Hate: A How-To Guide

There is a misconception about hateful speech and practices -- that it always comes wrapped in an ugly, repulsive shell. For the most part, this isn't true, for one simple reason: Hate is a political action. People who hate, for the most part, wish to enact that hatred into policy. To do that, then, they will seek to frame their hatred in the dominant language of the time -- that which will accord it the most authority and make it more likely to be translated into action. Some express hate for hate's sake. Most, though, are savvier. They believe that their hate is in accord with the dominant paradigms of the age, and will express their points accordingly.

Anti-Semitism has long followed this pattern -- constantly mutating in form so that it fits comfortably within authoritative schemas. In some places and epochs, that language was Christianity. In others, Islam. In others, Enlightenment. And in the context of modern international politics, human rights. Jonathan Sacks observed this trenchantly.

“It begins as anti-Zionism — but it is never merely anti-Zionism when it attacks synagogues or Jewish schools,” Sir Jonathan said. “In the post-Holocaust world the single greatest source of authority is human rights — therefore the new anti-Semitism is constructed in the language of human rights.”

In a new book, Future Tense, he describes a “virulent new strain of anti-Semitism”. A worrying alliance had developed between radical Islamists and anti-globalisation protesters, he said.

The UN had also fanned the flames. At the World Conference against Racism in Durban in 2001, he said, “Israel was accused of the five cardinal sins against human rights — racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and attempted genocide. So the old myths are recycled they are alive and well but they are done in a new kind of vocabulary.”

This isn't to discount "human rights" or to say that they are unimportant. Far from it; I believe human rights are absolutely critical. But precisely because I and so many others accord human rights that sort of power, the term becomes one of the primary ways one states and warrants political claims. Hence, we should expect that anti-Semitic activities will come couched in language of anti-racism, human rights, and like terms, precisely because that language carries with it, in the words of Mari Matsuda, "legitimating force."

Bad All Around

I had some reflexive snark reaction to this story about how the business of producing the oh-so-chic keffiyehs has been completely outsourced to China, but really, it's just demoralizing up and down. American hipsters engaging in uncritical faux-solidarity with Palestinians. American hipsters not actually paying attention to the political or economic consequences of their purchasing decisions (there's a huge surprise). Money redirected from a Palestinian economy that desperately needs it to China. And another local industry integral to Palestinian culture shuts down.

Henderson's WIP

I don't believe I've mentioned that I'll be keeping up my blogging for the UChicago Faculty Blog this summer, writing up each week's "works in progress" (WIP) talk. The first of those posts is now up, featuring Prof. Todd Henderson's presentation on the "nanny corporation".

Whites-Only Party

The modern GOP was forged when Richard Nixon launched his "Southern strategy" to lure away racist Whites away from the civil rights supporting Democrats and into the conservative camp. It was a brilliant short-term calculation. But unfortunately, it lost the larger bet, due to the repudiation of overt racism in America. So over the last few years, we've seen efforts by the GOP to atone for that breach in ethics, and to build a broader, more diverse party that can be competitive in an increasingly multi-hued America.

Epic fail.

Homeless to Harvard

I saw a movie about a girl who went from being homeless to going to Harvard (based on a true story). As I recall, the girl had trouble adjusting and ended up transferring to a school in NYC. They buried that fact in the epilogue, as if it was an embarrassment -- ruining the fairy tale ending they'd put out (it turns out the school was Columbia, so hardly a step down anyway). I disagree. Being smart enough to go to Harvard (from any background, much less that one) is a victory in of itself. There is no failure in struggling to adopt to that cultural shock; and there is no reason why one can't be every bit as successful coming out of any other school in the nation, so long as you work hard and show the passion and intelligence that got you accepted in the first place.

So that's when I think when I read another story about a girl who is going from homeless to Harvard. I wish her all the best, and hope that she thrives in Cambridge. But I also want her to remember that no matter what happens, she has already shown herself capable of great things.

How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Islamic Republic

HBO's series Rome focused on the exploits of two Roman soldiers, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, weaving a tale of how these relatively minor characters had a huge impact on the course of human history itself. In the episode How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic, for example, a friend of a man Pullo had killed attacks Pullo as he is escorting Marc Antony to the Senate. The ensuing brawl is seen as an assassination attempt by Pompey, and the political fallout of the event directly leads to the collapse of the Roman Republic. And so we see how one man, a bit player by all accounts, can through his actions change the tide of history.

I think of this episode when I reflect upon the death of Neda Agha-Soltani, whose shooting at the hands of a Basij sniper is becoming the banner around which pro-democracy protesters are rallying. Neither Ms. Agha-Soltani, nor her killer, were major political figures. The sniper likely will remain anonymous for all time. Moussavi did not intend for to die, and I am sure that Ahmadinejad did not wish her to be killed.* And yet, in their deathly duo, they may be the ones who cause the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its current form.

There is much happening in Iran's halls of power, which will undoubtedly have great impact on the future of that nation. But everyone's best laid plans can be swept away by the squeeze of a single over-zealous triggerman, and the martyrdom of a brave young woman.

* Not out of any tenderness of his heart, but because the fallout from her death may be the event which finally causes him to break his grip on power.

Well Wishes

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) has apparently disappeared ... literally. Not even his wife seems to know where he is.

The official line right now is that he's just taking a vacation to recharge his batteries. I hope that's all this is, and that nothing more serious is going down with the governor.

Sotomayor Too Thorough

Apparently that's literally the latest complaint about her: That her opinions are too methodical, address too many issues, and don't have enough quotable catch-phrases. Of course, everyone knows that thoroughly addressing each and every argument is a hallmark of judges who lack the intelligence to be on the bench. [/sarcasm]

As an aspiring attorney, it is certainly more pleasurable for me to read opinions that have a little snap to them. But a judge's first job isn't to be a stand-up comic, it is to, well, calmly and methodically dispose of the issues before them. And I will note that judges who wrote for the quote sometimes miss the important legal issues in the process. So once again, advantage Sotomayor.

Heat Wave

Last night, I found out that:

a) sweltering heat +

b) no air conditioning +

c) dehydration +

d) a hot and spicy dinner =

e) heat exhaustion!

Ugh, summer. What a stupid season.

PEPSI Generation

One of my favorite things about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is that they're so over the top. Starbucks' logo is a picture of Queen Esther. The blue stripes on Israel's flag denote its desired borders (wrong to begin with) -- not the Mediterranean to the Jordan, but the Nile to the Euphrates.

And today, we get another fine contribution to the genre: "Pepsi" is an acronym for "Pay Every Penny to Save Israel." Not only was Pepsi trademarked in 1903, some 45 years before Israel was established, that would be a really dumb choice of an acronym. We rule the world, don't we have any marketing consultants on staff? Give us some credit here.

Justice for Slaves

I was running through my archives, and came across this post about three Cuban workers who were effectively sold into slavery by Cuba to Curacao Drydock Co.. The post then noted that a Florida court had agreed to hear the case against the corporation for its complicity with Cuban human rights violations. I decided to see if anything had happened, and I was gratified to learn that last October the district court announced a judgment for the plaintiffs in an amount totaling $80 million dollars. Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 1355 (S.D.Fla. 2008). I don't think the case is freely available, but you can get a good summary from the Cuba Study Group.

We can disagree over what America's Cuba policy should be. But there must be no doubt about the vicious brutality of the Cuban regime, which includes (but is hardly limited to) constructing a slave economy in tandem with heartless multinational corporations. This verdict, in addition to providing justice for the enslaved workers, is a good start in illuminating these practices.

Wladimir Klitschko: Heavyweight Champion of the World

Ladies and gentlemen, we finally have a true heavyweight champion, with Wladimir Klitschko taking the Ring Belt with a 10th round TKO over Ruslan Chagaev. Klitschko improves to 53-3 (47 KOs), Chagaev suffers his first loss, dropping to 25-1-1 (17 KOs).



"You dominated the fight from the word 'go'" "Uhh...yeah. I did." Heh.

But he's not wrong. I watched the fight, and Klitschko simply dominated the fight from start to finish, mostly with his lethal left jab. It wasn't the most entertaining display, but over the past few years it has shown itself to be well-nigh unbeatable -- I can't remember the last time I've seen Klitschko ever seriously threatened inside the ring. And so it was tonight, facing probably the best heavyweight in the division outside the Klitschko brothers, Wladimir was in control post to post, including a second round knockdown. I don't know who in the division even poses a major challenge. A fight with David Haye or Cristobal Arreola would be entertaining, to be sure, but I can't imagine it wouldn't end by anything but Klitschko knockout.

