Some Million

While understanding why Israelis might justifiably be nervous about the new government in Cairo, I've always been dubious that Egypt actually was going to repudiate its peace treaty with Israel. First, the minds of most Egyptians are primarily on other things right now. Second, one generally doesn't repudiate a peace treaty unless one is willing to go to war (otherwise, what's the point?), and I don't think the Egyptian people are in any mood for an actual full-blown armed conflict, nor do I imagine the Egyptian military is currently prepared to engage in such hostilities even if the populace were. Finally, and not insignificantly, there is massive international pressure against Egypt repudiating its peace agreement with Israel -- meaning that the Egyptian government won't take that step without some very strong reason (be it irresistible domestic pressure or provocation or what have you).

But one always can worry (and I do think it is notable that, reputation for rabid warmongering aside, there is no political constituency of note in Israel that has called for a repudiation of peace with Egypt. It seems that once Israel makes a final agreement with one of its neighbors, it is capable of keeping it with little fuss from its citizens' end). So I was gratified to find out that the planned "million man march" in Cairo calling for an end to peace with Israel apparently only attracted a few bare hundreds. This doesn't surprise me -- while I imagine the Egyptian street is probably rather cool towards Israel, I also, to reiterate, think they're mostly concerned about other issues right now, and are not keen on reverting back to old patterns where mad gesticulations towards Israel are used to distract them from necessary reforms at home. There, now, that playbook isn't going to fly.

The Difference Between Winning and Not Losing

Caroline Glick has a whiny column up blaming the Israeli media for sabotaging "American media superstar" Glenn Beck's trip through Israel. Her breathless account of Beck's boundless influence ("His calls for action are answered by hundreds of thousands of people. His statements are a guidepost for millions of Americans. Aside from radio host Rush Limbaugh, no media personality in the US has such influence.") manages to omit the fact that he got himself axed from Fox for being just too crazy. But whatever -- Glick is of the persuasion that the vast majority of Israel's "friends" are really enemies, and that the only friends worth having are the one's that cheer alongside whatever policy Avigdor Lieberman bumbles into next (Tzipi Livni, in Glick's telling, is clearly not among Israel's friends). What Israel needs, she said, is for folks to "empower it to defeat its enemies and to stand up to an increasingly hostile world."

Glick's ideological blinders are doing more than deluding her into thinking that Glenn Beck is anything but a deranged nutjob. It also is causing her to seriously misappraise Israel's security situation. Israel can't win its battle by military force. It can lose it that way, to be sure. And that's important to remember. Losing is bad, and the sort of losing we're talking about -- where the state gets wiped off the map and Jewish communal self-determination is extinguished -- would be exceptionally bad. That's why you won't see me get behind notions of throwing up an arms boycott against Israel. We're talking about a country that has been at war a half dozen times in barely 60 years of existence, that is still technically in a state of war with two of its immediate neighbors, that has another regional power promisng to "eradicate" it ... I could go on. Given that, I fully subscribe to the notion that Israel needs an armed forces able to, paraphrasing Sergeant Johnson, "blow up any son-of-a-bitch dumb enough" to try and mess them up.

But that's simply a case of "not losing". Successfully not being destroyed is certainly important, but it's not the end goal. The end goal is for Israel to not have to fight such wars. It's for Israel to be a recognized part of the region, stable and secure as a Jewish, democratic state. And that's something that force can't accomplish. Force can defend against hostile action, but it can't stop hostile sentiment. Force can respond to military incursions, but it can't stop demographic realities. Force can defend democratic institutions, but it can't create universal suffrage. All of these things have to be resolved with political courage, not military might.

These political reforms and negotiations and compromises -- jumping into an unknown future in the hopes that former enemies can become peaceful neighbors -- can be frightening. They are risks. Luckily, Glick and Beck are correct that there exists against many Israelis an incredible reserve of courage that often has been called upon to make these deals. It is just a shame that Glick and Beck seem not to have kept any for themselves.

Criticize This!

A St. Andrews University student was expelled, and convicted under a racial abuse statute, after placing his hands in his trousers, grabbing his genitals, then rubbing it over an Israeli flag a fellow student had in his own room. The student also allegedly made remarks to the effect that Jews had no claim on the state of Israel and that the student was a "terrorist". Another student was acquitted of the criminal charges, but an internal university investigation suspended him for a year.

