Arab oil money 1, British Israel Lobby 0

Posted on 11/19/2009 by Meryl Yourish

The Channel 4 “documentary” on The Israel Lobby, vigorously defended by its authors as not in any way antisemitic, is yet another example of the Israeli Double Standard. The specter of Jewish control over Britain’s politicians is so hideously scary, that the authors simply had to understand why a British politician, speaking to a group called The Conservative Friends of Israel, did not mention the Gaza War. Hm. Let’s think. “Friends of Israel,” not “Friends of Fictional Place Known as Palestine” might have been the reason. But here, in their own words, is what they found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

SNB

Posted on 11/19/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Someone explain to China the meaning of “chutzpah”: China, the current occupier of Tibet, is telling Israel that adding new apartments to Gilo is an obstacle to peace. Because it’s not like they’re not occupying an entire nation that was really a nation before China took it over. Unlike the fictional nation of “Palestine.”

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

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

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

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel, News Briefs, palestinian politics | Tagged | 3 Comments

Negotiating by tantrum

Posted on 11/19/2009 by Soccerdad

About two weeks ago when Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said he was quitting, Daled Amos observed that this less a dramatic announcement than standard operating procedure noting 14 times that he has threatened to quit since 2003. This isn’t an ultimatum for Abbas, but standard operating procedure. Knowing that he’s perceived as an irreplaceable “moderate,” when he doesn’t get his way he threatens to quit, hoping to be induced by incentives to stay. Think of it as negotiating by tantrum.

Barry Rubin outlined the elements of Abbas’s strategy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in palestinian politics | 4 Comments

The obstacles to peace

Posted on 11/19/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Settlements, the conventional wisdom says, are the true obstacles to peace in the Middle East. Not Palestinian intransigence. Not the fact that the Palestinians have been split into two groups—Hamas and the Palestinian Authority—for years. Not the fact that if the Palestinians really wanted to run their own lives, they could easily negotiate some kind of agreement with Israel. But first they’d have to actually sit down and negotiate, something they have refused to do for some time now. But none of this, the world exclaims, is the problem. The problem is settlements.

Not this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in AP Media Bias, Hamas, Terrorism | Comments Off on The obstacles to peace

Wednesday SNB

Posted on 11/18/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Ship with armed security team prevents hijacking: Wow, having armed security agents on board to fight off armed pirates stopped the pirates cold. Armed guards prevent piracy? Who woulda thunk it? And the pirates may very well be lost at sea or killed. World’s smallest violin orchestra queuing up now.

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

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

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

Posted in Iran, Israel, News Briefs | Comments Off on Wednesday SNB

Passively described aggression

Posted on 11/18/2009 by Soccerdad

In some ways there’s little to quibble with in Howard Schneider’s To two faiths, a holy patch of land; to the world, a powder keg in the Washington Post. It begins:

It is one of the most watched pieces of real estate in the world, 35 acres where an under-the-breath prayer or a whiff of a rumor can rouse warnings of war.

In both Judaism and Islam, the area known respectively as the Temple Mount and the Noble Sanctuary is considered a formative location. Jews believe it to be the site of Solomon’s Temple and key biblical events. Muslims regard it as the spot where Muhammad was brought by the angel Gabriel before embarking on a trip to heaven to visit the other prophets.

It also remains a flash point, and a series of disturbances there this fall showed just how difficult it will be for Israelis and Palestinians to reach agreement on an area over which they negotiate not just as political entities but also as representatives of two faiths with an often-troubled relationship.

I wish he were stronger in terms of the Jewish claim. Archaeology has confirmed the Temple. It’s more than just a Jewish “belief.”

However later on there are a few things that bother me.

If the Palestinians “want to let go of an area in the West Bank, no one from the outside is going to say anything,” said Abdul Fattah Salah, Jordan’s minister of religious affairs. “But when it comes to Jerusalem, they can’t. It is tied to all Muslims.” The Jordanian ministry employs 500 people who staff the Jerusalem compound.
ad_icon

Salah said the hope is that if part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state, Muslims from any country will be able to begin visiting a site where it is considered a special blessing to pray — access that he said Israel is unlikely to grant if it maintains sole sovereignty over the city.

