Another reason George Mitchell will fail

Former Senator George Mitchell is the newly-appointed ambassador of Middle eastern issues for the Obama administration. It is a good appointment. That Mitchell faces enormous hurdles hardly needs be stated, but the issues to be resolved are not complex.

We in the US and those in Europe almost always assume that the issue is land. That is, we recount the history of the region and bring it forward to the present, but our recounting always seems to begin in 1948, when Israel established its independence after defeating the Arab armies in battle.

This, we say, resulted in the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Israel and their permanent, enduring status as Palestinian refugees, who came to be settled in the West Bank and Gaza. In 1967, Israel conquered those areas and since then the Palestinians have been living under Israeli "occupation."

If only the Israelis would withdraw back into the pre-1967-war borders, we say, giving Palestinians a homeland of their own, all would be well and at peace.

There are many errors in this (admittedly simplistic) retelling of the history. One, it ignores the fact that before 1948, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews already living in Palestine and everyone in the world, literally, thought of them as Palestinians without distinction from the Arabs who lived there, except, of course, of religion. (See my post from December 2008.)

It also ignores that just as many Jews were displaced by the 1948 war as Arabs, and that Arab governments were responsible for large numbers of Arab refugees from Israel. In fact, the Palestinian resistance organization, "Black September," which conducted the Munich Olympics attacks in 1972, did not take its name not from anything Israel did. The name comes from September 1970, when Jordan's armed forces violently crushed Palestinian polity inside Jordan, killing thousands, and expelled the Palestinians from Jordan proper into the West Bank.

But mainly this assessment of Israel and its neighbors founders on the error that the whole problem there is one of land. When I visited Israel in 2007, Israeli journalists and Foreign Ministry officers told my group clearly that if the basis of the problem was land, not only could peace be attained very quickly, the whole situation would never have deteriorated to the present point.

In 2000, in direct negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat under the auspices of President Clinton, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to hand over completely literally 95 percent of the land Israel controlled outside its pre-1967 borders, and make up the other five percent with land grants from Israel's original territory. The negotiations, done as part of the Oslo Accords process, would have resulted in independent statehood for the Palestinians and implementation of the "two-state solution" - Israel and Palestine, both autonomous.

In response, Yasir Arafat walked out of the conference and went home.

In 2005, PM Ariel Sharon removed all Jewish settlements from Gaza, leaving Gaza totally in Palestinian hands. Israel's hope was that Gazan autonomy would lead to peace there with a similar program being implemented in the West Bank. We know how things turned out in Gaza.

The issue is not land. It is ideology, an ideology tied to land to be sure, but not just land itself.

On the Palestinians' part, the ideology is simple: Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state, independent in itself. There is no difference between Hamas and the PA/Fatah on this matter. When each faction, and the Palestinians themselves, refer to an independent "Palestine," they do not mean anything resembling the two-state solution. They mean an independent, Islamic Palestine extending over all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

On Israel's part, the Zionist ideal did not actually begin with possession of modern Israel in Palestine. In the latter 19th century, some Zionist leaders even said they would be happy with a Jewish state in what became modern Uganda. This did not last, however, and by the early 1900s Zionism became focused on the lands of biblical Israel. Israel's founders came to have three main objectives:

1. A democratic state,
2. that was independent and Jewish,
3. extending over all the lands of biblical Israel.

Israel has never achieved all three objectives at the same time. These goals also explain the fierceness with which some pro-settlement Israelis insist that West Bank Jewish towns cannot be removed: much of the land of biblical Israel lies outside the 1967 borders (Samaria, for instance, and the city of Hebron, the second-holiest city in Judaism).

In this sense, Jewish nationalist ideology is indeed tied to land, and there are some locations that no Israeli Jew of any political stripe is willing to surrender, the ancient Temple grounds, for instance, and much of the city of Jerusalem, which is crammed with other holy Jewish sites.

Yet there is a crucial distinction between Israel's terrain-based ideology and that of the Palestinians: Israel would be quite happy for the two-state solution to become reality, as successive Israeli governments have made clear (or tried to), with full access by Muslims to Islam's holy sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Israel simply insists on the same courtesy, which the PA has never acceded in conferences. Nor does Israel call for the destruction of the West Bank and Gaza. (No, Israel's recently-concluded campaign is Gaza was not intended to destroy the place itself, although the destruction was massive.) And yes, recalcitrance to this plan on the part of the politically-powerful, pro-settlement factions in Israel have made it impossible for Israeli governments to go forward.

Even so, we only wish Mr. Mitchell well. However, if he proceeds on the basis of land equity rather than ideological conflict, his diplomacy will founder like all such attempts have before.

But there's another reason Mitchell's mission will likely die stillborn, says Prof. Anatol Lieven of King’s College London:

I see no signs, however, of a willingness in the [American] Democratic establishment to confront Israel on this issue—least of all on the part of a secretary of state who will, I fear, be engaged in a permanent, unstated, low-level campaign to inherit the presidency when Obama leaves, and who will therefore be extremely unwilling to confront any major domestic U.S. lobby. Without such willingness, Mitchell’s diplomacy will lack the necessary element of strength and will probably fail as so many before him.

There's plenty of ideology all around, and so the status quo is unlikely to change in the long term.

Who said this?

An actual quote by the president, speaking to Muslims around the world:

"We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful."

Which president said it? Was it President Obama, speaking during his interview with al-Arabiya TV this week? Or was it President George W. Bush during a speech nine days after the attacks of 9/11?

Oh, you know. As James Taranto explains, Obama's remarks to al-Arabiya, to whom Bush gave "several" interviews himself, were both in substance and tone hardly distinguishable from Bush's policy statements. Ann Althouse notes about the NYT's gushing over Obama's interview,

George Bush said exactly that innumerable times. When Bush said it, did they simply not believe it? Did they find it patronizing? Did it sound naive and insufficiently appreciative of multiculturalism?

And so new boss's Barack Obama's rehabilitation of George W. Bush continues.

But what about that bit about the Quran holding "teachings [that] are good and peaceful"? Manfred Gerstenfeld wonders, "Can the Koran be compared to 'Mein Kampf'?"

Update: James S. Robbins at NRO says that Obama's interview was "More of the Same" and shows point by point why Obama's statements are practically identical to Bush's.

Okay, this is funny

Pity that the magazine as a whole, Mad, no longer is.

There was a post and discussion a few days ago at Bill Quick's site on what happened to Mad magazine. Wrote Bill,

...I remembered it fondly from when I was a kid.

Either it stayed the same and I changed, or else it changed to become nothing more than a propaganda comic book for every lefty cliche in existence, but after trying to read the first issue, I simply tossed the remaineder, unopened, into the trash.

My observation - why is is so filled with profanity now? In my youth, Mad was all clean and all funny. Now it’s nowhere clean and only rarely funny.

There’s a connection, of course. When did would-be humorists conclude that cussing is funny, and why?

My personal rebellion against this trend was to make a Hitler-bunker (Downfall) mashup that parodied all the other mashups, which were 99 percent crammed with profanity.

See it it here: Hitler Hates Cussing. Cussing is easy. Comedy is hard.

But Mad's first 100 minutes of Obama's tenure (a spoof of his first 100 days) is not entirely unfunny. There's this chuckle nugget:

38: [Mess] with Secret Service agents by shouting out, “Hey, it’s almost prayer time, which way is Mecca?!”

Listen to the Voice of the People

President Obama has wasted no time doing something in the Middle East. He dispatched the Peace-meister with explicit instructions:

In an interview with Al-Arabiya television, Obama said he felt it was important to "get engaged right away" in the Middle East. He said he directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved" and that his administration would craft an approach after that.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama said in the interview.

Obama reiterated the US commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.

Whoa. You mean Mitchell is going to listen when he gets here? What's he going to listen to? It's election time in Israel, which after all IS a democracy.

So, at least Obama has got something correct. Israelis will have to make some hard choices to make in the next several weeks. Perhaps the most important factor facing the Israeli electorate is how much they can trust Obama to support them. Right now, Israelis aren't in too much of a trusting mood. Since 1993, trading land for peace has been shown not to work and no one appears to be listening.

