HAUSER RESPONDS ON ZIONISM & NATIONALISM

Jeff Hauser writes in to clarify his position and respond to my post (OTP is officially interactive!). First off, Jeff wants to make clear he does not support the 3rd misconception of the Left-Wing attack on Zionism, which denies the existance of the Sephardi plurality of Israel. He agrees with Natalie Portman on the nonsense of the race-based attack on Israel. Here's his response:

I have been aware that Jews maintained a constant presence in what is now Israel. . . But so have Mexicans in Texas, Native Americans throughout the US, Basques in the Basque Region of Spain, Muslims in Southern Phillipines, Kurds in Turkey, Serbs in Croatia, etc. . . . -- surely maintaining a population which was frequently, and perhaps generally (I do not know)below 25,000 for the past 1500 or so years doesn't suffice to prove that a minority is entitled to statehood, or should be given a preferential claim to land.

Some of these analogies are particularly inapt - there is a Mexican state, there is a Serb state, there should be a Kurdish state (if one got established in Northern Iraq, it would radically change the context of their claim inside of Turkey). The historical link in and of itself does not justify Jewish statehood in Israel. Had the Jewish population remained at its 1881 level, Hauser has a point - but it didn't. In the face of increased persecution, it more than tripled before World War I, and had reached 630,000 by 1948.

And its similarly silly to mention that British policies prevented the existence of a Jewish majority -- the
fact on the ground was that statehood was granted to a group that constituted a minority at the time of the grant -- and it was a grant, lest we forget that the UN, led by the USSR and USA, did support Israeli statehood.

First, at what point do we stop ethnic migration, and measure legitimacy at that point? Had the British not passed the White Paper - far more Jews would have settled in Palestine. Does the actual majority matter, when statehood would provide the conditions for an actual majority? Why is the facts on the ground in 1948 where legitimacy is gleaned from?
Second, the UN did not hand over all of Palestine to the Jewish minority, it agreed to a partition, creating a Jewish state in areas with a Jewish majority.

The simple fact is that due to the not unrelated mix of Zionism, English statements, and UN action, an
expectation of an Israeli state developed, such a state was created, and the fledgling state won four wars (which legally are ongoing) and established itself as an unchangable reality. The whole world, including Arabs, would best recognize that reality, a reality that is in its essentials hardly historically unprecedented. That said, it would be wrong to ignore the righteousness of the Arab argument that in 1948, the world bestowed statehood status on a minority of the population in what is now Israel

So, Israel was illegimate before 1948, but legitimate once it became "an unchangeable reality." That's a national legitimacy through force of arms argument. Under that rationale, there is no righteousness to the Arab argument. Once again, the UN declaration was wonderful, but it wasn't exactly enforced - would the UN have intervened had the Arabs won in 1948?

Hauser has legitimate questions about how far nationalism should go - and is struggling to find a coherent view that neither privileges nor discriminates againsts Jewish nationalism, but his attempt to be even-handed here doesn't cohere. The Arabs of Palestine, no less than other Arabs had a right to self-determination in 1948, as they do today. That did not require the absence of Jewish self-determination in 1948, nor does it today. Nor did or does it require there to be two Arab states in Palestine, one west of the Jordan, and one east. The creation of Israel was a net moral good, but there was a moral cost. Those made homeless in 1948 and their descendants deserve compensation for their losses, but not a reversal of the events that caused them.

THE LEFT-WING MYTH OF ISRAEL'S FOUNDING

There is much confusion about where the line from anti-Zionism crosses into anti-Semitism. There is one group of anti-Zionists that are clearly not anti-Semites. These are those that would do away with the nation state all together - and do not single out the Jewish state as the first one that should go. Thus, in an email, esteemed anti-nationalist Jeff Hauser finds both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism problematic, although he understands the need for a Jewish homeland in light of history of genocide committed against Jews. Putting aside the problematic nature of a post-national Middle East, what troubled me most was his casual aside that he remained "largely unconvinced there was no justifiable reason to place Israel in the Middle East (rather than Germany) in 1948."

Such a statement goes past a healthy skepticism of Zionism into a pattering of the standard left-wing/Arab myth about Israel: that it was "taken" from the Arabs and "given" to European Jews in 1948 by Europeans who felt guilty about the Holocaust. This myth exposes a profound ignorance of the relationship between the Jews and the land of Israel both before and after the establishment of the Zionist movement.

First misconception: There existed no Jewish presence in the land of Israel between the destruction of the Temple and the Zionist movement.
First, the land of Israel remained a major center of Jewish life for centuries after the destruction of the Temple. The failed revolt of 66-73 C.E. did not end the struggle agaisnt Rome. Jews, first in the Diaspora, and then in the land of Israel, staged two more major uprisings in the next seventy years against Roman rule of the Jewish homeland. Even after the second aborted revolt, which lead to the renaming of the land Palestine and the rebuilding of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, northern Israel remained the primary center of Jewish thought and religion - responsible for the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud. The only exception to the continous Jewish presence in the land of Israel was the massacre of Jews in the Crusades. During the Middle Ages, Jewish settlement of "Palestine" was sporadic, but periodic. Religious pilgrims resettled in Jerusalem, Hebron and Tiberias after the Crusaders were driven out; Sephardi Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition created one of the most vibrant religious community of 16th Century Judaism in Safed, in the Gailee. Way before the Zionist movement, religious immigration had made Jews the plurality of Jerusalem's population.

Second misconception: Western Benevolence in 1948 changed everything:
Large-scale secular immigration to Palestine began even before the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. The Jewish community in Palestine constructed all the institutions required for statehood (government, labor union, universities, schools, army) way before 1948. The Arabs in Palestine made no effort to build a similar pre-state apparatus. Had the British not closed off immigration in response to Arab protests in the 1930s, there would have been a Jewish majority in Palestine by 1948. Arab population growth in Palestine during the period was faster than elsewhere in the Arab world, attracting by the Zionist development of the economy. Finally, it is sheer revisionism to insist that Israel's victory in the 1948 war had anything to do with Western intervention.

Third misconception: Israelis are late-coming Europeans
A plurality of Jewish Israelis come from elsewhere in the Middle East, trading in second-class or worse status in North Africa, Iraq, Iran and Turkey to become full citizens of a Jewish state. Finally, considering that Jewish history is replete with migrations and expulsions, is it ever really accurate to say Jews "belong" in any of the states they've emigrated from to Israel? With the exception of the United States (Canada, Australia, etc.) have Jews been equal citizens of any the states in which they've resided?

In short, while Zionist propaganda that Israel was "a land without a people for a people without a land" is patently false, so is the Arab myth that Israel is simply a random colonialist enterprise of European Jews returning to a fabled homeland of 2000 years past, supported by other Europeans who were guilty over the Holocaust. Jews fled from worldwide persecution to the land of Israel because of historical roots, communal ties, and sheer necessity.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR LIBERTY - SUPREMES GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ADVERTISE UNTESTED DRUGS

Justice Breyer may be the most exciting Supreme Court justice - in fact his decisions often read like technical manuals. However, if there is one thing that Breyer knows, it is regulation. I had the "fortune" of reading his opus on regulation in my Government Processes class at Georgetown. I'm glad he spared anyone else the need to write such a book. That being said, Breyer brings his detailed understanding of regulation to point out the folly of the Supreme Court's latest expansion of commercial speech rights, an expansion I find dubious in general, and particularly problematic in this case.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Food and Drug Admnistration Modernization Act (FDAMA) that restricted the advertising of untested compound drugs. Compund drugs are prescription drugs created by pharmacists who combine, alter or mix ingrediants to create a medication tailored to the needs of an individual patient. Because of their individualized nature, the scale of compound drugs is such that it makes going through the FDA's testing process prohibitively expensive. The FDAMA crafted a regulatory compromise; compound drugs would be excempt from the FDA's testing requirements, provided that the pharmacist adhered to certain conditions. One of these conditions was a prohibition on the advertising of the compounding of any particular drug. Pharmacists were free to advertise their general services as compounders.

Commercial speech doctrine is a bit complicated, but at the present it purports to have a "more flexible" test than political speech. Thus, government is able to restrict commerical speech that "contains lawful activity" and is "not misleading" where (1) the asserted government interest is substantial, and (2) the regulation must directly advance the governmental interest and (3) not be more extensive that is neccessary to serve the interest. As this case shows, this test is not exactly a clear guideline. Most problematically, the third prong has the same defect that causes strict scrutiny to become in fact fatal. It allows the court to second-guess administrative and legislative decisions by proposing hypothethical alternative, less restrictive solutions. Just as almost any action can be tailored more narrowly, so too can a restriction on speech be rethought of as less extensive.

Neither side in this case denies that the government's interest - protecting the public's health through the regulation of drugs, is substantial. Both agree, that the regulation directly advanes the objective of confining the sale of untested, compounded drugs to where they are medically needed. As expected, the majority falss back on the third prong, throwing out hypothetical alternatives to the advertising restriction. As Breyer's dissent notes, these policy alternatives do not address all of the regulatory concerns behind the provision. Breyer punches holes in each one of the majority's proposed alternatives.

