Kesher Talk: 02/03/2002

Friday, February 08, 2002

Russian Orthodox Church tries to keep its monopoly: Pardon the melodrama, but it is late in the day for me. The Washington Post has a neat article on how the Orthodox church is trying to keep any other faith from getting in on the Russian religious action.

I remember being quite conflicted about religion during my summer in Moscow in 1993. Proseletizing preachers from dozens of different faiths were buzzing around the city, looking for converts. I found them repulsive at first, since I figured that the Orthodox church was the only institution that the Russians could really fall back upon after the fall of communism. However, the church was a mostly silent partner under the communist regime, so they deserve a lot of scorn, and not just for all the rotten things they did before Lenin came to power.

Read more about my Russia visit in my journal from the summer of 1993.

International Law, Blah Blah Blah: Did I ever mention how much international law annoys me? As if just to annoy me, Robert Wright writes in Slate about how the U.S. can tackle Iraq "legally." Like I care. Meanwhile, Jacob Weisberg wants us to not tackle Iraq just yet, we should wait until they have some nuclear bombs.

It is almost Sabbath, time to stop letting this kind of thing bug me for a day...

Looking for any alternative: H.D.S. Greenway whines in the Boston Globe that Sharon is but the most recent in a long line of Israeli leaders who have tried to find an alternative Palestinian leader, "'to create a different Palestinian people'' so as not to ''have to deal with the real one,'' as one observer put it. A generation ago Israel was courting Palestinian ''notables'' - community elders and former officials under the Jordanian administration on the West Bank who might be more successfully manipulated than the pro-PLO mayors."

Greenaway ultimately echoes a Clinton proposal, that UN forces are needed to guarantee both countries' borders, doubting that Israel would ever agree to it. Of course, you nitwit! Every time Israel has trusted the UN, it has found a bullet in its back.

Is Syria the conduit for Iraqi arms? Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Iraq Report looks at the Iraqi-Syrian relationship:

IS IRAQ SMUGGLING MILITARY EQUIPMENT THROUGH SYRIA? Western intelligence services said Iraq is smuggling components for tanks, armored systems, and anti-aircraft batteries, as well as materials for weapons of mass destruction, though Syria, "Middle East Newsline" of 1 February reported. The sources say the smuggling began more than a year ago and has increased over the last few months. Mainly, the goods are smuggled through the Syrian port of Tartus. The Iraqi smuggling route has led to a sharp increase in traffic at Tartus.

On 29 January, the London-based Arabic language daily "Al-Hayat" reported that two Syrian merchant ships were stopped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. The ships were taken to Cyprus and searched for unspecified weapons and materials. Nothing was confiscated from the Syrian ships. (David Nissman)

SYRIA DENIES OIL SMUGGLING CHARGE. Syria's delegate to a UN
sanctions panel on has denied charges that Damascus imported Iraqi crude oil in violation of a UN embargo (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 1 February 2002), Reuters reported on 1 February. Previously, Russia had blocked attempts by Britain and others on the committee to confront Syria, saying not enough evidence had been presented, a position it repeated on 1 February.

Syrian counsel Faysal Makdad denied his country was importing illicit oil and said it was building a new pipeline that it hoped would be placed under UN control.

Britain, represented by its Middle East expert, Carne Ross,
presented news reports and oil industry figures to support the smuggling charge. British officials believe that an increase in Syrian oil exports means that Syria is smuggling in at least 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iraqi crude over a pipeline that had been shut down for almost 20 years (until November 2000).

Oil industry officials say that in 2002, the rate of smuggling will increase to as much as 200,000 bpd, which would be worth more than $1 billion a year at current prices.

Some UN diplomats believe Syria's membership in the sanctions panel makes it immune to the British allegations. A Western diplomat pointed out that Syria has veto power, and that there is nothing that can be done about these allegations unless Syria agrees to any proposed action, which they will never do.

Russia, an Iraqi ally on the panel, has sided with Syria. And France and China say that Syria should not be singled out when Iraqi oil is also allegedly smuggled through Turkey and Jordan. Britain has said that the amount of oil traveling to Turkey by road has dropped in recent years, and the Jordanian situation has been acknowledged by the council as a special case. (David Nissman)

More on Kabul's last two Jews: RFE/RL adds to the reporting of this sad story: "Their mutual hatred has caused them to lose their Torah and overshadows their daily life. And with them, a whole community and culture will soon disappear from the Afghan capital."

Calling a shovel a shovel can turn a shovel into a shovel? The Christian Science Monitor claims that: "Instead of cowing Tehran and its Islamist allies, the verbal salvoes and Israel's hardline policies against the Palestinians are providing encouragement and inspiration to Hizbullah and radical Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The result could be a new explosion of violence in the Middle East."

So, by calling evil that which is evil, we are encouraging the evil people to be evil. Did you get that? Neither did I.

The fountain of youth discovered in Kandahar: "The Crusades still are bitterly remembered here," CNN's Martin Savidge reports from Kandahar, Afghanistan. OpinionJournal laughs:

Actually, the Crusades continued until the 14th century--but still, that would mean anyone who "remembers" them would have to be more than 600 years old. Either Kandahar yogurt contains some sort of miracle elixir of youth or, more likely, some wily Afghans managed to snooker poor Martin Savidge into thinking they were born more than six centuries ago.

Our friend Jennings: ABC's Peter Jennings admits that, if he is more anti-American than some other network newscasters, it is because of a global perspective he gained from many years of reporting in Europe and the Middle East. "I tend to see the United States through a variety of prisms," he admitted to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I'm not one of those members of Congress or the leadership of the country who is proud not to have a passport, which I believe is utterly foolish."

Bad spellers: I frequently mis-type "national" as "naitonal." It is sad, I know. But what is worse? That when I did a Google search for the "Naitonal Cancer Institute," it uncovered 109 results!

Interesting reason to take Iraq 1st: Jim Hoagland offers a different rationale for overthrowing Saddam before overthrowing the mullahs in Iran: "It will not be possible to deflect Iran from its drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction as long as Saddam Hussein's deadly regime is in power next door. Iraq must be dealt with first, in the context of an eventual return to normal U.S. relations with Iran."

Jews can't read? More research needed: OpinionJournal's Best of the Web uncovered this gem:

The short Associated Press item that appeared atop yesterday's New York Times "National Briefing" (link requires registration) was easy to miss, but it's actually quite shocking:

The Los Angeles school district has halted distribution of a book about the Koran because its foreword calls Jews illiterates who reject knowledge. Nearly 300 copies of the book, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," donated by the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, were removed on Tuesday for further review. "We're going to talk to the foundation members and determine exactly why the commentary's there and whether there is research to support it," said Jim Konantz, a district official.

Now, it's dispiriting but not surprising that multicultural blind spots would prevent public educators from noticing Muslim anti-Semitism in the first place. But read that Konantz quote carefully. Is he really suggesting that there may be "research" to "support" this slander?

Saudi banks going bankrupt?: Reuters reports that "Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah has ordered an end to lavish government spending, saying the kingdom was facing a "suffocating" economic crisis. The de facto ruler of the world's biggest oil exporter issued a circular published Wednesday in which he preached good governance and threatened to fire incompetent officials."

What, and kick all of his relatives off the public teat?

Thank G-d I got out when I did: I moved out to Virginia in mid-October, shortly after I was mugged at gunpoint outside my Capitol Hill apartment. I have been informed it was actually a good thing. Given today's news, I believe that even more. It appears that ye olde coke-snorter, Marian "bitch set me up" Barry, wants to make a comeback bid.

Agenda at the New York Times: Andrew Sullivan looks at the curious history of the reporter who wrote a front-page story on Israeli military resisters - he was once one himself.

Thursday, February 07, 2002

In praise of Bush-ian honesty: Jonah Goldberg compares Bush's forthright language to Maddy Albright's "states of concern" rhetoric, reminding readers that dissidents in the Soviet Union were boosted by Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech far more than most people will admit -- so too will Iranian dissidents be by the "axis of evil" speech.

Mundane data: Don Feder notes that, "Last year, roughly 230 Israelis were killed by terrorists. At the same time, 500 to 600 died in traffic accidents. Statistically, terrorism is manageable... [but] Terrorists' objective isn't to rack up body counts, but to affect the living, to get them to personalize attacks ("My God, what if it had been me!"), to disrupt their lives and make them so desperate for an end to suicide bombings that they will grasp at suicidal concessions."

Clinton's anti-anti-terrorism efforts: Dick Morris once again relates how Clinton fought the war on terror when in office:

Some of the president's staff and his consultants pressed the case for aggressive action to contain terror at home and attack it abroad. But at the center of the storm, Bill Clinton sat with an unusual imperturbability. Even as he fretted about whether to sign the welfare reform act and brooded about the FBI file, Paula Jones and Whitewater scandals, he seemed curiously uninvolved in the battle against terror.

Advised that his place in history rested on eliminating the deficit, making welfare reform work, and smashing the international network of terrorists militarily and economically, he remained unusually passive. Around him, his foreign-policy advisers--particularly former trade lawyer Sandy Berger, then serving as deputy national security adviser--seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror.

Neutral arbiter wanted: The Christian Science Monitor worries that the U.S. is losing its role in the Middle East as a neutral arbiter.

There's that "neutral" demand again...

Greek terrorist laxity Theo Gemelas writes in the Wall Street Journal Europe that Greece's record on combatting terrorism is, well, atrocious. This is of great importance, he says, since Athens will host the Olympic Games in 2004.

At a White House ceremony last month, U.S. President George W. Bush praised Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis for his strong stand against terrorism. Greece is a U.S. ally, of course, and Mr. Simitis had expressed total commitment to the fight against international terrorism. So it is perhaps understandable that diplomatic niceties were observed. Hopefully, however, this was accompanied by some pressure behind the scenes, for Greece's historical record shows that it has tolerated terrorism or at least has been ineffective in attempts to apprehend terrorists.

... For 26 years the terrorist group known as "Revolutionary Organization November 17" has been committing acts of murder. None of over 100 attacks have led to the arrest of a single member of the group, despite efforts by the United States and other nations to offer assistance and advice to the Greek government. This ratio -- 22 dead and not one single arrest -- gives Greece the worst record in Europe in the fight against terrorism.

Preemptive war scenarios: "Defending against terrorism and other emerging 21st century threats may well require that we take the war to the enemy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week in a speech at the National Defense University. The Monitor outlines some possible scenarios for the new U.S. stance of bellicosity.

In defense of unilateralism: Ken Adelman writes in defense of American unilateral action against the axis of evil:

Since we're attacked as the leader of such values, we should act like the leader in defense of these values. Whoever among the Europeans - or "moderate Arabs" - is with us, in taking a strong stance, is welcome. Whoever is not, just stand aside so we can act responsibly on behalf of your, as well as our, values.

Understanding a new world: Tony Blankley (Washington Times, Feb. 6), declaring the "End of the Lotus Eaters," declares, "If one wishes to understand the world that Mr. Bush is leading us into, read Mr. Kaplan. He argues for a "morality of consequence" in international relations rather than a Kantian "morality of intentions." He quotes Thomas Hobbes for the assertion that virtue is rooted in fear. "The sum of virtue is to be sociable with them that will be sociable, and formidable to them that will not." That is the president's point precisely regarding Iraq, Iran and North Korea, inter alia."

The India-Israel Alliance - not just convenience: Yossi Klein Halevi (The New Republic, Feb. 11) writes that

the growing affinity between India and Israel is not merely strategic. It stems from more than a fear of terrorism or a struggle against radical Islam. It is also cultural: The mutual attraction of two Asian democracies, born around the same time in traumatic partition attempts, rooted in religious culture but devoted to secularism. Israel and India--countries with a 40-year history of suspicion and ill will--increasingly view one another not simply as sharing a common enemy, but a common purpose. So when the world changed on September 11, each knew exactly where to turn.

An article from the editors of the New Republic (Feb. 4):

On November 12, in the corridors of the United Nations, Colin Powell crossed paths with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. But unlike every secretary of state since 1979, Powell didn't snub his Iranian counterpart; rather, he shook his hand. The message was unmistakable: The State Department wants U.S.-Iranian détente.

... But the United States can't have better relations with Iran unless Iran has better relations with us--that is, when it stops threatening our friends and denouncing our way of life. Ever since the 1997 election of self-described reformer Mohammed Khatami, American policymakers have been waiting for that to happen.

... the Bush administration--and particularly the Bush State Department--must start seeing the regime in Tehran for what it is, not what we'd like it to be. "By and large, the Iranian role diplomatically has been quite constructive," Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning, recently announced. If by constructive he means promoting fundamentalism in Afghanistan, menacing Israel, and arming terrorists, then he's right. And terribly wrong.

