What a Great Liberal

Gore Vidal is so sick of this whole "demonizing rapists" business:

In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what's your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she's been taken advantage of?

What a despicable creature.

Via.

J Street's Identity

At a J Street panel on "what does it mean to be pro-Israel", Matt Yglesias had a bit of a revelation:

I was debating with Jon Chait at a J Street panel this morning on the subject of “what does it mean to be pro-Israel?” As expected, we disagreed on a number of points, most of which I was right on and he was wrong on. But one thing he said in his opening remarks that I really disagreed with was that there was an ambiguity running through the J Street constituency as to whether the group was or should be pro-Israel at all.

That just struck me as kind of nuts. My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” It’s not a subtle aspect of the messaging. But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. I was, of course, aware that those views existed but it had seemed to me that it was clear that that wasn’t what J Street is there to advocate for. Apparently, though, it wasn’t clear to everyone.

Of course, this might mean I have to switch back on my Mondoweiss: saboteurs of or confused about J Street? debate (apparently, Phillip Weiss was at the quasi-official blogger panel). Max Blumenthal was there too, but while I think I read somewhere that he does not identify as a Zionist, I'm not positive about that.

I am 100% confident that the organizers of J Street are absolutely sincere in their self-identification of "pro-Israel, pro-peace". Its founder said as much in the Goldberg interview, explicitly triangulating against the anti-Israel far-left in positioning his organization. And I do, to some extent, understand why Matt, like Spencer Ackerman, was surprised to find out that not everybody at the J Street conference is on that train. But I do think they need to wake up to the realization that there is a left-ward pressure that is just as much "anti-Israel, anti-peace" as the right-wingers they're fighting against (hopefully, the realization they both had will be just the needed spark). And J Street will have to be pretty clear that they aren't a safe haven for that contingent.

I've had discussions with American peaceniks who have, to my mind, been extraordinarily cavalier with the prospects of Israel's security and future as a Jewish state. The reason is that they really take a baseline of American support for Israel as a given -- something that will never go away no matter what. So they can support any number of inflammatory actions towards Israel: protests, abusive rhetoric, mock war crime tribunals, even flirting with boycotts, because at the end of the day if things get too far out of hand the latent pro-Israel-ness of America will kick in and we'll rush to save the day. If that is your outlook, it is really surprising to find people who don't seem to adhere to that baseline -- whose objection really is to Israel, not to the lack of peace.

I, on the other hand, have been observing what's happening in Europe and South America and South Africa pretty keenly, and it kind of represents my nightmare scenario -- what happens when the popular baseline of support that lets us presume that anybody in a pro-peace room is also in some pro-Israel isn't present. And that gets us to a place where boycott proposals are a big issue, not marginal, and where anti-Semitism surges upwards alongside anti-Israel agitation, and where Jews really do face daily hatred and harassment if they don't publicly denounce Israel to the satisfaction of its most virulent critics. This isn't an impossible scenario for America, either, if we're not careful. The baseline isn't a given.

One major difference between J Street and what I take to be its ideological compatriots abroad, such as TULIP and Engage, is that the latter groups were defensive creations in response to the growing potency of the avowedly anti-Israel wing of the left. So they came into being with a keen awareness that they had to agitate against anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment with equal vigor alongside their press for peace and two states. Nobody who is anti-two states will ever think Engage represents them.

J Street, by contrast, came into being in a political environment that does (for now, anyway) enjoy that baseline presumption of pro-Israel-ness. Unlike Engage or TULIP, it got off the starting line first -- it is well ahead of any significant political or social anti-Israel mobilization stateside.Yes, there are some fringe boycotters and PACBI enthusiasts and one-staters and anti-Zionists, but in America, they're pretty marginal. But the good guys are on the offensive -- we get to define the pro-peace position, and the extremists will have to dislodge a popular, well-established lobbying group that has the advantage of being right to their wrong.

J Street, in other words, exists in a climate that is far more hospitable to both Israel and peace, and far less so to the sort of anti-Israel, anti-peace (and often anti-Semitic) extremists one sees elsewhere. So one could be forgiven if one forgot, for a moment, of their existence as actual people, as opposed to threatening shadows in the fevered imagination of the Weekly Standard. Still, the fact remains that this sentiment is out there and has shown itself quite capable of hijacking the dominant liberal position with regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And sometimes I think J Street and its supporters do overlook that, which is why one of my very rare criticisms of the entity came when I said I thought it was sometimes "mushy" on the topic of anti-Semitism.

Again, I don't think the folks most invested in J Street believe that. I think they are extremely genuine in their pro-Israel, pro-peace stance. But not everyone agrees, and some of the folks who disagree are a) also on the left and b) appear to consider J Street a viable political vessel. It is important to be vigilant against that, and demonstrate that if that's your position, J Street is not your ballgame.

The Black Conservative Tradition Emerges

There's a recent burbling of interest in the blogosphere about Black Conservativism, so I'd be remiss if I didn't link to some of my own work on the subject. So here we go: Excerpts on Clarence Thomas, How I Read Rev. Wright, Black Conservatives in Large and Small Caps, Black Conservatism Revisited, and Taking Thomas Seriously.

Okay, that's out of the way.

So the latest discussion comes from a TNR book review of a recent biography on Booker T. Washington, scion of the modern Black Conservative movement. It's a very interesting read, and one of the things the author notes constituted my first reaction to reading Washington, namely, it's fine to say you're going to be conciliatory and give up on certain Black rights in order to pursue a wider agenda of protecting your people. But it's a gamble that has to pay off, and it doesn't seem like it did for Washington: the era he presided over was the nadir of American post-Civil War race relations.

Anyway, Matt Yglesias rightfully notes that

within the African-American political tradition, like within the white political tradition, there’s a conservative strain and a liberal strain. The conservative strain is pessimistic about race relations and nationalistic in its orientation, whereas the liberal strain is optimistic, cosmopolitan, and integrationist. But because this controversy within black politics is embedded inside a larger white-dominated political context it often gets confused. Sometimes, as in the conventional reading of Washington, the black conservative appears to white American liberals to be the timid appeaser of white supremacists. And other times, as with a Malcolm X, he looks like a dangerous radical black nationalist.

But then he incorrectly states that "It’s only extremely recently that the idea of an African-American aligning himself, à la Clarence Thomas, with the mainstream conservative movement in America could be remotely possible."

I think that's an oversimplification of Justice Thomas, but also Damon Root accurately indicts the history as well, citing such important Black Conservative luminaries like Zora Neale Hurston and George Schuyler. And Matt concedes the issue, with the (also correct caveat) that Hurston's views are interesting historically, but shouldn't take our eye off the bigger ball which tells us they were pretty marginal amongst Blacks of the era.

Anyway, I don't have anything to add, but I thought the discussion was interesting. Also somewhat related, Dan Markel on the "segregationist origins of diversity".

Element of Understanding

The Guam Catholic Archdiocese adopts the Dinesh D'Souza line of argument and says laws promoting gay rights show Islamic terrorists have an "element of truth" to their claims about American society:

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U.S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the “Great Satan.” ...

Wowzers. I find it particularly noteworthy that the archdiocese clearly finds Islamic terrorists to be morally superior to gays and lesbians. Not good people, but clearly superior. That's some cross-cultural understanding I'd rather not get behind. But it does follow a noted (and despicable trend) by which gay rights will "destroy the earth", are a graver threat than slavery, and are worse than child rape.

Fake but Accurate!

Limbaugh takes a page from Rather: "So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway."

Muddying the Jaded Waters

Commenting on an interchange between Human Rights Watch and Hamas regarding their rocket fire aimed at Israeli villages, Matthew Yglesias writes:

Clearly, in the real world Hamas is not an organization that’s interested in human rights or the laws of war. But if you read the article you can see that Hamas is at least an organization that’s interested in pretending to be interested in these things and gets into a dialogue with human rights groups.

He then quotes a Hamas spokesperson alleging that their rockets were only intended to hit "military targets", which Matt correctly says is "pretty transparently nonsense."

Still, Matt does claim that "The point here is that Hamas seems to believe that its own legitimacy and interests can, in fact, be damaged by the perception that it is violating the laws of war and attracting the disapproval of human rights monitors." But I don't think the point here is that at all, at least not immediately. The point is Hamas' pursuit of a broader "lawfare" strategy against Israel that is dependent on blurring the boundaries of what constitutes a human rights violation (and violator). The engagement of dialogue is designed to be a stalling action, something they and their credulous defenders can point back to when it is noted that they are a terrorist organization. In other words, while it is correct to say that Hamas views the terrain of human rights as an important battlefront in its larger war against Israel, I think right now they view human rights discourse as being an offensive asset, rather than a defensive liability, and are behaving accordingly. This, obviously, is perverse, and its changing that incentive structure that should be a critical goal of human rights organizations.

Here, Matt's analogy to the Helsinki Watch concept, "aimed at holding the Communist Bloc to account for violations of agreements they had plainly signed in bad faith", is very instructive. Hamas is engaging in this whole human rights dialogue in bad faith. Getting them to talk about human rights is akin to getting the Soviets to sign human rights agreements -- it's the superficial, unaccountable move that is muddying the waters. The job of human rights advocates has to be putting them to their proof -- and calling them out when they fail to meet their stated "commitments".

Swedish Blood Libel Paper Publishes Anti-Muslim Screed

Report here. While it is "nice" to see that the paper is an equal opportunity purveyor of ethnic hatred, the same can't be said about the Swedish government*: Whereas aggrieved Jews got a sober lecture on the freedom of the press in response to calls for official governmental denouncement, "The opinion piece by Jimmie Akesson, the leader of Swedish nationalist political party, the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), has prompted harsh condemnations and accusations of racism from all political party leaders, including Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt."

To clarify: I have no problem with the government's condemnation of Mr. Akesson's racist article -- it appears to be quite appropriate. I simply note the incongruity faced when the government, which barely a month ago was faced with a clear case of published anti-Semitism and decided public comment would be an inappropriate impingement on free speech, has so blatantly reversed itself in an essentially identical case (that didn't involve Jews).

* Equal treatment, not purveyance of ethnic hatred, needless to say.

Investigation Team, Go!

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, took a position held I think by many Jews and Israelis, arguing that the Goldstone commission was fatally flawed, but that nonetheless the Israeli government should launch an investigation into alleged misconduct during Operation Cast Lead. And it looks like Israel is, somewhat belatedly, setting up a review team to do just that (albeit not as extensive as many might like).

There's been a weird thread running through the debate about how Israel should respond to the Goldstone report. On the one hand, the Israeli government rightfully points to its record of investigations following human rights allegations as a showing that the commission wasn't necessary. On the other hand, many "pro-Israel" defenders seem adamant that Israel should not conduct an investigation here, sacrificing that very moral high ground. I understand the politics, and I understand how infuriating it must be to appear to be giving into the UNHRC -- this dynamic is one that Judge Goldstone should have taken into account but obviously didn't. Nonetheless, an investigation is the right thing to do -- and it would have been just as right if (in some fantastical land) the world's eye wasn't fixated on Israel.

In any event, hopefully this is a move that lets everyone save face. Israel conducts an investigation, thus once again demonstrating its commitment to rule of law. Goldstone defenders get to pat themselves on the back as being the precipitating cause of the investigation (whether that's true or not). The question of whether Israel should be referred to the ICC is taken off the table (as the Commission's only request of the investigated parties was that they conduct a credible internal investigation). Hopefully, some justice will be served and some truth will come out for any victims of improper or criminal behavior. Lemonade is served.

UPDATE: I just received an email from a member of B'tselem, wishing to clarify that they never labeled the Goldstone investigation "fatally flawed". "Although B'Tselem has indeed criticized aspects of the Goldstone report, it has also stated very clearly that this critique does not nullify the report or it's main recommendation: that Israel hold an independent, credible investigation into 'Cast Lead'." Their full position is outlined here.

That Didn't Last Long

Recently, in the face of rampant Holocaust appropriation (primarily, though not exclusively on the right), the ADL managed to secure an apology from Southern Baptist leader Richard Land for comparing Democratic advocates of health care reform to Nazis.

"I apologize to everyone who found such references hurtful," Dr. Land wrote. "Given the pain and suffering of so many Jewish and other victims of the Nazi regime, I will certainly seek to exercise far more care in my use of language in future discussions of the issues at stake in the healthcare debate."

About one week later, it looks like Dr. Land has reneged on his promise.

Despite apologizing in a letter dated Oct. 14 to Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Land backed away from that apology in a Baptist Press article on Oct. 21.

The article's author, a vice president at the ERLC, wrote that Land "still believes there are connections to be made between some underlying philosophies held by the Germans and others in the first half of the 20th century, and certain elements under discussion in the health care reform debate today."

Land argued that the philosophies of some of those pushing health-care reform "bear a lethal similarity in their attitudes toward the elderly and the terminally ill and could ultimately lead to the kinds of things the Nazis did." Land also attacked those who were attempting "to remove the Third Reich as a subject of discussion when it comes to the healthcare debate."

He denied, however, that accusing health-care reform proponents of pushing ideas similar to the "very lethal and deadly philosophies loose in 20th century Germany prior to the Nazis' ascendancy to power" and arguing that such ideas "could be carried to such an extreme at some time in the future" was the same as comparing Democrats to the Nazis.

The speed at which Dr. Land reverted to Nazi comparisons suggests that his first apology was disingenuous. The ADL, for its part, sounds to me like it is holding its fire until it gets something more concrete out of Dr. Land. But unless he was misquoted and repudiates the aforementioned quote, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. Dr. Land, who originally defended his first Nazi remarks by saying "the analogy is apt and I stand by it" before the ADL got involved, clearly hasn't learned his lesson -- and equally clearly, it seems like the ADL is the only organization which can keep him in line (if only briefly). If Dr. Land won't desist from horribly offensive Nazi comparisons, the ADL needs to stand up and label his bigotry for what it is.

H/T: Steve Benen.

I Hate Change

Jesus, CNN, what have you done to your webpage?

Pick Me Up

I had a rough week today these past seven days (this is precisely what I'm talking about). But now I'm happy:

I Love xkcd from NoamR on Vimeo.

I love the whole world; and all its messed up folks!

Via

Goldberg Interviews J Street Chief

It's a useful and illuminating bit.

UPDATE: I didn't think of this at the time, and I bet it's coincidence, but the triangulation move Mr. Ben-Ami takes vis-a-vis the Jewish anti-Zionist far-left strikes me as a telling repudiation of those same groups (intentional or unintentional) attempts to sabotage J Street's efforts to establish itself as a credible voice for the Jewish mainstream.

Fall WIP: Stereotypes are Great!

Visiting professor Julie Suk looks at the difference between the American and European models of family leave, and says the difference is all in the stereotyping. Whereas American law is predicated off a gender egalitarianism that isn't actualized in social practice, Europeans are quite happy to utilize -- if not endorse -- those stereotypes to insure that women get the policies they need to effectively contribute to the workforce.

A Mid-Atlantic Miracle

How Maryland bucked the trend of hiking university tuition fees, thanks to an energetic board, academic flexibility, and our state's classic engaged, intelligent, and progressive citizenry.

Inouye to Strip Franken Anti-Rape Amendment?

