"as Fred Hiatt righteously asks -- why aren't we, the United States, doing more to bring this wretched and lawless behavior from Egypt to light?" -- Because we depend on Egypt to do the freaky stuff (torture-wise) that CIA agents don't have the stomach for. After all, they have to go home to their families every night.

As for the larger question of dealing with the "Fred Hiatts" of the world, it helps to have a psychological profile. If I may:

Fred is a Nihilist of a particular variety. Glenn, you have called nationalist, jingoist autocrats "tribalists". I wish to further classify these people as Nihilists. They suffer from the delusion of moral superiority, when really, they're just Machiavellian. I think we are all familiar with their one basic argument: The world is a scary, tough place, so tough extrajudicial measures (only they don't admit that) must be used to defend ourselves. That argument is given heavy weight because it is mostly invoked from a position of authority. Those who believe that extrajudicial measures work as a practical matter are, I believe, wrong. Those who believe that extrajudicial measures are needed simply to communicate the fact that we can be scary and tough as well (see Digby today: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/war-with-terror-by-digby-greenwald.html), are mad. I don't know which of those our "Fred Hiatt" character believes, but somehow all "Fred Hiatts" arrive at the same place: condoning lawbreaking in the name of national security. The "Fred Hiatts" then rationalize that as long as we and our allies have more open, democratic societies than our enemies have, then we may lecture others about their shortcomings and our virtues. In addition, protecting all of Western Democracy should also be counted among our many virtues. Therefore, when Western Democracy is threatened, America may curtail civil liberties because She is defending the greater good. Our virtues may then end up traded as political capital in the game of realpolitik. And this is what makes one a Nihilist. It is the belief that we may buy and sell liberty.

Any person who instinctively loves liberty knows that there is a problem with treating liberty as currency, as though it may be measured, balanced, and spent. Liberty is as priceless as the lives our country has sacrificed to protect it. This does not mean that we may sacrifice lives fighting in stupid wars because neither life nor liberty may be priced. It means that we do not compromise or sacrifice either unless there is a DAMN good reason. The burden of proof for those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security is high, which was why we saw fit to pass laws that prohibit torture and warrantless eavesdropping. To ignore the law is to ignore the collective wisdom of our forebears and our contemporaries. To ignore laws that limit executive power is to ignore the wisdom of those who sacrificed liberty, and regretted it.

So it's simple: the "Fred Hiatts" treat liberty as a commodity and they have no respect for law and democracy. They don't have "gall." They are simply Nihilists.

"I hope you're right here - we shall see."

Yes, well, we're just going to have to leave it at that. I definitely understand your skepticism. It's healthy. My assessment is based less on what's happening domestically, in Israel, and more on the evolution of Western opinion, which affects Israel's foreign policy greatly. Glenn is right, the U.S. gives Israel diplomatic cover. What would normally be considered reprehensible behavior on the part of a Western democracy is excused by the world's only superpower. In order to change Israel's foreign policy, the diplomatic cover must be stripped away. I see the debate on Israel shifting toward that goal.

"[T]he rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."

Those are the ravings of a madman, and an idiot. Five or so years later, look at the results. Israel insisted that the onus for beginning the peace process was on the Palestinians. They would have to turn into Finns -- a ridiculous standard that would ensure perpetual war. Now, the Europeans and Americans are seeing the beginning of this perpetual war and they are going to put a cork on it. The debate has shifted, and Ariel Sharon was part of it (intentionally or not). But, honestly, thanks for those quotes. They're enlightening, for sure, but they don't matter.

"Sharon did everything he could to strangle the peace process -- he was just a clever enough old bird so that strangulation appeared to most observers to be CPR."

I think whether or not Sharon was sincerely seeking peace in taking those steps is irrelevant. He did it, and by doing so shifted the debate leftward in a way that I am pretty sure was unintentional. Now, I really think Netanyahu is going to meet brick walls if he tries to shift the debate rightward again. The two-state solution is here to stay.

Somewhere in the middle of the posting, I asked myself, "How did the right-wing ever allow the two-state solution to become orthodoxy?" The answer is Ariel Sharon allowed it, I guess. Sharon even took steps to start the peace process, by shutting down settlements. The right-wing looks back on those steps with regret now, but the cat is out of the bag. The two-state solution remains orthodox, and there is (hopefully) nothing Netanyahu can do about that. It's true what they say about reality having a liberal bias. In Israel's case, we might amend that to say that reality has a dove-ish bias.