A Question For Those Who Condemn Qana

Over at The Corner, Cliff May is curious:

Why is there not one Arab (or UN) leader willing to say that, for humanitarian reasons, Hezbollah should stop firing missiles and release the kidnapped Israeli soldiers — and see what Israel does in response?

Not one. Evidently, the suffering of Lebanese civilians is an outrage — but not a high priority.

Maybe for the same reason that prior to The Road Map the PA did not take their case directly to the UN--and after the Road Map never fulfilled its requirements.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Palestinians and Terrorism.

Carter Lectures Israel On How To React To Her Kidnapped Soldiers

Jimmy Carter, the former president during whose term in office 52 Americans were held hostage by Iran for 444 days, now writes an op-ed for the Washington Post to lecture Israel on how to deal with her kidnapped soldiers.

In Stop the Band-Aid Treatment, Carter follows in the footsteps of Ismail Haniyeh, terrorist leader and prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority who wrote an op-ed back on July 11. Carter now takes the podium with similar distortions--the only difference being that we assume that at least Carter wrote his own material. The difference is negligible.

Carter writes about 'women, 'children' and 'Lebanese' imprisoned in Israeli prisons, neglecting to point out the common denominator: these are terrorists that attempted and in all too many cases were successful in brutaling murdering 'women', 'children' and Israelis.

Carter hits his stride early, blindly and shamelessly accusing Israel of the very tactic that Hizbollah has been using since its inception:

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Equally clueless is Carter's to-do list of what must be done to bring peace, starting of course with Israel's ceasing its attacks and continuing with all sorts of unenforceable measures to defuse the situation--but including the return of Shebaa Farms (which is actually recognized as belonging to Syria) and the release of terrorists. Missing from Carter's list is the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. And Carter cannot seem to understand why Olmert refused to accept such a ceasefire, which Carter himself labels as ambitious--for lack of a more accurate term.

After taking the required swipe at "the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal," ignoring the marginalizing of Arafat, the attempt to establish a real government for Palestinian Arabs, The Road Map, and The Disengagement, Carter sinks further into blurred distinctions.

He condemns--

leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. [emphasis added]

But does not clarify for the sake of the reader who exactly are the extremist Israelis whom one assumes somehow parallel the Palestinian Arab terrorists.

He writes about the security barrier "that fails to bring safety or stability," in spite of the fact that the number of terrorist attacks are down since its construction.

One can read Carter's description for how to bring peace and almost miss the implied obligations of the Arabs--again with no mention of terrorism:

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

Carter is of course expansive--though vague--on Israel's alleged violations, neglecting to mention--as expected--that the first requirement of the The Road Map was the disarming of the Palestinian terrorists. But in Carter's strange universe, the disarming of terrorists as per agreement is criticized as "subservient behavior."

Whatever Carter's accomplishments may have been as president, when it comes to international affairs in general--and the Middle East in particular--Carter's unmistakable bias renders his opinions, and this op-ed, a defense of terrorists.

Jimmy Carter is correct when he concludes that, "the people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we in the international community owe them our strong leadership and support."

But the first requirement is to have leaders who know where they are going.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Jimmy Carter and Washington Post.

Oslo: Did The Arabs Say 'Yes' or 'YES!'

I've mentioned before that I am reading Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind. The problem is that every chapter or so I come across something that makes me stop and think: that's an idea for a post!

I'm going to indulge myself, so please bear with me.

In the chapter Under The Spell of Language, Patai writes:

Similarly, a simple assent from an Arab can be, for him, nothing more than a polite form of evasion, while the same word may mean for his English interlocutor a definite, positive commitment. If the Arab wishes to make such a commitment, he will use mubalagha [exaggeration] and tawkid [emphatic assertion], as well as repetition, which to the English speaker will sound strange, to say the least. The same difficulty works in the reverse. A simple “Yes” or “No” is, for the English speaker, a definitive statement. His Arabic interlocutor, however, conditioned as he is by the exaggeration and overassertion that are the rule in his own mother tongue, is simply incapable of understanding such brief and simple statements in the same sense. For him, “Yes” only means “Perhaps.” (“No” has for the Arab a similarly indefinite meaning.) Only if the English speaker had said: “Yes, I am telling you definitely, yes; I assure you positively and emphatically, yes; my answer is irrevocably and permanently, yes!" would the Arab have got the point that what the English speaker meant was “Yes.” (p. 60)

Now Patai's book first came out in 1973, and things may have changed, but I couldn't help wondering what kind of Arabic translators did they have for Oslo (and Oslo II, and Wye, and The Road Map)? Were these translators who just translated the Arabic literally, or did they--or anyone else there--have an underderstanding of the way the Arab language works?

Did the Arab representatives agree and say 'yes' in a non-commital way and seriously didn't feel bound by the agreement?

Kind of like when my wife asks me if I'm going to take out the garbage.

Maybe that's the answer: woman translators!

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Olmert's Divergence From Convergence

According to Haaretz, PM drafting alternative to convergence plan, based on Olmert's failure to gather any international support for the Convergence Plane, he is going to repackage it and try again:

In light of the international opposition to further unilateral steps by
Israel, the government has begun to draft an alternative plan that would
essentially convert Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral convergence plan
into a bilateral move carried out in conjunction with Palestinian Authority
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

According to the plan now being drafted by the Prime Minister's Office and
the Foreign Ministry, Israel would propose to Abbas that they reach an
agreement to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders in Gaza
plus about 90 percent of the West Bank. The provisional border in the West
Bank would match the route of the separation fence, with one exception:
Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley.

In this way, Israel hopes to present the convergence plan as an
implementation of Phase II of the road map peace plan, thereby acceding to
the demands of the United States, Jordan, Egypt and others that Israel
resume negotiations with the PA under the road map.

Haaretz is nice enougth to point out that going to Phase II means bypassing Phase I which was never fulfilled--you remember, the part about stopping the terrorism.

Another problem--on the one hand:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni confirmed to Haaretz that she told senior
ministry officials last week that "currently, Abbas is not a partner for a
final-status agreement, but he could be a partner for other arrangements, on the basis of the road map's phased process."...One participant in this meeting said that Livni spoke explicitly about an agreement to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders. [emphasis added]

This of course requires Abbas to be thinking along similar lines. As it so happens, Abbas seems to be thinking along totally opposite lines:

Prior to Hamas's rise to power in the PA, Abbas rejected the idea of a state
with provisional borders, demanding immediate talks on a final-status
agreement instead.

An interesting contradiction:

However, Washington backed Israel's stance in favor of a provisional state, and Jerusalem expects that the U.S. will pressure Abbas to change his position....Israel could bypass Hamas and implement this program in conjunction with Abbas, thereby bolstering his status.

It's not clear how forcing Abbas into taking a position that he publicly opposed is going to bolster his status, but hope springs eternal.

IMRA is critical of the new packaging:

PM drafting alternative to convergence plan [strip Road Map of requirement for Palestinian compliance?]

The fundamental difference between withdrawal within the framework of
the Road Map and Olmert's proposed retreat is that Israel wants to retreat
while leaving open the question as to what happens in the void the retreat
creates.

It would appear that the "solution" the Olmert team is working on is to
strip the Road Map of any requirement for Palestinian compliance.

This way Israel will retreat and face a sovereign entity filling the void -
with all the Palestinian terror infrastructure intact. ready for the next
round of war.

"Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley" is the same
wording that PM Sharon's team first used to describe the original Gaza
retreat plan for controlling the Philadelphi Corridor after the retreat.
Ultimately Israel never held the line.

Of course, another thing you won't find mentioned in connection with the Road Map are Sharon's 14 Reservations, which were ignored anyway--by Sharon as well--almost as soon as they were drawn up. Here are some of them:

1. Both at the commencement of, and during the process, and as a condition to its continuance, calm will be maintained...

2. Full performance will be a condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases. The first condition for progress will be the complete cessation of terror, violence and incitement...

5. The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments...

6. In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.

14. Arab states will assist the process through the condemnation of terrorist activity.

Don't look for any of these points to be raised--who would take them seriously?

Olmert's is not willing to accept that sometimes a bad idea really is just a bad idea.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Road Map and Convergence Plan.

Is Abbas Finally Fulfilling Phase One Of The Road Map?

According to Haaretz: Abbas weighing dissolution of Hamas gov't

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is considering to dissolving the Hamas-led government should the security situation deteriorate ahead of his proposed referendum over a peace plan calling for the implicit recognition of Israel, a senior Palestinian official told Ynet.

Would this be considered as the beginnings of phase one of the Road Map:

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. [emphasis added]

While all along the Palestinian Arabs have claimed all along that following the Road Map would lead to civil war, wouldn't it be ironic if civil war would lead to the Palestinian Arabs following the Road Map?

Wishful thinking, of course.

Abbas himself provides another example of wishful thinking:

The officials ruled out the possibility that the dissolution of the Hamas-led government will spark off violent clashes between the Islamic group and its Fatah rival, saying PA security forces will do a good job in maintaining peace and order.

Considering the "good job" they've been doing so far, who could blame them for thinking that...

New York Times: Violence Erupts Between Fatah and Hamas

Hundreds of Palestinian security personnel loyal to the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, went on a rampage Monday night in the West Bank town of Ramallah, attacking the parliament and cabinet buildings controlled by his rivals in the Hamas-led government.

The attack by forces from the Fatah faction loyal to Mr. Abbas, who fired bullets at the buildings and set them on fire, came after Hamas gunmen attacked the Gaza headquarters of the Fatah-dominated security forces with rockets and grenades.

Apparently the same thinking that created the Hamas definition of "truce" also created the Palestinian definition of "peace and order."

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Hamas and Road Map and Fatah.

Abbas Threatens Hamas With Referendum For Peace

According to Arutz Sheva:

PA President Mahmoud Abbas has given PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh an ultimatum: Accept a deal for borders within the ’67 line or the issue goes to a general referendum.

On the one hand Haniyeh is claiming that Olmert's visit to the US was a great success and that the Convergence Plan was approved by Bush:

"Israel is trying to set up a country with a Jewish majority and preserve Jerusalem as its capital,” he told PA legislators. "This shows the Israeli government wants to keep the occupation. Unfortunately, the Americans are on Israel’s side.

Haniyeh continues to boast about the success of the terrorist attacks on Israel.

On the other hand, Abbas seems to be pushing towards serious talks that are about more than just talking:

"Are slogans enough to feed the hungry?" Abbas demanded of the PA parliament. "We must stop with the slogans and start dealing with reality. We must stop dreaming and accept what we can take now. Let us not speak of dreams. Let us take the Palestinian state on the ’67 borders," he stated.

Abbas insisted that the majority of PA Arabs are willing to accept the deal. "There is a national consensus on this," he said, adding that the current infighting between Fatah and Hamas is simply wasting time.

After all the hondling following the Road Map and squeezing concessions--and the Disengagement--out of Israel:

o Is Abbas serious about peace this time?
o Even if he is, does he have what it takes to pull it off?
o Is Hamas going to go along with this?
o If it doesn't will a real civil war break out
o Why is it that Abbas is willing to make a referendum, but Sharon wouldn't and Olmert won't

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Hamas and Fatah and Abbas and Haniyeh.

Survey Says! Some Results From The Palestinian Poll

Meryl Yourish links to the latest poll of Palestinian opinion. The whole poll can be found at the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. Despite the fancy title, I don't know how reliable the poll actually is--but some of the results are interesting. Here are the questions/answers I thought were the most interesting/contradictory, with some comments:

PSR - Survey Research Unit: Poll No. 19 - Main Results in Numbers

PSR poll No. 19
16-18 March 2006

	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
06) Given the results of PLC elections which took place about two months ago, some say that Hamas won because most voters wanted first and foremost (select one only):
1) a fighting authority that resists occupation	6.7	6.9	6.4
2) a clean authority that fights corruption	35.6	36.4	34.3
3) a strong authority that ends anarchy and chaos	9.4	9.2	9.7
4) an Islamic authority that rules according to Sharia and religion	36.6	35.4	38.7
5) other reasons: specify ----	9.3	10.1	7.8
6) DK/NA	2.4	2.1	3.0
First of all, who is "some say"? Are these people being asked what they themselves think or what they think the general attitude of Palestinians is? Secondly, according to the answers to this question the majority of those polled are evenly divided between voting for Hamas because they want Sharia law and an end to corruption--and less than 7% voted for Hamas as an anti-Israel move. Very nice and good PR. Less than 10% voted to end the chaos and anarchy--how would they vote now?
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
07) Some say that Fateh Lost these elections because most voters first and foremost (select only)
1) punished it for the failure of the peace process	5.1	5.2	4.8
2) punished it for the spread of corruption in the PA	51.9	53.8	48.6
3) punished it for its inability to put an end to anarchy and chaos	17.2	14.8	21.3
4) it was divided leaderless	18.9	19.5	17.8
5) other reasons: specify -----	3.7	3.5	4.0
6) DK/NA	3.3	3.2	3.4
No surprise that Fatah lost because of corruption. About 5% voted against Fatah because of failure in pursuing peace *What was not offered as an option: "punished for taking part in negotiations with Israel." Gaza was much more concerned about the anarchy in voting against Fatah--but there is less of a gap in anarchy being a reason to vote for Hamas. Why? (I should have taken statistics in college...)
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
10) The PLO and the PA have recognized the state of Israel as part of the peace process which was based on the Oslo Agreement. Hamas refused and still refuses to recognize Israel. What do you think? Now that it has won the elections, should Hamas recognize or not recognize the state of Israel?
1) It should recognize the state of Israel	35.7	36.3	34.7
2) It should not recognize the state of Israel	60.8	59.6	63.0
3) DK/NA	3.5	4.1	2.3
Let's not quibble over the fact that the PLO Charter still does not recognize Israel. The fact is that a healthy share of Palestinians don't want Hamas to recognize Israel--see next question.
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
12) For the assistance to continue, the donor community demand that Hamas must recognize the state of Israel. Do you think Hamas should accept this demand and recognize Israel?
1) Certainly yes	11.6	11.4	12.1
2) yes	25.5	24.8	26.6
3) no	42.0	44.0	38.5
4) certainly no	17.2	16.0	19.5
5) DK/NA	3.7	3.8	3.4
I assume this means that under duress some Palestinians will begrudgingly be willing to recognize Israel. A large chunk still do not. You can't negotiate in good faith with a country that you do not recognize...unless you're a Palestinian Arab.
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
17) If Israel agrees to conduct peace negotiations with a Hamas-led PA, do you think the Hamas-led PA should or should not negotiate with Israel?
1) certainly it should negotiate	26.2	26.1	26.3
2) it should negotiate	48.9	51.1	45.0
3) it should not negotiate	16.7	15.3	19.2
4) certainly it should not negotiate	5.2	3.9	7.5
5) DK/NA	3.0	3.6	2.0
But what do they mean by negotiating? Bottom line, would Palestinian Arabs be willing to make any kind of concessions? If so, what and under what circumstances. I can't help but think that negotiations for the Palestinian Arabs is just negotiated concessions. They have never show the political maturity to indicate they see it as anything else.
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
19) Are you worried or not worried about your personal freedom now that Hamas has won the elections?
1) very worried	8.1	7.4	9.4
2) worried	22.2	21.4	23.7
3) not worried	43.3	45.8	39.0
4) not worried at all	25.4	24.4	27.0
5) DK/NA	1.0	1.0	0.9
See the first question, where a little more than a third voted for Sharia law. Do the Palestinian Arabs really know what they are getting themselves into?
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
21) We would like to ask you about your expectations from the PLC you had just elected. Do you want it to
1) implement the Road Map Plan	53.0	49.9	58.5
2) not to implement the Road Map Plan	39.7	42.0	35.6
3) DK/ NA	7.3	8.1	5.9
Okay, so the majority want the Road Map to be continued to be followed, and a majority are in favor of negotiations--but 60% are opposed to recognizing Israel.
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
22) And with regard to the arms in the hands of the armed factions, do you want it to:
1) to pass laws to collect arms from all armed groups whereby the PA security services would be the only armed force in PA areas?	49.3	45.1	56.6
2) to pass laws to keep arms of the armed factions in the hands of the armed factions	27.1	27.0	27.2
3) not to interfere in the issue of the arms of the factions	20.8	23.8	15.5
4) DK/NA	2.8	4.1	0.7
If you combine 2 & 3 they are almost even divided on the question of allowing armed factions to keep their arms--which seems to jive with their apparent lack of concern for "anarchy and chaos". Don't they read the news?
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
23) What do you expect to happen to the Palestinians and Israelis now that Hamas has won Palestinian elections?
1) Negotiations will resume soon enough and armed confrontations will stop	17.8	16.5	20.1
2) Negotiations will resume but some armed attacks will continue	40.8	37.4	46.8
3) Armed confrontations will not stop and the two sides will not return to negotiations	34.1	37.7	27.8
4) DK/NA	7.3	8.4	5.3
The majority agree that the future holds more bloodshed
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip
25) Would you welcome or not welcome a further Israeli disengagements and withdrawals in the West Bank whether they were unilateral or by agreement?
1) definitely welcome	32.0	27.3	40.3
2) welcome	53.9	56.2	49.9
3) do not welcome	10.3	11.6	8.0
4) definitely do not welcome	2.2	2.7	1.4
5) DK/NA	1.6	2.2	0.5
The majority of Palestinian Arabs welcome the idea of more unilateral disengagements--and why shouldn't they?
	Total	West Bank	Gaza Strip