Pat Buchanan, anti-semite: Jamie Glazov sets straight the Pat Buchanan supporters who think Pat is not anti-Semitic.

Blaming the Jews for Middle East troubles: David A. Yeagley relates that, "Historically, the Jews have always been viewed as the problem in times of international duress. Jews have held center stage during major world changes, from the time of ancient Egypt to the present Islamic conflict. It seems irresistible to blame them for everything."

Preferences in Israeli education: Haifa University professor Stephen Plaut discusses the fight over educational preferences.

What to do with Iran R.K. Ramazani warns that by denouncing the Iranian regime we risk undermining their democratic movement. Intelligent people, like S. Rob Sobhani, see reality moving in the opposite direction:

The people of Iran heard the president the first time when he said after Sept. 11, "You are either with us or against us." Candlelight vigils sprang up across Iran in open defiance of the regime. Now that Mr. Bush has signaled his awareness of the division between the regime and the Iranian people, for a second time since Sept. 11 the people of Iran have responded positively. Increasingly the voices of change inside Iran are drowning out the mullahs' weekly chants of "Death to America."

The Zionist conspiracy at work...: In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ali Abunimah, vice president of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, bemoans the undue influence of "the instransigent Israeli lobby" have over U.S. politics. "It will be a disaster if short-term domestic political considerations are allowed to trump the future of millions of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, and the long-term U.S. interest in seeing these peoples at last live together in peace. The current U.S. approach, while seemingly pro-Israeli, will eventually hurt Israel as much as it will harm Palestinians."

A very predictable screed indeed.

Uh, oh, it might mean war?: Paul Koring frets in the Globe & Mail that Bush's "axis of evil" speech might lead to war.

"President Bush "may have put himself in a box because by talking so tough he may have to do something," James Lindsay, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said yesterday."

God forbid the U.S. should every "do something."

Why Sharon Succeeds: Eric Fettman (NY Post, Feb. 6) wrote

Following Sharon's victory, I wrote that both his detractors and his biggest supporters were likely to be disappointed, at least in the short run - because the stereotypes about him were never true.

Those on the left who believed he would instantly plunge the entire Middle East into regional conflict have been proved wrong.

At the same time, though, those on the right who believed he could instantly make Palestinian terrorism disappear were also in for a rude disappointment.

What Sharon has done is to bring a cold, hard sense of reality to the conflict - one that sadly was lacking under previous Israeli leaders.

Being a female suicide bomber: Jamie Glazov notes "that Several Islamic Sheiks have confirmed, for instance, that if a Hamas woman wants to blow herself up, and this plan demands an absence of more than a day and a night, she must be accompanied by a male relative until the operation. I can’t help wondering: what kind of conversation would this woman and her male relative have during their little journey?"

Defending the word "evil": Chris Weinkopf defends the use of the word "evil." "America is in a war that ultimately boils down to good versus evil. Fortunately, it has a president who can tell the difference, even if his critics can’t."

Rabbi, Cantor or Clown?: The Telegraph reports on the strange case of the "golden" rabbi:

A SINGING rabbi who told Jewish jokes instead of preaching a sermon has left his synagogue in New York state in acrimonious circumstances.

The congregation of the Temple Beth El in Port Jervis thought they had found the perfect rabbi when they hired Jerry Heller, 69, through a talent agency for cantors - Jewish liturgical singers.

He spoke of a showbusiness past and entranced the congregation with renditions of devotional songs to the extent that he was known as "the Rabbi with the Golden Voice".

But a bankruptcy lawyer, Vern Lazaroff, noticed that Mr Heller struggled to pronounce Hebrew words, failed to put on his prayer shawl and forgot to say a blessing before cutting the challah, traditional ceremonial bread.

Once, instead of delivering a sermon, he treated his baffled congregation to a reading from a book of Jewish jokes.

Dreyfus Affair, Part Deux?: Bradford R. Pilcher writes about the recent anti-Semitic attacks in France, which he sees as another Dreyfus Affair.

Rabbi says, spend passover in Israel: "Millions, perhaps billions, of dollars will be spent by members of the Jewish community across America on their Passover journeys. What if we were to redirect those millions of dollars to the Israeli economy? What if we were to convince members of the Jewish community to spend their Passover in Israel rather than at other destinations?" (Rabbi Shmuel Goldin)

LLL back at it: The Lyndon Larouche loonies were back at it this morning outside Foggy Bottom metro. Today they want us to stop funding terrorists -- by ending aid to Israel. "Read about how Israel is opressing Palestinians," they shouted as they handed out suspicious green sheets of paper...

British anti-semitism: Jayadev Subash tells Instapundit that antisemitism is mostly an issue among a small set of the chattering classes:

Living in Britain I can honestly say that I have come across almost no anti-Semitic behaviour in the media. In a country with two million Asians don't you think that racism on a skin colour basis in a much bigger problem as it is far more evident to the prejudiced. Britain is a place where numerous racist beatings are ignored in the media and the beating of one white man by a bunch of fourteen year old Asian thugs is given blanket media coverage, therefore to see the main racial problem in Europe as anti-Semitism is nonsense. The so-called "underlying current of tension" towards Jews is non-existent.

The chattering classes about whom you speak are generally people desperately trying to be seen as ultra-liberal left wingers when they probably work in the London Stock Exchange and are not as educated as they would have you believe. Jews are seen as a prosperous and innovative people and while an article may appear in "The New Statesman" I find it very hard to believe that the rest of the British media follow this pattern. From my experience every Palestinian suicide bomber is treated with revulsion. I'm sorry if people feel British newspapers give too much coverage to dead Palestinians but the killing is not completely one way and equal, nay much more coverage is given to dead Israelis.

Unfortunately, I do not know of any content analysis groups logging media coverage in Britain, so that we could put this issue to bed.

Even Powell is starting to understand: Secretary of State Colin Powell told members of Congress Wednesday that there must be a "regime change" in Iraq and suggested that the U.S. "might have to do it alone."

U.S. warns Syria: Israel's Globes reports, the U.S. "has conveyed to Syria a firm warning to curb Hizbollah, after several rocket attacks by terrorists against Israeli aircraft along the northern border." For the "fifth time in a week," Hizbollah 2/5 "fired anti-aircraft rockets at Israel Air Force" aircraft. An Israeli military source: "Hizbollah's military activities triggered a very firm American reaction. Israel has not yet reacted, so as to give a chance to the U.S. initiative, but if the shooting continues and if Syria and Lebanon fail to restrain Hizbollah, we'll have to respond strongly" (Feb. 6, courtesy of The Hotline World Extra)

Wednesday, February 06, 2002

Landau vows to do things: UPI reports that Minister of Internal Security Uzi Landau Tuesday likened the Palestinian Authority to Afghanistan's Taliban and suicide bombers in his country to al Qaida terrorists who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "If the Palestinian Authority does not dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and hand over the assassins, and stop the incitement on TV ... eventually we will have to do things that we do not want to be done," Landau said.

A new "Iranian model": Mark Krikorian seems to be working on a soon-to-be Iranian model of change in the Muslim world.

the veil will disappear only when Muslims outgrow it, and generally embrace modernity. Since the veil is just a symptom of backwardness, not a cause, the real question, which lots of people have been asking, is: How can Islamic societies modernize?

There's only one realistic answer: Let the fundamentalists take over. They will so thoroughly screw things up, so completely alienate the bulging cohorts of young people in the Islamic world, that these societies will turn away from Islam itself, at least as it exists today.

Yasser's moral equivalence ploy: Kevin M. Cherry writes about Yasser Arafat's NYT op/ed:

Missing from the description of terrorism condemned by Arafat is one critical word: "intentional." Arafat defines terrorism as any killing of innocent people — thus equating the Palestinian suicide bomber who blew up a bat-mitzvah ceremony and the Israeli military's attempts to kill those who plan such attacks; equating the suicide bombers of September 11 and the American military operation in Afghanistan aimed at preventing future such attacks. Most of us can recognize a moral difference between those categories, and it lays in the intention of the act: Do we intend to kill innocent civilians — as many as possible — or do we do our best to avoid killing innocent civilians?

Arafat, of course, must not hint at this distinction. For his claims to "the power of justice" rest on identifying Israeli violence with Palestinian violence. They rest on creating the impression of a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Terror on Campus Daniel Pipes criticizes vapid media coverage of the impending firing of Sami Al-Arian, tenured professor of the University of Southern Florida professor. Hardly anyone outside in the academy or in the media will admit he is a terrorist front-man.

National Palestine Radio: Martin Peretz reminisces about enemy radio's foreign editor, Loren Jenkins, in his Feb. 11th "Cambridge Diarist" column:

A cheeky friend of mine refers to NPR as "National Palestine Radio." For NPR, this is not just another nasty encounter between two peoples. It is a tale of good and evil, the weak and the strong, the largely innocent Palestinian victims, and the aggressive and unmoving Israelis. CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) last year published a devastating report on NPRs coverage of the conflict, and I am not surprised.

Demanding elections: OpinionJournal's Best of the Web asks

Why should the U.S. and Israel be deciding who the Palestinian Arabs' leaders are? It's reasonable to insist that the Palestinian Authority hold elections (which Arafat has refused to do since 1999, when his elected term expired), and of course Israel has every right to demand that the Palestinian leaders, whoever they are, act in good faith and abjure terrorism. But who represents the Palestinians ought to be a decision for the Palestinians themselves.

A nice thought for certain, but please explain how free and fair elections could be held in the Palestinian dictatorship -- then we can talk.

Israel and Iran rattle sabers: The AP reports that,

in a speech to mark Iran's "Jerusalem Day" on December 14, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said the establishment of Israel was "the most hideous historic occurrence in history," and the Islamic world "will vomit her out from its midst," according to Peres's letter.

Rafsanjani told a crowd at the stadium in Teheran University that the day is approaching in which the Islamic world will possess atomic weapons.

"On that day, the strategy of the West will hit a dead end, since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counterstrike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world," he said.

Ha'aretz reports comments made in response by IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz that not only has Israel prepared its defenses, it has "other capabilities" to respond to an Iranian missile attack - an apparent reference, Israeli commentators suggested, to Israel's reported nuclear capability. Peres Wednesday turned aside criticism of the Israeli remarks as inflammatory. "When you smell the smell of Hitler, you must raise your voice. You need neither strategy nor tactics - you must tell the truth." (links courtesy of OpinionJournal)

Sharon, Arafat Walk Off Set of "Israel": Sources on the set of "Israel" say the show's irascible stars, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, walked off the set of history's longest-running drama today, complaining the show's scriptwriters continually make their characters look stupid. (SatireWire)

Post-modernists weak in the knees: The Christian Science Monitor's Brad Knickerbocker shakes in his boots about Bush's honesty:

As a born-again Christian, George W. Bush is the most overtly religious president since Jimmy Carter. For him, that includes a very clear, very sturdy, almost joyful certainty about what's right and what's wrong. .... Some find such presidential language unsettling.

Eban and Mubarak seeing eye to eye? Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak notes several blown opportunities for the Palestinians to get their own state. (courtesy of Grasshoppa)

Is being anti-Israel the same as being anti-semitic? Not necessarily, there is simply a heck of a lot of overlap. However, Hillel Halkin equates the two.

Dodgeblog has a further point which Halkin, and others, often sidestep:

One aspect that he did not touch on which I would have like have seen is the problem with the left. It seems almost cruel to point out that Jews in the west are more often than not supporters of the left and socialism. It is these self-same left wingers who are the ones who are most anti-Isreal currently. The apologists for Islamic extremists and Palestinian terrorists are almost universely on the left of the political spectrum. Some of the most avid gentile supporters of Isreal in the US and UK are the Republicans & Conservatives. Surely it is time for Jews to re-examine their, mostly, erroneous belief that parties of the right are anti-semitic.

I agree. It is just that I don't see that happening right now (See my debunking of the Republican Jewish Coallition's poll)

British sheikhs on a roll of hate: The Times reports that "A muslim sheikh has been touring Britain urging followers to kill Jews and exhorting schoolboys to master the Kalashnikov. ...The blood-curdling messages of Abdullah el-Faisal, a 38-year-old Jamaican living in East London, are being sold openly on £2 audio cassettes in Islamic bookshops under the name Shaikh Faisal."

Yesterday, Home Minister David Blunkett was pressured "to order the arrest of Islamic militants accused of distributing anti-Semitic material. Four radical Muslim preachers - Abu Hamza, Abdullah el Faisal, Omar Bakri Mohammed and Abu Qatada - were accused by a Labour MP of inciting racial hatred and, therefore, liable to prosecution. Andrew Dismore, the MP for Hendon, said he was writing to Mr Blunkett to ask for a tougher approach to the spread of anti-Semitic propaganda."

Caleb Carr's ficitonal history: I watched an interview with fiction-writer Caleb Carr on yesterday's Today show. He's moved from fiction to military history, penning a new book, The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians, Why It Has Failed and Why It Will Fail Again.

Carr told Today that "the easiest and the most emotionally satisfying thing for most groups or nations to do when their civilians are attacked is to attack civilians in return." Hence, everyone is guilty of terrorism.

"Because if you look at the sweep of American history, what they are basing their actions on is an American tradition that really took form during the Civil War, when various Confederate generals, and then especially General Sherman, specifically worked out a policy that they openly stated of punishing civilians for the actions of their armies in the field. That is a stated tradition in American history and any attempt to deny it is simply disingenuous."

I'm open to corrections, as ever, but I don't recall the Blue and the Grey deliberately targeting civillians. Sherman did lead a scorched-earth campaign, but not a scorched-person campaign. This is a losing argument on Carr's part.

Later, Matt Lauer actually challenges his guest:

LAUER: Let me--let me go back, because you--in the title you say 'why it always fails, why it will--will--will always fail.' To go back to the Japan example, some would argue that the dropping of those atomic bombs ended the world war and we have not had a difficulty with Japan, they're a great ally of ours now. So didn't it work in that example?

Mr. CARR: No. It--it--what ended the--we could have ended the war in any number of ways. The reason we haven't had a problem with Japan since sec--the second world war was because of the--MacArthur's version of the Marshall Plan that we instituted in Japan, which was possibly the greatest example of military and political generosity in history. What was what bought the loyalty of the Japanese, they didn't do it because of the atomic bombs.

Yes, but it did end the war in a damned hurry, didn't it Carr?

Maybe Caleb Carr should just stick to writing fiction. Even in his "historical" work, it seems to be what he does best. Surprisingly, even the New York Times review of his book agrees with me.

See an excerpt from Carr's book at MSNBC.com.

When will the war be over?:InstaPundit offers his victory conditions for the war:

1. Iranian mullahs, Saudi royals, Saddam Hussein out of power, replaced by nonhostile, preferably democratic regimes. Islamic fundamentalist leaders around the world neutralized or dead.

2. Friendly, more-or-less democratic regimes in place in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asian republics. ("More or less" means better than at present, though not necessarily up to standards of U.S., India, etc.)

3. Leaders of remaining hostile nations, if any, thoroughly cowed. New conventional wisdom is "don't piss off the Americans."

Suicide Hijackers Were Saudi: Go figure, Saudi Arabia has finally accepted reality. The AP reports that they have finally admitted that, yes, 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers were Saudi. "Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia."

That's right, "shocked."

Creating the axis of evil Danielle Crittenden revealed that it was David Frum behind the phrase "Axis of Evil"

Bush to the Arab League - bite me: Thomas Friedman pens a memo from Bush to the Arab League debunking their claims.

Conservative movement looking for unity: One can always hope. The U.S. conservative movement is 100 years old and looking to get its act back together.

First we take Iran...: Jed Babbin foolishly writes in The American Prowler (the successor to the old American Spectator website) that Iraq is too powerful to take on first:

"Iraq is not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when." The "when" may not be first on the axis of evil list, because Iran is working so hard to be at the top of the list. Iranian army and intelligence forces are on the ground in western Afghanistan helping al Qaeda and Taliban leaders regroup. It's no small matter to take on Iran, but my vote is to take Iran on first, while turning the covert guys loose on Iraq. That may buy us some time to get ready to do the job in Iraq. It's a job that badly needs to be done, but doesn't need to be done badly.

He's wrong on several counts, but it may be that handling Iran will be easier, b/c there is a growing opposition which will be able to help us there.

"Refuseniks": Mark Byron makes an interesting connection which at first eluded me:

I had been seeing pieces on Israeli reservists not wanting to serve in Palestinian areas, thinking the current policy unjust, but my dander got raised this morning by an NPR piece that referred to them as "refuseniks." A quick Google shows that other articles have also used the term. For those with a quarter-century worth of memory, you might recall that refusenik came into the vocabulary in the 70s to describe Soviet Jews (and other oppressed minorities) refused exit visas to leave the country.

... That takes an honorable word and places it on some dubious politics.

Indeed. Oh, and thanks to Byron for the permanent link.

Israel wants prior warning when U.S. tackles Iraq: Ananova reports that "Israel has asked for advance notice from the United States in case Washington attacks Iraq as part of its war on terrorism. ... Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer says he has told the US Secretary of State Israel needs time to prepare for a retaliatory attack by Iraq on the Jewish state. ... Mr Ben-Eliezer said he did not give Colin Powell his opinion on whether Iraq should be attacked."

Dissing Gilo: Timothy O'Leary of the Dallas Morning News visits Israel and questions the legitimacy of Gilo:

The distinction between how Israelis and Palestinians view Gilo is important. If Gilo is part of Israel's "eternal capital," as Mr. Sharon puts it, the inhabitants can distance themselves from the other Israelis who occupy settlements in what are unmistakably the West Bank and Gaza, which Palestinians covet for their future state.

But if it rests on confiscated Palestinian territory – if it belongs to Beit Jala, as the town's mayor, Raji Zeidan, insisted to me – then it is just another problematic Israeli settlement, which risks being dismantled or surrendered to Palestinians in some future final peace agreement.

... People can believe what they want, but I think that Gilo is an illegal settlement, which no amount of creative zoning can disguise, and that as such it represents an obstacle to peace. I think that its inhabitants delude themselves if they suppose that they somehow are purer than the inhabitants of settlements not contiguous to Jerusalem.

Logomachy: Once again, I feel it necessary to point out actually useful words I learn from Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day service. Today's word is "logomachy." Pronounced loh-GAH-muh-kee, it means "a dispute over or about words." Heck, any argument about the Torah falls under that description!

"Logomachy" derives from the Greek roots "logos," meaning "word" or "speech," and "machesthai," meaning "to fight," and it entered English in the mid-1500s.

Tuesday, February 05, 2002

Bernard Lewis: I have to wait to get my hands on What Went Wrong until after my soon-to-be mother-in-law finishes it. Paul Kenedy reviews the book. The NYT has the first chapter online. The Atlantic Monthly ran what amounts to a summary.

Bjørn Stærk decided to try to find some dirt on Lewis, to little avail:

I tried to dig up some dirt on Lewis - if he were sloppy with facts, or agenda-driven, I would not be in a position to tell - but found little of value. There's Edward Said, of course, who calls Lewis a "veteran orientalist" with "ideological colors". This critique by a Saudi academic is heavy on the accusations, but offers no examples of actual mistakes. A French court sentenced him to a 1 franc fine for denying the Armenian genocide of 1915. (Rebuttal here.) The most interesting (but propably least reliable) accusation comes from the Executive Intelligence Review, which basically accuses Lewis of almost single-handedly causing the Iranian revolution and the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979. Wow.

On a side note, the EIR is published by Lyndon Larouche, who leads the strangest cult in all the land, with politics subordinating religion. Who else could stand outside Foggy Bottom metro station screaming about how the CIA kills innocent Arab babies in the womb, so we need to increase funding for UN family planning?

Release Lindh!: The AP reports that attorneys for John Walker Lindh, the American who fought with the Taliban, asked a federal court Tuesday to release him pending trial on charges that he conspired to kill U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Lindh's lawyers, in written papers filed here, said there is no evidence "that Mr. Lindh is a flight risk."

You'd think that they think twice about letting him go. Not only do people only know his face when it is mud-caked, but if anyone did recognize him, he'd be first in line for a lynching.

Iran cruisin' for a bruisin': The Jerusalem Post quotes Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani. He was interviewed on enemy television (Al-Jazeera) about a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. "Iran is not a small country like Iraq. Iran has a powerful artillery, a disciplined army, and skilled air defenses," Shamkhani boasted.

OpinionJournal wryly notes "We guess that's why Iran won such a stunning victory in the Iran-Iraq war."

"the devastation of the Palestinian entity": The Economist editorializes this week that Bush needs to ask himself three questions.

1. "Are the wolves who want to gobble up Mr. Arafat, in this case the hardliners in Ariel Sharon's government, motivated by the desire for a political solution, or the reverse?"

2. "Would Mr. Arafat's disappearance lead to less violence or more?"

3. "what will be the repercussions in the wider Arab world if the United States is found guilty of aiding and abetting Israel in the devastation of the Palestinian entity?"

I'm surprised they did not add "are you feeling lucky, punk" since that is their tone.

I fail to understand how a "political solution" is the most important thing - its bull-headed pursuit for the last decade brought nothing but heartache.

No one can effectively answer the second question. Most pundits claim both that Arafat is not in control of the terrorists, but that we should still deal with him. Sharon has figured out that he must be irrelevant one way or another. Regardless, fear of the unknown has driven U.S. policy in the Arab world for too long.

On the third question, I'll take "devastation" of the PA over the slaughtering of innocent Israeli citizens any day. And most Americans, including President Bush, seem to be of similar mind in this respect.

Neutrality? This is not an issue which can be settled easily, but it is hard to see how the U.S. could be any more even-handed when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian stuff. Most sane observers (non-Arab apologists) would say that we have pressured Israel much more than the Palestinians. Yet the Economist concludes the article mentioned above by demanding that the U.S. "intervenes swiftly and much more neutrally in the conflict." Readers' ideas of what the Economist considers "neutral" are welcome at Kesher Talk.

Smear campaign unmasks Zionist designs: That is the title of an ArabNews article referenced by Christopher Johnson:

The imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, where several thousand pilgrims have already arrived to take part in this year’s Haj pilgrimage, yesterday lambasted the Western media for launching a smear campaign against Islam and Muslims.

"The mask of the Western media has now been removed. It is quite evident that most of the news agencies and satellite television channels are controlled by Zionist organizations, and are dummies in the hands of the Zionist lobby," Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais said in his Friday sermon.

Go to Christopher's site for the point-by-point rebuttal of this rambling idiocy.

Chuckles from Chuck Negrea: After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama made his way to the Pearly Gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington. "How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr.Washington, slapping Osama in the face.

Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end America's liberty, so they gave you death." Henry punches Osama in the face.

James Madison comes up next and says, "This is why we allowed the federal Government to provide for the common defense" and kicks Osama in the groin.

Osama is the subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe and 67 other people who have the same love for liberty and America.

As Osama writhes in pain on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up and hurls him back to the gate to be judged.

As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"

How bad are these Eurotrash? Charlotte Raven cheerleads for anti-semitism in the Guardian:

"What's the difference between a Jew and a canoe? A canoe always tips." I wish I'd been there when the second most famous black man on earth delivered this joke at a charity banquet last year. History doesn't record how the audience reacted but I can well imagine their rapt, expectant faces - all flushed in the presence of greatness - turning a shade of puce as the champ struck another blow in defence of his right to say whatever he liked, however offensive.

The timing of this incident - a matter of months before the release of a film depicting him as an anti-racist icon - suggests to me that this was no unfortunate faux pas. I think Muhammad Ali knew exactly what he was doing. In refusing to fall into line with the identity thrust upon him by the Michael Mann biopic, he was offering a timely reminder that his brand of subversive politics will always resist definition.

Or, perhaps Ali is just anti-semitic and wanted people to know. Not unlike Raven herself. As Glenn Kinen points out:

Hmm. I wonder how readily she would have opened with these quotes: "What's the difference between blacks and snow tires?" or "What do you say to a Puerto Rican in a three-piece suit?" or "What do you call a gay man in a wheelchair?"

She wouldn't have, because quotation marks do not obviate a paper's obligation to sheer decency. And that's just the point: she is writing in an environment where that joke isn't altogether indecent. You won't find many fans of Der Stürmer among the European left; but you will find an environment where making light of the Jews is chic--and where demonizing the Jewish state is a badge of intellectual integrity.

Thanks to Instapundit for pointing these out.

Why support Israel: DailyPundit on why America supports Isreal: "because we must, because we would not be America if we didn't. There will be no repeat of the Holocaust on our watch. That any European could, or would question the source of our determination indicates the sort of moral blindness that has traditionally fortified American distrust of (and disgust with) the old countries."

Yemen fights terrorists, sorta: The Christian Science Monitor reports that "With US help, Yemen hunts militants and deports illegal Islamic students." Then it rambles on about poverty and how curing it in Yemen will eliminate terrorism, shazam.

More poverty-terrorism babble: "Will the detention - whether short term or long - of militant activists cool their ardor or reduce the frustrations of oppressed populations on which such groups feed? For many people in lands suffering under occupation, terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the strong. Such acts may not achieve a political objective, but they achieve revenge and bring notice for their cause. As long as issues fester, frustration and peer pressure will lead to terrorism." (Christian Science Monitor)

The poverty-terrorism link: Alexander Rose (National Post, Feb. 5) scoffs that presuming

poverty "causes" terrorism is a lazy, deterministic perception unfortunately not confined to the businessmen and rock stars who attend Davos gatherings. But poverty is one thing and terrorism quite another. To believe that "solving" global poverty will automatically "solve" terrorism is a slacker's way out, a device to avoid the hard questions and harder decisions involved with destroying the networks of terror and restraining the states which continue to harbour terrorists. Aiding the world's poor by, say, lowering agricultural tariffs, or extending micro-loans, or subsidizing inoculations or whatever, has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

After all, why should perceiving oneself to be relatively poor in a material sense compel -- for that is what causal determinism is all about -- an individual imbued with free will to murder another person thousands of miles away? It requires a facile grasp of the complexities of human nature to believe that a man inevitably becomes a terrorist for one reason: a lack of cash.

Empirically speaking, there is no correlation between poverty and militant Islam. Iraq, Niger, Yemen and Bangladesh, for instance, are very poor countries, but Islamic militancy barely exists. Indeed, if anything, the more prosperous a Muslim country, the more likely militant Islam is to surge. Nearly all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were middle-class Saudis, the products of a vulgar Oil Kingdom. Their families were richer than yours: Look at Osama bin Ladens' ultra-privileged background. The genuine poor are expendable foot soldiers to the university educated, counter-elitist elitists acting as field marshals.

Rep. Frank tells Egypt where to stick it: Following my posting yesterday, the AP reports that Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. has denounced Egypt's treatment of homosexuals in declining an invitation to an Egyptian government-sponsored forum on improving cross-cultural understanding. Frank released a letter Monday that he sent to Abderahman S. Abderahman, minister for political and congressional affairs at the Embassy of Egypt.

"Enjoying the hospitality of those who have so harshly mistreated people because of a basic characteristic of personality which they share with me is not something I wish to do," wrote Frank, who is gay.

Reality sinking in, but only a little bit: NPR reporter Joe Davidson says in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Free Danny Pearl." He says, "This kidnapping was a vile criminal act that can bring no good to anyone."

But then he flips off the rails: "The outrageous threat to kill Danny does nothing to correct whatever sins the United States might have caused. His murder would disgrace whatever cause his kidnappers advocate."

Davidson is wrong. Their cause is already disgraced and the U.S. sins are mostly fictional.

The Burkha Chronicles: Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim women who does not wear a burkha, writes that she has "met women who choose to cover their entire body, including their face. We must support that choice. What kind of freedom do we claim to uphold if it is only the freedom to choose what we choose? Isn't that what it's about for women all over the world, be it the choice to vote, have an abortion, drive a car, wear a miniskirt or wear a scarf?"

Andrew Sullivan concurs: "A freely-chosen faith or custom, however abhorrent to outsiders, is not something good liberals should seek to reform or abolish. What good liberals should seek to abolish is the political tyranny that makes real choice for women such an impossibility in such cultures."

Religious police not quite gone yet: The Washington Post laments that "the Taliban's religious police, who jailed men for shaving and used whips to enforce their version of Islamic morality, were widely resented here and people celebrated their demise when the Taliban collapsed. But they are not quite gone."

Bombing Iraq, little by litte: "U.S. and British warplanes bombed part of Iraq's air defense system yesterday after being fired at by Iraqi forces, the Pentagon said." (AP)

The reservist revolt in Israel: A Sunday editorial in the Jerusalem Post said the reservists' letter mimmicked "the most lurid Palestinian propaganda. ... Israel's critics abroad have already seized on the officers' letter, using it as a tool with which to attack the government and its policies. Intentionally or not, the officers who signed the letter have given aid and comfort to the enemy, effectively transforming themselves into tools of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's propaganda machine."

It further asserted the reservists were "forgoing their responsibility to protect and defend the over 200,000 Jews" living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Omaha understands Iran: An editorial from the Omaha World Herald gets Bush's SOTU and Iran down pat:

President Bush, some say, went too far in his State of the Union Address when he included Iran as part of an axis of evil along with Iraq and North Korea. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, among others, has been encouraged by signs of moderation in Iranian government and society in recent years and considers it important to continue encouraging reform.

We respect Hagel's approach, but the president's point is difficult to dispute, considering emerging information about Iran's efforts to help Taliban forces escape the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Iran has been having it both ways for a good long time now - aiding terrorists and polishing its first-strike capabilities at the same time its leaders pretend to be holding open a door to better relations with the West. The time has come for its leaders to get off the fence. ...

It is true that reformers are easy to find among Iran's political leadership. Unfortunately, the ultimate power is wielded not by elected leaders but by the ayatollahs and their supporters in the judiciary and Revolutionary Guard. Those fundamentalists have shown little regard for democratic principles and little understanding of 21st century realities.

Given the context of the war on terrorism, Bush could hardly afford to be ambiguous.

Today's French anti-semitic attack: Some 40 youths attacked a group of Jewish students leaving school Jan. 31 in the Paris suburb of Montreuil. According to witnesses, the assailants, many of whom covered their faces with Palestinian scarves, sprayed mace in the faces of several of the Jewish youths. The French authorities are investigating the incident, and have yet to label it anti-Semitic. A week earlier, a school bus carrying Jewish children was stoned as it passed a housing project in the nearby suburb of Aubervilliers. (JTA)

Working the student body: Israel´s Foreign Ministry wants to create a presence on college campuses abroad. Gideon Meir, the ministry´s director of public affairs, told the Jerusalem Post the move is aimed at winning over "the next generation of public opinion makers." Meir said Monday that Israel´s standing on "campus is not good. My dream is to see a Chabad-style network working around the campuses." (JTA)

Seems a sensible enough idea. While Hillel and like-minded organizations exist at many American universities, anti-Israeli groups are far more prominent, and much louder.

Jordan says, "Wuddint Me!" Jordan claimed that Iran was behind a series of attempted attacks on Israel from Jordanian territory. The London-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported that Jordanian authorities foiled 17 attempted mortar and rocket attacks on Israel. According to the paper, the attempted attacks were carried out by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants who underwent training in Iran and in Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon. Jordan´s King Abdullah raised the matter during his recent trip to Washington. Israel Radio reported that the discovery of the Iranian involvement was one of the reasons for President Bush´s reference to Tehran in his State of the Union speech as being part of an "axis of evil." (JTA)

Monday, February 04, 2002

The hunt continues in Yemen: The U.S. has been "pushing Yemen .... for greater cooperation on anti-terrorism since" the attack on the USS Cole. But the "poor" Arab nation "is at pains to demonstrate its partnership in the U.S. war on terrorism, trying to maintain the delicate balance of powerful tribes and religious groups that underpin the government." However, while Yemeni officials "concede that individuals with links to al Qaeda exist in the country," they also "insist that the terrorist network has neither camps nor any other organized presence in the country." Now there are "tensions between" the tribes and the Yemeni govt, which has begun searching villages in an effort to root out any al Qaeda members (Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 4).

Trash talk about Shwarzenegger's "Collateral Damage": Franciscan priest Rev. Brian Jordan, who "ministers to workers at Ground Zero," said Arnold Schwarzenegger's new movie, "Collateral Damage," "discriminates against Colombians and exploits" 9/11. In the movie, Schwarzenegger plays an L.A. firefighter "who travels to Colombia to seek vengeance against Colombian terrorists" after they bomb an L.A. building. The movie was set for release in 10/01 but was postponed after 9/11. Jordan, a colleague of the late NYFD chaplain Mychal Judge, also supervises the immigration program at a Manhattan church. Jordan: "As a priest with a personal mission, I am greatly offended by this movie." A Warner Bros spokesperson: "I don't think anybody, no matter what their nationality, loves terrorists. There are good Colombians in the movie, too" (Bowles, Newsday, 2/3).

Sharon tries out the peace table again: William Safire says Sharon gave him "his telephonic account of what could be the start of a true truce process with the veteran Palestinian negotiators known as Abu Ala, Abu Mazen and Muhammad Rashid."

"Peace Party" in the making?: Haaretz reports on the possibilities of forming yet another Israeli political party devoted to "peace."

Give Palestinians to Jordan?: Walter Reich, writing in the LA Times (Feb. 1), suggests turning Palestine over to Jordan. "Over the next few years, it could protect Israel from the Palestinians, protect the Palestinians from each other and fulfill a deal with Israel for the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state along lines that would be fair to Palestinians as well as Israel."

What fanciful thinking! Jordan kicked the PLO out in the seventies when it could no longer control them, and sided with Iraq in the Gulf War partially to placate the Palestinians who still make up most of its populace.

Besides, it is hard to expect another dictatorship to be able to create a "peaceful Palestinian state."

What is cool now? Salman Rushdie, who knows a thing or two about Islamofascists, writes in the New York Times: "Around the world, the lessons of the American action in Afghanistan are being learned. Jihad is no longer quite as cool an idea as it was last fall."

Are the French just a bunch of Jew-haters?: Britain "cherishes its stereotypes about France and the French. The country is held to be pretty wonderful (pity we lost the Hundred Years’ War); the people less so: ‘Love France, shame about the French’ is a standard mantra. Stylish and clever, perhaps, and they certainly know how to run a restaurant. But they are also seen as treacherous, arrogant, rude, over-excitable, peevish and cowardly: ‘a shitty lot,’ as a London editor once put it to me. This is an acceptable kind of tribal slagging to which the French can and often do respond with equal gusto." Hence, the English have no trouble discerning the truth about the French view of Jews - they tend to loathe them.

Kabul's Jews, all two of them, still can't kiss and make up: The New York Times reports on the long-running saga - two cranky old Jewish men in Afghanistan who hate each other more than anything or anyone else.

Why Do Jews Love Bill Clinton? Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder (Washington Times, Feb. 1) ask

Could you explain why the Jewish people, who are the chief crusaders for human rights, civil rights, animal rights, Taliban rights, and every right for creatures nobody ever even heard of, somehow, whenever Bill Clinton is involved, he could destroy the rights of every living thing on this earth, and the same Jewish people will find it not only enjoyable but even adorable? Not only will they find themselves enjoying and celebrating his behavior, but they will violently attack anybody who has the audacity to criticize this gentle, loving, caring, tender man just because he happens to be a common criminal.

They conclude that "Since the Jews are the most guilt-ridden people in the world, they are so mesmerized by any expression of compassion that they can't tell the difference between the real thing and the transparent fakery." And buy that fakery in the hopes that all that they think glamorous and successful about it will rub off on themselves.

LA Times says to keep blabbing: An LA Times editorial ("Keep a Line Open to Arafat," Feb. 1) insists that Bush must stop taking Israel's side. The most galling point of the piece is that, while the Times feels there is no choice but to deal with Arafat, there is no need to deal with Sharon:

The administration has to keep the channels of communication open with the Palestinians. Yes, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and despised even by many of those it represents. But it's the only organization to talk to now.

The main burden is on Arafat to stop the violence. If he can't or won't, Israel and the United States will have to look elsewhere for a partner in dialogue. But there is no guarantee things will improve when Arafat dies or is removed.

Sharon is due to visit the White House next week. He should bring not merely a justification for keeping Yasser Arafat under virtual house arrest but proposals for returning to the peace process. And, while Bush should work with Sharon toward that end, it would be foolish for the president to embrace the lifelong hawk as the only personification of the olive branch.

What does Abdullah think? Jordan is sending mixed signals to the West (so what else is new for an Arab dictator?). At the same time as the U.S. says the Jordanian king is on side with pressuring Arafat, his foreign minister says they are not (Washington Times, Feb. 1). Who is in control here anyhow? Bush apparently "assured" Abdullah that the admin doesn't "plan to sever contacts" with Arafat, "but told him" the US "will not renew direct efforts to broker Mideast peace until Arafat takes concrete steps against terrorism," source said. The 90-min, "early morning Oval Office session appeared likely, for the moment at least, to calm escalating tensions between" the US and "its principal allies in the Arab world" (Washington Post, Feb. 2).

The wheel turns: Michael Ledeen outlines the usual schedule of events following a terrorist attack against Israeli civillians:

Sharon will denounce Arafat, as usual. ... Palestinians will celebrate the "martyr" who committed the disgusting act. The White House will denounce terrorism, and remind Arafat that he'd better stop this sort of thing if he expects the United States to take him seriously as a peace partner. The Europeans will denounce no one, complain to one another about what a nuisance Israel is, and send another emissary to speed up the peace process. And the State Department will bemoan yet another setback for peace. And the wheel will turn one more time, as Israel prepares its revenge against carefully targeted leaders of the Palestinian terror network.

"New Visions" needed