Obama is alinsky-izing us big time now.  He has put the global spotlight on us and is shouting:  look at these people who are flouting the will of literally the entire world.

Thing is:  if  Netanyahu stops building in Jerusalem, then boom the status quo has changed and the default position in subsequent negotations is that Ramat Shlomo, Western Wall etc. will go to the Palestinians.

Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that Obama has anything other than the most hostile intentions to us.  He has made no attempt to speak to the Israeli people about making scrificaes for peace or similar Arafat/Clinton-isms.  His demands to Netanyahu indicate that he plans for the US to essentially do the negotiating on the behalf of the Palestinians (euphemistically called "proximity talks").  There seems to be a failure of imagination regarding how anti-Israel Obama could actually turn out to be.

If the Obama regime intends to railroad us into a situation where we have a hostile Palestinian state a few hundred meters away, and no real hope of US support in the event that they start a war (which they would do with help from Hezbollah and other quarters) ... then we are best off giving Obama a principled "No" even if that is going to lose American aid, turn us into a pariah etc.

Obama has been pretending that Israel is the party that has been refusing to negotiate or make concessions (I guess that means we are being Alinsky-ed).  Now he's demanding that the Israeli gov't form a detailed written summary of its negotiating position, which the US will present to the PA and the Arab League for review.

What comes after that is not clear, but probably a multilateral bludgeoning for concessions - including concessions on the refugee issue.  All the while Abbas can sit back and enjoy some photo ops and have Obama do the work for him.  No need for him to negotiate, make concessions, or commit to peace and coexistence.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171738
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3867825,00.html

It's quite tiresome to read these bien-pensants like Robert Wright talk about how Obama is actually being pro-Israel by castigating us and pandering to the demands of the PA for unilateral concessions.  Though I think that's simply what media does these days is apologize for their great leader - especially now that he seems powerful due to the healthcare victory.

For an illustration of how facts really don't matter anymore (for lots of people anyway), read this article and look at the comments.

Bibi has partially caved and is going to talk to the Palestinians about refugees and the status Jerusalem while the Palestinians will not even agree to sit in the same room as Israeli negotiators.  Also to "slow down" building in Jerusalem (though Arab neighborhoods in the capital won't be slowed down of course).

In 2002, the suicide bombings scared people a lot.  I'm more scared now.

In the space of a week, the Americans changed the status quo on Jerusalem for no obvious reason.

We don't know what is motivating Obama so there is ample reason to think that he might drop some more policy bombshells like:  allowing the Palestinians to forgo formal recognition of Israel,  demanding that Israel settle large numbers of Palestinians into its pre-67 borders.

We do know that Obama has no interest in the attempts at persuasion that characterized the Clinton era.  No appeals to Israeli citizens, "taking risks for peace", "peace of the brave" etc. etc.

David Hazony at the Contentions blog posted some background on the weird Haaretz poll that claimed that Israelis view Obama as fair and friendly.

One of the newspapers here featured a long weekend section titled "What does Obama really want?" with essays by various authors.  One theme was comparisons to previous American administrations - this misses the point it seems to me.  Obama wants to be Mr. Year Zero so to understand his approach to the Middle East it's necessary first of all to look at how he is approaching healthcare, Honduras etc.

Who aside from Obama is actually formulating the new American policies?  Hilary, Biden, and Mitchell?   Probably not.  Is Samantha Power in the picture?

This blog started in 2002 when things started to seem surreal .. ie. the suicide bombings and the way that I saw them being talked about.  The blog ended when I had nothing left to say.

Things are getting surreal again I'm afraid.

Crazy: this Haaretz poll published today showing that 70% of Israelis believe that Obama is friendly and even-handed.

Can't fathom it. There will be skepticism - especially after Michael Oren and Joe Biden have been so obviously false in claiming they have been misquoted.

A brief update since NZ Bear is now linking this blog.

In Jerusalem things are "normal", though they seem to be less and less so elsewhere. We've been hearing anecdotes about people in Safed and Haifa who had various kinds of close calls with falling Katyushas.

If the visits keep coming in, I will try to respond to some of the blogospheric comments on the situation.

- Tal

For personal reasons, this blog is no longer being updated.

For a good look at what Israeli blogs are saying about the current happenings, go here.

Jerusalem has been quiet, though we've heard some jets overhead the past few days.

- Tal

I admire people who still have patience to slog through and critique the MSM's reporting on Israel. These days I can't think of reporters like Tim Butcher as anything other than shallow, herdlike, and hopelessly bigoted.

Week before last T. and I visited the Northern Negev (around Nahal Eshkol) while it was in bloom. Photos later (maybe).

UPenn doctoral candidate Stacey is currently in Yemen (being on the receiving end of impromptu stonings, cheerily identifying herself as part of a "third gender", and breezily ignoring US State Dept advisories).

But now she weighs in on the situation in Lebanon:

I'm still in Sana'a, but wrapping up here with the intention of heading to Beirut by April 1st, so I've been contacting friends about sublets and whatnot. In one particularly chilling response, a fellow scholar/friend writes:


As for things here, they're a bit too exciting for my taste. Gangs of shebab are riding around the streets at night from both the opposition and loyalist camps. Several people were shot over the weekend in Achrafieh/Gemayzeh....Meanwhile, there are very scary rumors about Ketaeb being in contact with Israel and plotting things for here. And this comes from both the Israeli press and rumors here. I really don't trust them, or Aoun. The Christian militia youth are spoiling for a fight, even though they'd be creamed. I think they feel Christians lost the war and they missed their glory days by not fighting in their own war - a very dangerous combination.

Great. Her advice? Buy a refundable ticket.

You really have to love those academics don't you? The pro-Syrian elements are the "loyalists" and the pro-democracy demonstrators are the "opposition" who travel around in "Shebab". And of course they have us sinister Israelis down pat - always pulling the strings behind the scenes aren't we?

I'm sure Stacey doesn't agree, disagree, or have a stance about her scholar friend's nomenclature or speculations of conspiracy; she just finds them chilling unlike the warm people in Yemen. But I'm fairly certain that the global media would jump on the opportunity to tell the story if things were as bad there as she seems to suspect.

Update: Stacy responds to my sarcasm with a dose of her own, and writes that

Tal's basic objection seemed to be to my posting of a colleague's on-the-ground view of the evolving situation in Lebanon, and failure to condemn her use of the terms "Opposition" instead of "Pro-Democracy."This, of course, puts her in league with all but, say, Fox News...including many within the Opposition itself!

No.

I made two observations:

a) Stacey brooked no enthusiasm for the apparent emergence of an Arab trend towards democracy (an enthusiasm shared well beyond the Fox News viewership), and used conspiciously antiseptic language that masked the sense that there might be anything positive going on.

b) Stacey's colleague made conspiratorial insinuations about Israelis pulling the strings behind the Lebanese political scene. These remarks were apparently such a commonplace that she doesn't even notice them (or notice my noticing them) or perhaps even find them worthy of skepticism. You'd be interested to know that Israelis don't like to be viewed as diabolical.

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.