Mere Rhetoric: October 2004 Archives

« June 2004 | Main | November 2004 »

More Syrian Land That's Not Really Syrian

There's really no way that this can turn out not funny:

Jordan has decided to renew a long dormant territorial dispute with Syria, and has issued Damascus with a formal demand to return territory illegaly seized in 1970. This has been confirmed by western intelligence sources. Jordanian officials have refused to comment.

If Jordan wins, Syria loses some land. That's never a downer.
If Jordan loses and the UN stays silent, then look for lots of chuckles the next time Syria mobilizes multiple UN resolutions demanding that Israel get off "their land" (and you know the UN won't say anything, because they can only have one anti-Arab resolution per decade in the General Assembly, and they've already burned that).
Quick: what's the difference between the Syrian land in Israeli hands and the Jordanian land in Syrian hands? Any of the following are acceptable answers: Israel took the Golan in a defensive war while Syria took Jordanian land in a war that they began; there are about 5 times more Syrian settlers in the land that Syria stole from Jordan than there are in the Gaza Strip (Syria moved in a full 20,000 after they foribly expelled the Jordanians living there!); or the UN passes multiple anti-Israel resolutions every year and manages to stay remarkably silent about the land Syria outright stole from Jordan and then forcibly settled.
And in case you were wondering who's behind Jordan's recent enthusiasm and confidence:

In addition to the map, the claim also includes a subtle hint that force could be used if all else fails, was made at the behest of Washington. The US is angry and frustrated at Syria, which has brazenly flouted promises and commitments to end its clandestine cooperation with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. In addition Syria has refused to honor a UN demand to live up to its commitment to vacate Lebanon. Instead Assad has acted to increase Syria’s hold over Beirut, replacing former premier Al Hariri with a hand picked stooge.

Omri | October 30, 2004 7:17 AM |

Frank Exchange of Views

Powell to Arafat: Cede authority over security now
Arafat to Powell: ::slobber:: ::slobber::

Omri | October 30, 2004 6:54 AM |

They Just Can't Leave Well Enough Alone

The Palestinians are nothing if not depressingly predictable:

Doctors in Paris confirmed that the Palestinian leader was suffering abnormally low blood-platelet count, Palestinian Authority spokeswoman Leila Shah said, speaking from outside the Paris hospital.
Meanwhile, a senior Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the London-based Arabic daily al-Shark al-Awsat that doctors are also checking the possibility that Arafat may have been deliberately poisoned.

Lunatics.

Omri | October 30, 2004 6:39 AM |

You Can Vote For Kerry, But Don't Pretend It's Good For Israel

Buried in this morning's Ha'aretz:

The Europeans have made it clear that revival of the political process between Israel and the Palestinians is part of the price they will demand in return for an upgrading of relations with Washington. European diplomats have already held preliminary contacts with Kerry's advisers...
In the past few years the format of a settlement has taken on final shape according to the "road map": the end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories...

And more for those of you who have been screaming about Sharon "moving too quickly" on unilateral disengagement:

Sharon is concerned that the issues of the final-status settlement, the borders, Jerusalem and the refugees will find their way back onto the agenda... Whoever succeeds Arafat will be called on to move quickly into talks on a final settlement, and Kerry is more likely than Bush to listen to such calls... it's not certain that a Democratic administration will be pleased to see Israel's annexation of the West Bank settlement blocs, a move that was hinted at in Bush's letter to Sharon on April 14 of this year.

This is Aluf Benn, arguably the best Israeli diplomatic journalist and a vetern for the not-exactly-right-wing Ha'aretz, making absolutist, unequivocal statements. Don't say that Krauthammer didn't warn you.

Omri | October 29, 2004 3:20 AM |

The Day After

Not even the Palestinians really care that their favorite blob of corruption (now with new, cuter hat) is finally going to die. Like parents who can't wait to turn their college kids' room into a new guest room, they've already given away his post to Abu Mazen and are promising a nicer, less anti-Semitic UN mission. Even Arab kings and dictators have always disliked Arafat (partly for repeatedly trying to overthrow some of them, but mostly because he's just kind of swarmy). In the last 4 years, even the Palestinian street has become less than enamoured with him. It's about time for him to make his exit.

