Chuck Schumer's Iran Deal Flesh Wound

Chuck Schumer announced earlier this summer that he would vote against the JCPOA deal that President Obama struck with Iran and the other members of the P5+1.  We now know for sure with hindsight what many long-time Schumer critics had suspected at the time - that this was less an act of political courage and conviction than of cool political calculation.  Schumer at the time made clear that he would not seek to influence the votes of his fellow Democrats, including that of his junior NY Senator and political protégé Kirsten Gillibrand (who proclaimed her support of the deal nearly simultaneously with Schumer's announcement).  President Obama has now passed the finish line in his effort to persuade at least 34 Senate Democrats to support the Agreement and thereby ensure his ability to sustain a Presidential veto.

As I look at Senator Schumer, I am struck by two analogies.  One is the soldier who is able to get a ticket back home from the front by deliberately sustaining a flesh wound, just severe enough to gain a medical pass.

The analogy I like better is one we have all seen in the movies, and it connects more directly with the Senator's oft-cited self-appointed role, based on a play on his name in Hebrew, that he is the shomer, or guardian, of Israel (and I will add, the US).  So think of the soldier/security guard charged with standing as sentry protecting his king or queen.  The invaders arrive in force and heavily armed, and either out of mercy or collusion, provide him with the excuse of a credible black eye, as he stands aside to facilitate their mission's success.  Maybe he even sounds the general alarm just as the marauders are safely out of the castle with the king. 

The August 6 NY Times headline read "Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal . . . ". But did he?  Specifically, did he oppose the deal, or merely announce that he would be one vote out of 100 against the deal when the time came?  My dictionaries define "oppose" in fairly strong, active terms.  Here are a few: (1) to act against or provide resistance to; combat; (2) to stand in the way of; hinder, obstruct; (3) to set as an opponent or adversary.  Did he do any of these things?  Certainly not.  Pretty clearly, he did not use his political power as presumptive Democratic leader, nor does he even appear  to have used his powers of persuasion to win over colleagues.

We will never know whether Senator Schumer might have, if he tried, been able to win over enough Senators to deny President Obama a victory on the Iran deal.  The guard at the castle gate might have been able to thwart the invaders' entry by sounding the alarm sooner, gathering comrades, engaging them at greater personal risk to himself.  Debatable whether the guard's action sinks to the level of punishable cowardice, but let us at least remember not to award him any medals. 

Does Torture Work? Does it Matter?

Senator Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that the "big finding of the report is that torture does not work."  More generally, one hears the following: The CIA enhanced interrogation techniques were terrible, immoral, grossly inconsistent with our values and can not be permitted in a civilized society.  And what's more, they don't work.

Huh?  The notation that torture (we'll call it that for simplicity sake) doesn't work undermines the main point, doesn't it?  It implies that if torture did work, then well, maybe, that morality and civilization stuff could be brushed aside.  OR, it's sort of a parting shot at the CIA goons, as if to say they're the gang that couldn't shoot straight, who probably just enjoy doing harmful things to people. 

We should presume that, at the very least, our intelligence officials possess cumulatively a resaonable amount of expertise, and act in the good faith belief that approaches they take will yield useful information.  And to be intellectually, politically and morally honest, the authors of the Report and those who defend it should be conceding, at least for purposes of discussion, that sometimes torture does help accelerate the process of getting useful, important and potentially life-saving information from hardened and despicable terrorists, but declare that despite this, we should never allow it. 

Pollard Is Now a Hostage

The April 2 NY Times lead story reports the breakdown of attempts to extend negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. One sentence in the article should make the stomach of every American turn. The article reports that President Obama authorized John Kerry to discuss the possible early release of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Then comes the following apparently innocuous sentence: “Whether, and how, to use Mr. Pollard has been vigorously debated within the administration.”

 

Our government is debating how best to “use” the possible release of a prisoner, not a POW and not a quasi-POW enemy spy captured in the Spy vs Spy world of the Cold War. Pollard is an American citizen convicted of espionage on behalf of a friendly country and sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty under a plea bargain gone bad. Many prominent Americans and more recently, Israelis, have pleaded unsuccessfully for leniency. Regardless of what you may think about the merits of that question, it is abhorrent to see indications that our government regards the decision to hold or release him as a means to the end of inducing our friends in Israel to do what we want them to do.

 

And what do we want them to do? According to The Times, “some officials argue that [Pollard] should be used only to break the logjam on final-status issues – the borders of a new Palestinian state, for example . . . . Mr. Kerry has argued that Mr. Pollard could be more useful now in keeping the talks alive, given the possibility of parole [in 2015] . . . .” Apparently our Secretary of State understands that Pollard’s value will diminish as a parole hearing approaches.

 

Regardless of whether you thought Pollard should be released, most of us were under the impression that in either case the view was based on principles of policy and justice. Now it appears that our government had an additional reason to hold onto Pollard that was based not on policy but on utility. What can we trade him for? This is the sort of thing that thug regimes do, and certainly criminal enterprises do, but not something our government does. As Ruth Marcus wrote in The Washington Post on April 1, “there is something disconcerting – repulsive is only slightly too strong a word – about having justice used as a diplomatic bargaining chip.”

 

And what are the competing “uses” being debated for Jonathan Pollard’s freedom? John Kerry wanted to offer him to the Israelis so that they would release more cold-blooded murderers, itself the price demanded by Mahmoud Abbas to sit with folded arms for another nine months. And if the Israelis went along with this, as they were reportedly inclined to do, it would be a dirty business for them and the Americans, but there would (other than the absence of a concession from Abbas himself) be at least some perverse symmetry in the deal.

 

What is more bewildering, however, is that some of our unnamed officials were counseling the President to hold onto Pollard and throw him into a final status deal. Indeed, it seems to be the dominant view among critics of this deal – including Senator Dianne Feinstein – that Pollard should be saved to be hauled out to get the really big concessions we want from the Israelis down the road. Which issue do these officials think the Israelis would concede in exchange for Pollard’s freedom: Security in the Jordan valley? Palestinians’ right of return? End of hostilities? Jerusalem?

 

We have seen in the Gilad Shalit deal that the Israelis will free hundreds of terrorist murderers from prison to win back one Jew from captivity. We have seen them agree nine months ago to free scores more to win the possibility of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. Somehow, time and again, the world views Israel as greedily and stubbornly holding all the high cards, and believes that what’s needed is the right pressures, the right inducements, to persuade Israel to give them up. Keeping Pollard as a trump card for the US is, in this respect, incompetent and amazingly ignorant of Israeli motivations in its negotiations with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, we’ve become used to such incompetence. What is new, and more saddening, about this latest action is that it shames America as well.

A few simple questions about Obama Administration foreign policy "process"

Just a few simple questions come to mind as we watch our President flounder in his effort to figure out how to respond to Assad’s recent use of chemical weapons to massacre his fellow Syrian countrymen (and women and children): • Why is the Obama Administration only now scrambling to rally international support for a military response? • Why is the Administration only now scrambling to rally Congressional support for a military response? • Why is the Administration only now scrambling to develop a legal rationale for a military response? • Before declaring that Assad must go, and later on, that the use or movement of chemical or biological weapons would be a “game changer,” did President Obama follow his much-admired consultative and deliberative method of decision making, and thus, have in mind what sorts of actions the US might take if this red line were crossed? The present circumstances – Assad’s use of chemical weapons – were not inevitable, but surely, reasonably anticipated. Ideological issues aside, the incompetence of the President in foreign policy, as exemplified by the current predicament, should jump to the top of anyone’s list of reasons why he his presidency has diminished our nation. PS – Difficult to know, but is it possible that the British Parliament might have voted differently if Obama had invested more in his relationship with the UK? Indeed, is it possible that a few MP’s had in mind the return of the Winston Churchill bust when they cast their vote not to support President Obama in Syria? PPS (more important) – As others have pointed out, what is Iran to conclude about the possibility of US military action to remove its nuclear weapons capability? Isn’t it abundantly clear now that, even if at some point Obama reluctantly concluded that the time had come to take such action, he would find himself even more hamstrung than he is today?

How the US Can Avoid an Israeli Strike on Iran

There has been a lot of jawboning by US military and Administration officials, both in public and, presumably, in private talks with Israeli leaders, to dissuade them from launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In fact, there is probably only one approach that the US can take to avoid an Israeli attack, and that is to credibly assure the Israelis that the Americans will do the job before it's too late.

There have been several good articles, including one in today's NY Times, outlining the enormous challenges to Israel in accomplishing a reasonably successful raid, and many more articles have emphasized the variously described unpleasant consequences of even successful Israeli military action. True enough, but unless someone has been able to convince the Israelis that they can live with a nuclear armed Iran, then these are the essential pieces of the equation:

1. Israel and the US agree that Iran is aggressively pursuing the development of nuclear weaponry.

2. Israel believes that some time well before the end of this year Iran will have entered what Defense Minster Barak refers to as the "zone of immunity," where it will have dispersed, hidden and buried its nuclear facilites to the point where Israel will no longer be able (even if all goes well) to set the program back significantly.

3. The US faces a similar zone of immunity problem, but due to its greatly superior capabilities, that moment will come months later than for Israel.

4. Sanctions against Iran are finally inflicting pain, but few analysts expect that they will result in either a change in Ayatollah Khamanei's determination to become a nuclear power, or an overthrow of the current regime, during the current year (or more particularly, before Iran enters the zone of immunity).

5. Finally, for Israel the prospect of the current Iranian regime possessing nuclear weapons capability is unacceptable, which for Israel means that it will do whatever is in its power to prevent it, including a military strike.

So what is Israel to do? And what arguments are available to its close and powerful friend, the United States, to prevent or at least delay such action? Unless Ayatollah Khamanei does actually (pardon the exprssion) see the light and strike a credible deal very soon, then the only truly relevant message the US can deliver is this: "We are equally committed to preventing Iran from reaching its nuclear objective; we do have the luxury of waiting longer for sanctions to work; but we will use the military option before the window closes on our zone of immunity with Iran."

How can such an assurance be conveyed? Presumably, nothing short of a direct, categorical statement from President Obama to Prime Minister Netanyahu when they meet in Washington in early March.

Some Takeaways from The Washington Institute's Soref Symposium

My wife and I recently came back from two days of presentations at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's (TWI) annual Soref Symposium. Below is an extremely abbreviated summary of some of what I took away from the program. While many of the presentations were explicitly off the record, I am confident that I am not betraying confidences, inasmuch as (a) I am not attributing views to any particular individuals, and (b) the reporting is highly filtered. Despite some intrusion from my own biases, I think I'm conveying some key points gleaned from scholars and policy makers far more knowledgeable than I. See below for list of speakers.

Israel and the Peace Process
Hamas-Fatah deal wouldn't have happened without Egypt, and challenges in Syria, which has historically been a key Hamas sponsor. Mahmoud Abbas has given up on US, more uncomfortable after seeing our abandonment of Mubarak, who had been a key patron. Abbas sees his legacy more in terms of Palestinian unity and "statehood," without peacemaking. Neither Fatah nor Hamas wants to see things change on the ground, however; little will change in the near term. More hopeful about Salam Fayyad staying on as Prime Minister of PA, despite initial indications to the contrary, and fact that Hamas says no. Fayyad is key to credibility with US, Europeans; Fayyad may now finally be looking to run to succeed Mahmoud Abbas. US law requires President to certify that Quartet conditions met before economic aid or dealing with PA government.

US is the only member of Quartet insisting on post-reconciliation government adhering to Quartet conditions. Netanyahu is in Europe this week, essential that he be able to convince Europeans on this point, as well as on opposing UN GA recognition of Palestinian state.

Regarding the "peace process," little chance that Netanyahu will announce bold initiatives in Washington next week. With much higher risks on Egyptian, Gaza and potentially Jordanian borders, and demonstrable lack of sustainability of Arab regimes, it's not a great time for bold, risky moves. Nevertheless, negotiations could possibly get into gear if Netanyahu and Abbas each take a big step and cross a threshold - for Netanyahu, some statements about borders, and for Abbas, acceptance of legitimacy of a Jewish state. Another alternative may be for Obama to put some ideas out there with tacit acquiescence from Israelis, albeit not binding on them, with disclaimer that ideas not applicable to PA that includes irredentist Hamas.

Egypt
From US and Israel standpoint, near term will not be good, question is how bad. Longer term, more likely better than under Mubarak regime. Egypt will not abrogate treaty with Israel - very much in Egypt's interest. Not doing 180 degree turn, but question of whether more than 90. The best of likely near term outcomes is Islamists holding significant minority of Parliament seats and Amr Moussa president (not good, but worse would be majority Islamist). High expectations among young people can give way to problems if too deeply disappointed.

Hopes of those leading the Tahrir Square uprising are giving way to fears. Fears include military continuing Mubarak approaches; too quick march to elections before liberal institutions can develop; increased power of Salafis (worse than Muslim Brotherhood). Women's rights suffering. Others in Egypt say average Egyptian is focused on stability and fears a theocracy. Muslim Brothers will gain seats in Parliament, but Salafis don't believe in voting, unlikely to seek political power. (Note that recent reports indicate the Brothers may now be seeking majority in Parliament, possibly presidency).

Iran
Will Arab spring sweep eastward into Iran? From standpoint of Iran's principal troublemaking role in region - including Hamas, Hezbollah, nuclear weapons proliferation - regime change is critical. Arab spring has derailed US Iran policy. US Administration has no new ideas, content to kick this can down the road to second term. We need to slow down the nuclear clock and speed up the democracy clock in Iran

Syria
Newspapers have been reporting that Israel is wary of what could happen if Assad were pushed out of office, the devil they know being better than one they don't. Not everyone feels that way: some astute Israelis don't see the unknown being any worse than Assad. Note that Syria is a fairly secular country; the Muslim Brotherhood not a significant presence. In this case, the moral force favoring the uprising is in line with strategic interests.

Turkey
A year or so ago, perspective on next year's elections was that it could be the last election before the country becomes irredeemably Islamist and anti-Western, the key being whether AKP locks in another term for Erdogan. Now the issue is framed as to whether AKP only gets a majority, or gets a 2/3 majority enabling it to amend the Constitution to lock in powers in the manner of Venezuela. Beyond that, there are still some optimists who think that in the medium term Turkey under AKP will find its natural interests being in strong competition with Iran, not aligned with it, even eventually [re]-aligned with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Economic Aid
Egypt and Tunisia desperately need significant amounts of economic aid to get through critical transitional period. On a "micro" level, the people need stability and there is no margin for deterioration of average citizen's economic condition. Jordan as well is in dire need of such help for the monarchy to survive. Help must come from Saudis, not Americans. Saudi Arabia may condition economic assistance to Egypt on no prosecution of Mubarak.

US Strategic Interests
Excellent outline of principal US strategic interest in the Mideast (PS - did not come from National Security Adviser Tom Donilon):
1. Global access to energy and freedom of shipping lanes.
2. Secure and strong Israel
3. Enduring interest in and commitment to defeating and dismantling terrorism.
4. Nonproliferation. Here, greatest threat is tactical nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
The above must be paramount for US. Bahrain is situation where our vital security interests trumped pro-democratic sympathies.
Four strategic pillars in the region are Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. One speaker described the competing powers in the region as ominously similar to Europe in 1911.

Islamic Extremism in the US
Heard from heads of three US Islamic groups working to combat extremist Islamic ideology in US. All agreed that US Islamic establishment was funded and populated by Gulf states in 1970s, strongly infused with Wahabi-Salafist ideology. They dominate mosques and campus Islamic groups in this country. Fighting against violence alone will not be sufficient.

The following is a list of speakers at the Soref Symposium (excluding speakers at breakout sessions I did not attend): Robert Satloff, Exec. Director of TWI; Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli defense intelligence; Soner Cagaptay, director of Turkish Research Program of TWI; Retired IDF Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog; David Makovsky, director of TWI's project on Middle East peace process; Michael Singh, Managing Director of TWI; Scott Carpenter, director of TWI's Project Fikra; Zainab al-Suwaij, executive director, American Islamic Congress; Zuhdi Jasser, chairman, American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Hedieh Mirahmadi, president, World Organization for Resource Development & Education; Matthew Levitt, director of TWI's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence; Patrick Clawson, director of TWI's Iran Security Initiative; Mehdi Klalaji, TWI Iranian scholar; Thomas Donilon, assistant to the President for national security affairs; Amr al-Azm, associate professor, Shawnee State University; Dalia Ziada, director, North Africa bureau, American Islamic Congress; Hisham Kassem, independent Egyptian publisher and journalist; Amb. James Larocco, director of Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies; Martin Kramer, TWI Wexler-Fromer fellow; Robert Kagan, Center on the US and Europe, Brookings Institution; Robin Wright, Woodrow Wilson Center.

NY Times Blames the Victims in Reporting of Hamas Murder

A news story in today's NY Times carries the straightforward headline "Killing of 4 Israeli Settlers on Eve of Peace Talks Rattles Leaders on Both Sides." The first paragraph of the story by Isabel Kershner and Mark Landler reads as follows:

"The killing of four Israeli settlers, including a pregnanat woman, in the West Bank on Tuesday evening rattled Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the eve of peace talks in Washington and underscored the disruptive role that ___ could play in the already fragile negotiations."

Now fill in the blank, bearing in mind that the next paragraph reveals that "[t]he military wing of Hamas, the Islamic group, claimed responsibility for the attack . . . ." You might have thought that the writers would be referring to the disruptive role that Hamas intends to play in the negotiations. But that, apparently, is too simple-minded. In fact, the reporters - or rather, editorialists - find that this murder "underscored the disruptive role that the issue of Jewish settlements could play" in the negotiations. Thanks for setting us straight on that. Good thing we have Ms. Kershner and Mr. Landler to clarify that the massacre of four people and an unborn child in a car indicates the disruptive role that the victims, rather than their murderers, could play in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

By the way, are these reporters on the ground so clueless as to think that Hamas is driven to clear-conscience killing of Israelis by "the settlements"?

Parenthetically, I note a somewhat disappointing condemnation of this killing by Salam Fayyad, the PA prime minister who represents the best hope of both Palestinians and Israelis for a viable Palestinian state. He said, "We condemn this operation, which contradicts Palestinian interests and the efforts of the Palestinian leadership to garner international support for the national rights of our people." What struck me most was his use of the word "operation," and the absence of any but a tactical criticism of the actions of Hamas. I do not know Mr. Fayyad, but I'll guess that this statement reflects the realities of Palestinian politics, where a moral condemnation of the murder of Israelis is unacceptable, and the necessary posture is that all agree on the ends and only disagree about the means.

But back to Ms. Kershner and Mr. Landler. I'm not someone who rants about the NY Times and its anti-Israel bias. I'd say its point of view is more of a reflection than a leader of shallow group-think on a number of issues, and this putative news story is perhaps a reminder that reporters ought to stick to reporting facts and leave the interpreting to the Op-Ed page. Funny, the people that come up with the headlines for articles are sometimes blamed for their choice of pithy phrases that may belie the contents of the article. In this case, I think the headline people displayed more straight sense than the reporters.

The article that purportedly reports Hamas's killing of four Israelis in a car begins with the bizarre sentence discussed above, and ends with the following:

"The stop-and-go Israeli-Palestinian peace process has often taken place in the shadow of bloody attacks. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israel prime minister who led the Oslo peace process in the early and mid-1990s, said his philosophy was "to fight terror as if there were no negotiations and conduct the negotiations as if there was no terror." Mr. Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist in 1995."

So in case you got distracted by some of the facts of the case - i.e., Hamas murdered four Israelis - and forgot the point made in the first paragraph, and especially if you thought you had figured out who the bad guys were, the smug reporters remind us that it's right-wing Israeli nuts who are the root of the problem.

Visitation Rights in a Land for Peace Deal

Are the Jews too late to stake their historical and religious claim to the land of Israel?  True, many of the locations in which biblical events took place are in the west bank areas likely to be eventually part of a Palestinian state, while the coastal areas that are within the pre-1967 State of Israel were historically less significant to the Jews.  That aside, has Israel been too passive for too long while the Arab world has asserted its religious dominance over the Jewish homeland?

Two days ago the Israeli government announced plans to include the Ma'arat Hamachpela (Cave of the Patriarchs) in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Ramallah on a list of Israeli national heritage sites.  This has had a predictably provocative effect on Palestinian Arabs, including Palestinian Authority president Mahmound Abbas, who see this as an assertion of a long term legal claim to these areas.  I don't think that the Netanyahu government is literally signaling an intention to annex Hebron or Ramallah, but is seeking to establish a reciprocal principle of respect that the Moslems have never begun to accept.

Hearing calls from Hamas and others for Palestinians to rise up against this "insult" is unpleasantly reminiscent of the purported response to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000, eventually known as the Second Intifada.  That an Israeli government expression of the Jewish religious claim to these holy sites should provoke accusations of identity theft by Palestinian Moslems is disappointing, if not surprising.

The Hebron site is holy to Moslems and Jews, since both regard it as the burial place of their common patriarch, Abraham.  For the Jews, however, the cave within also entombs Abraham's wife Sarah, and the next two generations of Jewish patriarchs, Isaac and Jacob, along with their wives, Rebecca and Leah.  Jacob's more beloved wife, Rachel, was buried along the road to Bethlehem after dying in childbirth.  The site of Rachel's Tomb in Ramallah has been marked in its present location since at least the Fifth Century.  As Prime Minister Netanyahu's office noted, both sites have been holy to the Jewish people for over 3,500 years.  Each has been the site of a mosque, even though Rachel's Tomb has no inherent religious significance to Moslems.

And then there is the Temple Mount.  The center of Jewish religious and national aspiration since at least the founding of the First Temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE - more than 1200 years before Mohammed.  Even if we only went back to the Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70, this is still many centuries before Mohammed.  Yet possession by the Moslem world was for many centuries thereafter worth a great deal more than history, and the Temple Mount is now home to one of the world's most beautiful buildings, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and is claimed by Moslems as their number 3 holy site.  Remarkably, although Israel gained control of East Jerusalem from Jordan in the Six Day War in 1967, it has truly ceded control over the Temple Mount to the Palestinian Arabs, and since the mid-1990s, the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, as is so often noted, these places are holy to the three major western religions.  But it is only for the Jews that this land was the center, the home, the promised land, and earned that special status many centuries before Jesus and Mohammed.  Whether one believes the veracity of the biblical claim, or details of the biblical narrative, one can only deny the Jews' foremost attachment to this land through a process of wholesale whitewash.

The rights and access of other religions to their holy sites has never been as strongly protected as they have been by the Israelis.  This was never the case when Jordan controlled the west bank, and the Jews have every reason to be concerned about the protection of their access and freedom of worship in a Palestinian state.  Perhaps more important even than that is the long-continued strategy of delegitimization of Israel's historical and religious attachment to the various places in and around modern-day Israel. 

Netanyahu's action in staking a historical claim to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb comes very late, and at a politically awkward time in view of the efforts underway by George Mitchell to get Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.  But it is not a moment too soon for Israel to draw the proverbial line in the sand - to make nonnegotiable its historical and religious position in the region.  And by so doing, he might possibly be able to get on the table the principle that each side in this conflict must accept that the other will have political sovereignty over some of its holy places, and respect one another's rights to religious visitation.

Goldstone Agonistes (Eyeless in Gaza)

This past Tuesday I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Richard Goldstone, head of the infamous UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and principal author of the resulting report. The lecture was entitled "Accounting for War Crimes: Israel and Hamas," presented by New York Law School's Center for International Law. I believe my title for these observations is pretty apt. Below are a few observations and impressions:


• There was a strong turnout - maybe 130 people. I was pleased to see a strong showing by the pro-Israel community, beginning with a two-page handout from the Jewish Law Students Association at the door.

• The host professor had asked Goldstone not to go into the substance of the report, but to talk more about the context and other matters pertaining to his involvement. Aspects of the report itself came out more in the course of the approximately 40 minutes of Q&A.

• He started with some background about international war crimes prosecutions, beginning with Nuremburg as the first serious attempt to hold individuals accountable for war crimes. Here, as elsewhere, it seemed to me that this otherwise apparently intelligent man was incapable of noticing irony.

• In addition to Nuremburg, he referred to Stalin's show trials in the 1930's. I don't think Goldstone realizes that the masters he serves have a lot more in common with Stalin than with Truman.

• He took some pains to explain that the US had been a leader in the efforts to set up the International Criminal Court, and noted that President Truman had been strongly in favor of the Nuremburg trials. Goldstone is obviously troubled by the fact that the US and several other major countries have not submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction.

• He mentioned a couple of things that seemed intended as analogies to his current predicament.

o When he first started to investigate war crimes in Bosnia, he met with the head of the Serbian government. The Serb leader was furious, said they'd been unfairly singled out. (I believe Goldstone thought this echoed protests that Israel was being unfairly singled out). Goldstone told him that if they were the first and last to be prosecuted, it would be unfair. But if they were the first of many, then it wouldn't.

o When he investigated human rights abuses in South Africa, whites down there accused him of being a traitor. (I'm guessing he thinks the Jewish community sees him the same way, and he thinks they're no more right about it).

• On the whole, his comments seemed to be fairly defensive, intended to refute some of the worst of what people now think of him and the report. Thus, for example, he explained that when first contacted by the head of the Human Rights Council to lead the investigation, he turned it down because the January 12, 2009 mandate by the Council was "to investigate all violations of international human rights law . . . by the occupying Power, Israel . . . due to the current aggression." He was subsequently summoned to Geneva and pressed to state his conditions for heading the group. After they agreed to starting without foreordained conclusions and to look at both sides, he agreed to take the job. He says he was unaware that others, including Mary Robinson, had previously turned down the job.

• In his own words, he naively thought that a thorough, objective investigation of the facts by his independent commission might be in Israel's interest. This comment exemplifies how obtuse an individual he seems to be, at least regarding Israel's position in world politics. He tried rather desperately to get Israel to cooperate with the investigation, but received virtually no support.

• In the Q&A there was discussion about the strength of the evidence on which the report was based. He acknowledged that their findings were necessarily based on limited information available - in his words, "a small sample"; they did the best they could with what they had available, and in a very limited time frame. He seems to be backing away from some of the stronger wording in the report, which is more akin to a legal indictment if not outright judgment.

• There seems to be no sense of proportion to Goldstone's view of war crimes. He took strong issue with the proposition at least implied in Robert Bernstein's October 20 Op-Ed piece in the NY Times that democracies shouldn't be prosecuted for war crimes violations and only despotic regimes should be. He seems to regard war crimes in a manner akin to traffic violations: it's not a question of whether a person is fundamentally a good or bad driver; if you run a stop sign and get caught, you have to pay the penalty.

• He believes strongly in the law enforcement approach rather than a military approach to fighting terrorism. In his words, "It's a matter of fighting crime." Goldstone's belief in the power and purity of the law rivals that of Inspector Javert.

• His view about identification of civilians and the necessity to avoid their casualties approaches something like strict liability, i.e., if you think you might harm someone beyond the person who's shooting at you, you must not attack. To do so is a war crime.

• When asked about one member of the mission, Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, he reacted very defensively. She co-signed a letter to The Times of London last January which, among other things, said that Israel's military action in Gaza was not self-defense. Characteristically, Goldstone focused solely on this issue and defended it on the basis that, under international law, a state is not technically acting in self-defense other than against invasion by another state. He noted that US actions against Al Qaeda are not, strictly speaking, self-defense. Be that as it may, he ignores the larger fact that the Times letter, rather than being a law review article, was a strongly worded opinion piece condemning the entirety of Operation Cast Lead.

• One questioner asked how he felt about the fact that his report was being used by the members of the UN Human Rights Council to cast Israel into a pariah state (in response to which I muttered, "It already was."). Goldstone got angry at this, stating that if Israel was becoming a pariah state it was due solely to its own actions.

• One wonders how he would approach the task if he were doing what he does in 1939, and Hitler asked him to investigate the conduct of the Polish army during the conflict with Germany (the one where Germany invaded Poland) to determine whether any Polish soldiers had committed war crimes against the Germans. It seems that Goldstone would be honored to have the opportunity to bring the few Polish scoundrels to justice, and be comfortable ignoring the motivations of his employer and the broader context of his investigation. That's unfair of me, though: Judge Goldstone would insist on investigating both sides in the conflict.

• Early on, Goldstone, in a rare moment of obvious self-pride, said he often tells his students, "If you don't understand the politics of international justice, then you don't understand international justice." Remarkably, the greatest surprise to me is how grossly he seems to fail to understand the politics of international justice where Israel is concerned, and of the political consequences of his own actions.

• One questioner mentioned that his doctor had contrasted his judgment-rich advice with what the patient apparently wanted by saying "I'm not a muffler shop, where you go in, put your money down and walk out with a muffler." His unfinished question to Goldstone was, "By taking on this job, haven't you in effect become a war crimes muffler shop, willing to hunt around for war crimes regardless of whether it makes sense to do so?" Did he really think he could be serving justice and truth, and even remotely think this might be good for Israel, considering the nature and motivation of those who hired him?

o More than the muffler shop, I'm thinking of the gun for hire. Jack Wilson, played by Jack Palance, in Shane, brought in by the rancher to run Van Heflin and the other homesteaders off the land. The rules of the game, though, as indicated when he shoots down the character played by Elisha Cook, Jr., involve encouraging (goading) the victim into what may appear on paper as a fair fight, but results in little more than an execution.

• Is he Inspector Javert or Jack Wilson?  Clueless zealot or gun for hire?  I gather more the former, but given his apparent willingness to attack whoever he's asked to, and by whomever asks, I'm not sure the victim can see the difference.

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?

Appeasement? The shoe fits pretty well.

So it's George Bush's fault that Barak Obama has taken personally the President's comments to the Israeli Knesset about appeasement of Iran. On May 15, President Bush addressed the Knesset during a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. In the course of what was an extraordinary speech expressing deep support for the Jewish state, the president spoke with specificity about Iran, its proxies and Al Qaeda and their expressed intentions with respect to Israel. He then proceeded to talk a bit about how we in the West react.

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

"Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

So, the President describes what might be referred to as three levels of naivete among otherwise well-meaning Americans. The first group, well meaning and peaceful, sees the world through a self-reflecting lens that virtually filters out words of hatred and violence toward them and theirs. The second group hears the words, and in a mix of naivete and arrogance, believes it can persuade those who utter them to turn over a new leaf. And the third group more thoroughly accepts the statements of evil intention toward Israel and the US, but chooses to accept at face value that all America need do to be left alone is to throw Israel to the wolves. Not only naive but cowardly, they would do so, only to find the wolves' appetite only whetted.

Somehow, Senator Obama and his supporters found a spot for him in there among the second category. Never mind that the more obvious personification of the type would have been Jimmy Carter, who had so recently returned from an ill-fated trip to the region to negotiate peace for his dear friends in the "Apartheid state" of Israel. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel jumped in promptly to cry "foul."

As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would add, if Senator Obama does not fit into the category of people who think that they can sit down and "reason" with President Ahmadinejad, then why choose to see oneself as the fairly well veiled reference point for Mr. Bush's appeasement comment?

Going beyond the words, and the accusations, and the politics of the moment, we have this question: Is the comparison to 1930's Europe an appropriate one, and does the ghost of Neville Chamberlain really lurk about our political house in 2008? Indeed, the word and the name have been used excessively and at times inappropriately. But there is an essential similarity between Islamist Iran and Nazi Germany that goes well beyond their shared hatred of the Jews.

In 1938, not only was appeasement a politically popular approach, it was virtually the only approach open to England and France, because they had allowed Germany to boldly rearm and openly breach the Treaty of Versailles with complete impunity. By the time they met with Hitler in Munich, the Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France had no choice but to acquiesce and cede the Sudetenland to Germany, hoping that this would sate Hitler's appetite. Really, all he was after was a restoration of some of the national pride so unfairly taken away from the country in 1919. Appeasement is what necessarily follows from acquiescence and complaisance.

So what of Iran? Yes, Israel is fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran, as a mouse placed in the tank of a hungry viper might be fearful of the viper -- the latter presents what we call an "existential threat" to the mouse. (Yes, this mouse has the best air force in the region and its own nuclear weapons, but I'm still going with the analogy). But surely that's not why Egypt, Iraq, the gulf states and everyone else in the region fears a nuclear Iran. Indeed, once it adds nuclear arms to its already formidable armed forces and medium and long-range missile systems, Iran, like Nazi Germany 70 years earlier, only needs to declare its wishes, rattle its sabre, and appeasement will surely follow. Once you know one player holds the trump card, the game is already over.

It so happens that we have a very recent illustration of what modern-day appeasement looks like. The world is congratulating itself on the "peaceful settlement" of the conflict in Lebanon. Ostensibly a resolution to an internal conflict that might otherwise have inflated to another civil war, the mutual acceptance of General Michel Suleiman as president, on the heals of a settlement between the Cabinet and Hezbollah, surrenders to Hezbollah on each issue that had precipitated the military conflict of a few weeks ago. Hezbollah keeps its telecommunications network, continues to control Beirut airport, and now has the longed-for veto in the Cabinet. The key meeting took place not in Munich, but in Qatar, and at least, unlike the Czechs in 1938, the Lebanese were invited to this party. But this agreement marks a milestone in the world's acceptance of Iran's and Syria's domination of Lebanon, and as in 1938, we call it a victory for peace.

Will Hillary Jump the Shark?

I have been among those voicing support for Hillary Clinton's persistent pursuit of the Democratic nomination, and strongly condemning those in the press and the Democratic party who were urging her to concede defeat in the name of unity. And on the whole, I've regarded a President H. Clinton as the lesser of the two evils compared to a President Obama, with the latter being far too unpredictable, or worse, in the foreign policy arena, and too predictable in the domestic arena.

For a while there was something comforting about the knowledge that Senator Clinton didn't feel very deeply about much of what she was saying on the stump. When, in the Pennsylvania ABC debate, she shuffled her way through her Iraq withdrawal position, while Obama sailed swiftly and smoothly through his, to me that only confirmed that she was merely talking the talk of Democratic primary politics, but in the White House or back in the Senate next year she would once again walk a more sensible walk.


Barak Obama would describe this as "politics as usual." And he'd be right. I recognize that both he and Hillary intend to raise my taxes, and I admire the fact that he's a bit more forthcoming in telling me that. And while he's been pilloried (what a waste of a good rhyme) for suggesting an increase in the wage cap for the Social Security tax, this illustrates a willingness to do what mainstream politicians have been systemically unable to do - speak frankly about the choices available to remedy problems in the Social Security and Medicare programs. He might even be crazy enough to suggest curtailing or means-testing benefits.

Hillary will probably win in Indiana, and may even fare adequately in North Carolina. But as her rhetoric becomes ever more populistic, the desperation that drives her becomes more apparent. Not only has she embraced the temporary gas tax repeal (not one of McCain's proudest moments, either), she's now lashing out at "these Wall Street money grubbers [sic?]," suggesting that they be "held responsible for their role in this recession." Yes, the bankers know she doesn't mean it, and will be there to welcome her with open wallets when this nonsense is over. But words, even those uttered in a primary campaign, are not entirely meaningless, and New Yorkers may not be quite as inured to cynicism as Washingtonians.

They say that a sure sign that a long-running TV series is in its death throes - the creative barrel nearing empty - when it turns to bizarre plot gimmicks. This is called "jumping the shark," named for the Happy Days episode when Fonzi, water skiing with his emblematic leather jacket, jumped over a shark, seen as a turning point signalling the downward spiral of the show. As Hillary waxes about her fondness for her daddy's shotgun, speaks to factory workers about the evil money lenders while she downs another Crown Royal boilermaker, one wonders whether we are seeing a campaign in its death throes, even as the other network continues with a somewhat tarnished but still popular American Idol.