One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: March 1, 2009

From a One Jerusalem email:

End of Week Review: March 1, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● Should Hillary Be Applauded?: Several Jewish organizations are praising Hillary Clinton for pulling the United States out of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Durban II conference.How soon they forget. It is Clinton's State Department that legitimized the conference by sending Americans to negotiate with the Iranians... (read more)

● Jerusalem: Hillary Is Coming: Batten down the hatches, Hillary Clinton is making her visit to Israel as Secretary of State.One may ask why is she coming now. After all, Special Envoy George Mitchell is making his second trip to the region and Israel is... (read more)

● Jerusalem Update: Dateline Jerusalem:Coalition negotiations continue to dominate the political news. Netanyahu continues to court Livni's Kadima and Livni continues to play hard to get. Netanyhau's goal is to forge together the largest coalition possible so that his government will be stable.... (read more)

● The Arab World Needs Its Own Obama: Dr. Bradley Ruffle, Beer Sheva, Israel -- During Israel's war with Hamas, I frequently scanned online forums and discussion groups. Alarmed I was to discover the intensity of the anti-Israel sentiment. There are those who question the wisdom of... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

When The US And UK Agree On The Middle East--It Can't Be Good For Israel

Andy McCarthy writes:

Great Britain has opened an official dialogue with Hezbollah. It is intended to ease the way for the Obama administration to follow suit — and a prelude for both to open communication with Hamas.

Of course, Hezbollah (like Hamas) continues to call for the annihilation of the Jewish state. But so does Iran, which Secretary of State Clinton has announced she will formally invite to a mulitlateral conference over what to do about Afghanistan. One might have thought Iran had already registered its views on that issue, especially given this week's Times of London report that the mullahs are arming the Taliban with surface-to-air missiles (on top of lots of other assistance that Iran has been giving the Taliban all along, as Tom Joscelyn recounted almost exactly a year ago).

But hey, everything's negotiable, right?

Apparently Israel can expect to be treated as an ally by Obama no better than the UK itself. Or to spell it out a little more clearly:

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

Does this mean that Israel can expect no special treatment as a democracy threatened by terrorist groups and a Muslim nation about to go nuclear?

Of course, this doesn't say much for what the US can now respect from Europe either.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Obama's $900 Million For Gaza Does Not Have To Be A Reward For Hamas

Jonathan Tobin writes that Congress has still to be heard from on how all that money will be given over:

The good news is that some members of Congress, which must approve at least $745 million of the package, are asking questions about how the money will be used and who will get it. The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that Nevada Democrat Shelly Berkley has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that restrictions be placed on the aid upon receipt of the money. Possible conditions could include the cessation of rocket fire from Gaza into Southern Israel and the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Even more to the point, Congress’s demand for transparency could strip away the veil of humanitarianism from what may turn out to be a billion-dollar terrorist boondoggle.

Tobin anticipates that we will see opposition to Berkley's proposal for those who put a premium on a peace process that gives a pass to the Palestinian Arabs and welcomes pressure on Israel--talk about cycles!

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Gaza And The Omnibus Bill

Looking around, I found this, submitted by Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona:

SA 629. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1105, making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR RESETTLEMENT INTO UNITED STATES OF PALESTINIANS FROM GAZA

Sec. 7093. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.

SA 630. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1105, making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

REPORT ON COUNTER-SMUGGLING EFFORTS IN GAZA

Sec. 7093. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to Congress a report on whether additional funds from Foreign Military Financing assistance provided annually to the Government of Egypt could be expended--

(1) to improve efforts by the Government of Egypt to counter illicit smuggling, including arms smuggling, across the Egypt-Gaza border; and

(2) to intercept weapons originating in other countries in the region and smuggled into Gaza through Egypt.

The issue of resettlement of Palestinians in the US comes from the following:

On February 4th, the following was entered into the Federal Register:

Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

At the time, the concern was raised that Hamas could use such funds to emigrate to the US--these days, seeing how Operation Cast Lead has played out, Hamas remains fairly comfortable just where they are.

Senator Kyl is the one who invited Geert Wilders to screen his film Fitna before the Senate.

[Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Technorati Tag: Omnibus Bill and Gaza.

Questions About Chas Freeman Go Beyond Israel (Updated)

At The Plank, Richard Just has a question for Stephen Walt and the defenders of Obama nominee Chas Freeman to head National Intelligence Council:

why don't Walt and others answer a very simple question: Do they or do they not find Freeman's views on Tiananmen Square alarming? Look, I strongly disagree with Freeman's views on Israel (for the record, I would describe myself as a liberal Zionist), but, given the wide range of views about Israel on the left these days, I'm not particularly surprised that someone whose opinions on the subject clash with my own has found his way into the Obama administration. What does surprise me is that someone with Freeman's views on human rights has ended up with a fairly prominent post. I already know where Walt--and others who have been attacking the Freeman attackers--stand on Israel. But I am genuinely curious to know what they think of Freeman's views on how authoritarian governments should treat their own people--a topic they don't seem to want to engage. For my part, I am horrified by the idea that someone with such a dim view of those who essentially risked their lives for liberalism (i.e. the Tiananmen protesters) would now serve in a liberal administration.

So, just what does Freeman think about China? Fortunately, The Weekly Standard has an email Freeman wrote defending China. Here is what he wrote about Tienanmen:

The attack on "unarmed students" at Tian'anmen (actually at Muxudi and Fuxingmen and other locations outside Tian'anmen) came after many weeks, even months, in which the Chinese leadership had lost control of security in their own capital. (The troops were, in fact, fired upon at Muxudi, though it is not clear by whom.) The only surprise to me (and other realists, including, I gather, you) was that the Chinese leadership did not act earlier to restore order. We would have done so, judging by the precedents set by MacArthur and our National Guard over the decades from 1920 - 1950. The main lesson those leaders who survived the affair have drawn from it, in fact, is that one should strike hard and strike fast rather than tolerate escalating self-expression by exuberantly rebellious kids. If June 4 tells us anything about the Chinese leadership it is that they are reluctant, often to the point of rashness, to resort to the use of force against their fellow citizens.

That evaluation is not supported by everyone:

No one knows for certain how many people died over the two days. The Chinese Red Cross initially reported 2,600, then quickly retracted that figure under intense pressure from the government. The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded.

This is from Frontline, which includes some firsthand accounts and a timeline.

Check it out.

Freeman's ties, both to China and other countries may constitute a conflict of interest. Eli Lake writes:

Among the areas likely to be scrutinized in the vetting process are Mr. Freeman's position on the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC). The Chinese government and other state-owned companies own a majority stake in the concern, which has invested in Sudan and other countries sometimes at odds with the United States, including Iran.

Mr. Freeman is also president of the nonprofit educational organization Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), which paid him $87,000 in 2006, and received at least $1 million from a Saudi prince. He also has chaired Projects International, a consulting firm that has worked with foreign companies and governments.

The issue of Saudi money may be a source of problems for Freeman:

Mr. Freeman's ties with Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) also have come under scrutiny. According to the 2006 tax returns for the organization - considered a nonprofit by the Internal Revenue Service - 11 donors contributed a total of more than $2.7 million that year.

MEPC's acting director, Jon Roth, said the organization would not disclose the names of the donors, but added, "If the government needs something, we will cooperate with them."

In 2007, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud announced that he had provided a gift of $1 million to the MEPC for its endowment. Prince Alwaleed's attempt to give New York money after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was refused by New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Buck Revell, the FBI's associate deputy director responsible for investigations and intelligence from 1980 to 1991, said the receipt of Saudi money alone is not a reason to disqualify Mr. Freeman.

"Saudi money is everywhere. It is in the George Bush library, it is in the Clinton library, it's everywhere. So that in and of itself is not disqualifying," Mr. Revell said. "But how that money was used - was it used for the correct purposes, was it diverted to other entities or other organizations - that would raise issues of security. If it is going to organizations that say Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth and other stuff, that would raise issues."[emphasis added]

Besides the questions surrounding the nature of Freeman's connections to foreign countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, what he has said is an inescapable part of the issue. His statements about Tienanmen naturally draw attention:

Herb Meyer, a deputy chairman of the NIC during the Reagan administration, said business connections with China and Saudi Arabia were a concern, but he was more worried about Mr. Freeman's views.

"What concerns me more is what he has said and written. What matters here is his judgment and that seems to be the point that everyone is skating away from," Mr. Meyer said. "Can you imagine if I had stood up and explained away Tiananmen Square? He does not have the intellectual fire power to sort through the intelligence and reach a plausible conclusion."

Sen. Charles Schumer has weighed in with his concerns about Freeman regarding Israel, while a probe is now under way--with one voice conspicuously absent:

It’s worth pointing out that we still haven’t heard much of a defense of Freeman from the White House yet, suggesting the possibility that they’re hanging Freeman out there. As noted below, the spokesperson for director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, who gave Freeman the post, says he did so without “White House approval.” Unclear where this is heading.

The question now is whether Freeman is going to be an addition to the still growing list of appointees who are being thrown 'under the bus'.

UPDATE: Mark Hemingway looked into what James Baker thought of his fellow 'realist': 

Given all this, I thought I would see what former Secretary of State James Baker thought of Freeman. Chas Freeman appears twice in the index of James Baker's book The Politics of Diplomacy.  Both passages relate to Freeman's insistence that we go easy on the Saudis in terms of seeking their financial support for the Gulf War.

The first instance appears in a passage in which Baker is recounting his visit to Saudi Arabia in September 1990, to build up support for the coalition to expel Saddam from Kuwait:

From the start, they [the Saudis] were always advocates fro the massive use of force. We knew that if it came to war, permission to launch from Saudi bases would be automatic. And we suspected that the King was also willing to bear any burden asked by his American benefactors.  Even so, I was urged by our ambassador, Chas Freeman, to go easy on the numbers. "They're strapped for money," he told me before the meeting. "Don't press for too much right now."  I disagreed. (p. 289)

Baker asked for a lot and got what he asked for from the Saudis. The next index entry for Freeman appears in connection with discussions in early January 1991, after the decision to attack Saddam's forces had been made:

Our ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, suggested to me that perhaps we shouldn't ask quite so much of the Saudis. As a result of their previous commitments to Desert Shield, he said, they had a liquidity shortage that Saud hadn't wanted to admit to me. It seemed to me to be a classic case of clientitis from one of our best diplomats. "I'm going in front of the Congress and I'm asking them to go ahead and fund this effort," I said, "and I've got to explain that American blood will be spilled. If you think we're not going to ask the Saudis to pay for this, you've got another thing coming." It was the last I ever heard from him about going easy on the Saudis in terms of the costs of the operation. (p. 373).

I asked a foreign policy expert friend of mine what he makes of the above passages. This was his response:

My own person gloss is that Baker is a class act, and only said "one of our best diplomats" to throw him a bone. The fact that Saudi Arabia is so central to this period — and that the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia appears only twice in the book, shilling for the Saudis both times, and in passages that show Baker flatly disagreed with him, indicates what Baker really thinks of Chas Freeman. "Best diplomat" is just Baker being a great diplomat. 

Pity the poor Saudis and their shallow pockets.

Technorati Tag: Chas Freeman.

Why US Money To Gaza Cannot Fail To Help Hamas

Even putting aside the safeguards that are supposedly going to be put into place to keep close to $1 billion out of Hamas hands--unlike the UNRWA supplies and unexploded Israeli arms--just spending the money on Gaza directly helps Hamas. Claudia Rosett writes:

As for the financial safeguards--somewhere in Gaza, or maybe Damascus or Tehran, members of Hamas must be smiling. As long as Gaza is controlled by Hamas, any aid funneled into the enclave is one dollar less that Hamas might be impelled to spend on upkeep of its turf, and one dollar more available for terrorist activities.

But don't forget that besides the US aid, there is $1.65 billion from the Gulf Arab States via Saudi Arabia. And if you want to send money to UNRWA to help Gaza, one of the banks is the Commercial Bank of Syria, headquartered in Damascus:

In 2006, Treasury finalized its rule, which is still current, against the Commercial Bank of Syria. Under-Secretary Stuart Levey alleged that the bank had been used by terrorists to move money, and "as a state-owned entity with inadequate money laundering and terrorist financing controls, the Commercial Bank of Syria poses a significant risk of being used to further the Syrian Government's continuing support for international terrorist groups." Among the terrorist groups cited as examples of such clients were Hezbollah in Lebanon, and such denizens of Gaza as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Hamas.

...It's hard to know whether it is of any concern to UNRWA that one of the conduits headlined by Ban Ki-moon for its Gaza relief appeal is a U.S.-censured bank, headquartered in a country that hosts Hamas leaders such as Meshal, and is designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Read the whole thing.

It's hard to know who will benefit more from Obama's various economic plans--the US or Hamas.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Gaza and Hamas.

A Thought About Abbas And A Fatah-Hamas Unity Government [Updated]

At present, it appears his most likely government is a narrow alliance of hard-line and Orthodox parties opposed to significant concessions for peace.

CBS News--about Netanyahu

Speaking of the unity government...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday the U.S. will continue to work closely with Israel's new government, but will also "vigorously" pursue the creation of a Palestinian state.

Clinton is making her first visit to the region as secretary of state during a transition period in Israel. She spoke Tuesday alongside Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni ahead of a meeting later in the day with prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu's criticism in the past of peace talks with the Palestinians and the possibility of Palestinian independence has raised concerns that his new government could clash with the U.S.

Clinton said earlier in the day that the U.S. would work with any Israeli government, while staying "vigorously engaged in the pursuit of a two-state solution every step of the way."

Clinton stressed the U.S.'s "unrelenting" commitment to Israel's security and said rocket fire at Israel from militants in Gaza "must stop. [emphasis added]

I don't know about the clash between the US and Netanyahu, but I am kind of curious about what is going to happen when 'vigorous' meets 'unrelenting'--probably along the lines of the same contradiction we saw in Condoleezza Rice.

If Clinton is trying to undermine Netanyahu by giving support to Livni and driving Bibi into a precarious right-wing government, she is doing a fine job--one that would make Rice proud.

Just remember some history:

Netanyahu’s view on Palestinian sovereignty is actually a traditional one that, till not long ago, was a consensus position between the two then-dominant Israeli parties, Likud and Labor. From Israel’s conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war up to the early 1990s, a Palestinian state was seen as an unrealistic, unacceptably dangerous option favored only by the far left of the Israeli spectrum.

Given Israel’s extreme vulnerability to attack from these areas, it’s easy to see why. The Likud generally favored self-government short of statehood for the Palestinians — similar to Netanyahu’s position now; the dominant Labor position was long the Allon Plan, under which Israel would have annexed about one-third of the West Bank for security purposes while ceding the rest to Jordan.

As late as Israel’s 1992 national elections, the Labor Party ran on a platform that said no to a Palestinian state. And as late as October 1995, after the Oslo process with Yasser Arafat’s PLO had begun, then-Labor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin spoke in his last address to the Knesset of “a Palestinian entity … which is less than a state” as the end-goal of the process.

Hillary Clinton has been supporting the idea of a second Palestinian state since at least 1998.

There was a time that the idea of creating a Palestinian state was as a way to achieve peace between Palestinians and Israel. Now, this is being packaged more and more as a way to achieve peace in the region as a whole.

The difference?

With the former, it would be lunacy to achieve that kind of peace at the expense of Israel's security.

With the latter, Israel's security is more of an afterthought--assuming much thought is being given to Israel's security at all. 

Considering Obama's demonstration of his economic acumen, what can we expect of his decisions on international affairs?

UPDATED: So how did the meeting go between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Bibi? According to Shmuel Rosner:

The meeting, many sources tell me, was friendly and cheerful in tone. Netanyahu had no reason to open old wounds, and Clinton, in her first visit, was not looking for a fight. She came with a couple of items on her agenda — more aid to Gaza (not Bibi’s problem yet, he isn’t in power) to which she added criticism of Israel’s intention to demolish some fifty Arab houses built illegally in Jerusalem (again, not yet Bibi’s problem). But she had no intention of getting into the philosophical question of “the two state solution, pro and con.” Her public statements were clear enough. His position is also clear, if more nuanced. In the meeting, as far as I could discern, the issue was not raised at all. What can be learned from this? At least, at this stage, these two experienced leaders aren’t looking for a fight — they are looking to find ways to work together. [emphasis added]

How long will that last?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.

Another Bulldozer Attack In Jerusalem (Updated)

Another bulldozer attack in Jerusalem:

Two police officers were wounded in Jerusalem shortly after 1:00 p.m. when an Arab-driven bulldozer plowed into their vehicle. Other police officers patrolling nearby fired at the terrorist, as did a civilian taxi driver, and the terrorist was killed.

According to an eyewitness, the Arab rammed the police car, flipping it over twice, and then tried to push it into the bus, which was empty at the time. He was shot as he attempted to crush other vehicles with the bulldozer. An open Koran was found in the driver's compartment, according to Jerusalem District Police Commander Nissan Shaham.

Unlike in the US, here in Israel there is no doubt about the motivation or who is carrying out the terrorist attacks--of which today's is the third of this kind:

Two similar attacks using tractors or bulldozers were perpetrated by eastern Jerusalem Arabs in July 2008. In the first one, three people were murdered in their cars, while in the second one, no one was killed, though over 30 people were injured. Civilians on the scene shot and killed the terrorist in both incidents.

Commander Shaham said that a list of all bulldozer owners and licensed bulldozer drivers in the greater Jerusalem metro area has been compiled following the incident, although "this is not the kind of attack we can anticipate in order to prevent in advance." The terrorist's identity was not immediately known.

Naturally, Hamas was quick to praise:

Senior Hamas terrorist spokesman Mushir al-Masri praised the bulldozer attacker in a statement released to the media shortly after the incident. "The operation in Jerusalem was a natural response to aggression against our people. The Zionist enemy should realize that they alone bear the responsibility for displacing our people in Jerusalem and for the killings in Gaza and [Judea and Samaria]."

Operation Cast Lead now seems like a distant event.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has an interesting perspective on the nature of the 'operation':

Think of this as a metaphor for the overall Palestinian movement. They settle on a strategy that doesn’t work, but they keep trying it even as it becomes obvious that it won’t work...

The Palestinians have now launched three of these bulldozer attacks in a year. The first time, the driver killed four people before getting killed by police gunfire, but in the last two attempts, the only death has been the driver. These could be copycat crimes, but it looks more like a strange strategy — strange in that it clearly doesn’t work very well in killing civilians.

Why keep pursuing a failed strategy? In this specific case, it could be that improved security with the wall and other Israeli efforts has limited the options of Palestinian terrorists inside Israel. Overall, though, that’s practically the Palestinian pastime.

Other than firing rockets, with which Hamas is growing increasingly successful.

More at Memeorandum.

Technorati Tag: Terrorism.

A Brief Refresher On Hezbollah

Michael Totten reminds us that Hezbollah--which has been noticed running reconnasaince outside the Hague during an investigation into the assassin of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri--has a history of being less than freedom fighters:

Never forget, though, that Hezbollah has, in the past, used violence against people who are not Lebanese and who are not Israeli.

Until September 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world. A Hezbollah suicide truck bomber killed 241 Marines when he rammed his payload through the gate at the barracks near the airport in the suburbs south of Beirut. Fifty eight French soldiers were killed by another Hezbollah suicide truck bomber in West Beirut two minutes later.

In 1994 another Hezbollah suicide bomber exploded himself and his vehicle outside a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and killed 85 people two years after the same group ignited a car bomb in front of the Israeli embassy there and killed 29.

Hezbollah men armed with pistols and hand grenades hijacked TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Rome in 1985, and cells led by Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyeh kidnapped 96 foreign civilians – mostly Westerners – between 1982 and 1992. After they kidnapped Beirut’s CIA station chief William Buckley, they tortured him to death, and they did it on video. [emphasis added]

Of course, there are those who will make excuses for Hezbollah.
But that's exactly what they are: excuses.

Technorati Tag: Hezbollah.

Cancer

I'm back from Ohio.

My sister-in-law has pancreatic cancer.

We found out at the beginning of last week and started making plans to visit. We go to Ohio at least once a year, taking turns driving. We were not sure how long we were going to be there, though we are planning to be going back to visit over the next few months.

My wife has a closely knit family: before her mother passed away a few years ago, my mother-in-law, her husband, one of their daughters and their daughter's daughter--my niece--all lived together.

My mother was confined to a wheelchair with an oxygen tank. After I married her daughter, my mother-in-law started to lose weight--I used to joke with her that I was not sure if I should take that as a sign of approval or not--and her doctor said that if she lost enough, he would be able to repair her shoulders, both of which were broken. He never was able to and she could not raise her hands above her head. For a while, she was able to walk without the wheelchair or oxygen, with some help.

She suffered a number of strokes and heart attacks. She died twice and was revived. Once she suffered from an embolism. It just so happened that at that time a specialist was at the hospital demonstrating a procedure he had developed. He performed the procedure on her and she recovered.

One time we were visiting her in intensive care--she looked awful and was connected by tubes and wires to machines. While talking to her, I mentioned the word 'lumber': for no apparent reason, she burst out in uncontrollable laughter. Lights started blinking and  alarms went off. A nurse ran into the room. When I tried to explain, she gave me a very dirty look. The laughing must have done her good, because my mother-in-law recovered. 

She lived long past the time her doctors had given her.

My father-in-law was always pushing my mother-in-law in her wheelchair.

He has a broken back.

My father-in-law had a farm, and after selling it became a contractor: he fell off a roof and broke his back.

After he was able to walk again--he went back to contracting.

He fell of a roof a second time--he finally retired.

Since that time, he has built for my wife and me bookshelves, cabinets, a standing closet...basically he has done more with a broken back than I could possibly do.

My sister-in-law, the one with cancer, has epilepsy.

She gets seizures, occasionally grand Mal seizures.

Her daughter has cerebral palsy, with other complications.

For years, the 4 of them lived together.

I would think they had every reason to feel miserable--both for themselves and for living with each other.

They had every reason to complain--but they did not.

They were a family, and I never felt like an intruder or uncomfortable staying with them.

Like I said, my mother-in-law passed away a few years ago.

My sister-in-law has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: she has been told that it has progressed so far that chemotherapy and radiation therapy will not help.

That leaves my father-in-law and my niece.

Together, here was a family that was greater than the sum of its parts--exponentially so.

In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy wrote:

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

I am no longer so sure Tolstoy was right about happy families.
And the key is not how families are unhappy, but how they deal with it--how they fight it, and in that regard families in general, and this one in particular, is different.

I'm not counting my father-in-law and niece out.

Technorati Tag: Cancer and Family.