Obama's First Test?

It is probably no suprise that I did not vote for Obama in the recent presidential elections here. Like most everyone else, I found his youth, inspiring background and eloquence refreshing. However, I was worried that he was inexperienced and naive with regards to the nature of the threat that the world faces from ideological extremists and hard-nosed realists.

Though I did not vote for him, I admit that I was proud of America for showing the world that neither his skin color or foreign sounding name barred him from serving in the highest office in the land. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that this helped him in many ways, a fact that no doubt has led to a great deal of consternation among those who are convinced that America is a racist and islamophobic society.

As the attacks on Mumbai over the past three days clearly demonstrate, this is unfortunately not enough for those committed to their radical causes. Several commentators have noted that in many ways, this is Obama's fist real test, i.e. the one that Biden famously predicted (See Here, Here and Here for example). Since he is clearly in no position to actually do anything at this point as the President elect, I thought it would be interesting to see if his comments might betray his sensibility regarding these heinous terrorist acts. Personally, I think that they do. Just compare Obama's statement vs that of Russia's President Medvedev:

"President-elect Obama strongly condemns today's terrorist attacks in Mumbai," said a statement by Brooke Anderson, Obama's spokeswoman on national security. "These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism. The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks."

vs.

"The monstrous crimes of terrorists in Mumbai arouse our wrath, indignation and unconditional condemnation," Medvedev said in a message to the his Indian counterpart Pratibha Patil and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "The inhuman terrorist attacks on hospitals, hotels and other public places aimed at killing civilians, taking and murdering hostages are crimes directed against the foundation of civilized society," he said. Russia supports the decisive actions the Indian government has taken to curb terrorist actions and those criminals should be severely punished, Medvedev added.

First of all, I find it odd that Obama could not find the time to make the statement himself. It is after all Thanksgiving weekend. Perhaps he was too busy stuffing himself with stuffing?

Let's Compare and Contrast the language used in each one:

Obama (through spokesperson) vs. Medvedev

strongly condemns vs. arouse our wrath, indignation and unconditional condemnation
coordinated attacks vs. inhuman terrorist attacks
urgent threat vs crimes directed against the foundation of civilized society
strengthen our partnerships vs decisive actions
root out and destroy terrorist networks vs. those criminals should be severely punished

Hmm. Which one seems like they get it? Which one inspires more confidence?

Do you think Medvedev would be willing to run in the US Presidential elections once Putin puts him out of a job?

Yehi Zikhram Barukh - Blessed be their Memory

I have been closely following all of the tragic events in Mumbai and my heart really goes out to everyone who has suffered because of these terrifying and senseless acts.

I did not personally know Rabbi Holtzberg, but I corresponded with him on several occasions when I lived in India. He was gracious and kind and made sure that I was supplied with Matzohs and seders for the two Passovers I spent in Puri. He even extended a personal invitation for me and my family to come spend the holiday with him in Nariman House. We never did make it and now I truly regret not having had the honor to have personally met him and his selfless wife Rivka in person.

As a father to two young boys, I can also not help but feel anguish at the though of their son Moshe, who was orphaned a day shy of his second birthday, which is today. If any of you wish to help Moshe, it is possible to make a contribution by clicking on this link: Chabad India

The Reason for the End of Reason

Edward Bernard Glick writes an interesting article on how academia became the way it is:

It's August 1968. Anti-Vietnam War demonstrators have just wrecked the Democratic national convention in Chicago and ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances to become President. So what did these Marxist demonstrators and their cohorts elsewhere do next?

They stayed in college. They sought out the easiest professors and the easiest courses. And they stayed in the top half of their class. This effectively deferred them from the military draft, a draft that discriminated against young men who didn't have the brains or the money to go to college. That draft also sparked the wave of grade inflation that still swamps our colleges. Vietnam-era faculty members lowered standards in order to help the "Hell No, We Won't Go" crowd.

So now I get it! Basically, a bunch of self-indulgent leftists radicals with an agenda took over and destroyed any semblance of thought or standards.

Forty years have passed since the 1968 Democratic national convention. During that time, American academia has been transformed into the most postmodernist, know-nothing, anti-American, anti-military, anti-capitalist, Marxist institution in our society. It is now a bastion of situational ethics and moral relativity and teaches that there are no evil people, only misunderstood and oppressed people. American academia is now a very intolerant place, As Ann Coulter, who has been driven off more than one campus podium because of her conservative views, has put it, "There is free speech for thee, but not for me."

Though I really can't stand Ann Coulter, she is right on this one. All is relative, no "truth" (always in quotes) exists, yet their utterances are pearls of wisdom and anyone else is wrong or stupid (or both). These folks regularly get themselves all worked up into this kind of pretzelled logic.

I think of these folks as the CTD Crowd (and no, CTD does not stand for cliterodectomy). It stands for "Curse the Darkness" - the only thing that they know how to do. This is what they call "Critical Theory" (!) and sadly, this is what passes today for reasoned thought.

After too many years in the CTD camp, I am happy to report that I am finally with the life-affirming LAC Crowd (and no, LAC does not stand for Legal Aid of Cambodia). Rather, it stands for "Light a Candle" - something that is kind of hard to do if you are debating whether or not fire is something that should ever be endorsed. After all, so many people have burned themselves with fire in the past.

Then again, as the geniuses will be quick to point out, there really is no such thing as darkness. It's ALL a social construct.

Which Would You Choose?

Here are two articles that show the difference between living under Palestinian rule and living under Israeli rule.

The first one describes the human rights situation in Gaza over the past year.

Palestinian Mazen Shahin says the torture he suffered in a month spent as a prisoner of the Islamist Hamas in the Gaza Strip was worse than the several years he spent in Israeli jails.

He says he will never forget his time in Mashtal prison: "It was a lot worse than being in jail in Israel," he told AFP at his modest home in Khan Yunis refugee camp in the south of the Palestinian territory.

The Israelis arrested him four times and he spent "several years" behind bars inside the Jewish state, said Shahin, a member of the Fatah movement of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

Sadly, the article buys the Hamas propaganda that this was carried out by rogue elements of the security forces and that the public can now complain if they wish. No doubt, those who dare to complain will be given their own private tours of the Hamas penal system. A place where:

He says he had the soles of his feet beaten with heavy electric cables. His captors also made him suffer the indignity of shaving his head and beard.

"They told me I was not a religious person and that I wasn't allowed to pray because God would not hear my prayers,"

By the looks of it, Meshtal prison makes Abu Ghraib look like a sanatorium.

The second article deals with Palestinian collaborators with Israel who now live in Sedorot - the same town that is constantly bombarded by missiles from Gaza. According to the Guardian - a newspaper that rarely if ever has something positive to say about Israel, these collaborators unanimously asserted like "Samir" that:

"I'm very happy that I helped the state of Israel. Here everything is straightforward, not like with the Arabs. Here there is a law and there are rights."