First of all, Schneider lets stand the exaggerated claim of the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem. Yes Jerusalem is holy to Muslims, but for much of Islamic history Jerusalem was ignored. Even the Crusades aroused little interest at first. This leads Daniel Pipes to conclude:

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; “belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem,” Sivan rightly concludes, “cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam.” Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The other point Schneider should have challenged Salah on was his claim that until Jerusalem becomes part of a Palestinian state, Muslims from around the world won’t be able to visit it. I expect that Muslims from Arab countries that are hostile to Israel won’t be able to visit Jerusalem easily. So there is a solution. Make peace with Israel. (And of course the Jordanian doesn’t acknowledge that when his country ruled the Old City, Jews were forbidden from visiting their holy site!)

And then at the end of the article Schneider writes:

Given recent history, the fall riots were viewed by some here as a cause for optimism. They were on a comparatively small scale, led to no deaths on either side and, after a tense period from Yom Kippur through late October, appear to have dissipated without consequence.

Far worse has happened: Dozens of people died in 1996 in clashes that erupted after access was opened for tourists to a tunnel that ran on an ancient street alongside the wall. And a visit to the area by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 helped trigger the multi-year uprising known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Let’s give a little more detail as to what happened in 1996 and 2000. Barry Rubin recently recalled:

In 1996, the Israeli government opened a tunnel which tourists could walk through and see certain features of the ancient wall and Jerusalem. Rumors that the Jews were trying to destroy the mosques were orchestrated by the Palestinian leadership with many lives lost and the peace process placed in jeopardy. As a result, too, 85 Palestinians and 16 Israelis were killed, and more than 1,300 people–mostly Palestinians–were wounded, a terrible bloodshed for no rational reason whatsoever.

In 2000, a brief tour of the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon—he merely walked through for about an hour, looked around, and then left—was the rationale used to set off an intifada that lasted for about five years and cost several thousand lives.

Afterward, Marwan Barghouti, leader of Fatah on the West Bank, described in detail how he used this as an excuse to set off the uprising. This violence took place about the time that President Bill Clinton, with Israeli agreement, proposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state which would, among other things, control most of east Jerusalem.

Schneider uses “erupted” and “triggered” to describe how the violence started in those circumstances. But in both cases as Prof. Rubin observed, the violence was incited. Worse in 2000, the Arafat-PA orchestrated violence came after rejecting a peace offer that would have given the Palestinians significant control over the Temple Mount.

Left unsaid by Schneider and unfortunately not even implicit in his article is that there’s no peace in the Middle East, because the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically, refuse to make peace with Israel. Jerusalem might well be a sticking point, but it’s because the Arab world has chosen to make it one, rejecting any compromises with Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Palin on “settlements”

Posted on 11/18/2009 by Soccerdad

Israel Matzav observes about a recent American criticism of Jewish construction in Gilo – that’s part of Jerusalem.

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

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

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

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

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 8 Comments

Cop and cat

Posted on 11/17/2009 by Meryl Yourish

This is an utterly hilarious video of a cop trying to do his job, and a cat determined to use the cop as a tree.

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

Posted in Cats | 3 Comments

Of drones and doctrines

Posted on 11/17/2009 by Soccerdad

Given the acknowledgment in Sunday’s Washington Post editorial that the guidelines for asymmetrical warfare are lacking, there are two recent stories of note.

The first is from the National that describes the American efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Predator attacks are controversial, but they are getting increasingly close to the senior leadership of both the Taliban and al Qa’eda. Commander Faqir can have no doubt by now that he is in the sights of the US drones.

The Predator MQ9, with its deadly armoury of two Hellfire anti-tank missiles, is known as the Reaper, for good reason. The use of the Reaper is an extension of a well-tried US special operations technique known to its proponents as “taking down the mountain”, used to hunt such figures as Pablo Escobar, the Colombian drugs baron, and the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

It combines the collection of extensive intelligence with an operation to hunt the target’s associates, removing them one by one, forcing the main target on the run and out into the open, where he can be targeted. It has already been used against one senior al Qa’eda leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al Qa’eda in Iraq, killed by the US in June 2006.

However, the reporter notes:

There are problems with these attacks. The first concerns the number of civilian deaths. The most authoritative assessment of the attacks, by the New America Foundation, estimates that about one third of more than 1,000 people killed were civilians, fuelling anti-western feeling inside Pakistan.

The second is the dubious legality of the attacks under international law. To justify killing an enemy in a military operation, it is necessary to be under threat from that enemy. Critics say the US airman operating the Predator remotely from an operations room in the Nevada desert is scarcely under threat from the Taliban or al Qa’eda.

The second objection is nonsense. Even if the Predator is operated from Nevada, there are still American troops nearby. Still it does indicate a problem: it is a tactic that its critics are trying to undermine. The Goldstone Report was an effort to prevent Israel from defending itself against its enemies. America’s enemies are no doubt looking as to how to apply Goldstone or similarly selective legal reasoning to restrain the American military.

And has Goldstone constrained Israel? After reporting on the improved military capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, Amos Harel claims, that yes, Israel’s military doctrine is being constrained by fears of future legal actions.

According to a report by Nahum Barnea in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, Netanyahu has already drawn his conclusions from the Goldstone report: Israel must fight only short wars, which will end before the international community wakes up. This is a systematic doctrine whose chief advocate in the General Staff is the head of the Planning Branch (and a former fighter pilot), Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel. “Short” is almost code for “aerial.” It takes far longer to mount a meaningful ground maneuver than to bomb Beirut from the air. At the moment of truth, Israel will face a serious dilemma: Should it initiate a massive blow to remove the danger, despite the major international damage this would cause?

I have no idea how accurate Barnea’s report is, but I suspect that he’s at least identified one of the considerations Israel will take into account in future military campaigns against terrorists. It would seem that Goldstone has accomplished his goal: he’s constrained Israel’s military options. Hopefully we’ll never have to find out how severely.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Terrorism | Tagged | 4 Comments

Tuesday SNB

Posted on 11/17/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Israeli Double Standard Time: The AP kept using qualifiers like “Israel says” when covering the 500 tons of weapons discovered on a ship headed for Hezbullah. But there’s no problem whatsoever quoting Iranian newspapers as truthful sources when it comes to discussing the whereabouts of a missing Iranian general. He’s in Israel, of course, being held in “Zionist prison.” Go read both the articles, and tell me which nation the AP thinks is more trustworthy.

Toldja so: No way the U.S. goes along with the Palestinians going to unilaterally declaring a state. On the other hand, how the hell is it going to be contiguous when Israel lies between the West Bank and Gaza?

This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside: The IAEA, the one that couldn’t find the secret Iranian nuclear enrichment plant, says that it’s all set to be up and running within a year or so. Great news! Another plant Iran can use to cheat and retreat and build a nuclear bomb, and what’s the UN doing about it? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Warm and fuzzy, part 2: Gee. The IAEA seems to have noticed that Syria is, indeed, looking to make a nuke, too. Go figure. Iran’s their patron, they hate Israel—who knew?

Bow wow wow: You know, we have such an amateur as president, he never got the memo that the U.S. President bends the knee only to God. Seriously, has any other American president been so obsequious? But hey. He’s the president of the world, right? Uh, except that even the Europeans are losing their affection for The One. So soon?

Posted in AP Media Bias, Iran, Israel | 4 Comments

Three cheers for the Washington Post

Posted on 11/16/2009 by Soccerdad

Yesterday the Washington Post editorialized in War Unchecked (h/t Prof Avi Bell):

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.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , | 4 Comments

The latest Palestinian obfuscation: Unilateralism

Posted on 11/16/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Unilateralism is bad when Israel practices it. Go read back a few years to hear the left shrieking about Ariel Sharon withdrawing from Gaza unilaterally, instead of working with the PA (or at least, pretending to work with them so they could get the credit for it). Hamas would claim victory, everyone said. Yes, they were right, but the point is—unilateralism is bad.

It was bad when George Bush the elder wanted to invade Iraq. He had to build a multinational force, including using pretend-Saudi pilots, in order for the war to get the go-ahead.

It was bad when George W. Bush wanted to track down the al Qaeda murderers and take them out. Didn’t matter if he was heading for Afghanistan or Iraq, the world shrieked about unilateralism and said that Cowboy George should not go it alone, but should get the world on his side first.

