He asks a fair question in the second paragraph quoted above about Dr. Rice's encouragement of further Israeli concessions while de-emphasizing Palestinian obligations. However Jewish Current Issues did some searching and believes that the NY Times "dowderized" Dr. Rice's comments.

LGF links to a response from Mere Rhetoric arguing that Dr. Rice indeed considers Israeli concession necessary regardless of Palesitnian compliance and from Neo Neo Con seeming to split the difference between JCI and MR.

Hypocritical words
The IRIS blog points to an excellent article from Evelyn Gordon that describes the nobility of religious Zionists and the double standard by which they are judged:

Leading leftists have repeatedly urged soldiers to refuse to serve in the territories and at least 635 (according to Courage to Refuse) have answered this call, yet no one has ever suggested barring leftists from officers' courses. But when leading rabbis urged soldiers to refuse to participate in the disengagement, politicians, journalists and even senior army officers instantly asserted that religious Zionists can no longer be trusted – never mind the lack of evidence; we all "know" that they obey their rabbis blindly – and should henceforth be barred from becoming officers. Yet instead of rejecting the society that was so quick to reject them, most religious soldiers consulted their consciences and concluded that despite rabbinic urgings, their own opposition to the disengagement and the horror of evicting people from their homes, the rift that mass refusal could create in Israeli society was the greater evil. As a result, only 72 soldiers refused orders prior to the pullout and five during the evacuation itself – less than one-eighth the level of leftist refusal.

(BTW, I'm flattered that IRIS uses a statement I wrote as a blurb, but would it be churlish to ask that he credits the statement to me? And I should admit I learned about the IRIS blog from Biur Chametz.)

Bad words
Treppenwitz ponders the continuum of good and bad. Not everyone who is bad is the same level of evil. (Not unlike Alice's contemplation of the Walrus and the Carpenter. One ate all the oysters he could; the other one ate more oysters, period.) The focal point of his discussion is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which does many good works, but still abides the Arab inspired boycott forbidding Israel's Mogen David Adom to be a recognized affilliate.
This is something I think about too. A few months ago I went to the local American Red Cross headquarters for apheresis. I was struck by the mural in the vestibule that depicted how the Red Cross helped people everywhere. I mused that that excluded Israel, where the humanitarian organization doesn't allow the local organization to join its ranks.

But there's not just hypocrisy here, there are real consequences too. Consider the cases of Sgt. Shmuel Akiva Weiss and Sgt.-Maj.(res.) Yochai Porat. Both young men were medics. Both undoubtedly wore the patch of the MDA identifying them as medics and yet they were shot as they attempted to treat wounded comrades. If the patch was an internationally recognized symbol, their murders would have been international crimes.

It's true that when dealing with Israel one cannot assume that outrages committed against Israeli Jews will raise anyone's hackles. Nor will I assume that the murderers of these young men would have obeyed the rules of international law. Still why is Israel denied even the fiction that its people are afforded the same protections as anyone else in the world? That is what is so bad about the ICRC. The American Red Cross, especially under the leadership of Dr. Bernadine Healy, has fought this injustice. But the complicity of the ICRC to deny Israel the same rights all other countries have is evil. Maybe not the same level as those who pulled the trigger; but it's an evil that allowed the triggers to be pulled.

Old words
My Right Word considers the usage of Judea and Samaria and observes:

While Judea and Samaria appear extensively in the Bible as well as the New Testament (Acts 8:1, for example), they were terms used by the British during their Mandate period 1920-1948 and by the United Nations in its Partition Resolution 181 (Part II, Para. A).

This recalls an article from November 4, 1991. It is a fawning and unquestioning profile of Hannan Ashrawi by Caryle Murphy of the Washington Post and it displays the built in biases of much of the MSM when dealing with the Middle East:

As spokeswoman for the Palestinian delegation at the Middle East peace conference here, the 45-year-old Ashrawi has been arguing that case with a composure, conciseness and clarity long missing in the bitter Palestinian-Israeli dispute. In the process, she has left many of the outworn cliches and taboos surrounding this conflict cut to ribbons.

Take, for example, the man who rose at Friday's press conference to confront her. A representative of an American Christian broadcasting outlet, he said he "didn't understand" how Ashrawi could ask Israel "to exchange land for peace," because "when Judea and Samaria were in the hands of the Arab world, Israel was attacked three times."

"First of all, I find your reference to 'Judea and Samaria' a statement of extreme bias, and rather offensive," Ashrawi replied, homing in on his use of the biblical names for the occupied West Bank that echoes the Israeli government's religion-based claim to the land where Ashrawi lives and where the Palestinians hope someday to have an independent state. "I am a Palestinian Christian, and I know what Christianity is. I am a descendant of the first Christians in the world, and Jesus Christ was born in my country, in my land. Bethlehem is a Palestinian town. So I will not accept this one-upmanship on Christianity. Nobody has the monopoly."

After dismissing the man's challenge with a deft mini-dissertation, she ended with: "Are there any serious questions?"

There is, of course, a striking problem with this "deft mini-dissertation." What would Jesus have called the areas in question? He almost certainly wouldn't have called them Palestine! Most likely he would have referred to them as Judea and Samaria, the biblical names of the places. But Murphy was so enamored of the put down of someone sympathetic to Israel, she didn't bother to note that Ashrawi's response was seriously and historically wrong.

Skeptical words
Bloghead criticizes Likud for being willing to sacrifice its electoral health to get back at PM Sharon.
I believe 1) that she's taking these early polls too seriously.
a) PM Sharon - like him or not - is a master politician. I don't mean that cynically. In 1982 he had to resign in disgrace. Less than 20 years later he was leading his country. Aside from Nixon that has to be one of the great political comebacks of all time. There's no luck involved. Sharon is a top notch politician who can never be underestimated. A poll with no consequences may say something about how people really feel, but politicians have no interest in ceding power. If the Likud party members feel that Sharon is a better bet to keep them in power, they'll support Sharon when it counts. I think he's good enough to be able to stave off Netanyahu's challenge.
b) That's made easier because as I've written before Bibi's resignation really hurts him, even if it was something that was forced on him. He may still recover politically, but it will take awhile. I wouldn't bet on his success in his first election after resigning.
2) She's overestimating Sharon. No I'm not contradicting myself. It seems every election there's excitement about a third way part. In 1996 it was Avigdor Kahalani. In 1999 it was the perfect storm of Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Yitzchak Mordechai and a cast of thousands. Neither of these parties fared as well as initial speculation expected them too. If Sharon breaks off from Likud, I'm sure he'll be disappointed. Though Sharon has campaign experience that the others didn't, he's not a great campaigner. He needs Likud as much as the party needs him.

Biased Words
New blogger SerandEz writes about media bias and quotes an eminent greybeard - OK I'm not eminent and my beard isn't grey .... yet - Soccer Dad to prove a point.

Solomonia interviews Prof Richard Landes who is starting a new blog about media criticism. Here's a sample of the exchange:

S: Somewhat related question...You believe at that level there's very little difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism?

L: Let me put it to you this way, if you do one of those Venn diagrams between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, there's a 90-98% overlap. It's a ludicrous distinction. It's a fig-leaf to say you're anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. Show me an anti-Semite who's not also an anti-Zionist.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad