Cracking Down on Terrorists Reduces Terrorism

This is an interesting piece in Ha'aretz about efforts by the Shin Bet -- Israel's internal security service -- to crack down on far-right Jewish terrorists. Responding to increasingly brazen acts by these "price tag" militants, the Shin Bet was authorized to, in essence, treat them more akin to the Palestinian terrorists they resemble in every relevant respect. And after arresting over a dozen of the top leaders in the movement, violence against Palestinians has fallen.

It's not just depriving the beast of its head that's doing the work here. As the article relates, the right-wingers "thought they were immune to charges, but we surprised them." Basically, they believed in the culture of impunity, and acted accordingly. Once the Shin Bet sent a signal that the old rules didn't apply, the terrorists were taken aback and, at the very least, have been forced to regroup. This is a good thing.

Took You Long Enough

Who's to blame for Trayvon Martin's killing (and the non-arrest of the shooter, George Zimmerman)? Why the Jews, of course! Something about "Zimmerman" sounding kinda Jew-y and the ADL wants to give Jews carte blanche authority to murder "goyim" and free Palestine and the Southern Poverty Law Center is in on it too and oh who the hell cares. That is, unless the problem is the Jew-owned media perpetuating a fraud on the public by slandering an innocent White man who rightfully gunned down a drug-dealing thug in his backyard. One or the other.

Incoherence aside (or taken for granted), I'm just disappointed at the delay. I mean, it's been weeks since this story broke, and we're only now getting to the Jewish conspiracy element? I think folks are slipping.

Those Other Israelis

Writing in the Forward, Jay Michaelson argues that if J Street really wants to build momentum for progressive change in Israel, it should look at Israel's largely Sephardic/Mizrachi working class. These Jews, hailing predominantly from North Africa and the Middle East, lean considerably to the right, and bear a considerable amount of resentment towards Israel's Ashkenazi elite.

There is irony that this resentment ends up redounding to the benefit of the Israeli right, as non-Ashkenazi politicians have seemingly reached higher levels in Israel's more liberal parties (e.g., Amir Peretz in Labor or Shaul Mofaz in Kadima). Nonetheless, the Israeli peace camp is overwhelmingly associated with Ashkenazi politicians. And Jews hailing from the Arab world tend to be those with the most visceral disdain for Arabs (Beitar Jerusalem, whose fans recently went on an anti-Arab rampage through a shopping mall, draws its support overwhelmingly from the Mizrachi community).

Still, to the extent that a critical aspect of any pro-peace endeavor is building support for it on the ground, making inroads in this community is absolutely crucial. I noted this sort of left revitalization project as an alternative to Beinart's settlement boycott, and this only reemphasizes it. How does one gain the trust of a community that has been ignored for so long? Well, by listening, to begin with, and showing that one is responsive to their (legitimate) concerns. Attaching consideration for Jewish refugees in the Independence War is an obvious example of an issue area important for this community that has been repeatedly marginalized. I'm sure further engagement could come up with others (that, after all, is the point).

Over 80% of Jews Support Gay Marriage

The Forward has the new poll data, which shows overwhelming Jewish support for marriage equality. How's that for a Judeo-Christian value?

Yes (Duh)

This is just so unbelievably disrespectful. The other day, President Obama said it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, there's some political hyperbole here -- the Supreme Court has struck down economic regulations like the ACA before, it just hasn't done so since the New Deal. There are "precedents" for the action, they're just not considered to be good law. But that's nitpicking -- obviously, there is a very real sense in which a decision to strike down the ACA would represent the apex of a newly resurgent conservative judicial activism that is quite willing to strike down disagreeable policies based on flimsy, at best, constitutional hooks.

But Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit decided that it's grand-standing time:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
[...]
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

Oh please. There's actual doubt as to whether the Obama administration believes in judicial review? As if this wasn't an absurd claim on face, the Holder memo's explicit determination as to the executive's belief in the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act provides an obvious case of the Obama administration believing in the judiciary's right and duty to strike down unconstitutional laws. This, of course, does not extend to a belief in the judiciary's right to strike down perfectly constitutional laws. For Judge Smith to make this accusation is so far beneath the dignity of the federal bench you need an oil drill to reach it.

Judge Smith's order is outrageously disrespectful, more worthy of Rush Limbaugh-style gutter politics than a judge with life tenure. Disrespect deserves disrespect in turn. Since the administration can't lawfully ignore the order asking them whether or not they believe in the power of judicial review, I propose they respond with a one-page document that merely says "yes". There's nothing more to say and nothing to see here, and certainly Judge Smith deserves nothing more than that.

(Via).

UPDATE: To add to the middle school-ishness of it all, looks like the order requires the administration's response to be three pages, single-spaced. Well, there goes my proposal.

UPDATE 2x: Rush Limbaugh agrees!

And This, Too, Is Part of the Problem

There are many problems interfering with a just resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- that is, the establishment of a system where both Jews and Palestinians democratic and national aspirations are honored and respected (also known as a two-state solution). To some extent, I think focusing on the "problems" is a mistake, because it rapidly turns into an excuse for quiescence. I don't believe that if only Israelis were nicer people, that peace, happiness, and bunnies would flow across the land. But I also don't really care -- Israel is under existential threat, and it shouldn't and doesn't need to wait for Palestinian agreeability before doing either what is necessary for its long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state, or what is just with respect to the natural human rights of Jews and Palestinians.

But of course, the whole point of this analysis is that not everything is in Israel's hands. It should do as much as it can because it's in its interest and because it is the right thing to do, but anyone who doesn't think that Palestinians have their own work to do, or denies that Palestinians engage in their own share of acts incompatible with justice or peaceful coexistence is deluding themselves.

To cite two examples from today's Ha'aretz, the IDF just arrested 13 Palestinians on suspicion of engaging in terrorist activities, including the goaltender for Palestine's Olympic soccer team and, most ominously, employees of the Red Crescent. The use of entities like the Red Crescent -- which are given privileged status in conflict zones precisely because they promise to abstain from armed conflict -- is a hallmark of Palestinian terror groups and a critical factor in the putting Palestinian civilians in danger. Because the IDF has to view the Red Crescent as a potential threat -- its operators firing weapons and its ambulances smuggling weapons -- it makes it far harder for humanitarian aid (even legitimate) to reach Palestinians in conflict zones.

Second, none other than PA President Mahmoud Abbas decided to honor anti-Semitic reporter Helen Thomas, who resigned in disgrace after publicly declaring that Jews should "get the hell out" of Israel. The "go back where you came from" -- a charge which, ironically enough, follows Jews no matter where they go or where they come from -- is classic anti-Semitism, and the message with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in particular is that it will never end so long as Arabs have to suffer the indignity of their being Jews in their vicinity. Thomas has not expressed the slightest bit of remorse for her racist comments, yet the PA mission honored Thomas as having "defended the Palestinian position every step of the way."

So many problems. But how are they relevant? Insofar as the ultimate goal is Jews and Palestinians living side-by-side in harmony, they're very relevant. But with respect to the narrower question of "what actions should Israel take to secure its long-term status as a Jewish, democratic state", they matter far less. Israel's security ought be protected the same way it is now -- through a strong military deterrent capable of crushing anyone who tries to cross them. And peaceful co-existence may or may not be a pipe dream -- but even if it's impossible, two peoples who separately and democratically hate one another is better than two people who do so while under the same undemocratic authority.

To be clear, these things matter, because questions of justice matter -- and that includes Palestinian injustice, violence, and anti-Semitism towards Jews. But part of being Jewish is that you rapidly learn that you can't wait to act until everyone else decides "yes, you're equal". Anti-Semitism is a fact of life, the question is how to best create a just, equitable, democratic world that is fair to Jews and everyone else in the face of that -- something that includes, but is not limited to, a space where Jews are democratically in control of their own destiny.

Netanyahu versus Israel's Security

Jewish settlers purchase a home in Hebron in a closed military zone (it looks like they used some shady intermediaries to get the Palestinian owners to sell, not realizing it was going to settlers). IDF considers this to be a security provocation, orders settlers evicted. Netanyahu reverses advice of the military, orders the settlers be allowed to stay (at least temporarily).

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering: In the contest between Israel's security demands and its political leadership, who does Ben Kerstein think I need to agree with in order to avoid being anti-Semitic? Inquiring minds want to know.

Black-on-Black Homicide: Who Cares?

Answer: Black people, who speak out on this issue on a regular basis.

This all flows out of incredibly self-serving columns by folks like Rich Lowry, who are seeking to dissipate the outrage over Trayvon Martin's death by insinuating flatly asserting that people only care because Martin's killer was a White Hispanic. That, as a matter of fact, Black people are marching over intracommunity killings doesn't enter into Lowry's analysis at all. For all appearances, he has no idea that these protests exist. Why not? Because Lowry cares about this issue only when necessary to deflect attention from an awkward conversation he doesn't want to have.