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas and Fatah.

What Good Is A Roadmap If They Change The Terrain?

I've quoted this before, and I'm quoting it again--Amir Taheri's basic but apparently unachievable point:

For a war to be won, it is not enough for one side to claim victory. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. Yet in the Arab-Israeli wars, the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory, while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat. Why? Because each time the United Nations had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.

It may be unachievable, but the logic is surely not so hard to grasp.

Or is it?

In Bush's Oslo Syndrome, I wrote that Israel just does not talk about a definitive military victory against the Palestinian Arabs. But don't just take my word for it. Daniel Pipes, in an article for the NY Sun entitled Israel Shuns Victory, notes that not one of the leading parties in the March 28 election offered the option of winning the war against the Palestinian Arabs. He also gives a historical context to Taheri's point, where there have been countries that were beaten up, but not beaten:

Wars are won, the historical record shows, when one side feels compelled to give up on its goals. This is only logical, for so long as both sides hope to achieve their war ambitions, fighting either continues or potentially can resume. For example, although defeated in World War I, the Germans did not give up their goal of dominating Europe and soon again turned to Hitler to try again. The Korean War ended more than a half century ago, but neither North nor South having given up its aspirations means fighting could flare up at any time. Similarly, through the many rounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict (wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982) both sides retained their goals.

The problem seems to be that Israel has totally bought into the idea of giving up on the idea of a real victory, and instead looking elsewhere for ways to 'manage' the conflict:

o Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): the current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

o Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: the Labor Party of Amir Peretz

o Palestinian Arab economic development: Shimon Peres.

o Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

o Outside funding for the Palestinian Arabs (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

o Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel's far left.

o Push the Palestinian Arabs to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President Bush).

o Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel's right.

o Transfer the Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank: Israel's far right.

Pipes of course rejects these approaches as being valid. However, he does not address what approach Israel should be taking. After all, it is all well and good to say that Israel should be aiming for a decisive victory over the Palestinian Arabs--but considering the pressure from the West in general and the US in particular, let alone the left-wing in Israel itself, it is not as if Israel go declare war and bring the whole issue to an end.

Pipes does address the issue in a follow-up article in the New York Sun, entitle How Israel Can Win, laying down some basic guidelines and advice:

o Israel hardly enjoys freedom of action to pursue victory; in particular, it is hemmed in by the wishes of its primary ally, the American government. That is why I, an American analyst, address this issue with the intention of influencing policy in the United States and other Western countries.

o Israel should be urged to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost, to influence their psychology.

o An aggressive step like "transferring" Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank would be counterproductive for Israel, prompting greater outrage, increasing the number of enemies, and perpetuating the conflict.

o Contrarily, perceptions of Israel's weakness lessen the possibility of Palestinian Arab defeat; thus did Israeli missteps during the Oslo years (1993-2000) and the Gaza withdrawal inspire Palestinian Arab exhilaration and more war.

o Israel needs only to defeat the Palestinian Arabs, not the whole Arab or Muslim populations, who eventually will follow the Palestinian Arab lead.

I agree with Pipes on the first four of his points, but on his last point, I think the rules have changed. I think that at this point there are elements in the Arab world that have gone beyond merely using the Palestinian Arabs to keep tensions going and distract the populace from making waves. To just let them be defeated by Israel would allow for the possibility for the Arab world to seriously note how well off those Palestinians are in comparison. Also, groups like Al Qaeda are just getting started in Gaza and are not going to go quietly. And then there is Hamas.

In U.S. Policy at a Crossroads: The Relevance of the Roadmap in the Aftermath of the Hamas Victory, Yechiel M. Leiter, Benjamin Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff at the Ministry of Finance:

A Palestinian state is not the goal of Hamas, the goal is Islam. Nowhere in the Hamas Charter is there mention of a Palestinian state. This point is crucial. The new Hamas foreign minister, Dr. Mahmud al-Zahar, has explicitly stated in this regard: "The Islamists' view, which Hamas adheres to, is that a great Muslim state must be established, with Palestine being a part of it." Thus, any attempt to satisfy Palestinian nationalist hunger through sovereignty in "Palestine," or part of it, is pure folly to Hamas. Statehood as offered by the Roadmap is irrelevant.

One practical difference between having the goal of a Palestinian State on the one hand and establishing one big Moslem state with 'Palestine' as a part of it, on the other is that--while the Arab world at large does not really care about the former not coming to pass, it will come together to defend against the possibilty of the latter being defeated.

If Leiter is right, then the Arabs are on the verge of once again redefining the terms and the battleground, just as it did in creating the concept of Palestine, Palestinians, the Palestinians refugee problem, and the occupation.

Besides, the Arab world has always seen the Palestinian Arabs as a means to an end. When have they followed the Palestinians' lead in anything?

The Sunken Synagogue also discusses Pipes' analysis, and will be coming out with even more.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Road Map and Hamas and Terrorism and Islam.

The Paths of Hamas and Kadima

Back in January, following Hamas' big win Emanuele Ottolenghi wrote for the National Review that by achieving a bigger win than expected and ending up with a solid hand on the reigns of power, Hamas had put itself in a hole. First, because it would have to articulate its position before the whole world. Second, because of the responsibility it would have to take for terrorist acts against Israel:

There will be no excuses or ambiguities when Hamas fires rockets on Israel and launches suicide attacks against civilian targets. Until Tuesday, the PA could hide behind the excuse that they were not directly responsible and they could not rein in the "militants." Now the "militants" are the militia of the ruling party. They are one and the same with the Palestinian Authority. If they bomb Israel from Gaza — not under occupation anymore, and is therefore, technically, part of the Palestinian state the PLO proclaimed in Algiers in 1988, but never bothered to take responsibility for — that is an act of war, which can be responded to in kind, under the full cover of the internationally recognized right of self-defense.

But in the months following the election, Hamas has been consistent in rejecting the efforts of the West that it abide by previous agreements, recognize Israel, and cease its terrorist attacks. Hamas representatives have been paying visits to various governments to gather support, and while the US and Canada have openly declared that they will withhold financial support from Hamas--and the US will not deal with Hamas ministers--the attempt to isolate Hamas has not been universal.

Now, in his article following the Israeli elections, Ottolenghi is harsh. He writes that while there are winners and losers, the results of the Israeli election leave a hodgepodge of parties and untried leaders resulting in one big loser:

The real losers are the Israelis and judging by their apathy, they probably deserve it: By not voting, they brought it upon themselves. Like their fallen hero, Ariel Sharon, who is in a deep coma in a hospital, they sleepwalked through an election where they had a chance to shape their destiny but instead gave their new and untested leaders an inconclusive verdict.

Still, a clear message emerged from this vote. Israelis are ready to partition the land, though they cannot trust the Palestinian give-and-take.

While both Hamas and Kadima won their respective elections--only the former won from strength. News commentators can go on claiming that Hamas won because of its integrity as opposed to Fatah, but the implied mandate is for Hamas to do what it does best. Kadima won too--but with no mandate, having gone down steadily in the polls from 36 to 29 seats.

Another thing that Hamas and Kadima have in common, apparently, is the threat of civil war. There have been outbreaks of violence between Fatah and Hamas, with the former indicating they will not give up the reigns of power, nor their jobs, quietly. Meanwhile, Kadima--in the face of its platform to push for a second Disengagement from the West Bank--faces a possibility of civil war.

In a further parallel, Olmert has been treated by the US as if he were the Israeli Abbas. Back in January, Arutz Sheva reported that the US was requesting that the PA and the Arab countries take measures that would increase Olmert's stature.

There was a time when Israel operated from a position of strength, and when the US would step in, it would be to hold Israel back. After the US and the Quartet succeeded in weakening Israel, the US went around asking the Arab world to make Olmert look better in Israeli's eyes.

On the other hand, Hamas and Israel are, as expected, held to different standards. So far, no one has suggested that Israel needs to take measures to improve Hamas' stature in the eyes of the Palestinians, but that may be because other countries are taking the lead in giving Hamas political support. According to the Russian News and Information Agency, while the Russian Foreign Ministry has said that "the recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and respect for signed agreements are what the international community wants" from Palestine--

Russian diplomats said they would not demand anything from Hamas, who has the right to respect or reject the opinion of Moscow and the Quartet as a whole.

This approach seems to be justified, as Hamas's stand will not change overnight, especially in the absence of Israel's response steps.

How Hamas can be expected to keep signed agreements--like the Road Map--when it supposedly has the right to ignore the Quartet is unclear. But the willingness to give Hamas a free ride while expecting Israel to heed the Quartet shows how difficult the US plan to isolate Hamas is.

With the Palestinian and Israeli elections behind us, the cards have been dealt. Now let's see what Israel will be able to do with them.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas and Olmert and Kadima and Israel Elections.

Whither the JBlogosphere?

People blog for all sorts of reasons--and more power to them...and to us, since the same of course applies to the JBlogosphere as well. But for those of us who write about current events--on matters Jewish and Israeli--what is our goal?

Through the medium of blogging we expect to:

• share our feelings and frustrations
• share items in the news that may be missed
• critique news items and the people who appear in them
• share our opinions about events in Israel
• open discussion on any number of Jewish issues

But some of us in the US have another goal in blogging, an accomplishment that one occasionally finds in the Blogosphere in general, but not in the JBlogosphere: making the MSM take note and have an impact.

The general Blogosphere has some major victories under its belt:

• making Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond an issue, leading to his resignation as House Speaker
• giving broad exposure to the Swift Boat ads and forcing the MSM to address them, a major blow to Kerry's Presidential campaign
• exposing the Killian documents as forged and forcing the MSM to take note, leading to Dan Rather's early retirement

This in addition to bringing issues of double-standards, hypocrisy, bias, and outright lies to the general public.

We in the JBlogosphere who like to draw attention to the double-standards, hypocrisy, bias, and outright lies found in international relations with and media coverage of Israel--can we ever hope for anything as impressive, or are we limited to preaching to the choir?

The main enemy is the media which sets the agenda and influences public opinion, and even the general Blogosphere does not win every battle against it. Case in point: the Air America scandal (see here and links at bottom of post) has been virtually ignored by the media, though if the issue was a Conservative radio network, one might expect there would be all kinds of coverage.

One could argue that even the successes of the blogosphere need to be taken in context:

• Trent Lott, as a Republican who was attacked by liberal bloggers as well, was an obvious target for the liberal media
• The Swift Boat ads and the Killian documents were issues directly bearing on a Presidential election. Though in both cases the media was reluctant to cover the issues, it was difficult to avoid once the Blogosphere's coverage reached critical mass.

These are exceptions to the general lock that the liberal bias has on the media.

Even with the growing recognition of the Blogosphere, besides the lack of attention to Air America, we still see all kinds of media bias in its coverage of Bush and Iraq as well as domestic issues. But even without being able to dictate what are the headlines that people will see in the press and on TV, the Blogosphere provides a strong alternative source of information for those who are looking for it.

However, regardless of what you think of the potential of the Blogosphere to grow into a force for the MSM to reckon with, and even if the Blogosphere will have growing influence and pressure on the media, it won't help the JBlogopshere.

Why?

First, because no matter how opposed the liberal media is to President Bush in general and US policy in Iraq in particular, when it comes to Israel--Bush and the media are now on the same page.

The media not only supports the Road Map, but after the required perfunctory declarations about Hamas, the media working its way towards supporting the need, if not the obligation, to deal with them.

Secondly, with everything else happening in the world and the pet issues each blogger has, how much attention is really being paid to Israel by the general Blogosphere?

How often does Instapundit cover Israel or has a post about Hamas and its election?

Little Green Footballs is a great exception, but it is still an exception.
Powerline also covers the situation in Israel from time to time--but how many of the big blogs do?

As things stand now:

• The media follows the liberal line in covering Israel.
• The general blogosphere does not cover Israel to the degree it covers other similar issues.
• The general blogosphere occasionally will link to a post in the JBlogosphere, but not often.

If we can barely appear on the Blogosphere radar, how can we expect to get the attention of the general public as a whole, the media, and eventually the elected officials and policy makers?

If Israel is a topic that is not covered by the big blogs in the general blogosphere, what reasonable goals can we set for ourselves, and how do we go about achieving them?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews</ a>.

Jay Bennish: Anti-Bush...and Anti-Israel

Many have come out both supportive and critical of Jay Bennish and the lesson (considering everything he said, it was much more than just comments) to his geography class.

There is a transcript of the tape made of Bennish's comments written by Michelle Malkin and she has a link to comments from a former student on a talk show.
You can hear the audio of the class here.

Bennish does more than make comments critical of Bush and the US, he also makes comments about Israel:

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

An odd comparison--considering the Palestinian Arab attacks, bombings, and murders contrasted with Israel's apparently neverending concessions, the Disengagment, and release of murderers--with a country like Iraq that in the past has been aggressive towards fellow Moslem countries, attacking Kuwait and being in a long war with Iran.

Of course Iraq and the Palestinians do have one clear thing in common--the murder of their own people.

...We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

"We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war"--I don't recall hearing this as the official US motto. It's not clear whether Bennish is referring to Afghanistan where Bin Laden was hiding or Iraq, which both the New York Post and Investors Business Daily report had, under Saddam Hussein, lied about their WMD program?

His student has a question too...

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Neither the student, nor apparently Mr. Bennish, is aware of the continued Jewish presence in cities such as Safed and Jerusalem and the Jewish immigration into Palestine that started in the latter part of the 19th century.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Dignan's 75 Year Plan blog notes, among numerous other errors and mis-statements of fact by Bennish:

Statement: They [Israel] assassinated the British prime minister in Palestine.

Fact: I assume he's talking about Lord Moyne, Minister Resident for the Middle East, who was assassinated in Cairo, Egypt in 1944.

Statement: Israeli terrorists used "Car bombings, you name it".

Fact: One truck bomb, actually (1/4/1948).

I would also be curious about where Bennish gets his "assassinations of hundreds of people" and who they were.

Of course there is the issue of distinguishing between the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi. It was Ben Gurion who said at the outset of WWII, "We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war" and the Irgun that agreed to help the British by sending a group to Iraq to blow up their refineries in 1941. While the issue is not black and white, it was only Lehi that could be described as a "self described terrorist group." The murder of Lord Moyne resulted in The Hunting Season, where close to a thousand people were turned over to the British--which stands in sharp contrast to the failure of the PLA to keep its obligation to disarm Palestinian terrorists as required by the Road Map. By lumping the 3 groups together, Bennish glosses over an important issue and misleads his students.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Besides the issue of Palestinian terrorists purposely hiding among civilians and the extent to which Israel has tried to minimize casualties in these cases, is the simple fact that Palestinian terrorists are purposely trying to kill civilians while Israel is not.

Bennish certainly did not make racist claims about Israel, and he saved comparisons with Hitler for his comments about Bush. To fully appreciate what Bennish's class was like, you should listen to the audio and form your own opinion.

I had a teacher in High School who also taught about US history and policy and discussed American Imperialism. However he used textbooks and homework to make his points--he did not use the classroom as a soapbox for comments that reveal an ignorance of the topics he is supposedly teaching to his class.

In that class, there was never an interchange like this from Bennish's class:

Bennish: Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
Student: We are.
Bennish: The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

The syllabus for his Accelerated World Geography course does not indicate which textbook he used or what readings would be assigned. The father of the student who taped the class said on a talk show that other students from past years will also come forward to describe what Mr. Bennish's class was like.

Some of Bennish's defenders claim that this is a free speech issue. There are, however, some questions to consider:

1. Was this a lesson or a rant.
2. Was the information he gave to the class actually factually correct
3. Was there an opportunity for rebuttal from the students
4. Was the teacher egged on by the student who taped him (The Lauer defense)

1. If this was all just a rant, then perhaps the worst that can be said is that Bennish lost control and a slap on the wrist may be sufficient.

2. If what he said was factually incorrect--and Dignan's blog goes to great length to point out and substantiate numerous factual errors made by Bennish--then the consequences that Bennish faces should be far more severe. This is more than just free speech--Bennish is a teacher who, unlike a letter to the editor, is expected to maintain a certain level of accuracy.

3. The opportunity for student rebuttal is a point that really does not carry much weight, seeing that we are dealing here with high school students, who generally are very likely to accept whatever a teacher says, as truth--and the more radical the better. It's not clear that Bennish has any better grasp of the facts than his students.

4. Considering that the student does not speak up on the tape until a little less than half way into Bennish's taped remarks, after Bennish's Bush/Hitler comparison, it makes no sense to say he was egged on (assuming the student's question can even be interpreted that way), unless there is some comment the student made previous to the taping. Of course, it also odd for a teacher to say provocative things to his students and then whine when they follow his example.

Why is it that people who try to be provocative get so upset when they are successful?

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Bush and Bennish and Free Speech and Terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan...Will Bush Ever Pay A Surprise Visit To Israel?

Reuters reports that President has made a surprise visit to Afghanistan while in South Asia--reminiscent of his surprise visit to Iraq to visit the troops during Thanksgiving back in 2003.

I'm just curious if Bush will ever make a surprise visit to Israel--after all, like Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel's situation today is very much a result of US interference intervention policy in the area, and it would be a sure sign of support, comparable to the effect of his visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US also encouraged democratic elections.

Apparently Bush has visited Israel twice before:
o In 1998, after becoming Governor of Texas, he toured Israel with Sharon.
o President Bush visited the Middle East from June 2-4 2003 for two summits in an attempt to push the road map as part of a seven-day overseas trip through Europe and Russia.

That's all well and good, but the second visit was pure business and the first one was before he was president.

Considering the enormous growth in tension since the election of Hamas, it would be nice--and appropriate, given that so much of the tension is the product of US advice--if Bush would pay a visit.

That in itself would be a surprise.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Bush and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moderation, Thy Name is Hamas

Honest Reporting on Hamas' takeover of control of the PA:

On Saturday, the Hamas terror group, whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews, took its place as the majority party of the new Palestinian Authority legislature.

Ismail Haniyeh was chosen as the new Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. Much of the media is describing this terrorist leader as "pragmatic" or "moderate."

Yes, why can't more terrorist leaders who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel be moderate like Ismail? And of course, it will be necessary for Israelto allow time for this "moderation" to express itself. Will the West tell Israel to make some goodwill concessions as well?

[Update: Sure enought, the ever-reliable--and predictable--Jimmy Carter advises "Don't Punish the Palestinians" Among the expected silliness, he writes:

The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

The problem with this of course is that it only refers to Hamas' desire to have a peaceful government without in-fighting. All of Hamas' statements about Israel both in public and in their Covenant indicate that they want to wipe it off the face of the earth. Thanks.

Carter's other suggestion for bringing peace:

A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas

But once again, Carter is foiled by reality. According to Arutz Sheva:

Bolstered by its victory over Fatah in Palestinian Authority parliamentary elections, the Hamas is aiming for control over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

In any case, Carter does not make clear how negotiating with Abbas now would suddenly be any more fruitful than in past years, since Abbas has not fulfilled his obligations under the Road Map thus far.]