If Mr. Obama is seriously interested in furthering the democratic process in the region, he might spend some time listening to the political conversation currently in play. It's a lot like Chicago. Lot's of backroom fights; police investigations; and lots of movement in the polls.

Seriously, this election will serve as an important indicator of Israeli electorate sentiment. With the emergence of the Right and the decline of the Left, Israelis are going to want substance from Mr. Obama.

In that sense, Mr. Obama is correct: Israelis are tired of Fauxto Ops. If the US is serious, they really do need to listen up. A good first step would be to ask Jimmy Carter to hush up for a while so that someone else can be heard.

Gore effect strikes again

Al Gore, high priest of the religion of global warmism, is scheduled to speak to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday.

Wednesday's forecast for Washingt0on, D.C.?



As usual when Al Gore comes to town.

You are the problem redux

I explained beginning back in 2003 how the overlords in Washington (presently Dems but before that the Reps) think that America is a problem to be fixed , and Americans are a people to be managed. Most recently, I echoed George Will that in the eyes of the Obama administration, you are the problem.

And also in the eyes of the Democrat-dominated Congress. Yesterday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on "This Week" that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to promote and provide birth control (which in Dems' minds includes abortion) will actually stimulate the economy. She said,

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

See? You, the people, are the problem with America today. There's just too darn many of you! You are costing the government too much money. To which US News columnist James Pethokoukis responds,

Me: This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow. Maby [sic] this purely economic argument from the book Empty Cradle by Phil Longman will sway her:

Population aging also depresses the growth of government revenues. Population growth is a major source of economic growth: more people create more demand for the products capitalists sell, and more supply of the labor capitalists buy. Economists may be able to construct models of how economies could grow amid a shrinking population, but in the real world, it has never happened. A nation's GDP is literally the sum of its labor force times average output per worker. Thus a decline in the number of workers implies a decline in an economy's growth potential. When the size of the work force falls, economic growth can occur only if productivity increases enough to compensate.

So who exactly does the speaker expect to pay for the increasing costs of the future if not the little babies being born today? Here's the answer: she does not care. As a future-retired speaker of the House, her personal fortune is assured no matter how many or how few future taxpayers there are. Back in 2006, CNNMoney reported,

Add it all together and the Congressional pension program is about two-to-three times more generous than the average corporate executive pension plan, according to the National Taxpayers Union.

And their contributions to their own pension fund,

... cover about one-fifth of the actual cost of their pension, according to the Taxpayers Union.

So Congress folk get a better pension and don't have to pay for all of it. They also have the equivalent of a 401k program (complete with a 5 percent employer match). In some cases Social Security kicks in. And given their medical, dental and travel benefits, plus expenses paid by the office, members of Congress have plenty of opportunity to save for retirement. (And if they get into trouble, as they sometimes do, the pension often isn't up for grabs). At $165,200 a year (after their raise this month), seems like they have some money to do it with too... .

They got theirs and it isn't going away ... that would take an act of Congress.

So where does the Congress' pension fund get the money to pay for the 80 percent that members' contributions do not cover? Well, where will the Obama administration get that $850 billion it wants to divvy out to "family planning" and other entrenched leftist causes? They write a check on your account and mine, but not theirs. "They got theirs" and now "they got ours," too.

But keep this in mind every time you read about what the Congress or the administration are doing: they think that you are the problem.

A license to own a television?

Simon Heffer, writing in The Telegraph:

There has been much competition for the most appalling story of the week, but one contender is the case of Hannah Humphris, a 69-year-old from Neath, who was persecuted by the Gestapo who enforce television licensing despite her not having owned a set since 1978. The last letter was headed “Official Warning” and threatened her with an interview under caution were she caught watching television. That was bad enough; then, when publicly humiliated for harassing Miss Humphris, TV Licensing said it would stop writing to her but added that she may receive a visit from an inquiry officer to verify she has no set. That is the outrage. What right does such a person have to enter her home? If you don’t drive, you don’t need a driving licence. Will the authorities soon start entering the homes of people without a driving licence looking for car keys? It is not compulsory to have a television and if a man turns up on Miss Humphris’s doorstep demanding she prove she has none, I hope she will call the police.

Okay, so Hannah does not have a TV license. But nefarious 69-year-old British women are often known to be up to something illicit, and the dastardly Hannah might have obtained a black-market TV, which she watches surreptitiously, with the curtains drawn and the sound so low that she has to sit right next to it to hear, lest the neighbors overhear.

However, the bureaucrats heading the television Gestapo licensing office note that Hannah has no TV license. Now, if you yourself happen to be in the TV-license-issuing (that is, tax collecting) business, then surely you are already angry about this license-less Hannah yourself by now. Perhaps 20 years in the Tower will teach her to pay her TV tax, no matter whether she owns a TV or not.

But you're probably saying, "Now wait a dadgum minnit! You mean that ya gots ta have a tax stamp in Britain just to watch The Simpsons?" Why, yes, yes you do:

You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it’s a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.

"There'll always be an England," though increasingly we across the Big Pond are wondering how (and why).

My kind of sailing

Now, when I was a kid, and my dad was teaching me the secrets of sailing, we used terms like "boiling" or "flying" to describe the vessel's passage through the water. But I don't think the Old Man had this in mind.



When I grow up, I want one of these.

Of course, like any vehicle, one has to be careful. On December 21, 2008, after a first run of 61 knots, the big bird capsized in 35 knot winds gusting 45 knots. Thank God, everyone survived. The crew hopes to have her ready to run in the spring. Long may she run.

Meet the new boss, etc.

What does President Obama plan for American military presence in Iraq? According to Solomonia, well, pretty much the same thing President Bush did.

From the new Whitehouse.gov:

...Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism...

So we'll continue to be there as long as "necessary," and Americans will continue to die there, but our commitment will be small. So we're going to keep a minimal, light, low-footprint, force there. Does that sound familiar? I thought that was the big problem over the past few years. ...

Obama is now continuing the Bush policy... .

And so Barack Obama's rehabilitation of George W. Bush continues. And this, too: "Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case."

Was Flight 1549 a terrorist victim?

What is the team investigating the downing of US Airways Flight 1549 not telling us? 

Birds flew into the engines, they say? But what kind of birds? Why did they bring down the plane? Who sent them?

The coverup has already begun!!! And you know that this is urgent because I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS!!! With multiple exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My covert correspondents have provided me with a classified Dept. of the Interior surveillance photo taken on the Hudson river just minutes before Flight 1549 was attacked. 

Now the world can know who the guilty birds were working for! Take a deep breath and look if you dare!

Drooling in the oatmeal quote of the day

"Obama was elected by the United States, but as a matter of fact, he was chosen
by the whole of humankind."

-- Sir Shimon Peres, Israeli Crazy Old Man, Knight of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George (who say "ni"), and President of Israel, declaring The Obama Dogma while in an ecstatic state of epiphany [source].

From The Muqata, who has more.

"Never impute to malice. . .

"... what can be explained by incompetence."

As widely reported, President Barack Obama repated a rare moment of US history yesterday by taking the oath of office a second time. The oath he took of the 20th was bungled by Chief Justice John Roberts in administering it, causing the inauguree to botch the order of the words. So 31 hours later, Justice Roberts re-administered the oath to Obama at Obama's request, made "[o]ut of an abundance of caution," according to White House Counsel Greg Craig (news link).



So what's the problem? None with the oath or any possible question that the new president is properly sworn in. It's a done deal. But today some news media are in vapors that media access to the second oath was sharply restricted. No broadcast media were even notified of the event, no photographers were allowed except for the White House photog, who took the only photo extant of the second oath-taking, and only a couple or so print reporters were brought in. One of them turned on his digital recorder and captured the only audio of the occasion.

Now personally, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the verbatim second taking of the oath was duly witnessed by outside-the-White-House figures who can attest to its verity, not least of whom is Justice Roberts himself, and that's all that citizen-I think needed to be done.

