Hulk smash election!

Posted on 02/16/2009 by Meryl Yourish

This post was originally published on September 7, 2004.

As my regular readers know, the Hulk makes appearances on this blog from time to time. During my time off, I had the opportunity to discuss the election with him. Our conversation went something like this:

Pass the sunblock, Hulk.
Why girl need to put goo on skin? Hulk never need goo on skin, look at Hulk. Green as can be!
We’ve been over this before, Hulk. I’m merely human.
Bah. Girl puny human.
Fine. I’m a puny human. Puny humans need sunblock.
Girl want Hulk to put goo on back?
No! Er, no, Hulk. Last time you tried I wound up half a mile in the ocean.
Bah. Hulk got girl out before shark eat her.
You know, Hulk, sometimes you’re—
[Cue: airplane flying up coast, bearing a “Vote Kerry/Edwards!” banner]
What plane say?
They want us to vote for John Kerry in the election.
What election?
An election is how we get our leaders.
Leader! Hulk hate Leader! Leader very bad. Try to kill Hulk many times with squishy men. Hulk can’t punch squishy men.
No, not the Leader. Our leaders. Like the president.
Who president?
Bush. Our president is Bush.
President is bush? HAHAHAHAHA! Puny humans led by plant!
[sigh] No, Hulk. The president’s name is Bush.
That stupid name.
No argument here.
Why plane want different leader than Bush?
That’s what we do. Every four years, we have two people run against each other to see who will be our leader.
They run into each other? Hulk like that!
No, um, they go around the country and make speeches and try to get us to vote for them.
Speeches? Bah. Talk, talk, talk. Hulk bored with talk. Hulk like to smash. Leaders smash?
Well, we are at war. So you could say that some of our leaders smash.
This Kerry smash?
No. He doesn’t want us to be at war. He’d stop us from smashing—er, fighting in Iraq.
Do Bush smash?
Bush is the one who sent us into Iraq, so yes, Bush smash.
Bush smash. What Kerry do?
Well, he talks. Rather a lot, come to think of it.
Bah. Talk, talk, talk. Puny humans talk too much. Hulk tired of talking. Hulk want to smash. Hulk like to smash. Hulk vote for Bush. Bush smash! Hulk smash! Hulk is the strongest one there is!
Okay, Strongest. Let’s stop talking and get some Italian ices.
Girl put money away. Hulk get this one.

If you suggest topics in the comments, the Hulk may come back more frequently.

Posted in Blasts from the past, The Hulk | 1 Comment

Forecast: chilly?

Posted on 02/16/2009 by Soccerdad

The Washington Post has a sensible editorial about welcoming Hosni Mubarak, Watch that Welcome.

Mr. Obama will not want to openly spurn the Egyptian leader. But it’s vital that he not grant Mr. Mubarak an unconditional invitation. Governments throughout the Middle East, and the many Arabs working for democratic change in their countries, will be watching to see if the Egyptian ruler gets a free pass. If he does, the administration will send the region the message that the corrupt old status quo — in which the United States backed Arab dictators in exchange for help with U.S. strategic interests — has been restored. That would inflict crippling damage on Mr. Obama’s attempt to restore U.S. credibility and prestige, particularly with the millions of secular, middle-class Arabs who chafe under corrupt autocracies.

The editorial opened with an observation that Mubarak had boycotted the United States during the second term of President Bush, because Bush pushed for real political reform. (No word if that boycott was just on visiting Washington or also of the $2 billion a year in aid the United States gives to Egypt as a reward for something Mubarak’s predecessor did. My guess is that Mubarak’s not nearly that principled.)

I’m usually wary of these editorials, because for the Washington Post (and especially columnist Jackson Diehl) the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to reform. Still, this editorial seemingly focuses on real reformers. The next paragraph is important:

Mr. Mubarak’s allies will argue that he deserves a reward for Egypt’s efforts to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. But that diplomacy, which has yet to produce results, has been conducted entirely in line with Egypt’s interests. Cairo seeks to avert further warfare on its border, but it has also resisted decisive measures to stop the trafficking of weapons to Hamas. Domestic opponents who have sought to peacefully protest the government’s policy have been harshly suppressed.

That last sentence doesn’t quite fit. The two recent highly publicized arrests of the regime’s critics were protesting the in favor of Hamas.

