An Israeli rabbinical court has cast doubt on the validity of the conversion of Yossi Fackenheim, grandson of famed Holocaust survivor and scholar Emil Fackenheim. The younger Fackenheim converted at the age of two, under Orthodox supervision, to Judaism. The judge on the court was hostile to Fackenheim's profession (Shakespeare actor) and repeatedly ignored evidence produced verifying his youthful conversion.
As someone currently dating a non-Jew, this matters to me, a lot. If her conversion isn't under well-documented Orthodox auspices, me and my entire family could be in for all manner of trouble if we ever wanted to move to Israel. Said it before, said it again: an Israel which is not open and welcoming to all Jews -- of every background, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and degree of observance -- is an Israel that is failing in its primary political mission.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Yo Ho Ho
I've heard of American cities funding themselves through speed traps. But the east Texas town of Tenaha, on the border with Louisiana, has one-upped that considerably: it's getting some extra cash through piracy:
This is a more brazen use than most, but asset forfeiture laws in general have a high potential for abuse, given that they require relatively low standards of proof for authorities to confiscate items they believe (or "believe") are connected to criminal activity.
Via
Law enforcement authorities in this East Texas town of 1,000 people seized property from at least 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008, and, to date, filed criminal charges against fewer than half, according to a review of court documents by the San Antonio Express-News.
Virtually anything of value was up for grabs: cash, cell phones, personal jewelry, a pair of sneakers, and often, the very car that was being driven through town.
Some affidavits filed by officers relied on the presence of seemingly innocuous property as the only evidence that a crime had occurred.
Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She’s still hoping for the return of what she calls “her life savings.”
Dorman’s attorney, David Guillory, calls the roadside stops and seizures in Tenaha “highway piracy,” undertaken by a couple of law enforcement officers whose agencies get to keep most of what was seized.
Guillory is suing officials in Tenaha and Shelby County on behalf of Dorman and nine other clients whose property was confiscated. All were African-Americans driving either rentals or vehicles with out-of-state plates.
Guillory alleges in the lawsuit that while his clients were detained, they were presented with an ultimatum: waive your rights to your property in exchange for a promise to be released and not be criminally charged.
He said most did as Dorman did, signing the waiver to avoid jail.
This is a more brazen use than most, but asset forfeiture laws in general have a high potential for abuse, given that they require relatively low standards of proof for authorities to confiscate items they believe (or "believe") are connected to criminal activity.
Via
Speech Patterns
"Have a nice day."
That's what I assume people will end a conversation with. It's not a bad assumption. And, polite guy that I am, I respond back with "you too".
The problem is, my response is automatic. And "you too" doesn't always work. For example, today, when conversations tended to end with "happy birthday". "You too" in that case makes no sense. But twice in less than an hour, I was wished "happy birthday" and responded with a hearty "you too!"
That's what I assume people will end a conversation with. It's not a bad assumption. And, polite guy that I am, I respond back with "you too".
The problem is, my response is automatic. And "you too" doesn't always work. For example, today, when conversations tended to end with "happy birthday". "You too" in that case makes no sense. But twice in less than an hour, I was wished "happy birthday" and responded with a hearty "you too!"
CNN Covers Michelle Malkin Being an Asshole
I've been chewing over this CNN article about a homeless woman, Henrietta Hughes, whose plea for help from President Obama sparked an outpouring of support from Florida neighbors in the Ft. Myers area. Obviously, I'm glad to see the community respond so quickly once they heard of this woman's plight. At the same time, it's abundantly clear that individual acts of charity are not a systematic solution to the problems people like Ms. Hughes face, and I'm uncomfortable with the triumphalist tone the article is putting out. If she really is the "face of the economic crisis," then we need a policy solution that addresses these issues as a totality. The Florida politicians who are racing to help Ms. Hughes, personally, should likewise be racing to their legislative offices to get some useful bills passed.
Meanwhile, CNN cites extensively to the reaction from conservative bomb-thrower Michelle Malkin, who seems to determined to reenact the Graeme Frost fiasco:
Malkin's ability to try and slime poorer Americans for having the temerity to ask anything of their government is apparently boundless. But while the nation recoils in disgust from Malkin's sludge, the media is finally starting to catch on that for the Republican base, Malkin's words are standard operating procedure, and worthy of coverage on that ground alone.
Meanwhile, CNN cites extensively to the reaction from conservative bomb-thrower Michelle Malkin, who seems to determined to reenact the Graeme Frost fiasco:
Blogger Michelle Malkin, in a story on the conservative Web site TownHall.com on Wednesday, said that if Hughes "had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too."
"The soul-fixer dutifully asked her name, gave her a hug and ordered his staff to meet with her. Supporters cried, 'Amen!' and 'Yes!' " she added.
One reader blasted Hughes' motives and questioned how the homeless woman got to the rally at all.
"How does a 61-year-old homeless woman who's living in a pickup truck with her son JUST HAPPEN to get a ticket so she can VERY PUBLICALLY ask Prez. Obama for a HOUSE? Anyone? Who pushes her up on stage? She's right at the front of the crowd. Did she just happen to get a seat there?" asked reader Erik E.
Malkin responded: "Silence! Do not question Dear Leader. ... Like Mighty Mouse, President Obama is here to save the day. The government is here to help -- and it is your patriotic duty to pay for it all without preconditions."
Malkin's ability to try and slime poorer Americans for having the temerity to ask anything of their government is apparently boundless. But while the nation recoils in disgust from Malkin's sludge, the media is finally starting to catch on that for the Republican base, Malkin's words are standard operating procedure, and worthy of coverage on that ground alone.
Bad Lawyering Moves
If you're a defense attorney, don't appeal a sentence that was mistakenly given below the statutorily required mandatory minimums. That's the lesson Judge Reinhardt gives in this 9th Circuit opinion. The lawyers in question are very lucky their appeal was denied -- if they had "won", the case would have been remanded and their clients would have faced considerably more jail time.
Wake Up, Make a Move
Jewschool dispenses some much needed wisdom from Gershom Gorenberg, who just gave a talk in DC entitled "What We Talk About When We Talk About Israel". Among them:
The first, in particular, has to be kept in mind. Of course, that doesn't mean the attacks are irrational -- if you want to maintain the conflict between Israel/Palestine, then acting to create a cycle of radicalization makes perfect sense. And there are plenty of people who would prefer a state of conflict than a state of peace.
On the Israeli right, the existence of conflict allows them to justify aggressive "security" measures, continuing the occupation, and maintaining the settlements, or at least allows them to postpone discussing these issues -- a discussion which could rip the Israeli right apart. On the Palestinian right, groups like Hamas want to maintain conflict because they believe that world opinion will turn in their favor and don't want a peace plan to occur before they can secure maximal gains (namely, utter elimination of Israel). Allowing a bona fide peace camp to emerge in Israel may permanently take off the table their dream of greater Palestine.
++ Few on either side of the Israeli/Palestinian divide seem to understand that their opponents will react the same way as anyone else would under attack: through increased militarism and solidarity. Israel’s actions strengthens Hamas, just as Hamas’s actions strengthen the Israeli right-wing (Likud and beyond).
++ The Zionist project was to create a Jewish state, which would be a democracy, on the full historic Jewish homeland. Two of these three things are currently feasible. Which would you drop?
++ The meaning and importance of having a ”Jewish state” is based in experiencing living as a majority: the feeling of being at home, where the external trappings of life/culture correspond to the internal/family ones. Of being unexceptional and ‘in tune’.
++ The one-state solution will not work because nationalism won’t go away for the forseeable future. At best, Canaan/”Israstine” would end up a basketcase like Belgium – at worst, a bloodbath like Bosnia or Lebanon.
The first, in particular, has to be kept in mind. Of course, that doesn't mean the attacks are irrational -- if you want to maintain the conflict between Israel/Palestine, then acting to create a cycle of radicalization makes perfect sense. And there are plenty of people who would prefer a state of conflict than a state of peace.
On the Israeli right, the existence of conflict allows them to justify aggressive "security" measures, continuing the occupation, and maintaining the settlements, or at least allows them to postpone discussing these issues -- a discussion which could rip the Israeli right apart. On the Palestinian right, groups like Hamas want to maintain conflict because they believe that world opinion will turn in their favor and don't want a peace plan to occur before they can secure maximal gains (namely, utter elimination of Israel). Allowing a bona fide peace camp to emerge in Israel may permanently take off the table their dream of greater Palestine.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Israeli Elections Yield More Uncertainty
After trailing most of the race, the ruling Kadima Party, headed by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, appears to have taken a narrow plurality in the 2009 Knesset race. It is expected to win 30 seats in the 120 member parliament. The right-wing Likud Party, which had been widely expected to claim victory, is projected to take 28 seats.
But Israel is a strange place, and the drama is just beginning. While Kadima (a centrist party that nonetheless is aligned with the "left" bloc) took a plurality of the vote, overall more voters went for right-leaning parties than their leftist peers. Third place behind Likud was the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, which will likely see 14-15 seats. The center-left Labor Party, long the dominant player in Israeli politics, will be the fourth largest party with 13 seats. Overall, the right-wing bloc is expected to win around 63 seats, and the left-wing bloc 57.
So if Livni wants to form a coalition, how will she do it? Assuming she holds the left together (far from certain -- particularly the Israeli Arab parties which are still justifiably furious that Kadima voted to ban them), there are three potential parties which might cross over from the right form a government. The largest, Likud, may also be the least likely, as Netanyahu has been indicating that he still expects to form a government with him at the helm comprising of the right-wing majority.
The other two candidates are the Sephardic/Mizrachi religious party Shas, and the secular far-right Yisrael Beiteinu. With these two, it's a case of choose your poison. Shas represents primarily the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jewish communities, who tend to be poorer and more traditional than their Ashkenazi citizens. They are mistrustful of European elitism, racism, and secularism. Politically, Shas is theocratic, extremely socially conservative, and corrupt. But it is relatively flexible on foreign affairs -- including negotiating a peaceful, two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Yisrael Beiteinu, by contrast, is extremely secular. It represents primarily the Russian immigrant community, which is highly educated but also likes to flirt with authoritarianism (it's been said that what they really want is an Israeli Vladimir Putin to lead them). They also came to Israel in direct response to brutal Russian anti-Semitic oppression, and they are very skeptical that non-Jews inside and outside of Israel will not treat them the same way. Many Yisrael Beiteinu voters are completely non-observant -- indeed, many of the Russian immigrants to Israel don't identify as Jewish at all. So from the perspective of reducing the theocratic side of Israeli life, YB is clearly superior to Shas -- indeed, in a lot of ways, the two parties are mortal enemies.
But this is counter-balanced by the fact that Yisrael Beiteinu is flatly racist -- demanding loyalty tests out of Israeli Arab citizens and condemning the appointment of a Muslim Arab minister as threatening "Israel's character as a Jewish state". Consequently, it is loathed by the Israeli Arab population in Israel and the Palestinians as well. Its "peace plan" involves ceding Israeli Arab areas to the future Palestinian state in exchange for settlement blocs -- a proposal highly unpopular with the Israeli Arab residents who would see their citizenship revoked.
If Livni can form a government, Shas may well be the more likely choice. I think Kadima is primed to think its first priority is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Shas fits far better in the center-left mold than does Yisrael Beiteinu. Moreover, if Yisrael Beiteinu, which led the charge to ban the Israeli Arab parties, was invited into the coalition, those parties would undoubtedly refuse to join, rendering the coalition that much more precarious. But ultimately, both come with major problems, and some groups are going to get hosed. Even still, both are clearly superior to a Likud-led coalition joining the right with the far right, where everyone gets hosed.
So, fingers crossed.
But Israel is a strange place, and the drama is just beginning. While Kadima (a centrist party that nonetheless is aligned with the "left" bloc) took a plurality of the vote, overall more voters went for right-leaning parties than their leftist peers. Third place behind Likud was the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, which will likely see 14-15 seats. The center-left Labor Party, long the dominant player in Israeli politics, will be the fourth largest party with 13 seats. Overall, the right-wing bloc is expected to win around 63 seats, and the left-wing bloc 57.
So if Livni wants to form a coalition, how will she do it? Assuming she holds the left together (far from certain -- particularly the Israeli Arab parties which are still justifiably furious that Kadima voted to ban them), there are three potential parties which might cross over from the right form a government. The largest, Likud, may also be the least likely, as Netanyahu has been indicating that he still expects to form a government with him at the helm comprising of the right-wing majority.
The other two candidates are the Sephardic/Mizrachi religious party Shas, and the secular far-right Yisrael Beiteinu. With these two, it's a case of choose your poison. Shas represents primarily the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jewish communities, who tend to be poorer and more traditional than their Ashkenazi citizens. They are mistrustful of European elitism, racism, and secularism. Politically, Shas is theocratic, extremely socially conservative, and corrupt. But it is relatively flexible on foreign affairs -- including negotiating a peaceful, two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Yisrael Beiteinu, by contrast, is extremely secular. It represents primarily the Russian immigrant community, which is highly educated but also likes to flirt with authoritarianism (it's been said that what they really want is an Israeli Vladimir Putin to lead them). They also came to Israel in direct response to brutal Russian anti-Semitic oppression, and they are very skeptical that non-Jews inside and outside of Israel will not treat them the same way. Many Yisrael Beiteinu voters are completely non-observant -- indeed, many of the Russian immigrants to Israel don't identify as Jewish at all. So from the perspective of reducing the theocratic side of Israeli life, YB is clearly superior to Shas -- indeed, in a lot of ways, the two parties are mortal enemies.