So while it's good that we have a true champ in the division, it is equally true that the heavyweights are still not going to be providing the marquee fights in the sport of boxing. But that does nothing to dissipate Klitschko's accomplishments. He just might be the single most dominant man for his division in the sport today.

Ma'am

I first read about the Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) "ma'am" controversy over at Not a Potted Plant. Basically, a military officer called Sen. Boxer "ma'am", Boxer asked instead if he would call her Senator, and the officer agreed. And then apparently a huge swath of the intertubes went off on Sen. Boxer as an uppity bitch.

The supposed twist here is that "ma'am" in the military is a standard term of respect used when addressing a female superior officers. This is discussed a bit in the Shakesville comments, where it is noted that even within the military "Senator" is still the proper address to a female Senator, not ma'am (see here). And of course, civilians not part of the military don't necessarily interpret words in the military context -- which I presume is part of the reason why the military has that protocol in the first place.

Nobody was saying this officer was a bad guy. He said "ma'am", which given his background was perfectly polite; Boxer asked to be called "Senator" -- also entirely reasonable and within her rights; the officer agreed. That should be case closed.

Two Thirds of a Step Forward

The Palestinian Authority is launching a Hebrew-language version of its news service! Hurray! It's purpose? For its reader to "get to know his Palestinian rival, as the Palestinian knows his Israeli rival." A fair objective, but Tablet Magazine notes that "perhaps the word 'neighbor' would have been" more in line with the mission than "rival". Still, progress is progress.

Goldfarb: Bad for the Jews

Pretty much every anti-Semitic apologist nowadays will give you a song and dance about how they've dedicated their life to opposing "real" anti-Semitism, and it is that staunch opposition which motivates them to police so vigorously "false" cries of anti-Semitism. Alas, for many of these bold paladins, there is little indication they've ever seen anything that they'd label the real thing. So as for me: I can only hope my volumnious writing on the subject will insulate me from the charge when I call him out on making the ridiculous charge that Andrew Sullivan believes that the Jews control the media.

The context is this post by Sullivan regarded the current flap over the Washington Post's firing of prominent liberal journalist Dan Froomkin. The offensive bits are as follows:

Hiatt will publish op-eds peddling dishonest partial numbers to buttress Ahmadinejad, because that's what the neocons wanted.... Maybe the quality of [Froomkin's] free-lancing was showing up the hackneyed AIPAC boilerplate they publish every day on their op-ed page.

I don't like it when AIPAC gets used as a stand-in for a laundry list of conservative ailments that it may or may not have anything to do with (see the discussion in this thread). There are certainly plenty of neoconservatives affiliated with AIPAC, but I don't think that AIPAC as an institution is the driving the neoconservative movement.

But that being said, there is nothing in here that indicates Sullivan holding a belief that the "Jews control the media". He is arguing that Froomkin was fired because he made folks like Charles Krauthammer look bad, and Hiatt (who is the top dog at the Post, albeit a position he does not hold on behalf of the Jews) didn't like that because Hiatt sympathizes with Krauthammer and his ideological compatriots over those of Froomkin's. A totally legitimate point to make.

And since I keep trying to argue that anti-Semitism is not typically a case of trying to cheap shot political points, I'm a bit resentful towards Michael Goldfarb for making my job more difficult. I take solace in the fact that Michael Goldfarb is a complete moron who isn't taken seriously by anyone respectable of note (though, given the way that Jews are mistakenly assumed to be represented by the American right, he might be trotted out yet). More importantly, conservatives like Goldfarb, who (in my general observations) don't really have a sophisticated grasp of discrimination or prejudice and who tend to view those issues as fig-leaves for political power plays, are always going to wield these sorts of charges clumsily, because as far as they're concerned their core function isn't about remedying a system of disadvantage but rather the more provincial concern of winning the day's argument.

Turning One's Back

Perhaps the most personally loathsome Supreme Court Justice in our nation's history was James McReynolds. Appointed to the bench in 1914 by Woodrow Wilson, McReynolds was an arch-conservative, becoming one of the infamous "four horseman" who tried through hell and high water to stop FDR's New Deal. But there are plenty of conservative judges out there. What distinguished McReynolds was his flagrant, public, and unapologetic racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. McReynolds refused to speak to the Jewish Justices with whom he served, going so far as to cancel a scheduled photo session of the Court because he would be forced to sit next to Louis Brandeis, and signing a letter urging the President not to "afflict the Court with another Jew." He would often leave the bench if a female attorney rose before the court. And in one of his all time nadirs, he conspicuously swiveled his chair to turn his back on the brilliant Black lawyer, Charles Hamilton Houston, during oral arguments for Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada. Unsurprisingly, Justice McReynolds dissented in that landmark case (one of the very first to strike down a school segregation policy), declaring that integration would "damnify both races".

I was reminded of McReynolds when I read that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is refusing to even meet with Sonia Sotomayor, saying his opposition was a "foregone conclusion". It is just the sort of disrespect that McReynolds displayed to Houston so many years ago -- the sort, in other words, that I had hoped we would have moved past by now.

Look -- I understand that to some extent these meetings are a charade -- the factors which will cause any given Senator to vote yea or nay on Judge Sotomayor's nomination are not ones likely to be affected by a one-on-one session. But there are still norms of collegiality and respect that one demonstrates to those persons you believe have a right to be treated with dignity, and this is one of them. Pierce Butler, after all, joined McReynolds in his Gaines dissent, indicating his racial views were none-too-progressive either, yet apparently he didn't not feel personally aggrieved by having to look Houston in the eye. Senator Inhofe has already distinguished himself amongst elected Republicans for making racialist charges against Judge Sotomayor. This, alas, is just par for the course.

Via.

The 800

I just hope none of these kids ever has an ill word for affirmative action.

Oh, THERE They Are!

Earlier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out against those protesting suspected election fraud in Iran:

"The nation's huge river would not leave any opportunity for the expression of dirt and dust," said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a rather elliptical reference to the surging protests on the streets of Tehran.

For good measure he followed up with some more earthy language comparing claims of massive election fraud in last week's poll to the passions of supporters of a beaten football team after a match.

He then went on to accuse his opponents of "officially recognising thieves, homosexuals and scumbags" in exchange for their votes.

Homosexuals? But I thought there were none in Iran? As Peter Tatchell put it, looks like the cat is out of the bag now.

The Conversion of Charles Taylor

There is a running story that Charles Taylor, the brutal West African dictator, has converted to Judaism. It's almost certainly false -- not his claim, but the truth of it, as there is no evidence he has studied under a Rabbi, and he still claims to believe in the divinity of Christ.

But the Forward asks an interesting question (related, I think, to our discussion on what we want Judaism to be): what if he really did want to? Should we let him? And in the midst of answering, this fascinating anecdote of a former KKK leader converted to Judaism by the very Rabbi he threatened to bomb was revealed:

One person who knows firsthand about the spiritual transformation of people with evil pasts is Rabbi Michael Weisser. When he was working in Lincoln, Neb., a white supremacist named Larry Trapp began threatening and harassing him and his family. Trapp, state head of the Nebraska Ku Klux Klan, had a long history of terrorizing black, Asian and Jewish families in the area.

Weisser decided to confront Trapp. He called the KKK leader’s racist hot line and left messages, until one day, he finally got Trapp on the phone and managed to strike up a conversation. Eventually, Weisser and his wife met with Trapp and inspired him to renounce racism and antisemitism. Eventually, Trapp converted to Judaism at Weisser’s Reform synagogue, B’nai Jeshurun — the very synagogue that Trapp once had planned to bomb.

Anyone can change, and therefore, anyone can be a candidate for conversion, Weisser told the Forward — even someone as bad as Larry Trapp or Charles Taylor.

“There’s a spark of decency in everybody, no matter how bad they’ve been,” Weisser said. “The truth is, human nature is good, not bad.”

In Trapp’s case, Weisser said, the former KKK Grand Dragon truly repented for his many sins and expressed remorse, asked for forgiveness from those he’d wronged and tried to set things right. Trapp called and met with people he used to harass to apologize and beg their forgiveness, and he spoke publicly to high schools and other groups about how he had repudiated bigotry and hate.

When Trapp first mentioned converting to Judaism, Weisser said he was concerned that guilt was the motivation. But Trapp studied hard, reading about 50 serious books on Judaism, and showed a genuine desire to join the faith for positive reasons.

“If we believe what we say we believe [as Jews], how can you go against it?” Weisser asked. “I think when Larry died, he died a good Jew.”

