Commentary Magazine


Posts For: March 24, 2011

The Red Cross, Hamas, and Gilad Shalit

CBN News is reporting that the Red Cross is continuing to shelter three Hamas officials suspected in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit five years ago. It sounds like the terrorists have it pretty good. In addition to receiving visits from foreign dignitaries, Jimmy Carter has dropped by, and the Hamas members have been free to hold press conferences from their safe-house at the Red Cross’s East Jerusalem office. Legions of Hamas supporters reportedly congregate outside the office on Fridays to hold candlelight vigils, as well.

“Under international humanitarian law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory,” Red Cross spokesperson Cecilia Goin explained to CBN News. “So the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are considered protected people.”

While the Red Cross has welcomed the Hamas officials with open arms (the three of them have reportedly set up a tent at the office), Red Cross medical personnel continue to be denied access to tend to Shalit while he’s in captivity, in violation of international law.

The Red Cross’s cushy treatment of these Hamas officials is bad enough on its own. But it also highlights the fact that the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations haven’t been nearly as forceful as they should be in demanding the release of Shalit. Nearly five years after his capture, it’s a travesty that he hasn’t even been able to receive medical attention, while three of his suspected kidnappers receive visits from former U.S. presidents and diplomats.

CBN News is reporting that the Red Cross is continuing to shelter three Hamas officials suspected in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit five years ago. It sounds like the terrorists have it pretty good. In addition to receiving visits from foreign dignitaries, Jimmy Carter has dropped by, and the Hamas members have been free to hold press conferences from their safe-house at the Red Cross’s East Jerusalem office. Legions of Hamas supporters reportedly congregate outside the office on Fridays to hold candlelight vigils, as well.

“Under international humanitarian law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory,” Red Cross spokesperson Cecilia Goin explained to CBN News. “So the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are considered protected people.”

While the Red Cross has welcomed the Hamas officials with open arms (the three of them have reportedly set up a tent at the office), Red Cross medical personnel continue to be denied access to tend to Shalit while he’s in captivity, in violation of international law.

The Red Cross’s cushy treatment of these Hamas officials is bad enough on its own. But it also highlights the fact that the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations haven’t been nearly as forceful as they should be in demanding the release of Shalit. Nearly five years after his capture, it’s a travesty that he hasn’t even been able to receive medical attention, while three of his suspected kidnappers receive visits from former U.S. presidents and diplomats.

Read Less

It’s Still Not the Word, It’s the Policy

At the Daily Caller, Matthew Boyle gives an update on the left’s ongoing civil war over the term “ObamaCare.” Though Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently blasted the use of the word on the House floor as a “violation” of congressional rules, some supporters of health-care reform still employ it. “Obamacare is WORKING,” Center for American Progress staffer Van Jones wrote on Twitter yesterday, before telling his fellow Obama supporters, “why run from the term? Luv it!” Neither Wasserman Schultz nor Rep. Maxine Waters – who once insisted that “ObamaCare” was a racist expression – responded to the Daily Caller when asked if it was now appropriate to say it.

But whether or not Democrats approve of it, the term “ObamaCare” is still regularly found on left-wing websites. And the reason is because it’s just a simple and comprehendible way of saying “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” without writing the whole thing out every time. Many of them put it in quotation marks. For example, Steve Kornacki wrote at Salon last month that “‘ObamaCare’ is something that — if prompted — voters might object to if there are other factors (like high economic anxiety) in place that make them inclined to view the president and his policies negatively. But it won’t keep them from flocking to him if economic conditions are improving come 2012.” Others don’t even bother with that formality, like Matthew Yglesias who used the word in a Think Progress post just a few days ago.

But no matter what you call the policy, the national perception of it isn’t improving. As Peter pointed out yesterday, only 37 percent of Americans support the law, while 59 percent oppose it. With those kind of numbers, a name change isn’t going to do much to reform its image.

At the Daily Caller, Matthew Boyle gives an update on the left’s ongoing civil war over the term “ObamaCare.” Though Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently blasted the use of the word on the House floor as a “violation” of congressional rules, some supporters of health-care reform still employ it. “Obamacare is WORKING,” Center for American Progress staffer Van Jones wrote on Twitter yesterday, before telling his fellow Obama supporters, “why run from the term? Luv it!” Neither Wasserman Schultz nor Rep. Maxine Waters – who once insisted that “ObamaCare” was a racist expression – responded to the Daily Caller when asked if it was now appropriate to say it.

But whether or not Democrats approve of it, the term “ObamaCare” is still regularly found on left-wing websites. And the reason is because it’s just a simple and comprehendible way of saying “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” without writing the whole thing out every time. Many of them put it in quotation marks. For example, Steve Kornacki wrote at Salon last month that “‘ObamaCare’ is something that — if prompted — voters might object to if there are other factors (like high economic anxiety) in place that make them inclined to view the president and his policies negatively. But it won’t keep them from flocking to him if economic conditions are improving come 2012.” Others don’t even bother with that formality, like Matthew Yglesias who used the word in a Think Progress post just a few days ago.

But no matter what you call the policy, the national perception of it isn’t improving. As Peter pointed out yesterday, only 37 percent of Americans support the law, while 59 percent oppose it. With those kind of numbers, a name change isn’t going to do much to reform its image.

Read Less

When in Doubt, Blame Israel

There are plenty of reasons to worry about the future of what some are calling the “Arab Spring,” the region-wide movement that led to successful revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, the civil war in Libya, and efforts in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere to overthrow existing autocrats. But whatever happens in these countries, it won’t be Israel’s fault one way or the other. Despite the claims of Arab propagandists who have been telling us for generations that dislike of Israel and its Western supporters is the key issue motivating Muslims, these revolts have been about the shortcomings of the protesters’ own governments and nothing else. But it doesn’t take much for critics of Israel to justify injecting the Jewish state into the debate.

Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine is seen by some in the pro-Israel community as a moderate, but even he can’t seem to resist the impulse to blame Israel for the potential failure of the Arab Spring. Writing today in Foreign Policy, he asserts that the recent upsurge in Palestinian terrorism could derail the Arab Reform movement. According to Ibish, if Israel attempts to suppress Hamas terror attacks such as the fatal bus bombing yesterday in Jerusalem it could lead to Arabs’ being distracted from their campaign for self-rule and allow existing ruling elites to stay in power. Read More

There are plenty of reasons to worry about the future of what some are calling the “Arab Spring,” the region-wide movement that led to successful revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, the civil war in Libya, and efforts in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere to overthrow existing autocrats. But whatever happens in these countries, it won’t be Israel’s fault one way or the other. Despite the claims of Arab propagandists who have been telling us for generations that dislike of Israel and its Western supporters is the key issue motivating Muslims, these revolts have been about the shortcomings of the protesters’ own governments and nothing else. But it doesn’t take much for critics of Israel to justify injecting the Jewish state into the debate.

Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine is seen by some in the pro-Israel community as a moderate, but even he can’t seem to resist the impulse to blame Israel for the potential failure of the Arab Spring. Writing today in Foreign Policy, he asserts that the recent upsurge in Palestinian terrorism could derail the Arab Reform movement. According to Ibish, if Israel attempts to suppress Hamas terror attacks such as the fatal bus bombing yesterday in Jerusalem it could lead to Arabs’ being distracted from their campaign for self-rule and allow existing ruling elites to stay in power.

There are a couple of major problems with this analysis.

First, it infantalizes Arabs to assert that they are incapable of understanding that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has nothing to do with attempts to overthrow their own dictators. Does Ibish really believe that Muslims are so simple as to suddenly throw themselves into the arms of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood who have no interest in democracy or the rule of law simply because Israel and Hamas wind up going another round in the century-long war to secure the existence of a Jewish state? If, as he claims, most Arabs including the Palestinians don’t support the Islamists, then why would they suddenly buy into their rhetoric about the West and the Zionists being the source of all their troubles when they know very well that their problems are due to the corrupt leaders they have allowed to stay in power for decades?

Second, as is the case with many on the left who wish to wrongly assert a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically-elected government and the tyrannical Islamists of Hamas, he sees the Netanyahu government as being somehow in cahoots with the rulers of Gaza when it comes to fomenting another war. Israelis know full well that neither the moderates of Fatah nor the extremists of Hamas want peace, but their main desire is to avoid violence. Ibish, who repeats the slanders put forward by more extreme Palestinian propagandists about Israel’s counter-offensive against Gaza-based terror in December 2008, puts down all counter-measures against Hamas as an “overreaction” while ignoring Netanyahu’s peace moves and the Palestinians’ refusal to talk.

Netanyahu has no desire for another war. But that is not only what Hamas wants, it is intrinsic to its nature as a terrorist group dedicated to armed conflict. The recent attacks on Israel are not part of another “cycle of violence” in which sides are complicit but rather yet another expression of a Palestinian nationalism that appears incapable of renouncing violence.

That this is so is a tragedy but not one for which Israel bears responsibility. Foisting the blame for Hamas terrorism on Israel is absurd but part of a long tradition of anti-Zionist propaganda. That Ibish would expand upon this theme in order to potentially blame Israel for the possible failure of the pro-democracy movement in the Middle East is, however, a new variation on the theme that insults the intelligence of both Arabs and Jews. No matter what the situation, it seems that some people can never resist blaming the Jews for anything that happens in the world.

Read Less

Anthony Weiner: Democratic Role Model and Obamacare Hypocrite

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank celebrated the anniversary of the passage of President Obama’s controversial health care law with a piece extolling the virtues of one its most ardent defenders: Brooklyn Congressman Anthony Weiner. Weiner has a well-earned reputation of being one of the most obnoxious members of the House of Representatives but since Milbank likes Weiner’s politics, he describes him as a “Brooklyn-born streetfighter” rather than a lout and a bully as he would be called if he were a Tea Party favorite (though its likely that the only fisticuffs the politician has ever engaged in were while playing hockey and not on the mean streets of the borough of Brooklyn).

But Milbank’s point is that he thinks more Democrats should be like the liberal Weiner: unapologetic defenders of Obamacare. The columnist thinks too many Democrats are playing by “Marquess of Queensberry rules” when it comes to fighting the attempts by the Republican majority to roll bank the unpopular measure. Though he claims that Weiner has been admirable in answering the bill’s critics head on, all he can muster is what even Milbank admits is “the sort of rhetoric used to wage an argument in a schoolyard.” Which is to say, they are merely rants in which all opposition is dismissed and delegitimized. Weiner’s speeches on the subject are exactly the sort of uncivil speech that liberals have spoken of as the sole preserve of the political right.

The Post writer admits that it is easy for Weiner to get away with his extremist positions since he represents an area in which Republicans barely exist rather than a competitive district where such behavior would mean certain defeat. But Weiner’s unapolegetic liberalism has to be comforting to those on the left who have seen the tide turn in the last year and understand that theirs is a position that most Americans do not support.

Yet Milbank’s bouquet for Weiner’s adamant support for Obamacare turned out to be ill-timed. The same day the Post ran his column, Weiner was quoted in an interview published in Politico as saying that he believes his home town should join the long line of states and municipalities begging for a waiver that would exempt them from the law. Weiner, who hopes to succeed Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, said, “maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

While Weiner spent the anniversary of Obamacare trying to “debunk Republican myths” about the bill, his call for a waiver for New York reinforces the notion that no one really likes the result of the messy negotiations that led to its passage. Though Weiner lamely claimed that the waiver process shows how flexible Obamacare is, the public who must pay for this boondoggle has a right to ask: if it isn’t good enough for even hyper-liberal New York, then who does Weiner think it is good for? If even its greatest defender is running for the exit, then perhaps it really is doomed.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank celebrated the anniversary of the passage of President Obama’s controversial health care law with a piece extolling the virtues of one its most ardent defenders: Brooklyn Congressman Anthony Weiner. Weiner has a well-earned reputation of being one of the most obnoxious members of the House of Representatives but since Milbank likes Weiner’s politics, he describes him as a “Brooklyn-born streetfighter” rather than a lout and a bully as he would be called if he were a Tea Party favorite (though its likely that the only fisticuffs the politician has ever engaged in were while playing hockey and not on the mean streets of the borough of Brooklyn).