Omri | October 29, 2004 3:04 AM |

In Support Of Disengagement

Many pro-Israel bloggers vehemently oppose disengagement because it is, in the words of one of Lynn's recent posts on In Context something for nothing. Quite the opposite, according to Uri Dan:

Sharon believes disengagement is the only way Israel can retain some 50 percent of Judea and Samaria. If his opponents somehow succeed in derailing his plan, he told me recently, Israel will wind up with only about 4 percent of Judea and Samaria.
In other words, having won the Knesset vote on Tuesday night, Sharon is warning his opponents not to bring him down. If they do, disengagement from Gaza will be replaced by the kind of massive withdrawals championed in the plans sponsored by president Bill Clinton and prime minister Ehud Barak.
Bring down Sharon, and you in effect get Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accord... Clearly, retreat from one part of the Land is being made to guarantee control over other parts.

I have yet to hear a compelling answer to this point. Israel withdraws on its own terms and gets to keep a large chunk of the West Bank. If Israel does not withdraw now, it will have the scope of its withdrawal decided for it later under far less favorable circumstances.

Omri | October 29, 2004 2:46 AM |

Sharon to Bibi: You'll Quit When I Tell You You Can Quit

Sharon continues to school the rest of the Likud on how politics works:

Within two days of Netanyahu's ultimatum to resign within two weeks unless Sharon agrees to hold a referendum on disengagement, the three ministers who joined him gradually eased their stance and left Netanyahu alone. Sharon's office said that if Netanyahu requests a meeting with Sharon, the dispute between the two that heightened this week can be resolved...
Education Minister Limor Livnat distanced herself from Netanyahu on Thursday, reacting with outrage to Netanyahu's statements that he intends to challenge Sharon for the Likud leadership.

As usual, Sharon stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Likud. Already in the last election, the candidates that Labor put forward were head and shoulders above what the rotten Likud primaries were able to muster. But even most Likud ministers are not stupid enough to think that they can get through the next election with 40 mandates - especially not when led by someone who most Israelis still know as a crook (most popular statement made by Israelis about Netanyahu: "I'm the only Israeli who remembers that he's a crook.") The Likud today is an electoral prisoner of its own success - they won't risk the loss in power that new elections would entail. Look for Netanyahu to say that Arafat's departure changes everything and that Israel can't go to elections in the coming uncertain future - he'll say that he's coming back into the fold "for the good of the country." Just because the reasons he gives are technically right won't make what he's telling the truth. He got beat by Sharon. Again.

UPDATE: Or not. Although I think that Sharon can make a compelling case that a referendum is just not going to happen, since he couldn't get it through the Knesset even if he did put his weight behind it. Which he shouldn't and won't.

Omri | October 29, 2004 2:33 AM |

We've All Got Problems

Sometimes things don't go exactly as planned:

All heaved a silent sigh that it was a disease, not Israel, that seems to have ended Arafat's political career. "He is and was sick," Saleh said. "There is no possibility of blaming the Israelis for his [possible] death."

It's not the whole dying thing that seems to bother them. It's the whole "how're we gonna stir up riots now" thing. I'm not worried - if the Palestinians hold true to form, Israel will get accused of poisoning him and then blaming it on cancer.

Omri | October 29, 2004 2:27 AM |

Of Course

France, upon accepting Arafat for medical treatment, could have said that they were doing it for medical, humanitarian reasons. They could have said that his death now would cause a power vacuum on the eve of Israeli disengagement. But then they would have missed an opportunity to lend their enthusiastic support to an international terrorist:

France will be always on the side of the Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier declared Thursday.
"France, as I told you (Arafat) in Ramallah on June 30, will be always on your side to back your effort in favor of a just and negotiated peace," Barnier said.
"It is with concern and sympathy that I keep informed of the development of your health," said Barnier.
"I wish to express my most sincere wishes for your recovery, hoping that you can return rapidly to your place to lead the Palestinian Authority," he said.

Omri | October 28, 2004 2:03 PM |

Compare and Contrast

Us:

IDF sources say that should Arafat die, soldiers will be told to respect Palestinian mourning rituals, thereby avoiding a situation in which expressions of joy of Israeli soldiers cause emotions to ignite.

Them:

In Gaza last week, crowds of children reveled and sang while adults showered them with candies. The cause for celebration: the cold-blooded murder of at least seven people -- five of them Americans -- and the maiming of 80 more by a terrorist bomb on the campus of Jerusalem's Hebrew University. The joyful response of so many to the death, suffering, and mutilation of students and university workers raises pointed questions about the health of Palestinian society, both mental and moral.

Us:

The IDF has even marked out a possible burial site in Abu Dis; the route of the separation fence in the area takes this into account and the potential gravesite would remain in Palestinian hands.

