.

After making the case that even Palestinians in Gaza have tired of Hamas rule (something we don’t usually read in the news sections) Sneh writes what Israel is demanding:

Yet there is another way. Those demanding a cease-fire must produce a comprehensive solution, a “package” containing the following elements:

· Full dismantling of the military power of Hamas in Gaza, including destruction of all stockpiles of rockets and missiles.

· Transfer of control over border-crossings between Gaza and Egypt and between Gaza and Israel to the Palestinian Authority government of Salam Fayyad.

· Until the elections to the Palestinian parliament and the presidency in January 2010, Gaza is to be run by a civilian administration appointed by the government in Ramallah.

· Augmented Egyptian supervision of the border between Gaza and Egypt.

· The return of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

While I’m not crazy about trusting Fatah, this is a pretty tough set of demands. The third one means that Hamas is an illegitimate government and must be treated accordingly. I don’t have a problem with that. (And I wouldn’t have a problem if Israel demanded the surrender of Haniyeh and the rest of the Hamas leadership for trial either.) However, I can’t imagine that Hamas would approve that. And of course, the chorus of “but they were democratically elected, how can you claim that you respect democracy if you oppose the results of free and fair elections?” I suppose the response to that is “Hamas used its time in office to engage in terrorism rendering itself illegitimate. If you feel that Hamas ought to remain in power despite having engaged in such activity it means that you support terror against Israel.”

The second op-ed is Hard Truths about the Conflict by Robert J. Lieber. In the middle of the op-ed Lieber makes four points; the second and third are especially good.

Second, what we are witnessing is not a “cycle” of violence. The IDF airstrikes are a reaction to the unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks against the Jewish state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in the hope that the Palestinians would use the opportunity to prepare for an eventual agreement and a two-state solution in which they would live side by side in peace with Israel. Since then, there have been more than 3,500 such attacks aimed at areas of southern Israel, including over 200 launches since Dec. 19, after Hamas chose not to extend a six-month truce. The expanding range of these missiles now covers an area populated by as many as 700,000 Israelis.

Third, Israel and Hamas have profoundly different aims. Israel has accepted the principle of a two-state solution as the basis for ending the conflict. Hamas, by contrast, rejects this. Its language of “resistance” or “ending occupation” (even though no Israelis, civilian or military, other than the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, have “occupied” Gaza for the past three years) is but a veiled expression of Hamas’s actual objective: destroying Israel and creating an Islamist Palestinian state in its place. Credulous observers may see more peaceful purposes, but Hamas leaders periodically reassert these objectives, whether in the Hamas covenant or, in the words of a prominent Hamas cleric, Muhsen Abu ‘Ita, speaking on Al-Aqsa TV and calling for “the annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine.”

The points about the threat to Israel and the sincerity of Hamas are both important and too often get lost in media efforts to equate Israel with Hamas.

While it doesn’t undo the damage the Post has done the past few days, still it’s encouraging that the Post has finally opened its op-ed pages to a debate.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

But nothing of the sort happened; no truce has been offered by anyone involved, least of all Hamas, and there is nothing in the story that even begins to substantiate the claim made in the headline. The headline is simply fabricated from whole cloth, a piece of naked propaganda designed to portray Israel as an unreasonable aggressor.

Mere Rhetoric, Meryl and Elder of Ziyon noticed something else: The AP uncritically reported a false claim of Hamas that Israel had violated a truce understanding over the weekend.

This raises the question: Did the Washington Post’s headline writer decide to insert his own take on the conflict into the headline based on the false AP report?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.