But Milbank’s point is that he thinks more Democrats should be like the liberal Weiner: unapologetic defenders of Obamacare. The columnist thinks too many Democrats are playing by “Marquess of Queensberry rules” when it comes to fighting the attempts by the Republican majority to roll bank the unpopular measure. Though he claims that Weiner has been admirable in answering the bill’s critics head on, all he can muster is what even Milbank admits is “the sort of rhetoric used to wage an argument in a schoolyard.” Which is to say, they are merely rants in which all opposition is dismissed and delegitimized. Weiner’s speeches on the subject are exactly the sort of uncivil speech that liberals have spoken of as the sole preserve of the political right.

The Post writer admits that it is easy for Weiner to get away with his extremist positions since he represents an area in which Republicans barely exist rather than a competitive district where such behavior would mean certain defeat. But Weiner’s unapolegetic liberalism has to be comforting to those on the left who have seen the tide turn in the last year and understand that theirs is a position that most Americans do not support.

Yet Milbank’s bouquet for Weiner’s adamant support for Obamacare turned out to be ill-timed. The same day the Post ran his column, Weiner was quoted in an interview published in Politico as saying that he believes his home town should join the long line of states and municipalities begging for a waiver that would exempt them from the law. Weiner, who hopes to succeed Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, said, “maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

While Weiner spent the anniversary of Obamacare trying to “debunk Republican myths” about the bill, his call for a waiver for New York reinforces the notion that no one really likes the result of the messy negotiations that led to its passage. Though Weiner lamely claimed that the waiver process shows how flexible Obamacare is, the public who must pay for this boondoggle has a right to ask: if it isn’t good enough for even hyper-liberal New York, then who does Weiner think it is good for? If even its greatest defender is running for the exit, then perhaps it really is doomed.

Read Less

Obama’s Leadership Problem

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans see President Obama as a strong and decisive military leader. To which my first response is: what can those 17 percent possibly be thinking?

The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi’s forces while 79 percent of those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to remove Qaddafi.

The fact that less than one in five Americans consider Obama to be a strong and decisive military leader ought to concern the White House; those qualities tend to be fairly important ones when selecting a president, particularly when a nation is at war.

Of course, the outcome is what matters here. If Qaddafi is forced out and the Libyian situation resolves itself fairly easily, even with America playing a secondary role, Obama’s supporters will claim vindication. We’ll simply have to wait to see how things play out. That said, Obama’s weakness as a leader is now emerging as a significant political liabilty — which means it will now register with Obama himself. He is nothing if not political.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans see President Obama as a strong and decisive military leader. To which my first response is: what can those 17 percent possibly be thinking?

The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi’s forces while 79 percent of those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to remove Qaddafi.

The fact that less than one in five Americans consider Obama to be a strong and decisive military leader ought to concern the White House; those qualities tend to be fairly important ones when selecting a president, particularly when a nation is at war.

Of course, the outcome is what matters here. If Qaddafi is forced out and the Libyian situation resolves itself fairly easily, even with America playing a secondary role, Obama’s supporters will claim vindication. We’ll simply have to wait to see how things play out. That said, Obama’s weakness as a leader is now emerging as a significant political liabilty — which means it will now register with Obama himself. He is nothing if not political.

Read Less

Jewish Federation Gave Over $1 Million to Anti-Glenn Beck Group

Jewish Funds for Justice (JFSJ), the George Soros-funded activist group that recently made headlines for its high-profile war against Fox News host Glenn Beck, has received over $1 million from the UJA-Federation of New York since 2008.

Over the past three years at least seven Federation grants have been awarded to the JFSJ, ranging from $75,000 to $219,000. Some of that money has gone toward JFSJ’s Hurricane Katrina disaster relief efforts. But, according to Federation spokesperson Samantha Kessler, the bulk of the funding has gone toward the group’s “Congregational-based Community Organizing” programs. Read More

Jewish Funds for Justice (JFSJ), the George Soros-funded activist group that recently made headlines for its high-profile war against Fox News host Glenn Beck, has received over $1 million from the UJA-Federation of New York since 2008.

Over the past three years at least seven Federation grants have been awarded to the JFSJ, ranging from $75,000 to $219,000. Some of that money has gone toward JFSJ’s Hurricane Katrina disaster relief efforts. But, according to Federation spokesperson Samantha Kessler, the bulk of the funding has gone toward the group’s “Congregational-based Community Organizing” programs.

“Congressional-based Community Organizing” is pretty much exactly what it sounds like – Chicago-style community organizing, except in the synagogue. According to the Federation website, the JFSJ program was designed to “develop strong and effective social-justice networks in up to eight Manhattan synagogues.”

In an email, Kessler explained that the goal was to “strengthen synagogues by building meaningful relationships among their members, attracting additional Jews and Jewish families to congregational life, and developing more robust leadership for synagogues.” The Federation felt that the JFSJ “had a proven model for congregation-based community organizing that provided a unique way to accomplish this.”

The JFSJ’s community organizing expertise may explain how it was able to quickly coordinate 400 rabbis to sign an anti-Glenn Beck letter published in the Wall Street Journal in January. The letter was criticized by COMMENTARY as well as prominent members of the Jewish community, who called it a partisan attack.

“[The Anti-Defamation League] does not support this misguided attempt to embarrass Fox News,” ADL Director Abe Foxman told the Forward. “[S]urely there are greater threats to the Jewish people than the likes of Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch, who are professed and stalwart friends of the Jewish people and Israel.”

In a letter to the Forward, Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, wrote that, “One need not minimize the danger of Beck’s rhetoric in order to wonder why JFSJ — which has significant credibility among progressives — has not mounted an equally passionate critique of misbegotten analogies on the left. Is this about principle, or is it about politics?”

Despite calling itself a non-partisan group, JFSJ officials and members often weigh in on politics on the organization’s blog.

In one post, the group’s Senior Vice President of Philanthropic Giving Jeremy Burton dubbed President George W. Bush “our hatemonger-in-chief,” and accused him of “spreading fear and loathing of other Americans as a tool for political gain.” In another, JFSJ’s Chief Strategy Officer Mik Moore referred to Tea Party rallies as “tea bagging protests.” Other posts supported calls to impeach Bush and labeled former Vice President Dick Cheney a racist.

Needless to say, it’s difficult to imagine the federation funding a right-wing activist group that made similar statements about President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, and ran a prominent campaign targeting MSNBC.

The appeal of Jewish Funds for Justice’s work has been rooted in their commitment to helping the poor and providing Jewish communities with a distinctive way to help. This has given them credibility and made them an attractive venue for Jewish philanthropic giving even among mainstream groups like Federation whose major donors may not share the Funds’ leftwing sensibilities.

However, their decision to go political in a big way with an attack on Beck and FOX News makes it more difficult for the group to position itself as a non-controversial forum for Jewish charitible fundraising. The point is, if they are going to be soliciting and getting huge grants from mainstream groups like federations, then maybe they should stick to what they do best and stay out of politics.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Some federations have alienated members of the Jewish community based on controversial funding decisions, such as the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington financing of the anti-Israel Theater J. And the issue isn’t just the funding, it’s also the lack of transparency. Federations are already considered to be in decline due to most donors preferring boutique causes rather than umbrella philanthropies. But unless federations reestablish trust with the Jewish community, this trend will only get worse.

Read Less

So Long, Miranda

The left is already up-in-arms claiming that President Obama is leading “Bush’s third term,” and this news isn’t likely to dispel that notion. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Obama administration is scrapping Miranda rights for terror suspects, which is a step farther than Bush went with his counter-terrorism policies:

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades. …

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”

This is a necessary response to the Obama administration’s law-enforcement approach to terrorism. After Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was arrested, he was read his Miranda rights in less than an hour, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Once the rights are read, it becomes more difficult to collect crucial information from the terror suspect that could impact national security.

Of course, the decision has the left predictably infuriated.

“The number of instances in which Obama has violently breached his own alleged principles when it comes to the War on Terror and the rule of law are too numerous to chronicle in one place,” wrote Glenn Greenwald at Salon today. “No rational person can argue that or even tries to any longer. It’s just a banal expression of indisputable fact.”

Like many on the left, Obama was a vocal opponent of Bush’s terror policies. But the president is learning, begrudgingly, that his old philosophy just doesn’t mesh with reality.

The left is already up-in-arms claiming that President Obama is leading “Bush’s third term,” and this news isn’t likely to dispel that notion. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Obama administration is scrapping Miranda rights for terror suspects, which is a step farther than Bush went with his counter-terrorism policies:

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades. …

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”

This is a necessary response to the Obama administration’s law-enforcement approach to terrorism. After Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was arrested, he was read his Miranda rights in less than an hour, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Once the rights are read, it becomes more difficult to collect crucial information from the terror suspect that could impact national security.

Of course, the decision has the left predictably infuriated.

“The number of instances in which Obama has violently breached his own alleged principles when it comes to the War on Terror and the rule of law are too numerous to chronicle in one place,” wrote Glenn Greenwald at Salon today. “No rational person can argue that or even tries to any longer. It’s just a banal expression of indisputable fact.”

Like many on the left, Obama was a vocal opponent of Bush’s terror policies. But the president is learning, begrudgingly, that his old philosophy just doesn’t mesh with reality.

Read Less

The Most Popular Military on the Planet

Bryan Preston at the Pajamas Tatler has a good catch from an interview Obama did while he was in El Salvador. Addressing the international character of the operations in Libya, the president said this:

And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time. (Emphasis Preston’s)

When you think about it, “kinetic military action” probably is the kind of miscellany a military can be volunteered for by others. Presumably the U.S. armed forces got the most votes in the Military Idol competition. At least they won’t be voted off the island.

Obama’s string of preposterous miscues with the Libya operation sends a different signal from his strategic collapse on missile defense in Europe or his counterproductive inaction on Iran. In the case of Libya, he’s not shying away from confrontation; he’s deploying force and causing it to go “kinetic.” If he genuinely sees himself as presiding over a military that can be volunteered into combat by others, there is more danger here than we thought.

Bryan Preston at the Pajamas Tatler has a good catch from an interview Obama did while he was in El Salvador. Addressing the international character of the operations in Libya, the president said this:

And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time. (Emphasis Preston’s)

When you think about it, “kinetic military action” probably is the kind of miscellany a military can be volunteered for by others. Presumably the U.S. armed forces got the most votes in the Military Idol competition. At least they won’t be voted off the island.

Obama’s string of preposterous miscues with the Libya operation sends a different signal from his strategic collapse on missile defense in Europe or his counterproductive inaction on Iran. In the case of Libya, he’s not shying away from confrontation; he’s deploying force and causing it to go “kinetic.” If he genuinely sees himself as presiding over a military that can be volunteered into combat by others, there is more danger here than we thought.

Read Less

RE: The Libyan Kinetic Military Action

Rick does a fine job of highlighting the Obama administration’s use of phrases like “kinetic military action, particularly on the front end” in lieu of the word “war.” But this silly semantic game, which serves to obfuscate rather than to clarify, reveals two things that are, I think, disturbing.

The first is that confused language is often a manifestation of confused thoughts, and that’s certainly what we have with the Obama administration’s strategy (I used the word loosely) in Libya.

The bombing has begun but don’t think for a moment we’re in a war; it’s a front-loaded kinetic action. The president says the stated policy of the U.S. is to remove Muammar Qadaffi from power — but he also says that the purpose of the military intervention isn’t to remove Qadaffi from power. Never the twain shall meet. We’re told a coaltion is running the war, yet the coalition members themselves have no idea who’s in charge. Some want a unified NATO command while others do not. Basic questions are still unresolved. It’s therefore no wonder that the architects of a muddled and confusing military strategy would use language that is muddled and confusing to describe it.

Second, the president, having committed the U.S. to the conflict in Libya, is deeply ambivalent about it. He’s in, but only partially in, and boy does he want out. He’s like a guy who felt obligated to propose to a woman and regreted it the minute the words had passed his lips.

In this Libyan conflict, Mr. Obama went looking for an exit strategy the moment he found himself on the on-ramp. The animating goal isn’t success; it’s disengagement. Right now what Barack Obama wants above all is for the United States to take a back seat in this conflict, to follow rather than to lead, to do as little as possible as soon as possible. Perhaps the reason he doesn’t want to address the nation is he doesn’t really know what to say to it, because he really doesn’t know what to do.

