It's My Birthday and I'll Roundup If I Want To!

Happy birthday (actual birthday, not blog birthday) to me!

I'm actually not doing anything in particular today, though Jill and I will be going to a hockey game this weekend. In a few weeks, we're planning to invite friends over for board games. If you're wondering "why in a few weeks, David?", the answer is I just had a Super Bowl party, and in typical neurotic millennial fashion I fear it's way too soon to ask my friends to voluntarily hang out with me in a party-like setting again.

* * *

David Roberts summarizes the Green New Deal proposal. He's pretty favorable towards it. So am I.

Weird headline aside, this is an interesting article on Israel's current state of play in Africa. In particular, Islamic extremists on the continent are starting to link their attacks to the Palestinian cause, which is in turn pulling African governments closer to Israel.

Much work needs to be done, but Israeli universities are at the forefront of supporting and integrating Israel's Arab minority, and deserve a ton of praise for it.

Partners for Progressive Israel, on the message that needs to be sent to both the right and left on Israeli and Palestinian rights

Antisemitic flyers at the University of Montana claim "Jews" are attacking the First Amendment.

On the antisemitic roots of the "Jews controlled the slave trade" canard.

The First Roundup of 2015

A new year, a new roundup. For whatever reason, a bunch of really interesting articles popped up today, and I just don't have time to give them all the attention they deserve.

* * *

Hadash (a joint Jewish-Arab party with Communist affiliations) has voted to join a unified Arab list, on the condition that the list include Jews and women (Hadash currently has four MKs, three Arab and one Jewish). Also of note is that former Israeli Knesset Speaker and Labor MK Avraham Burg appears to be considering a return to politics under Hadash's banner. He traveled to Hadash's conference on Shabbat because "because advancing solidarity between Jews and Arabs was 'a matter of life and death' that trumped the ban [on traveling during the Sabbath]."

A very good piece by Laurie Penny on the traumas faced by nerdy men growing up, and how they compare to those faced by nerdy women.

Brief reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Saudi Arabia denies that it will begin allowing Jews to work in the country. Israelis (and those with Israeli passport stamps) are barred from the country outright, Jews can (with some difficulty) obtain tourist visas.

The African Studies Association offers its first panel on African Jews (naturally, the first insight was that the term "African Jews" is too broad to do much useful work, but still).

Nothing too new for those in the know, but this short piece summarizing the empirical research on implicit racial bias may be useful for those looking for a quick-and-dirty introduction.

I am actually stunned by some of the findings in this poll of Israeli political attitudes. More Israeli Arabs have trust in their government than Israeli Jews (43% versus 37%). Strong majorities of both groups declare themselves to be proud to be Israeli (86% of Jews and 65% of Arabs). A bare majority of Israeli-Arabs say they trust the IDF (51%, the Israeli Supreme Court is the most trustworthy institution amongst Israeli Arabs at 60%).

Africans Who Want To Convert Rejected by Israel

I've been ambivalent about Israel's policy towards African migrants. I have a general belief in relatively liberal immigration policies, at least for the United States. At the same time, most countries aren't the United States (for example, they're much smaller). Certainly, while humane treatment of immigrants is an absolute must, I don't view rejecting an open border policy as a per se human rights violation.

But another facet of Israel's existence is as a haven for Jews -- Jews, of course, have a "right of return" to Israel regardless of where they're from. So what about African migrants who wish to convert to Judaism? Ha'aretz is reporting that Israel's conversion committee has rejected every single one of those applications was rejected ("Of course, all the requests were rejected," is how the Prime Minister's Office put it).

This is deeply upsetting. Israeli society has long had a problem with racism directed towards its African community (including African Jews), so in a sense it is unsurprising that it is erecting a per se bar to African conversions. Still, it strikes very close to the heart of the very function of the Jewish state, and the way in which the "Jewish" part has been captured by regressive, ultra-orthodox forces who view any Jew that isn't under their thumb as a threat.

Now. the claim here is that these migrants are seeking to convert in bad faith, simply to gain citizenship in Israel. This doesn't move me, for at least three reasons. First: All of them? Every last one? 100% is a figure that one rarely reaches via dispassionate evaluation; it's the province of banana republic "elections" and Ron Paul newsletters. That "of course" all of them were rejected is heavy evidence that the bad faith came from the government's conversion committee, not each and every applicant. Second, conversion to Judaism isn't exactly a walk in the park. It's a difficult, grinding process -- quite capable of forcing people to prove their commitment to the faith. In fact, that's the entire design of it. So if someone wants to go through conversion, I say you start him or her down the process and see where it leads. Bad faith will reveal itself soon enough.

