Allah’s post is superb.
All I can add is this: Eight weeks later, on November 15th, my friend, her son, and I went out to dinner at my favorite steakhouse in Montclair, NJ, twelve miles west of Manhattan. The wind was blowing from the east. When we left the restaurant, Brenda said, “What’s that smell? Is that the grill from the restaurant?”
No. It was the towers, still on fire, on November 15, 2001.
Never forget.
I won’t.
Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal.
Eight years ago, we were visited by the furies of Arab lands. We were rudely awakened from a decade whose gurus and pundits had announced the end of ideology, of politics itself, and the triumph of the world-wide Web and the “electronic herd.” We had discovered that on the other side of the world masterminds of terror, and preachers, and their foot-soldiers were telling of America the most sordid of tales. We had become, without knowing it, a party to a civil war in the Arab-Islamic world between the autocrats and their disaffected children, between those who wanted to live a normal life and warriors of the faith bent on imposing their will on that troubled arc of geography.
Our country answered that call, not always brilliantly, for we are fated to be strangers in that world and thus fated to improvise and make our way through unfamiliar alleyways.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
In the next couple of weeks, the UN will be releasing the results of the inquiry by Richard Goldstone into what they will determine are war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. Goldstone has been insisting that although the UN mandate was anti-Israel enough that even Mary Robinson turned down an offer to head the commission (yes, really), he will have an evenhanded report on the Gaza war.
This is impossible.
The mandate itself declared that war crimes were committed by Israel. This is a case of a court issuing a guilty verdict before any facts are in.
“Human Rights Council… Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission”.
This is not a mandate to investigage if war crimes occurred. This is a mandate that states its purpose, and the commission’s responsibility is to document the war crimes that were already declared.
UN Watch has a history of the judges, many of whom are—surprise—biased against Israel.
Christine Chinkin signed a letter dated January 11, 2009, which appeared in The Times, stating: “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime.”
The jury is already in. Israel is going to be accused of war crimes by a UN commission. And they’re releasing the report sometime during the ten Days of Awe, just for a little extra added insult.
The UN decided the defendant was guilty as charged before examining a single fact. And so the UN’s obsession with Israel continues, and yet another anti-Israel resolution will come of it. Watch for it.
Jules Crittenden asks, “is it a war crime?” (via Instapundit)
It’s a small incident in the grand scheme of things. Another Navy corpsman doing his job, working on the wounded, sometimes under fire, and dying in combat as thousands have before him have in the Pacific, in Korea, in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t know if it’s happened quite like that recently, shot dead while applying bandages to a wounded man. Maybe there will be a decoration, something to be presented to his parents to let them know his nation is grateful he did his duty and tended to a wounded Marine under fire, without regard for his own safety. Meanwhile, it’s a heart-rending tableau to imagine, the bandage wrappings and medical gear strewn about the bodies. I stared at the screen for a while and had to compose myself when I worked on the wire copy on deadline tonight.
Sounds like a war crime.
In the case of Israelis though, since the ICRC won’t give protection to the Mogen David Adom, it’s not a war crime. So killing Yochai Porat wasn’t a war crime.
Sgt.-Maj.(res.) Yochai Porat, who was on reserve army duty as a medic, was killed while trying to help his wounded comrades. Yochai was coordinator of the Jewish Agency’s Foreign Volunteers Program, which is jointly run with Magen David Adom. The foreign volunteer program took on new impetus after Yochai became its coordinator. In this capacity, just a week ago he met Senator Hillary Clinton during her visit to Israel, and was excited to take a picture with her during the presentation of diplomas for volunteers from abroad.
Kiling Shmuel Akiva Weiss – a medic who was going to tend to Matanya Robinson wasn’t a war crime.
Because Israeli army medics aren’t afforded the same international protections granted every other mecical corps due to Islamic intolerance, the killings of Yochai Porat and Shmuel Weiss weren’t war crimes. They were evidence of antisemitism and its acceptability on the international scene.
Crossposted on Yourish.
There’s a fascinating essay on the Zionism of Orde Wingate. Who was Wingate?