Obviously, when dealing with the sort of supreme evil of a Charles Taylor, we test the extremes of our principles. But there is a large part of me that wants to believe that nearly anyone could be a viable convert to Judaism, so long as their conversion path incorporated sufficient atonement and restitution for their sins.

So Much Taboo, So Little Time To Break It

Jeffrey Goldberg collects years worth of pundits congratulating themselves over their daring breaches of the "taboo" over criticizing Israel. I wonder if they grasp just how much they sound like your cranky conservative uncle who takes so much pride in his bold anti-PCness ("you say one bad word about Negros -- I'm sorry, I mean Afro-Americans or whatever they're calling themselves these days -- and you're tarred a racist.").

It's Good To Be Free

Letter from Jourdan Anderson, an ex-slave, to his former master after the Civil War. Fabulous reading.

Via

BAMF

My last three posts tagged "Barbara Mikulski" share one word in common: BAMF.

Make it four:

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) says that he's not sure who wrote the Affordable Health Choices Act but that if you put "Rube Goldberg, Karl Marx, and Ira Magaziner in a room," you'd have ended up with something pretty close. A classy, gracious line from the man who was nearly Obama's secretary of commerce.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) shoots back, "Our current system is a combination of Adam Smith, Darth Vader, and the Bodysnatchers. So I like our plan better!"

Via

You've Got 'em on the Run Now!

The UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign recently raised a kerfuffle over an Israeli tourism ad campaign that presented a map of Israel which included, without demarcation, Israel proper, the West Bank, and Gaza, saying they "wiped Palestine off the map". Okay, fair enough. Except, as TULIP noted, the PSC's own logo also portrays the territory as a united whole without demarcation -- seeking to "wipe Israel off the map".

Sounds like hypocrisy to me. But don't worry: Instead of panicking, the PSC decided to put TULIP on the defensive with this savvy gambit:

Responding to the accusation, PSC's trade union officer, Bernard Regan, said: "If TULIP can send me a map of Israel then I will comment."

Oh noes! How will TULIP get out of this bind?

A map that clearly showed the 1949 armistice line, which also labeled the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine, was sent to Regan, but he declined to comment further. However, Betty Hunter, PSC's general secretary, said that the PSC will continue to use a map of historic Palestine.

Curse those sneaky TULIPers with their ability to run a simple Google image search!

Do They Have Irony in North Korea?

The North Korean government has explained why it is holding two American journalists: Because they were going to "slander" the nation's human rights record.

"At the trial, the accused admitted that what they did were criminal acts, prompted by a political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system of North Korea, by faking moving images aimed at falsifying its human rights performance and hurling slanders and calumnies at it," the statement said.

Clearly, any critique they might have leveled at the regime would have been nothing but vicious, vicious lies. It's not like the nation imprisons people for reporting on human rights.

Joking!

After a South Carolina Republican operative was caught tweeting that an escaped zoo gorilla was an ancestor of Michelle Obama, he attempted to defend himself by saying it was only a joke. To which Michelle Cottle wrote: duh. But why do you think that helps you? Noting it was a joke just means you made a racist joke. That's still a bad thing.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch is under fire after calling an undercover officer a "dirty Arab". The officer doesn't appear to be Arab, the remark was apparently a crack at his appearance. Aharonovitch's apology was at least a little less equivocal than his SC peer, but he still said it was "in a moment of jest". Well, sure, but that just means you jest in a racist manner.

Oh, and I'd be far more inclined to believe such statements "did not reflect your worldview" if you weren't a member of Yisrael Beiteinu.

Con Caracter

ESPN2's Friday Night Fights is now sponsored by Tecate beer, and so, unsurprisingly, they've been running Tecate commercials. But there are at least two things I find interesting about them. First is the fact that the commercials are all in Spanish -- no subtitles, no nothing. I keep waiting for Mark Krikorian to pitch a fit, but so far, no dice.

Second, though, and the subject of this post, is how the commercials handle the trope of masculinity. In general, I'm interested in efforts at reconstructing dominant social paradigms (masculinity, Whiteness, etc.) in ways that are compatible with egalitarian and equitable norms. And I think in many ways the Tecate ads step dramatically in that direction.

Like many beer commercials, the ad campaign here was specifically designed to appeal to a norm of manliness. Yet by and large, it doesn't indulge in the usual beer commercial stereotypes of what a "real man" is (crude, sloppy, disrespectful to women, etc.). Instead, it seeks to evoke tropes of self-respect and dignity for the many Mexican men who have come to America for a better life. Consider this example:



The first person is a sweltering farm worker laboring in the hot sun. The second is a big, tough, tattooed guy who lights up when he sees his mom. And the third is a soup chef who ignores the burn as he moves a pot of boiling liquid from point A to point B. So, as far as Tecate is considered, real men work hard, love their mom, and play through the pain. That's not the worst set of ideals I can imagine.

Is it true that the commercial renders Mexican women supporting characters? Yes. But I'm not 100% convinced I'm against targeted marketing so long as the marketing doesn't reinforce hierarchy or negative stereotypes. Promulgating a positive vision of masculinity requires, at some level, a focus on men and manliness. It's a trade I'm willing to make.

(Semi-inspired by this post by Daisy).

The Iranian Election

The current events in Iran are one of those events I'm simultaneously transfixed and rendered mute by. What is there to say? There is a lot of compelling evidence out there that the election was rigged. Whether or not reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi actually won, or the regime just panicked, is still an open question. It will likewise be interesting how the emerging fissures within Iran's ruling class will resolve themselves (or not).

Obviously, in any circumstances the brutal crackdown by Iran's paramilitary forces is inexcusable. And while American interests are certainly at stake here and we should keep a close eye on things, fundamentally this isn't about us. It isn't my place to demand that Iranian students willingly put themselves at risk so they can fulfill my own political desires. At this point, the important thing is to support them as they determine how to pursue their own (of course, direct American governmental support would probably be counterproductive in any event).

SCOTUS Scores

An ideological history of the Supreme Court. It does show how the Court has notably tilted to the right over the past twenty years (since the appointment of Clarence Thomas). There is simply no true blue liberal on the Court anymore -- the closest is John Paul Stevens, but he is dwarfed by the conservatism of, say, Antonin Scalia, and doesn't approach the hey-day ratings of a Marshall, Douglas, or Brennan.

On That Demilitarization Thing

Matt Yglesias' post gives me occasion to talk about one of the more interesting parts of Bibi Netanyahu's speech (the first in which he expresses willingness to recognize a Palestinian state): demilitarization.

I oppose requiring a Palestinian state to be demilitarized. The right to a military is a key part of what makes a state sovereign in the modern world -- refusing Palestine's right to have one is humiliating and likely to stoke resentment. And frankly, it is a stupid idea from the perspective of Israel's security: how else but through a military is Palestine supposed to interdict and suppress radical elements who may continue to battle Israel after independence is achieved? The call for a demilitarized state is one that seems to exhibit a rather naive faith in legal pronouncements; as if groups like Islamic Jihad and the PFLP will disarm simply out of deference to the agreement.

All that being said, the demilitarization call is not as radical as Yglesias makes it appear: it is part of the People's Voice plan that Yglesias himself endorsed a short while back.

Teaching Conservatively

Peter Berkowitz (via) has an editorial up on the WSJ calling for greater inclusion of conservative intellectuals in the syllabi of elite colleges and universities.

[M]ost students will hear next to nothing about the conservative tradition in American politics that stretches from John Adams to Theodore Roosevelt to William F. Buckley Jr. to Milton Friedman to Ronald Reagan. This tradition emphasizes moral and intellectual excellence, worries that democratic practices and egalitarian norms will threaten individual liberty, attends to the claims of religion and the role it can play in educating citizens for liberty, and provides both a vigorous defense of free-market capitalism and a powerful critique of capitalism's relentless overturning of established ways. It also recognized early that communism represented an implacable enemy of freedom. And for 30 years it has been animated by a fascinating quarrel between traditionalists, libertarians and neoconservatives.

While ignoring conservatism, the political theory subfield regularly offers specialized courses in liberal theory and democratic theory; African-American political thought and feminist political theory; the social theory of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school; and numerous versions of postmodern political theory.

I want to say at the outset that I am and have long been in favor of greater integration of conservatives in the academic sphere (I've publicly called for diversity affirmative action for conservatives in highly liberal academic environs, a move that Berkowitz actively disclaims support for). But I'm not 100% convinced the problem is as stark as Berkowitz makes it out to be.