Them:

In violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, Jordan denied Israelis access to the Temple Wall and to the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews have been burying their dead for 2,500 years. Jordan actually went further and desecrated Jewish holy places. King Hussein permitted the construction of a road to the Intercontinental Hotel across the Mount of Olives cemetery. Hundreds of Jewish graves were destroyed by a highway that could have easily been built elsewhere. The gravestones, honoring the memory of rabbis and sages, were used by the engineer corps of the Jordanian Arab Legion as pavement and latrines in army camps.

Omri | October 28, 2004 12:17 AM |

Noble Peace Prize Winner on Deathbed

The only reason to mourn Arafat's coming demise is that now the Nazi will probably never stand trial for his brutal and inhuman atrocities, or for his history of terrorism. It is rightly forbidden to take joy in the death of even our bitterest enemies, but nothing prevents us from taking grim satisfaction at the death of this monster.
Nonetheless, even on his deathbed, Arafat is doing his best to undermine the Jewish State. Ha'aretz is right that Arafat's death will make it much harder to justify unilateral disengagement. Sharon already faces international pressure to expand disengagement. While I doubt that the next Palestinian leader will be any less committed to destroying Israel than the last one was, the world is very, very good at ignoring the Jew-killing of Jew-killers. It took 40 years, 9/11, the Passover Massacre, and the Bush doctrine to convince even a small segment of the world that giving concessions to Arafat did nothing but encourage terrorism - and Europe was still committed to forcing Israel to negotiate with him! So now we begin the countdown to the pressure on Sharon to "seize this unique opportunity" by "reaching out" to the Palestinians in the form of concessions. Drained politically, with almost no support on the Right, Sharon will have to look to Labor for a unity government - and the price of this government might well acceding to international pressure. Sharon can either give into these demands and try to form a new government (if the Likud Central Committee will even let him) - which will require giving away almost everything - or go to new elections. If he goes to new elections, there's very little chance that he makes it through the primaries. So Israel gets either a Labor government ready to give away everything or a ham-handed anti-diplomat like Netanyahu who refuses to give away anything until he gets boxed into another Wye-like corner and has to... give away everything. I'm not surprised - Arafat can't even die right.

UPDATE: Mere Rhetoric: it's like Ha'aretz without all the anti-Israel bias:

If Arafat goes, Israel is likely to hear from Europe and others that it should reopen negotiations with the new Palestinian leadership over the disengagement plan. If Abu Mazen takes the Palestinian throne, Israel will have a chance not to repeat past mistakes and to assist him immediately, and generously, so that he becomes a serious partner without the shadow of Arafat hovering over him. The same applies to Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Ala, who consistently avoids taking any real action.

Omri | October 28, 2004 12:17 AM |

Israelis For Kerry, Jews For Kerry, and Israeli Jews for Kerry

Allison Kaplan Sommer, usually so reasonable, now feels that Rhenquist's recent illness thoroughly vindicates her vote for Kerry. But Slate's solidly liberal law guru Dalia Lithwick says that's just silly:

The possibility of Rehnquist stepping down also crystallizes how oversimplified the recent arguments about the power of Supreme Court appointments really are. Suddenly this "four-seats-to-fill-with-whatever-maniac-he-likes" rhetoric is shown to be at least somewhat lacking in nuance. Because if Rehnquist steps down, and President Bush is re-elected, the 5-4 balance on the current court would remain unchanged. In fact, Bush might arguably have a hard time confirming someone as conservative as Rehnquist in the current Senate climate—meaning that the net effect of a retirement could be a more moderate court, even with Bush in office.

So it seems it's back that, for at least one left-of-center Israeli blogger, it might be back to the pangs of conscience for voting for the less... err... reliable candidate.
On the other hand, some American Jews have finally decided to vote on Israel:

This year, for probably the first time, Orthodox Jews will vote like "traditionalist" Christians. Conservative, Reform and non-affiliated Jews, on the other hand, will vote like secular, or "modernist," Christians. And the Jewish vote, in a meaningful sense, will cease to exist. George W. Bush deserves much of the credit...
Increasingly, America, or at least white America, has just two political cultures: religious and secular. And next week Jews -- who have held out longer than their Christian brethren -- will finally choose sides.

Omri | October 27, 2004 4:38 AM |

Round The Lunatics Up

Last night marked the 9th anniversary of Rabin's murder (there should be some sort of legal obligation for every Israeli to take a minute or two on this day and firmly resolve that Yigal Amir will rot in jail for the rest of his life). There are many in Israel, however, who have apparently failed to learn the lessons of history:

The incitement against PM Sharon has reached an all time high. Hours before the crucial Knesset vote on the disengagement plan, which happens to fall a day before the 9th memorial of Rabin’s assassination, right wing militants sprayed graffiti calling for Sharon’s assassination on walls in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
The slogans included “We got Rabin and we’ll get Sharon”, and “Hearty wishes to the next assassin”.