But some media are fanning themselves because this president had explicitly promised "transparency" in his administration and his own actions. Being excluded from the second oath, they claim that already the promise of transparency has gone a-glimmering. And so President Obama is not living up to his promises, blah blah blah.

Having many years of direct experience in media relations at the national level, I can assure you that while "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," a woman scorned is Mother Theresa compared to reporters excluded. So their claws come out and their fangs are revealed. The snit is on!

Personally, pooling coverage was fine, but I think that omitting TV and radio from the event was a bad idea. This was not an intentional snub of the media, it was a White House PR team that is still so new it hasn't learned to operate smoothly or well. It will get better. The media should chill, their ommission wasn't from malice, it was was from incompetence. If the WH-PR team stays incompetent, then in another two or three months it will deserve the media shredding it will get. But not yet, not for this.

Weather Map

The buzz here is that not much is going to happen until after the Israeli elections, which are coming up next month. Now that the ceasefire is underway, the real fire fight can get underway.

Elections here are serious business. This is not an amateur talent show. Israel is a small place to say nothing of being in your face. So at some point nearly everyone finds themselves in the same room as a whole bunch of guys and gals competing for that most precious of commodities--MY VOTE.

Everyone has an opinion; and they feel entitled to tell you about that opinion whether you want them to or not. Not just about politics, either. They'll tell you if your clothes are mixed with cotton and wool threads; or your kippa is the wrong kind; or, they will follow you down the highway to tell you just what they think of your driving.

There are a gazillion parties from all of the country that represent everyone. Districting and direct representation have yet to be invented--then again when a MK lives next door, and you feel you are entitled to walk up to him in shul and TELL him just what you think of him asleep at his desk--well, who needs voter accountability.

Contrary to Robert Zimmerman, you really DO need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Now being a truly perplexed mariner tossed on the stormy shores of a bewildering landscape (and everyone yelling at the same time), I cannot tell you how relieved I was to read over at The Muqata that there really IS a remedy in Gilead--the Israeli Electoral Compass--Yes!

Don't know who to vote for?

This online wizard will help...

http://israel.kieskompas.nl/language/en

And, they are so right--this thing is sensational. First, you respond to a series of questions on three dimensions: security, social, and religious issues. You can see already why this would be sooooo not correct Stateside. Then, with a click of the old mouse button, Presto! your Weather Map!

What's hot about this mapping scheme is that I can locate where my preferences are relative to the stated preferences/platforms of each of the mainstream parties going at each other hammer and tong. It's no surprise that I'm a screaming religious eagle (heavier on the security/hawk dimension). What is a surprise is the program lets me see how each of the parties stack up against my issues and who might be interested in that vote of mine. Forget the language issues, some of the divisions here are seriously more that definitional--they border on the cognitive (as in, "which state of consciousness are you from?").

Now I know that it is Canon Law to the Economic Pantheon that interpersonal comparison of utility is a no-no; but, common, we do it all the time, monotonic transformations withstanding. Why I can compare my preference map with the guys at The Muqata, who are the real unsung heroes of the Gaza Action blogging their hearts out and fingers to the quick 24/6. Excellent work, guys. Thanks.

In sum, if YOU are blown-out perplexed about the Israeli political landscape, click away and see where you are.

Best of all, when Charlie the Milkman in the Galil corners me in the shul to tell me how I must vote (since EVERYONE knows the true Torah society is a Marxist one), I'll know where I am on the map and where he is. Of course, Dylan is right there--I don't need a Weather Man to figure out that wind is blowing.

Today's must-read essay

It's by Victor Davis Hanson, "An Uneasy Feeling." Two pages long, it's really two essays of a page each. I recommend starting on page two, where there are five "modest proposals in the Age of Obama." Number four: 

4. If you are a civil libertarian, if you are in the ACLU or a law professor, or a liberal in good standing who swore that George Bush from Texas, with strut and twang and mangled vocabulary, destroyed your liberties with FISA, with the Patriot Act, and with Iraq, then please extend that outrage to Barack Obama, for whom all such shredding of the Constitution suddenly has become merely complex and problematic rather than fascistic. Please list, cite, name just one instance from 2002-8 in which you lost your freedom, or you were censored on the library internet, or you were followed around by the FBI, or your letter to the editor earned a wiretap, or even one instance of the loss of any freedom under Bush—and if so, just one example of how the election of Obama has once again restored your lost liberty. Nothing in the abstract, please—something concrete, an example both real and personal.

Exactly. Read the whole thing.

You are the problem

George Will, on President Obama's inauguration speech:

... one of his themes, delicately implied, was that Americans do not just have a problem, they are a problem.

I don't think it was so "delicately implied." Anyway, if may be so indelicate myself, I would point out to Mr. Will that he is walking ground I broke going on six years ago, for in 2003 I wrote this:

... big-government activism has come to define the governing philosophy of both parties today. The rising tide of big government has swamped us, held only temporarily at bay by the levees of the Reagan years. (And not really even then, since non-defense spending rose during the Reagan administration.)

Because the present-day Republicans and Democrats are both big-government activists, they have a foundational philosophy that is the same:

America is a problem to be fixed, and Americans are a people to be managed.

I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.

Six calendar years after that post, I say that the demise of freedom in this country has accelerated even faster than I imagined back in 2003. With the unconstitutional power grab embodied in the various "bailout" bills (how many are there enacted or proposed? I can't keep count), the federal government now controls the core of the American economy, the credit and investment markets, and is deeply leveraged into the production economy. This is not one step short of a controlled economy, it is a controlled economy. The secretary kommissar of the treasury now has the permanent mandate to intervene and indeed take control of the markets in any way he sees fit, anytime he desires.

Surely no one is so naive as to think this power will be used only rarely and delicately as time goes on. Rather, the socio-economic engineering urges of the Obama administration will be ever less restrained. Remember Steven den Beste's dictum: "The job of bureaucrats is to regulate, and left to their own devices, they will try to regulate everything they can." No one seeks or accepts high, powerful, federal office in order to do little. And failing to do little is exactly what Obama et. al. will do.

But the path Obama trods was smoothed by G. W. Bush. Where does that path lead? Dick Morris writes, "Here Comes Socialism:"

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

And, he says, Obama's deleterious effects on health care will be even worse.

Big government is itself apolitical. It cares not whose party is in power. It simply continues to grow. Its nourishment is the people’s money. Its excrement is more and more regulations and laws. Like the Terminator, "that’s what it does, that’s all it does." Roosevelt, Bush, Obama: we're a day into Terminator 3 now, and you know how that movie ends.

Tuesday humor break

Got this off one of Rodney's posts at The Movie Blog. He's right, this is really funny if you're a Star Wars devotee, or even if you have merely seen the movies.

It's a summary of the series by Amanda, who has only seen "bits and pieces, but not a complete movie.


Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

Says Rodney: "This is genius. The animations offered up with the audio track are just the icing on the cake." I agree.

Meanwhile, Back to Gaza

Meanwhile, along the Gaza border, Hamasniks logged in two incidents with the IDF. LiveLeak.com carries the following with some footage.

An Israeli force patrolling the area near the border fence, south of the Kissufim crossing, was fired on Tuesday afternoon. The Israel Defense Forces is looking into the circumstances of the incident.

About 40 minutes later, Palestinian gunmen fired at another force in the central Gaza Strip. The soldiers fired back at the shooters. There were no reports of injuries or damage in both incidents. More..

Meanwhile, the IDF was preparing to remove its last forces from Gaza following its three-week offensive there and deploy them outside the Strip.

The reserve soldiers were expected to be released later Tuesday, but the regular brigades were to remain around the Gaza vicinity and in nearby bases, preparing for any possible development.

Army officials estimated that the state of calm in the Strip would be maintained for a while and that Hamas would be busy restoring the organization and would therefore refrain from firing at Israel.

Many explosives and devices remain across the Strip from the days of battle, most of them belonging to Hamas. Two children were killed Monday while playing with a mine placed by Hamas fighters in an aim to booby-trap a building.