First, we do need to observe that at least portions of the conservative movement, comprising some of its most prominent public writers, bitterly decry "liberal bias" in the academy, but show an utter blindness as to what sorts of conservatives are intellectually sophisticated enough to merit inclusion in a high-level college political theory course. The folks that Berkowitz mentions (Roosevelt, Buckley, Oakeshott) certainly qualify. But I recall a poster featuring such "distinguished" academic lights as Ann Coulter, Dineesh D'Souza, Robert Novak, and Michelle Malkin with the tag "no education is complete until it includes us." Well, no -- I can't think of a single political theory course, including one specifically focusing on modern conservative thought, that would not be drastically diminished by the inclusion of Ann Coulter. To the extent that this is what some conservatives (presumably not Berkowitz) mean when they complain about their exclusion from academic halls, my sympathy is rather dramatically curtailed. The definitive anti-intellectual turn (see also) trumpeted by at least some modern conservatives is a barrier to including conservatives in any form they'd recognize as valid.

Second, I'm not hugely convinced conservatives are absent from political theory courses, at least those which are broad enough in scope so as to include a broad swath of political schools (I would agree that it would be interesting to have a course that focuses specifically on conservative political thought). I only have my own Carleton experiences to go on, of course, but let's run through the authors I read in "Introduction to Political Philosophy": Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Mill, Marx. Plenty of names on their that conservatives would be happy about. My "Justice and Politics" class opened with a unit on libertarianism and was heavily invested in the Rawls/Nozick debate. My American Political Thought class, too, seemed to give the ideas that Berkowitz wanted aired their proper due. The thing here is that it's always possible to name another writer that wasn't on a syllabus -- an "inexcusable omission". But given that there is a limited amount of time, and allowing professors some leeway to teach courses from the angle that most interests them,* I'm not sure that conservative ideas are being short-changed.

Finally, I want to register a serious quibble I have with Berkowitz putting "conservative political thought" as a polar opposite of "African-American political thought". Obviously, as someone interested in Black Conservatism and Nationalism, I'm annoyed at this dichotomy. And it's not just my own idiosyncratic pursuit. I took a course in the Foundations of African-American Political Thought: The primary authors we read were Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, Alain Locke, and Marcus Garvey. I think both Douglass and Washington could rest comfortably in Berkowitz's conservative tradition; I also think you can make an argument that Garvey's Nationalism lies closer to it than it does to a Du Boisian liberalism. Between the fact that Berkowitz names solely White authors and the fact that he expressly casts African-American Political Thought as being a course one does instead of a course that might draw attention to conservative ideas, one gets the disturbing intuition that Berkowitz "doesn't count" Black Conservatives as genuine figures in his movement. But if Berkowitz is going to short-change his own side, no wonder he feels so lonely!

* My APT professor's primary research interest is in early 20th century American pragmatism, hence the Du Bois/Lippmann/Dewey stress. But interestingly, despite all being "liberals", they are very attuned to "moral and intellectual excellence, worries that democratic practices and egalitarian norms will threaten individual liberty, and atten[tion] to the claims of religion and the role it can play in educating citizens for liberty" -- the former two being the subject of my final paper for that class.

Congratulations

I'm blogging from the room Jill is moving out of, but I just wanted to publicly congratulate her for graduating today. She is now an official alum of Carleton College -- magna cum laude, and with distinction in Political Science. Same honors as me, actually (but her GPA was a little higher).

Not that I needed any ceremony to know Jill was a baller -- but it is nice to have something official to lay on all y'all.

The Unwitting One

Sean Wallis finally gave us the "context" to his infamous Lehman Brothers "joke" at the BRICUP fringe meeting to the UCU Congress. He had previously denied anti-Semitic intent but given no plausible alternative explanation for his remarks meant.

In my view, Wallis' "explanation" is precisely what you would expect out of someone who had maintained virtual radio silence for weeks while scrambling for a leg to stand on. But seeing that I had already expressed my ire, to him and to those who stand by him, I figured it wasn't worth posting on again.

However, the CST blog has a truly stellar post on the subject that really does capture the essence of what is going on here (from a position that is about as charitable towards Prof. Wallis as one could reasonably expect). It comes highly, highly recommended.

A Surge in Cooperation

I liked this article in The Forward, on the increased optimism by pro-Palestinian organizations in the US.

“The Palestinians should not sour U.S.–Israeli relations. That will not help anyone,” said Ghaith Al-Omari, advocacy director for the American Task Force on Palestine, a group now seen as the leading pro-Palestinian voice in Washington. He warned against Arab groups “gloating,” and expressed concern that one-sided pressure could lead to an “adversarial approach.” Al-Omari, a former Palestinian peace negotiator, recently participated in White House discussions in preparation of the Cairo speech.

He stressed that it would be a mistake for the administration and Congress to be seen as anti-Israeli. “It’s one thing for Congress to support a settlement freeze, but it will be a whole different story if the administration will be portrayed as leaning too strong on Israel.”

Areikat agrees. “I don’t like the word ‘pressure,’” he said. “This won’t help with either side.” The senior Palestinian representative cautioned that balance is needed in the administration’s approach to the conflict. “It won’t work if one side gets all its demands at the expense of the other side,” Areikat said.

This view seems at odds with statements by Abbas, who, in a May 29 interview with The Washington Post, said he believes that the Palestinians now need to sit and wait while the Obama administration pressures Israel to freeze settlement activity. Privately, advocates for the P.A. voice aggravation with the interview’s fallout.

Concerns within the pro-Palestinian community over the possibility of counterproductive administration pressure on Israel may stem from a surprising source: a little-known rapprochement process taking place between pro-Palestinian groups and Jewish organizations.

Palestinian activists have made a concerted effort to reach out to American Jews and to seek cooperation in promoting a two-state solution. While most of their outreach has focused on dovish Jewish organizations, Palestinians also have been trying to work with mainstream Jewish groups and with the pro-Israel lobby.

Together with Ziad Asali, president and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, Al-Omari attended the May 4 gala dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an event seen as the annual show of force for pro-Israel advocacy. ATFP also holds regular meetings with AIPAC staff members.

In December 2008, while he was serving on the PLO negotiating team, Areikat led a group of Palestinian officials who met with AIPAC board members in Washington. The AIPAC board members were later hosted by PLO officials in Ramallah.

Areikat believes that a new spirit in the Washington and Palestinian outreach efforts will help sway American public opinion toward more understanding of the Palestinian cause. “Americans are open-minded. They want to see the Palestinians treated justly while Israel remains protected,” he said.

I know of the ATFP -- they're a good outfit. And they're are showing why here. When you've been in conflict as long as the Israelis and Palestinians have, it is very tempting to use openings as a chance to entrench divisions and seek the temporary advantage. The ATFP, though, sees their newfound access as a chance to build bridges rather than burn them. The critique of "pressure" is on point here -- though I'm not adverse to "pressure" per se under the right circumstances, I understand the point that Mr. Areikat is making here: that the best way to proceed isn't through the expression of righteousness indignation and high profile diplomatic hijinks, but by building the sort of environment where the history, claims, and concerns of all sides are given weight, consideration, and respect.

Moving On Out

I spent most of today moving into the apartment I'm subletting this summer. But I'm not actually living there until Monday -- tomorrow, I fly out to Minnesota for Jill's graduation.

I hate moving. There is little in life I hate more. I find it unbelievably stressful, to the point where (as it finally did tonight) it can make me physically ill. Finals, by comparison, were stressful too, but they didn't cause me to boot all over the front steps (sorry if that's TMI).

The problem, I think, is that moving tends to involve the confluence of several events, all of which are among my least favorite things. On face, of course, the first thing I dislike about moving is the same thing that everyone else hates about it -- it takes time and effort and is really boring. But beyond that, there are some other more personal issues. I really dislike change, for one. Kind of odd for a progressive, I know, but I'm very easily contented and once I'm settled somewhere, I really hate rocking the boat. The irony, of course, is that after a few days I quickly settle in the new place and then don't want to leave there -- but the transition is rough.

Another problem is isolation: moving cuts you off from people, and when I'm stressed I really need my friends near by for support. Even this summer, when I'm moving literally less than 10 blocks away, this applies, because most people aren't living in Chicago for the summer. Jill will be moving in with me on the 22nd, but there is still a week gap when I'm mostly alone. And finally, whenever I move I'm filled with paranoid fears that a bunch of things will go wrong. I won't be able to get the door open. The stove won't work. The pipes leak and are flooding the place. I won't be able to get the internet to work (this is actually a huge deal for me, because surfing online is my primary destress mechanism -- if I can't do that, I start to melt down really quick). All this, of course, is happening at the point when I'm most vulnerable. The anticipation of it alone is enough to induce misery.

The point being, when the key to my new apartment turns Sunday night, I really really really hope everything goes smoothly.

Martha Minow New Harvard Dean

Obviously, my congratulations to the good great professor and scholar.

Thinking About Judaism

I blog a lot about Jews and Jewish concerns. But I rarely talk about my Jewishness in the abstract. But Daisy of Dear Diaspora points out that we are getting to the point where my generation has to take responsibility for Judaism writ large. That being said, she asks the following questions, which I'm answering from the hip, and I hope spark further conversation on the topic.

What do you like about Judaism and Jewish culture? What do you dislike?

I like that Judaism is a place of ideas. It is a place where intellect and argument are valued, and more importantly, not valued for their own sake but as a critical tool in the pursuit of social justice.

I dislike Jewish passivity. I think we are too tame in asserting ourselves as an independent perspective worthy of respect and dignity -- on concerns explicitly Jewish and not. For all the talk of Jewish pushiness, there is a definitive keep-your-head down mentality stemming from a desire not to reinforce stereotypes of power and neurosis. I don't fault folks for being cautious, but I don't have to like it either.

Why are Judaism and Jewish culture important? Why is it important to preserve them?

Whenever someone asks me why Judaism is important to me, I always respond first by citing Emil Fackenheim's 614th Commandment. I can't say much more about it except to say that it exhibits a genuine pull on me. I can feel it, as deep in my soul as it can get.

Beyond that, though, I think Judaism offers an important perspective on issues. We've been around awhile. We have a lot to say. It is good that we're here to say it, and it is good that we are still conversant in the history and practices which make our speech intelligible and give it context, nuance, and richness.

What is your relationship with Judaism as a religion? Do you feel connected to Judaism? To a temple community, to a minyan, to a study group? If not, would you like to be?

Are you affiliated with any of the movements? Which one, and why? If not, why not? What do you like and/or dislike about it?

I have home synagogue, which I like a lot, but I don't really go to synagogue that often. Again, my connection with Judaism is far stronger on the ideas side than it is on the ritual side (though that is important to me too). In terms of movements, my synagogue is Conservative, and I like my synagogue, so I'm a Conservative Jew. If I was picking out of the air, though, I'd probably identify closer with Reconstructionist Judaism -- I think they do the best job of taking Judaism seriously while still subjecting it to critical analysis.

How observant are you? How important is observance to you? How observant should others be? Are some kinds of observance more important than others?

I'm strangely observant. As you might have guessed, I care a lot about "thinking Jewishly" -- that is, it matters to me that my broader positions and ideologies cohere with my Jewish identity. In terms of ritualistic observance, I'm more haphazard. I don't keep any sort of strict Kosher, but I do avoid shellfish and pork, and cheeseburgers (but not milk & meat combos more generally). The specific anti-cheeseburger rule is a function of that food being the paradigmatic example of "things my friends could eat but I couldn't because I'm Kosher", so it matters more to me to keep that redline up.

What practices or ideas are most central to your Jewish identity? (i.e. eating bagels, loving books, celebrating the High Holidays, not celebrating Christian holidays, keeping kosher, fighting for justice, etc.)

Bagels are obviously important (and very difficult to find with any quality in the mid-west). I do tend to define a lot my Jewish practice in terms of distinctiveness -- namely, being distinctively not Christian. I don't celebrate Christian holidays with substantially more vigor than I do celebrate Jewish holidays. But that goes back to my desire to assert Jewish independence.

Ideally, what will Judaism and Jewish culture look like in 10 years? In 25 years? In 100 years?

Couldn't say -- I'd like to think it would be still evolving. And same in 1,000 years. Even ideally, things shouldn't be static.

What are most critical issues for the Jewish community to address right now? Israel, intermarriage, declining synagogue attendance, something else entirely?

Anti-Semitism matters a lot, and I do think we need to be vigorous in addressing it. But in general, I think it is critically important for Jews to establish and solidify our right to a positive, independent Jewish identity that is worthy of respect in of itself.

What are the key qualities for Judaism/Jewish culture to embody or functions for it to perform?

Judaism should be welcoming to all Jews, create space for Jews of diverse backgrounds and beliefs to enact their Jewishness in a variety of ways, and promote norms of fairness and justice throughout the Jewish community and the world.

Martyr

There is not that much to say about the White Supremacist anti-Semite who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum today. I want to obviously give my thanks and respect to Stephen Tyrone Johns, the brave security guard who died defending the museum, as well as my condolences to his family.

As for the shooting itself, well, it is a very scary thing. Nobody should be under any illusion that a rise in right-wing extremism will not result in terrorist actions against Jews. Nobody should be under any illusion that we've gotten beyond anti-Semitism in America; that it is something Jews don't have to think about anymore.

Victory

1L year is officially over. And it ended on a nice high note. Not only did my Criminal Law exam seem to go well, but I won an award! The Morrison & Foerster Award for Outstanding 1L Bigelow Brief. Oh yeah, you read that right :-).

Then I went and picked up the law review competition packet. So that was a dash of cold water to the face. But still, overall, we call this victory. Holler.

New Friendships

There has been some interesting syncing between the far-left and right over Israeli policy recently.

First, there was this fascinating article in Ha'aretz about the latest signatories to a one-state solution: the settlers!

[Uri] Elitzur rejected Obama's notion of a two-state solution, saying a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders would be a hotbed of terror. However, the status quo - which, he said, means an apartheid state - is also unacceptable to him. So what does that leave? A binational state.

Elitzur proclaimed that the Land of Israel is more important than the State of Israel, and a Jew's right to live any place in his land is more important to him than the desire for sovereignty. In order to make this concept more concrete, he compared the Land of Israel to his wife and the state to a cleaning woman. "I married my wife, not the cleaning woman," he said.

Elitzur is not the only veteran settler who would choose the Greater Land of Israel even at the price of the state losing its Jewish majority. Former MK Hanan Porat and other settler leaders have recently prophesied in a similar vein. If you like, this is nothing but a post-modern version of post-Zionism.

Well, I'm just glad that the settlers have definitively placed themselves on the side of those who wish to destroy Israel. It's easier to draw battle-lines when folks actually line up on their respective side. The game the settlers are playing is to stall for time until Israel is destroyed. The game some Palestinians are playing is to stall for time until Israel is destroyed. Call me the not-so-loyal opposition to that game.

Meanwhile, as I work to oppose a boycott of Israel, some Israeli MKs seem to want to do the left's work for it:

But in the interim, the minister [Likud MK Yossi Peled] suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies.

Peled said that shifting military acquisition to America's competition would make Israel less dependent on the US. For instance, he suggested buying planes from the France-based Airbus firm instead of the American Boeing.

So the left doesn't want America to sell to Israel, and Peled doesn't want Israel to buy from the US. Everybody is happy! Except, you know, the non-crazy people.

Rush Limbaugh Reads Naomi Klein!

Rush Limbaugh raises the specter of boycotting GM because it is now owned by the government (and thus, the Obama administration). Not being a fan of boycotts in general, I'm not a fan of this one specifically, though I am curious why a boycott of American government-owned corporations would be less justified than a boycott of Israel (obviously Limbaugh's reasons aren't particularly strong, but would a similar boycott with more left-friendly motives pass muster?).

But let's put that aside, and instead parse this bit:

Limbaugh reassures any GM workers who might be listening that the boycotters aren't angry at them. "They don't want to patronize Obama. They don't want to do anything to make Obama's policies work!" he explains. "This is an untold story, by the way. Of course, the government-controlled media is not gonna report anything like this but there are a lot of people who are not going to buy from Chrysler or General Motors as long as it is perceived Barack Obama is running it, because people do not want his policy to work here because this is antithetical to the American economic way of life."

Klein, of course, likewise claimed that her boycott was targeted at the policies, not the people, which presumably is supposed to shield her from their ire and insure it is instead directed at the proper source. Now, raise your hand if you doubt GM workers are really going to care one flying fig that Limbaugh says he doesn't harbor any ill-will towards them, when it is their jobs that will be lost and their families who will suffer, and blame the Obama administration instead. Okay great. Now, anybody who thinks Israeli families will think differently, lower your hands. Everybody's hands should still be up.

Via Balloon Juice

Back to Better

Ed has apologized, publius has accepted. Everyone is moving on.

And I'm glad. Normally these things just turn into lingering bitterness, because normally people can't admit when they're wrong. It was big of Ed to apologize, and I admit that I wasn't expecting him to. This makes me think much more highly of him than I had before.

Obviously, I hope there are no long term repercussions for publius. Assuming that to be so, it's nice when things work out.

The Anti-Settler State

Recent polling out of Israel finds that the settlers are more unpopular with the Israeli public than ever before, with nearly two-thirds of respondents calling them a liability rather than an asset to the state. Settler organizations are responding to this rationally: by initiating a PR campaign to encourage tourism in the West Bank ... and by launching a wave of violent protests and terrorist violence directed at their Palestinians neighbors and Israeli government officials who attempt to remove them.

Last summer radical settlers introduced “price tag,” a new campaign intended to disrupt evacuations of illegal settlement outposts by wreaking havoc on roads, burning fields, and attacking Palestinian people and property.

In a single day on June 1, as Benjamin Netanyahu pushed ahead with his promise to evacuate outposts, this strategy went into overdrive. Settlers began blocking roads and stoning Palestinian cars near Karnei Shomron, Kedumim and Yitzhar and Palestinians responded by throwing rocks at the settlers. Olive groves and fields belonging to Palestinian residents of Burin, near Yitzhar, were torched, allegedly by settlers. After soldiers and police removed three caravans from the Nahalat Yosef outpost, near Elon Moreh, settlers retaliated later in the day by torching Palestinian fields at various locations in the northern West Bank. In a statement sent to reporters, the perpetrators said this was “the price for harming our sacred land.”
[...]
Some settlers have also created conflict with police and soldiers. During the June 1 settler actions, lawmaker Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union alliance was arrested after he climbed onto the van in which police had locked a settler and refused to get off, claiming parliamentary immunity. Ben-Ari is now demanding a police investigation into his treatment, arguing he was beaten as he was removed from the van.

Fortunately, these violent acts are doing nothing but increasing the gulf between the settlers and the majority of the Israeli public. And the overall tenor of the article indicates that there is room for America and Israel, working hand in hand, to make a serious dent in the settler project.

On that note, The Washington Post has a good editorial sketching out a "compromise" that will overcome Israeli refusal to move.

Mr. Netanyahu should publicly acknowledge that the peace process will lead to Palestinian statehood, and should adopt a series of measures curtailing settlements. He should quickly dismantle those deemed illegal, end all government subsidies, prohibit the territorial expansion of all settlements, stop new construction in those outside Israel's West Bank fence and agree to a monitoring mechanism that will prevent cheating. Mr. Obama can reasonably accept that as a freeze, while not requiring that not a single brick be laid in any of the more than 120 West Bank communities. Then he can turn to the equally important task of pressing Palestinian leaders and Arab states for measures that match Israel's actions.

Basically, this comes down to the difference between "vertical" versus "horizontal" growth. "Vertical" growth doesn't involve appropriating any more territory; it simply involves increasing density within preexisting settlements. Horizontal growth involves actually expanding the borders of the settlements. The latter, obviously, is far more dangerous and inciting than the former. A true freeze on horizontal growth, paired with actual dismantling of illegal settlements and an end to subsidies, would be a major step forward. Permitting vertical growth will allow Israeli politicians to save face and head off obstruction from the right.

In making this claim, I'm not saying that vertical growth is politically neutral. Of course it isn't -- while it poses a less visceral and immediate threat to the peace process, particular when confined to the settlement blocs which are generally acknowledged to be ceded to Israel in an eventual agreement, so long as the eventual borders are not set, Israel doesn't get to unilaterally declare that any part of the occupied territories are permanently theirs.* But the point of a compromise is that it isn't going to be perfect; the benefits it gives us are worth more than what is being given up. And it is abundantly clear that the benefits of a horizontal settlement freeze, dismantlement of outposts, and end to subsidies easily outweigh the detriments of allowing vertical growth.

* Which isn't to say Israel is obliged to withdraw from every inch of the territories -- it is well established the UN Res. 242 requires no such thing and contemplates that the final borders be set by negotiation. I'm only noting that we can't assume the outcome of these negotiations before they happen.

What is this "Obligation" You Speak Of?

On the outing-gate scandal that is consuming the blogosphere, Matthew Franck writes something very revealing:

[E]xploding someone's cover and revealing his identity breaches no ethical norm I can think of. Blevins had his reasons for writing as "Publius," but Ed had no obligation to respect those reasons, and he didn't have to catch Blevins in any form of unethical argumentation in order to "out" him. I'm sympathetic to Ed's view that Blevins "smeared" him, but I haven't weighed that matter very carefully, and I don't think it counts for much on the ethical scorecard one way or the other. Ed reported a fact he had a right to tell, for whatever reason it suited him to tell it—including no particular reason at all other than that he found it useful at the moment he did it.

The claim here, that we have "no obligation to respect" the decisions of our fellow human beings; that one's choice over how to present oneself in the public eye can be swatted aside for "no particular reason at all", is astounding to me. It represents one of the attributes I find most distasteful about the modern conservative movement -- the complete dismissal of interconnectedness, solidarity, or even respectful interaction. Anything I have the "right" to do, I should be able to do without criticism or compunction. Free speech means I can make a racist joke about a co-worker. Should I? Who cares -- it's free speech! The mechanics of the law and the marketplace mean that I can make billions of dollars destroying ecosystems and horde the entire thing, spending nary a penny on the public good. Should I? Who cares -- it's capitalism! Freedom is understood to mean not just legal autonomy, but moral autonomy as well -- a kind of sick Nietzcheanism that renders basic ethical interaction superfluous. For those of us who are not only for ourselves, this sort of mentality can't help but repulse.

And that's as a general matter. On the specific point of pseudonyms, Hilzoy's post on the matter shows how spectacularly irresponsible this is. Franck admits he wouldn't out a Chinese dissident who'd be tortured if his identity was revealed. But Whelan had no idea why publius chose to remain pseudonymous. His reasons turned out to be to avoid family strife, to protect the careers of (Republican) operatives in his family, and to avoid any tenure controversies. All solid enough reasons for me. But they could have been considerably more dramatic. He might have had a stalker. He might have a boss who swore never to hire Democratic scum (unlikely given that he was an academic, but a possibility for bloggers in fields without strong norms of academic freedom). The point is, we didn't know. And in absence of that knowledge, Whelan cavalierly decided to roll dice with publius' life. Because he had the right to. And that's all that matters.

Essentializing Jews

The Community Security Trust has started a blog. This is good! And I really like their first substantive post, though unfortunately its about something infuriating -- namely, The Independent's coverage of Obama's Cairo speech:

A double page spread on President Obama’s Cairo speech is headlined, “President stings Israel with swipe at settlements”. The sub-title tells us how brave this is, “White House shows willingness to ignore US Jewish lobby by risking confrontation with Netanyahu over Palestinian statehood”.

The opening paragraph tells us breathlessly:

THE CORDS [sic] that connect Israel to the United States were under unprecedented strain last night after Barack Obama risked the wrath of the Jewish lobby in the US by publicly chiding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…

Two paragraphs later, we hear that “Mr Obama showed he is willing, perhaps more than any US president before him, to ignore the Jewish lobby domestically by getting firm with Israel. Thus he made public a festering and personal argument with Mr Netanyahu, who is refusing to heed his demands for a halt to all new settlements in the occupied West Bank”.

This reminds me of that Greek newspaper which celebrated Obama's victory as "the end of Jewish domination." I wrote that, were that the case, the 78% of Jews who voted for him must be very confused. Here, we see a similar game at work, with the Independent's writer assuming that American Jews (or their "lobby", whatever that means) are hell-bent on defending the settlements and will broke no criticism directed towards Israel in any way, shape or form. This would come as a tremendous surprise to the majority of Jews which oppose the settlements -- and to my knowledge none of the major pro-Israel organizations (with the possible exception of the ZOA) has ever invested any effort in trying to defend them. But bah! What does it matter what Jews actually think about thinks, when it is so much more satisfying to stereotype them as incorrigible warmongers so we can get the satisfaction of standing up to them!

Likewise, there has been virtually no indication that the American Jewish community as a whole, or the Israeli Jewish community for that matter, views Obama's speech as putting any sort of strain on America's relationship with Israel or that it was in any way contrary to the positions of mainline Jewish organizations. That's not to say that every Jew liked Obama's speech -- as difficult as this may be for entities invested in the view that Jews are a united, hive-like cabal (apparently like the Independent), Jews have diverse opinions about things -- but my reading was that the weight of the reactions leaned positive, though not ecstatic (which, for reasons I may or may not have time to get into, is roughly my reaction too).

