Bibi Refuses To Meet With American Representatives

A group of five American Representatives travelling to Israel sought but were unable to attain a meeting with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, or, it seems, any members of his cabinet (it is still possible they'll meet with Likud's Miki Eitan, Minister of Improvement of Government Services). The snub appears to be prompted by the quintet's association with J Street, which is sponsoring the trip. The five Representatives are Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Betty McCollum (D-MN), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Sam Farr (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Cohen and Yarmuth are Jewish.

In lieu of Netanyahu and his cohorts, the five will meet with various opposition members, including MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima. To me, this just demonstrates the fundamental truth that the "split" between Republican speakers on Israel, and those more aligned with J Street, is not one of "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel", but simply identifying with Likud (Bibi's party) or Kadima (Livni's party). Since that represents the major faultline in mainstream Israeli politics, it makes sense that it'd be the major faultline in American politics about Israel.

Notably, I don't place AIPAC or groups like the ADL on this graph, for the simple reason that such groups tend to focus less on identifying with this or that Israeli political movement, and more about maintaining a general positive relationship between the US and Israel. That's why J Street, accurately in my view, cast its formation not as something in opposition to AIPAC, but doing something different than AIPAC -- forwarding a particular normative and policy agenda with respect to Israel. Both are valuable goals, and I think both have a role to play in American politics. By contrast, the Republican attempt to fracture the liberal pro-Israel consensus has done so on the basis of its own particular normative goals (e.g., opposition to a two-state solution on basis of '67 lines), and so it makes sense to locate them alongside their Israeli political analogues (the more conservative Likud factions and parties right-ward) -- and J Street is accurately cast against groups such as these.

While some assert that true "pro-Israel" advocates cannot have independent beliefs regarding proper Israeli policy and should only trumpet the policy choices of the current government (a demand whose sincerity is questionable, given how it disintegrates when the criticism comes from the right), I personally find this outlook perplexing, if not bizarre. If I told you I care about America, and you asked "well, who do you prefer to win the presidency in 2012", and I responded "oh, it doesn't matter to me -- I'll support the policies of whoever wins" -- I think you'd rightfully wonder how much I really do care about America and its flourishing. Caring about something means having opinions about it! I care about Israel, which means I have opinions about what actions it should take, and support political movements (in my case, Kadima) which are in line with those appraisals. This is normal behavior.

To the extent J Street is acting as, more or less, an adjunct of Kadima in the U.S., I have no real objection -- I'm an avowed Kadima supporter, after all. But this is yet another example of Bibi placing his private political interests above those of the country he leads. As a matter of short-term politics (Likud vs. Kadima), obviously, Bibi wants to isolate Kadima supporters and bolster Likudniks. But as leader of Israel, he can ill-afford to alienate allies in the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, sacrificing the national interest for short-term political expediency is sort of Netanyahu's signature move at this point, so I can hardly act surprised. But it is yet more reinforcement that Livni and Kadima are the only serious political actors that can provide effective leadership in these unsettling times.

In Cautious Defense of Legacy Preferences

At their eponymous blog, Richard Posner and Gary Becker offer up a partial defense of legacy preferences in college (particularly elite college) admissions.

Posner's argument is basically that, while legacy preferences are distasteful, their actual harm on society is minuscule -- boiling down to the non-legacy student who is "bumped" going to Michigan instead of Yale. Not only is this simply not a huge problem on its own terms, but whatever marginal harm the student faces by being a Wolverine is counterbalanced by the benefit that other Michigan students get by their association with top-quality students.

Becker is willing to make a more positive case for legacy preferences, observing that college's prefer legacies because they are more likely to accept admission offers, increasing the college's yield rate (he calls it their "harvest", which I think is a far creepier term for the concept) and their rates of alumni giving.

As for me, while I do think it is an inversion of justice that legacy preferences are permissible and racial ones are not, I'm actually more-or-less neutral on the justifiability of legacy preferences on their own terms. And basically, it's my time at Carleton -- a school that, at least in my impression, has a strong legacy presence -- that shifted me from opposition to neutrality.

Legacy admission hasn't directly been a part of my own life -- I attended public school K-12, and to my knowledge I have absolutely zero family connection either to Carleton or the University of Chicago. But, one of the things I really liked about Carleton was the school's sense of institutional memory, and to me, that was intricately bound up in the number of students who had parents, siblings, or other relatives who had attended as well. It created a positive school dynamic and sense of community that really was integral to the school's charm. And I think the alumni body's fierce loyalty to its alma mater is a crucial part of our school's appeal. Carleton has one of the highest giving rates amongst its alumni of any school in the country, and on many occasion, when I've told someone I went to Carleton, they've noted how they've never met a Carleton graduate who didn't gush about their time there.

One of the things I think admissions officers are doing, and should be doing, is trying to construct classes that will together form a vibrant, engaged community. That's one of the reasons I support diversity programs like racial affirmative action -- academic and social communities are simply more robust when they incorporate a broad range of different backgrounds and perspectives. To the extent that legacies help create this sense of vibrancy and community -- and in my experience at Carleton, they did -- that's a valid attribute for admissions officials to consider.

Of course, this does not answer just how much weight legacy status should carry in admissions decisions. Nor does it answer the counter-arguments about "rich-getting-richer" and entrenching inequality. I also think that the normative justifiability of legacy preferences is hinged upon the general permissibility of allowing college's discretion to create diversified academic communities -- it can't be that college's can only look to those non-metric-based personal characteristics when they benefit the already privileged. But, in a world where this sort of holistic admissions process is allowed and is the norm, I think legacy status has a place alongside other personal characteristics as a valid consideration in building the best incoming class possible.

Red State, Part II

Reacting to border clashes with Syria stoked by Palestinian activists attempting to cross over into Israel, Bibi Netanyahu claimed the events as proof that Palestinians are not interested in a state based on 1967 borders. Which, if my understanding of the past few weeks' events is correct, puts them in the same camp as the U.S. Republican Party. Moral incoherence makes for strange bedfellows, indeed.

Of course, the substance of Bibi's claim is, at best, woefully underproven. At most, the clashes on the Syrian border demonstrate that some Palestinians (to wit, those involved in the clashes) don't want a state based on 1967 borders. Their intentions, however, cannot be transmuted onto all Palestinians. For example, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has indicated his willingness to work off of the French peace proposal I wrote about Friday, one which calls for two states for two peoples on basis of '67 borders. Bibi, by contrast, has made no definitive moves with respect to the proposal.

The fact of the matter is that both sides have elements which don't support a '67-based, two-state solution to the conflict. Simply cherry-picking extremists and holding them out as the epitome of the Israeli or Palestinian position is not good-faith dealing. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more evident that Netanyahu has no interest in a good-faith pursuit of a negotiated settlement to the conflict. Earlier in his tenure, it was the PA which was jerking Israel around; now it seems like the situation is reversed.

What's sad is that the second I read about the French proposal, I figured that it was simply a race to see who could agree to it first -- at which point the other side would be obliged to find some reason to reject it. It seems both sides are just incapable of having sane leadership committed to resolving the conflict at the same time. If one side starts to behave reasonably, the other side becomes beholden to its extremist irredentist wings.

American Territories

Can anyone explain to me why America is still in the business of possessing territories that do not have full voting rights? These would include (of places with permanent populations) Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marinas Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia. Politically speaking, of course, there are loads of reasons why these territories exist in a state of effective colonization -- they're too small, they're too likely to vote Democratic, they may desire independence (in Puerto Rico's case, there may be a virtual standoff between independence and statehood forces).


But it seems to me that there is no normative justification whatsoever for this state of affairs. Places should either be independent nations, or should have full voting rights in the country that maintains sovereignty over them -- it's that simple. Even size isn't really a barrier: D.C. is already bigger than Wyoming in terms of population. A unified "Pacifica" state of American Samoa, Northern Marinas Islands, and Guam would be the smallest U.S. state, but not by an unreasonable margin (it'd have roughly 322,000 people, against Wyoming's 563,000). Puerto Rico on its own would already have multiple Representatives in Congress (and would likely be combined with the U.S. Virgin Islands for statehood purposes).

And while I agree that these territories (absent D.C.) should be given an option of independence if they desire (akin to the Marshall Islands, for example), I also think their long-standing governance by the United States has given them a valid claim to statehood, if they want it, that we have an obligation to respect. In fact, I think democratic representation is so important that I don't think it should really be optional -- statehood or independence should be a mandatory choice.

It is frankly embarrassing that this country, which serves as a model for democracy the world over, has large swaths of people under its banner who don't have representation in Congress. It's wrong, and what's more, I can't think of any remotely plausible valid reason for allowing it other than bare inertia.

NOW Who's the Big Forecloser?

This story, about a Florida homeowner who foreclosed on a Bank of America branch to satisfy a judgment against them (Bank of America wrongly tried to foreclose on their house, a judge ordered the bank to pay the family's legal fees, which the bank refused to do for months) has been making the rounds, and it is pretty sweet reading. The lawyer got sheriff's deputies to come with a moving truck and just start taking things (cash, desks, copiers, filing cabinets -- whatever). Eventually, the bank manager managed to get permission to cut a check to the attorney for what his clients were owed. Oh, to be able to listen in to that manager's phone call to his superiors. "No, you don't understand -- they're foreclosing on us! My desk is being loaded onto a moving van as we speak!"

But, as cool as this is, I actually might know of a case that could top it. And, not to brag, but it involves my dad. Like the folks in this case, my dad also was seizing property in order to satisfy a judgment. Unlike this case, though, the property was held by the local police department. Here's the tale:

I represented two victims of a notorious serial burglar in a civil suit. We took a default judgment and received a seven-figure jury damage award. We then backed a U-haul truck up to the Fairfax County Police Department with federal marshals in tow to seize the unclaimed stolen jewelry and other merchandise from the Fairfax police on theory that the thief (and my clients as judgment creditors of the thief) had better title to the unclaimed stolen goods than anyone in the world (including Commonwealth of Virginia) except the true owners. This caused an armed federal/state police standoff. Eventually, we took the merchandise to a D.C. auction house and had a televised auction to partially satisfy my client's judgment.

One day, I too hope to legally cause a reenactment of the Civil War on the steps of the Fairfax County PD.

French Peace Plan: Two States for Two People

In an effort to jump-start stagnant peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, the French government has released a new framework for beginning negotiations -- notable because (like President Obama), it explicitly stipulates "two states for two peoples" -- in other words, a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and an Israeli state for the Jewish people.

Also like President Obama (and like every single serious peace proposal by any party, for that matter), borders would be negotiated on basis of '67 lines, with agreed-upon swaps. It also is -- surprisingly -- neutral on the question of Jerusalem as a capital for both states, and delays negotiation on that question as well as on the issue of refugees until after borders and security arrangements are finalized. East Jerusalem is a red-line for Palestinians the same way that "right of return" is for Israelis, but I don't care if each side holds out for a favorable agreement on its issue of choice, so long as they get back to the table and start talking.

Overall, the parameters of the French framework are a step closer to Netanyahu's demands, and he'd be a fool not to jump on it -- assuming, that is, he is actually genuine about trying to actualize a two-state solution that envisions an independent Palestine alongside Israel. That assumption, of course, is far from clear.

"Death to X" Marchers are Bad People

Far-right Israeli protesters marched through Jerusalem yelling slogans like "death to the Arabs" and "Muhammad is Dead".

These people are bad people. They are enemies of peace; they are, on the Israeli side's key barrier to an eventual peaceful settlement and coexistence with the Palestinian people (just as their Palestinian analogues who talk about death to Jews -- e.g., in Hamas' charter -- are the primary Palestinian barriers to peaceful coexistence with Israel). As I have expressed before, if I had my way, they'd be excommunicated from my faith.

People who march around calling for the "slaughter" of others are bad people. David Bernstein wants to talk about recognizing "enemies", well, that works as a pretty good definition of whom I think are mine -- those calling for the wholesale slaughter of other people. It's true of the radical Palestinians who want it of Jews, and it's true of the radical Israelis who want it of Palestinians. Both are my enemies. How's that for some moral clarity?

Hackery in its Most Crystalline Form

One of the more frustrating things about this whole "based on '67 lines" flap is that, right up until the moment someone decided to make it into a "controversy", it was one of those things that was so obvious nobody dreamed it was ever controversial. I mean, on what other basis could one possibly base the borders of a two-state solution? The original partition plan? Do we simply divide up all the cities and draw straws? Of course the final borders are going to track '67 lines, with mutually-agreed upon swaps. There is literally no other conceivable starting point one could have for negotiations predicated on the creation of two states for two peoples.

Which is why "based on '67 lines with swaps" was the consensus pro-Israel position right up until the moment Republicans decided it wasn't. And there is perhaps no clearer demonstration of the utter hackery that has accompanied this "controversy" than the behavior of -- surprise -- Noah Pollak and his "Emergency Committee for Israel" (last seen backing Senate candidates who voted to cut off aid to Israel).

The committee put up an ad which, of course, is all up in arms about this '67 lines thing. Except -- whoops! -- Pollak live-tweeted Obama's speech, and at the time (not realizing -- reasonably -- that the consensus position on the conflict would suddenly become ripe for exploitation) was all about praising it. "Nothing new" about Obama's statement regarding the '67 borders. "I don't think there is anything in this speech that Netanyahu will find surprising or even disagreeable." And, most hilariously, "If someone had said to me yesterday, 'you'll be defending Obama on Israel tomorrow,' I would have laughed." Turns out, that premise was pretty laughable.

So Pollak is little more than a partisan hack, who reversed his own position on what Israel needs for its security based on nothing more than an opportunistic desire to attack the President. Israel hardly needs "friends" whose devotion is so thin. So step aside Pollak: some of us think Israel security is actually important -- more important, even, than scoring short-term political points at the expense of those actually working to bring peace and security to Israel.

Carleton Frisbee Dominates, but are they Historic?

Carleton College's ultimate frisbee team (CUT) won Division I nationals earlier this week, besting Wisconsin 11-5. It was a great victory, avenging an earlier defeat to Wisconsin in the North-Central Regional finals and capping an undefeated run by Carleton through the tournament. It's also Carleton's second championship in three years (and they were runners-up to Florida in 2010).

I told this to my dad, and he raised an interesting question. Carleton has an enrollment of a little less than 2,000 people. The University of Wisconsin has an enrollment of over 42,000 people (that counts graduate students -- but graduate students can be part of a college ultimate roster, and indeed, Wisconsin had at least one graduate student playing for it in the championship match). Carleton thus has 40,000 fewer students than Wisconsin -- it's over 20x our size. Our previous two D-I titles were over UC-Santa Barbara (2009) and the University of Georgia (2001), both smaller than Wisconsin (though Georgia clocks in at nearly 35,000 students) [my reading comprehension skills are terrible. Those were the women's champions that year -- Carleton defeated the University of Colorado (30,000 students) in both 2001 and 2009]. He asked whether, in the history of college team sports, there has ever been a championship match where the winning team was that much smaller than its opponent in terms of enrollment?

It's a fair question. In individual sports, of course, every once in awhile you get a standout who randomly is at some tiny school. But in team sports it is much rarer that a small school even plays with the big boys, and in the rare cases where they do and aren't utterly overmatched (e.g., Davidson in D-I basketball), they still don't typically win championships. Now, there might be some exception back in the old days when random teams came out of nowhere to win championships. And even today, one can imagine a sport like Crew or something where a smaller school might have matched Carleton's feat. But it's quite possible this is a unique, and uniquely impressive, accomplishment for CUT.

Anyway, regardless of whether it actually is a record, it's still a mighty impressive accomplishment. Congrats to CUT, and congrats to Carleton, for maintaining an elite level program in at least one sport for so many years.

The Lie That Jewish Donors are Abandoning Obama

Greg Sargent demolishes it here. Now, let's be clear -- there are some Jewish donors, Democratic ones even, that never liked Obama in the first place. They didn't donate to him the first time around, and they're not going to do so in 2012. Haim Saban falls into this category. And, what's more, I expect Obama's Jewish vote percentage to fall off, albeit modestly, from its 2012 peak. That's for several reasons: (1) 2012 won't be the rout 2008 was, (2) the economy will depress Obama's vote amongst all sectors, and (3) Republicans can't possibly be dumb enough to have someone like Sarah Palin on their ticket this time (can they?).

But with respect to the "big" story -- that wealthy Jewish Obama supporters are fleeing him in droves over his taking the mainstream American Jewish position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- no, it's just not happening.