gdp's Comments

PoliGazette : Unfortunate Precedent Set: American Citizens Can Now Be Targeted for Assassination

Sun, 11 Apr 2010 05:58:47 +0000

Sorry. I'm reading Liberal Fascism by Goldberg right now.

One of the funnier books I have read. If you want a good laugh skip ahead to his chapter on Hollywood. Did you know that Kevin Spacey's character in American Beauty was really a progressive fascist anti-hero? Classic stuff.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:34:30 +0000

It was an ABSURD "request" that no self-respecting people would ever agree to.

Previous Israeli administrations have disagreed with your characterization.

Your characterization of Obama merely "signaling" his displeasure, etc., undersells the effectiveness and potential damage that can be done to vulnerable nations like Israel through U.S. diplomatic maneuveurs.

What other actual damage has Israel suffered due to the Obama administration's actions?

(especially given the bad faith on the Palestinian side)

Both sides have shown plenty of bad faith over the years.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:25:25 +0000

It's another possibility that would have to be considered in the field of possibilities

Yet you seem to have taken Netanyahu at his word without hypothesizing inappropriate motives and are far less generous when it comes to your reaction to Obama.

Your "what I actually think" scenario does approximate an Occam's Razor explanation, but so does the explanation that the Obama administration overreacted (either purposely or otherwise) to a contrived controversy.

I don't see the Obama administration's response as an overreaction, nor do I see the controversy as contrived.

Why should Netanyahu and the Israeli people have to "pay a price"?

The price paid was enduring some harsh words. It was a price paid by Netanyahu and Yeshai and that is pretty much it. There have been no consequences beyond a bit of stern rhetoric.

Do you esteem either side - Israeli or Palestinian

The Israeli's are the better of two bad players in this conflict.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:15:51 +0000

What has Obama said that "expressed a desire to" overthrow (even in a figurative sense) the Netanyahu government? Give me any quote from Obama that expressed the desire she claims he expressed. It simply does not exist. Glick made it up.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:12:47 +0000

Either way, it is a radical position, I think, to call for such a moratorium. It would be like if Chavez and a majority of the U.N. members called for a development moratorium in areas along our border with Mexico, in cities like San Diego, Brownsville TX, or so forth.

If we in an active dispute with Mexico about who legitimately controlled them, the international community including the UN did not recognize our sovereignty over those areas, Chavez was seen as a potential fair moderator and Venezuela was the country most likely to bring both parties to the table then it would be reasonable for Chavez to request for no American only settlements in those areas until after negotiations and to be upset if we ignored that request.

If the Obama administration "requests" a moratorium for EJ and Israel says "no thank you," how can they be surprised when Israelis continue to develop parts of EJ

The surprise was at the insulting timing of the announcement. The Netanyahu administration continuing to build in EJ when Obama (and many many others) think that it will negatively impact coming peace negotiations explains the rest of the upset. In short Obama requests a moratorium on building Jewish only settlements until after negotiations, Netanyahu says yes to only part of that request, Netanyahu's administration announces continued building in EJ at a time insulting to the Obama administration, the Obama administration reacts negatively.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:25:55 +0000

Now stepping outside what I think really happened into a mirror of what Glick asserted. Scenario 1: It is quite possible that Netanyahu coordinated with Yeshai, using him as a cat's paw to test Obama's resolve*. Netanyahu is then left open to pursue further if Obama backs down or can claim ignorance if the attempt fails. The attempt backfired and Netanyahu was thrown back on his heals. It all boils down to political brinksmanship on the part of the Israeli hard right and it was an abject failure for which they had to pay a price. I have provided every bit as much evidence as Glick and I find my scenario far more plausible. Onto what I actually think: Yeshai was playing to his hard right domestic audience and cared little about what effect it might have outside of that. * like Medvedev attempted w/ missile defense a short while back.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:10:05 +0000

Occam's razor should apply I think my explanations are considerably more parsimonious.

it is quite reasonable to interpret that one of the main reasons that the Obama administration did such a full court press on the contrived housing development "controversy" was that they were using it as a pretext to try to undermine Netanyahu's domestic position

He disagrees with Netanyahu and his coalition's position regarding current Jewish only settlements in the disputed territories prior to peace negotiations. He would like a shift in Israeli public opinion and policy on that front and has spoken on that point directly with Netanyahu and in other statements. So yes he wants to 'undermine' Netanyahu's government on that front. I see no problem with that, do you?

maybe the Obama administration and the Israeli left both coincidentally planned ahead of time to use the announcement as a pretext. "If/when the announcement comes out, let's make a mountain out of a mole hill."

