Woe Is Us!

Excerpts from Joe Lieberman's recent speech to those attending AIPAC's annual policy conference. His is a lonely voice and certainly not one respected or cared for within his own Party. The Democrats are not interested in anything other than winning '08 and extending their power in Congress so they can impose their retrogressive economic and social policies. Republicans are not much better because they have walked away from everything they stand for in order to appeal to voters. Woe is us! (See 1 below.)

Simplistically speaking there are two Arab/Muslim attitudes towards Israel. One, help by Islamic radical fanatics, is to completely eliminate it. The second, more benign and held by Arab/Muslim "moderates" is to de-fang Israel.

The elimination of Israel is possible as a result of missile capability and an Islamic nuclear device. Forgetting morally for a moment, the elimination of Israel would be a strategic mistake because it would remove all pretense Arabs/Muslims have that Israel is the cause of their problems. In fact it would increase their problems for that very reason because propaganda about Israel has helped their leaders rally their street people to look outward. The flames of religious hatred serve a relevant purpose of helping despotic regimes to remain viable.

Territorially defanging Israel makes more sense because it leaves Israel as a propaganda threat but not one strategically. An Israel that cannot adequately defend itself and could be eliminated in any serious war dedicated to that purpose neutralizes its influence and weakens it militarily enough to make it always politically vulnerable.

The march toward recognition of the unity government and financing it has begun and according to one analysis it may be the death march for Fatah. (See 2 and 3 below.)

Dick




1) Joe Lieberman's powerful speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy meeting attracted a lot of notice -- and with good reason. Coming from the man who had the second spot on the Democrats' national ticket not too long ago, it presents a startling indictment of Democrat party leaders so consumed with partisan animosity and lust for political power that they have lost sight of America's national interest.

A few choice excerpts:

Increasingly, the debate over our foreign policy is becoming so polarized, so partisan, so bound up in the battles we are having here in Washington, that it seems blind to the real battle outside of America, the challenge of our time from the Islamist extremists who want to destroy us all, who attacked America on September 11, 2001, and intend to do so again.

... I understand the anger about Iraq, but I am deeply troubled by how this anger, and the feelings of animosity that many people have for President Bush, have begun to affect the way we talk and think about what is happening in the world beyond Iraq and America's role in it.

There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism.

... And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies.

Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no."

That is unacceptable.

Unsurprisingly, Lieberman's Senate Democrat colleagues ignored his warning and pressed ahead with their latest attempt to eviscerate the President's authority to act as Commander-in-Chief -- the 17th such measure Democrats have offered during their "first 100 days" as Congress's majority party.

The surprise is that the measure -- which would have passed even without Senator Lieberman's support had Reid and Durbin maintained the support of their other members -- went down to defeat because of Democrat defections.

Then the Senate then went on to pass a resolution that explicitly prohibits defunding our troops in the field -- a blow to the hard-left elements of the party that still hope the Democrats will eventually do so. The latter measure was one Reid and company had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid voting on and its passage was a clear Republican win.

Even with Democrats in power, the Democrats’ plan for defeat and retreat is controversial and its passage is no sure thing The RJC thanks Senator Lieberman contributing clarity to the debate and for enduring the abuse he has gotten as a result.

2) Mahmoud Abbas urged an end of the world boycott against the Palestinian government although Middle East Quartet conditions are ignored in its platform.

The unity government he has launched with Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh won a vote of confidence at the Palestinian legislative council Saturday, March 17. The US and European governments have already set up contacts. Norway was the first Western goernment to re-establish political and economic ties.

Washington will invite Salim Fayad in his capacity as the PLO’s financial adviser – but not as Palestinian finance minister, so long as the unity government withholds recognition from Israel and a guarantee to end violence. Israel will maintain contact with Mahmoud Abbas alone; there will be no other form of cooperation with a Palestinian government that refuses to accept these Middle East Quartet’s terms.

The UK will maintain working contacts with non-Hamas ministers. Later Saturday, the Palestinian legislative council votes confidence in the new 24-member government. Its signatories, Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniya, Hamas, as designated prime minister, will outline its platform.

Vice PM Shimon Peres said Saturday that Israel rejects absolutely as “suicidal” the Palestinian demand for the “right of return,” which is also incorporated in the Saudi peace plan to be re-launched at the coming Arab summit March 28. He said the Fatah-Hamas accord binds Israel to nothing. “For peace, they must talk to us. The Europeans can’t talk for Israel.”

He confirmed that Abbas failed to make good on his pledge to procure the release of the Israeli soldier, kidnapped by Hamas-led raiding party last June, before the new Palestinian government was set up. The issue remains as unresolved as before.

One putative “independent,” the designated foreign minister Ziyad Amar, is a known Hamas adherent. Pro-American Salam Fayed is retained as finance minister as bait to draw US recognition and international assistance.

Abbas and Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh (who retains the post) worked against the stopwatch to get their Saudi-brokered unity act together in time for the Riyadh Arab summit on March 28.

If anything, Abbas lost points; any agreements or deals he may conclude with Israel will be subject to ratification by the Palestinian national assembly which has a Hamas majority of a national referendum. But because the unity deal is in the bag, the Palestinians will be represented at the Arab summit this month by a Hamas prime minister.

3) ANALYSIS: The unity gov't may be the last nail in Fatah's coffin
By Avi Issacharoff

The celebrations in Ramallah and Gaza on Saturday of the Palestinian Authority unity government could all too quickly turn into a burial ceremony for Fatah.

The movement over the past year presented itself as a clear political alternative to Hamas. Now it has become Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's closest ally. Senior Fatah officials opposed to the move worry the organization will thus be identified with failures in the economy, internal security and in creating a political horizon.

The limited protests from senior Fatah figures against Hamas policy will peter out and with them the chances to constitute a real political and cultural competition to the Islamists.

Both Haniyeh and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas were all smiles on Saturday, but Haniyeh and his Hamas associates particularly had reason to be pleased. Following tough negotiations, Hamas has a majority in the cabinet after Fatah agreed to consider Foreign Minister Ziyad Abu Amar as one of the independent ministers representing it.

The idea of holding elections was rejected, and a crack has appeared in the diplomatic siege of Hamas, while the organization has not changed its ideology: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it (Abbas will do the dirty work) and "the resistance" in other words, violence will go on.

However, the option of Palestinian unity and damage to Fatah was the lesser of two evils. The other possibility for Abbas was civil war. The problem is that until the next elections for president (in less than two years) the Palestinian public will forget that Abbas overcame lesser political considerations and remember primarily that Fatah is not functioning. The movement's reforms of bringing in younger leaders was not enough. Most of the 72,0000 registered members of Fatah know today there is no alternative to Hamas, say young Tanzim leaders in the West Bank.

The sixth party convention has become a stale joke; there seems little chance it will ever be held. The party is in economic crisis, and attempts by senior Fatah officials to impact voters through a social safety net pale in comparison to Hamas' social services network. Corruption in PA institutions and the chaos on the streets are identified with Fatah and its security forces. Above all, the feeling is widespread that no one is in charge in Fatah.

Meanwhile, Hamas is continuing its quiet revolution. Recently 11 Hamas members were appointed to senior posts in the PA Education Ministry, and the number of hours of religious studies has been increased by about 20 percent.

Hamas reaches the hearts of the people, and one of the best ways to do this has always been through the mosques. In 2000, there were 100 of them in Ramallah; today there are 190. Without laws to limit it, Hamas has managed to lead a cultural change in Palestinian society. Most women in the territories wear head coverings, including some who do so to avoid public criticism. Fewer restaurants sell alcohol and halls for weddings and other festivities are being asked not to host belly-dancers.

Hamas leaders are sounding sure of themselves these days, while working unceasingly to gain new members, and Fatah carries on with its internal struggles.

A weakened Israel will not secure regional peace!

Yis'real Ne'eman provides an analysis of just what the Saudi Peace Plan entails in practical terms. In essence the Arab world, fearing Iran, is anxious to resolve their conflict with Israel on a basis that would leave Israel dependent upon Arab success overcoming its own fears and problems because Israel would have indefensible borders.

Furthermore, Israel would be expected to compensate Arabs for starting a war and losing. It would be as if the United States wound up paying compensation to Japanese citizens for bombing Pear Harbor.

Lastly, it is extremely difficult to realistically envision an Israel protected by Arab nations whose own survival is questionable but then Israel is a tiny nation, is blamed for all the problems of the world and the feckless west is always willing to sacrifice others in an heart beat because of their own cowardliness.

There needs to be a resolution of the Palestinian problem but making Israel the sacrificial lamb will only create problems down the road because a weakened Israel will not secure peace in the region. (See 1 below.)

The battle that erupted as the unity government is formed should be a warning. Also, now that Hamas is in control and the appearance of unity has been created expect the west to buckle and start funding terrorism again. I would also expect a weakened Bush administration that is falling apart to eventually cave as well and disavow the prefatory conditions of its own Road Map.