Still the point is correct. There’s nothing altruistic about Egypt’s efforts at securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. And if Egypt were truly interested in peace it wouldn’t allow the arms smuggling in the first place. (For more on why Egypt doesn’t fight the arms smuggling effectively, see here.)

But President Obama has offered his hand in friendship to the Muslim world. He’s even decided to participate in Durban II. I can’t help feeling that “hope and change” in this regard means turning a blind eye to the dictators of the Arab world.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Hamas, Politics | Tagged | Comments Off on Forecast: chilly?

Arab anti-Semitism: It’s pandemic

Posted on 02/16/2009 by Meryl Yourish

This post was first published on July 29, 2004. It is just as relevant today as it was four and a half years ago. And the reason I’m republishing it: The Egyptians are calling Avigdor Lieberman “racist.”

For the past sixty or seventy years, if not longer than that, the Arab nations have been indulging in one form or another of Jew-hatred. I don’t see how we can possibly re-educate those whose very institutions regularly deny the existence of the state of Israel. I don’t see how we can reform those whose governments sponsor a multi-part miniseries during the Arab equivalent of sweeps month (Ramadan) that echoes the lies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with their media insisting the series was truthful. And if you go to Google News today and look for the phrase “horseman without a horse,” you will find this article on Al-Jazeera, which calls the Protocols “an allegedly anti-Semitic television programme” that was “loosely based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a controversial document that has never been corroborated.”

That article is dated July 16th.

A quick look around MEMRI will show you case after case of institutional Arab anti-Semitism. And MEMRI presents regular updates on the presence of anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world.

So the shock and surprise expressed by the UN’s European’s ambassadors at the negative Arab reaction to a UN resolution on anti-Semitism is particularly annoying. All they had to do was open their eyes in their own backyards to see the Muslim hatred of Jews.

NEW YORK – Arab states at the United Nations are trying to foil a proposal to raise a vote condemning anti-Semitism in the General Assembly this September.

At a closed meeting held recently in New York, UN ambassadors from Arab and EU countries met and the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source.

According to UN sources, the Arab delegates were also critical of a UN seminar on anti-Semitism held last month. A senior Western diplomat said that among the Arabs who spoke with the Europeans was PLO observer Nasser al Kidwe, and he was particularly outspoken in his objections to a UN General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism.

The source said Kidwe attacked the content of UN Secretary general Koffi Anan’s speech to the seminar last month, particularly Annan’s pride in the cancelation of the 1975 Zionism equals racism resolution. “The Europeans were depressed when they left the meeting,” said the source.

I would like to hear what kind of blunt language they used, frankly. I would very much like to hear the Arab ambassadors to the UN expressing the kind of Jew-hatred we know they already hold. I’d like to see it plastered on the front page of the New York Times. But then, I’d also like to win the lottery.

Jordanian Ambassador to the UN Prince Ziad Hussein argued that the resolution would reinforce the tendency to call any criticism of Israel, anti-Semitic. Moroccan Ambassador Mohammed Banone, said that the seminar against anti-Semitism was a terrible idea and a decision would only divide the world body. Arab League Ambassador Mahamas Hani warned that a UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism would have a negative impact on the Middle East.

The proposed resolution would issue a general condemnation of all forms of anti-Semitism and acts of intolerance, incitement and harassment. The decision would also call on member countries to take steps to block anti-Semitism.

Major countries have already committed to voting in favor. Last year, an Israeli initiative for a similar resolution failed.

Of course the Arabs would have to vote against this resolution. The Protocols are bestsellers in Arab nations, and their Friday sermons nearly always condemn or call for the deaths of Jews. How could they vote for a resolution against anti-Semitism, when hatred has become a part of their way of life?

Shame, once more, on the United Nations. Shame, once more, on the European nations that allow this hatred to continue. And shame on the European ambassadors who are so ignorant that they don’t recognize the depths and read of this hatred.

This is why Israel exists, and this is what “Never again” truly means: Never again will Jews leave their fates in the hands of others. Because every time we have done so in the past, we’ve regretted it.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Blasts from the past | 1 Comment

Tig3 vs. the Hulk

Posted on 02/15/2009 by Meryl Yourish

It’s inevitable. Every cat that I have ultimately has to have a smackdown with the Hulk. And here is what happened between Tig and the Hulk last week:

It started with a look. I knew there would be trouble.