But this is counter-balanced by the fact that Yisrael Beiteinu is flatly racist -- demanding loyalty tests out of Israeli Arab citizens and condemning the appointment of a Muslim Arab minister as threatening "Israel's character as a Jewish state". Consequently, it is loathed by the Israeli Arab population in Israel and the Palestinians as well. Its "peace plan" involves ceding Israeli Arab areas to the future Palestinian state in exchange for settlement blocs -- a proposal highly unpopular with the Israeli Arab residents who would see their citizenship revoked.
If Livni can form a government, Shas may well be the more likely choice. I think Kadima is primed to think its first priority is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Shas fits far better in the center-left mold than does Yisrael Beiteinu. Moreover, if Yisrael Beiteinu, which led the charge to ban the Israeli Arab parties, was invited into the coalition, those parties would undoubtedly refuse to join, rendering the coalition that much more precarious. But ultimately, both come with major problems, and some groups are going to get hosed. Even still, both are clearly superior to a Likud-led coalition joining the right with the far right, where everyone gets hosed.
So, fingers crossed.
Another Breakdown
Bernard Avishai's delineation of Israel into five "tribes" represents an excellent dissection of Israeli politics.
One interesting player to keep an eye on in Israeli politics is the Russian immigrant population -- currently heavily represented in the far-right Yisrael Beitainu party. It's no accident that this is so. The Russians constitute the most recent major immigrant wave to Israel, and come from a location where anti-Semitism was alive and viable in its most pure and classic form. The ghosts of anti-Semitism still haunt Ashkenazi Jews even in America (which isn't to say anti-Semitism doesn't exist here, only that it is a shadow of what it was in old Europe or Russia). Where the demons are fresher, the politics of fear will be much more appealing. It is said that Israeli fear is based off of Holocaust memory gone awry. It is an interesting counter to this hypothesis that the most militaristic elements of Israeli society are not the Ashkenazi cosmopolitan elite (descended, often, from Holocaust survivors), but the Russians (fleeing from Soviet oppression) and Mizrachi (fleeing from Arab oppression).
I worry about the results of today's Knesset election. Israel seems poised to shift radically to the right vis-a-vis the Palestinians. We might even witness a coalition made up of Likud and parties further right, which to my eye would be catastrophic. MaybeNixon Netanyahu will go to China. But I doubt it.
One interesting player to keep an eye on in Israeli politics is the Russian immigrant population -- currently heavily represented in the far-right Yisrael Beitainu party. It's no accident that this is so. The Russians constitute the most recent major immigrant wave to Israel, and come from a location where anti-Semitism was alive and viable in its most pure and classic form. The ghosts of anti-Semitism still haunt Ashkenazi Jews even in America (which isn't to say anti-Semitism doesn't exist here, only that it is a shadow of what it was in old Europe or Russia). Where the demons are fresher, the politics of fear will be much more appealing. It is said that Israeli fear is based off of Holocaust memory gone awry. It is an interesting counter to this hypothesis that the most militaristic elements of Israeli society are not the Ashkenazi cosmopolitan elite (descended, often, from Holocaust survivors), but the Russians (fleeing from Soviet oppression) and Mizrachi (fleeing from Arab oppression).
I worry about the results of today's Knesset election. Israel seems poised to shift radically to the right vis-a-vis the Palestinians. We might even witness a coalition made up of Likud and parties further right, which to my eye would be catastrophic. Maybe
...Secrets Are For Everyone
The state secrets doctrine was no fun when the Bush administration used it to cover up American complicity in torture, and it remains equally vile when it's the Obama administration doing the same thing. I'm really ticked off about this. Even though the crimes Obama's administration is helping cover up through the invocation of this "principle" were perpetuated by the Bush administration, I agree with David Luban and Andrew Sullivan: by helping bury these crimes against humanity, you become complicit in them.
Turbaconducken
I actually assumed it was a play between "turducken" and "turboconductor". But I was wrong.
It's Tough Being Innocent
Dan Solove notes an enduring and tragic paradox of our legal system: the innocent are punished more harshly than the guilty. Why?
Solove recommends eliminating "acceptance of responsibility" as a factor in sentencing or parole, and setting guidelines to limit the disparity between plea deals offered and the sentence pursued at trial. What do you think?
1. The federal sentencing guidelines and sentencing guidelines in many states provide for reductions in sentences for "acceptance of responsibility." The innocent defendant, who refuses to admit to the crime, will not receive this benefit.
2. An innocent defendant might often refuse to accept a guilty plea deal. When the innocent defendant defends his or her innocence at trial and gets wrongly convicted, that defendant will invariably receive a much higher punishment than that proposed in the plea deal.
3. An innocent defendant, by not admitting to the crime, might hurt his or her chance for an early release from prison.
Solove recommends eliminating "acceptance of responsibility" as a factor in sentencing or parole, and setting guidelines to limit the disparity between plea deals offered and the sentence pursued at trial. What do you think?
Friday, February 06, 2009
How Liberal Is Maryland?
Well, according to Cook's PVI, it is the fifth most liberal state in the country (behind DC, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island). But that's not all! My home district, the 8th, is rated D+20 ... which makes it only the third most Democratic district in the state (MD-04, D+30; MD-07, D+25). Even Massachusetts has only one district bluer than that.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Midwinter Roundup
This weekend, it is rumored that Chicago will see temperatures upwards of 50 degrees. Obviously, this disgusts and sickens me, so I am fleeing north to Minnesota to attend a ball with a certain lovely lady. Hence, the usual tide-you-over roundup (I'll be back Monday evening).
Ta-Nehisi Coates links his positive perception of Jews and Blacks "who shot back" as a counterweight to the prevailing narratives of both people: namely, passive victims who got beaten up a lot.
A good breakdown of the factors in play in Israel's upcoming election.
Marcia McCormick on why Ledbetter won't accomplish much. Depressingly convincing.
The South African President has reportedly dressed down Fatima Hajaig, and the Jewish community has now indicated that it fully accepts her apology (after previously rejecting it as "veiled"). Hajaig will keep her post in government; no word on whether the complaint against her to the state's human rights commission will continue.
If there is anybody I trust for serious economics expertise, it's the trifecta of Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and Joe the Plumber.
Juicy Campus down, far too much sludge to go.
Ta-Nehisi Coates links his positive perception of Jews and Blacks "who shot back" as a counterweight to the prevailing narratives of both people: namely, passive victims who got beaten up a lot.
A good breakdown of the factors in play in Israel's upcoming election.
Marcia McCormick on why Ledbetter won't accomplish much. Depressingly convincing.
The South African President has reportedly dressed down Fatima Hajaig, and the Jewish community has now indicated that it fully accepts her apology (after previously rejecting it as "veiled"). Hajaig will keep her post in government; no word on whether the complaint against her to the state's human rights commission will continue.
If there is anybody I trust for serious economics expertise, it's the trifecta of Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and Joe the Plumber.
Juicy Campus down, far too much sludge to go.
And Not a Penny More
There is a theory amongst policy debaters that if a given proposition yields benefits of even one cent, it should be supported because it is a marginal gain over the status quo. Under the most generous interpretation, we can say the Israeli government must have taken this theory to heart in approving a settlement "swap".
I guess that if everything goes off without a hitch, yes, this is marginally better than the status quo -- an isolated settlement replaced by one near a major bloc (consolidation is good), and a settlement built illegally on Palestinian land replaced by a settlement built "legally" on (hopefully) open territory.
But seriously, come on. When it comes to settlements, the Israeli government does not need one for one swaps. It needs to start paring down. Drastically. The Migron settlement was already scheduled to be evacuated back in August of 2008. Now, not only is it being replaced by a shiny new settlement, but the evacuation date has been pushed back for two to three years. And, as Peace Now representatives noted, experience tells us that when two or three years rolls around, there will be another reason to keep the Migron settlement up anyway, and in fact what we'll see is a net increase in settlement presence.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has agreed to approve the establishment of a new settlement in the Binyamin region in return for settlers' agreement to evacuate the illegal outpost of Migron. The Migron settlers will move into the new 250-house settlement after leaving the illegal one they built on private Palestinian land.
[...]
The new site is a kilometer away from the built-up section of the Adam settlement, located east of the separation fence. The establishment of the new community violates the conditions of the Road Map, as well as Ariel Sharon's commitments to President George W. Bush in 2003.
I guess that if everything goes off without a hitch, yes, this is marginally better than the status quo -- an isolated settlement replaced by one near a major bloc (consolidation is good), and a settlement built illegally on Palestinian land replaced by a settlement built "legally" on (hopefully) open territory.
But seriously, come on. When it comes to settlements, the Israeli government does not need one for one swaps. It needs to start paring down. Drastically. The Migron settlement was already scheduled to be evacuated back in August of 2008. Now, not only is it being replaced by a shiny new settlement, but the evacuation date has been pushed back for two to three years. And, as Peace Now representatives noted, experience tells us that when two or three years rolls around, there will be another reason to keep the Migron settlement up anyway, and in fact what we'll see is a net increase in settlement presence.
Ginsburg Being Treated For Cancer
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being treated for recently-diagnosed Pancreatic cancer. The cancer was discovered early, but obviously as a prior cancer survivor Justice Ginsburg's risks are heightened. Hopefully, she'll overcome this one as well -- I've been looking forward to many more years with her on the bench.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Benedict 180s
Pope Benedict has made an abrupt turn-around on the Richard Williamson scandal, demanding that he repudiate his Holocaust-denial if he is to be readmitted into the church. This comes after a furious reaction by the Jewish community to the rehabilitation of Mr. Williamson, who was to be readmitted to the Catholic religious body as a gesture of reconciliation with its radically conservative wing. Previously, the church had brushed aside the outrage, with Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone saying he considered the matter "closed" after Benedict denounced Holocaust deniers last week.
It is good to see the Vatican take this step. It would have been better if they hadn't so badly screwed up in the first place, then tried to airily dismiss the legitimate complaints of the Jewish community. But late is better than never. It'll be interesting to see what Williamson does.
It is good to see the Vatican take this step. It would have been better if they hadn't so badly screwed up in the first place, then tried to airily dismiss the legitimate complaints of the Jewish community. But late is better than never. It'll be interesting to see what Williamson does.
What Have We Done To Deserve This?
Joe the Plumber looks down the road:
Oh. Lord. No.
H/T
As for his own political career, America will just have to wait six years until his son grows up.
“I don’t know if the American public deserve me,” he said, “but my son definitely deserves my time now.”
Oh. Lord. No.
H/T
Check Out Today's Marmaduke ... Solid
UPDATE: Ohhhh! Katz = Cats. I totally missed it. Seriously, I did. So, not anti-Semitic (really), just completely unoriginal and unfunny. But that's nothing new for Marmaduke.
Someone today, who will not go named because she's applying for jobs and needs to preserve her reputation, told me that she likes the comic strip Marmaduke. Now, that's rather abhorrent on its own, as every Marmaduke strip boils down to "Marmaduke is a big dog. Sometimes, he interacts with his owners and guests in a creepy over-sexualized fashion."
But today's Marmaduke, while nodding in the direction of the form, takes the strip in a whole new (well, not whole new) direction -- anti-Semitism! It's not just that one could interpret Marmaduke's refusal to stop at Katz Deli as a boycott of Jews, so much as I can't think of any other way the caption makes any sense at all.
Of course, my friend didn't read Marmaduke today, so I'm sure this wasn't a commentary on her. But seriously -- what am I missing here? What is the punchline of this joke aside from "even Marmaduke wouldn't eat at a deli named Katz"?
Someone today, who will not go named because she's applying for jobs and needs to preserve her reputation, told me that she likes the comic strip Marmaduke. Now, that's rather abhorrent on its own, as every Marmaduke strip boils down to "Marmaduke is a big dog. Sometimes, he interacts with his owners and guests in a creepy over-sexualized fashion."
But today's Marmaduke, while nodding in the direction of the form, takes the strip in a whole new (well, not whole new) direction -- anti-Semitism! It's not just that one could interpret Marmaduke's refusal to stop at Katz Deli as a boycott of Jews, so much as I can't think of any other way the caption makes any sense at all.
Of course, my friend didn't read Marmaduke today, so I'm sure this wasn't a commentary on her. But seriously -- what am I missing here? What is the punchline of this joke aside from "even Marmaduke wouldn't eat at a deli named Katz"?
Have I Got a Theory for You!
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a call to "create an independent and viable (Palestinian) state in both the West Bank and Gaza, and provide Israel with the peace and security that it has sought." I found Michael van der Galien's response quite amusing:
Mr. Van der Galien's support is so abstract that he thinks even those who agree with his position are naive. Now that's what I call theoretical!
The point Mr. Van der Galien tries to make is that Hamas and Fatah are mortal enemies who, whenever they are put together, are at each others throats. That, indeed, is an obstacle to establishing a viable Palestinian state, though I'm not sure that makes the goal of it "naive" so much as it identifies a barrier that America will have to keep in mind and work through in our diplomatic engagement.
But also, I'm at least a little confused as to why the Hamas/Fatah conflict really undermines the case for establishing a Palestinian state. That is to say, I'm not sure what "bad things" that flow from the Hamas/Fatah conflict become worse because their battle is in the context of a sovereign state rather than as an occupied pseudo-government. Either way, Palestinians will suffer from the conflict, either way, Israel risks being bloodied by the spill-over of the clashes, and either way, there is some incentive to gain popularity by ratcheting up violent attacks against the Israeli state (though I imagine the last of these, at least, would be reduced in a statehood context). One might also hope that the domestic pressure to actually run a new country might put enough leverage on the two to put aside their differences at least for the short term and try governing for awhile.
But that's neither here nor there. The fact that getting a viable Palestinian state off the ground might be hard isn't a good reason to remove that end-state as an objective. A "theoretical" support for a Palestinian state that is so thin that it mocks anyone else who registers similar support is the essence of a facade. If you're not willing to work at creating a Palestinian state, you're not in favor of one -- "theoretically" or otherwise.
Although we all support an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state in theory, I find Clinton’s remarks terribly naieve.
Mr. Van der Galien's support is so abstract that he thinks even those who agree with his position are naive. Now that's what I call theoretical!
The point Mr. Van der Galien tries to make is that Hamas and Fatah are mortal enemies who, whenever they are put together, are at each others throats. That, indeed, is an obstacle to establishing a viable Palestinian state, though I'm not sure that makes the goal of it "naive" so much as it identifies a barrier that America will have to keep in mind and work through in our diplomatic engagement.
But also, I'm at least a little confused as to why the Hamas/Fatah conflict really undermines the case for establishing a Palestinian state. That is to say, I'm not sure what "bad things" that flow from the Hamas/Fatah conflict become worse because their battle is in the context of a sovereign state rather than as an occupied pseudo-government. Either way, Palestinians will suffer from the conflict, either way, Israel risks being bloodied by the spill-over of the clashes, and either way, there is some incentive to gain popularity by ratcheting up violent attacks against the Israeli state (though I imagine the last of these, at least, would be reduced in a statehood context). One might also hope that the domestic pressure to actually run a new country might put enough leverage on the two to put aside their differences at least for the short term and try governing for awhile.
But that's neither here nor there. The fact that getting a viable Palestinian state off the ground might be hard isn't a good reason to remove that end-state as an objective. A "theoretical" support for a Palestinian state that is so thin that it mocks anyone else who registers similar support is the essence of a facade. If you're not willing to work at creating a Palestinian state, you're not in favor of one -- "theoretically" or otherwise.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
...And Across into Asia
They'd hate to be left out. Our global anti-Semitism tour has hit Europe, Africa, and South America so far. And now, representing the continent of Asia ... Bangladesh!
Incidentally, the BNP is a conservative (center-right) party, so at least this one can't be blamed on the "left". But the lamentations about Hitler's failures are unfortunately becoming a bit of a trend.
As reported by the editor and publisher of the Weekly Blitz, peace activist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, Mohammad Asafuddowlah said, "My soul bleeds when I recall the recent atrocities against the people of Gaza. And if I was a young man, I would have gone to Gaza with a weapon to exterminate Israel."
It is not just Israel's extermination Asafuddowlah seeks, however. "Now I believe that what Adolph Hitler did during the Holocaust was absolutely correct. He should have done this more extensively, to eliminate the total Jewish population from the world," he added.
Abdul Hye Sikder, the host of the TV program on which Asafuddowlah appeared, reacted to the genocidal statements with agreement, echoing the sentiments. Sikder, Choudhury reports, was at one time a leading activist of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Incidentally, the BNP is a conservative (center-right) party, so at least this one can't be blamed on the "left". But the lamentations about Hitler's failures are unfortunately becoming a bit of a trend.
I Feel So Much Better Now
Fatima Hajaig, the South African deputy minister for foreign affairs who claimed that "Jewish money" controls America, has come out with a ... apology? No, that's not quite right. An apologia, perhaps:
Wow. It rare to see an "apology" that nearly matches the original statement in terms of its offense, but God bless her Ms. Hajaig gave it her best shot.
First of all, let's note something very important here. In an "unequivocal apology" to the Jewish community, the amount of time she spends talking about the offense and anti-Semitism is outweighed by at least a 2:1 margin by her "reiteration" of her pro-Palestinian position. The entire first paragraph, for instance, and much of the second and third. It's a strange sort of apology whose primary purpose is to reiterate a political position, rather than give redress to the aggrieved.
Second, notice how even her "apology" is framed in terms of what it means to the Palestinian people. Indeed, she barely is addressing South African Jews at all. "I do not believe that the cause of the Palestinians is served by any anti-Jewish racism." I happen to agree, but even if anti-Semitism was the best thing to happen to the Palestinians since sliced bread, it'd still be wrong. But it is beyond obvious that Ms. Hajaig thinks the real problem here is that she might have given the Palestinian solidarity movement some bad PR, and that's what she is trying to mitigate. The nod to Jews is almost entirely perfunctory.
Third, for an "unequivocal" apology, it sure is ... equivocal. As far as Ms. Hajaig understands it, the mistake was that she "conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence." As I've remarked, if she said "Zionist" instead of "Jewish", would it really have been better? Do you think it would have been interpreted differently? As the Z-Word bloggers put it, "instead of the word 'Zionist' being used as deliberate code for 'Jew,' the word 'Jew' is being - accidentally? - used as code for 'Zionist.'" It's bizarre, and it's even more bizarre that this is supposed to represent an explanation.
Likewise, she regrets "the inference made by some that I am anti-Jewish." Oh, suddenly this is my fault? She's sorry I inferred she was anti-Jewish? She also apologizes "unequivocally" for the "hurt and pain" her statement caused. What's missing is the idea that the statement itself was wrong. It's not just wrong because it hurts Jewish feelings. It's wrong because it was vile, reactionary, anti-Semitic, and unbecoming of a member of a liberal democratic government. It's wrong because it was an expression of anti-Jewish racism, not an "inference" of one. And yes, it'd still be wrong if she had subbed in "Zionist" and gotten her code right the first time around.
Fourth, there is no indication she, you know, learned anything from this. In the first paragraph, she talks how she has "long been cognisant of the immense suffering the Palestinians have experienced". The right move to make from that line is to say "I have not similarly been aware of the depth of Jewish feeling on this subject, or the historical and continuing prejudice which I tapped into when making my remarks. I commit myself to rectifying that gap immediately." But that, of course, is roughly the opposite of how her statement progressed. Indeed, there was no indication that Ms. Hajaig feels it necessary to engage in any sort of introspection (much less engagement with the Jewish community) at all. She just blandly affirms that she is opposed to anti-Semitism (if for no other reason than it's bad for the Palestinians), then pivots right back to saying that the main issue is how much the Palestinians are suffering.
This isn't an apology. It's a second insult, or it's a joke. Either way, it's past time Ms. Hajaig tender her resignation. Maybe she'll finally find the time to do the soul-searching that she so desperately needs if she wants to continue to call herself a progressive anti-racist.
I have just returned from a visit to Japan and learnt of the controversy surrounding some comments that I was purported to have made. I have reviewed the proceedings of the meeting and wish to say, to state the following: Throughout my life I have been opposed to apartheid and all forms of racism. It is this opposition that drove me into exile and to work with the African National Congress for decades. Along with all in the ANC and consistent with the recent resolutions adopted at our Polokwane conference in December 2007, I have long been cognisant of the immense suffering the Palestinians have experienced in the form of expulsions, collective punishment and massacres, of which the recent war in Gaza is but the latest example. It is to this suffering that I spoke at the meeting. I deplore the attempts of Zionists to justify policies that have worsened the crisis in the Middle East, in particular unmitigated state violence directed against unarmed civilians as much as I deplore indiscriminate attacks against Israeli unarmed civilians.
At a singular point in my talk, and entirely unrelated to any South African community, I conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence. I regret the inference made by some that I am anti-Jewish. I do not believe that the cause of the Palestinians is served by any anti-Jewish racism. As a member of the South African government and a committed member of the African National Congress, I subscribe to the values and principles of non-racism and condemn without equivocation all forms of racism, including antisemitism in all its manifestations and wherever it may occur.
To the extent that my statement may have caused hurt and pain, I offer an unequivocal apology for the pain it may have caused to the people of our country and the Jewish community in particular. I wish to reiterate that the major issue in relation to the Palestinian Israel conflict is the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people and the struggle for peace for all its’ people based on justice and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
As Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, I reaffirm the government’s commitment to engage all parties in Israel and Palestine to find an amicable and just resolution to the conflict in that region.
Wow. It rare to see an "apology" that nearly matches the original statement in terms of its offense, but God bless her Ms. Hajaig gave it her best shot.
First of all, let's note something very important here. In an "unequivocal apology" to the Jewish community, the amount of time she spends talking about the offense and anti-Semitism is outweighed by at least a 2:1 margin by her "reiteration" of her pro-Palestinian position. The entire first paragraph, for instance, and much of the second and third. It's a strange sort of apology whose primary purpose is to reiterate a political position, rather than give redress to the aggrieved.
Second, notice how even her "apology" is framed in terms of what it means to the Palestinian people. Indeed, she barely is addressing South African Jews at all. "I do not believe that the cause of the Palestinians is served by any anti-Jewish racism." I happen to agree, but even if anti-Semitism was the best thing to happen to the Palestinians since sliced bread, it'd still be wrong. But it is beyond obvious that Ms. Hajaig thinks the real problem here is that she might have given the Palestinian solidarity movement some bad PR, and that's what she is trying to mitigate. The nod to Jews is almost entirely perfunctory.
Third, for an "unequivocal" apology, it sure is ... equivocal. As far as Ms. Hajaig understands it, the mistake was that she "conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence." As I've remarked, if she said "Zionist" instead of "Jewish", would it really have been better? Do you think it would have been interpreted differently? As the Z-Word bloggers put it, "instead of the word 'Zionist' being used as deliberate code for 'Jew,' the word 'Jew' is being - accidentally? - used as code for 'Zionist.'" It's bizarre, and it's even more bizarre that this is supposed to represent an explanation.
Likewise, she regrets "the inference made by some that I am anti-Jewish." Oh, suddenly this is my fault? She's sorry I inferred she was anti-Jewish? She also apologizes "unequivocally" for the "hurt and pain" her statement caused. What's missing is the idea that the statement itself was wrong. It's not just wrong because it hurts Jewish feelings. It's wrong because it was vile, reactionary, anti-Semitic, and unbecoming of a member of a liberal democratic government. It's wrong because it was an expression of anti-Jewish racism, not an "inference" of one. And yes, it'd still be wrong if she had subbed in "Zionist" and gotten her code right the first time around.
Fourth, there is no indication she, you know, learned anything from this. In the first paragraph, she talks how she has "long been cognisant of the immense suffering the Palestinians have experienced". The right move to make from that line is to say "I have not similarly been aware of the depth of Jewish feeling on this subject, or the historical and continuing prejudice which I tapped into when making my remarks. I commit myself to rectifying that gap immediately." But that, of course, is roughly the opposite of how her statement progressed. Indeed, there was no indication that Ms. Hajaig feels it necessary to engage in any sort of introspection (much less engagement with the Jewish community) at all. She just blandly affirms that she is opposed to anti-Semitism (if for no other reason than it's bad for the Palestinians), then pivots right back to saying that the main issue is how much the Palestinians are suffering.
This isn't an apology. It's a second insult, or it's a joke. Either way, it's past time Ms. Hajaig tender her resignation. Maybe she'll finally find the time to do the soul-searching that she so desperately needs if she wants to continue to call herself a progressive anti-racist.
A Picture of a Marriage
This picture, of Hillary Clinton being sworn in as Secretary of State, comes from this CNN article detailing her first overseas trip to Asia. But that's not what I want to focus on.
Look at Bill. Look at how he looks at his wife. There is tremendous pride there. And tremendous love.
The Clinton's have had a turbulent marriage, to be sure. But I'm reminded of something Mike Huckabee said about them:
Bill Clinton and Hillary went through some horrible experiences in their marriage because of some of the reckless behavior that he has admitted he had. I am not defending him on that, it’s indefensible. Just let’s not let it get lost on us that they kept their marriage together. They raised a magnificent daughter. Chelsea is truly a delightful human being…She’s polite, thoughtful, intelligent and everything you would hope a daughter to be. But they kept their marriage together. And a lot of the Republicans who have condemned them and talk about their platform of family values, interestingly, didn’t keep their own families together. Give Bill and Hillary Clinton credit for doing something we say they should have done and that is hold their marriage together in spite of enormous trials.
I don't believe, as I imagine Huckabee does, that divorce is always a bad thing. Sometimes, marriages don't work out. Sometimes, it's better for both persons if a couple splits. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if it's better for "both" persons or not -- a marriage can poisonous to one party, and they deserve the right to leave if that's the case.
However. The Clinton marriage has always been presented as two people who could barely stand each other, going through the motions to nurse their respective egomaniacal ambitions. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. I don't. I don't see them as a couple that should have split up, and is only staying together for appearances sake.
