Shivering Peace

Two articles in Ha'aretz today demonstrate just how cold the peace between Israel and Egypt really is. In the first, an Egyptian academic is being harshly attacked for not walking out (with Iran) of an interfaith meeting that was attended by Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Egyptian parliamentarians representing the Muslim Brotherhood even called for Tantawi's dismissal as university head because of this "display of normalization of ties."

But Egypt's religious affairs minister, Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, came to Tantawi's defense, saying in a newspaper interview that Tantawi did not shake Peres' hand or the hands of the rabbis at the conference.

A sterling defense if there ever was one (and another example of how hostility to Israel seems to keep magically expressing itself as hostility to Jews).

The second article concerns an Egyptian court ruling annulling the citizenship of any Egyptian who marries an Israeli, as well as stripping any children of the couple of citizenship, on the grounds that such partnerships constitute a "security risk". The government, to its credit, is appealing the ruling. But in a sense, that's just the point -- the "peace" between Israel and Egypt is almost purely governmental -- there is very little indication that the populace as a whole has accepted Israel as a true and permanent neighbor.

The last article also contains a piece on how Jordan is looking to expel (or perhaps "transfer"?) many of its Palestinian inhabitants to the West Bank. But it's okay, because it's not Israel. Or something.

Stresses

I was very fortunate when it came to the law review competition -- the two professors I am working for this summer agreed to "soft start" me until the competition was over, giving me plenty of time to do it (one of them was so enthusiastic, he still has yet to give me any work! Thanks, but I do feel like eating this summer.). But many of my friends were not so fortunate, and had to work full time while doing their write-on. And then there is this student.

I obviously hope everything turns out well for his or her family, and that nobody is hurt. Kind of puts everything else in perspective though, doesn't it?

Futurama Teaches All

Adam Serwer lays out conservative allegiance to the Bender theory of discrimination, namely, that the only type of discrimination worth talking about (or even noticing, really) is the kind that affects them. Since most Republicans are White men, this means a huge emphasis on how White guys can't catch a break in modern America. But on the rare occasion that a female or non-White Republican catches hell, then suddenly racism and sexism become a problem. But only then -- it's not like seeing sexist attacks on Sarah Palin suddenly makes them realize launching them against Sonia Sotomayor is wrong or anything.

They also, I have to add, play the game badly, mostly because they believe their own rhetoric about how "discrimination" is nothing but politically-motivated whining. That being the case, they're happy to engage in it when it helps their own political motivations -- but they don't seem to grasp that a discrimination claim actually does have to have some content. So while Sarah Palin certainly did face some sexism, it is clearly untrue that all the troubles she faced could be traced to it (as opposed to the far greater contributor -- her own massive incompetence and egomania).

Just So There's No Doubt

A few days ago, the head of F1 racing, Bernie Ecclestone, released a statement praising Hitler as a great leader, albeit one who "got lost" in the end. In response to the expected torrent of criticism and calls to resign, Ecclestone sought to make it absolutely clear he's an anti-Semite:

But Ecclestone said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that “I think the people who are saying that [I should resign] haven’t got the power to say these things.”

If the WJC [World Jewish Congress] is influential, he said, “it’s a pity they didn’t sort the banks out.” Asked to elaborate, Ecclestone said, “They have a lot of influence everywhere.”

Ah. Well then, sorry we got distracted.

Via OJ

The New Animated Special

Some countries hide the fact that the abuse prisoners. Others are ashamed of it. And then there is Hamas, which distributes animated cartoons advertising it.

Getting into the Game

I just wanted to flag this piece by Rabbi Jill Jacobs, urging Jews to insert their Judaism more aggressively politically. It's a line I've been pushing for awhile now. Obviously, it would be facile to say Jews are not involved in politics -- we have excellent representation at nearly all levels of government. But while there are plenty of Jews, there is very little Judaism -- very little attempt to bring out our own experiences and ideas as Jews and use them to solve political problems.

This, to my mind, is a mistake. Obviously, Jewish silence reinforces the dominance of the "Judeo-Christian" paradigm, which falsely claims to speak for Jews and in doing so renders us mute. This is bad for its own sake, and it is also bad because it causes other people to assume they know what Jews think, associating us with policies that bear little resemblance to the majority Jewish view. But more fundamentally, I think the political sphere benefits from a plurality of perspectives, so we're worse off when the Jewish vantage point is absent. We have something to contribute, and I think we should give it our level best. The world was a better place when it took to heart the writings of Abraham Joshua Heschel, after all. How will we know if there is another Heschel among us, unless we speak out?

New Opposition

Regarding pressure on Democratic Senators from more conservative locales to vote nay on such things as public choice, Matt Yglesias writes:

If the issue were really that Ben Nelson has a deep-seated desire to advance a progressive legislative agenda but worries about how it’ll play back home in Nebraska, it would be easy enough for him to decide that the key priorities on which Barack Obama won a national mandate last November all deserve an up or down vote. If he ultimately chose to vote “no” on legislation that he thinks Nebraska voters won’t support, that would be that. You don’t need Nelson’s vote to get to 50.

At the end of the day, though, you don’t erect procedural roadblocks to legislation because you’re playing to public sentiment back home. You use procedural roadblocks when you really don’t want something to pass.

Eh. I'm skeptical. Certainly, a "nay" vote on the substance can help someone like Nelson muddy the waters back home. But it hardly would give him a pass -- the conservative activist groups which would target him know that the procedural vote is the one that matters, and will release the exact same ads lambasting him for his "support".

The fact is that what constitutes "opposing" a bill has changed. This may be a bad thing, but nowadays you're not really "opposing" a bill in the Senate unless you're trying to block it. When Democrats were the ones trying to block GOP bills (like telecom immunity), we weren't going to take a no vote on the merits as a sufficient substitute for filibustering (if the latter was the only way to stop the bill). It's silly to expect conservatives to do otherwise.

Reliving Mistakes

Neil D. over at Harry's Place takes issue with the claim that Communism is mankind's "greatest mistake." But, he writes,

What makes communism interesting, is that despite the clear evidence it was an anti-human ideology in all its expressed forms, intelligent people still defend it, act as apologists for it, and waste their lives playing about in tiny communist sects.

AU Dissenters

Kevin Jon Heller has a good post complicating the earlier picture of AU nations deciding en masse to ignore their ICC treaty obligations vis-a-vis Sudan. Botswana has already said it will not go along with the motion, and reports indicate that the AU motion itself was hotly contested inside the organization. Dapo Akande argues that the AU's maneuvering have come within the context of the Rome Treaty and ICC procedure, which should be seen as proof that the continent is not rejecting the institution wholesale.

Eh. I'm pleased by the lack of unanimity and Botswana's defection. But the fact that the AU is able to work within legal confines rather than rejecting them outright doesn't tell us that much. Again, international law is an area with particular fluidity that enables it to be cited and deployed in favor of virtually any practical position a state might take. The actual way international legal disputes play out, then, is primarily a function of political power -- and the same reports which "complicate" the AU's resolution also indicate that the move came due to heavy pressure by Libya, one of the most powerful states in the union.

Freedom Freedom Freedom OY!

Happy Fourth of July! May it be a fabulous, crabulous day for all.

Of Law and War

Noting that no less than 30 African nations have officially repudiated their treaty obligations under the ICC in order to protect genocidaire Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Chicago international law expert Eric Posner writes:

It is increasingly clear that the ICC, like every utopian international institution that preceded it, will not accomplish its mission—to bring international justice to places like Sudan where a genocide is taking place. It is rapidly being downgraded to a development institution, one that can provide legal and judicial capacity to states that request its help in battles with insurgencies, such as Uganda and the Central African Republic.

However, Posner notes, the full fury of international law has been raining down upon Israel. Posner's advice to Israel is simple: the law doesn't matter, it's the politics. Change your behavior, do better diplomacy, or take vacations elsewhere.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with my observations about the heavily political nature of the international legal regime. Because the very norms themselves are being crafted in the midst of salient political conflicts, it is unsurprising that these norms will systematically be bent to advance the interest of locally powerful actors, i.e., those most in the position to influence the development of the law. The international legal regime is less a tool of law than it is a tool of lawfare. It is an open question whether any legal system can "escape" from political influences, but it is beyond dispute that the international legal system (for reasons any good realist could explain) is hopelessly entangled with them. It is fair to say, indeed, that there is no international law outside of international politics.

Holy, Er, God

The South Jerusalem blog takes a break from commentary on Israel and Palestine to give us Rep. John Shimkus' (R-IL), er, unique perspective on global warming:



Back to SJ:

Maimonides would not have made such a ridiculous mistake had he been elected to Congress. He adduced the Talmudic principle that ha-olam ke-minhago noheg—meaning that the universe functions in accordance with the laws of nature. Even when the Messiah comes, he argued, we will see no supernatural events or miracles that violate the natural order. (One reason Maimonides and other theologians have held this position is that if the natural order must be violated for God to carry out his will, then the world is an imperfect creation—implying that God made mistakes that He needs to correct.)

So God’s promise to Noah is not that he’s made it impossible for Noah’s descendants to destroy the world. God’s message to Noah is that it’s entirely up to humankind to maintain the world. It would be apt to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin today: “A world—if you can keep it.”

Leave theology to the pros, Rep. Shimkus.

Muslims Against Anti-Semitism

Bob from Brockley points to an interesting initiative from Faith Matters: Muslims Against Anti-Semitism.

We are a not for profit organisation that is made up of British Muslims who believe that Anti-Semitism in all of its guises needs to be challenged. We also believe that Anti-Semitism can and usually does evolve and mutate into other xenophobic ideologies, whether this is Islamophobia or ideologies against migrants who have legally settled in the UK.

Islam at its core is about emancipation from ignorance and learning and social justice sit at its core. With this in mind we will work towards combating xenophobia and intolerance so that our Jewish brothers and sisters do not feel threatened or frightened because of who they are. Together, Muslims and Jews can also work towards combating some of the stereotypes and myths perpetuated against Muslims and Islam.

The website still seems a bit spartan, but the sentiment is very, very welcome. And let me say likewise that Islamophobia, inside and out of the Jewish community, is utterly intolerable as well.

This is how alliances are forged.

Being Gay is Just Too Natural

David Klinghoffer eagerly reprints an argument by Israeli biblical scholar Joshua Berman claiming that the main victims of allowing gay marriage are ... women! Even lesbian women, I wonder?* In any event, the thrust of the argument is of a form I've heard before -- albeit rarely because it clashes so severely with the dominant "homosexuality is unnatural" paradigm -- namely, that if we sanction gay relationships, men will suddenly flock to gayness, leaving women in a lurch. We know this to be true

Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!
[...]
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union.
[...]
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Basically, it is the orientation equivalent of "once you go black, you never go back." (Once you try man, you're always a fan?).

These arguments always amuse me, because they seem of the sort that would only be persuasive to folks hard at work suppressing their own queer tendencies. Speaking as someone who would probably suffer few immediate social consequences to coming out as gay or bi, much less engaging in a little "experimentation", I can honestly say I've never really felt the urge to hook up with a fellow possessor of the Y chromosome. Go figure.

Klinghoffer says that "if you want to disagree with this analysis, you'll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn't apply." Okay, sure. If we're accepting that homoeroticism is socially constructed, then we have to accept the same thing to be true of heteroeroticism. It should not surprise us that in misogynist societies where a) women are constantly devalued as inferior and subordinate beings and b) same-sex relationships were a viable alternative, that male/male pairings would be seen as superior and normatively preferable. In other words, I Blame The Patriarchy. The way to keep gay marriage from being a threat to women, unsurprisingly, is by breaking down the mentalities that say women are inferior creatures (the same tactic, conveniently enough, for dispatching many other threats to female equality. Fancy that!). Where women are seen as equal, then I have full faith in their ability to compete in the market of relationships.

* Berman says that lesbianism did not increase, and writes "I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman." Well then I say, thank God for technology! And, you know, non-penetrative sex.

Palin Resigns

I give my full breakdown and a roundup at The Moderate Voice. Short story -- assuming this was meant as a step towards running in 2012 (and I think it was), it was a grave, grave miscalculation.

Crist Tries to Diversify Courts

I didn't know that Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) had tried to reject a slate of candidates for a state judicial seat because the list was all-White. Unfortunately, the Florida Supreme Court said Governor Crist did not have the discretion to do so. That's unfortunate, but I'm impressed by Crist's instincts -- a continuation of his excellent work on felon disenfranchisement. He's facing a tough Senate primary fight with far-right insurgent Marco Rubio, and this probably won't help him there. But if he survives (and I expect him to), Crist is positioning himself (along with Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman) as a potential leader of the serious and inclusive wing of the GOP.

A/Sexual Body

Guest-post by David Schraub of The Debate Link.

The Futurama episode "Parasites Lost" opens with Leela being harassed by space truckers at an interstellar rest stop. Seeking to defend her, Fry yells at the men "How would you like it if Leela said you were sexy and she wanted to make love with you?" It is, of course, a well worn joke -- the male answer to that question is "that would be awesome!" The idea that someone finding you attractive and expressing it might be unwelcome is supposed to be utterly foreign to a guy.

