Olmert Gets To Walk In Abbas' Shoes

Remember when Abbas was invited to the White House, in a move which in part boosted his legitimacy?

Arutz Sheva reports:

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has replaced Ariel Sharon as the Kadima Party's prime ministerial candidate, is to visit Washington in February, just a month before Israel's national elections. Visits of this type invariably add to the invitee's stature in the perception of Israel's domestic public, and this will therefore help Olmert as the elections approach.

Remember how Secretary of State Rice praised Abbas

Arutz Sheva reports:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice issued a statement last night, commending Olmert on his apparent decision to permit eastern Jerusalem Arabs to participate in the PA elections later this month.

And remember all those times when Israel was encouraged to take measures to support Abbas?

Arutz Sheva reports:

In addition, the U.S. has informed the PA and Arab countries that Olmert's stature must be strengthened as the elections approach in order that he "continue the process that Sharon started." So reports the PA's Arabic-language Al-Manar newspaper.

No mention what measures the PA would take.

Maybe something commensurate with what Israel has done in the past to support Abbas? Maybe disarm some terrorist?
Perhaps he'll take steps to prevent Hamas from firing artillery into Israeli towns?

More likely, he'll just make a statement on looking forward to working towards peace with Olmert.

That sounds about right.


Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Olmert and Abbas.

Promise Her Anything

(Welcome to visitors via Haveil Havalim #53 from Elie's Expositions. Please take a moment to go to the top and take a look around.)

In a post yesterday (Trusting terrorists, mistrusting moderates), Soccer Dad notes how Netanyahu was betrayed by the Clinton administration. Netanyahu agreed to give up Hebron with the understanding--formalized in a statement by Warren Cristopher on January 15, 1997--that "further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians.'' Soccer Dad notes that Netanyahu was in for a rude awakening:

But as Netanyahu discovered a year later, a signed agreement made no difference. President Clinton's word made no difference. The NY Times mis-reported ("Israel Announces Stringet Terms For Withdrawal") what Israel demanded and compounded the felony by its dishonest correction. Since Arafat wasn't fulfilling any of his obligations specified in the "Note for the Record," Israel wasn't inclined to withdraw from any more terrirtory.

The Clinton administration, with its allies in the media started to portray Israel as making unreasonable demands upon the Palestinian Authority.

Cal Thomas ("Sharon's big gamble") reminds us that Clinton was not the first president to not keep his word with Israel:

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower made commitments in order to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson failed to implement those commitments and the Six-Day War followed.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon made promises to end the war of attrition between Israel and Egypt. Egypt violated the agreement, and the United States failed to live up to its commitments. The 1973 Yom Kippur War followed, which killed 2,800 Israelis.

In 1996 and again in 1998, President Bill Clinton promised to refrain from pressuring Israel into making further concessions until the Palestinian Authority altered its Charter that calls for the elimination of Israel. The Charter was not altered, but Israel was expected to honor its promises.

In 2000, Clinton committed $800 million in special assistance to induce Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah quickly filled the geographic and military vacuum, increasing terrorist attacks. The promised U.S. assistance never arrived.

But it's more than just not keeping a promise. It is also a question of applying pressure. Caroline Glick fleshes out just what Eisenhower promised and how he pressured Israel to accept it:

So it was in 1956, when Eisenhower forced David Ben-Gurion to beat a speedy retreat from the Sinai and Gaza at the end of the Suez campaign. The president justified the uncompromising demand by promising Israel that if the Egyptians were again to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, the US would send its navy to reopen the waterway by force. In 1967, when Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the straits, president Lyndon Johnson begged off, forcing Israel to stand alone.

After the Six Day War, which should have led to a complete political reshuffling of the region, the US again protected Israel’s neighbors.

And of course Eisenhower was not the first to strongarm Israel--he merely became the paradigm. Glick gives examples:

In 1973, the US administration was again on hand, wresting the Egyptians from the jowls of defeat. Henry Kissinger prevented Israel from destroying Egypt’s Third Army, allowed the Egyptians to escape with honor and thus enabled the creation of the current Egyptian myth – that Israel lost that war.

The Ford and Carter administrations strongly pressured Israel to sign away the Sinai in exchange for peaceful ties with Egypt, which after 23 years have yet to materialize, although Egypt, rearmed with American assistance, now poses a military threat unimaginable in the past.

In Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration stepped in to save a routed Arafat. The Americans paved the way for his escape with his troops from Beirut to Tunis, free to fight another day. In the meantime, the US forced Israel to withdraw from much of Lebanon and allowed the Syrian army to remain.

And in the Gulf war, the first Bush administration not only prevented Israel from achieving political advantage, it prohibited Israel even from defending itself against unprovoked Iraqi ballistic missile attacks. After isolating Israel from the coalition, the administration proceeded to force its democratic ally to the negotiating table to discuss the transfer territory to the Arabs. When the negotiations failed to bear fruit, the administration meddled in the 1992 elections to assist in the victory of the more forthcoming Labor Party.

Although the Clinton administration served in a decade unscathed by large-scale war, but marked by an increase in rogue states’ audacity and terrorist attacks on US targets, Clinton consistently urged Israel to accept Palestinian terrorism and insisted on turning a blind eye to blatant PA breaches of its commitments to Israel. The Clinton administration’s addiction to pressuring Israel to accept Arab aggression under the guise of peacemaking led to unprecedented meddling in Israel’s internal politics. The end result could be seen in the twin pictures of Clinton impertinently announcing his peace plan after his successor had already been elected, and Madeleine Albright chasing after Arafat outside the US Embassy in Paris in a vain attempt to get him to return to the negotiating table he had just overturned.

Of course there is also the familiar perpetual campaign promise of relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem:

The refusal of successive administrations to locate the US Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, is not simply an indignity, but another example of how the US has consistently prevented Israel from gaining any political advantage from its military victories against Arab aggression.

This is an issue discussed by Amir Taheri--how the US has prevented the consequences of the wars forced upon Israel to take their natural course. But Glick goes one step further, and imagines just what would happen if Israel were actually allowed to win:

And what would a much maligned and dreaded Israeli political victory over the current terrorist war look like? First and foremost, it would see Arafat’s physical disappearance from the scene and the dismantling of his Palestinian Authority as a political and military organization. Just as in Afghanistan today and hopefully in Iraq in the near future, the US has and will set up friendly, quasi-democratic governments, so Israel, or the US, would set up a new Palestinian government, committed to coexistence with Israel and the provision of political and economic freedom to the Palestinian people. Although sovereignty would not be promised, the chances of sovereignty being achieved, naturally and peacefully, would be greatly enhanced if the Palestinian people is allowed to develop democratic institutions and economic prosperity.

There is nothing wrong, immoral, imperialistic, or even anti-Palestinian about this plan. In fact, it would allow the Palestinians the opportunity to reconstitute their civil society after eight years of living under a corrupt dictatorship, which impoverished and subjugated them and told them to value murder more than life.

The only thing wrong with this plan is that it allows Israel to win this war politically.

This of course highlights one of the many double-standards between the way Afghanistan and Iraq are handled on the one hand and the Palestinian Arabs on the other. While the US is actively involved in helping the former two countries set up their own governments, when it comes to the Palestinian Arabs, the corrupt leadership is not only allowed to continue--the US has taken a decidedly hands-off attitude to how they run things: such as including terrorist organizations in the upcoming election.

Glick's closing line is:

One thing is certain though: For the US to be able to win its war on Islamic terrorism, Israel must be allowed to win its war on Palestinian terrorism, both militarily and politically.

Of course in the world of politics, nothing is certain. Israel is not going to be allowed to win it's war on Palestinian terrorism. Instead, it is being pushed into agreeing to live side-by-side with a terrorist state that has failed to keep even the most basic agreements it has made.

In an earlier post I wrote about how the US does not so much see Israel as a friend as it sees her as an interest:

The US fills Israel's needs because of what Israel can provide for her in the Middle East. Israel is not so much an ally of the US--it is an interest. The US, like many major powers, believes it has an interest--a right, a claim...an investment in what goes on in the Middle East. Since Israel is the most reliable way the US has to access and use its influence in the area, Israel--by extension--is an interest of the US. An investment. But not really an ally.

When you have an investment, you can buy more shares.
But you can also cash in.
Or you can just reduce your holdings, your exposure to risk.

As long as Israel is dependent on the US for so much, the situation is unlikely to change--at least not to Israel's benefit.

Footnote: One other point I wanted to emphasize was the most obvious one, namely that even with the best intentions, mere promises from the US are at best worth only the paper they are written on. Based on past history, for Israel to make irrevocable moves, such as withdrawls, merely on the basis of promises and guarantees which later president's may or may not honor is clearly a dangerous move.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel.