Tig looking mean at the Hulk

It’s on.

Tig vs. the Hulk

Hulk comes on strong, but my money’s on Tig. Because the Hulk is not mean to animals and children.

Tig vs. the Hulk

And I was right. The winner: Tig. (Hulk gave up.)

Tig vs. the Hulk

Tig smash Hulk.

Posted in Cats, The Hulk | 2 Comments

Abrams on the Middle East

Posted on 02/15/2009 by Soccerdad

One of the big problems with how foreign policy (and politics generally) gets reported is that it’s reduced to turf battles.
A says this.
B says that.
A has the President’s ear.
B says that A is an ideologue.

By reducing policy differences to this level, the inner workings of the government look petty. At least if the reporter wants them to. The larger implications of what and A and B are usually reduced to some neat little catchphrase. By reporting like this, reporters can say they stick to facts. (A said this.) And also by a careful choice of words the reporters can show his own preference between the two competing factions.

The problem with this is that serious people with serious ideas get reduced to caricatures. Debates are undermined by ridicule. So when you read an interview with Elliott Abrams, you get a much different impression of the Bush Administration than you would from the Washington Post or New York Times. (h/t Israel Matzav) Obviously Abrams is restricted about what he can and can’t say. And just as obviously he’s going to present himself well. Still it’s a fascinating interview. There are three points that are especially important.

1) Disengagement was an Israeli initiative.

Disengagement was not an American initiative. The US did not say to the Israeli government: “You need to get out of Gaza.” Discussions of this sort had been going on for years, not only during Bush’s tenure, but also during the Clinton administration. For example, there was a question of whether Israel would go back to the September 28, 2000 lines in the West Bank, and whether the Palestinian security forces could cope with terrorism there if Israel withdrew. The answer from the IDF was no. The Israelis told us that it would be very dangerous, both physically – in the sense that more terrorism might ensue – and politically, because if the risk were taken and a significant act of terrorism did ensue, it would blow up any negotiations that were then taking place.

The same question was asked about whether there could be some kind of withdrawal from Gaza. The Israeli government said no – such a withdrawal would be bargained for at some point in the future. Then came disengagement.

Sharon’s decision to pull out of Gaza, therefore, was not a surprise to us in the sense that doing so was something that had been talked about for years. But the timing certainly was a surprise.

2) Annapolis was an Israeli initiative.

So I was the resident skeptic. We were hearing, both from secretary Rice and from prime minister Olmert that there was a very good chance of concluding a final-status agreement. I never believed this, neither before Annapolis nor after. So I was always like a little black cloud in all these meetings, saying, “I don’t think this is going to happen.”

3) They’re not that close to peace in the Middle East

Because others said that the solution here, the eventual deal, was pretty well understood on both sides – that there weren’t a million possibilities for where the border between Israel and the Palestinian state would be. The same with regard to Jerusalem. Therefore, they said, it won’t take all that much negotiating to get there. That was the conventional wisdom. But it seemed to me that the opposite view was right: that if everybody knows what a deal has to look like, and year after year and decade after decade, it is not possible to reach it, isn’t it obvious that it’s because neither side wants that deal? Now, the reasons for not wanting it can vary, and they can also change over time, but it does seem to me that if everybody knows what the options are, and the most Israel can offer is less than the least the Palestinians can accept, the solution is not close at hand.

The interview is a very interesting read and gives some perspective on the the past eight years. One last observation from Abrams is worth mentioning:

When we came in, in 2001, the intifada was going on. It seemed to us pretty clear – and we were right – that there could be no negotiations in the middle of a giant, ongoing terrorist attack. Then came 9/11. And we really did not come back to the question of how to move forward on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict until the spring of 2002. Then, on June 24 of that year, the president gave a remarkable speech in which he declared Yasser Arafat a terrorist and completely broke with him. The essence of that speech was that though the president was in favor of a two-state solution, the borders of the Palestinian state didn’t matter nearly as much as the character of the state within those borders – and that there had to be new Palestinian leadership.

Consider that in contrast to tdday’s Washington Post editorial.