So basically, people prefer to live under a rain of deadly missiles rather than live in Gaza under Islamofascists. Ponder that the next time you hear about how some leftist, "peace-loving" organization or Carterite has expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Too bad Rachel Corrie did not live long enough to enjoy the type of hospitality reserved for Alan Johnson and Mazen Shahin.

Friends don't Let Friends ...

Starting with this election cycle, I have noticed a recurring trope in the left wing's discourse surrounding Israel - the assertion that the Bush administration has hardly been a true friend of the Jewish state. As Jeremy Ben-Ami, the director of the new anti-AIPAC lobby J-Street recently stated in the pages of the Washington Post, the notion that Bush has been the best friend Israel has ever had is no less than a "myth". According to this political savant, this is:

Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security. Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy.

So, Israeli military strength is its diplomatic weakness? No matter that Ben-Ami's interesting algebra has no historical precedent in the Middle East world of realpolitik, he truly believes that a strong Israel is the root of the problem. Worse, he accuses Israel - the only country in the world that would show such restraint when its civilian population is being bombarded on a daily basis - of a diplomatic DUI in its dealings with the Palestinians:

Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road? Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.

So apparently it is Israeli recklessness and not Palestinian or Arab intransigence that is preventing peace from gushing forth in the Middle East.

It does not take much to see this as none other than a brazen and self-serving attempt to stop the hemorhaging of Jews from the Democratic to the Republican party. As recent polling clearly shows, this is a real concern and may actually be the first time that the Republican party could get as much as 40% of the Jewish vote.

In practice this could mean that Obama's nomination could cost the Democrats "180,000 votes in the state of Florida if we drop 20 percent. It means 35,000 votes in Ohio. God forbid New Jersey's in play, 130,000 votes in New Jersey; 16,000 votes in the small state of Nevada; 25,000 votes in Colorado; 70,000 votes in Pennsylvania"

Yet, the oddest thing about Ben-Ami's argument (aside from the "false consciousness" angle) is that none of the respective parties seem to think that what he is saying has any basis in fact.

For starters, President Bush stated during his recent visit to Israel that, "America is proud to be Israel's best friend in the world." and Israel's President Shimon Peres, someone who would hardly fit the picture of a hawk, "lamented the coming end to Bush's presidency in January, calling Bush's tenure a "moving" eight years."

Even Palestinian President Abbas asserted that Bush is "biased" towards Israel while Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri used less diplomatic language and stated that, Bush was "the leader of evil in the world".

So basically everyone agrees that Bush has been a true friend to Israel. In fact, even Ben-Ami implicitly agrees that Bush is a staunch supporter of Israel, though from his perspective this as a negative and Israel, the only country that to this day has made any concessions for peace, needs to be forcibly pushed into making peace with its neighbors. It should come as no surprise then that Ben-Ami and his organization openly endorse Obama and has gone on record to state that "From our pro-Israel point of view (!), he's right on the money."

This obviously begs the question - Who would you rather have as a friend - a person like President Bush who is committed to Israel's survival and opposed to all Arab attempts to delegitimize Israel or paint it as the source of all problems in the Middle East or those "pro-Israel" types like Ben-Ami and Obama?

The former believes that Israel is drunk on power and that it's strength and success are the root of the problem while Senator Obama has termed Israel a "constant sore" to the Arab world. Do I really need to point out that friends don't call friends "constant sores"?

The Obama Nation's Playbook

The recent Clinton RFK flap reminds me of the Vilnai comment on Gaza that used the Hebrew word "shoah". Aside from the fact that the meaning of "shoah" as Holocaust is always "Ha Shoah", or THE Holocaust, like most words in any language, "shoah" has several meanings including "catastrophe" and "disaster".

No matter. The Arab reporters of Reuters (Adam Entous and Joseph Nasr) who broke the story took it upon themselves to translate this in the most negative way they could and the world press swallowed it up. Of course no one stopped to consider the chutzpah inherent in appropriating a Hebrew word and then telling the speakers of Hebrew what it really means. Hamas not only lapped it up, but declared this as incontrovertible proof of Israel's Nazi intentions. (e.g. see the Electronic Intifada article on this.)

It does not matter what Clinton meant, the liberal media are doing their part for the cause and the Obaminators have borrowed a play from the Hamas playbook while also doing their best to emulate Soviet-era thought police. Any statement that could remotely have anything to do with their candidate (e.g. Bush's remarks on appeasement) or could somehow be twisted to imply racism is latched onto as paranoid "proof" of the nefarious forces out there.

Unfortunately for Obama, this approach will certainly backfire, as there are few things that cause resentment as being constantly told you must be a racist (e.g. 1, 2, 3) just because you do not support his candidacy. After all, it is possible that someone simply disagrees with his positions. Of course that would just prove that they are "bitter".

Self Inficted Catastrophe

Prof Ephraim Karsh's definitive and eye-opening article on the Palestinian refugee issue is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the events of 1948. Based solely on documents from that era, many of which have only recently been made available to historians, Karsh shows, what reputable historians have been saying all along - that the Palestinian refugee problem is one that was caused primarily by the venal Palestinian leadership and self-interested Arab parties.


To read the article in HTML.
To read it as a PDF.
To read the fully annotated version.

Which ever way, definitely read it!

Happy Birthday Israel!

Canary in the Coal Mine

Israel has often been called the canary in the coal mine - what happens in Israel tends to repeat itself elsewhere, usually sooner rather than later. Ironically, this is no where more true than in the Muslim world. The terrorism that was first tested out on Israeli children is now de rigeur in Baghdad. Suicide bombings - which were unheard of twenty years ago, are now common from Mauritania to Pakistan. The fighting skills that Hamas perfected against Israel was used to throw their brothers off of rooftops and to undemocratically maintain power in Gaza.

Moreover, while countless articles have been written about how the conflict has been bad for Israel, it seems to me the Arabs have fared much worse. Israel remains a vibrant democracy with an enviable economy and a strong legal system. Palestinian society is in shambles. When they remember the Nakba, they do not have to hearken back 60 years, but rather can just look around them. Sure, they blame Israel, but it is they - and not Israel - that has to endure daily suffering at the hands of their own brothers.

The Palestinians - who were once led by the secular PLO and famously included many Christians, has now been replaced by Hamas - which is rapidly weeding out Fatah along with the minuscule Christian community in Gaza. While Israel is roundly attacked for "human rights abuses" Hamas in Gaza has perfected its societal oppression and waiting for the chance to spread it to the West Bank and all of Israel. If it works in Israel, you can be sure this will impact Jordan Egypt and Lebanon.

Though I am opposed to the way Kossovars declared independence, I commend them for instinctively realizing this. Michael Totten, who usually reports from Lebanon is presently doing a series on the Balkans. Recently (April 30), he wrote:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”

So, while columnists the world over are busy eulogizing Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding, they may want to consider also asking about the odds of the Palestinians surviving as one people for another 60 years. Or will the fault lines of Fatah and Hamas, Christian and Muslim, Secular and Religious, and Refugee and those living in the territories, West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli Arab and non-citizen Arabs prove too much? The same could be said for most of the repressive Middle East states, where tribe, religion, ethnicity and politics are all regularly suppressed by the totalitarian regimes that rule the region.