It’s possible that the Qadaffi regime is fragile enough that it will fall with the slightest push. Or not. But the president has certainly made a hash of things so far. I said at the outset of this administration that it would find that governing is harder than campaiging. But it need not be this much harder.

Rick does a fine job of highlighting the Obama administration’s use of phrases like “kinetic military action, particularly on the front end” in lieu of the word “war.” But this silly semantic game, which serves to obfuscate rather than to clarify, reveals two things that are, I think, disturbing.

The first is that confused language is often a manifestation of confused thoughts, and that’s certainly what we have with the Obama administration’s strategy (I used the word loosely) in Libya.

The bombing has begun but don’t think for a moment we’re in a war; it’s a front-loaded kinetic action. The president says the stated policy of the U.S. is to remove Muammar Qadaffi from power — but he also says that the purpose of the military intervention isn’t to remove Qadaffi from power. Never the twain shall meet. We’re told a coaltion is running the war, yet the coalition members themselves have no idea who’s in charge. Some want a unified NATO command while others do not. Basic questions are still unresolved. It’s therefore no wonder that the architects of a muddled and confusing military strategy would use language that is muddled and confusing to describe it.

Second, the president, having committed the U.S. to the conflict in Libya, is deeply ambivalent about it. He’s in, but only partially in, and boy does he want out. He’s like a guy who felt obligated to propose to a woman and regreted it the minute the words had passed his lips.

In this Libyan conflict, Mr. Obama went looking for an exit strategy the moment he found himself on the on-ramp. The animating goal isn’t success; it’s disengagement. Right now what Barack Obama wants above all is for the United States to take a back seat in this conflict, to follow rather than to lead, to do as little as possible as soon as possible. Perhaps the reason he doesn’t want to address the nation is he doesn’t really know what to say to it, because he really doesn’t know what to do.

It’s possible that the Qadaffi regime is fragile enough that it will fall with the slightest push. Or not. But the president has certainly made a hash of things so far. I said at the outset of this administration that it would find that governing is harder than campaiging. But it need not be this much harder.

Read Less

Did Palin Zone Out on Obama and Israel? Nope.

Sarah Palin is a magnet for criticism and sometimes deserves it. But not always. Palin’s trip to Israel this week was, like everything else she does, interpreted as part of a pre-presidential candidacy tour. Thus, it was no surprise that her statements while in Israel and about it afterward generated the usual scorn that anything she says produces. An on-line discussion at Politico about her comments was headlined on its homepage as concerning “Palin’s idiotic comments about Israel.” So how “idiotic” were they? The correct answer is not very.

During an interview on FOX News’s Greta Van Susteren show Wednesday night, Palin criticized President Obama for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel: “I think there are many in Israel who would feel even more comfortable knowing that there is an even greater commitment from those who presently occupy the White House that they are there on Israel’s side, and that our most valuable ally in that region can count on us. Why is it in that the past, too often, the U.S. government has told Israel that they’re the ones, the Jewish community, that they need to back up, they need to back off or there will never be peace. Why aren’t we putting our foot down with the other side and telling the Palestinians, If you’re serious about peace, quit the shellacking and the shelling. Quit the bombing of innocent Israelis.” Read More

Sarah Palin is a magnet for criticism and sometimes deserves it. But not always. Palin’s trip to Israel this week was, like everything else she does, interpreted as part of a pre-presidential candidacy tour. Thus, it was no surprise that her statements while in Israel and about it afterward generated the usual scorn that anything she says produces. An on-line discussion at Politico about her comments was headlined on its homepage as concerning “Palin’s idiotic comments about Israel.” So how “idiotic” were they? The correct answer is not very.

During an interview on FOX News’s Greta Van Susteren show Wednesday night, Palin criticized President Obama for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel: “I think there are many in Israel who would feel even more comfortable knowing that there is an even greater commitment from those who presently occupy the White House that they are there on Israel’s side, and that our most valuable ally in that region can count on us. Why is it in that the past, too often, the U.S. government has told Israel that they’re the ones, the Jewish community, that they need to back up, they need to back off or there will never be peace. Why aren’t we putting our foot down with the other side and telling the Palestinians, If you’re serious about peace, quit the shellacking and the shelling. Quit the bombing of innocent Israelis.”

Far from stupid, these remarks are actually very much to the point about the willingness of this administration, and some of its predecessors to pressure Israel to make concessions when the real obstacle to peace is what it always has been: the Palestinians unwillingness to make peace or to give up terrorism.

But to supposedly smart Americans, the really “stupid” thing she said was her criticism of Obama’s stands about Israel settlement building. “President Obama was inappropriate to intervene in a zoning issue in Israel. Let Israel decide their zoning issues themselves.”

Her reference to settlement building as a mere “zoning issue” is considered by some to be more evidence that Palin doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

It is true that the question of whether Jews have a right to live and build in parts of their ancient capital or the West Bank is a bit more complicated than the conventional disputes about building a parking lot, a business, or even a house of worship in a residential area that roil American cities and suburbs. The question of the legitimacy or the wisdom (and these are two separate issues) of settlements is not just a matter of “zoning;” it is an existential question that goes to the very heart of whether or not there ought to be a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be drawn.

But the scoffing at Palin is a bit overblown because, in the end, the question of where and where not to build is one that must be decided by Israel’s people. In that sense it is very much a local issue that the president was wrong to stick his nose into. If Palin thinks of it in terms of zoning, it may be because, unlike Obama, she takes it for granted that Jews have the right to be in their own country and build wherever it is legally permissible to do so. Twice in his first two years in office Obama picked very nasty and public fights with Israel’s government over the building of homes in existing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. These arguments were not only an unprecedented attack on Israel from an American president on the issue of Jerusalem. They were both unnecessary and had the effect of making peace negotiations with the Palestinians less likely.

So when you look at it from that perspective, maybe it’s Obama and not Palin who has been the “idiotic” one when it comes to Israeli building policies.

Read Less

Let’s Work Closely with the Rebels

The White House and Africa Command have insisted that we are not coordinating air strikes with the Libyan rebels. I suppose it all depends on the meaning of “coordinate.” The Los Angeles Times reveals:

Leaders of the opposition national council in rebel-controlled eastern Libya say they are making regular, secure contacts with allied military representatives in Europe  to help commanders identify targets for the U.S.-led air assault.

The contacts, conducted through the council’s civilian representatives in France  and elsewhere in Europe, are made by secure satellite telephone connections, according to spokesmen for the rebel leadership in its eastern base of Benghazi.

This is not the only channel for communication between the rebels and the coalition. The Times also notes that “CIA operatives and equipment were sent into rebel-held areas to monitor the opposition forces’ activity even before the air bombardment began.”

What apparently isn’t happening at the moment is direct military-to-military contacts between armed rebels and the coalition air forces, because there are not any American Special Forces or tactical air coordinators on the ground in Libya—at least that we’ve heard about. That needs to change, as I’ve said before.

I cannot fathom why Obama still clings to the fiction that we are only in Libya to impose a ceasefire and that this is unrelated to the ouster of Qaddafi, something that he has repeatedly called for. The result is that we do have some coordination with the rebels but not as much as we need to make them into a more cohesive and effecting fighting force.

One of the excuses we sometimes hear for this policy is that we don’t really know what the rebels are about. That may be true, although what we have heard so far is encouraging—as another L.A. Times story notes, “the U.S. intelligence community has found no organized presence of Al Qaeda  or its allies among the Libyan opposition.” Instead, the face of the opposition has been liberal professionals such as the expatriate economist who is the finance minister in the rebel government. No doubt there are other, less savory elements in the opposition, and there is much we don’t know about them. But the best way to find out—and to shape them in a more constructive and democratic direction—is to send more representatives to work with them.

Instead the administration seems to hope that Qaddafi will be toppled by some deus ex machine—a palace coup or the like. I hope so too. But hope isn’t a policy.

The White House and Africa Command have insisted that we are not coordinating air strikes with the Libyan rebels. I suppose it all depends on the meaning of “coordinate.” The Los Angeles Times reveals:

Leaders of the opposition national council in rebel-controlled eastern Libya say they are making regular, secure contacts with allied military representatives in Europe  to help commanders identify targets for the U.S.-led air assault.

The contacts, conducted through the council’s civilian representatives in France  and elsewhere in Europe, are made by secure satellite telephone connections, according to spokesmen for the rebel leadership in its eastern base of Benghazi.

This is not the only channel for communication between the rebels and the coalition. The Times also notes that “CIA operatives and equipment were sent into rebel-held areas to monitor the opposition forces’ activity even before the air bombardment began.”

What apparently isn’t happening at the moment is direct military-to-military contacts between armed rebels and the coalition air forces, because there are not any American Special Forces or tactical air coordinators on the ground in Libya—at least that we’ve heard about. That needs to change, as I’ve said before.

I cannot fathom why Obama still clings to the fiction that we are only in Libya to impose a ceasefire and that this is unrelated to the ouster of Qaddafi, something that he has repeatedly called for. The result is that we do have some coordination with the rebels but not as much as we need to make them into a more cohesive and effecting fighting force.

One of the excuses we sometimes hear for this policy is that we don’t really know what the rebels are about. That may be true, although what we have heard so far is encouraging—as another L.A. Times story notes, “the U.S. intelligence community has found no organized presence of Al Qaeda  or its allies among the Libyan opposition.” Instead, the face of the opposition has been liberal professionals such as the expatriate economist who is the finance minister in the rebel government. No doubt there are other, less savory elements in the opposition, and there is much we don’t know about them. But the best way to find out—and to shape them in a more constructive and democratic direction—is to send more representatives to work with them.

Instead the administration seems to hope that Qaddafi will be toppled by some deus ex machine—a palace coup or the like. I hope so too. But hope isn’t a policy.

Read Less

The JTA, ZOA Remember Elizabeth Taylor

Elizabeth Taylor was notorious for many things – marriage-hopping, garishness, those eyes, her numerous brushes with death. But at one point, the woman who famously played the Queen of the Nile was actually barred from entering Egypt because of her conversion to Judaism and her support for Zionist causes.

According to a July 20, 1962 article in the JTA, the film Cleopatra ran into a major roadblock after the actress was banned from the country “in accordance with the Arab League’s ban on all persons aiding Israel.”

“[T]he multimillion dollar film, “Cleopatra,” practically completed in Rome except for Egyptian location shots, may have to be finished in some other country,” the JTA reported at the time.

Taylor’s movies were also prohibited from playing in Arab countries, after the actress purchased $100,000 in Israeli bonds in 1959. (Egypt subsequently removed Taylor from its blacklist shortly after Cleopatra was released, because it decided the film was “good publicity” for the country).

The JTA, which unearthed numerous Taylor articles from its archives yesterday, has more information about the actress’s activism on its website.

The Zionist Organization of America also issued a statement of mourning today for Taylor, according to Arutz Sheva. The ZOA noted that the actress “had been converted to Judaism in 1959 by a former ZOA President, Reform Rabbi Max Nussbaum.”

Elizabeth Taylor was notorious for many things – marriage-hopping, garishness, those eyes, her numerous brushes with death. But at one point, the woman who famously played the Queen of the Nile was actually barred from entering Egypt because of her conversion to Judaism and her support for Zionist causes.

According to a July 20, 1962 article in the JTA, the film Cleopatra ran into a major roadblock after the actress was banned from the country “in accordance with the Arab League’s ban on all persons aiding Israel.”

“[T]he multimillion dollar film, “Cleopatra,” practically completed in Rome except for Egyptian location shots, may have to be finished in some other country,” the JTA reported at the time.

Taylor’s movies were also prohibited from playing in Arab countries, after the actress purchased $100,000 in Israeli bonds in 1959. (Egypt subsequently removed Taylor from its blacklist shortly after Cleopatra was released, because it decided the film was “good publicity” for the country).

The JTA, which unearthed numerous Taylor articles from its archives yesterday, has more information about the actress’s activism on its website.

The Zionist Organization of America also issued a statement of mourning today for Taylor, according to Arutz Sheva. The ZOA noted that the actress “had been converted to Judaism in 1959 by a former ZOA President, Reform Rabbi Max Nussbaum.”

Read Less

Obama’s Presidency Still Hangs By a Thread, But for a Different Reason

Nine days ago, I wrote a post called “Obama’s Presidency Hangs by a Thread.” I said then that Obama “is largely notable by his absence, which is itself the result not only of not knowing what to do but also apparently believing it is better for the world if he remains a minor player as a bloodbath approaches in the Middle East and something more ominous seems to be approaching in Japan.”

