Wedding Bells Roundup

I'm headed off to Arch Cape, Oregon tomorrow for the wedding two of my old college friends, Tim and Wendy (aka the fish killer). The location is a happy medium between Rochester, Minnesota (bridge bride [not again!]) and Anchorage, Alaska (groom). But both will be returning to Minnesota for medical school next year. Oh for cute.

Anyway, I'll be out of town until Sunday, sans laptop.

* * *

Jeff Sessions wants to smoke some crack with my boss from last summer.

Eugene Kontorovich has another thought-provoking post on the settlements. Again, I want to stress that I have no opposition to repatriating the settlers back to Israel. But it is fraught with implication that in, say, Western Sahara, Moroccan villages aren't even called settlements (let alone is there talk of expelling their inhabitants back to Morocco).

David S. Cohen wants to know why Sotomayor is worth such a fuss?

While our proportionate representation amongst death eaters is unnerving, Jews also get to claim Harry Potter, so it's all good.

And yet another tragic police shooting. Ta-Nehisi Coates comments.

Daisy of Dear Diaspora's got a guest stint going at Feministe. I know that I always prefer hits at my home base, though, so I'll link to the latest post on her own site.

It's hard out there for an aspiring political science professor.

Palestinian militants fired a rocket into Israel today. Fortunately, nobody was injured.

Gershom Gorenberg gives his thoughts on the "Breaking the Silence" testimony regarding IDF conduct in Gaza. One important point Gorenberg stresses is the importance of field level commanders on individual behavior. There was apparently significant variation in how various companies behaved in combat; differences that can likely be chalked up to the emphasis different commanders put on minimizing civilian casualties versus minimizing unit casualties.

About That

I for the most part want to stay out of the burgeoning debate of Human Rights Watch's fundraising practices in Saudi Arabia. But I did want to make a brief comment. David Bernstein's "throw every argument at HRW but the kitchen sink" maneuver here is tremendously aggravating and really unwarranted. Yet, there is one thing that had a little resonance for me, and it's the facet Jeffrey Goldberg picked up: the danger of raising money in Saudi Arabia specifically by referencing their ongoing battles against the Israel Lobby. In part, this is because that shouldn't be the focus of HRW's mission -- I'm funding them to be an observer for human rights, not to serve as a counterweight to certain pro-Israel groups. I'm not denying that the former may sometimes entail clashing with the latter, only that it is theoretically secondary, and there is something askew when it is part of the marketing pitch. If HRW was able to criticize human rights violations in Israel (and elsewhere) without remotely straining its relations with pro-Israel groups, that would be fine. If HRW was picking fights with pro-Israel groups and letting that take primacy over human rights watching, that would be very bad.

The other facet of this comes from this excerpt by Goldberg:

Another problem here, of course, is that Sarah Leah Whitson, if the allegation against her is to be believed, trafficked in a toxic stereotype about Jews in a country that bans most Jews from even crossing its borders, and whose religious leadership often propogates the crudest expressions of anti-Semitism. The term pro-Israel lobby, of course, means something very different on the Arabian peninsula than it does here. Here, even to critics of AIPAC, it means a well-funded, well-oiled political machine designed to protect Israel's interests in Congress. In much of the Arab world, "pro-Israel pressure group" suggests a global conspiracy by Jews to dominate the world politically, culturally and economically.

This was the focus of Goldberg's exchange with HRW head Kenneth Roth -- not the propriety of raising money for HRW in Saudi Arabia (I agree with Roth and disagree with Bernstein in that I have no problem with that), but whether the organization's pitch included "we need your help to fight the Israel Lobby." Roth is extremely elusive in answering, but eventually seems to concede it was.

I don't necessarily think Roth was intentionally trying to be evasive, in part because Bernstein's argument was so wide-ranging that I'm sure Roth was primed to hear a broad-spectrum attack and respond accordingly (as opposed to the extremely narrow issue Goldberg was raising). Likewise, I doubt Whitson is intentionally trafficking in the stereotype Goldberg identifies. But the fact that for both, the potential for this sort of rhetoric to severely threaten Jewish (not Israeli, not Zionist, Jewish) security doesn't seem to be particularly salient information, is important on its own. And I find it meaningful that many of HRW's defenders in this saga don't address this element of the dispute at all. The persistent effort to exile anti-Semitism from the conversation leads to this -- it leads to well-meaning actors having no idea how their behavior will react against entrenched anti-Semitic ideologies and institutions, and it leads to a massive blind spot when other people look at the issue and start with a default position that anti-Semitism is not a relevant topic of conversation unless proven (beyond a shadow of doubt) otherwise. This is problematic.

Sessions Gets Owned

There is an old lawyering maxim: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Senators presumably have their own, related maxim: Never make a snide comment unless you're absolutely sure it can't get thrown back in your face like a boomerang. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the Republican leading the Senate's anti-Sotomayor efforts, forgot that lesson and paid the price:

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), seeking to discredit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, cited her 2001 “wise Latina” speech, and contrasted the view that ethnicity and sex influence judging with that of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, who “believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices.”

“So I would just say to you, I believe in Judge Cedarbaum’s formulation,” Sessions told Sotomayor.

“My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,” Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions’ apparent surprise. “We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts.”

Cedarbaum agreed.

“I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no effect on her approach to judging,” she told Washington Wire. “We’d both like to see more women on the courts,” she added.

Of course, we all know the intellectual firepower Jeff Sessions brings to the table. Which is why it is all the more appalling we let someone like Al Franken share the floor with him. After all, Franken is just like Ann Coulter, if by "just like" we mean "has sound, mainstream policy positions in contrast to Coulter's proud advocacy of massive civil and human rights violations." But they do both sometimes make vulgar jokes.

Bike Crash Roundup

Well wishes to Professor Strauss, who was in a bike accident this weekend. Upon learning this fact, I asked if the perpetrator was a taxi cab near the bookstore. Random question, you think? Well, it would be, except Jill saw a cyclist get clocked by a taxi while she was walking to the bookstore Saturday. Turns out it was a different guy. Cyclists are getting mowed down left and right in Hyde Park.

* * *

It's like Gran Turino, but in real life (and a little less dramatic)!

Mellisa Harris-Lacewell to the SCLC: You call yourself a civil rights organization?

Relatedly, Bill Clinton has just come out for gay marriage. Patrick Appel is not impressed.

Israel is dropping charges against a settler filmed shooting at Palestinians, on the grounds that evidence in the trial might "harm the security of the state" (specifically, operational data about the Shin Bet). I understand the need to maintain operational secrecy, but you want to know what else harms the security of the state? Letting terrorists walk off.

J.K. Rowling talks body positive (via).

Ta-Nehisi Coates takes on the "hard truth" narrative surrounding Obama.

A former legal adviser to the IDF gives his take on targeted killings.

If you're wondering why I'm not blogging about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, this roughly states my view. Call me if Sotomayor breaks down and admits that she secretly harbors a desire to kill all White folk.

The other reason is that when I read blurbs like this, all I can think of is "wow, White people sure are desperate to clarify that people of color are the real racists!"

The Great Debate

Isaac Chotiner and Matt Yglesias hash out one of life's great questions.

Jonah Goldberg: Venal, or moron?

Discuss. And no fair selecting both -- we're looking for the dominant trait here.

Hilzoy Retires

The blogger known as Hilzoy -- staple at Obsidian Wings and spotted of late at the Political Animal -- has announced her retirement from blogging. Having recalled the ill-fated attempts to quit by PG and Andrew Sullivan, I'll believe it when I see it (not that I don't think she'll make a game effort, but this business is like crack, it is).

Still, if this is the end, it's been a great run. The entire blogosphere has been enriched by Hilzoy's presence, and her voice will be sorely missed.

Win-Win

I learned from Michael Bay's wikipedia page that he was rejected from USC's film school. Now, normally when someone is rejected from some program and goes onto to major success anyway, they have major schadenfreude as they imagine the entity lamenting their awful mistake (or maybe that's just me).

But even though Bay probably has grossed more than 99% of USC's graduates combined, somehow, I think they're okay with not having his name associated with their cinematic training.

Weiner Gets Married

New York Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner is reportedly engaged, to none other than top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

One gets the distinct feeling that the far-right Israel National News won't be sending flowers to the wedding, given its opinions of interfaith marriage (Abedin is Muslim, Weiner is Jewish). They spend most of their time wondering how Weiner's fiance will affect his staunchly pro-Israel stance. I am curious what makes them say that Ms. Abedin is "conservative" (one would think she wouldn't be working for Clinton, then, right?).

But who cares what the Israeli far-right has to say about American nupitals. I can give my congratulations. May they have a long and happy marriage!

RIP Thunder

As you may know, Arturo "Thunder" Gatti, one of boxing's all time great action warriors, was found dead in his hotel room while on vacation in Brazil. His wife is currently suspected of murdering him.

This is a great tragedy for the sport of boxing. As SC put it, Gatti could have come with a money back guarantee. Every fight he gave it his all, and every fight he was in had the chance to be something special. He retired in 2007 with a final career record of 40-9, 31 KOs, and four appearances in The Ring Magazine's "Fight of the Year" (only Muhammad Ali and Carmen Basilio had more).

Here's a highlight reel of Arturo Gatti's career. "Requiem for a Tower" makes anything sound more badass, but Gatti hardly needed it.



Rest in peace, Thunder.

It's a Guy Thing, Part II

Hilzoy's reaction to David Brooks being fondled by a Republican Senator, and bemoaning how this is a new breach in the "dignity code", reminds me a lot of the post that originally drew my attention to Esquiver. This horrible, terrible, shocking affront to your bodily autonomy? It happens to women all the time.

That doesn't make it okay, of course. It just makes it not new. Maybe if these things are problems, they should become problems before they become problems for men, no?

The Goldstone Investigation

Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist currently investigating alleged human rights violations in the Gaza Strip during the war several months ago, has reiterated his pledge that his report will be "balanced" and will deal with the abduction of Gilad Shalit as well as Hamas rocket fire into Israel. The question of whether Palestinian violations of human rights are up for investigation has been very murky, but regardless of what the body that appointed him thinks of the matter, Goldstone certainly seems to interpret his mandate as requiring that he look into both sides.

I certainly understand why the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the probe -- the UNHRC has proven itself time and again to be an absolute joke (come and get me, Naomi Klein) that literally sees no evil but in Israel -- but I can't help but think they're missing an opportunity here. By all accounts Goldstone has taken his obligations to be impartial and fair to all parties quite seriously. When is the next time we'll get that from a UN investigation? This is a rare chance for Israel's story to get fair play in the international legal arena, and I can't help but think they're chucking it overboard.

Step By Step

What constitutes the "end" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? To many, it seems, the answer is "the establishment of a Palestinian state". But that's only half the story. The end of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- the goal we are trying to achieve -- is a Palestinian state that exists side-by-side, in peace, with Israel. And it's important to keep our eye on the ball.

The fact is that establishing a Palestinian state does not necessarily mean that the conflict is over. It might accomplish that, and I believe it is a pre-requisite to accomplishing that. But Hamas' recent declaration that it does not accept the two-state solution in principle, but would nonetheless join a unity government in a Palestinian state, shows that two states does not inevitably mean peace. Hamas' agenda is pretty clear: it views the establishment of a Palestinian state on '67 borders as a stepping stone to the total "liberation" of Palestine (which is to say, the eradication of Israel). This, of course, is the precise allegation right-wing Israeli skeptics make when opposing the peace process writ large.

The reason why I want to harp on this is because I think a lot of people mistakenly view "steps to ending the conflict" as synonymous with "steps to creating a Palestinian state". That's clearly an important part of the agenda, but it isn't the only thing that has to happen. Of significant importance also is laying the foundation by which Israel and Palestine will exist peacefully next to each other. That means tamping down on extremist rhetoric aimed at delegitimizing Israel as a whole, taking a strong stance against maximalist firebrands who want to see the conflict prolonged as long as possible, and generally building and rebuilding the norm that both Israeli and Palestinian aspirations are important and worthy of respect. People who are undermining that project -- even if they think they're doing it in service of creating a Palestinian state -- aren't actually doing the peace process any favors. Statehood matters. But recognition matters too.

