The difference between Israel and some

The Israeli establishment has been under Arab attack for decades, and arguably for centuries and millennia. Given this constant threat, some Israeli politicians have approved tactics that may break international law, which gives little leeway to countries under unending attack. And yet despite Israel's faults, it is liberal and democratic, and it has recourse for rule-breakers. The Israeli Supreme Court forced the government to change the route of the security fence multiple times after human rights groups complained. The IDF punished a soldier recently who illegaly used a Palestinian youth as a human shield on his Jeep, after a civilian shot a video of the act and submitted it to the Army. And, today, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz temporarily halted a government plan to cut electricity to Gaza until it can "evaluate the risks that such measures could have on the civilian population." Ehud Barak, the Defense Minister, has threatened the move in response to frequent Qassam rocket attacks.
It's pretty amazing that in the two-plus years since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the government has neither re-occupied the Strip nor instituted this kind of punishment before, even despite Qassams and a war that was started when Hamas operatives captured Gilad Shalit in summer of 2006. Israel will not gain anything by instituting collective punishment on Gaza's citizens, assuming they are allowed to do so. But some countries (critics of Israel, of course) have committed far worse injustice for far less provocation than this. One wonders if we might find this kind of democratic recourse for citizens in any other country having suffered from thousands upon thousands of terrorist incidents over the last 60 years.

A long 10 months

That's the length of time we'll be forced to wait between the Iowa caucuses and the presidential election. The Iowa Democratic Party has moved its caucuses to January 3rd, 2008, following the lead of Iowa Republicans. This adds 11 more days to the gap between primary season and general election. Our country drags this process on longer than anyone else. Australia is set to have a general election in just under a month, and it was announced only two weeks ago.
The punishing length of the campaign cycle has a detrimental effect on political discourse in this country. One, it forces candidates looking to lay groundwork for campaigns to start ever earlier in establishing a national base. Mitt Romney spent 219 days completely or partially out of state in 2006 in preparation for an election that will not even happen until November 2008. On a related note, the lengthy campaigns draw candidates away from their jobs once they've declared. Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John McCain have each been forced (or had convenient excuses) to miss important Senate votes. If they're out giving speeches or debating instead of voting on whatever issue is up for consideration, is this really a more honest way of getting their views out to the general public? Lastly, the endless "strategy-framed" election coverage increases the cynicism of the public towards the political process. They see their elected officials not concentrating on accomplishing something in their current job, but asking for money so they can get a better one.
If our presidential candidates can't articulate their policy positions and vision for our country in theoretically even 10-12 weeks, haven't they failed us? Why must we demand that they tour the country for two-plus years laying the groundwork for campaigns? 45% of voters will vote for Democrats no matter what, and 45% will vote for Republicans no matter what. If the remaining 10% of the electorate can't make up their minds in the time of 10-12 weeks, any additional time would not make their decisions easier. Enough of this lengthening of the primaries. Shorten the election cycles so we can let politicians do the jobs they were elected to do.

It keeps getting even more interesting . . .

President Bush's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation may be even more misguided than we thought. He chose to attack a country out of a supposed fear of a nuclear weapons program, which was apparently right in the middle of two countries who actually did have nuclear weapons programs! A couple of stories from the New York Times help prove the case that Syria was indeed working on a clandestine nuclear operation until Israel bombed the supposed facility last month.
The first, which came in Friday's print edition, showed a satellite photo of the site taken in August, featuring a large square building (the reactor) and a pumping station (reactor cooler) nearby along the banks of the Euphrates. Another photo taken Wednesday showed the pumping station intact and the square building gone. Not half a building with a blast crater. Gone. The Syrian government apparently decided that it had to demolish any trace of the reactor as soon as possible, because it will make it harder for the IAEA to investigate claims of illegal nuclear plans. Analysts quoted by the Times claimed that this should only serve to raise suspicions of wrongdoing.
The second, from the Times' website, reports of a photo of the site from September 2003, where construction was already well under way. These developments, coupled with multiple leaks from American intelligence sources and North Korea's hyperbolic condemnations of the Israeli strike, leave little to be concluded other than this: North Korea has helped Syria start a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The fact that top American officials were either not aware of this or chose to ignore it is very alarming. Thus, President Bush's fixation on Iraq quite evidently was not about weapons of mass destruction that could threaten neighboring countries, as he would have pursued either Iran or Syria if this were the case. (It also should slam the door on any claims that the "Israel Lobby" was the principal force behind the Iraq War.)