Responding to Peter Beinart’s recent article on The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment to speak the truth about what’s happening in and to Israel, David Frum writes that “if there’s one thing that defines liberal thinking about the Middle East, it is precisely that it denies that Palestinian actions matter at all — or even that there are such things as Palestinian actions.”

Only Israel acts, and anything bad that happens in the region is a response to an Israeli action.

That does not seem a very sophisticated way to think. And actually when you consider it, it’s not very complimentary to the Palestinians or the larger Arab world. In this version of events, Palestinians and Arabs are never makers of their own story, only passive objects of other people’s stories.

I know a lot of liberals, many of whom are deeply involved in Middle East issues, and I can’t think of one of them who actually believes this. You’ll also notice that Frum cleverly didn’t quote any.

So, via Twitter, I challenged him to name one. Frum responded: “All those who think the way to fix the region is to pressure Israel. It’s the only logical premise for otherwise illogical policy.” Because, he continued, “If Palestinian intransigence is the problem, after all, it makes little sense to snub Netanyahu.”

I responded that it was important to hold both sides to their previous commitments, whereas Frum seems only interested in holding the Palestinians to their commitments, while the Israelis should be spared any “pressure.” Frum responded: “Nobody would think of pressing Bibi if they didn’t first believe that doing so would accomplish something…So don’t tell me ‘nobody believes’ what your own words tell me that YOU believe!”

So, as best I can figure it (and granted, this happened on Twitter, so I invite Frum to correct me if I’m stating his view incorrectly), by believing that the U.S. should hold both Israelis and Palestinians to their previous commitments, I have subscribed to the idea that “Only Israel acts, and anything bad that happens in the region is a response to an Israeli action.” Frankly, this does not seem like a very sophisticated way to think, even for Twitter.

Of course, believing that “Palestinian intransigence” is entirely to blame for the continuing conflict is not a particularly sophisticated way to think either, but this represents a major tenet of the neoconservative faith when it comes to the Middle East: Israel keeps trying to make peace, the Palestinians keep refusing. The Israeli settlements and the continuing occupation are either “trivial,” in the case of the former, or simply wished out of existence, in the case of the latter.

This comfortingly simplistic (and demonstrably false) perception of the conflict is, I think, what leads Frum to his flawed assumption that those who support pressuring Netanyahu to honor Israel’s road map obligations to freeze settlements do so out of a belief that Israeli behavior alone holds the key to Middle East peace. Because this is the mirror image of what he believes about the Palestinians.

Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took to the Senate floor to slam an amendment to the $58.8 billion emergency supplemental bill proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that would’ve required $2.2 billion in unspent stimulus funds be poured into securing the border. Though the amendment failed to meet the needed 60 votes and was defeated this morning, Republicans unanimously supported it. Before it was voted down, Schumer delivered a damning speech, chiding voices who claim to support “jobs” and “fiscal moderation” for “throwing caution to the wind” by supporting a “symbolic amendment”:

It’s $2.2 billion, it puts money in just about every program — needed or not. And then it takes that money out of the stimulus — the Recovery Act — takes it away from jobs. [...] For all of the voices on both sides of the aisle which have talked about jobs and all of the voices that have talked about fiscal moderation, to throw caution to the winds, to put $2.2 billion into programs whether they are needed or not — makes no sense at all.

We must stop illegal immigration as it comes across the border. This will not do it. You know it. And I know it. This is what’s called a symbolic amendment to show where you stand in many ways. And it’s $2.2 billion dollars. We can find amendments that will do the job, that cost a lot less, and will not take away jobs that we want to create and preserve in the entire country.

Watch it:

Wonk Room reported earlier this week that spending on immigration enforcement, particular border enforcement, has steadily climbed since 2002 and continues to rise under the Obama administration from about $9 billion in 2008 to over $11 billion in 2010. Overall, the U.S. will spend over $17 billion in FY 2010 just on enforcing immigration laws. However, enforcement without broader reform that doesn’t address the nation’s outdated visa system and does nothing about the 12 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. doesn’t really fix the problem.

Republicans, meanwhile, continue pounding on border security — despite the fact that the border is safer than it has been in years and irrespective of the controversial actions President Obama took this week when he deployed 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requested $500 million in supplementary funds for border security. Earlier today, the Senate also defeated an amendment proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would have sent 6,000 National Guardsmen to the southern border and a separate amendment proposed by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that would’ve thrown more money at Operation Streamline, a “zero tolerance” border enforcement program that has been found to “divert scarce resources from core law enforcement priorities and community safety, and strain U.S. courts.”

One of the starkest differences between the Obama administration’s new National Security Strategy (pdf) and the Bush administration’s (pdf) is its tighter focus on Al Qaeda and affiliated extremists, and its recognition that responding to Al Qaeda with fear and overreaction is playing right into Al Qaeda’s hands.

Where Bush’s 2006 NSS stated the goal of “defeating global terrorism,” Obama’s is very specific, stating “The United States is waging a global campaign against al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates.” The new NSS also makes very clear what this effort is not:

We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out. Yet this is not a global war against a tactic — terrorism or a religion — Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.

Here’s the section that Liz Cheney should read:

The goal of those who perpetrate terrorist attacks is in part to sow fear. If we respond with fear, we allow violent extremists to succeed far beyond the initial impact of their attacks, or attempted attacks — altering our society and enlarging the standing of al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates far beyond its actual reach. Similarly, overreacting in a way that creates fissures between America and certain regions or religions will undercut our leadership and make us less safe.

There’s also a welcome assault on Al Qaeda’s religious legitimacy:

Finally, we reject the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.

As Malcolm Nance writes in his new book An End To Al Qaeda, challenging Al Qaeda in the realm of ideology is a hugely important and thus far neglected aspect of the effort to diminish and defeat them. On the other side, you have people like Frank Gaffney who argue that Islam is inherently violent, and that therefore Osama bin Laden and his allies are the true Muslims, which is a clever way of effectively ceding the entire ideological debate to our enemies. Fortunately, the new NSS seems to recognize the foolishness of that idea.

The right wing is flailing about in search of an argument to make against the START treaty. Finding few, they have resorted to the same obstructionist tactics used to slow down the process on other big issues such as health care. Their latest effort is to demand that the Obama administration release the negotiating record. Kim Holmes of the Heritage Foundation and formerly of the Bush administration writes in the Washington Times:

Several senators are asking to see the secret negotiating record from the administration’s official talks with Russia. Why? Because U.S. and Russian officials publicly disagree about what the treaty says… Furthermore, there are reports that U.S. negotiators actually told the Russians that the U.S. had no intention of putting strategic missile defenses in Europe. Only a careful review of the negotiating record can set the record straight.

First off there are no “reports” – there is unsubstantiated conspiratorial gossip from American right wingers about some “secret deal.” These accusations are absurd. Did the right not notice that the delays in ratifying START were do to US-Russian fights over missile defense? Demands from the Heritage foundation and Senator Jim DeMint to release the record sound like calls for transparency but really they are just transparent efforts to further throw more mud in the gears of the Senate.

Furthermore, negotiating records are not released for a reason. Releasing the record would set a horrible precedent and would create a terrible chilling effect on future treaty negotiations. As a result, American presidents have been refusing to release treaty negotiating records since George Washington – who rejected a request from the first congress. When the record was released for the INF treaty both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate were so concerned and felt so strongly about that not setting a precedent due to the future “chilling effect” that they put out a statement in the committee’s final report. Senator Kerry read the statement to DeMint at a hearing last week:

Both the Administration and the Senate now face the task of ensuring the Senate review of negotiating records does not become an institutionalized procedure. The overall effect of fully exposed negotiations… would be to weaken the treaty making process and thereby damage American diplomacy. A systemic expectation of Senate perusal of every key treaties negotiating record could be expected to inhibit candor during future negotiators and induce posturing on the part of US negotiators and their counterparts during sensitive discussions.

But the real fact of the matter is that the right’s basic concerns over Russian interpretations of the START treaty’s impact on missile defense are entirely misplaced because ultimately what matters is what is in the actual text of the treaty. Peter Baker explained, “as a unilateral statement, it has no force other than as a symbolic political declaration.” Hence it’s unilateral. The US can do whatever it wants on missile defense even build some insanely destabilizing system.

But why did the Russians release a unilateral statement? Well they happen to have a radical right within their own country that is extremely distrustful and paranoid about the intentions of the United States. My colleague Sam Charap recently interviewed retired Russian General Viktor Yesin, he was the man whose job it was to pick out which US cities to nuke. Yesin noted that the unilateral statements made by the Russians were done for purely domestic reasons. And Charap added, “it was a nod to a domestic political constituency rather than a warning to the United States.” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

This week, House Republicans excitedly announced the America Speaking Out project, a website to solicit ideas from Americans to craft GOP policies. “[W]e’re…asking you to join us in building a new policy agenda for our country,” said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). “On this site, we hope you’ll share your ideas. Let us know what your priorities are for a new governing agenda.” The site, like Republicans’ other gimmicky attempts to use new media to superficially engage with the public, was widely mocked and immediately filled with suggestions like tattooing a large “I” on undocumented immigrants.

While the “Terrorism Abroad” section is filled with many ridiculous suggestions (e.g. “we need to employ some of those invincible black knights from Monty Python and the Holy Grail” and “We need to train an army of Ninja Cats”), some progressive ideas — such as repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — are receiving the most votes. Some examples:

In the Defense/Military section, top suggestions include “Reduce the military budget drastically” and “Get out of Iraq now!!!” There are very very few constructive conservative ideas on the site, and it’s likely that Republicans have stopped listening to what the public is saying in response to their stunt by now.

Republicans may have anticipated this outcome. McCarthy said that the GOP will still stick to its “principles” — meaning they won’t incorporate any idea they don’t already agree with.