World--Please Note: Israel Is Not A Pobble

"It's a fact the whole world knows,
That Pobbles are happier without their toes!"
'The Pobble Who Has No Toes' Edward Lear

George Orwell has an essay on "Nonsense Poetry" where, on the above poem by Edward Lear, he comments:

While the Pobble was in the water some unidentified creatures came and ate his toes off, and when he got home his aunt remarked:

"It's a fact the whole world knows,
That Pobbles are happier without their toes,"

which once again is funny because it has a meaning, and one might even say a political significance. For the whole theory of authoritarian governments is summed up in the statement that Pobbles were happier without their toes.

Of no one is as authoritarian as when its interests--and safety--are perceived to be at risk. And when there is a malleable, dependent, country that can be manipulated to serve one's interests--you can find all kinds of reasons and excuses to remove their toes. Then, that country will be better off and the world will be a better place.

That of course is where Israel comes in. After all, Israel--we are told--cannot keep Gaza and the West Bank, especially in this day and age when territory is not a buffer against attack. More importantly, disengaging from it is a step that will enable the Palestinian Arabs to have their own country, a step towards peace.

Now, of course with Gaza under their belt, Hamas is that much closer with rockets--remember: Israel fires artillery; Hamas launches rockets--to other cities in Israel. With the closer proximity of Hamas and the improved range of the artillery that Hamas is firing into Israel's cities the terrorists expect that the Israel will be encouraged, with the West's encouragement, to lop off some more toes.

The media is full of pobble experts. One of them is Fareed Zakaria who writes in Newsweek that:

the great obstacle to progress in the Middle East is no longer Israeli intentions but rather Palestinian capabilities. The big story that no one wants to admit yet is that the Palestinian Authority has collapsed, Gaza has turned into a failed state and there is no single Palestinian political organization that could create order in the territories and negotiate with Israel. Palestinian dysfunction is now the main limiting factor on any progress in the peace process.

But don't get Zakaria wrong. Any focus on the Palestinians is merely in order to better (1) put the brunt of responsibility more squarely on Israel:

If the United States and the international community are looking to push along the peace process, the urgent need is to build Palestinian governing capability. Without that, Israeli intentions do not matter. If the Palestinians can get their act together, the spotlight will inevitably shift to the Israelis...

Then, when the world can once again turn its attention to Israel, (2) some more toes can be lopped off:

...And then the United States should urge Israel to continue in the direction that Ariel Sharon has pointed toward, separating itself from the Palestinian population in a process that inevitably will result in a Palestinian state on more than 90 percent of the territories captured in the 1967 war. A sense that this is what Sharon would have done eventually will be essential in moving to that settlement.

The world is becoming more and more Orwellian every day.

Mr. Zakaria leaves out the part how Israel will then be secure and be able to live in peace. He wrties about "progress in the Middle East" and "the peace process"--but no mention that Israel will have security or that Israel will live in peace. Which is just as well, since that is not the goal anyway. When the world talks about 'peace' and 'Israel' in the same sentence, they mean peace as in 'peace and quiet'--and the ends justify the means.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Orwell.

Star Trek, Captain Kirk, and Ariel Sharon

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Lt. Cdr. Montgomery Scott ("A Taste of Armageddon")

"A Taste of Armageddon" is the name of one of the episodes of the original Star Trek during its first season. Here's a short summary by Tom Keogh on Amazon.com:

the crew of the Enterprise gets caught in the middle of an interplanetary war between Eminiar and neighboring planet Vendikar. The twist is that the war is being fought on computers, and compliant residents of those "destroyed" areas obediently report to disintegration chambers, where their "virtual" death is made literal. When the Enterprise is "hit" in one of these simulations, both the warlords of Eminiar VII and Ambassador Fox fully expect Capt. Kirk and crew to report to the disintegration center. The feisty Kirk has other plans, of course.

In the conclusion of the episode, Kirk destoys the disintegration chambers and Vendikar declares real war on Eminiar when it sees that the virtual victims are not reporting to the chambers. When the war was kept artificially neat, clean, and tidy, the war between the 2 planets went on for generations, but with the prospect of a real and bloody war on their hands, there is an opportunity for negotiating a real peace between the two planets.

I was reminded of this episode by a piece by Amir Taheri (". . . And The Palestinians'?")

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.

With the UN artificially keeping the war as a stalemate with no real victor, there has never been an opportunity for real peace.