Sure, Israel has its societal divides as well, but they are out in the open and are regularly discussed. As New York Times columnist Freedman noted in his book The World is Flat, the difference between India and Pakistan is that in India, when a poor boy looks up the hill and sees a mansion, he says "One day I will grow up and be that man." When a Pakistani boy looks up, he says, "One day I am going to kill that man." The only discussions that occur at present in Palestinian society and Muslim society as a whole, occur at the end of a rifle.

I doubt I will be around in 60 years and don't really know if Israel will be around in 60 years, but am pretty sure that Muslim dictators and the Palestinians should be the most worried right about now.

Administering Silence

In a predictable and self-serving opinion piece that appeared in last week's Guardian, David Edgar writes of former leftist brothers-in-arms who have left the reservation and dared to think independently. According to him they have contracted the dread disease of conservatism.

As an anthropologist, this would likely be interpreted as an example of "segmentary opposition" i.e. when one group/kin stands in opposition to the other and defines themselves in this way in a typically tribal manner. By declaring his former brothers-in-arms as right-wingers, Edgars he is effectively placing them beyond the pale.

Yet, I think that in reality he is doing something else. He is, as Foucoult would say, "administering silence" - declaring what discourse can be heard and discussed and what can not. By labelling his ideological opponents this way, he is saying that they should not be allowed to be heard anymore.

It is actually quite ironic that quite often the best way to analyse the Left is through the writings of Leftist writers. Yet, the totalizing tendencies of Leftist thought lend themselves easily to their own critiques. Clearly, they are good at projecting.

Melanie Phillips, who is listed as one of the apostates in Edgar's article, forcefully and eloquently responds to his claptrap and comes to the same conclusion. To read her response and the interesting comments, click here.

For the left, to accuse someone of ‘moving to the right’ is akin to claiming they have put themselves totally beyond the moral pale. Anyone tarred with this dread brush instantly becomes an unperson, to be exiled from civilised society altogether and treated as a pariah.

So others on the left who harbour similar feelings of support for overthrowing the tyrant Saddam Hussein or horror at Islamist extremism (which in their innocence they imagine are progressive positions) and who read Edgar’s diatribe wouldn’t think ‘What a berk!’ They would think with a shudder of dread: ‘So would I also be denounced if I were discovered to be thinking this’.

The single most important thing for left-wingers -- what defines them in their own eyes as people of moral worth -- is the fact that they are not ‘right-wing’. For ‘the right’ is a place of unmitigated evil. Only the left is good. So this is how it goes in the left-wing mind.

To be not on the left is evil.
To be not on the left is to be on the right.
Therefore everyone who disagrees with the left on anything is automatically an evil right-winger.

The idea that there can be anything other than left-wing or right-wing – eg ‘liberal’, or ‘not really that interested in political ideology, thanks’, or ‘it’s just common-sense, surely?’ – won’t wash at all. Anything not left-wing is right-wing. Any other explanation is just… well, false consciousness.

So this is what follows.

The left believe a wide range of lies.
Others believe in the truth instead.
Therefore to the left, those people are ‘right-wing’.
Therefore truth is actually a right-wing concept.
Therefore truth is evil.
Therefore truth has to be relabelled lies while lies of course remain unchallengeable truth.

It is no exaggeration to say that, since the vast majority of the media and intellectual class in Britain are on the left, this mindset has quite simply poisoned British public debate and brought us to our current state of suicidal irrationality in the face of an unprecedented global threat. For examples of this pathology, and the viciousness to which it gives rise, see some of the readers’ comments posted under various entries on this very website.

The reflex reaction of a left-winger, when presented with a set of facts which challenge his or her assumptions about the world, is not to ask ‘Is this true?’ but ‘Will adopting this position make me right-wing?’ It’s not just that to adopt such a heresy would risk social ostracism and worse amongst friends and colleagues. More profoundly, the left-winger really does believe that to be left is good and to be ‘right’ is evil.

Fitna and Free Speech

If you have been living under a rock you may not have heard about the imminent release of Geert Wilders film Fitna. While I personally do not see the utility in deliberately offending a group of people, I agree that we need to vigorously defend our Right to Free Speech.

As Peter Hoekstra, a native of the Netherlands and the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wrote in a Wall Street Journal article:

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence.

No Civilians Killed in Tibet

It is good to see that based on the news reports we are receiving, NOT ONE Tibetan civilian has been killed by Chinese forces. Contrast that to the actions of the Israeli army in Gaza where it seems that almost everyone killed was a "civilian".

Reuters, which has been particularly clear that Israel primarily kills "civilians" apparently does not believe that the Tibetans who have been killed are, in fact, civilians:

Tibet's self-proclaimed government-in-exile said up to 80 people had been killed in total, but Qiangba Puncog put the figure at 13.

Tsegyam, head of the Tibet Religious Foundation of the Dalai Lama in Taiwan, told reporters that more than 100 people had been killed and about 1,000 injured in the rioting.

The BBC reports that some people have "died". It's not immediately clear if they had a heart attack or succumbed to fright:

The exiled Tibetan government says at least 80 protesters died in the Chinese crackdown.

The According to the Washington Post bodies were "seen". It's not clearly if they were part of a public art performance or injured, or dead. Certainly, it is not clear if they are "civilians":

The Dalai Lama's exile organization, headquartered in Dharamsala, India, since his flight from Tibet in 1959, said Tibetans reported by telephone and Internet that they had seen about 80 bodies after the violence Friday, identifying them as Tibetans killed in the disturbances.

Actually, the only time the news reported that "civilians" were killed was when quoting the Chinese spokesperson who accused the Tibetan protesters of killing civilians. Do you think that this is so that they could justify the mayhem that they have unleashed? I guess that this is to be expected when you allow precisely those people from the places that do not have and do not believe in press freedom to control the message.

Multiculturalism & Dueling Discriminations

You gotta love Mark Steyn - not only does he get it, he writes in an inimitable verve and style that is hilarious and smart. Here is an excerpt from an article about the competing guilts surrounding Clinton and Obama's campaigns:

Surveying the Hillary-Barack death match, Maureen Dowd wrote: “People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny? Do even Democrats really talk like this? Apparently so. As Ali Gallagher, a white female (sorry, this identity-politics labeling is contagious) from Texas, told the Washington Post: “A friend of mine, a black man, said to me, ‘My ancestors came to this country in chains; I’m voting for Barack.’ I told him, ‘Well, my sisters came here in chains and on their periods; I’m voting for Hillary.’ ” When everybody’s a victim, nobody’s a victim.

Poor Ms. Gallagher can’t appreciate the distinction between purely metaphorical chains and real ones, or even how offensive it might be to assume blithely that there’s no difference whatsoever. But, if her sisters really came here in chains, it must have been Bondage Night at the Mayflower’s Swingers’ Club.