Everything I've observed about Bill and Hillary Clinton together has demonstrated a couple that is fiercely loyal to one another, that has genuine affection for one another, and that will back the other one up no matter what. Bill Clinton's behavior was often inexcusable, but they worked beyond it, because I really think they love each other. Sometimes Bill was a little aggressive on the campaign trail -- more than I'd like -- but that's because he wanted to do everything he could to help his wife in her effort to become President, and sometimes passion makes one a little hotter than one perhaps should be. As an Obama supporter, I can forgive that.
The Clinton marriage, as I see it, is a relationship of two extremely smart, extremely committed public servants who have gone through a lot together, seen some successes, made some mistakes, and through it all, still support each other and care about each other in a deep and fundamental way.
I like that in a marriage.
SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton's swearing-in ceremony.
Steele Gets Welcomed In
Ta-Nehisi Coates had an interesting response to new RNC chair Michael Steele's now infamous remark to Barack Obama: "How do you like me now?"
And so begins what is sure to be Steele's stormy relationship with the Black community during his tenure as RNC chair. Coates actually had one of the nicer reactions. The Field Negro was significantly more ... circumspect. And then there is Jill Tubman:
That, I think, is a little unfair. This piece on The Root, by contrast, I think is very fair:
It's a bit unfair to group Steele in this -- The Root piece I linked to noted the same instance I did where Steele justly flamed Republican "outreach" to Black voters. But at the same time, Steele has not been particularly willing to buck the cryptoconservative wing of his party which is nearly entirely predicated on denigrating and diminishing Black people.
And I think Obama follow that up with: Chairman Steele, Play your position. You lost a senate race in one of the blackest state's in the country, after a particularly racially divisive Democratic primary. Obama is a black Democrat who just won Virginia and North Carolina. At least Mel Martinez had won an election. What's that Clips lyric? You are not him.
And so begins what is sure to be Steele's stormy relationship with the Black community during his tenure as RNC chair. Coates actually had one of the nicer reactions. The Field Negro was significantly more ... circumspect. And then there is Jill Tubman:
Black people just don’t believe a word that black conservatives say. Our working assumption is that a black conservative is willing to align his or herself with a party that openly attacks black people for one or all of the following reasons:
* self-hatred paired with hatred of all black people (Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly)
* mediocrity paired with overwhelming ambition (Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams)
* cynicism and avarice paired with overwhelming ambition (Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele)
We generally believe that black conservatives have chosen that path in order to take the fastest route they could find to fame, money and power. If it means selling the rest of us down river, so be it.
That, I think, is a little unfair. This piece on The Root, by contrast, I think is very fair:
However, the GOP's real problem with black people is not so much that the white conservatives in the party do not reach out to blacks, but that so-called black conservatives do not do enough outreach to black voters.
Black conservatives as a group, particularly the prominent intellectuals, seem to go out of their way to attack the black community. Consider conservative author Star Parker’s intellectual meditations titled, Pimps, Whores, and Welfare Brats or Uncle Sam’s Plantation. Ouch!
Most black conservative commentators are largely viewed by blacks as opportunistic, attack dogs for the white conservative establishment. This perception is entirely unhelpful in a community that understands that its core interests are in equal access and opportunity, health care and community redevelopment.
In short, black conservatives often can't get a hearing on important issues among blacks because they have positioned themselves as hostile to the interests of black people.
[...]
The black members of the GOP rarely, if ever, stand up and speak out when the party does the wrong thing. Where are the black conservatives when Rush Limbaugh says, “We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over and grab our ankles ... because his father was black, because this is the first black president, we've got to accept this”? Limbaugh is out of control. He is being overtly racially offensive and both black conservatives and the Republicans in Congress are terrified to denounce him publicly.
As long as the blacks who self-identify as “conservatives” continue to lay down for this nonsense, and continue to attack and alienate themselves from their own community, instead of reaching out, listening and building coalitions within the black community; black voters for the foreseeable future will continue to reject the Republican Party and black conservative ideology.
It's a bit unfair to group Steele in this -- The Root piece I linked to noted the same instance I did where Steele justly flamed Republican "outreach" to Black voters. But at the same time, Steele has not been particularly willing to buck the cryptoconservative wing of his party which is nearly entirely predicated on denigrating and diminishing Black people.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Chavez Condemns and Deflects
Hugo Chavez has come out and condemned the violent assault on a Caracas synagogue. However, he refused to contemplate any linkage between his own extreme rhetoric on Israel and the violence, instead choosing to point fingers at opposition parties:
Nobody "benefits" from these violent actions. But somebody does inspire them. And that someone is Hugo Chavez.
UPDATE: Modern Mitzvot has more.
"We condemn the actions on the synagogue of Caracas," Chavez said in a televised speech on Sunday. "It must be asked ... who benefits from these violent incidents. It is not the government, nor the people, nor the revolution."
In an often cryptic response, he suggested opposition leaders plotted the attack to reduce his chances in a February 15 referendum on a constitutional amendment that would let him stay in office after his term ends in 2013.
Nobody "benefits" from these violent actions. But somebody does inspire them. And that someone is Hugo Chavez.
UPDATE: Modern Mitzvot has more.
Peace? Plan?
A post by Dylan Matthews, guest-blogging for Ezra Klein, has been nagging at me for a couple of days now.
Most Jews, inside and outside of Israel, identify broadly with a two-state solution. Which is good. But this commitment, if it is to be taken seriously, has to be backed up with some sort of concrete plan for attaining it. It's not enough to vaguely say "I want peace". There has to be a there there.
This hit home with me thinking about my identification with J Street and the need support American policies which concretely advance the cause of peace. Denigrating J Street as a "fantasy", a colleague of mine (whom I won't name, but who is free to identify herself if she wishes) expressed support for a two-state solution, but told me that the United States should not pressure Israel in any way, shape, or form to move in that direction. This, to me, is not supporting a two-state solution -- at least as a matter of American foreign policy. It's supporting an American foreign policy of allowing Israel to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether it gets us closer to a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict or not. As far as I'm concerned, adapting that position is simply inconsistent with being "pro-two-state solution". I honestly don't think someone who is unwilling for the United States to ever challenge Israel to do something it might be reluctant to do can reconcile that with pro-peace commitments. Hell, I don't even think that's reconcilable with being pro-Israel. Sometimes even friends require a little bit of leaning on. If you're unwilling to do that, you're not a real friend.
Supporting peace in the middle east means supporting a viable plan to get us there. Obstacles to peace exist on both sides. I happen to think the more serious obstacles come in the form of Palestinian anti-Semitic ideology and terrorism. If you support a two-state solution, you have to have a policy agenda that meaningfully reacts to (and allows Israel to meaningfully react to) this violence and incitement. A concrete step that all players (Israel, Palestine, the EU, the UN, America, and the Arab League) should be taking is cracking down on maximalist ideologies which are poisoning Palestinian civil society and making peace impossible. There is a reason why UNRWA textbooks are considered a big deal in Israel -- they're an abdication of the UN's responsibility to try and dissipate, rather than fan, the flames of extremism and create the conditions where peace can occur. I'm not that interested in the psychological or social reasons why some Palestinians might buy into hateful ideas about Jews, or be reticent to adopt an outlook hinged on mutual equality and respect. Descriptively, that might be the state of affairs -- but that's all the more reason why the actors working to create peace have to break down those mentalities, not ignore them and let them fester and multiply.
But the Israeli settlements are major obstacles as well -- and ones that really serve no purpose but to aggravate Palestinians and make it more difficult for peace to be achieved in the long run. If you support a two-state solution, then, you need a plan which actually will see most if not all of the settlements dismantled in the foreseeable future. Simply waving your hands and saying "Israel will deal with them" is not a plan. It also shows a shocking ignorance of Israeli parliamentary politics, which makes evacuation of the West Bank settlements unbelievably difficult without external pressure even though it'd be supported by a popular majority in Israel. The US has the leverage to help break this stalemate and strike a huge blow for peace. It needs people who are willing to mobilize on behalf of Israel to put their money and politics where their mouths are, and press America to intervene on the side of Israel and Palestine -- which is to say, the side of peaceful co-existence.
As Matthews says, there are alternative right-wing "plans" for peace out there that compete with the framework I believe in. I don't particularly think any of them are viable, and I think many of them would exact unbearable costs in terms of violation of human rights of innocent civilians. But in some ways I actually prefer people who advocate for those proposals, because at least they are owning a position that can be analyzed and critiqued. While a larger part of me prefers those who at least theoretically prefer two-states than "Greater Israel" or binationalism, because I think their end-point commitments are on the mark, saying you support a two-state solution (or some other peaceful solution) while refusing to support any concrete steps that might actually take us there is cowardly, and it is not what Israel and Palestine need right now.
What Israel and Palestine need, right now, is active engagement that can create the conditions where both sides can make the requisite changes in their behavior to create justice and peace. Palestinians need to renounce terror, anti-Semitism, and maximalist ideology that demands destruction of Israel as the end-goal of the conflict. Israelis need to evacuate the settlements, commit themselves to negotiations as the primary method of engagement with the Palestinian people, and abandon the "Greater Israel" ideal which contemplates permanent dispossession and occupation of the Palestinian people. All of these steps are in some ways politically perilous, all of them are risks. The actors need to know that the United States will have their backs as they take the tough steps on the road to peace. They also need to know that if their counterparts hesitate, the United States will move swiftly to keep them on track.
If you're not willing to support America actively intervening to forge peace in the region, or at the very least not willing to support some practical plan for getting Israel and Palestine to meet their obligations to one another, you're not pro-peace. Period.
Netanyahu's policy position here is based entirely on negatives. He doesn't want to divide Jerusalem, even though annexing East Jerusalem is illegal and would cripple the Palestinian economy. He doesn't want a return to 1967 borders, even though that would secure Israel recognition from the entire Arab League. But the problem isn't just that the planks are wrong. It's that they're not a policy. There's nothing in Netanyahu's litmus test that suggests what end-state he prefers. Does he think continuing the occupation indefinitely is viable? Would he support some pathetic joke of a Palestinian state with smaller-than-1967 borders and without East Jerusalem? Does he back population transfer, like Benny Elon, or exchanging settlements for Arab Israeli areas, like Avigdor Lieberman?
Really, there's is no shortage of non-viable, right-wing "peace plans" out there. If Netanyahu is to bash the API/Geneva/Taba consensus, he should pick one of them and run with it, or roll his own. Otherwise, there's little in his platform but obstructionism.
Most Jews, inside and outside of Israel, identify broadly with a two-state solution. Which is good. But this commitment, if it is to be taken seriously, has to be backed up with some sort of concrete plan for attaining it. It's not enough to vaguely say "I want peace". There has to be a there there.
This hit home with me thinking about my identification with J Street and the need support American policies which concretely advance the cause of peace. Denigrating J Street as a "fantasy", a colleague of mine (whom I won't name, but who is free to identify herself if she wishes) expressed support for a two-state solution, but told me that the United States should not pressure Israel in any way, shape, or form to move in that direction. This, to me, is not supporting a two-state solution -- at least as a matter of American foreign policy. It's supporting an American foreign policy of allowing Israel to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether it gets us closer to a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict or not. As far as I'm concerned, adapting that position is simply inconsistent with being "pro-two-state solution". I honestly don't think someone who is unwilling for the United States to ever challenge Israel to do something it might be reluctant to do can reconcile that with pro-peace commitments. Hell, I don't even think that's reconcilable with being pro-Israel. Sometimes even friends require a little bit of leaning on. If you're unwilling to do that, you're not a real friend.
Supporting peace in the middle east means supporting a viable plan to get us there. Obstacles to peace exist on both sides. I happen to think the more serious obstacles come in the form of Palestinian anti-Semitic ideology and terrorism. If you support a two-state solution, you have to have a policy agenda that meaningfully reacts to (and allows Israel to meaningfully react to) this violence and incitement. A concrete step that all players (Israel, Palestine, the EU, the UN, America, and the Arab League) should be taking is cracking down on maximalist ideologies which are poisoning Palestinian civil society and making peace impossible. There is a reason why UNRWA textbooks are considered a big deal in Israel -- they're an abdication of the UN's responsibility to try and dissipate, rather than fan, the flames of extremism and create the conditions where peace can occur. I'm not that interested in the psychological or social reasons why some Palestinians might buy into hateful ideas about Jews, or be reticent to adopt an outlook hinged on mutual equality and respect. Descriptively, that might be the state of affairs -- but that's all the more reason why the actors working to create peace have to break down those mentalities, not ignore them and let them fester and multiply.
But the Israeli settlements are major obstacles as well -- and ones that really serve no purpose but to aggravate Palestinians and make it more difficult for peace to be achieved in the long run. If you support a two-state solution, then, you need a plan which actually will see most if not all of the settlements dismantled in the foreseeable future. Simply waving your hands and saying "Israel will deal with them" is not a plan. It also shows a shocking ignorance of Israeli parliamentary politics, which makes evacuation of the West Bank settlements unbelievably difficult without external pressure even though it'd be supported by a popular majority in Israel. The US has the leverage to help break this stalemate and strike a huge blow for peace. It needs people who are willing to mobilize on behalf of Israel to put their money and politics where their mouths are, and press America to intervene on the side of Israel and Palestine -- which is to say, the side of peaceful co-existence.