Does Lowry attend these protest marches? Does he speak at them? Does he use his influence and clout to ensure they get attention and aren't relegated to the back pages? Does he listen to the policy prescriptions put forward at these marches and then use his clout within conservative circles to get his allies to take a leadership role in making them a reality? No, no, no, and no.

Lowry tells us that these crimes don't matter "unless they happen to fit the right agenda." But perhaps the real problem as Coates puts it, is "pundits who write more than they read, and talk more than they listen, and prefer an easy creationism to a google search."

The Exception That Proves The Idiocy of the Exception

Pajamas Media actually found someone dumb enough to say that "all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic". This, of course, makes my life slightly more difficult, as normally when someone whines that "all criticism of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic", I can rejoin that nobody, actually, believes that. Now I have to amend that to say "nobody outside some random internet yahoos believes that". So, you know, not too much of a retreat, but not one I'm keen to make.

The good news, such as it is, is that even the PJ Media commenters seem to view this as a bridge too far. Oh, and we might note again that under this ... expansive ... definition of anti-Semitism, essentially every right-wing Zionist is an anti-Semite, as they have no qualms about criticizing Israel decisions they find disagreeable. Oh, but wait -- it's impossible to be a bad right-wing Zionist. Silly me.

Complicating Factors

Disgraced human Bill Bennett was, for inexplicable reasons, given space on CNN's front page to urge us not to "rush to judgment" in the Trayvon Martin cases. The facts are more "complex" than they appear. We all need to sit back and let the system take its course.

First of all -- and I can't stress this enough -- the controversy here is not that George Zimmerman has not yet been put in the electric chair. It is not that people are impatient with the "process". It's that the process seems to have, from the start, shown a marked disinterest in the death of a young Black man and all too ready to assume that "he had it coming". We can't be patient for the "process" to work itself out because the "process" never really started. Zimmerman wasn't given a drug or alcohol test (but Martin sure was). The police just took Zimmerman's word that he had a clean record, just as they took his word that he shot in self-defense. Virtually all of the numerous, numerous inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story have emerged not because of diligent police work, but because of media pressure trying to fill in the gaps left by an apathetic police force.

But second, nearly all of Bennett's "complicating factors" -- aren't. Whether or not Martin was suspended for drug possession or truancy is entirely immaterial to any relevant fact in this case. It doesn't demonstrate any propensity towards violence, doesn't make him into a "bad guy", and certainly doesn't mean he's worthy of death. Honestly -- if you attended college you know people who have used drugs; and unless you think of them as basically one toke away from a psycho murder binge, then I don't want to hear about Martin's alleged possession of marijuana.

Most outrageous is the hay Bennett is trying to make over Zimmerman's apparent registration as a Democrat. So what? Are the predominantly liberal advocates for justice in this case supposed to say "whoops, he's one of us -- I guess it was all alright?" Just how cynical is Bennett anyway? Could there be a starker example of how Republicans view racial issues in America -- literally, they can't fathom why Democrats would care about a potentially race-motivated homicide if they can't find an immediate political advantage? What message would it send if Democrats stopped caring? Martin's slaying isn't outrageous because "ewww, only a Republican could be so racist." It's outrageous because a young, almost certainly innocent Black man was killed for seemingly no other reason than that his Blackness rendered him suspicious. And admittedly, the GOP's sudden "soft on crime" conversion when it looks like the crime has a racial element isn't helping them amongst the Black community, I suspect. But Zimmerman's own political identification is irrelevant.

What's immediately relevant is the indifference the Sanford police displayed towards Martin's life. And what's secondarily relevant is how public figures view this travesty -- as an occasion to call for reform, or as a political threat that necessitates slandering the reputation of a dead child. If Bennett is wondering why conservatives are so often pounded on the subject of race, it's because they often deserve to be.

Out With Livni, In With Mofaz

The Kadima Party held its leadership "primary" the other day, and current leader Tzipi Livni has been ousted in favor of Iranian-born Shaul Mofaz. Mofaz thus becomes the first Sephardic Jew to lead Israel's main opposition party.

I'm a strong Livni booster, so obviously I'm disappointed to see her defeat. Mofaz's views are somewhat of a mystery -- 972Mag has a good takeaway of the fallout we can expect to see from his ascension -- but I'm hopeful that he is at least close to the same mold as Livni; particularly, in urging that Israel take a more proactive and aggressive approach towards securing a peace deal. It is also at least possible that Mofaz will be willing to join a coalition with Netanyahu, which Livni refused to do. This would clearly be superior to the current right/far-right coalition which can barely stand up to settler terrorists, much less forge a deal -- bringing in Kadima would relieve pressure on Netanyahu's right flank and at least open up some space for maneuvering. And for the love of God, anything that gets Avigdor Lieberman out of the foreign ministry is a good thing by me.

But all of this is predicated on a lot of unknowns -- not the least of which how well Kadima even does the next election. So I guess we'll see -- both what the Israeli electorate wants, and what Shaul Mofaz does.

More On Goldberg's Attempt to be a Race Scholar

Oh Jonah, Jonah, Jonah. You've already embarrassed yourself once when you tried to figure out what this whole Black Power thing was all about, conflating together two completely different organizations with wildly opposing outlooks. Why on earth would you think you're in any position to credibly opine on the state of Black people today?*

Goldberg's thesis is that Black elites are no longer connected to their poorer peers, and thus they tend to greatly overemphasize the existence of racism as a barrier to Black success. Since they're largely insulated from the daily struggles of everyday Blacks, it's easier for them to complain about White racism than to "engage in an honest conversation about the other problems facing black America that have little to nothing to do with white racism."

It's interesting that this argument, on face, seems to be an inversion of how most conservative Whites characterize rich Blacks. Normally, the existence of wealthy Blacks is raised in contradistinction to Blacks who have experienced racism and disadvantage, the argument being that a wealthy Black person, by virtue of his or her wealth, suffers no disadvantage due to their race. Goldberg, by contrast, seems to be arguing the opposite -- only wealthy Blacks really worry about racism, because the bulk of the Black community has bigger fish to fry.

Now, Goldberg's surmising that there is a gap between how wealthier versus poorer Blacks think about racism is unsupported by any evidence -- unsurprising, since the data we have indicates that there is no significant class divide in how Blacks rate the prevalence of racial discrimination. And as Jamelle Bouie points out, the entire premise of Goldberg's class disconnect hypothesis is demonstrative of Goldberg's lack of knowledge of the Black community.

Here’s the deal: one result of Jim Crow and its economic disenfranchisement is that the black middle class is a relatively recent event in American history. The same is true of the black elite class, which is—and has always been—quite small.

The byproduct of this is that the temporal distance from working-class life to prosperity is fairly short for many black Americans. So short, in fact, that black elites were often the first in their families to obtain a college degree. On a day-to-day level, what this means is that affluent black families share close connections to lower class African Americans—they are parents, grandparents, cousins, or even sibilings. This simply isn’t as true of affluent white families.

Wealthy Black families are far more likely than their affluent White peers to be well-connected to the thoughts and life goings-on of their poorer brethren. It's unclear why Goldberg doesn't recognize this, except for the obvious answer that Goldberg doesn't actually know anything about this topic and yet feels free to pontificate about it anyway. Which isn't, you know, a departure for him or anything, but still.

* I suppose the right answer is, "because it's not like there's another subject he's more credible on". Why should the lack of knowledge stop him now?

Park Slope Rejects BDS

The effort to enlist the venerable Park Slope co-op into the anti-Israel BDS campaign came to a crashing halt tonight, with a "referendum on the referendum" (that is, a vote on whether to submit a BDS proposal to the co-op membership) defeated by a crushing 1,005 - 653 margin (60.5% to 39.5%). The BDS campaign continues its string of defeats stateside, which is always good to see.

Dan Klein tweeted his "guarantee" that "there will soon be posts about how this is really a victory for BDS." Don't even have to wait for posts, Dan -- check out the NYT article interviewing BDS proponents in the wake of their defeat.

“The vote tonight has shown us that we still have a lot of work ahead in the fight to end Israeli oppression of Palestinians,” said Liz Roberts, a member of the pro-boycott lobby. “However, despite our loss in tonight’s vote, we have succeeded in one of our goals: B.D.S. has entered into the consciousness of thousands of co-op members and has even made it into mainstream conversations.”
[...]
Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian human rights advocate and co-founder of the B.D.S. movement, said that regardless of the outcome, the fact that the debate had reached Park Slope reflected the momentum the cause had gained.

“We are fast reaching our South Africa moment,” he said in a statement from East Jerusalem.

Also worth noting is Divest This' Jon Haber, whose coverage of all matters BDS is indispensable. He notes that while various right-wing groups often try to say that BDS is the true face of progressive America, that misapprehends the fringe nature of the movement and the methods it uses to insinuate itself inside the American left.

[U]nsurprisingly, conservative politicians are having a field day claiming no surprise that a progressive institution like the Park Slope Coop would choose to play footsie with those advocating for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the Jewish state.

The trouble is, the Coop didn’t decide to go down any such route, but instead had a boycott vote (or vote for vote) stuffed down their throat by single-issue partisans within their ranks who clearly feel the organization is nothing more than a plaything for their own political pet peeves.
[...]
Because BDS tends to only target progressive groups and organizations, and because I tend to work with people inside those organizations who are battling against BDS, most of the people I have worked with are progressive-minded folks who have never had to choose a side in the Middle East conflict. Which is why seeing commentary that explains the boycott vote as nothing more than an expression of liberalism’s true face strikes me as both hyperbolic and incorrect. After all, these very progressive organizations – be they colleges, churches or food coops – are the very people who have been rejecting BDS for over a decade.

Unfortunately, BDSers are not prone to going away quietly, so we can be sure this will pop up on the agenda in some other context soon enough. It's a shame, too, because those of us who are battling seriously for a safe, secure, and democratic Jewish state next to a safe, secure, and democratic Palestinian state don't have time to be distracted by this nonsense. There are bigger fish to fry that trying to stop the cause of justice from being hijacked by fringe radicals who prefer self-righteousness to actually making a difference in the world.

Is It Possible To Be a Bad Right-Wing Zionist?

Responding to Israeli author Amos Oz, Rabbi David Kaufman agrees that there is more than one way to be a good Zionist, but notes that this does not make it impossible to be a bad one. He references a page at his website articulating various ways that "pro-peace and pro-Israel advocates" sometimes act "harmfully".

The claim that one can purport to be pro-Israel, and yet act or advocate in ways that do it harm, is fair enough. But it has to be an even-handed principle, and there is little evidence that it is applied to right-wing Zionists, as opposed to only their left-wing peers. This is unjustifiable -- right-wing Zionists are guilty of many of the flaws Rabbi Kaufman identifies, and deserve the same level of chastisement for their breaches.

For example, while Rabbi Kaufman forbids "Criticizing Israel When Israel Acts to Ensure the Safety of Her Citizens", the prominent right-wing Zionist Organization of America has repeatedly done just that, attacking heightened security restrictions at the Temple Mount which place some level of burden upon observant Jews. This is hardly an isolated incident -- several years ago, ZOA demanded Israel apologize for its withdrawal from Gaza -- undercutting a prominent Israeli security determination that maintaining the occupation was damaging both to Israel's long-term security and democratic posture.

It is likewise notable that while the post singles out the BDS movement as inherently anti-Israel (perfectly fairly), it seems to give a free pass to one-stateism. The permanent transformation of Israel into "one state", from the river-to-the-sea, would quickly cause it to lose either its Jewish or democratic character, and thus bring about the end of Israel as we know it. For that reason, the mainstream Jewish position is that one-stateism is inherently anti-Israel (this is, for example, the position of the ADL and AJC), and groups that have hosted or tolerated one-stateism are generally considered to be intrinsically outside the boundaries of the pro-Israel camp. However, promoting a one-state solution is conspicuously absent from Rabbi Kaufman's post -- a silence that echoes throughout the Jewish community at large while one-stateism goes mainstream. One can't help but wonder if that's related to its growing traction amongst some right-wing elements in the "pro-Israel" camp. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum recently endorsed a one-state solution, and South Carolina, Florida, and the Republican National Committee recently passed a ZOA-sponsored resolution likewise promoting a "one state" outcome. In defending a position that most Israelis and American Jews think is intrinsically incompatible with the preservation of a Jewish democratic state, this would seem per se beyond the borders of acceptable conduct by pro-Israel actors -- and is generally recognized to be so when the call is made by leftist persons who desire a one-state solution.

There are other problems with Rabbi Kaufman's post: Many of the admonishments are either too vague to constitute workable standards or are expressed in absolutist terms that are unworkable. For example, is it "unilateral concession" for Israel to cease all settlement construction if one believes that the settlements are bad for Israel as well as Palestine? Why should we have to wait for Palestinian permission before advocating for policies we believe are in Israel's best interest? A right to self-defense is never "absolute" and nobody actually believes that it is (I can't nuke a city because of a single gunman), nor is taking such a philosophically absurd position necessary to recognize Israel having a vibrant and muscular authority to defend itself. In general, it is highly subjective when rhetoric becomes "demeaning" or "obscuring" or "careless" -- leaving a lot of room for biased application.

Even still, I don't disagree with the general sentiment. A bare assertion of good intentions is not sufficient to render a policy program "pro-Israel", and we need to have the space to call out people who stray from certain broad but recognizable boundary lines. But it has to be a two-way street. It can't be the case that right-wingers are free to be Zionist however they choose -- even when they criticize Israeli security determinations, even when they advocate a one-state solution -- while their leftist peers are constantly put under the microscope. There are borders on both sides, and we can't place one under stringent surveillance while leaving the other entirely unpoliced. One can claim to be a Zionist -- even a right-wing Zionist -- and still be a bad Zionist.

Do It Do It Do It Do It!!!!

Far-right hero Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), whose incredibly reactionary budgets have been exhibit "A" in Democratic attempts to demonstrate the GOP's hostility to the working class, has said he's open to being nominated for Vice President. Can we make it two cycles in a row where Republicans manage to sabotage themselves with their own VP selection? We can only hope!

Iran Forcing Jews To "March on Jerusalem"?

The source is of middling credibility (I mean that honestly -- Debka has an agenda, and it does tend to traffic in rumors, but it does get some legit scoops), but it's very worrisome if true. And it certainly seems well within the realm of possibility: Anti-Zionist entities, including Iran, have long preferred to hold up Jewish shields to legitimize repellant views (see also, Iran's embrace of the Neturei Karta as part of their Holocaust denial campaign); here it's just more literal than most. It's not like Iran is particularly concerned with the rights of its religious minorities, and Iranian Jews are under special suspicion for supposed "Zionist" sympathies, making it easy to pressure or coerce them into serving as the vanguard for the country's anti-Zionist endeavors.

Anyway, we'll see what develops.

Israeli Supreme Court Skeptical of Migron Deal

The Israeli Supreme Court expressed skepticism over a deal that would see the illegal Migron outpost demolished ... eventually ... in three years. The deal involves creating a new, "legal" settlement nearby, and moving the Migron residents there. The state estimates this will take three and a half years, and is asking that the Court delay its demolition order until then,

“What will the rule of law look like when ruling is not followed?” asked [Justice Salim] Joubran in relation to the original High Court ruling on Migron that called for the demolition of the outpost by the end of March. “You, the State Attorney, say that the outpost in three years, but I know this type of behavior. Three years will inevitably turn into eight.”

Justice Joubran's concerns are hardly unfounded -- Israel originally promised to dismantle the Migron outpost in 2003. Almost a decade later, we're still waiting. And of course, the difficulty Israel has dismantling even outposts it admits are illegal in a timely fashion is very worrisome for any future peace deal which will require far more outposts with far more residents to be taken down.

New Hampshire Votes Down Gay Marriage Repeal

After retaking control of the New Hampshire legislature, conservative activists set their sights on repealing the state's gay marriage law. Today, that effort went down in smoking defeat, losing a lopsided 211-116 vote.

Said Rep. Michael Hall (R-Manchester): "These folks are just people just like you are, they want the same things you do. This bill needs to be put down. Put this dog down like it deserves to be."

The Latest Anti-Israel Organization

I argued in my last post that an alternative to boycotting settlements is to more aggressively take on their supporters in the American "pro-Israel" establishment. Groups like the Zionist Organization of America, I argue, are anti-Israel under generally accepted definitions promulgated by mainstream American Jewish institutions -- most notably, for its apparent endorsement of a one-state solution.

In Ha'aretz, Bradley Burston fires his own salvo at ZOA, indicting them for their vitriolic attacks on Israeli security measures aimed at preserving peace in Jerusalem. Conservative "pro-Israel" groups often claim that we should be deferential to Israeli security appraisals and be reticent to criticize them, but it is a standard they have never purported to live up to.

And in all honesty, they shouldn't. Caring about something means having opinions about it, and ZOA is entitled to think that Israeli policies are wrong. That, in itself, isn't the sin -- though ZOA's substantive support for one-stateism, which would end Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, is a whole different kettle of fish. But the hypocrisy is telling, and it would be bad enough even if it wasn't a smokescreen to disguise the fact that ZOA has moved itself beyond the borders of what the pro-Israel community should deem tolerable.

Beinart's Settlement Boycott

Peter Beinart made waves in the NYT the other day in calling for a boycott of Israeli settlements -- paired with, Beinart says, a sharp opposition to boycotting Israel-proper. The goal, Beinart argues, is to effectuate a sharp separation between Green Line Israel -- an imperfect democracy that nonetheless is among the freest places on earth, and a beacon for what the liberal Zionist dream should be -- and the occupied territories, which is ... not. I'm a sharp critic of boycotts, and a sharp critic of the settlements, which puts in me a bit of bind. While I might agree that conceptually there is a distinction between boycotts of Israel writ large and the settlements I instinctively recoil at boycotts targeting Israel, because the BDS movement pervasively shot through with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that appears intractable. I think Beinart underestimates just how much a visceral reaction Jews have against this particular tactic -- it has such a dark history, and it's current manifestation has been surrounded by such a vicious resurgence of anti-Semitic rhetoric, that it really can't be viewed abstracted from the context. It's like Glenn Greenwald writing in Pat Buchanan's outfit. Sometimes past and present prejudice circumscribes what would otherwise be acceptable, and this could be one of those cases.

In any event, the reaction to Beinart's call has mostly been negative on the Jewish left -- J Street, for instance, said it thought a boycott would cause the settlers to hunker down and become more radical. Beinart's own site posted a powerful rebuttal to his argument (which is testament, one should say, to Beinart's desire for honest dialogue on this question), saying that the boycott absolves both the left and right of having to deal with the tough questions that -- despite ever-present efforts to simplify the conflict to dueling caricatures -- have to be answered for any lasting peace to be created. This is the crux of Jeffrey Goldberg's objection as well -- Beinart simplifies the conflict so greatly that he doesn't seem to recognize that even if Israel starts acting like a perfect mensch, it won't solve things.

The retort Beinart and his supporters (like Andrew Sullivan) have been throwing out is "well, how do you propose to arrest the settlements?" This debate, after all, is being held amongst people who all agree the settlements are a bad thing and should be opposed -- but Beinart's allegation is that for many, this is purely a rhetorical trope, and they reflexively oppose any calls for actual action aimed at restricting settlement expansion. Which is not an unreasonable retort, and I'd like to see a more comprehensive response. But that cuts both ways -- it's a fair critique that Beinart is wildly oversimplifying too, and he needs to tack onto his proposal concrete agenda items to demonstrate, for example, how to ensure that a final status agreement is actually "final", how to delegitimize anti-Israel and anti-Semitic zealots who seem to view the existence of Jews in any state but one of abject supplication as an affront, or how to take non-starters like a Palestinian right of return off the table.

Still, seeing as I do think that arresting settlement growth is critical both to the peace process as well as Israel's long-term longevity, it is important to think of tactics for making that happen. So I tentatively forward a few proposals -- not meant as a firm commitment to any of them as either necessary or sufficient, but an effort to get ideas flowing.

(1) Increased support for efforts aimed at revitalizing the Israeli left (e.g., OneVoice and TULIP). Israelis are always going to be in the best position to stop the settlements from destroying their state -- but the pro-peace left in Israel has been largely moribund since the second intifada, and has largely been ignored by its international peers.

(2) Better policing of the pro-Israel tent in the US. I am absolutely in agreement that not any and every group which claims to be "pro-Israel" should be allowed to get away with it -- if they advocate "solutions" to the conflict that are manifestly anti-Israel and outside the consensus of the broader Jewish community, they should be expelled. But in recent years this has been a one-sided standard -- left-wing groups have been closely scrutinized (sometimes rightly so), while their conservative counterparts have gotten a free hand, even when the advocate policies (like one-statism) that are clearly considered beyond the pale. No more: the onus is on mainstream Jewish groups like the AJC and ADL to come down hard on politicians and organizations -- putatively "Zionist" or not -- which endorse one-statism and encourage settlement growth. What Americans consider to be "pro-Israel" has influence in Israel-proper -- to the extent that the consensus Jewish-American position is clearly and unabashedly anti-settlement and anti-one state, that will strengthen forces inside Israel pushing for those same results.