While Goldstone defends his controversial report on many counts, he concedes to his critics on the central issue of whether the Israeli Defense Forces intentionally killed Palestinian citizens in its efforts to suppress Hamas missiles aimed at Israeli civilian areas. At a time when Israel feels besieged by democratic revolution in the Arab, Goldstone’s mea culpa will provide a measure of vindication. In Washington, it will disarm critics of the Israeli government and discourage those in the Obama administration who have doubts about the wisdom of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Just as his report had impact, so too will his change of mind.

Goldstone writes:

“We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

You can’t see he was misquoted or pressurized to change his tune. He seems to have been persuaded by the work of another U.N. commission, tasked with following up on his report.

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

Goldstone blames lack of Israeli cooperation for his initial mistake.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

Like it or not, this seems like the honest conclusion of a fair-minded man, and a vindication of the Israeli Defense Forces tactics. It doesn’t change the reality of the situation on the ground where Palestinian survivors can take little comfort in the conclusion that Israel did not intended to kill their loved ones. It   doesn’t change reality of Washington where pro-Israeli forces are dominant. It changes the reality of Israel’s critics.

Any new Egyptian government is unlikely to maintain Mubarak’s alliance with Tel Aviv in controlling Gaza. As Israeli analyst Yoni Ben-Menachem told VOA:

“This can create the domino effect, and this fall of the regime in Egypt can also continue to Jordan, and also with Jordan we have another peace treaty…. And if this will happen, if there will be a strategic change in the Middle East, that will not be for the benefit of the State of Israel.”

Note how Israeli’s much-vaunted doctrine of “deterrence,”  the attendant war crimes, and Washington’s longstanding alliances with Arab dicatatorships have finally served to isolate the Jewish state. Enormous military strength has turned profound political weakness.

In 1984, when I was cub reporter at the New Republic–and Kinsley was the cub editor–I wrote a piece about that reflexive tendency of Washington journalists to denounce “ideologues of the left and right” (ILAR).  ILAR-bashing, I argued, was usually the indolent scribe’s substitute for the hard work of passing judgment on the facts.

As Kinsley wrote this week.

The “extremists of the right and left” formula generally appeals to newspaper editorialists and the media because it is balanced. And maybe I’m too ideologically blinkered to see the situation clearly. But it seems — in fact, it seems obvious — that the situation is not balanced. Extremists on the right are more responsible for the poisonous ideological atmosphere than extremists on the left, whoever they may be. And extremists on the left have a lot less influence on nonextremists on the left than extremists on the right have on right-wing moderates. Sure, NPR, despite denials, tilts to the left. But not the way Fox News tilts toward the right. Rachel Maddow is no Glenn Beck.

But–my bias for balance is kicking in–I also think David Von Drehle has a fair point in Time. While the right is far more responsible for the legitimization of violence (and the criminally lax gun laws enable it), it has to be said that there is something “not normal” about some of the left/liberal/progressive reaction. The Guardian’s claim that Jared Loughner was “prone to right-wing rants” seems off-base at best. Juan Williams, the affable martyr to NPR, is prone to right-wing rants. Jared Loughner  was more confused than ideological in his rants.

I don’t blame ideologues of the left or right for their prejudices. Anybody who writes online journalism understands the imperative of 1) capturing readers  with 160 characters or less;  for the sake of 2) generating links to other Web sites; which 3) increase the size of the audience. This ardent pursuit of the beloved reader is an exciting and often useful pastime.

But we should not pretend that what we are doing is a normal act of citizenship that deserves emulation. The media provocations in the wake of the Tucson tragedy–the Daily Kos accusations, the Sarah Palin “blood libel” response–were the the normal behavior of public actors seeking attention. These actions are not what most people regard as citizenship. Most people think of citizenship as paying taxes, voting, and obeying the law, not necessarily in that order.

There’s a difference between media provocation and citizenship. We ideologues of the left and right forfeit credibility if we forget the fact.

It is noteworthy that the U.S. government’s so-called war on terrorism is preventing Posada from being brought to justice for bombing a civilian airliner in 1976 killing 73 people. (Posada planted an explosive-laden suitcase on the plane during a stopover in Venezuela.) The State Department says that Posada would be at risk for torture if he was extradited to charges there.