But perhaps most importantly -- what is the "bad faith" here? A bunch of people saw a Jewish society, saw that it functioned well, saw that it produced opportunities they lacked elsewhere, saw that it operated in a way they viewed as promising such that they wanted to stay a part of that community -- how is that not the epitome of what we want in a convert? Is keeping strict kosher part of what is driving them? Admittedly doubtful, but then I don't do that either, so I can hardly view it is an essential part of a genuine design to join the Jewish community. As far as I'm concerned, the desire to live in Israel as a Jew is almost self-referentially proof of a good-faith desire to become a Jew. The Israeli government should have treated it as such.

In any event, it would be interesting to see what would happen if some Orthodox Rabbis traveled with these deportees back to their countries of origins and tried to set up a formal, full-length Orthodox conversion process. Outside the direct control of the Israeli government, it would be far harder to deny them re-entry if they come back as Jews.

A Commentary on John Derbyshire

It's well-established that John Derbyshire is a schmuck of the highest order. A man who once told the UPenn Black Law Students Association that they were biologically inferior and used the Virginia Tech massacre to chide the victims for not reenacting his favorite Rambo fantasies, his latest endeavor is criticizing George W. Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa.

Hence why this comprehensive evisceration by Peter Wehner at Commentary is so pleasurable to read. What I like about it is that it hits Derbyshire from two very important angles. First, it castigates him for how he "seems eager to celebrate his callousness, as if it were a sign of manliness and tough-mindedness." That's not a sign of toughness, it's the sign of a sociopath. But because so much of this ill-informed pseudo-machismo is based off the notion that "bleeding hearts" just aren't attuned to the "real world" and the "actual consequences" of their efforts, Wehner also simply annihilates Derbyshire on the facts regarding AIDS in Africa, the salience of our reform efforts, and why it is in America's interest to do so (while noting that even if it wasn't in some hyper-narrow sense of "interest", there is no intrinsic reason why America can't or shouldn't be interested in alleviating a massive pandemic catastrophe and saving millions of lives at modest cost).

French Connection

A new study reveals intense bias against French Muslims of Senegalese descent in the French job market (and a milder one against Christians of Senegalese descent). The study was modeled off the famous Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? study, which revealed similar (racial) biases in American labor markets. However, this topic is considerably less-studied in France because of that nation's near-fanatical devotion to "colorblindness" and the pure secular state. As this study pointedly demonstrates, that policy is an abject failure.

Origination

David Bernstein posts a squib on Palestinians who are "obviously of African descent." The unspoken subtext is that they aren't "real" Palestinians.

I hate this. I hate this in all of its forms. I hate it when folks try and tell me that Jews don't really belong in the Middle East because they actually descend from Khazars. I hate it when people argue that Palestinians aren't a "real" people because they didn't have national ambitions until relatively recently. I hate it when Israelis are accosted as inauthentic because they have the "wrong" eye color. I hate it when people seem to think this entire conflict is properly resolved via an impossible historical inquiry into who got to the Holy Land "the firstest with the mostest".

It all just strikes me as incredibly primitive -- based on old-school notions of ancestral ties and bloodrights and purity that have no place in modern discussions. I'm a Levi, so I assume I descend from relatively deep Israelite strands. But who knows -- maybe there are some European converts in my family tree. So what? And if some persons with African blood identify as Palestinian and are so recognized by the Palestinian community -- good for them! It is sordid business, this attempt to police each other's racial authenticity for our own transparently political ends.

UPDATE: As per the comments, Professor Bernstein wishes to inform everyone that he does not, in fact, believe that origination has any legitimate bearing on the authenticity of one's national identity. The post he linked to put "Palestinians" in scare quotes, hence my confusion. Of course, Prof. Bernstein is not obligated to agree with every word of each post he links to -- though by the same token, he can't be too surprised when, absent a caveat, people assume he does agree with them (assuming the link was positive, as it was here).

However, that assumes that somewhere on the internet an indication of a contrary opinion by the author hadn't been expressed, and in this respect Prof. Bernstein would also like to draw attention to my inexcusable failure to do due diligence. For if I had only bothered to read the 19th comment from a post he wrote over two years ago, I would not have made the above error. I can only hope my readership forgives me for this horrific lapse in personal responsibility, and grants me another chance to prove my self-worth.

In any event, I'm glad that Prof. Bernstein and I are in agreement that the subtext of the linked-article is repellent, and I am equally glad that one less person than I had assumed bought into it. It is, after all, always a good thing when one finds one has overestimated the amount of wrongdoing in the world.

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.

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.

Cute Cute Cute

Since nothing bad happened and the kids were quickly returned to their parents, I can say that this is totally adorable.

The Most Elite of 66

Here are the 66 nations that signed on to the UN non-binding resolution urging the decriminalization of homosexuality:

Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Obviously, a strong representation by the Western world. But I want to give a special shout-out to Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sao Tome and Principe -- the five African nations which signed on. The gay rights movement in Africa is far smaller and more fragile than it is in other parts of the world. And the opposition to it is stronger, better organized, and far, far more vitriolic in its hatred. Indeed, of the 60 nations which signed a counter-resolution against homosexuality (the text of which I'd really like to see), nearly half (28) were from the African continent.

The five states which chose to align themselves with the principles of human rights and universal ethics are well ahead of the curve for both their region of the world, and likely their own populations as well. This makes their signatures that much more symbolic. They deserve special support and praise for their stance.

OPIRG Snubs Hillel

Many universities across North America have branches of "PIRG" (Public Interest Research Group) -- college based progressive grassroots organization. My girlfriend, for example, did a lot of work for Carleton's chapter of MPIRG (Minnesota-PIRG). They often team up with other campus-based organizations on various projects related to human rights and social justice.

At the University of Ottawa, the local Hillel (Jewish students group) thought it had just such an event: a speaker from the African Jewish community coming to talk about sustainable development projects and interfaith schooling for Jewish, Muslim, and Christian children. But when it asked OPIRG for funds, it received a shocking rebuke:

Hillel organizers didn't get a response to their request before the event, but later received an e-mail from the board of directors at the research group, saying it had researched Hillel and decided that though the event "seems very interesting," the board of directors had decided not to endorse or promote it.

"This decision was made because your organization (Hillel) and its relationship to apartheid Israel," said the e-mail. "Zionist Ideology does not fit within OPIRG's mandate of human right's (sic), social justice."

Pressed by the Ottawa Citizen, the organization refused to even identify who made the decision, but affirmed that "Our position is outlined in that e-mail you have." Given the attenuated relationship Hillel has to Israeli policies (it does generically support "Zionism" as the Jewish right of self-determination -- a far cry from any reasonable definition of apartheid), I'd say that there is a name for OPIRG's position: anti-Semitism.

Via The Z-Word. And I should note that MPIRG is entirely independent from the broader PIRG structure.

Not So Fly (Even For a Rabbi)

A large organization representing Haredi (i.e., ultra-orthodox) Jews in Israel has come up with guidelines for "kosher" music.

Musicians who use rock, rap, reggae and trance influences will not receive rabbinic approval for their CDs, nor will they be allowed to play in wedding halls under haredi kosher food supervision, according to a new, detailed list of guidelines drafted with rabbinical backing that differentiates between "kosher" and "treif" music.

The guidelines, which are still being formulated, also ban "2-4 beats and other rock and disco beats;" the "improper" use of electric bass, guitars and saxophones; and singing words from holy sources in a disrespectful, frivolous manner.

"Michael Jackson-style music has no place in our community," says Mordechai Bloi, a senior member of the Guardians of Sanctity and Education, an organization based in Bnei Brak that enforces what it sees as normative haredi behavior.

"We might be able to adopt Bach or Beethoven, music with class, but not goyishe African music and beats. We haredim want to protect ourselves from what we see as negative foreign influences. We are trying to maintain our own authentic music styles. We admit that times are changing, but we are trying to stay loyal to our roots."

I love the distinction between classical music (does none of that have 2-4 beats?) and "goyishe African music", and how it screams ethnic chauvinism. On the other hand, this creates an opportunity for a great cross-over project: "Footloose on the Roof."

But seriously -- this is such an embarrassment to the worldwide Jewish community. These people are our fundamentalists.

Via Tapped

Forgetfulness and Denial

In a long post a few weeks ago, I explored the problems with denial -- specifically, denying one's role in the commission of mass atrocity (such as American support for Central American "death squads"). A similar topic has arisen thanks to some of the more unsavory associations of John McCain's chief adviser, Charlie Beck. Today, Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings explores Beck's (and the conservative movement writ large) relationship to Jonas Savimbi and the UNITA rebel movement in Angola, which for awhile was the darling child of the Reagan administration and their intellectual cohorts. Beck was one of Savimbi's chief lobbyists in Washington, and was instrumental in America re-establishing our support for his forces.