Quite simply, complex regulatory decisions are ill-suited to the judicial branch. Only in the rarest of circumstances, should the judiciary substitute its policy preferences for those of the democratic branches in such matters. Free speech is naturally an area where judicial intervention is required. However, all speech is not equal. As the court itself has said restrictions on commerical speech do not often repress individual self-expression; they rarely interfere with the functioning of the democratic political proceses; and they often refelct a democratically determined governmental decision to regulate a commerical venture in order to protect, the consumer, public health, individual safety or the environment. All of those important public goods are in jeaopardy if the court continues down the foolish path of treating marketing campaigns as public discourse.

FORMER CLASSMATE'S FLOCK UNDER ATTACK HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD

One of my unique experiences in Israel was my Hebrew class at Hebrew University's Rothberg School, which had a distinctly Asian flavor to it. In our small section, we had a Korean-American whose mother had a ministry in Egypt, a Japanese reporter, a Korean grad student, and Cornelius, a Chinese-Indonesian Protestant Minister. I was reminded of the gracious Cornelius by a quote I saw in a story in the New York Sun, which unlike the Times decided to report on the latest massacre of Indonesian Christians by Islamic militants.

Shouting "kill them all," a dozen men entered the mostly Christian village of Soya on the outskirts of Ambon, the provincial capital and the focus of three years of sectarian violence that killed 9,000 people, witnesses said.

The attackers went from house to house, shooting residents and setting fire to 30 homes and a Protestant church, witnesses said. They said six people were stabbed to death, including a 6-month-old child, six died in fires and two were believed to have been shot.

"The scene is horrible," one witness said on condition of anonymity. "I saw six bodies burned so badly you couldn't recognize them."

The attack came two days after a militant Islamic group, Laskar Jihad, rejected a February peace deal meant to end the fighting between Muslims and Christians in Maluku, a region known as the Spice Islands during Dutch colonial rule.

"It may be the end of the peace deal," said Cornelius Bohm, a Christian pastor in Ambon who said he had "no doubt" that Laskar Jihad was behind the attack. The group could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Perhaps Cornelius is a popular name among Indonesian pastors, but it is more likely my former classmate who is desperately praying for peace and safety from bin Laden's murderous Indonesian allies. Our Hebrew class was Jerusalem as it should be - a place for people of different races and faiths to live and learn together. Hopefully that vision can sustain Cornelius as he tries to survive in the reality created by a religious vision so opposite of his own - one of hate and dominance. One can only hope that the sane Muslim majority of Indonesia reclaims their Islamic heritage and expels the poisionous Wahabi infection that plagues their troubled nation.

OTP SPORTS NBA UPDATE

Mavs 3: Is any team more fun to watch? What other team has a German superstar, a Canadian playmaker, whatever Nick Van Exel is, a high-flying small forward, a three-point shooting center, and a Mexican bruiser and a Chinese center off the bench?
Wolves 0: Can we please stop with the insipid "Kevin Garnett" isn't a big-time player nonsense already. He averaged 24 points, 19 rebounds and 5 assists per game in the series. Does any other superstar in the playoffs (not named Tracy McGrady) have such a lackluster supporting cast? Give KG a healthy Terrell Brandon and a defensive stopper in the middle - and then judge him.

Lakers 3: The Lakers are as tough and they are good. Time and time again the past two years, role players have hit clutch shots to give the Lakers wins in close playoff games. I've had enough of the "Kobe could have been an oceanographer" Sprite commerical already.
Blazers 0:
A valient effort by Wallace and Pippen goes for naught. Maybe if they could use a time machine to bring Arvydas Sabonis circa 1990 in to play center. The Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis trade will haunt them for the next decade.

Kings 2: They have not looked like the team with the best record in the league. Their bench has dissapeared, and Peja can't find his shot. They'll have plenty of time to work on their open jumpshots against Dallas.
Jazz 1: The greatest point guard ever, John Stockton, is still going strong at 40 - such prolonged excellence at his position is unprecedented. Basketball will be much poorer once he finally leaves the game.

Spurs 2: There are two reasons why the Spurs have been able to stay on top despite losing David Robinson to a back injury. The expected- the exceptional play of MVP Tim Duncan (27,12,6). The unexpected - Tony Parker holding his own against Gary Payton, upping his scoring from 9 ppg in the regular series to 19 in the series
Sonics 1: Can anyone find Brent Barry? Brent Barry? Oh, well, let's leave it all up to Payton as usual.

Nets 2: Keith Van Horn and Kerry Kittles (until 22.5 seconds to go in game 3) have been invisible. Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin however have been invaluable. The Nets seemed to have shook off the first game jitters, and should close out the Pacers soon.
Pacers1: Austin Croshere 2000 Finals: 15 pts.,6 boards in 24 mpg. Austin Croshere 2002 Playoffs 2.5 pts. ,1.5 boards in 6mpg. Hey if your not going to use him, can the 76ers have him?

Pistons 2: Ben Wallace has pulled down over 15 rebounds a game this series, and Cliff Robinson has at least played excellent defense. I'd still be stunned to see them in the conference finals.
Raptors 1: Pulling themselves together behind the inspired play of Chris Childs. (No, that last sentence was not a misprint). Could still string this series to 5.

Hornets 2: Give them a healthy Jamal Mashburn, and they'd be resting up for Round 2. Combined numbers of Campbell, Brown and Magloire (38ppg, 28rpg,4.3 bbg).
Magic 1: Combined numbers of Grant, Garrity & Ewing (20.7ppg,20.3rpg,1.0bbg). OK, Tracy McGrady, you are the best player in the series - you're still going home soon.

Celtics 2: They're hitting 45% of their threes, not to mention Walter McCarty is playing out of his head. Are they title contenders? They better stick to finishing off Philly first.
Sixers 1: In the regular season the Sixers held opponents to 33.1% from behing the arc - they simply aren't getting out on Boston's three-point shooters. The whole team seems out-of-sync on offense, nothing is coming easy. Yet, they are still hanging around, and will as long as they can put Iverson, Snow and McKie out on the floor.

YASSER IS FREE (YAWN)

The end of the siege of Arafat's Ramallah compound is front-page news that in fact means very little. The Saudis needed to show that they could influence the U.S., the U.S. needed to show it could get a compromise from Sharon, and Sharon figured that there was little more to be gained from continuing the siege, which had diverted far too much attention away from Palestinian terror onto Arafat.

In reality, the freeing of Yasser Arafat became inevitable once Bush and Sharon blinked on his expulsion at the start of Operation Defensive Shield. The Bush Admnistration, deferring to its professional appeasers in the State Department, has decided on a strategy of stalling for time with Arab-Israeli conflict until it can launch its war on Saddam Hussein. The "bypass" option, as termed by Dennis Ross, while essential for a real settlement, would cause a panic among Arab leaders, which is convinced that an expulsion of Arafat would lead to protests that were no longer stage-managed.

While the Saudis and the State Department come out winners in the lifting of the siege of Arafat, the losers are the Israelis and the Palestinians - who will continue to suffer the consequences of Arafat's violent dreams and corrupt means.

EX-DOVES RALLY AROUND THE JORDAN OPTION

Yossi Klein-Halevi has come out in favor of the Jordan Option:

Now, Palestine is in ruins, with no prospects of recovery, controlled by a leadership that places grandiose national dreams ahead of its people's most basic welfare. Relatively stable Jordan is the natural custodian to help rebuild Palestinian society. Jordan's population is around 70 percent Palestinian, and
the Hashemite Kingdom has been the only Arab country to grant Palestinian refugees citizenship. That is tacit recognition of the fact that Jordan is part of historic Palestine -- indeed, the only independent Arab state that has ever existed in this land.

As a first step, the Palestinian Authority must go the way of the Taliban. Arafat should be placed on a plane to Baghdad and his terrorist "police" apparatus dismantled. Israel would then cede most of the territories to Jordan, concentrating the settlements in areas close to the 1967 borders. Until the
situation stabilizes, Israel would remain in control of a united Jerusalem, though it would cede the Temple Mount to the Hashemites who, as descendants of the Prophet Muhammad's family, have a compelling claim as custodians of the site. Finally, Israel would retain a military presence along the
Jordan River.

There will be much opposition to this idea - from Europeans who invested in the idea of the Palestinian Authority, to Arab states that would prefer to keep the Palestinian issue alive to distract their populace from their own domestic failings, to those that prefer to erase Israel off the map - for which a Palestinian regime is a far more effective tool than a Jordanian government that actually seeks peace. Yet, with visionary leadership from the United States, such an option can be transformed from theoretical musings to a real possibility. For the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians, let us hope such vision will emerge.

UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT: SWEEPING TOWARDS THE ISRAELI CENTER

The overwhelming support for Operation Defensive Shield among the Israeli public should not be confused with blanket support for continuing the isolated settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. A growing number of Israelis support unilateral seperation from the Palestinians - building a fence between Israeli and Palestinian territory, and withdrawing from the isolated settlements. This support is beginning to manifest itself as a widening grassroots coalition, that includes not only disillusioned doves, but also local political leaders and former military leaders.

Such a seperation can not be seen as in and of itself the end of the conflict - for many Palestinans Netanya, Haifa, Ramleh and Jaffa are "occupied" lands that need to be liberated. Also, without a stable government focused on economic development rather than irredentist militarism, the Palestinians woeful conditions will be channelled into anti-Israeli hatred. Still, unilateral seperation will go a long way towards protecting Israeli civilians from Palestinians terror, and reduce unneccessary constraints on Palestinan civilians by Israeli checkpoints. While the fringes of Israeli debate remain committed to ressurecting the Oslo process or reoccupation, the majority of Israelis could fall behind unilateral seperation if the following two issues get addressed.

Where does the fence go?
The baseline should be the borders offered by Barak in Camp David, with whatever slight modifications that would facilitate security. Such borders will require evacuation of a minority of the settler population (although a majority of the actual settlements), and address the two central problems with the 1967 borders. First, the insufficient depth between the West Bank and the Mediterrean coast, a region that contains Israel's urban heartland. Second, the isolation of Jerusalem from the rest of country.

How do you maintain deterrence?
This is the most serious problem. The unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon was executed sloppily, and it supported the Arab myth of a panicked retreat under fire. This interpretation was widely accepted by Palestinian militants, who started the second intifada with the aim at achieving an unconditional withdrawal of the Israelis from the territories. So the question remains, how can to execute a withdrawal without encouraging a new round of violence from Palestinan militants?

Operation Defensive Shield may have radically changed the context for this question. Before the massive anti-terror offensive of the past month, a unilateral withdrawal would 1) clearly have been seen as a victory to Palestinian terror and 2) Palestinian militants would have had the capacity to make the withdrawal a chaotic retreat under fire, and launch a new offensive against Israel immediately after the withdrawal. Now, it is less certain - Israel has clearly reestablished its deterrant capacity. On the other hand, there remains unfinished business - the headwaters of Palestinian terror, Yasser Arafat remains, however, precariously in power, despite the blood on his hands and the lies off his tongue.

A Fair Trade
The solution therefore, is difficult, but obvious. The unilateral withdrawal, and settlement evacuation should take place either subsequent or concurrent with the expulsion of Yasser Arafat from the territories.
Courageous leadership is needed from both Americans and Israelis. The Bush Admnistration needs to offer the following deal to Sharon: We'll let you expel Arafat, in return for evacuating the isolatied settlements. From Arafat-centric view of the conflict, such a move would be a disaster - from the point of view of the real needs of the Palestinains, being rid of both their disastrous leaders and the most radical of the settlers would be the best thing that's happened to them since Oslo began.

This is of course, only a partial solution - it will not be the end either to Palestinian violence or Israeli occupation. Until a responsible, stable government is ruling the Palestinians, their cities will still be a source of terror against Israel, and Israel will need to defend itself through periodic incursions to disrupt the terrorist infrastructure. However, a removal of two of the staunchest opponents to peace - Arafat and the radical settlers will help in devising the necessary structure to lead the Palestinians to peaceful self-rule.

GUESS WHO WANTS TO TRAIN OUR IMAMS

Here's the latest from the Saudi cleric who hosts "Religion and Life" on government channel One in Saudi Arabia:

Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don’t you enslave their women? Why don’t you wage jihad? Why don’t you pillage them?

Hmm...I have a better idea, our women will stay free, and you let yours do something other than procreate - drive a car, express an independent thought....

Millions of petrodollars have been spent world-wide to promote this desecration of G-d's name that claims to be Islam. I have a modest immigration proposal - no visas for any Wahabi clerics, or anyone trained by a Wahabi cleric. There are millions of Latinos, Africans, Asians, and non-Wahabi Arabs and South Asians desperate to enjoy the American Dream. Let them in, and send the Wahabis where they belong - somewhere deep in the Arabian Desert.

MUSLIM VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERROR

In past two days, Islamic terrorists have struck in a house of worship , and in an isolated village. The difference is that the victims this time were fellow Muslims. In Pakistan, Sunni extremists planted a bomb on the woman's side of a Shi'ite Mosque. In Algeria, unarmed shephard's were gunned down. These deaths are no less tragic because they were carried out by co-religionists, just less newsworthy because the "cause" they advocate isn't supported by campus radicals. Those otherwise moderate Muslims who refuse to condem Islamic terror attacks because "in context" Jews deserve it, beware. If you do not purge this cancer from your midst, you will be next. The question is does anyone within Islam have the courage to save it from itself.

CHENEYISM STRETCHED TO ITS LIMIT

Cheneyism(n): The policy of allying with Israel as if there was no Saudi Arabia, while allying with Saudi Arabia as if there was no Israel. (Click here for the article where Leon Wieseltier coined the term).

Dubya got a visit today from our Saudi "friends," in which they expressed their extreme displeasure at the Bush Administration's half-hearted efforts to tie Israel's hands behind its back in its war against Palestinian terror. They would appreciate it if we would (1) pressure Israel to simply let the terrorists profraning the Church of the Nativity and hiding out in Arafat's compund escape, (2) roll over and let the United Nations conduct a sham investigation of the "massacre" in Jenin, and (3) ignore Saudi financing of Palestinian terror, not to mention Saudi ties to international Islamic terror groups such as al-Qaeda.

Thus, Cheneyism has been stretched to the limit. On the one hand, we have a strong, deep alliance with the region's sole democracy, who is virulently attacked for holding the same values that we hold. On the other hand, we have a profitable relationship buying oil and selling weapons to a rickety theocratic feudal monarchy that represents the antithesis of everything for which America stands. Oil or principle, which is more important?

This is not an issue for the Europeans, who stand firmly with their pocketbook interests. This was not an issue for the elder Bush, who let the Saudis dictate the Gulf War's disasterous endgame. It is, however, an issue for this administration. The State Department is convinced that we need the Saudis support to take on Iraq - and selling out Israel is a price worth paying (especially since it would reduce the carping from their European colleagues). The neocons running the Defense Department think that abandoning the front-line state in the war on Islamic terror to curry favor with Islamic terror's chief financiers is madness, and in the end self-defeating.

One need not look any further than the Gulf War to see the folly of the pro-Saudi approach. In the interests of "stability," the first Bush administration 1) allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, 2) permitted a Hussein to massacre his Kurdish and Shiite opponents, and 3) refrained from introducing democracy to Kuwait, which quickly reverted to being another corrupt Gulf tyranny. The result has been a renewal of the Iraqi threat, rabid anti-Americanism in a country Americans liberated, and the continuance of the corrupt Saudi regime, which has become the financial and ideological center for the single most virulent anti-liberal, anti-American movement in the world.

It's time to call the Saudis what they really are, enemies in a cold war between liberal democratic values and fundamentalist theocratic values. The proper response is not appeasement, but confrontation and containment. Every day, Saudi-financed and Saudi-trained imams are trying to infect Muslim communities world-wide with their militant Wahabi views. The nations of the West need to send these imams home before it is too late. Without being flooded by Saudi petrodollars, the righteous opponents of Wahabism in the Muslim world will have an even playing field - and will emerge victorious in democratic societies.

It's time for America to realize that its energy policies directly conflict with its national interest. When given the choice, Americans will choose democracy over cheap oil - the real safety of a world where militant Islamism is starved of funds, rather the fake safety of oversized SUVs. Cheneyism has stretched as far as it can go. It is time to free ourselves of the deadly embrace with the Saudis - and work to bring about a free, post-Saudi Arab world.

DEEP SIXED

The Sixers lost a winnable game tonight, dropping to 0-2 against the Celtics in their best of 5 series. They are but a shell of last year's team that made a heroic run to the Finals. All the talk has been about the changed cast - Harping, Coleman, Claxton, Blount and McKey replacing Lynch, Hill, Jones, Geiger and MacCulloch. With the exception of MacCulloch, the Sixers do not miss their departed supporting cast. No, the biggest drop-off has come from their man-mountain of a center, Dikembe Mutumbo. While in last year's playoffs, Mutumbo dominated every center not named Shaquille O'Neal, so far in this series he has been a non-factor. Without Deke's dominance inside, the Sixers have simply not been able to match the speed and shooting of the Pierce-Walker Celts. As Mutumbo is just getting older, this may signal the beginning of the end of the Sixers' run as contenders.

DEMS AND SADDAM, TAKE TWO

Sometime in the next couple of months, war with Iraq is coming. Once more, a Democratic controlled Senate will be asked to approve the use of military force against Saddam Hussein. Just for a refresher, here is how current Dem senators (and Jeffords) voted on the Gulf War resolution:

For: Breaux, Graham, Lieberman, Reid, Jeffords

Against: Akaka, Baucas, Biden, Bingamin, Byrd, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Rockeffeller, Sarbanes, Wellstone.

This brings up a couple of questions:

1) Twenty DovDems remain from the first vote. Will they a) repeat their mistake even with the hindsight of the Gulf War; b)admit they were wrong the first time; or c) change their vote and try to pretend that there is nothing inconsistent about their voting pattern.

2) One of the DovDems, John Kerry is seeking the Democratic nomination in 2004. His supporters claim that his service in Vietnam innoculates him from GOP attacks on the Dems quishiness about using military force. In reality it does nothing of the sort. Yes, after Vietnam John Kerry's personal courage and patriotism are indisputable. But on the most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War, for all of his personal courage, he chose appeasement over national resolve. How has he become more trustworthy on national security issues since then?

3) If Kerry does win the nomination, it will put liberal hawks in a quandry - to pick their poison between the clear disaster that is the Bush domestic policy (including the lasting effects of Bush's judicial appointments), and the potentially greater disaster of a DovDem foreign policy. Hopefully, Dems will shy away from this mistake and look to either Gore, Lieberman, or even John McCain to lead the fight against terror abroad and corporate cronyism at home.

THE TAKINGS TRAIN HAS FINALLY BEEN STOPPED

If there was one part of the Rehnquist Court jurisprudence that most belied its claim to avoid judicial activism (putting aside Bush v. Gore), it would be its reckless expansion of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Rehnquist court abandoned the sharp distinction between physical takings and regulatory takings, creating brand-new "rights" for property owners at the expense of land use and environmental policy. Well, all bad things come to an end. Yesterday, they ruled in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Counsel, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Inc. that a 32 month moratorium on development while a land-use plan was being devloped was not a taking, and did not require government payouts to would-be developers. One can only hope that this decision is precedent setting - in ending the judicial assault on environmental policy, and in leaving Scalia, who was so angered by the decision that he couldn't even write a dissent, speechless.

THE PEACE DIVIDEND THAT NEVER CAME

This piece by Glenn Yago , who worked on the ground to promote investment in the Palestinan terroritories, gets to the heart of the matter of why the Oslo process failed - Arafat's sabatoging of Palestinian economic development.

Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat was a bouncing marionette, shuttling from one world capital to the next sounding like a grizzled Rodney Dangerfield getting no respect, dazed that he hadn't been hugged enough at Camp David. We forgot that the Palestinian Authority, despite the many enlightened and hard-working Palestinians we met with, was not a market democracy with the transactional trust required for commerce and investment but simply a gangland dictatorship running a protection racket. No one was allowed to look or think about financing the future, because the "Rais"--the "chief," as Arafat was called--couldn't envision a peaceful future because he was addicted to his violent past.

Each and every proposal we came up with for economic development for and with the Palestinians was blocked until Israel would comply with Arafat's political wishes. "Yes," we were told by Palestinian Authority officials, "these are great economic projects and programs, but we can't move forward until the political final status agreement." Full stop. Time to go home.

There was never a peace dividend for the Palestinian people because their leadership blocked every attempt to earn one. Without a constituency for peace, a constituency for terror quickly formed. Private investment disappeared and donor investment shifted from infrastructure and employment projects to maintaining Arafat's jet and his crony government. With this intifada, unemployment tripled to 30% of the Palestinian work force and the gross domestic product of Gaza and the West Bank fell by 12%. Arafat made Israelis miserable by making his own people destitute.

Stillborn, the Palestinian economy mirrors the failed regimes of the Middle East. By refusing to help his people, Arafat has bred a jobless young labor force that is bereft of education. The Palestinians missed the opportunity to derive benefits from regional trade or foreign capital flows. Instead, they live in a collapsed economy with sinking per capita incomes. And they hold the rest of us hostage to the highest concentration of terrorist organizations in the world.

Despite our best efforts, the Palestinians today have found no way to build a country or serve a people; only a good way to start Arafat's war.

In contrast to the Palestinians, Israelis gained greatly from the peace process. Foreign investment flowed into the country as Israel became more integrated into the world economy. Israel developed a booming hi-tech export industry, and took advantage of its highly skilled workforce. As a result of this peace dividend, there emerged strong support for continuing the Oslo process, flaws and all. This support was the bedrock of Barak's victory over Netanyahu, and the elation that election produced in Israel's Silicon Valley.

A peace dividend for Palestinians is not a luxury, it is essential for there ever to be a lasting, stable peace. The removal of Arafat is a neccessary condition for that dividend. And while an Israeli withdrawal to sensible borders is helpful to a lasting peace - it will not be sufficient. There can be no avoidance of the question of who governs the Palestinians. It is up to the United States and the Palestinians so-called European sympathizers to help secure a government that provides the Palestinans with the decent existence all humans deserve.

INVESTIGATING JENIN

Here comes the next wave of Israel-bashing from the world's media. Israel is being "uncooperative" with UN efforts to investigate the fighting in Jenin. The problem facing Israel is that it has as much chance for a "fair" investigation of events by the U.N. as a Black charged with rape by a white woman by the sheriff in Jim Crow Mississippi. Even rabidly anti-Israel journalists have found no signs of a massacre in Jenin. The U.N.'s track record on Israel is abominable. While it has turned a blind eye to the human rights violations that are rampant among the thugocracies that comprise the majority of its membership, it has been obsessed with every single misstep of the Jewish State. Be prepared to take any findings by the committee with a grain of salt. It is far past time that liberal advocates of multilateralism recognize that a major reform of the U.N. is necessary for any advancement of international law.

PASSOVER, CNN STYLE

I wish I written this - I found it on the Eugene Volokh (Law Professor, UCLA) site.

If the Passover Story Were Reported by The New York Times or
CNN
by Daniel P. Waxman


The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians
continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues
that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives
of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this
week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. "It is
simply impossible to report when you can't see an inch in front of you,"
complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. "I have heard from my
reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness,
the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid
enough evidence for me."

While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the
harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the
Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. "If only the plagues would let up,
there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the
right of every society."

Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is
justifiable given the Jews' superior weaponry supplied to them by the
superpower God.

The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish
offensive. "The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in
the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest
of the world," stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac.

Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded
himself within Pharaoh's chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is
feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro
claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the
product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery.
"The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic
which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy," Mr. Shapiro
laments. "The Egyptians are really a very nice people and Pharaoh is
kind of huggable once you get to know him," gushes Shapiro.

The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish
leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out
that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people
only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and
harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the
latest offensive. "Pharaoh is not in complete control of the
taskmasters," Mr. Boucher states. "The Jews must return to the
negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues."

The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi
peace overture. If only the Jews will give up their language, change
their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the
Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince
Abdullah declared.

NUCLEAR SECURITY ON THE CHEAP

Buried on page 8 of the Times is this disturbing news item.

The White House cut 93 percent of a recent request by the secretary of energy for money to improve the security of nuclear weapons and waste, according to a letter from the secretary.

The secretary, Spencer Abraham, said in the March 14 letter to Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the director of the Office of Management and Budget, that the request, for $379.7 million, was "a critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation and its people."

The money, for guarding nuclear weapons, weapons materials and radioactive waste under the Energy Department's supervision, was part of a $27.1 billion emergency spending bill before Congress, the second such measure to be considered since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Failure to support these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be unwise," the letter said. The New York Times obtained a copy from someone who favors more spending on nuclear security.

But Mr. Daniel passed on to Congress only $26.4 million of the request. Congress has not acted on it.

To improve the security of weapons and weapon material in storage, the letter listed areas for which the department wanted $138.3 million. They included equipment to detect explosives in packages and vehicles entering Energy Department sites ($12 million); better perimeter barriers and fences ($13 million); and improvements in Energy Department computers, including "firewalls" and intrusion detection equipment and increasing the ability to communicate "critical cyber threat and incident information" ($30 million). The request also asked for $41 million to reduce the number of places where bomb-grade plutonium and uranium was stored. All were turned down. Also turned down was $34.1 million for increasing security at Energy Department laboratories.

This comes amidst frightening reports of Al-Qaeda's efforts to develop a "dirty" radioactive bomb for attacks on the United States. This shows that the place that the Bush Administration is most likely to bungle the War on Terror is on the home front. It's about time that the Dems stop with their insipid critiques of foreign policy, and aim them where they belong - at the staggering costs of the Republican obsession with starving the federal government of needed funds. Here's a sampling of what should be standard Democratic rhetoric in this election year:

David J. Sirota, a spokesman for the Democratic minority on the House Appropriations Committee...asked: "Should we give Enron executives the $250 million tax break President Bush proposed, or should we use that money to secure our country against a nuclear attack using our own nuclear materials?"

Signs of life stirring at Dem Central? Hopefully - the country can't afford to fight the war on terror with one party tied behind its back.

HEROIC BOURGEOISE AGAINST THE WORLD

David Brooks latest tour de force finds the link between the ethereal Anti-Americanism of the European elite, and the bloody Anti-Americanism of fundamentalist Islam.

They look at us uncomprehendingly when our leaders declare a global assault on terror and evil. They see us as a mindless Rambo, a Mike Tyson with rippling muscles and no brain. Where the Islamists see us as a decadent slut, the European etherealists see us as a gun-slinging cowboy. The Islamists think we are too spoiled and comfortable, the Europeans think we are too violent and impulsive. Each side's view of us is a mix of Hollywood images (Marilyn Monroe for the Islamists, John Wayne for the Europeans), mass-media distortions, envy-driven stereotypes, and self-justifying delusions. But each side's vision springs from a deeper bourgeoisophobia--the prejudice that people who succeed in worldly affairs must be morally and intellectually backward. This article of faith governs the way even many sophisticated Europeans and Muslims react to us.

While Brooks' piece suffers as usual from his penchant for glib oversimplification, he's hit upon something important here. As much as our pop culture can be vapid, our domestic policy short-sighted, and our global outlook simplistic, this country provides a much needed life-affirming bulwark against the world's cynics and would-be martyrs.
.

THE JORDAN OPTION: THOUGHTS FROM AN EXPERT

I was sure I wasn't the first person to come up with the idea of a Jordanian mandate over a future Palestinian state. It's not an ideal solution, but it is more and more looking to be the least bad option. Here's a pre-Operation Defensive Shield column from professor Walter Reich, the
Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics, and Human Behavior at The George Washington University.

If you think that's radical, you should read this piece advocating giving most of post-Sadaam Iraq to the Hashemites as compensation for taking on the thankless task of bringing order to the Palestinians. Now go back and read Reich's piece again - its not so unrealistic after all.

CAMP DAVID'S ARCHITECT v. CAMP DAVID REVISIONISM

The disease of Camp David Revisionism is growing among respectable liberals. Robert Wright's fictional account has been embraced as "more right than wrong" by Joshua Micah Marshall, and a needed "palliative to the reflexively pro-Israel mainstream media" by the Hauser Report (which leads to the question when did Hauser start restricting himself to Fox News, the Washinton Times and the New York Post?) The problem with this new enlightened approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is completely divorced from the truth. According to Dennis Ross, who was at the center of the U.S. peacemaking efforts from Madrid to Camp David, the "conventional wisdom" that Arafat walked away from a state is exactly what happened. Here's an excerpt of his interview with Brit Hume:

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

This vision of Arafat's character lines up exactly with the portrayal of him gleaned from Thomas Friedman's masterful "From Beirut to Jerusalem." In 1982, he wouldn't commit fully to armed struggle or embrace diplomacy. In 1988, he wouldn't commit fully to recognizing Israel's right to exist. It is tortured logic indeed that tries to rewrite his abdication of leadership in Camp David for principled action. In the meantime, liberal pundits, more concerned with opposing their conservative rivals than truth, are triangulating their way to a dangerous moral chasm.

MY STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

The Sunday N.Y. Times featured a front-page article on the pro-Israel support on the American Right. It is a broad coalition including the traditionally pro-Israel neo-cons, Christian culture warriors, and even the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal (eschewing the idea of basing foreign policy on purely economic needs). In contrast, the American activist Left has turned virulently anti-Israel, from its embrace of the university divestment campaign to the inclusion of the Palestinian cause in the polyglot anti-globalization movement.

For a pro-Israel liberal, the past few months have become a Bizzaro world - with all of my ideological compatriots ranging from "even-handed" to anti-Israel, I find Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Tucker Carlson making sense. The question this raises is a serious one: What is about this issue that cause the Left to lose its moral beraings, and the Right (with few exceptions) to find its?

SHARON'S FINAL ACT?

Ha'aretz has an insightful analysis of the end game of the Sharon government. The idea is that there is now a short window where Sharon will be able to expel Arafat before the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, and then pays back it's so-called Arab allies with a new peace process push. Sharon is quite aware that such a dramatic step would end the unity government, and spend the political capital he has gained from Operation Defensive Shield. The article suggests that Sharon would be perfectly happy with the expulsion of Arafat as the cap to his political career.

One can only hope. Arafat needs to go - but Sharon is clearly not the man to lead Israel in a post-Arafat era. The next leader of Israel must show an ability for a creative vision of how to combien deterrence with separation. Above all, they can not be locked into either the Oslo process or inflexible on settlement evacuation.

I WAS NOT ELECTED TO WATCH MY PEOPLE SUFFER AND DIE WHILE YOU DISCUSS THIS INVASION IN A COMMITTEE!

OK, so Natalie Portman isn't the Queen of the Jews, but her people are under attack, both by suicide bombers in resteraunts, cafes, and hotels, and by a surge of rabid anti-Semetism that has much of the world blaming turning a blind eye to the attacks and condeming Israel. And, if we did have an election for the position, let's just say I don't see Alicia Silverstone or anyone else posing much of threat to her campaign.

Anyway, Natalie, who is attending The Greatest University in the World (Since I can't afford to give the College Fund any money, the least I can do is give it publicity points), recently responded to a virulently anti-Israel column that had appeared in the Crimson.

Here's law student Faisal Chaudry, attacking Israel using Critical Race Theory for Dummies:

As the cruel Israeli invasion of the occupied territories continues, atrocities emerge daily. White Israeli soldiers destroy refugee camps of the brown people they have dispossessed for decades...Once again, as during the first intifada, the racist colonial occupation stands naked, paid for with U.S. aid and purchased over decades at the expense of Palestinian life, land, and identity

Here's Natalie's response:

[Chaudhry's racial rhetoric] is a distortion of the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians are indistinguishable physically. The Israeli government itself is comprised of a great number of Sephardic Jews, many of whom originate from Arab countries. The chief of staff of the army, the minister of defense, the minister of finance . . . and the president of Israel are all 'brown.' One might have an idea of the physical likeness between Arabs and Israelis by examining this week's Newsweek cover on which an 18-year-old female Palestinian suicide bomber and her 17-year-old female Israeli victim could pass for twins...Outrageous and untrue finger-pointing is a childish tactic that disregards the responsibility of all parties involved.

Chaudhry had the chutzpah to claim that the Crimson published the letter only because Portman is a movie star. Right, Faisal - like the Crimson had used highly selective standards when it publiched your mindless diatribe. (BTW, did you write that yourself, or merely translated something out of the Arab state press). Perhaps what upsets Chaudhry is that his inane racialist argument was taken apart by Entertainment Weekly's cover girl. Long live the Queen (or Senator)!!! Long live the Queen!

CAMP DAVID REVISIONISM FROM A MORAL ANIMAL

Move over Hanan Ashwari, Saeb Erakat, here comes Robert Wright to add his considerable elocution to the cause of Arafat's deceit.
His retelling of Camp David basically requires him to (1) assume that the baseline for a "fair" deal would involve a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders; (2) ignore the entire history of the Olso process from its inception until Barak's offer and Arafat's record at upholding the interim agreements; (3) ignore all the evidence showing that the intifada was planned for months in advance, and swallow hook, line and sinker the Arab lie that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was its cause; (4) fail to consider how the Taba offer, made after Arafat had responded to Camp David with violence, may have influenced Arafat's thinking about the relative efficacy of diplomacy and terror. How this expert on moral reasoning got a column on foreign policy is beyond me.

THE MYTH OF MODERATE HOUSE REPUBLICANS

The House just passed a bill to make the Bush tax-giveaway permanent. Only one Republican mustered up the courage to stand up against this onslaught of Norquistomics. I give you the One Moderate Republican in the House: Connie Morella (MD). (Marge Roukema (NJ) didn't vote).

Also nine more Democratic representatives confirmed their status as pseudo-Dems. Could someone find me an issue on which Ralph Hall (TX) actually votes with his party? Can we even count on these pseudo-Dems to even vote for Gephart as Speaker of the House were the Dems to get a majority in 2002? I'm not sure.

WHERE THERE'S OIL, THERE'S SMOKE, BUT IS THERE FIRE?

It's becoming less and less clear whether the Bush Administration's failure to comdemn the failed coup in Venezuela was simply a moral lapse or something far worse. Granted, the return to power of the demagogic Chavez should not warm many hearts outside the Venezuelan underclass that he's conned. However, it is inexecusable that the United States government could care less whether Chavez was booted out after an election, or taken out in a military coup. Even more troubling are the stories about the contacts the Bush administration had with the coup plotters. As if the real facts aren't bad enough, it's spawned ridiculous conspiracy theories on the far left linking it with the upcoming war on Iraq - you know the whole oil is the "real" reason behind America's foreign policy. We are long overdue for a revamping of our Latin American policy. The goal should be to limit the pendulum swings between left-wing demagogues and right-wing generalissimos; to do so we need to find ways to promote gradual, steady reform that reduces the obscene gaps between rich and poor that have persistently plagued our neighbors to the south.

BROTHERLY LOVE IN PHILADELPHIA

Mayor John Street got himself in trouble the other day by saying the following at an NAACP convention:

Let me tell you: The brothers and sisters are running the city. Oh, yes. The brothers and sisters are running this city. Running it! Don't you let nobody fool you, we are in charge of the City of Brotherly Love. We are in charge! We are in charge!

Let's forget about the substance behind that quote (the questionable idea that African-Americans should be happy just because other African-Americans are in charge - let's just say things went much better for Black Philadelphians when Fast Eddy was mayor as opposed to Mayor not-so-Goode), and look to the issue of political common sense. Pennsylvania has been well described as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and in the middle - Alabama. Pennsylbama despises giving state funds to Philly, because you know..."those people" live there. The worst thing that Philly's hard pressed state delegation needs is to for the African-American mayor to playing the race card.

I'm gonna chalk up Street's faux pas to anxiety. After, all the Mayor just lost control of 42 of his city's schools, in the largest privitization program in the country. While I'm not sure whether the plan will actually benefit Philadelphis schoolchildren (although its hard to imagine many of the schools in the city doing worse), it will most definitely benefit academics. They will get to compare the progress of 5 for-profit companies, Penn and Temple as take over various elementary and middle schools. Of course, that might be too empricial for the world of education, which in the past has chosen to rely on dogmatic theories. The hope is that this experiment (which unsurprisingly is opposed by certain parents that don't like the idea of their children being guinea pigs) will at least shed light on a number of questions, most importantly - how much can failing urban schools be improved without signficant infusions of cash? The likely answer to that will be somewhat, but not enough. In the meantime, we need to keep a wary eye to make sure that for-profit educational ventures are getting their contracts based on their efforts in the class room, not the state house.

NBA PLAYOFF PREVIEW
We all know the central storyline - Can anyone stop Shaq & Kobe? We won't get the answer until the Western Conference finals, when either Sacramento or Dallas will try to simply outscore them. Until then, here are the subplots

The Least of the East

Nets v. Pacers: Brad Miller and Todd MacCulloch battle it out for the title of Best Slow White Center, while Jason Kidd takes rookie Jamaal Tinsley to school. The underachieving Pacers, led by the timeless Reggie Miller, take one if Mt. Kenyon can keep himself on the court, two if he can't. NETS in 4.

Pistons v. Raptors: This will be clearly be the most aesthetically challenged matchup of the first round. The problem for the Pistons is that their second leading scorer is perennial playoff no-show Cliff Robinson. The Vince-less Raptors have the energy players (Keon Clark, Jerome Williams) to match up with Ben Wallace and the blue-collar Pistons. RAPTORS in 5.

Celtics v. 76ers: Iverson's barely out of his cast, Coleman is playing on one foot, McKie's in goggles - and they're still the toughest out in the Eastern Conference. The Celtics best hope is to get Dan Akroyd and Daniel Stern to kidnap the Answer. SIXERS in 5.

Hornets v. Magic: Tracy McGrady is incredible, he'll drop 50 at least once this series. Unfortunately, even he misses from time to time, and the Magic are sending poor Horace Grant out there alone to bang with Campell, Magloire, Brown & Lynch. HORNETS in 4.

Best of the West

Kings v. Jazz: Stockton to Malone. Stockton to Malone. Bibby to Divac, Webber, Stojkovic, and Turkoglu. As you can see the Kings have far more weapons. KINGS in 4.

Spurs v. Sonics: Dangerous match-up for the Spurs, because Payton will make life miserable for Tony Parker. However, the Sonics have no one who can even slow Duncan down. Come to thing of it, they may not have anyone who could slow Malik Rose down. SPURS in 4.

Lakers v.Trail Blazers: There's not going to be a roll-over this year. Mo Cheeks has done the impossible - gotten the Fail Blazers to play as a team. They are versatile, they are deep, and they still have no answer for Shaq. LAKERS in 5.

Mavericks v. Timberwolves: For all of you who suffered through too many offensively stagnant games before this year's rule change, this is the series for you. You'll get gadget zone defenses, dead-eye shooters, athletic 7-footers slicing through the lane, and bad jokes about Marc Cuban's stint at Dairy Queen (OK, we can do without the last). MAVS in 4.

DEMS NEED TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES, BUT WATCH WHERE THEY'RE PUNCHING

After reading this article, I was convinced that Salon.com's Talbot had underwent a mind-meld with Jeff Hauser. It looks at David Brock's expose on the dirty tricks played by the hard-right in the Clinton years, and compares this with the kittenish approach of the Gore campaign in the Flordia recount. Talbot-Hauser is dead right about the crying need for a more combatative Democratic party. The roll-over on the Bush tax-cut was a gutless abandonment of principle on a winnable issue. On the flip-side, the carping at the Bush administration's foreign policy has ranged from muddled to incoherent. So how should a re-fanged Democratic party address the following issues.

Fiscal Policy: Go out and win the tax-cut debate. Wrap spending in the flag if necessary, but frame the debate in the following way. Reasonable people can disagree about whether to prioritize: (a) fiscal discipline (Save Social Security!) and (b) meeting the nations needs in heatlh care, education, and national security (Keep America Strong!). What they agree on is that keeping the tax-cut is a crazy idea of the dogmatic right (The Republicans would rather give Kenny Boy a tax break than pay for competant airport screeners).

Education: Here the Dems need to use Bush's compassionate conservative rhetoric against him by forcing him to either (a) split with his party or (b) veto increased education spending. One idea is to put in a bill that doesn't try to be a catch-all answer to educational problems, but focuses on one - say physical infrastructure. I'm sure a good attack ad could be gleaned from footage at dilapidated public schools.

Environment: Bush's credibility on this issue is negligible. The Dems have to take the bite and become the party for serious energy conservation - it is an issue that in the long-term will pay major dividends. I think they should follow the New Republic's lead of calling SUV's Saudi Utility Vehicles, or even better Sadaam's Utility Vehicles. At every possible juncture, Bush's energy policy should be linked with domestic big energy (after all didn't they write it) and terror-funding oil producers. Put the flag-wavers in the GOP on the defensive.

Domestic Security The grass-roots will want to go after Ashcroft and his overreaching on civil liberties. Big mistake - that's exactly the debate the Republicans want to have on the issue. Instead the Dems need to frame this as the Republican hostility to government getting in the way of America's security. They didn't want federally employed airport scanners, they constantly gutting regulations - we need the Dems as a watchdog.

Judicial Appointments: Hold the line until Bush puts forward moderate appointees. The Republicans suffered minimal political cost with their stall tactics in the Clinton years, and significantly thwarted any attempt to significantly alter the ideological balance in the federal judiciary.

National Service Wasn't this supposed to be Bush's central domestic initiative post 9/11. It's an open secret that the Congressional GOP hates the idea. All the more reason for the Dems to enthusiastically "get behind our president" on this issue.

Foreign Policy Tread lightly here. While the New York Times and Europe may want a more nuanced foreign policy, middle America loves Bush's black-and-white positions on the war on terror. The Achilles heel however is the stated opposition to nation-building. Framing a foreign aid bill as a terror-prevention issue would make the more isolationist GOP reps squirm.

Overall, the implicit message in 2002 has to be while you might like what the Bushies are doing abroad, only we can protect you at home. It's a message that plays away from Bush's strengths, and to the GOP's weaknesses - and it is a message that can win control of Congress if the Dems are willing to come out and fight this time.

ARAFAT IS THE LEADER OF FATAH, FATAH BELIEVES IN THE FOLLOWING, CONNECT THE DOTS

Found a link to the Fatah website, complete with an English-language version of the Fatah constitution. Obviously, deeds mean more than words - but here they match up quite well. The goal of Fatah remains as ever the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." Well, enough of all this fact stuff, let's break away to another "incisive" commentary on how the whole problem boils down to Sharon and Arafat's mutual antimosity.

A QUEEN FIT FOR RAMALLAH?

I caught a bit of Queen Raina's interview on Softball (Larry King) last night. The most ridiculous question of the night had to have been the following:

But the Palestinians have always been occupied, haven't they? I mean, Egypt occupied them before they've been so-called occupied now. Why wasn't there the anger over that occupation?

What was the name of that other country that governed the majority of Palestinians before 1967 - must of slipped Larry's mind. I mean the last thing we want to do is ask a guest a hard question? Alright, I'll stop -picking on King's interviewing skills is like criticizing the artistic depth of boy bands.

While there was plenty to disagree with in Queen Raina's rhetoric (the contextualization of terror, the exagerrations of Israeli human right violations, the token support for Arafat) I came away convinced that what motivates her is first and foremost sympathy for her fellow Palestinians, and not hatred of Jews. She argues stongly against suicide bombings, and for negotiations as the path to Palestinian rights.

Don't the Palestinians deserve a leader like her? Couldn't she serve as a unifying figure during a Jordanian-supervised building of a Palestinian state? Shouldn't the U.S. be investing more in rewarding the one true moderate Arab state?

COURT VIRTUALLY SAVES DEMOCRACY AGAIN

That's right. Your right to produce and consume virtual child porn is safe and sound. How exactly it is linked to the preservation of democratic deliberation I'll leave to my libertarian friends. As the winning side argued, with such a law, the next step would have been to ban movies like Lolita, Traffic, and Ameircan Beauty. Right - except for the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn't tolerate such a ban, Congress made clear in the legislative history it had no intention for the bill to cover such a situation. Seemed to me that here was a clear place for the "constructing a statute to avoid constitutional question" canon. I will now try to get over the shock over siding with Rehnquist and Scalia.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ISRAEL

OTP: We're here live with the state of Israel, celebrating its 54th birthday today. Let me see if I can get an interview. Israel, Ma Nishma?

Israel: B'seder (OK)
OTP: B'emet (Really?)
Israel: Ma Pitom (What are you thinking?) I'm in the middle of a war here - haven't you seen the news? Ashleigh Banfield is here. Personally I think she looks better as a blonde.

OTP: Aren't you flattered by all this attention?
Israel: No. I'd rather be competing for the Eurovision song contest, hosting a Brittany Spears concert, having a culture war - davka I'm busy trying to make it safe to go out for a cup of coffee.
OTP: Do you have anything to say to the world community
Israel: Yes, I'd like to thank the United Nations for not condemning me on my birthday.
OTP: Actually, that's not true - the United Nations Committee for Fashion issued a resolution condemning Israel for "its brutal violation of the Palestinian's right to dress in accord with their indigenous style, and excessive use of that tacky henna shade of hairdye"
Israel: Ma l'asot (what can you do). OK, I'm going to go celebrate now if you don't mind.
OTP: Celebrate? The Arab world has come out in force in favor of suicide bombers, the Europeans are threatening sanctions, your prime minister is being called a war criminal, Newsweek ran an article questioning whether you're going to survive...
Israel: (clucking sound) This is nothing - nothing, compared to what I've handled before. Who'd have thought 54 years ago, that I'd still be here, with a world-class army, booming high-tech industry and a bronze medal in World Championship Ice Dancing. You want worried - talk to my cousins in France. OK, I am done with this interview - it is time to dance!!! Tell Britney I'm waiting, she'll get a sold-out arena, front page of Ma'ariv...

THIS JUST IN FROM THE UNITED NATIONS GENTILE RIGHTS COMMISSION

The UN's Human Rights Commission voted 40 for, 5 against, with 7 abstaining in favor of a resolution which supports the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state. There's no qualification here - all means all.

Here's the vote (actual democracies in bold)
To sum up, the following nations officially support terror against Jews:


Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.

These nations officially oppose terror against Jews:

Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Czech Republic, Guatemala

These nations are officially ambivalent towards terror against Jews:

Burundi, Cameroon, Croatia, Italy, Japan, Poland, Uruguay

(For those keeping track, terror won 17-5-5 among democracies)

THE NOT-SO-HIDDEN ROOTS OF ARAB RAGE

Times columnist Nikolas Kristof contributes another in a series of dimwitted columns on the Middle East crisis, enlightening us on the source of Arab double-standards towards human violations caused by Israel as opposed to their own leaders.

Some 1,600 Palestinians have been killed since the latest round of violence erupted in the fall of 2000. In contrast, two million Sudanese have died in the ongoing civil war here, with barely anyone noticing. Likewise, Syria blithely killed about 20,000 people in crushing an abortive uprising in the city of Hama in 1982. And Saddam Hussein, who has killed more Arabs than Ariel Sharon and all his Israeli predecessors put together, is somehow a hero for much of the Arab world.

Andrew Sullivan's response is merciless, but on point. Kristof may want to look into the rabid anti-Semetism angle. However, since he is a Pullitzer-prize winning journalist, he almost trips over the core answer.

Another reason for the double standard in the Middle East is that Arab countries are shame-based societies, and Israeli repression of Arabs is seen not just as brutal, but also as humiliating. When a group of Yemenis scolded me for American support of Israel, I retorted that America supports the Middle Eastern leader who gives his Arab citizens the greatest political freedom, and that's Ariel Sharon. There was a long pause. Then one replied that Israel is a colonial outpost and that as a result while Israeli Arabs may have ballots and free speech, they have no dignity. In other words, protesters are enraged not just because Israel kills Arabs, but also because it humiliates them.

Shame - dignity - humilation - none of these have anything to do with Israeli actions on the West Bank, but with the exsitence of Israel as a sovreign Jewish state. History is instructive here. The Arab-Jewish encounter didn't just begin in the 19th century with a "colonial outpost." It goes back to the dawn of the Islamic age, and for the most part the ground rules were clear - the Arabs ruled, and the Jews resided at the grace of their Arab hosts. For the most part the Arabs played must more congenial hosts than Christian Europe - but the Jews always knew their place. The creation of the state of Israel changed all that - for the first time, Jews demanded to be met as equals, not subservients. In a word, they got "uppity." And so, like the poor Southern whites who responded to the newly-freed Blacks by created the Ku Klux Klan, the everyman of the Arab world, denied everything else, can funnel his frustration into the surest sign that the world has turned upside down - the existence of a sovreign, independent, flourishing Jewish state. Until world leaders recognize and address this pathological aspect of Arab society, no amount of diplomacy will ever achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors.

AFTER ARAFAT: THE JORDAN OPTION

There will never be peace so long as Yassir Arafat is the leader of the Palestinians. For a Palestinian state to be at peace with Israel, its government must provide a dramatically improved quality of life to its citizens. That simply isn't going to happen under an Arafat regime, which has shown a propensity to funnel foreign aid into building an army and rewarding cronies with Mediterrean villas. A corrupt Palestinian administration will lead to an angry populace. An angry populace needs an outlet. The outlet, as it is today throughout the Arab world, will be Israel.

So it is time to do some serious thinking about a post-Arafat Palestine. It is clear that the Palestinians should not be under Israeli rule. It is equally clear that the Palestinians are in no position to rule themselves. So how can a Palestinians receive self-governance in a way that has the best chances to bring peace to the Israelis, and prosperity to the Palestinians.

A particuarly bad proposal that is gaining momentum is the idea of a U.S. or NATO force to engage in nation-building. The problem is that such forces will invariably have to crack down on Palestinian terrorist organizations that oppose a two-state solution. Such crackdowns will quickly turn the populace's view of the international force from liberators to occupiers. On the other hand, an Arab security force could maintain the order necessary for social and economic growth in a way that would receive legitimacy from both the local population and the international community. Of all of the Arab regimes, one has proven most its commitment to fighting terror - Jordan. Of all the Arab states, only one has treated the Palestinans as human beings instead of propaganda pawns - Jordan. Of all the Arab states, the one that is genuinely trying to improve its citizenry's quality of life is Jordan.

There is no better solution than to place a future Palestinian state under a Jordanian mandate. The moral arguments against it are quite weak - one can not hate the Palestinians enough to say they deserve to have Yasser Arafat as their leader. The practical arguments against it are stronger, but surpassable. What is needed is vision and courage by the United States - to once and for all call the bluff of the Arab states that claim they have the best interests of the Palestinians at heart.

SALAM AL-MARAYATI AND THE LIMITS OF LIBERAL ISLAM IN AMERICA

I finally got to put a face and voice to the name tonight - Salam al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Counsel was a "guest" on Alan Keyes Is Making Sense. With the topic "Did Arafat Dupe Colin Powell?" it was not exactly the friendliest forum for Al-Marayati, who wanted to talk instead of the "war crimes" committed by Israel and contextualize Palestinian terror. Still, Al-Marayati was remarkably cool and articulate, despite the berating he took from a paticularly manic Keyes.

Unfortunately, al-Marayati's moderate temperment was not matched by any moderation in his views. There is only one villain in the Arab-Israeli conflict - Israel. Sharon is as bad as Milosevic. Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli civilians are justified resistance, Israeli responses are a war against civilians. It is not surprising, therefore that al-Marayati uttered the heinous statement in the aftermath of 9/11 that we could not rule out the possibility that the attack on the World Trade Center was committed by Israel.

To understand my deep disappointment with Salam al-Marayati, I have to go back almost three years to the controversy over his appointment to the anti-terror commission. Jewish organizations, led by the hard-line Zionist Organization of America had engaged in a campaign to block al-Marayati's nomination based on statements he had made that appeared to "understand" Palestinian terror. At the time I was working for the Interfaith Alliance with a former associate of al-Marayati's, Amber Khan. After talking with her, and researching the issue independently, I became convinced that the ZOA had done a hack job on al-Marayati, and had duped the more mainstream organizations into following along. (For perspective, the ZOA condemned fellow Jewish organizations that honored Thomas Friedman) After all, here was a Muslim leader truly committed to interfaith dialogue, who had reached out to the ADL in his home city of Los Angeles. Here was a Muslim leader whose wife was a leading Islamic feminist, and who was fighting to create an tolerant, progressive Islam to meet the needs of the growing numbers of American Muslims who were rejecting the domination of established Islamic institutions by traditionalists and fundamentalists.

The tragedy is that Morton Klein and his band of zealots were right, and I was wrong. When it comes to Israel, al-Marayati, has a pathological hatred, a special blind spot that makes him incapable of condemning actions and views that derive from the very interpretation of Islam that he rejects. I do not begrudge American Muslims sympathy for the plight of fellow Muslims, and a revulsion to Ariel Sharon. I do regret that they are unable to see past the victimization of the Palestinians to the larger context of the conflict. Jews are dying, and that should be a tragedy for them.. Islam is being perverted, and that should be a tragedy for them. Arafat and his cronies have no intention of granting human rights should they ever get a state, and that should be a tragedy for them as well.

In the long run, however, liberal Muslims and liberal Jews need each other. For American Muslims yearning to find a middle ground where they can hold on to their traditions and yet embrace tolerance, gender equality and modernity, American Jewry offers a model of how to sustain a pluralistic community. American Muslim leaders will emerge that will be able to get past their views of the Middle East and engage in constructive dialogue with the Jewish community. Someday, maybe Salam al-Marayati will once again be one of them.

IF YOU WERE'NT ALREADY CONVINCED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY IS A MYTH....

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was drowned out by chants of "no more Arafat" and booed as he told a crowd of thousands that "innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying as well. It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that fact."

Guys, I know you're excited and everything, and that the whole "moral equivalence" line thrown out by the State Department is frusterating, but this is Paul Wolfowitz, the uber-hawk, the man the New Yorker fears has a nefarious agenda for imposing American values upon the world, someone who has been working tirelessly to isolate Arafat. Wasn't Marty Peretz or Bill Kristol there? Oy

And another point, shame on us for booing that point. We NEED to acknowledge the suffering of the Palestinian people, and strive for a day when it is ended. What we don't need to acknowledge is the lie that Israeli concessions to Arafat will lessen that suffering one bit.

AN ODE TO TAX DAY (WITH APOLOGIES TO MONTY PYTHON)

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have taxes ever done for us?

THE STILL MALIGNED BUSH DOCTRINE

Jeff Hauser writes in to take issue with my defense of the Bush Doctrine.

...the doctrine is less subtle than you suggested, and so our inconsistency undermines the alleged
moralism it represents, as your Saudi Arabia point suggests; but you cannot propose the Bush doctrine while planning for it to be pro-Saudi Arabia; you don't support the Bush doctrine if you are Anti-Saudi Arabia, since the Bush doctrine means "overarching moral justification I will apply inconsistently to advance what I perceive as US interests"...

There's no debate here. The Get Out of the Bush Doctrine Free If You Have Lots of Oil Card given to Saudi Arabia threatens the entire enterprise, and severely undercuts any attempt to argue that the doctrine is anything more than Hauser claims it is.

the US is guilty under any reasonable definition (see Columbia, Turkey, Indonesia, etc.), but you wouldn't support Chile attacking the US, would you?

Wait a minute. Jeff's just expanded the definition of "harboring or aiding terror" to include giving military aid to governments whose militaries have a tendancy to violate human rights. That does make the doctrine impractical and incoherent. That being said, the United States has no business funding counter-insurgency tactics that fail to discriminate between civilians and rebels. Our record is Latin America, especially, has been abysmal on this count.

Means/Ends -- the effectiveness of attacking states for terrorism is directly related to the degree the terrorism is state dependent, a nuance the Bushies ignore, which is why the U.S. is no safer now than on 9/12, and in fact, likely the opposite (we've pissed off more than we have debilitated).

I agree with the nuance, I disagree with the conclusion. All terrorism is at least somewhat state dependent, even if it isn't state-sponsored. Al Qaeda's attack on the WTC could not have occurred without the Taliban's hosting of Bin Laden, and the Saudi Government's tacit support for Islamism directed against the United States. Granted, where the terrorist organization has a direct address (e.g. Hezbollah with Iran and Syria), an attack against the sponsoring state will be more effective. Additionally, and this is where the Bush administration has been woefully negligent so far, is the fact that simply removing terror-friendly regimes is insufficient - what is required is the spread of functional governance world-wide, to prevent environments that terror organizations can thrive in. That of course, is nation-building, and if Afghanistan is any indication, the Bush administration is flunking its first test.

IS THE FENCE FINALLY GOING UP?

It appears that the even Sharon and Peres have accepted the need for a physical barrier between the territories and Israel proper. In light of the gains made by Operation Defensive Shield, two more steps need to be taken to move back towards peace - the expulsion of Arafat, and the evacuation of the isolated settlements. The question is whether the Bush Administration has the vision and courage to press for these critical steps, or will it fall back into the Oslo delusion of leaving the settlements to the final status, and leaving the fate of the Palestinians to the tryanny of Arafat.

THE MUCH MAILIGNED BUSH DOCTRINE

There has emerged a consensus among the liberal punditocracy that the enunciation of the Bush Doctrine - that the United States will firmly oppose those who employ terror, and the nations that harbor, aid, and abet terror - was a major blunder of the President, and that its apparent collapse in light of the Middle East crisis should provide ample opportunity for ridculing our simple-minded leader.

These critiques, however, boil down to the following:
(1) It's impossible to define what terror is;
(2) Other nations (the Europeans) find it simplistic and "moralistic";
(3) It's impossible to implement, as the past few months demonstrate.

To which the appropriate response is (1) No, (2) Who cares, (3) Not as hard you think

The first hurdle is the most overrated. Terror is the deliberate use of violence targeted against civilians in order to advance a political agenda.

It does not matter how worthwhile the cause is - surely Palestinain self-rule is more worthwhile a cause than promoting Islamic fundamentalism world-wide - doesn't matter. It's still terror. It also doesn't matter who the target is. While the Russian government has brutally suppressed the Chechnyan revolt, blowing up an apartment building in Moscow is still terror. It DOES matter however, whether or not civilians are deliberately targeted or incidentally killed as a result of an attack on military targets. Such action, while at times morally problematic, is NOT terror.

The European critique is more of their standard relativistic claptrap. There go the idealistic cowboy Americans, getting in the way of our attempts to make money with the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Whatever...

The heart of the criticism of the Bush Doctrine is its impracticability. Does this really mean that the U.S. is going to intervene to halt the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or the Basque separatists in Spain? Of course not, but what it is not impracticable for the American position on each of these conflicts to be shaped in light of the Bush Doctrine. Thus, independent of the merits of the Kashmir conflict, it was critical that Pakistan stop subsidizing groups that used terror as a means of advocating their position.

The problem therefore is not with the Bush Doctrine, but with the Bush Administration's failure to employ it. September 11th should have caused a radical rethinking of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Yassir Arafat should have been threatened with a severance of ties, and cut loose when he failed to act against terror. Instead, we have chosen to turn a blind eye to the Saudi's funding of Islamic terror world-wide, and have wavered between supporting Israel's counter-terrorism and taking the European position of condeming "the cycle of violence."

The truth is that the alternative to the Bush Doctrine is the cynical realpolitik that our nation has employed far too often as its foreign policy. As Leon Wieseltier aptly dubbed it, it is the smugness of Cheneyism - an alliance with Israel as if there were no Saudi Arabia, and an alliance with Saudi Arabia as if there were no Israel.

The truth is that the biggest obstacle for the Bush Doctrine is not its naivety, or its inherent contradictions, but the Bush Energy Policy.

NEGOTIATION 101

I found this insightful editorial in from Law Professor Russell Korobkin (with thanks to patiopundit) It addresses one central problem in the land for peace equation - that the land has to be traded first, and the peace provided afterwards. Here's Professor Korobkin's proposal:

A better approach is to build into the agreement a provision that permits Israel to reoccupy portions of the territories if the Palestinians fail to provide the peace they promise, with higher levels of terror triggering the right of Israel to reoccupy larger portions of land. This approach would give Israel the security to sacrifice land and the Palestinians the strongest possible incentive to prevent future terrorism.

For an example of a policy that completely failed to give the Palestinians an incentive to prevent terrorism, review the Clinton administration's approach to the implementation of the Oslo agreement.

THIS TIME HE MEANS IT...REALLY

Well, after all the prodding, the State Department has gotten Arafat to say the magic words - kind of. The statement released by Arafat's cronies was far from unequivocal. In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, this is supposed to justify an Israeli withdrawal?? If Secretary Powell really wants to give Israelis and Palestinians a chance to return to the path of peace, he should book an extra ticket for Yassir on his return flight.