What a difference nine days makes—or not. Because the Obama presidency is again hanging by a thread, but this time the thread is not the result of inaction. It is, rather, the result of taking action so incomprehensible and incoherent that even Obama’s own people are finding it impossible to defend or explain (thus the already notorious coinage yesterday of the term “kinetic military action” to describe the firing of 170 missiles and the destruction from the air of Libyan facilities).

As of now, there’s no reason anyone would cast a vote in 2012 directly based on what happens in Libya. But handling something this peculiarly means the president is on the verge of convincing all kinds of people that he’s either not the man they voted for (on the Left) or that he’s in over his head (not only people who dislike him already but independents who took a chance on him in 2008).

And there are other gloomy portents on the horizon. Rasmussen Reports revealed yesterday that 23 percent of Americans think the country is on the right track. The right-track number is among the most important in all of polling; if it’s not at least above 40 at the time of an election, an incumbent president does not have a prayer of winning a second term. It’s a very long time (in polling terms) till Election Day 2012, but without question, Obama has a climb ahead of him.

And here’s why that right-track number might not rise: Macroadvisers, an economic forecasting firm, predicted that first-quarter growth this year would be 4 percent. This morning it revised that estimate downward—to 2.1 percent. It’s really simple: If the economy remains anemic while the world seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, The One will be The One Term no matter who runs against him.

But if Obama decides to get serious and decides the U.S. must succeed in Libya, and ceases looking feckless and unprepared for the consequences of his own actions, then the thread from which his presidency is hanging will reconstitute itself into a lifeline.

Nine days ago, I wrote a post called “Obama’s Presidency Hangs by a Thread.” I said then that Obama “is largely notable by his absence, which is itself the result not only of not knowing what to do but also apparently believing it is better for the world if he remains a minor player as a bloodbath approaches in the Middle East and something more ominous seems to be approaching in Japan.”

What a difference nine days makes—or not. Because the Obama presidency is again hanging by a thread, but this time the thread is not the result of inaction. It is, rather, the result of taking action so incomprehensible and incoherent that even Obama’s own people are finding it impossible to defend or explain (thus the already notorious coinage yesterday of the term “kinetic military action” to describe the firing of 170 missiles and the destruction from the air of Libyan facilities).

As of now, there’s no reason anyone would cast a vote in 2012 directly based on what happens in Libya. But handling something this peculiarly means the president is on the verge of convincing all kinds of people that he’s either not the man they voted for (on the Left) or that he’s in over his head (not only people who dislike him already but independents who took a chance on him in 2008).

And there are other gloomy portents on the horizon. Rasmussen Reports revealed yesterday that 23 percent of Americans think the country is on the right track. The right-track number is among the most important in all of polling; if it’s not at least above 40 at the time of an election, an incumbent president does not have a prayer of winning a second term. It’s a very long time (in polling terms) till Election Day 2012, but without question, Obama has a climb ahead of him.

And here’s why that right-track number might not rise: Macroadvisers, an economic forecasting firm, predicted that first-quarter growth this year would be 4 percent. This morning it revised that estimate downward—to 2.1 percent. It’s really simple: If the economy remains anemic while the world seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, The One will be The One Term no matter who runs against him.

But if Obama decides to get serious and decides the U.S. must succeed in Libya, and ceases looking feckless and unprepared for the consequences of his own actions, then the thread from which his presidency is hanging will reconstitute itself into a lifeline.

Read Less

Palestinians Killing Jews While Other Arabs Seek Freedom

In my New York Post column today, I wonder at the contrast between Arabs throughout the Middle East demanding change, while in Israel, Palestinians are keeping quiet as terrorist attacks and rocket launches take center stage:

Outside Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, the people of the Middle East are telling their potentates they want something better. They want something more. They want a future. And the Palestinians? Seems like they want blood.

The whole piece, again, is here.

In my New York Post column today, I wonder at the contrast between Arabs throughout the Middle East demanding change, while in Israel, Palestinians are keeping quiet as terrorist attacks and rocket launches take center stage:

Outside Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, the people of the Middle East are telling their potentates they want something better. They want something more. They want a future. And the Palestinians? Seems like they want blood.

The whole piece, again, is here.

Read Less

UN to Send Human Rights Investigator to Iran

Of course the real question is, will this investigator actually get inside the country?

The UN Human Rights Council agreed on Thursday to a U.S.-backed proposal to establish a UN human rights investigator for Iran, the first in a decade.

The 47-member Geneva forum approved the resolution by 22 votes in favor, 7 against and 14 abstentions, its president, Thai Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, announced.

The UN hasn’t sent a human rights rapporteur to Iran since 2002, when the Iranian government became uncooperative with the human rights office.

While the approval of a human rights investigator is a symbolic achievement – the text of the resolution reportedly condemned the recent increase of death penalty sentences in Iran, as well as other human rights violations – there isn’t much recourse for the council if the Iranian government refuses to work with the rapporteur.

In other UNHRC news, the Jerusalem Post reports that the UN was set to vote on six resolutions involving Israel, including four that “speak of illegal Israeli activity and human rights violations.” Needless to say, there’s probably no mention of the recent terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel. No word yet on the outcome of the resolutions, though the Post said they were “expected to pass.”

Of course the real question is, will this investigator actually get inside the country?

The UN Human Rights Council agreed on Thursday to a U.S.-backed proposal to establish a UN human rights investigator for Iran, the first in a decade.

The 47-member Geneva forum approved the resolution by 22 votes in favor, 7 against and 14 abstentions, its president, Thai Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, announced.

The UN hasn’t sent a human rights rapporteur to Iran since 2002, when the Iranian government became uncooperative with the human rights office.

While the approval of a human rights investigator is a symbolic achievement – the text of the resolution reportedly condemned the recent increase of death penalty sentences in Iran, as well as other human rights violations – there isn’t much recourse for the council if the Iranian government refuses to work with the rapporteur.

In other UNHRC news, the Jerusalem Post reports that the UN was set to vote on six resolutions involving Israel, including four that “speak of illegal Israeli activity and human rights violations.” Needless to say, there’s probably no mention of the recent terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel. No word yet on the outcome of the resolutions, though the Post said they were “expected to pass.”

