Abbas' Barak Moment

Shlomo Yosef has a very savvy read on Mahmoud Abbas' recent comments regarding Israel -- comments which are, without question, huge steps in a positive direction for the leader of the PA. For those of you who don't know, Abbas met with Jewish leaders in the US where he affirmed the historic connection of Jews to the land of Israel (citing the Koran for support), including the right of Israel to define itself as a Jewish state, disavowed a one-state solution (while noting its increasing popularity in the Palestinian street), and registered support for a joint Israeli-Palestinian-American committee to look into issues of incitement (by both Israelis and Palestinians). This is a rather big deal, for a few reasons. For starters, Yasser Arafat notoriously denied any historic connection between Jews and Israel, so this is in fact a substantial about face by Abbas. Moreover, for those worried about Arab leaders saying one thing to Western audiences and another to the Arab world, Abbas reiterated his comments when questioned about them by al-Jazeera.

Anyway, Mr. Yosef writes:

In doing so Abbas is having a Barak moment from 2000. Regardless of the claims and counter claims of what happened in Camp David in 2000, any Israeli in the street will tell you that Barak offered the Palestinians everything and Arafat walked away. It seems now Abbas is offering Bibi everything and is seeing if he will walk away. If he does this will give the PA everything they need to move off a negotiated track and on to a path of a unilateral declaration of statehood.

The question is whether Netanyahu is stupid enough to walk away, and the answer to that is obviously "yes" (I've spent a lot of time observing Netanyahu). But it's not inevitable. And as Mr. Yosef notes, this is a critical decision, for even if Abbas' statement is cynically motivated (and I don't care one way or the other whether it is or isn't), if Israel doesn't respond, they lose control of the discourse of a two-state solution, possibly indefinitely.

Don't take the opportunity to miss an opportunity. Now is the chance -- to seize a historic moment to negotiate peace, or to show that, yes, Israel is capable of being ruled by leaders as foolish as Yasser Arafat.

Greene With Envy

The burgeoning story about Alvin Greene, the "surprise" Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina, sure is strange. But absent any showing of fraud or other illegal shenanigans, I have to admit I'm a little unsympathetic to my partymates in the Palmetto State. If you are so disorganized that you can't mobilize your own base to vote for your establishment pick against the guy who literally could only be known as "the other guy", that's your own damn fault.

Quote of the Day

A blogger at Mondoweiss (no link) defended Helen Thomas by asserting that, contrary to popular outrage, would be the ideal outcome to see Zionism collapse and a reinvigoration of Jewish culture in Poland as the refugees flee, er, back where they came from.

In response Judeosphere writes: "I'm deeply touched by this gesture of philanthropic ethnic cleansing."

For. The. Win.

Of Matters 101

For obvious reasons, I wasn't going to touch the comments section of this post with a ten foot pole.

But against my better judgment, I did read through it. And while it brought back some nasty flashbacks, I do think it also caused a few things to clear up in my mind.

I feel like there is a distinct aversion amongst blogs that are roughly in the political "range" of Feministe towards discussing anti-Semitism. That's true at least of the blogs that aren't avowedly anti-Israel (those mention anti-Semitism quite often, albeit usually to mock it) -- and despite my rather horrific experience there (which was easily the worst of my blogging career), I would not say that the Feministe crew (at least the two I know well) are anti-Israel. I know this because I know the folks who invited me to contribute, and I know that they did so neither to humiliate, nor to demonstrate how broad-minded and fair they were (to invite a radical such as myself). But amongst these blogs, one sees anti-Semitism mentioned extraordinarily rarely. I think the Feministing post on Helen Thomas was the first time I've ever seen them mention the issue of anti-Semitism (a search for the term on their site reveals no hits, with only a bare handful for "anti-semitic"), and it was, to say the least, sorely lacking (to be fair, the author was quite appropriately raked over the coals for it in the comments).

But back to the main. What distinguishes the rare discussions of anti-Semitism in these forums is not that folks universally mock and deride the concept. On the Feministe thread, you will find many that don't. What is different is that folks that would in other contexts be seen as trolls, here are just "the other side". The lack of 101 penetration is astounding. Respect how the Jewish community describes its own experience. Don't accuse us of being psychopaths, overly sensitive, manipulative, or flat out liars. Don't group our history and experience into the narrative of others. Being a Jew who disagrees with the bulk of the community does not earn you super-standing. The "anti-Semitism card" can and is easily trumped by the "anti-Semitism card card". Calling a particular statement respecting Israel anti-Semitic does not mean one condemns all criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic. For that matter, critiquing one's statement regarding Israel does not necessarily mean we've called you anti-Semitic at all.

