Friday, briefly

Posted on 09/03/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Awesome! The UN gives up on Israel’s nukes: That will be one less anti-Israel report out of the UN, as investigators have given up because they can’t get the information they need for the report. Oh, like Israel is going to go along with yet another Israel-bashing UN committee. Unlike Iran, Israel never signed the NPT. The IEAE has no right to demand compliance in any way.

We’ll kill you if you try to make peace: That’s an old line I get to dust off and bring back, since Hamas and other terrorists are saying they’re going to keep killing Israelis because they’re trying to make peace. Of course, that’s just an excuse. They’re going to keep killign Israelis no matter what, unless the Israelis kill them first. My money’s on Israel. Oh, and check out this VOA update headline: Palestinian Militants Protest Peace Talks. The “protests” are the announcements that they will continue to target and kill Israelis. You gotta love that whitewashing. It’s nearly as good as the AP.

Okay, people, help us out here: If you can vote for the Byrd Theater in the Pepsi Refresh contest, they could win a quarter million bucks to refurbish one of Richmond’s oldest theaters. They’re great. They play older movies for two bucks a seat, they have a Wurlitzer on Saturday nights, and the snacks are low-cost as well. It’s a wonderful place for kids and grownups. (And if you can figure out how to log in and vote, let me know, because I’ve now failed twice.)

Posted in Israel, Movies | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Friday, briefly

If you keep rejecting a deal it probably means …

Posted on 09/03/2010 by Soccerdad

The New York Times features an analysis, Mideast expert fear peace talks are too ambitious. The headline is probably correct as Abbas has no real standing to make any deal. But this paragraph struck me:

But those urging a more modest approach argue that Mr. Netanyahu, the most conservative Israeli prime minister to have embarked on final status talks, is unlikely to offer more than his more centrist predecessor, Ehud Olmert. In late 2008, Mr. Olmert proposed an Israeli withdrawal from about 93 percent of the West Bank and compensatory land swaps. Mr. Abbas, who did not accept that offer, is unlikely to settle for less.

“[U]nilikely to settle for less?” So if having a state is so important why did Abbas reject the 93 percent? Or better yet, if Abbas rejected such a deal, why should he expect better?

Roger Simon:

Now here’s the thought experiment part. I’m assuming most of the readers here — in this case I’d wager 99% of you — have been in negotiations themselves. When you got 98% or even 88% of what you wanted, did you walk away and start a war… okay, just walk away? And if you did, why did you do that … when you were so close to making a deal? You could obviously hang around in negotiations and get most, if not all, of what you wanted.

Well, the answer is — no fair peeking — because you never wanted the deal in the first place.

Now Abbas didn’t start a war. Arafat did that in 2000. But the idea’s the same, given that he was so close how could he reject Olmert? The answer must be that Abbas didn’t want a deal. Nothing’s changed to make him want a deal now. After all, all those sophisticated peace processors have been telling him that Israel needs a deal more than he does, so the failure to reach a deal will never be his failure.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in palestinian politics | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Netanyahu narrative: He doesn’t really want peace

Posted on 09/03/2010 by Meryl Yourish

The anti-Israel (and anti-Bibi) narrative continues. In this AP peace processs analysis, the writer reports about critics on “both sides,” and yet, it is Netanyahu who is slammed throughout. Witness:

Analysts on both sides questioned the ability and desire of their leaders to negotiate a peace accord.

[…] In Washington, Netanyahu talked of creating a Palestinian state, a phrase he uttered for the first time just last year after strident opposition to the concept for two decades, and called for “mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”

But wait! There’s more!

Most Israeli analysts admitted to not knowing what was really on Netanyahu’s mind. Writing from Washington, veteran Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea was uncharacteristically ambivalent.

“If this was just for show, Netanyahu played it well,” Barnea wrote. “But perhaps this was not only a show. Not this time.”

No, wait! There’s even more!

Netanyahu’s Likud Party has been among the strongest backers of Israel keeping much or all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem and expanding Jewish settlements on land the Palestinians want for a future state. Netanyahu’s coalition government is a patchwork of Likud, the moderate Labor, the hawkish secular Yisrael Beitenu and ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas parties.

Wow, with all this, what does the writer have to say about Palestinian intransigence?

Palestinian political activist Mustafa Barghouti joined a demonstration against resumption of the talks, though he has supported peace efforts in the past. He charged that Israel’s settlement construction is sabotaging chances for peace. “We fear that all sides are losing the last opportunity for a two-state solution” of a Palestinian state next to Israel.

And:

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Abbas had no right to negotiate for the Palestinian people. “Therefore, any result and outcome of these talks does not commit us and does not commit our people, it only commits Abbas himself,” he said.

There are also quotes from Israelis in that section. So to sum up: Netanyahu doesn’t really want peace. Abbas does, but is being held back by a) Israeli settlement construction and b) Hamas.

I can’t remember who, but one of my friends who is also a pro-Israel analyst has told me that Mark Lavie is an unbiased reporter. I’m thinking not. The editor can only put so much spin on the article you write. Lavie is obviously no fan of Netanyahu. And it shows. Way to be objective, AP!

Posted in AP Media Bias, Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

More briefs!

Posted on 09/02/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Awesome! I get to piss off the Mormons again: Every time I post about the Mormons posthumously baptizing Jews, one of them manages to read my blog and post an angry comment. So here it is: The LDS say they’re going to stop baptizing Jews that died in the Holocaust. They’ve said that before. They’ve failed every time. This time, even the Utah press thinks it’s not gonna happen. Okay, Mormons, come on back and tell me how a) If the church says they’ll stop, they’ll stop and b) what’s the big deal about posthumous baptism, anyway? (Psst—it is extremely offensive to Jews that you are pretend-converting Jews to Mormonism those who died because they were Jews.) There, that oughta do it.

Most biased anti-Israel headline of the week: Time magazine wins the award with “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” The headline sucks. But the article is interesting, as it actually gives some Israeli viewpoints. I doubt its conclusion, however. I think Israelis care very much about peace. They just don’t believe the Palestinians want it.

Liberal blogger anti-Semitism: We’ve seen this over the years, but now there’s an actual study on anti-Semitic cartoons on progressive blogs. Apparently, the study perused Indymedia sites. Um. I no longer even bother pointing out the anti-Semitism of Indymedia sites. It’s like saying the sun rises in the east.

Hey, stop reminding us about our part in the extermination of six million Jews: A Jewish French teacher has been fired for teaching about the Holocaust. Yes, really.

A copy of the report, seen by AFP, accuses Pederzoli of “lacking distance, neutrality and secularism” in teaching the Holocaust and of manipulating her charges through a process of “brain-washing”.

Hm. Talking about religion during a course that teaches about people being killed for their religion—yeah, I can totally see how you’d want to teach about the Holocaust in a neutral fashion. Because it was such a cut-and-dried issue, the attempted murder of all of Europe’s Jews. Ah, France. You never fail to disappoint.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Media Bias, Religion | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Friedman’s false history

Posted on 09/02/2010 by Soccerdad

Thomas Friedman – the master of pithy phrase that means nothing and firm believer that there’s always one more Israeli concession that’s necessary for peace in the Middle East – clearly has experienced a different history from the one I did. Based on his column yesterday, You ain’t seen this before, let me try to reconstruct Thomas’s counterfactual history.

Friedman’s history: In 2003, Ariel Sharon won re-election as Prime Minister in a race against former IDF chief of staff, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak former General Amram Mitzna*, promising to withdraw all Israelis – soldiers and civilians from Gaza.
In reality Sharon campaigned against withdrawing from Gaza in contrast from Lipkin-Shahak who supported a withdrawal.

Friedman’s history: In order to build support within his own party, Sharon held a Likud referendum in 2004 on the topic of withdrawal. His arguments carried the day and he received a mandate from Likud to withdraw from Gaza.
In reality the rank and file of Likud rejected Sharon’s arguments and voted against the withdrawal. Though rebuffed at the polls, Sharon decided he would withdraw from Gaza, regardless.

Friedman’s history: So confident was Sharon of the benefits of the withdrawal from Gaza that when chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon warned of the dangers involved, Sharon thanked him for his concerns and extended his term for as traditionally was done for chiefs of staff.
In reality Ya’alon’s warning was not appreciated. Sharon refused to extend his term.

Friedman’s history: After disengagement showed that Israel’s commitment to peace, Fatah, the party now of Mahmoud Abbas, was strengthened and it won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.
In reality Hamas won those elections. Years of corruption took its toll on Fatah and Hamas claimed credit for forcing Israel from Gaza.

Friedman’s history: Seeing that the way of violence was repudiated, Hamas submitted to Fatah’s rule.
In reality, in 2007 Hamas launched a blood revolt against Fatahand took control of Gaza. Gaza then became a launching pad for rocket attacks against southern Israel, putting hundreds of thousands of Israelis at risk.

Friedman’s history: Hezbollah too, seeing that Israel withdrew from Gaza just as it had from southern Lebanon, put away its weapons and joined the Lebanese government.
In reality, Hezbollah never abandoned its terror. A cross border raid in 2006 led to a war in which northern Israel was targeted by thousands of Hezbollah missiles.

Friedman’s history: Now that violence had been repudiated by Israel’s enemies, Abbas accepted a peace treaty with Olmert in December 2008, calling for an Israeli withdrawal from over 90% of Judea and Samaria.
In reality Abbas refused to accept Olmert’s offer.

Why do I assume that Friedman experienced the history I outlined above? Because of this argument in his column:

Trust me, this is just the throat-clearing and gun-cleaning. Wait until we have a deal. Even if Israel agrees to swap land with the Palestinians so that 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank can stay put, it will mean that 60,000 will still have to be removed. It took Israel 55,000 soldiers to remove 8,100 Jewish settlers from Gaza, which was never part of the Land of Israel. Imagine when today’s Israeli Army, where the officer corps is increasingly drawn from religious Zionists who support the settler movement, is called on to remove settlers from the West Bank.

Other than acknowledging the murder Tuesday of four Israelis by Hamas, this is the main obstacle to peace that concerns Friedman. Clearly he never saw Sharon betray his mandate; he never saw Hamas take over Gaza; he never saw Hezbollah take over Lebanon; he never saw Abbas repeat the rejection of peace, following in the footsteps of his mentor Yasser Arafat. Supposedly the residents of Gaza threatened Sharon, but Sharon was never attacked. I realize that it’s easier for Friedman to worry about “settlers” and “religious Zionists.” They make great bogeymen. And believing that “settlers” are the main obstacle to peace, means that Friedman doesn’t need to re-evaluate his assumptions.

The Arab side has demonstrated its disinterest in peace over the past seventeen years, pocketing Israel concessions and refusing to make the slightest accomodation for peace. (The only major exception during this time was King Hussein of Jordan.) Instead of rethinking his positions it’s easier to blame Israelis.

Most of all, Friedman is intellectually lazy, unwilling to reconsider his deeply held belief that there’s always a concession that Israel can make (but didn’t) that would bring peace.

Finally, however easy Friedman thinks peace will be if only Israel makes the necessary concessions read Yaacov Lozowick, Here’s the risk. Yaacov Lozowick may believe many of the same things that Friedman does, but he lives in the real world not in some fantasy world.

*UPDATE: It’s very embarrassing making a mistake, especially in a post deriding someone else’s reading of history. Thanks to commenter David Starr who pointed out that in 2003 Sharon’s rival was former Haifa Mayor Amram Mitzna then the leader of Labor, not former chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who led the ill fated Center Party and ran in 1999.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged | 3 Comments

Briefs

Posted on 09/02/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Turkey is starting to get the piper’s bill: The U.S. military will withdraw again from the annual joint military exercises with Turkey and Israel if Turkey excludes Israel again. The question for the Turks, then, is who do they think is the strong horse? The U.S., or Iran? (Here’s a hint, in case they need one: It’s us.)

Say, QUIT: Are you listening yet? Israel charged eight members of an Arab-Israeli family with kidnapping their gay son because they don’t like his performing as a drag queen in Tel Aviv. Yes, boys, you’re on the wrong side in this fight.