There isn't any official confirmation on this, but sources are indicating that Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) may strip Al Franken's anti-rape amendment from the defense appropriations bill. Franken's amendment was a response to the horrifying case of Jamie Jones, a KBR contractor in Iraq who was allegedly gang-raped by co-workers, then locked in a crate when she attempted to report the incident to superiors. Upon finally being released from her kidnappers, she attempted to sue in American courts, only to be told that her contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause that would keep her out of court. Arbitration lacks critical due process and oversight protections found in the judiciary, and the nature of the arbitration business makes it intrinsically biased towards repeat-players like defense contractors against individual claimants like Ms. Jones. Forcing rape victims to go into arbitration is effectively a way of shielding their rapists. So Senator Franken's amendment simply prohibits the United States government from working with defense contractors who include these clauses in their contracts.

While again, we don't know for sure Sen. Inouye's plans with regards to this amendment, it's kind of one of those things where you have to assume the worst and come out firing. If he's barraged with a ton of public pressure for something he was going to do anyway, no big deal. If we wait for "confirmation" from something his office undoubtedly wants to keep very quiet, we'll probably be too late.

The Law of the Conservation of Leftness

Gershom Gorenberg writes of the depressing collapse of the Israeli left, at the very same time that the American Jewish left (in the form of J Street) is finally beginning to flex its muscles. But at least in part, it's because part of what was once "left" is now just consensus:

With a U.S. administration ready to pursue peace, the apparent collapse of domestic Israeli support demands explanation. One subtle clue comes from the latest Peace Index survey by Tel Aviv University's Tami Steinmetz Center. It found 64 percent of Jewish Israelis back a two-state solution. What was once the view of a few courageous dissenters on the left has become a boring consensus.

Here's the rub: Sixty percent of the Jewish public doesn't believe that continued settlement building hurts the chances of such an agreement or will lead to the creation of a single, binational state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. It's as if the left had convinced people that lung cancer is a terrible disease -- but not that smoking has anything to do with it. Last June, under U.S. pressure, Netanyahu announced he would accept "a demilitarized Palestinian state … alongside the Jewish state." But he has rejected Obama's demand for a settlement freeze. That position -- yes to peace as a vague principle, no to doing anything to get there -- apparently works for most of the Jewish majority of voters. The pollsters admit they don't know how people reconcile such conflicting views, though they intend to ask new questions in next month's survey to figure it out.

Here's an answer that won't show up in poll results, because people don't talk about things they don't notice: For most Israelis, the occupied territories are located somewhere beyond the world's edge. After the Second Intifada began in 2000, the army banned Israelis from visiting Area A -- the parts of the West Bank under full Palestinian control -- for their own safety. Except for settlers, Israeli civilians are unlikely to visit the other areas. They don't see how the suburban houses of the settlements have spread on the hills, how illegal outposts have sprung up between the established settlements, how the 200-foot-wide security barrier meandering through the countryside further hems in Palestinians. (The settlers look at this every day, but in their own way they are blind to it.)

So we're in a situation where a) most Israelis are on-board with the necessary just end-result to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and b) are dramatically confused as to the effect of their own current governmental policies. It is a bit difficult to fathom where this sense of inertia comes from -- Gorenberg's answer is plausible, but incomplete.

What it does indicate pretty clearly is that the problem isn't some moral corrosion in the Israeli public sphere -- a broad-based "screw the Arabs" belief. Rather, it is the sort of problem that is all-too common in stratified societies -- a lack of understanding of what concerns and motivates the other. I see it all the time in how Palestinians and their allies treat Jews and Israelis; it's no surprise to see it rear its head here as well. But the solution to this problem clearly is not one that relies on demonization. Shouting "boycott Israel" (including, often, boycotting programs directly aimed at fostering intergroup dialogue) is not a way to get Israelis to focus on concrete Palestinian desires. At best, it just communicates that Palestinians are dramatically angry at Israelis, but not why (because of the settlements? the occupation? the existence of Israel? the existence of Jews?). At worst, it turns the focus back inward onto Israel and reinscribes their siege mentality -- which, let's face it, is not exactly an irrational belief for Jews to hold.

Peace isn't Worth it if it Means Agreeing with Arabs

In a PJ Media questionnaire that exemplifies the worst in fusing baseless speculation with raging demagoguery, Lenny Ben-David wanted to ask, among others, the following questions about J Street to its leader, Jeremy Ben-Ami:

You were recently asked in an interview about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”

Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.

So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.

When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”
[...]
Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.

"Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be 'pro-Israel?'"

"Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be 'pro-Israel?'"

What kind of question is that?

"Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be 'pro-Israel?'"

Spencer Ackerman adequately dispenses with baseless slander against Ms. Abou-Chedid. He notes that Ms. Abou-Chedid is having suspicion and aspiration cast upon her for no other reason than the fact that she is an Arab-American, with an Arab last name who has worked with Arab-American organizations. And lest we make any mistake, Mr. Ben-David is clear on what raises red flags to him -- the fact that some Arab-Americans or Muslims, like Ms. Abou-Chedid (who is Arab -- I don't know if she's Muslim or not) contribute to J Street. No matter their position, no matter if their life is motivated by a desire for peace and reconciliation. They're Arabs. So they can't be trusted.

There's a word for this sort of question. It's called racism. Look, I don't even care if you like J Street or not -- telling me that an organization is dangerous simply because Arabs support it, with no indication that their personal positions are at all adverse to peace and equality, is racist. Full stop, point blank. There's no excuse -- none -- and anybody who makes an excuse forfeits the right to talk about any sort of institutional bigotry, prejudice, racism, or anti-Semitism, by anyone anywhere. I don't want to hear it, because it's clearly just parochialism.

Ackerman says that Jews who demand that Arab groups denounce the anti-Semites in their midst have an equivalent obligation to denounce this twisted excuse for a human being. I, personally, don't think either Jews or Arabs have particular obligations vis-a-vis the despicable words and actions of their coreligionists. I think the obligation to denounce Mr. Ben-David comes from my position as a human being. It's not my Judaism that's at issue here. The stakes are higher than that.

At the height of Cast Lead, a plurality of Jews supported establishing a Palestinian state, right then, in those conditions. An even stronger majority, however, did not believe that said establishment actually would appease the Arabs or Palestinians -- that their true motives were and would remain the destruction of Israel.

And yet, here we have someone who has dedicated a substantial portion of her professional life to fostering a two-state solution and an end to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. And she's slandered for it. Not on the basis of any position she's taken. Literally because Mr. Ben-David thinks, point blank, that any institution supported by Arabs must be tainted.

I've got news for Mr. Ben-David. Peace, between Israel and Palestine, between Israelis and Palestinians, between Jews and Muslims -- it's going to involve working with Arabs. Agreeing with them. Partnering with them, even. That's what peace means.

I saw the protest at the University of Chicago the other day when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert came to speak. The focus of Prime Minister Olmert's speech was on his vision for peaceful co-existance between and Israeli and Arab state, calling "for Israel to give the Palestinians land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that it occupied after the 1967 war, and for Jerusalem to be split into an eastern Palestinian portion and a western Israeli portion. Further, he advocated that the ancient religious sites in the Old City area of Jerusalem be administered by an international coalition, and Palestinian refugees be provided with resources to start new lives in Palestine." And he was met with resounding boos from pro-Palestinian hecklers. I was reflecting upon this -- what is it that they're booing? They're booing a Palestinian state! They're booing ending the occupation!

And it occurred to me -- they're booing the thing they loathe most in the world. And it isn't the occupation, and it isn't the suffering of the Palestinians. They're booing the prospect of the conflict ending. Of having no more excuse to hate, and rage, and fight. They're booing the prospect of actually having to agree with a Zionist.

One gets the distinct feeling that Mr. Ben-David feels the same way -- the most terrifying thing to him is the prospect of this conflict being over -- of not being able to draw a black line down the demographic chart and mark off the bad people. I am thrilled that Arabs are supporting J Street. I wish more of them would join. Every Arab person that joins J Street (just like every Jewish person who joins J Street) is a person who is signing their name to the principle of a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in peace. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we're fighting for?

