McCain Campaign: Sarah Palin Did Not Endorse Hamas

Michael Goldfarb of the McCain campaign writes in to say that I libeled Sarah Palin in my previous post:
 

Governor Palin did no such thing, and your title is nothing short of slander. Having read your work for some time I doubt that you believe Hamas qualifies as "those who seek democracy." That you would put those words in Governor Palin's mouth is libel.

Umm, Michael, the title was a joke, designed to make the point that Sarah Palin knows so little about the Middle East that she accidentally "endorsed" Hamas. It's hard to tell, of course, because her answer made no sense. As to Goldfarb's second point, I actually believe that Hamas does "seek democracy," but for its own ends. Unlike al Qaeda, Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations do participate in the political process, in order to take control of their countries. Whether they would give up power after losing a free and fair election is another question. I could go on, but it's time to sign off for a bit. As they say in the Beka'a Valley, L'Shana Tovah Tikatevu.

Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas

How can it be that some people still pretend that Sarah Palin is suited for high office? This country has never seen someone so comprehensively unprepared for the vice presidency; Dan Quayle was Metternich by comparison. I've watched Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric three times, and my astonishment does not diminish. Her nonsensical answer about Russia has deservedly been highlighted, but let me focus on another question, this one concerning the export of democracy. Couric asked, "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
 
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."

The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day. Freshman congressmen know how to answer this question. Here's one possible Republican response:

"Yes, Katie, it's true that if you push for democracy, sometimes you get an outcome that you don't want. This happened in Gaza with Hamas, and I think the Bush Administration was as surprised as everyone else. So the lesson here is that you have be careful when you try to export democracy. But I still believe that, over the long-term, democracy is the best antidote to terrorism that we have. What we have to do, though, is know when to push, and know when not to push. And every day, we have to do the hard work of advocating for press freedom, and the rule of law, and for all those things that build a civil society."

See? Not that hard. Unless you don't:

a)    Know what happened in Gaza;
b)    Know where Gaza is;
c)    Know who rules Gaza today;
d)    Care.

 I want to wait and see Palin on Thursday night in her debate with Joe Biden; perhaps her performance in the Couric interview was abnormally bad. But I have a terrible feeling that John McCain has placed this country - and, of lesser importance, his campaign - in an untenable position.

Tom Segev: Ignore Anti-Semites in Order to Make Peace

Tom Segev, the post-Zionist Israeli author, has stringent standards for what makes a good Middle East book: Above all, it has to be helpful to the "peace process." Its truth, or falsehood, is not quite so important, Segev suggests in his review in yesterday's NYTBR of Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam, by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann. The Mufti in question, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a notorious anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, and his legacy can be seen today in pockets of Palestinian thought.  The Mufti, Segev acknowledges, was a committed Nazi sympathizer: "In addition to meeting with Hitler, he sat down with Adolf Eichmann and sabotaged a plan to transfer Jewish children from Eastern Europe to Palestine."

This, Segev notes, "was wrong and shameful." Yes, quite.  No matter, though: Excessive emphasis on the Mufti today may subvert peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis. "The suggestion that Israel's enemies are Nazis, or the Nazis' heirs, is apt to discourage any fair compromise with the Palestinians, and that is bad for Israel," Segev argues. This might be true, but it is also no reason to avoid unpleasant subjects. Segev compares the Mufti's behavior to that of Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister of Israel who was once a terrorist with the Stern Gang, and he criticizes the authors for neglecting to mention Jewish extremism in the time of the Mufti. I'm not sure why a book about pro-Nazi sympathies among certain Arabs need include this (and there are plenty of books about Jewish terrorism already). Let's say that Segev is right, though, on the historical merits. Nevertheless, wouldn't a reminder of Israel's "extremist" past undermine peace talks today? Or is it only Arab extremism that should be ignored?

No Goldbergs In Hockey

Alert reader Kevin Stevens writes:

I was unable to find Jeffrey Goldbergs in the following fields, leaving them free for pioneering Jews to plant their flag.

Hockey
Curling
Electrical Contracting (though there is a electrical engineer in Boston named Jeff Goldberg)
Hip Hop
Disc Jockey

Goldberg Answers All Your Mortgage Questions

Not this Goldberg, however. I've gotten a couple of e-mails in recent days asking me for advice about mortgages and bankruptcy law, and it took a little while before I realized that they were meant to be directed to Jeffrey Goldberg, an attorney in Albuquerque. Perhaps, though, they were meant to be sent to Chicago lawyer Jeffrey Goldberg, though he practices mainly personal injury law. In New York, I would recommend as an attorney Jeffrey Goldberg. In San Antonio, please call Jeffrey Goldberg. He also services Corpus Christi, Laredo and Brownsville. If you need a trial lawyer in Los Angeles, might I suggest Jeffrey Goldberg?

By the way, this Jeffrey Goldberg: Definitely not me.

Jeffrey Goldbergs can also take care of your medical needs. If you happen to be in Suwanee, Georgia and need your thyroid removed, call Jeffrey Goldberg. If you're looking for an oral surgeon in or about Syosset, Long Island, try Jeffrey Goldberg. If your oral surgery has caused you to be depressed, Jeffrey Goldberg, Long Island psychiatrist, might be able to help. In Cleveland and giving birth? Give Jeffrey Goldberg a ring. 

I have a strong feeling these are not the only Jeffrey Goldbergs in law and medicine. If you happen to know of any other Jeffrey Goldbergs, particularly anyone in a non-Jewish field (say, gastroenterology, or the violin) please send them my way. And on behalf of Jeffrey Goldbergs everywhere, Happy New Year.
 

News That Makes an Israeli Strike on Iran More Likely

Russia forces the collapse of sanctions, Yossi Melman says. 

What is the McCain Camp Hiding?

If Sarah Palin becomes vice president, she will presumably have meetings with people who are scarier than Michael Cooper, the Times reporter who seems to have the misfortune of covering her today. I know Michael Cooper; he's a good reporter, but not very mean at all. So why would the McCain campaign want to keep him -- and other print reporters -- from watching Sarah Palin shake hands with Hamid Karzai, who is also, by the way, a very nice person? What will happen, God forbid, if Sarah Palin is forced into a position where she will have to meet someone who is not so nice? Such as, say, the prime minister of Spain?

The Steve Coll Interview: An al-Qaeda October Surprise?

When you want cogent thinking about terrorism, you go to Steve Coll. Which is what I did this morning:

Jeffrey Goldberg: Do you think al-Qaeda is planning an "October surprise," an attack on an American target, here or overseas, in order to influence the election?

Steve Coll: AQ leaders, maybe because they spend a lot of time trapped and bored in safehouses, seem to be obsessed with calendars. They like anniversaries and they pay attention to elections abroad. So I'm sure they have the American election in mind. My last well-sourced conversation is a few weeks dated, but last I checked the US intel system was very quiet in terms of "chatter" or other indicators of any attack in the U.S. What seems more likely are more attacks against US-affiliated targets in the Pak-Afghan region, coupled with media tape releases, similar to Osama's election-eve video of 2004. They like to be heard at big moments in American politics, and this campaign is certainly such a moment.

JG: What do you think the next President's first Pakistan-related crisis will be? Will it be prompted by intelligence suggesting that Pakistan's nuclear program is no longer secure, or will it be the need to put ground troops into the tribal areas? Or something else entirely

SC: The big in-box item is going to be fixing Pak-Afghan strategy comprehensively. What to do about the tribal areas will be at the heart of that. Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs will present the next president with some sort of plan, but exactly what it will be, and how radical a departure from current policy it will represent, I'm not sure. More troops, more politics, more jobs for angry young tribal men - something along those lines.

JG: Would a "surge" in Afghanistan work? How many troops would it take to secure the country?

SC: I really don't know. US ground troops, as in Iraq, can at best buy time, create some breathing space to get a larger and more capable Afghan force fighting effectively. That effort so far has been hobbled by under-investment. It is not as constrained by sectarian problems as the Iraq project has been, but it isn't easy. The troop number question is embedded in the training-of-capable-Afghans question.

JG: Is Yemen drifting into the camp of America's adversaries?

SC: Yemen is such a strange country - I'm not sure that it will ever find its way into anybody's camp. Chew and discuss.

JG: I stopped staying at the Marriott in Islamabad several years ago, thinking it was a bomb-magnet. Had the thought occurred to you as well?

SC: I have a blog post going up on Pakistan today, in theory at least, which contains a little elegy for the Marriott nee Holiday Inn, my onetime home away from home. I cut down on staying there recently for the same reason, but nostalgia drew me back sometimes. I asked for rooms facing the back, figuring the truck bomb would arrive out front - as it happened, that wouldn't have done much good.

Holbrooke and Co. Lay Down Some Iran Markers

From the Journal:

Tehran claims that it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy uses. These claims exceed the boundaries of credibility and science. Iran's enrichment program is far larger than reasonably necessary for an energy program. In past inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, U.N. inspectors found rare elements that only have utility in nuclear weapons and not in a peaceful nuclear energy program. Iran's persistent rejection of offers from outside energy suppliers or private bidders to supply it with nuclear fuel suggests it has a motive other than energy in developing its nuclear program. Tehran's continual refusal to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about this troublesome part of its nuclear program suggests that it has something to hide.

A Dissent on Scowcroft and Containment

Tamara Wittes writes in to say that I misunderstand Brent Scowcroft when he argues that the Iraq invasion was avoidable because Saddam Hussein was sufficiently contained in 2003. It's a smart letter, though she doesn't contend with Parmenides' Fallacy, and she buttresses her argument by contending that Scowcroft's view is "an understanding shared (at the time and still today) by many in the foreign policy community." This is an excellent reason, of course, not to share such an understanding. Anyway, here's her argument (and to answer her final question, down below, "no, I'm not convinced"): 

I think you may be misreading Scowcroft on Iraq; let me suggest an alternative way of understanding his view, an understanding shared (at the time and still today) by many in the foreign policy community. I don't think Scowcroft's opposition to invading Iraq in 2003 because "Saddam was contained" rested on any assumptions at all about what might happen in 2004 or 2005, but on a judgment of relative threats at the time - the threat presented by Saddam in 2003, and the threat presented by insufficient commitment of national resources to a global war on terrorism in 2003.

It was clear, as you said, that the sanctions were crumbling and the rest of the world wasn't interested in containment, but in normalizing relations with Iraq and doing business there. But Scowcroft's point, made by others at the time and since, is that there was no immediate urgency about invading Iraq. It might well have been inevitable by 2003 that at some point Saddam would get out of his "box" and we would have to decide whether to invade and depose him to resolve the threat he posed; but it was not (in the Scowcroftian view) necessary to do it then, on the heels of the Afghanistan invasion and at a time when we were heavily reliant on international cooperation in combating a worldwide terror network that, for all we knew, might be planning other massive attacks in short order. The alternative view argued that it was more important to devote sufficient troops to Afghanistan, to devote military, intelligence, and other resources to the Philippines and Indonesia, and Somalia and Sudan, and North Africa, and other places like that where radical jihadists had been finding refuge and had engaged in plotting and in attacks. Saddam, if he needed to be dealt with later, could be dealt with later.

So even if you are right that containment was dying, the timing of the invasion was a choice, and one Scowcroft disagreed with. Richard Haass, after he left the Bush State Department, made exactly this point.

The Administration felt, for its part, that the threat from Saddam was urgent, because in the post 9/11 environment they had heightened threat perceptions across the board, and viewed the risk of future WMD activity or transfers by Iraq as intolerable. That risk, in Scowcroft's eyes, was not necessarily nonexistent, but it was tolerable for a time, and his judgment was that the more urgent priority was fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates and putting into place the necessary framework to prevent future attacks. It was a judgment call on what to tackle when, and making judgment calls like that is what national security leaders do. The White House weighed the factors differently than Scowcroft did. I'm not convinced they were right - are you?

 

"Nothing Says You're Serious Like a Good Scoop"

Seth Lipsky's staff gets the man's big idea. It's almost the end of the month, and it seems that an insufficient number of billionaires has stepped up to save The New York Sun. Considering the approaching high holidays, I would argue that it would be a terrifically-timed mitzvah to invest in the Sun. What better way to get right with God than invest in a free press? 

A Bin Laden October Surprise?

Seems plausible, according to Eli Lake.

Todd Gitlin on McCain's Belief in War

Todd Gitlin, after reading my October piece, argues that John McCain is the very model of the unreconstructed Vietnam revisionist:

Like his father, John McCain thinks the Vietnam war should have been fought and could have been won. For its loss, on the strength of what he tells Goldberg, he blames--surprise!--the media and civilian authorities. (Here he resembles an earlier revisionist, John Rambo.) He blames Walter Cronkite for turning against the war. He seems to think that had it not been for Watergate, Nixon would have been free to use air power to stop the North Vietnamese takeover of South Vietnam.

I don't agree with Todd Gitlin too terribly often (though more often than some people might think), but I'm grateful he's paying attention to the actual life-and-death issues in this race -- preemption, preventative war, the future of terrorism, and so on -- rather than the nonsense that fills the Internets.

Why We Hate Us

NPR's Dick Meyer, in his new book, Why We Hate Us, diagnoses the self-loathing, moral confusion and ennui that infect supersized America without hectoring and badgering us and without tiresome self-righteousness or smugness.

If that sounds like a blurb for the book, well, it is. In fact, it's mine, right there on the back cover. But I meant it, even though it's a blurb.  Dick wrote a great book, rollicking, funny and crazy-making. An interview with Dick appears below. Full disclosure: Dick is a friend, and I gave his manuscript a charity read. Fuller disclosure: Dick and I are in the same poker group. Even fuller disclosure: Dick's a crappy poker player. Fullest disclosure: I'm much worse.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Explain, in the context of your book, why the presidential campaign is unfolding the way it is. And, are we right to hate ourselves over the way politics is conducted in this country?

Dick Meyer: I had a brief, shining moment of optimism that this campaign was headed in a direction we could hate less and even like.  It's fading fast. It seems clear to me that both candidates are honest people. They are not phonies and, importantly, are able to communicate their authenticity as human beings through our absurd, distorted 24/7 media Cuisinart. Further, both candidates started out trying to capture the middle, which was how all American campaigns were run until the Nixon era.  Finally, both Obama and McCain are temperamentally sideline, not mainstream, people; they have independent, even mischievous anti-establishment streaks that I admire in a world of fake goody-goodies.
So looked at from 30,000 feet, I thought the selection of Obama and McCain, men of character, expressed a "hidden hand" desire of voters to put down the polarized and plastic politics we rightly hate. Maybe the winner will be able to govern well; that would be an outcome of consequence. But at this point both campaigns are tawdry and misleading, both platforms are the worst of their parties hackneyed, predictable old groupthink and the media coverage has bulimic and obnoxious. Are we right to hate all that? Of course.

JG: An oversimplified question, but an important one: Is television to blame for everything? I don't mean everything-everything - I don't think you can blame the atomization of community, which is one of your themes, on television - but, really, is television and the race to the bottom to blame?

Continue reading "Why We Hate Us" »

Jill Greenberg Dropped by Photo Agency

The Vaughan Hannigan photo agency, which has represented the disgraced, excrement-obsessed photoshopper Jill Greenberg, has just dropped her from its client list. Bill Hannigan, who runs the agency, told me a few minutes ago that Greenberg and the agency had "different views on how to conduct business." He said he couldn't say anything more because he is "still sorting out some issues with Jill related to her contract."

Vaughan Hannigan has done the right thing, of course, and not only because it's best not to represent photographers who deceive their clients, but because the damage Greenberg has done to her fellow photographers is tremendous. For a discussion of that, please see Joerg Colberg's astute blog. The only good thing to come out of this ridiculous situation is that I've been introduced to several very interesting photography websites. There's a bright side to everything, I say.

Scowcroft, Saddam, and Parmenide's Fallacy

Steve Coll reports on his swanky new blog about a swanky dinner he attended at John Kerry's over-large Georgetown home, held to celebrate the publication of "America in the World," a book-length conversation between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, moderated by the Washington Post's David Ignatius. Steve describes as "remarkably lucid and useful" an exchange between Scowcroft and Ignatius on Scowcroft's opposition to the Iraq invasion. Scowcroft told Ignatius that he opposed the war for many reasons, including this one:
"Saddam, in fact, was quite well contained. And we had a big problem following 9/11 in dealing with this greater threat of terrorism."
    It is an open question, however, whether Saddam was in fact "contained." The sanctions regime was crumbling; the world was tired of keeping Saddam in a box. And as John Kerry himself said in October of 2002, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it."
   But let's assume it was true that Saddam was actually contained in early 2003. Does this mean that he would have remained contained in 2004? Here, Scowcroft falls victim to Parmenide's Fallacy, which occurs when a policymaker considers the merits of a particular proposal by judging it against its current context, rather than by what might occur in the future if the proposal isn't acted upon. In the words of Phillip Bobbitt, "indefinitely extending the present is never a realistic option." Just because Saddam was contained in 2003 (assuming he was) has no bearing on whether he would have been contained in 2004 or 2005.
  I'm not arguing for the Iraq War, by the way. When I do that, I'll let you know. I'm just arguing against easy answers, and amnesia. 
 

The Specific Danger of Sarah Palin

Bradley Burston, as usual, gets to the heart of the Sarah Palin problem. Israel provides a useful contrast, he writes. It is impossible to imagine the Israeli public supporting a politician for a top leadership position who quite obviously, and without apology, knows virtually nothing about defense or foreign policy:

Israel is far from a model of good government, wise policymaking and exemplary leaders. But here, at least, voters and the politicians... relate to politics not as if it were a spectacular bowl game or a reality show, but for what politics really is, in America and Israel both: a matter of life and death.

As Burston suggests, it's almost enough to restore your faith in Israeli politics. Almost.

A Bit of Good News on the Jill Greenberg Front

At least she's not going to be paid for her dishonorable behavior. There's nothing like stopping a check to send a message. 

About that McCain Photo

Like others at the Atlantic, I was appalled to read about the actions of Jill Greenberg, the freelance photographer who took the cover portrait that illustrates my article about John McCain. Greenberg doctored photographs of McCain she took during her Atlantic-arranged shoot, which took place last month in Las Vegas. She has posted these doctored photographs on her website, which you can go find yourself, if you must. Suffice it to say that her "art" is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession. Here is a partial account, from the New York Post, of what she did, and of the Atlantic's reaction to what she did:

"Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor - turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.

Asking McCain to 'please come over here' for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.

The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.

'He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. 'I guess they're not very sophisticated,' she said.

The Atlantic opted not to use the distorted McCain shot on its cover, selecting instead a more straightforward portrait. 'We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. 'We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture.'

But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way.

'We feel totally blind-sided,' he said. 'Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional.'

Greenberg later decided to use some of the images she was assigned to take to make a political statement.

Her Web site now features a series of Photoshopped pics of McCain in some highly unflattering poses - including one that has a monkey squirting dung onto the Republican candidate's head. Another one reads 'I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer,' with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips."

I don't know Greenberg (I count this as a blessing) and I can add nothing to what James Bennet told the Post except to say that Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism. Every so often, journalists become deranged at the sight of certain candidates, and lose their bearings. Why, this has even happened in the case of John McCain once or twice. What I find truly astonishing is the blithe way in which she has tried to hurt this magazine.

NY Times Ignores Douthat, Publishes Bad Porn Writing

Jack Shafer tells us that the Times reporter Alexei Barrionuevo has difficulty not copying other people's writing. But I think he should actually engage in plagiarism, at least when he's trying to write soft-core porn:

 At the Bar Urbano disco, boys and girls ages 14 to 18 are stripping off their shirts, revealing bras, tattoos and nipple rings. The place is a tangle of lips and tongues and hands, all groping and exploring. About 800 teenagers sway and bounce to lyrics imploring them to "Poncea! Poncea!": make out with as many people as they can.

"A tangle of lips and tongues and hands, all groping and exploring"?  From the foreign desk of The New York Times? I'll grant that this is an important story -- how could a story about the sexual mores of Chilean teenagers not be? -- but if you're going to publish stories about an outbreak of horniness in Latin America, at least consult Penthouse on how to make the writing non-humiliatingly bad.

Why McCain's Campaign Peddles Nonsense

Like many people who have covered John McCain, I think of him as a deeply serious man, preoccupied with America's defense and its position in the world. So I've been confused for the past few days, trying to figure out why he's allowing his campaign to make a circus of this election, leveling unserious and dishonest accusations about Barack Obama's positions on sex education and Sarah Palin. Then it came to me: The answer can be found in my new Atlantic cover story! (How's that for Washington-based solipsism?) The story grapples with John McCain's philosophy of war, and in particular with the doctrine of preemption, which McCain still endorses. So do I, in certain cases, but that's not the point. The point is that McCain knows that preemption isn't the easiest sell these days: "It's very hard to run for president on this idea right now," he told me.
    So, what do you do when one of your core ideas is out of sync with the predispositions of the American public? You spend your days talking about lipstick on pigs. This might win him the election, but I'd rather see him debate preemption.

The Sarah Palin Reality Show

Marc Fisher went to the Palin-McCain rally in Virginia yesterday, and came away with this observation:

In this hyperdemocratized society, the national conviction that anyone can succeed is morphing into a belief that experience and knowledge may almost be disqualifying credentials.

McCain on the Usefulness of War

Ambinder, clever reporter that he is, noticed before I did that my latest article on McCain is now posted on this here website. 

McCain and Obama on Nuclear Terror

My op-ed in the Times.
Money quote:

Oh, forget it, just read the thing.
If you don't mind, that is.

Maira Kalman's Tel Aviv

It's a joyful city, and Maira Kalman and Nextbook capture it beautifully. 

Explaining Michael Chabon's Spanish Inquisition Reference

For those of you who asked:

Bad News From the New York Sun

My friend, and former boss, Seth Lipsky, reports some potentially catastrophic news today about his newspaper, The New York Sun. It seems as if the paper is running out of money, and will shut down at the end of the month if new investors aren't found. The Sun is a great newspaper, a bracing read, even when -- especially when -- you don't agree with its line. So come on, you conservative-leaning billionaires, it's time to pony up: You don't need more planes. Everyone has a plane already, anyway. What you need is a newspaper. 

Wehner on Filkins on Iraqi Democracy

Pete reads Dexter and says:

Filkins is right about what constitutes democracy. But Iraq actually has those things: elections, compromises between groups, newspapers and political parties, and more. He is correct that these things are in their infancy, and hence these achievements, while heartening and even unprecedented, are still fragile. And there are miles and miles to go before Iraq can be considered a strong, stable, flourishing society. But a young democracy is still a democracy. And while we cannot know the future, we can say with some confidence that Iraq is finally on the mend, something which was thought virtually impossible just 18 months ago.

Foxman On Jews for Jesus, Then and Now

Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, a man who has done terrific and important work exposing anti-Semites over the years -- and no, Andrew, he doesn't criticize people as anti-Semites when they "sneeze into a bagel" -- told the JTA yesterday that "he didn't have much problem with Palin's pastor."  Foxman explained, according to the JTA, that unlike Catholics, "evangelicals never promised to renounce proselytizing. For another, they don't have the same sort of history of violent persecution of Jewish non-believers. For one more, there's no evidence Palin knows or shares those views."

Eleven years ago, for a New York Times Magazine article on the insidious Jews for Jesus campaign organized by the Southern Baptist Convention, Foxman told me this: "'Christians have been trying to make us disappear as Jews for 2,000 years. Now they're trying a different method, which is for them to tell us that you can believe in Jesus and still be Jewish. It's baloney, of course."

I agree with the Foxman of 1997.

The Michael Chabon Interview: Special Sarah Palin Edition

Michael Chabon is an expert on a great many things, especially hummus and Alaska. He seemed like the perfect person to turn to for a conversation about Sarah Palin:

Jeffrey Goldberg: Isn't it great that Michael Palin's sister is running for vice president? MC: It's unlikely and, I feel, sort of weird the way this Alaskan lady's fortunes have become caught up, and so quickly, with those of the Jews. An exhaustive search of press mentions on Lexis-Nexis reveals that, until very recently, "Alaska" and "Jews" had been included in the same sentence only 18 times, ever. I know I probably deserve some of the credit for this uptick, but I decline to accept it.

Andrew is Right: Palin Has a Jewish Problem

Andrew gets it: Where is the coverage of Sarah Palin's church?  If Jeremiah Wright is fair game -- and he should be -- then what about this lunatic "Jews for Jesus" preacher and his vile sermon at Palin's church? I've been writing about Jews for Jesus for years; it is a Southern Baptist front organization that uses deception to convince Jews to convert to Christianity. It's a nasty outfit, and good church people know it's a nasty outfit. If a Jew converts to Christianity, well, have a nice day, but Christian churches shouldn't be part of a conversion-by-subterfuge campaign. You can't be Jewish and Christian at the same time, no matter what the snake-oil salesman David Brickner says. When it comes to the Jews, Christian churches should focus on repentance, not conversion.

A Retraction of "Retraction"

It has been pointed out to me that The Jerusalem Post does not, in fact, retract its previous story about Joe Biden. What it does is run his denial, and acknowledge, in its story, that the "Army Radio report was unsourced and did not name any of the officials to whom Biden had purportedly spoken." The story goes on to assert that "Biden has a solid 36-year Senate record of pro-Israel leadership. He has called Israel 'the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East' and declared himself a Zionist in an interview with a US Jewish television channel last year, saying that 'you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.'"

It's not a retraction, but it is, in a way, an endorsement.

Israeli Press Retracts Biden Iran Smear

So it turns out that Joe Biden did not, in fact, tell unnamed Israeli officials that "It's doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front."  Israel Army Radio reported this last week, asserting that Biden told the Israelis to grow accustomed to a nuclear Iran, because that's what they were getting.

I know this will come as a surprise to long-time Israeli media watchers, but the Army Radio report was completely unsourced (before there was a blogosphere, there was Israeli journalism), which didn't stop Ha'aretz and The Jerusalem Post, among others, from reporting it as truth from Sinai. My obvious guess is that it was placed by someone on the right who believes that Barack Obama won't do what the Israelis believe they might have to do themselves, namely, bomb Iran.

Pinning this on Joe Biden, however, betrayed a complete lack of sophistication about American politics. Joe Biden is one of those politicians who feels Israel in his guts; he's been a stalwart friend to the country, and its prime ministers, since he came to the Senate. Biden is many things, a big mouth among them -- maybe this is why Jewish voters like him so much, actually -- but he can't be accused of unfriendliness to Israel, and he can't be accused of sanguinity in the face of Iran's threats against Israel.

In any case, when confronted with the Biden camp's flat-out denial, the Israeli papers have decided to, in essence, retract the story. Here's part of a statement from Biden's spokesman, David Wade: "This is a lie peddled by  partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel....  Senator Biden has consistently stated - publicly and privately --  that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran. As recently as July 2008 in a Foreign Relations hearing, Senator Biden reiterated his long-held view on this subject and stated that: 'Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening.'"

Here's the Jerusalem Post retraction. Whoever's peddling this ought to try for a softer target than Biden the next time.

 

, 

Dexter Filkins: The Progress in Iraq is Remarkable

Dexter Filkins is the greatest war correspondent of my generation, and I would say this even if we weren't friends. We've reported together on occasion; Dexter knows better than anyone how to work your way into bad places, and work your way out again. He's also the author of a great new book, coming out imminently from Knopf, called "The Forever War."  I e-mailed him some questions about his Times story today, and here are his answers:

Jeffrey Goldberg: In a review in the Times today, Michiko Kakutani quotes Farnaz Fassihi writing in 2004: "The genie of terrorism, chaos, and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes, and it can't be put back into a bottle."  The question is, is the genie back in the bottle?

Dexter Filkins: Yes, it is, for now. The progress here is remarkable. I came back to Iraq after being away for nearly two years, and honestly, parts of it are difficult for me to recognize. The park out in front of the house where I live--on the Tigris River--was a dead, dying, spooky place. It's now filled with people--families with children, women walking alone, even at night. That was inconceivable in 2006. The Iraqis who are out there walking in the parks were making their own judgments ­that it is safe enough for them to go out for a walk. They're voting with their feet. It's a wonderful thing to see.
Having said that, it's pretty clear that the calm is very fragile. The calm is built on a series of arrangements that are not self-sustaining; indeed, some of which, like the Sunni Awakening, are showing signs of coming apart. So the genie is back in the bottle, but I'm not sure for how long.

JG: The most astonishing detail in your article today is your description of a parade through Ramadi, which included "American marines and soldiers wearing neither helmets nor body armor, nor carrying guns." You wrote, "The festive scene became an occasion for celebration by Iraqis and Americans, who at several moments wondered aloud in the sweltering heat how things had gone from so grim to so much better, so fast." How much of this can be credited to the surge in troops and the shift in tactics last year, and how much to the notion that Iraqis simply got tired of the killing?

DF: Astonishing indeed. I haven't seen Americans soldiers walking around Iraq without helmets since the summer of 2003, when the Americans, who were popular in southern Iraq for having taken down Saddam, used to do that.
What's happened in Anbar really doesn't have anything to do with the surge and, in fact, it is one of the main reasons why the surge has worked.
In Anbar, two things happened: Al Qaeda overreached and the Americans wised up. If you will recall, the Americans came into Iraq in 2003 in a very heavy-handed way, often sweeping up large groups of young males who had nothing to do with the insurgency. In a tribal society, ­where everyone is related to everyone else, ­the Americans dug themselves a very large hole.
Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, through sheer ruthlessness, became the dominant player in the insurgency. And while the guys from Al Qaeda were very good at killing Americans, a goal with which many Sunnis sympathized, they also wanted to kill Iraqi ­Shiites, who they consider apostates, and anyone associated with the Iraqi government. Ordinary Iraqis, it's now clear, didn't want to go along.
And the sheikhs in Anbar didn't go along. So when Al Qaeda started murdering the sheikhs, the sheikhs went to the Americans. The Americans, chastened by their earlier mistakes, grabbed the opportunity. They made a deal. They crushed Al Qaeda in Anbar. The result is the calm you see today.
The Sunni Awakening, which began in Anbar, spread rapidly to other Sunni areas of Iraq, and that took enormous pressure off the Americans and the Iraqi government as the surge kicked in.

JG: One tribal leader you quote, Hamid al-Hais, puts most of the blame for the chaos of the previous years on Paul Bremer's decision to disband the army. Do you agree?

DF: I don't know. I don't think there are any one-line explanations for any of this. But it's pretty clear that decision had a lot of bad consequences.

JG: Is the average Iraqi better off today than he was under Saddam? Or, put another way, is the average Iraqi who was not directly tied to the regime better off today than he was six years ago?

DF: Today is a moment in time. The calm is just a few months old. The Iraqis have been through an extraordinarily violent and traumatic five years. Many, many people suffered horrendously under Saddam. Ask me the question again in five years.

JG: Is Iraq a democracy?

DF: I don't think so. A democracy has many things: elections, compromise between groups, an atmosphere safe enough to discuss the issues of the day, and institutions that exist outside of government that are strong enough to allow all of the above to flourish--newspapers, political groups and the like. In Iraq, most of those things are in their infancy.
 
JG: How do you, as an American, feel walking through Baghdad today vs. two years ago?

DF: I'll answer with two snapshots from dusk. I went running in the park in front of the New York Times house the other day as the sun was going down and I felt no threat at all. People waved, people smiled. It felt very normal.
A couple of days later I went to Sadr City, also at dusk. Sadr City is a vast slum that takes in about three million people. It's the stronghold of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, and it's been the scene of heavy fighting, as recently as a few months ago. I was with some Iraqi friends. It felt perfectly normal. Then one of my Iraqi friends said to me, "What do you think would happen if you were alone?" And I said, "What?" And he and the other Iraqis laughed and said: "You'd be dead in ten seconds."
Let me just say: I left.

Pollak: "Standard Leftist Trope on Iran"

Noah Pollak takes on Hillel Levin's contention that McCain is bad for Israel:

All of this today is standard leftist trope material. The idea is that before the invasion in 2003, Iran and Iraq held each other in something akin to suspended animation, frozen in a historic standoff, is silly. For Iran's purposes, Iraq had been neutered by the Gulf War in 1991 and the imposition of no-fly zones and embargoes. Far more beneficial to Iran's ability to project power against Israel have been 1) the dramatic increase in Iran's oil revenues, and 2) Israel's withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza -- which, Levin surely knows, are exactly the two places where Israel faces Iranian-sponsored terrorism today.

Steve Coll's Got a Blog

Welcome, Steve. All we need now is Jane; if she would start a blog, the entire New Yorker Washington bureau circa 2007 will have shifted to the Internets. Steve's got a piece up as well, on General Petraeus. 

I Know This Isn't As Important as Bristol Palin's Pregnancy, But...

 Anbar province is now under the control of the Iraqi Army. From Amit Paley in the Washington Post:

The U.S. military on Monday handed the Iraqi government responsibility for security in Anbar province, the former stronghold of the Sunni insurgency that has now become one of the safest areas in country.

But, whatever. Maybe someone will unearth another Todd Palin DUI arrest from the 1980s and we can get back to real news.

"McCain: Bad for Israel"

An interesting and challenging view of McCain (and Bush) from Hillel Levin:

I am a religious Zionist American Jew, deeply committed to the security of the State of Israel (where much of my immediate family resides).  In my community it is not unusual to hear people express support for John McCain because of his Israel policies.  Frankly, I'm puzzled.  John McCain, like George W. Bush before him, is a disaster for Israel.

John McCain is not George W. Bush, but it is difficult to find much daylight between his views on Israel and Bush's.  Indeed, McCain expressly promises to continue Bush's strong support for Israel.  If we take him at his word, we should be quaking under our kippot (yarmulkes).

Israel today is in more peril than it was eight years ago.  In fact, it is in more peril than it has been since at least the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and perhaps even since its War of Independence.  So color me skeptical that Bush's policies have been "good for Israel," as the refrain in my community goes.  It is unfair, of course, to assume that Israel's situation today is the result of Bush's policies merely because they have coincided with his terms in office.  So let's not assume; let's look.

Israel's gravest external threat comes from Iran.  The relevant question, then, is, has Iran become more dangerous to Israel because of Bush's policies, or in spite of Bush's policies?  Plainly, the former.  The war in Iraq has removed Iran's historic nemesis and counterbalance, strengthening its hand and ambitions in the region.  The war has also demonstrated to Iran's leaders precisely why it is so important that Iran develop nuclear weaponry: America wouldn't dare attack Iran once it has attained nuclear capabilities.  The mishandling of the war has also weakened America's hand in the region, removing any credible threat of a sustained American military engagement with Iran--Americans just won't stand for it.  As a result, our words get louder and louder, but our stick gets smaller and smaller.  And finally, Bush's refusal to engage with Israel's closer neighbor Syria--not a traditional ally of Iran's--has pushed Syria further into Iran orbit than it has ever been before, providing a land-bridge for the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  Simply put, Bush's policies have emboldened and empowered Iran and improved its regional standing.  Israel is left facing the consequences.

Meanwhile, Bush's policies have also strengthened Hamas.  Recall that it was Bush who insisted, over then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strong objections, that Hamas participate in elections in Gaza and the West Bank.  This was part of Bush's brilliant neocon-inspired plan to democratize the region.  To state the obvious, that turned out badly for Israel too, and Hamas is now in control of Gaza and becoming a graver threat to Israel every day.

So why, exactly, do Israelis love Bush so much?  Actually, it isn't that difficult to understand.  From the perspective of an Israeli, Bush is a true friend.  Israelis live in a tough neighborhood, surrounded by states and movements that expressly seek the destruction of Israel.  And here we have President Bush, the leader of the strongest country in the world, declaring himself an unabashed ally of Israel.  Indeed, there's no reason to question Bush's sincerity on this point: he really does care about Israel's security.  So Israelis can be excused for putting aside the content and effects of his policies and for appreciating his steadfast rhetorical and personal support for Israel.  (By the way, this explains the paradox of why Israelis love both Clinton and Bush, despite their radically different regional policies: for Israelis, it isn't about the policies.)

What is more difficult to understand, though, is why American Zionists, who follow American politics closely, insist that Bush has been good for Israel and that McCain's promise to continue Bush's policies is an argument in his favor.  The evidence argues otherwise.  We have no excuse for ignoring the disastrous consequences of this administration's policies in favor of the good intentions that have spawned them.

I don't base my vote primarily on whether a candidate will be good for Israel.  But if I did, I surely wouldn't vote for McCain.