As Matthews says, there are alternative right-wing "plans" for peace out there that compete with the framework I believe in. I don't particularly think any of them are viable, and I think many of them would exact unbearable costs in terms of violation of human rights of innocent civilians. But in some ways I actually prefer people who advocate for those proposals, because at least they are owning a position that can be analyzed and critiqued. While a larger part of me prefers those who at least theoretically prefer two-states than "Greater Israel" or binationalism, because I think their end-point commitments are on the mark, saying you support a two-state solution (or some other peaceful solution) while refusing to support any concrete steps that might actually take us there is cowardly, and it is not what Israel and Palestine need right now.
What Israel and Palestine need, right now, is active engagement that can create the conditions where both sides can make the requisite changes in their behavior to create justice and peace. Palestinians need to renounce terror, anti-Semitism, and maximalist ideology that demands destruction of Israel as the end-goal of the conflict. Israelis need to evacuate the settlements, commit themselves to negotiations as the primary method of engagement with the Palestinian people, and abandon the "Greater Israel" ideal which contemplates permanent dispossession and occupation of the Palestinian people. All of these steps are in some ways politically perilous, all of them are risks. The actors need to know that the United States will have their backs as they take the tough steps on the road to peace. They also need to know that if their counterparts hesitate, the United States will move swiftly to keep them on track.
If you're not willing to support America actively intervening to forge peace in the region, or at the very least not willing to support some practical plan for getting Israel and Palestine to meet their obligations to one another, you're not pro-peace. Period.
So What Is Different About Sri Lanka?
Harry's Place is comparing the situation in Israel with that of Sri Lanka, and wondering why the former gets so, so much more attention than the latter. The parallels do strike me (and they did before I read this post), but I will freely admit that my knowledge of the conflict there is limited (though not non-existent).
So I am curious. What do people think accounts for the difference in the relative attention?
Potential candidates, which of course may mix and match (feel free to add others):
1) Israel is more closely associated with the United States and the West, making it an easier target.
2) The Sri Lankan conflict is seen as "intra-mural", that is, between two "native" groups (Tamil and Sinhalese), whereas in Israel/Palestine one side (the Jews) are seen as foreign interlopers.
3) Anti-Semitism: People prefer to yell about Jews more than other groups.
But again -- I concede my knowledge is limited, and I am quite open to hearing why others think the disparity exists.
So I am curious. What do people think accounts for the difference in the relative attention?
Potential candidates, which of course may mix and match (feel free to add others):
1) Israel is more closely associated with the United States and the West, making it an easier target.
2) The Sri Lankan conflict is seen as "intra-mural", that is, between two "native" groups (Tamil and Sinhalese), whereas in Israel/Palestine one side (the Jews) are seen as foreign interlopers.
3) Anti-Semitism: People prefer to yell about Jews more than other groups.
But again -- I concede my knowledge is limited, and I am quite open to hearing why others think the disparity exists.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
And Moving To Europe
We had our first continent with South Africa. Venezuela expanded us into South America. And Europe? Well -- there is a lot to choose from.
In Iceland, a Bicycle shop is displaying a sign: "No Jews allowed", apparently as a "solidarity" measure with the Palestinians. This comes as protesters are demanding that the Icelandic government cut diplomatic ties with Israel.
In Norway, a politician who attended a pro-Israel rally is now under 24-hour police protection.
A Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia made waves recently for claiming that "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany." Once again -- exactly? I think the history here seems a bit sketchy.
But my favorite is from a Portugese Dominican friar, Bento Domingues, who had this commentary:
I would be fascinated to know how this "man of God" thinks "Madoff the Pharisee" and America's relationship with Israel are remotely connected. Except, I suppose, that Madoff demonstrates that Jews can't be trusted. Though since I'm reasonably confident based on current events that the Catholic hierarchy will take no action against Domingues, it is hard for me not think that the Catholic church (as an institution) can be trusted to respond to anti-Semitism.
In Iceland, a Bicycle shop is displaying a sign: "No Jews allowed", apparently as a "solidarity" measure with the Palestinians. This comes as protesters are demanding that the Icelandic government cut diplomatic ties with Israel.
In Norway, a politician who attended a pro-Israel rally is now under 24-hour police protection.
"I have never experienced this kind of hatred in Norway," said [Asle] Toje [foreign policy adviser to the opposition Progress Party], who was present at the demonstration. "There were people throwing stones at and spitting on rally-goers. Afterward, people carrying Israeli flags were randomly attacked in the streets."
Along with expressions of support for Israel, speakers at the rally, including Jensen, called for aid to be distributed in Gaza and for a cease-fire agreement to be signed. "It was a peaceful rally," said Toje. "Jensen was calling for the same things as Barack Obama. The difference is that she was doing it in Norway. The environment here is different."
A Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia made waves recently for claiming that "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany." Once again -- exactly? I think the history here seems a bit sketchy.
But my favorite is from a Portugese Dominican friar, Bento Domingues, who had this commentary:
Israel has already done enough to show that even with Madoff the Pharisee in jail, the U.S. will continue to have faith in Israel, in spite of having committed all manner of crimes against humanity.
I would be fascinated to know how this "man of God" thinks "Madoff the Pharisee" and America's relationship with Israel are remotely connected. Except, I suppose, that Madoff demonstrates that Jews can't be trusted. Though since I'm reasonably confident based on current events that the Catholic hierarchy will take no action against Domingues, it is hard for me not think that the Catholic church (as an institution) can be trusted to respond to anti-Semitism.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
"David: The Hell With Your Star"
In South Africa, government officials openly join in on rampant anti-Semitic conspiracy-mongering. In Venezuela, the government is barely slightly less overt, but the results have been far worse.
The Jewish community in Venezuela has been very clear: it blames the government under socialist President Hugo Chavez for inciting this type of violence:
Chavez had previously demanded with regard to Gaza that Venezuelan Jews speak "out against this barbarism. Do it. Don’t you strongly reject all acts of persecution?" Chavez has been at the forefront of the most hyperbolic and vitriolic condemnations of Israel, for example, claiming that Israel's conduct in the 2006 Lebanon war was worse than Hitler (for the record, the civilian casualty count for that conflict was roughly 1,200 Lebanese citizens killed, 4,400 injured. Israeli civilian casualties were 44 dead, 1,500 injured).
Meanwhile, pro-government forces in the South American nation have their own ideas on how to show "solidarity" with the Palestinians:
Holocaust-denial, at this stage, is simply par for the course. Joyfully arming groups like Hamas, too, seems to satisfy armchair revolutionaries who like the idea of violent conflict so long as other people are the ones shooting and receiving the bullets. The call to start screaming at Jews whenever they dare leave their homes, on the other hand, is a new one on me and represents significant escalation.
Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, but this sort of criticism is, because when anti-Israel criticism reaches the degree of fevered pitch as it has under Chavez, it ceases to represent fair-minded commentary on achieving justice for the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine and adopts a primary function of actively inciting violence and discrimination against Jews worldwide. Hiding behind the banners of "solidarity" or "resistance" or anything else is simply not a defense, nor is crying about how the neurotic Jews are "playing the anti-Semitism card" by preventing people from equating millions of Jews with the Nazis who would have seen them slaughtered.
One cannot say the things Chavez says and then be surprised or defensive when folks start physically assaulting Jews. There is an obligation on those who consider themselves allies of the Palestinians to restrain this sort of rhetoric because it indisputably leads to violence and it indisputably contributes to Jewish oppression. Moreover, the degree to which it is disassociated from any sort of reality concerning Israel/Palestine renders its claims to be "political speech" or "advocacy" virtually null. There is no chance that any informed, progressive-minded policymaker is going to make decisions based on the idea that Israel is a "Nazi state" embarking on a modern "holocaust", and the speakers have to know this. The only purpose for engaging in this sort of rhetoric is to stir up hate -- to render the opposition beyond the pale of humanity, and thus worthy of hatred, discrimination, violence, and ultimately, murder.
Armed men forced their way into a Caracas synagogue, defacing its administrative offices with anti-Semitic graffiti and vandalizing an interior room where the Torah is kept, officials said.
Vandals smashed items in an interior room where the Torah is kept, officials said.
About 15 men forced their way into the Mariperez Synagogue in Venezuela's capital about 10 p.m. Friday, staying until about 3 a.m., police said. They tied up a security guard at the synagogue before vandalizing the rooms.
Graffiti left at the scene included the phrases "Damn the Jews," "Jews out of here" and "Israel assassins." The men also left behind a picture of a devil, authorities said.
The Jewish community in Venezuela has been very clear: it blames the government under socialist President Hugo Chavez for inciting this type of violence:
The president of the Jewish community in Venezuela on Monday accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of promoting anti-Semitism and giving the phenomenon legitimacy.
Speaking at the World Jewish Congress conference in Jerusalem on Monday, Abraham Levy Ben Shimol said "you probably hear of many anti-Semitic incidents, but where we live, the anti-Semitism is sanctioned; it comes from the president, through the government, and into the media. Since the government is very involved in the day-to-day lives of its constituents, its influence is much more effective."
Chavez had previously demanded with regard to Gaza that Venezuelan Jews speak "out against this barbarism. Do it. Don’t you strongly reject all acts of persecution?" Chavez has been at the forefront of the most hyperbolic and vitriolic condemnations of Israel, for example, claiming that Israel's conduct in the 2006 Lebanon war was worse than Hitler (for the record, the civilian casualty count for that conflict was roughly 1,200 Lebanese citizens killed, 4,400 injured. Israeli civilian casualties were 44 dead, 1,500 injured).
Meanwhile, pro-government forces in the South American nation have their own ideas on how to show "solidarity" with the Palestinians:
- publicly denouncing by name, the members of powerful Jewish groups in Venezuela, names of their companies and businesses in order to boycott them
- avoiding products, stores, supermarkets, restaurants, and where Kosher food is sold which either belongs or has links with 'Zionist Jews'
- questioning the existence of Jewish educational institutions
- shouting pro-Palestine and anti-Israel slogans at Jews on the street
- inviting anti-Zionist Jews living in Venezuela to publicly express their disassociation from 'Zionist war crimes' and the imposition of artificial State of Israel on Palestine
- nationalization of companies, confiscation of properties of those Jews who support the Zionist atrocities of the Nazi-State of Israel, and donate this property to the Palestinian victims of today’s Holocaust
- sending all type of aid to Palestinians including weapons
- hacking pro-Zionist websites including governments or institutions that have relations with Israel
- organizing an international conference about the creation of the theocratic - Nazi state of Israel as a genocidal European colony, and about the myths and facts of the alleged Jewish Holocaust or Holohoax (a blackmailing industry)
- support the dissolution of the artificial State of Israel
Holocaust-denial, at this stage, is simply par for the course. Joyfully arming groups like Hamas, too, seems to satisfy armchair revolutionaries who like the idea of violent conflict so long as other people are the ones shooting and receiving the bullets. The call to start screaming at Jews whenever they dare leave their homes, on the other hand, is a new one on me and represents significant escalation.
Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, but this sort of criticism is, because when anti-Israel criticism reaches the degree of fevered pitch as it has under Chavez, it ceases to represent fair-minded commentary on achieving justice for the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine and adopts a primary function of actively inciting violence and discrimination against Jews worldwide. Hiding behind the banners of "solidarity" or "resistance" or anything else is simply not a defense, nor is crying about how the neurotic Jews are "playing the anti-Semitism card" by preventing people from equating millions of Jews with the Nazis who would have seen them slaughtered.
One cannot say the things Chavez says and then be surprised or defensive when folks start physically assaulting Jews. There is an obligation on those who consider themselves allies of the Palestinians to restrain this sort of rhetoric because it indisputably leads to violence and it indisputably contributes to Jewish oppression. Moreover, the degree to which it is disassociated from any sort of reality concerning Israel/Palestine renders its claims to be "political speech" or "advocacy" virtually null. There is no chance that any informed, progressive-minded policymaker is going to make decisions based on the idea that Israel is a "Nazi state" embarking on a modern "holocaust", and the speakers have to know this. The only purpose for engaging in this sort of rhetoric is to stir up hate -- to render the opposition beyond the pale of humanity, and thus worthy of hatred, discrimination, violence, and ultimately, murder.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Into The Weekend
I have a ton of work to do this weekend (mostly so I can have a free next weekend with a certain special someone in Minnesota). So ... roundup time.
Ha'aretz reveals an Israeli government report detailing the extent to which the settlement enterprise (even the "legal" ones) has been carried out without government permission and on private Palestinian land. Let's be clear: Settlements on open territory? Political problem. Settlements on private Palestinian property? Theft. Time to leave.
Al-Qaeda gains support in Palestine, drawing on rifts within the radical community over Hamas' acceptance of a cease-fire. Hamas claims that al-Qaeda affiliated groups are actually Fatah fronts, but I'm skeptical -- I just think Hamas doesn't want to get flanked on its right. Just remember: It can always get worse.
Former TNR intern Dayo Olopade comments on Samantha Power's appointment as an Obama foreign policy aide. She notes that government has not exactly been the protagonist in Power's books on human rights. Will she break through the quagmire, or be silenced by the bureaucracy? I don't know -- but I wish her luck.
If you want the Davos panel where Shimon Peres royally pissed off the Prime Minister of Turkey, Jeffrey Goldberg has the video (Peres starts at around minute 39).