Now the Palestinians are threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. (They already did in 1988, and you can see how far that declaration got them.) But I hear no chorus of pundits and heads of state insisting that unilateral actions are the wrong way to go. In fact, the silence is deafening. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is misdirection. Why are the Palestinians suddenly threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state? Because they refuse to come back to the negotiating table with Israel. And since the Obama administration has made it clear that it will no longer accept the excuse of settlement building as a reason not to negotiate, the Palestinians have come up with a little bit of misdirection that the media and Israel’s enemies can latch onto: Going to the UN to declare a state.

Oh, they don’t really believe it can happen. But that’s not the point. The point is, they’re hoping to get the world to back them on this, and to blame Israel for the lack of progress in negotiations. Will it work? Well. So far, everything else has. So let’s see how well this has worked so far today. We have three stories, three headlines, via the AP. Let’s take a look. First:

Palestinians to seek UN endorsement of statehood
Nov 15, 11:27 AM (ET)

The update:

Frustrated Palestinians to appeal to UN for state
Nov 15, 2:52 PM (ET)

And the last updated story last night:

Netanyahu Threatens to Retaliate if Palestinians Declare Statehood
Updated: Sunday, 15 Nov 2009, 10:46 PM EST

Yep. It’s working.

Posted in AP Media Bias | 3 Comments

Birthday bang

Posted on 11/15/2009 by Meryl Yourish

For the past few years, I’ve tried to do things on my birthday that I haven’t done before, or that challenge me, or that make me feel younger. So today, I went, as Sarah likes to put it, “Shooty-bang-bang.” I took my .38 revolver to the shooting range and worked on my marksmanship for my birthday.

Things started out badly. Though I bought the gun last summer, I hadn’t used it yet, and I did not hit the target at all (I thought) with my first few shots. So I asked for help. Turns out I was just not used to the sight, and was sighting the angle all wrong. With a little help from one of the employees, and from the guy next to me, who turned out to be quite the marksman, my aim improved significantly. This is the target with the last 8 sets of practice, numbered so I could see where I was hitting with each set.

Meryl's target at the end of the day

As you can see, I pull up and to the left, but overall, if that target was a man’s chest, I pretty much killed my guy.

Next time, I’ll bring my .22 rifle and do some plain old fun shooting. I’d forgotten how much kick a .38 has. And how LOUD the shooting range is. (Note to self: Put in earplugs before entering the range.)

Oh, and the very nice gentleman next to me, besides helping me to learn how to aim my new gun, let me fire his wife’s 9mm semi-automatic. It’s the next weapon I’m looking to purchase, because my revolver is a fun gun, but it only holds five rounds. For home defense, I want something with a little more to it.

Best comment of the afternoon was from the same guy, who, after seeing the target above, asked, “Is that the first time you’ve ever shot that gun?” And when I told him yes, he said that was pretty good shooting.

Overall, a very nice afternoon, ending with a lovely dinner at Sarah and Larry’s. Sarah’s going to learn to shoot with me sometime soon. Girls with guns. Gotta watch out for us.

Posted in Guns | 15 Comments

Doggie day

Posted on 11/14/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Hot Air links to one of these videos, but hey, you should watch them all. Soldiers’ reunions with their pets, and with their kids.

Have a tissue or three handy if you watch the kids one.

Posted in American Scene | Comments Off on Doggie day

David Irving’s website and email hacked

Posted on 11/14/2009 by Meryl Yourish

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Holocaust denier and libel lawsuit loser David Irving was hacked to pieces yesterday. H/T: Mike S.

Hackers Post Private E-mails of Historian and Accused Holocaust Denier
A group identifying themselves as “anti-fascist hackers” broke into the web site and AOL e-mail account of controversial British historian and accused Holocaust-denier David Irving and obtained his private communications as well as attendee lists for his current U.S. speaking tour.

The hackers posted Irving’s e-mail correspondence online, as well as the user name and password for his web site account and AOL e-mail account, which shared the same password. The hackers also posted the e-mail addresses and other personal information — such as names, phone numbers and shipping and credit card billing addresses — of people who made donations through his web sites, purchased his books or bought tickets for his appearances.

Irving’s username and password for his Authorize.net account, which handles the credit card transactions on his web sit, were also exposed.

The data was posted on the WikiLeaks site Friday evening in advance of Irving’s Saturday speaking engagement at the Catholic Kolping Society of America in New York City. The organization reportedly canceled the event on Friday after someone contacted it.

It’s going to take his provider a week to figure out all the damages. Score one for the black hats.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on David Irving’s website and email hacked