This is what is suggested by forcing Israel to negotiate a final settlement while the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel, stop terrorism etc. Olmert is so weak he cannot withstand the pressure no matter his bold statements because Israel must eventually do the U.S.'s bidding. (See 2 and 3 below.)

If you think I am too harsh in judging Olmert then wait for the Winograd Reprt. (See 4 below.)

Our son and daughter-law attended the AIPAC meeting but I have yet to speak with him. I did receive an e mail from a former president of AIPAC who said it was a well attended conference, ie 6500 attendees. The problem with these conferences, in my humble opinion, is that you are told what you want to hear by speakers but it changes nothing because a weakened administration will do what it feels compelled to do to save its neck for historical reasons.

It is as if Israel is being nibbled to death by a duck!

What is more critical is who will follow Olmert and how long will it take to rid Israel of Olmert and the Kadima experiment? (See 5 below.)



Dick


1) Saudi Peace Initiative
By Yisrael Ne'eman

Suddenly the Saudi Initiative peace proposal of March 2002 (supported by the moderate Arab states Jordan, Egypt and the Emirates) has gained new momentum and is all the rage. The plan calls for a two state solution giving the Palestinians full sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem (to be its capital), a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines (incl. the Golan) and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem as determined in UN Res. 194. In return the Arab world is to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel and guarantee security for all peoples and states in the region, including Israel.

Full Palestinian sovereignty infers the development of its own army, and not the establishment of a demilitarized or non-militarized state. With Netanya 9 miles (15 kilometers) from the West Bank city of Tulkarm, Israel's coastal population of several million would be in rocket range, including Tel Aviv in the end. Considering the outbreaks of anarchy in the Gaza Strip and the rocket fire faced by Israel, similar attacks could be expected to come out of the West Bank.

As for refugee issues, UN Res. 194 Article 11 (Dec. 1948) states the following: Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date, and that compensation should be paid for the property which, under the principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. One can rest assured that after almost 60 years of refugee status and the poisonous anti-Israel/anti-Semitic Palestinian education system that one would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to live at peace with their neighbors, meaning Israeli Jews. Therefore the issue would be compensation. But such a demand cuts both ways. Let us recall that there were approximately a million Jews who became refugees throughout the Middle East, whether due to the Arab invasion or as a result of the establishment of the State of Israel and backlash throughout the Arab world.

There are several reasons for the Saudi push at the moment. The "moderate" Arab world is petrified of Iranian Shi'ite influence and the inroads being made in organizations like Hamas. The thinking is that conflict resolution with Israel will undercut all the radicals including the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood of which Hamas is the Palestinian arm. Israeli return of the Golan to Syria would supposedly detach Damascus from both the Iranians and the Hezbollah, thereby weakening the former and seriously undermining the second. Hezbollah could be defeated by internal Arab world forces whether originating in Lebanon or not.

Israel would have peace with non-defensible borders. It appears that the Jewish State would not have to absorb Palestinian refugees but rather compensation would be negotiated. Being the Palestinians and Arab world rejected the two-state solution in 1947-48 they are the aggressors and should be responsible for compensating their own people. But they will certainly make demands on the Israeli treasury.

Israel is being asked to pay the price to strengthen the Arab world in its battles against Iran and Sunni extremists (Moslem Brotherhood and bin Laden's Al Qaeda). Israel is to relinquish strategic assets in return for peace and security. But will those making the promises keep their word? Better yet, will those moderate Arab regimes survive and not be overthrown by the Islamic extremists?

The Jewish State is being offered that very tempting concept "End of Conflict" with its inferred recognition of Jewish national legitimacy, at least in its declared form as part of a final agreement. But the price set is extremely high: dependence on the Arab World for Israel's continued existence, meaning not only the "moderates" must come out the winners in their battle against Islamic extremism, but the future of the Jewish State and People is dependent upon them keeping their word. To project into the future a generation or so, we are speaking of the Arab World as the new patron for the Zionist movement.

Many Israeli politicians on the Left, Center and even moderate Right are willing to enter negotiations with no pre-conditions. The Arab "moderates" are hinting that the initiative is unchangeable, meaning "Take it or leave it." The Clinton Outline (Dec. 2000), the Roadmap (2003) and Bush-Sharon Commitments (April 2004) are not mentioned.

Most agree that to talk will not hurt. Israelis need to keep in mind that the "moderates" in the Arab World are under pressure, for better and for worse and the Saudi initiative is not the last word. Israel needs peace with the Arabs, overall security and a continuing strategic relationship with the US while expanding its horizons to Europe. Whether all this can be achieved in tandem with the Arab World is the fundamental question.

2) Hamas gets 9 cabinet posts, Fatah six. The other portfolios are shared out among “independents” and smaller factions.

One putative “independent,” the designated foreign minister Ziyad Amar, is a known Hamas adherent. Pro-American Salam Fayed is retained as finance minister as bait to draw US recognition and international assistance.

Israel has announced it will boycott all the new ministers, including the new Fatah office-holders. The Olmert government faults Mahmoud Abbas for accepting a power-sharing accord dominated by Hamas, whose platform continues to deny Israel recognition and refuses to terminate violence. Abbas also reneged on his promise to get the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit released before forming a unity administration.

Abbas and Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh (who retains the post) worked against the stopwatch to get their Saudi-brokered unity act together in time for the Riyadh Arab summit on March 28.

The fragility of their deal was apparent on the day of its signing: Wednesday, March 14, internecine gunfights were sparked by the assassination of Hamas’ Gaza commander Ala Haddad in a hail of bullets by the Muhammad Dahlan’s Fatah death squads. Whereas Haddad had been targeted for months by Fatah, now the chief of those death squads, a professional terminator called Samir Madhoun, became the quarry of Hamas’ special executive arm. Nine people were injured, including three bystanders, in the ensuing shoot-outs. The air rang with gunfire as Abbas and Haniyeh shook hands in Gaza City.

The cynical performance proceeded with Abbas pledging to deliver European recognition and aid funds to the new government, and Haniyeh vowing to end Palestinian government reliance on Iran - if Abbas delivered. Both promises were hollow, as they both knew, just as the framework they contrived changes very little. The kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston and the Israeli soldier remain in the hands of a band of captors that includes al Qaeda-Gaza, Hamas continues to take delivery of missiles and other war materiel and build its fortified bunkers.

If anything, Abbas lost points; any agreements or deals he may conclude with Israel will be subject to ratification by the Palestinian national assembly which has a Hamas majority. But because the unity deal is in the bag, the Palestinians will be represented at the Arab summit this month by a Hamas prime minister.

3) Hamas: New gov't to respect previous accords, but back resistance

The new Palestinian unity government will "respect" previous agreements with Israel, as stated in the Mecca agreement that led to the formation of the government, but will also continue to support "resistance," according to excerpts from the new government's platform, published Thursday on two Hamas Web sites.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas on Thursday presented the final list of his cabinet to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, a day after the two agreed on the make-up of the new government, ending weeks of arguments over the candidate for the powerful interior ministry post.

"I have handed over to the president the candidates for the new coalition. He has accepted that, Haniyeh said. "We are optimistic the government will open a new era."


In the first Israeli response to the government's platform, a senior official called it a major step backward for peace prospects, and said Jerusalem would lobby the international community not to work with the new government.

The Quartet of Middle East peace brokers - the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia - has called for the new PA government to abide by three demands: recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and agreement to honor previous accords.

Haniyeh said Thursday, however, he has received signals that the Europeans are ready to work with his new government, but acknowledged that winning U.S. and Israeli support would be difficult.

"No doubt there is a different position by the American administration and the Israelis," he said. "We are going to do what we can to support national unity, and to remove the siege and to maintain relations with the international community."

The full cabinet line-up will be submitted Saturday for parliamentary approval.

According to Hamas, the new platform states that, "The government confirms that the resistance is a legitimate right for the Palestinian people."

It goes onto say that, "halting resistance depends on ending the occupation and achieving freedom and [the right of] return and independence."

Nonetheless the platform states, "The government abides by the protection of the higher national interests of the Palestinian people, and the protection of its rights ... on the basis of that, respects international resolutions and agreements signed by the PLO."

The new government, Hamas says, also recognizes that "the key to security and stability in the region is in the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, recognition of the right to Palestinian self-determination."

To that end, the manifesto states, "the government will work with the international community to end the occupation, and to return the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."

The platform also touches on one of the key sticking points in negotiations between the two sides - the issue of Palestinian refugees.

According to Hamas, the government "holds fast to the rights of Palestinian refugees, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their land and belongings."

But, said the Israeli official, "anyone who looks carefully at the document will see that there is a regression on a number of important issues."

He noted the platform's call for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel and its affirmation of the Palestinian right of resistance against Israel.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because an official government statement has not been released, said the language is even tougher than the original Palestinian power-sharing deal reached in Mecca last month. "This is not a step forward, it is a step backward."