Another rabbi prominent for his promotion of Catholic/Jewish dialogue flames the Vatican. I really wonder if the Catholic church realizes just how incredibly pissed off the Jewish community is right now.
Yes America, race still matters (I don't care what cartoons you read).
Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about having a "complicated" family.
Ha'aretz reveals an Israeli government report detailing the extent to which the settlement enterprise (even the "legal" ones) has been carried out without government permission and on private Palestinian land. Let's be clear: Settlements on open territory? Political problem. Settlements on private Palestinian property? Theft. Time to leave.
Al-Qaeda gains support in Palestine, drawing on rifts within the radical community over Hamas' acceptance of a cease-fire. Hamas claims that al-Qaeda affiliated groups are actually Fatah fronts, but I'm skeptical -- I just think Hamas doesn't want to get flanked on its right. Just remember: It can always get worse.
Former TNR intern Dayo Olopade comments on Samantha Power's appointment as an Obama foreign policy aide. She notes that government has not exactly been the protagonist in Power's books on human rights. Will she break through the quagmire, or be silenced by the bureaucracy? I don't know -- but I wish her luck.
If you want the Davos panel where Shimon Peres royally pissed off the Prime Minister of Turkey, Jeffrey Goldberg has the video (Peres starts at around minute 39).
Another rabbi prominent for his promotion of Catholic/Jewish dialogue flames the Vatican. I really wonder if the Catholic church realizes just how incredibly pissed off the Jewish community is right now.
Yes America, race still matters (I don't care what cartoons you read).
Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about having a "complicated" family.
2,000 Words
The story of the respective passages of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, as told in two pictures.
Steele to Head RNC
Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele has won the race to become the new head of the RNC, becoming the first African-American to lead the Republican Party.
First things first. Congratulations to Mr. Steele, and to the GOP -- this is a historic day for both them.
I also think that this is a good choice for the Republican Party -- which is to say, a bad choice for me, because I'm a Democrat. Mr. Steele is a talented politician. Getting crushed in a Maryland Senate race, one of the bluest states in the union, during a Democratic wave year doesn't change that.
Mr. Steele also has talked aggressively about increasing the party's appeal to non-Whites and women. And when I say aggressive, I mean it's more than just lip service -- he's saying that Republicans have to take these people and their policy commitments seriously, rather than just paying lip service to the ideal of "inclusion" at a cocktail party. Finally, Steele has a reputation as a moderate in his party. Indeed, it almost derailed his campaign for chairmanship. We all know that in primaries one cuts to the base, then tacks back to the middle once the deal is sealed. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Steele develops his approach towards the Democratic majority now that he is in the driver's seat.
First things first. Congratulations to Mr. Steele, and to the GOP -- this is a historic day for both them.
I also think that this is a good choice for the Republican Party -- which is to say, a bad choice for me, because I'm a Democrat. Mr. Steele is a talented politician. Getting crushed in a Maryland Senate race, one of the bluest states in the union, during a Democratic wave year doesn't change that.
Mr. Steele also has talked aggressively about increasing the party's appeal to non-Whites and women. And when I say aggressive, I mean it's more than just lip service -- he's saying that Republicans have to take these people and their policy commitments seriously, rather than just paying lip service to the ideal of "inclusion" at a cocktail party. Finally, Steele has a reputation as a moderate in his party. Indeed, it almost derailed his campaign for chairmanship. We all know that in primaries one cuts to the base, then tacks back to the middle once the deal is sealed. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Steele develops his approach towards the Democratic majority now that he is in the driver's seat.
Cutting Loose
Israel's chief rabbinate cuts ties with the Vatican (this is separate from Israel's diplomatic ties with the Vatican, which remain unchanged). It's unfortunate, but the Catholic Church's decision that bringing a fringe group of conservatives back into the flock was so important so as to require diluting its position against anti-Semitism is one that needed response. I'm glad, frankly, that Israel's Jewish community is standing up for itself in this respect.
I'm not going to pretend the Jewish community is powerful enough to change the Catholic Church's decision, or even really influence it. But we are powerful enough so that we can ignore them if they demonstrate they don't give a fig about what we think.
I'm not going to pretend the Jewish community is powerful enough to change the Catholic Church's decision, or even really influence it. But we are powerful enough so that we can ignore them if they demonstrate they don't give a fig about what we think.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Power Has Returned
Pulitzer Prize winning author, anti-genocide activist, scholar, and international affairs expert Samantha Power will be entering the Obama administration as a top foreign policy aide.
This is fabulous news. When Power resigned from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster", I said it was the right thing to do. One simply can't tolerate that sort of language, particularly directed at a distinguished public servant like then-Sen. Clinton.
But I also hoped that she would rehabilitate herself and return to the fold. Samantha Power is simply too bright and too important a figure to be kept on the sidelines. Her and the now-Secretary of State have apparently buried the hatchet, and America is far, far better with both of these two incredibly impressive women at the forefront of our foreign policy in this critical time.
This is fabulous news. When Power resigned from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster", I said it was the right thing to do. One simply can't tolerate that sort of language, particularly directed at a distinguished public servant like then-Sen. Clinton.
But I also hoped that she would rehabilitate herself and return to the fold. Samantha Power is simply too bright and too important a figure to be kept on the sidelines. Her and the now-Secretary of State have apparently buried the hatchet, and America is far, far better with both of these two incredibly impressive women at the forefront of our foreign policy in this critical time.
The Giant Speaks
"Conservative giant" Rush Limbaugh gives his idea for a bipartisan stimulus plan:
Look, I can be a sucker for bipartisanship and cooperation. But this has to be taking it to a new level of stupidity such that even I'm not moved (to be fair, this might be Limbaugh's first effort at pretending to want a compromise, so....). The popular vote percentages that Obama and McCain received are not even remotely connected to the optimal mixture of tax cuts and infrastructure spending that should go into a stimulus package. It's at such a high reading on the stunt-o-meter it's breaking the machine.
And of course, the idea that some tax cuts might be a useful part of the stimulus is not indifferent to what types of tax relief are likely to be most optimal -- Republicans seem, to a person, solely in favor of cuts to the wealthy that will likely have the least positive impact on the economy. I'm not opposed to cutting taxes per se, but the cuts have to be targeted so as to put cash in the wallets of working class Americans -- and that ain't the estate tax or the capital gains tax.
Limbaugh, who has sharply rebuked the president's more than $800 billion stimulus plan and admonished congressional Republicans for not doing more to stop it, says Obama should make a "genuine compromise" with Republicans wary the bill doesn't include enough taxes and calls for too much government spending.
Instead, Limbaugh proposes that 54 percent — about the percentage of the vote Obama won in the presidential election — of the stimulus bill go to the infrastructure spending the Democrats are proposing while the remaining 46 percent go to the tax cuts pushed by Republicans.
“In this new era of responsibility, let's use elements of both the Keynesians and the supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better,” Limbaugh told listeners Monday. “…The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents, moderates, whatever they want to call themselves, but our economy doesn't know the difference. Our economy should not be focused on whether or not one party gets reelected. This is about jobs now.”
Look, I can be a sucker for bipartisanship and cooperation. But this has to be taking it to a new level of stupidity such that even I'm not moved (to be fair, this might be Limbaugh's first effort at pretending to want a compromise, so....). The popular vote percentages that Obama and McCain received are not even remotely connected to the optimal mixture of tax cuts and infrastructure spending that should go into a stimulus package. It's at such a high reading on the stunt-o-meter it's breaking the machine.
And of course, the idea that some tax cuts might be a useful part of the stimulus is not indifferent to what types of tax relief are likely to be most optimal -- Republicans seem, to a person, solely in favor of cuts to the wealthy that will likely have the least positive impact on the economy. I'm not opposed to cutting taxes per se, but the cuts have to be targeted so as to put cash in the wallets of working class Americans -- and that ain't the estate tax or the capital gains tax.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Known Knowns, and The Known Unknowns
A writer named David Saks (via), from South Africa, has a column up on Israel, Gaza, and anti-Semitism in his country. My reaction to it can be divided into two parts, that in a lot of ways are quite distant from each other, and in other ways are very much connected.
Let's start with where he starts:
This is, to say the least, tremendously irresponsible.
I've been taking Torts at the University of Chicago, and one of the things that's become pretty clear is that apportioning liability is difficult even under the best of cases. And the Israeli campaign in Gaza was far from the best of cases. First, it was a war. Bad things happen in war, and it is difficult to determine which are simply things that happen in war, and which are actually blame-worthy above and beyond the fact that we might oppose war.
Second, normative claims, like who is to blame for civilian casualties, are highly fact dependent, and we don't have the necessary facts. There are a dozen and a half things which are relevant to any fair moral evaluation of who -- Israel, Palestine, or nobody -- is responsible for any given civilian death. What precautions were taken to avoid targeting civilians, and did they in fact reach the civilians in question? Did the precautions actually meaningful improve the security of the persons they were targeted at (e.g., leaflets warning of an attack are of limited effect if the recipients have nowhere to flee to, or if the act of fleeing at high speeds is taken as a sign they were militants). Were the civilians being used as human shields? How proximate were they to a legitimate military target? Was it known that they were in the area when the strike was launched? How much effort was made to ascertain this information (to the degree possible) prior to the attack? I could list off a dozen others, and I dare say that nobody has all of this information -- not the IDF, not the Palestinian government, not the civilians themselves, and certainly not the global commentariat.
Third, it is extremely unsettled what all the aforementioned factors, even if known, mean in terms of apportioning fault. The question of who is to blame (or what proportion they're blame-worthy) for civilian casualties when an urban-based insurgency operation bases itself in civilian areas is very, very hard, and it is certainly not one in which I believe there is a consensus. Same with issues of human shields, same for using "sanctuary" locations (like schools or hospitals) for military operations or storage. The "proper" response to such behavior is one that, at best, is hotly contested.
All of these points, taken together, make it impossible to ascribe blame as a general matter with any degree of confidence. It is an abdication of moral responsibility to say, then, that one has "no doubt ... that Hamas ... is morally responsible for each and every civilian casualty for which Israel was so widely and unjustly blamed." It is equally wrong to assert that Israel is totally and solely responsible for these deaths.
What I am sure of is that Israel is responsible, in a morally negligent way, for at least some of the deaths. It is possible (as it is in all wars -- I have absolutely no idea about any specific instance in this conflict) that some Israeli troops are criminally responsible and deserve prosecution. Hamas is likewise responsible for some of these deaths as well, perhaps criminally responsible (the firing of rockets deliberately targeted at civilians is a facial war crime in of itself, but I don't know if any of their actions vis-a-vis Palestinian civilians are criminally negligent, both because I don't know the necessary facts and I don't know the relevant law). And some of the deaths are not properly attributed to the moral failings of either party. The proportions that lie in each category, however, are not known to myself or Mr. Saks, or any other person, and I believe it is prejudicial, unwarranted, and and a function of pre-existing biases to assert otherwise, in either direction -- particularly in the sort of universal ascription of culpability that has quickly become the norm.
So that's the first thing. But why, exactly, was Mr. Saks writing this? It wasn't to begin a column discussing his views on Operation Cast Lead. Rather, it was as preface to an ugly anti-Semitic episode in his country of South Africa. I've been reminded that people who are under conditions of extreme oppression, stress, or threat will sometimes say things that aren't strictly justifiable, and this cannot be a bar to expressing our sympathy with them.
What was the proximate cause of Mr. Saks' article, then?
That statement was made by South African Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig, at a Palestinian "solidarity" rally. The South African Jewish community has officially filed a complaint alleging hate speech. The Israeli foreign ministry had also previously complained about Ms. Hajaig, alleging that she accused the Israeli ambassador of bringing a diplomat of Ethiopian descent to the embassy "only because he was black."
This does not serve to justify Mr. Saks' preface, but it does serve to contextualize it. Ms. Hajaig's comments, unfortunately, were neither isolated nor the worst of the lot:
If I were a Jew in South Africa, I would surely fear for my life upon hearing this. The threats of expulsion, the threatening of Jewish owned businesses, saying we will be "mowed down". This is violent language. This is borderline genocidal language. It is not, unfortunately, uncommon language -- even by members of government, even by socially prominent figures. And it is language that, when heard by Jews worldwide, echoes unnervingly of Nuremberg.
I've had comments similar to Ms. Hajaig's stated to me (more accurately, yelled at me) right here at the University of Chicago. At the time, my adrenaline was pumping too much to notice, but in retrospect, that was an extremely dangerous situation for me. He was bigger than me, he was screaming in rage, and while there were other people in the room, he knew them better than I did and none of them ever really tried to intercede. If he had started physically attacking me, what would have happened? I don't think they would have joined in. Would they have stopped him? Would they have sympathized (even if they think maybe he "over-reacted")?
My worry is not just about the Ms. Hajaig's of the world. It's about those who, at the end of the day, don't recognize the tremendous peril her words put me in. There are many people who I am quite sure wouldn't join in that speech, but whom I am very unsure as to whether they would support sacking her from her position in the government, or whether they would consider her someone they could continue to associate with, someone whose opinion and perspective (including on matters that affect Jews) is still worthwhile. That does worry me. Sometimes, it terrifies me.
And one day, it may very well yet kill me. We don't know.