Liar, liar, pants on fire: Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the chief terrorists of Hamas, is lying to the media and telling them there’s no connection to the attacks on Israelis in the past two days and the peace talks taking place. Uh-huh. It’s just coincidental timing. By the way, here’s what the “moderate” Hamas had to say about the two-state solution:

“We want Gaza to remain calm because we liberated it. At this time we are not speaking of the liberation of all of Palestine. The current plan is to liberate the West Bank.”

Looks like all that figuring out how to get rid of the garbage as governors of Gaza didn’t moderate Hamas nearly as much as the world said it would. But let’s not confuse the issue with the facts: It was a free and fair democratic election. Just ask Jimmy Carter, who has said for years that Hamas wants peace with Israel. Shyeah.

The AP spin on the peace talks: The usual. Abbas is weak, and Bibi is hardline. Did we get an actual condemnation of the killing of civilians from Abbas? No. But Bibi is the hardline one. And what is the first crisis? Is it the murder of four Civilians in the PA-controlled West Bank? Nope. It’s The Obstacles To Peace: Settlements.

Despite that optimistic timetable, the first crisis is expected as early as next month, when Netanyahu has to decide whether to extend a 10-month freeze on Israeli settlement building on lands the Palestinians want for their state. Abbas has warned he’ll quit the talks unless the freeze continues, but Netanyahu has so far made no commitments.

Damn that hardline Netanyahu and his Obstacles to Peace settlements! He’s ruining the peace process by refusing to stop building in Ma’ale Adumim, a suburb of Jerusalem that the Palestinians have pretty much already agreed to swap for! Stupid hardliner. It’s all his fault there’s no peace. Ignore the regular stream of Palestinian politicians honoring terrorist mass-murders. It’s the settlements, stupid.

Posted in Hamas, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Terrorism | Tagged , | 4 Comments

How the Peace Stoppage May Become a Process

Posted on 09/01/2010 by Rabbi Kaufman

Much of the discussion on the Palestinian side in recent months centers on two plans should the peace process fail. One is aimed at forcing Israel to accept the entire population of the West Bank, if not also Gaza, into Israel while the other threatens to have the world unilaterally grant the Palestinian people the 1967 border.

The first threat is to dissolve the PA, essentially ending the process begun in the 1990s and returning Israel to the status of a fully occupying power. There are no few problems with this, not the least of which is the fact that Fatah members would be slaughtered by Hamas supporters if they attempted to make this threat a reality. Fatah being in control is the only thing that keeps Hamas from seizing power. In other words, there wouldn’t be a power vacuum for long and it would be highly detrimental to Fatah. I could explain the numerous ways in which this action is problematic from the Israeli side, but because of the amount of damage to the Palestinian side, it will never come about.

So threat #2, unilaterally declaring a state. This plan, every now an then trumpeted by Salam Fayyad, is actually a declaration of war, not a plan of peace. Not only that, but it would need US approval and functionally involve the US siding with the Palestinians in a war against Israel. I think we can see where this plan is going. Nowhere.

That these two threats continue to be issued by the PA is good indication that the Palestinians have no idea what the parameters of the negotiations are. That needs to change. If the world wants the peace process to go anywhere, the US and EU must say that under no circumstances will Israel be forced to annex the population of the West Bank should talks fail. That the US and EU will reject any overture recognizing Palestinian claims to citizenship in a nation that they seek to destroy, provided Israel maintains the possibility of creating a separate Palestinian state. Obviously THIS allows for some criticism of Israel, namely is it continuing to allow for such a creation because of settlement expansion? But here the answer is that as long as settlements can be abandoned, there is such a possibility.

The utter rejection of the possibility of forcing Israel to accept the population of the West Bank and/or Gaza as Israeli citizens and the rejection of recognition of Palestinian rights to the 1967 border as such would give the Palestinians the options of either dealing with a terrible status quo or pursuing the best deal they can for their own state instead of continually threatening to destroy Israel should it fail to agree to national suicide. Until then, the peace process will continue to be a peace stoppage.