Some of us, apparently. And some of us simply are fighting to hate other people.

Handbook Needed

The Telegraph (UK) interviews Israeli President Shimon Peres and the first thing he says is:

"The world has experience of wars of armies against armies, troops against troops. So they have a code, they have a law about those sorts of war. There is a total lack of regulations and codes and laws concerning terror. Because terror defies all the laws. What can we do, a lawful country fighting an unlawful terrorist group?

The United Nations should develop a code and codebook of how to fight and not to single out Israel because Israel is hated.

Maybe one could look at Chechnya and one could look to Afghanistan, to Iraq and to Yemen and to Somalia and all over the world. You know, the Arab people lost in the last 10 years a million lives only but only 8,000 lost their lives in the confrontation of Israel. But how about the other almost million people?

There is a majority against Israel in the United Nations, and with all due respect I don't think Israel should learn human rights from Libya or from Pakistan.

We also think that one of the human rights is to remain alive. We didn't initiate it (the war in Gaza). We never went to war on our own initiative. We were attacked, in 61 years nine times, with fully pledged wars and endless terrorist attacks. But if a terrorist does not respect the lives of children, the children of ours and their own children, if they don't respect the lives of civilians, our civilians and their own civilians, and they don't respect mosques and they don't respect ambulances what can the law do?"

This proposal -- to create a code of international law specifically geared towards counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism operations -- is a drum I've been beating on for a long time. It's obviously an issue of critical importance with regards to the sort of threats and conflicts we're likely to see in the 21st century. And, absent some sort of generally applicable and generally acceptable legal code, we're left with ad hoc justice -- and ad hoc justice nearly always ends up being arbitrary justice. Though many, many international legal norms are ignored the world over, I do believe it is easier to skate past a one-shot precedent particularized to an already marginal member of the global community, than it is to simply wave aside generally accepted legal principles.

J Street on the Goldstone Resolution; Anti-Zionists Sabotage J Street

Virtually spot on, I'd say:

Friday’s decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council to refer the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council further reinforces J Street’s belief that Israel would be well served to immediately establish an independent state commission of inquiry into accusations surrounding Operation Cast Lead.

The UNHRC’s resolution Friday notably failed to include any mention of its findings regarding violence and terror by Hamas directed at Israel and its citizens in the south – drawing condemnation from Judge Goldstone himself. This demonstrates the legitimacy of Israel’s concerns regarding the Council and is yet another reason why Israel itself, not a multilateral body, needs to credibly address the full range of charges and findings in Goldstone’s report.

Such a strategy – which Israel has adopted on several similar occasions in the past – is far preferable to leaving the matter to multinational bodies and governments which do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

We commend the United States government for opposing and working actively against this one-sided and ill-considered resolution. We urge the U.S. to continue its efforts to promote a balanced approach to the Goldstone Report and to oppose UN Security Council consideration of the UNHRC resolution.

Meanwhile, if I didn't know better I'd assume this Nation piece on J Street was an attempt at sabotage. It tries to link J Street to the burgeoning "boycott, divestment, sanctions" campaign of folks like Naomi "I'm more disturbed by opposition to anti-Semitism than I am by anti-Semitism itself" Klein, and a broader (perceived) disengagement from Israel by young American Jews. Of course, J Street is harshly critical of both these trends, supporting neither the boycotting of Israel nor the distancing of American Jews from Israel. It is an avowedly pro-Israel organization, which is battling against the very linkage that the Nation constructs for it.

I was going to say that since the authors of the piece are both affiliated with the openly anti-Zionist Mondoweiss, cluelessness is another possibility. But then I remembered that these folks are just as opposed to J Street's vision of Israel and Palestine's future as Hamas or the ZOA are, so maybe sabotage is the best explanation.

This Guy Influences My World

This is the official COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions -- a body representing 2 million workers) on the Goldstone report and the British TUC decision to consider boycotting Israel. You'll notice that, unsurprisingly to everyone but Judge Goldstone, it says nary a word about Goldstone's own account of Palestinian war crimes. You'll also note that it is very proud about how it stands against "arm-twisting tactics by the powerful forces of the world," and while it speaks for justice for the Palestinians (quite a noble goal), it says nothing about justice for the Israelis. I can only assume their printer ran out of ink, as the alternative is that COSATU either does not think justice for Israel and Palestine are compatible (which I refuse to believe), or does not think that justice for Israel is a relevant consideration (which I refuse to accept).

This statement was issued by one Bongani Masuku, COSATU International Relations Secretary. You may remember him for advocating the expulsion of Jews who disagree with him from South Africa, organizing a march against Jewish centers (not Israeli institutions) in the country to "convey a message to the Jews of South Africa" regarding Gaza, calling the head of the local Jewish community "that loud-mouthed Rabbi", implying that South African Jews aren't actually South African at all (referring to a South African Jew on a South African blog: "people [who] come all the way from wherever they come from to tell us where and how to march, they can do that in their own country, not here"), deriding those who "expect us to regard them [Israel-supporting Jews] as human beings," and saying Jews as a totality are "arrogant," and with the exception of a few who had "proven to be reasonable and humane," "we thought all of them are inhumane." It was a long, sustained, blatantly anti-Semitic rant -- one that specifically said that I have an obligation to prove myself a human being, with the presumption being against. And this guy sets the international policy for one of the most powerful political forces in one of the most powerful states on the African continent.

There are plenty of anti-Semites I can afford to ignore. The ones at COSATU, alas, are not among them.

PA Won't Oppose War Crimes Trials for Hamas Militants

Interesting. Although, lest we forget, the Fatah-controlled PA has very little to say about whether Hamas militants go before an international court. Not only do they not control Gaza (where the criminals would be), they are, to reiterate, pretty mortal enemies with Hamas. It's tempting to view this conflict monolithically, but there are factions, and Fatah and Hamas are nearly as opposed to each other as each are to Israel. So this is more a case of killing two birds with one stone for Fatah than it is a brave stand of principle.

There's also the fact that no international body will ever indict a Palestinian rocket man. So it's cost-free along that axis as well.

UNHRC Adopts the Goldstone Report (Sort of)

The UNHRC has officially adopted the Goldstone report criticizing Israel and Hamas for their conduct during the Gaza war. Well, sort of -- though Goldstone's report contained criticisms of both Israel and Hamas, the UNHRC's resolution, "inexplicably", says nary a word about Hamas. Stunning, I know. Judge Goldstone apparently is displeased with this, but you can't tell me he's actually surprised, as the only principle the UNHRC holds deeper than "screw Israel" is "insulate Palestine". His at least partial effort at demanding that Hamas be held accountable for war crimes as well was noted and admirable, but it was also completely unsupported by the commission's original mandate and no credible observer expected it to go anywhere. I'm not exactly shocked to find out that the UNHRC felt absolutely zero compunction in ignoring it. I sort of feel bad for Judge Goldstone, whom I suspect had convinced himself that he had made a difference in countering the absurd one-sidedness of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel, but at the same time, he's a big boy, and he was not so naive as to not know what he was getting into.

That gets, somewhat obliquely, to Jeffrey Goldberg's warning to the West that the precedent set by this commission will come back to bite it once American or British or NATO commanders are arraigned on war crime charges. Insofar as the commission's standards have made terrorist tactics nearly immune from retaliation (essentially, if you're willing to kill off the civilians you're supposedly "defending", you're in the clear), that's going to hurt America in Iraq or NATO in Afghanistan as much as it hurts Israel in Gaza.

Nope. I've noted before that the development of international law vis-a-vis the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a sterling example of how great cases make bad law. Insofar as legal rules and doctrines are being promulgated primarily based on the metric of insuring that they vindicate as many Palestinian claims as possible (and diminish Israeli ones accordingly), they undoubtedly are pushing law in a bad direction -- not because Israel is always right, but because a legal regime whose first principle is that Israel is always wrong is not going to be one that crafts legal rules well-suited for the entire breadth of human experience.