Let's start with where he starts:
Let me state unequivocally from the outset that I fully supported Israel’s operations in Gaza. I have no doubt whatever that these were both justified and necessary given more than three years of almost constant missile attacks against its citizens, that Israel acted throughout with commendable restraint and that Hamas, through its cowardly and despicable policy of basing its terrorist infrastructure in densely populated civilian areas, is morally responsible for each and every civilian casualty for which Israel was so widely and unjustly blamed.
This is, to say the least, tremendously irresponsible.
I've been taking Torts at the University of Chicago, and one of the things that's become pretty clear is that apportioning liability is difficult even under the best of cases. And the Israeli campaign in Gaza was far from the best of cases. First, it was a war. Bad things happen in war, and it is difficult to determine which are simply things that happen in war, and which are actually blame-worthy above and beyond the fact that we might oppose war.
Second, normative claims, like who is to blame for civilian casualties, are highly fact dependent, and we don't have the necessary facts. There are a dozen and a half things which are relevant to any fair moral evaluation of who -- Israel, Palestine, or nobody -- is responsible for any given civilian death. What precautions were taken to avoid targeting civilians, and did they in fact reach the civilians in question? Did the precautions actually meaningful improve the security of the persons they were targeted at (e.g., leaflets warning of an attack are of limited effect if the recipients have nowhere to flee to, or if the act of fleeing at high speeds is taken as a sign they were militants). Were the civilians being used as human shields? How proximate were they to a legitimate military target? Was it known that they were in the area when the strike was launched? How much effort was made to ascertain this information (to the degree possible) prior to the attack? I could list off a dozen others, and I dare say that nobody has all of this information -- not the IDF, not the Palestinian government, not the civilians themselves, and certainly not the global commentariat.
Third, it is extremely unsettled what all the aforementioned factors, even if known, mean in terms of apportioning fault. The question of who is to blame (or what proportion they're blame-worthy) for civilian casualties when an urban-based insurgency operation bases itself in civilian areas is very, very hard, and it is certainly not one in which I believe there is a consensus. Same with issues of human shields, same for using "sanctuary" locations (like schools or hospitals) for military operations or storage. The "proper" response to such behavior is one that, at best, is hotly contested.
All of these points, taken together, make it impossible to ascribe blame as a general matter with any degree of confidence. It is an abdication of moral responsibility to say, then, that one has "no doubt ... that Hamas ... is morally responsible for each and every civilian casualty for which Israel was so widely and unjustly blamed." It is equally wrong to assert that Israel is totally and solely responsible for these deaths.
What I am sure of is that Israel is responsible, in a morally negligent way, for at least some of the deaths. It is possible (as it is in all wars -- I have absolutely no idea about any specific instance in this conflict) that some Israeli troops are criminally responsible and deserve prosecution. Hamas is likewise responsible for some of these deaths as well, perhaps criminally responsible (the firing of rockets deliberately targeted at civilians is a facial war crime in of itself, but I don't know if any of their actions vis-a-vis Palestinian civilians are criminally negligent, both because I don't know the necessary facts and I don't know the relevant law). And some of the deaths are not properly attributed to the moral failings of either party. The proportions that lie in each category, however, are not known to myself or Mr. Saks, or any other person, and I believe it is prejudicial, unwarranted, and and a function of pre-existing biases to assert otherwise, in either direction -- particularly in the sort of universal ascription of culpability that has quickly become the norm.
So that's the first thing. But why, exactly, was Mr. Saks writing this? It wasn't to begin a column discussing his views on Operation Cast Lead. Rather, it was as preface to an ugly anti-Semitic episode in his country of South Africa. I've been reminded that people who are under conditions of extreme oppression, stress, or threat will sometimes say things that aren't strictly justifiable, and this cannot be a bar to expressing our sympathy with them.
What was the proximate cause of Mr. Saks' article, then?
“They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else”.
That statement was made by South African Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig, at a Palestinian "solidarity" rally. The South African Jewish community has officially filed a complaint alleging hate speech. The Israeli foreign ministry had also previously complained about Ms. Hajaig, alleging that she accused the Israeli ambassador of bringing a diplomat of Ethiopian descent to the embassy "only because he was black."
This does not serve to justify Mr. Saks' preface, but it does serve to contextualize it. Ms. Hajaig's comments, unfortunately, were neither isolated nor the worst of the lot:
[V]arious other speakers at the Lenasia rally made threatening statements against the local Jewish community. This included calls that anyone with Zionist sympathies be expelled from the country, that “Israeli” businesses be boycotted (a list of Jewish-owned businesses is in fact now doing the rounds within the Muslim community and further afield) and that action be taken against South African Jews who served in the Israeli military.
One presenter said: “The common enemy is making inroads in South Africa … the Zionists in South Africa must be kicked out of the shores of South Africa”. Another speaker praised “our Jewish brothers and sisters” who had come out against the Israel Defence Force, assuring them “there is a place in the world we are building in South Africa for you”. Those who had not done so, he warned, had “better watch out because the winds of change are blowing”.
Regarding local Jews allegedly serving in the IDF, another presenter shouted (again to rapturous and sustained applause): “We are going to become impimpis, we are going to become impimpis … the business that we are going to carry out with the Jews, with these Zionist entities. We are going to talk to them, were going to find out if their sons have gone to fight our brothers and sisters in Palestine and then we’ll say to them come and fight us at home”.
Other speakers included ANC Provincial Secretary Nazeem Adams and Eddie Makue, general secretary for South African Council of Churches. Makue denied that the fight against Israel and Zionism was anti-Semitic, saying that he and his fellow activists only wanted to bring their “Jewish brothers and sisters onto the right path”.
“This is a global struggle. We are inviting you to join us in it, otherwise you will be mowed down in the annals of history as people who refuse to support justice and peace” he said, as the crowd bellowed its approval.
If I were a Jew in South Africa, I would surely fear for my life upon hearing this. The threats of expulsion, the threatening of Jewish owned businesses, saying we will be "mowed down". This is violent language. This is borderline genocidal language. It is not, unfortunately, uncommon language -- even by members of government, even by socially prominent figures. And it is language that, when heard by Jews worldwide, echoes unnervingly of Nuremberg.
I've had comments similar to Ms. Hajaig's stated to me (more accurately, yelled at me) right here at the University of Chicago. At the time, my adrenaline was pumping too much to notice, but in retrospect, that was an extremely dangerous situation for me. He was bigger than me, he was screaming in rage, and while there were other people in the room, he knew them better than I did and none of them ever really tried to intercede. If he had started physically attacking me, what would have happened? I don't think they would have joined in. Would they have stopped him? Would they have sympathized (even if they think maybe he "over-reacted")?
My worry is not just about the Ms. Hajaig's of the world. It's about those who, at the end of the day, don't recognize the tremendous peril her words put me in. There are many people who I am quite sure wouldn't join in that speech, but whom I am very unsure as to whether they would support sacking her from her position in the government, or whether they would consider her someone they could continue to associate with, someone whose opinion and perspective (including on matters that affect Jews) is still worthwhile. That does worry me. Sometimes, it terrifies me.
And one day, it may very well yet kill me. We don't know.
Back Into Line
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) is a very conservative Congressman. He also criticized Rush Limbaugh. This did not make some of his colleagues happy. And one day later, he's running for cover. Take a look at this press release:
The emphasis is my own. "Conservative giants"? Hey, you said it, not me.
Via Balloon Juice, who notes that we can add Limbaugh to the long list of persons Republicans cower in fear of. A lot of conservatives I know try to dismiss folks like Limbaugh and Hannity as basically prop acts out for entertainment. Wrong-o. These people are major players in your movement -- "giants", I'm now told. You have to deal with the consequences.
Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reigning in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.
The emphasis is my own. "Conservative giants"? Hey, you said it, not me.
Via Balloon Juice, who notes that we can add Limbaugh to the long list of persons Republicans cower in fear of. A lot of conservatives I know try to dismiss folks like Limbaugh and Hannity as basically prop acts out for entertainment. Wrong-o. These people are major players in your movement -- "giants", I'm now told. You have to deal with the consequences.
All Praise Google!
Perhaps the most active comment thread on this entire site is my post from last May entitled: Fuck You Google. Seriously. A bad sign for this blog, but possibly a good one for Google that little ol' Debate Link comes up so high on the search for "Fuck you google".
Anyway. Google's offense? If you typed in "Maryland" on Google maps, the pinpoint it gave you was in ... Virginia. Oooh, that's low. But I'm pleased to report that they seem to have rectified the problem. Now, if you type in "Maryland", the pinpoint is a little southeast of a town called Millersville, a little ways outside Annapolis. So, a part of Maryland where no one actually lives, but Maryland nonetheless.
Anyway. Google's offense? If you typed in "Maryland" on Google maps, the pinpoint it gave you was in ... Virginia. Oooh, that's low. But I'm pleased to report that they seem to have rectified the problem. Now, if you type in "Maryland", the pinpoint is a little southeast of a town called Millersville, a little ways outside Annapolis. So, a part of Maryland where no one actually lives, but Maryland nonetheless.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Well, This is Troubling
One of the oft-cited goals by those interesting in getting Israel and Palestine back to the negotiating table is to have a unified Palestinian government, representing both Hamas and Fatah. The thought is two-fold: first, that the presence of Fatah will moderate or at least dilute the radicalness of Hamas, and second, that by negotiating with the two groups in tandem, one can get agreements that are more likely to actually be enforced (whereas an agreement only with Fatah doesn't really stop Hamas from doing whatever it pleases).
It's a good thought, but it may run into trouble given what Hamas says are its preconditions for joining a unity government:
Okay, problem.
This via This is Babylon, who notes (accurately, as best as I can tell) that Hamas is not taking the majority position here. Most of the Palestinian public has been relatively amenable to the idea of a negotiated solution to the conflict and recognition of Israel (which isn't to say they believe it will actually happen). Unfortunately, the folks with the guns disagree, and the Palestinian political arena does not yet have an entity which is both explicitly pro-peace and credible in the community.
So what do we do? My intuition is that one attempts to keep short-term peace, even with Hamas, alive as long as possible, while hoping that a period of quiet allows a homegrown Palestinian movement to provide an alternative to Hamas that Palestinians can get behind. There are murmurings even within Hamas that they would accept Palestinian recognition of Israel if it were agreed to by the Palestinian people as a whole. Unfortunately (aside from whether we expect they'll hold to that commitment), it's unlikely things will ever reach a point where such a proposal would seriously be on the table until there is an alternate base of power in Palestine aside from Hamas.
It's a good thought, but it may run into trouble given what Hamas says are its preconditions for joining a unity government:
The Palestinian Authority must end its peace talks and security coordination with Israel if it ever expects to reconcile with Hamas, one of the group’s senior officials said Sunday.
[...]
Speaking at a rally in Beirut, [Osama] Hamdan said his organisation welcomed an inter-Palestinian dialogue but linked reconciliation with Fatah to the Palestinian Authority ending peace talks with Israel and backing Hamas' armed resistance against the Jewish state.
"We say clearly that we welcome a national Palestinian dialogue but this dialogue must include those who really belong to Palestine and to the Palestinian cause," he said.
Hamas officials have accused Abbas' government of working with Israel against the militant group.
"Those who committed mistakes must correct their mistakes through a clear and frank declaration to stop security coordination with the ( Israeli ) occupation, release ( Hamas ) prisoners and later end negotiations (with Israel ) because the peace process is irreversibly over," said Hamdan.
"It's time for us to talk about a reconciliation based on a resistance program to liberate the (occupied) territory and regain rights," Hamdan said.
Okay, problem.
This via This is Babylon, who notes (accurately, as best as I can tell) that Hamas is not taking the majority position here. Most of the Palestinian public has been relatively amenable to the idea of a negotiated solution to the conflict and recognition of Israel (which isn't to say they believe it will actually happen). Unfortunately, the folks with the guns disagree, and the Palestinian political arena does not yet have an entity which is both explicitly pro-peace and credible in the community.
So what do we do? My intuition is that one attempts to keep short-term peace, even with Hamas, alive as long as possible, while hoping that a period of quiet allows a homegrown Palestinian movement to provide an alternative to Hamas that Palestinians can get behind. There are murmurings even within Hamas that they would accept Palestinian recognition of Israel if it were agreed to by the Palestinian people as a whole. Unfortunately (aside from whether we expect they'll hold to that commitment), it's unlikely things will ever reach a point where such a proposal would seriously be on the table until there is an alternate base of power in Palestine aside from Hamas.
Privileges
Julie's checklist of Gentile privilege makes for excellent reading. If there's one angle through which this Feministe thing wasn't a debacle, it's in the meta-discussion it's generated. The stuff going up at Alas, a Blog, It's All Connected, and Modern Mitzvot has all been excellent.
And in the comments to Julie's post, a link was given to this checklist of White privilege in a Jewish context (the blog itself, "This is Babylon", looks fabulous as well). Particularly in America, the idea of Jews-as-White is very heavily enforced, both within and without of the Jewish community. I think it's bad for the Jewish community as a whole, as it contributes to this image of the Jew (anywhere, including Israel) as part of this lily-White hoard, but unfortunately it is imagery that is very, very common amongst Ashkenazi Jews as well. So it's definitely a good thing to get out into the open.
