Obama Caves Again

CNN is reporting that Obama has dropped his demand to halt all settlement construction. Considering that Obama caves on everything, this was pretty predictable.

I have commented on the report below (in red) while also pointing out the bias in the CNN reportage.

The full CNN report is available here:

But the United States and Israel have publicly disagreed on Israeli plans to build more housing on land the Palestinians regard as theirs. Previous Obama administration demands for a freeze have been ignored by the Netanyahu government. (Ignored? Disagreeing is not the same as ignoring. The Obama administrations demands went counter to previous US govt agreements and guarantees.)

Abbas has so far rejected resuming talks with Israel until the Jewish state halts all settlement building in the occupied West Bank and in predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Arab states also have balked at the U.S. request to take confidence-building measures toward Israel until Israel freezes settlement construction. (This was never a show-stopper until the twits in this administration made it one.)

Sitting with Netanyahu and Abbas, Obama softened his regular language on a settlement "freeze," saying that Israel has had meaningful discussions about "restraining" settlement activity. (Israel = 1, Obama = -5, Palestinians = 0)

"But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues," he said.

"Obama told Abbas that he couldn't get the settlement freeze and promised to keep trying, but that it shouldn't be a condition for talks and it was time to move on," one Palestinian aide to Abbas said.

Several U.S. officials said that Obama told Abbas that although the U.S. believe a settlement freeze would create a better atmosphere for talks to begin, the lack of one should not be used an as excuse not to talk.

"Let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good," Obama told Abbas, according to the officials. (In other words, the Palestinians were the ones refusing to negotiate.)

"It's been apparent for some time that the Israelis were going to fall short of what is necessary on the settlement freeze," one senior U.S. official said. "But our view is let's get to negotiations and settlements will be addressed within those final status issues" (See previous comment.)

A senior Israeli diplomat said Israel agreed to not building any new settlements, no outward expansion of existing growth and to only build for "natural" growth within existing settlements. He said Israel also agreed not to encourage Israelis to move to settlements, which would increase the population. (i.e. what has been going on for a decade now.)

"A complete settlement freeze wasn't physically or politically possible, especially in the absence of any Arab or Palestinian concessions," the Israeli diplomat said. "There was a time the gaps had significantly narrowed, but now they were starting to widen. The administration recognized, rather than have them widen further, we should start negotiating." (It was precisely this imbecilic administration that caused the gaps to widen by giving the Palestinians false hopes and reneging on previous agreements while focusing on non-issues.)

The Palestinian aide to Abbas said Obama's failure to secure a settlement freeze has weakened him in the eyes of the Palestinian delegation, because it casts doubt on his ability to move Israel during final status negotiations. (Yeah, and the fact that he could not get even one lousy concession from the Arabs weakened him in Israeli eyes. That and North Korea, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan, etc. Besides, this assumes that Israel has to be moved, kicking and screaming into making concessions, when the reality is that the Palestinians have absolutely no track record of making concessions or sticking to their commitments.)

The Palestinians did win an important point, however, with Obama making clear that the peace talks would not start from scratch, which Netanyahu had favored. Rather the talks would take into account progress made in previous negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the sources said. (Yeah and the US should take a look at the guarantees that the Bush administration gave Israel. They should also be held to that.)

The Israeli diplomat said that Israel would "take into account" the previous negotiations, but stressed his country's longstanding position that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." (This is what is known colloquially as "negotiations". If you walk away from the table, as the Palestinians did, you can not expect to come back and get everything you already rejected on the first go around.)

Getting Prickly About Israel

Though I never seem to have time to blog, apparently I have time to conduct online battles against anti-Israeli propagandists. Since I have been exchanging back and forth entries with people at this link, I figured I would share it with you all.

Here is just a sample of the debate that has been raging there:

A Palestinian named Hussein began with:

"Dear Mr. Grossman,

As a Palestinian man, I cannot help but sympathize with your situation. The tragedies that have befallen both our peoples are no laughing matter, and have yet to be fully addressed by those involved. The Europeans have yet to truly apologize for their involvement in the Holocaust (even France's faux-absolution of the matter is disgraceful), as is the case with the illegal immigrants that subsequently raided Palestine.

I call it "Palestine" because that is what it was called when my grandfather was there. It is stated on his Ottoman- and British- issued IDs, and was the home he always spoke of until his recent death. I think Ben Gurion said it best when he rhetorically asked why the Palestinians had to pay for the Europeans' atrocities. Then again, he still didn't show remorse.

But that is the past. What I fail to understand right now is the twisted logic within which the world operates, namely: how is it that a fresh convert to Judaism in Indiana has more of a right to be in the Holy Land than those who were expelled from their land (and still hold legal ownership to it)?

A state founded on the premise of religious entitlement is bound to fail. With that in mind, here's to a comprehensive, one-state solution.

And if not, may we senselessly slaughter one another until the victor retains what is left of this desolate land."

I responded with the following (the parts in quotations refer to Hussein's letter):

There were more than a few "dozen" thousands at the turn of the century. In fact, based on Ottoman census records, Jews were the largest community in Jerusalem (as well as in Tiberias and Safed).

"It is the hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who had no ties whatsoever to the land"

Herein lies the rub. The Jewish people have well over a THREE THOUSAND year tie to the land. Until Palestinians and Arabs publicly recognize that Jews are an INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, there will never be peace.

"or what they subsequently leeched from the US and Europe."

Really? How much do the Palestinians leech from the US and Europe? Ask UNRWA which supports the Palestinians with US and European money (so that they can have kids and live on the dole.) By law almost ALL of the US money "spent" on Israel stays in the US. It is basically a subsidy for the US military industrial complex.

"One can't "become" ethnically Pakistani no matter how hard he tries. I could, however, become a Jew in a year's time."

Good luck with that! Obviously you have no conception how hard it is to convert and be accepted by the Israeli rabbinate. I can assure you it will take you much longer than a year. In any case, every country can decide its immigration policies based on whatever criteria it wishes to use.

PS PAK-istani is a completely made up identity cooked up in 1934.

Here is Hussein's response:

Dear Seraph,

"There were more than a few "dozen" thousands at the turn of the century. In fact, based on Ottoman census records, Jews were the largest community in Jerusalem"

Jerusalem housed between 8 and 20 thousand Jewish people. Your argument is nonsensical. The total Jewish population in the entire region of Biblical Palestine was of about 50,000 to 70,000. Yes, in my book, that is a "few dozen thousand"- four to six dozens, actually.

As for the Native American claim, here goes:

Nothing justifies what happened to the indigenous Indian people of America. That being said, the remaining survivors capitulated and accepted the pilgrims' terms. We Palestinians have refused to do so. We are still here, voicing our opposition to our own Shoah.

Moreover- and more importantly, I must add- your theory of Jewish presence in the holy land is deceiving at best, and malicious at worst. A few dozen thousand Jewish people cannot squat and "save their brothers' seats" until they decide to come back 2000 years later.

Being Jewish in and of itself is not a valid certificate of ownership. Any nutcase can form a religion and claim the region of his choice as his "homeland". That doesn't make him 'entitled' to it.

Fact of the matter is that over 80% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of illegal immigrants who raided Palestine either to escape persecution in Europe or evade the wrath of the Arab countries. The Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes had owned and lived in these lands for at least several hundred years.

Moreover, many of the "Palestinian Jews" in the Holy Land converted to Islam since the 1200's, a fact documented by a notable Israeli historian. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

On a different note, have you heard of the squatter's rights in the US? A man living on an unclaimed property for 10 years can legally claim that property as his own. We've been there for 1900 years. I think we qualify as the land's legal owners. And today's Israelis can't make the same claim for themselves, as we are still demanding our Right of Return.

Oh, and one last thing: if Charles Taylor, the Liberian dictator, can convert to Judaism, I doubt it's as hard as you say it is.

And my retort:

It is more than malicious to compare the situation of Palestinians to the Shoah, it is a complete distortion of history on innumerable levels. When you uncover millions of dead Palestinians and gas chambers, then you can talk about a Shoah.

Based on your argument, then there really is no reason for Israelis to make peace with Palestinians. Instead we should opt for the complete capitulation of the Palestinians.(I guess there are some things we can agree on. I.e. no peace without victory.)

As long as you continue to deny the undeniable - that Jews are indigenous people with a longstanding and unshakable bond to Israel there will always be conflict.

To say that Jews abandoned their claim to their land clearly shows that you know next to nothing about Judaism. Moreover, to compare Judaism to some made up religion is just rude.

You may find this to be an inconvenient fact, but there was nothing illegal about the migration of Jews to Israel. It was enshrined under the League of Nations Mandate in 1922 and again by the UN in 1948.

Frankly, it is the height of audacity for the Palestinians, a people who NEVER ONCE in history had an independent state, to compare their situation to the Jewish people, who ruled Israel for over a thousand years.

PS Charles Taylor did not UNDERGO conversion. He simply announced one day that he is Jewish, but noted that he is still a practicing Christian! I'm sure the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is already scouting out a villa for him in Tel Aviv. LOL!

And again Hussein:

"Frankly, it is the height of audacity for the Palestinians, a people who NEVER ONCE in history had an independent state, to compare their situation to the Jewish people, who ruled Israel for over a thousand years."

Name one Jewish ruler over Palestine in the last 1800 years (pre-1910). One. Seriously...

That's what I thought.

The fact that Palestine was part of a supranational entity (the Ottoman empire) does not mean that it was not a distinct nation. Actually, in 1955, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg (and subsequently Germany) debated whether or not they should do the same. They ended up forming an economic community (the EEC), and decided to forgo the former option. Now, does that mean that France would no longer exist if it is a part of a larger political entity? Your denial of our statehood is pathetic- and visibly flawed.

"there was nothing illegal about the migration of Jews to Israel"... The fact that the League of Nations didn't oppose it doesn't mean it was legal- or moral. The international community said almost nothing when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed... were those justified?

"To say that Jews abandoned their claim to their land clearly shows that you know next to nothing about Judaism."

So are you really trying to sell me that your immigrant parents' ancestors left 1800 years ago with the intention of coming back in two millenniums? Wow, talk about patience.

"It is more than malicious to compare the situation of Palestinians to the Shoah"... I'm perfectly sorry- I didn't know tragedy had a minimum casualty threshold. Again, please excuse my 'foolish' comparison of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over 2 months with the murder of 6 million Jews over 6 years.

"As long as you continue to deny the undeniable - that Jews are indigenous people with a longstanding and unshakable bond to Israel there will always be conflict."

Actually, no. As long as the Holy Land is infested with ignorant, brainwashed behemoths (like yourself), then there definitely will be no peace.

Only in Israel will a nation PAY internet commenters to lie about their identities and defend their home state for propaganda purposes.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-374...

Because God forbid that people actually find out about your lunacy.

My response:

What a joke! Name one Palestinian RULER.

To compare "Palestine's" role in the province of Damascus to the EU, is a spurious argument. There was never self-rule in "Palestine", whereas under the EU there was always a local government. In Ottoman times the Turks called the shots.

"The fact that the League of Nations didn't oppose it doesn't mean it was legal- or moral. The international community said almost nothing when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed... were those justified?"

What are you talking about? The League of Nations voted in 1922 to CREATE the British Mandate on the sole condition that it would become the Jewish State. Other Mandates were also created (e.g. Syria, Iraq). To say that Israel has no legal right to exist is the same as saying that those countries have no right to exist.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_... )

"So are you really trying to sell me that your immigrant parents' ancestors left 1800 years ago with the intention of coming back in two millenniums? Wow, talk about patience."

We are a very patient people. My ancestors did not emigrate, they were forced out by the Romans. They had every intention of going back and said so, repeatedly and fervently, three times a day, every day in their prayers and commemorated it on days like today, Tisha B'Av when we fast to remember our exile.

"I'm perfectly sorry- I didn't know tragedy had a minimum casualty threshold. Again, please excuse my 'foolish' comparison of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over 2 months with the murder of 6 million Jews over 6 years."

There is no threshold to PERSONAL suffering, but you simply can not compare the Shoah to what the Palestinians have suffered. Otherwise, why not call 9-11 a Shoah? Or a car accident a Shoah? It has been not six, but SIXTY years since Israel was created and still no millions dead. Besides, "thousands" of Palestinians did not die in Gaza and a plurality of those who did, died with a weapon in their hand and a Hamas mask on their face. It's hardly a Shoah if they are shooting back at you. It's called self-defense.

"Only in Israel will a nation PAY internet commenters to lie about their identities and defend their home state for propaganda purposes."

I wish someone would pay me to refute your lies, but since it is Tisha B'Av it is a memorial day in Israel and ain't no one on the clock. You, on the other hand, "doth protest too much." Perhaps you are being paid by a Muslim "charity"?

Oh, and Taqiyya to you too.(http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.sht... )

Hussein Again:

"What a joke! Name one Palestinian RULER."

I just said that Palestine was part of a larger, supranational political entity. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a distinct state. My late grandfather was born in 1914, and his Ottoman ID clearly states he is "Palestinian".

"Other Mandates were also created (e.g. Syria, Iraq). To say that Israel has no legal right to exist is the same as saying that those countries have no right to exist. "

No country whatsoever has a "right to exist as a state of a certain religion". In other words, just as Iraq has no "right to exist as a Muslim state", and the Philippines has no "right to exist as a Christian state", Israel does NOT have a "right to exist as a Jewish state". The latter would mean that it can use whatever means necessary- including deportation and ethnic cleansing- to preserve that "right".

"My ancestors did not emigrate, they were forced out by the Romans. They had every intention of going back"

Well, first: Happy Tisha B'Av. Second, your ancestors had every chance to go back from the 1200's till 1910 and still didn't do so. After Saladin's final seizure of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to live freely and unhindered in the Holy Land. Hell, you could have come WALKING and it still wouldn't have taken you 710 years to get there. Spare me.

"There is no threshold to PERSONAL suffering, but you simply can not compare the Shoah to what the Palestinians have suffered."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis...

Actually, if Matan Vilnai can threaten a Shoah against the Gazan people, I definitely think that the Nakba of 1948 can be considered one as well.

"Oh, and Taqiyya to you too."

I think it's sad that people like you resort to baseless religious-bashing to move the light away from Israel. Not once have I criticized the Jewish religion (although the Talmud does give me plenty of cannon fodder). So kindly do me the same justice.

What I find heart-wrenching is that a single minute event in history (namely: "who started it") can frame an entire people's perceptions on right and wrong. The Jews believe the Palestinians wrongfully attacked them during their early 20th century Aaliyah, while the Palestinians see it as a natural response to them being shoved out by hundreds of thousands of unwanted illegal immigrants.

Me Again:

Hussein wrote:

Palestine was part of a larger, supranational political entity. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a distinct state.

Certainly it does. And not only was it not a distinct state, it was part of the Damascus province (and to this day the Syrians would love to get their hands on it.)

Hussein wrote:

My late grandfather was born in 1914, and his Ottoman ID clearly states he is "Palestinian".

Yeah and my mother was born in 1946 and her birth certificate says Palestine. Does that make me a Palestinian too? According to UNRWA Palestinians are those who happened to be in the Mandate from 1946-8. This includes lots of Arabs who ILLEGALLY immigrated to the Mandate for work. Probably about 100,000 "Palestinians" including people such as Yasser Arafat's family.(Of course he was born in Egypt.)

Hussein wrote:

No country whatsoever has a "right to exist as a state of a certain religion".

Really? So are you telling us that Hamas does not seek to create a Muslim state? Will you not recognize an independent Palestine under Hamas leadership? Will you oppose it? Benny Morris tackled this canard well in the following article: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/full...

Hussein wrote:

The latter would mean that it can use whatever means necessary- including deportation and ethnic cleansing- to preserve that "right".

If you want to talk about deportation and ethnic cleansing, talk to the Jordanians, they are the ones currently revoking citizenship for Palestinians. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.a...

Hussein wrote:

"Well, first: Happy Tisha B'Av. Second, your ancestors had every chance to go back from the 1200's till 1910 and still didn't do so.

That's nonsense, they made every effort to do so. Perhaps you have not heard of David Alroy (ca 1160), Sabbtai Zevi's (1626-1676), the Vilna Gaon's (1720-1797) students, Judah ben Solomon (1798-1878), Moses Montefiore (1784-1885) and many, many others, but they certainly ACTIVELY encouraged Jewish migration to Israel and many did (often by walking).

Hussein: Actual ly, if Matan Vilnai can threaten a Shoah against the Gazan people, I definitely think that the Nakba of 1948 can be considered one as well.

Me: I see, so based on your logic, if someone suggests that a "catastrophe" (which is exactly what shoah, as opposed to HaShoah means) will befall the Palestinians if they keep indiscriminately firing rockets on the civilian population that a holocaust/genocide HAS happened in the past? Sounds a little loopy to me. Then again, every single day Palestinians preach hatred and murder, so I guess it must make sense to you.

Hussein wrote:

I think it's sad that people like you resort to baseless religious-bashing to move the light away from Israel. Not once have I criticized the Jewish religion (although the Talmud does give me plenty of cannon fodder).

First off, it is not baseless. Muslims are religiously sanctioned to lie, especially when it comes to war. Secondly, if you have something to say about the Talmud, bring it on. I am sure there will be more than a little that can be said about the Koran and the Hadiths. Third, I am sorry if I do not play the role of the good Dhimmi very well, but I do not intend to pipe down just because you say so.

"Palestinians see it as a natural response to them being shoved out by hundreds of thousands of unwanted illegal immigrants.

The Palestinians shoved themselves out. Even Abbas recently admitted this. See: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite... Also: http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/07/arab-responsi...

Turns out you guys are the ones who chose to emigrate.

Again, if you want to see the continuation of this exchange, or perhaps, add your voice, then: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TL2EUA01TRKR7UO77/p2

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.