The Jewish community is not a pack of neoconservative thugs (with occasional brave dissenter signing on to boycott positions). It represents a diverse array of views, perspectives, positions, and experiences. And though most Jews and most Jewish organizations do identify as "pro-Israel" in one form or another, that, too encompasses a wide range of stances that stretch well beyond the tired caricatures the Independent draws. Most Jews don't hold the opinions that critics of Jews ascribe to them. The fact that a newspaper like the Independent sees no problem in simply asserting Jewish views without thinking to ask whether or not we hold them is typical of the arrogant presumptuousness I have to deal with each and every day.

The Outing

The blogger known as Publius has been outed by conservative hatchet-man Ed Whelan. Whelan was upset that Publius had the temerity to disagree heatedly with his (inane) legal analysis. So he stripped his pseudonym away -- despite being informed by Publius that he had excellent personal and professional reasons to keep his identity shielded. Needless to say, this is a spectacularly dickish thing to do. All I can do is reiterate that Publius is a fabulous blogger, and he has my full support. As for Whelan, well, I doubt he has shame one can appeal to, so I have nothing to say to him.

I saw the news, by the way, through a post by Feddie's Southern Appeal blog. My relationship with Feddie is, I think, roughly parallel to Publius' (indeed, I may have originally been "introduced", electronically, to SA through Publius): I disagree heatedly with nearly everything he writes, but respect him as someone with a good heart and a genuinely fair-minded disposition. Unsurprisingly, his post is harshly critical of Whelan. Because people of all political dispositions know that, fundamentally, what Whelan did was wrong. And it should be labeled as such.

Quitting Time

The motion detector lights just went off in the room I'm studying in. A sign I've sat still for too long, mayhaps? But I need to finish this Civil Procedure outline!

Solidarity with Anti-Semites

The UCL branch of the UCU has apparently unanimously voted to stand by its branch secretary, Sean Wallis, who has been harshly criticized for anti-Semitic statements at a BRICUP fringe meeting outside the UCU. Wallis claimed that the legal threats directed at the boycott movement stemmed from lawyers backed by those with "bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down." Wallis does not appear to deny saying the words, but claims there is nothing anti-Semitic about them. However, he has never given an alternative account for what the statement could possibly be except a reference to thieving Jewish financiers; more particularly, a myth that Jewish bankers looted Lehman Brothers prior to its collapse and routed the money to Israel. Indeed, he has persistently refused to answer queries inviting him to clarify or otherwise contextualize his remarks.

This decision by the UCL UCU, paired with the UCU's proud refusal to examine anti-Semitism in its ranks, is unbelievably infuriating. It's as if a union of broadcasters voted to unanimously to back Don Imus and claim that there was nothing racist in his words. I am sick of this leftist conceit that says that just because you say you're opposed to anti-Semitism (and you have chic positions on other issues), that's the end of the matter, and any claims of anti-Semitism are irrational neurosis or bad-faith distractions. Everyone says they're opposed to anti-Semitism. Yet, intriguingly, Jews don't seem to experience it that way -- which given proper humility and truly egalitarian attitudes, would trigger introspection and self-questioning. Alas, it never does. Surely Wallis knows more about opposing anti-Semitism than Zionist Jews ever could!

In not unrelated news, tireless boycott opponent Jon Pike has resigned from the National Executive of the UCU. His stated reasons are numerous, ranging from the adamant refusal of the leadership to put controversial issues to a full membership ballot, to general anti-democratic practices, to the stifling of academic freedom norms, to the leadership's defiant refusal to examine anti-Semitism in its ranks. Normblog laments what the UCU has lost; and to be sure, it has lost a great deal. I wish that Dr. Pike had continued his fight -- the voices of light need a voice even in the darkest of places. But it isn't his obligation. Nobody has an obligation to continually put himself in a place where his equal dignity, worth, and human rights are constantly up for question. It is a superobligation, and we should be thankful Dr. Pike took up the burden for as long as he did.

How To Not Write an Exam

Resolved: A law school contracts exam should not be longer than the space allocated to answer it. Giving four pages to answer seven questions about an eight page fact pattern is not cool.

Two exams down, two to go. Civil Procedure II is next. I haven't even begun to look at Criminal Law.

Hamas Respond to Obama's Speech

Unsurprisingly, they're not buying it.

Meshal refused to make concessions on any of the points Obama mentioned--renouncing the use of violence (although he did say that Hamas was willing to discuss a formal ceasefire), recognizing the state of Israel or the prior commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to a peace process. I asked him about this portion of the speech:

It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

"Palestinian actions are reactions. What Palestinians do is to resist the occupation," he said. "It is self-defense. Why did the Americans support the Mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Why did the British support the French agains the Nazis? Why did you have a revolution against the British? Self-defense."

I made the obvious point about the difference between self-defense and targeting civilians. "But civilians die in wars," one of Meshal's aides pitched in. "You call it collateral damage."

You know, I'd like to say that Hamas is the only entity I've met that doesn't understand the distinction between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage, but they're not.

Yoffie's Dissent

Reform Rabbi Eric Yoffie comes out against Israel's demand that Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state. In the wake of my prior posts on recognition, it's worth a read. I do want to dissent from this passage though:

Zionism is about the Jewish people taking control of its destiny and determining for itself what kind of nation Israel should be. As a matter of principle and national honor, Israel has never ceded this right to Palestinian or other Arab leaders. Indeed, no previous Israeli government has demanded that its Arab neighbors affirm the Jewish character of the state. Israel has made peace with two Arab countries — Egypt and Jordan — without including such a demand in the terms of the agreements.

The task of Israel’s government is not to gain “recognition” of its Jewish character from anyone, friend or foe. Its job is to guarantee a stable Jewish majority that will enable the Jewish state to continue to develop and evolve in a democratic fashion as well as to ensure Israel’s Jewish character for the future.

This a version of what I call left-wing machismo speak. It takes the form of "are you saying Israel needs Arabs to affirm its identity? No way! Israel is way tougher than that -- it doesn't need nothin' from nobody!"

I'm not opposed to left-wing machismo as a rule -- it does serve as an important counterweight to the sentiment that the only way to show toughness is through conservative belligerence (policies which, often times, are actually demonstrations of weakness, not strength). At the same time, the hyper-separatist tenor of this claim rings a false note to me. It does matter how Israel's neighbors think of it, and whether or not they view it as a legitimate state. Peace is the first priority, obviously, but ultimately I want more than peace, I want mutual respect -- and I highly doubt that peace will survive without respect anyway. Acting as if we can split these two issues apart -- that both sides can fundamental view the other as interloping thieves without damaging the longevity of a peace deal -- strikes me as tremendously naive.

One Down

Jurisprudence II is out the door.

Contracts is on deck, for Friday. Civil Procedure II Monday, Criminal Law Wednesday.

Bring it on.

The Beginning of the End

Tomorrow is the first exam of the last quarter of my 1L year. Jurisprudence II, Brian Leiter.

Time to finish this fight.

Righting the Edwards Ship

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) is a solid progressive representative, whom I've been a fan of for awhile. I tend to like vibrant progressive activists who knock off corrupt incumbents (as Edwards did in 2008 in taking out Rep. Albert Wynn). But this Politico story says that she's facing some grumbles from Jewish constituents due to her stance on Israel. Edwards' district is majority Black but has a vocal Jewish minority.

From the Politico piece, however, it looks as if Edwards' sins (such as they are) are more of the communicative than substantive variety. For better or for worse, there is a template in Washington that establishes one as "pro-Israel". I don't think our Congresscritters are obliged to follow it -- indeed, I think it could stand to be shaken up a bit. But taking on that project makes it more incumbent, not less, on you to be in close contact with the Jewish community so they know what's going on and are assured they don't have a Cynthia McKinney on their hands. This, more than any particular vote or stance, seems to be where Edwards is falling short right now.

That being said, I don't think it should be too difficult for Rep. Edwards to right ship. Just do a little more to listen to Jewish leaders and meet with their representatives -- show that the positions you're taking stem from an honest desire to bring about peace and security to Israel and Palestine. In all relationships, communication is key.

The Type of Thought That Makes Me a Bad Person

It is nice to see that, amidst all the political violence and bombings and gunfire, Israel can still experience a just plain random crazy-person shooting.

Wallis "Refutes" Anti-Semitism Charge

At a BRICUP "fringe" event outside the UCU meeting where delegates voted to boycott Israel (and refused to examine anti-Semitism in their movement), UCU leader Sean Wallis gained some notoriety by saying the legal threats directed at the boycott movement stemmed from lawyers backed by those with "bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down."

Wallis has now responded with a definitive refutation:

I came back from Congress (and an academic conference at the weekend, so I did not see any emails) to find myself accused of anti-semitism by people imputing racist ideas to me that I
* do not hold,
* find utterly abhorrent, and
* have spent my lifetime opposing.