And in the comments to Julie's post, a link was given to this checklist of White privilege in a Jewish context (the blog itself, "This is Babylon", looks fabulous as well). Particularly in America, the idea of Jews-as-White is very heavily enforced, both within and without of the Jewish community. I think it's bad for the Jewish community as a whole, as it contributes to this image of the Jew (anywhere, including Israel) as part of this lily-White hoard, but unfortunately it is imagery that is very, very common amongst Ashkenazi Jews as well. So it's definitely a good thing to get out into the open.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Vengeance is Not Jewish
Do people enjoy vengeance? Getting back at those they see as hurting them?
I don't really, but I wonder if that's due to my generally conflict-averse nature. Don't get me wrong -- I understand the motive for retribution, and I feel it as strong as anyone else. It's maddening to sit back and be hurt by someone, and do nothing about it. Obviously, sometimes there are constructive paths to "do something about it", and I prefer to pursue those, but sometimes there aren't. Sometimes it really feels like you either have to sit and take it, or hit back.
But I do know that when I hit back, I don't actually feel much better. I just feel sad in a different way. More conflict. More hurt. More pain.
I don't really, but I wonder if that's due to my generally conflict-averse nature. Don't get me wrong -- I understand the motive for retribution, and I feel it as strong as anyone else. It's maddening to sit back and be hurt by someone, and do nothing about it. Obviously, sometimes there are constructive paths to "do something about it", and I prefer to pursue those, but sometimes there aren't. Sometimes it really feels like you either have to sit and take it, or hit back.
But I do know that when I hit back, I don't actually feel much better. I just feel sad in a different way. More conflict. More hurt. More pain.
Drag and Abandon
The Thai army is alleged to have been dragging rickety boats of refugees out to sea, and abandoning them in the middle of the ocean.
Simply horrifying.
Extraordinary photos obtained by CNN from someone directly involved in the Thai operation show refugees on their rickety boats being towed out to sea, cut loose and abandoned.
One photo shows the Thai army towing a boatload of some 190 refugees far out to sea.
[...]
In one hamlet, villagers had captured a Rohingya man they believed had been living in the jungle for days.
The refugee, who identified himself as Iqbal Hussain, told CNN he was on one of six boats in a makeshift refugee fleet that arrived in Thailand in December.
He said all six boats with their refugee cargo were towed back out to sea in January, and five of the six boats sank. His boat made it back to shore, and he hid in the jungle for days until nearby villagers captured him.
In broken English and using sign language and drawings, he described what happened to the other men on the boats:
"All men dead," he said, putting the number of dead at several hundred.
Simply horrifying.
Breaking Out of Rikers
Horrifying allegations in the NYT about Rikers Island, where guards are alleged to have run a unit for teenagers "like an organized-crime family", with themselves as the bosses. Three officers are now charged in relation to the death of an inmate, allegedly at the orchestration of the conspiracy they ran.
Laura Appelman notes that this dynamic had real implications when she was a public defender. Rikers holds many inmates who are merely accused -- warehousing them until they can be tried and (if convicted) sentenced. She says that many of her clients rapidly plead guilty after experiencing Rikers -- feeling it preferable (and safer) to go to prison upstate than to stay on the island. Obviously, some (probably many) of these clients were guilty anyway. But some might not have been, and in any event the criminal justice system doesn't work when people plead guilty merely because they're being terrorized during the duration of their trial and simply want it end as fast as possible.
Laura Appelman notes that this dynamic had real implications when she was a public defender. Rikers holds many inmates who are merely accused -- warehousing them until they can be tried and (if convicted) sentenced. She says that many of her clients rapidly plead guilty after experiencing Rikers -- feeling it preferable (and safer) to go to prison upstate than to stay on the island. Obviously, some (probably many) of these clients were guilty anyway. But some might not have been, and in any event the criminal justice system doesn't work when people plead guilty merely because they're being terrorized during the duration of their trial and simply want it end as fast as possible.
EU Official Calls Out Gaza Hamas
(UPDATE: The original title of this post was highly misleading, and has thus been modified)
The Jersualem Post headline ("fully responsible") is a bit exaggerated, but the statement is strong:
I find it intriguing that Mr. al-Masri is "shocked". I understand that he, of course, doesn't subscribe to Mr. Michel's view. But it is quite telling that he is "shocked" by it, in that I imagine he would not be "shocked" at all if this statement was released by an American.
The Jersualem Post headline ("fully responsible") is a bit exaggerated, but the statement is strong:
"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, told reporters.
"I intentionally say this here - Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such," Michel said as he visited the town of Jabalya in northern Gaza.
"Public opinion is fed up to see that we are paying over and over again - be it the European commission, the member states or the major donors - for infrastructure that will be systematically destroyed," he said.
Reuters quoted the EU official as saying that the Islamic group had used civilians as "human shields" by placing operatives in residential areas, and said that the years of terrorist rocket-fire on southern Israel served as a "provocation."
The report also quoted Michel as saying that, "When you kill innocents, it is not resistance. It is terrorism."
A Hamas official, Mushir al-Masri, was quoted by Reuters as saying his group was "shocked" at Michel's comments. He lambasted the official for "giving cover to massacres and terrorism committed by the Zionist enemy against the Palestinian people… Palestinian resistance is as legitimate as the resistance of European countries that fought against foreign occupiers."
I find it intriguing that Mr. al-Masri is "shocked". I understand that he, of course, doesn't subscribe to Mr. Michel's view. But it is quite telling that he is "shocked" by it, in that I imagine he would not be "shocked" at all if this statement was released by an American.
A Congo (and Rwanda) Roundup
I do Israel roundups all the time. Why can't I do a Congo roundup?
CNN reports on calls for rebels to lay down their arms and reintegrate into the national forces. So far, it seems like they're making some progress.
Meanwhile, the joint Congo/Rwanda offensive in the east seems to be going apace, though understandably the locals are very nervous about the prospect of more conflict (and particularly the presence of Rwandan troops -- Rwanda being quite unpopular for its role -- hopefully now in the past -- in destabilizing the region).
Unfortunately, there is growing nervousness that the arrest of rebel Gen. Laurent Nkunda is a facade and will not hold up on the Rwandan's end. The problem? Nkunda -- with deep ties to the highest levels of Rwandan politics and society -- might "know too much" about the going-ons of that nation's regional ambitions and practice.
And because of all the uncertainty, I agree with Dylan Matthews that some well-placed pushes by American diplomacy would be very well-received at the moment, to make sure everyone stays on the straight and narrow.
CNN reports on calls for rebels to lay down their arms and reintegrate into the national forces. So far, it seems like they're making some progress.
Meanwhile, the joint Congo/Rwanda offensive in the east seems to be going apace, though understandably the locals are very nervous about the prospect of more conflict (and particularly the presence of Rwandan troops -- Rwanda being quite unpopular for its role -- hopefully now in the past -- in destabilizing the region).
Unfortunately, there is growing nervousness that the arrest of rebel Gen. Laurent Nkunda is a facade and will not hold up on the Rwandan's end. The problem? Nkunda -- with deep ties to the highest levels of Rwandan politics and society -- might "know too much" about the going-ons of that nation's regional ambitions and practice.
And because of all the uncertainty, I agree with Dylan Matthews that some well-placed pushes by American diplomacy would be very well-received at the moment, to make sure everyone stays on the straight and narrow.
The Other Baird
So titled because I don't want the University of Chicago's own Douglas Baird to feel awkward.
Cara at Feministe has a good post up with her thoughts on Bill Baird. Baird was an early and vociferous advocate of a woman's right to choose -- taking on causes and risking his career and, frankly, his life to secure victories in cases nobody else would touch. He actually saw his focus as providing reproductive health to all women, at a time when much of the feminist movement was still basically an exclusivist enclave of White middle-class heterosexuals.
At the same time, he's extraordinarily bitter at the feminist movement in all its incarnations for his perception that they "rejected" him. He does not have any expressed interest in actually talking to women's groups or working with them to pursue an integrated political agenda. He's self-promoting, and acts, as Cara puts it, a bit like a "one-man show". He's extremely hostile to religion (he wants to picket churches).
But then, he goes off and attacks men who arrogantly assume they know what women are feeling when their rights to their own body are (often violently) stripped away from them. He lambastes those who take it upon themselves to say who gay and lesbian persons can and can't love, have, and hold.
In short, he's complicated. And I think Cara's post, talking about a guy I had never heard of until she brought it up, is a really interesting sketch.
Cara at Feministe has a good post up with her thoughts on Bill Baird. Baird was an early and vociferous advocate of a woman's right to choose -- taking on causes and risking his career and, frankly, his life to secure victories in cases nobody else would touch. He actually saw his focus as providing reproductive health to all women, at a time when much of the feminist movement was still basically an exclusivist enclave of White middle-class heterosexuals.
At the same time, he's extraordinarily bitter at the feminist movement in all its incarnations for his perception that they "rejected" him. He does not have any expressed interest in actually talking to women's groups or working with them to pursue an integrated political agenda. He's self-promoting, and acts, as Cara puts it, a bit like a "one-man show". He's extremely hostile to religion (he wants to picket churches).
But then, he goes off and attacks men who arrogantly assume they know what women are feeling when their rights to their own body are (often violently) stripped away from them. He lambastes those who take it upon themselves to say who gay and lesbian persons can and can't love, have, and hold.
In short, he's complicated. And I think Cara's post, talking about a guy I had never heard of until she brought it up, is a really interesting sketch.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
An Israel Roundup
I'm posting a lot on Israel lately. I'm not sure why -- it can be a very depressing subject. I guess my eye is drawn to it at the moment.
A pro-Israel rally in Sweden was crashed by a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli mob, which pelted them with eggs, bottles, and even a tear gas grenade. The Israeli rally was holding signs saying "Stop eight years of Qassams" and "Peace for children in Israel and Gaza". I always wonder if (given this is a news story sympathetic to the pro-Israeli advocates) there are any signs that are more troubling, akin to what one sees at Palestinian solidarity rallies (Israel = Nazis, chants celebrating the Holocaust, etc.), and the news just reports the signs most amenable to co-existence. But I certainly hope that the reported signs were representative, and that the Swedish Jewish community, like I do, views being "pro-Israel" as wanting peace for the children of Israel and Gaza alike.
Palestinian children return to school, but mourn their friends who were killed in the bombing.
In related news, Andrew Sullivan has a picture of a Palestinian schoolgirl inspecting her now-wrecked classroom, and writes "If Israelis believe that this little girl above will blame Hamas for what was done to her school ... then their judgment is even more impaired that many of us feared."
Hamas has formally rejected a long-term truce with Israel, saying it "will kill the resistance" and furthermore unconditionally affirms its right to smuggle in weapons.
Harry's Place says that Israel's friends need to make a concerted push right now to freeze settlement construction (generally by leaning on Washington to put the heat on). One fact I didn't know was that the US has already slashed Israel's foreign aid by the approximate cost of the settlement construction ($300 million), but it seems like more pressure is needed.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting history up of Hamas, and specifically how Israel nurtured it as a counterweight to Fatah before realizing just how dangerous and radical it was. Clearly, one of its biggest strategic blunders of the past 30 years.
In the midst of an article on how Israel uses spy drones to try and distinguish between civilian and militant, Noah Shachtman quotes an Israeli official who indicates that the goal of Israel's operation was to convince the Arab world that Israel is a "crazed animal" which one cannot provoke without fear. Robert Farley explains why, if true, this is a bad strategy.
A pro-Israel rally in Sweden was crashed by a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli mob, which pelted them with eggs, bottles, and even a tear gas grenade. The Israeli rally was holding signs saying "Stop eight years of Qassams" and "Peace for children in Israel and Gaza". I always wonder if (given this is a news story sympathetic to the pro-Israeli advocates) there are any signs that are more troubling, akin to what one sees at Palestinian solidarity rallies (Israel = Nazis, chants celebrating the Holocaust, etc.), and the news just reports the signs most amenable to co-existence. But I certainly hope that the reported signs were representative, and that the Swedish Jewish community, like I do, views being "pro-Israel" as wanting peace for the children of Israel and Gaza alike.
Palestinian children return to school, but mourn their friends who were killed in the bombing.
In related news, Andrew Sullivan has a picture of a Palestinian schoolgirl inspecting her now-wrecked classroom, and writes "If Israelis believe that this little girl above will blame Hamas for what was done to her school ... then their judgment is even more impaired that many of us feared."
Hamas has formally rejected a long-term truce with Israel, saying it "will kill the resistance" and furthermore unconditionally affirms its right to smuggle in weapons.
Harry's Place says that Israel's friends need to make a concerted push right now to freeze settlement construction (generally by leaning on Washington to put the heat on). One fact I didn't know was that the US has already slashed Israel's foreign aid by the approximate cost of the settlement construction ($300 million), but it seems like more pressure is needed.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting history up of Hamas, and specifically how Israel nurtured it as a counterweight to Fatah before realizing just how dangerous and radical it was. Clearly, one of its biggest strategic blunders of the past 30 years.
In the midst of an article on how Israel uses spy drones to try and distinguish between civilian and militant, Noah Shachtman quotes an Israeli official who indicates that the goal of Israel's operation was to convince the Arab world that Israel is a "crazed animal" which one cannot provoke without fear. Robert Farley explains why, if true, this is a bad strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