On the other hand, Barack’s ancestors didn’t come here in chains either: his mother was a white Kansan, so was presumably undergoing menstrual hell with the Gallagher gals, and his dad was a black man a long way away in colonial Kenya. Indeed, Senator Obama would be the first son of a British subject to serve as president since those slaveholding types elected in the early days of the republic. As some aggrieved black activist sniffed snootily on TV, Barack isn’t really an “African-American” — unless by “African-American,” you mean somebody whose parentage is half-American and half-African, and let’s face it, no one would come up with so
cockamamie a definition as that.

In this article he makes an excellent point about multiculturalism and sharia creep:

In Minneapolis last year, the airport licensing authority, faced with a mainly Muslim crew of cab drivers refusing to carry the blind, persons with six-packs of Bud, slatternly women, etc, proposed instituting two types of taxis with differently colored lights, one of which would indicate the driver was prepared to carry members of identity groups that offend Islam. Forty years ago, advocating separate drinking fountains made you a racist. Today, advocating separate taxi cabs or separate swimming sessions makes you a multiculturalist.

By the way, if you are wondering why his hat says "No Gooks", check out this article.

Mi SheNikhnas ...

Just last week I was telling a friend how one of the happiest moments in my life was a Purim celebrated over 20 years ago in the company of hundreds of drunk revelers singing at the top of their lungs and dancing round and round in a large circle. That night, for the first time, I experienced an absolute joyous and expansive ecstasy - a type of out of body experience that you usually need to take drugs to induce. Yet, ironically, it was not that I felt limitless and part of infinity, but rather I lost all sense of my own body and felt as if my consciousness was one with the swirling mass.

That swirling mass is Am Yisrael and that place was Merkaz HaRav.

He Stole the Election

It's funny how history repeats itself as irony and then as farce. I wonder what the Democrats would say if in the general election the Republican candidate won the election because it was decided not to count the votes of Florida and Michigan? What would they say or do if their candidate actually won those states? Well that is what is happening to the Clinton campaign in the primaries. From the New York Times:

Senator Clinton’s advisers were also discussing Wednesday how to add the delegates from Michigan and Florida to her column. The Democratic Party stripped the two states of their delegates after they moved their primaries to January. Mrs. Clinton remained on the ballot in each state (as did Mr. Obama in Florida); she won both.

While Clinton advisers have publicly opposed talk of a “do over” contest in either state, some of her advisers said Wednesday that they were now inclined to support such a vote. They believe that her strength with Hispanics, women and Jewish voters in Florida, and with union workers and women in Michigan, would be enough to overtake Mr. Obama’s advantage with black and young voters in both states.

Mrs. Clinton and her top aides continue to oppose such a do-over, which could deeply split the Democratic Party. The alternative is waiting until July for the party to consider allowing the Florida and Michigan delegates to count at the August convention. But the Clinton advisers who support a new vote said they expected conversations on the issue to intensify in her camp.

Frankly, if the Democrats are dumb enough to choose the candidate that LOST in: California, New York, New jersey, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, Massachussetts and Tennessee (all states with ten or more delegates), then they deserve to lose.

Remember, the general election is based on the electoral college and a winner take all system. Based on my calculation, Clinton already has 253 of the 270 delegates necessary to become the President to Obama's 176. Of course, those states could go Republican, but why in the world would you choose the guy who could not even carry the big states in the primaries?

Lost Innocence

I can relate to Yossi Klein Halevi when he says that he is no longer a "guilty Israeli". Like Halevi, I supported the peace process in the 1990s in the hope that I would see peace in my lifetime. I realized that this was a gamble, but when I argued with friends who were more skeptical and less trusting, I would always trumped them by saying, "You make peace with enemies, not with friends."

Yet eight years ago, after the start of the second Intifada I could no longer pretend that among our enemies there was anyone who was sincerely interested in being a peace partner. Admitting that I was wrong was not easy and in retrospect it was a long time coming. Clearly it has taken Mr. Halevi even longer to reach this point.

For those of you who might think that I am happy about Mr. Halevi joining the ranks of the disenchanted and betrayed, nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather, I have long thought that one of the biggest tragedies of the conflict is that the Palestinian single-minded determination to choose violence and incitement over dialogue and concessions has alienated those of us who would be natural allies in finding a just solution and lasting peace.

Several weeks ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a friend who is a member of the ancient religion of Jainism. For those who are unfamiliar with this religion, it is "militantly" non-violent to the point where its adherents cover their mouth and sweep the ground in front of them in order to prevent the possibility of killing any living thing.

When she pressed me on the need for non-violence, I agreed with her in principle that non-violence is always better than violence. In fact, I told her that non-violence must always be the first, second and third choice. Yet at the same time, I noted that it should never be the only choice.

I think that the Talmud best expressed this in the axiom that, "Those who are kind to the cruel, end up being cruel to the kind." (Kohelet Rabah 7:16)

For anyone interested in social trends in Israel the article is a must read. Here are some excerpts:

In the early 1990s, while serving as a reservist soldier in Gaza, I became a guilty Israeli. ... More policemen than soldiers, we found ourselves enforcing an occupation whose threat to Israel's Jewish and democratic values had become unbearable.

Those were the years of the first intifada, the Palestinian uprising, and its great victory was the creation of a substantial bloc of guilt-ridden Israelis ready to take almost any risk for peace. As the Oslo peace process came into being under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the guilty Israeli became the most potent source of Palestinian empowerment. Many Israelis tried to understand for the first time how Palestinians experienced the conflict, in effect borrowing Palestinian eyes and incorporating elements of the Palestinian narrative into our own understanding of history.

By the end of the 1990s, a majority of Israelis were considering previously unthinkable concessions such as uprooting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and redividing the city of Jerusalem. We moved in this direction anxiously. The Palestinians were already beginning to lose the goodwill of guilty Israelis by then. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, their media, schools and mosques inculcated a culture of denial that rejects the most basic truths of Jewish history, from our ancient roots in the land of Israel to the veracity of the Holocaust.

... The result of all this is that today the guilty Israeli has become nearly extinct. Just as we came to realize during the first intifada that the occupation was untenable, so we have now come to realize that peace is impossible with Palestinian leaders for whom reconciliation is a one-way process.

So far, the rockets aimed at Israel have been primitive and mostly terrorize and wound rather than slaughter. But it is only a matter of time before Hamas' allies in Iran and Hezbollah upgrade the rockets' lethal effect. Meanwhile, the psychological damage has been profound: Israelis perceive their government's failure to defend southern Israel as a collapse of national sovereignty. The political fallout has been no less intense: Gaza was a test case for Israeli withdrawal, and the experiment was a disaster. How, Israelis wonder, can we evacuate the West Bank and risk rocket attacks on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?

Gaza's people are being held hostage to a political fantasy. And the international community is abetting the tragedy. The U.N. actually considers Palestinians to be permanent refugees, to be protected in squalid but subsidized camps even though they live in their own homeland of Gaza, under their own government.

And so we move toward the next terrible round of conflict. This time, though, for all our anguish, we will feel a lot less remorse. Because even guilty Israelis realize that, until our neighbors care more about building their state than undermining ours, the misery of Gaza will persist.

Yes He Does!

