Without Rumsfeld and Bolton, Who Will Keep Rice From Overcooking?

According to UPI: no one.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice now enjoys far greater clout in foreign policy-making following the fall of her arch-nemesis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And Rice has repeatedly made clear she wants to see a revived Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The secretary of state defied powerful neo-conservative pressure at a time when the neo-cons still dominated the White House, the National Security Council and the Department of Defense to choose David Welch, a highly respected veteran Middle East hand, as her assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Also, the departure of John Bolton from his key diplomatic position as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations removes a passionate opponent of any revival of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

It's not clear who is going to replace Bolton, what we do know that Robert Gates is going to replace Rumsfeld. Gates, is described as a 'traditional moderate Republican internationalist'--whatever. He is also supposed to have close ties to James Baker and was a member of the ISG until he was picked to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

According to UPI, things will be very different for Israel in particular--and the article gives the nowadays obligatory hint at the "Israel Lobby" claim:

Under Rumsfeld, Israeli military officials had the run of the Pentagon and enjoyed unprecedented access to Rumsfeld and his top officials. They could count on the enormous clout of the DoD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Rumsfeld himself to block any diplomatic initiatives by the Bush administration that the Israeli government did not like. But once Gates is running OSD, he appears far more likely to make common cause with Rice to pressure the Israelis to make new concessions on reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Whether this is actually true or not of course remains to be seen. Powerline, for example notes that remarks made by Gates at his confirmation do not reveal the opponent of Iraq that Bush's opponents claim Gates is:

I agreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners have served admirably there, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with them on a daily basis to help make the future better for the Iraqi people.

...I believe that leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come.

But on Iran, Gates does not take Iran's nuclear threat seriously, nor does he see in Iran a serious threat to Israel either. Powerline quotes Claremont's Seth Leibsohn about one exchange in the hearing:

This exchange between Lindsay Graham & Bob Gates today is disturbing, to say the least. Asked by Senator Graham if Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, Gates responded, "I don't know that they would do that, Senator." Somewhat astounded, Graham pushed back:

Graham: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he's kidding?

Gates: No, I don't think he's kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.

As Powerline puts it, according to Gates--other religious fundamentalists higher up than Ahmadinejad are going to keep him in check and act as a moderating influence.

In any case, with Israel's greatest mortal threat reduced to the rantings of an underling, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is free to become a central theme for Rice to continue to hammer away at.

Can 2008 come soon enough?
And will it make any difference?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates and Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Sharansky's Chanukah In The Gulag

From Powerline:

...President Bush awarded the Medal of Freedom today to Natan Sharansky, among others. After the event at the White House, Sharansky attended a reception at the Israeli embassy where he told a story about one particular Hanukkah he spent in the Soviet Gulag.

During the year in question, Sharansky celebrated the first few nights of Hanukkah with some non-Jewish prisoners who helped him create a menorah and some candles. However, eventually the prison guards confiscated his menorah and candles, and he was forbidden to celebrate the holiday further on the theory that "a camp is not a synogogue." Sharansky promptly went on a hunger strike. As he explained today, he would not have done so if he had not already started celebrating the holiday, but once you exercise a freedom you cannot give it back.

Fortunately, the prison officials were expecting the visit of state inspectors from Moscow and did not want Sharansky to be on a hunger strike when the visitors arrived. So the head of the prison asked him what it would it take to get him to stop. Sharansky said he would eat only if allowed to celebrate the one remaining night of Hanukkah. Sharansky also insisted that he be permitted to do so in the chief's office (a much warmer place than Sharansky's freezing quarters), that the chief bow his head while Sharansky prayed, and that he say "amen" with Sharansky at the end. The chief asked how long this would take. Sharansky assured him it would not take long.

The chief agreed and the menorah reappeared. Sharansky then said a lenghty prayer, part of which he made up, and which he repeated to keep the service going as long as possible. Since he was praying in Hebrew, the prison chief didn't realize that Sharansky was repeating himself. Soon wax from the candles was dripping onto the chief's beautiful desk.

At the end, Sharansky prayed that he would soon be able to celebrate Hanukkah with family in Jerusalem and added, "may the day come when all our enemies, who today plan our destruction, will stand before us and hear our prayers and say 'Amen.'” On cue, the chief, relieved that the service had finally ended, echoed "amen."

Amen.

Technorati Tag: Sharansky and Chanukah.

Carter Accused Of Plagiarism--Whines

Having been accused of lifting maps from a book by Dennis Ross--maps made by Ross himself for the book--Carter's response is the expected rant:

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Carter, who is intensely critical of the complete absence of criticism, apparently has never visited the United Nations. Nor apparently does he read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Apparently Carter is content to resorting to the tried and true formula of whining how no one in the US ever complains or criticizes Israel.

One would think that if you put together all the people who attack Israel while simultaneously complaining that they are the only ones who do because of the nefarious pro-Israel Lobby--you'd get quite a sizable number.

Carter claims

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace...

Does he mean he reluctantly used outside sources for his book? Is he claiming that he had no choice but to use Ross' maps without permission? Is it clear what he claims to be uncertain about?

Carter describes

the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

Can he name what part of the Roadmap actually has been accepted by the PLO? Have they actually fulfilled any part of it? Have they stopped the terrorist attacks. Come on--they cannot even fulfill a ceasefire for more than a few hours. Has Israel actually "largely rejected" the Roadmap? What in the world is Jimmy Carter talking about?

Carter also claims:

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

If he is describing events in Palestine and not in Israel, then we must assume he is talking about Gaza and the West Bank--but the Palestinian areas there are under the control of the PA. If democracy does not prevail in those areas, as is clear from the corruption and the shootings by Palestinians, the ones responsible are the Palestinians.

One other point: if Carter is so concerned about the imbalance of the criticism:

o Why is it that the "Pro-Israel" media does not call the Palestinians "terrorists" but instead has been extremely supportive of the 2-state idea and tends to repeat every anti-Israel claim the Palestinians produce.

o Where is Carter's criticism of the Palestinians? After all, shouldn't he be the model for 'balanced' criticism? Or is he claiming that because everyone is pro-Israel, he must balance out the media by being purely critical?

See also the scathing review of Carter's book in the Washington Post.

Powerline also has an analysis of the contradictions and just plain nonsense we have come to expect from Jimmy Carter.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter: Mission Statement Impossible

Updated 12/7 (see end of post)

Powerline has posted the text of an email written by Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University, who is associated with the Carter Center. In the email, Professor does much more than simply distance himself from Jimmy Carters recent book:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.

If you take a look at the "Mission Statement" on Carter Center website, you can see how clearly Carter has parted from the philosophy that supposedly guides his actions:

Our Mission
The Carter Center, in partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights and the alleviation of human suffering; it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health. While the program agenda may change, The Carter Center is guided by five principles:

• The Center emphasizes action and results. Based on careful research and analysis, it is prepared to take timely action on important and pressing issues.
  