But for Mr. Goldberg's warning to hold true, we have to assume that the "precedent" set by the Goldstone Commission (and the UNHRC's adoption thereof) will be applied to other countries, and there is no reason to think that's true. After all, it's not like the recent fawning resolution the UNHRC wrote about Sri Lanka's conduct against the Tamil rebels had any bearing on how it treated Israel. It seemed to have no precedential value whatsoever, because Israel effectively exists in a lawless space: nobody actually intends for the rules and standards applied against it to enjoy cross-applicability to other contexts (undoubtedly because if they were, they would ensnare many, many other nations far more powerful in the relevant international bodies than Israel). That's why the critique of the UNHRC with regards to Israel that holds the most resonance with me is the double-standard criticism. The great check a liberal polity has against unjust legal rules is that they will be enforced against everyone. Once it is accepted that a given body is sui generis and can be treated as a unique category, disconnected from the rules and regulations that everyone else must abide by, there is literally no constraint on imposing the most biased, arbitrary, or politically expedient requirements on them.

If I were France, or South Africa, or Sudan, or Iran, I would not worry in the slightest that the Goldstone precedent will give them any trouble whatsoever. Not because they can meet it, but because everyone knows they'll never be expected to.

Protests

Maybe I'm just jaded, but it seems like every protest (no matter what the subject) basically involves a conglomeration of crazy people. Probably because for the most part, it takes the fiery heart of a radical to stand out in the rain and yell fruitlessly. And radicals aren't known for their careful, sober grasp of issues.



My bus home from the law school today was rerouted because of a protest. All I could see from the window was that it was Israel/Palestine related. I was tempted to walk back and interview folks for the blog to see what the protest was about, but it was raining and I figured I'd just find it depressing. It looks like the protest is over a speech being delivered by Ehud Olmert at the Harris School (there were pro-Israel counterprotesters as well).

The protest is "endorsed by":

Al-Awda, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)-Chicago, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Arab Student Union at Moraine Valley, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)-Chicago, Palestine Solidarity Group (PSG), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at DePaul & UIC, respectively, and United States Palestine Community Network (USPCN)

Obviously, I don't know about all of these groups, but my curiosity was piqued, because I'm always curious as to the pleasure centers of active pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. And now I know that American Muslims for Palestine* wants the US to investigate the allegations of the Swedish blood libel article. So at least this was educational for me in that sense.

* It was the second relevant google hit when I searched for "palestine protest university of chicago". The first was this site, which seems to be an opinion aggregator and not a sponsor. It does lovingly feature Gilad Atzmon on the front page (and calls Zionism "the highest stage of imperialism"), but I can't necessarily blame the organizers for who promotes them.

Meghan McCain Chased off Twitter for Having Breasts

Everyone remember when Jessica Valenti was roundly lambasted by, among others, Ann Althouse, for the dreaded offense of possession of mammary glands? Basically, Valenti was in a group picture, and her pose apparently wasn't sufficiently chaste given the size of her cups for some internet denizens (from my perspective, she was just standing there. But what do I know?).

Now, it's Meghan McCain receiving a dose of this medicine. Ms. McCain posted a picture to her twitter account about her lazy night in -- reading a book and dressed in (gasp!) a tank-top! Which revealed (smelling salts, please) cleavage! After what CNN described as a "string of negative responses", McCain wrote dryly: "When I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a slut."

McCain apparently has apologized, and I believe this whole thing has caused her to take down her twitter account entirely. It's a shame she felt compelled to apologize, and it's a shame she felt compelled to take down her account. People need to get a grip. Women have breasts. Some are large, some are small, but this idea that a) possessing them and b) not shrouding them in veils and mystery (or even standing the wrong way, in Ms. Valenti's case) is some sort of grave moral offense is just a ridiculous manifestation of contemporary sexism (and immaturity).

UPDATE: Apparently Ms. McCain will not be leaving twitter, and said "To be honest, I don't feel that I have anything to feel ashamed of. I've always embraced my curves and will continue to do so." Good for her.

Limbaugh is not MLK

Adam Serwer nails it re: the GOP meltdown over Rush Limbaugh's failed bid to become part-owner of the Rams.

The logic is simple. The NFL has many Black players, and many Black fans. Limbaugh has a history making a racist remarks. The latter is not healthy for an entity with the former's characteristic. Hence, no ownership for Limbaugh. This is only difficult to understand because some people still can't fathom that racism exists except when it is a convenient cudgel to bash their political opponents.

UPDATE: You know, I thought about making a Montgomery Bus Boycott reference, but I presumed the thought of red-blooded conservatives boycotting the NFL over this was just too darn crazy...

Terror Threat?

Four Republican Congresspersons held a press conference today to make "public a national security threat on Capitol Hill." This threat? There are Muslim interns on the Hill. Or as they put it, "spies", presumably for the Muslim advocacy group CAIR. I mean look at this strategy document they uncovered. Registering voters? Lobbying Congress? Can you say, "smoking gun"?

The racist quartet making the accusation is comprised of Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Trent Franks (R-AZ).

You Have To Keep Reading

While I'm glad he got the answer he was looking for from a J Street spokesperson, it still remains true that if Jeffrey Goldberg really was curious what that spokesperson meant when it referred to Israel's future as a democracy (namely, whether it ought to remain a Jewish state), he could have read a passage in the same article he quoted from, where the same women who prompted his initial query says the goal of her organization is "securing Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland." Which, presumably, would have taken -- what? An additional two minutes?

More Powerful than AIPAC, the NRA, and the AARP Combined

Nobody has messed with the NAQA and escaped unscathed. The ACLU wished it had this track record.

H/T: My old constitutional law professor (via Facebook).

It Never Ends

Back when President Obama was elected, a Greek newspaper hailed the results as the end of Jewish domination (to which I responded that the 78% of Jews who voted for Mr. Obama must have been very confused indeed). Alas, now the far-right fringe is discovering no such luck. Scope the image that recently "graced" the homepage of Wake Up America, a right-wing website set up by (among others) two North Carolina Republican state legislators.



It has since been taken down, albeit without any explanation I can see.

Where's the Call?

I have noticed this, and it annoys me too. I really, really, really dislike the appropriation of the Holocaust for political ends. Unless you're actually talking about either a) the legacy of the Holocaust on its victims or b) the ongoing or imminent genocide of a vulnerable group of individuals, it's really a form of Holocaust trivialization. The Nazis weren't bad because they had a disagreeable health plan. The Nazis were bad because they rounded up and killed 11 million people.

I think the ADL was right to scold Alan Grayson, but he's clearly not the only or even primary offender, and I've been wondering where they and other Jewish organizations have been hiding these past couple months. The entire discursive model of a huge swath of the conservative movement has been tremendously disrespectful towards the Jewish community during the health care debate, and we shouldn't be hesitant to call them on it.

UPDATE: The ADL has just secured an apology from Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, for yet another "health care = Holocaust" comparison.

Careful -- What You Say is Heresy

The Fix (a WaPo political blog) asked its readers to name the "most overrated Senator". They responded by naming John McCain (R-AZ), by a reasonably healthy margin. But The Fix writer is incredulous! Don't readers know that this is John McCain we're talking about? The maverick-y maverick of the Senate?

I concede that McCain has legislative accomplishments. What makes him overrated isn't that he doesn't do anything, it's that he's considered to be some sort of level-headed, sober independent, when in reality he's a pretty doctrinaire conservative on most issues, with a bad temper and a foreign policy disposition that basically boils down to "war rocks". Yet he gets trotted out on media talk shows with what can only be described as a reckless indifference to the scope of the contribution he makes to the public discourse. Hence, overrated.

Shutting Out the Crazy Voices

Like Kevin Drum, I think one of the only reasons I manage to stay sane as a political junkie is that I basically never, ever watch cable news.

The Spot That Doesn't Go Away

In a prior edition of "Blood Libel spotting", I noted that Alison Weir of "If Americans Knew" gained the ignoble distinction of being the first person (that I know of) to purvey the original blood libel in a remotely mainstream media outlet (Counterpunch). Adam Holland did a delightful job taking the original piece apart. But Weir, undeterred, has doubled-down, mustering a surprisingly skimpy array of discredited bigots to her cause. There would be more, of course, but greater evidence is lacking because it is suppressed by the global Jewish conspiracy, whose opposition to this outrageous slander is actually simply a blanket assertion that "an entire population ... has never done anything wrong".

And the world turns.

Specialization, Please

I attend the University of Chicago Law School. Everybody here has an economics degree or a statistics background or is thinking about getting an MBA or can do math and empirical work. Except me, our token philosophy/humanities guy. Here, let me demonstrate the extent of my grasp on formulaic concepts:

If n represents the total number of law review staffers, the number of law review staffers who are more qualified than I to conduct an article review on "Myths About Mutual Fund Fees: Economic Insights on Jones v. Harris", or "The Jumbled Alphabet Soup of the Collapsed Home Mortgage Market: ABCP, CDO, CDS and RMBS", equals n - 1.

And yet...

Hurry While There's Still Time

The Washington Post's flubbed editorial saying that the Nobel Prize should have been awarded to Neda Agha-Soltan, the Iranian protester whose brutal murder by regime thugs was video-taped and became a rallying banner for the opposition, was certainly embarrassing (the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be awarded posthumously). On the other hand, Iran is set to put three election protesters to death in the near future, so maybe we could hurry and get them the Nobel Prize under the wire.

Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Didn't see this coming.

My first thought was, I'll be honest: too soon. But as Jonathan Adler, Robert Naiman, Steve Benen, and many others have noted, the Peace Prize is often as much about encouraging a "prospect" than it is about rewarding prior accomplishment. The goal of the Nobel is to create and foster momentum for changes they like to see (in the case of Obama, nuclear non-proliferation seems to be the heavy hitter), rather than waiting until the finish line has already been crossed. And the Nobel committee chair seems to have given the award in that spirit.

The second thought, though, was about the symbolic meaning of the award. I've cautioned against giving too much weight to symbolic victories, and I'll do so here as well. But, particularly in the foreign arena, I've talked about its importance as well, and I think it is noteworthy. The fact that President Obama seems to be an inspirational figure to many people worldwide is an asset of tremendous value to the United States worldwide. It is part of what is allowing America to slowly, painfully, reassert its moral authority to lead in the wake of the Bush administration. His election was a window into America's soul, and the world liked what it saw -- that we weren't going to keep electing Bushes year after year.

In a global community, it matters what your neighbors think of you. The Nobel Prize, if nothing else, is a symbol that our neighbors think well of us -- that they are proud to live in our neighborhood. That's a good thing, no matter how you slice it.

UPDATE: You'll note a pattern in the "world reactions" to Obama's victory. He gets congratulations from everybody except the President of the International Federation of Human Rights, Iran, Islamic Jihad, and the Taliban. Both the IFHR and Iran were actually somewhat neutral (the former wanted the prize to go to a Russian activist, the latter saying it is "not upset" -- but clearly not thrilled either). The last two, obviously, were apoplectic.

UPDATE #2: Meanwhile, in Israel and Palestine reaction is mostly positive. Prime Minister Netanyahu, President (and fellow Nobel laureate) Shimon Peres, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak all had warm things to say, as did chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat. In addition to the aforementioned Islamic Jihad, Hamas was displeased with Obama winning the award, and a chilly reception also went out from Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud), who called the decision "very strange".

Saban to Buy al-Jazeera?

Egyptian-born, Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban has reportedly put in a bid to buy half of the popular Arab television network, al-Jazeera. Iranian mouthpiece Press TV has also picked up the story, albeit unsurprisingly playing up the "sleazy Jew" and "Israeli propogandist" angle (Saban has moved considerably right-ward in recent years, but still is predominantly affiliated with Labor in Israel and the Democrats in the US).

In all seriousness -- while I doubt that al-Jazeera can maintain credibility with the Arab world while having an Israeli owner, there is a tiny, tiny sliver of me that hopes instead that this would help build a bridge of understanding, rather than a simple flight of fancy. Unfortunately, I don't know what changes, if any Saban would institute at the network (which could be anything from an uncritical line to the Israeli government -- which I doubt -- to a renewed focus on cross-cultural dialogue and understanding), and I do know that agencies like Press TV and their ideological allies will work to insure that any green shoots that do develop from this project are crushed under a torrent of "the Zionists control the media!" rhetoric.

Via Norm.

WIPtastic

My new fall(!) WIP post is up, on Christopher Serkin's provocative proposal abolishing the general ban on disturbing pre-existing land uses through regulation.

Painted Donkeys

Gaza City's zoo lost its only two zebras to hunger during the Gaza war. The animals were extremely popular with area children, but were too expensive to replace. So the zookeepers got novel: they hired a painter to paint black and white stripes on two donkeys, making them approximate the real thing.

The article reports that many Gaza children, having never seen a real zebra, enjoy their local "variant". Nonetheless, this strikes me as a worthy fundraising endeavor. Whatever thoughts one has about Cast Lead generally, one thing we can agree on is that the zebras didn't do anything wrong -- nor did the children who attend the zoo. While not minimizing by any means the importance of either of staples, or of structural and systematic change (in this case, the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel), I think that, in conflict arenas particularly, it is also especially important to preserve the little pleasures and quirks of life: insuring that children have access to zoos, parks, playgrounds, and the like. It is these small things that often can serve as surprisingly effective bulwarks against radicalism and despair.

Somebody more knowledgeable about the workings of these things should set up an account to get the Gaza zoo two zebras. I can't imagine it is that expensive, and it's the least we all can do.

Private Investigation

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sick of guns finding their way onto his streets, launched an undercover operation regarding the gun show loophole. The loophole exempts private sellers at gun shows to sell weapons without conducting the normal background check. However, the law also stipulates that they can't make the sale if they have reason to believe the buyer would fail the check.

Bloomberg's agents, skipping subtly entirely, simply told the sellers they'd fail the background check. And wouldn't you know it if most of the sellers didn't care a whit!

Steve Benen compares this to the ACORN videos and asks when we're going to see 24/7 Fox coverage and Congressional hearings. I'll tell you when: it's when a Democratic Congressman (Alan Grayson?) gets on TV and says "the next time your Grandma is afraid to walk home at night because of some thug patrolling the street with a pistol, remember that House Republicans think the real outrage would be if that criminal was unable to buy it."

Unfair? Sure. Symmetrical? Definitely.

Do We Want That?

Apropos yesterday's post, Hamas has indicated that reconciliation with the PA -- negotiations over which had been recently progressing at an impressive clip -- are now off the table unless Abbas apologizes for not supporting the Goldstone report. The problem is, I forget if that's a good thing or not.

No Thanks

Mark Lynch has a sobering post up at the consequences of the Obama administration blocking the Goldstone Commission report before the UNHRC. The thought process behind it seems to be restoring some credibility with an increasingly skeptical Israeli population which, not unjustifiably, despises the committee with a fiery passion. Unfortunately, it appears to have backfired dramatically. The pressure Obama put on the PA to withdraw its support for the report has decimated their popular credibility with the Palestinians, dramatically enhancing Hamas and other dissident radicals in the process. At the same time, Obama appears to have gotten virtually no credit for the action by the Israeli people, who seem to feel entitled to the American shield in this regard.