O'Malley Renews the Push

After Maryland came tantalizing close to instituting marriage equality this past year, Governor Martin O'Malley (D) is gearing up for a renewed push.

It's unclear how, if at all, the political dynamic has changed in Annapolis. O'Malley has some boilerplate about how the trendlines are in our favor (and they are), but there's no word on movement by any particular state legislator. Of course, the bill really just failed to pass last time, so even assuming no change we're still in toss-up territory.

I have to add my kudos to Governor O'Malley, who is starting to demonstrate real leadership on the issue. It isn't just "if it passes, I'm willing to sign it" -- he's made it known that he completely and unambiguously supports the legislation, and thinks it should pass. So good for him. And hopefully, this time Maryland will indeed do the right thing.

A War They Can Get Onboard With

Lauren Booth is a journalist for Iran's Press TV and a pro-Palestinian activist (in much the same way that the Kach Party consists of "pro-Israel activists"). She's mostly known for being the half-sister-in-law of Tony Blair. Like many folks of her particular political bent, she is affiliated with various putatively "anti-war" groups: Stop the War Coalition, Media Workers Against the War, etc..

But let it never be said she's not a pragmatist about it. For Lauren Booth appears to have found a war she can support: Urging Israel's Arab neighbors to attack it (again):

It is time, Brothers and Sisters, for Al Quds to be liberated. For Islam and people of the world who wish to pray there to the one God. And we say here today to you Israel, we see your crimes and we loathe your crimes. And to us your nation does not exist, because it is a criminal injustice against humanity. We want to see Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt go to the borders and stop this now. Liberate Al Quds! March to Al Quds!

If asking Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt to "march to [Jerusalem]" (Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem) isn't simply a pro-war rallying cry, I don't know what is. Other speakers clarified that, yes, they were talking about sending in the army:

You can’t take an army, which is a nation’s army, a terrorist nation’s army, and defeat it with sincere small fighters. It needs some of those states around to release their armies to burn that land and then that region will see peace like it had in the past. Because the only time that land has seen peace between Muslim, Christian and Jew living side by side was when sincere Islamic rulers ruled with justice.

The point is that the "anti-war" commitments of folks like Booth extend precisely as far as their realization that sometimes war has the salutary impact of killing Israeli Jews.

Want a Broader Tax Base? Reduce Income Inequality

The current tax orthodoxy amongst congressional Republicans has been simple: no more taxes, period. But some Republican presidential contenders realize that's unsustainable. And they've finally hit on a tax increase they can support: raising taxes on the bottom 50% of American workers. The language is "broadening the tax base", and the argument is that these are Americans who pay no income tax at all (though of course they pay other taxes, such as social security and sales taxes), because their incomes fall below the minimum required to trigger tax liability.

Libertarian blogger Radley Balko* concurs with those who find it worrisome that half the country pays nothing in income taxes. The problem, as he sees it, is that "an increasingly small percentage of earners fund the government, we’ll soon have a majority of people who pay no tax voting for more and more government services they benefit from, but don’t have to pay for." The reason we want to broaden the tax base is to ensure that everybody (or at least as many people as is feasible) have "skin in the game", that is, have an incentive to care about governmental expenditures.

The concern is legitimate, but it doesn't necessarily take us where Balko thinks it does. Let's put aside for the moment the fact that just because a majority of Americans don't pay income taxes doesn't actually mean that majority controls policy (both because of apportionment issues, and also because of structural concerns which disproportionately reduce the influence the bottom 50% have in political institutions). And also put aside the fact that taxation is not the only way that one can have "skin in the game" -- poorer Americans are more likely to be dependent on governmental services for the provision of basic needs, and thus have every reason to care about the efficacy of such services (Balko's main concern is less effected by this, because his primary worry is that government will do more, not that it will do what it does poorly -- though he suspects it will).

That fifty percent of Americans don't pay income tax is not because our tax code is set up to say "the poorest half of Americans pay nothing". Rather, the income tax system simply decrees that people who make below a certain threshold pay nothing income taxes, presumably because we feel that taking money away from people who earn that little represents too much of a hardship. And, as income inequality continues to skyrocket, the number of people who fall below that demarcation is now hovering around 50%.

But if we started seeing rising wages and earnings amongst the working class, that number would drop as more Americans earn enough to join the ranks of taxpayers. In other words, to the extent conservatives are really concerned that as many people as possible have "skin in the game", the current income tax structure in turn gives conservatives an incentive to care about an issue important to liberals: income inequality. One can broaden the tax base by taking more away from the already-poor. But it seems the better option is to broaden the income tax base by broadening the income base -- rendering fewer people poor in the first place.

And aside from the fact that this is simply more humane -- there is a threshold level of income below which we don't think a family is earning enough to support itself to a standard commensurate with our status as the greatest country in the world -- I think the incentive question cuts in its favor as well. I already explained above that the poor already have lots of incentives to care about how government works, and, regardless, it's far cheaper to incentivize them to act anyway. By contrast, there are very few notable points of leverage society has on the rich to get them to care about the living standards of the poor. To the extent that they are genuinely concerned over an emergent democratic majority which pays no taxes (to be honest, I'm dubious that they're actually that concerned), that's a very rare opportunity to make a trade.

* I want to say that, while obviously I strongly disagree with Balko on issues such as this, I have a lot of respect for him as a libertarian who actually puts his money where his mouth is -- he devotes as much if not more attention to aspects of governmental power which harm the poor and marginalized as he does to decrying regulations which hurt primarily the rich and powerful. His work on police brutality and the death penalty, in particular, has been stellar and admirable.

The End May Be Nigh in Libya

If there is one name I trust for useful, clear-eyed, non-biased descriptive evaluations of what is going in a military conflict, it's Robert Farley of LGM (see, e.g., his early appraisal of Cast Lead, which I drew on heavily). What makes him distinct from so many other commentators is that he doesn't seem tied to a particular normative agenda regarding warfare -- he's neither a gun-toting neoconservative cheerleader, nor a reflexive anti-war peace protestor. That doesn't mean he doesn't have normative opinions, only that when he gives his predictions, I feel comfortable he's not molding them to craft a narrative either in support or against "war" as a concept.

Anyway, in that vein his thoughts on where Libya seems to be headed are well worth reading. Of particular interest is the evaluation of the "Afghan model" of military intervention (special forces logistical support combined with air power used to support indigenous forces on the ground) which, he claims, may be vindicated in the military sense while showing its fragility in the political sense. Avoiding real boots on the ground didn't seem to stop any flack aimed Obama's way (which was much of the point). But it does look like the rebels will be victorious and, Farley argues, there are real benefits to it being the rebel forces themselves who are seen as toppling the regime (and had to work together to do so), rather than it being swept away by a Western expeditionary force.

Thanks! Oh, Wait, That Was an Insult?

The Syrian people continue to brave brutal and violent crackdowns, but seem on the verge of overthrowing the dictatorial rule of Bashar al-Assad. I, personally, salute the Syrian people for their courage and perseverance. But one Australian blogger credits Israel for the "sustained attack" on Assad.

Wait, did I say "credit"? I meant blame. The blogger blames Israel for Assad's troubles.

Personally, I don't think the Syrian revolution has much to do with Israel at all. But it's extra weird acting like the Syrian quest for freedom is a bad thing.

UPDATE: More on the whole Syrian peace marchers are just tools of Israel meme.

Miss Katie is the Best

After Hours on Cracked.com is one of my all-time favorite things. Katie Willert, a comedian who is on the cast of After Hours is, by extension, also one of my favorite people.

Unfortunately, some people are dicks (and specifically, sexist dicks) to her online, in the Cracked.com comments section. And yes, comments sections are typically chock full of assholes -- that's a universal truism of the internet. But still, it's sad.

Anyway, there's no mega-point to be made here. Only that Katie Willert is awesome, and that she'll remain awesome no matter what some obscure no-name commenter frat ape has to say about it. So keep on keeping on, Katie.

Call Him Crazy

TPM and I had the exact same reaction to Jon Huntsman's "call me crazy" tweet ("To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."). Specifically: He's running for the GOP nod, and he just tweeted that. If the shoe fits....

Gaza Students Prevented from Studying in the US

A group of Gaza students with scholarships to study in America were prevented from leaving the Gaza Strip. This is part of a larger effort by the governing authority to crack down on academic freedom and independent civil society in the Palestinian territories, and just another minor indignity and human rights violation Palestinian children must endure ....

Oh, wait -- it was Hamas' decision. Well, never mind.

(But, to be clear, the part about it being one piece of a larger effort to crackdown on independent civil society is absolutely true. Hamas has recently taken several steps to tighten its grip on all aspects of life in the Gaza Strip, with independent NGOs and aid groups being the primary targets).