  
• The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others.
  
  
• The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.
  
  
• The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities.
  
  
• The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources.

The Carter Center collaborates with other organizations, public or private, in carrying out its mission.

Based on Carter's book and his actions over the past number of years, one could assume that Carter's Mission statement actual is:

• The Center emphasizes action and results--but not so much the consequences.
  
  
• The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others--as long as they have the effect he wants.
  
  
• The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk--after all, he doesn't have to live there.
  
  
• The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities--on behalf of the side he chooses.
  
  
• The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources--and when he gets around to it, Carter may himself actually provide himself with those skills, knowledge, and access to resources.
  

Regardless of what you think of Carter the President, since leaving office Carter not only continues to be a caricature of incompetence, but has clearly been consumed by his flaming bias as well.

Update: At The Corner, a student who says he is the one who sent the email to Powerline, writes:

Let me assure you that Emory alumni (at least the Jews) are abuzz and wholly supportive of Stein. That said — Emory being what it is (a typical PC stronghold) —
Stein will undoubtedly be vilified by student "journalists" and "activists," and the administration will issue some sort of diversity-claptrap-laden missive declaring its "disappointment" that Stein should choose to end his work at the Carter Center over a difference in "point of view."

Update II: Looks like the student above was not far off--From the ABC blog Political Punch:

Speaking to the NEW YORK TIMES Tulane historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the 1988 Carter biography, "The Unfinished Presidency," paints the dispute as more ideological than ethical.

"They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement. Carter has used him as a sounding board but apparently Carter went too far and the sparring partner decided to bloody him up," Brinkley said. "Ken Stein ... doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter."

As a college student, I interned for Dr. Stein at the Carter Center in 1988. He's a stand-up guy, one committed to trying to find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one certainly open to the Palestinian point of view.

My work for Stein revolved around research about THE BENELUX STATES -- the economic union that allows Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemboug to function together while existing separately. I also researched ways in which Israel and the Palestinians were intertwined infrastructurally -- water supplies, for instance. This is not the work of a man turning a deaf ear to the needs of the Palestinians -- it's the work of a man researching ways to achieve peace.

Technorati Tag: Jimmy Cater and Israel and Carter Center and Stein.

Complete Text Of Ambassador Bolton's Response To UN Condemnation Of Israel Re: Beit Hanoun

Hat Tip: Powerline

Here is Ambassador Bolton's response in the General Assembly on November 17 when the US vetoed the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Israel for the accidental killing of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun. Take a good look, because the Democrats intend to remove John Bolton and replace him with someone else.

USUN PRESS RELEASE #335 (06)

November 17,2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Statement by the Honorable John R. Bolton, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, in the General Assembly on the Resumed 10th Emergency Special Session on Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, November 17,2006

Madam President,

Just yesterday the Third Committee passed a resolution stressing the need to avoid politically motivated and biased-country specific human rights resolutions. It called upon member states to resist the “selective targeting of individual countries” and to avoid “double standards”. To be sure, many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies. But we find it deeply ironic that here we are, just one day after the Third Committee called upon member states to act with “impartiality and objectivity”, discussing a highly politically motivated and biased- country specific resolution against a country that has for decades been the target of the General Assembly -- Israel.

The United States will vote against this resolution. Once again, the General Assembly, meeting in this Emergency Special Session, is presented with a one-sided, unbalanced resolution addressing the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This resolution, like others before it, masks an agenda that has little to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which in any event is not addressed in an honest and even-handed manner. This resolution’s deficiencies are numerous and familiar. Because this resolution fails to take a realistic, fair, and constructive approach to the Israel- Palestinian conflict, it will fail to advance the aspirations of the Palestinian and Israeli people for a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous life, a goal so many of us share.

Unfortunately, this type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist. In doing so, it deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.

The challenge of advancing toward the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security, requires serious and determined efforts by the parties and the constructive support of countries in the region and the international community. Regrettably, we continue to see little in the way of constructive support for genuine efforts to move toward the two-state goal.

However, in a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question - that of its relevance and utility in confronting the vast array of global challenges in the twenty- first century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is little more than a self-serving and polemical attack against Israel or the United States. Moreover, the nature of group dynamics in this organization is seriously hampering the principles on which this organization was founded. While we know there are many who would prefer to see improved cooperation, a more effective General Assembly, and relevance of our actions to the real world, this resolution is another example of moderate elements being held hostage by a few extreme states or those whose parochial political agendas distort the ostensible purpose of this and other resolutions.

Since its inception earlier this year, the Human Rights Council, has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention almost exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries. Sadly, the Human Rights Council appears to be developing into an organ that is worse on this score than its predecessor.

This problem of anti-Israel is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systemic problem that transcends the whole panoply of UN organizations and agencies. Beyond the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Human Rights Council, the sponsors of today's resolution have diverted the efforts of non-political UN bodies such as UNESCO, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Postal Union, and the International Labor Organization with one-sided polemics irrelevant and indeed harmful to the non-political mandates of these agencies, and unhelpful to the cause of the Palestinian people and regional peace. These efforts serve only to erode the credibility of the United Nations and undermine the goal of resolving the underlying conflict.

The consequences of this persistent, unconstructive, biased approach are painfully clear - not one single Palestinian is helped and the United Nations continues to be discredited by its inability to confront the serious challenge of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a serious, responsible manner.

Member states must choose. Do we desire a viable United Nations system, composed of agencies respected for their role in conflict resolution, human rights, economic development, education and culture, or will we continue to acquiesce to a narrow agenda of bias, stalemate, and polemics? Member States must demonstrate the will to break with the past and make the United Nations a relevant voice not only for the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but for all the conflicts and issues worldwide that are equally in need of the UN's attention.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the US may lose John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN, Claudia Rosett offers a suggestion:

If Congress is absolutely determined to reject the best UN ambassador the world has seen in about a quarter of a century — John Bolton — then the only alternative if President Bush wants to keep him is another recess appointment. For that, Bolton would have to work without pay. It’s enough to make a person want to suggest that if you really care about trying to do some good in the world via the UN, stop sending your kids out to collect for UNICEF, and start sending them out to collect donations to keep John Bolton in office. Bolton, from everything I have seen, is far more honest and competent on every level than UNICEF, any of the other UN agencies, or most of the senior staff walking the halls of the UN, let alone many of the UN ambassadors whose limos cruise the streets of New York.

I would normally be against any such private meddling in U.S. foreign policy, or in matters relating to the public institution that is the UN. But the State Department in 2001 blithely accepted a $31 million check from left-leaning Ted Turner to fill a gap in U.S. dues to the UN (and thus free up much larger sums of U.S. taxpayer money to flood Turtle Bay). And the UN itself has been trumpeting its joy over its ever-expanding agenda of “public-private partnerships.” These set-ups are all very bad ideas, and someone needs to be asking why on earth both the U.S. and the UN should be franchising out public policy matters (and financing) to private players with their own agendas. But without John Bolton there, no one at the UN is going to be asking about anything very much…we will see the dawn of a new era of even greater UN impunity, moral bankruptcy and financial corruption. Why should only the left wing of U.S. politics have a private hand in UN affairs?

So, in the interest of fighting fire with fire, I wonder if anyone will start a campaign to scrap the UNICEF cans (they are not all about feedling wide-eyed children; they double-billed and padded their budgets in Iraq), and start collecting for Bolton.

(There is plenty more to say on all this, and more seriously, of course… Roger Simon asked for a comment, and these are quick thoughts on the way out the door to give a talk on the UN. It is staggering that in a time of real world crisis, our legislators, of whatever stripe, could turn down a man who is honest enough to talk straight to the American public, skilled enough to navigate the UN swamps, and sane enough to manage both without going out of his mind. Congress is throwing away the best we’ve got — and somewhere down the line, we will all pay for it).

Technorati Tag: Israel and John Bolton and UN and Beit Hanoun.

Condoleezza Rice: I Think I Know, I Think I Know, I Think I Know

Hat Tip: Powerline

In an interview with Condoleezza Rice, Cal Thomas asked her about her statement as the Keynote Address at the American Task Force on Palestine Inaugural Gala, where she said:

I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being. We should never have survived our civil war. I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Thomas asks Rice how--in the light of extremist Islamist rhetoric, propaganda, and indoctrination--she sees a Palestinian state accepting the existence of Israel.

QUESTION: I'd like to know what evidence you have — I read, and I know you do and a lot more than I do, the sermons, the editorials in the Middle East, the right of return idea, which a lot of people think is just basically overwhelming for a Jewish population with millions and millions of Arabs in the so-called Diaspora. What evidence do you have that teaching their schoolchildren at the ages of four and five to be martyrs, to show up in their little uniforms with plastic guns and their headbands, textbooks one grenade plus two grenades equals, you know, three grenades — what evidence do you have out there that if they had an independent state that they would lay down their arms and not complete the mission of killing the Jews and throwing them out?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace. And when it comes right down to it, yeah, there are plenty of extremists in the Palestinian territories who are not going to be easily dealt with. They have to be dealt with — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories — they're terrorists and they have to be dealt with as terrorists.

But the great majority of Palestinian people — this is — I've been with these people. The great majority of people, they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do.

QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.

QUESTION: You think you know it?

SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.

Just what poll is Rice refering to? She does not say.

Joel Mowbray notes, consistent with Thomas' question to Rice:

Poll after poll has indicated majority Palestinian support for suicide bombings. Even the term used for bombers, "shahids," is one of glorification, the equivalent of calling someone a saint. And whereas children across the world have posters in their room of sports stars or famous artists, Palestinian youths decorate their living space with posters celebrating "shahids."

Could it be that the 70% Rice is referring to is from a Bir Zeit University Poll published on September 20:

12. Peace Process and Negotiations

Palestinians: Yes to negotiation;, no to an immediate recognition of Israel by Hamas

67.0% support an immediate resumption of negotiations with Israel, while 29.7% are in opposition.

In addition, 64.5% support the PNA (led by Hamas) entering into immediate negotiations with Israel to reach a final status agreement.

57.8% support a two-state solution as a final settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; 39.0% oppose such a solution.

52.5% support the idea that Hamas must recognize international resolutions regarding Palestine; 41.0% are in opposition.

52.0% support the idea that Hamas must recognize the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel; 40.8% oppose such a solution.

The majority (62.3%) opposes the idea that Hamas must recognize Israel at this point of time; one-third (33.3%) support Hamas’s immediate recognition of Israel.

But that 67% only supports negotiations--they do not actual accept the existence of an Israeli state.

According to the same poll, 62.3% oppose recognizing Israel, hardly the response of Palestinians ready to live side-by-side with Israel. Also, 65.8% support a unity government led by Hamas: even though 31.6% believe Hamas will not reinforce democracy--this is the same Hamas which has pointedly rejected ceasing terrorism.

If Rice is correct that the vast majority of Palestinians are "perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace"--why does the majority support Hamas.

Condoleezz Rice's presentation of the facts goes further. While Rice may think of herself as "a student of international history," her knowledge of Israel is spotty. Last year, Rice publicly stated:

Two months ago, Israel and the Palestinian Authority took an unprecedented step on the road to peace with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, returning control of that territory to the Palestinian people...for the first time since 1967, Palestinians will gain control over entry and exit from their territory.

A real student of the relavent history would know that Palestinian Arabs never had control of the Gaza or the West Bank--that prior to the 1967 War, these areas were illegally under the control of Egypt and Jordan; that before that, those areas were under the control of Great Britain by virtue of a mandate of the League of Nations; that before that, those areas were under the control of the Ottoman Empire--even making the jump and assuming that there is a distinctive Palestinian Arab, they never had control over a territory in "Palestine".

Rice can say over and over: I think I know.
But the truth is--she doesn't.

As the editor of the Jewish World Review puts it:

We think the Secretary of State comes off as utopian and rather naive. She needs to go.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Palestinians and Hamas.

A List of CAIR's Achievements

Powerline has been extensively covering Minnesota Democratic Fifth District congressional candidate Keith Ellison, a Moslem with ties to CAIR and Nation of Islam among others. Over the weekend, they had a post featuring a copy of a speech Joe Kaufman gave in protest of the meeting of Keith Ellison and Florida gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis with CAIR. The speech had the following useful summary of CAIR achievements:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR was founded by three leaders of a front for the terrorist organization Hamas, in June of 1994. Since its creation:

*Four of CAIR’s officials have been charged with terrorist activities, in relation to Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Two of those officials are behind bars in the United States; the other two have been deported. One of them, Ghassan Elashi, was just sentenced, this past Thursday, to seven years in prison. Another CAIR official was listed by the U.S. Attorney’s office as a potential co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

*CAIR has solicited money for two terrorist “charities” which were shut down shortly after the attacks on 9/11 for raising millions of dollars for Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Leaders of both these organizations were representatives of CAIR.

*CAIR has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit put forward by the family of the former Chief of the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Section, John P. O’Neill, for his murder during the 9/11 attacks.

*CAIR’s parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, in 2005, was shut down after it was found liable for the murder of an American boy, David Boim, during a Hamas terror operation in Israel.

After hearing all of this, one could easily ask the question, “Why would this organization still exist?” It’s a good question – one that I have no real answer for.

It's a question worth asking the government.

Technorati Tag: CAIR.

James B. Baker III Is Back

Soccer Dad notes the aura that seems to exist around James B. Baker III. Baker of course is back in the limelight now that he is chairman of the panel reassessing Iraq strategy.

The New York Times describes him this way:

At 76, Mr. Baker still enjoys a reputation as one of Washington’s craftiest bureaucratic operators and as a trusted adviser of the Bush family, which has enlisted his help for some of its deepest crises, including the second President Bush’s effort to win the vote recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Baker served as White House chief of staff, as well as secretary of state under the first President Bush.

On the other hand, Powerline quotes William Katz, who is not quite as impressed

Let us not forget Baker's catastrophic performance as secretary of state under Bush 41, a performance marked by cynicism, an absence of any admirable principle, and an intense hostility to Israel. Baker is widely reported to have said, in a private meeting, "F**k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway," when asked about Jewish concern over his Mideast policy. He famously read out the White House phone number when testifying before Congress, saying the Israelis could call it when they were ready for peace.

He presided over the sending of Brent Scowcroft to break bread with the Chinese only six months after Tiananmen Square, as if nothing had happened. When asked why Americans should support the first Gulf War, he replied, "Jobs." Nothing like inspiring the nation. After that war, he famously went to Iraq and essentially turned his back on those who were revolting against Saddam.

He says we should talk to enemies like Syria, and relates how he made 15 trips there without result, but that on the 16th try he succeeded. What was the "success"? Why, Baker says, the Madrid Conference. What did the Madrid Conference accomplish? Hard to say, but, to paraphrase Eisenhower's famous comment - if you give me a week, I might be able to think of something.

The first Bush administration was even said to worry that the liberation of Eastern Europe was proceeding too quickly. No "tear down that wall" talk from the crowd.

With the exception of the freeing of Kuwait's oil wells, it's hard to think of any real, lasting accomplishment when Baker was at State. If he should emerge as a pinch hitter, we should recall what happened the last time he came to bat.

Oh, that James Baker.

Technorati Tag: James B. Baker III.

September 2003: Bush Meets With Rabbis During Aseret Y'mai Teshuvah

Powerline recounts this meeting of Bush with 16 rabbis from around the country, giving the notes of one of the rabbis who attended.

I just thought it was interesting.

Technorati Tag: Jews and President Bush.

Is The Pope On A Crusade Against Islam?

That is the impression you would get if you listen to the Moslem outcry against Pope Benedict XVI's address this week at the University of Regensburg.

Near the beginning of his talk, the Pope said:

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

That one sentence apparently has the Moslem world in an uproar, asking for an apology and comparing Pope Benedict with Hitler and Mussolini.

Maybe the Moslem world has a short memory. Powerline doesn't. From 2002:

Al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Pope John Paul II on two occasions during visits made or planned by the Pontiff to the Philippines in 1995 and 1999, The Times of London reported today.

Masterminding the assassination attempts was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also accused of plotting the September 11 attacks on the US, who was in the Philippines during both papal visits, the newspaper reported.

Also, as has been noted at The Corner, 2 Christian reporters were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint.

Apparently the Moslem world missed the last line of the address:

It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Some of the reaction has been a little less heated. From the Guardian:

...if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do? We might as well all retreat into obscurantism. And keep our mouths shut, for otherwise, who knows who we might offend. And if, as a result of the outrage, some Catholics get killed or their churches burned down by offended scholars and textual exegesists it might be thought that Manuel's original point had rather been made.

But all the analysis and defense of what the Pope said are worthless now:

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday apologised for causing any offence to Muslims amid growing fury across the Islamic world over a speech he made implicitly linking Islam and violence.

“The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions,” said the Vatican’s new secretary of state, Tarcisio Bertone.

If someone is going to criticize Islam, they should first be sure they are able to stand up to the fierce rhetoric--and more--that the Moslem world will dish out.

Update: Arutz Sheva points out that Pope Doesn´t Quite Apologize to Muslims.

If so, then whatever will come of Pope Benedict's words has not yet run its course.

The Anchoress puts it this way:

Whether he is “media savvy” or not, Benedict has managed - in his very scholarly fashion - to apply a very hot drawing poultice to the enormous and festering boils of both radical Islamism and rampant secularism.

All the more reason to hope that the Pope has thought this thing through
The Anchoress has all kinds of links on the subject and in a subsequent post here.

If the JBlogosphere is looking for an opportunity to help focus attention on the threat of Islamism, here it is.

Technorati Tag: Pope Benedict XVI and Islam.

Will Mearsheimer and Walt Come Out With A Paper On This?

From Reuters:

Muslims urged to buy influence in world media

RIYADH (Reuters) - Muslim tycoons should buy stakes in global media outlets to help change anti-Muslim attitudes around the world, ministers from Islamic countries heard at a conference in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday.

Information ministers and officials meeting under the auspices of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world's largest Islamic body, said Islam faced vilification after the September 11 attacks, when 19 Arabs killed nearly 3,000 people in U.S. cities in 2001.

"Muslim investors must invest in the large media institutions of the world, which generally make considerable profits, so that they have the ability to affect their policies via their administrative boards," OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told the gathering in the Saudi city of Jeddah.

"This would benefit in terms of correcting the image of Islam worldwide," he said, calling on Muslim countries to set up more channels in widely-spoken foreign languages.

Muslim stakes in Western media are minimal. Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns 5.46 percent of media conglomerate News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch-run group behind the Fox News Channel. The U.S. channel is generally seen as right-wing and no friend of Arab or Muslim interests.

Washington's response to September 11, invading Afghanistan and Iraq and tightening civil freedoms at home as part of a wider "war on terror", has created a widespread feeling among Muslims worldwide that their religion is under attack.

A row earlier this year over Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Mohammed deepened the sense of a divide between Islamic culture and the West.

"The fierce attack on Islam in the five years since the September 11 attacks has forced us into a defensive position on our faith and understanding of our tolerant religion," Egyptian Information Minister Anas el-Feki said in a speech.

"Now more than ever we need a new Islamic media message that reaches all parts of the world," Feki said, citing Israel's recent 34-day war in Lebanon as one issue where Muslims needed to make their views and influence felt. [emphasis added]

Let's put aside the current pro-Arab slant of the media that brought us ReutersGate has consistently bent to the will of Moslem pressure and threats.

The story on its face is misleading. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's stake in Fox News is hardly minimal. From December of last year:

Al-Walid also criticised US media which he described as "in general ... pro-Israel." But he also accused Arabs of not being pro-active in fighting the allegedly slanted media.

He said that during last month's street protests in France, the US television network Fox -- owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in which Al-Walid himself has shares -- ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots."

"I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty," he said.

"Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."

Only 30 minutes?

Maybe Reuters should make that:

Muslims urged to buy even more influence in world media

Another issue is the potetial election of the first Muslim to the US Congress--Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Nothing wrong with that, except for the groups he is accepting help--and money--from.

Joel Mowbray notes that Ellison has received help from CAIR:

Two of its officials have been convicted on terrorism charges, and as an organization, while CAIR forcefully attacks critics of radical Islam, it has yet to condemn by name any Islamic terror organization other than al Qaeda—which it denounced only reluctantly several months after 9/11.

CAIR’s former communications and civil rights coordinator was convicted in 2004 on terror-related charges of plotting to wage violent jihad against the U.S., and the founder of its Texas branch last year was convicted of terror-related charges.