All people, men and women, move in a sexual sphere. We love and want to be loved, lust and wanted to be lusted after, flirt and want to be flirted with. Of course, this isn't all we want, and we don't want all of it all the time. But it is fair to say that everybody in some form or another wants the mutuality of a relationship: to want someone and be wanted by them.

The prevailing discourse surrounding bodies is one that aggressively reinforces a sexual dichotomy between men and women: men as subjects, and women as objects. Men are the wanters, women are the wanted. Feminist literature has challenged this somewhat, but primarily by trying to reclaim female subject status and react against objectifying norms that "treat women as thing." The goal is to recognize that women are not just objects of desire, they are subjects as well -- they can create desire just as well as it can be directed at them. A valid goal, to be sure, but one that leaves largely unchallenged the descriptive legitimacy of dominant masculinity as a valid presentation of how men experience sexuality.

The sexual landscape upon which men walk, by contrast, is not well mapped. The traditional paradigm of the male-as-pure-subject has not been interrogated to a meaningful degree. To be sure, feminist commentators have hardly exempted this male status from critique -- the subject-status of men, by contrast, is laid out as the crucial contrast between male sexual privilege and female sexual subordination. But their inquiry, I feel, falls short on at least two dimensions. First, it accepts the patriarchal construction of male sexual being as a given -- effectively ceding it so they can bash it and hopefully replace it with something new. The idea that the dominant narrative of male sexual existence might not actually be a valid, even descriptively, of male sexual being doesn't seem to occur. Second, even to the extent they recognize that the male sexual image may be somehow lacking, they overlook the realm of objectivity a potential candidate for absence. This is understandable -- objectification is the primary manifestation of the sexual subordination women are trying to escape. But, just as water takes on a different valence to the drowning woman versus the man trapped in a desert, it is wrong to presume the realm of objective value is barren territory.

The paradigm of man-as-subject restricts male sexuality to very particular manifestations -- it is active, not passive; in control, not reactive; autonomous, not relational. It wants, it is not wanted. But healthy sexual relationships are not the product of this pure subjectivity. The pure subject is a parasite -- it takes, but does not offer anything of use. This is not a positive image to have of the self. Few of us desire that sort of relationship. We want our partner to respect our rights, autonomy, and human dignity, yes; but we also want him or her to find us useful for their own purposes: we want our partner to gain benefits from the arrangement, whether it be humor, cooking skills, sexual pleasure, or any of the infinite ways we can be instruments to another's happiness. Where our interlocutor draws nothing from us, finds nothing necessary in us, sees nothing desirable in us, then we are ultimately interchangeable instead of indispensable. When men are told that "real men" carry no objective value, that there is no reason anyone would find them attractive or desirable, what grounds are their to construct stable relationships on (except, perhaps, coercion)? The dominant masculine narrative clearly goes hand in hand with the tolerance of sexual violence and inequality, by denying women subjectivity, for sure, but also by denying the potential for men to be objects -- to be the type of entity with which one might want to form a voluntary association with.

I am not saying that such subject-values as autonomy, control, and activeness are unimportant (clearly, we want to be valued both subjectively and objectively -- it is not either/or), nor am I drawing an equivalency between the harms of objectification and subjectification, nor am I saying there is an obligation to desire men. This isn't about individual behavior, this is about the broader language we use to create and police the borders of the sexual arena -- what counts as being psycho-sexually healthy and self-actualized. If we define healthy sexuality as a relationship of mutuality, as I think we should, then the prevailing discourse asexualizes men in important ways. Put bluntly, the way men walk through the world, sexually-speaking, is severely stunted. Ours is a/sexual existence.

By depriving men access to an important realm of human personhood -- the realm of objectivity -- it effectively closes off the full flourishing of interpersonal relationships. The uncritical acceptance the men have had their say about sex ignores the very real ways in which (to use the old cliche) patriarchy hurts men too. That the sexual narrative has largely been constructed through male eyes does not mean it represents male experiences. At best, it represents "male experiences" refracted through seriously distorted lens (at worst, it represents "male experiences" constituted in such a way as to preserve existing structures of power -- which, for anyone who agrees with Frederick Douglass' admonition "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck," is not equivalent to a frame that actually provides for full male actualization). We should, if we take seriously the importance of pluralism and inherent incompleteness of any one perspective, expect the dominant paradigm to be as incomplete a descriptor of male lives as it is for women. And so it is.

There is a reason, I think, why the language of the pure Cartesian subject is often referred to as the "disembodied self". Bodies that matter are bodies that matter to other people. The pure subject cannot be fully sexually liberated, because the pure subject cannot be the object of another's desire. Talking about bodies (particularly happy bodies!) means talking about objective as well as subjective bodily potential. It is a gap in the discourse, and one that needs to be filled.