UPDATE: Speak of the devil, Hamas also has been notably sanguine about Syria's shelling of Palestinian civilians in refugee camps as part of the anti-uprising crackdown.

How Many GOPers Does It Take To Recognize a Collective Action Problem?

Warren Buffet recently took to the New York Times to argue that the very rich -- like himself -- were under-taxed. It's not even that bold of an argument -- tax rates for the ultra-wealthy are exceptionally low, and the American government needs revenue. But obviously, for the death-before-taxes wing of the GOP (i.e., all of it), this was heresy.

My former co-blogger Michael Van Der Galien was the first person I saw to snidely comment that Buffet was free to donate as much money as he wanted to charity (or the IRS), of his own volition. I thought about responding to point out that the question of tax rates for the rich is a collective action problem -- Buffet obviously was not declaring that he alone could solve America's budget crisis if only he were allowed -- but I figured it was a one-off, and decided to let it lie.

But alas, as usual, I can't set my expectations low enough. Jon Chait collects the same argument being made by Michele Bachmann and the Wall Street Journal. In addition to making the obvious collective-action point, Chait also notes that -- between the "why don't you just donate" then argument made against folks like Buffet, and the "class warfare" charge made against everyone else -- it turns out that nobody has standing to argue against raising a top marginal rate that currently is 15 points lower than where it was for the majority of the Reagan administration. Neat trick, that.

Take Two

Some might have forgotten that there were two recall elections in Wisconsin today as well, both targeting Democrats. The AP has called both races for the incumbents (one won by a 58/42 margin with all precincts reporting, another is up 54/46 with 79% in). The net result is that Democrats gained a total of two seats in the state Senate, winning 2/6 of their recall attempts while Republicans went 0/3 (there was another failed recall attempt against a Democrat earlier in the cycle).

Republicans still maintain a one seat edge in the state senate. All eyes are currently on Sen. Dale Schultz (R), easily the most moderate member of the GOP caucus (and a "nay" vote on Governor Walker's union busting plan). Schultz has already declared he won't switch parties, but the possibility he might defect on individual votes may be enough to stem some of the worse abuses of the Wisconsin Republican leadership.

One Decade On, One Decade Off

Ex.-Rep. Bob Shamansky (D-OH) died last week. He only served one term in Congress, during the 1980s, so he wasn't that notable for his political accomplishments. Rather, what is fascinating about him is the temporal range of his career. Shamansky ran for Congress in 1966, in 1980 (when he won), 1982 (when he lost the seat he won), and 2006. In other words, he ran in three separate decades, with an "off" decade in between each.

I have to think that's unique. Condolences to Rep. Shamansky's loved ones.

Self-Loving Jews

The Forward has an interesting column up discussing the case of folks like Richard Falk, Noam Chomsky, Jacqueline Rose, and others of their ilk. They are often labeled "self-hating Jews", but this isn't quite right. The appellation "self-hating Jew" was originally quite literal -- it referred to Jews who were literally filled with shame and self-loathing over the fact that they were Jewish. This doesn't seem like an accurate description of someone like Falk, who hardly seems to suffer from a lack of self-esteem. Rather:

What they’re enamored by is their image of themselves as Jews who have the moral courage to attack a Jewish state and the moral impunity to do so, which their Jewishness gives them. (“What, me anti-Jewish? I’m a Jew myself!”) Far from being self-hating Jews, they are self-loving Jews of the I’m-not-one-of-you variety.

Not very catchy, as the author admits, but more accurate. A related concept might be the "asajew", named for those persons whose Jewishness only manifests when prefacing a statement attacking other Jews or Jewish institutions with "as a Jew...." Obviously, there are plenty of Jews with minority opinions who nonetheless identify clearly with the Jewish community writ large even as they dissent on particular matters. But there also most certainly is a subset of Jews who are Jewish only insofar as it is an effective cudgel for bashing other Jews (and shield against their protestations).

But Were They Jewish?

As the old maxim goes: "Two Jews, three opinions." Today, Jonathan Adler points to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Estate of Mark Parsons v. Palestinian Authority, where the three judge panel released four opinions. Judge Tatel wrote for the court, but also wrote a concurring opinion. Judges Henderson and Brown each wrote opinions concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part as well.

The case was about whether the estate of a State Department employee killed by a roadside bomb in Gaza could sue the Palestinian Authority under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991. The appellate panel agreed with the district court that the conspiracy claims were too speculative to stand, but reversed a decision which would have prevented the case from proceeding to a jury on material support for terrorism claims.

