Avoiding Palin=Avoiding Victory

Want to know how dysfunctional the GOP still is? Here’s Politico’s Ben Smith about some recent Sarah Palin traveling/speaking. First in Seneca Falls June 5:

She is to participate in a march to raise money for autism research Sunday in Westchester and accept an award on Long Island for her work on behalf of people with developmental disabilities.

But as the first woman on a national Republican ticket, the party’s top grassroots star, and an obvious contender for the 2012 nomination, she’s a sought-after guest whose every move will be studied for political intent. And for, some of the buzz is too good to pass up. She’s expected to join former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at a Yankee game. And though she riled Washington allies earlier this year by turning down an invitation to headline this week’s joint fundraiser of the House and Senate Republican campaign committees in Washington, she may now stop by the event, a source said, though Stapleton declined to comment on her schedule.

A “star,” a “contender,” etc. Both things she is, of course. Then, Smith again on a speech Palin made that is “making the rounds.”

She opens the introduction praising Reagan’s son, a talk radio guy, for his willingness “to screw the political correctness that some would expect him to try to adhere to.”

She blasts “self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media.”

And she suggests Obama is trying to impose big government as a tool of control.

“We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it,” she says. “And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people.”

CNN had a write-up, but a reader notes the speech — perhaps because of that killer time difference — didn’t get the coverage I think it probably deserved.

This would all be a great prelude to her speech at the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee… from which she’s apparently been disinvited. Again. The reason? She’s too popular. More from Ben Smith:

After being invited — for a second time — to speak to the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Palin was told abruptly Saturday night that she would not be allowed to address the thousands of Republicans there after all.

The Alaska governor may now skip the dinner altogether, and her allies are miffed at what they see as a slight from the congressional wing of the Republican Party.

The reason given for the snub, said a Palin aide, was that NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions was concerned about not wanting to upstage former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the fundraising gala’s keynote speaker.

“A great deal of effort has been put into this fundraising event, and Speaker Gingrich has gone above and beyond the call of duty,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain. “It is our hope that Gov. Palin will attend the dinner and be recognized, but we understand if her busy schedule doesn’t permit her to do so.”

Unbelievable. Or actually, pretty believable. The GOP has its biggest fundraiser of the year, and they exclude their most popular conservative brand-bearer right because she’s too popular and will attract too much attention. Possibly, she’ll even (gasp!) raise too much money, make the GOP too successful, etc. You get the point. The Republican party is desperate to remain hidden from view, content only when it shoots itself in both feet before running its political footraces.

Look, I get it. I’m a Jets fan. But political irrelevance isn’t an option here. Barack Obama just told an Egyptian (and global) audience that Israel was founded by oppressed colonialist European Jews essentially looking to take their anger out on someone. Hillary Clinton just told everyone who would listen that there are no more babies or bedrooms allowed in cities everyone agrees will be part of Israel. This is no time for Republicans to get used to losing.

Groom Palin, don’t avoid her. She has wide appeal, good experience, and more gloves-off gutsiness than most of her peers on either side of the isle. If the GOP thinks she’s lacking, work with her to improve her weaknesses. But this is ridiculous. Gingrich is a fantastic ideas man, and one the party should be listening to. But he is also associated with the past. There’s plenty of room for both of them.

Ignatius: Remove tax deductions for Israeli charities

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius writes today that the U.S. should remove tax exemptions from all charities that raise money for Israel, if that money may end up in the hands of someone who does not live within the 1967 borders.

Ignatius writes that those places are not in Israel, and they contribute to the settlement problem. His column, however, is absolutely riddled with evidence that he possesses not even a basic understanding of the settlement issue.

He quotes, approvingly, fringe leftwing group Americans for Peace Now’s Ori Nir: “Every dollar that goes to settlements makes Middle East peace that much harder to reach.”

Really? Every dollar? Always be suspicious when someone works for an organization that claims to be expert in something but cannot provide any statistics to support their arguments.

Ignatius goes on:

The Obama administration had an early confrontation over settlements when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Israel this month. She criticized Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in a largely Arab area of Jerusalem known as Silwan, just below the walls of the Old City. “Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful,” she said. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat responded that Clinton was mistaken and that the Palestinian houses had been built illegally.

How is that a settlement issue? It’s not–it just gave Ignatius a chance to complain about demolishing illegal Arab housing. Does Ignatius call the illegal Arab housing “settlements”? Of course not.

It then gets comical. Ignatius — believe it or not — actually wrote this paragraph:

A senior Jordanian official argued in an interview this week that Israeli pro-settlement groups such as Ir David are seeking to transform the demographic character of East Jerusalem so that a two-state solution with Jerusalem shared by Israeli and Palestinian governments will be impossible.

Stop the presses! An unnamed source in a largely Palestinian country complained about the Judaization of Jerusalem? This brand of ignorant Jew-baiting hasn’t occurred in at least ten minutes.

Predictably, Ignatius’s formulaic column eventually targets Hebron. He writes:

Hebron is another controversial area where settlements have received substantial tax-exempt gifts from America. According to IRS records, the Hebron Fund donated $860,637 in 2005 and $967,954 in 2006 for “social and educational well-being”; the fund’s online mission statement makes clear this is for Israeli settlers inside the city. The Hebron settlement of Kiryat Arba received $730,000 in 2006 from a group called American Friends of Yeshiva High School of Kiryat Arba.

Does he talk about Hebron being the oldest Jewish community in the world? Did he mention the 1929 anti-Jewish pogrom that resulted in mass murder of men, women, and children, as well as the forced expulsion of the Jewish community there? Or that Jews have moved back to Hebron to reclaim property that is rightfully theirs? Did he at least mention the holy site that Ignatius’s own Bible makes clear was purchased by Jews–the Cave of Machpelah?

The answers are: no, no, no, and no, respectively.

Now, the Washington Post handbook stipulates that this column formula must include a dishonest attack on Bibi Netanyahu, so let’s have it:

U.S.-Israeli friction over settlements is likely to increase as Israel forms a new conservative government under Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu. Indeed, the man he has selected as Israel’s next foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, just east of Bethlehem.

Surely, that’s not how he closes the column? Surely, he mentions that the anti-settlement liberal darling Ehud Barak is staying on as defense minister?

Of course not. The handbook never said anything about that.

Congrats to Douthat, and good for the Times

Word today is that the Atlantic’s Ross Douthat is going to replace Bill Kristol as the New York Times House Goy. If they’re expecting to convert him, though, as they did David Brooks, they are sorely mistaken. Ross is as intellectually stable as they come.

He’s also young, brilliant, and has an exceptional demeanor when he debates. His blog stands out often for what it lacks–character assassination, ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, creepy obsessions, or all of the above.

He is truly a class act, and is absolutely worth reading every time. He is also a Conservative reformer who refuses to jettison the pro-life wing of the party. Culturally, he’s Conservative, and intellectually, he’s a force to be reckoned with.

Every so often, the Times does something right. This is the second commendable thing in two days from the Times (yesterday’s quite awesome Purim column was sterling). A pat on the back to the Times, and the paper’s readers have something to look forward to. Mazel tov.

Yglesias is especially confused today

One of the issues with Matthew Yglesias is that he continually undermines his credibility because his posts are almost always peppered with ad hominem attacks. Today’s post begins thus: “Fresh from trying, and failing, to convince American Jews that Sarah Palin and John Hagee should be our guiding lights, Joe Lieberman’s decided to hop across the pond for a photo op with Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, who seems to be auditioning for the role of Foreign Minister.”

When it comes to Israel, the Juicebox Mafia tends to be almost always wrong, but you can tell they have at least a passing familiarity with the topic at hand. Not so, today. Yglesias — after the obligatory reference to Israel Beiteinu head Avigdor Lieberman as a racist (really, what would a left-wing post without calling someone a racist?) — suggests that Joe Lieberman’s visit is an attempt to work behind the scenes to swing the coalition-building process in Avigdor’s favor. Which begs the question: Does Yglesias have any idea how Israeli politics works?

The answer is an obvious “no, he does not.” Yglesias thinks that Joe posing for a public picture with Avigdor post-election will sway… who? Bibi? Livni? The Israeli public who already voted and have no say in the coalition negotiations? This is wacky stuff, even for Yglesias.

But then we get to the real problem Yglesias has with the photo-op:

There’s some debate as to whether or not the U.S. ought to intervene behind the scenes to try to nudge things in a more centrist direction. I can see the arguments on both sides of that, but why on earth would a U.S. politician intervene to nudge things in a less centrist direction? It’s ludicrous.

In other words, it’s OK to attempt to interfere in another nation’s politics as long as you manipulate the government toward the Left (and away from the Israeli public, I might add). But if you support the same guys the Israeli public supports on the Right, stay out. This is the mindset that Bill Clinton had when he interfered in the ‘96 Bibi-Peres election and again in the ‘99 Bibi-Barak election. It tore the Israeli body politic in half by taking some power away from the voters to choose their own leader and forcing Israelis to be either with Clinton or against Clinton (as always with Clinton, no one else mattered).

By the way, while this is par for the Yglesias course, what the heck has happened to Foreign Policy’s Josh Keating, who thought this was a noteworthy analysis?

Al-Arabiya playlist

I thought that President Obama snuck some troubling comments into his otherwise yawner of an interview with al-Arabiya, so here are the quotes I’d like everyone to remember:

I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

The notable phrase there is “there are some Israelis” who think peace is important. Actually, it’s pretty much all Israelis, even the dastardly settlers.

On respecting Islam:

I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

What!?! Lies! Next thing you know he’ll tell us his middle name is an Arabic name he got from his Muslim father. This is obviously the work of el Rushbo, who must be stopped!

From the desk of Edward Said:

America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

Pop quiz: In the last “20 or 30 years,” which new colonies has the US annexed?

On Iran:

Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Answer: Well, it certainly wasn’t a “no”.

Why Hamas must hate Stephen Walt and Jimmy Carter

Newsbusters has the transcript of Jimmy Carter’s interview with Meredith Vieira, in which Vieira asked Carter if Hamas can be trusted. Here’s his answer:

Yes, I do. I think they can. Because of their own self-interest. Not because they’re benevolent or kind or that sort of thing. But yes, I do. I think they can. And they’ve never betrayed any commitment that they’ve made to me or publicly, as a matter of fact.

Here’s one of the problems with the Left today. Jimmy Carter speaks for a lot of people, who believe that Hamas isn’t the problem–indeed, they speak for the Palestinian people. Carter goes on:

But there’s no way to have peace in the Middle East without having Hamas involved. You have to realize that Hamas is now in command of the Gaza Strip, which includes 100-, 1.5 million Palestinians, and they have substantial following even in the West Bank, which has 2.5 more million Palestinians. So Hamas have got to be involved.

Now, the honest truth is that ever since the beginning of the Peace Process, Hamas has torpedoed negotiations at will by attacking Israel and forcing the Israelis to demand better security as part of any deal. In fact, as many people are beginning to understand, Israeli security is the chief concern, because “security” simply means “peace”. You can’t have one without the other. So, no, Hamas cannot be involved, because security (peace) has always been impossible with Hamas around. Understanding the immediate and obvious connection between security and peace is what has removed people like Stephen Walt from the realm of realism.

If Israel could be guaranteed security, do Carter and Walt really believe that they’ll make a fuss over anti-Semitic attitudes? Israel doesn’t care what Arabs think–they have peace with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.–they just care what they do. Hamas, for its part, hasn’t been able to get Carter and Walt to listen to it. It reminds us of the old joke in which Osama bin Laden is angrier at the 9/11 “troofers” than anyone, because they refuse to give him credit for his greatest accomplishment.

Walt, hired to drive up ForeignPolicy.com’s traffic by antagonizing the pro-Israel contingent on the Web while stroking his fellow conspiracy theorists, has continued his obsession. It’s the settlements! Of course. The settlements are the main obstacle to peace. He concedes that “Palestinian rejectionists are a big problem too.” But this is what reminded us of that bin Laden joke. Hamas doesn’t believe the settlements are the problem. They don’t even think about settlements. Hamas thinks the whole country of Israel is one big settlement. Hebron? Hamas doesn’t care about Hebron. They want to liberate Tel-Aviv, Beersheva, and (all of) Jerusalem.

Yet poor Hamas can’t even get its advocates like Walt and Carter to parrot the right talking points.

Encouraging Israel and Syria to finalize their peace treaty — an agreement whose main elements have been in place for nearly a decade — would end Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas and drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Serious diplomatic engagement with Iran and a genuine willingness to satisfy Tehran’s security concerns (especially its fear of U.S.-sponsored regime change) would reduce its incentive to play the spoiler’s role over Palestine and make it easier for Israel to make the concessions that are necessary for peace. Lastly, the prospect of diminishing Iranian and Syrian backing would force Hamas to confront some hard choices — i.e., on recognizing Israel’s right to exist — especially if a two-state solution begins to take shape and they are seen as the principal impediment to it.

Got it? Iran doesn’t want Israel destroyed (again, this must be frustrating the heck out of a quite clear Ahmadinejad), it just wants an to end the Arab-Israeli conflict so it’s “security concerns” (getting a nuclear bomb) can be guaranteed. The Israel-Syrian peace treaty would quiet Syria (because they’ve always been able to be trusted when in control of the Golan Heights). And once they abandon Hamas, Hamas would be forced to recognize Israel’s right to exist, otherwise they might possibly one day maybe be seen as the “principal impediment” to peace (which is currently the Jewish minority in Hebron and those settlers in Gaza… oh wait).

This stuff sells books, which is why, to Hamas’ consternation, Carter and Walt continue peddling it.

Update on the Shoaib Chronicles

The latest development in the trial of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury (for background, see here and here) was a long wait with short shrift given to Shoaib.

The case’s last judge, Azizul Huq, had been promoted to the Bangladeshi Supreme Court. In his place, Bashir Ullah will now be presiding over the trial.

The worst part about this trial, right now, is the fact that only Shoaib seems to be taking it seriously. This trial comes on the heels of years of torture, imprisonment, harassment, physical abuse, kidnapping, and other brutal tactics used against Shoaib simply for being a Muslim Zionist. It’s not a joke, and they’ve made his life miserable.

Yet, on January 15, Bashir Ullah had no bearings on the case whatsoever. Here’s how Shoaib described it to me:

Public Prosecutor Mr. Ehsanul Huq Shomaji told the court that the witness could not appear. At this stage, the new judge wanted to know the back ground of the case. The Public Prosecutor informed him that it is a very sensitive case, related to religious sentiment of the people of Bangladesh, while the alleged attempted to travel to forbidden state of Israel. He also told the court that the alleged has hurt the religious sentiment of Muslims through his writings against Islam and madrassas.

After that, Bashir Ullah scheduled the next hearing for February 15. Shoaib is innocent. It’s apparent to the prosecution and the judges that, now that the Americans are watching, Shoaib can’t be killed, but there’s not enough evidence to convict him, either. So they’ll do neither.

Shoaib is confident that he’ll be set free when all this is over. I think he’s right, but I hope for his sake and the sake of his wonderful family that it’s sooner rather than later.

The Jewish Week as the shallow end of the pool

James Besser is without a doubt the biggest threat to Gary Rosenblatt’s impressive career in Jewish journalism. Besser is The New York Jewish Week’s “Washington correspondent,” and he is a uniquely shallow reporter. Rosenblatt is Besser’s editor, and may be going down with the ship as Besser continues to steer it in the direction of every iceberg he can find.

During the presidential campaign, Besser was two things: a spokesperson for the widely discredited J Street, and a broken record of weird anti-Sarah Palin material.

But The Jewish Week’s problems aren’t only with Besser. The newspaper’s editors have taken to writing shallow criticism of Jewish religious culture. That shallowness has set an example, and Besser’s latest article is a perfect, yet sad, example.

Besser writes that the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as Obama’s Mideast envoy will upset right-of-center Jewish groups because he might be “even-handed” as a broker of Arab-Israeli peace. He quotes Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman as saying

“the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn’t been ‘even handed’ — it has been supportive of Israel when it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support.

“So I’m concerned,” Foxman continued. “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”

But Besser moves on immediately to those who welcome a “fair” approach to the Middle East, without ever explaining how the concept of fairness and even-handedness can be and has been applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, he never examines the point. He simply pits the “pro-fairness” Jews against the “anti-fairness” Jews, like Foxman.

This is shallow reporting at its very worst. And it’s absolute malpractice for a Jewish journalist to treat the conflict this way. Even-handedness wasn’t the policy of the Bush administration, as Besser excitedly notes, but not because George W. Bush wasn’t a fair person. In fact, “fairness” has never been the US policy because fairness doesn’t mean what Besser thinks it means (visions of Inigo Montoya…).

When it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, one side is attempting to commit genocide and impose a fascistic Islamist rule over anyone they don’t kill. Israel is simply the front lines in the Islamist war against the West. Everyone is well aware of the Palestinians’ intentions, because they aren’t shy about it.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait–no right-wing ideologue, to say the least–tries to explain to his fellow Leftists that even-handedness is often immoral, ineffective, and even unfair. To wit, a fair appraisal of the Arab-Israeli conflict is what leads American leaders to take a more pro-Israel stance.

Besser tries to break it down for us in his own words:

Some Jewish leaders say the very qualities that may appeal to the Obama administration — Mitchell’s reputation as an honest broker — could spark unhappiness, if not outright opposition, from some pro-Israel groups.

Well, no. Being an “honest broker” does not mean you must side with the Hamas terrorists as much as with the democratic Israeli government. Quite the opposite. An “honest broker” would understand from the get-go that a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians would be dishonest.

Besser tries again:

That neutrality, more than any anti-Israel bias, is what’s likely to worry some pro-Israel leaders the most.

Wrong again. Israel is willing to sit down at the negotiating table with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria to achieve peace with the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat’s Fatah party is considered the more “moderate” Palestinian faction, but they have waged multiple intifadas against Israeli civilians, and engaged in a systematic campaign to destory Israel–since before the Six-Day War even created these “occupied” territories or settlements. Yet Israel will negotiate with Fatah without hesitation in peace conferences held in places like Sharm al-Sheikh.

Israel isn’t worried by “neutrality,” as Besser describes it, and certainly not more than anti-Israel bias. The “neutrality” and “fairness” that concerns pro-Israel groups is an artificial accounting that equates Israel’s foremost desires–peace and security–with those of the Arabs–kill all the Jews.

But Besser never even puts the pro-Israel view in context. So much for even-handedness.

Will Cast Lead reel in Shalit?

Reuters has a story today on how Israel is using its leverage from the lopsided Operation Cast Lead to advance negotiations over Gilat Shalit’s release.

The story notes that Israel has offered to open border crossings and ease its blockade on Gaza, but such steps will only be taken after Shalit’s return is well under way. After the ceasefire was enacted, Hamas officials could be heard goading Israel by saying, essentially, “Who knows where Shalit is now under all this rubble? We’ll do our best to track him down, but maybe you blew him up or something.”

Israel’s response has been to offer Hamas a few carrots now that they have been whacked with the stick. Reuters:

The Islamists demand amnesty for 1,400 inmates, including 450 senior militants. Israel long balked over the latter group, saying their release would sap Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s peace strategies by bolstering rival hardliners.

But after its 22-day offensive against the Hamas administration in Gaza, Israel appears to be more flexible.

“There is a sense that we can afford to relax our criteria on the prisoner release, as any benefit to Hamas would be more than offset by the damage it sustained in Gaza,” said one Israeli security official.

Those extra prisoners are indeed high-level and dangerous, but they still wouldn’t be able to get Hamas near it’s pre-war capacity. That means that if the deal for Shalit goes through, Israel will have achieved two significant goals in Cast Lead: restoring Israel’s deterrence and bringing home Shalit.

Of course, the deal would also likely offset some of the political capital Likud obtained after Israel finally caved to international pressure and called the ceasefire. Many Israelis were unhappy with the Kadima governments command to take the IDF’s foot off of Hamas’ neck. A deal for Shalit would likely benefit the party in power, Kadima, and its lead candidate in the February 10 elections, Tzipi Livni. It appears Ehud Olmert, rediscovering some of that classic political talent, has realized just that:

The official said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wanted to clinch a deal before he is replaced in a February 10 election, though it was not clear whether the Israeli security cabinet could approve all the names on the Hamas release roster.

Addressing reporters on Thursday, Olmert said: “I believe that the military operation in Gaza created levers that can help in speeding the return of Gilad Shalit … I will not elaborate.”

The general parameters of the deal only favor Israel now that Cast Lead was such a definitive military victory–but they favor Israel nonetheless. If Shalit is brought home as a result of this war, it will take its proper place among the pantheon of great Israeli military successes. Let’s hope.

A fond farewell among friends

Mark McKinnon paints a memorable picture of George Bush and Co. on their way back to Texas. It’s a valuable addition to some of the more classy–and honest– “Exit Bush” stories that you don’t see in the mainstream media. An excerpt:

Mrs. Bush strolled the aisles thanking friends and staffers. The president’s father, with his walking stick, hobbled through, as well, with a familiar glint in his eye and smile at the corner of his lips. Wife Barbara padded around behind him, ever ready with a witty riposte to any and all. Karl Rove was in his usual seat in the conference room, challenging Joe Hagin and Blake Gottesman to a game of cards. And winning. Insisting they autograph the final score.

There was a lot of talk of old days and old times. About how eight years had flown by. About how children had grown. There was no high-fiving or celebration. And no weeping or whining. Just a quiet and friendly exchange of hugs between longtime colleagues and friends who had traveled a lot of miles together and weathered a lot storms.