The person who posted the accusation anonymously did not ask me what the remarks she alleges I made meant. Instead she alleged anti-semitism by association, referring to a racist right-wing US conspiracy theory regarding the Lehmann Brothers that I was unaware of at the time, as an explanation of what I really ‘meant’ to say.

In other words, the anti-semitism in the chain of reasoning she claimed I advanced consisted of the views she imputed to me, not in any words that I said.

I am not saying any more on this subject on the activist list, except
the following.

For the record, I utterly refute the allegation.

Wait...that doesn't refute it at all. Wallis doesn't actually deny saying the words. Nor does he give an alternate interpretation of what his statement actually might have meant. He just asserts he meant something different, without telling us what that might be, and considers that a refutation.

Wallis' "denial" only makes sense in the world rapidly emerging on the far-left in which nothing is anti-Semitic, ever (which makes a lifetime of opposing it quite the cushy gig!). The move being made here is that anti-Semitism is immediately said to be a groundless charge unless we can somehow prove what is in the heart of the speaker. Wallis' past forays into the field have made it pretty clear that he buys into this view: Defending a fellow "left" academic who approvingly reposted material from David Duke on his listserve, he wrote that critics "have not produced a shred of evidence that contributors to the list endorse racist views. In the case of the witch-hunt directed at Jenna Delich, no evidence was produced that her inclusion of a link to a racist’s website was anything other than an honest mistake." Anti-Semitism, in this view, has nothing to do with the effect it has on the victims (Jews) -- it is solely an inquiry into the state of mind of the perpetrators, who are always as innocent as a White Republican politician good left-wing comrade.

....And So Is This

Argentine Left Calls for Open Season on Misbehaving Jews:

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, holder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Federico Shuster, Dean of the Social Sciences Faculty of the University of Buenos Aires and Osvaldo Bayer, a writer regarded as something of a guru on human rights, are just three of the pillars of Argentine progressive and left option who have signed a petition calling for the release of detainees being held in connect with an attack on Jews and others celebrating the 61st anniversary of Israel’s independence in Buenos Aires on May 17th.

The intellectuals and human rights activists say that those who attacked - with clubs and chains - the crowd celebrating Israel’s independence, and their comrades who were later arrested on premises where illegally held firearms were found, are neither violent nor antisemitic and were simply protesting against the war-loving and imperialist Israeli government.

That's a total reprint, except for the last line, which closes it perfectly: "Further comment or analysis would be really, really, superfluous."

And This, Too, Is Terrorism

An Arkansas man has been arrested for firing shots into an Army recruiting center, killing one soldier and wounding another. Though the investigation is ongoing, it appears that the shooter was a Muslim convert with "political and religious motives".

Make it Official

Maryland officials petition to switch the state from the "south" to the "east" regional group of the Council of State Governments.

Maryland has long been associated with the Southern region of the council. Among other things, that has meant Maryland lawmakers have hobnobbed at regional conferences with their counterparts from states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

But now Maryland leaders have, in essence, decided they have more in common with legislators from places like New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.

In a joint letter to leaders of the Council of State Governments, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) ask permission for Maryland to re-align with the Eastern region. The issue is expected to be decided this fall.

Politically, it would certainly be a better fit. Maryland is among the most reliably Democratic states in the nation. Of the four council regions, the Southern is the one most heavily populated with Republican elected officials.

In their letter, Miller and Busch cite several more substantive issues. The Eastern region includes more states with a stake in the health of the Chesapeake Bay, for example. And the Base Realignment and Closure Process "will have extensive impacts on Maryland and primarily its neighbors to the north and east."

Miller and Busch also mention that the District is a member of the Eastern region, and make the case that there are many issues affecting Maryland and the District that require "mutual cooperation." (The letter makes only a passing reference to the fact that Virginia is part of the Southern region.)

I've described Maryland (in inversion of the famous quip about DC) as the land of "southern charm and northern efficiency." Even still, we're really not south, and haven't been for awhile.

The Hungarian Policemen's Union

A trade union representing Hungarian police officers has released a newsletter actively urging on anti-Semitic activity in the nation:

"Given our current situation, anti-Semitism is not just our right, but it is the duty of every Hungarian homeland lover, and we must prepare for armed battle against the Jews."
[...]
The following issue of the newsletter included another of [union secretary-general Judit Szima's] articles, in which he argued "I am in favor of peaceful solutions. But a peaceful solution could only be implemented if our Zionist government were to relocate to Tel Aviv, as it is them who are calling for war."

"A crumbling country, torn apart by Hungarian-Gypsy civil war, could easily be claimed by the rich Jews," the article went on to say. "That is why we should expect a Hungarian-Gypsy civil war, fomented by Jews as they rub their hands together with pleasure."

This article elicited an official complaint filed with the prosecution, arguing that it contained incitement against minority groups. The prosecution rejected the complaint, stating that it did not call for violence against Jews or Gypsies, but rather called to defend against these groups' probable attack.

The union apparently represents 10% of all Hungarian police officers, and it seems to have connection to right-wing elements in Hungary's politics. Indeed, the article indicates that anti-Semitic right-wing elements are well positioned in the Hungarian political system, normalizing this sort of behavior as typical language.

UPDATE: A follow-up at Harry's Place indicates that the groups involved here may be more fringe than the article indicates, which is a relief.

The Great American Tradition of Diversity

Jeffrey Toobin notes that taking "diversity" into account when making Supreme Court nominations has a deep pedigree in American history. First it was regional diversity. Then it was religious (Catholic and Jewish) diversity. Now, racial and sexual diversity are paramount. And these roughly track the evolution of what differences are politically salient in American society (or more accurately, at what point in our nation's history "different" marginalized groups were able to effectively challenge their political exclusion).

There's nothing strangely judicial about this either. Matt Yglesias notes that cabinet appointments, too, have historically been highly keyed to diversity considerations. Remember the fit southerners pitched when they thought that Obama wasn't going to have any (White) dixie residents in his cabinet? At the founding, the Federalists were quite keen on arguing that diverse representation was both key to the success of the American project, and provided (among other things) the constitutional convention with a legitimacy it otherwise would have lacked.

The fact that diversity has always mattered, and only became controversial when the topic was racial (and to a lesser extent, sexual) diversity, unfortunately buttresses Megan McArdle's intuition (via) that much of the contemporary criticism of the ideal stems from "the terrible, pervasive fear that some brown person, somewhere, is getting away with something."

Take Heed

Resolved: If your name is Mike McFail you probably shouldn't take up boxing.

Current record: 12-36-2 (4 KOs), winless since 2005.

Terror in America

You're no doubt already read that an anti-abortion terrorist* has murdered a prominent Kansas abortion doctor. Obviously, I hope the perpetrator(s?) is brought to swift justice by the authorities. And I give my condolences to the family of Mr. Tiller. But the thing that grabbed me most was this story related by one of Mr. Tiller's patients.

There is a conceit that women who have abortions don't take it seriously; as if women decide to schedule an invasive and stigmatizing surgery just for kicks and giggles. This logic becomes even more absurd when applied to the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller specialized in. Women who have abortions have good reasons to do so -- they are not engaging in irrational flights of pique, and it is insulting to treat them as they are. One can oppose abortion anyway, but one should be quite clear on the burdens it places on women and families, and the dramatic interference it represents over their bodily autonomy.

See also Feministe and Tapped.

* I've referred to violent anti-abortion militants as terrorists before, and I will do so again. Insofar as they engage in extra-legal violence with the goal of terrorizing a given community into adopting certain political norms, they are behaving as terrorists. And they've made violence into a distressingly effective tactic. Consequently, I see no reason why, under current doctrine (which I oppose and continue to oppose in the case of these terrorists) why the perpetrators can't be shipped off to Guantanamo in order to be waterboarded. However we do decide to treat terrorists, the killers here should be dealt with no differently.

Okay, One More

I promised to stop comparing international reactions to Sri Lanka vs. Israel. But I couldn't resist one more plug after Kevin Jon Heller posted the UNHRC's fawning resolution effusively praising how Sri Lanka conducted itself during the war.

Ministers Committee Rejects Loyalty Bill

A legislative committee of Israeli ministers has rejected a bill offered by the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party which would require that all citizens make a "pledge of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish, Zionist, and democratic state, to its emblems and values, and serving Israel either through military service or through any equivalent alternatives." The rejection was unanimous save ministers from the YB party.

This bill was a disgrace, and rightfully came under attack from all elements of the Jewish community. I'm glad that this time, at least, the legislature stepped in and said "no", rather than waiting for the courts to come bail them out again.