The thought that anyone could be so far gone as to think of assassinating a sitting Prime Minister, let alone one who has done so much for the nation as Sharon, should be sending shockwaves through Israel. This is one of those rare oversteps - Rabin's assassination, 9/11, etc - that should cause everyone to recoil from the precipice and ask "how did it come to this?" But apparently we're going to have to wait for something even more horrible before people will tone down their open incitement.
It's tempting to try to reason with such lunatics: just as killing Rabin got you a Peres, killing Sharon will get you a Mitzna. But that's giving these scum too much credit - you can't reason someone out of what they haven't been reasoned into, and this is a matter of blind idiology. But the Likud needs to get ahead of the curve on this, to say nothing of the rabbis. What will the Right say this time if another sitting Prime Minister is killed? "We didn't know"? Unacceptable.

Omri | October 27, 2004 3:21 AM |

That Depends On What Your Definition of "Safe" Is

Some things never change:

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton continued his support for the Democratic presidential hopeful Tuesday, telling an election meeting at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida that John Kerry is "a loyal friend of Israel." "There is no doubt in my mind that the security of Israel will be safe with John Kerry as president," Clinton said.

Lets ignore for a second that the man who forced Israel into Wye and tried to force them into Taba and Oslo II may not be the best person to judge what is safe for Israel. Liar, liar, pants on fire:

Kerry's top foreign policy adviser and surrogate, Richard Holbrooke... segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: "He [Kerry] has said... He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia"

Omri | October 27, 2004 2:34 AM |

Who's Your Daddy?

Sharon: 1
Bibi: 0
Nobody likes a loser:

Sharon's associates said the prime minister was furious with Netanyahu for trying to impose a national referendum on him as the price for the support of key ministers in the vote.
The maneuver failed because the National Religious Party gave Sharon a 14-day ultimatum on agreeing to a referendum – a threat that actually amounted to a period of grace...
"Netanyahu tried to undermine me," Sharon angrily told confidants. "He should not act this way. In a democratic country, ministers cannot get away with such behavior."...
Netanyahu had received poll results indicating that despite apparent overwhelming public support for disengagement, 70 percent of those who intend to vote would vote against the pullout if a referendum were held today.

The disengagment will be Sharon's political end (and his legacy) whether he succeeds or not. It's the same reason why war Presidents and war Prime Ministers often get ousted - the country is exhausted from battle and wants a return to normality. But this isn't some budget vote - Sharon is playing on the stage of history, and history will judge him well for it.

Omri | October 27, 2004 1:50 AM |

Sharon Kicks Ass, Takes Names

PM Sharon was all out of bubblegum this morning:

Livnat and Netanyahu, along with ministers Yisrael Katz and Dan Naveh, were absent from the first round of voting. They walked into the plenum as the initial results were being read. They were then given the opportunity to vote on the plan, and they all voted in favor of the withdrawal. Ministers Silvan Shalom and Tzachi Hanegbi also voted in favor of the plan... Sharon fired Minister Without Portfolio Uzi Landau and Deputy Minister Michael Ratzon Tuesday evening for voting against his disengagement plan.

But then (almost as if he was a manipulative, attention-starved former Prime Minister), Bibi joined Livnat to drop this bombshell:

Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Education Minister Limor Livnat both threatened on Tuesday evening to quit unless Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to hold a referendum on a pullout from Gaza. They said that Likud ministers Yisrael Katz and Dan Naveh would also quit if a decision is not made on the poll within 14 days.

Bummer. A failed referendum (and who knows if it'll fail - but my hunch is that the rebels wouldn't be calling for it unless they had numbers on this question, and there is a startling paucity of numbers in the public on this question) would end Sharon's political career. He'd have to resign, and there's no chance that he'd get back out of the primaries:

But the Sharon of 2005 will not be the Sharon of the previous elections, who doubled the Likud's strength. His life is being threatened; his party is tripping him up; rabbis are preaching disobedience and civil war. Underground cells are plotting to bump him off, or do something big, like blowing up the Temple Mount, which will drench the country in blood and endanger the lives of Jews everywhere.

I'm not hopeful. Israelis have a history of failing to rise to their great leaders. They'll likely do no better with Arik Sharon.