Traveling through Komemiyut in Jerusalem, at the intersection of Jabotinsky and David Marcus, one will see Kikar Orde (known also as Kikar Wingate). There are Wingate Streets in Be’er Sheva, Tel Aviv and Herzliya as well. In the Carmel Mountains, just south of Haifa, there is the Yemin Orde Wingate Youth Village, which serves hundreds of disadvantaged, at-risk and immigrant children from around the world. Israel’s national sports and health education institute in Netanya is fittingly named Machon Wingate, the Wingate Institute.
One might be wondering why so much was named after this man. In his book on the history of the Israeli army, Ze’ev Schiff called Wingate “the single most important influence on the military thinking of the Haganah.”[1] While a complete analysis of that influence would constitute an article of its own, Samuel M. Katz put it succinctly. “Wingate had a profound impact on the molding of Israeli military doctrine. Defense, when fighting a numerically superior enemy, meant offense, and offense meant fighting deep inside enemy territory where the opposition was most vulnerable.”[2] To this day, that concept remains the core of Israeli military strategy.
What inspired Wingate to be sympathetic to the cause of Zionism?
But what actually led to that conviction? It is not only his critics who point to his early Bible-intensive education as a primary source. Yigal Allon referred to Wingate’s “extraordinary Zionist ardour inspired by the Bible…”[11] while Shabtai Teveth cited Haganah archives as describing Wingate as “an eccentric, a genius, a man more religious than rational, given to great pathos, a firm believer in the Bible, and fired with a sense of the special mission of the Jewish people.”[12] While describing Wingate as having a genius for “grasping and using new mechanical techniques,” Lowell Thomas did not argue against the conception that Wingate was also “a Scripture-reading crusader.”[13]
However, the complexity that formed the foundation for Wingate’s remarkable genius does not readily coincide with the notion that his Zionism was simply based upon the Bible. As Luigi Rossetto wrote, “Wingate had one quality which stands out above all others and that was his ability to examine the situation objectively and to draw on that part of his experience which applied while rejecting that which did not.”[14]
Perhaps the most objective and complete assessment of Wingate at that time was made by Derek Tulloch, who broke down the oft-noted facets of Wingate’s psyche as follows:
One side effect of Wingate’s unhappy experience at Woolwich was to incline him to take sides, invariably, with the underdog. He never forgot the sensation of all men siding against him. . . . The discovery, however, of this quasi-biblical cause in his life, which opened before him just at a time when he was expecting a cause to appear – to justify his existence and fulfil his destiny – explains his decision to take up the challenge.[15]
Tulloch set forth three components that, in his opinion, led Wingate to embrace the Zionist cause. In addition to the “quasi-biblical” nature of the cause, Tulloch added Wingate’s inclination to side with the weaker party, and Wingate’s need at the time for a cause in which his destiny could be attained. While the Biblical aspect is intriguing on its own accord, the latter two components call for further examination.
There’s more on Wingate here, at what appears to be an official site. His terror fighting strategy is worth a mention:
Wingate envisioned carefully selected, small and mobile units of volunteers to fight aggressively and unconventionally. In a report (as laid out in a future, prepared report dated June 5th, 1938 and titled: “Secret Appreciation of Possibilities of Night Movements by Armed Forces of the Crown – With Object of Putting an end to Terrorism in Northern Palestine”) he spelled out formally the need for a unique military force. “There is only one way to deal with the situation, to persuade the gangs that, in their predatory raids, there is every chance of their running into a government gang which is determined to destroy them, not by exchange of shots at a distance, but by bodily assault with bayonet and bomb.”11 This new unit was to carry the war to the enemy, taking away his initiative and keeping him off-balance. And so it was, “to produce in their minds the belief government forces will move at night and can and will surprise them either in villages or across country.”12
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
There is much speculation as to why the Israeli Prime Minister would visit Russia secretly, renting a private jet to keep his actions quiet.
He could be discussing Iranian weapons deals with Russia, as the story says:
Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper on Wednesday alleged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Moscow earlier this week, where he is believed to have discussed new weapons deals between Russia and Iran.
Or perhaps he had something to say about the Russian ship that went missing in July. According to Time magazine, the ship was carrying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which would make it much more difficult for Israel to take out Iranian nuclear reactors.
And now a Russian paper is publishing a report that Netanyahu was in Russia to tell the Kremlin that Israel is going to go after the reactors.