This novel situation saw bizarre new concepts invented to prevent the normal mechanisms of war and peace from functioning. These include such concepts as "land for peace" and "peace with justice." Yet there is no instance in history in which the winner of a war has given the loser any land in exchange for peace. Nor is there a single instance in which justice and peace went together as Siamese twins. In every case, the winner wins the land and gives the loser peace. In every case, the peace that is imposed is unjust to the loser and just to the winner.

Thus for more than 50 years Israel and the Arabs were asked to achieve what no others had ever achieved in history.

While I would not compare Ariel Sharon with Captain Kirk (wouldn't that make Ehud Olmert...Mr. Spock?), according to Taheri, Sharon does find his own way out of the conundrum:

Sharon understood that if such a formula remained in force, there would never be peace. It was necessary for the victor to claim victory, regardless of what anyone else said. It was also necessary for the victor to take unilateral action, imposing the peace it could live with.

I think there is alot to what Taheri writes about how the West in general, and the UN in particular, has prevented peace by preventing victory. At the same time, we are talking real life--and real death--as opposed to TV and movies, so whether Taheri's conclusions about the validity of Sharon's decisions themselves is another issue altogether. With expelled Jews still without homes and Kassams still being fired, the reality trumps the prose on the editorial page. Still, there is no denying the strong leadership of Sharon.

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, and formerly of the Jerusalem Post, said of Sharon:

it would be hard to gainsay the fact that he's probably the most significant prime minister Israel has had since the founder, David Ben-Gurion.

There is something to such a claim, and considering that Sharon was in office for just 5 years (he was elected in February 2001) as Prime Minister of a country that is perpetually facing dilemmas--yet always finding a way to survive and succeed--that is saying quite a bit.

Maybe the comparison to Captain Kirk is not so far off. After all, in the original series--wasn't the Enterprise on a 5-year mission as well?

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Sharon.

It's 5:30pm, Do You Know Where Your Ba'al Dikduk Is?

A post on westbankblog ("A Blessing From the Grocery Clerk") reminded me of an incident I had with a friend of mine in Israel a number of years ago. I wrote about my friend, Louis, a couple of weeks ago at YU. In Israel we were room mates when we were in the One Year Program studying at Hebrew University.

Louis is something of an expert (his word) or fanatic (my word) when it comes to dikduk--the kind of person who would correct Israelis in the middle of their conversation. Besides correcting them on things such as "b'glal she'" when it should be "mipnei she'", he would correct them when they said "LaBriut" saying that grammatically it should be "Livriut"--I used to say LaBriut to him to annoy him and Livriut to impress everyone else with my (nonexistent) knowledge of dikduk.

One day we were walking in Yerushalayim, when he noticed an elderly Arab walking ahead of us, turned to me and said, "I have to ask him what time it is." And why was it so important that he strike up a coverstion with the Arab? "Look at the time...it's 5:30!" And what is so special about asking an Arab the time when it is 5:30?

Louis wanted to hear an Arab say "Khameish V'Kheitzi"

Louis made Aliyah a number of years ago, and though I have not heard from him in a while, I am sure that Israel and Hebrew and not quite the same as when he arrived.

Speaking of Hebrew, Powerline has a post on Sunday about Milton Himmelfarb, a former contributing editor of Commentary magazine:

Edward Himmelfarb is Milton Himmelfarb's son. We have corresponded on matters related to Power Line. Today Edward Himmelfarb writes:

Thank you for your kind words about my father, Milton Himmelfarb, on Power Line. I remember an email exchange with you about a year and a half ago, in which you recalled having heard him speak at your shul in St. Paul in 1975, which, I might say, shows you have a very impressive memory.

I spoke at my father's funeral on Thursday, mostly of personal recollections, but I thought you might be interested in the last page and a half or so, in which I discussed his article "Going to Shul," written while saying Kaddish for his father, my Grandpa Max. So I've attached a copy of my eulogy. ("Going to Shul," by the way, is one of the articles linked at Commentary's web site.)

We were sitting shiva with my mother at their house through motz'ei shabbat, and the children and grandchildren have now gone home to finish shiva there. My mother is with two of my sisters.

During his illness we could only think about him and worry and try to help. God gave us a little extra time with him, though not nearly enough. But at least now we can stop worrying and we can think back with pleasure to celebrate his life.