The Not Duke Lacrosse Case

In the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, one of the points I made was that the same thing that happened to those players happens to countless criminal defendants across the nation, only they don't get the benefit of constant media attention leading to their rightful exoneration. They just get ignored. It's a harsh reality check to all those harping on how the Duke kids were targeted in a sort of reverse discrimination power play.

The story of Eric Frimpong, a soccer star for UC-Santa Barbara (and Ghanaian immigrant) presses the point. Like the Duke kids, the evidence supporting the rape charge against him was scant. Like the Duke kids, the DNA evidence pointed to other suspects. Unlike the Duke kids, that didn't stop the DA from bringing his case to trial. And unlike the Duke kids, Frimpong was convicted (by an all-White jury) and sentenced to jail, where he sits today.

(Via AAB)

Subtle, Michelle

Michelle Cottle:

It has not escaped my attention that, despite my staying approximately the same size and shape since high school, the clothes in my closet have dropped a couple of number sizes over the years.

And after what, two kids?

Williams Retires

Sad news, as the Chief Judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Karen Williams, is retiring due to a diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's. Judge Williams, appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush in 1992, is only 57 years old.

Alzheimer's is a very scary disease, and there is no known cure, so the best we can hope for is that Judge Williams' symptoms are kept in check for many years to come.

Settlements, Ethnic Cleansing, and Overcoming Law

At the international law blog Opinio Juris, professors Kevin Jon Heller and Eugene Kontorovich are having a discussion about whether the efforts to remove the settlements (including restrictions on "natural growth") might be characterized as "ethnic cleansing" under international law (Kontorovich forwarding the idea, Heller expressing skepticism). Here are the links to Eugene's introduction and first post, Kevin's response, Eugene's retort, and Kevin's rejoinder.

Not being particularly knowledgeable about the relevant areas of international law, I don't feel qualified to venture an opinion as to whether Prof. Kontorovich is expressing a colorable claim. Insofar as I do have an opinion on the course of the debate, it seems to me that Prof. Heller gets the better of it -- but then, I'm biased towards his position. But part of Prof. Kontorovich's point is to show that, as a question of positive international law, the settlements present a far more complicated case than is often let on -- and in that, I think he's successful.

My point, however, is not to weigh in on the merits of the legal dispute, but rather once again to express my skepticism about using international law, as currently expressed, as a sort of argumentative trump card. I have no moral problem with evacuating the settlements. I won't say it sets off no moral alarms, but surely none that rise to what I would consider the seriousness of "ethnic cleansing". But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Kontorovich has the better of the argument with Heller -- a possibility that I don't think non-international law experts can definitively rule out from a legal perspective. What does that imply? I think we would, bluntly, be fools to accept that as that and move on. The rules of international law aren't divinely inspired. Finding that removing the settlements violated the strictures of prohibitions against ethnic cleansing would do more to show a shortcoming in the current state of the law than it would indict the evacuation project.

I've noted recently my view that international law is acutely vulnerable to political manipulation, with norms developing less on whether they make sense as general rules, and more based on whether they aid the parties we want to see benefited. It might seem that I'm making a similar claim here: that we should ignore a formalist finding that our preferred political project is illegal because it conflicts with our desired social outcomes. But there is a subtle difference between a "pure politics" approach to law, and trying to make law cohere to the values we're actually trying to enact through out. The former is an ad hoc attempt to simply aid one's allies -- it isn't concerned with broader notions of legal coherency, consistency, or equality. The latter is an instantiation of Oliver Wendell Holmes' (him again!) observation that "the life of law has not been logic; it has been experience." Law does not possess some totemic power to proclaim its own primacy or even legitimacy. We evaluate legal regimes based on whether they work; whether they are true to our experience.

The point, though, cuts both ways. Particularly because international law is relatively young and has had little time or opportunity to establish its own center of gravity independent of the political exigencies of the day, we should be appropriately critical in examining whether stated legal rules in the international arena actually effectuate a fair and equitable system of ideals. Waving international law findings like a talisman (even -- especially? -- when the clause in question is something as serious as "ethnic cleansing" or "war crimes") skips this very important step, and actually contributes to the politicization of law by leaving its political underpinnings unchallenged.