At the same time, the Obama administration should not adopt the Bush administration’s practice of accepting Israeli positions as givens.

There were then and still are very good reason for preferring the Israeli positions over the Palestinian ones. President Bush was correct about Arafat; less so about Abbas.

The interview with Abrams is an excellent way to see the Bush administration, at least as it saw itself.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Abrams on the Middle East

Haveil Havalim Lots to Read Edition

Posted on 02/15/2009 by Jack

Friends I’d like to invite you to read the latest edition of the Jewish/Israeli blog carnival, Haveil Havalim at Leora’s place. This edition is called, Haveil Havalim Lots to Read Edition.

Next week is going to be hosted by ~ Sarah’s View ~.

Here is a partial list of past editions.

Feb 08, 2009 Esser Agaroth
Feb 01, 2009 Ima on (and off) the Bimah
Jan 25, 2009 SuperRaizy
Jan 17, 2009 The Rebbetzin’s Husband
Jan 11, 2009 Random thoughts
Jan 03, 2009 Ima on (and off) the Bimah
Dec 28, 2008 Material Maidel
Dec 23, 2008 Jewlicious
Dec 14, 2008 Random thoughts

A complete list of past editions can be found here.

Crossposted on Random Thoughts- Do They Have Meaning?

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Haveil Havalim Lots to Read Edition

What could be worse than Hamas?

Posted on 02/15/2009 by Soccerdad

Three years ago in advance of Palestinian elections, the Washington Post heralded the participation of Hamas, in “Pre-election turmoil“:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias | Tagged | Comments Off on What could be worse than Hamas?

The most awesomely awesome night of television

Posted on 02/14/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Many years ago, Friday night TV was must-tape. At 8:00, you had Babylon 5. At nine, there was X-Files. At ten, time for Picket fences. Three different networks, three different kinds of shows, and all three excellent. It got to the point where I didn’t want to go anywhere on a Friday night anymore.

Now, for at least six weeks, we have a troika of excellent SF shows. At 8:00 on Fox, there’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, followed by the new Joss Whedon Dollhouse show, and then at ten, on SciFi, the last six (now five) weeks of Battlestar Galactica. Last night, all three shows were superb. Awesomely awesome, as the saying is.

If you didn’t watch Dollhouse, catch it online. You will not be sorry. And next week, you should watch it or DVR it or tape it, because Fox was smart enough to have Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku in several commercials together, talking to each other about how much fun it would be to be each other’s character. Brilliant PR, both for the glamour aspect and the hot-chick-attracking-scifi-geek aspect. Plus, well, I like both actresses a lot. You go, girls.

One other thing about Friday nights on Fox: The lineup is all action chick shows. Oh, sure, there are more than enough guys to go around on both shows, and they’re featured characters, not minor ones. But the women are kicking butt and taking prisoners.

Awesomely awesome, now featuring strong female leads. What’s not to love?

Posted in Feminism, Television | 6 Comments

Olmert stands his ground on Shalit

Posted on 02/14/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Ehud Olmert is standing his ground on Gilad Shalit. Israel will not open the border crossings into Gaza without the return of her kidnapped soldier.

Israel will not agree to open crossings into Gaza without the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, the Prime Minister’s Office reported Saturday. Meanwhile, a Hamas official reported that talks had hit a snag because Israel was pressing for a longer-term ceasefire.

[…] “We will not open the crossings without Shalit’s release. Anything other statements are irrelevant. This is Israel’s clear stance to Egypt,” Ehud Olmert’s office said.

“Israel has a clear stance. They will open the crossings completely only after Shalit is released,” the Egyptian sources said.

“Either way, the crossings will not be open without Shalit’s release. This is a commitment that the prime minister has made and he intends to act accordingly,” read the statement from Olmert’s office.

Hamas thinks that Israel will back down this time. (I admit, I did too.) Perhaps Olmert has finally realized that he’s holding the upper hand. Or perhaps Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu called him and informed him that one of them is going to be in charge in a few weeks, and he doesn’t get to call the shots anymore. No matter what, I’m extremely glad to see that Israel is showing Hamas who won the Gaza war.

Posted in Gaza, Hamas, Israel | 5 Comments

A high degree of confidence

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Soccerdad

In late 2007 the United States intelligence agencies issue a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had stopped seeking to build a nuclear weapon. In a column The myth of the Mad Mullahs, David Ignatius wrote that the most important finding of the NIE was not the stoppage of Iranian work on a nuclear weapon.

For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by “mad mullahs” — clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be “deterred.”

“Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs,” states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be “deterrable” if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, “That is the implication.” He added: “Diplomacy works. That’s the message.”

While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque — a “black box,” in the words of one senior official. “You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process.” This official said it was “logical, but we don’t have the evidence” that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003.

Of course given the opacity of the decision making process, it could also be that they stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 because they feared the United States, and that as fear of the Americans dissipated they started their program up again.

Now it’s being reported that, whoops, the Iranians are indeed pursuing nuclear weapons (via memeorandum)

Obama’s nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. “From all the information I’ve seen,” Panetta said, “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.

So if the NIE was wrong doesn’t that mean that mullahs are mad after all?

As the administration moves toward talks with Iran, Obama appears to be sending a signal that the United States will not be drawn into a debate over Iran’s intent.

“When you’re talking about negotiations in Iran, it is dangerous to appear weak or naive,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund, an anti-proliferation organization based in Washington.

Cirincione said the unequivocal language also worked to Obama’s political advantage. “It guards against criticism from the right that the administration is underestimating Iran,” he said.

So this new information doesn’t change the Obama administration’s initiative at all? It just protects it form the “right?”

More from Hot Air, Israel Matzav, Mere Rhetoric and Jules Crittenden who writes:

My big question is still how Obama avoids appearing weak or naive. On the second part, I’d be inclined to say that by seeking to give the mullahs equal standing with the Great Satan in direct talks, sure, there is an underestimation of their deviousness and unreliability, but there is also a gross overestimation of their goodwill.

Emanuele Ottolenghi at Contentions sums it up:

Future historians will have a field day with those hapless intelligence experts who drafted the NIE in such a way as to wipe out any residual credibility of a U.S. military strike against Iran in the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, thereby also undermining sanctions efforts by the rest of the international community — especially if it turns out that the NIE helped push Iranian scientists to the finish line this year.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Iran | Tagged | 4 Comments

Scenes from a premiership

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Soccerdad

From 1996 to 1999, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was Prime Minister of Israel. During his term in office he was viewed with skepticism, if not hostility by the Clinton administration, much of the American media, the foreign policy establishment and the opposition in Israel.

In January of 1997, Netanyahu and Arafat concluded the Hebron Accords, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from most of Hebron. Additional protocols called on Israel to withdraw from further locations in Judea and Samaria and for the Palestinians to start observing the commitments they had made under Oslo. Netanyahu, got Clinton to guarantee that Israel would determine the scope of the withdrawal on its own. In fact that guarantee was crucial in getting the cabinet to approve the accords.

However shortly after the signing, Arafat declared himself unsatisfied with the scope of the Israeli withdrawals and complained to Clinton. Clinton took Arafat’s side (this contradicts Aaron David Miller’s claim that the United States had always acted as Israel’s lawyer) and demanded that Netanyahu agree to withdraw from more territory. For the next months American and Israeli relations were marked with rancor of Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinians start keeping their end of the deal and Clinton, who insisted that Israel expand the scope of its withdrawals to satisfy Arafat.

About a year after the Hebron Accords were signed, in advance of a trip by Netanyahu to Washington, the New York Times reported:

The position adopted by the Cabinet today was that the note — appended by the United States to the agreement signed a year ago on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank city of Hebron — spoke of ”reciprocity.” The Cabinet said any further Israeli withdrawals were therefore conditional on the Palestinians’ fulfilling what Israel described as their ”commitments” under the American note.

The list put out by the Israelis today included a long series of demands. They range from the adoption of a new Palestinian National Charter that would not include calls for Israel’s destruction, to protection of the environment and extradition of 34 Palestinians wanted by Israel for terrorist acts. The Cabinet set up a team led by Danny Naveh, the Cabinet Secretary, to monitor Palestinian implementation of these demands.

In fact, the ”note for the record” signed by Warren Christopher — who was Secretary of State at the time — included none of these requirements. What it said was, ”We intend to continue our efforts to help ensure that all outstanding commitments are carried out by both parties in a cooperative spirit and on the basis of reciprocity.”

