In a link-filled post, Glenn Reynolds unloads on the Palestinians:
Indeed.

Chris Shays didn't get the memo describing the Republicans' (and Democrats' (and Americans')) views on not giving in to terrorism:


UPDATE: Command Post has a good piece on Shays's stupidity.

The Jerusalem Post has an article this morning on Italy's less Europ-... err, more balanced approach to the Middle East. Money quote:

Victor David Hanson has an article out on NRO this morning, so like any good right-of-center blog we're going to link to it. Money quote about Israel:


If anything he understates how Left Israeli academia actually is - the pomo concern for the Other that has infiltrated much of American academia virtually dominates all aspects of Israeli academic life. While sad, this situation does provide one mildly entertaining object lesson in how insanely pathological the Left's hatred of Israel is - the academic boycott of Israeli intellectuals is absolutely crazy!! Why would one wish to boycott one's biggest allies? Only because there's something fundamentally irrational - something fundamentally pathological - in one's hatred.

Explaining the many ways in which Palestinian society is odious is kind of passe (think dancing-in-the-streets-after-9/11), and in our quest to bring you only the freshest content we try to avoid posting every minor (ok, ok major) flaw in Palestinian behavior.
However, sometimes there's something that's so both disgusting and stupid that it would be remiss of us not to blog it. Take this little piece from this morning's Jerusalem Post:


Of course, what concerns the Palestinian leadiership is not so much that a large swath of their public loves a failed, insane, mass murdering dictator - their real concern is that people will find out about it:

If you get the reference, you're already too immersed in Middle East politics. But regardless, the battle betewen Sharon and settlers in the West Bank looks like it's heading for a major watershed. Israeli papers are abuzz with the orders that Sharon has handed down to uproot settlements in the West Bank.


There remains much more to be discussed about this - coalition dynamics, international pressure, (my recuring theme of) Sharon as a Mapainik centrist, etc. I'll write more on this later, but I wanted to put it on people's radar because (a) this is going to be big and (b) major news sources and the blogosphere are both equally silent on this story despite it getting serious treatment from Israeli press.

Hey Stan - I think you're right on this point, and for a very fundamental reason too. We're acting more European than the Europeans. Check out this Jerusalem Post article from three days ago:


So Europe is filled with process-oriented pansies and the US is filled with moral actors? Seems reasonable. But in this case, its the US that is focusing on the process and Europe that is focusing on the results. The US needs to get back to doing what it's been doing so well - exporting freedom and democracy. And Europe needs to get back to doing what it's been doing so well - being the US's political, economic, and cultural bitch.

It's considered poor form in the blogosphere to trash the marketplace of ideas, but nonetheless the rise of blase anti-Semitism - its acceptability as another viewpoint on the political spectrum - should be cause for worry. LGF has a terrifying piece today about the way in which one can just get away with "apologizing" for literally the most open anti-Semitism imaginable in today's political terrain.
These kinds of phenomena cause me to question whether or not we should endorse a model of public discourse where "everything is up for debate" and we can have faith that "the better argument will win." I'm uncomfortable with denying terse concepts - the Enlightenment gesture toward universal(ized) rational dialogue is something that I would like to embrace - but I'm beginning to believe that there are ideas and modes of thinking and speaking that should be outright excluded from public discourse. Slavoj Zizek, writing in the London Review of Books, makes a similar point from the Left in regards to the introduction of torture as a legitimate subject for debate:


Those of us on the right should not be afraid to take the same approach in regards to certain topics. Should we entertain the notion that anti-Semitism may be ok, even "if only to disprove it"? Those of us who are willing to embrace this almost fetishistic obsession with rational dialogue should be forced to recognize that even the introduction of something like anti-Semitism as a topic for legitimate debate changes the terms of any debate - and the new terrain may be worse than what the situation would look like were we simply to declare some topics "out of bounds"

CNN's approach to Israel is so suffocating in its defeatism that it's sometimes hard to notice its sheer mendacity. This exchange from yesterday's Capital Gang is to the point, and also makes a fun little drinking game (you take a shot every time that Chris Burns avoids having to admit an obvious pro-Sharon or pro-Israeli truth by loading it with something like "Well, that's what the Israelis contend..." and you take two shots every time he ascribes an Israeli achievement to those who are actually responsible for trying to destroy that achievement).

First, he ascribes the relative calm in recent homicide bombings to Egyptian efforts at achieving a ceasefire - those would be the same efforts that failed so spectacularly that the next time an Egyptian set foot on Palestinian soil, he was brutally attacked:


Then, when pressed on this point by the by the very well preserved Kate O'Beirne, he gives the following totally incoh- well, decide for yourself:


This is, of course, asinine. Follow this closely - O'Beirne's question is whether or not Israel is stopping Hamas leaders from fulfilling their goal of launching attacks inside Israel by making them fear Israeli repraisals - ergo the concept of a deterrent. Burns first comes back with his condescending little "the Israelis would contend that" (everyone take a shot!). Then he argues that Israel can't be scaring Hamas away from launching attacks inside Israel, because there are still weapons in Gaza!! Even granting him the benifit of the doubt and agreeing that this might demonstrate a lack of overall Israeli effectiveness in everything related to Hamas, this still barely rises to the level of a rejoinder.
The point of a deterrent is that if you cross a red line (i.e. launching an attack on Israeli civilians) then you will be punished. The concept of a deterrent is different from the concept of, say, a successful military campaign aimed at uncovering weapons tunnels. Israel's deterrent against homicide bombers is based in house demolitions, expulsions, and pre-emptive strikes. It is these actions which are the basis of the O'Beirne's question and which Burns dodges - and they are aimed at stopping attacks, not weapons smuggling. To that extent, are those policies successful? Well, the Israelis who are still alive as a result of the IDF's activities would certainly contend as much.

Coordinated suicide bombings in Iraq:


Its too early to see how the press will cover this major, post-Saddam attack (betcha it'll be the Dean party line: "See? We're no safer!! No safer, I tell you!!") but I think at least the major conclusion should be self-evident - Iraqi militants are increasingly desperate to show that they're relevant, and they're willing to attack major civilian targets to do so. In the long run, that can't be good for them.

From the most recent American Prospect (January's - sorry there's no link, I got this off lexis. Emphasis mine):


And as if on cue, from this morning's Washington Post (note even the way that targeting those "empty factories and warehouses" has forced insurgents into the middle of the city):



Update: Prof. Dauber has a "nothing succeeds like Israeli military tactics" take on the whole thing.

DEBKAfile's military predictions have been, shall we say, poorly correllated with reality recently. However, their diplomatic analysis is still top-notch. Two days ago, they posted (as near as I can tell) the first accurate, in-depth analysis of the diplomatic fallout between Egypt and the PA over the Maher attack: DEBKAfile wrote that:


Two days later, we get this from Ha'aretz:


The upshot of all of this is that, again, the Arab world shows just how little it really cares about the Palestinians. This is not exactly a new story - the loathing that Arafat is held in by most Arab leaders is close to legendary. However, the kind of geopolitical situation that the Palestinians face now is among the grimest since Lebanon:


Incidentally, the Jerusalem Post, got this story wrong in their initial analysis because they were too intent on running the line that the Arab world is united in a conspiracy to keep the truth about Palestinian militancy from the rest of the world. While this spin is largely true, it is clearly not true in this case (Mubarak is pissed, which highlights the danger of letting ideology guide your political analysis.

Instapundit expresses a bit of indignation at our treatment of the Poles and links to this Frontpage story. He doesn't mention the sacrifices that the Poles have made in the name of freedom and democracy, which is the majority of this story (I'm leaving out several slams that the writer takes at the French... gotta give you some motive to read the whole thing):

... The EU doesn't want to include Israel. See if this pattern sounds familiar:


Sure, we like what the Jews can do for us. We just don't want them actually *around* us.

Oh, and incidentally, if anyone thinks that Europe is actually going to lower its borders to the 40 million, largely unskilled, working Muslims in Turkey, keep in mind the perenial and disgusting air of superiority and condescension that the EU typically brings into these negotiations:

Deadly earthquake in Iran. News agencies have the casualty figures at 40,000 as of this morning. Although Iran is a country that has explicitly and repeatedly threatened to nuke Israel, nonetheless Israel offered condolences and aid.

Iran responded to that gesture:


Touching.

UPDATE: LGF has the same story from a slightly different angle - AFP bias.

I haven't seen much about this in the Western press, but the recent spanking that Bush gave Lybia has presented Israel with an unexpected complication - renewed diplomatic moves in the form of arms control pressure from the United Nations (who else?) and other hotbeds of anti-Israel activity (the State Dept?)

Ha'aretz has two different articles on the subject today here and here - both are worth reading, although the first gets kind of tedious in that annoying Leftist-American-academia kind of way that Ha'aretz is so good at (obligatory gestures to enemy threat construction, the military industrial complex, &c). Their conclusions are largely the same:


But that:


All but the most starry-eyed idealists (and, I suppose, those who dream of finally pushing the Jews into the sea) should agree that it's in everyone's interests that Israel maintain a military safety net, even if it exists only pyschological and in the minds of its policy makers. Israel's current leadership will not allow the Third Temple Commonwealth to be destroyed and we're all better off it they think that their enemies know it.