Honest Reporting points out that though the mantle of "moderation" and "pragmatism" conveyed by the New York Times, The BBC, The Associated Press, and Reuters

Today, there is no evidence Haniyeh has indicated he is in favor of changing the Hamas charter, rejecting violence, or recognizing Israel. Without these basic steps, it is difficult to see how anyone can accurately define him as "pragmatic."

Ah yes, a terrorist leader only the Mainstream Media could love.

So what did a moderate, pragmatic group like Hamas do when it took the reins of power? Joe's Dartblog notes:

Low comedy from deep within the Muslim world, newly represented by double talking terrorists. Just yesterday, Hamas came into power. As I noted, its first order of business was to indemnify itself—rhetorically, if not legally—from the obligations of Oslo, and to assert that, no, the nation of Israel does not have the right to exist in this world. Despite Hamas’ being essentially a successor government (and thus required under international law to abide by treaties to which the previous government acceded), the party has renounced any treaty that recognized Israel.

Can you guess what the second order of business was? That’s right: to condemn Israel’s decision to cease sending cash to the Palestinian Authority. Specifically, $42.2 million. Since the PA and its new Hamas bosses run almost entirely on the swiftly-eroding goodwill of the rest of the world (terrorism doesn’t pay very well), Hamas is now demanding that Israel reconsider its decision to cut funding. A representative said: “This is a faulty decison, and the Israelis must reconsider their decision. It will only increase hatred.”

The title of the post is "The Terror Authority Springs Into Nonsensical Action."

Apparently, Hamas got a handle on Mideast politics pretty fast.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas and Terorism and Haniyeh.

The Two-Tongued and The Tongue-Tied

You know the closer your destination / the more you're slip sliding away
Paul Simon

From Michelle Malkin's blog:

DANES REJECT THE TWO-TONGUED IMAMS

February 08, 2006 10:28 PM

We should learn from the stand Denmark has taken against double-talking radical imams who pose fraudulently as "moderate" peacemakers (via the Jyllands-Posten):

Political criticism of local imams in recent days has led the integration minister to exclude the muslim clerics from discussions of the integration of Muslims into Danish society.

Some imams have reportedly offered statements to media in Muslim countries that harmed Danish interests in the on-going row over the Mohammed cartoons, the integration minister, Rikke Hvilshøj, said on Monday.

'I think we have a clear picture today that imams are not the ones we should look to if we want integration in Denmark to work,' Hvilshøj told daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende...

One incident involved imam Abu Laban telling television station al-Jazeera that he was happy about the Muslim boycott. Later the same day, he said to Danish television station TV2 that he would urge Muslims to stop the boycott immediately.

The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, also disinvited a group of radical imams for an anti-terror conference at his Marienborg residence in September. The conference sought to find ways of preventing Islam from being used in the name of terror attacks.

Among those who should take a lesson from Denmark--dare we hope--is acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Like Denmark, Israel also has to deal with:

1. Radical Moslem leaders
2. Moslem leaders who say one thing publicly and something very different to their own people.
3. Fraudulent Moslem peacemakers
4. Moslem leaders who harm Israel's interests

But unlike Denmark, who excludes these people, the Israeli government without a word of complaint is going to let funds go to terrorist leaders who have clearly stated they do not recognize Israel's right to exist, keep bilateral agreements that the terrorists have no intention of keeping, and proceed with plans to give the terrorists their own state from which to better destroy Israel.

Update:

Obviously, Israel is not taking their cue from Denmark--so where are they getting their inspiration instead?

The EU!

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.

"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."

Does Frattini and the EU realize what that last paragraph sounds like?! We are aware of the consequences of our actions...and we will police ourselves. All that's missing are the words: "Please don't hurt me!"

The EU's fear is only going to encourage Moslem extremists and terrorists and that fear is already driving their pressure on Israel as much as anything else--with Olmert complying and describing all the concessions to come. He is determined to follow both the Road Map and Sharon's lead.

Better to follow Denmark.

Update II:

NeanderNews has other news on Denmark taking a stand:

Apparently it’s not just cartoons that are under fire in Denmark. NeanderNews has learned that Copenhagen kids only get Halal prepared meats in their school hot lunchs(!). The ‘Committee for Education and Youth’ (very scary) decided in 2001 to only use the halal meat for the hot lunch dishes.

Apparently now this will be changing. Below are excerpts from a translated Jyllands-Posten article dated February 7, 2006 (link in Danish):

Showdown about halal-meat in schoolchildren’s lunch

By LAURITS NANSEN and MARIA LÜTZEN
(Jyllands-Posten Copenhagen)

THE SCHOOLS OF COPENHAGEN WILL NO LONGER SERVE ONLY HALAL-BUTCHERED MEAT IN THE STUDENTS HOT LUNCHES

————

Students in the Copenhagen council schools shall no longer be denied the choice of pork when they buy their daily hot lunch in the school’s canteen.

Out of consideration to pupils with a moslem background there is presently only halal-butchered meat - and no pork at all - in the daily hot meals which are offered at a price of 15 kroner (appr. 2,35 US $) in the canteens of the 49 schools run by the council of Copenhagen.

A political majority in the council’s committee for children and youngsters now demand that porkchops and meatballs be introduced on the menu.

“We need to see more freedom of choice in the canteens. It’s fine with me that the ethnic minorities can have halal-meat but those who want pork should find it available. When it comes to food there are many minorities and they should all be accomodated”, says Jan Andreasen, spokesman on educational issues for the [ruling] Social Democrats.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Denmark and Hamas and terrorism and Islam.

How Green is My (Jordan) Valley?

Dore Gold has written an article for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs entitled, "After the Hamas Victory: "The Increasing Importance of Israel’s Strategic Barrier in the Jordan Valley". At the beginning of the article, he provides a summary of his main points:

o The massive electoral victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections has created an entirely new strategic reality for Israel which vastly increases the importance of the Jordan Valley (a desert zone almost devoid of population) for Israel’s security in the near term.

o With Hamas dominating the Palestinian Authority, Jordan could find itself sandwiched between the pro-Iranian forces in Iraq and a pro-Iranian Palestinian Authority. In addition, should Israel face a new round of armed Palestinian violence, its ability to isolate the Hamas regime from external reinforcement will be a key security requirement.

o The Iraq war has had a number of unintended side effects which could destabilize Israel’s eastern front. In the summer of 2005, bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, requested that Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi extend his Sunni insurgency to the secular states neighboring Iraq, meaning Syria and Jordan, and prepare for the “clash with Israel.” Former IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Yaalon warned at the recent Herzliya Conference that Israel might face the threat of mujahideen from the Iraq war seeking to infiltrate into Israel.

o Control of the Jordan Valley enables Israel to deal with any likely eventuality to the east. Should Israel withdraw from the Jordan Valley to the line of the security fence, it would not be able to stop the flow of insurgents and equipment into the West Bank to the terrain dominating Ben-Gurion Airport and other vital parts of Israel’s national infrastructure along its coastal plain.

o While some have misinterpreted Sharon’s ultimate map of withdrawal in the West Bank, asserting that he planned to pull back to the line of the security fence or even to the line that President Clinton had proposed in 2000, all evidence indicates that Sharon was determined to retain the Jordan Valley and many other vital areas beyond the security fence.

On that last point--that Sharon intended to keep control of the Jordan Valley--back in December Reuters was reporting that Sharon did indeed plan on retaining control:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said on Thursday Israel intended to keep control of the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank, signaling its insistence on retaining settlements there under any future peace deal.

Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv, Sharon called the Jordan Valley, where Israel has built a string of small settlements, part of the Jewish state's "security zone." Palestinians say a continued Israeli presence there would deny them a viable state.

Sharon has made clear following a Gaza withdrawal in September that Israel plans to keep large West Bank settlement blocs, but has said that some isolated enclaves would have to be removed under any future peace agreement.

That's all well and good, but around the same time, when Kadimah announced their platform, Arutz Sheva had an article with the following:

"They also did not mention [retaining] the Jordan Valley yesterday," Huberman said. "I listened carefully for that. Not to mention that the partition fence is on the Jordan River, east of the Jordan Valley, and that there is a tremendous border crossing terminal near Mecholah. All this does not bode well for keeping the Jordan Valley under Israeli sovereignty."

"This is not just theoretical," the long-time Arutz-7 commentator and Land of Israel author said. "By looking at the fence/wall being built, we see that Sharon's party has essentially adopted the left-wing position that the fence will be a political one, not just a defensive one, that it will be Israel's final border, and that all the Jewish communities on its other side will be destroyed."

But Olmert is also talking about the Jordan Valley. Boker Tov, Boulder quotes an article:

Olmert vows Israel to retain major settlements

Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defined on Tuesday the major settlement blocs he wants Israel to retain in a final peace deal with the Palestinians.

He cited the two biggest Jewish settlements, Maale Adumim and Ariel, as well as the Gush Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem and said Israel could not give up the strategically important Jordan Valley to the east.

He also indicated that some West Bank territory would have to be given up as settlements were consolidated.

So Olmert will not only hold onto the Jerusalem Vally, but also Maale Adumim, Ariel and the Gush Etzion bloc. But unfortunately vows and promises don't mean very much these days--Palestinian Arabs do not take seriously lines drawn in the sand by the Israeli Government and Israelis have already seen what campaign promises are worth.

I don't know how clear Olmert is being in defining the settlements he intends to hold on to. Getting back to that Arutz Sheva article:

The blocs in question are three: The Shomron city of Ariel and environs, the city of Maaleh Adumim just east of Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion, between Jerusalem and Hevron. Huberman said that each of them presents a problem:

"Take Ariel, for instance. We're no longer talking about a bloc, but just the city of Ariel with a little addition to the west. The communities of Emanuel, Yakir, Revavah and the like no longer seem to be under consideration. Or take Gush Etzion; the fence/wall as currently planned and built divides it in two parts, such that it's not clear whether there is any real intention to retain the communities of Nokdim, Tekoa, and El-David - which are on the 'wrong' side - or to abandon them. The same in Maaleh Adumim; it is not clear if the 'bloc' there includes Kfar Adumim, Mishor Adumim and Alon, or just the city itself.

"But even if we assume that Sharon wants to keep the maximum area in all these cases, it still means that Israel will retain no more than 10% of Judea and Samaria. This means that when Ariel Sharon says he wants to keep settlement blocs, it means he wants to give away 90% of the area. This is practically the same as Yossi Beilin's and Labor's plans, not including Jerusalem [which the latter agree to divide].

"And if we assume that in all of the above cases, Sharon plans to keep only the minimal areas for Israel, then it means that he is agreeing to a Palestinian state on 93-94% of the land - which is not that different than what Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat in Camp David several years ago."

Boker Tov points out that when Olmert continues to talk about the Road Map:

No mention is made of the Palestinian obligations specified in the road map, to which the Palestinian Authority agreed, such as disarming and dismantling terrorist organizations. Like Hamas. Which won a majority in the Legislative Council election. Nor is there any mention of the gift of Gaza.

Apparently Olmert knows the Road Map so well, he can read it with his eyes closed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Road Map.

Abbas To The Rescue!

Arutz Sheva reported on Friday that already the party is over--Olmert is going to transfer funds to Hamas after all:

Acting PM Ehud Olmert, widely praised earlier this week for his decision not to transfer tax monies to the Hamas-dominated Pal. Authority, has apparently decided to transfer the money after all.

Olmert will convene a ministerial consultation on the matter this Sunday, but the ministers are generally in favor of giving the funds. The feeling is that because Hamas is not yet in power, there is no reason to withhold the money.

That's right. Since good old reliable Fatah is in charge, there's no reason not to forward over the money--even though they have done nothing to stop terrorism, have not kept any of their Road Map obligations, continue to teach their kids to kill Israelis, and of course who knows where the money will end up anyway.

But don't worry--we have Abbas on our side:

Strengthening this position are remarks made yesterday by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Abbas said that though Hamas is now the PA's largest party, he will not assign the formation of the next government to Hamas until that organization recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by all previous PA obligations. [emphasis added]

Yes, if anyone can stand up to Hamas--it's Abbas!

Not to say that Abbas has seen to it that the Palestinian Arabs have recognized Israel or kept any obligations.

Perhaps what Abbas means is that he will not form a new government unless the head of Hamas can recognize Israel on a map and promises to keep the Palestinian Charter:

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland. [Emphasis added]

Knowing that Abbas is behind us really gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, no?

Update: I just picked up my 6-year old daughter from a birthday party for a friend. When we stepped outside, she unexpectedly asked me:

Abba, is this the real world?

I'm concerned--if she has trouble distinguishing now, what is she going to do once she is old enough to follow the news coming out of Israel?

Another Update: Mediacrity points out a further hypocrisy in Abbas' statement about getting Hamas to honor the PA agreements:

"Mr. Abbas has called on Hamas to abide by existing agreements made by the Palestinian Authority, which included the internationally backed peace plan known as the road map."

The road map, of course, calls for action against terror groups -- in other words, Hamas. If the road map had been implemented, there would be no Hamas at all. Leave it to the Times to not mention this logical absurdity from the present day, while at the same time diligently dragging up historical trivia to smear Israeli officials.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Abbas and Hamas.

Killing You With Moderation

Haaretz seems a bit confused.

In their article Does Hamas still want you dead?, Haaretz wonders out loud:

With the Islamic Jihad, you know where you stand.

They want you dead.

It's part of a worldwide movement of wanting you dead. They take orders from people in Damascus who want you dead, people in Tehran who want you dead, people south of Beirut who want you dead.

With Hamas, knowing where you stand is less cut and dried. With infinitely more support, personnel, sitzfleisch, than the Jihad, with more ideological independence, and a network of free medical clinics and free schools, it almost makes you wonder about the Death to Israel and Death to America and the second graders they dress up and parade around in fatigues and miniature M-16's and garlands of plastic grenades. [emphasis added]

Now as Hamas prepares to enter the Palestinian parliament, and perhaps the cabinet, it's time to ask - Will the real Hamas please stand up?

But what is it that Haaretz is confused about?

Are they really unsure of where Hamas stands and what their ultimate goals are? Or is Haaretz just unsure of which kind of rhetoric Hamas will be using now that they have the kind of political cover--and legitimization--that Hizbollah has?

Should Israel now expect that with Hamas having the opportunity to join the government--that Hamas will turn all warm and fuzzy?

Should Israel now expect a Palestinian Arab government that will start to abide by the Road Map--with disarmament and a toning down of rhetoric for starters?
Should Israel now expect a Palestinian Arab government that will offer compromises at the negotiating table?
Should Israel now expect Hamas to stop firing artillery at Israeli cities?

Let's assume that Hamas drops their rhetoric of destroying Israel and adopts instead the rhetoric of...Abbas.

Just what would be gained for Israel?
Just what would Hamas lose?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas.

The Path To Peace: Compromise or Extortion?

Arutz Sheva has an article on the latest demand from the Palestinian Arabs: Arab 'Right of Return' Conference: We Demand Kibbutz Land:

Organizers of a "Right of Return" conference held in Nazareth called
upon Arab parties to include the return of Arabs to land left in 1948,
most of which, they say, is now owned by kibbutzim.

Last weekend the conference, entitled "The Right of Return and a Just
Peace" took place in the Arab city of Nazareth, in the Galilee.

The main aim of the conference was to induce Arab parties to introduce
the concept of the Right of Return into their platforms. According to
a conference statement, "The 'Right of Return' must be incorporated
into their political agenda, so that Israel is not able to extort
recognition as a Jewish state from the Palestinian Authority and Arab
countries."[emphasis added]

It's that last sentence that got my attention. So the Palestinians want to avoid being blackmailed by Israel, perhaps as in: you recognize Israel's right to exist and we'll recognize your "Right of Return"? Forget for now the fact that recognition of Israel's right to exist is in theory non-negotiable and expected as a first step by The Road Map.

Doesn't it seem that the Arabs are confusing extortion with...compromise?

Tarek Heggy wrote an article, Our need for "A Culture of Compromise", in Al-Ahram on 29th September 29, 2002:

A few years ago, I discovered that there is no equivalent in the Arabic ‎language, classical or colloquial, for the English word "compromise", which ‎is most commonly translated into Arabic in the form of two words, literally ‎meaning ‘halfway solution’. I went through all the old and new ‎dictionaries and lexicons I could lay my hands on in a futile search for an ‎Arabic word corresponding to this common English word, which exists, ‎with minor variations in spelling, in all European languages, whether of the ‎Latin, Germanic, Hellenic or Slavic families. The same is true of several ‎other words, such as ‘integrity’, which has come to be widely used in the ‎discourse of Europe and North America in the last few decades and for ‎which no single word exists in the Arabic language. As language is not ‎merely a tool of communication but the depositary of a society’s cultural ‎heritage, reflecting its way of thinking and the spirit in which it deals with ‎things and with others, as well as the cultural trends which have shaped it, I ‎realized that we were here before a phenomenon with cultural (and, ‎consequently, political, economic and social) implications.

My, it's tempting. Arabs have no word for 'compromise'--or integrity! Aha!!

Don't get too excited. In an article "Claims About Words Can Distort Culture", Geoffrey Nunberg confronts such a simplistic approach:

But it's hard to imagine how any people could conduct the commerce and politics of a major civilization without having a way of talking about compromise. What's going on in all those souks -- is everybody paying retail?

...In fact, Arabic linguists confirmed for me that Arabic has several expressions that translate the English ``compromise,'' though none is a single word. (The phrase that Abbas' translator rendered as ``without compromise'' actually contained a classical Arabic word that came closer to ``relenting,'' but then the English ``uncompromising'' really means something like ``unrelenting,'' too.) When speakers of colloquial Arabic want to talk about compromise, they use phrases like ``we reached a middle ground.''

In this regard, Arabic is no different from English: We talk about reaching a meeting of the minds, striking a balance, finding a happy medium, or meeting someone halfway. Before Shakespeare's time, in fact, English lacked a single verb for compromise, and was none the worse for it.

The fact is that people have many more concepts than can be expressed in a single word in their languages. Take the German word Schadenfreude, which denotes the pleasure we take in the misfortunes of others. True, it's a nice item to have handy in a pre-packaged form. But Red Sox fans don't have to learn German before they can enjoy watching the Yankees drop eight straight at home.

Bottom line, the problem is more psychology than vocabulary.
It is a combination of hate, terror, hypocisy, double-standards...

And there is no one word to describe what is happening, in any language.

Technorati Tag: Palestinians and Arabic and Language.

Palestinian "Militants": Freedom Fighters, Terrorists or Just Murderers-for-Hire

Last week I mentioned that Abbas had given budgetary approval for assistance to the families of suicide bombers. Today on The Corner, Andrew McCarthy--a former federal prosecutor--takes a look at an article on Arutz7 and gives a quick evalution of the legal implications:

There is no question that this is murder-for-hire. Under our federal murder-for-hire statute (18 USC 1959, called "violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity"), such a murder includes one committed "for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of value[.] …" For a killing to be a murder-for-hire, there is no requirement that the thing of value even be money, much less that it be paid directly to the person who carries out the murder. (Federal law requires the "thing of value" to be provided by a racketeering organization because the feds can't prosecute murder unless they have some federal jurisdictional hook, like racketeering, drugs, or victims who are federal employees. State murder-for-hire statutes contain no such limitations.)

Pity that McCarthy is talking only about American law, and not international law--although it is not as if you could take such an issue to The International Court of Justice, which has thus far not shown itself to be all that concerned with the families of the actual victims.

In a less legal vein McCarthy adds:

And Abbas is supposed to be the "good guy" we prefer to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Great.

For the millionth time I ask – as we preside, day-by-day, over the creation of a terrorist state on Israel's doorstep – what ever happened to the Bush Doctrine? What ever happened to "You're with us or you're with the terrorists"? Why are we subsidizing the Palestinian Authority?

Jonah Goldberg adds a comment by a reader:

As the article that Jonah linked to also has the following paragraph: "The budget of the Palestinian Authority is largely subsidized by grants from European nations and the United States. " Do the math. My tax dollars subsidizing terrorism.

I haven't seen anywhere where President Bush has responded to Abbas' new Murder-For-Hire program, but he did speak today in Philadelphia on the "War on Terror." He is talking about Iraq of course, and did not mention Abbas or the Palestinian Arabs--but he did mention Israel in passing:

So the fundamental question is, do we have the confidence and universal values to help change a troubled part of the world. If you're a supporter of Israel, I would strongly urge you to help other countries become democracies. Israel's long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I recognize people have -- (applause) -- I fully recognize that some say it's impossible, that maybe only a certain kind of people can be -- can accept democracy. I just -- I reject that. I don't agree with that. I believe democracy -- the desire to be free is universal. That's what I believe. And if you believe that, then you've got to act on it. That doesn't mean militarily. But that means using the influence of the United States to work with others to help -- to help freedom spread.

OK, so "Israel's long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East."--but who could possibly compare Iraq with Abbas' thugocracy?

Remember the debate about what kind of government would be best for Iraq and whether it was really ready for democracy?
Does anyone recall any parallel debate, discussion, or concern about the PA?

The US is determined that Baathist loyalists to Hussein should be marginalized.
But Abbas is going to have a regular family get-together of armed terrorists in the upcoming elections--BYOB (Bring Your Own Bombs).

Iraq's constitution has been carefully crafted and voted upon.
But according to the Fateh Constitution, one of the methods of achieving its goal is:

Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.

I imagine that might put a damper on the enthusiasm to actually keep agreements like Oslo, Oslo II, and the Road Map.

Isn't it about time the Palestinians join the rest of the world and get themselves a real constitution?

And isn't it time the US put it's money where its mouth is--not in the pockets of the families of suicide bombers and unrepentant murderers, but in taking Abbas and his crew by the scruff of the neck and start them on the way to keeping their agreements and obligations?

It's a novel and apparently unpopular idea.

See also: Reaction to Terrorism: PA Compensates Families--of Terrorists

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians.