I've commented a number of times on Robert Kaiser's "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy" in which Kaiser writes:

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal, then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. In October 2000, Abrams wrote: "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace."

I believe that the article does cross Pillage Idiot's standards here. What's disturbing is that Kaiser isn't just anyone, but a managing editor of the Washington Post. (Though I'm not going to cite it here, if you Google or Yahoo! a little you'll find that Patrick Buchanan approvingly quotes Kaiser.)
In contrast to Kaiser, see Critical Mastiff's appraisal of a professor he has.

Mere Rhetoric has a quick take on Israel's decision to start targeting members of Islamic Jihad (a group that has rejected even the mild truce that Hamas agreed to):

And just so that everyone is on the same page:

Israel has resumed an assassination policy against Islamic Jihad militants, a sign of how far a truce with the Palestinians has deteriorated.

Personally, I would have thought that the murder of Israelis by Islamic Jihad militants was a sign of how far a truce with the Palestinians has deteriorated, but it's Reuters so you take what you can get.

Alas it's not only Reuters. Here are the Washington Post's headlines:

Israel to Hit Potential Attackers
Strikes on Islamic Jihad Could Ruin Truce, Palestinians Warn

.

Mere Rhetoric also criticizes the Israeli Supreme Court for accepting the decision of the International Kangaroo Court of InJustice (LGF's term) regarding Israel's security fence. Alas this criticism si probably useless. Back in March I noted that the Israeli government was starting to base its decisions on the ICJ's illegitimate opinion.

And why is the Israeli government surrendering in the ideological war to defend its legitimacy?

The link was to an article that reported that Israel was appealing to the ICJ to say that the changes to the route of the fence caused much less displacement for Palestinian than original so that the ICJ should change its ruling accordingly. In other words instead of telling the ICJ what to do with its decision, the Israeli Government pleaded with the ICJ to change its ruling. It's hard to get exercised by Israel's High Court of Justice when the government isn't even bothering to stand up for itself.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.