4) Winograd final report will 'sentence' country's leaders
By ANSHEL PFEFFER AND YAAKOV KATZ


The Winograd Commission's final report expected in the late summer will include full "personal recommendations" concerning Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, as well as senior ministers and IDF officers on their conduct during the Lebanon War, a source close to the committee said Wednesday.

The "partial" report to be published next month will contain a full judgment on the actions of Olmert, Peretz and former chief of General Staff Dan Halutz during the five-day period in July between the capture of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and the official decision to launch the campaign against Hizbullah.

Future recommendations regarding the three, however, will only appear in the final report.

The source called attention to the precise wording of the press announcement issued by the committee on Tuesday in which next month's report was referred to as a "partial" report rather than an "interim" report, as the media had called it.

This attests that the findings on the leaders' decision-making in the first five days following the kidnapping are complete, the source said. Therefore, the committee members decided to present that part of the report to the public without delay, including organizational recommendations arising from those findings.

Regarding the individuals involved - Olmert, Peretz and Halutz - the decision was to deliver the "verdict" as to their actions but to reserve the "sentencing" for the final report, which would describe their actions throughout the war. The source didn't discount the possibility that other parts of the report might be published in advance of the final version.

Meanwhile, a Web site reported Wednesday that Peretz had told members of the committee during his testimony that he made a mistake in accepting the post of defense minister.

According to the report on the News First Class site, Peretz told the committee members that he had initially wanted to be appointed finance minister, but Olmert had refused to grant him that portfolio and instead offered the Defense Ministry. The report further claimed that Peretz told the committee that in his opinion, a defense minister in Israel needed to have a strong military-defense background, which he does not.

Tuesday's announcement was made after intense consultations between committee members, who were eager to set the record straight after conflicting media reports on their intentions. Also, according to the source, the fact that Olmert's July 17 speech was chosen as the end of the time period to be scrutinized in the partial report is no coincidence, since "the prime minister will be spotlighted in the report."

In Jerusalem legal circles, there is a firm belief that committee member Prof. Ruth Gavison is the main influence on the writing of the report.

According to the announcement, the partial report will include a chapter explaining "the committee's understanding of the rules of natural justice," and the final report will contain analyses of "the relationship between the political and military echelons" and "the general ethos of Israeli society and the connection between it and the challenges facing the state."

Gavison is the only constitutional law expert on the panel and has dealt with such issues extensively over the years, both as an academic and a member of various public committees. Their inclusion is seen as a clear sign of her considerable influence on the committee.

Over the last week, there have been leaks from the offices of both Olmert and Peretz about both their explanations of the circumstances of Peretz's appointment as defense minister. The fact the committee saw that as a significant issue, even though the appointment isn't directly connected to the war or part of the committee's official purview, is another sign of Gavison's influence, as she has written extensively on the question of senior officials' discretion.

In related news, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told new recruits that although there had been problems during the Lebanon war, they were in training, and not in the units and their performance.

"There were problems during the war," Ashkenazi told soldiers who were drafted into the Kfir Brigade. "The problems were not in the units and the way they fought, but in the training. We are now fixing the problems and we have increased the training regimens."

5) Analysis: Livni and Netanyahu - prime ministers in waiting
By ANSHEL PFEFFER

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the annual AIPAC conference in Washington this week by video link from Jerusalem. Attending in person were two politicians who both believe they will be the next prime minister, and that their elevation is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni both learned of the Winograd Committee's announcement that they would publish personal findings on Olmert next month, while they were still abroad, but their plans for the day after have been in place for some time. But despite their careful planning, both have to overcome some serious obstacles before they realize their objective.

Livni is ostensibly in the best position. As the official No. 2 in Kadima and Vice Premier, she would automatically take Olmert's place should he resign following the Winograd findings. The only problem with that scenario is that Olmert is unlikely to quit, even if he is severely criticized in the report, since the personal recommendations will only be published in the final report in another six months or more.

But can Livni afford to wait that long? Right now, she is the public's favorite candidate within Kadima, according to all the polls, and the darling of the international diplomatic scene and the media. This could be her best chance. Livni has at least three potential rivals for the Kadima leadership, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, Construction and Housing Minister Meir Sheetrit and Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter. If she delays now, their nascent campaigns could have time to get off the ground.

The polls show that at the grassroots level, Kadima members favor Livni to replace Olmert, but the year-old party has no mechanism for replacing its leader, other than his resignation. To achieve this, Livni will have to execute some very deft political maneuvers to prove to Olmert that he has lost his party's confidence.

She will need to cut a deal with at least one of her rivals, preferably Mofaz or Dichter because of their security cachet, to ensure her ascendancy and continued control of the party. Above all, she will need a perfect sense of timing. She should bear in mind an interesting anniversary that falls next month. Just when retired Tel Aviv District Court judge Eliahu Winograd will be publishing his report, it will be 10 years since then-attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein presented his report on the Bar-On/Hebron affair, in which he severely criticized prime minister Netanyahu but decided not to indict him.

Netanyahu's bitter rival, finance minister Dan Meridor had threatened to resign over the scandal, but got cold feet at the last moment. His resignation at that point would have definitely triggered Netanyahu's downfall. Instead, three months later, Netanyahu turned the tables on Meridor and forced him out of the Treasury by siding against him with the Bank of Israel over currency conversion policy. Meridor never returned to the cabinet table, while Netanyahu remained in power for another two years. Livni will have learned from Meridor's political demise that sometimes you only get one chance.

Netanyahu feels that the premiership is once again within his grasp. The polls are smiling upon him even more than they are at Livni. He is by far the most popular candidate for the top job right now and the Likud under his leadership is once again polling above thirty seats.

The only problem is that elections don't have to be held for another three and a half years and even if Winograd proves to be an earthquake for the government, none of the parties in the government has any interest in going back to the public so soon. Even if Kadima's and Labor's leaders are replaced, the parties will make every possible effort to keep the coalition together.

Netanyahu's alternative to elections is forming a new coalition that supports him as prime minister, but even if all the center-right parties could be persuaded to join his new administration, Netanyahu would still need defectors from Kadima to complete his parliamentary majority, and since by law, defectors can join a coalition only if at least a third of the original faction breaks away, Netanyahu will have to entice at least 10 Kadima MKs.

There are at least twice this number of parliamentarians within the ruling party close to total disillusionment, but that doesn't mean that any of them are ready to get into bed with Netanyahu. Some of them left the Likud a year ago precisely because they didn't want to be in the same party with him. A third of the electorate, according to the polls, might believe that Netanyahu is the best man for the top job, but career politicians need a lot more than that to persuade them.

Kadima lawmakers' biggest worry right now, in light of their party's abysmal standing in the polls, is that they won't be coming back after the next election. To recruit them, Netanyahu would have to guarantee them safe places in the next Likud list, but to do that for at least 10 MKs who "betrayed" Likud not so long ago, at the expense of loyal Likud candidates, would be to invite open rebellion within a party that Netanyahu has worked so hard to bring under his control. Things are going to have to get a lot worse in Kadima for 10 MKs to leave the party in return for anything less than ironclad promises.

Israel - continues to be pounded by hyopocrites!

I seldom comment on the market in a convincing way because seldom am I convinced I am right but I do believe the market's direction is still down. Thus, I continue to take a defensive stance and remain willing to sell off stocks that I believe are more likely to go down than maintain their current price levels.

Steven Erlanger, of the New York Times, writes an article which can only be described as a basis for why the New York Times has been losing readership because it is one sided and reeks with bias. No wonder the Sulzberegr family were concerned enough to bring some Wall Street analysts in to talk with their board and explain the stock's underperformance. The problem is the Sulzberger family misses the point why The New York Times is fading as a respected paper.

Perhaps Erlanger might write a lengthy article about the psyche of Israeli children and how the current generation of young Israeli adults have been affected by years of Palestinian terrorism, by Hezbollah missiles and Palestinian rockets, and now by Iran's Ahmadinejad's threats to annihilate them? Or would that be asking too much?

Teach hatred and ipso facto children grow up consumed by hate and become disillusioned. Lousy leadership - lousy results! (See 1 below.)

More garbage from the U.N. Jimmy must be enthralled.(see 2 below.)

The Winograd report is anxiously awaited but by the time it is released much of it will probably have been leaked. We pretty much know what it concludes - Olmert and Peretz are disastrous leaders! (See 3 below.)

Shin Bet Director, Yuval Diskin, alleges, hundreds of Hamas personnel are being trained in Iran. (See 4 below.)

Caroline Glick attacks both Bush and Olmert for actions harmful to their respective peoples. She also points out the hypocrisy of those leaders, most particualrly Jordan's Abdullah, who claim Israel is the root of all Middle East problems. I doubt the Sunnis and Shias are killing each other in Baghdad because of Israel and the same is true for all those incidents when Arabs and Muslims attack each other and foreign nationals and bombs go off in Indonesia etc.

It is amazing that a nation of 6 million inhabiting a territory as big as Rhode Island is the cause of the entire world's discontent. The real problem is that Israel exists and until it is destroyed the Arabs conveniently have an external excuse onto which they can conveniently project all their problems. Until the West removes its dependency from Arab oil nothing objective will happen or change. Furthermore until the West quits appeasing Arabs and Muslims terrorism will only increase.

Israel is the successful kid on the block all the others in the region are jealous of and must attack because Israel's success is an embarrassment and stands as testimony to failed Arab and Muslim leadership which has squandered oil wealth in support of external hate and internal suppression. (See 5 below.)

(And read more hypocrisy in 7 below. Israel is not threatening anyone with nuclear weapons or annihilation but they are blamed for all the world's ill and I assume, before to long, global warming also.)

Alan Dershowitz keeps reminding us that Jimmy Carter, like Pinnochio, is incapable of telling the truth. (See 6 below.)

For those who read Spanish you might find this site instructive :

Israel_Y_EL_Mundo_Musulum_1.pps

Dick


1) The New York Times' Steven Erlanger has a lengthy feature about Palestinian youth, the "lost generation of Palestine: its most radical, most accepting of violence and most despairing." Quoting a dozen Palestinians, the article, entitled "Years of Strife and Lost Hope Scar Young Palestinian Lives" tells a story of disillusioned youngsters "stymied" by stateless[ness]", an economy that is "shutting down," "Israeli checkpoints, barriers and closures" and interaction with "armed" Israelis --"soldiers and settlers." Erlanger also emphasizes the despair of parents who are dismayed by their children's turn to violence. (Nothing is mentioned about the many parents who have been quoted boasting and taking pride in their children's violent actions, what they call "martyrdom.")

But by failing to discuss the critical factor turning the Palestinian youth to violence, namely, the state-sponsored anti-Israel indoctrination in PA-TV, radio, music videos, universities, mosques and summer camps, Erlanger paints a deceptive portrait. (See "The Root of Palestinian Violence is Hate Education," "Hate Indoctrination and Media Blindness," "Ignoring Hamas Hate Indoctrination," "The New York Times: Too Little, Too Late on Incitement ," "Save the Children," "Teaching Hate Harms Children" and other CAMERA articles on Palestinian hate indoctrination.)

As the Times has done repeatedly in the past, the article glosses over the incitement that has produced a generation of militarized Palestinian youth. These youth are products of an upbringing that includes pervasive societal and media indoctrination of young children to become so-called "martyrs." As children, they grew up with the Sesame Street-type children's series, "The Children's Club," broadcast in the late 1990's which featured Palestinian children singing in praise of martyrdom and jihad. They watched Palestinian television broadcasts urging children to drop their toys and pick up rocks to follow the iconic Muhammed al-Dura to the hereafter, which was portrayed as a green, sunlit meadow where young children play. They were spectators at public rallies and pageantry that featured Hamas members marching through the streets dressed as suicide bombers. They listened to religious sermons broadcast live on Palestinian TV on Fridays which often included calls to martyrdom.

Just last month, Hillary Clinton issued a press briefing in which she condemned the fact that Palestinian textbooks "don't give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination." Palestinian Media Watch concluded that the textbooks' wholesale rejection of Israel can have only one consequence: "The well-meaning student is left with no logical justification or religious option to accept Israel as a neighbor or to seek coexistence."

At the university level, the problem is also systemic. For example, as the Washington Times reported on March 5:

"Al-Quds University last month held a weeklong celebration honoring Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as 'the shahid [martyr] engineer.' He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.

The opening event, as reported by a Palestinian newspaper and found in the PMW report, included a speech by university administrator Yusuf Dhiyab, 'who discussed shahids and the mark that the shahids left on the history of the Palestinian nation and how they succeeded in uniting the nation.' "

And who can forget the infamous exhibit at An-Najah University in 2001 - the very same university which produced several students whom Erlanger interviewed for the article - celebrating violence against Israelis with a re-enactment of a suicide bombing in a pizzeria that killed 15 Israeli civilians (mostly women and children)?

Palestinian students visit a re-enactment of the Sbarro pizza restaurant suicide bombing at An-Najah University. Re-enactment of Sbarro bombing at An-Najah University included replicas of body parts and pizza slices strewn across the room

Erlanger, however, provides just one sentence in the almost 3400 word article about indoctrination of Palestinians, presenting it as an Israeli claim:

"Many Israelis agree that the current generation of young Palestinians has been thoroughly radicalized, but say that it is the product of Palestinian political and religious leaders who have sanctioned and promoted violence and terrorism against Israel."

He also includes an occasional oblique allusion. For instance, he writes:

" 'Israel should leave this land,' [16-year-old Ayman] said angrily, then repeats what he has been taught, that all of historic Palestine belongs to Muslims."

There is nothing in the article, however, to indicate that the "territory riven by infighting, seared by violence, occupied by Israel, largely cut off from the world and segmented by barriers and checkpoints," is also filled with government-sanctioned hate indoctrination via the television, nursery schools and universities, religious institutions, summer camps, and sporting events.

The Hothouses of Gaza

The article contains a section entitled "The Hothouse of Gaza" in which the strip is described as

"a poor, chaotic place of 1.5 million people, 70 percent of them refugees and their descendants . . . [whose] people are even more constrained by Israeli and Egyptian security restrictions on their travel [compared to their West Bank brethren]. There are fewer jobs than in the West Bank, and even more weapons.

With the economy of Gaza shutting down, much of the work available for young people is either in the swollen and disorganized security forces or in the armed militias or gangs . . . "

But the coupling of "hothouse" along with "Gaza" brings to mind another sort of "hothouse" - the agricultural hothouses left behind by Israel when Israel fully withdrew its settlements and its military from the Gaza Strip well within the lifetime of this generation of lost Gazan youth - less than two years ago. But Erlanger doesn't even mention the historic and first wholesale uprooting of Jewish communities in land that Palestinians claim as their own. Presumably, the complete, unilateral relinquishing of land to Palestinians does not fit into his narrative of a "destroyed generation" whose members "never see anything good in [their] lives"?

Israel's withdrawal from Gaza would certainly have been an interesting factor to consider in light of the radicalization of the Gaza youth. For instance, did the disengagement have a moderating or radicalizing effect on the young population? In the wake of the withdrawal, why weren't agricultural jobs made available in the vacated, intact hothouses? Given the potential opportunities, why did the young continue to turn to the terror groups?

Violence Romanticized
In a separate problem, Erlanger refers to the first intifada - which involved, according to the Israeli army, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenades attacks, 600 assaults involving explosives or grenades, the killing of 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers, and the injury of more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers - as "civil disobedience." The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "civil obedience" as the "refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government "

This selective and inaccurate spread, with a large front page, above-fold photograph of a Palestinian youth against a backdrop of fire, and four more large color photos across two pages, is not so much investigative journalism and analysis as it is a portrayal of a viewpoint endemic to the New York Times

And suggest as well that a lengthy article be written about the psyche of Israeli children. How has the current generation of young Israeli adults been affected by years of Palestinian terrorism, by Hezbollah missiles and Palestinian rockets, and now by Iran's Ahmadinejad's threats to annihilate them?

2)Since its inception a year ago, the new U.N. Human Rights Council, which replaced the infamously politicized Human Rights Commission, has passed eight, one-sided resolutions accusing Israel of human rights violations and four more are planned. Among the issues scheduled for discussion during the Council’s meeting is U.N. Special Rapporteur John Dugard’s new report claiming that Israel is an occupying force among the Palestinians and that she has committed crimes such as apartheid and colonialism.

3) War probe report to include 'personal conclusions' on PM, Peretz, Halutz
By Nir Hasson

The committee probing the conduct of the 2006 Lebanon war will release an interim report in April, which will include "personal conclusions regarding the responsibility of the prime minister, defense minister, and military chief of staff."

The report will be issued in the second of half of April, after Passover, and not in March as previously reported.

The war began on July 12, after Hezbollah abducted two Israel Defense Forces reservist soldiers during a patrol along the Israel-Lebanon border. The fighting ended on August 14, when a cease-fire brokered by the United Nations took effect.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz have both come under heavy criticism for the way the war was handled. Former IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz resigned in January, saying he took responsibility for the army's failings during the conflict.

The report will include a dissection of the period running up to the outbreak of the conflict, beginning with the IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000.

It will also contain an analysis of the decisions relating to the launch of the war between the time of the abduction of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and Olmert's July 17 speech to the Knesset.

A classified version of the report will be delivered to Olmert and Peretz, and a non-classified version will be release to the public.

The panel said that its members decided to focus the interim report on these issues, "which had special bearing on the rest of the war." Furthermore, the panel said that the interim report includes findings that require urgent implementation.

The final report will include analyses of the fighting, the readiness of the military to go to war, the make-up of the IDF forces, training of commanders and decisions regarding the war itself, the cease-fire and the last two days of fighting. There will also be comments on the relationship between the military and political echelons.