The paper then quoted what it called an “informed” Israeli source, who wished to remain anonymous, as saying, “Such a visit could be related to new information and could threaten the Iranian nuclear program. It should not be ruled out that Israel may be ready to move on to decisive actions with regards to Iran, and Netanyahu has decided to inform the Kremlin of this.”
I’m more than a little skeptical, because when did Russian media ever tell the truth about anything? But there is a big, big mystery: Why did Bibi go to Russia secretly? Why go to such great lengths to hide his trip?
One thing is certain: Benjamin Netanyahu is not underestimating the Iranian nuclear capability. He’s been on TV many, many times in the past few years urging the world to stop Iran’s march to nuclear power. In this regard, Bibi has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Israeli people. Their survival is at stake, and they know it. And Jews have learned over the centuries not to trust in others to protect us.
As Prime Minister, Netanyahu has access to intel that you and I could only dream about. Which makes this secret trip to Russia even more interesting. Did he go to tell them to get their technicians out of Dodge before the bombs fall? Did he go to tell them that the Mossad picked up a cargo of S-300 missiles on its way to Iran and that Russia needs to stop arming Israel’s enemy or Israel will bring the evidence to the UN? Did he try to make a deal with the Russians that will stop the Iranian nuclear progress?
One’s thing for sure: He didn’t visit Russia just to pick up a new set of Matryoshka dolls.
Helena Cobban writes about the recent casualty figures from Israel’s war against Hamas released by PCHR and B’Tselem.
I dare say that when we see the final report in English from PCHR, they too will be specific about the methodology they used. I have great respect for the careful work and documentary objectivity of the PCHR, which is Palestinian and operates under extremely difficult circumstances from its downtown Gaza headquarters. I would imagine that its researchers have the opportunity to do even more meticulous fieldwork than that done by B’tselem, which is based in Jerusalem and has faced many obstacles placed by the Israeli authorities in being able to get its research teams into Gaza.
“Meticulous” is an interesting way to describe PCHR’s approach. As Elder of Ziyon observed:
We’ve already demonstrated conclusively that literally hundreds of people that the PCHR called “civilian” casualties of Operation Cast Lead were, in fact, terrorists. (And the incredible team of t34zakat, PTWatch and Suzanne are still finding more.)
The problem is not only that PCHR was unaware of these people’s affiliations. PCHR’s weekly reports during Cast Lead detail a number of specific incidents that show that the organization knew quite well that the dead were terrorists – and chose to categorize them as “civilian” anyway.
“Meticulous” then, apparently means exaggerating the level of destruction caused by Israel. It isn’t surprising that Cobban believes this as there seems to be no libel about Israel that is too silly for her to ignore. Cobban doesn’t even seem to be bothered that the blurring of the lines between terrorist and civilian was a deliberate tactic practiced by her heroes of Hamas.
Daled Amos wonders if the funders of these groups feel that they’re getting their money’s worth. They certainly got their money’s worth from PCHR.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Very interesting… Ynet says Benjamin Netanyahu took a trip to Russia to discuss their selling of arms to Iran. The PM’s office says he never left the country. There are also rumors that Bibi visited an Arab nation that has no ties with Israel. Hm. Double hm. Regardless of which report is true, I think it’s proof that Bibi is working hard for Israel.
Ehud Olmert: It’s not just a river in Egypt. Ehud Olmert is defending the disengagement—still. Because it worked so well for Israel. Let’s see, four years later, Gaza has turned into Gazastan and is being run by Hamas, which is building up Gaza as a doppelganger of Israel’s border with Lebanon, complete with thousands of rockets. The Obama administration is completely negating any deals made with the Bush administration regarding settlement growth, which was part of the reason Ariel Sharon wanted to give up Gaza in the first place. The world now accuses Israel of keeping Gazans in a “giant prison,” ignoring the fact that Egypt closes its border with Gaza. So, yeah, the disengagement was an absolute success, if by success you mean “achieving the opposite of what you wanted to achieve.”
Awesome! I picked up the use of naming things “Fred” from a friend I knew ages ago. My wireless network is named Fred (“Connection to Fred: Excellent”). And now, NOAA has made me a very happy woman by naming a hurricane Fred. And Fred is being a bad boy, indeed. He’s up to a Category 2.