Not surprisingly, few Western newspapers reported this story because they don't believe that Abbas could really mean what he said.

I believe that this denial stems from several factors: 1) A strong desire for things to work out; 2) An inability to appreciate the fact that not everyone in the world shares our humanistic and enlightenment values. This leads to what Salman Rushdie called "soft prejudice" or the inability to believe that the "other" could really mean what they say. It is prejudice because it stems from a patronising attitude. It is dangerous because it inevitably leads to cognitive dissonance.

This, in turn, leads Westerners to not report these stories or to write them off as sops for internal consumption that should not be taken too seriously.

Yet, the very fact that these statements are most often made in Arabic to Arabic news outlets and not in English to Western audiences should actually set off alarm bells.

For starters, it is much easier to lie in a language that is not your mother tongue. Foreign languages simply do not have the emotional resonance and are not as fraught with meaning as one's mother tongue. Anyone who has learned swear words in a foreign language understands this dynamic.

Secondly, the fact that these statements are primarily for internal consumption suggests that Abbas and others who employ this tactic are aware of what they are saying and how it will "play in Peoria"

So, without further ado, this is what the "moderate" Abbas said to the Jordanian newspaper Al Dustur (emphasis mine):

...Abbas said that he is against an armed conflict at this time, but things may differ in the future.

Abbas, a leading figure of the Palestine Liberation Organization, was quoted as boasting about the fact that he was the one to "fire the first bullet of the resistance" back in 1965, adding it was the PLO that taught many around the world "how to resist, when resistance is most effective and when it is not."

"I had the honor to lead… we taught everyone, including the Hizbullah, the ways of resistance. They were all educated in our training camps."

According to al-Dustur, Abbas does not demand of Hamas to acknowledge Israel, but rather wants it to join a government which will negotiate the recognition.

"I demanded that a unity government be formed, to negotiate with Israel… that is what I told Syrian President Bashar Assad – and he backed me up.

"Hamas entered an election based on the Oslo Accords, which recognize Israel. I am not the only one pushing for such recognition, the Arab initiative – which is a consensus in the Arab and Muslim world – calls for it as well."

The Palestinian president also said he objects to Israel's definition as a Jewish State: "We negated the concept in the Annapolis peace conference and it almost ended because of it… they wanted us to state we recognize Israel as a Jewish State in the closing statements, but we wouldn't hear of it."

So, please remind me what exactly is the difference between Hamas and Fatah? Clearly their differences are over tactics and strategy and not over substance.

Time to Start (Re)Producing

While the Jerusalem Post seems to be heartened by the fact that Jews are the highest earning group in the United States, I think that the findings of the Pew Forum are actually quite discouraging. Jews are now the second most educated group (after Hindus) and Jewish birth rates are the LOWEST for all religious groups.

Aside from the obvious fact that this does not bode well for Jewish continuity in America it brings to mind a group of rich, spoiled people living lavishly in big empty homes.

According to the report the Mormons, followed closely by Muslims are the two groups most likely to have children in their homes. The above photo is of a Mormon family.

Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year, according to a study released this week.

In terms of annual earnings, the only other group to even come close to the average Jewish income was the Hindus, with 43 percent earning over $100,000.

The study, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, also showed that, after Hindus, the Jews were the second most educated religious group in the US. 35 percent of Jews were found to have done at least some graduate work, as opposed to 48 percent amongst Hindus.

The survey found that Jews were aligned with the national averages in terms of marital status and divorce rates, but showed that the Jewish birth rate was the lowest among religious groups, with 72 percent of those polled replying that they had no children.

JTA Reports that "Jews are tied with Mormons as the sixth largest faith group, each claiming 1.7 percent of the country’s adult population." How long do you think that will last?

Not Stunde Null

Stunde Null or "zero hour" is what the moment that the Nazis capitutated is called in Germany. From the German perspective, this reflects the sense that the Nazi era ended and a new era commenced from that moment.

A group of German academics are peddling a "manifesto" that they have written which contends that:

"... German responsibility toward the Palestinians is "one side of the consequences of the Holocaust which receives far too little attention." The paper goes on to argue that it was the Holocaust which Germany perpetrated that brought about "the suffering that has persisted [in the Middle East] for the last six decades and has at present become unbearable."

As I have already argued here in this blog, the notion that Israel was created as a consequence of the Holocaust is historically false. If you are bent on looking for ultimate causes, then the British Mandate from 1922 was set up with the express purpose of establishing a national homeland for the Jewish people. This, in turn, was the result of decades of concerted efforts by many Jews from across the political spectrum to regain our national rights over our land. And this was the result of several hundred years of politcal as well as several thousand years of religious Zionism.

If anything, the Holocaust did two things: 1) It proved definitively that the Bundist notion that rather than run away from our problems it was our responsibility to "Make Europe better for the Jews" was fundamentally flawed and; 2) It added to the sense of urgency on the part of Jews to regain our homeland.

The United Nations, which ALSO passed a resolution creating the state of Israel BASED ON the League of Nations Mandate specifically instructed members not to take the Holocaust into consideration during the deliberations.

So, sorry folks, but this did not start with you, and you should keep your noses out of our affairs.

Dubious Distinction

According to Phillip Jacobson, who recently spent three days in Sderot and reports on the harrowing experience for the Daily Mail:

Sderot has a unique civic claim: on a rocket-per-head-of-population basis, it is the most targeted town in Israel, indeed the world.

It is more than six years since the first rocket was launched from Gaza.

Since then, well over 2,000 Qassams – named after a fiery Muslim preacher – have landed in or around the town killing 13 people (including four children) and injuring several dozen more. Since the beginning of this year, at least 300 rockets have been fired.

While the media has constantly asserted that the source of Palestinian anger is this, that, or some other Israeli action, it never asserts the reverse. When Palestinians were blowing themselves up on a daily basis, the media did its best to understand the phenomenon. Their conclusion? What did Israel expect when Israel was occupying Palestinian lands? What did you expect, when Israel had so "humiliated" the Palestinians?

Well, since then Israel ended the occupation and an entire Israeli population has had their homes turned into a battlefied. Where are the apologists now? Why is no one prognosticating dire warnings about what this may lead the residents of Sderot to do? Will anyone defend the residents of Sderot if they take the matter into their own hands? Or do they deserve what is happening to them and thus do not even deserve our compassion and comprehension?

The fact that almost no Western reporter has bothered to do what Mr. Jacobson did - spend three days in the line of fire - sadly leads me to the conclusion that this is, in fact, what most reporters think.

Hands-On Judaism

One of my best Friday night Shabbat meals ever was in Thane, India about 5 years ago. After prayers at the local synagogue, I was kindly invited to dinner and had the unrivalled opportunity to learn more about the small Indian Jewish community.

Even better, I had the chance to eat delicious curried goat! When I asked where they had gotten Kosher goat meat, I was told by my host that he had shechted (ritually slaughtered) it himself earlier in the day.

Now that is what I call hands-on Judaism!

Here is a nice recent article on the Indian Jewish Community in the United States.

Here is an article Indian theater production of Fiddler on the Roof in Hindi!