Shul, kaddish, shiva, motz'ei shabbat...and later he also discusses gematria. It just kind of struck me that though one of the people who posts on Powerline is Jewish, and from time to time there are posts about Israel, still Powerline has a broad range of topics and their audience is not a purely Jewish one. Yet there was a sprinkling of Hebrew words in the post with absolutely no attempt to translate or explain them.

I don't know if there is anything to make of that, but I just thought it was interesting.

Technorati Tag: Hebrew and Israel.

For Palestinians, War Is No Bargain

In an article "Claims About Words Can Distort Culture", Geoffrey Nunberg counters the argument of those who claim there is no word for compromise in Arabic. Besides quoting scholars he has spoken to, he offers the following proof:

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?

Nunberg of course is right--it is pretty obvious that the concept of compromise is inherent in the art of bargaining. But Nunberg is of course wrong as well. He thinks he is comparing the souk with peace negotiations. In actuality, he is comparing the souk and war.

In his book, "The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book", by Norman A. Stillman writes:

The Jews [of Khaybar] were anxious to ward off any calamity and were willing to enter into negotiations with the strongman of Medin. Muhammad sent emissaries to Khaybar inviting the war chief of the Nadir, a man by the name of Usayr (Yusayr) b. Zarim, to come to Medina to parley. Usayr set off with thirty companions and a Muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the Muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. "War is deception," according to an oft-quoted saying of the Prophet. [see al-Bukhari, Sahih, bk. 56 (Kitab al-Jihad), Bab 157, ed. Krehl, vol. 2, p.254] p.17.

It's all very well to compare the souk and peace negotiations when the war is over, but that is not the case here--neither with Mohammed nor the Palestinians Arabs today.

Mohammed is not the only one to comment on the deceptive nature of war. Sun Tzu also said "all war is deception" and of course no one would deny that war requires deceiving the enemy. However, the key is the agreement among all parties once the war is over and the negotiations begin. The leaders of the Palestinian Arabs are still at war--not just with suicide belts and Kassams; they are at war at the negotiating table, which for them is just an extension of the war that has never ended. And there is no compromise.

With all due respect to Nunberg, the compromise of the souk has no place in the ongoing war of the Palestinians, where true negotiations never began--and the best that Israel can come up with is the security fence. Sun Tzu is also quoted as saying "If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."

We can only hope--but don't count on it.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Mohammed.

Giving The Devil His Due

Should the Palestinians at last acquire a state of their own,
Sharon will have done more to bring it about than any Palestinian,
Arafat included, ever.

This comes from an editorial from today's National Review entitled "A Leader’s Courage"

While I can understand the sentiments, of course this is not true.

Arafat first brought the Palestinian Arabs to the world's attention--through terrorism.
Arafat maintained the world's attention on the Palestinian issue--through terrorism.
Arafat was invited to the UN, took out his gun and threatened--more terrorism.
Arafat countered his obligations under Oslo with--terrorism.
Arafat continued to promise peace in English and to his own people encouraged--terrorism.

Let's not overlook what Arafat accomplished and give him his due.
After all, the Palestinian Arabs still do.

And the West continues to pay the price.

Technorati Tag: Sharon and Arafat.

The West's--And Israel's--Real Enemy

Mr. Mark Steyn, a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, writes about The real reason the West is in danger of extinction:

We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now.

Steyn's article is long and not about Israel per se, since his concern is the future of Western civilization. Still, Israel is more a part of the West than the East--or Middle East--and some of the things he says apply broadly. Of course, there is a major difference in that Israel has the Islamists right in their own backyard--something that Americans, even post 9/11, do not have to deal with on a day-to-day basis and Islamist threat is something the West in general is only slowly becoming aware of.

One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying.

Israel is not an exception to this profile. We constantly hear about the advances made in biology, electronics--in matters of health and in matters of self-defence, and still has lots to worry about.

The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

Feeling "guilty for everything it is and does"--Israel has be made to feel this way since its restoration in 1948. Sort like having a Jewish mother to the power of 100. But Jewish guilt aside, Israel doesn't have the self-confidence it used to.

With the advent of the New Zionists, history books are being written that themselves re-write what happened during the events leading up to 1948 and since. The best sources for anti-Israel propaganda are the Israeli newspapers. Israel's Supreme Court seems to take a greater interest in preserving the rights of Israeli Arabs than Israeli Jews. Jews are blocked from the Temple Mount at the same time that the Wakf is excavating and destroying artifacts and evidence of Israel's history.

Steyn writes:

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"

...What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters.

