Imshin's blog has photos from the site of Friday's pigua.

I don't have much to say about these things anymore.

Disappointing concert by Roy Campbell's Pyramid Trio at the Tel Aviv Jazz Festival last night. Rhythm section William Parker/Hamid Drake were terrific, but Campbell's trumpet playing was sloppy.

And it got really strange when Campbell horribly and inexplicably began to "sing" some very makeshift lyrics for his compositions (something that he hasn't done much before according to Google).

This blog might still come back to life at some point. Life here is much less interesting these days, and there are so many blogs doing a good job of highlighting things from the Israeli media.

Some Americans and Europeans try so hard not to be judgmental. This woman writes from Cairo where she is researching her PhD:

... Abu Mazen's electoral scheme may very well represent such a shift in thinking, a recognition that the most effective martyrs are not those who blow themselves up in cafes, but those who die while trying to care for their communities.

Well that would just be great ... maybe only the less effective martyrs would try to blow up Israelis in cafes. She wouldn't actually say to her hosts that the cult of martyrdom is bad, just that it's not effective for youngsters to kill themselves (just like ISMers who talk about Palestinian "suicide", Israeli victims aren't even on her conceptual radar).

She's also not able to acknowledge that any current Palestinian moderation is at least partly due to the fact that the intifada failed to secure any gains ie. that the Israelis won.

Update: Stacy responds in the comments

I should thank you for increasing traffic at my site by "reviewing" my comments regarding the Palestinian elections. You might note, however, that it was a post about the Palestinian elections, not a broader post about political violence, innocent victims, etc. You have no way of determining what my judgements are, or whether I am "capable" of acknowledging your truths. I may be, or I may not be, but you certainly have no way of knowing based on the little that you selected here.

My blog rarely ventures off topic, and mainly focuses on discourse and the structuring effects of a particular kind of Islamist discource in Arab parliamentary practice (since this is the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation, and the reason for my frequent travel to Beirut and Sana'a). When it does go off topic, I certainly expect to "take fire", but I would hope that you see my post for what it was - a discursive analysis of Abbas' electoral campaign materials and campaign promotion, and not a broader manifesto on the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

Further, I found your assertions about what I would or would not say to my "hosts" to cross a line and violate your own rule on ad hominem attacks. First, you have no idea whether or not I have been "hosted" by Israel, as well, and whether that may have influenced by thinking on the Middle East. Second, you really have no idea what my relationship to Egypt is. As it happens, my husband took a job here to facilitate my regional travel, and neither of us do any research here or have an serious connection - we're just plain old expats. So to infer that my thoughts or words are couched because I am in some way endebted to some kind of aggregated concept of Arab "hosts" was both presumptious and unfairly dismissive.

And as for the quote, which I believe you took out of context (but will allow readers to determine for themselves), the quote that preceeded it in the original post was by a friend who is a rabbi at a large NY congregation and visited us in Cairo en route to Jerusalem. It's his opinion, after years of working with Palestinian policymakers, and one which I share. You should, I would imagine, be more concerned about him then you are about me, since he stands a chance at disrupting your "base."

I will try to reply later, but most broadly:

1. In this particular blog post (and the others that I scanned) you are adopting the "Islamist discourse" rather than merely analyzing it. Certainly you do not seem to be analyzing it in a critical manner. Dialog is admirable, but not when it requires adopting a "discourse" that "disadmits" things like moral objection to attacks on Israelis.

2. I don't have a "base". Also I'm not "concerned" with you. Like many blogs I just write what's on my mind.

3. I do apologize for assuming that your presence in Cairo was related to your PhD work when it is in fact during your travels to Beirut and Sanaa that you do your research. I don't see this a relevant to my central point. That said, I do regret the final sentence of my original post which dealt with broader political issues.

Today already feels like the longest day ever since I started reading blogs.

I'm concerned about what it would mean for Israel if Kerry wins. My primary impressions of Kerry revolve around his apparent lack of clear positions, his reputed reliance on polling, and his tilts to the far left of his party. To me this recalls Ehud Barak, who managed to do a fair amount of damage to this country.....

I emailed Pajamahadeen Arabic language expert "Ribbity Frog" for his opinion on the interpretation of the Osama video and whether it threatens states that vote for Bush. He responds:

What can I tell you? Even a piss-pot state like Palestine is referred to as "dawlat falestiin" "The State of Palestine". "wilaaya" in the singular is used for a local state, as far as I know. Certainly, Arafat would never refer to it as "wilayat falestiin", particularly since it has the overtones of a local autonomous district subject to a greater empire, and would I think imply a degree of subordination to a greater body. My Arabic dictionary defines it as

"sovereign power, sovereignty; rule, government. administrative distrcit
headed by a vali, vilayet (formerly under the Ottonman Empire); provence (= division of a country, e.g. Tunisia, Algeria); sovereign state (in a federal
union)." etc.

Slipping back into a more demure academic posture, he adds:

The United States is called in Arabic alwilayaat almuttaHida - wilayaat is plural of wilaya, state (the -aat ending is like feminine plural -ot in Hebrew) and muttaHida means united, from root waHad, 'one' (= Hebrew
me'uHadot).

The Arabic "ayy-" is etymologically equivalent to the element "ey-" in Hebrew words such as "eyfo", "eyzo", "eylu" or Biblical "ayyekka" where are you. etc. It means "which", "whatever". Hence "ey + po" (which+here > where), "ey + ze" (which+this > which one).

ayy in Arabic can which which or whatever, hence any or every. ayy wilaaya means "any state" (eyze medina) or "whichever state". The Slate notes the inconsistency in the English translation, but there isn't such a difference really. (Whichsoever state).

I hope this helps.

I called a friend about going to see Omri Mor/Omer Avital at the dumpy but pleasant Artel tomorrow night. He said he's not sure because his unit is on high alert due to Arafat's situation.

This is interesting because my friend is a civilian employed by the security forces in a technical area.

A lot of the media here (especially Jpost) reads as if Arafat had died already.

There's some weird stuff on Google News. But not too much about Kassam missiles or Peter Hansen.

This comprehensive post by Dave at Israellycool does what the MSM should be doing: evaluate the competing claims of the IDF and UNRWA chief Peter Hansen.

Hansen, of course, has shown that he has zero compunctions about making provably false statements in the knowledge that he won't get checked up on.

The "aid workers" who were attacked by masked men near Hebron belong to the "Christian Peacemaker Team", which is associated with the ISM. So take anything that they say with a grain of salt.

A quick googling shows that someone coincidentally named Kim Lamberty was placed on probation in connection with some Mumia-protest in the US.

The first column by new Jpost editor David Horovitz is here. Horovitz sounds windy and self-important. Jpost will likely begin tilting left, which leaves Israel without a major right-of-center media outlet.

So Russia is talking about preemptive attacks on terrorist bases, and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw says:

“I think the reaction is an understandable one by President Putin,” ... “The United Nations charter does give the right of self-defence and the UN itself has accepted that an imminent or likely threat of terrorism certainly entitles any state to take appropriate action.

The ICJ claimed that there is no right to self-defence from a threat not associated with a foreign state. Amazing hypocrisy - you expect that from Russia, but it's particularly notable coming from the UK.

The PA's media center is describing the Hamas stronghold attacked yesterday by the IDF as a "summer camp" (link).

These pictures of the security barrier were taken from highway 6 (ie. the Israeli side) near Netanya and Kfar Saba. This is an area where a couple of kilometers separate large West Bank villages from the Israeli suburbs and towns north of Tel Aviv. The suicide bombers that entered Netanya generally came from Tulkarm, and in June 2003 a 7-yr. old travelling in a car on highway 6 was gunned down near Qalqilya.



The one above is from the Qalqilya/Kfar Saba area. From the highway there are a few observation towers visible and this is one of them.



The picture above is from around Netanya/Tulkarm.



This one is actually from fairly close up. Near Tulkarm the Israeli side of the barrier extends a couple of meters above a grassy hill next to the highway.

Serious roadblocks around the city today. Rte. 443 south was backed up for a long long way as they seemed to be stopping every vehicle.

It's interesting that Al-Aqsa Brigades claimed responsibility for yesterday's bombing which killed only Palestinians. You'd think they'd want to keep quiet about it.

Google news search indicates that the European media has almost zero interest in the evidence that the PA used EU aid to finance suicide bombings.

From the Jpost report: A German Green member of the European Parliament, Ilka
Schroder, had earlier complained of "hard lobbying" by the commission to prevent
the inquiry. This, she said, included a whispering campaign to taint the group
as an "Israeli front" determined to block aid to Arafat.

So the new path of the fence (following the decision of the Israeli supreme court) goes within 100 meters of Mevasseret Zion (report).  Mevasseret is a large suburb of Jerusalem just off the TA highway.    One time I went off-road biking from Jerusalem to the reservoir area (which is very close to Mevasseret) and our experienced off-road biking guide/wire service journalist told us that we are actually quite close to the Green Line and that sometimes shepherds from nearby Arab villages come by.

According to an article in Jpost print edition, the security fence as currently constituted will incorporate 15000 West Bankers on the Israeli side.  The figure of 237,000 mentioned by the ICJ includes East Jerusalemites who hold Israeli residency.

Terrific article by Yossi Klein Halevi on the ICJ opinion.  Some excerpts (emphases added):

...The real meaning of the court's decision, then, is to delegitimize not Israel's right to self-defense but its right to claim any territory, even for self-defense, over the Green Line.

The danger of that decision is to create the legal groundwork for an imposed solution that would force Israel back to the 1967 borders, even without a peace agreement - Yasser Arafat's dream scenario.

And so the war Israel needs to fight now isn't so much over the decision itself but its premise: that all land beyond the 1967 border belongs by right to Palestine.

...

In determining that Israel has no legitimate claim to any territory it won in 1967, including, presumably, Jewish neighborhoods built in east Jerusalem, the court has, in effect, overturned UN resolution 242, the basis of the land for peace formula, which doesn't refer to Israel's return of "the territories" but merely "territories."

...

IN DETERMINING the route of the fence, Israel needs to be guided by four considerations. The first is security. If topography, say, dictates that the fence be built on a hill rather than in a valley, then that is the army's decision. Security is also the logic for walling off Jerusalem and preventing the city from being "shared" with - and destroyed by - an armed Palestinian authority.

The second consideration is demography: ensuring there are as few Palestinians as possible on our side of the fence.

The third is also demography-related: ensuring as many settlers as possible on our side of the fence. In the absence of a peace agreement, only isolated settlements caught on the Palestinian side of the fence should be uprooted.

The fourth is psychological: preventing the Palestinians from perceiving our withdrawal as a victory for terrorism. In losing part of the West Bank, the Palestinians and the Arab world generally will understand that terrorism has a price.

If those considerations are followed, about 10 percent of the West Bank will be incorporated into Israel by the fence.

Until Ehud Barak proposed ceding 92% of the territories at Camp David and then 96% at Taba, most observers took for granted that Israel wouldn't return to the 1967 borders. One plan popular on the Israeli Left envisioned a Palestinian state on only 89% of the territories. Tom Friedman was even less generous. Before Camp David, he wrote a column called "75 for 75" - by which he meant that 75% of Israelis would support withdrawal from 75% of the territories. At the time, Friedman considered that formulation a reasonable basis for ending the conflict.

Two competing views of the 1967 borders have now emerged within the international community. Along with the Hague decision is the American position, formulated by President Bush and endorsed by Congress (with a few exceptions, such as John Kerry, who didn't show up for the Senate vote). According to the new Bush Doctrine, Israel will not be expected to withdraw to the 1967 borders. And Palestinian refugees will return only to a Palestinian state.

That doctrine undermines the two key elements of the Palestinians' long-term strategy to undermine Israel's viability: first, forcing Israel back to the Green Line, and then overwhelming the Jewish state with refugees - through international pressure on Israel to increase the number of refugees it willingly accepts and through an invisible "return" of Palestinians slipping across the border and settling in Arab Israeli communities, as tens of thousands have already done in recent years.

The fence puts a brake on both those processes. It marks the security line that may well become Israel's political border. And it prevents the infiltration of Palestinian refugees into Israel.

That is the real reason why Palestinian leaders see the fence as a disaster and why they have mobilized their politicized allies on the international court to stop it. And that's precisely why Israel must cling to the fence and its current route.

The point about Thomas Friedman's "evolution"  is interesting because it illustrates how the often monolithic  perspective of the "elites" gets shaped.  If the Palestinians demand something for long enough and violently enough, sympathy and understanding will erupt, and in not too long the press and the European governments will fall into line.

Good analysis of the ICJ deliberations here.  Particularly interesting are the shamelessly unobjective remarks by the Egyptian judge, and the British judge's offhand remark that the ICJ didn't actually consider the issue seriously.

It would probably good to wait until I have a better informed opinion before I write about the ICJ ruling. But here goes anyway...

a) The ICJ makes no pretense to being apolitical, yet the Europeans think that it can still administer "justice". That's bizarre - justice is supposed to be "blind".

b) I really doubt that the ICJ looked particularly closely at where the fence goes, what it's supposed to do, whether it is effective.

c) I've heard that in American law, it's considered unjust to prosecute someone for an offense that generally goes unenforced. Not that I think the fence is an "offence", but the ICJ's clucking at us rather than India's fence in the Kashmir (to take one example), is an example of its manifest unfairness. "We can't create Utopia everywhere, but let's start in Israel" seems to be their attitude. They don't mind if their unrealistic dogmas create chaos - provided that the chaos is far from them.

Afterthought: One of the ICJ's clucks was that Israel should pay compensation to Palestinians whose property was confiscated. I wonder if the ICJ decision notes that Israel already did this (though payment was often refused).

Also, I wonder if the final decision will include some sort of patronizing remark about how "dialogue not fences" is the way to prevent terrorist attacks.

About 1 minute ago: Felt a minor earthquake (I'm in Tel Aviv).

Update: Haaretz online mentioned it about as quickly as me. 5 on the Richter.

LGF linked to these photos of an anti-security-fence demonstration. Seeing those ISM "peace" activists throwing punches at patient IDF soldiers sends me into a rage.

I'm still busy with things.

Rte. 443 goes thru the West Bank and takes a few minutes off the trip from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. At the northern (mostly perfunctory) IDF-manned roadblock there's now a large sign that says (approximately) "Welcome to Unit such-and-such - winning fighters."

Open thread (for general discussion)

Last night T. and I went to a bonfire with some friends at the treed area adjacent to the Jerusalem theater. Lots of other groups there with their own fires; also a lot of very wholesome looking teenagers.

Anne Bayefsky on Reed Brody and Human Rights Watch:

...What HRW did do was substitute the voices of alleged victims for universal human rights standards.

If leading international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights/Human Rights First, chose not to apply those standards when anti-Semitism stared them in the face, there is little reason to believe their claims that they now apply those standards to Israel in the same way they apply them to every other state.

Bret Stephens on the Israeli left:

...For those of my readers who politically are somewhere on the Left, here's what the Right thinks of you: Deep down, you have no red lines. You'd rather go down as the morally spotless victim than the morally encumbered victor. You'll sell your birthright not for a mess of potage, but for less: the retrospective pity of future generations.

I know this because it reflects my own suspicions. Because when Rabin and Peres and Barak spoke of red lines, the Right knew they weren't really red lines - and they were right. Because Beilin won't shut up about how close he was at Taba. Because I watched Avraham Burg sucking up to Yasser Abd Rabbo at Davos by cracking anti-Israeli jokes and pleading with his hosts to be invited to future conclaves of the great and good....

Bonfire for Lag B'Omer



Lag B'omer, the Hebrew calendar date which marks the anniversary of the passing of Kabbalist R. Shimon bar Yohai (and falls out next Saturday night), is observed by lighting bonfires.

In my largely yuppified Jerusalem neighborhood, there is a group of Hasidim that take the centuries-old tradition very seriously - and build a huge fire in a vacant lot.

A while back an acquaintance tried to enlist me into the Likud. I've lost touch with said acquaintance, but I'm sure that he opposes the disengagement proposal as he's a heavily ideological fellow.

Open thread (for general comments/discussion)

They put up roadblocks on Emek Refaim road tonite. That might mean a "specific warning".

Recently a number of blogs (British ones in particular) have gotten Draconian about comments.

I've thought about this a fair amount - my new criterion is that I will delete comments that in my view encourage discussions of the sort that most people won't want to read.

Update:

I have realized that I opened a real can of worms by considering comment moderation, and that I don't have the time or will to deal with it. Hence the new blurb at the top of the comment box says that comment moderation is up to you the commentor.

I'm grateful to the person who suggested open threads for ongoing general debates, and hope that as a consequence there will be informative on-topic discussion on the regular threads.

Sounds like the Likud rank & file is leaning away from the "disengagement" plan. On the radio this morning Roni Milo (former MK who rejoined Likud after cofunding a defunct centrist party) was making predictions of economic chaos if the plan is rejected. That's a sign of desperation on Milo's part.

If the plan is defeated then the Likud would be likely replace Sharon somehow (though Sharon has not said that he would resign). Netanyahu seems to played his cards pretty well recently by exhibiting lukewarm pseudo-tough-guy support for the disengagement.

A lot of people think that once the Likud has "voluntarily" accepted the plan, the US will be free to gradually water down its statements regarding Palestinian refugee campees and borders (eg. this very Haaretz-y article which mentions that European leaders have been uttering the words "right of return" a fair amount lately, incidentally demonstrating that siding with the Palestinians is the only guiding principle of their policies).

Take a look at how Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch tries to defend his group's actions at the 2001 Durban conference (here).

This article says that the US is now "soft-pedaling" Bush's stance on refugees and borders in discussions with Arab and European nations. But an anonymous source claims that the US is telling Israel that such talk is just "marketing". Cynics think that there will be gradual backpedaling on the part of the US.

A CNN crew was briefly detained for filming in the "no photography zone" near the Dimona nuclear reactor (report).

The billboard advertisements against the Sharon disengagement plan are well-done - in particular the one that says "You vote 'for', you get Peres" definitely strikes a chord. People do believe that Sharon is not Peres, Beilin, or Barak; but the ad makes you think twice about whether you really know for sure.

On Army Radio this AM, far-left MK Avraham Burg was going on and on about how the Rantisi hit would just create more Palestinian radicals, and how the real problem is that PM Sharon has no program (though Sharon's program is now crystal clear if you ask me).

Burg's every word exudes pompousness, but his most pompous remark was something about how there needs to be a US gov't that will "tell Israel what it needs" - ie. force Israel to do what Avraham Burg wants because Burg can never get elected.

This conference is titled "The Politics of Humanitarianism in the Occupied Territories" and has Huwaida Arraf - the evil queen of the ISM - chairing one panel and appearing in another. Peter Hansen, the baldfaced liar who runs the UN organization responsible for Palestinian "refugee" camps is appearing too.

The list of topics and speakers demonstrates yet more conflation of humanitarian concerns with political activism and sympathy for terrorism (and it's topped off with boring "post-modernist" jargon provided by Prof. Adi Ophir).

The conference is happening up the hill from here at the Van Leer Institute on Tues.-Wed., and will be viewable online. Perhaps someone who is set up with TotalRecorder can record it.

Particularly I'd like to know whether representatives from organizations like Machsom Watch (who seem to sensibly agitate for maximally-humane occupation) or B'Tselem will respond to the likes of Arraf.

My instant response to the Bush-Sharon summit: Bush's stance on Palestinian "refugees" is basic common sense; the vague statement about settlement blocs will make sense to anyone who has travelled from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv on Route 443.

What's truly revolutionary is the way in which Palestinian maximalism and violence are actually setting them back diplomatically. Finally.

Update: jsinger notes in the comments:

Incidentally, remember all the fuss about whether the Geneva Accord conclusively renounced the right of return? As though the fact that the Palestinian signatories claimed it didn't wasn't a plain demonstration that it didn't?

So now Yossi Beilin's counterparts are all on CNN screaming that the right of return may never be given up. Is there any question remaining about what ratifying that treaty would have brought?

This is about the only article I've seen that takes a serious look at the EU investigative report that failed to find any evidence of PA funds reaching terrorists.

The EU should put the report up on the web.

Anne Bayefsky records the stance of Human Rights Watch at the 2001 UN Durban conference:

As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.

Update: Reed Brody responds here, but doeson't contradict Bayefsky's basic points:

....In Durban, and its year-long run-up, we campaigned to ensure that the WCAR would be about more than the Middle East. ..... A great achievement of the WCAR process was the unprecedented mobilization of victims of racism from communities around the world, such as the so-called untouchables of South Asia, the Roma of Europe, and blacks in Latin America.

With over 3,000 victims groups present in the pre-WCAR forum of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had limited ability to moderate the language of chapters for the NGO declaration. Each chapter was drafted by the affected community, including not only Palestinians but also such groups as Tibetans, Kurds, and Dalits. Many of these chapters were factually supported, powerful documents, but others were not. Our refusal to participate in the voting on the statement and its chapters, and our failed attempt to cast the document as a collection of the "voices of the victims" rather than as a text endorsed by all, was intended precisely to avoid giving a stamp of approval to all parts of the document.

Bayefsky, however, claims that we "said nothing" as the final NGO statement was put together on September 2, 2001, and lent legitimacy to its inflammatory statements about Israel. In fact, as the Post (and virtually every other newspaper in the world) reported on September 3, "The New York-based Human Rights Watch condemned the resolution." The Post quoted me as saying, "Israel has committed serious crimes against the Palestinian people, but it is simply not accurate to use the word genocide and wrong to equate Zionism with racism."

Prior to the declaration's adoption I personally spent hours trying to persuade Arab and Palestinian colleagues to amend this and other language. ....

Brody doesn't address Bayefsky's claim that he announced that her Jewish group was "not objective" and could not participate in the NGO meeting. So we can regard the account as confirmed. And Brody's condemnation of the resolution was made afterwards and not during the proceedings as Brody tries to suggest:

The declaration, adopted by a majority of the 3,000 delegates from 44 regions to the World Conference's Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) forum -- a broad-based summit of groups from around the world involved in human rights issues -- shocked Jewish participants, and many walked out of the meeting.
Some other international human rights groups who were part of the NGO forum, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, moved to distance themselves from the declaration.
...
Reed Brody, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: "Israel has committed serious crimes against Palestinian people but it is simply not accurate to use the word genocide and to equate Zionism with racism ... it is now a matter of damage control."

I'm thinking of giving the reader comments a hiatus.

It won't surprise anyone that the EU's conclusion that they haven't been funding Palestinian terrorist activities looks like a farcical whitewash from here.

All reports that I've seen are quite vague as to the actual ponderings of the commission, but they seem to have worked hard to find doubts that they can give the PA the benefit of; commissioner Emma Udwin can't even feign comfort with its efforts:

We are not soft on terrorism. We have checked out every allegation that has been brought to our attention. We have not been able to establish a direct link between our money and terrorism. We welcome the fact that the parliamentarians wanted to look at it. There isn't any form of financial assistance that is 100 percent risk-free. That is as true in the Palestinian territories as it is in Cornwall

These days it seems that PA apologists are increasingly impervious to rational arguments; to the small number of sensible lefties out there, I would emphasize how it's totally insane to compare the situation here to familiar situations in Europe ("Cornwall"?). A reasonable starting point assumes that everything is different.

Separately: Sounds like Jpost editor Bret Stephens is looking for a new job. Perhaps he finds that the news here has gotten too repetitive, or maybe he doesn't like working for a funny-shaped paper that needs to make the text of its daily Wall Street Journal page really skinny.

From a rather standard Aviv Lavie article about a film that interviews Israelis and Palestinians whose children have been killed in terror attacks and in IDF operations:

Arbel says that the main difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians was their attitude toward the deceased: "I was astonished to see that in most of the Palestinian homes there is a photograph of the child's body, sometimes with the bullet in the head. Can you imagine framing a picture of your child who has been shot?"

Seems to me that this reflects both martyr-reverence and a desire to keep the anger and drive for revenge alive.

Dave at IsraellyCool takes a look at some new attempts at self-justification from the International Solidarity Movement. Be amazed both at Dave's sharp wit and the ISM's nauseating tolerance for Palestinian terrorism.

Blogging lull will continue for a bit more.

Here's a good article on where things stand with the Gaza withdrawal proposal. Interestingly, some Americans think that they can turn Gaza into an island of democracy on Iraq/Afghanistan model.

According to Haaretz, the 2 Palestinian "policemen" were killed during the foiled attack at the Erez checkpoint because they had refused to let the Islamizake's jeep through.

If this account is correct, it's probably the first instance of real confrontation between the PA and the terrorists since Oslo. It's almost certainly the only instance since Oslo broke down.

Daniel Zamir's trio is appearing tonight with guest pianist Omri Mor at the "Jazz Blues Tel Aviv" festival.

I saw Omri Mor play with Omer Avital a while back and he was quite amazing, though more stragiht-ahead than Zamir.

7 killed and lots injured. The bus bombed was the #14 northbound, next to Bell Park. They're calling it Rehavia, though really it's where Rehavia ends and the German Colony and Baka begin. It's also not far from downtown, and Arabs (presumably from the Old City) often frequent the park.

I didn't listen to the radio much. I just need to know where it happened and how bad it was (and since it was rush hour, whether the bus was headed towards or away from my neighborhood). I don't need to hear the reports from the scene, the hypotheses about how the bomber got through, or the broadsides at the Hague proceedings.

I'm off to work now, so I'll have to hear the details on the radio while I commute.

I still hear sirens.

I heard sirens about 5 minutes ago and tried to ignor them.

Haaretz says that a bus was bombed in Rehavia; it was probably further south (ie. closer to the German Colony).

Here's yet another article on how the European press tends to frame just about every event here in anti-Israeli terms, and is willing to believe just about any anti-Israeli accusation.

The days are numbered, however, for this kind of idiotarianism; or so you might think if you read Jeff Jarvis' reports on Emerging Technology in media.

The planned path of the security fence has changed again (report).

This German woman is nostalgic about the 80s - her look back then was down-to-earth: Adidas, jeans, sweatshirt, and " 'Arafat-scarf' in black/white".

Zeev Schiff says that the IDF would in fact leave Gaza after the removal of the settlements, but that they would return to respond to rocket fire etc. It's not clear whether the IDF would cease to man the border with Egypt, and there are lots of problems regarding how Gaza could possibly be self-sufficient. It's also likely that the anticipation of evacuation will lead to increased terrorism, so as to create the impression of "exit under fire".

Schiff thinks that Sharon should have done this when Abu Mazen was first installed. Though I would note that if he had done so it would not have been construed as a "unilateral move", but rather as one of those pointless "confidence-building measures".

The media today has a lot of discussion about how the Gaza settlements would be totally levelled when they are abandoned. MK Ahmed Tibi called for them to be left behind for occupation by Palestinians in refugee camps - but this is simply posturing, as the Palestinians have long opposed any attempts to improve conditions of the "refugees" to the extent that they might be willing to stay where they are.

Maariv print edition reports that the Italian newspaper Il Foglio printed graphic images of the recent bombing of the Jerusalem #19 bus that were taken from the Israeli Foreign Ministry website. Maariv says that the images stirred up controversy (and criticism from the Chief Rabbi of Rome), but also stimulated unprecedented sympathy and some openness to the notion of the security fence.

Il Foglio looks like a right-leaning paper, and hosts a couple of blogs which link to the English blogosphere.

Apparently in Sweden they're also talking about bans on hijab, but without the cosmetic step of banning other religious "symbols" as well.

Israel would never restrict hijab, but it's interesting to think about how the Europeans would react if someone here suggested it.

Correction: It's Norway, not Sweden.

I'd appreciate it if commenters would choose nicknames that at least sound like names of people.

I agree with Imshin's equivocal thoughts regarding the removal of settlements from Gaza.

People should note that removal of the settlements is not the same thing as IDF withdrawal.

Thurs night I drove thru the Aza/Ha-Ari intersection and so no indication whatsoever of the bombing that happened in the AM about a block away, though I heard that there were flowers placed at the site.

I've noticed that leftists tend to be very "visual" people - if we didn't "clean up" the bombings so quickly, they might not have the gall to challenge the security fence in the Hague.

This blog now has an RSS feed.

This AM was something out of Spring 2002. A friend of T.'s called just as I was on my way out to work, and then we read about the bombing at Haaretz. I left for work as usual and tried to think of how to avoid the consequent traffic (I couldn't, since my commute crosses Derech Aza where the bus was bombed).

The latest news is 10 people killed.

I lived in an apt. very close to today's bombing from '96-'99. One morning In 1998 I went into a shop around Aza/Arlozorov and a woman told me that Pres. Clinton's motorcade had passed by 1 hr. earlier (and that he waved).

People abroad don't seem to notice much of a difference between the Camp David, Taba, and Geneva plans. In the same way they don't notice the difference between the situation in early 2002 (when the PA controlled most of the West Bank and these things were happening about 3-4 times a week) and the way they are now.

This summary of the findings of the Hutton inquiry is striking to me in that the inquiry actually attempted to make an objective evaluation of the interpretive and editorial mechanisms of a major news organization. I thought that noone aimed at objectivity anymore, but just at portrayal of the different "narratives".

Now if only some well-respected non-partisan body would do the same thing to the reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian situation from Reuters, NYTimes, BBC, Guardian etc.

I'm still here The New York Times ran a report a while ago suggesting that the new security fence (combined with the IDF policy of raids against "militants") was preventing Palestinian suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

Apparently the possibility that the fence is actually a good thing was disturbing to the editors at the International Herald Tribune, so when they ran the NYT report, they added a nonsensical paragraph postulating that the terrorists had declared an unofficial cease-fire. Turns out that the IHT regularly does this sort of this thing with Israel-related news(article)

I'm back from a work-related trip to the US. In addition to being pretty busy, I've been continuing the semi-detachment from current events that I enjoyed while I was abroad. But the weekend papers will snap me out of that, no doubt.

I'd like to offer a special welcome to the BBC trainees on Day 1 of their "Investigative Research on the Net" course (who came here to see a "Weblog").

Good luck in your work with the BBC, and I hope you'll see how much there is to learn from the blogosphere.

Don't infer anytihing from the fact that they put this site next to a Nazi bulletin board and an anarchist mailing list. I'm just an average Israeli - I write about the news and my personal experiences.

And please follow the Beebs' advice: don't look for dates in chatrooms or expect to find drugs online.

More: Note that the BBC tells its trainees that Indymedia is a "specialist site" for "finding news".

From an interview with Sheikh Hashem Abd al-Rahman Mahajana, mayor of the Israel-Arab village Um-al-Fahm. (and member of the Islamic Movement party):

What do you think about the idea of annexing Umm al-Fahm to the Palestinian Authority?

"Absolutely not. Ninety-three percent of the city's residents are against that, and I am one of them. This is our home, we are citizens like everyone else, and we have it good here."

What's so good here for you? What about all the complaints of persecution, oppression and discrimination?

"It's all true, as you know. Yet our situation here is still far better than it would be if we were in an Arab state. I admit it. I also say it in talks abroad. It's a fact. That doesn't mean that there is nothing to improve. There's plenty."

Tony Judt's next article According to this Haaretz report, senior Likud officials rallied around Ariel Sharon at a party convention last night - even those such as Limor Livnat who have been critical of Sharon recently. The report describes Sharon's confrontation with a vocal faction led by Moshe Feiglin, and gives passing mention to an eccentric "vote contractor" named Uzi Cohen, who made remarks promoting "transfer" of the Palestinian population.

Of course, Chris McGreal in The Guardian portrays "Central Committee member" Cohen as a major Sharon opponent at the forefront of some kind of grass-roots movement. Is calling McGreal a "lying scum" too harsh?

But Al-Jazeera trumps The Guardian by making Cohen into a Knesset member and "influential figure" in Likud.

Update: Ali J. changed its headline (it now says "Israeli official" instead of "Israeli MP"), but the article still says that a proposal on "ethnic cleansing" was "tabled" etc.

Swedish media apparently lionized Gustav Fridolin's attempt to interfere with the building of the security fence, though a center-right Swedish newspaper was more critical.

Fridolin's sojourn with the ISM and Anarchists Against the Fence was apparently paid for by an educational grant from the Swedish gov't. Fridolin defended the grant saying that it was supposed to be a fact-finding trip in which he would meet with both Arabs and Israelis who agree with his non-factual preconceived views.

Fridolin incorrectly claims that the IDF used live ammunition to clear his mob, and also asserts that Rachel Corrie was deliberately murdered in order to test the extent of the international outcry. Fridolin also wants Sweden to suspend trade agreements with Israel and encourage Swedes to boycott Israeli goods.

It's quite fascinating to see the ISM and its friends getting funding for its unarmed but violent activities under the pretext of educational programs (ie. this one, Echoing Green, and Adam Shapiro's encouraging kids to exploit and then abandon heavily-subsidized "Jewish heritage" trips). It's probably a natural step, given the youth of most of their volunteers.

The mainstream media often treats them as a peace group (though not always), so it's important to vote for the International Solidarity Movement at the LGF "Idiotarian of the Year" poll.

"More than 100" ISMers and Israeli anarchists tried to obstruct construction of the security fence near a village called Bodros by blocking bulldozers and subsequently throwing stones at police and soldiers. The IDF dispersed them using tear gas and rubber bullets, and arrested 8 including the 20-yr. old Swedish parliament member Gustav Fridolin (Jpost, Haaretz).

Bodros is right on the Green Line - not that these know-nothings screaming about the "Apartheid Wall" would care one way or the other. Between 8 and 19 of the mob were lightly injured, including at least one from a rubber bullet.

According to Ynet, Fridolin claims to have been hit by a Border policemen before he was arrested.

Update: The more up-to-date reports put the size of the crowd at around 500.

A good article on recent changes in the planned path of the security fence (including the 'before' and 'after' considerations) here.

Qalqilya will no longer be fenced in from both sides; and the fence will now separate Baka al-Garbiyeh from Baka al-Sharkiya, rather than including the latter on the Israeli side (Look forward to the inevitable articles portraying the hardships created by the fence partitioning the adjacent villages).

I doubt that these changes make any impact at all on the fence's shrill and strident critics, but perhaps readers will find examples to the contrary.

How did today's Tel Aviv bombers get around the security fence? We will be hearing about it, no doubt.

The real indication of the success of the fence will be if and when the terrorist groups start trying to shift their tactics away from the Islamikaze bombings and towards things like firing things over the fence or attacking settlements.

The latest in evil spam seems to be mail messages that just contain a lot of random words. The spammers figure this will mess up Bayesian spam filters and force providers to stop using them.

Soon I will write about Sharon's Herzliya speech.

Regarding the rumors of a suicide bomber in New York: of course it's impossible to know if there's anything to the rumor (and let's hope not); and New York is so big that anyone's chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are small.

Nonetheless from a purely selfish perspective - here in Israel it's possible to keep relatively safe by avoiding crowds and premises that don't have security guards (assuming you and your family have the luxury of not needing to ride public buses). But you can't avoid crowds in Manhattan.

Repeating lies often enough seems to make them a commonplace. Christopher Hitchens:

Meanwhile, leading Israeli conservatives speak openly about a “transfer” or mass deportation of the remaining Arab population, and boast that this is no more than what they began doing in 1947/1948.

"leading Israeli conservatives"?? As I've often noted, you'll have to go out to the Kahanists or the far-right of the settlement movement to find "speaking" like that.

Someone please tell Hitchens, Judt et. al that their failure to provide names and hard facts when they conduct their malicious smears is leading people to conclude that they are the zealots and demagogues.

In fairness, Hitchens makes many sensible points that conflict with the leftist conventional wisdom on the situation (not that I generally agree with him); it's when he gets to discussing Sharon and the current political dynamic that H. loses good sense.

ISM leaders Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro have received funding from an organization called Echoing Green. Echoing Green was set up by several hi-tech VC types and backs leftwing causes that it sees as "start-ups" - Shapiro and Arraf are two of the "visionaries" they've chosen to supply with cash. Their project is described as a training program for Palestinian youth - quite likely it will support the activities of the ISM's Palestinian coordinators like Osama Qashoo or the al-Titi family.

The other projects funded by EG seem to be leftish and unusual but nothing quite comparable to the ISM (though a description of another project claims that Arabs can't lease housing on Israeli state property - which is a lie).

As an Israeli I'm not pleased about "charitable efforts" aiding groups who cooperate with terrorists and ultimately aim to wipe my country off the map.

Blogrunner is a nice blog search engine.

Tony Judt responds to critics here. He moderates his early "dissolve Israel" remarks a bit, but still smugly tosses off stuff like this:

I am not the first person to remark upon the distressing state of Israeli public life, increasingly dominated by zealots and demagogues; the subject is commonplace in Israeli writing, as Amos Elon notes. It is mainly Israel's American defenders who seem blithely unaware of this state of affairs. Lenin used to describe Bolshevism's foreign admirers—fellow-traveling progressives who resolutely heard and saw no ill in their promised land—as "useful idiots."

Judt has not visited here (his observations are so way off and anyway he would have mentioned it). He can't be reading much of the Israeli media either (even Haaretz) if he thinks that "public life is increasingly dominated by zealots and demagogues". So where are these ideas (and venom) coming from?

Afterthought: Could well be that Judt would apply the term "zealot" to me (or Gil or Imshin) and only Beilin, Burg etc. are "within the pale" for him. At some British blogs there seems to be an unarguable sensibility under which expressing support for Sharon is regarded as akin to supporting Mugabe.

A few more worthwhile Geneva articles:Gordon Singer Rubin

I'm still not sure what to make of Ehud Olmert's statement in favor of unilateral withdrawal.

This article says that the statement is a "trial balloon" from the Sharon camp - which would be really shocking, and also suggest that the idea was hatched at the same time as the decision to go ahead with the security fence. Obviously, withdrawing without a peace agreement is a form of surrender - noone should pretend otherwise. And it would increase the PA's determination to fight for everything else that they are demanding (ie. Jerusalem, settling millions of Palestinians into pre-1967 Israel, whatever's after that), while in no way reducing international pressure.

The weekend Yediot had an article called "Korbanot Hagader" ("casualties of the fence") - a play on "Korbanot ha-shalom" ("casualties of the peace") which was the term applied by Oslo supporters to the casualties of "first-generation" suicide bombings. The article by Tsadok Yehezkeli is both informative and melodramatic in that it contrasts the initial successes of the fence with the hardships endured by Palestinians in Jayyous, Jabara, and a third village.

Yehezkeli tries to describe the situation from the first-person vantage point of those affected (including the standard baseless bit about how they think malicious land confiscation and "transfer" are in the offing), asserting (mistakenly) that this aspect is lost in the "sterile" language of Israeli discussion of the fence. I actually want more "sterile" information ie. how many people are really going to be substantially affected (the article quotes an untenably large estimate from B'tselem) and what possible alternatives exist.

I will try to write more from this article later, though real-life may well end up taking precedence.

More on 'Geneva' Another right-on evaluation from Yossi Klein Halevi:

The Israeli initiators of the Geneva Accord are guilty of multiple outrages. They've summoned a campaign of international pressure against their own democratic government, hampering its diplomatic maneuverability. They've undermined the legitimacy of the Sharon government while strengthening the legitimacy of Yasser Arafat's. They've lied to the public about the accord's supposed renunciation of the right of return, when in fact the accord reaffirms it. They've negotiated away Israel's most basic assets, not least its right to defend itself, and gotten vague Palestinian promises in return. And, hardly surprising, they allowed the Geneva signing ceremony to be overtaken by a blame-Israel atmosphere without offering any defense in response.

But perhaps their greatest damage is domestic. In the past three years, Israeli society has managed two extraordinary achievements. The first is to withstand a planned, systematic terror campaign whose purpose was to break our will and slowly erode our viability. Shortly after the outbreak of the Terror War in September 2000, Ehud Barak warned that, in a contest of wills between two societies, the loser will be the one who blinks first. Now, with Geneva, a part of Israeli society has blinked.

No less serious is Geneva's erosion of Israel's second great achievement: the marginalization of both the ideological Right and Left and the end of the no-win debate between them. The combined effects of the first and second intifadas on Israeli consciousness was to convince the majority that both Greater Israel and Peace Now were delusions. And so, arguably for the first time since the 1967 Six Day War, most Israelis were no longer viewing the territories through an ideological prism of wishful thinking but facing reality, however grimly, on its own terms.

This article says that Arafat's last minute decision to ambigously smile on the Geneva ceremony was the result of pressure from Egypt.

Haaretz writer Sara Leibovich-Dar levelled some criticisms at Jpost. Jpost editor Bret Stephens responds that Leibovich-Dar is a tendentious interviewer and a plagiarist.

I variously read Jpost, Haaretz, and Yediot - all of them have good and bad writers (at Haaretz: Ari Shavit, Zeev Schiff, Amos Harel, and Amir Oren are the best ones). In 2002, Jpost and Haaretz both interviewed me about my blog, and Jpost was the more professional of the two. The Haaretz article has a lot of sloppy misquotes, including an anecdote told by Sgt. Stryker that was attributed to me. The Haaretz interviewer was also quite envious of my ability to say whatever I want on my blog.

On the off chance that you were thinking of going to see the excellent musicians (like Omri Mor, Daniel Sarid, and Daniel Zamir's Ad Matai) at the Tel Aviv"Fringe Jazz Festival" , you might take a look at the home page of the Communist Party-sponsored arts space that's hosting it and have second thoughts.

Palestinian 'Geneva' negotiator Jamal Zakot on why Palestinians shouldn't fear that the plan would eliminate unlimited "right of return" to pre-1967 Israel for descendents of refugees from 1948:

"The document does not promise a full and collective return for millions of Palestinians, but it also does not cede this right. On the contrary: the proposed time frame for the solution of the refugee problem is five years, while the time frame for the Israeli retreat from the Palestinian lands [sic], evacuation of settlements and completion of installing Palestinian sovereignty on its lands according to the maps - which are more important than the texts - is only three years."

So Zakot is saying that the PA will first get everything that it wants in the West Bank/Gaza, so it will be able hold out and stay maximalist. And don't think that they wouldn't.

Arutz-7 translates the above from PA daily Al Hayat al Jadida. Perhaps Ribbity will take a closer look.

In the course of a discussion about an assertion by Norwegian Television that Israel's security fence is creating "apartheid", Bjorn Staerk enunciates the real issue regarding "antisemitism" among European media and intelligentsia:

We don't have to call it anti-semitism or Jew-hatred. Those words are so intertwined with modern history that their defining qualities have been pushed aside. But "irrational fear of and attribution of malicious intent to the only country in the world that is dominantly Jewish, and Jewish influences in other countries" covers it. It highlights the sinister part without strawman-friendly diversions like whether this is hate, or whether Hitler would have approved.

I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. We just need a good name for this phenomenon - eg. where Tony Judt will wave away physical and verbal attacks on Jews by Europeans as "misguided", while castigating (with comparisons to Pontius Pilate) Israeli leftists who have become (understandably) disillusioned.

Standard liberal gestures - ie. trying to "understand", suspending judgement, trying to "build bridges" - just seem to be absent. Although the Guardian seems to have started changing in the past week or two.

The Swiss just wouldn't risk offending the Palestinians (report):

It had been agreed beforehand that a message from Arafat would not be read aloud at the ceremony - but at the last moment the PA delegation demanded and threatened, and the Swiss hosts gave in. The message from Arafat, considered to be the father of modern-day terrorism, stated, "While Israel continues to build a Berlin Wall, we hold an olive branch.

So apparently in Geneva they blamed Israel for everything, cursed at the fence, and called Sharon a "fascist". And no criticism at all for the Palis.

The one-sidedness is partly because that's how many of these people actually think. But it's also because any criticism of Arafat or the Palis would "offend" the Palestinian delegation. Castigating Israel and giving Arafat a free ride is part of trying to drum up Palestinian support for the Geneva enterprise.

Similarly, if some peace plan gets support from an Israeli gov't (whether Likud or Labor), Palestinian support for it is then likely to decrease. The thinking is: "if the Israelis are willing to accept it, then it's probably a trick and we should be demanding more".

Heard the Geneva affair (including some of the Carter speech) on Channel 2 news. I bet most of the people there never actually read the "accords", and have no recollection of the Camp David or Taba negotiations (except for Beilin & co. of course, who were present at them).

Carter apparently called repeatedly for "return" of refugees to the territories beyond what the "accords" call for. He obviously hasn't read the documents, which call for unlimited settling of refugees into the "territories" and an additional "limited" (but TBD) number of refugees to be settled in Israel proper.

More: This article describes how Carter and Arafat have a longstanding close relationship (via Kesher Talk). Carter is not disturbed by Arafat's support for Al-Aqsa Brigades etc.

I will eventually force myself to read the reports of the Geneva "signing". Most normal people would probably not be able to participate at this thing in an official capacity (eg. by making a speech) without somehow noting that it's basically meaningless.

But professional politicians (and ex-politicians) aren't normal people, and will largely ignor the fact that Beilin etc. have no mandate from the Israeli public, and that the hypocritical Palestinian delegates don't even represent themselves, let alone Arafat or the Palestinian public.

The real evidence of the shallowness of the sponsors (ie. Blair, Carter et. al. ) is that none of them will actually try to treat the Palestinians' ostensible (though mega-ambiguous) blessing of the Geneva document as readiness to make the single concession that it apparently requires of them - ie. giving up their demand that millions of descendents of refugees from the 1948 war be settled in Israel proper.

Still on the very local side of things: Jpost print edition has more info on the Templer cemetery in Jerusalem's German Colony neighborhood and Beilin's plan (ie. 'Geneva') to provide the PA with "access" (which is not defined within the Geneva document).

The area actually contains two burial grounds - the one belonging to the Templers has been unused for about 50 yrs; a second one belongs to an evangelical Christian movement, whose administrator expressed surprise that the PA had expressed any interest in the site. This confirms to me that the provision was a not-particularly-well-considered "tit-for-tat" in exchange for Israeli access/sovereignty of the large and centuries-old Jewish cemetery on Mt. Scopus.

Mazal Tov to Ribbity Frog + spouse on the addition of a new tadpole.

Apparently pandering to Arab and Muslim sentiments, BBC World Service Radio broadcast an all-Muslim panel discussion on whether Israel has a right to exist. The consensus of the panel was not surprising.

Norman Geras links to this this article on the situation. This article from Haaretz has similar sympathies. This other Haaretz article.

It's tiresome to fisk articles in the Independent and the Guardian because to me it seems that the loaded language and one-sided presentations in those publications should be obvious to everyone. But since this article has made such an impression on a sensible liberal blogger it seems like a good time to respond.

Guardian:

There are yellow steel gates in the barbed wire [at Jayyous] but they are closed. Farmers are busy making phone calls, some are going to see the Israeli military to demand that the gates be opened. Eventually, soldiers arrive. Harvesting is a family affair so the soldiers face a crowd of men, women and children. What they do is this. First they collect all their identity papers.

Then they call the people out one by one. Today they have decided that no male between the ages of 12 and 38 will be allowed on his land. Also, no woman will be allowed unless she is over 28 and married. So the majority of the farmers - men, women and teenagers - stand at the gate, the Israeli soldiers and the barrier between them and the harvest that is their sustenance and income for the coming year.

Two men set off to try and find a way of infiltrating their own land. The rest make their way back to the village hall. On the mayor's desk lie some 600 permits that appeared in the village this morning. They are issued by the Israeli authorities and made out to individual farmers. About half of them are in the names of people who can't use them: babies, infants, a couple of men who have been in Australia for 15 years. But that is not the point. The point is that the people know that if they use these permits they are implicitly accepting their terms: three months' access with no recognition of any rights to the land. They suspect that after three months Israel will start playing games with them. Permits like these were one of the mechanisms by which their parents and grandparents were dispossessed of their land in 1948. What should they do? Use the permits and try to salvage their crops and deal with the rest later? Boycott the permits and starve?

More lies from the Guardian

An Egyptian writer tours the West Bank for the Guardian:

The next day a Jewish Israeli woman gives me a copy of the military order on which the permits are based. It names the West Bank land now trapped between the barrier and Israel's borders the "Seam Zone". It states that the people who have the right to be in the Seam Zone without permits are Israelis or anyone who can come to Israel under the Law of Return. That is, any Jewish person from anywhere in the world. But in this district alone, 11,550 Palestinians have their homes in the Seam Zone. "It is Nuremberg all over again," she says.

That whole paragraph is baldfaced fiction - nothing unusual for the Guardian, I know. But it's also disturbingly provocative and inflammatory.

More later.

More:

To clarify:

- the assertion that the seam zone is "Jews only" is simply bunk

- the wacky-left and mainstream British press have also stated that the villagers were told to get permits or face expulsion. Those reports don't describe how the orders were supposedly promulgated (or offer an Israeli response). I haven't found anything vaguely similar in the Israeli press (and there should have been something).

- I have read about permits being required for crossing the fence

Don't know if I'll have any more info today, but I'll try (the Nuremberg bit is obviously obscene but apparently goes over well in Europe).

More:

It's another instance of the "Jenin Effect" (ie. Palestinian rumors becoming international news):

The Palestinians of Jubara were alarmed when Israeli soldiers began posting notices on telephone poles and at checkpoints around their small West Bank village.

....

The notices told of an unprecedented new order: everyone must apply for a special permit to remain in Jubara -- the village has about 300 residents. The notices did not specifically mention expulsion, but Palestinian officials and villagers said they understand this to be the implied threat.

Suffice to say that this "implied threat" is either Pali propaganda or subconscious projection (or both). The IDF is trying to prevent non-locals from crossing the fence easily - an unpleasant consequence of maintaining a quasi-open border with Arafatistan.

I'm a bit weary of the whole 'Geneva' thing, but: A recent Jpost article mentioned that under 'Geneva' the Palestinians would be provided with "access" to the Templar (German Protestant) cemetery, which is right in the middle of my neighborhood. This was apparently a spur-of-the-moment concession demanded in exchange for Israeli access to the old Jewish cemetery on Mount Scopus.

Update: More background on the cemetery here. Apparently they're the Templers, not the Templars.

The text of the "Geneva accords" were mailed to all Israelis a week or so ago (though I was in the US, and T. didn't keep the brochure for me). The mailing was funded by gambling website operator (and Beilin associate) Avi Shaked, together with the Geneva-based Center for Humanitarian Dialogue (report)

"What's your solution then?" While some are still saying that "we just have to believe in the possiblity of peace", Yossi Klein Halevi is a realist:

In a week when the Sharon government announced negotiations with the new Palestinian government for a second hudna, or cease-fire, and when the text of the "Geneva Accord" appeared as a pamphlet with our morning newspapers, it is useful to remind ourselves what we've learned about the conflict over this last bitter decade. And that is that the Oslo-era notion of a comprehensive peace needs to be wiped from our lexicon.

Instead, we should conceive not of resolving the conflict but of managing its intensity. A hudna isn't merely a means to an end but - at least for the foreseeable future, and possibly for this generation - the end itself.

There are several compelling reasons why a comprehensive peace is now unattainable. The first is the near-total absence, among mainstream Palestinians and the Arab world generally, of the notion that Jewish sovereignty over any part of this land is legitimate.

....

Many of us who initially supported Oslo assumed that a reciprocal realization had occurred among Palestinians. In fact, no such transformation of Palestinian consciousness occurred. The opposite: One of Oslo's many ironies is that, by entrusting the education of a generation of Palestinians to Arafat's pathological regime, the Palestinian people are far less emotionally and ideologically ready for peace than they were before the Oslo process began.

...

At the same time, we need to recognize the fluidity of this moment and stay open to new possibilities. In balancing the contradictory insights of politics and faith, our challenge is one of timing: how to avoid premature hope that could once again lead us to disastrous political initiatives, while not missing sudden openings for change.

I hope to resume blogging next week.

Last week I was in the US at an often boring wi-fi enabled conference. I can imagine how people living generallly peaceful surroundings could catch a glimpse of LGF and see it as obsessive or even intolerant.

Interesting: a roundtable discusssion on "The New World Order" featuring the very insightful Mark Lilla as well as Tony "Dissolve Israel" Judt - sponsored by batty-sounding graduate programs at the U. of Illinois.

Lilla's article "The End Of Politics" offers an explanation of the depressing European trends embodied by Judt's clumsily argued and clearly agenda-driven article in the NY Review of Books (excellent responses to Judt by Bret Stephens and Victor David Hansen have been heavily blogged already).

The question that I would like to put to Judt: "Suppose that your 'binational state' idea were actually attempted and just made matters worse. Would you then support international 'encouragement' to get Jewish Israelis to emigrate?" Like many leftists, Judt pretends that the Israeli gov't contemplates transfer of its Arab population and gets outraged; but his answer to my question could only be 'yes'.

T. and I had brunch on Friday morning at Cafe Hillel. It was a bit less crowded and somewhat more secured than before it was blown up. The less crowded part made it more pleasant to be there. It doesn't strike me as a big deal to visit a place that was recently Islamikaze-d.

This article by Australian parliamentarian Michael Danby provides good context to Mahathir's OIC speech. Mahathir is strongly and pragmatically anti-Western as well as anti-Jewish, but realizes the counterproductivity of terrorism and seeks (or seeked) to develop Islamic strength through economic and military power.

This might mean that Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" should join Shimon Peres' "The New Middle East" as one of the most quaintly naive books of the 90s.

Like most Israelis I'm appalled by the reports that supposedly 59% of Europeans think that we are the leading threat to world peace.

The actual data of the poll (which also asked about the Iraq situation) are supposed to be released tomorrow. My admittedly conspiratorial idea: the results are deliberately engineered by European Commission bureaucrats to promote the "Geneva initiative". The "initiative" has little support among the Israeli public as I've described previously, but from the EU perspective the poll result could be a way to pressure Israel and indicate that they don't respect or recognize our reasons for skepticism.

I imagine my European readers are likely to jump in here and say that the 59% figure is actually plausible. But I haven't seen a good description of what these polled people are likely to be thinking.

Update: Miranda from Germany responds that I'm way off, and that the EU doesn't support the 'Geneva Initiative'.

A possible reason that the James Reynalds at the BBC and Justin Huggler at the Independent seem to just regurgigate the Palestinian versions of events: they're too busy looking for oddball Israelis to mock.

European parliamentarian Francois Zimeray is leading a group of 150 MEPs on some sort of "interparliamentary forum". Today they met with PM Sharon; their meeting w/ Abu Ala was cancelled but it's not clear why.