This is basic stuff. But, unlike most "isms", for anti-Semitism there's no consensus around it. And that's a problem. The whole reason why blogs like Feministe are adamant about not letting the basics be up for debate in every thread is that these conversations are incredibly passionate and painful -- too much so to be rehashed over and over again. To have to explain, ad nauseum and in the face of incredibly hostile fire, why certain frames wound, why the majority narrative is inadequate, why the status quo is inadequate, is utterly exhausting.

And so, whereas I think your average anti-racism blog could -- through community self-policing and judicious moderation -- prevent every conversation from devolving this way, the lack of consensus regarding anti-Semitism means we're perpetually stuck in the most emotional and fraught terrain of the endeavor. No wonder people don't want to do it.

But it must be done. I try to do it here. I tried (and failed) to do it at Feministe. I tried (with more success) to do it at Alas, a Blog.

It must be done. There is no other way.

Harman Smokes Winograd

I understand folks are disappointed that Bill Halter lost his bid to unseat Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK). But the news wasn't all bad yesterday. Marcy Winograd -- best known for advocating the dissolution of Israel and implying that Henry Waxman had dual loyalties -- was soundly defeated in a primary challenge to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman won by nearly 18 percentage points -- roughly in line with her 2008 results against Winograd. Contrary to what GOP talking points might have you believe, rabid anti-Israelism will not, in fact, get you elected in a Democratic primary (in fact, all the evidence shows that it turns Democratic voters off).

Lincoln Survives (For Now)

It looks like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) will turn back a spirited primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and advance to the general election. I have to admit, I was surprised -- I had thought Lincoln was pretty much toast. In fact, I still think she's toast -- her general election polling is pretty weak too -- but, you know, fool me once.

Assuming that it doesn't become a moot point in November anyway, what's the upshot of this primary? I still think it was positive (and say this as someone who has no trouble supporting Lincoln in November). It definitely scared her off from being too much of a corporate shill, and at the same time don't really think it made her any less electable. If she's dead in the water anyway, you might as well try to wring out the most good you can in the event of a miracle.

In any event, some savvy campaigning and true political grit from Senator Lincoln. Congrats on a hard-fought victory, and here's looking forward to another surprise come November.

This Can't Be Happening

A new study out finds that the children of lesbian couples actually turn out better than those raised by heterosexual couples (fun fact: the baby whose picture graces the CNN story is adorable). I'd be interesting in seeing what variables the researchers controlled for (particularly income). Nonetheless, I find hilarious the response of outraged conservatives who can't stand the fact that science doesn't back up their prejudices:

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," [Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright] said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

"Common sense" is silly enough here, but "reality"? The whole point of a study like this is that it tells us what "reality" is. All Wright is showing is that her beliefs are unfalsifiable. The point isn't to protect children, the point is to protect Wright's ability to maintain her prejudices with as little cognitive dissonance as possible.

Peril on the High Seas

Iran has announced it is sending its branch of the Red Crescent to try and break the naval blockade of Gaza. Am I the only one who thinks this is the match that could set off a regional war? Maybe not, with US troops still in the region providing a deterrent. But I have a hard time seeing how this doesn't end violently. There is no way that Israel lets an Iranian ship of all things through to Gaza. It's entirely possible that this ship, at least, won't include weaponry in its cargo (one of the reasons I'm reticent to support a wholesale lifting of an inspections regime targeting cargo entering Gaza is that I remember the Karine A). But the Israelis, quite understandably, aren't going to go on instinct on this one. Meanwhile, one has to think that an Iranian ship is significantly less likely to be boarded peacefully than any member of the "Free Gaza" flotilla, including the Mavi Marmara. And one gets the sense that the Iranians know this too, and are out looking for a provocation.

It's just not a good situation. And the intervention of Iran, it'll get worse before it gets better.

Sudden Travel

I'm flying out to Minnesota today immediately after work, and won't be back until Sunday night. I'll be essentially entirely disconnected for that entire time. The blog's half-hiatus extends yet again.

Color Me Stunned

In an entirely shocking decision, the UCU Congress has decided it has absolutely no problem hosting known anti-Semites to drum up support for its BDS campaign. I'd say people wonder why Jews are fleeing that union in droves, but wait, the UCU notoriously refused to wonder about that at all either.