Perhaps the West can be satisfied with "What do you leave behind?" but we believe that Israel cannot afford to be nothing more than a legacy.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Sharon Still Keeps His Plans Close To His Vest

Ariel Sharon completed the Disengagement from Gaza after opposing it during the election campaign.

Back at the beginning of December, AFP was reporting Sharon's denial of a repeat performance in the West Bank, even as Arutz Sheva was reporting that Justice Minister Tzippy Livny was describing Kadima's platform as including "A Palestinian state should be established in Judea and Samaria."

Even now, Sharon still keeps them guessing.

The BBC reports:

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak told the BBC after the latest operation that Mr Sharon was in the final days or hours of his life.

But Felix Umansky, a leader of the surgical team working on the prime minister, told the AFP news agency there was still a chance he could recover.

The World Tribune reports:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 77, the most powerful Israeli leader in 50 years, has died, Middle East Newsline reported.

However subsequent wire reports said Sharon showed "significant improvement" after five hours of emergency brain surgery Friday.

No doubt we will know what Sharon's true condition is, when he is good and ready to reveal it to us. (and remember how Sharon was counted out politically after Sabra and Shatila?)

Please have Ariel Sharon in mind in your tefillot. His hebrew name is Ariel ben Vera. That's what they have on ou.org


Update: Motzei Shabbos, Mere Rhetoric quotes Ynetnews.com that

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's chances of survival are "very high", one of the PM's surgeons said in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 Saturday evening...Jose Cohen said in the interview. "Tomorrow (Sunday) is the day of truth, tomorrow we'll know whether everything we did really helped him (Sharon) or not."...

Technorati Tag: Sharon.

Would Olmert Channel LBJ?

Kenneth Baer, a former White House speechwriter and advisor to the Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards campaigns, makes the comparison between Olmert and LBJ:

Now, we have to see if Olmert will become an Andrew Johnson or Lyndon Johnson figure. If Olmert ends up emulating the man who stepped into Lincoln's shoes -- a hapless leader unable to bring the country together or bend policymaking to his agenda -- then Israel, the region, and US interests there are in trouble. However, if Olmert ends up as an LBJ, he will use the Sharon legacy as an effective political tool to bring the country together, break political logjams, and undertake policy advances that seemed unlikely or impossible just months before.

Olmert as taking over as Prime Minister, channeling LBJ?

I'm not clear on what kind of political logjams and policy advances Baer thinks "seemed unlikely or impossible just months before" under Sharon--and Olmert can overcome-- but invoking the image of LBJ is interesting, considering the comparison to Viet Nam:

By 1968, things had gone from bad to worse for the Johnson administration. In late January, the DRV and the NLF launched coordinated attacks against the major southern cities. These attacks, known in the west as the Tet Offensive, were designed to "break the aggressive will" of the Johnson administration and force Washington to the bargaining table. The Communist Party believed that the American people were growing war-weary and that Hanoi could humiliate Johnson and force a peace upon him.

Viet Nam is often compared with the war in Iraq, but the tactics are similar to what we see going on in Israel as well. By the same token, we are talking about different situations, both in Iraq and in Israel--so neither in Iraq nor in Israel is the war going as the terrorists predicted.

Most of Hanoi's predications about the Tet Offensive proved elusive. Communist forces suffered tremendous casualties in the South and the massacre of thousands of non-Communists in Hue during the Tet Offensive created ill-will among many of Hanoi's supporters. Furthermore, several leading southern Generals thought the plans for the Tet Offensive were too risky and this created a strain in relations between northern and southern Communists.

And as long as we are talking about Olmert as LBJ, just how did LBJ do when it came to war, the main issue that would be facing Olmert, should he become Prime Minister:

In any event, in late March 1968, a disgraced Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek the Democratic Party's re-nomination for president and hinted that he would go to the bargaining table with the Communists to end the war.

Though Lyndon Johnson may have achieved great things with his Great Society, on the issue that is of the greatest current import, why go the way of LBJ? No matter how good he was at gaining concensus--which would be a novel approach in Israel where blatant and over-the-top manipulation is the general style--wouldn't we want someone who is not so ready to bargain with terrorists who have no intention of keeping their promises anyway?

Along those lines Jewish Blogmeister has a hint of what we might expect from Olmert:

"He is a shrewd lawyer, a very practical man," said Olmert's longtime friend, Moshe Amirav. "If they (the Palestinians) can deliver stability, he will be ready to give up land, and surprise the world with his moderation.

Oh.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert.