THE WAR AGAINST THE WAR ON TERROR FROM INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION

Both Republicans and Democrats have dogmatic allegiances that hinder their ability to respond to the changed reality of a post 9/11 America. For the Dems, the biggest hurdle is their dovish wing's instinctive mistrust of the use of military force. For the GOP, its their laissez-faire/libertarian wing's instinctive mistrust of activist government. One of the untold stories of the INS' complete failure to reform after 9/11 is that the Bush Admnistration has placed a number of libertarian ideologues in charge of the INS - who prefer a dysfunctional INS to an effective one.

Talking Points comments on this excellent article by Nicholas Confessore in the Washington Monthly on how internal and external opponents of visa-tracking killed an auspicious initiative from the Clinton Administration, and then were rewarded with appointments and promotions by the Bush Administration.

And when the time came to fill vacancies at the INS during the summer of 2001, the Bush Administration dealt student tracking a few more body blows. James Ziglar, a self-proclaimed libertarian with no immigration expertise, replaced Meissner. And the power-behind-the-throne job of INS policy director went to none other than Stuart Anderson. Close to conservatives in Congress, the darling of Bush's energy secretary, and popular among immigration activists, Anderson was no doubt an easy sell. But he had also done more than perhaps anyone else to strangle student tracking in its crib.

"The best analogy I can draw about Stuart Anderson is something that an INS agent said to me: If you were going to hire someone to run the DEA, you wouldn't pick somebody who favors legalizing drugs," says a top Republican aide on the Hill. "And by putting Stuart Anderson in a ranking position in the INS, you've essentially done the same thing---you've got somebody who favors open borders running the agency that regulates the borders."

To sum up, by 1999, led by visionary official Maurice Berez, INS had successfully created and field tested a sophisticated student-visa tracking program. Within a year, an alliance of university officials and immigration enforcement opponents managed to (1) get Berez reassigned; (2) dumb down the system; and (3) delay its implemenation. The Bush Administration, upon taking office, appointed the point man for the lobbying effort that killed student-visa tracking to INS policy director & has promoted Peter Becraft (the INS official who reassigned Berez from the project) to deputy INS commisioner (and liason to Tom Ridge's reinvent-the-wheel student-visa-working group).

For careful observers of the Bush Administration, this fits a very familiar pattern of disabling regulatory agencies by appointing proxies of the regulated to "run" them. With the foxes guarding the henhouse in the INS we are heading for a mistake of Enron proportions. Only this time, it won't just cost thousands their life savings, it will cost them their lives.

SEMANTIC JIHAD

News from Cambridge is that Zayed Yasin is dropping the word "Jihad" from the title of his speech. Well that's one way to completely avoid the central issue of this controversy. The problem all along was the speaker, not the title. Jihad is a sacred word - that can, and must be reclaimed from the extremists. Zayed Yasin, far from condemning the extremists, raises money for them. No amount of tweaking of titles or tacked-on sentences can change that fact.

THE REST OF THE WORLD'S CUP

The World...yawn...Cup...yawn...starts tommorrow, which of course means we're in for another round of "why can't Americans love soccer like everybody else?" The implication that is if you like soccer, you're a cultured, international citizen of the world - and if you prefer the garish basketball, the brutish football, or the inscrutable baseball you're myopic and insular. Well guess what, this Foreign Affairs devotee ain't buying it. Soccer is not high culture - its a game, and a rather dull one at that, in which all but two of the players can't use their hands, and every once in a while someone actually kicks or heads a ball towards a net in which one of those two people is standing. I'll be the first one to condemn my fellow Americans (with the exception of Ashleigh Banfield who's everywhere!!!) blithe ignorance of the world but give up watching hoopsters soar to watch soccer players flop? No thanks. You may not be able to beat Thai food, Italian art and Latin dance music, but there's nothing that comes close to American sports.

FBI REFORM: WATCH IT LIVE

If you picked up the Times yesterday, you were greeted by the following headline
"Mueller Plans to Turn Focus Towards Terror."

Rest easy, America, one day before the clean up of Ground Zero is complete, the cleanup of the FBI is beginning. Unfortunately, this cleanup is going to make the herculean efforts in Downtown Manhattan look like a cakewalk.

OTP has received the following second-hand account of the frustrations of one of the FBI's computer experts who was finally allowed to search Moussaoui's computer after 9/11.

The biggest problem he ran into was a complete lack of understanding of technology. His supervisors were basically unaware that they could track the transactions for plane tickets and connect them to credit cards, account numbers, etc.

You'd hope that this has been addressed by now, but never underestimate the ability of a beaucracy to defy common sense and protect mediocrity. Memo to Director Mueller - pass around a test, and demote/fire everyone who fails. That should get technological awareness up rather quickly.

Well, in today's FBI reform news, agents have been freed to surf the net. Under new Justice Department rules, agents are now allowed to "conduct 'general topical research' and 'pure surfing' designed to find Web sites, chat rooms or Internet bulletin boards with information about terror, bomb-making instructions, child pornography or stolen credit cards." This action brought a howl of protest from the ACLU, who its seems is zealously defending the heretofore non-existent right to keep the government ignorant of public information. (Could someone please direct them back to a real civil liberties problem - I don't know, maybe secret detentions and the newly expanded material witness statute).

FBI Reform - keep watching, or it won't happen at all.

SENSIBLE LIBERALS AGREE: SADDAM HAS GOT TO GO

A funny thing happened to Joshua Micah Marshall on his way to right an in-depth article skewering the neocon hawks for dragging us into war with Saddam - he discovered they were right. A bit reckless, and playing loose with truth, but on the core question of whether we need to remove Saddam from power, dead right.

One side is comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, most of the career military, nearly every Middle East expert at the State Department, and the vast majority of intelligence analysts and CIA operations officers who know the region. These folks generally think that the idea of attacking Saddam is questionable at best, reckless at worst. On the other side are a few dozen neoconservative think tank scholars and defense policy intellectuals. Few of them have any serious knowledge of the Arab world, the Middle East, or Islam. Fewer still have served in the armed forces. In other words, to give the go-ahead to war with Iraq, you'd have to decide that the experienced hands are all wrong, and throw in your lot with a bunch of hot-headed ideologues. Oh, and one other thing: The last few times, the ideologues have turned out to be right.

According to Marshall, the hawks case for invading Iraq is both simplistic and unassailable.

[the case]...is basically an escalating series of true or false propositions that leads inexorably toward massive military confrontation: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who would use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies if he got them? Check. Do you believe he is trying to acquire nuclear or biological weapons and the means to deliver them? Check. If so, doesn't it stand to reason that he will eventually succeed in getting them? Check. Aren't we then obligated to stop him? Check! Sooner, rather than later? Check!!

The trouble is that this is a syllogism--one conspicuously short on details about Iraq, geopolitics, or anything else. And yet the logic is still pretty compelling, an impression that only grows when you talk to his critics. While they can point to an endless number of pitfalls and hurdles that the hawks either gloss over or ignore, they're less able to break apart the tight chain of reasoning that gets the hawks on their war footing

The debate between the neocons and the foreign policy and military establishment as described by Marshall is fascinating - the establishment throws out all sorts of things that could go wrong and the neocons fire back - so what, its still better than doing nothing. Marshall concludes that the the best Iraq policy is one that combines the strength of each group. As he sees it, the neocons are visionaries - people you want setting your strategic goals, but reckless with the details, and ill-prepared for unforseen disasters. The diplomatic and military establishment on the other hand are so means-oriented and risk-adverse that they are unable to think outside the box, but those have the knowledge and experience to succeed even when things go awry.

I think Marshall has it right for the most part - although he underestimates the costs of the ticking clock as we work to get all our ducks in a row. Still, he has effectively realized that the arguments about whether to invade Iraq are better framed as how we should invade Iraq. And after the military and foreign policy establishment is done minimizing the costs of dumping Saddam, we can let the visionaries explore the next step towards making the Middle East freer and America safer.

HECK, AT LEAST HE'S TRYING

Thomas Friedman once more combines pithy analysis...

The whole history of the peace process can be reduced to one simple point: If the Palestinians persuade the Israeli center that they are ready to live side by side in peace, they will get a state; if they don't, they won't. Everything else is just commentary.

...with a creative, but flawed solution.

Bottom line: The region is more ripe than ever for a big U.S. initiative. Unfortunately, none of the leaders — American, Israeli or Palestinian — seem willing to step up to what's needed. That is, to create a transition structure in the West Bank and Gaza — a new mandate under U.S. or NATO supervision — that would oversee the gradual building of a responsible Palestinian Authority and the gradual unbuilding of settlements.

He does have one core element right - the building of a responsible Palestinian Authority will need a supervisory transition structure. Here's how his plan can be improved:

(1) Ripeness: The region is not yet ripe for this initiative because the Palestinians aren't convinced they lost the war and the Arab states don't take Palestinian reform seriously. Only a complete Israeli reoccupation will change this - making an international mandate a preferred solution to the status quo.

(2) Timing: Removing the isolated settlements gradually is a recipe for disaster - it needs to be done as early as possible so that the mandate can have legitimacy and extremists are given less time to scuttle the deal.

(3) Policing: Having U.S. or NATO troops hunting down Palestinian terror groups is a recipe for disaster. Security should be provided by the Arab states with the most vested interest in stability in the West Bank and Gaza - Jordan & Egypt.

If anyone knows how to reach Tom, forward this on to him. He is after all, our de facto Assistant Secretary of State for the region.

CRAZY SUBURBAN SETTLERS AND THE PUNDITS THAT HATE THEM

Eric Alterman, the official keeper of the who's naughty and nice to the Palestinians, comments on the existence of the suburban settler - the non-ideological ones that live just across the 1967 border in the West Bank.

Some of the people who piss me off most in the world are fanatical American Jews who relocate their families to the occupied West Bank, making peace harder and harder to achieve while furthering the legitimate anger of the Palestinians over the daily humiliations they must endure under Israeli occupation. Even worse, however, are those who do it for convenience, like this person writing in Salon today.....

Hello lady, it’s a war zone! At least the fanatics have the excuse of being a little deranged. But you, ma’am, are putting your family at risk as part of an illegal occupation that is recognized by approximately zero governments of the world and directly contravenes Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. There can be no defense of suicide bombings, but the West Bank denizens have chosen to make themselves targets on land to which Israel has no legal or moral right...

Yes, the proud parents of suicide bombers make me sick, but what kind of mother or father would send their kinds on this kind of ideological mission? Marcy Spiegel Oster should go back to Cleveland — or Tel Aviv — I don’t care. But if, God forbid, something should happen to her children in the occupied territories, she will have only herself to blame.

Alterman and I agree on one thing - we can't stand the fanatical settlers. For me, its a religious matter - they've warped my beautiful religion into a fundamentalist cult that holds land more holy than life. For Alterman, though the worst part is that they are settlers - on foreign soil. So, according to Mr. Alterman, Marcy Oster and family are "even worse" than the Baruch Goldstein Fan Club in Kiryat Arba. She's as a bad as the parents of suicide bombers, placing her children in a "war zone" where their massacre would be "defensible."

The key to Alterman's vitriol is the phrase "land to which Israel has no legal or moral right." That simply is not true. Israel has two claims on the West Bank - one on the grounds of security, another on the grounds that Judea and Samaria are the historical heartland of the Jewish people. The Arabs have a powerful counter-claim, the right of self-determination on the lands they live. This, and not the sanctity of the 1948 armistice lines, is the fundamental justification behind a partition of the West Bank. Thus, who and where the settlers are matters greatly. The fanatics on isolated hill tops outside of Hebron and Nablus are an obstacle to peace - they make a continuous Palestinian state impossible, and are going to leave kicking and screaming. The surburban settlers on the other hand are on land Israel needs for secure borders, and are the very Israelis that the Palestinians can someday live in peace with, if they are willing to someday value peace above land.

NBA CONFERENCE FINALS UPDATE
Temporary loss of cable makes this analysis sketchier than usual, so bear with me. From what I've seen however, there is a common thread between the two series - two, great free-flowing offenses (Nets and Kings) that can be shut down by excellent perimeter defenses (Celtics and Lakers) for limited time periods. Games 3 and 4 for both series were classics - with the Nets and Kings jumping out to big leads behind dominant point guard play in the first half, only to be stymied by furious pressure while Kobe and Pierce gunned their teams back in the games. So far its been a nearly even matchup.

Kings 2: Give them a healthy Peja and they're up 3-1. Give them a smidgen of luck in Game 4 and they're up 3-1. Mike Bibby looks like a young Mo Cheeks (although more willing to pull the trigger). Webber and Vlade have both played magnificent up front. Be afraid Lakers, be very afraid.
Lakers 2: Even before his last second heroics, Robby Horry has been keeping the Lakers alive. While Derek Fisher and Rick Fox have all but disappeared in this series, Horry's been providing 13 points, 13 boards, 4.5 assists and over 2 steals a game. It's not going to be enough if the rest of the supporting cast doesn't turn it around.

Nets 2: Kidd is averaging a triple-double so far, and the six players averaging double figures shows how well the wealth has been spread. I still can't understand what Byron Scott was thinking during the 4th quarter of Game 3, with no subs or timeouts used during the whole run in the last five minutes. Could Van Horn, MacCulloch or Jefferson have done any worse than the crew that was out there?
Celtics 2: They've gotten this far with Pierce ice cold all but one quarter. He's going to explode in at least one of the last three. If the Celtics take the other one...I really don't want to think about all the annoying "underdog Celtics recapture lost glory" columns that will be flooding the net from Beantown's endless supply of sportswriters.

PROFILING AND TERROR
There has got to be a middle ground between the absurdity of pulling Grandma Johnson out of line at the airport to check her shoes, and the horror of a wholescale dragnet of any young man named Muhammed or Ahmed. We can't simply ignore the fact that the 9/11 terrorists all fit a particular profile - Arab, Islamist and alien. How do we maintain maximum vigilance against Islamic terrorists while at the same time preserving the civil liberties of the vast majority of honest, decent Muslims and Arabs in America? First, and foremost by focusing on citizenship. Under no circumstances can we allow the civil liberties of Muslim and Arab-Americans to be degraded below those of other Americans. On the other hand, we have every right to construct our immigration policy in a way that makes it hard for rabid anti-Americans to gain such citizenship. There is nothing wrong with an ideological requirement for citizenship. Millions of Muslims would love to become Americans - why should one liberal or moderate Muslim who believes in the ideals of America be denied a chance to raise their children here just because a militant Muslim arrived in the country earlier. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with profiling applicants for tourist and student visas. If you went to a radical madrassa, you get in only under special circumstances. Its not prejudice to trust Mohammed from Cleveland more than Mohammed from Cairo - its common sense.

THE INEVITABLE RE-OCCUPATION

Yesterday, the fearless Palestinians took on Israeli babies and grandmothers - in another operation that supports the idea that they should be the last people on earth to receive their own nation. It is now become apparent that Operation Defensive Shield's success at preventing Palestinian terror was for the most part limited to its duration. In the absence of a permanent security fence seperating Palestinian and Israeli populations, only a re-occupation of Palestinian territories can minimize terror. What is more important is what Israel does in addition to its reoccupation to prepare for its eventual withdrawal, building a boundary and evacuating the isolated settlements. When Arab leadership emerges that is willing and able to guarentee the new border, the Palestinians can once more enjoy self-rule.

THE 20th HIJACKER'S COMPUTER

Acting on a tip from a Minneapolis flight school instructor, FBI agents arrested al Qaeda operative Zacharias Moussaoui on immigration charges. While in custody, they found out that according to French intelligence, the suspect had ties with radical Islamist groups. The next logical step would be to search the suspect's computer - but for that the field office needed a warrant. As we now know, thanks to the courageous Rowley memo, FBI officials in Washington blocked the Minneapolis office from even seeking such a warrant. According to the Times, a major factor was the fallout from a scandal in which FBI agents were found to have submitted misleading affidavits to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to get warrants for eavesdropping. The story that emerges is of a decidely risk-adverse culture in the FBI's headquarters, scrambling to avoid being accused of overreaching on terrorist surveillance. The obvious next step is for an inquiry that asks the hard questions, demands the necessary reform, and axes the worst offenders. The harder question is does this incident also require a reexamination of the legal structure behind counter-terror surveillence as well.

If you read the Rowley Memo, you see the hoops that the field agents have to go through in order to ask for a warrant. In the case of criminal warrant, the field office has to request FBI Headquarter's obtain the Department of Justice's approval to contact the U.S. Attorney General's office in Minneapolis, which then has to agree that probable cause exists in order to submit a warrant request to a federal judge. In the case of an intelligence warrant, the field office needs Headquarters to agree to file an affidavit with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court. In this case however, there is another special requirement - evidence that the suspect was acting on behalf of a foreign power. This appeared to be the catching point for FBIHQ in the case of Moussaoui - in their opinion (which is hotly disputed by Rowley) the French intelligence information did not make his organizational ties clear enough for a warrant.

In all of these cases, at the core of the caution is a fear of violating the Fourth Amenment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. In the area of everyday crimes committed by American citizens, the balance we have arrived at between communal safety and personal liberty, and the corresponding buffers placed on our law enforcement makes sense. In the case of terror committed by enemies of the country infiltrating our borders as illegal immigrants, this balance seems out of whack, and the buffers too strong. Should law enforcement really need probable cause to search the property of illegal immigrants suspected of terror? Is the standard needed for an intelligence warrant appropriate, or too high? Was the real scandal not that FBI agents falsified affidavits to get warrants to eavesdrop on Hamas and al Qaeda, or that they needed to in order to get such warrants? We are rightly wary of the costs of underenforcing our civil liberities. After 9/11, we need to be just as wary of the costs of overenforcement.

FOGGY BOTTOM FOG

The tireless Hauser writes in to complain that my latest foreign policy critique has slipped into "mindless Weekly Standard flexing." He notes that two of my concerns - Nation-Building and mediation in South Asia are shared by Dems, the State Department, and liberal critics of the administration and opposed by the Bush administration's hawks ("Weekly Standard's junta faves" in Hauser-speak).

Perhaps I am flexing, but not mindlessly. The State Department has consistently resisted any dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy post 9/11. Foggy Bottom counseled restraint in going after the Taliban, caution in provoking the ire of our Arab "allies," hesitancy against Hussein, preservation of Arafat, and putting the means of coalition-building above the ends. It was the State Department that decided to invest massive diplomatic resources on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and give minimal attention to the India-Pakistan conflict. The Bush hawks wanted a hands off policy towards Sharon, it was Foggy Bottom that prodded for U.S. intervention to placate Cairo and Riyadh (or do we already forget the the pointless Powell mission). I shudder to think at some of the internal memos being passed on the South Asian conflict - emphasizing the importance of preserving Musharraf's regime and the need to restrain Indian responses to terror over the more important goal of achieving a definitive break between the Pakistani government and terror.

And while I agree with the neocons on a lot of foreign policy issues, I don't buy into their party line that the Bushies (well at least the hawkish Bushies) can do no wrong, and the Dems can do no right. From day one, the Bushies entered office with a disdainful view towards "nation-building" - rejecting it as part of a Clintonian legacy that had to be jettisoned. For a while, it appeared that this bias would yield in light of the realities of a post-Taliban Afghanistan. It hasn't, and it continues to hamstring the idealist foreign policy goals advocated by the neocons.

The point of my post was the following - on all fronts we are slipping back into the same, comfortable policy patterns that existed before 9/11, with potentially disastrous consequences. With regard to foreign policy, that means a State Department returning to its multilateralist realpolitik autopilot - check with the Europeans, don't meddle in the affairs of anti-democratic so-called allies and above all maintain stability. Well, this policy proved to be an utter failure, for George the Elder as well as for Clinton. And if followed by W., it will prove to be no less a failure. The current stumbling of W. makes it all the more important for the Dems to develop a true foreign policy critique, and not merely ape the ones by the professional diplomats at home and abroad.

DE-SAUDIZING ARABIA

Michael Barone correctly relabels the Saudis as our foremost ideological enemies in the latest U.S. News & World Report

But the Saudis are not content to run a totalitarian society at home; they are trying to export their totalitarian Wahhabi Islam around the world. Since the Gulf War, the Saudis have financed Wahhabi clerics and Wahhabi-run mosques and schools in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Western Europe, and the United States. The results can be seen on the Edgware Road in London or Leesburg Pike in Northern Virginia: Journalists have no trouble finding young people spouting the most vituperative anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda and swearing that they would fight for Islam against the United States. The Saudis are waging war against us, financing the spread of the idea that our free society must be overthrown and totalitarian Wahhabi Islam must be imposed by force....

It may not be prudent yet to speak the truth out loud, that the Saudis are our enemies. But they should know that it is increasingly apparent to the American people that they are effectively waging war against us. And they should know that we have the capacity to destroy their military, presumably in a matter of hours. The Saudis' eastern provinces, with their oil, could be given to their Shiite Muslim majority, now
oppressed by the Sunni Muslim Saudi rulers. The holy cities of Mecca and Medina could be returned to the custody of the Hashemites (Jordan's King Abdullah's family), who unlike the Saudis are direct
descendants of the prophet Mohammed. Let the Saudis have the sands of central Arabia and their bank accounts in Switzerland, hotel suites in London, and villas on the Riviera.

President Bush has said that we must have regime change in Iraq to be safe from terrorism. It is increasingly clear that we must have regime change in Saudi-ruled Arabia as well.

One way or another we need to seperate the vast oil wealth of Arabia from the Wahabi agenda. While other means (conservation, increased reliance on other sources, a liberated Iraq) may turn out to be safer and less problematic - we should not rule out the most direct means - ending Saudi rule over Eastern Arabia.

THE GIANT HAS GONE BACK TO SLEEP

9/11 should have changed everything - it demanded a complete reevaluation of America's national security policy on every level - foreign affairs, military, immigration, transportation, intelligence - all of them. In the immediate aftermath, it appeared that the impact of the event was enough to drive the radical reforms necessary to prepare America against this new threat. Eight and a half months later, all signs point to this impetus for reform being spent, and slightly more secure America that has slipped back into complacency.

Frank Rich's op-ed in the New York Times did an excellent job of summing up the lack of progress on the domestic front: beaucratic reform and oversight, nuclear plant security, bioterror response, immigration reform, airport security - in every area we have made babysteps when we have needed to make wholesale leaps.

In foreign policy, the administration looks adrift - unwilling to commit to nation-building in Afghanistan, spending far too much time on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and far too little on South Asia. And, if latest reports are not merely smokescreens, backing down on its firm commitment to remove Hussein from power. In each of these areas, the clarity of 9/11 has been replaced with Foggy Bottom fog.

The lack of focus in the admnistration is matched by the Dems, who seem to be more focused on cleaning up politically from W.'s failures than cleaning up the failures themselves. The ridiculous Clinton rehabilitation project continues in full force - as if one comment made from Sandy Berger to Condi Rice during the transition erases seven years of ineffectual counter-terrorism policy. As part of this mythology, liberals have created a false dichotomy between the war on terror and regime-change in Iraq. As if the correct response to 9/11 would to be to leave a power-mad dictator alone with biological, chemical and nuclear toys.

Our grace period is expiring, and yet already we have grown complacent. Its time for an independent commission to look into 9/11 and to show us the obvious fact we have forgetten - we have much to do to make sure a similar horror does not occur. Alas, the giant has gone back to sleep, and I fear it will not awaken again until it is too late.

HEBREW IMMERSION IN JEWISH PRE-SCHOOLS: A NO-BRAINER

With the crises facing the State of Israel and the rise of European and Islamic anti-Semetism, American Jewish fears about assimilation and its root cause, Jewish illiteracy, have been for the time being been pushed to the back burner. That doesn't change the fact that Jewish education in America remains dangerously poor - due to the continuing disfunction of the synagogue supplemetary school systems that have the job of educating the majority of American Jews. It is a widely-known fact that in "Hebrew" School one learns little or no Hebrew. At best, students of these schools master the skill of reading the Hebrew alphabet, in order to perform at their Bar & Bat Mitzvahs. Needless to say, learning how to rotely read aloud in a language one does not understand is not an enjoyable experience - and often comes at the expense of learning actual Judaic content. Abandoning Hebrew however is just as problematic - it is an essential part of the religion and culture, and a critical link between American Jews and Israelis. If only more students began a Jewish day school...but, they do - a vast number of synagogue members send their children to their synagogue pre-school. Finally, innovative synagogues are taking advantage of this golden opportunity to radically improve their Hebrew education by offering pre-school Hebrew immersion programs. Can't find enough teachers? I'm sure there are more than enough Israelis who would love a couple of years in America, teaching pre-school. Common sense in American Jewish education? It does happen every once in a while.

CRIMSON JIHAD

The World's Greatest University has selected the former head of the Harvard Islamic Society (HIS), Zayed Yasin '02, as one of the student speakers at this graduation. His speech will be entitled "American Jihad," and will presumably will be an effort to link the term in its less militant "personal struggle" conception of the term with the challenges of graduation. While I respect the efforts of moderate Muslims to regain ownership over Islamic terms that have been abused by militants, as Matthew Yglesias '03 notes, Yasin has quite a dubious claim to "moderate" status. He is a supporter of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Hamas' number one American fundraiser, and even planned an HIS event for the HLF (the recipient was eventually changed to the Palestinian Red Crescent society, which has its own history of aiding terror attacks).

How did Harvard stumble into this mistake? By its continued warped policy on intercultural relations. When the major wave of multicultural activism came in the 1970s, most universities responded by giving in to the demands - establishing distinct academic majors, living facilities and activity centers for minority groups. Harvard responded differently. While it created an Afro-Am department, it made sure it was one of first-rate scholarship, not simply a platform for activism (which was at the heart of the Cornell West dispute - William Julius Wilson, Henry Louis Gates and Orlando Patterson aren't going anywhere); it however rejected a multi-culural center, fearing self-segregation. Instead, Harvard created the Foundation for Race and Intercultural Relations, which was supposed to supply minority groups with funding and promote intercultural understanding.

From its inception, therefore, the Foundation represented less a vision of intercultural relations at Harvard, than an attempt to deflect minority activism on campus. Thus the Foundation effectly degenerated into a ethnic cheerleader organization, focusing almost entirely on the mission to promote minority cultural groups and activities, without spending significant efforts to promote intergroup cooperation and understanding. (The major exception was its magnificent Cultural Rhythyms festival, which brought together performances and cuisine from all of the university's cultural groups). It became a source of party-line political correctness as well, vigorously opposing the admission of Hillel as a member, since Jews were not "people of color." Its awards process also reflected its priorities - presidents of cultural groups were almost guarenteed a Foundation award, regardless of what they actually accomplished in leading their groups. Thus, Zaheer Ali '94, who as President of the BSA converted it into a campus branch of the Nation of Islam and single-handedly did more to damage race relations on campus than any student in recent memory, was given a Foundation award.
In only the rarest on instances, however, did the Foundation recognize the efforts of students "not of color" that worked to improve race relations (which is why despite who I share the honor with, I am extremely proud of my award). True, my expertise visa vi race relations at Harvard dates from the mid-90s, but I haven't heard anyone tell me that its changed radically since then.

The lesson of the Foundation ties into Zayed Yasin. From the perspective of Harvard's diversity administrators, minority student leaders can do no wrong. Zayed Yasin is held in high regard because he was the leader of the Harvard Islamic Society. It does not matter if he led HIS to support radical Islamist causes, or led a breakthrough in interreligious dialogue - he is important for what he represents than who he is and what he has accomplished. It's long past time for this double-standard to end. Leaders of Harvard minority groups are talented, bright individuals who can either work for or against cultural understanding and tolerance. Zayed Yasin has aligned himself with the worst sectarian elements of his culture; he has not shown the courage and insight that the American Muslim community desperately needs - the last thing that Harvard should be doing is holding him up as the exemplar of its special community of graduates.

FROM GREENBERG TO GREEN

Shawn Green may already be able to claim the title of Second Greatest Jewish Slugger in History after today's remarkable performance. Green became only the 14th player to ever hit four home runs in a game, and added a double and a single to set a new major league record of 19 total bases in a single game. Today's power surge places the 28-year old Green at 201 career homers, more than halfway to becoming the first MOT to hit over 400. (Although if you give Hank Greenberg back the seasons he lost to World War II, odds are he hits at least 500). Of course, with all this success, Green needs to keep his public speaking skills just as sharp. It's likely that Temple Sisterhoods and local Federations will be booking him as a guest of honor at fund-raisers well into the middle of this century.
Of course this still puts him 13

SEND POWELL TO THE SUBCONTINENT

There is a time and place to put the prestige of the United States on the line with an all-out diplomatic offensive. While the Bush Admnistration was distracted by a sideshow in the Middle East (as if the fate of the world depended on the survival of Arafat's regime), the far more serious conflict between India and Pakistan has been left to fester. The balance of equities is not close in the matter. Pakistan's military regime has for years used Islamic militants to fight a proxy war of terror against India in the guise of Kashmiri independence. On the other hand, India has mishandled its relations with the local Kashmiris, although still providing the residents far more rights that in Pakistani-Occupied-Kashmir (I'll link to the exclusive Anita Raman expose on this topic when she gets around to publishing it). The obvious problem is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and enough internal instability to make their use conceivable.

General Musharraf, lionized as the U.S.'s ally in the war on terror, has zigged and zagged since 9/11 to maintain his own power - on the one hand cutting off the Taliban and cracking down on radical Islamacists in the wake of the December Indian buildup, while on the other hand vigorously blocking the return of the democratic parties, and turning a blind eye to Army-jihadi collaberation when outside pressure has diminished. Much of Pakistan's military and intelligence services is vested in the Kashmir proxy war against India, and the use of Islamist terror in the campaign. Musharraf will only engage in a real crackdown if he is under sustained, intense pressure.

There is only one source for that pressure that will both be effective and not risk a nuclear war - a full-scale diplomatic initiative by the United States. The U.S. needs to offer a new set of sticks and carrots for Musharraf - it needs to send Powell to demand a complete expulsion of Islamic terror groups, a housecleaning of the army and intelligence services, and a timetable to return to democratic rule. In return the U.S. will broker a timetable for Indian demobilization, an even larger economic development package, and offer its services to mediate a political solution to the Kashmir conflict.

This should rank as the top agenda item for the State Department - for while an unreformed Palestinian Authority is a threat to the security of Israel, an unreformed Pakistan is a threat to the security of the world.

ANOTHER BOMB IN RISHON LE TZION

Fatah al-Aksa, singing an evil chorus of "anything you can do..." to Hamas, struck down Israeli civilians in a pedestrian mall last night. This marked the third suicide bombing since the end of Operation Defensive shield - which would make May seem like a particularly tragic month, until one compares it to the non-stop massacres that were occuring before the offensive. Yes, Israeli restraint after the last attack did wonders at deterring the next one. There is reason to believe, with the vultures circling around and the word reform being bandied about that such acts are merely the death throws of Arafat's War.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE DOVES GONE, TO SHARON EVERYONE, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN

TAP's Jeff Mandell wonders where all the pro-Israel moderates have gone - implying of course that he (and Yossi Sarid) are one the few left in these troubled times.

Many of us in the Jewish community face a delicate balancing act between two competing values: on the one hand, standing in solidarity with Israel during a time of trouble; and on the other, voicing our concern for human rights and the long-term goal of a two-state solution. At the same time, we are also stuck in a political limbo: stranded between the organized Jewish community's vocal militarism and the venomous anti-Semitism that pervade rallies and marches in support of the Palestinians.

Mandell's confusion results from the fact that he is conflated three related, but distinct debates. First, and most pressing was the debate over Israel's response to Arafat's terror offensive, and what if any restraints the U.S. should place on the Sharon government's use of military force. The second debate was what to do with the remaining infrastructure of Oslo - should Arafat's P.A. be destroyed, radically reformed or treated once more as a diplomatic partner. The third debate is over the scope of the final settlement agreement - what concessions should Israel make with regard to settlements, land, refugees and Jerusalem.

In the first debate, the middle ground rapidly dissapeared under wave after wave of Palestinian terror. With the Europeans and other supporters of the Palestinians condemning any Israel response (instead advocating Israeli capitulation and appeasement), and the State Department trying to maintain a position of "evenhandness", the great middle of American Jewry rose up to support Israel's right to defend itself. It was on this issue that American Jews were the most militant, refusing to compromise, refusing to accept the ridiculous moral equivalence of the foreign policy establishment, and having no patience for even well-meaning advocates of appeasement.

The terms of the second debate have radically with Camp David and the Intifada. The middle ground on Oslo collapsed. For those who claimed Arafat would never change - the events merely affirmed their initial positions. For the cautious supporters of Oslo, Arafat's credibility was irretrievely shattered. Only a few diehards, fellow travelers of Yossi Beillen, believed that Arafat could be persuaded to end the conflict and honor a final settlement.

The third and most signficant debate is still ongoing beneath the surface of the other two. Sure, the violence against Israel has galvanized opponents of any concessions to the Palestinians, but it hasn't changed the fundamental attitudes of American Jews, any more than it has changed the underlying positions of the average Israeli. For the majority of both groups, there is deep support for significant concessions - including a Palestinian state, if they would actually bring a peace honored by the other side. Does anyone realy believe that American Reform rabbis all of a sudden have been converted to messianic Orthodoxy? Does the Sisterhood of Temple Beth Shalom all of the sudden want to stop planting trees in the Negev, and expand Netzarim? Let's get serious.

The reality is that pro-Israel moderates haven't gone anywhere. They simply agreed with hardline supporters that Israel had the right to defend itself and that Arafat was not a legitimate peace partner, period. It is not "moderate" for supporters of Israel to support appeasement to Palestinian terror, it is foolishness. Since when does moderation require supporting ones own destruction? When a legitimate Arab peace partner emerges, and the concessions for peace are on the table, the pro-Israel moderates will emerge once more a distinct voice from the hardliners and messianists. But the territories have not been the real issue in the recent conflict - Israel's right to exist has - and on that issue, a true supporter of Israel makes no compromises.

TIME FOR A NEW KNESSET

Shas with its 17 seats been uncerimoniously been booted out of the Sharon government after playing its usual games with the budget. This is the clearest evidence of the success of Operation Defensive Shield, the return of domestic politics to Israeli life. For if Shas is anything, it is a creature of Israeli domestic politics, above all the culture war that erupted as Israel dreamed of the New Middle East. (Stir in one part Sharptonesque race-baiting, two parts family values preaching, and a dash of class resentment). As the battered terrorist regroup, and the crisis of Arafat's war recedes, Israelis are once more coming out of the protective shell of national unity. The debate over the next step has begun in earnest - with Bibi's gambit in Likud Central, and the current jostling over the Labor platform.

The timing for such a debate is right. While Sharon has done an able job of holding the country together and smashing Arafat's offensive, his comments about Netzarim show that he has little long-term vision for the state. It's time for the various post-Oslo solutions to hashed out in democratic deliberation. In doing so however, Israel is saddled with a Knesset that was elected before Camp David and the Intifada, one in which 32% of the Israeli public voted for parties like Shas who focused primarily on issues other than security and foreign policy, and the two major parties fell to an all-time low of 34%. Israelis may feel comfortable enough to bicker in public once more, but they definitely aren't ready to go on with the culture war (exhibit A being the muted reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on non-Orthodox conversions). Its time for a Knesset that reflects the views of Israelis public, no matter how mixed, so that the next government can focus on the critical issues of Israel's future - and return to Shas' antics when it has the luxury of affording them.

NBA CONFERENCE FINALS "PREVIEW"
Kings v. Lakers
If there was any doubt that Shaq & Kobe were the best two players in the league before the playoffs began, its long since over. Shaq has dominated while afflicted with numerous injuries, and Kobe has owned the fourth quarter. What makes this all the more amazing is that the Lakers have accomplished this with almost no contributions beyond their top 5. However, with the way Horry, Fox and Fischer have played the past three post-seasons, do the Lakers really need a bench? Sacremento, is the ultimate constrast,
an extraordinarily deep team that is able to adjust to the loss of any one of their top players (Webber in the early part of the season, Peja in the playoffs). Unfortunately, the spectacular triumphs over the consistent in the playoffs. Were Peja healthy, this might be the Kings year. Instead, the Lakers will once more emerge as champions in the real NBA final. Lakers in 6.


Nets v. Celtics
The Nets are an easy team to underestimate, and I've done it all year. They have no go-to scorer, no dominating post presence, and yet they can score with anybody in the open court, thanks to Kidd and a bevy of finishers. They will present something completely different for the Celtics, who exposed defense-first Philly and Detroit with their three-point shooting, and smothering half-court defense. The Celtics will adjust - and in the end grab just enough offensive rebounds, and hit just enough key shots to hold off Jersey.
Celtics in 7

THE POINTLESSNESS OF THE PARTISAN 9/11 BLAME GAME

The major news event of last week was the revelation of the depth of the failure to respond to the information our intelligence services actually gathered about the 9/11 attack. It had two salutory effects - first, and most importantly, it reawoke the nation to the dangers we still face, and how insufficient our response has been so far. The second positive effect was to remove the aura of infallability that the Bush Administration had obtained on the issue of national security. It is clear that the change of admnistrations did not in any way radically improve anti-terrorism policy. The war against terror was clearly not a top priority for the Bush Administration on either the domestic or foreign fronts. That being said, the Dems are trying to use the revelations to imply that the failings of the Bush Admnistration during its first months in office supercede whatever mistakes were made by the Clinton Admnistration. This is utter nonsense, but it has been topped by the ridiculousness of the Bush Admnistration's counter-attacks on the matter. Yes, Ari Fleisher actually asked "What did the Democrats know, and why didn't they share their information?" with a straight face.

It's time to stop this partisan madness before it gets any worse. 9/11 was undoubtably a bipartisan disaster. The foolish subjugation of national security and democratic principles for economic interests was part and parcel of the foreign policies of Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger. The insufficient coordination FBI, CIA and INS information to assess and address domestic security threats was a major failure of the Clinton Admnistration that was not addressed by the Bush Administration. Given its track record with dealing with al Qaeda's attacks in the 1990s, there is absolutely no reason to believe that 9/11 would have been prevented by a continuation of Clinton policies. It is also doubtful that a Republican administration in the 1990s would have enacted the radical reforms necessary to have developed an intelligence system prepared to meet the al Qaeda threat.

There is a time and place for bipartisanship and the review of the 9/11 intelligence mishap cries out for one - its time to set up a bipartisan committee that will assess the structural flaws in our counter-terrorism policy, and then to vigorously enact the committee's recommendations.

There is also a place for partisanship here - the Bush Admnistration's post 9/11 policies can no longer be given a free ride. It is not a joke that Tom Ridge has no real power to punish beauracrats that hoard information and radically remake outdated agencies - its a disgrace. It is not nitpicking that we've merely tweaked our airport security and immigration policies - its a fundamental indictment agains the administration. Its time for the Dems to stop carping about the Bush Admnistration's pre 9/11 failures, and play their critical role of a democratic opposition by exposing and offering remedies for its post 9/11 failures.

ON THE PINE

Sorry for the Off the Pine hiatus last week. As I have now successfully moved from the Upper West Side to the East Village, and commerorated my ancestors reception of the Ten Commandments (by eating blintzes of course), Off the Pine will now return you to your regularly scheduled pontifications.

REALITY VS. DOGMA IN ISRAEL'S WAR ON TERROR AND OUR OWN

This column from Jonathan Chait takes apart one of the most deceiving and dangerous nostrums about Israel's war against terror - that Israeli military responses to Palestinian terror are ineffective in increasing Israeli security.

When intelligent people (like the Times editors) believe something so wildly wrong, it's usually because they're in the grip of a theory that helps them to ignore real-world evidence. In this case, the theory is that Palestinians resort to terrorism out of despair. The corollary to this theory is that all Israeli military action will inevitably backfire since it simply makes Palestinians more desperate and angry. For those who believe this—a group consisting of most liberal newspaper editors, the foreign policy establishment, and virtually the entire outside world­—the case against Israeli military action (such as the recent one in the West Bank) is simply an a priori truth.

The problem as Chait notes is that this theory runs smack against the historical record:

Palestinian terrorism does not result from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but from Israel's existence. Palestinian terrorism long predates the 1967 occupation; the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964, three years earlier. But hasn't the more recent phenomenon of suicide bombing come about because of long-simmering Palestinian despair? Not really. Suicide bombings started only after the 1993 Oslo Accords, which provided Palestinians with their best opportunity for a state. They intensified massively after Israel withdrew from Lebanon and offered a series of generous territorial concessions. If anything, then, history suggests that Palestinian violence results not from desperation but from hope.

Case in point, the Spring 1996 terror offernsive, which I personally experienced, which came at high point for the Olso process: Shimon Peres was prime minister, the Israeli right was discredited from the Rabin assasination, and the Israeli army had for the first time withdrawn from all West Bank cities but Hebron. Yet this period experienced far more terror than the latter stages of the obstructionist Netanyahu government.

As Chait points out, despair is not the limiting factor in determining the amount of terror. Despite the record of the United Nations, there are plenty of people on this earth far more wretched, far more abandoned than the Palestinians. Why have they not brought equivalent terror to their oppressors? Simple - because they can't.

[T]he number of suicide attacks depends upon more factors than simply the number of willing martyrs. Successful suicide bombings require plenty of other ingredients: the capacity to get past Israeli security (which necessitates training and, probably, fake identification); the ability to fashion hidden explosive devices; and the explosives themselves. Yes, some bombers use homemade ingredients, but they're far less effective than the professional-grade stuff—such as the explosives that the Palestinian Authority imported from Iran. The choke-point in the production line is almost certainly not the number of volunteers. It's the other ingredients. And it's those ingredients Israel has tried to cut off, by arresting or killing terrorist leaders, seizing bomb-making equipment, and sealing off its borders.

The Israeli experience has major implications for the American war on terror. Despair is not the sole source of global Islamic terror - the critical driving forces are it religious fundamentalism, oil wealth, and tacit and explicit state support. A vigorous American military response that targets terror leaders, deprives of them of bases of operation, funds, and eliminates state support for their organizations has and will continue to put a dent into Islamist terror. Of course as long as there are angry religious fanatics with access to explosives, such terror can not be eliminated - but it can be reduced and contained.

This is not to say that the demand side of the question is not important - we need to reduce the misery that breeds support for terror. However, the supply side can be dealt with immediately and should. Just as Israel could not allow the infrastructure of Palestinian terror to remain, we can ill afford to leave the infrastructure of global Islamist terror in place while we wait to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Finally, the favorite solution of the despair theorists - appeasement - will not lead to a reduction in the demand for terror. Appeasing Hamas or Arafat will not create a thriving Palestinian economy and polity. Nor will appeasing Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the mullahs of Iran and the Saudis create a thriving, free Islamic world. Until then, there will be despair - and those who will seek to exploit it. They can not be negotiated with, or appeased - they must be defeated.

WHY IS JIMMY CARTER IN CUBA WHEN WE NEED HIM IN NEWARK?

If you picked up your New York Times this weekend, you would have seen a headline discussing the dispatchment of federal observers to ensure the fairness of elections in yet another poverty-stricken locale. A second glance revealed the locale to not some far-off Third World Nation, but Newark, NJ. The reason - councilman Cory Booker's audacious effort to challenge the urban potentate of long-time mayor Sharpe James. Threatened by the young, charismatic challenger, James responded by playing dirty - claiming Booker wasn't a "real Black," was a tool of Republican, Jews, the Klan - all because of his Ivy-League pedigree and his willingness to build coalitions across racial boundaries. Well, the reports in from Newark so far indicate that sending in federal observers was precisely the right thing to do, the James Gang has pulled out all the stops so far to ensure voters in Newark make the "right" choice. Here's hoping enough of them make the right choice for Cory Booker to win - as things look now, that may have to be quite more than 50% of those who planned to vote in today's election.

UPDATE: We'll have to wait at least four more years for a clean Newark - James won a 5th term by 3,000 votes (6%). Of course let's be honest - the ambitious Booker may be eyeing another step towards his political destiny by then.

TAP'S POST-COLONIALIST BURDEN

While Ariel Sharon is merely annoyed by Bibi's latest indulgence of his demagogic side, it has completely unnerved the American Prospect. Today's TAPped responds to the Likud resolution with the claim that "no one in this country can ignore any longer that the Israeli hard right stands for colonialism, plain and simple." It's not so plain, and its not so simple.

First, the resolution merely opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, it did not support the permanent annexation of the territories. Transferring the territories back to Jordan and Egypt -placing Arabs under Arab rule, is clearly not advocacy of colonialism. Second, the real Israeli hard right, to the right of the Likud have an agenda that should meet with opposition from Americans, but it is not colonialism. The Israel hard right does not wish to rule the Palestinians in the West Bank, it wants to expel them. Justified? Of course not. Forced transfer is forced transfer and it is no more justified in the Jewish sacred ground of Judea and Samaria than it was in the Serb sacred ground of Kosovo. Still, clarity is required - opposing Israeli hawks will no more atone for the sins of European colonialism than opposing the creation of Greater Serbia did.

Which brings us back to the not-so-clever title. It implies first and foremost that what is going on in Israel is a racial conflict - the domination of native, brown peoples by colonial whites. If TAP can't understand that, perhaps they should send a reporter to the premiere of Attack of the Clones so Natalie Portman can explain it to them. There is a deeper problem to the throwaway line, one that gets at the heart of how the Left's obsession with race gets in the way of a truly progressive foreign policy. For there to be peace for the Palestinians and all Arabs in the Middle East, the United States and the West has to seriously engage in nation-building. Critics will call such efforts neo-colonial, and invoke the tired refrain of "white man's burden," of Americans "imposing" their values onto "brown" people. But if America's own experience tells us anything, the rule of law, freedom of expression and democracy is desired and enjoyed equally by people of all races. It's time to drop the shackles of post-colonial guilt, built off our advances in racial and gender equality and take up the Free Human's Burden - to export liberty to all.

NBA SEMIS UPDATE

Kings 3: Thought they were soft? Thought wrong. Soft teams don't win in overtime with their top three players out. Bibby so far in the series - 21.5 points, with a 3.11 assist-to-turnover ratio. Put White Chocolate in his place, and its 3-1 Mavs.
Mavs 1: They look a year away - elite teams don't fade away in crunchtime.

Lakers 3: Shaq's hobbling, Kobe's hobbling - they seem to spot the Spurs a double-diget lead in each game...and they're about to put them away one more time.
Spurs 1: I haven't seen a collapse as bad as their Game 4 flame-out since...the Blazers two years ago. The biggest reason why it's been closer this year - the additional of Tony Parker. Why it hasn't mattered down the stretch - counting on a 19-year old rookie as the only support for your tripled-teamed star doesn't win many playoff games.

Nets 3: He may not be the best player in the league, but no one gets more out of his teammates than Jason Kidd. (Whistle blows - OTP has committed a overused sportscaster cliche foul)
Hornets 1: Without Mashburn, they're no more talented than New Jersey - and its no question which team has more heart. Maybe Cajun cooking will make next year's Bees a more inspired crew.

Celtics 3: For all the finger-pointing going on in Sixer-land, its becoming apparent that the team they lost to is the East's best. There are moments when Antoine Walker looks practically unguardable, and Pierce is a killer in the clutch. The prospect of a Celtics-Lakers final, frightens me. Who exactly am I supposed to root for? In the meantime, I'm hoping Jason Kidd and Chris Webber can spare me such a fate.
Pistons 1: Ben Wallace can do a lot of things - but he can not take over on the offensive end at crunchtime. This one should be over soon.

RETURN OF THE BAD BIBI

This past month has seen Bibi at his best - eloquently defending Israel's right to defend itself, taking apart Palestinian propaganda, placing the interests of Israel over his own ambitions. Well, no sooner had Operation Defensive Shield ended the siege of terror that Arafat had placed on Israel's cities, the bad Bibi was back in force. Yesterday, Bibi and his friends in Likud Central pushed through a resolution, to describe it State Departmentese, that was most definitely "not helpful." Such a resolution does nothing to actually prevent the creation of a hostile Palestinian state, or encourage reform towards a peaceful one - its sole accomplishment is to score Bibi some hawk points with his base. While Bibi reaps domestic political gains, Israel pays a P.R. price. Such a resolution takes the attention of the world off the content of the Palestinian government (its support for terror, corruption, etc.) and back into symbolic questions of the form of Palestinian self-rule. Even the political gain Bibi forsees for himself and his party (currently at a three-decade low of 19 seats in the 120-seat Knesset) may not amount to much. If you read the pulse of the Israeli public, they will not support ideologues from either side, but are looking for a leader willing to stand firm against Palestinian terror, but keep all diplomatic options open should a chance for peace arise. So far Sharon is proving a better option than Bibi. That is something few Israelis could have imagined just five short years ago.

THE POLITICAL LESSONS OF EPISODE II

Even with just the barest of plot points revealed, it is already obvious who the villians are in Episode II.

First, there are the greedy large corporate entities that place profits over the needs of the Republic

The Commerce Guild represents large commercial enterprises throughout the galaxy. During the events leading to the Clone Wars, the Commerce Guild joined the Confederacy of Independent Systems.

The Corporate Alliance represents the huge business corporations within the galaxy. The Corporate Alliance sided with the Trade Federation during the events surrounding the invasion of Naboo; unhappy with the results the tax to outlying star systems would impose on the profits generated by the Alliance. The Corporate Alliance eventually joined the Confederacy of Independent Systems.

The Inter Galactic Bank Clan represented thousands of banks throughout the galaxy and amassed vast amounts of wealth from investments. During the events leading to the Clone Wars, the Inter Galactic Bank Clan funded the production of millions of Battle Droids for the Confederacy of Independent Systems. Funds from the production of the Battle Droids were unknowingly sent to the mining planet of Kamino for the production of millions of clone warriors on behalf of the Republic.

The Techno Union played a huge part in splitting the Republic. The Techno Union was behind the vast array of armies made for the Trade Federation for the invasion of Naboo under the watchful eye of Archduke Poggle the Lesser. They continued to supply droids in the Battle of Geonosis and helped develop the Super Battle Droid and Droidekas. Through the Techno Union, Master Sido-Dyas was aquainted with President Lama Su of Kamino. The Techno Union unknowingly helped secretly create millions of clone troopers for the Republic.

The Mining Guild became embroiled in the events leading to the Clone Wars when disgruntled Bogden Moon spice miners were seen to be behind the attacks on Senator Amidala of the Naboo. During the rule of the Empire, Darth Vader used the Mining Guild’s influence to get Lando Calrissian to hand over members of the Rebel Alliance on Cloud City, Bespin.

Of course, joing these captains of industry is are religious fundamentalists bent on dominating the Galaxy.

An ancient order of Force-practitioners devoted to the dark side and determined to destroy the Jedi, the Sith were a menace long thought extinct. The current incarnation of the Sith is the result of a rogue Jedi dissident from the order. Two thousand years ago, this Jedi had come to the understanding that the true power of the Force lay not through contemplation and passivity. Only by tapping its dark side could its true potential be gained. The Jedi Council at the time balked at this new direction. The Dark Jedi was outcast, but he eventually gained followers to his new order. Awakening beliefs from the dark past, the new Sith cult continued to grow.

Large corporate interestes allied with religious fanatics - it seems pretty clear from the Stars Wars Universe which of our political parties is on the Dark Side. The Dems need not spend any money on coming up with campaign ads for the 2002 campaign - George Lucas has done their work for them. Imagine the following images spliced together, Enron execs with leaders of the Trade Federation, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson with Darth Sidious and Count Dooku, and Republican Congressman with obstructionist Galactic Senators. All with the tones of the Emperor's March rumbling ominously underneath. Then close with shots of Senator Amidala, Obiwan Kenobi, Yoda and the Democratic candidate, set to the opening score. May the Force be with them as they try to regain the House.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY OF MIDEAST PUNDITRY

The Good: Warren Bass v. the Wall
In the best of the three pieces, the Council of Foreign Relations Warren Bass attacks the idea of a West Bank wall as a silver bullet for peace and security.

Third, the security impact of a fence depends on where it is built. Tellingly, nobody has yet offered a map. Barak has vaguely proposed a fence running close to the borders he futilely offered Arafat at Camp David—a curling wall far longer than the 190-mile Green Line, swooping in to annex settlements in Gush Etzion, Ariel, and other places relatively close to Israel proper. But Likud has deliberately plunked other settlements close to Palestinian population centers to foreclose any future Israeli withdrawal. These settlements are filled not with middle-class, center-right Israelis lured across the Green Line by tax breaks and cheap mortgages—the profile of most of the 200,000 settlers—but by ideologues, messianists, and haters.

Leaving 50,000 hard-core settlers on far-flung hilltops while Israel proper barricades itself is a security problem from hell. With a wall, "every settler who wants to do their shopping will have to be accompanied by a squad of soldiers," says Gal Luft, a former IDF lieutenant colonel who has held commands in Gaza and Ramallah. Instead of stopping Palestinian terrorism, a wall might just rechannel it against the settlements—putting Israel in the excruciating position of either pummeling the Palestinians to get them to stop attacking settlements Israel knows it can't keep or abandoning the settlements and reinforcing the lesson that terror can win territory.

And that, ultimately, is the biggest reason to worry about the enthusiasm for a fence: It reinforces unilateralism and helps defer indefinitely the only possible solution—negotiated partition—that has any reasonable chance of bringing peace. Unilateral disengagement by Israel would replace the land-for-peace premise of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 with land-for-violence; gut the long-standing Israeli insistence that negotiations are the lone legitimate way to resolve Arab-Israeli tensions; encourage Palestinian militance; reinforce Hezbollah's crowing insistence that force works and talks don't; and make Jerusalem and the rest of the new frontier into a new front line.

While I agree with Bass that merely building a wall will not give Israel the peace and security it craves, I disagree with his position that such an action will actually get in the way of a peaceful resolution. First, Bass' proposed alternative, negotiated partition is impossible at the present moment. There simply is not a viable Palestinian peace partner. Second, more than anything else it will create momentum towards the creation of a border. It may not be the border the Palestinians desire (if it really is the 1967 borders they crave), but it will clearly demarcate lands Israel intends to annex, and lands Israel intends to turn over to a Palestinian state. Third, it will increase the likelihood of an evacuation of the isolated settlements. Once the suburban settlements have been incorporated into Israel proper, there will be little popular support to waste time, money and manpower on the defense of ideological extremist. Fourth, in the case that the isolated settlements are evacuated unilaterally, it is unclear that this will permanently strengthen the militants. The carrot of statehood would be realer than ever for Palestinian moderates, and the cost higher than ever for Palestinian militancy.

Still, Bass' piece points out that without economic and political development for the Palestinians, a true peace is impossible. Good fences may help to make good neighbors, but so does both houses having running water, electricity and enough cash to pay the gardener.

The Bad: Robert Wright v. Sharon's View of Arafat
As good as Bass' piece is, Robert Wright's latest contribution is bad. Once more it shows off his penchant for abstract logic, and his complete lack of depth in the messy details of the conflict.

For years, during waves of Palestinian terrorism, the question has been the same: Is Arafat unable to control terrorism or just unwilling? Sharon and other hawks have said he was unwilling, while many doves said he was unable.

Both positions have always lacked coherence. Doves called on Israel to negotiate with Arafat. Yet if Arafat is indeed powerless to stop terrorism, as they've claimed, what's the point of negotiating with him? Hawks said that, since Arafat was behind the terrorism, he could never be a "partner for peace." But what would be the point of cutting a deal with somebody who wasn't in a position to turn the terrorism off? The evidence Sharon says he now has in hand is, perversely, evidence that Arafat is a man worth doing business with

While Wright suceeds in demolishing the dovish position - and its more nuanced version (the more power you give Arafat a state, the more ability he will have to crack down on terror), he trips over himself trying to dismiss the core of the hawkish position - that Arafat never has and never will desire to crack down on terror.

Granting that Arafat is by their own analysis the man who could end the terror, they've insisted that he'd never want to end Israel's suffering; he didn't favor a two-state solution, as he claimed, but was secretly bent on Israel's destruction. A key piece of supporting evidence—Arafat's rejection of Israel's offer at Camp David in the summer of 2000—has been widely accepted. But, as I've argued in these pages, this evidence just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Though we can't be sure Arafat wants a two-state deal, he has yet to be offered a deal so good that his reaction would settle the question.

As I've argued in the past, Wright's Camp David revisionism is what doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Second, it takes the most complex of contortions to fit Arafat's reaction to Camp David with that of a man who wanted to negotiate a two-state solution but was simply offered less than what he desired. Of course, Arafat's intent is even clearer when one takes in the full pattern of his post-Oslo behavior. Once more, Wright wishes to ignore the facts that get in the way of the elegance of his point.

Nor can you infer from any Arafat involvement in recent terrorism that he can't ever be trusted to carry out a deal. Obviously, terrorism violates the Oslo accords. But those accords, signed in 1993, have been effectively dead for awhile now. You could have a long argument about which side is more responsible for the unraveling of trust that spelled Oslo's doom.

I suppose if you gave equal credibility to Israeli and Palestinian claims. The facts present a far less murky picture.

Israeli violations of Oslo: Missing deadlines for the phased withdrawls in retalition for Palestinian noncompliance. Incursion into Palestinian Area A (Post-2000) in response to Palestinian terror. The expansion of settlements, while violating the spirit of Oslo, did ot violate the terms of the agreement.

Palestinian violations of Oslo: Violating the limits on the size and armament of the Palestinian police force. Incitement against Israel in state educational system and media. Permitting the existence of non-govermental armed forces and terror organizations. Failure to extradite wanted terrorists. Subsidization of terror attacks. Direct involvement in terror attacks (Post-2000).

The logical conclusion from Arafat's actions pre, during and post the Oslo process is that he never gave up his desire to destroy Israel, and merely used negotiations as a tool to advance his agenda. Wright paints a different picture.

Might it turn out that, even years ago, Arafat was tacitly abetting terrorism? Wouldn't shock me—and he certainly wasn't taking huge political risks to shut it down. But to take that as a sign of some ideological, immutable drive to undermine Israel is to give Arafat more credit for vision than he deserves. I read him as someone who will do anything to stay in power and has very short time horizons; with Palestinians growing more radical, he has embraced or at least tolerated terrorism as a way of maintaining street cred, heedless of the long-term consequences.

Yes, Arafat loves to keep his opinions open, he is a chameleon, a survivor - but to say that he has no vision for a Palestinian state is simply nonsense. The clincher here is how he used the levers of state education and media. Only a naiive man believes Arafat merely was led by the Palestinian street - he very much led it, preparing them daily for war against Israel.

Finally, Wright concludes that since Arafat is 1) behind the terror, 2) capable of stopping it, and 3) a pragmatist who puts his own power over any ideological concerns, Israel should therefore: offer him a state. Huh? Look, even if I bought 2 and 3, Wright's conclusion is a nonsensical leap of faith. Given 1,2, and 3, the appropriate approach requires not just a carrot but a stick. Stop terror: get a state. Abet terror, commit terror: be replaced. Which is exactly what Israel and U.S. should do once they find a true pragmatist to take Arafat's place.

The Ugly: John Derbyshire v. Compassion

And from the National Review, we get this harsh piece on why Derbyshire could care less about the Palestinians.

This piece is ugly in two ways - first it hits some of the ugly truths about the Arab World

Everywhere you look around the Arab world you see squalor, despotism, cruelty, and hopelessness. The best they have been able to manage, politically speaking, has been the Latin-American style one-party kleptocracies of Egypt and Jordan. Those are the peaks of Arab political achievement under independence, under government by their own people. The norm is just gangsterism, with thugs like Assad, Qaddafi, or Saddam in charge. It doesn't seem to be anything to do with religion: the secular states (Iraq, Syria) are just as horrible as the religious ones like Saudi Arabia. These people are hopeless. We are all supposed to support the notion of a Palestinian state. Why? We know perfectly well what it would be like. Why should we wish for another gangster-satrapy to be added to the Arab roll of shame, busy manufacturing terrorists to come here and slaughter Americans in their offices? I don't want to see a Palestinian state. I think I'd be crazy to want that.

Taking the counterfactual of no Zionist movement, things would be far worse for the Jews, but how much better would they really be for the Palestinians? OK, so far ugly, but true. Here's where he goes past political incorrectness towards a far uglier stance: supporting the morally bankrupt position of expelling the Palestinians.

When I say "the best option," I don't mean "best for the Palestinians". I don't think they have any good options. Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens. Their options are the ones I listed above: to be ruled by gangsters, or Israelis, or Jordanians, or welfare bureaucrats. Or to go live somewhere else, under the gentle rule of their brother Arabs. Would expulsion be hard on the Palestinians? I suppose it would. Would it be any harder than options 1 thru 4? I doubt it. Do I really give a flying falafel one way or the other? No, not really.

First and foremost, the idea that "Arab are incapable of constructing a rational polity" is racist. The same sentiments were said abou the Japanese during World War II. Given the right contex, Arabs are just as capable of creating a functioning democracy. After all, their polities were far more rational in the Middle Ages than the barbarism of Christian Europe. What is needed is for the United States to truly commit to democratization in that troubled corner of the world.

Finally, the Palestinian's conquerors are Jews. Their fate is interlocked with ours. While the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians might deserve only a footnote in history's injustices, it would be by far the largest stain on our record. As Jews, we are prohibited from dehumanizing even our enemies. For us to do to the Palestinians what has been done to us so many times in history will show that we have learned nothing from our painful travels. No, it very much does matter how this conflict is resolved - all the options are not morally equivalent. And it very much does matter that it end with a dignified existence for the Palestinians.

BACK TO FUTURE: GAZA FIRST ONE MORE TIME

This interesting Ha'aretz analysis offers a path out of the current mess. With the PA largely destroyed in the West Bank and largely intact in Gaza, it suggests a back to the future approach, rebuilding the PA Gaza first, this time doing it right - monitoring funds, restricting arms, and neutralizing Arafat.

The joint product is a platform for a new, rehabilitated Palestinian Authority, a Gaza first approach, model 2002. It returns the Palestinians back to eight years ago, to the first week of May 1994, when Arafat and his forces arrived in Gaza (and Jericho).

Israel now wants to stop the clock at that critical moment, the big bang of Oslo, and take back security control over the territories. The civil administration will remain in the hands of the Palestinians - but with foreign supervision, by the donor countries and Egypt and Jordan.

The security infrastructure in the territories was tainted by terrorism, and since the civil infrastructure was part of the security structure, both were damaged during Operation Defensive Shield. Enlisting outside help, with Israeli help, to rehabilitate the civil administration will create an opportunity to build a much
less threatening society.

The two important levers for shaping the Palestinian community, just as in relations between Jerusalem and Washington, are money and arms. The defense establishment assumes that consistent, ongoing action to undermine violent forces in the West Bank and Gaza, denying them the arms they used for intimidation, will bring back powerful financial and political forces who during the Oslo years withdrew in the face of the militias. Without weapons, the thugs will resort to their natural dimensions.

The economic aid to the Palestinians will go directly to the development and welfare projects without dripping into the sands of Gaza through the corrupt institutional pipes. The donors will no longer just hope for the best without effective supervision of their funds.

SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR IN PHILLY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLEN IVERSON

For all the good unions do, they often stand in the way of intelligent urban policy. Unions are so powerful in urban politics, that the balance of power, often tilted radically against labor elsewhere, is skewed the other direction - bloating city budgets and providing residents with insufficient city services. Ed Rendell may be pillored by Bob Casey, Jr. for "union-bashing," but had he backed down to the demands of municipal unions, Philadelphia would never have escaped from insolvency. It now appears that the power of construction unions in Philadelphia are severely hampering redevelopment of the parts of the city left barren from the city's industrial decline. The Inquirer proposes a set of policies to ease the problem. For anyone who thinks I'm being too harsh on Philly's unions, I invite them to take in the wasteland that stretches north of Center City the next time they ride the train between New York and Washington.

FINALLY, AN AMERICAN POSITION THAT GIVES PEACE A CHANCE

If this is true common sense may have finally gotten the upper hand in the Bush Administration internal divide on Middle East policy. For the first time since Oslo, the U.S. is proposing to put the interests of the Palestinian people over those of Yasser Arafat.

Sources in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's entourage to Washington said Wednesday that U.S. President George Bush has agreed that peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians must wait until internal reforms within the PA have brought about a governing body that "would be headed by a different person or different people" than the current leader, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

"It was clear that the chief [Arafat] must be moved to a different role within the PA, customarily to a symbolic position and the administrative responsibilities would be transferred to others," the sources said.

Sharon, who will convene his cabinet Wednesday night to dicuss a response to Tuesday night's suicide bombing in Rishon Letzion that killed 15 people, will not present a proposal to expel Arafat.

Instead, he is expected to adopt the American plan calling for structural changes that would lead to Arafat's removal from power. According to the sources, Bush and his advisors have proposed the establishment of a temporary government within the PA until a constitution is drawn up and elections are held.

The sources said that Bush also agreed that Israel would not hold talks with the PA until it has completed its internal reforms. The president did demand, however, that once the reforms have been carried out, the two sides must hold talks that would eventually lead to a final settlement.

American officials estimate that moderate Arab nations will support the U.S. proposal, but that Israel would have to sit on the sidelines and not get involved in order for the proposal to fully succeed.

The Americans understand that without these structural changes "there is no one to talk to within the PA and it is a waste of effort," the sources said.

Unfortunately, the estimation of "moderate" Arab support for this approach is most likely too optomistic. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are far more comfortable with another Arab thugocracy than the establishment of a functioning Arab democracy. They will resist, as will the EU, any efforts to replace Arafat. Will the Bush Administration have the courage to push forward with this bold iniative despite constant carping from Arabists in the State Department. In a deeper way, will such a move signal a willingness of
Bush to finally break American foreign policy away from its addiction to strongmen, and invest far more in building democratic institutions.

THE DIVESTMENT MADNESS SPREADS TO CAMBRIDGE

In the end, it was inevitable. After originating at the incubator of all foolish left-wing ideas, Berkeley, and rudely intruding upon the bucolic academic haven of Princeton, the divestment from Israel campaign has reached The World's Greatest University as well as the unstable technological wizards of MIT. Among the Harvard signatories there includes my former House Master, Paul Hanson, who in this case is exemplifying all the foibles of well-intentioned left-wing Chrsitian thought. It is not a surprise, that the leader of the charge at MIT is none other than the world's leading self-hating Jew, linguist Noam Chomsky. (There is no truth to the rumor that Political Science Professor Samuel Huntingdon has launched a counter-campaign to resist creeping Islamization of English syntax). The leader of the campaign is none other than Harvard Law's foremost advocate of racialist propaganda, Faisal Chaudry, who evidently needs another a verbal slap-down from Senator Amidala. My prediction is that this will not the merry band of Israel-bashers will not go far. They have inadvertantly awakened the sleeping giant of Harvard Hillel. They will be more than matched in passion, numbers and rhetorical skill - and on a campus where critical thinking is still very much alive - the lies surrounding the divestment campaign will be thoroughly exposed and refuted.

QUASI-DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Of course, while America might be a model of individual liberty, it might not be the best exemplar of democracy. Here's the highlight of a magnificent editorial by Paul Krugman:

But what's really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it's the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes.
The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

There's no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it's a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations — mainly, though not entirely, red states — disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

In case you were wondering what "Blue America" could do with all the money lining the pockets of agri-business - how about ensuring modern school buildings and supplies for urban children - you know all the black and brown ones W. loves to pose with?

OVERTHINKING TERRORISM

Nicholas Kristof has in his short time as a Times columnist mastered the art of overthinking the most important foreign policy issues of our day. First, he dug past the roots of Arab rage. Now, with an assist from The Greatest University in the World's K-School, he goes behind, past and right by the root causes of terrorism. Kristof's straw-man is the notion that "poverty and illiteracy" are the root causes of terrorism. Why, he asks, then, do most terrorists seem to come from the more educated strata of their societies? The answer according to Nick and friends is that the root causes of terrorism are humiliation and American foreign policy.

The logical conclusion to such reasoning is that the solution to terrorism is appeasing terrorists. Thus, Israel needs to stop humiliating Palestinians by defending itself, or better yet existing. America must stop humiliating the Arab world by having a prosperous democracy, and worse yet, flaunting its prosperity and power. Not to mess this wonderful theory with historical fact, but wasn't humiliation the root cause of Nazi terror? Well, at least Neville Chaimberlain would endorse Kristof's analysis.

Kristof managed to stumble across one of the root sources of terror when he mentioned economic isolation - the fact that terror-supporting regimes trade in oil, arms and not much else. He missed the point by supporting WTO expansion. The problem is the isolation - cultural, political, philosophical of these regimes from the Western world. Trade is not a panacea, but it will help to chip away at that isolation.

There was one word, however, desperately missing from his column - Democracy. The common link in all of these terror states is a complete lack of liberal, democratic freedoms. Terror, alas, can not be solved by materialistic means alone (although failed states DO facilitate terror). It is fundamentally an ideological disease, and it must be fought with ideological means. Tyranny, not poverty, or even illiteracy is what causes the humiliation that terrorists rage against. This rage is vented against an external foe - usually those more free and prosperous - but its root is the internal rot of the terrorist's own society.

Thus, the only effective solution to Islamic terror is the democratization and liberalization of the Arab world. Regimes that stand in the way of this progress need to be uprooted. The fact that this is a hard, difficult task doesn't make it a less obvious one. It's time for the K-school to stop pontificating about the causes of terror, and start brainstorming ways to begin work on the only solution.

OUR INTREPID INTERNATIONAL MEDIA IS ON THE SCENE

I know that after a tragedy like this, the last thing I should do is nitpick the foreign press - so lets call my bad taste a coping mechanism.

Here's the name of the club according to the A.P. wire report

Part of the ceiling on the top floor collapsed. A sign read "Sheffield Club, snooker, cafeteria." A shop called Baby World occupied the ground floor.

and here it is from Ha'aretz

At least 16 people were killed and 45 people injured when a suicide bomber blew up around 11:00 P.M on Tuesday night at the "Shpiel Club" pool hall on Sakharov Street in Rishon Letzion, in the town's new industrial zone.

If you see the Ha'aretz link, its obvious what happened - the reporter tried to phonetically sound out the Hebrew sign (Shin-Fey/Pey-Yod-Lamed), as opposed to recognizing a common word, borrowed from Yiddish. Were this massacre to have occurred at a Sheffield Club (which is probably somewhere in London), it would have been no less tragic, but properly condemned, and retalition supported by the international press. Alas, it occurred in a Jewish billiards hall, and no doubt the NY Times is already cutting and pasting its most famous editorial line "nonetheless, any military retaliation from Mr. Sharon would not be helpful to moving past the current cycle of violence." It may be a cheap shot, but if the international media can't even get the name of the attack site right, why on earth do they think they have some special insight into what is an appropriate response to such evil.