Posted in Israel | 1 Comment

The “cbm” imbalance

Posted on 09/01/2010 by Soccerdad

The New York Times today reports Killing of Israeli Settlers Rattles Leaders.

First of all, they were not settlers, they were people. When terror attacks claim the lives of Jews living in Judea and Samaria, the Times can’t keep its politics out of the reporting. I noticed this too, after the massacre of the Hatuel family. The Washington Post acknowledges the humanity of the victims, calling them Israelis.

I find this more than a little curious:

The Palestinian Authority also condemned the attacks, which occurred just before its president, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Palestinian spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said the attack by Hamas, the authority’s rival, underlined “the need to proceed quickly toward a just and lasting peace agreement,” which he said would “put an end to these acts.”

What is Rudeineh saying? Is that a “condemnation”?
Or is it simply another way of stating Ali Abuminah’s disgusting tweet? Isn’t he saying that unless agrees to Palestinian terms, Israel can expect a continuation of terror?

(Elder of Ziyon notes Fayyad’s self serving “condemnation.”)

The Times continues:

Even before the attack, settlements were looming as a potential deal-breaker in the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to commit to extending a partial moratorium on construction in the West Bank, which expires Sept. 26, while Mr. Abbas has said it will be very hard to keep talking if construction resumes. Mr. Netanyahu has not struck any private deals with President Obama or anyone else on the moratorium, American and Israeli officials said.

Compare that with this sentence towards the end:

The stop-and-go Israeli-Palestinian peace process has often taken place in the shadow of bloody attacks.

So the peaceful building of Jewish communities (in places where the Palestinians, (admittedly) don’t want them is considered a “dealbreaker.” However terrorism only casts a “shadow” on the peace process?

This is the problem with cbm’s. Actions that Israel is deemed obligated to take, take on the force of a commitment. Or, more precisely, the failure for Israel to do so, is regarded as an unforgivable breach in the peace process. Whereas when the Palestinians regularly fail in something basic to peace – like stopping terror or incitement – it’s treated like a nuisance, sometimes barely worth mentioning.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , | Comments Off on The “cbm” imbalance

While the bodies are still warm

Posted on 09/01/2010 by SnoopyTheGoon

Ghada Karmi, a nasty propagandist, one of many in the Guardian’s service, excelled in her article A Middle East peace that wreaks havoc. The lede of the article speaks for the rest of it: “With the odds stacked so strongly in Israel’s favour, Palestinians rightly view the US talks with dread“. Palestinians, at least the ones from Hamas, listen carefully to Ms Karmi. And act on her missives without delay.

The four were two couples – one aged 25 and the other 40. One of the women was pregnant. According to eyewitness reports, the terrorists succeeded in hitting the passengers in their initial fire but then approached the car and shot them occupants at close range.

Being what they are (namely Hamas) they are quite proud of this achievement:

A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said the Islamist group praises the attack and considers it a natural response to “the crimes of occupation.”

Yes, it’s Hamas’ natural and traditional response to a possibility (remote as it was to start with) of peace that could wreck havoc. Of which havoc Ms Karmi is so afraid.

But it’s no good to speak out in the heat of the moment. Ms Karmi will undoubtedly answer that, as “academic and writer” she is against all violence and will indignantly reject any insinuations to the contrary. After all, what she deals with is mere words. Some innocent adjustments to the history – an omission or five here, a slight change there, and voila: another building block in the Palestinian skyscraper of national mythology. Like this:

When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused.

Do you want more of it? Read the whole article, it’s fuller of such tweaks of reality than a stray dog is full of ticks. No professional fisking required.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Hamas, Terrorism | 2 Comments

Comparing condemnations

Posted on 09/01/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Terror attacks are apparently not an obstacle to peace. The Obama administration didn’t The State Department does not feel the need to issue a scathing condemnation of the attackers who murdered four Israeli civilians, including a pregnant woman. It’s far too busy condemning rabbis for “incitement.” Say, let’s take a look at that “incitement” that the State Department condemned:

During his weekly lesson, held at the synagogue near his house in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har-Nof, the rabbi mentioned the blessing said at the Rosh Hashana feast that says, “May our enemies and adversaries be destroyed”, and applied it to the current situation. “Abu Mazen (Abbas) and all those evil men – may they perish from this world. May God Almighty strike them and these Palestinians.”

Hm. He was calling for God to strike down the enemies of Israel. And the State Department responded thusly:

We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. We note the Israeli statement that the Rabbi’s comments do not reflect the views of the Prime Minister. These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.

Now let’s see what the State Departmen had to say about the Hamas terror attack:

US cognizant that there could be external events that can have an impact on the environment/US also cognizant that there may well be actors in the region who are deliberately making these kinds of attacks in order to try to sabotage the process/US aware that not everyone sees this in the same way/US believes that the leaders understand that the moment is now, we think an agreement is achievable

Hm. A rabbi uses Biblical terms to describe Israel’s enemies, and the State Dept. goes into full condemnation mode. Terrorists attack and murder four civilians, and the State Dept. recogiizes that terror attacks may happen. In the first case, State issued a release on the rabbi’s words. In the second case, State merely issued notes of the daily briefing. Obviously, the State Dept. felt those are two totally appropriate reactions. Of course they did. Hillary Clinton did, after all, give Benjamin Netanyahu a 43-minute dressing-down for something that wasn’t even his fault last year.

But wait! Catherine Ashton, High Muckety-Muck of the EU, also condemned the attack:

“I strongly condemn the terrorist attack that has killed four Israeli civilians near the city of Hebron,” Ashton, who is currently in China for high-level strategic talks, said in a statement.

“With this unacceptable attack, the enemies of peace have tried to derail the Middle East peace talks. But we are determined not to let these enemies of peace have their way.”

Ah. She is determined not to let the murder of Jews stop the EU from pressuring Israel to make peace. Say, let’s take a look at the release that Ashton sent out after the latest round of terrorist bombings in Iraq:

“Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is deeply saddened by the explosions and continuing acts of violence in Iraq and the High Representative expresses her deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and to the Iraqi Authorities.

The European Union condemns these attacks. The majority of the victims of these terrorist attacks were devoted to building Iraq’s security. HR Ashton wishes to reiterate once again the urgent need to form a stable government in Iraq which is able to take decisive steps towards national reconciliation and to deal with all challenges confronting the country. The European Union looks forward to engaging with this new government as soon as it is in place.”

Interesting. She extends her deepest condolences to Iraqi victims of terrorism, but nothing for Israeli victims of the same.

France managed to issue a full-blown condemnation. So did Tony Blair.

“I condemn unequivocally the shooting attack in which four Israelis were killed today and extend my condolences to the families of those killed,” Blair said Tuesday. “This shocking act was obviously intended to damage the launch of negotiations, but we must not allow extremists to derail the process.”

The Palestinians? Well, there were the usual mealy-mouthed “condemnations” that were then translated by the media as real ones. Even Robert Gibbs passed along the spin that Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack. Here’s the “condemnation”:

Abbas said the shooting attack in Hebron was meant to “impede the diplomatic process,” stressing that the Palestinian Authority “objects to attacks on civilians from both sides – Israeli or Palestinian.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah—the old moral equivalence condemnation. Terrorists killing civilians are just the same as civilians being killed because terrorists are shooting mortars from their backyards.

To sum up: A terror attack on Israelis? Not an obstacle to peace. No need for State to issue a strong condemnation of the murder of four civilians. It’s just another attempt by the non-peacenik crowd to sabotate the peace talks. Ho-hum.

Building in Jerusalem? Words by a 90-year-old rabbi during a Torah discussion? Condemnations! Incitement! Obstacles to peace!

This the world of Israeli Double Standard Time. But not to worry. It only occurs on days that end with a “y”.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Your evening funny

Posted on 08/31/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Via Allahpundit.

Spit-monitor warning. VERY funny.

Posted in Humor, Movies | 4 Comments

“I … am in the position to grant nothing”

Posted on 08/31/2010 by Soccerdad

Via Daily Alert blog.
An article in the UAE’s the National Abbas is a man in exile, even among his own

All Palestinian political factions, bar one, have denounced the direct talks, some in harsher language than others.

Only Fatah, Mr Abbas’s own group, supports direct talks. Even among its members, though, there are plenty of disapproving voices.

Ordinary Palestinians, as well as the political factions, feel they have little influence on the Palestinian leadership’s decisions. The Palestinian polity is broken. There is no functioning parliament. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are divided under the leaderships of rival factions. The PA government under Salam Fayyad was appointed by presidential decree and elections – presidential, parliamentary and municipal – have all been postponed indefinitely

Related, see Daled Amos.

via Daily Alert blog. From the Daily Globe and Mail.

In his second term, Mr. Netanyahu is strong inside and weak outside. Facing no serious challengers, he enjoys political strength like no predecessor in the past generation. Improved security and an excellent economy support a quiet home front. Looking out the window, however, Mr. Netanyahu sees dark clouds surrounding Israel. The country is increasingly isolated, facing a global fatigue over its endless conflict with its neighbours, and a consensus against occupation, settlement expansion and excessive use of military force. And on the horizon, Iran’s nuclear project is looming.

Mr. Netanyahu returned to power chiefly to save Israel from the “existential threat” posed by Iran. In this environment, he must rely on the United States, Israel’s closest ally and strongest protector. Only Mr. Obama can save Israel from the wrath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But this protection comes with a price: a Natanz-for-settlements tradeoff.

If PM Netanyahu were to make a deal he would have support to do so. But Abbas has no standing to make a deal. Palestinian nationalism has always been built on a premise on the destruction of Israel, so this is hardly a surprise. As Richard Cohen observed, nothing’s changed in the Arab world regarding the acceptance of Israel. And certainly not in the Palestinian world.

It kind of reminds me Khan’s famous rebuke to Captain Kirk.

UPDATE: A commenter at my blog pointed out that this line was said by Khan to Chekhov while they were still down on the Ceti Alpha six Five. I am s-o-o-o embarrassed.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Disowning the Democrat bigots

Posted on 08/31/2010 by Meryl Yourish

William Saletan has a pompous, condescending piece in Slate about how liberals should not keep trying to get up in arms about how Glenn Beck is trying to co-opt Martin Luther King Jr.’s message by having a big rally, decades later, where King did, and on the same day of the year. (It was a coincidence. It was the only day in that time period that was free.) So here’s his advice to liberals:

The resemblance doesn’t mean that Beck wants to take us back to the days of segregation. It means the opposite. Crying “socialism” is what conservatives do before they yield to change. It’s a stage in the process of defeat. But the process doesn’t end with defeat. It ends with absorption. It ends with the political descendants of George Wallace embracing the legacy of Martin Luther King. Beck today is just catching up to where King was 50 years ago. That’s because King was in the front of the civil rights bus, and Beck is in the back. And it’s a really slow bus.

It’s amazing how the left refuses to acknowledge the bigots in its own history. The above shows how Saletan is trying to pawn off Wallace’s inheritance on conservatives and Republicans.

Say, Bill? Wallace was a Democrat. His political descendants voted for Obama. They’re not Republicans. In fact, Republicans were instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over Democratic obstruction.

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”[7]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[8]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[9]

If you want a really unbelievable look at who the party of racists was, check out the stats of who voted for and against the bill. Republicans were generally 80/20 in favor. It was a Republican who used parliamentary procedure to get the bill away from the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee so that it could be voted on.

But God forbid Saletan go against the narrative that conservatives and Republicans were the real obstacles to civil rights in this country. Because everyone knows it’s they who are the real bigots. Well, everyone in the liberal media, anyway.

Posted in American Scene, Media Bias, Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Disowning the Democrat bigots

Omar Khadr: not guilty by reason of genetics

Posted on 08/31/2010 by SnoopyTheGoon

I am sure the person who sent me the link to www.thekhadrlegacy.com site (now expired) has done so with good intentions in mind. After all, that person, who will remain unknown for the purposes of Elders’ network information security, does lots of good in general.

Not this time. Perusing the site caused me one of the worst cases of the blogger block in almost five years this blog is functioning (or erupting, whatever). I mean, try getting your head around a family that… but let’s do it in orderly fashion.