Have You Heard?

Here is something that will never make the evening news. From the website Ya Libnan:

The state-run National News Agency reported that Abbas Abbas, 13, was shot and seriously wounded by Syrian border guards ( Hajanah) at the Grand River borderline in north Lebanon. He died later from his wounds at the hospital in
Akkar.

Apparently, Lebanon is trying to get Syria to demarcate their mutual border and the Syrians are not too keen to do so. In fact. only yesterday Syrian troops invaded Lebanon:

The Syrian intelligence forces and Syrian border guards invaded Lebanon yesterday and stormed the house of Hussein Ali Aldedda and fired three bullets at him wounding him in his hand, elbow and hip, before withdrawing back to the Syrian territory according to the Arabic daily Al-Nahar

Aldedda ( 41) lives in the Bekaa region , inside the Lebanese territory near the Syrian border. No explanations were given for the Syrian actions.

Where Up is Down

Clearly irony is something that is completely lost on the Syrians. The same group of thugs who have most recently systematically killed 10 politicians and journalists in Lebanon are lecturing the world about terrorism and peace. According to Walid al-Moualem, a Syrian government spokesman:

"Whoever wants peace does not commit terrorism..."

If only some of our politicians could be convinced to think this way!

Of course, then he goes on to say:

"The fighter Imad Moughniyah was the target of lots of intelligence agencies. He was a backbone of the Islamic resistance."

Killing an active fighter in the "resistance" can hardly be called terrorism. After all, when a soldier is killed in battle, that is not an act of terror - that is part of their job description.

The attempt to label the act a "crime" is even more absurd:

"As a state, we will irrefutably prove the party involved in this crime and who stands behind it. An investigation is ongoing,"

The real crime is that an individual who was wanted for his crimes by no less than 42 countries was walking freely in Syria.

The notion that he was somehow "off limits" because he was not in Lebanon when he was killed is also really rich. Especially coming from a group that blew up an Embassy and a Jewish Community Center in Argentina and has threatened to repeat these crimes in the near future.

Bush is a Terrorist

According to Osama Bin Laden's son, his father is no more a terrorist than President Bush. As he points out, his father does not feel that he is killing innocent civilians. This is not because his father is a bloodthirsty madman, but rather stems from his reasoned position regarding the culpability of all Americans. After all, if they pay taxes to the American government they forfeit the right to consider themselves either innocent or civilians.

Worse, as Omar Bin-Laden notes, the American people voted for Bush twice, so what do they expect? That this ignores the minor fact that the team which carried out 9/11 attacks were already preparing in the summer of 2000 - prior to the US presidential elections - is completely inconsequential. Who can argue with retroactive guilt? (Actually I kind of want to agree with him on this one - "Down with the Tyranny of the Time-space Continuum!")

I also really liked the part where he compares Osama to Gerry Adams and the way the "hard-hitting" reporter nods in agreement with him about not only Adams, but about Bush being a terrorist. Check out the video).

You should compare this video with the one he gave a few weeks ago for CNN. In that one, he was interviewed with his well spoken and attractive British wife. They speak about their desire to promote peace by sponsoring a race across North Africa. There is nothing offensive in that video. Unless, of course you find it offensive that Osama Bin Laden's son seems to be living in the lap of luxury and not languishing in Guantanamo.

Coitus Interruptus

Called "Sex in Sderot", the following link uses humor and shock value to get its point across.

All's Fair in Law and War?

The next time someone begins to rant and rave about how Finkelstein or Walt & Mearsheimer have been "silenced" by the Israel Lobby, think about Mark Steyn and the many others mentioned in the following article who are really on the front lines defending Free Speech. Here is an excerpt:

The Islamist movement has two wings -- one violent and one lawful -- which operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published, the lawful arm is maneuvering within Western legal systems. Islamists with financial means have launched a legal jihad, manipulating democratic court systems to suppress freedom of expression, abolish public discourse critical of Islam, and establish principles of Sharia law.

The practice, called "lawfare," is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning and undertaken as a means to intimidate and bankrupt defendants. Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of "libel tourism" that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.

Like the commercial airliners that were turned into bombs on 9/11, these legal Jihadis are trying to turn our court system on its head and to use our own laws against us.

A MAJOR PLAYER on this front is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Egyptian who
resides in Saudi Arabia. Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue more than 30 publishers and authors in British courts, including several Americans, whose written works have linked him to terrorist entities. A notable libel tourist, Mahfouz has taken advantage of the UK's plaintiff-friendly libel laws to restrict the dissemination of written material that draws attention to Saudi-funded terrorism.

Of course Saudi Arabia - home to a majority of the 9/11 bombers - has officially been at the forefront of spreading the lie that the Mossad was behind the attacks. Unfortunately, it appears that the Saudi courts are not as open to libel cases. by foreigners. Apparently this is just one more example of the one-way street that the West is expected to traverse in order not to hurt Muslim sensibilities.

Faced with the prospect of protracted and expensive litigation, and regardless of the merit of the works, most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines and "contributions" to Mahfouz's charities. When Mahfouz threatened Cambridge Press with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.

Shortly after the publication of Funding Evil in the United States, Mahfouz sued its author, anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, for alleging financial ties between wealthy Saudis, including Mahfouz, and terrorist entities such as al Qaeda. The allegations against Ehrenfeld were heard by the UK court despite the fact that neither Mahfouz nor Ehrenfeld resides in England and merely because approximately 23 copies of Funding Evil were sold online to UK buyers via Amazon.com. Unwilling to travel to England or acknowledge the authority of English libel laws over herself and her work, Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books -- all of which she has refused to do. Instead, Ehrenfeld counter-sued Mahfouz in a New York State court seeking to have the foreign judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

Ironically, Ehrenfeld lost her case against Mahfouz, because the New York court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have
sufficient connections to the state.

The article goes on to cite many other examples of lawsuits aimed at silencing critics. Oddly, neither Finkelstein - who just returned from meetings in Lebanon with Hizbullah, nor Walt & Mearsheimer - who have made a fortune out of being "silenced", have been dragged through courts.

It's All Your Fault!

The Danish Police uncovered a plot to kill the cartoonist who displayed the above image of the Prophet Mohammed with a turban bomb. There is nothing terribly surprising in this development. In fact, even the local Islamic community is not at all surprised by this. As their spokesman noted:

``We have warned that the situation could get out of control,'' Kasem Said Ahmad, a spokesman for a Muslim organization, the Islamic Community in Denmark, told TV2. ``We want a decent tone between Muslims and Danes. But we maintain our view that the cartoons were provocative.'' (Quoted in Bloomberg)

Nowhere in this statement is there even one iota of self-reflection or (heaven forfend) condemnation of this plot. Rather, Mr. Ahmad clearly believes that the Danes brought all of this upon themselves. Even worse, there is self-righteousness, victimhood, and a not so veiled threat. I am definitely not hearing an appeal to cultural relativism or a spirited defense of Danish national traditions (such as Freedom of Speech).

Of course, this will all be a moot point once Sharia is imposed.

(Hats off to the Danes who have chosen to print the cartoons today in their newspapers to protest this very real provocation.)

Please be Considerate

I could not help but think of this cartoon when I read in the Telegraph that the Iranian envoy to Spain appealed to Human Rights organizations to show some cultural sensitivity. Specifically:

"Our laws allow for the amputation of the hand that steals. This is not accepted by the West, but the field of human rights should take into account the customs, traditions, religion and economic development," he said in comments reported by the newspaper El Mundo.

"Some laws are needed to preserve the health of society, if not, it would be in danger."

No doubt there will be many cultural and moral relativist that will heed his call.

For those who feel that Sharia is "unavodable", they may want to ponder the fact mentioned in the article that:

Iran has the second highest number of recorded executions in the world after China, according to Amnesty International.

In fact, as Amnesty reported just last month:

As nine women and two men in Iran wait to be stoned to death, Amnesty International today called on the Iranian authorities to abolish death by stoning and impose an immediate moratorium on this horrific practice, specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victims.

Going Whole Hog

OK, so they are probably not riding around on Hogs in Gaza (mostly because Hamas would not allow such sacrilege). Yet here comes some independent Palestinian confirmation to my earlier contention that some expensive purchases were made by Palestinians while they were in Sinai. Clearly not everyone is poor and starving:

Hundreds of motorcycles were reportedly brought in from Egypt by Palestinian teenagers after the border breach in January. Most of the motorcycles are still unregistered and the drivers untrained and unlicensed.

Sadly,

Abdel Salam Haniya, a traffic police officer in the allied police, said that eight people have died and more than 70 others have been injured since the toppling of the Egypt-Gaza border wall.

Being Conned

Barry Rubin offers some important insights on how things look and how they play out in reality. He interestingly suggests that the lens through which much of Middle East posturing can be understood is that of the con man. Compare this to what I wrote about Roger Cohen below:

In a con-game, a malefactor gains the mark's confidence in order to rob him. Classic examples include selling swampland as vacation homes or the internet scam of posing as a distressed African official who promises rich rewards in return for a loan.

The victim is fooled by the promise of big gains if he only trusts his partner and gives up his own assets. Contrary to folklore, the best way to cheat someone is not to offer them something for nothing - that's too obvious - but to pledge something dreamy tomorrow in exchange for getting something very real right now.

THE PATTERN goes like this:

Step One. They say: We have been your victims so you must make up for it. Our violence has been due to our grievances. You must deal with the root causes of problems. In short, you owe us big time. Pay up to show you have changed your ways.

A common Western response: Following our usual style of self-criticism and trying to do better, we acknowledge fault and do nice things to build credibility with you. Then you will like us better, trust us more, and make a deal.

Proper analysis: Such behavior not only convinces the Middle East side that the West is weak, scared, and surrendering but it is also taken as an acknowledgment of guilt. Grievance and outrage, in this context, are bottomless pits. Playing this game establishes a terrible relationship along the lines of˜probably the worst thing Shimon Peres ever said - our task is to give, their job is to take. This pattern never gets broken.

Correct response: If you have grievances, have suffered, and root causes must be resolved then it is in your interest to make and implement an equitable, workable deal. You are not doing us a favor by making peace, stopping terrorism, or being moderate. It is in your interest and you must show credibility, too. If it is true that you are so terribly suffering, then you are the ones with an incentive to compromise.
Things are the exact opposite of what you say.

Step Two. The con-game's siren call goes this way: If you only take risks and build confidence through concessions you will gain great rewards.

A common Western response: What do we have to lose? Since we don't remember what happened last time this will probably work. We can alleviate suffering, prove we want peace, there's no harm in talking. We can be the great heroes who brings peace, and so on.

Proper analysis: I do remember what happened the last half-dozen times I fell for this trick. In addition, a careful examination of your ideology, regime interests,
statements to your own people, media incitement, and power structure show me
what to expect: little or nothing.

Correct response: If you won't acknowledge all the times I took risks before and they came back to bite me (Oslo agreement, withdrawal from south Lebanon, withdrawal from the Gaza Strip) and you didn't keep your commitments (or act the way I expected) why should things be any different now? I've proven good faith now it is your turn.

Manchurian or Mensch?

Paul Krugman and Roger Cohen fight it out over Obama on the pages of the New York Times.

In an article titled "Hate Springs Eternal", Krugman accuses the Obama camp of verging on a cult of personality and implies in the process that there is no substance there. Even worse, he compares Obama to President Bush, which in Obamaland (read the article) is probably the worst epithet that he could come up with short of comparing him to Mississippi's civil rights era Governor Wallace:

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Cohen, in his article, "No Manchurian Candidate" demonstrates once again that he is not only living in la-la-land, but that he can not help but be patronizing.

I believe Barack Obama is a strong but not uncritical supporter of Israel. That is what the Middle East needs from an American leader: the balance implicit in a two-state solution.

He implies that Israel does not know what's in its own interests and needs armchair intellectuals like Cohen or foreign policy (idealists? novices?) such as Barak Obama to sort it out and put it on the right path. Aside from the fact that this stinks of Marxist notions of "false consciousness" that permeate the "progressive" mindset, Israel has repeatedly demonstrated that if a peace partner emerges it can and will make difficult and painful concessions for the sake of peace. In both the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties Israel gave up hard-won territories for the sake of peace - even though it was clear from the start that it would be a cold peace.

What exactly did the Egyptians give up? Their claim to Gaza? Well they are most welcome to it. Israel withdrew over two years ago and Hamas seems interested in such an arrangement. For some reason the Egyptians have not been so keen.

Cohen is not only implying, but also saying that if only Israel were pressured a bit more by the United States to soften its stance and sign a peace with the Palestinians (at all costs) that the conflict could be brought to closure. This is not only naive, it is discriminatory because it holds Israel to a different standard than it holds its neghbor, and it is patently wrong because it is based on the false premise that Israel, by virtue of its unnatural existence, lacks legitimacy and is the root cause of the conflict. Otherwise, why should Israel be the one forced into making concessions? Worse than patronizing, Cohen's article is offensive.

If this is Obama's position and these are the people supporting him, then you can be certain that if he is elected President, there will be rejoicing in the Arab street the likes of which we have not seen since 9/11. Who knows, perhaps someone will even have the perspicacity to put up a sign that says, "Mission Accomplished"?

Settlers or Residents?

The Jerusalem Post reports that:

Sheikh Abu-Hader Ja'abri, the head of a prominent Palestinian clan and a relative of a former mayor of Hebron, and the head of the Abu Sneinah clan, Haj Akram Abu-Sneinah met with the head of the Kiryat Arba settlement council, Zvi K'tzubar, and the heads of Jewish settlers in Hebron. The two sides declared their goal was to restore peace and security to the city, known to Jews as Hebron and to Palestinians as Al-Halil.

"We don't see you as settlers but as residents," Sheikh Ja'abri, the head of a prominent clan in Hebron, is quoted as telling his Jewish interolocutors. "Hebron is ours just as it is yours."

Interesting that a Muslim leader in Hebron recognizes the historic Jewish connection to Hebron. A connection that goes back to the days of Abraham - who is buried there. Now if only the media outlets who insist on calling for a Judenrein West Bank would change their tune.


Not surprisingly:

"In response to news of the meeting, Fatah's military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, released a leaflet calling for Ja'abri's assassination, according to Army Radio."

Please note that this threat emanates from the West Bank and from a Fatah organization. Are we really supposed to believe that the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas is so different from Hamas, when such threats emanate from territory under his control and from forces loyal to his organization?

The Devil Marches

The Forward ran an article this week on the carnival activities in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. It is a long-standing tradition to parade in the town dressed up us Jews while mimicking supposedly Jewish character traits such as peddling, haggling and stinginess.

The festival usually involves a parade or circus, with attendees in masks and costumes. But in Vilnius — commonly known to Jews as Vilna — participants traditionally dress and act “as Jews,” a feat that generally calls for masks with grotesque features, beards and visible ear locks and that is often accompanied by peddling and by stereotypically Jewish speech.

During the festivities children go door to door asking for treats and reciting the following rhyme:

"We’re the little Lithuanian Jews/We want blintzes and coffee/If you don’t have
blintzes/Give us some of your money.”

According to the author, it rhymes in Lithuanian.

In Kaunas (Kovno to Jews) there is even a "Devil's Museum" where thousands of masks of devils are displayed. It was only then that I realized that the archetypal image of the devil - crooked nose, beard, horns, tail, and large pointy ears - is a caricature of what some would argue are quintessentially Jewish traits.

The devil's horns and tail? Yes, the devil's horns can be interpreted as either originating in Michaelangelo's Moses or one could attribute it simply to seeing a Jew from behind during prayer. Devout Jews often cover their head with a large prayer shawl (Tallis) which would make the phylacteries that stick out look a lot like a horn from a distance. Anyone who is familiar with what happens to a Tallis kattan (small prayer shawl that is worn as an undergarment) when it bunches up in the back will have no problem imagining where the notion of a tail comes from.

Clearly there is an entire discussion regarding ethnocentrism, cultural relativity and national traditions that I will defer for another time.

What do the Terrorists Really Think?

If you want to know what people think, one way to go about finding out would be to actually interview them. While this seems like a no-brainer, it is rare to find many articles on the Middle East where this is actually done.

Here is a review of a new book called Schmoozing with Terrorists by Aaron Klein that brings up some good points and raises some important questions. Some excerpts:

The Arab Palestinian leaders with whom Klein spoke are very candid about their dreams not only to wipe out Israel, but to establish a worldwide caliphate. Their plans for American society should awaken anyone who thinks the Arab terrorists are only Israel's problem. And it should also smack awake all the moral relativists who equate Israel's security measures with hegemonic brutality.

A deputy commander of Fatah's al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Nasser Abu Azziz, explained to Klein that when sharia law is imposed in Western countries, "these sick people [homosexuals] will be treated in a very tough way," explaining that the Islamic leadership will "prevent social and physical diseases like homosexuality." All the terrorists whom Klein interviewed agreed that homosexuality would not be tolerated in the US once Islam rules.

And homosexuality is not all they condemn. The failure of western women to conform to Islamic standards of dress will reap harsh responses including, if necessary, torture. Sheik Hamad, a Hamas cleric, said those women who refuse to cover themselves in conformity with Islamic values would be punished either by imprisonment, whipping or stoning.

The "Halal Hippies" and "Cafe Latte" crowd would do well to at least consider the possibility that these leaders are not being misunderstood but know exactly what they are saying and really mean what they are saying.

Our mass media - whether it be news or soap operas - are everywhere in the world and there are many in the Muslim world who are dismayed by what they see. To me this not only implies that they have a better sense of us than we have of them (albeit through the distortions of the media lens), but that they feel that their way of life is endangered and are motivated to defend it - even if that means taking the battle to the enemy. Add to that Muslim millenarian visions of the inevitably that the entire world will eventually accept their faith and you have a pretty scary cocktail.

Klein was told by Abu Ayman, the commander of Islamic Jihad in Jenin, that Muslims are strictly forbidden from becoming suicide bombers if they are motivated by anything -- including desperate poverty or revenge for Israeli wrongdoing to this individual -- other than love of Allah. When Klein pointed out to a young man in training to become a "martyr" CNN's claim that suicide bombing was motivated by poverty and despair, Abu Ahmed was visibly affronted and called it "Israeli propaganda."

The most bizarre and brazen interview Klein describes is with Sheikh Taysir Tamimi, the chief Palestinian Justice and one of the most important clerics in the Middle East. Tamimi lectured Klein that "there is no Jewish historic connection whatsoever to the Temple Mount or Jerusalem," and that the "Jews came to the [Temple area] in 1967 and not before."

Tamimi responded to Klein's recitation of archeological findings and historical connections: "These archeological things you cite are lies." Tamimi simply erases Judaism's connection to the Holy Land by ignoring irrefutable and concrete evidence of inconvenient facts.

This only goes to show that the notion that economic development will dampen ideological fervor is misplaced. I am all for economic development, but humans are not automatons who respond blindly to cost-benefit analysis. Economics is a social science and this false assumption about the root causes of Palestinian militancy is one of the reasons there has been no peace and also one of the reasons economic sanctions literally never work as an instrument of foreign policy. That is true no less in the case of Gaza than in the case of Iran.

The second point raised here also demonstrates that Facts have no bearing on ideological worldview. In fact, it is a great testament to the human mind that ideology trumps reality.

If these murder merchants happily speak at length about their desire to murder and torture those who don't fit their religious profiles, why are the rest of the hundreds of journalists who call Israel their beat unable to obtain the same information? Do they prefer to stick with the standard mendacious narrative, either because they believe it or because they are too afraid to approach the terrorist leadership? Neither answer says anything favorable about the press corps.

Second, why are all those on the political left, those who identify themselves as advocates for minorities, so convinced that Israel is the villain and the Arab Palestinians are the victim? Anyone who claims to favor women's rights, gay rights, ideological tolerance, freedom of the press, of speech, of association, of religion, in fact, nearly all of the icons of the political left, should logically support the Israeli narrative. Instead, most of those in this country who fit the profile of the left support the Arab Palestinian narrative. Yet Klein's interviewees freely articulate their categorical rejection of the ideas these groups hold dear. And when these people categorically reject an idea, we're not talking polite disagreement over cocktails: we're talking beheading in the town square, as Klein's interviewees state in plain English. Yet these groups -- QUIT (Queers Undermining Israeli Terror) is my own personal favorite -- continue to support terrorists who would happily slaughter their western advocates if they attained the power they seek.

These are often the same people who supported Communism - even after they were confronted with Stalinist atrocities or the killing fields of Cambodia. It goes back to my point above regarding ideology trumping reality but also has to do with an obsessive insistence on supporting the underdog - regardless of whether they are right or wrong. That this is a natural consequence of post-modernist and relativist thinking goes without saying.