Mowbray points out that Ellison has also received aid from other questionable sources:

Also of concern are other contributors to Ellison’s campaign.

* Shahzeb Gaziani gave $500 on July 22. He is an official with the Peace and Justice Foundation, whose president was a featured speaker at a December 2004 event titled, “A tribute to the great Islamic visionary Ayatollah Khomenei.” Khomenei, of course, called America the “Great Satan,” was responsible for the kidnappings of Americans at the Embassy in Tehran, and his regime helped create Hezbollah.

* Esam Omeish, who gave $500, is president of the Muslim American Society, which authorities believe is the political front in the U.S. for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological forerunner of al Qaeda and many other Islamic terrorist organizations.

* Samir Abo Issa gave $500 on July 22. In 2003, he helped post bail for Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who is now facing trial on terror-related money laundering charges.

Mowbray also did a five part piece on Ellison at Powerline. In the last part, Mowbray writes that

A Minnesotan who does not support Keith Ellison e-mailed me his contention that I needed "something more damning than a list of checks." The problem with Keith Ellison winning the Democratic primary tomorrow in the very blue MN-05 district is much more than just the people from whom he's received
checks.

Ellison has tried to downplay his history with the Nation of Islam and its ugly penchant for racism and anti-Semitism. His willing association currently with people who are self-identified Hamas supporters, such as Awad, or any of his ilk undercuts any claim that Ellison has genuinely evolved. Anyone truly outraged by hatemongering or anti-Semitism would never accept money donated or collected by the likes of Awad, let alone stand next to him as he headlines a fundraiser.

But beyond that, we need to recognize on this 5th anniversary of 9/11 that our war is not just a military struggle or even one against supporters of terrorism. People like Nihad Awad, Shahzeb Gaziani, and Esam Omeish cannot be allowed into legitimate circles.

It's not enough to oppose "terrorism." One must also be vocal in opposing the root cause of most terrorism today: radical Islamic theology which demonizes Jews, Christians, and Americans, and holds that any non-Islamic government is inherently illegitimate.

Awad, CAIR, and Muslim-American Society, among others, are extremely vocal in their opposition, but never against radical Islam, only against its critics. They serve as the intimidation industry, doing their best to stifle even legitimate debate. They have successfully instilled fear in the media and government, which is precisely why Ellison's past with the Nation of Islam received such scant attention in the local mainstream media. Had it not been for Minnesota Democrats Exposed or Power Line, local MSM likely would have ignored it altogether.

Make no mistake about it: CAIR is an enemy of free speech, and thus an obstacle in our struggle to preserve freedom. A genuine Muslim civil rights organization could have been beneficial not just to Muslims, but the public at large. But that's not the path chosen by CAIR, who instead primarily savages critics of radical Islam, while maintaining silence on Islamic terrorism and its root cause.

CAIR already enjoys far too much legitimacy for an organization founded by two men who have both expressed explicit support for Islamic terrorism. Imagine what would happen if CAIR's executive director can claim credit for helping elect the first-ever Muslim Congressman.

It is not about denying the right to fight anti-Moslem sterotypes.
It is not about denying a Muslim the opportunity to be elected to Congress.

It is about recognizing the existence of radical Islamism, both around the world and here in the United States--and combatting it even as we acknowledge that radical Islamism does not speak on behalf of all Moslems.

CAIR is part of the problem, not the solution.
Keith Ellison has shown signs of ignoring the existence of the problem.

The issue is not Moslem influence; it is what they are doing with it.

Technorati Tag: Media Bias and Israel and Moslems.

Video: The Moslem Reaction to 9-11

MEMRI has put together an online video entitled The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 911: 5 Years Later, showing the Moslem reaction to the 911 attack.

Powerline has the 'teaser' for the video here.

There are many things to remember on the anniversary of 9-11.

This is one of them.

Technorati Tag: 9-11 and Moslems and Iran.

Pallywoodland

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Thomas Jefferson

Caroline Glick has written a must-read article in the Jerusalem Post that puts gives the kind of perspective that you get blinded to when watching the mind-numbing media go through its paces.

Glick fleshes out the point made by Mere Rhetoric in reaction to the New York Times' gratuitous invocation that Centanni and Wiig "were released unharmed". As Mere Rhetoric responds:

You idiot! You total blistering idiot! Being forced to convert is a harm. It might be the oldest harm short of death - being forced to renounce your faith and your god. Millions of people - literally millions - have died rather than deign to utter words that would force them to give up their faith. No wonder liberal journalists are utterly baffled by fully half of the United States - they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful. We are beyond certain that if Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert away from Islam as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their lede. Way beyond certain.

There's a deeper explanation for how paragraphs like this can get written. It's not really bias, as much as it is the blind spots imposed by any ideology. And within that dynamic are questions about the degree of myopia and the room for self-reflection that particular ideologies allow.

Glick also notes this myopia in the coverage of Centanni and Wiig, and it is not limited to the New York Times:

While their remarks were covered extensively, no one seemed to think that the fact that their first post-release statements were made at a Palestinian Authority sponsored media extravaganza in Gaza was significant. No one noted that the men were flanked by Palestinian "security forces," and stood next to Hamas terrorist leader and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

No mention was made of the fact that the two were initially kidnapped by just such PA "security officials," or that Haniyeh is one of the leaders of one of the most fanatical jihadist organizations in the world, an organization that the majority of the "beautiful, kind-hearted and caring" Palestinians voted into office last January.

That is, no mention was made of the fact that until the two men left Gaza, they remained unfree. No one asked whether they had been given the option of not giving a press conference in Gaza. And now that they have spoken, there can be little doubt that a second press conference by the two men, in Israel or the US where no one will force them to convert to Judaism or Christianity or threaten to kill them, will draw far less media interest. After their press conference, the two men became yesterday's news.

But that was not the only item that was in the news that day. Reuters claimed that Israel had fired missiles at their reporter, Fadel Shada.

Yet it is unclear why anyone should believe either Shana or Reuters. Shana told Reuters that as he was driving to the battle scene, "I suddenly saw fire and the doors of the jeep flew open." He claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in his hand and leg. These are minor injuries for someone whose vehicle was just hit by a missile.

But then, the photographs taken of his vehicle after the purported missile attack give no indication that the car was hit by anything. There is a gash on the roof. The hood is bent out of shape. But nothing seems to have been burned. Cars hit by missiles do not look like they have just been in a nasty accident. Cars hit by missiles are destroyed.

Yet the glass on the windshield and the windows of Shana's vehicle isn't even shattered. In the photographs taken of Shana on the way to the hospital in Gaza, he lies on a stretcher, eyes closed, arm extended in full pieta mode. He is not visibly bleeding although there are some blood stains on his shirt, but then his undershirt is completely white.

