Israel's undiplomatic ambassador

Andrew takes down Michael Owen and gets letters.

Viewed from Indonesia

Indonesian Muslim people from Majelis Rasulullah conduct a prayer for Palestinians in Jakarta on January 17, 2009. (ADEK BERRY/AFP/Getty Images)

More pictures here.

President of Israel offers context

Beginning at 39:45, give Peres a listen:

Gaza students back in school

The cards have the name and ages of students who are not with us anymore.

Cliche expert visits Gaza

Via Jonah Goldberg:

Q: Why Magnus Arbuthnot! How unexpected to see you in South Jerusalem! What brings you here?

A: I have been sent by a respected and impartial NGO to investigate the carnage inflicted by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Q: Which NGO would that be?

A: An NGO that uses an ostensible human-rights agenda as camouflage for an anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic program.

Q: So you’ve been south. What did you see there?

A: Collateral damage.

Q: Collateral to what?

A: To Israel’s right to defend itself.

Q: And what else?

A: To courageous Palestinian resistance against Zionist imperialism.

READ MORE...

Q: What targets were hit?

A: Homes, schools, hospitals, military installations, and firing positions.

Q: How do you tell one from the other?

A: If you are Palestinian, you don’t bother.

Q: And if you are Israeli?

A: You shoot anyway.

Q: Could you be more specific? If you are a Hamas guerilla fighter, what is a legitimate military target?

A: Every outpost of Zionist imperialism.

Q: And what is an illegitimate civilian target?

A: Come again?

Q: The Israelis bombed homes and schools containing non-combatant men, women, and children.

A: They were being used as firing positions and endangering Israeli forces.

Q: How were they being used?

A: Cynically.

Q: And what the hundreds of deaths this caused?

A: They were tragic.

Q: What about the tunnels from the Gaza Strip to Egypt that Israel bombed?

A: They were lifelines for a besieged civilian population.

Q: Didn’t Hamas use them to smuggle rockets and other weapons?

A: Of course, the tunnels were a threat to Israeli security.

Q: Now that you’ve been to Gaza, what do you think of Hamas?

A: Hamas is fanatical Islamic movement sponsored by Iran that seeks Israel’s destruction.

Q: So Israel has a right to be concerned.

A: No, because Hamas is the national resistance movement of an oppressed people.

Q: And what do you think of us Israelis?

A: You are brave and determined.

Q: So you like us?

A: I suppose. Of course, you are the descendants of apes and pigs.

Q: Why did Israel invade?

A: It was provoked.

Q: And why did Hamas bombard Israel’s southern cities?

A: It was provoked.

Q: Couldn’t they have responded differently?

A: No, because the other side understands only force.

Q: What did Israel achieve?

A: All its goals.

Q: And what did Israel fail to do?

A: Finish the job.

Q: When will Hamas stop attacking Israel?

A: When it destroys the Zionist entity and liberates the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Q: And what did it inflict on Israel in this engagement?

A: A decisive loss.

Q: And what has Israel regained?

A: Its deterrence.

Q: What was the outcome of the war?

A: A cease-fire.

Q: What was the immediate cause?

A: The end of a cease-fire.

Q: Hey, where are you going?

A: Back home to a place where clichés don’t kill so many people.

School is out...

A Palestinian schoolgirl inspects her classroom which was burnt during Israel's offensive, at UNRWA's (UN Relief and Works Agency) primary school in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip on January 24, 2009. Some 200,000 Gaza children returned to school for the first time since Israel's offensive, many having lost family members, their home and their sense of security. The main UNRWA centre and several schools were destroyed by Israeli bombing during the 22-day war. By Olivier Laban-Mattei/AFP/Getty Images.

Andrew:

Now that the offensive is over, it seems to me that its wisdom and morality are even more questionable than before. If Israelis believe that this little girl above will blame Hamas for what was done to her school, or that the unimaginable trauma inflicted on Palestinian civilians will in any way help secure the future of the Jewish state, or that what they have done will end the tunnel smuggling, then their judgment is even more impaired that many of us feared.

More on the Islamic world's reaction

Marc "Abu Aardvark" Lynch of George Washington University says of the inaugural speech:

This struck me as a remarkably mature, frank, and effective appeal to a suspicious but hopeful Islamic world to engage respectfully, as equals and not as supplicants. The focus on the silencing of dissent was perfectly chosen -- protecting "bill of rights" freedoms of speech and assembly are precisely the place for the U.S. to take a strong, principled stand. 

Obama's inauguration dominated the front pages of Arab newspapers, editorials ranged from effusive to cautiously welcoming. Tellingly, many of the papers (including the Saudi pan-Arab paper al-Hayat) led with his promise to begin responsibly withdrawing from Iraq -- clearly words that the Arab observers were keenly looking to hear. Al-Jazeera reported that 38 Islamic figures (including Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Rashed Ghannouchi, and other prominent personalities) offered an immediate response to his invitation to a new way of interaction between the U.S. and the Islamic world.  Even al-Quds al-Arabi, a newspaper staunchly opposed to U.S. foreign policy, allowed that Obama's inauguration demonstrates that for all of America's flaws and hypocrisies, democracy remains the best form of government. 

Deeds must follow the words, for any of this to matter -- skepticism is high and resentments running hot over Gaza.  During the seemingly endless period of "one president at a time," Arab observers pounced on every piece of evidence no matter how slim to prove that nothing would really change.  It will take some real effort to begin to demonstrate the credibility and sincerity of this new way forward.   But this is a good start

For fun he throws in this pic of the new Barack Obama Salon in Khartoum, Sudan:

Tick Tock

NYT blogs the first full day. The President met with economic and military advisors then later called Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Fatah.

Like Gaza like Afghanistan

Goldberg quotes an interesting point about war crimes:

There is a non-hysterical case to be made against Israel's war in Gaza. The fact that people are being killed in the war is not it. Innocents as well as combatants die in every war. If you have nothing to object to besides that, then you should oppose the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan for the same reason. That war is also being fought "disproportionately." Far more innocent civilians have been killed over there than in Gaza. No doubt the rage among some in the Islamic world at the sight of those innocents killed encourages them to join the fight against us.

And Afghanistan isn't currently shooting rockets at the United States.

Nearly every argument I have read and heard about Israel's war in Gaza applies ten-fold to the war in Afghanistan. Yet many, if not most, of the very same people who deploy those arguments support the war in Afghanistan.

Food for thought. How is Afghanistan like and unlike Gaza?

Clean break in the Mideast

M.J. Rosenberg is one of my favorite commentators because of his upbeat take on how Obama may change things. Here he is today:

George Stephanopoulos tried hard to get Obama to spell out his views on Gaza. Obama dodged specifics but here is what happened.

One, he was utterly evenhanded. Asked if he would repeat his remarks in Israel this summer about Israel having the right to defend itself, Obama said yes. Of course, no one disputes that.

But, unlike other politicians, he offered no special love for Israel. He made clear that he is committed to helping Palestinians and Israelis. And he said he will pursue the peace process from day 1. Also, unlike Bush, Mc Cain and Congressional hawks, he discussed Iran without mentioning Israel. He is worried about the nukes but he intends to talk, not rattle his saber on Israel's behalf.

On Gaza specifics, he punted.

So how come he insists that there is "only one President" when it comes to Gaza but he spoke plenty about Mumbai. Here is what he is saying.

On issues, like Mumbai, where I agree with the current President, I will say so. That is entirely appropriate.

On issues, like Israel/Palestine, on which I have a very entirely different view, I am not free to speak.

In other words, he is sticking to tradition. He will vocally agree with the outgoing President on areas in which there is agreement. But he will not attack the incumbent where he has profound differences.

If George had asked about Bush's support for the Gaza cease-fire, he would have praised Bush. If he had asked about the refusal to consider talking to Hamas or Iran, he would invoke "one President at a time."

His message is pretty clear. He views the Middle East through an entirely American prism. Following a landslide victory, owning Congress and 80% of the Jewish vote, he is a free man.

Get ready for a clean break.

Optimistic, yes. But in such a time of bad news I like to at least be aware of the best-case scenarios.

Why does party leadership steadfastly support Israel when the base is skeptical?

Noah Millman at The American Scene:

This war has reminded others of the 2006 Lebanon War. It reminds me more of Operation Grapes of Wrath, the 1996 Israeli offensive in Lebanon launched by Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Both wars were launched without much consideration for “what happens then” because both were launched for political reasons: in both cases, a left-leaning government felt it would lose all credibility if it did not respond forcefully to provocation. Indeed, in both cases, that left-wing government feared that such a loss of credibility would bring Binyamin Netanyahu to power in the next election and, in both cases, the government won support from across the spectrum in the United States precisely because the leadership of America’s Democratic Party shared those fears, and wished to prevent their becoming a reality. (And that should answer the questions of those who wonder why, if Democratic voters tend to oppose Israel’s retaliatory invasion of Gaza, the Democratic leadership has been pretty lock-step in support.)

Mystery solved.

If you want to know what Israel's motivations are -- and what their "exit strategy" is in all this -- do go read the rest of his perceptive analysis.

Also don't miss Jon on "the mobius strip of issues"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Strip Maul

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Moral failings in Gaza

Goldberg, a Jewish journalist who has served in the Israeli army in Gaza, was depressed to the point of paralysis.

Today he's angry at the world's "pornographic" obsession with Israeli failings:

a bitter but hilarious observation I once heard a Kurdish leader make: He was complaining to me that his people were cursed, and I asked him what he meant: Cursed by geography, cursed by their proximity to Kurd-hating Arabs, what? He said the Kurds were cursed because they didn't have Jewish enemies. Only with Jewish enemies would the world pay attention to their plight.

One story the media isn't telling, because it's impossible to get this story in these circumstances (especially because Israel stupidly won't allow foreign reporters into Gaza) is how much resentment the Hamas policy of using Palestinians as human shields causes among Gaza civilians. Early reports indicate that Hamas mortar teams were firing from the UN School. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

One more thing, speaking of pornography -- we've all seen endless pictures of dead Palestinian children now. It's a terrible, ghastly, horrible thing, the deaths of children, and for the parents it doesn't matter if they were killed by accident or by mistake. But ask yourselves this: Why are these pictures so omnipresent? I'll tell you why, again from firsthand, and repeated, experience: Hamas (and the Aksa Brigades, and Islamic Jihad, the whole bunch) prevents the burial, or even preparation of the bodies for burial, until the bodies are used as props in the Palestinian Passion Play. Once, in Khan Younis, I actually saw gunmen unwrap a shrouded body, carry it a hundred yards and position it atop a pile of rubble -- and then wait a half-hour until photographers showed. It was one of the more horrible things I've seen in my life. And it's typical of Hamas. If reporters would probe deeper, they'd learn the awful truth of Hamas. But Palestinian moral failings are not of great interest to many people.