I'll leave to Hilzoy to document the atrocities that we knew we were supporting (and in a real sense intentionally supporting) when we assisted Savimbi. Suffice to say, they are appalling. But our current relationship with regards to Beck seems less one of denial and more of forgetfulness. Beck's role in assisting a hideous thug should, by all rights, exile him from public service. But we don't. And we don't not because we've consciously decided that it is alright to drum up support for torturers.* We don't do it not because we've consciously decided that what Savimba did was okay. We don't do it not because we've forced Beck to reckon for his actions and undergo some sort repentance or reintegration into the public space. We allow Beck to maintain his public position because we essentially have no consciousness that Angola ever happened.

We forget that which was never important enough to deny. If Angola suddenly became a political issue, Beck would undoubtedly switch from forgetfulness to denial -- not that he supported UNITA, but denying that UNITA was all that bad, or denying that he knew of whatever bad things they did. Denial and forgetfulness serve essentially the same purpose, because both allow for the people and projects which crafted the original injustice to proceed forth without punishment or remorse. Nothing checks their saga. Often times, injustice occurs precisely because the perpetrators assume that their victims aren't important enough to warrant consideration -- ultimately, to be remembered. When we invite Beck back into a critical part of America's democratic operation, without forcing him to confront this element of his past, we ratify that belief, and ultimately, ratify oppression.

***

* While I was writing this, I had a thought: what's the difference between being a private criminal defense attorney (representing people who likely committed murder), and being a lobbyist for murderers like Savimbi? We don't say that criminal defense attorneys should be barred from public service (although, I suspect that if one ran for office it would be used against them), because we believe that everyone has the right to have representation in legal proceedings. But in a democracy, shouldn't everyone also have the right to have representation and have their voice heard in the democratic arena? Isn't that the essence of public deliberation?

There are a few differences, of course. One is that while there is no deficit of lawyers, and the poor are guaranteed representation if they can't afford it, political representation is highly stratified -- perhaps choosing to increase the voice of thugs, while there are so many good people who are marginalized in the system, is not a legitimate moral move. Likewise, even though a criminal defense attorney might defend a murderer, he does not defend the act of murder -- his defense is usually either that the defendant didn't do it, or that the killing was not murder (was in some way justified). Aside from securing the release of his client, nothing the lawyer does promotes more killing. By contrast, while lobbyists too rarely concede that their clients are murderers (or also claim that their acts are justified), the lobbyist project is specifically to direct resources to enable his clients acts (in this case, murdering) to continue. Maybe in this way, the lobbyist is akin to a lawyer on retainer by an organized crime family (a person who I think is in a considerably more morally ambigious situation than the average defense attorney)?

It's a tough question. I'd appreciate help.

Clean Government in The Congo

I have an unexplained interest in The (D.R.) Congo, of which I've blogged on before. Blessed (or cursed) with fabulous mineral wealth, there are few places in the world that deserve piece more than the Western Europe sized nation. Under Belgian rule, it endured one of the most brutal colonizations in Africa (not an easy title to win), followed by systematic plundering by the Mobutu Sese Seko, and then a horrific civil war that claimed the lives of millions.

But, under the leadership of Joseph Kabila, the country has just completed its first fair and open election. And the Washington Post reports that reforms are -- slowly and fitfully -- beginning to set in. A new rule posits that 40% of all governmental revenue shall flow outward to state legislatures (though the money has yet to arrive). Bureaucracies are slowly coming together and starting to work. And local lawmakers are beginning to put together reform packages -- and are worried about being voted out of office if they don't deliver.

The other day, 60 of the 102 salaried lawmakers showed up for a session that began about an hour late.

They were supposed to hear a report about the country's corrupt customs office, but that was postponed because the report was not yet typed. They were supposed to go over the details of a new property tax system, but that was also postponed, because the property tax expert was not around to explain.

The president of the assembly, Gabriel Kyungu wa Kumwanza, seemed frustrated, but for a reason that has never really existed in Congo: fear of not being reelected.

"The people of Katanga, they are pressuring me!" he said, rapping his gavel on the podium. "They want to see change, but they see I am only growing fat!"

Something else was notable about the session, which was broadcast on state TV: On a sunny Saturday afternoon, a couple of dozen people showed up to observe their government in action, and not all of them were the lawmakers' drivers.

They included a Congolese human rights activist, a few miners and Boniface Mbuya, a 28-year-old law student who regularly attends because, he said, "maybe someday I'll be a great man." He was getting used to the new system, he said, and was still trying to shake off a profound sense of repression and an almost cult-like reverence for the powerful.

Though the provincial governor recently installed a suggestion box outside the assembly, for instance, Mbuya said he hasn't used it yet.

"I always have this ambition to write something and drop it inside," he said. "But maybe the government would say, 'Oh, these students, look at what they've written.' I fear it." Still, he supported the new constitution, voted in the 2006 elections and said that he expected his representatives to deliver.
[...]
Attempting to satisfy the rising expectations since the 2006 elections, the governor of Katanga, Moise Katumbi -- who presides over an area the size of France -- has made several symbolic gestures.

Though he has no official power to do so, he decreed a new minimum wage of $150 a month. He bought several ambulances and hearses with his own money. He levied new property taxes, planted roses at the airport and painted downtown shops in shades of salmon.

It's that last part that makes me smile. Is it symbolic? Yes. But it's symbolic of change. It's symbolic of a government that feels it needs to show something to its people. And its symbolic of a society that -- after so many years of darkness -- may finally see hope for a better future.

Following Up Engagement

Remarking on the burgeoning electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, Matt Yglesias writes:

One would hope that, at this point, some good might come of the controversial "engagement" approach taken by South Africa and others where African heads of state might indicate to Mugabe that a further crackdown at this point would be unacceptable.

But isn't this the problem? I lean towards engagement policies over isolationism, if for no other reason than the latter doesn't seem to have an end-game to me. But it does always seem that the countries who "engage" with dictatorships, with the purported justification that it gives them more leverage, are never actually willing to step up and put the hammer down. And so we get stalemates like this one.

I guess it's better that someone probably could step up and force an end to the Zimbabwe crisis than for there to be literally nobody the international community could turn to. But that's pretty weak sauce when that someone refuses to step up to the plate.

FG(M/E/C/S)?

Plain(s) Feminist has a large post on how best to respond to Female Genital....well, a big part of the post is on what we should call it. Mutilation? Excision? Cutting? Circumcision? Surgery?

Thus far, I have not been hesitant to call it Female Genital Mutilation. The term seems to capture the brutality and barbarism of the procedure (and I want to here register my disagreement with the author that such terms can't be employed when the subject is African practices without being "imperialist". For that matter, there is a lot of things in the post I think are a bit off). Stepping back the rhetoric seems often like it is an excuse.

But Plains Feminist makes one very compelling counterargument: the women who undergo this procedure -- including many who oppose it -- don't use the term "mutilation." More importantly, they don't like it when we say they're "mutilated." They don't see themselves as mutilated. That doesn't mean they don't oppose the violation. They just don't want their experience named for them in terms they don't themselves, recognize. And that seems like a legitimate grievance.

Now, I don't have any empirical backing as to whether PF's claim here is true. I suspect some women whom have experienced it would claim that it is mutilation. And furthermore (despite what conservative politicians would have you believe) nobody likes to cast themselves in the role of the victim, so people are always going to be resistant to language that fully expresses the degree of violation foisted upon them. So this "name your own oppression" thing, while tempting, may not ultimately be the way to go. And provisionally, I'm sticking with FGM.

But it was a intriguing argument, and I wanted to throw it out there for comment.

Via Alas, a Blog.

We Can Only Hope

The Boston Globe reports on Africa's surprising turn-around over the past few years. Democracy is up, economies are thriving, and peace is spreading. Matt Yglesias notes that the end of the Cold War, which inherently stymied reform by letting corrupt nations play the two global superpowers off for string-free support, has given these states breathing room to grow and prosper. Yglesias is right that it's important to not get into that same game with China in the coming years, but we must be equally vigilant to not let China cast itself as a "shield" for illiberal regimes who want to continue oppressing their citizenry with impunity (as they have been doing for Sudan).

Of course, it's not all good news -- there are still hellish scenarios playing out in Zimbabwe and Sudan, and Yglesias linked to the Globe article itself as a counterpoint to Congo's descent back into chaos. But any progress is good progress -- and nothing would be better for the persistent trouble-spots in the region than if their neighbors were able to get on solid footing and could pull them up with them.