Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Edward Luttwak, one of Ronald Reagan’s original Cold Warriors, has channeled Daniel Pipes in the N.Y. Times Op-Ed section today, claiming preposterously that a President Obama will be in danger because Islamists will view his as a Muslim apostate and try to kill him.

I’ve already written about this stupid line of argument when Pipes advanced it in that august journal of Islamic thought, Frontpagemagazine. It gave me a good laugh then. Now that it’s been bruited in the pages of the N.Y. Times it’s no laughing matter. How an editor judges this to be of interest to the readers of the Times is beyond me. This is an example of editorial lunacy. Why would you take a trashy rumor published in a David Horowitz shmate and transfer it to the N.Y. Times? I feel dirty just reading it there.

Of course, no Islamist has ever uttered a word about Obama’s alleged apostasy let alone advocated killing him nor does Luttwak claim as such. In fact, the McCain campaign has pounced on an endorsement from a Hamas spokesperson (so much for Islamists wanting to kill Obama). So the only morons propounding this line of reasoning are neocons who seek to plant the idea in Americans’ minds that Obama is a Muslim. And they kill two birds with one stone because while they’re making such an outrageous claim they can reinforce in readers’ minds the bloodlust that supposedly characterizes Islam.

Luttwak once again refers to Obama’s so-called “Muslim heritage,” which is non-existent. The author’s justification? No matter how Obama defines himself, Muslims define him as Muslim:

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood.

So “universally understood” in fact, that I have never heard a genuine Muslim advance this concept. Another distortion of Islam inherent in this statement is that there is a unitary “universal standard” of Muslim belief. Besides, this notion that Obama is Muslim despite the fact that he is a believing Christian flies in the face of a sacred American tradition–that in this land of freedom and self-expression we define our own identity and refuse to allow others to do this for us.

Here is more smarmy innuendo:

…As most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian…

This should read “as all Americans understand it except Islamophobic columnists publishing their narischkeit in the pages of the N.Y. Times.” Note that Obama “chose to become a Christian” as if he wasn’t one before he did. Insinuating once again that he was Muslim. He no more “chose” to become a Christian than I chose to become a Jew. The only faith he has ever known is Christianity as he himself says:

My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they [his parents] married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian.

And the smears go on:

His conversion…

I would challenge Luttwak to produce evidence that Obama was ever “converted” to Chrisitianity.

I find it ironic that those excellent imams Pipes and Luttwak (I wonder where they could’ve earned those advanced degrees in Islamic theology?) have been telling Americans how Muslims will view Obama, while no Muslim has ever advanced the views they espouse. Could it be that their knowledge of modern Islam is deficient or that in their need to smear both Islam and Obama they have gone off the deep end?

Why would Obama’s alleged apostasy be specially dangerous?

[It] would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.

As if the Secret Service during foreign trips relies on local security to protect the president. I’d prefer to believe that our own security will keep a President Obama safe and sound. Beyond that, the idea that Muslim security guards would assassinate Obama solely because he is an apostate is yet another far-fetched notion.

And more far-fetchedness:

…Most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

I’d prefer to believe that most citizens of the Islamic world won’t give a crap about what Luttwak is saying. Note a second reference to Obama’s imaginary “conversion” to Christianity. In Luttwak’s cloud-cuckoo land version of the Muslim world, these nations would refuse to cooperate with the U.S. in fighting terror. As if they’re running to us to do so now with the current Luttwak-supported Muslim-haters in the White House.

Whatever else we know about Luttwak from this column we can also add that he’s a very poor liar:

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be.

Liar, liar pants on fire! The only true thing stated above is that the columnist’s ravings will have precisely no impact on American voters who could care less about such malarkey. There is a narrow cross section of Americans who will care about this: the author’s fellow neocons, Islamophobes, militant pro-Israel Jews, etc. This group would never have supported Obama to begin with.

In fact, I believe precisely the opposite of Luttwak. Just as Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said he looked forward to an Obama presidency for the fresh new perspective it might bring to U.S. policy in the Mideast, many other Muslim nations and leaders will have similar hopes and expectations. Contrary to the neocon perspective, the vast majority of Muslims do not want to hate the U.S. And while no president realizes all the hopes that accompany him into office, Obama has more ability and willingness to breathe fresh air into U.S. foreign policy than any president since Bill Clinton.

Last December, Politico’s Ben Smith wrote presciently about Pipes’ assault on Obama:

Keep an eye on this one, because if Obama’s the nominee, this FrontPagemagazine piece by the conservative writer Daniel Pipes is likely to be the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama’s religion. But the political impact of the piece isn’t the tortured argument. It’s branding Obama a Muslim, by a subtler means.

tags ahmed yousef, edward luttwak, hamas, islamists may assassinate, obama muslim, president apostate

In taking over much of Beirut (including Sunni neighborhoods formerly controlled by pro-government forces), Hezbollah has engineered what I call a “coup on the ground.” It hasn’t touched the levers of power or elected government. But by controlling much of the territory of the capital city it has taken physical control of almost everything else. The message from Hezbollah is: “we can topple you at will.” And shows the government to be little more than a paper tiger. It reminds me in some ways (though not precisely) of Hamas’ pre-emptive Gaza coup of last June and one can certainly say that Hamas and Hezbollah have learned from each other to the detriment of their respective adversaries.

I don’t know how this will play out, but Hezbollah has clearly upped the ante which may eventually or immediately require the pro-U.S. Lebanese government to resign under duress and accede to Hezbollah political demands for veto power over most political decisions. This seems a disaster for the viability and integrity of a democratic Lebanon as a whole (if there can be said to be such a thing as “a whole”). It is a sad day.

But the main purpose of this post is to decry the bankrupt U.S. and Israeli policy toward Syria which might’ve help avoid this sorry mess. Both governments stubbornly wore ideological blinders which prevented them from embracing a Syrian track to resolve the Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese conflict. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. Now, Syria and her Hezbollah allies sit in the cat bird seat.

Think where Israel and Lebanon could be if Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert had responded positively to Alon Liel’s negotiating track with Syria over the past year or so in which the latter essentially provided the outline for a negotiated settlement with Syria. Instead, Liel was met with stony silence or outright disdain. It appears that over the past few months Olmert has gradually turned the Titanic around regarding Syria negotiations. But it is too late in several senses. It is too late because his political career is almost over in light of his current bribery investigation. And it is too late because Hezbollah has pre-empted any possible future settlement in which it might’ve been neutered or moderated.

When thinking of this conflict I’m always reminded of Abba Eban’s saying intended by him to criticize the Palestinians who, he claimed: “Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Of course, like many who are quick with bons mot, Ebban neglected to understand that this referred to himself and his own government as well.

tags abba eban, gaza, hamas, hezbollah takes over beirut, israel syria peace negotiations, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

When I first read this story I got it on a superficial level but didn’t really understand the full significance until Assaf Oron sent me a link to his Daily Kos diary entry. Haaretz reports that deputy prime minister Eli Yishai of the Mizrahi Shas party, broke the government boycott against Carter’s Israel visit and not only met with the former president but asked Carter for a meeting with Hamas representatives in an attempt to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Assaf correctly notes that this is a bombshell not only for Israeli politics, but it also breaks the solid front the Israel lobby has attempted to create here in the U.S. against dealing with Hamas.

It also serves notice on journalists like Mark Perelman of the Jewish Forward, Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz, and strangely Michael Young of Beirut’s Daily Star; and political operatives like Ira Forman’s AIPAC-leaning National Jewish Democratic Council and even all the presidential candidates, who’ve bought the Israel lobby line (clearly Young is following a different political line). They all ignore the fact that a number of liberal Jewish blogs like this one (Jerry Haber and Tony Karon as well) and now a cabinet minister have bucked the “Three No’s” (an ironic reference to the Arab League’s “three no’s” after the 67 war) approach to Hamas. The line on Carter is that he’s a troublemaker who represents no one but himself. Rosner even goes so far as to say that Carter is a washed up has been (which actually describes Rosner himself rather than Carter) whose glory days, if he ever had any, are past.

I’ve already noted here that Israel already negotiates with Hamas though indirectly through Egypt. Further, a recent poll finds that 64% of Israelis are in favor of precisely the kind of approach favored by Yishai–direct negotiations with Hamas. So this Hamas boycott is a charade, a political fiction created to provide cover for a Bush Administration that can’t do anything to promote meaningful negotiations among the warring parties; and an Israeli government which doesn’t have the will to get up and do what’s got to be done regarding talking to the Palestinian parties that really matter.  So how long will it be before this sham policy falls like a house of cards?

I’m not a huge fan of Shas, though they sometimes are quite progressive on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But on this one issue Yishai is right on the money (or should I say “shekel”?).

tags boycott, gilad-shalit, hamas, Yishai to Carter Tell Meshal that I want to discuss pri

The N.Y. Times published a good summary of the dwindling policy options available to each of the major players in the Gaza crisis. Though the article doesn’t say this, the only player who comes out on top in all this is Hamas, which again shows it holds many more cards than any other player wishes to acknowledge.

But the portion of the article that stood out in my mind was this vapid observation from Martin Indyk:

Ms. Rice’s…alternative — encouraging Israel to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas — has pitfalls…because that would further legitimize Hamas, which the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization.

Martin Indyk, the former United States ambassador to Israel, said such a cease-fire would further undermine Mr. Abbas and make it look like Hamas is the entity with which Israel and the West should be negotiating.

“Excluding them doesn’t work, and including them doesn’t work, either,” Mr. Indyk said. “So what do you do? This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy.”

They actually pay this guy money to say stupid things like that. And I say this as someone who, while he doesn’t think much of Indyk’s AIPAC roots, generally thinks the guy is fairly sensible in talking about Israel. What does it mean that “including them doesn’t work?” Says who? The fact of the matter is that Hamas has proven that you must include them. Who gives a damn whether it will embarrass Israel or the U.S. or undermine Abbas? Let’s get beyond this shtuyot (as an Israeli would say). Let’s look at what works.

For anyone naive enough to ask why Hamas is showering southern Israel with rockets when it’s so apparently counter-productive in terms of the impact on their Gaza constituents, you only have to look at the political situation. No one wants anything to do with Hamas–despite the fact that 64% of Israelis appear to be much brighter than their woeful leaders and have embraced direct talks with Hamas– so what better way to tweak the world’s nose than by refusing to roll over and play dead as Israel and the U.S. would prefer? With a relatively small number of rockets, Hamas has proven that the road to resolving the conflict goes not just through Ramallah, but through Gaza as well.

I add for the 100th time here that I’m not condoning or defending the rocket attacks which are a clear violation of international law. But with both sides in the wrong on that score it’s hard to say which one is worse.

They pay this guy to be stupid too. But he’s a Bushite and that’s to be expected of them:

Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said late Saturday that the United States wanted to see “an end to violence and all acts of terrorism directed against innocent civilians.” But, he noted, “there is a clear distinction between terrorist rocket attacks that target civilians and action in self defense.”

Why certainly. Killing 70 Palestinians in a day or two with half of them civilians definitely qualified as acting in “self-defense.” Saying, as Matan Vilnai did, you will bring a “holocaust” on the Gazans certainly qualifies as self-defense.

Ehud Olmert seems to have the stupids too:

[He] responded to international criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, saying that “nobody has the right to preach morality to the State of Israel for taking basic action to defend itself.”

Someone’s got to do it as Olmert and the IDF appear to have taken leave of their senses much as they did during the Lebanon war.  Olmert continued:

Mr. Olmert also seemed to reject the argument by Mr. Abbas that peace talks cannot carry on in the shadow of the events in Gaza. “The more that Hamas is hit, the greater the chances of reaching a diplomatic agreement and peace,” Mr. Olmert said. He added that beyond their public statements, “the Palestinian leadership with whom we are trying to make peace understands this.”

Abbas was so “understanding” of the Israeli position that he broke off all talks with Olmert.  This is a perfect example of knowing next to nothing about your negotiating partner.  How well does this bode for the long-term success of Olmert-Abbas talks?

Someone really ought to point out to Helene Cooper, who wrote the first story linked above, the error in this statement:

So Ms. Rice will try to press surrogates, including Egypt, to lean on Hamas, administration officials say.

How does Egypt become a surrogate for Hamas, which it hates? This again points to the utter bankruptcy of U.S. policy. We think Egypt can help us talk our way out of this mess when Hamas’ ties to the Muslim Brotherhood make it a natural enemy of the Mubarak regime.

And contrary to the above two policy-wonk buffoons, Aaron David Miller thankfully makes perfect sense and talks in plain, simple terms of what needs to be done:

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to the region on Monday…she is confronting very few options in achieving President Bush’s stated goal of peace between Israel and a new Palestinian state…

“She’s walking into a buzz saw,” said Aaron David Miller, author of “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.” “You cannot make peace with half of the Palestinian polity and go to war with the other half.”

“This is beyond her [Rice's] capacity, and beyond even the capacity of a secretary of state like Kissinger or Baker,” said Mr. Miller, who served as a Middle East negotiator for the last three presidents. “This is rooted in a fundamental problem that we haven’t acknowledged: Israel cannot make peace with a divided Palestine.”

Say Amen somebody. But who’s listening?? No one in Washington or Jerusalem that’s for sure.

tags aaron-david-miller, hamas, IDF-attack-on-gaza, martin-indyk, rice-trip-to-israel

Rabbi Menachem Froman, the iconoclastic settler religious leader who embraces Muslim-Jewish religious dialogue and peace initiatives, reached agreement with a Hamas journalist for an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza. Senior Hamas figures have enthusiastically endorsed the proposal. Ehud Olmert is silent:

…[The] recently drafted a cease-fire agreement…includes the release of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, [and] was submitted to the cabinet and to the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.

Rabbi Menachem Froman of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa has for years been involved in interfaith dialogue toward Israeli-Palestinians peace. For several months he has been working closely with Khaled Amayreh, a Hebron-area journalist who is close to Hamas.

“Our proposal was presented to the highest political echelon in the Hamas government in Gaza and gained 100-percent approval,” Amayreh told Haaretz Sunday, while refusing to name the government officials. Froman said the document was presented to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has yet to respond to it.

Even if the attempt turns out to be merely an academic exercise, say Froman and Amayreh, its elements could be used by the Jerusalem and Gaza governments. It does not, for example, include the recognition by Hamas of the State of Israel, instead “recognizing that there are Jews living in the Holy Land,” according to Froman.

…The proposal calls for Israel to lift its sanctions on the Gaza Strip, permit economic relations between Gaza and the outside world and open all border crossings. The Israel Defense Forces would end “all hostile activities toward the Gaza Strip, including targeted assassinations, the setting of ambushes, aerial bombardments and all penetrations into Gazan territory, in addition to ending the arrest, detention and persecution of Palestinians in the Strip.”

The Palestinians would be obligated “to take all the necessary steps to completely end the attacks against Israel,” including stopping “indefinitely all rocket attacks on Israel,” assaults “on Israeli civilians and soldiers” and “to impose a cease-fire on all groups, factions and individuals operating in the Strip.”

There you have it. Almost everything Israel has wanted from Hamas for as long as anyone can remember. All tied up in a neat package. All there for the taking. Of course, the provision recognizing that Jews live in the Holy Land appears lame as reported by Haaretz since it states the obvious. But I’ve learned that it’s important to see entire original documents before judging them based on how they are reported in Israeli media. It should also be noted that, at least to me, recognition of Israel is an issue that should happen as part of an overall peace agreement and not necessarily before such final status negotiations occur. I expect Hamas to recognize Israel, but not necessarily right now; nor do I think it is critical that it do so right now.

It is characteristic of Israeli government lassitude that Olmert has not responded nor would I expect him to do so. Remember, this is the same Menachem Froman whom the Shin Bet prevented from attending previous negotiations with Hamas. Unfortunately, Israeli politicians don’t want to touch Froman with a ten foot poll. In fact, he’s dangerous to the intelligence establishment since he has a wild card status as a co-founder of Gush Emunim and settler advocate for peace. And it’s a shame since he is a critical voice willing to reach a peace agreement with Israel’s sworn enemy Hamas. To paraphrase Abba Eban, Israelis and Palestinians never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This time the onus is on Olmert.

tags gaza-ceasefire, gilad-shalit, hamas, menachem-froman

Haaretz published a report today claiming that Israel is responsible for holding up the release of kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit: Gaza source: Israel delaying deal for Shalit The source, who is located in the Gaza Strip, said Israel and Hamas have agreed on the principle of exchanging Shalit for Palestinian prisoners, but that the two parties have not yet decided the exact nature of the deal or how it will be carried out. He said the kidnappers, with whom he is in contact, have made realistic demands. The source would not say how many prisoners Hamas is demanding in the swap, but he did say the number is not in the thousands, as had previously been stated. "Moreover, Hamas has not completely rejected ...

Haaretz reports the devastating news that Hezbollah has kidnapped two IDF soldiers in southern Lebanon: Hezbollah kidnapped two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on the northern border in the midst of massive shelling attacks on Israel's north Wednesday morning. The IDF confirmed two of its soldiers were missing on the Lebanese border, Channel 10 TV reported. Hezbollah fighters attacked two IDF armored Hummer jeeps patrolling along the border with gunfire and explosives. The Hezbollah fighters nabbed two of the soldiers and wounded others in the Hummers. Immediately following the Hezbollah attack, the organization's Al-Manar television station began broadcasting clips calling on Israel to release Lebanese prisoners held in Israel. The Hezbollah demands emphasized the release of Lebanese militant Samir Al-Kuntar. Al-Manar also broadcast ...

Why is the Shin Bet Afraid of this man? (photo: Rikard Larma/AP) Menachem Froman is an extraordinary person. He is an Orthodox rabbi who lives in the West Bank settlement of Tekoa. He was a co-founder of the right-wing Gush Emunim movement, yet broke with it after Baruch Goldstein's rampage massacre. Despite this past history, he has very close relationships with Hamas. In fact, he negotiated for the release of Sheik Ahmed Yassin (later assassinated by Israel) from an Israeli prison, later becoming fast friends with him. He's met with Mahmoud al-Zahar and the group's leaders seem to like and genuinely trust him. He ...

Some new, potentially hopeful news from Gaza. Haaretz reports that a deal may be taking shape between Palestinian kidnappers and Israel that would result in the freeing of IDF solider, Gilad Shalit. Here are the outlines of the deal: According to the London-based publication [Al-Hayat], the Islamic militant group is now willing to free Shalit in return for the release of all Palestinian women detained in Israelis jails, estimated at some 100 prisoners, and a further 30 male inmates who have served terms of over 20 years. Israel has tentatively agreed to the offer, the newspaper claimed, but has yet discussed when or how many prisoners it would release. Haled Meshal met with a Turkish official and expressed his willingness ...

The Qassam that roared (photo: Limor Edrey) Today's Qassam rocket strike on Ashkelon has driven an already rocket-obsessed nation into near hysteria. Zeev Schiff, Haaretz's military correspondent, writes (hat tip to Sol Salbe for this story): The firing of a rocket from the Gaza Strip to Ashkelon's center on Tuesday constitutes an unequivocal invitation by Hamas to war. Ehud Olmert has called an emergency meeting of his war cabinet. Very serious stuff. But Schiff's "invitation to war" statement reflects the absolute delirium and bankruptcy of current Israeli policy. Get a grip guys. First, the Qassam landed in a parking lot and did no serious damage. ...