Again Occam's razor should prevail. The timing of the announcement was determined by a hard right member of Netanyahu's administration, so hypothesizing that the left is somehow responsible does not pass the sniff test. Continuing it only weakens your other arguments.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:58:24 +0000

She did argue, if I remember correctly, that it was the expressed desire of the Obama administration to effect "regime change" in Israel by undermining Netanyahu's domestic political position.

again she said, and I quote,

Obama's expressed desire to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel stands in contrast to his refusal to acknowledge the basic illegitimacy of the Iranian regime he seeks to appease.

Yet no one has pointed to anything Obama has said the expressed a desire to overthrow the government of Israel or to initiate any sort of regime change in Israel. There is not one bit of support for the first assertion and to support the second assertion requires some byzantine logic.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:49:16 +0000

Those who argued that the Obama administration was mainly upset about the timing suggested that it would have been okay (wink, wink) if the Israelis had just waited to make the announcement after Biden had left.

The timing made it near impossible to ignore. Had the timing been different the response would likely have been less forceful.

If Obama administration were upset about the announcement, itself, that suggests it believes the Israelis should shut down all development in East Jerusalem.

It has been the stated opinion of the Obama administration that there should be a hold on new Jewish only settlements in all disputed territories including East Jerusalem until after negotiations. (Netanyahu only agreed to a hold on building in other disputed territories, excluding E Jerusalem, and that only for ten months.)

Does Obama intend to impose a such land redistribution arrangement on the Israelis?

I doubt he plans to 'impose' any land distribution arrangement on Israelis or Palestinians, rather he plans to mediate negotiations between them. He will likely be upset with actions that make those negotiations more difficult as this action did/does. I have no problem with him signaling that upset, YMMV.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 02:06:44 +0000

Scenario 3.5: It is at least in part political theater to convince the Palestinians that Obama will be sympathetic to their concerns in the upcoming negotiations. If the Palestinian street is convinced that their concerns have a sympathetic ear then it is much more likely that some progress can be made. A plurality of Israeli's will likely think that Obama is either neutral or sympathetic to Israel and that also helps. Domestically it works against the he is weak in foreign affairs myth. Scenario 4: The Obama administration was actually upset about both the announcement and its timing because they saw it not as just a political affront but as an impediment to upcoming peace negotiations. Scenario 5: Were Obama not to have responded harshly to what most people in the world and even in Israel saw as an insult he would have appeared weak and that would be counterproductive in the upcoming negotiations. My best guess is some combination of my three proposals and that he would not be at all upset if this resulted in Livni being brought in to the Israeli governing coalition. I think that the best chance for progress in the peace process is with an Israeli government coalition of Likud and Kadima. I don't know if it much matters whether it is Netanyahu Livni or the other way around.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:53:19 +0000

Inyani can also be translated as even or fair-handed. The only other polling I have seen comes from a right wing publication and so I would guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In that one 30% saw him as even handed and 46% or so as pro-Palestinian as opposed to 8% or so seeing his as pro-Israel. I would argue that this is actually good news for any coming peace process. If the process is to have any chance of success then Obama must be seen as even-handed.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:45:28 +0000

But then you go in the exact opposite direction by suggesting that Obama merely "supports political opponent in the upcoming election." Big difference between rooting for the Israeli political process to change direction in the future, while constructively working with the current administration, and team Obama meddling in Israeli political affairs while throwing a public tantrum.