Guess we know who's to blame for that.

Meanwhile, US military analyists wasted no time looking over the situation and giving their playback.

Israel clearly won the latest round with Hamas, but could have gone deeper into Gaza and done greater damage to the organization, according to military analysts in the US media on a visit to the region this week.

"I think you achieved what one Israeli general called 'changing the reality' in which Hamas operates, but I think you were too restrained and could have gone deeper into Gaza," Lt.-Gen. Thomas McInerney, a 35-year veteran of the US Air Force and a Fox News military analyst, told The Jerusalem Post Monday after touring the Gaza periphery and receiving briefings from Israeli officials as part of a trip of military analysts organized by the New York-based Project Interchange affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.

The Gaza fighting is seen in the US as a healthy demonstration of Israel's capabilities, according to Lt.-Col. Rick Francona, a former US Air Force intelligence officer in several theaters and military analyst for NBC News.

Unlike in the wake of the 2006 Second Lebanon War, "the conversation in the US revolves around Israeli decision making - what's the end game? Are they going to remove Hamas? It doesn't question Israel's capabilities. You've won the battle," Francona said.

Both analysts said Israel seemed ready to face down Hamas in a long-term fight.

The ceasefire is "just the end of this round, and that seems to be Israeli policy right now. The best Israel can go for is to manage the conflict until Hamas can be made to go away," said Francona.

Reliable sources suggest that the it was a cabinet level decision to stop the action; the IDF was ready to go the distance. It was the uncertainty of the new administration that prompted a unilateral action at this point and wait for the inevitable final round. The same sources said not to worry, everything is in position for the moment the Hamasniks cross the line.

As The Dust Settles

As Israel's unilateral ceasefire moves into another day of holding, despite reports of occasional Hamas fire on IDF positions, it would seem that the aftermath has indeed strengthened Israel's hand considerably in several critical ways.

First, Gaza clearly increased Israel's deterrence capability in the region. Debka reports that the entire operation was secured in the first four minutes of action.

The Israel air force demolished two key Hamas war systems in the first 4 minutes of its massive offensive on Gaza Saturday morning, Dec. 27, DEBKAfile's military sources report. The bombers destroyed six mosques in Gaza City which held the terrorists' biggest weapons arsenals and scores of "beehives" containing launchers primed for the simultaneous, automatic release of hundreds of powerful rockets against Israeli cities.

These launchers were rigged for precision-targeting in Israeli town centers. They were operated by a unit of 300 special Hamas operatives trained for their mission at a Syrian military bases under the instruction of Hizballah rocket specialists.

The aerial offensive knocked out 80 percent of the rockets Hamas had prepared to launch and saved Israel's southern cities. The Palestinian Islamists were left only with inferior projectiles. Therefore, 98 percent of the hundreds of missiles they managed to fire in the 22-day war missed their targets and exploded in open ground.

Second, the Iranian backed anti-Israel factions not only seriously underestimated the will of the Israelis to fight back, but overestimated the level of support their cause actually enjoyed in the so-called Arab Street. Hamasniks and company truly expected the IDF to give up in three days let alone hit Gaza as hard as they did.

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram quoted Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal on Tuesday as saying his Islamist group was surprised by the force Israel recently used against it in the Gaza Strip.

Meshal, who was speaking at an Arab conference on Gaza in the Qatari capital Doha, reportedly told a closed forum that Hamas had believed that Israel's 22-day campaign against it would last no longer than three days. The offensive ended Sunday, after Israel and Hamas separately declared a cease-fire.

"We didn't expect the crimes that were committed against our citizens, the residents of Gaza," Al-Ahram quoted the Damascus-based Meshal as saying.

Approximately 500 Hamas militants were killed in the operation, Israeli estimates state, and hundreds more were wounded.

The IDF also killed hundreds of militants belonging to various armed factions and militias. More than 1,250 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed during the offensive. Hamas says just 48 of its fighters died in the fighting.

According to Al-Ahram, Meshal said there were meant to be massive protests in front of Egyptian embassies across the Arab world, to pressure Cairo into opening its border crossing with Gaza at Rafah.

"We had relied on the Arab street," Meshal is quoted as saying. These protests never took place, although there were major demonstrations around the world against Israel for its actions in Gaza.

Third, Israel emerged with a far greater hand at the bargaining table to demand the return of Sgt. Shalit. Indeed, Livni wasted no time in the post Gaza election campaign to equate Shalit's return with the prisoner repatriation and border crossing openings.

Kadima leader Tzipi Livni on Tuesday linked the reopening of the Gaza crossings to bringing about the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been in Hamas captivity since 2006.

"I sent Gilad Schalit [to the front], not personally - but he is an IDF soldier," the foreign minister said during a speech at the Administrative College in Rishon Lezion. "We sent him to defend the country and we have an obligation to bring him back.

Livni added: "If Hamas thinks it wants to get something beyond humanitarian assistance, which we will give regardless, we have someone who is very important to us, and, for me; one thing is contingent upon the other."

Answering a question from a soldier who said he had been released from the army the day before on whether there would be a reaction to every rocket, Livni emphasized, "when they fire at us, we have to fire back every time. I'm not ready to go back to absorbing rockets, no matter who fired the rockets. I don't care who fired the rockets. Hamas is in control of Gaza and they can stop them."

With international support diminshing by the minute, it would behoove Hamasniks to produce a healthy Shalit from those who kidnapped him and return him safely across to his home. Wouldn't want to give those wimps another excuse to come back; now would we.

Hamas Uses Schools and Ceasefire to Shoot Rockets at Israel

All things considered, the total disregard of Hamasniks towards the rest of Gazans is completely immoral by any standard. Deliberately placing offensive weapons in the middle of civilian institutions with the intent of drawing IDF fire has only one purpose--the wanton destruction of innocent people at both ends for the purpose of photo-ops.

If there are to be any charges of war-crimes, then they must be levied at Hamas.

Alas, the Marx Brothers response in Coconuts is all that can be expected here: the MSM will pass-over these acts.

High School Senior Year Interviews

In the States, high school seniors turn their attention to which colleges they they could/would consider attending next year. At some point in the process, they go off to look over college campuses and talk with students to get a feel of the place. In Israel, high school seniors turn their attention to which form of national service will occupy their life for the next three years.

So, it was no surprise when son Shmuel took a break in his application search for pre-military programs to head down to the Front with his yeshiva dorm counsellor and his two best friends.

They drove the border, stopping to greet clusters of soldiers at staging areas and rest regroup centers.

They handed out "care packages" and sang songs, especially popular verions of Psalms, to the great enjoyment of all.

Between yeshiva and visiting different programs, we only had a short time to debrief about what he saw and how he felt. He told me how these young men looked and which units seemed to have the most in common with him and his two mates with whom he wants to go through his tour.

So, Shmuel and his two friends went to study carefully where with whom they'd be spending the next four years of their lives. Their classmates call them the Three Musketeers--two are sons of rabbis and one is the son of a Sephardi Chocham--the three looked over field with studied eyes.

They went to see how different units worked, how the whole process came together, how the commanders commanded, and how the guys looked after three weeks in the field. They asked questions, listened, and met their friends and neighbors already serving.

They went to see where they would fit when their turn arrived.

Fit is everything. It is not simply a matter of religion or ethnicity. It's that odd intangible that all units call spirit--the kind of thing that one recognizes in a fellow. Of course, they spent the most time with the paratroopers.

So, they sang, blessed, and thanked the troops for their work and sacrifice.

When we parted, I reminded him that in a year or so, I'll be doing the same for him and his unit. With a knowing smile he said, "Yes, Abba, we ALL know."

Spreading the comfort

If Barack Obama can spread the wealth, why can't he spread the comfort?

In the name of climate egalitarianism, I think all the warm states should subsidize, at the very least, our heating bills and snow-shoveling fees [in Michigan]. Furthermore, tax credits and rebates should be given to defray the moving and sales costs associated with citizens in cold-weather states that wish to migrate elsewhere.

Our nation should care more about those in the cold, and I propose a National Committee on Climate Cost Sharing should be created to examine this issue further.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, says that if the minimum-wage law makes sense, then so would a a minimum temperature law.

To counteract this inherent injustice in cold winter weather, the possible trend towards Global Cooling, and Mother Nature’s ongoing lack of concern for cold Americans, our collective sense of fairness and justice requires legislation that will force all thermostats and thermometers sold in the United States to have a minimum, reasonable and fair temperature reading of 0 degrees Fahrenheit, effective immediately. As part of the new Minimum Temperature legislation, all existing thermometers and thermostats in homes, offices, and businesses should be immediately replaced with new temperature-reading equipment with a minimum reading of 0 degrees.

Heh, as they say. HT: Ben Cunningham, via email.

Quote of the day

"Beating Subway in a taste test is like beating Paris Hilton at chess." Spanno, at Al Dente blog.

Does Hamas even believe in "Palestine?"

Oliver Roy, writing in New Perspectives Quarterly, says of Hamas,

Hamas is nothing else than the traditional Palestinian nationalism with an Islamic garb. The Taliban express more a Pashtu identity than a global movement. The Iraqi factions are competing not over Iran or Saudi Arabia, but over sharing (or monopolizing) the power in Iraq.

Yes to the second and third of his observations, a weak maybe toward the first. Is Hamas really a Palestinian nationalist movement with an Islamist gloss? Bret Stephens in the WSJ says no.

Of all the errors in the West's understanding of Hamas, none is more fundamental than the routine characterization of the group as a Palestinian movement. It is nothing of the sort.

But the test of Hamas's Palestinian-ness ... is whether it actually believes in something called Palestine. There is scant evidence that it does.

Bear in mind that there has never previously been an independent state by that name; politically, it remains a notional place. The idea of a Palestinian people, referring to the Arab inhabitants of the land, is also of relatively recent vintage. ...

The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is merely an affiliate, has never been keen on the concept of the nation-state. Hamas's charter describes the land of Palestine as an "Islamic Waqf," or trust, "consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day." Hamas's charming slogan -- "God is [Hamas's] target, the Prophet is its model, the Quran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes" -- is tellingly silent on the subject of Palestine.

That is not to say that Hamas would have no use for an independent nation of Palestine, it's just that Hamas (like its Palestinian enemy Fatah of the Palestinian Authority), rejects an independent Palestine consisting of the West Bank plus Gaza. Hamas' very charter calls forthe obliteration of Israel in a very literal sense and explicitly denounces the idea that anything but warfare can resolve the "Palestinian question." If there is to be an independent Palestine, Hamas insists that it will include the Bank, Gaza and all of the lands of Israel, which must vanish as a political entity and be subsumed entirely into the Islamic nation.

This is not actually different in major degree from what Fatah still desires. Yasir Arafat (1929-2004) was Fatah's supreme commander in the 1950s and 1960s and founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was an umbrellas group consisting of Fatah and several already-existing, anti-Israel organizations. Fatah is the armed wing and major component of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

In 1988, Arafat declared, in English before Western cameras, that he explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist. This apparent breakthrough ultimately led to the Oslo Accords in 1993, which in turn made possible the founding the the PA as a proto-state for Palestinians, of which Arafat served as first president.

However, what Arafat did not say to Western media or audiences in English is what he made abundantly clear to his domestic audiences in Arabic: that the right of Israel to exist, that Arafat claimed to recognize, was not its right to exist as a Jewish state, apart from an Arab nation of Palestine. In fact, Palestinian curricula for kindergartens on up graphically made clear that "Palestine" consists of all of Israel, the West bank and Gaza - that is to say, the very same geography that Hamas claims. (See prior link, above.)

Fatah is moderate only compared to Hamas. While Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at southern Israel in the last several years, it was from the West Bank, always under Fatah's rule, that the vast majority of suicide bombers entered Israel. These bombers killed multiples more Israelis than Hamas's rockets.

As I wrote before,

The only difference between Hamas and Fatah/PA is one of tactics, not of objectives. Hamas is founded on violent jihad against Israel and in theory and practice has no use for conferencing or diplomacy. This is not conjecture; Hamas has stated it plainly. Hamas only strategy is warfare against Israel.

Fatah, on the other hand, is more willing to bide its time and use the so-called peace process to advance its goals. It is probably even willing to accept a two-state solution as a temporary measure from which to gain strength, influence and international legitimacy to advance the elimination of Jewish Israel and subsume it into a future, Muslim Greater Palestine.

However, Oliver Roy's point about Hamas' nationalism may not be entirely incorrect. When Ayatollah Khomeini took the reins of government in Iran in 1979, he wrote a new, Islamist constitution for Iran that expresses Iranian nationhood as only a means to an end, which is the spread of Islam across the globe. That is, he saw Iran as a nation-state only as a secure base from which to convert the rest of the world. Islamism, but its nature, is rabidly supremacist and imperialistic. Hamas, tied by purse string and ideology to Iran, may have in mind a Palestine state that is only an intermediate objective to exactly that kind of expansion.

This is what the rest of the Arab nations suspect, and explains well why they have been consenting by silence to Operation Cast Lead.

Guess who is protesting this?

Would you protest this? The British People's Party describes itself thus:

We represent the interests of the ultra Nationalists of Great Britain. With the advent of "Populism" into the edges of the mainstream of British politics, there are many of us who refuse to compromise our principles and strategy.

The British People's Party already has many adherents and we are continually encouraging new membership. Why? Because the leadership of many of the White Nationalists in the United Kingdom will remain for a good period of time in the hands of outright opportunists WITH NO INTEREST IN WHAT WE BELIEVE IN apart from what they can procure in cash and to act as a safety valve for ZOG's State. The need for a Movement such as the BPP is now a drastic necessity.

We welcome membership applications from only those who believe in the traditional values of Racial Nationalism.

Which is to say, it sounds a lot like this. Which makes it all the more compelling that "UK Muslims call to curb anti-Semitism."

More than 20 prominent British Muslim leaders have signed a letter denouncing the rise in anti-Semitic attacks resulting from Operation Cast Lead and calling on Muslims to help prevent attacks on Jews in the UK.

The Community Security Trust (CST) has reported a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents in recent weeks, with more than 150 reported attacks on Jews, Jewish-owned property and even an arson attempt on a London synagogue.

"We are deeply saddened to hear about anti-Semitic assaults on British Jews, and a recent arson attack on a London synagogue. Although the perpetrators are yet unknown, we unreservedly condemn attacks on innocent British citizens and the desecration of all places of worship," the Muslim leaders wrote.

Signatories to the letter, which is being circulated to more than 1,200 mosques and Islamic centers around the UK, include internationally renowned imams, writers, academics and community activists. The signatories also number members of all major Islamic groupings including Sunnis, Shi'ites, Deobandis, Barelwis, Salafis and Sufis.

"The ongoing killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces has angered us all. However, this does not, and cannot, justify attacks on our fellow citizens of Jewish faith and background here in Britain," the letter reads.

For going on eight years now, we've been asking where are the "moderate" and non-jihadist Muslims. So it needs be noted when they appear.

"Do you feel lucky, punks?"

"I know what you're thinking: 'Is he a liberal limp wrister or an intolerant, confrontational traditionalist?' And to tell you the truth, until all this excitment started, I had kind of lost track myself. But I'll tell you this - I am not a liberal. So you need to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punks? "

Hamas says it needs a year to rearm and retrain

Israel's blows against Hamas for the past 16 days have been so severe that the terrorist organization today admitted that if fighting stopped now, it would need a year to be able to attack Israel again: "Hamas offers Israel ceasefire."

Hamas has offered Israel a year-long ceasefire in the Gaza Strip if Israel pulls its forces out within a week and reopens border crossings immediately.

It's pretty clear that Israel did not start offensive action against Hamas to get just a year off. Politically, accepting a mere year-long ceasefire would be politically suicidal for Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. Yes, he's leaving office within weeks anyway, but I can't imagine PM candidates Tzipi Livny or (especially) Binyamin Netanyahu being okay with that when the one of them assumes office.

I remember a story of a man who found two boys fighting in an open yard. One boy was on his back on the ground whole the other sat atop him, smashing the prostrate boy over and over with his fists. The man runs over and pulls him off the boy on the bottom, telling him, "You shouldn't hit him when he's down!" To which the boy replies, "Well, what do you think I put him down for?"

If I was Olmert, I'd take Hamas' "offer" as a signal to hit 'em again, harder. When/if Hamas comes to think that its existence is at stake (at least, when its leaders think theirs is), then they'll be more amenable to settlements offering truly peaceful prospects.

Look and You Shall Surely See

Israeli media are reporting that Salah Abu Shreh, head of Hamas security, has been killed along with Said Siam, Hamas Interior Minister have been killed early this evening. Also killed was Mahmoud Watfah.

Six other Hamas operatives were wounded in the air strike in the heart of Gaza City, the sources said. The IDF Southern Command ordered the airstrike on the basis of precise intelligence provided by the Shin Bet security service. A Hamas official vowed vengeance for Siam's death. "The blood of Said Siam will be a curse on the Zionist entity," Mohammed Nazzal told Al-Jazeera television.

Siam was the effective founder of the Hamas-led police force. He pushed for Hamas' bloody 2006 coup in Gaza (sic), during which it ousted the rival Fatah faction from power. As interior minister in Hamas' government in Gaza, Siam oversaw thousands of security agents and was widely feared. He was the number three behind Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, and was seen by many as the most extreme of the triumvirate.

According to the Jerusalem Post,

Siam was considered a radical and was in contact with Hamas's political leadership in Damascus. He was also considered close to Iranian officials. Siam was one of the masterminds of Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.

Salah Abu Shrakh, the head of the Hamas general security service, was also killed in the air strike.

Siam was the most senior Hamas man to be killed in almost three weeks of fighting. Hamas confirmed that Siam was killed with his brother and son. According to Palestinian reports, Mahmoud Watfa, one of the commanders of the Hamas military wing, was also killed in the strike.

Ynetnews.com reports the response of the Damascus based Hamas headquarters:

Mohammed Nazzal, a member of Hamas' political bureau in Damascus, said following the targeted killing of Siam that "Israel is not interested in a ceasefire".

On the backdrop of reports that the Jewish state was about to accept the Egyptian ceasefire proposal, Nazzal told the al-Jazeera network, "We are not waiting for the Israeli enemy's response. Their message is that they don’t want peace and a ceasefire."

According to Nazzal, Israel seeks to "pursue the leadership, destroy them at any price. The factions will continue to defend the Gaza Strip."

Nazzal sent his condolences to the Palestinian people following Siam's death. "He is onw of the people who sacrificed themselves for their religion and people and defended their holy land. He faced the homeland's enemies and people," he said.

According to Nazzal, "Siam is an inseparable part of the Palestinian leadership and people, so he was naturally pursued. I assume the Zionists will pursue any fighter wherever he is."

While the Damascus Hamas is quick to note that the IDF appears to be pursuing the Hamas leadership, Debka.com notes the improved intelligence has in locating the whereabouts of Hamas leaders inside Gaza.

The Shin Bet security service discovered the top Hamas leaders' whereabouts in Gaza with exceptional speed since the hideout demolished in the Israeli air attack had been rented by Sayam's brother only two weeks ago when the war was already being fought. The precise targeting indicates that Israeli intelligence has penetrated the top Hamas echelon.

This is indeed an interesting turn of events. Israeli intelligence has already shown to be the dominant force on the ground from the very beginning of the entire operation. It could be, however, that the rank and file Hamasniks are beginning to get out the way and facilitate current intelligence gathering.

This fact alone should strike terror into the heart of terror.

Obama flip flops on Osama

Despite claiming only a month before the presidential election that killing Osama bin Laden "has to be our biggest national security priority," Barack Obama now says,

... that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the "dead or alive" policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama's own statements made in the election campaign.

As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

Yesterday, the President-elect adopted far less aggressive language, saying his "No 1 priority" was to protect America from further attack.

"I think that we have to so weaken [bin Laden's] infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," he said. "And I'm confident that we can keep them on the run and ensure that they cannot train terrorists to attack our homeland."

A huge flip flop? Absolutely. But it also shows that Obama has gotten smarter on this topic since the election. I wrote in 2002 that going after bin Laden personally could not be the focus of attacking al Qaeda or the Islamist terrorist culture.

You may recall, though, that last summer Obama actually threatened to invade Pakistan to get bin Laden.

Night Strike on Hamas Terrorists 14 Jan. 2009

While Hamas stalls at the negotiating table, the IDF advances in Gaza City.

Explosive corpses

TimesOnline:

Israeli aircraft struck the Sheikh Radwan cemetery in Gaza City on Wednesday, destroying about 30 graves, some only recently dug.

Bombs and rockets do not themselves explode in billows of flame, even though Hollywood usually depicts them that way. They are filled with high explosive that burns at a rate of thousands of feet per second. Some kinds of detonating cord (think of a thin rope filled with HE) can burn at five miles per second.

Explosions like that pictured above are secondary explosions triggered by a bomb or rocket setting off a storage of explosive materials. A cache of HE exploding serially could make a flame cloud like that, but it's more characteristic of petroleum products.

In either event, it's pretty obvious that Hamas was burying things other than corpses in the cemetery.

No link directly to the Times pic because it was in a javascript window. I found it on the right sidebar of this page, but it may not remain there.

Religious sauce for the goose, etc?

Nope. As we all know, it is wrong for conservative Christians (the much-derieded "religuous right") to work within political processes to base public laws on their particular religious principles.

But it's perfectly acceptable for the religious left to do so because, well, they're the left. Take, for example, The Right Rev. John Bryson Chane and the Right Rev. Eugene Taylor Sutton of the Episcopal Church. In a WaPo op-ed, "A Moral Test for Maryland Legislators" they write,

The Episcopal Church has carefully studied the application of the death penalty in many states. In every case, it has concluded that the death penalty is unjust and ineffective. It is immoral to any who are seriously committed to the ethics of Jesus, who continually forbade violence as a means to solve problems caused by evil.

To which David Fischler blogs in response,

By the logic that people like Chane and Sutton use on religious conservatives without a second thought, what in the name of Clarence Darrow do the ethics of Jesus have to do with legislating in Maryland? It is obvious that Chane and Sutton are seeking a serious breach of the separation of church and state, and trying to impose their particular sectarian view of criminal justice on a population that includes lots of people who have no interest in, or use for, the ethics of Jesus.

Now, I happen to oppose the death penalty myself, so I don't actually disagree with the thrust of the Episcopals' op-ed. But David's point is well taken: the religious left does indeed seek to deny a place in the public sphere for those to the right but insists on having one itself.

Further, I realize, as the Epsicopals apparently do not, that an argument (whether on this topic or another) based simply on the "ethics of Jesus" is often not very compelling even to regular church attenders and falls utterly flat on followers of other faiths, say Islam. (Would the WaPo print an op-ed by an imam arguing for the death penalty, based on the ethics of the Quran? I doubt it.) Nor would followers of some of the eastern Mysticism religions likely have very strong opinions from religious bases.

I am not advocating keeping religious voices, left, right or other, out of the public sphere, quite the opposite. In fact, it's not possible to do so. Yet we have to realize that even if America ever was a "Christian nation," it's not now, and Christians' arguments will need to be somewhat fuller than, "Jesus said so."

Blessed Art Thou

Son Shmuel returned from the Gaza front after he and several of his classmates went to pass out civil defense leaflets in Ashdod, Ashkalon, and S'derot as well as greet soldiers to express Israel's gratitude for doing their job.

They were not the only ones out here as noted by this image of Breslav Chasids visiting a tank posted on Muqata:

Over the last several weeks, it is not simply reporters who have been gathering at the Israeli Gaza border. The Jerusalem Post explains:

There is a tendency among the faithful to introduce metaphysical dimensions to the fighting in Gaza. Two-and-a-half weeks into Operation Cast Lead, religious faith has been integral to many soldiers' morale.

"We are being swamped with demands, from religious and secular, kibbutzniks and yeshiva students, Sephardim and Ashkenazim," for the names of soldiers to pray for, said Rabbanit Grossman, director of the Jewish Information Center in the capital's Mea She'arim neighborhood. The haredi organization has created a special "prayer hotline" for soldiers.

While it is often the case that soldiers heading into battle will stop and pray, it is often the case that the more religious soldiers want to take more than prayer with them into action. This varies by ethnic and denominational differences.

According to an IDF rabbi stationed with Golani and Kfir Brigade soldiers near Tze'elim in the Negev, where they are preparing to enter Gaza, there is a tremendous thirst for anything spiritual.

The rabbi, who asked to remain anonymous because the IDF Spokesman had not given him permission to speak to the press, said that more than 1,500 sets of tzitzit, the four-cornered fringe garment religious men wear under their shirts, had been distributed to soldiers "who want the segula [spiritual protection] of being wrapped in a mitzva.

"Tzitzit are a heavenly flak jacket," the rabbi added.

The money to finance the tzitzit was raised by Radio Kol Hai, a religious radio station.
Many soldiers naturally turn to God in the face of warfare, the rabbi said.

"In Golani, there is a large percentage of Sephardi soldiers who might not wear a kippa all the time, but who have a strong faith in God. At times like this, when they face the dangers of war, that basic religious faith expresses itself.

"Dozens of soldiers here carry Psalms with them into battle as another form of spiritual protection. Some carry two books for a double effect," he said.

While he was at the front, Shmuel ran into several soldiers from Mitzpe Netofah. In one case, he and his friends were passing some tanks that were warming up. Suddenly, the turret opens and the head of a young man who sits in front of us in shul pops out. "Hey, Shmuel," he yells. "Tell my parents I can't call them but I'm okay." The hatch closed and the large beast lumbered off into Gaza.

On his way back to his yeshiva, Shmuel did just that.

Jury duty scams

The FBI warns:

The phone rings, you pick it up, and the caller identifies himself as an officer of the court. He says you failed to report for jury duty and that a warrant is out for your arrest. You say you never received a notice. To clear it up, the caller says he'll need some information for "verification purposes"-your birth date, social security number, maybe even a credit card number.

This is when you should hang up the phone. It's a scam.

Actually, you should hang up the phone well before that point. If a warrant has been issued for your arrest, an "officer of the court" never calls you up to tell you. Nope, you will find out the warrant has been issued when a police officer slaps cuffs on your wrist.

"What are you handcuffing me, officer?"

"Because a warrant has been issued for your arrest."

"What wasn't I told?"

" 'Cause we're not stupid."

Human shields

Both Hamas and Israel are using human shields. It's who is shielding whom that matters.

Tuesday humor break

Math in the Bunker



Hat tip: Braden Files

Old airplane slideshow

I am a sucker for matters aeronautical, and enjoy learning about the history of acviation and aircraft. A friend emailed me a PowerPoint slideshow of old aircraft, which I put on my server and which you can view by clicking here. If you don't have PowerPoint you can download the free PowerPoint viewer, just Google it and go for it!

In the Fog of War without a Moral Compass

As the action in Gaza begins to wind down, the diplomatic issues of what comes next become increasingly paramount. Clearly how the final process will take shape is very complex requiring a clear understanding of what are the fundamental issues at play.

To this extent, Irwin Cotler has a must read op-ed piece over at the Jerusalem Post entitled, The fog of war: Root causes and resolution.

The proximate trigger for the present hostilities was the deliberate and consistent attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas. Over 6,000 rockets and mortar shells have been launched at Israel since its Gaza withdrawal in the summer of 2005, including hundreds while the supposed truce between Hamas and Israel was in effect.

When Hamas then unilaterally declared the truce over and tripled its rocket-fire, Israel was obliged to act in self-defense.

Yet even this proximate trigger does not tell the whole story. It is rather a symptom, or proxy, for the root cause: the unwillingness of Hamas - and its Iranian patron - to accept the legitimacy of Israel within any boundaries in the Middle East.

While the rejection by Hamas of any peace with any Israel - or the existence of Israel itself - is a foundational root cause, there is a much more pernicious and sinister one that is all but ignored in the fog of war. This is the public call by Hamas, in its charter as well as its contemporary declarations, for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be.

Jews everywhere - not just in Israel - are referred to as inherently evil, as responsible for all the evils of the world, as defilers of Islam, and, repeatedly during these hostilities, as the "sons of apes and pigs." This genocidal anti-Semitism - and I do not use these words lightly or easily, but there are no other words to describe what is affirmed in these genocidal calls, covenants and declarations - this culture of hatred, this is where it all begins.

In the words of Prof. Fouad Ajami following the 2002 terrorist massacre of Israeli civilians in Netanya sitting down for their Passover meal: The suicide bomber of the Passover massacre did not descend from the sky; he walked straight out of the culture of incitement let loose on the land, a menace hovering over Israel, a great Palestinian and Arab refusal to let that country be, to cede it a place among the nations.

The bomber partook of the culture all around him: the glee that greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families.

It is this culture that supports actively places its own civilian population at the center of combat or boobytraps its schools, zoos, and places of worship. If there is any genocidal plot in this region, it is planned, plotted, and actively executed by a cult that actively seeks the death and destruction of its own constituency. The fact that this moral charade has not been outed in the educated West is perhaps the greatest outrage of all. A road map without a proper compass is simply worthless and movement is a waste of time. Better to wait until the fog lifts.

Anti-obesity "cocktail" discovered?

Science Daily reports,

The discovery more than a decade ago of leptin, an appetite-suppressing hormone secreted by fat tissue, generated headlines and great hopes for an effective treatment for obesity. But hopes dimmed when it was found that obese people are unresponsive to leptin due to development of leptin resistance in the brain. Now, researchers at Children's Hospital Boston report the first agents demonstrated to sensitize the brain to leptin: oral drugs that are already FDA-approved and known to be safe.

More at the link, of course, including a technical explanation for those so inclined. If this pans out for humans, the drug company will become bigger than General Motors The New York Times Lehman Brothers Fannie Mae anyone else.

A 10-point plan for peace in Gaza

It's a great idea, but I don't see how it will work, even if the UNSC grows a backbone. Walid Phares offers, "Plan for Gaza: Demilitarization and Internationalization." In a sane area of the world, this would make a lot of sense and could be be doable, but even Walid admits at the end,

Evidently, such a plan will never see the light of day as long as any party to the conflict thinks they can only count on a military solution — and particularly as long as Hamas is instructed by Tehran and Damascus to sink the peace process. Sadly as long as democracy is not on the rise in Iran and Syria we cannot predict the end of the War on Terror.

He also posted this video summary.

"extremely frustrated that more Jews haven’t been killed"

David Fischler at Reformed Pastor blog takes on the Israel-Palestine Mission Network, an official organization of the PCUSA. The Network's statement on the Gaza war describes it as the "Israeli massacre of Palestinians now underway in Gaza." The statment at one point says,

The numbers simply do not add up: In the past eight years 20 Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets while in the past three years over 1700 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the Israeli military, including the 600 men, women and children who have died so far in this most recent attack. Hundreds more have died as a result of the Israeli embargo on medicine, food and fuel.

To which Rev. Fischler replies with impeccable logic:

The IPMN is obviously extremely frustrated that more Jews haven’t been killed over the last eight years. It isn’t for lack of trying, of course; Hamas has sent over thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel in that time, including over 8000 since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. So naturally the Israelis get blamed because they are better at the art of war than their enemies, who apparently deserve sympathy for their lack of success. ...

[I]f Israel were really intent on a “massacre,” there would be tens of thousands of dead Palestinians, not just a few hundred, the majority of whom are legitimate targets.

