THE ECONOMIST TELLS US WHAT IT REALLY THINKS: The Economist's distaste for Israel was recently dissected by the Jerusalem Post, a piece which drew this response. I wasn't convinced by the magazine's self-defense. But even if I had been so tempted, this online account of the fallout from the Shehade killing would have ended any such thoughts.
As might be expected, the article argues that the killing meant that Israel was unwilling to take the chance that the oh-so-promising "ceasefire" efforts would come to fruition. Even they can't deny the following:
[J]ust prior to the attack on Gaza, Hamas’s spiritual leader, Ahmad Yassin, had made some sort of offer to end suicide bombings, though it is not clear what he wanted in return, or what he meant precisely by this. He seemed to have demanded Israel's withdrawal from the recently reoccupied Palestinian cities, release of recently detained Palestinian prisoners and an end to the assassination of Palestinian leaders, in return for a halt to bombings inside Israel proper. He made this offer after prodding from the PA and Saudi Arabian and European diplomats. No Israeli government would have been able to agree to such a deal, which would have left soldiers and civilians in the occupied territories targets for attack.
Notwithstanding that accurate conclusion, the article concludes that mysterious "others"
argue that Mr Sharon’s government should have deferred Mr Shehada's assassination to test an initiative that may not have brought a total end to violence but might at least have prevented the continued slaughter of innocents—whether these are travelling in buses in West Jerusalem or sleeping in their beds in Gaza City.
So the proposed ceasefire, which would have left all Israeli targets inside the West Bank and Gaza as fair game, would have prevented "the continued slaughter of innocents." Killings of Israeli settlers would thus not qualify as "slaughter of innocents." Ergo, Israeli settlers, regardless of whether or not they are peaceful civilians, are not innocent and are deserving targets of murder.

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER: Amir Oren argues in Ha-aretz that the reaction to Israel's killing of Shehade shows that U.S. sees itself as fighting the same enemies as Israel, to an unprecedented degree:

Washington's strongest expression of support could be found in the American announcement to the UN Security Council, that from now on it would only accept censure of Israel in the Palestinian context in conjunction with condemnations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. And fellow Security Council member Syria was once again asked to expel the terror command headquarters from Damascus.
The Shehadeh affair showed that there has indeed been a fundamental shift in America's approach to the region: For the first time in their histories, Washington and Jerusalem are now fighting the same enemies. Before September 11 and before Yasser Arafat's decision to continue to cling to terror, the front had never been this united. During the Cold War, America's cool calculations of the "Israel - asset or burden?" balance sheet dipped against Israel (for strategic considerations) no less than in favor of Israel (for political considerations), and even though, since the days of David Ben-Gurion, Israel has been firmly in the American camp, it was never too interested in clearly assigning the role of enemy to the Soviets.
...In a lecture he delivered earlier this year, the CIA's deputy director of operations, Jim Pavitt, explained American intelligence's failure to penetrate Al Qaeda - the failure to penetrate the agents who are so critical for the supplementing of electronic data-gathering. It is a zealous and almost familial organization, said Pavitt; aliens would not be absorbed in any way. "I personally doubt that anything short of one of the knowledgeable inner circle personnel or hijackers turning himself in to us would have given us sufficient foreknowledge to have prevented the horrendous slaughter that took place on the 11th," said Pavitt.
This is why Pavitt and his colleagues are so astounded by the intelligence and operational triumphs of the Shin Bet and the IDF in thwarting terrorist attacks. President Bush has outlined the fight against terror, as a major effort, to the entire American system. The institutionalization of this fight - including the recent formation of an Office of Homeland Security - is drawing in its wake governmental agencies and officials whose sympathies are not usually with Israel.
He also cites a little comic relief which I had never heard before:
Terrorism has been considered an American adversary since the '70s, but then it was perceived simply as another, secondary arrow in the Soviet quiver. Typical of that era is the weekly terrorism report prepared by the CIA around Christmas of 1974: PLO head Yasser Arafat praises a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv (Chen Cinema, Popular Front); there are concerns about a possible assassination attempt on prime minister Golda Meir during a visit to New York and Canada; and the CIA warned that "a new organization, the composition of which is not known, that calls itself `The Ebenezer Scrooge Martyrs' Group,' is plotting an attack on the annual courier flight operated by the Government of North Pole, and its prime minister and chief courier, S. Claus." In that oh-so-innocent era, this amusing bit of levity was considered acceptable. Osama bin Laden wiped the smirks off their faces.

THE ALIENATOR: I haven't read Caleb Carr's book on terrorism yet, but if yesterday's NYT op-ed concerning the Israeli attack on Shehade is any indication, he should stick to novels.
Regarding the condemnation directed at Israel after the attack, Carr writes:
The reason was not Mr. Shehada's death ... but the fact that the Israeli military and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon understood that the attack in a densely populated neighborhood, at night, would result in many civilian deaths. The raid was nonetheless ordered — and the world received its clearest demonstration yet that the Israeli government is prepared to knowingly inflict substantial civilian casualties in its response to Palestinian suicide attacks.
Despite Carr's assertions, it appears that Sharon did not, in fact, know that the attack would kill many civilians. And a big reason for the criticism was that the seeming carelessness with civilian lives was a great exception to Israeli practice and capabilities - in other words, a recognition of the fact that Israel had not been "prepared to knowingly inflict substantial civilian casualties in its response to Palestinian suicide attacks."
Carr also says:
The Sharon government is more diplomatically isolated than ever, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian groups widely reported to have been considering a trial cessation of attacks against civilians, now say they will step up their assaults.
"More diplomatically isolated than ever?" I won't bring up 1967, 1982 (when President Reagan publicly placed a photo of a Palestinian child casualty on his desk) or any number of past dates. What about Operation Defensive Shield in April, when international public opinion was ready to string Israel up for nonexistent "massacres?" Is Isarel's international standing so much worse than it was then? I doubt it. For evidence, see this report that the President is not interested in taking up the cause most dear to the hearts of Middle East "sophisticates," an end to Israeli settlements.
And about that supposed "cease-fire," see this piece, as well as this summary from the Times of London:

If those Palestinian terror groups under Yassir Arafat’s leadership were ready to end suicide bombings then such an initiative would be hugely welcomed in Israel. But the proposal floated would not have ended attacks on Israeli soldiers, did not bear the signatures of any Palestinian leaders and comes after all too many protestations of peace more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Above all, the ceasefire offer did not have the backing of Hamas, the organisation led by the intended target of Monday night’s attack, Salah Shehade. Given his record, and that of his organisation, the likelihood of any cessation of hostilities from Hamas seems wildly improbable.
I haven't studied the larger historical issue of the effects of civilian killings in warfare, but I'm suspicious of his historical claims given Carr's misstatements regarding the present.
UPDATE: Orin Judd directs me to his review of Carr's book, which seems plausible. It seems all too convenient to say that a usually-evil tactic is always counterproductive. Before operation Defensive Shield in April, it was apparent that Palestinian terrorism was working, despite its evil.

THE NEW YORK TIMES' CRONY CAPITALISM: It's been discussed before, but Jonathan Rauch writes beautifully about how the New York Times is using the state's power of eminent domain to its own ends - just like they (justly) excoriate George W. Bush for having done when he owned the Texas Rangers.
And if that's not enough NYT hypocrisy for you, check out this Jack Shafer piece pointing out, gently, that Bill (Pardoner of Mark Rich) Clinton may not be the best source to denounce corporate turpitude:

[W]here does Bill Clinton get off slagging the Republicans for thwarting his proposed laws when he shredded the laws on the books by giving a complete pardon to accused financial felon and fugitive Marc Rich? And where does the New York Times get off giving Clinton a soapbox to lecture the GOP without once mentioning the Rich case?

RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL PUNDIT: "MuslimPundit" Adil Farooq has returned, at long last. He discusses the meaning of the term "jihad."

MORE EXPLANATIONS: Here's an outstanding analysis of the reasons behind the Israeli attack on Shehade.
Also, I cannot believe that anyone is taking seriously the reports that had Israel not attacked, a cease-fire would have been imminent. As
Amos Harel writes in Ha-aretz:

Regarding the timing, defense officials indignantly rejected the suggestion that the assassination was deliberately timed to disrupt a possible Tanzim initiative for a unilateral cease-fire. They noted that Hamas was not a party to this idea in any case - and certainly Shehadeh, the organization's most extreme member, was not involved.
But even the Tanzim was far from deciding to adopt the idea, they added. Mohammed Dahlan, the former head of the PA's Preventive Security Service in Gaza, did propose it, the sources said, but his influence on the West Bank-centered Tanzim was small, and the defense establishment had received no information indicating that the Tanzim had decided to accede to this suggestion.
Palestinian sources also admitted that the initiative was not making much progress, "since it would be necessary to corral 30 local cell leaders into it." A senior defense official said Palestinian reports of the initiative were largely psychological warfare.

MORE ON "COLLATERAL DAMAGE:" N.Z. Bear criticizes Eric Alterman's attempts at warbloggering (from which he has been backtracking somewhat), praised here yesterday.

Alterman may be morphing into a warblogger, but thus far he’s not a very good one. It's not a tough call at all. The responsibility for the death of Sheik Shehada --- and the civilians killed --- lies with the Israeli military. They carried out the attack. They bear the responsibility for its consequences, for good and ill.
This doesn’t mean the attack was morally wrong. If the planners of the attack judged that by killing this one man --- and the civilians around him --- they would be saving hundreds of innocents down the line, then it was morally justifiable. But to imply that the “ultimate responsibility” for Shehada’s family lies with anyone other than the IDF is exactly the same twisted moral calculus that terrorists like Shehada use to justify the murder of Israeli citizens. “The Israelis have left us no choice", they say, "we have no other options but to use these tactics!”
When a terrorist blows himself up on a streetcorner and murders a score of Israeli civilians, what do we hear? It is the fault of the Israelis; their oppression of the Palestinian people has left them no choice! And now, when the IDF’s actions have resulted --- accidentally, and yes, that does make a difference, but resulted nonetheless --- in the death of civilians? It is the fault of the Palestinians, of Hamas, because, in Alterman’s words, “ If you ask for war, you are asking to have your civilians slaughtered, unless you can keep the war on the other side’s turf. Well, Hamas asked.”
This is barbaric nonsense. We can’t afford to fall into that trap, or to play those moral equivalence games. There are always choices. We are the side that accepts the consequences of our choices, and takes responsibility for the morality of our acts. We do not cry out that the enemy forced us into our tactics: we act to defend our interests with the force of arms, and with the force of our own conscience. Sometimes this will lead to the death of innocents: and this we must accept as a responsibility which we bear with regret.
But we don’t simper and attempt to pin blame on our enemies for deeds done with our own hands.
If Alterman is trying out for the warblogging team, he’s going to need to learn that just crying for blood doesn’t make the cut. The reasons matter. In fact, they’re everything.

I think that there are some problems with Mr. Bear's analysis. Bear emphasizes that he is not saying that Israel's actions were unjustified, but I think his emphasis on "moral responsibility" begs the question. What Bear seems to be saying is that Israel bears moral responsibility for the deaths of the civilians, but he is not saying that Israel's actions were morally unjustified. But isn't that the same question? (Think of how ridiculous it seemed for Janet Reno to "take responsibility" for the deaths at Waco, while the idea of her suffering any adverse consequences wasn't even considered.) If Israel's actions were morally justified, then what does it mean to say that they were "morally responsible?"
As I read Bear, he is saying that it's mainly an exercise to ward off moral flabbiness, because taking responsibility for our own actions forces us to perform the moral calculations ensuring that each action we take is correct. By contrast, saying "they made me do it" and abdicating responsibility for your own actions ensures that you will never undertake those necessary moral calculations, and thus have a strong likelihood of acting immorally.
The problem I have is that a Palestinian-style abdication of responsibility, justly decried by Bear, is in and of itself a moral argument - it is a statement that "the evil we face is so great that any action we take is justified in response." (That argument can't be dismissed as always being invalid, because it may be true in cases of genocide. Hiroshima is a justifiable option when the altrenative is Auschwitz. Of course, the Palestinians' obsessive terrorism is bringing them closer - though not yet there - to being the justified victims of such a response, rather than the justified perpetrators. But I digress.)
Basically, I think Bear's argument is close to a distinction without a difference. There is no reason to say "they made me do it," but the issue is not especially important if the action was, in fact, justified.

THE MOST TASTELESS PRANK EVER PLAYED ON SOMEONE: Michael Kielsky has a picture.

THE POLITE AMERICANS: According to a global survey of tourism workers cited by an expat Brit blogger, Malcolm Friend, British tourists were ranked the "rudest, brashest, most tongue-tied and least desirable holidaymakers in the world."
The poll, by the travel company Expedia, ranked each nation on criteria ranging from respect for hosts to tipping, and general behaviour to ability to speak a foreign language. Britons came lowest in all but one of the criteria, scoring a total of minus 44, some 38 points fewer the next worst behaved, the Irish and Israelis, and 83 behind the Germans.
38 points behind the Israelis!? Wars have been started over lesser insults!
And which country's tourists were ranked as the most polite? That's right - the ugly Americans! Mr. Friend is not surprised; he has apparently not been brainwashed by BBC-style anti-Americanism.
Congratulations and welcome to these shores.

DEPARTMENT OF "HELL FREEZES OVER," VOL. II: When intellectually honest and generally outstanding pieces appear nearly simultaneously in both The American Propsect and the Nation, you know there must be something in the water (probably arsenic). Seriously, TAP's Ken Silverstein shreds the argument that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan had anything to do with the war in Afghanistan, while the Nation's David Corn blasts 9/11-themed conspiracy theories and theorists. (Having not learned their lesson, certain of the people flayed by Corn responded, only to be cut down again by Corn's rejoinders.) Enjoy.

ALL QUIET ON THE NORTHERN FRONT? Dennis "Peace Process" Ross warns that Syria and Iran may be conspiring to open up a second front between Israel and Lebanon, as well as working against efforts to stop suicide bombings inside Israel:

With a constant stream of supply from both the Iranians and Syrians, Hezbollah is building a formidable arsenal of highly mobile rockets.
Longer-range Katyushas are the mainstay of the arsenal, but the Syrians are supplementing these weapons with the Syrian 270mm rocket.
What makes these rockets so potentially destabilizing is their range. The rockets Hezbollah used to possess could only threaten the immediate border area of northern Israel. While bad enough from an Israeli perspective, the new rockets have ranges stretching over 70 kilometers. Israel's industrial area below Haifa will now be within the sights of Hezbollah rocketeers. Does anyone think Israel will tolerate such attacks? Can there be any doubt, should one be fired, that Israel would go after not only Hezbollah but Syria as well?
Hafez Assad was no slouch when it came to threatening Israel. But he controlled the flow of Iranian arms to Hezbollah, and he never provided Syrian weapons directly. He certainly did not mind Hezbollah keeping the pressure on Israel, but he was not about to let Hezbollah drag him into a war with Israel either.
But Bashar Assad seems to lack his father's sense of limits. As if providing weapons to Hezbollah was not enough, he is also procuring spare parts for Iraq from Eastern Europe. That's something new; his father sought Saddam Hussein's demise, not his strengthening.
What could the younger Mr. Assad be thinking? The logic is difficult to grasp unless one looks at the increasingly close connection he has been developing with Hezbollah and Iran. Iranian officials routinely stop in Damascus both before and after visiting Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. Iran is pushing Hezbollah to cooperate more with Hamas in the war against Israel. Recently, the Israelis have arrested Hezbollah operatives in the West Bank.
Iran is also pushing Hamas very hard to continue the suicide bombings in Israel. As I heard from Israelis and Palestinians, recent efforts by the Palestinian Authority officials in Gaza to convince Hamas to stop terror attacks against Israelis appeared to be making headway until the Hamas leadership in Gaza got explicit instructions from the Hamas leadership outside--with considerable Iranian pressure--to persist with the bombings. The same was true for the Islamic Jihad, whose leader Ramadan Shallah resides in Damascus and was equally insistent that the bombing must continue.
Iran and Syria clearly want the conflict to continue between Israelis and Palestinians. Perhaps they believe Israel will lose its resolve and gradually be weakened to the point of collapse. They seem prepared to fight to the last Palestinian to produce such an eventuality. Perhaps they fear American determination to go after Saddam Hussein, believing if he goes, they will be next. Their reasoning might be that the more the situation between Israelis and Palestinians embroils the region, the less the U.S. will be capable of going after Saddam.
While plausible, neither of these explanations can account for the buildup of longer-range rockets in southern Lebanon. Perhaps here we can see another connection to their fears of American military action to replace Saddam. Just as Saddam tried to transform the war in 1991 away from being the international community against Iraq into an Arab-Israeli conflict, it is possible that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah believe that a second front must be opened up once the U.S. begins to act against Saddam. If they cannot head the action off, they might hope to make it more difficult to sustain with a second front.

DEPARTMENT OF "HELL FREEZES OVER:" I never thought I'd be endorsing a piece by Eric Alterman, much less reproducing it in full. But credit must be given where due. Here are his thoughts on the Israeli killing of Sheik Salah Shehade, the Hamas arch-terrorist:

I don’t know if killing the military chief of Hamas, together with his family, is an effective military measure-as surely someone will rise to replace him and it will make a lot more people angry, perhaps even angry enough to become suicide bombers. It may not bring Israel and the Palestinians any closer to peace or mutual security. But I don’t have a moral problem with it.
Hamas is clearly at war with Israel. Hamas feels empowered to strike Israeli civilians inside Israel proper and not just on the war zone of West Bank. Sheik Salah Shehade could have protected his family by keeping away from them. He didn’t and owing to his clear legitimacy as a military target, they are dead too.
So tough luck, fella.
War is hell.

The irony gets even richer when you consider this Jerusalem Post item, which argues that the killing of Shehada's family may indicate a shift in Israeli strategy:

Top generals said that had they known innocent people would likely be hurt they never would have approved the strike.
Come on! Really!?
This is the same IDF that has been praised for excellent intelligence involved in dozens of targeted interceptions of terrorists over the past two years.
These claims are dubious. And besides, what was the military thinking? That it could send in a fighter bomber and blow up a man's house and only he would be killed?
The strike on Shehadeh which killed his wife and children and other apparent innocent civilians is a turning point in Israel's war on terror.
This marks a definite change in policy and the question remains whether this change will boomerang and lead to the deaths of more Israelis in revenge attacks by Hamas.
...Perhaps the IAF was ordered to deliberately target the family of the Hamas leader as a warning to others. And this is something that has to be taken into account.
And why not? The government has finally started thinking that it had to do something to deter terrorism and is taking actions against family members of terrorists.
It demolished the homes of those who were involved in the Emmanuel bus ambush, and it has declared its intention to deport family members of terrorists.
Not even Alterman implies that the Israelis meant to kill his family as a matter of policy. Imagine: Eric Alterman goes easier on the Sharon government than a Jerusalem Post columnist!
I doubt the attack really represents a major change in policy; it seems more likely that the civilian deaths were a result of an unholy combination of mistaken estimates of civilian presence and desperation to finally get him (see this piece for an account.)
Also, check out Amir Oren's article on why killing Shehade was good policy for peace:
[C]ompared to him, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin is a moderate. The old considerations, from the days of Yihiyeh "the engineer" Ayash, about whether the assassination ignited a cycle of provocation and reaction, may still be true in principle, but have lost their practical meaning. Last week in Washington, former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Perry said that Ayash - most of whose attacks were committed during Perry's stint - needed three months to recruit and prepare a suicide bomber, operationally and ideologically. Now it takes hours. Mohammed Dahlan, reacting by phone from Ramallah, said that in the past, the people who send the suicide bombers into action had to look for bombers. Now the bombers are looking for people to send them.
With so many soldiers ("bomb-fodder") in the Palestinian death cult, the impact of the loss of a general like Shehade may well outweigh the marginal increase in volunteers and/or motivation for terrorism.
UPDATE: John Podhoretz points out that Israel's actions were permitted under the Geneva Convention.

HARKEN SUMMER RERUNS: Byron York has republished an old article detailing Bush's checkered business career. Few new facts have emerged since then, it seems. The New York Times certainly has no right to complain, though it will.
Also, Daniel Gross describes in Slate how Congress' last good idea based on hatred of CEOs helped create the current scandals. He's absolutely right.
The incomparable Jonah Goldberg draws some appropriate lessons.

LOOKING FOR A FRESH ANGLE? The Jerusalem Post has one regarding the latest atrocity in Tel Aviv. The headline says it all.

"LABORATORIES OF..." WHAT, EXACTLY? Vegard Valberg, everyone's favorite Norweigian blogger, explains how the European Union is actually a "union of innovation and progress."

HARKEN HERE: Byron York summarizes the case for why Bush's Harken scandal is a non-event, or should be. The Center for Public Integrity has posted a number of the SEC documents relating to the investigation of Bush. I think it is difficult to read this this SEC memo (in PDF form) and think that there's much of a scandal there.
I may have much more to say on the topic soon.

SELF-REGULATING LAZINESS CORRECTOR: Michael Lewis outlines the benefits of today's corporate scandals.

"BETTER LATE THAN NEVER" DEPARTMENT: Amnesty International has condemned "all attacks by Palestinians armed groups against Israeli civilians since September 29, 2000."

HOUSING PERVERSITIES IN NEW YORK AND SAN JOSE: Here's another aspect of what's wrong with rent control. (Via Megan McArdle.)

THE POWER OF FIFTH COLUMNS, OR "WHEN WINE ENTERS, SECRETS EXIT": Hirsch Goodman has a fascinating column about a dinner he had with a Palestinian "peace activist:"

We have known each other for quite a few years and I have always had deep respect for his views, hence the importance I attach to what he said that night, despite the three glasses of wine that went down with his meal.
The Zionist experiment, he told me, is over. The Palestinians have discovered a strategic weapon: suicide bombers. Once anathema, they are now considered heroes. The shahids (martyrs), once seen as religious fanatics, are now nationalist freedom fighters. Moreover, he continued, they are growing in legitimacy all the time. The Arab world understands them and even some Europeans seem to. The Israelis have F-16s, the Palestinians, suicide bombers. The equivalency is obvious to all.
Now, he continued, there are thousands out there waiting in line to kill as many Israelis as they can, to make your lives hell on earth. They belong to no organization, but want revenge and are prepared to die for it. You think you are going to stop them by punishing their parents. You are wrong. You won’t even know who they are or where they came from. Nothing will be left of them.
We are going to hit you everywhere we can: gas stations, theaters, parks, wedding halls. You will know no happiness. It will be one funeral after the next.
And then, while you are reeling, the 1.5 million Palestinian allies, the Israeli Palestinians, our brothers and your enemy, will rise up as well. They are just waiting for a sign from us. They know you better than you know yourselves. They speak your language and know every street in every one of your cities. They are familiar with every nook and every cranny. And they will join at the right time. Make no mistake about it.
And then what does Israel do? Transfer? Can you imagine CNN and the BBC reporting live as the Jews transfer truckload after truckload of Palestinians over the border? Your country will lose all legitimacy. The Arab world will go to war against it. You will be a pariah, worse than South Africa under apartheid. Your generals will be tried for war crimes. The world will impose sanctions. Your F-16s will run dry of fuel.
Your people will leave in droves, especially professionals.
The Zionist experiment is over.

With "peace activists" like these, who needs terrorists?
Buried in this declaration of war is the true lede, the elaboration of Israel's greatest vulnerability: the chance that Arab citizens of Israel will actively join the Palestinians and fight against Israel.
It is apparent that the Palestinians do not control their Israeli cousins in the manner fantasized by Goodman's peace-loving dinner companion. (The same way it is apparent that Al-Qaeda does not yet have nuclear weapons; if they can use this weapon, what are they waiting for?) But if the Arab Israelis ever did start aiding terrorism on a large scale (something which has been fairly rare up to now), engaging in sabotage or otherwise fighting against Israel, that would have the potential for destructive consequences beyond the reach of the current conflict.
In my opinion, Israel would be able to, if the situation deteriorated sufficiently, effect a quasi-"transfer" (especially if it is a matter of moving Palestinians within the West Bank and/or to Gaza) and survive (especially if it is accompanied by the evacuation of isolated, indefensible settlements). But if Israel ever had to send tanks against or attempt to expel up to a fifth of its own citizens, that would be another matter entirely. That scenario is the Palestinians' true nuclear weapon; it is fortunate that they do not appear to possess it.

SNARKINESS HALL OF FAME NOMINEE: Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently published Globalization and its Discontents, a book-long screed against the IMF.
(Here's an article setting forth his basic views.) The IMF has now responded to Stiglitz's book in a manner which should be admired and emulated throughout public life.

ARE YOU SURE THIS ISN'T A WAR CRIME? Steven Den Beste has been on a crusade (completely justified) against U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court. Here's his most detailed elaboration of why the Court would likely be a disaster for U.S. interests, and here's his explanation of the principles involved.

THE ECONOMIST'S FIRST PRINCIPLES: Here's a report on the reflexive anti-Israel atttitudes of the Economist.

ISOLATIONISM: Yossi Klein Halevi has another great article in TNR regarding the consequences in Israel of near-total international condemnation. One point is particularly noteworthy:

A benign or at least neutral international climate is a key precondition for Israeli willingness to take risks for peace. Though it's widely assumed that the Oslo process restored Israel's diplomatic standing, the sequence of events was actually the opposite. Only after the former Soviet bloc, China, India, and much of the Third World renewed diplomatic relations with Israel in the early '90s, following the Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, did Israel feel safe enough to begin negotiating with the PLO.
...International detractors who turn every Israeli act of war into a war crime and subject the Jewish state to a level of moral judgment not applied to any other nation are inciting the very hard-line forces they deplore.

BABY STEPS? Remember the terrorist baby picture? In TNR, Spencer Ackerman outlines the horrifying aspects of the various Palestinian responses to the furor surrounding the photo:

Last month former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak created quite a ruckus--among intellectuals, anyway--when he suggested that Palestinians have a cultural predisposition to dishonesty. Writing with Israeli historian Benny Morris in the New York Review of Books, Barak declared that Palestinians "are products of a culture in which to tell a lie ... creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an irrelevant category. There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn't."
Critics pounced on the statement, accusing Barak of "the vilification of an entire people." And yet Barak's portrait of a Palestinian culture that places little premium on truth might be the most flattering image of Palestinian society currently available.
After all, the competing snapshot is one of a suicide bomber in Pampers.
...The interesting reactions came from the Palestinians--wildly divergent as they were. Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat did what the PA does best when confronted with unpleasant truths: accuse Israel of manufacturing them. As with the discovery of the Karine A munitions ship, as with the records of financial support from the PA to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades found in Arafat's Ramallah compound during Operation Defensive Shield, Erekat called the photograph "lies that [the Israelis] use to cover their own crimes, the murder of our children." Stopping short of claiming the picture was fraudulent, Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo accused the Israelis of "using this photo to justify Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people and to go on with their occupation of the Palestinian territories."
But then the baby's family weighed in. After first denying relation to the infant shahid, Redwan Abu Turki acknowledged both his grandchild and the authenticity of the photograph, even as he claimed the get-up was nothing but a joke. "The picture was taken just for the fun of it," he shrugged. After all, in the streets of Gaza and Jenin, suicide bombers are heroes. Wondered the baby's uncle, "What's all the fuss about?"
...If Erekat and Abed Rabbo feel compelled to lie about the Abu Turki picture of the baby bomber, it is because they realize just how repulsive the concept really is. Far more horrifying will be the day when a Palestinian leader looks at a picture of an infant strapped with dynamite and, rather than denying its veracity, doubles over in convulsive fits of hysterics.

HACK, HACK: No, I was not on vacation for July 4. I was (and still am) under the influence of an energy-and-thought-sapping bug with lovely side effects, such as coughs louder than John Entwistle's bass. (No audio link available.) I will try to catch up ASAP. As always, I apologize for the absence.