I did not see these pictures in the media coverage of the purported IDF attack on the Reuters and Iranian cameramen. I saw them on Powerlineblog Web site [see here and here]. I did not see any questions raised from either the Israeli or the international media on the veracity of Shana's tale, which of course, provides a nice balance to the Centanni-Wiig hostage story.

All of this of course brings us back to the problem of the manipulation of the media by Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the complete willingness of the media to be led by the nose in what information is available and how it should be presented.

AS IS the case with the Palestinian war against Israel, one of the most notable aspects of Hizbullah's latest campaign against Israel has been the active collaboration of news organizations and international NGO's in Hizbullah's information war against Israel. Like their rogue state sponsors, subversive sub-national groups like Hizbullah, Fatah and Hamas, see information operations as an integral part of their war for the annihilation of Israel and defeat of the West. And their information operations are more advanced than any the world has seen. As becomes more evident with each passing day, they have successfully corrupted both the world media and the community of NGOs that purportedly operate in a neutral manner in war zones.

Glick sees this as part of a wider problem.

It is not a coincidence that I saw the pictures of the Reuters' vehicle on Powerline and not in the media coverage of the purported attack. Both the global media and the international NGO community abjectly refuse to investigate themselves. As democratic governments and their militaries have proven incapable of dealing with the phenomenon (in part because they seek to curry favor with the media and the international NGO community), the blogosphere has taken upon itself the role of media watchdog.

The role of the blogosphere in all this is helpful, but a citizenship that is more critical and skeptical of its media is essential.

Some say that the falling readership of the newspapers is a sign of this.
But what if that just means they are reading the same newspapers online?

Technorati Tag: Media Bias and Israel and Reutersgate and Centanni and Hamas and Hezbollah and Hizbollah and Pallywood and Hezbollywood.

Wife Of Ehud Goldwasser Will Be On Radio Today

From Powerline

Mrs. Goldwasser's husband of ten months, Ehud Goldwasser, is one of the two Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hezbollah. She traveled first to England, and now to the United States to bring attention to her husband's plight. Reuters describes her efforts here. Karnit Goldwasser has supported Israel's self-defense in Lebanon, while pleading for her husband's return.

Tomorrow morning, at 6:20 eastern time, Mrs. Goldwasser will be on Bill Bennett's radio show, which you can listen to on the radio or on the web (here and at many other sites).

Technorati Tag: Israel and Ehud Goldwasser.

Nasrallah Is Feeling The Heat

While Nasrallah is now vowing that he will fire missiles even deeper into Israel--even beyond Haifa--he apparently has also become more cautious:

Anticipating the ground assault, Nasrallah sought to ensure his group’s survival and safeguard its widening base of support in Lebanon and abroad by lowering the bar for what would constitute victory in a television interview broadcast Friday. He defined victory as a successful defense, but was not more specific.

According to the Washington Post, Nasrallah was more specific:

"Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine," he said. "If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory."

Of course Nasrallah is helped by the fact that he is defining his version of victory after Israel has already made public that their goal in Lebanon is to clear Hizbollah out of the area and seriously degrade their infrastructure--but not to destroy them. [Update: Now that Israel has rejected the army's recommendation for a larger-scale ground offensive, Nasrallah's ability to claim victory is all but assured ]

Not only has Nasrallah lowered the bar on how he defines victory, he apparently has also lowered the bar on how he defines martyrdom as well:

“We love martyrdom,” he has said in the Friday interview. “But we take precautions to deny the enemy an easy victory.”

Maybe there is a connection...?

Of course Iran wants to make sure that Nasrallah does not appear to be too cautious, so they came out publicly to deny the rumors that Nasrallah has been hiding out in the Iranian embassy--though they did not respond to speculation that the kidnapped Israeli soldiers may be there. [Update: Now a Kuwaiti newspaper is reporting that Nasrallah is in Damascus and the Jerusalem Post has more]

On the other hand, the admission by Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of Hezbollah's political arm, that Hizbollah did not see Israel's response coming makes Nasrallah look careless, and worse:

"The truth is _ let me say this clearly _ we didn't even expect (this) response.... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

Such an odd admission--which might, as Powerline suggests, be a ploy to exploit the "disproportionate use of force" angle--might also add fuel to the anger of those Lebanese who feel that Nasrallah is destroying their country.

One of those is Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt who responded to an interviewer's suggestion that Nasrallah is considered a hero by the Arabs:

"Great, so he's a hero. But I'd like to challenge this heroism of his. I have the right to challenge it, because my country is in flames.

If Jumblatt really wants to challenge Nasrallah, he is going to have to wait in line--assuming anyone can find him.

UPDATE:
According to Haaretz:

An Israel Defense Forces analysis of the messages transmitted by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah to his men during the fighting in Lebanon reveals a slightly different tone from the one he took in three public television interviews in the same period and in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper A-Safir.

A senior officer said Nasrallah took a less bellicose position when engaging in his internal dialogue in his organization, than in his appearances in the Arab media - but he remained aggressive.

Nasrallah's tone is apologetic in his messages and he explains that Israel escalated the confrontation by striking deep inside Lebanon after the soldiers were abducted, the officer said.

Nasrallah admits that his organization is having morale problems and says his group will receive support and encouragement.

He adds that not only Hezbollah, but also Israel, has been badly hit.

He also complains frequently that the Arab states have deserted Hezbollah and the Lebanese and are not helping them against Israel.

In The Nasrallah Blues, Captain's Quarters gives his impressions on what this means:

It also sounds like Nasrallah had to make an accounting of his actions in order to convince his men to continue their fight. Having a commander communicate an apology of this sort indicates a growing dissatisfaction with leadership in the ranks. Nasrallah so far has done nothing to convince anyone that he has a grasp of either strategy or tactics. He has proven that he has no understanding of his enemy, nor much of his putative allies in the region, almost all of whom have declined to rush to his side in this fight.

Nasrallah had better have a victory to show them soon, or he may find himself replaced with wiser counsel.

And the momentum for pushing Nasrallah out may come from inside, not out. Michael Totten writes about what may happen in Lebanon after the smoke clears and Israel leaves:

My sources and friends in Beirut tell me most Lebanese are going easy on Hezbollah as much as they can while the bombs are still falling. But a terrible reckoning awaits them once this is over.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Nasrallah and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah.

Sharansky: Only Olmert Could Have Pulled This Off

Joel Mowbray reports from Israel via Powerline about his interview with Natan Sharansky:

Ariel Sharon would not have responded this strongly because he was so concerned with changing his image, and while Bibi would have done exactly the same thing as Olmert is, half of the country would have been protesting about what the ‘monster’ is doing,” explained former Israeli cabinet member and world-famous dissident Natan Sharansky.

Choosing his words as he stirred his breakfast shake, Sharanksy suggested that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his center-left coalition, is perhaps the only leading figure capable of a muscular response to Hamas and Hezbollah that enjoys overwhelming public support. He seems almost relieved when he says, “This is a unique moment of unity.”

Needless to say, this is not what most people are probably thinking--and Sharansky saying it does not make it so--but it is an interesting point of view.

Of course, if Olmert has support when it comes to Hizbollah, he does not have it when it comes to his plan for Convergence.

IMRA reports on a poll taken today:

In your opinion, in light of what recently took place in Gaza, was the
disengagement plan [AL: the retreat from Gaza] justified?
Yes 44%
No 31%
Don't know/other replies 25%

Are you for or against Ehud Olmert's convergence plan? [AL: aka
"consolidation plan", retreat from most of the West Bank]
For 19%
Against 52%
Don't know/other replies 29%

In your opinion, do most of the citizens of the State of Israel have enough
information about Ehud Olmert's convergence plan?
Yes 11%
No 71%
Don't know/other replies 18%

Still Sharansky's point is interesting, if for no other reason than that one might have thought that if Sharon was still Prime Minster--Hizbollah would not have started this, let alone Hamas.

According to Mowbray, there are high-ranking members of Kadimah itself who say that the Convergence Plan is dead--for now.

In any case, it would seem that Hizbollah underestimated both the kind and degree of response that Olmert was capable of, even assuming he was pressured into it.

Mowbray concludes with with the following cautious note by Sharansky:

“I hope he’s not making one mistake, and that is planning for more weeks ahead. At most, he will have days.” Why, I asked him, will Israel only have days, especially if Hezbollah continues firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas? “Because of the world,” he answered. “At the moment Israel starts becoming successful, the world tells us to stop.”

Israel's military might not be thinking along the same lines. Yesterday's Jerusalem Post quotes a high-ranking officer, who gave the following assessment of the progress made against Hizbollah thus far:

About 25 percent of Hizbullah's capabilities have been hit, a high-ranking IDF officer estimated on Sunday night at the end of the fifth day of Operation Just Reward.

According to the officer, the group's chain of command is still functioning. He estimated that the Lebanese group would not be annihilated when the dust settles, only severely damaged.

The officer predicted that the operation would end in the middle of next week. [emphasis added]

Israel is now in a fight against time, not so much against her enemies as against those who should be her allies.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Sharansky and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Mowbray.

Hurray For Pallywood--At Gaza Beach

YNet News reports that a German daily newspaper, Sued Deutsche, is reporting that there are questions surrounding the Palestinian version of what on the Gaza beach just over a week ago--even as the British papers the Guardian, Independent, Times newspapers publish findings casting doubt on Israel's claims.

The newspaper interviewed Zakaria Abu Irbad--a cameramen with the Palestinian independent news agency Ramattan, who filmed Hadil Ghalia crying over the body of her dead father--but he evaded most of the questions addressed to him.

Among the questions that the German newspaper raised:

• In the footage taped by an IDF drone during the attack, you can see five craters left by IDF artillery shells, but 250 meters away people could also be seen--but no one is seen running away or showing any signs of fear.
  
  
• Irbad told the German newspaper that paramedics told him about what had happened and took him to the scene--but there are no paramedics on the scene until later in the footage, apparently indicating that Irbad was actually the first on the scene.
  
  
• And if Irbad was the first one there, why were most bodies covered by sheets--who was there before to cover the bodies?
  
  
• According to Irbad, that reason that Hadil Ghalia was not injured, is because she was swimming--but the footage he took shows here fully clothed and dry.
  
  
• The newspaper notes that there is a shot of a man carrying a rifle next to the dead body of Hadil's father--but in earlier footage, the same man can be seen lying on the beach along with the injured.
  
  
• Irbad's footage shows paramedics in green clothes and a dozen bearded men looking for evidence on the beach--but the question is whether those are Hamas affiliates and why they were preoccupied with collecting evidence instead of helping the injured.
  
  
• Irbad said the reason he filmed Hadil istead of trying to calm her is that: "She asked me to film her. She wanted to be seen next to her father to show the world the crimes that Israel is committing."--but the newspaper asks, "Did the shocked 10-year-old girl, who had lost her father minutes earlier, give the cameraman direction instructions?"

Not only do the questions raised by the newspaper tend to discredit the Palestinian claim that Israel was responsibile, but they also raise the possibility that the scene was staged in order to hold Israel responsible.

The other Ynet article about the British papers casting doubts on the Israeli version of what happens rely on the Palestinian account of what happened as well as the opinion of Marc Garlasco--

a former Pentagon battlefield expert investigating for Human Rights Watch, who claimed last week that "all the evidence" pointed to the deaths being caused by a 155mm land-based artillery shell.

Soccer Dad notes some holes in the supposed expertise of Garlasco and points to a post on Israpundit entitled The Incredible Marc Garlasco--which leads one to believe that Mr. Garlasco may not be so credible at all.

Powerline points to Judith Klinghoffer's Deja Vu where she quotes from a doctor who recovered shrapnel from one of the injured:

Dr. Michael Bayme wrote his friends:

Some of you may have been following the tragic story of a Gazan family that was destroyed by some sort of bomb last friday. The world of course chose to blame Israel - without verifying any facts. The fact that Israel immediately accepted all the victims to its hospitals was seen as an admission of guilt, and not as a humanitarian gesture.

There is now incontrovertible proof that Israel did not cause the tragedy - shell fragments extracted from one bomb victim match the types of bombs made by Hamas - and not Israeli artillery shells. How do I know? I received the victim last Sunday (at 2:00 am), operated on her until 5am, and have re-operated every night since. Now she's out of danger, and will survive to rejoin her family.

But does anyone doubt that the Palestinian myth of what happened that day will follow in the footsteps of the the myth of Mohamed Al Dura?

See also: More On Gaza Beach (June 20)
See also: Human Rights Watch / Garlasco Admit Israel Not Responsible (Updated) (June 20)
See also: Will Israel Go To The Videotape? (June 26)


Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hadil Ghalia and Marc Garlasco.

Terrorism and the Media: The Symbiosis

Instapundit has a piece about the symbiotic relationship between the media on the one hand and terrorism on the other. He puts it succinctly:

Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn't willing to address that.

Along these lines, he quotes from a document found in Al-Zarqawi's hideout. After outlining the various ways the US has been successful against the terrorists, the first item listed in the terrorist effort to regroup is:

To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance. [emphasis added]

The degree to which this ploy has worked is documented by the Washington Post, which Instapundit points to as an example of the symbiotic relationship between the media and the terrorism:

More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.

"Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."

...The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

The international media may perhaps be unaware of the consequences of their doting coverage of terrorists when the consequences are not constantly and blatantly laid at their front doorstep, but what can be said of the leftist media in Israel, when the consequences are seen--and felt--on a near daily basis? It's likely more a result of the overall leftist viewpoint of the media, than anything else. Ideology trumps profit: and the results are no better.

In the article, the researchers goes on to suggest the logical step of denying them publicity by not publicly naming the terrorists--even given the exposure to news possible via the Internet, they suggest that since more than one group often claims responsibility, the affect of the publicity would be muted.

I'm not sure what the difference would be, whether multiple claims of responsibility were made publicly or made known over the Internet.

On the other hand, there is an example where terrorist responsibility should be made public: the involvement of Yasir Arafat in the assasination of American Ambassador, Cleo A. Noel Jr., and the charge d'affaires, George C. Moore in March 1973. It is unclear why the US Governement did not make clear Arafat's responsibility.

According to a New York Times article back in April 1986:

Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton told Congress today that the United States would not seek the indictment of Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1973 killings of two American diplomats in the Sudan.

The department said it had insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr. Arafat in the deaths of the American Ambassador, Cleo A. Noel Jr., and the charge d'affaires, George C. Moore.

Members of Congress had asked the department to study recent evidence that the lawmakers said indicated Mr. Arafat might have taken part in the decision by Palestinian guerrillas to kill the two men.

This is the same controversial and outspoken John Bolton who now represents the US at the UN.

But last month, the following was released by the Office of the Historian:

In the early evening hours of 1 March 1973, eight Black September Organization (BSO) terrorists seized the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum as a diplomatic reception honoring the departing United States Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) was ending. After slightly wounding the United States Ambassador and the Belgian Charge d'Affaires, the terrorists took these officials plus the United States DCM, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador and the Jordanian Charge d'Affaires hostage. In return for the freedom of the hostages, the captors demanded the release of various individuals, mostly Palestinian guerrillas, imprisoned in Jordan, Israel and the United States.

The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy.

The fact that Arafat was directly involved in the assassination is not new knowledge.

Scott Johnson points out in an article in November 2003 and again in a post on Powerline on Thursday that the State Department knew that Arafat was directly involved in the assasination of the two Americans from the beginning. [see also Solomonia on the electronic intercept of Arafat's order]

While writing an article on the topic in 2002, Johnson wrote to the State Department and was informed:

Evidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established. [emphasis added]

Johnson later acquired 27 previously classified cables through the Freedom of Information Act. According to Johnson:

The cables demonstrated that in March 1973 the State Department had promptly concluded that Black September was nothing more than a front for Fatah and that Arafat himself had directed the operation resulting in the assassination of Noel and Moore. Both points are made over and over again in the cables to and from the Secretary of State.

To take one example, in early March the U.S Mission in Vienna reported to Secretary Rogers: "The Black September Organization (BSO) is a cover term for Fatah's terrorist operations executed by Fatah's intelligence organization, Jihaz al-Rasd...For all intents and purposes no significant distinction now can be made between the BSO and Fatah...Fatah leader Yasir Arafat has now been described in recent intelligence as having given approval to the Khartoum operation prior to its inception."

It's all very well for the US to assume to attempt to broker a peace treaty between Rabin and Arafat, but if it had been common knowledge that Arafat--a world terrorist and no freedom fighter--had ordered the murder of US officials, would Clinton and the US been so ready to push Israel into the Oslo Accords?

Update:

Soccer Dad recalls that Lady Margaret Thatcher said it best 20 years ago:

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

Update II:

Thanks to Atlas Shrugs, Bizzy Blog and NewsBusters for linking!

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Terrorism and Arafat and Media Bias and Media and War and Iraq and Black September.

Does Olmert Have The Support Of The Media?

The Jerusalem Post reports that Olmert said on Sunday that he will be quick to redraw Israel's borders in the West Bank as part of his "convergence plan" now that it is clear that there is no peace partner to talk to after Hamas has defended the terrorist attack that killed 9 Israelis in Tel Aviv. Apparently Olmert finds support for Disengagement from the West Bank from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Olmert:

pointed to editorials that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post and even in Britain's Guardian, which he characterized "as Left as can be," that praised "the Israeli position and essentially said it has been proven that Israel does not have a partner and that this will necessarily lead to unilateral Israeli steps." [emphasis added]

True, The Times and The Post are negative on Hamas--see the Honest Reporting Communique on this point--but there is a difference between the media saying that Olmert is going to take unilateral steps and actually supporting the necessity those steps.

What The New York Times actually said was:

Hamas's support for terrorism encourages Mr. Olmert's strategy of a unilateral separation from the Palestinian people. It's a sure bet that if Israel carries out this separation without input from the Palestinians — as it is now doing — the Palestinians will not end up with enough land for a viable state.

This is nothing new--it is simply stating the fact that Olmert wants to take unilateral steps and what the result will likely be on a future Palestinian State.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, does not even mention Olmert. The editorial notes that "Hamas's position will also justify tough new measures by Israel, which cannot be expected to accept a neighboring government's open embrace of suicide bombers who attack its cities. "--but those 'tough new measures' have nothing to due with redrawing borders:

The Israeli army already wages a ruthless but narrowly targeted war against Islamic Jihad and has killed a score of its members in the past several months while arresting hundreds of others. A separate campaign of artillery barrages and airstrikes is aimed at suppressing rocket launches into Israel from the Gaza Strip, which are being carried out by several Palestinian factions. Yesterday the Israeli cabinet reportedly decided to refrain from renewing military action against Hamas itself. But if more suicide bombers succeed in the coming days and weeks with Hamas's support, this restraint will surely be abandoned.

This contrasts with the Times that praises Olmert for "taking the high road" in not retaliating, but instead revoking the residency permits of Hamas officials in East Jerusalem, conducting raids in the West Bank to make arrests, and conducting a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians into Israel--no praise for any unilateral action.

And what about The Guardian? I don't know what editorial Olmert is pointing to as condemning Hamas and accepting unilateral action as inevitable, but if the Guardian is saying it, it is not with a unanimous voice. From April 19, there is an article entitled "Last chance for two states: Negotiation rather than unilateralism is the way out of the spiralling Israeli-Palestinian crisis." Another article is no better, harsher on Israel than on Hamas:

The Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, said violence was against Palestinian interests and urged the international community to encourage peace negotiations "to stop the grave deterioration the region is witnessing".

But Israel seized on the Hamas statement, even though it has suspended its attacks against Israel and said it would not carry out suicide attacks in the future. Ra'anan Gissin, a spokesman for Mr Olmert, said: "This Palestinian Authority, which has clearly defined itself as a terrorist entity, has tried to instigate terrorist support more than the previous one did, and we will act accordingly."[emphasis added]

Olmert may yet be justified in believing that world governments as a whole may yet side with Israel against Hamas, but if he thinks that these newspapers are the tea leaves that reveal the coming approval of world opinion--he's better off reading blogs instead.

More importantly, as Powerline points out:

What really matters is whether Israel has a true peace partner, not whether "foreign ministries around the world" think it does. If Israel lacks such a partner, as is surely the case, it must act accordingly regardless of what various foreign ministries and editorial writers believe. To be sure, Israel must also worry about how the Bush administration views things, but only to that limited extent should the opinions of foreigners matter.

It's a bad sign that Olmert thinks otherwise, and a terrible sign that he's interested in what liberal editorial writers at the Times, Post, and Guardian are saying.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Hamas and West Bank and Disengagement.