The thing is that there is no credible evidence of meddling in Israeli public affairs, while there is evidence that he would like to have Livni as part of a coalition government. Public tantrum is your subjective interpretation and not one that I share nor is it shared by most in the international political community.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:40:00 +0000

What makes you think I would look at HW Bush as a model

Just pointing out that this current US stance is not out of historical norms.

Glick was using the word "overthrow" rhetorically, as reflected in the rest of her analysis.

Was she also using "Obama's expressed desire" rhetorically?

yet you still insist on characterizing it as the Netanyahu administration deliberately trying to insult the Obama admin

Eli Yishai is undeniably a member of Netanyahu's administration. More importantly he heads one of the three pillars of Netanyahu's right wing coalition (Shas). Yishai either deliberately insulted Biden and by extension the Obama administration or he is an idiot. I have no idea whether Netanyahu new beforehand or not and I don't think I have opined one way or another.

PoliGazette : Daniel Pipes: When Israel Stood Up to the U.S.

Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:05:12 +0000

not all diplomatic disagreements are rooted in attempts to change regimes

What makes you think that the Obama administration is attempting to change the Israeli regime? What is it that makes his stern talk with Israel so different in degree from what Reagan did so that you view one as an attempt at regime change and not the other?

Many analysts on both sides of the political divide have surmised that the Obama administration's goal is to encourage regime change in Israel

The first two articles seem to amount to "some say" it could be this or he could just be playing hardball and that Obama would prefer Livni as a partner in peace negotiations. On the first I would guess he is just playing hardball and on the second, he would not likely be upset if the next election ended up with Livni and Kadima as part of a new government. Remember, as pointed out in the first article, that HW Bush actually did what 'some' are suggesting that Obama intends with Rabin as his Livni. It didn't end our close alliance with Israel when Reagan took a hard stance, nor did Bush/Baker's alliance with a rising Rabin, nor will Obama's current actions (whether or not he voices support for Livni). At worst this causes a temporary frostiness in US Israel relations and hardens Netanyahu's position (though it would be hard to ossify further). The Glick article seems so to be so much conspiracy theorizing with a few flights of fancy thrown in. She actually said,

Obama's expressed desire to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel

of course without attribution. Couple this with her theorizing the the announcement of the development in E Jerusalem by Eli Yishai was orchestrated by Kadima (laughable on its face) and I very much doubt her credibility. BTW regime change sounds so much more ominous than supports political opponent in the upcoming election don't you think?

Netanyahu did not play a role in the timing of the announcement.

It happened on his watch and embarrassed a visiting dignitary. It was announced by the head of Shas (one leg of his three part coalition). Expanding Jewish settlement building in E Jerusalem and elsewhere is a core issue for Yishai. The right wingers in Israel were trying to play hardball with Obama and Biden and it backfired.

which btw involved a routine planning approval step for a development project within a part of Jerusalem that is well understood to be part of Israel under ANY potential agreement

That is certainly Netanyahu's position but, East Jerusalem is disputed territory and Israel's right to sovereignty there is not recognized by the international community nor is it officially recognized by the US Government (despite a congressional overstep in 1995). Obama has been clear that he does not want continued expansion of Jewish only settlement in East Jerusalem prior to peace negotiations, since he sees it as an impediment to same. The timing of the announcement was a either a direct and intentional insult by Yishai to Biden and the Obama administration or he is an idiot.

On the other hand, the whole thing might have been a pretext for trying to weaken the Israeli administration, possibly instigated either from domestic or foreign opponents.

As mentioned above the announcement was made by Eli Yishai, the head of the Shas Party. The Shas party is hard right, part of Netanyahu's governing coalition, and Yishai has made building in E Jerusalem one of his core missions. The idea that the timing of this was orchestrated by left wing opponents of Netanyahu is not at all credible.

We get as much, if not more, benefit from the relationship than does Israel.

I think that proposition would be a difficult one to support.

I've seen very little evidence that Obama is a "friend" to Israel and the Israeli people reject that notion by a very wide margin.

Not according to the latest Haaretz polling.

U.S. President Barack Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week. The poll also found that most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu." The poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and supervised by Professor Camil Fuchs, comes after reports of a crisis in diplomatic relations due to Israel's announcement during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157626.html

PoliGazette : Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:35:08 +0000

Apparently in the 39 minute video the van is seen moving about in the combat area prior to where we see it in the edited video. We have yet another data point in the don't make judgments on what you see in a video until you have seen it unedited set.

PoliGazette : Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:17:42 +0000

Thankfully someone else has watched the full 39 minute video and has a good take on it. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39215

PoliGazette : Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video

Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:05:07 +0000

As to the initial shooting, I cannot tell if it is appropriate without the full context of the encounter, which is not currently available. The shooting of the second van with people helping the injured does not seem justified. Can someone here explain how the shooting of the people in the second van who were pulling the injured to safety was justified?

PoliGazette : The Purity of Climate Science

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:57:19 +0000

If CO2 is a primary driver of global climate change (as seems likely) then it is entirely reasonable to categorize it as a pollutant.

PoliGazette : The Purity of Climate Science

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:55:40 +0000

"They started it!" At a certain point, if you're going to level the policy debate field...

Perhaps, but the ugliness is rife through all political debate now and all sides always claim "They started it!" and generally also claim that the other side is worse and refuse to stop because it would be "unilateral disarmament". Given that state of affairs I don't see the situation improving.

concerted efforts on the part of AGW proponents to delegitimize all "skeptics,"

Remember also that there has been concerted efforts by several energy interests to delegitimize the science using misinformation. It is in some ways analagous to tobacco companies campaign against the science behind the linkage of lung cancer and emphysema to smoking. The response to this campaign was/is at times overheated and has become a convenient debate tactic for far too many people and is now used with such frequency that it has become all but useless when dealing with its original target. (I guess that could be boiled down to "They started it!") Certainly most of those skeptical about AGW are not in the employ of an interest group and are sincere in their beliefs and the same is true of those on the other side of the debate. Unfortunately it is also true that most on both sides of the debate are woefully ignorant of the science behind their position and routinely make ridiculous claims. (Los Angeles will become another Atlantis, there is a global comspiracy of socialist scientists, etc.)

Everybody has economic motivations and some people do sloppy work and then try to cover it over, but those tend to be universal impulses.

Thus the necessity of the scientific method. Thousands of climate scientists and millions of scientists get to look at the publications and the sloppy ones get eviscerated.

The AGW crowd believe that they're doing the best thing for the economy, environment, etc. But the results do end up scamming some people to the benefit of others.

1) Scamming requires intent, so even if wrong it would not be properly called a scam. 2) If we are correct in our prediction of likely scenarios we will indeed be doing the best thing for the economy, environment, etc. 3) In either case some will benefit from rents. This is (at least potentially) a huge multinational problem, such problems require large multinational efforts to address, and that inevitably pans out with considerable rent seeking. That is the price you pay for an effort of that magnitude. Unfortunately problems of this sort (some uncertainty, large up front costs, and delayed pain/benefit) are not well addressed by free enterprise solutions. When/if the pain/benefit is imminent free enterprise solutions come into their own, until then...

PoliGazette : The Purity of Climate Science

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:20:34 +0000

meteorologists - a generally "skeptical" group - get lumped in with the other "interested" and therefore tainted parties

I think they are grouped because of their relative skepticism rather than any other factor. Most of them do not have the appropriate skill set to evaluate the data for themselves.

The credentials and motivations don't matter on a scientific level - the data speak for themselves.

They are an indicator as to whether of not the person has the necessary knowledge to evaluate the data.

How would you characterize the manner in which a "typical" geophysicist, for example, would regard the scientific vigor of a "typical" climatologist?

Physicists in general tend to view less math intensive fields as less rigorous, but that particular criticism doesn't hold here, so I don't know. A geophysicist should have the necessary mathematical tools to evaluate climate models and many have modeling experience, particularly if they graduated after complex computer models were the norm.