And perhaps they are, in the sense that the US should act to shield all peoples (including Jews) from being unfairly targeted and singled out by biased international bodies. But when the US does that, it deserves to be recognized for it. Many Israelis seem to want to have their cake and eat it too -- continue to view Obama as some sort of anti-Israeli zealot while still viewing American protection of Israeli interests as par for the course. They can't have it both ways -- and when they try, it makes it virtually impossible to do the parallel work of building American credibility with the Palestinian people.

Homeless TV

A cool story about a Minneapolis program that gives homeless people job skills by having them produce a local-access television program. The show, in turn, raises visibility about the plight of the homeless and helps give them a voice. Synergy: it's a good thing.

Badass of the Week

Rukhsana Kauser, for "having the first Die Hard movie localized entirely within the confines of her living room" via fighting off six terrorists who came to her farm with just a hatchet (and the assault rifle she wrested away from one with her bare hands, natch).

The All-Stars

The Israeli government is upset at a Norwegian public academic institution for sponsoring a lecture series on Israel that only invites its most strident critics to the stage (including several boycott advocates).

The seminar, whose first session took place last month, includes lectures by Ilan Pappe, who accuses Israel of perpetrating an "ethnic cleansing of Palestine" and by Stephen Walt, the coauthor of a controversial study on the effect of the Israel-lobby on U.S. policy. It has been described by prominent scholars as anti-Semitic.

Other speakers invited by NTNU Dean Torbjorn Digernes include Moshe Zuckermann, who in a January interview for Deutschlandradio - a widely-heard German program - said that operation Cast Lead cost hundreds of thousands of Gazan lives.

The members of the seminar's organizing committee - Morten Levin, Ann Rudinow Saetnan and Rune Skarstein - have all signed a call for an academic boycott of Israel. They also brought a few Norwegian speakers, famous for their critical view of Israel.

"There's no one on the panel with a neutral view of Israel, let alone anyone to advocate its position," a source from the Foreign Ministry said. "Usually we do not get involved with academic forums of this sort because it's a freedom-of-expression issue, but this all-star team of Israel-haters crosses a line," the diplomat added.

"The overwhelming majority [of Israeli academics] oppose Pappe and Zuckerman and are rarely if ever found in seminars in Norway," Ivri wrote.

Morten Levin from NTNU - a state-funded institution - replied to Haaretz's query on the allegations by saying the objective of the lectures is to "communicate to a broad audience a deeper research-based understanding" of the situation.

"This requires a critical and careful scrutiny based on standard scientific methods," he added. "Neither the Israeli state nor the Palestinian authority or Hamas will be defended. None of the lecturers will question the right of the Israeli state to exist."

Responding to speculations by pro-Israeli scholars that the seminars will be a prelude to a call on NTNU to boycott Israel, Levin said: "The organizing committee of the lecture series has no formal connection whatsoever to the organization working for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions."

The university's dean - who has called the seminar "praiseworthy" - did not reply to Haaretz's request to interview him.

Professor Walt, of course, has a blog, so I'd be fascinated to hear his thoughts on why he agreed to participate in this lecture series.

The other part of this, of course, is the academic freedom element. I tend towards a pretty strong stance in favor of academic freedom, extending not just to the ability to tackle controversial subjects, but perhaps even to tackle them in a completely biased and one-sided manner (though that is a closer call). If pressed, I would say that the organizers of this lecture series should not be obligated as a matter of law to give Israel a fair hearing, to tell both sides of the story, to give a forum to mainstream Jewish and Israeli voices (of which Prof. Pappe is certainly not). Of course, I'm immediately skeptical of the pure academic credentials of someone who alleges Cast Lead killed hundreds of thousands -- one hundred times higher than any credible estimate -- and academic misconduct, particularly in the pursuit of prejudice, should not be tolerated. But in general, I don't think the state should intervene just because even a public academic institution is sponsoring a biased presentation that is wrongful and hurtful to a vulnerable class of people, promulgating hate and prejudice, even (indirectly) threatening lives.

What we can do, and indeed are obligated to do, is call out the seminar for it is: prejudiced. We absolutely should not acquiesce to their framing that this is a dispassionate, "scientific" inquiry -- which implicitly indicates the old frame that the broad Jewish community lies outside universalist rationality, a parochial holdover from pre-scientific times that can and ought to be ignored in search of the bigger truth. Likewise, when someone partakes in a series such as this, they are signaling their disdain for the Jewish and Israeli community. They are indicating that they don't respect as humans or equals. They are, in a phrase I will defend, behaving in an anti-Semitic manner. And it is no violation of academic freedom to challenge them on that grounds.

People have the right to sponsor anti-Semitic events. We have the right to challenge them and call out their anti-Semitism, and that of the participants.

The Peaceful Place

This NYT article, about a man who went from Somalia to Minnesota back to Somalia to basically become governor of a local tribal area, is absolutely fascinating. Hurray for technocracy (and Minnesota's reputation as a "peaceful place")!

Weekend Roundup

I've been doing a cite check this week, which has been a huge time suck. Fortunately, I was assisted by the fact that I am a known expert on regulatory affairs, with a particular emphasis on the economic impacts of arcane environmental regulations. So that helped.

* * *

Jews continue to have disproportionately high approval ratings for President Obama. They're only equaled by non-religious Americans, and dwarf Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons (Muslims were too small of a sample to be measured). Fun fact: Jews are the only religious groups to register higher approvals for Obama from non-Hispanic Whites versus people of color (though -- with apologies to Aliza Hausman -- I can't imagine the sample size for the latter was that big).

Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, one of the leading scholars in the field of sexual orientation and the law, claimed in Congressional testimony that he was denied tenure at UVA due to anti-gay prejudice. Via.

Are women better judges? Eric Posner and friends run the data and make the case. Their findings are that female judges tend to have worse formal credentials (elite law schools, judicial clerkships) upon appointment, but are as productive, influential, and independent as men once on the bench. Indeed, on the independence side, women actually outstrip men.

The Second Circuit may have just raised and then killed the prospect of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute.

Sudan continues to blame the Jews for Darfur. It's a refrain we've heard before.

American mayors are sick of illegal guns plaguing their streets.

Sarah Palin's book was ghost-written by a White supremacist affiliated author?

I never understood these things when I was in middle school. And I was a good student, too.

I think the right-wing hit job on Ken Kevin Jennings is absolutely despicable, but what can you do? They have no shame. The CNN piece is a good start, essentially noting that all their claims are lies. But it would be nice for them to say it directly: instead of writing "Conservative groups charge that Jennings, who is openly gay, condoned statutory rape and child molestation," try "Conservative groups falsely charge that Jennings, who is openly gay, condoned statutory rape and child molestation." Why is that so hard?

The Meaning of Haj Amin al Husseini

Daniel Schwammenthal has an interesting column up about a German exhibition that was to note Nazi sympathy in the Arab and Palestinian community (expressed notably, but not uniquely, by Haj Amin al Husseini), as part of a broader exploration of "The Third World in the Second World War". The exhibit was canceled, the column indicates, because the curator of the center did not like the indication of potential Arab complicity in the Holocaust.

Norm Geras takes issue with the opening of the piece, which reads as follows:

One widespread myth about the Mideast conflict is that the Arabs are paying the price for Germany's sins. The notion that the Palestinians are the "second victims" of the Holocaust contains two falsehoods: It suggests that without Auschwitz, there would be no justification for Israel, ignoring 3,000 years of Jewish history in the land. It also suggests Arab innocence in German crimes, ignoring especially the fascist past of Palestinian leader Haj Amin al Husseini, who was not only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem but also Waffen SS recruiter and Nazi propagandist in Berlin.

Geras responds:

It is true that Israel's existence has a justification that is independent of the Holocaust (though it is not inconsistent with the justification due to the Holocaust). But Arab and Palestinian collaboration with Nazism has no bearing on what the Palestinians lost or what they have suffered because of Israel's creation. To maintain the contrary is to make every Palestinian responsible for Haj Amin al Husseini. It is also to treat the existence of Israel as a form of punishment - punishment on account of Husseini and other Arabs who were complicit with Nazism.