Israeli commentators and opposition politicians depicted the move as an attempt by Mr. Netanyahu to put impossible conditions on the Palestinians, and make them appear to be the cause of the deadlock.

In fact, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out (and noted in a later correction by the Times itself) the Note for the Record, included everything that Netanyahu demanded. HIs conditions were not “stringent” as the Times’s headline declared, but exactly what had been agreed upon. In his column “He negotiates by the rules,” ( Washington Post, January 16, 1998) Krauthammer wrote:

There is no better illustration of the comical one-sidedness of the peace process: Israel’s demand for Palestinian compliance with its own written obligations is deemed a form of sabotage.

What are these demands?

(1) Change the Palestinian National Covenant to remove the clauses that call for Israel’s destruction.

(2) Fight terror and prevent violence. This includes extraditing terrorists; confiscating illegal firearms; and preventing hostile propaganda, like that from Palestinian officials and official media that accuses Israel variously of injecting Palestinians with AIDS, poisoning their food, planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque (“with the creation of artificial earthquakes”) and propagating the fiction known as the Holocaust.

(3) Reduce the size of the Palestinian police force, now more than 12,000 above the level allowed under the Oslo accords.

(4) Close Palestinian Authority offices in Jerusalem.

These commitments are contained in the official “Note for the Record” drawn up by the United States at the completion of the Hebron accord a year ago.

Sound sensible? Not to Bibi-phobes. Take the New York Times. Its front-page lead story on Wednesday reports that these demands are essentially Netanyahu inventions. “In fact,” writes correspondent Serge Schmemann triumphantly, “the Note for the Record’ signed by Warren Christopher — who was secretary of state at the time — included none of these requirements.”

But there is no “Note for the Record” signed by Christopher. And the official American “Note for the Record” (authored and signed by U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross) contains, under the heading “Palestinian Responsibilities,” every single measure cited above: “The Palestinian side reaffirms its commitments to the following measures. . . . (1) Complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter. (2) Fighting terror and preventing violence . . . preventing incitement and hostile propaganda . . . transfer {extradition} of suspects . . . confiscation of illegal firearms. (3) Size of Palestinian Police will be pursuant to the Interim {Oslo} Agreement,” etc.

The Times’ false front-page report (subject of a correction the following day) is typical of its tendentious treatment of Netanyahu. It echoes the PLO line that Netanyahu ‘s demand for reciprocity is nothing but a ploy. But how can any fair-minded observer consider reciprocity anything but an unobjectionable, indeed essential, condition for a peace process?

On another front, a few months earlier, the extreme left-wing Israel Policy Forum released a poll claiming that a majority of American Jews favored the Clinton administration putting moderate pressure on both Arafat and Netanyahu to come to an agreement. This result was trumpeted as “proof” that Netanyahu was out of step with American Jewry and ought to be more flexible undermining his position. (Daniel Pipes wrote about that poll and contrasted it with two polls he had commissioned.)

So it was throughout Netanyahu’s three years in office. The Clinton administration, the media and American-Jewish Left all worked to undermine his position, even though Netanyahu’s position was no more extreme than demanding that Arafat and the Palestinians abide by the agreements they signed.

Netanyahu is not yet Prime Minister and we’re starting to see the media “report” that Netanyahu would upset the oh-so-sensible plans of President Obama.

Netanyahu isn’t as extreme as his opponents portray him, but that doesn’t really matter. Even his efforts at demanding accountability from the Palestinian were portrayed as unreasonable. The early indication is that we’ll see more of the same. this time around if Netanyahu succeeds in forming the next government of Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | Tagged | Comments Off on Scenes from a premiership

Iraqis want Israel to pay “reparations” for Osirak

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Meryl Yourish

You have got to be kidding me.

BAGHDAD Iraqi parliamentarians are demanding Israel pay billions of dollars in reparations for a 1981 Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, Baghdad’s daily Al Sabbah reported on Thursday.

Mohammed Naji Mohammed, a member of parliament with the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, is leading a campaign for a parliamentary resolution obliging the Iraqi foreign ministry and courts to seek billions of dollars in reparations for an Israeli air strike on the Osiraq nuclear reactor, the newspaper reported.

Fine. No problem. But first, Israel wants reparations for the bombing of Israel during the first Iraq war in 1990, as well as reparations for the payments Saddam Hussein made to the families of suicide bombers. After Iraq does that, Israel will think about paying for Osirak. And then the people who think about it will laugh, go to the nearest bar, and have a drink to honor the pilots who stopped Saddam Hussein from going nuclear.

Shorter Meryl: Does the phrase “When hell freezes over” mean anything to Iraqis?

Posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome, Juvenile Scorn | 1 Comment

Ring around the planet?

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Soccerdad

bee-hive-leo_h1

70% of all catalogued objects are in low-Earth orbit (LEO), which extends to 2000 km above the Earth’s surface. To observe the Earth, spacecraft must orbit at such a low altitude. The spatial density of objects increases at high latitudes. Note: The debris objects shown in the images are an artist’s impression based on actual density data. However, the debris objects are shown at an eggagerated size to make them visible at the scale shown.

Credit ESA.

The New York Times reported the other day that two communications satellites – one American. one Russian – collided in space.

“This is a first, unfortunately,” Nicholas L. Johnson, chief scientist for orbital debris at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said of the collision.

It happened some 490 miles above northern Siberia, at around noon Eastern time. Two communications satellites — one Russian, one American — cracked up in silent destruction. In the aftermath, military radars on the ground tracked large amounts of debris going into higher and lower orbits.

“Nothing to this extent” has ever happened before, Mr. Johnson said. “We’ve had three other accidental collisions between what we call catalog objects, but they were all much smaller than this,” the objects always very small and moderate in size.

The communication satellites, he added, “are two relatively big objects.”

If you’re wondering why NASA has someone in charge of orbital debris, that picture above illustrates the problem in a somewhat exaggerated form. While the threat to the space station is viewed as minimal for now, later on in the report there’s a reference to a bigger problem:

Mr. Johnson, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, said the new swarms of whirling debris might also eventually pose a threat to other satellites in an orbital chain reaction.

About that chain reaction … Two years ago the New York Times reported:

Early this year, after a half-century of growth, the federal list of detectable objects (four inches wide or larger) reached 10,000, including dead satellites, spent rocket stages, a camera, a hand tool and junkyards of whirling debris left over from chance explosions and destructive tests.

Now, experts say, China’s test on Jan. 11 of an antisatellite rocket that shattered an old satellite into hundreds of large fragments means the chain reaction will most likely start sooner. If their predictions are right, the cascade could put billions of dollars’ worth of advanced satellites at risk and eventually threaten to limit humanity’s reach for the stars.

Federal and private experts say that early estimates of 800 pieces of detectable debris from the shattering of the satellite will grow to nearly 1,000 as observations continue by tracking radars and space cameras. At either number, it is the worst such episode in space history.

If I understand the article, the chain reaction that observers fear, would create a ring of debris around Earth that would be nearly impossible to penetrate.

Cascade warnings began as early as 1978. Mr. Kessler and his NASA colleague, Burton G. Cour-Palais, wrote in The Journal of Geophysical Research that speeding junk that formed more junk would produce “an exponential increase in the number of objects with time, creating a belt of debris around the Earth.”

(The Times also provided an interactive graphic to illustrate the problem.)

Whether or not the cascade ever occurs, it’s likely that there will be more collisions like the one that occurred this week.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged | Comments Off on Ring around the planet?

Bill Zwecker: What did Rhianna do to get beaten up, anyway?

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Meryl Yourish

You would think that these attitudes were dead and gone. You would be wrong. Because here you have a newspaper gossip columnist blaming the victim for bringing her beating on herself. In fact, he goes on and on trying to find a reason that Rihanna caused Chris Brown to beat her up. First, you have the stress excuse.

BROWN BITS: As rumors keep flying about what caused Chris Brown to allegedly beat girlfriend Rihanna, the R&B star’s management team is hunkered down and desperately trying to stem the tide of Brown’s commercial endorsements — flowing away from anything connected to the entertainer. … Career control issues also are plaguing Rihanna, herself in seclusion to both heal from her injuries and figure out her next move.

Right. It was money problems, stress, and gee, the bitch was having problems, too.

Next, we have the infidelity argument, but I’m not sure why Brown’s infidelity should be an excuse for beating up his girlfriend. Then again, I’m not trying to excuse a spouse-beater.

• As earlier reported here, questions of Brown’s infidelity — cropping up in text messages — may have been the initial spark to the Saturday argument between the couple that led to Brown’s alleged assault on Rihanna.

• The leaking of Brown’s private Facebook page — where he pledges to reveal Rihanna’s ”true colors,” is also seen as evidence he may fight back in a court of public opinion, especially if the rumors about a sexually transmitted disease being an issue prove true.

Way to go, jackass. Blame Rihanna for bringing the beat-down on herself. Because after all, why would you want to blame the scumbag that hit his girlfriend?

You’ve come a long way, baby.

Apparently, no, you haven’t.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on Bill Zwecker: What did Rhianna do to get beaten up, anyway?

Hamas putting the rocket fire in cease fire

Posted on 02/13/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Once again proving that only Israel gets to violate a truce, the AP has returned to form. Here’s what the AP thinks constitutes a “straining” of the cease fire: Firing rockets into Israel.

An agreement between Hamas and Israel to bring quiet to the war-torn Gaza Strip could be announced within days, Hamas officials said, as rocket [sic] fired from the territory Friday further strained an informal cease-fire.

Two rockets fired by Gaza militants hit near a communal farm and the town of Sderot, the Israeli military said. No one was injured and no armed group took responsibility for the attack.

Rocket fire and shooting incidents along the Gaza-Israel border have persisted since the end of Israel’s devastating offensive against Hamas in the territory. Israel halted the operation on Jan. 18 and Hamas declared a cease-fire later the same day.

You see? Firing rockets doesn’t violate the cease fire. But wait for Israel’s response. That will constitute a violation, no doubt. Also, the AP boilerplate is now “Israel’s devastating offensive” or “devastating three-week offensive” in Gaza.

However, that’s not what bothers me the most. This is:

Late on Thursday, Hamas deputy leader Moussa Abu Marzouk told Egypt’s official MENA news agency that the Islamic militant group has agreed to an 18-month truce with Israel. He said it would be announced within two days after the group consults with other Palestinian factions, the news agency reported. Abu Marzouk said the deal calls for Israel to reopen its border crossings into Gaza, fulfilling Hamas’ central demand.

The border crossings have been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since Hamas violently seized power in the territory in June, 2007, defeating its rivals from the Fatah movement.

Taher Nunu, a Hamas spokesman in Cairo with the group’s truce delegation, said Friday he expects an agreement “within the coming three days.” He said progress had been made on a cease-fire, on a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah and on reconstruction funds for Gaza.

“Many obstacles have been resolved, especially stopping all forms of aggression and the issue of the quality and kind of goods (entering Gaza) and the opening of the border,” Nunu said in a statement e-mailed to reporters in Gaza.

Granted, Hamas lies on a daily basis. But if Olmert concludes this deal on the eve of elections that signal Israelis don’t want to give concessions to a terrorist group, he will become so much more than a failed Prime Minister—he will become the man that flouted his nation’s will. If he opens the crossings without Gilad Shalit (or his body, because we have no evidence that he is still alive), then he will have truly sold Israel down the river. And for what? What will Israel achieve out of this truce? Yet another rearming of Hamas? More Grad rockets, so that the next time, Israel will be beset north and south by Iranian proxies? If Hamas gets the kind of weapons that Hezbollah has, the IAF will be far less effective.

In the event of a large-scale future war, the Israel Air Force will not be able to provide the same kind of close aerial support it gave ground troops during the recent operation in the Gaza Strip, military sources said recently.

IAF officials said various factors, such as the limited number of aircraft and the enemy’s increased capabilities, meant the force would likely not be able to repeat the largely successful model of cooperation with ground forces during Operation Cast Lead, on a broader scale, should the need arise.

“Hezbollah and the Syrian army are not Hamas,” a senior IAF officer said. “We cannot assume that things will be the same in a bigger war.”

Israel needs a new government, fast. And both Netanyahu and Livni should be publicly declaring that Olmert needs to cease negotiations immediately without including at least Bibi.

Posted in Hamas, Israel | Comments Off on Hamas putting the rocket fire in cease fire