My own denomination, the UMC, long ago lost any sense of moral compass on the Middle East. Just read, "The religious nature of violence," by Jim Winkler, general secretary of the UMC's General Board of Church & Society. It betrays not merely an incredibly superficial treatment of the entire situation and history of the region, IMO it shows an actual, deliberate decision to be ignorant. Winkler basically says "violence bad, peace good." Well, duh, but what Hamas has in mind for Israel is the peace of the grave. Does Winkler object? In fact, does he even know? You can't tell. Then we have this little gem:

The problem is that too many people on both sides of this conflict solemnly subscribe to what the theologian Walter Wink calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence.

Notice the moral relativism here: everyone is at fault, and as his piece later makes clear, they just need to stop fighting, darn it, just stop! Second, Wink is a fine theologian and his work has beaucoup merit, but Winkler characteristically pulls prooftexts out and expertly misapplies them.

It is not redemption that Israel seeks, it is survival itself. If there is any sin of seeking redemption through violence, it rests with Hamas, which literally does seek redemption through the destruction of Israel. That Hamas is presently too weak actually to destroy Israel, as it wants to do, does not mean its existential threat to Israel is any less real or serious.

The View from Galilee

Over at TIME Magazine, Tim McGirk in Jerusalem, assisted by Jamal Hamad in Ramallah, present a pretty pessimistic view of the ongoing Gaza operations. In a piece entitled, Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza?, Tim opens with the following his take on the assessment facing the IDF commanders:

As Israeli troops encircle Gaza City, their commanders are faced with a painful dilemma: How far must they advance into the deadly labyrinth of slums and refugee camps where Hamas militants await with booby-trapped houses and snipers? With each passing day, Israel's war against Hamas grows riskier and more punishing, with the gains appearing to diminish compared to the spiraling costs — to Israel's moral stature, to the lives of Palestinian civilians and to the world's hopes that an ancient conflict can ever be resolved. Ideally, in a war shaped by television images, Israelis would like a tableau of surrender: grimy Hamas commanders crawling from underground bunkers with their hands up. Instead, the deaths of at least 40 civilians taking shelter at a United Nations–run school north of Gaza City are more likely to become the dominant image of the war. Israeli politicians and generals know that the total elimination of Hamas' entrenched military command could take weeks; it might be altogether impossible. The more realistic outcome is an unsatisfactory, brokered truce that leaves Hamas wounded but alive and able to regenerate — and Israel only temporarily safe from attack.

Wow! You mean to say that in a few weeks time, Israel could be rid of this viper den? Then, what are they waiting for? The real question facing Israelis is "Can we survive without it?" Over the last three years, the answer seems a resounding "NO".

I spent the weekend in Mitzpe Netofa where everyone has someone in Gaza are at home waiting orders for the north and Golan. From what I hear, I have to say that Tim McGirk has his facts on his sleeve--a lot of rubbish. Israelis, as they have before the state existed, tend not to place a lot of stock in what other nations think of their way of doing things. My neighbors WOULD agree with Tim and Jamal that there are massive costs; but, those costs are associated with stopping before this job is done. A brokered truce without the end of smuggling, total cessation of all rocket and mortar fire, and the return of Sergant Gilad Shalit is simply unacceptable. Any formulation must start from this point.

We just had a visit from a woman who has three sons in call-up age; although she is not happy, on the verge of tears about her son, a reservist, getting called up (his wife, an IDF officer, is already working in logistics around the clock) she steels with the resolve that this is a job that has to be done.

McGirk asserts that the "road ahead" is too difficult--going into Gaza City house to house--and too costly. But that is not the source of the hesitation. It is not that the job is impossible; it is rather a job for professionals. It is done slowly, carefully, and with all the support and intelligence necessary. It takes time. The issue is whether the FAMILIES are on board. Answer: you bet. Latest polls show 76% support the action--to the bitter end.

The previous action, in 2006, was clearly about being too risk averse. Once things looked sour, Olmert, Peretz, and Dangerous Dan Halotz began to take risks--risk taking under losses is the sucker bet.

Now, we see classic risk neutral behavior. They're doing what's necessary to get the job done. Jamal may think this is an impossible task--but that's his political bias showing. It is not borne out among Israelis. Especially in the North where everyone expects the rockets to fly soon.

It's nice to know what McGirk and company have to think. It is very revealing. What it reveals is that this war is not going well according to the Hamas/Hizbullah scenerio. All that tough posturing with the Guicci olive drabs and the Nike ski masks (let's not forget the designer guns) was very tough guy and oh so romantic for the radical chic. It would appear that we have some cognitive dissonance working here. Where are the 15,000 Hamasniks? Where is the bloodbath scenerio--the burial ground for the IDF? It's in the urban areas where the IDF is afraid to go. Right.

Withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000; withdrawal from Gaza in 2005; and Condi's peace in 2006; all were supposed to appease the Arabists. But, each time, it only made Israelis appear weak and goad the Arabists further. Israelis have had it. That's not going to happen.

Throughout Shabbat, with the shul noticeably empty with men called up, the cost of friendly fire and those lost in action affected everyone in this small northern yishuv; but not their resolve.

So, my take on a typical TIME with McGirk et al at the pen is that we have here another piece of wishful thinking. Israel has been alone against its neighbors before. But this time it's different. Israel is doing something that all of them have wanted to do but have been unable to get the gumption to do themselves. Okay, Jordan has. But look at Lebanon. Do we really think that Lebanon, as well as Egypt and other "neighbors", have not wanted to clean out their rat holes? Look at Iraq. Despite the MSM, the "neighbors" can see what works.

The McGirks have a vested interest in slogging the story of the "freedom fighter" who is too tough to beat. Maybe; but the Israelis are not pussies. Shmuel tells me that the Golanis are mostly Mizrachis--for them, this is personnal. They are very cautious and hard. They are moving forward.

Anyway, I'm sure that Tim and Jamal are very upset that the IDF is still not letting the press go to the front. So, Tim has to cover the story from Jerusalem and Jamal has to write about the war from Ramallah. I get to write from the Galilee AND the West Bank. However, I can say safely that the only hand wringing Israelis are doing now is with concern that the Iron Maiden will have another weak stomach. The way Livni and even Olmert are acting, Condi can have her weak stomach; but they are finally listening to the voice of Israel.

Shmuel and his 12th grade buddies are heading to Ashkelon for the week to clean out bombshelters, pass out supplies, and help out in nursery schools. They may also head over to S'derot to do the same. Kids from all over Israel have been doing the same. The general expectation is that this is going to be a long campaign.

The joke here is that Nasrallah came out of his hole last week, saw his shadow, and returned to his hole--six more weeks of Gaza. But, this was told to me by a woman with three sons in action.

As a side note, when we heard that two rounds had fallen in the north, we thought it would be a good time to head north. Our neighbors were very happy to see us--"where have you been?" "We are teaching in Jerusalem" "why this weekend?" "We heard that there might be fireworks and we wanted to come and see them too."

As for Tim and Jamal, it would be nice if TIME asked Michael Orens to write a piece. But, what can we expect.

A final thought. We drive through the Bethlehem check point daily. Everything is normal. We came north via the Derech Alon, straight up through the northern West Bank. Quiet. Everywhere has been quiet. Okay, pockets of protests (tens not hundreds and never thousands). My question to Jamal is where are the Hamas supporters in the West Bank? Why is the Galilee so calm? Where are the sympathetic second, third, or fourth fronts?

Here is my humble opinion: there is no support because these folks, like the Israelis are fed up to the eyeballs with this bs. They want these crooks and gangsters out of their life. The world recession has hit the Israeli building market that is the source of food to most Arabs in or out of Israel politically proper. Enough with the strong arm thugs. Let the IDF finally cut these guys off at the knees and leave them there. Most of this posturing right now is simply facesaving; Abbas cannot come out and say "you go, guys" to the IDF. But, they all do. None of the "Arab Street" harbors dirty looks; we are not scared to stop for gas at the Arab station or talk to the Arab shop keeper where I buy gum. It's business as usual. The only ones worried here are Tim and Jamal.