Lebanese Arrest of Israel Spies an Exercise in Hypocrisy and Denial

To paraphrase Casablanca's Captain Renault, the Lebanese government is "shocked, shocked" to find that foreign powers have spies in the country.  An article by Robert Worth in today's NY Times noted that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is calling for the death penalty for 21 recently arrested alleged Israeli spies.  The article, in portraying the Lebanese reaction to the event, might have noted the irony, if not the gross hypocrisy, in the fact of the arrest of alleged Israeli spies just weeks after the release of four pro-Syrian generals implicated in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.  The Lebanese government has apparently complained to the UN about two of the alleged spies escaping across the border into Israel with their families.  Perhaps the Lebanese government might urge the UN instead to more vigorously pursue the investigation into the brazen assassination of their prime minister and members of the government by.  

This bodes ill for the upcoming June 7 elections, and for Lebanon.  The permeation of the Lebanese government by Hezbollah and domination of the country by Iran and Syria are proceeding apace, and the anti-Israel propaganda fueled by these arrests will only serve to distract Lebanese voters from the true threat that they face.

NY Times Coverage of Hamas - Is the Glass Half Full?

Perhaps the problem with the NY Times's coverage of matters pertaining to Israel is not so much the reporting as the headlines and placement of stories.  

A remarkably brief article on the front page of Friday's NY Times (January 9) by Taghreed El-Khodary, entitled, "In a Hospital, Pain, Despair and Defiance," tells of horrific conditions in Shifa Hospital in Gaza.  A 37 year old surgeon has arrived with his daughter as patients, his wife and baby son having been killed by an Israeli response to Hamas's firing of mortar and rockets next to his apartment building.  A smiling 21 year old Islamic Jihad fighter demands immediate attention to the shrapnel in his leg so that he can get back to the fight, despite the obvious presence of far more seriously wounded patients.  He gladly admits that after firing on the Israelis, he and his comrades run into people's houses for safety.  Asked by the reporter why he is so happy amidst the misery, he declares, "They lost their loved ones as martyrs.  They should be happy.  I want to be a martyr, too."

Friday's lead story is not this, but another, entitled "Aid Groups Rebuke Israel Over Conditions in Gaza."

Today's NY Times has a front page story by Steven Erlanger entitled "A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery," subtitled "Ruthless and Inventive, Tactics Evolve Fast."  Unclear whether they're talking about the Israelis, Hamas, or both.  Once you read the article you see that the traps, ruthlessness and most of the tricks are practiced by Hamas, "with training from Iran and Hazbollah." "Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership's war room is a bunker beneath Gaza's largest hospital, Israeli intelligence officials say."

Israel is trying some trickery, too.  It is calling Gaza residents and in good Arabic, asking about militant activity nearby.  Also, in response to a Hamas technique of putting civilians on the roofs of military buildings to dissuade Israelis from attacking, Israel sometimes launches dud missiles on empty spots on the roof in order to scare the civilians away.  Very sneaky, those Israelis, trying to trick noncombatants into escaping harm.  This, of course, is after leaflets, e-mails and text messages warning residents to evacuate anticipated battle zones.

Israeli efforts to avoid civilian casualties are imperfect and strongly regretted.  Efforts by Hamas and allied terrorist groups to kill and maim Israeli civilians are also regretted for their imperfection.

Racial Blackmail

I write this on Election Day, and in a few hours, probably before the polls have closed in California, the television news shows will probably have predicted a clear winner; the loser may even have conceded the landslide. But before any of that occurs, I want to get something on the table.

Many have written and spoken about the symbolism of the Obama candidacy. The fact that an African-American could win the nomination of one of the two major parties is a wonderful testament to our nation, our people, our political system. This is the case regardless of the outcome of the general election.

But we have been hearing a number of people in the news and other public figures speak of the necessity of an Obama victory, not only because of his policies and leadership qualities, or of the need to change parties in the White House. Rather, they hold out the prospect that if Obama loses the general election, the United States will be proven to be a racist country run by Dick Cheney, and the American people will be branded as racists.

Consider this exchange between Charlie Rose and Ted Koppel a few weeks ago:

Koppel: It clearly is a change from what our Euro, Asian and Middle Eastern friends regard as the arrogance of the Bush Administration. Whether they are correct in this perception or not I'm not here to argue right now, but that's the way our friends overseas see us. Seeing America with a black president has to change that. Has to.

Rose: You have to take another look at America, a country that could elect this young man at this time, against very powerful and impressive people.

Koppel: They will look at, they have looked at the actions of the Bush administration, this preemptive strike into Iraq, for example, and they assume that he represents the American people in doing this, and we all have been tarred with the same brush. They clearly will have to change their point of view, and if they see an America that is capable of electing an African American, even if there are many millions who are horrified by the notion, it signals that there is a fundamental decency about America that you and I know exists, but that's been a little hard to point out over the last few years.

So America has been the captive of an evil dictator during the past eight years, who was bent on conquering the world and enslaving and torturing innocent muslims and liberals. We, like the innocent Germans of 1945, or the Beefeaters protecting the castle of the wicked witch of the west, can emerge from captivity and be welcomed once again into the community of man. And the only way we can demonstrate that we are really good, the only way to purge ourselves of our collective sins, is to elect our black candidate, Barak Obama.

Unstated by Koppel, but so clearly implied, is that if the white candidate wins the election, it will be a victory for the "very powerful" people whom Charlie Rose sees working against Obama, and the "many millions" of American racists who the enlightened Koppel believes we have yet to purge.

By framing the issue of Obama's candidacy in these terms, we Americans are being effectively blackmailed: Elect Obama, or else be damned by the media and "our Euro, Asian and Middle Eastern friends" as a racist, "fundamentally indecent" country. I'm uncomfortable voting with a gun to my head.

Bronfman Doth Protest Too Much on Obama and Israel

The wealthy Jewish philantropist Edgar Bronfman, Sr. recently created a stir by posting a piece on Huffington Post entitled "Israel's interest is a morally strong America." I haven't provided a link, but you should go take a look at it. In a nutshell, he argues that Israel will benefit from having a US president that is much better liked around the world than George W. Bush and who is not seen as being too one-sided in the conflict between Israel and her neighbors.

We on both sides of the Presidential candidate divide have been engaging in various rationalizations. We McCain supporters have certainly struggled to rationalize his pick of Sarah Palin, and why he remains the better choice despite it. But I'd say that American Jewish supporters of Israel, including Edgar Bronfman, are probably struggling to rationalize their support of Obama with their support for a strong Israel. Clearly, Bronfman has become caught up in the Obama mystique; the seventh paragraph of his piece reads like it was excerpted verbatim from Obama's web page. I really doubt Israel has been the major factor in his decision to support Obama rather than McCain.


I am surprised and a bit disappointed that Bronfman's piece expresses a point of view about Israel and America that reflects the perspective of the outside world, rather than that of America and Israel. He says that Israelis have "felt besieged," as if that were a symptom of paranoia rather than a description of the actual facts. He blames America for all of the hatred and war in the middle east, and seems to believe that America needs redemption because of its evil ways.


There is a feeling around that Obama is good for our foreign policy because he will restore the affection of the world toward the US that George W. Bush alienated; Bronfman echoes this point of view and seems to believe further that it will inure to Israel's benefit. Well, recall that the Arab street rejoiced on September 11, 2001, less than 10 months after Bill Clinton left the White House, and the Europeans' sense of affinity for the US only lasted for around the first 30 days of mourning after the attacks.

Yes, the Bush administration adopted a stridency in its rhetoric and may have believed for a period of time excessively in the viability of an entirely unilateral foreign policy, and I believe that a President McCain or a President Obama will take advantage of a limited opportunity to forge fresh relationships abroad and set a better tone. But in either case we will soon see a remarkable degree of continuity of policies and priorities in foreign affairs: Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, not to mention Iran, will still be just where they were in the previous Administration, and the Arab world will continue to publicly disparage Israel and the US, even as it privately seeks our help in preventing the hegemony of Iran. Neither they, nor Russia and China, will be the least bit influenced by the multicultural background of our new president. Indeed, as Joe Biden so forcefully stated, they are more likely to put Obama to a significant test, perhaps on a large scale. That's good; we need another foreign policy crisis.


Bronfman does seem to acknowledge that perhaps Obama does not have as deep a connection to Israel as we may like, but says, "Whether an American president is prepared to preside over another handshake--one that could build lasting peace--should not be measured by his professed love for one side or the other, but by his judgment." Bronfman comes right out and says that peace between Israel and its neighbors requires an "honest broker that will push both sides," which means a US not perceived as too wholeheartedly siding with Israel in the conflict. We have yet to see a US president who was truly able to push anybody but the Israelis since, after all, what leverage do we have with the other side.


Any American president will be confronted with foreign leaders and domestic foreign policy advisers arguing for a softer pro-Israel stand - not outright abandonment, but a greater degree of acquiescence to the forces seeking to weaken Israel's security. For me, it is all the difference in the world to know that the person sitting in the oval office believes in his gut in Israel's survival, believes in the fundamental goodness of Israel and the necessity of its strength. I think we had that with Reagan and with Bush 43, not with Bush 41. And I think we did OK with Clinton. There's no reason to think that Obama cares much about Israel, and we know that some of his advisers regard it as a net liability for the US and speak with disdain about the Jewish lobby. I'm getting reconciled to Obama becoming our next president, and plan to make the best of it from a pro-Israel perspective. But I think that pro-Israel advocates, and supporters in Congress will have their work cut out for them in an Obama administration.

Same Sex Marriage by Judicial Fiat

If you want to get married in Connecticut, you only need to find a willing priest, minister, rabbi, or judge.  And apparently, if you want to overturn the law of the land as to what marriage means and who is eligible, all you need is to find one willing judge.  

This past Friday the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 vote that homosexual couples have a right under the state constitution to marry, and that the state's civil union statute -- the first such statute in the country -- granting a full panoply of legal and economic rights to gay couples, violated the state's equal protection clause by denying the official status of marriage to gay couples.

I'm not going to take on the issue of gay marriage, nor will I get into the legal merits of the Connecticut case.  I want to address a larger question that goes beyond same-sex marriage.   Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health involves not an arcane area of administrative law, but a question that goes deep into the gut of American politics.  It brings about a result that both Presidential candidates and their running mates have eschewed, and which, under the "full faith and credit" provision of the US Constitution, might have to be given effect in other states.  (Unless successfully challenged on constitutional grounds, the 2004 federal Defense of Marriage Act permits any state to not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state).

The Connecticut case was decided in a split decision, with three judges vigorously dissenting.  I do not believe that a high court should put forth a decision involving significant social, moral or religious consequences other than by a strong majority. Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps the most well-known and lauded court decision of the 20th Century, was unanimously joined by the nine members of the US Supreme Court.  While today we regard its rejection of "separate but equal" as self-evidently correct, it overturned precedent and overcame significant legal arguments and was hardly a preordained result.  Most important, Chief Justice Warren and his colleagues understood that a decision certain to result in deep and far-reaching conflict in the ensuing years must be presented in a united front by the Court.

Even the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a right to privacy protecting a woman's decision to have an abortion reflected a very strong 7-2 majority.  I would hope that in the event the Supreme Court takes up this controversial issue in the future, those justices who believe, as do many legal scholars, that the 1973 decision rested on shaky legal grounds, would not only be hesitant to overturn what is now long-established precedent, but would in any case ensure that any significant change to the law in this area not be by a narrow 5-4 majority.

This is part of a larger subject, about which I shall write more, namely, the roles that various participants have played in fanning the flames of social and religious conflicts in society being played out among the body politic.  Without arguing the broad proposition of judicial activism, I will say that nothing displays judicial arrogance quite so much as the overturning of the will of the people on a matter of deeply held cultural and societal norms, by a majority of one.

Sarah Palin - A Bridge Too Far?

OK.  I've just surfed my way through the Sunday morning news shows, got the poop on John McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.  One thing I can report about the reporters: the roundtable discussions finally got around to asking about Obama and the Democratic convention as a near afterthought near the end of the broadcast.  So one goal was accomplished by the well timed announcement of John McCain's surprise running mate - finally generating some press excitement in what he was up to and pushing Obama off the front page.

Lots of talk about Hillary's women, Reagan Democrats, and the experience issue.  One point I didn't hear addressed, though, is the following:

If I were singly focused on seeing a woman elected President of the United States at the earliest possible moment, my vote would now have to go to John McCain.  If Barack Obama is elected, he will presumably seek a second term, ruling out a woman Democratic candidate until 2016, probably too late for Hillary Clinton to be in the running.  On the other hand, if McCain is elected this year, as a one term President his Vice President will likely be handed the baton to run in 2012, so we have Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket.  And, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her inimitable way in an August 20 NY Times column, a loss by Obama this year should deliver the 2012 Democratic nomination to Hillary with little more than a perfunctory nod to the competition.

Now that I've got that on the table, let's turn to a few early observations about the new lineup.  

No doubt Sarah Palin will be a person with whom many Americans can identify, who represents values and a way of life that connect to the voters in a way that Barack Obama can not, and who will interest them to a degree that John McCain apparently does not.  She also sits out there now as siren to the Obama campaign, tempting them to utter the challenge of "experience"; each time they do so, they will be clobbered with the fact of their own candidate's dearth of relevant experience for the job he seeks.  Indeed, if anyone's going to learn how to be President while on the job, let it occur while living in the Naval Observatory rather than the White House.

With all of that said, however, I admit to being a bit put off by the apparent fact that the Republicans, and John McCain in particular, think that the race for President can be won merely by putting out the right symbol to the voters.  True, McCain might well perceive that what he is running against is little more than a symbol, so they're only fighting fire with fire.  But as a citizen, I hope that the process by which we choose our leaders will prove itself to be more serious than just another season of American Idol.

 

Did General Clark Unfairly Dis Captain McCain?

General Wesley Clark, since retiring from the NATO command a prominent Democratic politician, and until a few days ago an appealing potential running mate for Barak Obama, declared last Sunday: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."



First, let's note that the words chosen are about as disparaging as they could possibly be. McCain doesn't even get credit for flying the plane, only riding in it. And for those of us who get past that to recall that McCain was actually piloting the plane, Clark tells us that he apparently wasn't very good at it because he couldn't keep the plane up in the air. Harrison Ford did better than that in Air Force One.



Had the good general been a bit more fair, he might have presented the more sober question whether being a Navy pilot was a relevant, let alone, material qualification for the presidency. Indeed, to be even more fair and objective, he could have suggested that being a decorated war hero was not a particularly relevant qualification for the presidency. Indeed, based on the fact that Bill Clinton -- if not a "draft dodger," then at least a fellow who thought he had more worthwhile things to do than serve in the military during the Vietnam War -- handily defeated two decorated World War II veterans, George Bush and then Bob Dole, it may be reasonable to infer that a majority of the American people may agree with that statement.



But of course, getting shot down in the plane was only the beginning. Maybe something about the ensuing five years enduring physical and psychological harassment and torture in a North Vietnam prison would be relevant. Candidate Obama demonstrated once again the natural skills that have propelled him to his present position as presumptive successor to Mr. Bush. At the same time as he eschewed General Clark and his comment, he spoke sympathetically of Captain McCain: "For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. " Speaking in Indpendence, Missouri, Obama also made the following statement: "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when others question mine."



Very good stuff. First, Barak Obama praises John McCain the veteran, John McCain the victim. Good man, served his country, let's wish him well, pin a medal on him and send him off to a well-deserved retirement. But then, a little slight of hand, casting the Wesley Clark comment in terms of questioning patriotism, he turns the sword into a shield. In fact, nobody, not even Wesley Clark, has questioned John McCain's patriotism; this is a problem that is entirely unique to Barak Obama. I'll keep my henchmen away from your heroic accomplishments if you keep your henchmen away from my lapel pin, wife and middle name.

But then, why the whining from the Republicans? Several McCain supporters jumped in to defend the candidate; Senator Warner of Virginia expressed shock at General Clark's comment. The fact is, stripped of its sarcasm, the statement contains a worthwhile point that does not denigrate McCain or his experience as a POW, but notes the virtual truism that those experiences don't qualify him to be President.

Finally, we get to the real issues, which are twofold. First, if General Clark is throwing down the gauntlet on relevant experience, what does his candidate have to offer alongside John McCain's more than 25 years in national politics, including four years in the House and more than 20 in the Senate? Does raising the qualification issue really help the Democractic candidate?

And second, General Clark does appropriately raise the question of why John McCain's war record and experience should be taken into consideration by the electorate. But the answer, an obvious one, can not be welcome to the Democrats. It's about character. John MCcain is more than a guy who suffered. He volunteered repeatedly for service to the country, and when captured by the enemy and suffering from severe wounds, he chose solidarity with his fellow soldiers and loyalty to his country over physical comforts and even freedom offered by his captors. You can talk about red states and blue states, one issue or another, but McCain has a brand of patriotism, honor, loyalty and trust that no amount of campaign spending or denigration can damage.

Which makes you wonder: If you were running against this man, why would you want to draw any attention to this stuff?