Omri | October 26, 2004 2:50 PM |

Oh That Explains It

Really glad that they cleared that one up:

Two prominent Canadian Muslim leaders issued clarifications Tuesday for recent anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks, in the wake of calls for their resignations and a formal complaint filed by the Canadian Jewish Congress.
During a recorded lecture on October 22, Sheikh Younus Kathrada, the head of Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society in East Vancouver called the Jews "brothers of monkeys and swine."
But in a statement posted on the society's Web site Monday, Kathrada explained he meant only Israelis.

The problem isn't the apology: the problem is that he apparently had very good reason to suspect that no one in Canada would care as long as he only meant some Jews were monkeys and swine.

Omri | October 26, 2004 6:27 AM |

Lets Not Get Silly Here

Reasonable people can disagree about the Gaza evacuation. Reasonably people should be disagreeing about the Gaza evacuation. Anyone who insists that they're absolutely certain in this matter - that there is no compelling argument on the other side - is either crazy, ignorant, or fooling themselves.
The evacuation is necessary. It is necessary as a preemptive move, good only because it prevents the long-term disintegration of the Jewish State. Without it, a horrifying future becomes inevitable - real apartheid (not the civil control which the Palestinians enjoyed and which their shills in the international community had the nerve to compare to the horrors of South African apartheid), followed eventually by a one-state solution in which Jews would be a minority. And if we don't trust a future Palestinian state not to kill the Jews in Gaza when the most powerful military in the Middle East would have their back (and we don't), imagine the world in which the Jewish state no longer exists to protect Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
But people should be walking into this with eyes wide-open. For instance, this is just silly:

Labor Party leader Shimon Peres... asked MKs if there is anyone who believes that it would have been better to "remain in the Sinai and give up on the peace with Egypt."

To try to convince people that withdrawing from Gaza will actually help Israel in the short-term is a loser. First of all, now might not be the best time to be running the peace with Egypt as a selling point. And even when they're not killing Israelis and then letting them die, Arab nations don't have a great record with the whole "normalization" thing.
But even if they did - come on. We're not talking about Egypt or Jordan here. We're talking about these people:

On a children’s program discussing the importance of trees, "Tarabisho" - the Talking Chick -- was the center of the discussion. The child moderator asked the talking chick what he would do if someone, specifically a "little boy," were to chop down his tree. In his squeaky little voice, Tarabisho answered: "I'll fight him and make a big riot, I'll call the whole world and make a riot. I'll bring AK-47s [assault rifles] and the whole world, I'll commit a massacre in front of the house". [PA TV: Oct. 22, 2004]

People should recognize that Sharon's plan isn't any sort of panacea. Quite the opposite - it is wildly divisive, risking the stability of the government and the cohesion of the nation. And even if Israel was united behind Sharon, it still wouldn't change anything on the ground. Post withdrawal, the Palestinians will keep attacking Israel, Iran will keep nuclearizing, and Europe will keep trying to isolate Israel. Evacuation is necessary, but there's no reason we should be happy about it.

Omri | October 26, 2004 3:57 AM |

What A Mess

One of the upshots of not blogging was that I never really had to make up my mind about all of this. Were the Gaza settlers sent into Gaza by past Israeli governments in the interests of establishing a Jewish presence in historically Jewish lands? Of course. Have they suffered and died as Israel's front line against Arab hatred? Undeniably
On the other hand, must Israel now redeploy out of the Strip for the good of the nation? Probably. Should they uproot the settlers as they leave? Without a doubt (the spectacle of Jews being massacred after being abandoned by Israel serves nobody's interest).
There are no easy answers here. One thing that we must remember, however, is that most of the people on most of the sides in this debate have Israel's best interests in mind. The demonization of Sharon is, if anything, more absurd than the demonization of Rabin was. Anyone who doesn't think that Sharon is torn to pieces about this decision is already doing themselves and those who listen to them a disservice. No good is done - and much is risked - polarizing people at such a crucial time.

Omri | October 26, 2004 3:47 AM |

Old Blog Meet New Blog

Old blog: Dejafoo.
New blog: Mere Rhetoric.
I started blogging late last year when Stan let me hop on Dejafoo. He single-handedly got me blogging, and was invaluable in helping me figure out how the blogosphere is supposed to work. Last summer I had to effectively stop blogging to take care of some academic and personal stuff. By the time I began to think about starting up again, I felt ready to strike out on my own. So welcome to Mere Rhetoric.
I've moved the archives of my posts from Dejafoo to here (although they'll remain up at Dejafoo as well), so feel free to peruse them at your leisure.

Omri | October 26, 2004 12:09 AM |