I think Geras is mistaking what's going on here. It is quite true that whatever role the Palestinian political community did or didn't play in the Holocaust has nothing to do with what the Palestinians have lost in this conflict. But Geras is wrong to say that noting the vibrant enactment of Arab anti-Semitism in that time period is to treat Israel like a punishment. It is true that anti-Israel zealots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad try to promote that framing as a turn against the Holocaust-justification, so they can then say that Israel should have been established in Germany. But they miss the point because, as usual, they categorically refuse to center the focus on Jews as moral beings of worth and dignity. It makes the center of the story the Germans, (one of) the perpetrators, rather than the Jews, the victims.

When people cite the Holocaust as a reason for creating Israel, they're not saying Israel was a punishment against perpetrators. They're saying Israel was protection for a victimized group, with the Holocaust being a particularly dramatic instantiation of that victimization. Noting the eager willingness of many Arab leaders to partake and promote in that atrocity demonstrates that the need for this shelter did not exist merely in Europe, that essentially where ever Jews lived -- be it Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East -- the prevailing powers could not be trusted to protect Jewish lives. Israel was established, fundamentally, because the rest of the world had proven itself impossible to trust. Haj Amin al Husseini is a demonstration that this was as true of the local Arab political class as it was of the contemporary European political class.

As I've written before, when dealing with sustained and ingrained systems of discrimination, like racism or anti-Semitism, I'm less interested in "getting the bad guys" than I am in making sure that the disadvantaged group has access to what they need in order to live fulfilling lives in an egalitarian social sphere. Sometimes, that means retribution against discrete perpetrators -- I don't want to minimize that -- but it is a severe misunderstanding of justice to think that's all that it means. It is only when we have these blinders on that restrict "justice" to "punishment" that we view the justice of establishing Israel as making sense only within a frame of punishment, rather than in a frame of securing equality and equal global citizenship.

It doesn't have to be about punishment. Indeed, it shouldn't be about punishment. It's about giving Jews what they need in order to be equals in global society.

Via.

Something Completely Different

Kos endorses the Republican in the NY-23 special House election. The reasoning is a mix of two factors: a) the Republican genuinely does seem more liberal than the Democrat (such that there is a "Conservative Party" candidate in the race who is actually competitive with the field), b) overflowing spite towards "blue dog" Democrats, of whom this Democrat would undoubtedly become a part of if elected.

Still, intriguing.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, significant portions of the GOP apparatus are getting behind said Conservative Party candidate over their own nominee. So Democrats are supporting a Republican who they think is more liberal than the Democrat, while Republicans, noting this, are supporting a third-party candidate firmly in tea bag territory, thus throwing the advantage to ... who, exactly? I have no idea.

Poorly Drafted

Eric Johnson takes a look at one of the more sloppy documents in the American legal repertoire: the Constitution.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, completely meaningless.

Project Sapphire

The Washington Post reveals how the US got a half ton of highly enriched uranium out of Kazakhstan -- and away from nuclear proliferators.

It's one of those stories that puts some perspective on what really keeps America safe, day-to-day. It doesn't involve explosions, or Jack Bauer skull-cracking, or getting to put a terrorist's head on a pike. It's the subtler endeavors of recognizing a threat, and putting it to rest quietly, through communication, intelligence, and coordination.

It doesn't make headlines, but LGM is right: it's a classic example of a big foreign policy victory after the Cold War.

Query of the Day

Are there any words more chilling to a law review staffer than "find me where it says this in the Clean Water Act"?

On second thought, don't answer that.

Read the Book

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), recently seen floating the secession of Texas as a valid response to domestic policy differences with the Obama administration (but remember, Democrats hate America), has started citing Hayek as a reason to oppose universal health care.

"Read that book. Read this book," he says, gesturing toward the nearby table. I see something from Weight Watchers and a Harry Potter paperback--but the governor is referring to the "The Road to Serfdom" by Frederick Hayek and "The 5000 Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen. "Read Amity Shlaes's 'The Forgotten Man.' Amity's book is very eye-opening—scary—for me."

As it happens, Andrew Murphy has read "The Road to Serfdom". And on pages 120-21, Hayek has this to say about the state's role in providing social insurance:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provisions. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the effects to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance-where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks- the case for the state’s helping to organize comprehensive system of social insurance is strong.

Read the book, governor.

Not Strep

The culprit for my recent rundown feeling is a fading viral infection, plus a canker sore in the back of my throat (which, annoying as it is, pales in comparison to the exquisite agony of having one on the side of my tongue). But I think I'm on the other side of the slope now, so that's good.

Also, Chicago's medical services best Carleton's by a country mile -- one of the few advantages I'll give to this school over my beloved alma mater.

The Divorced Virgin

This story about a women who divorced after five years of marriage, still a virgin throughout it all (she had waited until marriage, and then found that she and her husband could not have intercourse) is quite compelling reading. But it also bolsters my sense that abstinence until marriage fundamentally is not a good policy, and in fact is really short-sighted.

To be clear: Anybody who chooses to be abstinent has the right to that choice, for as long as they choose to make it, without any shame or judgment from me (or anyone else). But the case for an over-arching normative commitment to abstinence seems to rest on extremely shaky ground. Start with the fact that it seems to nearly always diverge into slut-shaming -- indeed, it's difficult to see how an argument that abstaining is morally preferable to partaking could avoid such an insinuation. But beyond that, abstinence seems to rest on this mythos that sex is easy and comes naturally, and that there is no such thing as sexual compatibility (or lack there of). Neither of these things are true.

Good sex takes practice, and while there's certainly no shame in learning the ropes (so to speak) with a single partner, I think many people are deluded into thinking that first time is going to be absolutely perfect, and if it isn't, something is wrong with them. Not really -- the odds are much higher that y'all simply don't know what you're doing; with practice and experience, things usually (hopefully) improve.

That being said, some folks simply aren't sexually compatible with each other. There can be physiological issues, but there also can be pairings where one partner really likes or wants something that the other is uncomfortable with. This is the sort of thing that I imagine is worth knowing prior to tying the knot. I think it is qualitatively better when newlyweds already know that they share enough sexual proclivities in common that they can have a good sex life, and I think it is qualitatively better when each partner in a relationship knows themselves well enough and has enough experience to know what their own proclivities are. Simply assuming that because all the other pieces fit, this one will too, is a recipe for unhappiness. At the very least, it's a pretty substantial roll of the dice.

What we should be teaching young people, I think (and alas, it will never happen), is simply this: It is not shameful to feel pleasure. What you do with your own body is your own business. What you do with a partner's body is yours and their business, and we should teach people to treat their partners with respect and view the act of being with a partner as predicated on that respect and mutual reciprocity. If you decide you don't want sex, that's fine, and if you decide you do want it (and have a willing partner), that's fine too, and if you change your mind at any point in the process, that's fine as well. The decisions you make in this arena should be based on your own desires and the safety of others, not an aversion to social shaming or stigma.

Latino Evangelicals Challenge Macho Culture

One of the downfalls of being sick is that I haven't been able to write posts on links of interest. So I will regretfully simply have to give you this WaPo article, on how Latino churches are challenging "macho" norms in their community, without much comment. It's a good piece, but far too short for my liking.

Typhoid David

I've been sick the last couple of days. I don't think it's swine flu. More likely strep (when I swallow, my ear hearts, which is annoying). Still, I've undoubtedly been among enough public crowds to bring down at least two metropolitan areas over the last week, and I haven't really gotten better (haven't really gotten worse either, to be fair). So I'm going to call the clinic tomorrow and make an appointment, and in the mean time, try to not infect any more people.

Hope everybody has an easy fast on Yom Kippur.