Operation Make The World Hate Us

Leon Wieseltier has a brilliant column up on the Gaza flotilla incident. Seriously -- it might be the best thing I've ever seen him write (and, while I find Wieseltier maddeningly inconsistent sometimes, when he's on, he is on. So to say it is his best work is high praise). I'll try to excerpt, but it's one of those cases where I really have to resist the temptation to copy and paste the whole thing:

Israel does not need enemies: it has itself. Or more precisely: it has its government. The Netanyahu-Barak government has somehow found a way to lose the moral high ground, the all-important war for symbols and meanings, to Hamas. That is quite an accomplishment. Operation Make the World Hate Us, it might have been called.

I leave it to others to make the operational criticisms of the Israeli action, and will say only that even my amateurish understanding of the tactical challenge posed by the interdiction of the boats suffices to suggest that there were other ways to do this. I also will not pretend to a perfect grasp of what happened on board the Mavi Marmara. I have pondered the videos that both sides have released, and concluded that the Israeli soldiers sliding down that rope had no intention of attacking the people on board and that the people on board had no way of being confident of this. I cannot expect Palestinians and their supporters to believe the best about the Israeli army. (This is what Israeli hardliners call “the restoration of deterrence.”) I do not doubt that some of the activists on the ship welcomed a confrontation with Israel, but the Israelis should not have obliged them. In any event, what took place on that deck looks to me like a tragic misunderstanding. Yet there was no reason to think that anything else would have transpired.
[...]
It is also the inevitable consequence of Benjamin Netanyahu’s cunning pronouncement last year that the Israel is now endangered by “the Iran threat, the missile threat, and the threat I call the Goldstone threat.” The equivalence was morally misleading, and therefore dangerous. Ideological warfare is not military warfare. I have studied the entirety of the Goldstone Report, and whereas I do not doubt (and wrote in this magazine in the days before Goldstone) that Operation Cast Lead caused the unjustifiable death of non-combatants, I also do not doubt that the Goldstone Report, which was nastily indifferent to Israel’s security predicament and to the ethical challenges of Israeli self-defense, was an instrument in a broad campaign of delegitimation against Israel—and yet the threat of delegitimation is not like the threat of destruction. It is different in kind. A commando operation is not an appropriate response to an idea. “This was no Love Boat,” Netanyahu said yesterday. “It was a hate boat.” He is right, but so what? The threat of delegitimation is not a military problem and it does not have a military solution. And the attempt to give it a military solution has now had the awful consequence of making the threat still greater. The assault on the Mavi Marmara was a stupid gift to the delegitimators.

You do not have to be a general to grasp these distinctions. In fact, judging by Israel’s recent history, it might help not to be one. But the militarization of the Israeli government’s understanding of Israel’s situation—this has been the most sterile period for diplomacy in all of Israel’s history—is not all that led to the debacle at sea. Rules of military engagement that allow soldiers to fire on political activists (I leave aside the question of their humanitarianism for a moment) may signify something still deeper and even more troubling. It is hard not to conclude from this Israeli action, and also from other Israeli actions in recent years, that the Israeli leadership simply does not care any longer about what anybody thinks. It does not seem to care about what even the United States—its only real friend, even in the choppy era of Obama—thinks. This is not defiance, it is despair. The Israeli leadership seems to have given up any expectation of fairness and sympathy from the world. It is behaving as if it believes, in the manner of the most perilous Jewish pessimism, that the whole world hates the Jews, and that is all there is to it. This is the very opposite of the measured and empirical attitude, the search for strategic opportunity, the enlistment of imagination in the service of ideals and interests, that is required for statecraft.

The complication—the one that deprives anybody who acknowledges it of membership in any of the gangs of commentary—is that there is a partial basis in the actually existing world for a degree of Israeli pessimism. There are leaders, states, organizations, and peoples whose hostility to the Jewish state is irrational and absolute and in some cases murderous. Things are said critically about Israel that wildly burst the bounds of thoughtful criticism. The language in which Israel is described by some governments and international organizations is lurid and grotesque and foul. Anti-Semitic tropes—the conspiracy theory about the Jews, most conspicuously—is regularly encountered in otherwise respectable places. The analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that absolves the Palestinians of any significant role in it is widespread. I do not see how any of this can be denied, or shunted aside, or explained entirely in terms of Israeli behavior. But it is emphatically not the whole picture, except for those Israelis and Jews whose political interests and ideological inclinations prefer it to be the whole picture. For there are forces in Israel, and in its government, that have a use for Jewish hopelessness.