Gee, we couldn’t see that coming: Taxpayers are going to eat the auto bailout funds. It seems the brilliant minds in the government said that the auto companies would only have to pay back the funds if their stock prices reached—get this—a market value of over $10 billion more than it was when the bailout occurred. Because gee, the public is just so confident in the American automakers that they’re looking to add them to their portfolios. Yeah, we were had. Like anyone didn’t think otherwise?
I never did get an answer to my letter to the AP, asking why they keep using the phrase “traditionally Arab” to describe east Jerusalem.
But I notice that phrase hasn’t been used lately. The AP seems to be using just the words “east Jerusalem,” and not capitalizing “east,” which is, at least, progress. There is no such city as East Jerusalem, and I wish Jennifer Rubin at Contentions would stop referring to the nonexistent city.
I guess my fans over at AP don’t have the stones to respond to me, but their editors can’t deny facts when presented to them.
Q. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.
In defense of their stance on Hamas, J-Street writes (h/t Jennifer Rubin):
We also recognize, however, that one makes peace with one’s enemies not one’s friends. Hamas is a political movement that has an important and significant base of support within Palestinian society and politics. Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require Palestinian political reconciliation and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation and a unity government, whose officials will work within a diplomatic process to achieve an acceptable two-state solution.
That platitude about making peace with one’s enemies is a variation on a statement made by Yitzchak Rabin, and it is highly misleading. You make with your enemies when those enemies are willing to accept you. But if your enemy still maintains a hostile stance, no amount of concessions or recognition are going to lead to peace. This was the fallacy as Yasser Arafat pronounced his support for peace in English to international audiences and simultaneously encouraged his people to reject Israel and embrace terror. Hamas hasn’t even bothered to soften its stance to the rest of the world. Other than certain limited goals, Hamas has earned the right to be shunned.
But what’s disturbing here, is that J-Street – in defending itself no less – puts Palestinian reconciliation was a necessary condition for peace. That means encouraging the superficially moderate Fatah to give the implacable terrorists of Hamas a veto over the peace process. J-Street isn’t just anti-Israel, it’s anti-peace too!
J-Street can claim that it is not anti-Israel, but if after the Israeli withdrawals in 1995 were followed by a wave of terror in 1996; after the Camp David talks were followed by the “Aqsa intifada”; after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was followed by the strengthening of Hezbollah and the threat to northern Israel and after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was followed by the strengthening of Hamas and the threat to southern Israel, it’s impossible to argue that what the peace process needs is more American pressure on Israel rather than an Arab change of heart. But it’s pressure on Israel that J-Street advocates. So yes, given the historical record of Israeli concessions and the belligerent response to them, advocating for American pressure for future concessions is objectively anti-Israel.
It’s also interesting that J-Street has adopted the style of its nemesis, AIPAC by presenting its defense in the form of “Myths and Facts.” Of course when the organization itself becomes the focus of its activism – as is the case now with J-Street – it no longer truly advocates anything, it’s simply self absorbed. Yes, perhaps it is time to pack it in.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Elliott Abrams in the Washington Post – in response to Jimmy Carter:
Most inaccurate of all, and most bizarre, is Carter’s claim that “a total freeze of settlement expansion is the key” to a peace agreement. Not a halt to terrorism, not the building of Palestinian institutions, not the rule of law in the West Bank, not the end of Hamas rule in Gaza — no, the sole “key” is Israeli settlements. Such a conclusion fits with Carter’s general approach, in which there are no real Palestinians, just victims of Israel. The century of struggle between moderate and radical Palestinians, and the victories of terrorists from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat, are forgotten; the Hamas coup in Gaza is unmentioned; indeed the words “Hamas” and “terrorism” do not appear in Carter’s column. Instead of appealing for support for the serious and practical work of institution-building that the Palestinian Authority has begun, Carter fantasizes about a “nonviolent civil rights struggle” that bears no relationship to the terrorist violence that has plagued Palestinian society, and killed Israelis, for decades. Carter’s portrait demonizes Israelis and, not coincidentally, it infantilizes Palestinians, who are accorded no real responsibility for their fate or future. If this is “the Elders’ view of the Middle East,” we and our friends in that region are fortunate that this group of former officials is no longer in power.
