Nonsense on Israel skewered by Powerline (updated)

Thomas Lifson
Scott Johnson of Powerline offers two outstanding commentaries on Israel-related matters.

He first noted yesterday the puzzling (at best; shameful at worst) rhetoric President Bush used yesterday in speaking of a Palestinian state.

The devolution of President Bush's foreign policy is vividly on display on his trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the case of North Korea, Iran, and Israel, the arc of Bush foreign policy has become Clintonian, predicated on empty words and meaningless gestures. I tried to point out one aspect of this devolution in "When words lose their meaning," noting President Bush's silent abandonment of the critieria he himself had articulated for attendeance at the Annapolis peace conference. Did anyone notice?

As he urges Palestinian statehood, President Bush continues to assert despite appearances to the contrary that President Abbas and the Arabs within the Palestinian Authority understand the importance of "democratic states living side by side in peace." The rise of Hamas would seem to suggest otherwise. The fact that Hamas has seized control of territory within the nascent Palestinian state presents something of a problem (as does the continuing terrorism wrought by Fatah and other forces operating on the West Bank). Here is how President Bush put it yesterday in his press conference with the nominal leader of the Palestinian Authority, the gentleman who still sports a nom de guerre:
Separately, Scott notes today that Ms. Magazine has rejected an innocuous ad noting the prominent role of women in Israeli public life:

The American Jewish Congress submitted this understated advertisement about the status of women in Israel to Ms. Magazine. Underneath the attractive photographs of Israel's foreign minister (Tzipi Livni), Supreme Court president (Dorit Beinish), and speaker of the Knesset (Dalia Itzik), the ad reads: "This is Israel." I think it is fair to say that in most parts of the United States it would be deemed an utterly innocuous ad.

Ms. rejected the ad. Yesterday the AJC issued this press release with the following comments:

"What other conclusion can we reach," asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, "except that the publishers -- and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers -- are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?"
Both commentaries deserve to be read in full. And Scott Johnson deserves our admiration, something he and his Powerline colleagues have long had.

Hat tip: Dennis Sevakis and Clarice Feldman

Update:

Bob Teter writes:

I read about this in a news item yesterday. Bush also mentioned the Palestinian state must be contiguous(!). Olmert suggests giving away part of Jerusalem. This is disheartening rhetoric. 

There is no 'Mid East Peace Process' . What there is has to be the most perverse assymetrical war in the history of the planet. A war where one side actually funds it's enemy! 

And  Bush has fallen into the footsteps of the politicians that preceded him, blithely pursuing a policy that has nothing to do with the real world. 

If this is the best he can do, he would be ahead to just shut up and wait for his  term to end.
   
Scott Johnson of Powerline offers two outstanding commentaries on Israel-related matters.

He first noted yesterday the puzzling (at best; shameful at worst) rhetoric President Bush used yesterday in speaking of a Palestinian state.

The devolution of President Bush's foreign policy is vividly on display on his trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the case of North Korea, Iran, and Israel, the arc of Bush foreign policy has become Clintonian, predicated on empty words and meaningless gestures. I tried to point out one aspect of this devolution in "When words lose their meaning," noting President Bush's silent abandonment of the critieria he himself had articulated for attendeance at the Annapolis peace conference. Did anyone notice?

As he urges Palestinian statehood, President Bush continues to assert despite appearances to the contrary that President Abbas and the Arabs within the Palestinian Authority understand the importance of "democratic states living side by side in peace." The rise of Hamas would seem to suggest otherwise. The fact that Hamas has seized control of territory within the nascent Palestinian state presents something of a problem (as does the continuing terrorism wrought by Fatah and other forces operating on the West Bank). Here is how President Bush put it yesterday in his press conference with the nominal leader of the Palestinian Authority, the gentleman who still sports a nom de guerre:
Separately, Scott notes today that Ms. Magazine has rejected an innocuous ad noting the prominent role of women in Israeli public life:

The American Jewish Congress submitted this understated advertisement about the status of women in Israel to Ms. Magazine. Underneath the attractive photographs of Israel's foreign minister (Tzipi Livni), Supreme Court president (Dorit Beinish), and speaker of the Knesset (Dalia Itzik), the ad reads: "This is Israel." I think it is fair to say that in most parts of the United States it would be deemed an utterly innocuous ad.

Ms. rejected the ad. Yesterday the AJC issued this press release with the following comments:

"What other conclusion can we reach," asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, "except that the publishers -- and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers -- are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?"
Both commentaries deserve to be read in full. And Scott Johnson deserves our admiration, something he and his Powerline colleagues have long had.

Hat tip: Dennis Sevakis and Clarice Feldman

Update:

Bob Teter writes:

I read about this in a news item yesterday. Bush also mentioned the Palestinian state must be contiguous(!). Olmert suggests giving away part of Jerusalem. This is disheartening rhetoric. 

There is no 'Mid East Peace Process' . What there is has to be the most perverse assymetrical war in the history of the planet. A war where one side actually funds it's enemy! 

And  Bush has fallen into the footsteps of the politicians that preceded him, blithely pursuing a policy that has nothing to do with the real world. 

If this is the best he can do, he would be ahead to just shut up and wait for his  term to end.