This version will also address the general ethos of Israeli society and the link between society and the challenges that faced the state at the time of the war, as well as the treatment of the home front and the conduct of the local authorities. Comments on the latter issue will be made in coordination with findings of the state comptroller.

4) Shin Bet director: Hundreds of Hamas men being trained in Iran
By Gideon Alon

Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin was quoted Tuesday as saying that Hamas has sent hundreds of men to Iran for prolonged training periods.

Diskin was speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

"Hundreds of Hamas members have been sent to Iran for training, and not training periods of a week, two weeks or a month, but for long-term, high-quality training," committee member MK Zvi Hendel (National Union) quoted Diskin as saying.

According to Hendel, Diskin "is very concerned that in another two or three years, it will be very difficult to deal with the problem called the Gaza Strip."

Diskin also told the committee that 31 tons of explosive material has been smuggled into the Gaza Strip in the last year by terror groups. According to Diskin, this was six times bigger than the largest amount to have been smuggled in recent years.

Diskin said that the Palestinians are taking advantage of the relative calm and restraint shown by the Israel Defense Forces to bolster its arms and improve the range of its rocket fire.

Senior Likud legislator Yuval Steinitz, another member of the panel, reiterated his call for an Israeli military ground offensive in Gaza.

"The picture being drawn for us is grave," Steinitz said. "I call on the government to launch Operation Defensive Shield II, in the Gaza Strip," he added, in a reference to the major 2002 IDF operation against armed Palestinian militants in the West Bank.

Steinitz told Israel Radio that "The Palestinians are playing good-cop, bad-cop with us. There is Abu Mazen (Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas), the good cop, with whom we talk peace, while over his shoulder stands Hamas, the bad cop, which grants legitimacy to terrorism."

5) Bush and Olmert acting against their nation's
by Caroline Glick

Last November 26, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the IDF to withdraw its
forces from Gaza. Sounding oddly triumphant, Olmert announced that he had
reached a cease-fire with the Palestinians. The strangeness of his statement
became apparent when just hours later Sderot absorbed yet another
bombardment of rockets from Gaza.

And as the IDF grudgingly withdrew its forces mid-mission, the Palestinians
established the rules that they and Olmert have followed ever since. They
attack Israel and prepare for war, and Israel helps them by giving them
money, negotiating with them and taking no steps to defend itself or its
citizens.

The strange agreement was announced three days before US President George W.
Bush snubbed Olmert when he demurred from either visiting Israel or visiting
with Olmert during his trip to Amman, Jordan. In the four months since
Olmert forced the IDF to stand down, the IDF, the Shin Bet, and even the
media have warned both Olmert and the public that Syrian, Iranian and
Lebanese-Hizbullah trainers, engineers, commanders and advanced anti-air and
anti-tank missiles have been brought into Gaza.

The foreign terror masters and their Palestinian counterparts have used the
respite that Olmert provided them to build what Shin Bet Director Yuval
Diskin has referred to as "warrens" of tunnels and fortifications along
Gaza's borders with Egypt and with Israel. Like Hizbullah in Lebanon,
operating from these fortifications, the Palestinians will be able to attack
IDF ground forces and aircraft when they are finally permitted to defend
southern Israel from attack.

So thanks to Olmert's unilateral cease-fire, the Palestinians have upgraded
their capabilities. Whereas before Israel withdrew its forces and civilians
from Gaza in August and September 2005, the Palestinians operated as
low-level terrorist cells, today they field bona fide terror armies that are
capable of conducting coordinated, multi-layered operations.

YET THE Palestinians' avid preparations for war are apparently irrelevant to
all concerned. In the past week alone, we have seen the US, Israel and the
Arab world in the throes of a diplomatic frenzy that would make it seem as
though the coming war was nothing but a joke.

Last Wednesday, Jordan's King Abdullah addressed a joint session of the US
Congress. Abdullah came to the US at an interesting moment in the history of
his own kingdom. The same day that Abdullah told US lawmakers that Israel is
the source of all the misfortunes in the world, or as he put it, "The
wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration
far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine," his state
prosecutor announced the arrest of three al-Qaida terrorists. The men were
arrested for plotting to assassinate Bush during his visit to Amman on
November 29 and for plotting to bomb the US embassy in Amman.

What is interesting about the announcement, coming as it did the day that
Abdullah spoke to the Congress and ate a private dinner with the president,
is that it shows the mendacity of Abdullah's contention.

Israel is not responsible for the fact that Jordan has a huge problem with
al-Qaida. Moreover, with a population that is more than 70 percent
Palestinian, the monarch of the Hashemite kingdom would do well to look in
the mirror before declaring that the lack of Palestinian statehood has
anything to do with Israel.

ACCORDING to Israel's Channel 2, Abdullah built on his "Blame the Jews"
theme to great effect during his private dinner with the president. Bush was
reportedly convinced by his Jordanian guest that the world will be a better,
safer place if the US abandons its demand that the PA destroy the terror
cells and armies operating in its territory before it commences pressure on
Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Hamas-Fatah.

Abdullah's success has had immediate significance on the ground. Just four
days after the monarch's visit to Washington, Olmert announced that he is
going to ignore the situation on the ground in the PA and conduct
negotiations on Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria with Abbas. At
Sunday's cabinet meeting Olmert repeated his praise for the so-called "Saudi
plan," or, alternatively, the "Arab peace initiative."

That initiative calls for Israeli surrender of Judea, Samaria, the Golan
Heights and Jerusalem; Israeli acceptance of blame for the Arab world's
refusal to accept the right of the Jewish people to national sovereignty;
and Israeli acceptance of millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs within its
truncated borders. After Israel makes these suicidal concessions the Arab
peace initiative states that the Arab world will be willing to recognize a
defunct and defenseless Arab-majority State of Israel.

OLMERT AND Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have repeatedly stated that at its
meeting later in the month in Riyadh the Arab League will moderate the plan.
But Jordan's Foreign Minister Abdullah Khatib said Sunday that there would
be no changes of any kind made in the plan.

Hours after Olmert praised the Arab plan for Israel's destruction, he met
with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Olmert's office tried to put a positive spin
on the meeting by loudly repeating Abbas's empty pledge to work to bring
about the release of IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held hostage by
Palestinian terrorists in Gaza since June.

But the fact of the matter is that the content of the Olmert-Abbas meeting
represented nothing less than an Israeli diplomatic capitulation to Hamas.
This capitulation is no less dangerous to Israel's national security than
Olmert's acquiescence to Hamas's military transformation of Gaza into a
mini-Lebanon, replete with Iranian and Syrian military advisers.

Under orders from Bush, Olmert agreed Sunday to abandon Israel's demand that
the PA fight terror and expunge all terror elements from its midst as a
necessary precondition for further Israeli concessions. For their part, the
Palestinians responded to Olmert's query regarding how they had used the
$100 million that Israel gave them by demanding more money.

And while Olmert was happy to lie to the public and claim that Abbas had
agreed to end the rocket attacks on the Western Negev, he knows full well
that he won't. Indeed, the only thing that was announced about the meeting
that was true is that Olmert has agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians
and the Arabs on the basis of the Arab initiative, which is based on the
proposition that Israel essentially has no right to exist.

SPEAKING on Israel Radio on Monday morning, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
said that Israel and the US are working in pure harmony in formulating their
policies regarding the Palestinians, as well as Syria. And this is no doubt
true. Both Israel and the US are pretending that it is possible to make a
distinction between Abbas and Hamas, even though in the aftermath of last
month's agreement between Fatah and Hamas in Mecca Abbas now acts at the
pleasure of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

Perhaps the only bright spot for Israeli diplomacy since the onset of the
Palestinian jihad in 2000 has been the US and European willingness to make a
distinction between the Fatah terror group and the Hamas terror group.

It is true that Fatah, which receives at least 40 percent of its finances
from Iran and has killed more Israelis over the past seven years than Hamas,
is unworthy of the international legitimacy it has enjoyed. But in refusing
to directly fund and support Hamas, the US, Israel and Europe were at least
agreed that some Palestinian terror groups were beyond the pale.

This Israeli diplomatic asset was destroyed by a combination of Arab perfidy
and Israeli incompetence in the aftermath of last month's Mecca agreement.
In Mecca, Abbas agreed to a Hamas takeover of the PA. He agreed to become a
Hamas figurehead whose main task is to restore Western funding of the
Hamas-led PA.

Rather than point this out and so wrest away Fatah's international
legitimacy, Israel has allowed Fatah to do Hamas's bidding and act as a
conduit toward the international legitimization of the jihadist movement.

PERHAPS what is most interesting about the diplomatic maneuvering taking
place today is that all four main actors carrying it out are advancing aims
inimical to their national or organizational interests. Israel and the US's
security interests, like those of Jordan, are harmed rather than advanced by
the empowerment of Hamas. As for Abbas, Fatah's fiduciary interests are
harmed by the transfer of power to Hamas.

So why are these men behaving as they are?

The answer to that apparently is to be found in a characteristic shared by
Bush, Olmert, Abdullah and Abbas. All of them lead without the support of
their people. All of the men, in engaging in near-manic diplomatic
wrangling, are advancing the aims of neither peace nor security. They act as
they do not because they believe in what they are doing - indeed, none of
them could possibly believe in what he is doing. Rather, they are doing this
because they want us to ignore the fact that in Bush's and Olmert's cases
they are lame ducks, and in Abdullah's and Abbas's cases, they are sitting
ducks.

6) Double Standard Watch: Carter caught in yet another lie
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ


When former President Jimmy Carter spoke at Brandeis University in January, he complained that "this is the first time I've ever been called a liar…". Well, he'd better get used to it, because I can now prove that he is a liar.

Last week, in a speech at George Washington University, he categorically denied that he had received any invitation to debate me about his book. He said that he had-these are his quoted words-"never received any invitation to debate, contrary to what a Harvard professor has said." Well, one of us is lying, and it's not me. My best witness is none other than Jimmy Carter himself. Here is what he said, just a few weeks earlier at Brandeis:

"But let the debate take place, and I've never responded to any of the people that have made their attacks on me. I understand there is a Harvard professor that has done so. I turned down a meeting with him; I felt, I didn't think that Brandeis needed a Harvard professor to come here and tell you how to ask questions. But to summarize my answer I think it is going to be much easier in the future not only in this campus but around the nation to debate these issues."

It sure sounds like he was boasting about turning down a debate with me. Was he lying at Brandeis, or at George Washington?

7) Iranian FM: 'Israel is a nuclear threat'
By TOVAH LAZAROFF

The Israeli and American delegations walked out of the Conference on Disarmament in the midst of a speech by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who charged that both countries posed the main security threat in the Middle East.

"It was too much to swallow" from a country which has threatened to destroy his own, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Yitzhak Levanon, told The Jerusalem Post by phone.

In addressing the Geneva based United Nations body, which has representatives from 65 nations including Iran, Mottaki did not use the word Israel. Instead he referred to it as "the Zionist regime," which he said had "a long and dark record of crimes and atrocities such as occupation, aggression, militarism, state terrorism, crimes against humanity and apartheid."

"It was an insult and a direct bashing of Israel," said Levanon. "The only way to show my disappointment was to walk out abruptly in a way that everyone would notice. Everyone knew that I was angry with what he said," said Levanon. The US delegation soon followed him, Levanon added.

In reflecting on the Mottaki's comments which included a call for sanctions against Israel, Levanon said, "My interpretation for their undiplomatic behavior is that they are under much pressure as the international community units against Iran's pursuit of a nuclear regime and why they started to bash us."

Mottaki told the world's top disarmament forum that it was Israel which should be the target of international attention. He said it was the only country in the region that refuses to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He alluded to an interview Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave in December, which was many interpreted as a sign that Israel posses nuclear weapons. It's a charge that Israel has denied.

Mottaki said that a nuclear-armed Israel poses "a uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security and requires to be seriously dealt with by the international community taking practical measures."

Mottaki noted the growing pressure being exerted on Iran in the UN Security Council, with a series of sanctions aimed at forcing the country to suspend uranium enrichment, which Washington and some allies say is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

"It is surprising that while no practical step is taken to contain the real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East, my country is under tremendous pressure to renounce its inalienable right for peaceful use of nuclear energy," Mottaki said.

The other threat to the Middle East comes from the United States, which he said invaded Iraq on the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and bringing more security to the region. "After years of searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq it is obvious the preparation for the attack on Iraq was based on false or, in fact, forged information," Mottaki said.

For the rest, he said, "one can easily judge if there is more security or insecurity in the region as the result of such a huge military operation. Those who created such a situation in Iraq cannot disregard their responsibility."

Officials at the US mission to international bodies in Geneva confirmed that the American delegation also walked out.

"At a time when we're trying to find unity of purpose in the CD (Conference on Disarmament) such outrageous and divisive comments are not useful," said a statement from the mission. The conference is intended to negotiate disarmament treaties, but deep divisions over what weapons should be tackled next have left it little more than a forum for speeches since it created the nuclear test-ban treaty in 1996.

Why intellectuals disdain the military!

What are Syria's intentions? (See 1 below.)

Ban Ki-moon, the new UN head, has decided to get out of his chair and visit the Middle East. Wonders never cease! (See 2 below.)

James Holmes, an associate professor at The Naval War College, attempts to explain why intellectuals have a disdain for the military. (From my perspective they believe their intellectual capability makes them superior to those who engage in fighting.)(See 3 below.)

In her latest diatribe, Caroline Glick, oozes contempt for Olmert and also discusses the pluses the West will gain from the capture (she claims defection) of Asgari and what he reveals about Iran. (I recently wrote that we stand in awe of Iran which is a pathetic third world nation in pursuit of a first class ability to destroy its enemies. Rather than treat them as they deserve to be treated we have concocted an obsequious diplomatic approach which allows the Mullahs to play us for fools.)(See 4 below.)

While we cut funding for child care a US agency funds terrorists seeking higher education. (See 5 below.)

Krauthammer lays it on Fitzgerald. (The trial of Scooter Libby is a travesty of over-reach by a special prosecutor who knew, at the beginning, who leaked whatever but refused to stop there. So Fitzgerald kept up his pursuit until he nailed someone for perjury about facts that pertained not to the original case but a tributary matter which had branched off from his initial charge. I am not defending Libby for any mistake he made but Krauthammer's comparison with blatant lying by the Clintons may be raking over old coals but it has relevance for comparative purposes.)(See 6 below.)

Dick





1) Quoting three Israeli military and two government sources, the French news agency AFP reports the Syrian army has accelerated its deployment of medium and long-range rockets capable of striking major towns across northern Israel.

Sources note the timing of the unusual disclosure, the day before the Iraqi neighbors’ conference in Baghdad. It appears to be aimed at deterring Syria from being tempted into military action to ease the sense of isolation which the Baghdad meeting will tend to aggravate.

In its detailed report, AFP discloses that most of the Syrian rockets positioned on Israel’s border are 220 mm with a range of 70 km and 302 mm rockets with a reach of 100 km, AFP reports. The latter could reach Israel’s third largest port city of Haifa and its industries, as well as Tiberias and Kiryat Shemona.

Many are hidden in underground chambers and camouflaged silos. The Israeli sources said Syria had built a system of fortified underground tunnels along its border with Israel. They also believed Syria had deployed several FROG rocket launchers with a 550-kilogram warhead and 70-km range in areas between the border and the capital Damascus, 40 km away.

Syria concentrates most of its long-range surface missiles in the north. Its decision to bring them so close to the border may indicate that Damascus is seriously thinking of attacking Israel.

Military sources report that this redeployment indicates Syria is anticipating an Israeli response to a potential attack by moving tank and armored infantry across the border to strike the rocket formations. The FROG rockets would be used against this incursion.

AFP’s sources see the deployment as an indication that Damascus may be preparing for future “low intensity warfare.” The massive deployment of well-entrenched rockets poses “a real strategic threat” to Israel.

Those sources therefore rebut the low expectations of war with Syria this summer as voiced by Israel’s chief of staff and military intelligence chiefs on Feb. 25. At the time, military experts challenged this evaluation and criticized Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi for reflecting the Olmert government minister’s political line which is one of unquestioning alignment with the current US-Saudi strategy regardless of Israel’s national interests.

A senior government official also told AFP: Israel has absolute superiority in several fields of warfare,” referring to advanced air force and “smart” weapons.

Russia as been selling Syria thousands more advanced anti-tank missiles capable of piercing tank armor of the types which reached Hizballah from Syria in last year’s conflict.

2) UN chief announces trip to Israel, Palestinian Authority

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday he will visit Israel and the Palestinian territories later this month in an effort to help revive the peace process between the two sides.

Ban said he would make the trip, which will include a stop in Lebanon, on his way to the Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia on March 28-29.

Ban said he chose the Middle East for his second major overseas trip as UN chief because security in the Middle East is one of the most important issues which we are now facing. He visited several African countries last month.

He singled out the Israel-Palestinian conflict as one of the most pressing in the region, saying resolving it would create a conducive political atmosphere for the resolution of other issues in the Middle East.

"I'm looking forward to, first of all, a meeting with leaders in the region and making myself available for any consultation and to make contribution to (the) peace process," he said.

Ban has been involved in U.S.-backed efforts to restart the Israel-Palestinian peace effort after a six-year freeze. He said he would participate in two months in another round of talks among the so-called Quartet of Mideast peacemakers - the UN, the U.S., the European Union and Russia.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will meet for the second time in a month in an effort to keep their line of communication open.

3) Why Do Intellectuals Oppose the Military?
By James L. Holmes

Almost a decade ago the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick penned an essay asking "Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?" That is, why would those who live well reject the open society that allows them to do so? The essay was less a venture in social science than a thought experiment about the upbringing of intellectuals and the outsized influence this group exerts on society. Much of what Nozick says about intellectuals' reflexive disdain for capitalism also helps explain their disdain toward the military - and even the differences are intriguing. So his essay is worth pondering today as we survey civil-military relations in a nation at war.

Whom are we talking about? In his book Intellectuals, Paul Johnson defines a member of this elite group in general terms, as "someone who thinks ideas are more important than people." By contrast, Nozick confines his attentions to "wordsmith intellectuals" concentrated in professions such as the academy, print and electronic journalism, and government. He deems "numbersmiths" working in the sciences, business, and other quantitative fields less prone to anti-capitalist animus, despite similar intelligence and academic attainment. (Why this should be true warrants looking into.)

Schooling, maintains Nozick, breeds in intellectuals a sense of superiority, and with it a sense of entitlement to the highest rewards society has to offer - not just top salaries but praise comparable to that lavished on them by their teachers. After completing their formal academic training in the centralized environment of the classroom, intellectuals go forth into a seemingly chaotic capitalist society, which purports to reward individual citizens by merit but in fact applies a different standard of merit from the one imparted in the classroom.

So an open, capitalist society falls just short of satisfying intellectuals' sense of entitlement. At least three points are worth teasing out of Nozick's essay. One, capitalist society allows wordsmiths to live comfortable lives-but those who excel outside the classroom often reap the highest material rewards. Entrepreneurship in business or other applied disciplines -- disciplines that may or may not depend on pure academic knowledge or verbal dexterity -- can bring a far more extravagant lifestyle than a career in journalism, government, or the academy.

This runs afoul of intellectuals' sense of their place in the natural pecking order. But it should have little bearing on intellectuals' attitudes toward the armed services, given the less-than-generous salaries and benefits paid to soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Servicemen rank well below wordsmith intellectuals from a purely material standpoint. This disparity should seem to reinforce intellectuals' sense of superiority.

But, American society reserves the highest respect and admiration not for professors or journalists but for those in practical disciplines such as the armed forces, law enforcement, firefighting, or emergency medicine. Americans typically rate the military at or near the top of the nation's institutions, with journalism and lawmakers near or at the bottom. This status deficit rankles intellectuals. While America certainly needs academic skill and enterprise, an open society maddeningly-prizes other things as much as if not more than the ability to turn a clever phrase.

Success in such a society comes in large part from applied intellect, amplified by such virtues as technical proficiency and physical and moral courage. Schooling is not primarily responsible for instilling these virtues. Disaffection follows when society frustrates intellectuals' lofty expectations. Awarding superior status to people they learned in the schoolhouse to regard as their inferiors must trigger a certain revulsion.

Nozick observes that academic training teaches intellectuals to prefer a centralized environment in which an authority figure, not the vagaries of the market, sets standards and dispenses rewards and punishments according to certain rational standards. Does this relate to intellectuals' skepticism toward military service? It's unclear. The armed forces are nothing if not regimented institutions, and thus they should seemingly appeal to wordsmiths. An old joke in the ranks points out how odd it is that it takes a socialized institution like the military to defend liberty.

But here, too, the military allocates rewards-medals, ribbons, written evaluations-based on criteria that cut against the intellectual grain. While training and education provide the foundation for excellence in the armed forces, servicemen are judged primarily by factors such as technical acumen and valor under fire. In other words, Americans acclaim the military for reasons that have little to do with schooling-calling into question wordsmith intellectuals' feeling of superiority, and indeed their entire worldview.

Do intellectuals' attitudes even matter, given their predilection for the abstract over the concrete and for ideas over action? Yes, says Nozick. While wordsmiths cannot dictate the outcome of national discourse, they do set the terms of debate.

"They shape our ideas and images of society; they state the policy alternatives bureaucracies consider. From treatises to slogans, they give us the sentences to express ourselves. Their opposition matters, especially in a society that depends increasingly on the explicit formulation and dissemination of information."

Nozick left his inquiry open-ended, commending it to the study of social scientists, and so will I. Some enterprising social scientist ought to examine these matters in a sustained, rigorous manner. If wordsmith intellectuals indeed frame debates on affairs of state-in particular war and peace-then their views and prejudices must be taken into account in public discourse. Our system of civil-military relations could depend on it.

4)Caroline Glick: Three cheers for Israeli democracy (gives resiliency Iran lacks)

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is certain that he has nothing to be ashamed of.
As the first Israeli leader to have led the country to military defeat,
Olmert is proud of his performance in office and thinks that we should be,
too.

Thursday, Ha'aretz reported the gist of Olmert's February 1 testimony before
the Winograd Committee which he appointed to investigate the government and
IDF's (mis)handling of the war last summer against Iran's Lebanese proxy
Hizbullah. The Ha'aretz story was one of only a handful of reports detailing
testimony brought before the commission and so it is reasonable to assume
that Olmert's office, rather than the commission members, was the source of
the story. Olmert's advisers presumably believe that publishing their spin on his testimony will deflect criticism away from him and onto the IDF and so buy the premier more time in office in spite of the fact that only 3 percent of the public supports him.

In his testimony before his hand-picked investigators, Olmert claimed that
last March he had approved a contingency plan for war against Hizbullah in
the event that Hizbullah abducted IDF soldiers along the Lebanese border.
Those plans, Olmert claimed, involved the conducting of an air campaign and
a small-scale ground campaign against Hizbullah with the goal of destroying
its missile arsenal and forcing it to disarm in accordance with UN Security
Council Resolution 1559.

Olmert stated that he only ordered the helter-skelter large-scale,
inconclusive 48-hour ground offensive at the end of the war because the IDF's small-scale ground operations until that time had been unsuccessful. He ordered the large-scale offensive, in which 33 soldiers were killed just before their comrades were ordered to retreat, because he wanted to get a better cease-fire resolution at the UN Security Council. This is the case, he argues, in spite of the fact that the Security Council had already unanimously passed the resolution before the offensive began.

"Improved" Security Council Resolution 1701 is hailed by Olmert and his
colleagues Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Amir Peretz as a brilliant, pro-Israel document that was well worth the sacrifice. They claim this in spite of the fact that 1701 makes no mention of either Iran or Syria; treats Israel, a UN member nation, and Hizbullah, an illegal terrorist organization, as equals; treats the Saniora Government in Lebanon which collaborated throughout the war with Hizbullah as a positive force; enhances the role of UNIFIL in spite of the fact that its forces reported IDF troop movements in real time on their Web site; and has enabled Hizbullah to rearm in broad daylight.

Olmert's testimony to the Winograd Commission is interesting for two
reasons. First, if Olmert was telling the truth then, far from clearing his
name, he incriminated himself. By March 2006, the IDF had war-gamed his
chosen strategy of an air campaign with a limited ground component. The
strategy had failed. The fact that he chose it anyway casts doubt on his
competence to lead the country in war. Moreover, while the public understood
just days after the war broke out that it was imperative to call up the
reserves and launch a large-scale ground offensive, Olmert clung to his
failed air-based strategy until the end stages of the war. He called up the
reservists so late that they had insufficient time to train for their
missions.

Olmert's testimony, like his office's apparent decision to leak it to the
media, is also interesting for the arrogance it betrayed.

Olmert told us his version of his testimony because he thought we would
accept it without question. If he had thought we would question him, it is
hard to imagine he would have revealed what he said because his defenses are
so easily taken apart. Indeed, within hours of the Ha'aretz report, MK Yuval Steinitz, the former chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, did just that when he told Israel Radio how strange Olmert's statements are. If he
ordered the IDF to prepare for war, Steinitz asked, why did the IDF do
nothing to prepare for war? If he had a plan to respond to the abduction of
IDF soldiers with a large-scale military campaign, then why did he slash the
IDF's budget by a half a billion shekels two months before the war?

With 57 percent of Israelis praying for new elections, it is hard to see how
Olmert and his colleagues can ever regain the public trust. But the fact
that their careers are about to end, while no doubt tragic for them, is a
happy occasion for Israeli society as a whole and a great victory for
Israeli democracy.

It is because of the openness of Israeli society that we are able to have a
public debate about what happened last summer in Lebanon and so identify those at fault and the notions that led them to their failures. And it is only by properly identifying both the failed officials and their failed ideas that the State of Israel will be able to safeguard its security in the future.

WITH AN eye towards safeguarding Israel's security, it is instructive to
compare Olmert's political woes versus Israeli society's democratic resilience to the panicked atmosphere in Iran this week in the aftermath of former deputy defense minister and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) commander Ali Rez Asgari's apparent defection to the West.

The IRGC is responsible for both Iran's nuclear weapons program and its terror armies. Its forces reportedly both develop and guard Iran's nuclear installations. As to terror, the IRGC is in direct command of Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and the Mahdi Army in Iraq. It exerts a large degree of control and influence over other groups like al-Qaida, Fatah and Hamas which receive money, training, arms and logistical support from the IRGC.

In light of the IRGC's central role in the Iranian regime's most secret
endeavors, there can be little doubt that Asgari's information will have
strategic value for the US, Israel and other Western countries in assessing
Iran's plans, capabilities and logistics.

Here it is useful to compare Teheran's hysteria over Asgari's defection with
Israel's muted reaction when IDF (res.) Col. and would-be drug dealer
Elhanan Tannenbaum was abducted by Hizbullah to Lebanon in 2000. As a senior
reserves officer, Tanenbaum was privy to top secret information relating to
the IDF's Artillery Corps where he served. But in spite of the clear damage
that Tannenbaum no doubt wrought during his years of captivity, he did not
have the capability to do anywhere near the level of damage to Israel's
weapons' systems as Asgari apparently can cause for Iran. No doubt, if a
member of the IDF's General Staff were abducted by Iran, he too would be
capable of causing far less strategic damage to Israel than Asgari can cause
to the mullahs.

The reason that Israeli commanders who fall into enemy hands can harm
Israel's national security less that an Iranian commander who defects to the
West can harm the mullahs is because Israel is an open and free society and
Iran is a closed and unfree society. In free societies, much of what would
be considered top secret information in a closed society is openly debated.
Senior officials, who in a closed society like Iran are above scrutiny, are
under constant scrutiny in Israel. Criticism of policies - which, as the
case of Olmert's political demise makes clear - is necessary for correcting
mistakes and moving forward, is the stock-in-trade of open societies. In
closed societies, those that criticize policies risk death, torture and
imprisonment for their actions.

Because open societies like Israel are information societies, their strength
is based not on hiding information from their citizens but in galvanizing
their citizens' knowledge and talents to progress and defend themselves. In
contrast, since by their nature closed societies maintain control by
concentrating power and information in the hands of as few people as
possible, a member of the powerful few who defects to an open society can do
a great deal of damage to the regime.

By the same token, since the main precondition for progress in open
societies is public debate, when Israeli students protest against government
policies, no one worries that their protests will destroy the regime. But in
closed societies, criticism of the regime is liable to open a Pandora's Box
that can bring about the regime's overthrow.

That this is the case is obvious when observing the mullahs' obsession with
both quelling dissent and preventing the fact that
most sectors of Iranian society oppose their rule from being reported by the
media.

In this vein, Asgari's defection was not the only setback the ayatollahs
suffered this week. The broadcast of a massive student protest against
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his recent visit to Teheran
University was another major blow to the regime. The footage, which was
broadcast on France 2, was taken by cellular phone video cameras. It showed
heroic students standing on stage next to Ahmadinejad calling him a dictator
and daring him to arrest them, as hundreds in the audience cheered them on
while burning Ahmadinejad's photograph.

For the regime in Teheran, the widely circulated film was a huge disaster.
Now it is clear to the world that although the mullahs may present a unified
front, their people do not support them.

Here it is important to emphasize that the mullahs' panic will in no way
impact their commitment to carrying out a nuclear holocaust. What it does
show however, is that the regime is anything but all-powerful. Indeed it is
highly susceptible to a concerted campaign to overthrow it.

Like all closed societies, the strength of the Iranian regime is built on
the twin foundations of internal repression and external aggression. But also like in all closed societies, the mullahs suffer from an inability to identify mistakes and correct them or build their future on
the power of their people who hate them.

When the Olmert government's political collapse and Iran's strategic
setbacks are taken together, one can safely say that this has been a fairly
good week. Olmert's exposure of his incompetence has set the course for his
government's replacement by a government capable of defending Israel. Then
too, the exposure of Iran's inherent weaknesses by Asgari and the students
at Teheran University points out a clear path towards preventing the regime
from carrying out it planned nuclear holocaust while liberating the Iranian
people from its tyranny.

5) WASHINGTON TIMES: School linked to Hamas gets US cash
By Joel Mowbray

Millions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid have been given in the past several years to two Palestinian universities—one of them controlled by Hamas—that have participated in the advocacy, support or glorification of terrorism. The funding—principally in scholarships to individual students—is being eyed by several members of Congress and their aides, who say they may violate U.S. law.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided more than $140,000 in assistance to the Hamas-controlled Islamic University in Gaza—including scholarships to 49 of its students—since Congress changed the law in 2004 to restrict aid to entities or individuals “involved in or advocating terrorist activity.”

No U.S. assistance was directed to Islamic University last year, but USAID continues to fund multimillion-dollar programs through the American Near East Refugee Aid program (ANERA), which is building a high-tech facility for the school. U.S. law requires that any recipient of U.S. aid have no association with terrorists.

USAID also gave $2.3 million in aid last year to Al-Quds University, which has student groups affiliated with designated terrorist organizations on campus and last month held a weeklong celebration of the man credited with designing and building the first suicide belts more than a decade ago.

“It is outrageous that U.S. taxpayer dollars are going toward institutions that support terrorists,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. “These loopholes must be closed so that taxpayer funds are used for their intended purpose and not to subsidize terrorism and the promotion of hatred towards Israel and the United States.”

Rep. Nita Lowey, New York Democrat and chairwoman of the committee responsible for USAID funding, said, “It goes without saying that U.S. taxpayer dollars should absolutely never be used for advocating or honoring terrorist activity. Support for terrorists and terrorism in any shape or form is unacceptable.”

USAID adamantly denies that it has violated any laws. “Every grant we give, every bit of assistance we provide, we do in a way that is fully compliant with the law,” said a USAID official, who agreed to talk only on the condition of anonymity.

In the case of Islamic University, the official said, USAID vetted the school president, the vice president of academic affairs and the dean of the library. It provided $12,000 worth of computers and materials to the school’s library. Students are vetted for connections to terrorism before being granted scholarships, the official added, but, “We don’t follow every student and track every meeting they go to.” Unlike other U.S. aid recipients, the scholarship students have not been required to sign pledges not to participate in terrorism.

The latest Congressional interest in USAID’s funding in the West Bank and Gaza was triggered by a report from the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), a pro-Israel group which monitors the Palestinian press. Included in the report were translations of several Palestinian newspaper articles that discuss the activities of student chapters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad at Al Quds University and other Palestinian schools assisted by USAID since 2005. Hamas and Islamic Jihad both are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

The USAID official did not deny that student groups affiliated with terrorist organizations were on campuses of schools assisted by the agency, but stressed that such organizations receive minimal support from the schools and are not part of “the official administrative structure.”

Aides to several Congressmen said they were most troubled by USAID assistance to Islamic University in Gaza City, which is openly controlled by Hamas leaders. The organization held a two-day conference in 2005 on the “martyrdom” of former Hamas spiritual leader and founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in 2004. Sheikh Yassin founded the school in 1978.

Sheikh Yassin and former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi both used Islamic University as a base, as has Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister in the Hamas-led Palestinian government and a member of the school's board of trustees.

Sixteen Islamic University lecturers and teachers are elected Hamas members of the Palestinian legislature. In 2005, 78 percent of the student council vote went to Hamas, according to a Palestinian newspaper article provided by Palestinian Media Watch.

When challenged by Congress last year on its assistance to the school, USAID noted that the funding was not renewed in 2006. Nonetheless, the agency is providing millions in grants to ANERA, which is building a high-tech facility in Gaza City for the university. California-based Intel Corp. is underwriting the project.

In a document USAID sent to Congress last year, USAID wrote that ANERA "is required to ensure that no assistance is provided to terrorist organizations or individuals associated with terrorist activities, regardless of whether or not the activity involves USG funding."

Also causing Congressional concern is a PMW report that Al-Quds University last month held a weeklong celebration honoring Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as "the shahid (martyr) engineer." He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.

The opening event, as reported by a Palestinian newspaper and found in the PMW report, included a speech by university administrator Yusuf Dhiyab, “who discussed shahids and the mark that the shahids left on the history of the Palestinian nation and how they succeeded in uniting the nation.”

In September, USAID announced an "extraordinary one-time" issuance of 2,000 scholarships for Palestinian students attending Al Quds University at a total cost of $2.2 million, according to USAID. Simultaneously, USAID provided $100,000 in "in-kind assistance" to Al Quds University.

In a written statement, USAID said Al Quds University requested emergency assistance last summer, and the $2.3 million was offered because “strong U.S. support existed for assistance to moderate Palestinian leaders.” The statement singled out Al Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh as “one such prominent and respected figure.”

But Mr. Nusseibeh appeared on the al-Jazeera satellite channel in 2002 with Hamas politbureau chief Khaled Mashaal and Um Nidal, the mother of a suicide bomber, according to a PMW translation:

"What comes to mind as I listen to comrade (lit. sister) Um Nidal is the verse Paradise is under the feet of the mothers, " he said. " Praise is due to this woman, and to every Palestinian mother, and to every Palestinian female resistance fighter and Jihad fighter on this land."

6) Time to End Fitzgerald's Folly
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.
yes no
yes no
yes no

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.