Again -- read it all.

(Blogging on my lunch break -- that's right, I'm committed).

Still Alive

I'm making a note here, huge success....

Work is very interesting, but a lot of, well, work. It's quite the time consumer. But I am still around, and I even (occasionally) am able to keep an eye on the news.

On Alas, a Blog, I wrote what I think was a pretty solid comment detailing less my views on the Gaza flotilla incident than my views on the best reaction to the incident. One of the things I said was that even amongst defenders of the legality or justifiability of the Israeli reaction to the blockade, you can find very few defenders of its wisdom. It would have been great to able to cite to Alan Dershowitz to back that assertion up, but unfortunately I hadn't seen this column yet. Oh well.

Meanwhile, I absolutely agree that the efforts of some Republicans, here Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to turn this into a political issue is incredibly damaging to the notion that support for Israel ought to be bipartisan. By constructing partisan divides where none truly exist, McCain is only enforcing the idea that Republican equals pro-Israel and Democrat equals anti-Israel -- possibly good politics, but bad for the state of Israel in a context where image often becomes reality.

Memorial Day

Hope that your observance is both relaxing and reflective. I start my new job tomorrow, which I assume will drop off my blogging considerably. If I'm more scarce for the next few weeks, hope y'all have a great summer, and see you on the flip! (But I do plan to be around at least somewhat).

Gaza Aid Convoy Reportedly Attacked in International Waters

Reports are still sketchy, but the word is 2-3 dead after Israeli missile boats attempted to board ships trying to bring in various goods and aid to the Gaza Strip, in defiance of an Israeli blockade.

More as reports come in, and I don't want to prejudge when information is so scarce. But if this is what it sounds like, it is unacceptable behavior. You don't fire on an unarmed convoy, in international waters. I don't care how risible the Hamas regime that will receive the aid is, I don't care how suspect the motivations of the convoy organizers are, and I certainly don't think even justified fears over the misuse of cement, are good enough rationales to resort to a violent seizure. And I would bet that the (justified) international backlash over this will spell the end of the blockade anyway.

UPDATE: Okay, some new information coming in that sheds some additional light.
The IDF's official account of the incident is now up, the other main sources are here and here. Same caveats as above apply -- what we really have now are two sides to the story, not "the story".

1) The clashes apparently occurred on only one of the boats. Reports are that this boat represented a particular Turkish charity that was known as the most radical of the groups in the flotilla.

2) Israeli sources are claiming that the activists on the boat were armed with light weaponry (slingshots, clubs, bats, and knives, with conflicting reports about the possibility of pistols) and attacked the boarding commandos first. They're claiming they've got video to back up the assertion that the activists attacked the soldiers first, and soldiers fired back only to save fellow soldiers in mortal peril (and that these were the standing engagement orders for the operation).

I think this whole sequence of events can be broken down into several constituent parts. We can debate whether or not the flotilla was justified in trying to breach the blockade, rather than unloading in an Israeli port and transporting (most of) the goods by land. Even if we say they were not, we can still debate whether or not Israel was justified in commencing a boarding action to stop the flotilla. But again, even if they weren't, we can debate whether the activists had the right to violently resist the commandos. And finally, after that, we can ask whether the Israeli use of force was justified given that resistance.

Quote of the Day

Back in DC!

[A] one-sided focus on the behavioral causes of black disadvantage often gives rise to .... the temptation to substitute self-help programs for political action aimed at removing ideological and structural obstacles to equal opportunity. When political resistance to progressive change is formidable or stubborn, there is a dangerous tendency among elites to overemphasize self-help strategies or, worse, to opt for these strategies exclusively. Peer counseling, religious proselytizing, moral exhortation, and charitable giving, as worthy and worthwhile as they might be, do not constitute a politics. They are simply survival tactics.

Tommie Shelby, We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity (Cambridge: Harvard UP 2005), 146.

Going Home-ish

Travel today tomorrow. It's tough to move when the secret service surround your house, but we're getting it done. We're going to my parents house for a few days, then moving to an apartment in Rosslyn June 2nd. First day of work at Covington is June 1.

Also, Adam Holland has a ton of good stuff up right now (look at the May archives).

Open Thread for Joe and N. Friedman to Yell At Each Other

Y'all may have noticed that I post a lot on Israel, Jews, and anti-Semitism-related topics. Y'all also might have noticed that the comments to these posts have of late rapidly devolved into endless shouting matches between "joe" and "N. Friedman". These battles rage within a comment thread approximately forever, or until my next post on the topic, at which point they migrate seamlessly to the next thread and continue afresh.

Truly, their stamina is amazing. But it is also quite inefficient for the rest of us -- having to try and follow dozens of posts at a time to grasp every subtle maneuver and cutting insight. It would be far more convenient to have these arguments collected in one spot.

Plus, it might allow other folks to help develop a comment thread on what those posts are actually, you know, about (which, contrary to dominant belief, is not an overarching theorization of rights and wrongs in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).

So, take it away boys. Be assured we're reading carefully.

Post-Panel Roundup

Today was a successful day. Aside from moving most of my stuff out of my apartment to the building I'll (hopefully) be living in next year, I also had my first academic panel. And it was great! Most shocking was the fact that people -- by which I mean, random people, people who had no connection to any of us or any reason to show up -- came to the talk. And they were attentive! And they asked great questions! And everybody was really positive towards all the papers! It was wonderful.

* * *

Sometime at Alas, a Blog (I forget if it was during my guest-blogging stint or in the comments), somebody responded to my critique that their position on Israel/Palestine was completely disengaged from mainstream Jewish experience by saying she could solve that simply by talking with and forming coalitions with leftist, anti-Zionist Jewish groups. I argued then, and still believe, that due respect for the Jewish community is not demonstrated when you only talk with those members who already agree with you -- particularly when that subset represents a tiny fringe of the whole. I thought of that event in reading this piece in the Forward, which makes it sound like the Presbyterian Church is going out of its way to avoid mainstream Jewish groups in formulating its Israel policy. And to the extent it does talk to them, it talks down to them. The bottomless pit that is Christian arrogance towards Jews never ceases to astound me.

Interesting post about an American Jew in Damascus.

Studies suggest that video gamers have better control over themselves in their dreams. I actually have had this experience, though I wouldn't have thought to associate it with gaming.

Twenty-somethings are not idiots about Elena Kagan. Yay my generation!

Leon Wieseltier correctly notes that the Sheikh Jarrah settlers are effectively claiming a right of return akin to that of the Palestinians. Having already established that reconciliation between Israel and Palestine means that not everybody gets to go home again, I can hardly making an exemption for a particular, formerly Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

I just can't get upset about the so-called Sestak-gate.

J Street disavows Marcy Winograd (see my prior post), but Democracy for America stands by her after she came out in favor of a single-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and implied that Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) were not loyal to America.

The Episcopalian Church slaps the wrist of its American branch for ordaining a lesbian bishop.

Main Mission

There was one extremely depressing paragraph in a generally depressing story about a flotilla of ships seeking to breach Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip and deliver humanitarian aid:

Noam Shalit, father of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, told CNN he offered through his lawyer to attempt to convince the Israeli government to let the flotilla arrive in Gaza if participants would pass aid, including letters and medicine, to his son. The organizers of the convoy, including Berlin, refused, he said, telling him their main purpose is to break the siege.

This is highly indicative. To bring along letters and aid to Shalit is essentially a cost-free move by the convoy participants. It would signal nothing more than that its concern for human rights is universal, rather than particular only to when Israelis are wronging Palestinians (and not a particularly strong signal at that). And yet, they refused, because apparently it would distract from their "main purpose". I don't see how a proposal which would have made it more likely the convoy would reach Gaza shores would be in conflict with "breaking the siege", but I do see how such a proposal would distract from a main purpose of highlighting Israeli depravity and Palestinian innocence.

Oh, go to hell already. It's amazing how few people examining this conflict have a universal and principled concern for human rights and human dignity.

And also, I might add, the Israeli government claims it is perfectly willing to allow the goods into Gaza, so long as they are checked for security threats at an Israeli port. This probably isn't quite as one-sided as it sounds -- the convoy is bringing in construction materials, which Israel has been classifying as a security threat (one can use construction materials to construct bunkers), but it is meaningful information.

And Another One Bites The Dust

2L year ... finished. Aw, yeah.

Also, Barack Obama is apparently coming to visit. Which means that my block is filled with police, secret service, and barricades. I don't mind, except it will make moving out this weekend considerably more complicated.