That’s a legitimate concern. The Venezuelan criminal justice system does not have a sterling record. But if the U.S. Justice Department wanted to insure that Posada was not mistreated it could easily reach a binding agreement with the Venezuelan government,civil society groups (which seek opportunities to hold the Chavez government accountable) and then extradite him. That would send a message to Latin America that the Washington was serious about the rule of law.

The problem isn’t torture, the problem is the CIA. The Agency cannot afford have Posada testify in open court about his relations with Agency operatives at the time of the bombing. That relationship, according to the CIA’s own records, was close and comfortable. Posada on trial might well implicate CIA officials–some of whom are still living– in his activities. I’ll be writing about Posada’s friends in Langley as the current trial unfolds.

Here’s my friend  Jose Pertierra, Washington lawyer who represents the Venezuelan government in this case, talking about Posada. The impunity Posada has enjoyed is extraordinary.

Taseer’s death deprives Pakistan of a colourful politician with unusual reserves of pluck. More significantly, it signals a worrying reduction in the public space for public figures, who cannot even count on their own police to protect them. The country’s liberals have not felt so isolated since the dark years of the Zia dictatorship in the 1980s.

via The Hindu.

The radicalization of Pakistani society is at the heart of the conflict between Western countries and jihadists, and it is getting worse, not better, as we grow ever more dependent on the Pakistini intelligence services to sustain our over-extended military occupation of Afghanistan.

Al-Fifi said he relapsed back into terrorism and fled to Yemen after going through a rehabilitation program at Prince Muhammad bin Naif Center for Counseling and Care. “I was looking for martyrdom and was deeply affected by the war in Gaza and the atrocities in Iraq.” he said.

This is how Israeli actions endanger American lives.

Joscelyn notes that Guantanamo has been rarely mentioned 34 messages and interviews delivered by top al Qaeda leaders since January 2009. The translations were published online by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that does research on global jihadists. (One reporter associated with the group is Doug Farah, a former colleague and friend from the Washington Post. For that reason, I implicitly trust the group’s research, even if I don’t always share its politics).

Joscelyn’s keyword analysis finds that Al-Qaeda’s ‘Number One Recruitment Tool’ is the Zionist Occupation of Palestinian. Keywords associated with the issue (“Israel,” “Zionist,” “Gaza,” “Jews,” “Palestinian” etc) far outnumber references to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq  is a distant fourth, and Guantanamo is rarely talked about. So Obama’s claim is exaggerated at best, and perhaps not true at all.

Joscelyn is so busy thumbing his nose at the president that he fails to notice his study usefully refutes The Lobby’s talking point, honed by convicted deceiver Elliot Abrams of the decadent Council on Foreign Relations, that the U.S. diplomats should not focus on Palestine settlements,  because the issue really isn’t that important. To the contrary, the Weekly Standard has confirmed that al- Qaeda thinks the best way to recruit suicide bombers to kill Americans (like Elliot Abrams and myself) is to call Muslim attention to the Zionist siege of the Palestinians.

So while U.S-Israeli alliance remains strong and Kristol’s tough guys sleep well,  al Qaeda’s pitch is working.

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of Al- Qaeda’s most successful strike on a U.S. target since Sept. 11. I refer to the Human al-Balawi’s suicide bombing at CIA base in Afghanistan.  Balawi, invariably described as a Jordanian by U.S. news organizations, actually came from a Palestinian family displaced by the ethnic cleansing operations of 1948. Balawi’s martyrdom operation was proof positive that the Israeli Occupation is al-Qaeda’s biggest recruiting tool.

President Obama can’t admit that but the Weekly Standard just did.

walled garden/wired world/who wins

People say the “walled gardens” of social media are more restrictive than the World Wide Web. But are you surprised at how ideologically agnostic Facebook is? I’m not.

Hamas’s military wing recently set up a Facebook page and which got  blocked,  prompting the group’s online allies in Turkey to complain.

But supporters of Hezollah and Hamas have a Facebook page. And so do allies of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Seems pretty open to me. And guess which group has more Friends?