So, there was a long period of mulling, and then – eureka! Biology is not going to remain the same after this is published, rest assured.

But first of all a warning: this is rather a long post, so click on “Read more” only if you are interested in a new development in biology that should by rights shake up the scientific world: the Khadr/Al Qaeda Affinity Gene (KAQA)!
Continue reading →

Posted in Terrorism, World | 5 Comments

The “cbm” maneuver

Posted on 08/30/2010 by Soccerdad

Helene Cooper contributes a perfectly predictable Early Obstacle at Start of Mideast Talks, to the discussion of peace talks in the Middle East.

President Obama will begin his one-year effort to achieve Middle East peace on Wednesday, joining a long list of his predecessors who have tried to achieve a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

But unlike the presidents before him, Mr. Obama will know within three weeks whether the two sides are serious this time about reaching a deal.

Really? I would have thought that he already knows that. For one thing Barry Rubin pointed out:

It is amusing to see articles claiming that this is a victory for the Obama Administration. If the U.S. government had been doing such a good job it would have been able to announce the resumption of elections in April 2009, after the visit of Abbas to Washington. The president did indeed announce the resumption of negotiations in September 2009 and nothing has happened in a year.

Moreover, it is amusing to read accounts of the resumption of talks without any mention of the fact that the sole reason it has taken so long has been the PA’s resistance to negotiations.

Cooper doesn’t claim that the upcoming talks will be a victory for the administration, but she hypes the idea that there will be clarity. But she doesn’t acknowledge that the delay in the resumption of talks was due to a calculated fit of pique by Mahmoud Abbas, who wouldn’t even go back to the negotiating table after Netanyahu agreed to a freeze on building Jewish communiites in Judea and Samaria. I would think that alone shows who’s unserious.

Yet Cooper casts things like this:

Mr. Obama, administration officials said, will call on the four leaders to do all they can to settle, within a year, the final status issues: the fate of Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state, the right of return for Palestinian refugees who fled their homes and the issue of Israeli security.

But on Sept. 26, Israel’s 10-month moratorium on settlement construction will expire. Mr. Netanyahu appears unlikely to extend it, Israeli and American officials said. And Mr. Abbas has said that he will withdraw from negotiations if settlement activity resumes.

In other words, she has Israel up for failure. A failure to resume the freeze will lead to a collapse of the talks.

According to Ha’aretz it does not seem that Netanyahu is likely to extend it. (via memeorandum).

So what to do?

Those officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the talks, said that discussions were under way on a number of possible solutions. They include trying to get a promise from Mr. Netanyahu that Israel will exercise restraint in settlement construction, perhaps allowing construction only within existing West Bank settlement blocks, but no housing starts beyond those blocks.

Such a plan could also include early “confidence building” concessions from Israel on a few additional issues of concern to the Palestinians, officials said, including agreeing to limit Israeli Army incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas in the West Bank, and transferring key areas in the West Bank to Palestinian control before a final agreement is reached.

Of course! It always works, Israeli “confidence building measures.” It’s amazing how often we hear about “Israeli confidence building measures.” (From now on “cbm” for short.) If Israel won’t sweeten their offer, the Palestinians will be within their rights to walk away. Of course this failure for Israel to toss out new cbm’s will be regarded as a sign of Israel’s intransigence.

Did Israel withdraw from Gaza? From most of Hevron? From most of Judea and Samaria? Did Israel regard the PLO as a partner for peace even when the PLO was disregarding every single commitment it made? Does the PA/PLO still engage in incitement against Israel? Do its leaders still deny the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state?

I can see why we need more Israeli cbm’s. The peace process is so one-sided in Israel’s favor, why would the Palestinians participate? Oh wait, they want a state of their own? If their own state is so important why don’t they just make a deal? Or is it simply more important to wring concessions out of Israel in exchange for nothing?

So while Israel is introducing Arabic as a second language in many of its schools, the PA continues to deny Israel’s history.

I can see why cbm’s are needed. And I’m not surprised that the New York Times insists they’re needed, where they really aren’t.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Tagged | 7 Comments