Read Less

The Libyan Kinetic Military Action

At the State Department press conference yesterday, acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner was asked a straightforward question:

QUESTION: Are we at war in Libya?

MR. TONER: We are implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973. It is clearly a combat operation or combat mission. As the President made very clear, there will be no U.S. ground force involved in this and that the U.S. role is upfront – frontloaded, if you will, on this. But that’s going to obviously recede into a more – a broader international coalition as we move forward to implement the no-fly zone.

QUESTION: So you would not say we’re at war? Read More

At the State Department press conference yesterday, acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner was asked a straightforward question:

QUESTION: Are we at war in Libya?

MR. TONER: We are implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973. It is clearly a combat operation or combat mission. As the President made very clear, there will be no U.S. ground force involved in this and that the U.S. role is upfront – frontloaded, if you will, on this. But that’s going to obviously recede into a more – a broader international coalition as we move forward to implement the no-fly zone.

QUESTION: So you would not say we’re at war?

MR. TONER: I think we’ve – you love these sweeping characterizations and I appreciate it.

QUESTION: This isn’t about what I love or do not love. (Laughter.) But the question on the table is: Are we at war in Libya or not?

MR. TONER: I would say it’s a combat mission, clearly. But beyond that, you can parse that out.

So it’s not a war; it’s a frontloaded combat mission that’s obviously going to recede into a coalition.

Later in the afternoon, in a press briefing on Air Force One as it returned to Washington, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes was asked “if it’s not a war, what’s the right way to characterize this operation?”

MR. RHODES: … I think what we’ve said is that this is a military operation that will be limited in both duration and scope. Our contribution to this military operation that is enforcing a U.N. Security Council resolution is going to be limited — time limited to the front end, and then we’ll shift to a support role. …

Q But it’s not going to war, then?

MR. RHODES: Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. …

So it’s not a war; it’s a kinetic military action that is time-limited and contribution-limited on the front end.

Byron York notes other administration officials using “kinetic” to avoid the word “war.” John Hinderaker calls it emblematic of the administration’s confusion about its role. Combining the Toner/Rhodes formulations, however, it’s clear we are simply in a frontloaded, time-limited, contribution-limited kinetic combat mission that’s obviously going to recede into a coalition, as soon as we parse out who’s in charge of the backloaded part of the … war.

Read Less

NYT Contradicts Itself on Palestinian Violence

Usually, you have to get outside sources to debunk New York Times articles minimizing anti-Israel incitement and violence. After the Gaza flotilla, Isabel Kershner slanted early reporting with an uncritical quote about how “it was inconceivable” that the passengers were armed. Disproving that required photos and film released by the IDF. She made a similar move when a Palestinian New Year’s Eve protest turned violent, declaring outright that a woman had died because of tear gas inhalation. Addressing that one required investigating the medical conditions that actually killed the woman. When Fatah held elections Kershner described the winners as “moderates.” To see why that was wrong required going to the Jerusalem Post.

You get the pattern. The New York Times publishes something and readers have to go elsewhere to find out why it’s wrong. That’s what makes Kershner and Goodman article on the Jerusalem bus bombing so special. Here’s the lede:

A small bomb exploded at a crowded bus stop outside Jerusalem’s main bus station on Wednesday, killing one woman and leaving at least 24 other people injured, two seriously. It was the first bombing inside Jerusalem in four years.

Here’s paragraph 15 of the 16 paragraph article:

Two weeks ago, a municipal worker lost his hand when a pipe bomb exploded in a trash bag in the southern section of Jerusalem. There were no claims of responsibility or arrests in that case.

Not to belabor the obvious, but a pipe bomb planted on the side of a Jerusalem road counts as a previous “bombing inside Jerusalem,” especially when the subject is a second bomb planted on the side of a Jerusalem road.

A decision has apparently been made to escalate the violence against Israel, and Israel will eventually have to retaliate. When that happens the media spin will be somewhat split. Some of the coverage will imply that the Palestinians have exhausted their numinous patience with “the stalled peace process,” and can’t help but lash out. Other stories will insist that the Palestinians are merely reacting to an Israeli-triggered “cycle of violence,” and can’t help but lash out. Glossing over Palestinian violence at the beginning of the escalation is critical to making both narratives work.

Usually, you have to get outside sources to debunk New York Times articles minimizing anti-Israel incitement and violence. After the Gaza flotilla, Isabel Kershner slanted early reporting with an uncritical quote about how “it was inconceivable” that the passengers were armed. Disproving that required photos and film released by the IDF. She made a similar move when a Palestinian New Year’s Eve protest turned violent, declaring outright that a woman had died because of tear gas inhalation. Addressing that one required investigating the medical conditions that actually killed the woman. When Fatah held elections Kershner described the winners as “moderates.” To see why that was wrong required going to the Jerusalem Post.

You get the pattern. The New York Times publishes something and readers have to go elsewhere to find out why it’s wrong. That’s what makes Kershner and Goodman article on the Jerusalem bus bombing so special. Here’s the lede:

A small bomb exploded at a crowded bus stop outside Jerusalem’s main bus station on Wednesday, killing one woman and leaving at least 24 other people injured, two seriously. It was the first bombing inside Jerusalem in four years.

Here’s paragraph 15 of the 16 paragraph article:

Two weeks ago, a municipal worker lost his hand when a pipe bomb exploded in a trash bag in the southern section of Jerusalem. There were no claims of responsibility or arrests in that case.

Not to belabor the obvious, but a pipe bomb planted on the side of a Jerusalem road counts as a previous “bombing inside Jerusalem,” especially when the subject is a second bomb planted on the side of a Jerusalem road.

A decision has apparently been made to escalate the violence against Israel, and Israel will eventually have to retaliate. When that happens the media spin will be somewhat split. Some of the coverage will imply that the Palestinians have exhausted their numinous patience with “the stalled peace process,” and can’t help but lash out. Other stories will insist that the Palestinians are merely reacting to an Israeli-triggered “cycle of violence,” and can’t help but lash out. Glossing over Palestinian violence at the beginning of the escalation is critical to making both narratives work.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.