Daled Amos, by the way, provides many more reasons we should be glad that the Elders are no longer in power.
Yeah, sure. And you’ve perfected the flying carpet, too: Iran says it’s developed weapons systems that will intercept stealth missiles. I think I can still hear the peals of laughter from the Pentagon over this report.
Hamas backs off on the hijab for lawyers—for now: Apparently Hamas is not entirely ignorant of public relations. Their version of a supreme court said that female lawyers only have to “dress modestly,” not wear a headscarf when they appear in court. Give them time. They’ll come back with another try.
Muslim ERA watch: Sudan shows its modernity by fining a woman for wearing pants. This is actually good news. She was supposed to be whipped for her audacity. Just for comparison’s sake, women in Israel can wear pants freely and without punishment. But Israel is the country that women’s groups protest.
British Christians protest book slamming Jesus: Watch out, British Christians are about to erupt in fury over a book saying that Jesus isn’t the son of God. Expect riots, death, destruction—oh, no, wait. Expect sternly worded letters of protest. And people saying they won’t buy the book. (Judging by so many of the comments in British newspapers and blogs, there will also be a strong contingent of atheists cheering the author on.)
The Iranian revolution continues: Whoa. Khatami and Moussavi are on the move again, and the news media have decided that Iran is news again. Wonder if they’ll run all those hagiographic news articles on Ahmadinejad when he hits New York for the UN session later this month? That should be a treat—Ghaddafy, Mad Mahmoud, and probably Chavez. It’s the Triple Crown of America-hating nutjobs!
Remember this?
SciFi SyFy had it on last weekend. I put it on the DVR, and Sarah and the kids came over today to watch it. Some notable lines:
“Don’t love the sea too much. It won’t love you back.”
“Most animals fled in fear from the Ice Age.”
Really. That last one. I stopped the movie, said, “Wait a minute! Did she just say that the dinosaurs ran away from the Ice Age? As in, “Ohmigod, it’s SNOW!!!”?
Sarah suggested that perhaps the writers of the movie had used the animated film Ice Age for research, because all the animals there were fleeing the cold.
How bad was it? When even a seven-year-old says, “Those are really bad effects,” it’s bad. Of course it was stupid. It was supposed to be stupid. Why did the shark jump up and bite the Golden Gate Bridge? Because someone thought it would look cool. How did the giant octopus manage to knock down a jet? Well, it’s a dumb movie, that’s how. The science was awful, as always. The shark was able to swim at a speed of 500 knots. Keep in mind that it was bigger than the biggest whales, and a humpback can swim at the breathtaking speed of about 16 mph when it’s in a hurry, and everyone knows that the bigger something is, the faster it is, right? And of course, none of our missiles or weapons so much as dent the creatures’ skin.
But it was fun. It’s a movie that you want to watch with a group of friends, and if you’re in college, I suggest figuring out a drinking game for it. Take two shots every time someone says “The target was destroyed.”
It was about as bad as we thought it was, and I’m quite happy I decided to wait for it to come on TV rather than buy the direct-to-video flick. However—there may be a sequel.
Pass.
Are you old enough to remember ditto machines?
When I was in grammar school, we didn’t have Xerox copiers. We had ditto machines. Everyone who experienced the fresh ditto paper can recall the purple ink, and that unique smell wafting from the freshly-made copies.
I had an extra-special duty in fifth grade. Since I was one of the best students in the grade, I was appointed Ditto Maker. If a teacher needed copies of a test or homework assignment made, I was pulled out of class and sent to the office, where I would chat with the secretary and the vice-principal while I ran off copies of the requested ditto.
These memories are among the strongest of my childhood memories (possibly due to the importance of the scent of ditto ink; scent memories are the strongest). But I do remember feeling very proud every time a teacher came by and asked me to go to the office and make dittos. It was quite an honor and responsibility.
Progress is good. Xerox machines, laser printers, and modern technology make life a lot easier. But nothing will ever replace the scent of a freshly-made ditto paper, slightly damp, that I made myself while getting out of class for a few minutes.