Junior and Senior

Jon Chait calls out Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) for condescending Al Franken:

[A]s I've written, and which Norm Ornstein attested on the Diane Rehm show yesterday, Franken is a policy wonk. Anybody who's spoken with him or read his books (as opposed to just read the titles) knows this. He probably knows more about public policy than 90% of his colleagues. I've never met Franken, but the inability of people to understand that somebody can have a career in comedy and satire and also knows a lot of public policy galls me.

There are plenty of folks who refuse to accept that Franken actually might be a smart, serious guy who is qualified for the job. Unfortunately, there is no reason for their fixation other than a deep, deep desire to hold onto a superficial, know-nothing form of political punditry.

Sorry, Pal

Search: "thieving jewish bankers"

Hit: Solidarity with Anti-Semites!

But alas, I am not expressing solidarity with anti-Semites, I am condemning it.

Alas.

Holiday Round-Up

We're closing in on the Fourth Third of July -- a celebrated holiday in Chicago. Roundups for everyone!

***

Russian sportsmen are hunting the most dangerous game of all: Pirates!

An Indian court has decriminalized sodomy. Supporters lauded the reversal of a law enacted by British colonial authorities. Opponents blasted the decision as importing Western norms. See also Ruth Robson.

The military has historically been one of the strongest supporters of affirmative action. But one professor at the Naval Academy is alleging it is lowering the standards at Annapolis.

Alan Dershowitz, one of the many Jews falsely alleged to possess an inability to countenance criticism of Israel, shoots down the idea that Obama has turned against Israel.

A Palestinian teenager was killed in Gaza, either by an Israeli tank shell or a Palestinian mortar (depending, obviously, on whose account you believe).

Anti-German Translation has a good post up on Naomi Klein, and I'm not just saying that because it links to mine.

Sigh...bloggin' just ain't what it used to be.

Gershom Gorenberg on why a one-state solution remains a lousy idea.

***

Jill and I are going to the Harry Potter exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry, and then having folks over for Chili on Saturday. If I don't write tomorrow, have a great weekend and a happy Third (and Fourth)!

And That's a Wrap

The last 1L grade has come in, so as far as I'm concerned, 1L year is now officially over! Huzzahs are in order.

Best grade: Civil Procedure I, Buss. The was also the first grade I got. It was all downhill from there. But it was a nice confidence booster to start the year.

Worst Grade: Criminal Law, McAdams. This was the last grade I got (see above about the downhill slope). It was also the exam I felt I did the best on. Go figure. In fact, my spring term grades had a complete inverse correlation to how well I thought I knew the material. That will teach me to rely on book learnin'.

Most average grade: Property, Helmholz & Leiter, Jurisprudence II (tie). These were the grades closest to my overall GPA. As befits their average status, I did better than expected on one (Property) and worse in the other (Jurisprudence).

Biggest upset victory: Contracts, Bernstein & Baird. Tied for the second best grade I received all year, and there was never a day where I felt I understood a word of it. Life is weird sometimes.

Now to await the results of the law review competition. I'm feeling good about it, but I remember the last time I felt good about something in law school (namely, my criminal law exam). So, fingers crossed!

Tip of the Top

The link on CNN's homepage reads "Ticker: Top Republican says Sanford must quit". So I was curious: who is this top Republican? Steele? Boehner? McConnell? Barbour?

Nope. Bill Bennett, the radio talk show host.

Though I guess that in today's GOP, talk shows are probably the biggest dogs in the house.

Shocking Doctrine

Naomi Klein, backbone of the leaders of the movement to boycott Israel, was in Israel launching her new book (with her largely incoherent message of boycotting the state, not the people). Ha'aretz got to interview her, and got her unique perspective on civil rights, which seems to boil down to "it's the Jews fault if they're in the privileged position, and it's the Jews fault when they're in the marginal position." Why do I say that? Because of her answers to questions on Durban II:

Last April Klein attended on assignment for a magazine the Durban 2 conference in Geneva, which Israel and a number of Western countries boycotted because of the invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She is still upset by her experiences there.

I was sure, at this stage, she was going to remark on the horrifying anti-Semitism that was present at the event, which included an Iranian delegate calling Elie Wiesel a "Zio-Nazi". It's such a gimme, right?

"The most disturbing feeling," she explains, "was the Jewish students' lack of respect for the representatives from Africa and Asia who came to speak about issues like compensation for slavery and the rise of racism around the world. In their midst, Jewish students from France ran around in clown costumes and plastic noses to say 'Durban is a joke.' This was pure sabotage, which contributes to the tensions between Jews and blacks."

"Durban wasn't just about Israel: The Durban Declaration acknowledged for the first time that the trans-Atlantic trade is a crime against humanity and that opened the way to compensation. The boycott of the conference created a vacuum that was filled, on the one hand, by Jewish students who wanted to sabotage the conference, and on the other, by Ahmadinejad both of them were truly awful."

Ah, such delightful moral equivalency. Ahmadinejad spewed racist garbage, which is bad. Jews didn't feel like lying back and taking it -- equally bad. Indeed, worse -- it was "the most disturbing" thing! The most disturbing thing about Durban II, for Klein, was peaceful protests against anti-Semitism. Think about that for a moment. Think about what that says about her and her worldview. Cleansing power of anti-Zionism, anyone?

Do you think it was necessary to allow Ahmadinejad to speak out so prominently at a conference against racism when he is calling for Israel's destruction and denying the Holocaust?

"I think that silencing the Palestinians was a big part of the reason he got so much attention. He is the only one who acknowledged what happened this year more Palestinians were killed in 2008 than in 1948. The boycott seems to me to have been an irresponsible decision the Jewish community unifies in an attempt to shut down a discussion of racism when there is a shocking rise in racism on the right in places like Austria, Italy, Switzerland, in the midst of an economic crisis, in conditions close to those in which fascism spread in all of Europe."

Yes, we all know that the UN's biggest problem is that it silences the Palestinians. Seriously, this is victim-blaming at its most blatant. Klein admits that Ahmadinejad's speech was racist, but still faults Jewish groups for opposing the conference that gave him an open mic. Because we refuse to be abused, we're committing sabotage at an anti-racism conference. Here's a thought -- maybe if putative anti-racists like Klein would step up and refuse to tolerate anti-Semitism, then Jewish students wouldn't need to dress up like clowns to draw attention to it.

Alice Walker once wrote that "No person is your friend who demands your silence." In the face of growing anti-Semitism -- a rise in racism that has occurred on both the left and right, in Europe and worldwide -- Klein's demand of Jews is that they shut up and let the real people talk. No dice. Klein's antics reveal her true colors -- as an ally of hate, of the fury and bigotry that threatens to consume us all.

Maybe Klein, playing the age-old role of the "good Jew" will be spared, and maybe she won't. But she has no right to demand my silence at a time like this, and certainly no right to appropriate the good name of progressivism to her fanaticism. And the people who call themselves her allies ought to know with whom they stand. Her apologias for hate should render her beyond the pale of good company.

UPDATE: Rebecca Lesses, writing from Israel this summer, overheard an interview with Klein on Israeli radio and offers her own thoughts.

Secondary Objective

There is something quite unseemly about targeting a political opponent's spouse as a retaliatory measure when they vote for a bill you dislike. I'm not sure, however, if it is more or less distasteful when said spouse is a fellow elected official who took the "right" position on the bill you're complaining about.

Not That You Need Convincing

I'd be very surprised if any of my regular readers are opposed to same-sex marriage (maybe I'm too optimistic -- I'm always surprised when anyone with even remotely egalitarian attitudes opposes same-sex marriage at this point). Nonetheless, Martha Nussbaum has an article up in Dissent which does a very nice job dismantling the argument against providing equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens in the marital sphere. Definitely worth a read, regardless of whether you're already there on the position or not.

Counter Walkout

Iranian delegates walked out of an inter-faith conference in Kazakhstan as Israeli President Shimon Peres took the stage. The stunt was widely seen as a reaction to the mass walkout that greeted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech before the Durban II follow-up conference -- a speech which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said was intended "to accuse, divide and even incite." But the parallel is more revealing than the Iranian's perhaps intended. The anti-Ahmadinejad walkout was prompted by the fact that his speech was flagrantly anti-Semitic, as even some of his defenders admitted. Peres, by contrast, saw a walkout in a speech where he called for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, an end to terrorist violence (which he noted had claimed many Muslim victims), and praised the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

It doesn't surprise me that the Iranian government finds this offensive. The priorities they've demonstrated over the years (not to mention these past few weeks) have clearly indicated their views on the topics of peace and human rights. I'm quite proud to be on the side of those who refuse to tolerate hate, and against those who refuse to hear a message of peace.