It's Easier To Attack Than Defend

The 11th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, has struck down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (it upheld the rest of the act, reversing the lower court decision striking it down in total). This represents the first appellate court to strike down (part of) the law, and it also evens the tally of judges "crossing party lines" -- Judge Hull, part of the majority in this case, was appointed by President Clinton (the 6th Circuit decision upholding the law was authored by conservative rising star Jeffrey Sutton).

I've only skimmed the majority and dissent (the opinions, in total, run over 300 pages). But it is notable that the majority couldn't bring itself to embrace the fabled activity/inactivity distinction -- at least not directly. Instead, it seems to rely on a vague pastiche of constitutional red-flags (as the opinion puts it "indicia of constitutional infirmity"), including the mandate's "unprecedented" nature, the status of health care as a traditional state function, and the inactivity problem which appears to flit, ghost-like, in and out the majority opinion.

Faced with such an amorphous majority opinion, Judge Marcus wrote a dissent that is, in my opinion, sterling. In part, I think that's simply because it is easier to write a dissent than a majority opinion. It's easier to attack than defend, easier to break down than build up, easier to negate than affirm. The majority's struggle to simultaneously strike down the law while circumscribing their decision is indicative of this slant. Still, it's ironic that a high-profile dissenting opinion might represent the most aggressive and persuasive defense of the ACA in the judiciary today.

Judge Marcus hits the critical points, which are (a) that the case against the ACA entails a dramatic shift in Commerce Clause jurisprudence that has not yet been hinted in Supreme Court jurisprudence, (b) that many of the objections against the ACA are based not on infirmities with the law itself, but rather vague gestures towards a "slippery slope" which don't take into account the constitutional limits on the commerce power that actually already exist, and (c) the tendency of anti-ACA advocates to demand the courts act as "super-legislatures", using the blunt hammer of judicial review to strike down laws on basis of technical objections to their scope and structure. He also observes that, without relying on the supposed activity/inactivity distinction, the majority never in fact clearly states what the constitutional problem with the law actually is.

Hey, Wanna See Something Cool?

Say hello to David Schraub, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law.

Critical Jewish Studies?

This is cross-posted from Concurring Opinions. I don't think the content will be particularly new for long-time readers of this blog, but I figured some might be interested.

The first two areas I could say I had an actual scholarly interest in were Church/State law and Critical Race Theory. This wasn't an accident -- I got interest in CRT because the method of analysis it used really spoke to me as a Jew. It seemed to do a better job of capturing the various problems and barriers faced by members of marginalized groups beyond the standard, thin liberal story.

When I finally got access to Lexis as an undergraduate at Carleton, one of the first things I did was run a search for something approximating a "Critical Jewish Theory". And I came up with ... virtually nothing. With one very notable exception -- Stephen Feldman at the University of Wyoming (I know, I know: Jewish studies in Wyoming -- could it get any more cliched?) -- it was a virtual dead-end. Even Professor Feldman's work, which I admire and has influenced me greatly, focuses primarily on the American Church/State context. An important topic, to be sure, but hardly the only one which intersects with Jewish lives and areas of concern (international law, in particular, seems like a gimme).

This absence struck me as very strange. In general, the CRT movement has been pretty good about extending itself to a variety of different identities. Though the original works focused primarily on African-Americans (and really, African-American men), we now have Critical Race Feminism, LatCrit, Asian-American themed CRT, Queer Studies, and a host of others. The lack of an analogous school of discourse applied to the Jewish experience is not a function of disciplinary narrowness.

So what gives? I have some thoughts, but I don't find any of them particularly satisfactory. The cheap answer is that CRT is a "left" movement and contemporary anti-Semitism is primarily a leftist project. I reject that for two reasons: first, because I don't think right-wing anti-Semitism is as dormant as conservatives like to claim, and second, because the various crit movements have never really shied away from "friendly fire". There have been some particular points of tension between CRT writers and the Jewish community -- Mari Matsuda's famous hate speech article in the Michigan Law Review strongly considered the possibility of labeling Zionism "hate speech", one of Daniel Farber & Suzanna Sherry's critiques of CRT was entitled Is the Radical Critique of Merit Anti-Semitic? (83 Calif. L. Rev. 853 (1995)) -- but nothing severe enough to force a permanent fissure.

Possibly the best answer I have relies on the particular form in which anti-Semitism is often instantiated in the modern world. Most other -isms are predicated on inferiorizing their targets. This can be done contemptuously (as often is the case in racism), or clothed as paternalism (as often is sexism). Modern anti-Semitism, by contrast, does not treat Jews as incompetent or inferior at all. Much the opposite -- it views them as hyper-powerful; a conspiratorial, parochial sect whose tentacles control the government, the media, and the banks, but whose loyalty lies only with themselves. There's often a grudging respect to it, but the respect one gives to a particularly dangerous villain. It's easy to see these tropes popping up again and again in "anti-Zionist" discourse worldwide, where accusations of dual loyalty are very much part of the discussion and standard Jewish interest-group lobbying is seen as uniquely nefarious and abusive. Still, the crits, focused on groups whose problem is that they don't have enough voice or sway, are ill-equipped to talk about a group whose "problem" is that they are seen in the popular eye as being too influential. Couple this with the fact that Jews, as a group, are relatively well-off (though this flattens distinctions within Jewish subgroups) and it can be hard to see them as suffering from an "oppression" worth analyzing.

But obviously, economic wherewithal is not the alpha and omega of CRT-style analysis (after all, a considerable portion of the movement's energy is dedicated to refuting the idea that "it's not race, it's class!"). And Jewish history in particular is replete with instances of Jews being placed in the role of the "buffer", given a fair amount of influence but designed to be the targets of popular resentment. Simply taking at face value that Jews have it all and that prejudice against them has been relegated to sporadic acts of rabid hate by Klansmen is precisely the sort of quiescence that Crits tend to rebel against.

Indeed, the fact that the mechanics of anti-Semitism in particular are not adequately captured by contemporary stories of oppression is all the more reason why it desperately needs analysis akin to what CRT has provided in the context of race. And I do believe a similar approach has a lot to offer in the Jewish context. The allegedly pervasive presence of the "race card" is the old nemesis of anti-racist workers everywhere, but of late the "anti-Semitism card" has been an increasingly prominent method of dismissing claims by Jews of unfair treatment. The myth of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition (which, as a political trope, is invariably 100% Christian) acts to sublimate an independent Jewish political voice -- while there are many Jews in politics, there are very few who speak "as Jews", particularly when doing so would seriously challenge dominant conceptions of the Jewish role or place. It is highly notable, in my view, that "Judeo-Christian morality" is seen as a deeply conservative normative commitment, despite Jews being among the most socially liberal denominations in America today. That Christians politicians have appropriated Jewish experience in ways foreign to the actual Jewish political and theological tradition is an example of the boundaries on the "love" they have for us; that Jews have been unable to effectively resist is an example of our marked political limitations. And while Israel certainly has its fair share of sins, the massively disproportionate vitriol and condemnation directed its way (indeed, directed to the very concept of it existing) by international legal actors clearly implicates anti-Semitic norms (and the fact that I, an early supporter of J Street and a strong critic of the Netanyahu administration, feel compelled to verify that "yes, I can tolerate criticisms of Israel without labeling them anti-Semitic" is itself symptomatic of a discourse gone badly awry).

It's not the case that nobody has done any writing on these topics. In addition to Feldman, Albert Memmi's The Liberation of the Jew would have to be considered a foundational text in any "CJT" movement, and David Hirsh has recently written a stellar paper entitled Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections (Hirsh also writes often for the Engage blog, which is essential reading for anyone interested in this subject). But there's a lot more to be done, and I still find it odd that the disciplinary gap has persisted for this long.

The Good, The Bad, and the Uncertain

The good: Those recent Israeli protests might bring down Netanyahu's government. Shas in particular may be primed to bolt (Shas' religious conservatism is paired with a strong welfare state mentality that has a lot of overlap with the protesters).

The bad: The relative vulnerability exposed by the protesters caused Netanyahu to back out at the last minute of a planned Israeli/Turkey rapprochement.

The uncertain: A recent poll finds that if elections were held today, Kadima, Labor, and Meretz would combine for 48 Knesset seats while Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Shas would combine for 47. On the one hand, Shas' 8 seats in that set are a bit swingy (see the "good", above). On the other hand, there are still 25 Knesset seats unaccounted for in that tally, some of which will go to the Arab parties, some of which will probably go to the Israeli Communist Party, and some of which will go to various fringe settler parties. The question of how those minor parties shake out will ultimately determine who is the real winner.