Left Storms To Victory in the World Zionist Congress Elections

The World Zionist Congress is an umbrella group of world Jewry that has a significant say in various elements of Israeli affairs. Its membership is divided into three groups -- an Israeli delegation, an American delegation, and a "rest of the world" delegation. The American election just concluded, and progressives stormed to a sweeping victory. ARZA, representing Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, received 40% of the vote and 56 out of 145 seats on its own, dwarfing second-place finisher Mercaz (25 seats -- and Mercaz also probably will lean left-of-center).

The slate I voted for -- Hatikvah, which represents groups like Ameinu and J Street -- finished fifth with eight seats. Not only does this represent a 3 seat gain from the last election, but it also beats out their arch-nemesis ZOA. The Zionist Organization of America, which attempted to kick Hatikvah off the ballot, garnered only seven seats (a one seat loss).

Not all the parties running for seats have clear ideological identities. But the progressive caucus will have at least 65 seats (ARZA, Hatikvah, and the Greens), and arguably 90 seats if you count Mercaz. The hawk-conservatives will have a measly 18 (ZOA, Herat, and the American Forum for Israel), though I suspect that the religious Zionist caucus (24 seats) will align with them as well. The remaining parties, including Zionist Spring, the Sephardi-oriented Ohavei Zion, and the Alliance of New Zionist Vision have less clear ideological orientations, and together earned 13 seats.

The full results are here. This is a striking demonstration of the mindset of contemporary American Jewry and a decisive rejection of the idea that Jews have shifted right in thinking about Israel. Most Jews remain committed to a progressive vision of Israeli society centered around equality (both between Jews and non-Jews and within the Jewish denominations) and a two-state solution respecting the national aspirations of both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. Groups like ZOA may bark loud, but they lack a true robust constituency within the Jewish community -- which is not surprising, given the overwhelmingly liberal bent of American Jews writ large. Hopefully, this election will stand out not just for the policies that result from it, but for the message it sends about who American Jews are and how we relate to pro-Israel advocacy.

NAACP v. Alabama Comes to Brazil

Citing a freedom of information request by local pro-Palestinian groups, a Brazilian dean is seeking to compile a list of all Israelis on his campus. His distributed flyer seeks "urgent dispatch of information on the possible presence of Israeli students or teachers". Jewish groups on campus have condemned the request as "a clearly discriminatory measure, done by a high-ranking official in the federal education system, and it should be dealt with the severity it merits." They contend it was incitement to illegal racial, ethnic, and/or national origin discrimination. My immediate thought was that, if the Dean gets in his list, will he wave it dramatically while declaring how "he has in his hand ...."?

That said, I have, obviously, no knowledge regarding the scope of Brazil's freedom of information rules or its relevant understanding of anti-discrimination law. I am struck nonetheless by its similarity to the landmark American case of NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). That case involved the state of Alabama, in the course of a legal dispute with the NAACP, seeking to compel the latter to produce its membership lists inside the state. The NAACP refused, claiming that the request would hamper its freedom of association rights.

NAACP was a scenario where abstract principles foundered on the reef of a concrete case. In the abstract, disclosure of information doesn't seem to be particularly scary (for example, much of campaign finance reform centers around requiring various groups and candidates to disclose their donors). But everyone knows why Alabama in 1958 wanted a list of local NAACP members, and those reasons were not salutary. The disclosure demand was part and parcel of a larger campaign of intimidation and suppression, and often violence, directed against civil rights activists in the state. And so the Court wrote:

It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations. When referring to the varied forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom of assembly, it said in American Communications Assn. v. Douds: "A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature." Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.

The Court also addressed the counterargument that any violence or intimidation that ensued from its order would not be on their heads, but rather on the "private" citizens whose behavior obviously could not be attributed to the state:

It is not sufficient to answer, as the State does here, that whatever repressive effect compulsory disclosure of names of petitioner's members may have upon participation by Alabama citizens in petitioner's activities follows not from state action but from private community pressures. The crucial factor is the interplay of governmental and private action, for it is only after the initial exertion of state power represented by the production order that private action takes hold.

This is essentially the same case wherein public and private action intersect in pursuit of intimidation. "Freedom of information" is a laudable goal, but in this context it is incompatible with associational rights of marginalized minorities at significant risk of public and private harassment -- which, like in NAACP, everybody knows is the real goal of the request.

We're Number Three! We're Number Three!

A recent poll of Saudi Arabians found that Israel ranking third in a list of the country's "main enemy", behind Iran (53%) and ISIS (22%). Israel followed with 18%.

It has long been hypothesized that a detente between Israel and the Arab world might emerge primarily from a shared interest in containing Iran. That said, Robert Farley is not wrong in explaining why this hasn't happened yet: there at least three middle eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey) with defense budgets that dwarf that of Iran. Nonetheless, this has been a known diplomatic point-of-entry for years, and this poll suggests that everyday Saudis, though certainly not warm towards Israel, at least perceive Iran to be the greater security threat.

Not To Brag....

But Zionist Union head Isaac Herzog and Kulanu MK/former U.S. Ambassador Michael Oren have both taken pretty much the same line I did last week in linking Israel's settlement policy to getting a better Iran deal.

Michael Oren, a lawmaker with the center-right Kulanu party and Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, said a day after Obama’s remarks on Israeli television — that Israel should freeze settlement building outside settlement blocs near the West Bank border. He also called on Israel to more actively demonstrate its desire for peace.

“The ball is in our court,” Oren, whose party is part of Israel’s governing coalition, said at a meeting Wednesday of the Knesset Caucus for Israel-U.S. Relations. “We must show we favor peace even in the absence of a Palestinian partner. We must show that we’re at the table even when the opposite seat is empty, and that we’ll work actively toward a permanent agreement.”

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog, chairman of the Zionist Union, told Israel’s Army Radio that a friendlier posture toward the United States would also help Israel combat Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Iranian issue is a major national challenge, but in order to fight it, to ensure Israel’s standing among the nations … we need to speak with the administration and conduct intimate dialogue. Not humiliate it,” Herzog said Wednesday, according to the Times of Israel.

Incidentally, I have to say I've been pleased with the notes Oren has hit since switching to politics. He certainly seems well aware of how immensely dangerous it is for Israel if in American politics it is perceived as a conservative issue. And to my eyes he joins a long line of conservative Israeli politicians who, after spending some time in government, have realized that the current path is unsustainable.

Zionist Bounds

Sheldon Adelson is organizing an anti-BDS campaign, drawing in the usual big names from the middle and right of the Jewish community (while naturally excluding the left). Now, we can ask ourselves "is Sheldon Adelson really the best person to combat BDS?" But there is a bigger problem here that Ali Gharib raises quite fairly: this team-up is more than a little hypocritical coming from groups like the ADL, JFNA, and Hillel which have long held out a two-state commitment as the litmus test for what "pro-Israel" means:

Take the Anti-Defamation League, for example. In its backgrounder on the BDS movement, ADL offers some “key points to make against BDS campaigns.” Among them: “The global BDS movement, as clearly stated on its website, does not support a two-state solution and the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state.” (Individuals and groups that support BDS — even those who support one-state themselves — insist that the movement as an organized force takes no position on the one- or two-state solution, pointing to the participation in the BDS movement of many pro-two-state Palestinian groups.)

But if opponents of a two-state solution are the enemy, what is a group like the ADL doing palling around with Sheldon Adelson?

Adelson, The Forward reported on Monday, is hosting a secretive summit of Jewish organizations aimed at combating the BDS movement on American campuses. The ADL is one of the groups attending. But Adelson’s record on two-states is just as clear as that of BDS advocates like Ali Abunimah or Omar Barghouti — except, instead of calling for a democratic state, the single state Adelson wants would be one where millions of Palestinians live under Israeli control but are denied the right to vote.

Remember that Washington conference where, in November 2014, Adelson said, “[God] didn’t talk about Israel remaining as a democratic state… Israel isn’t going to be a democratic state — so what”? Still not convinced? Recall his constant warnings that the two-state solution would be “ suicide or “a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people

The ADL is not alone in the apparent hypocrisy of seeking out Adelson hospitality and largesse. Other groups participating in the anti-BDS summit, too, oppose BDS because some of its leaders advocate a one-state solution. (“BDS advocates routinely oppose a two-state solution,” wrote Jerry Silverman, head of the Jewish Federations of North America, in an op-ed last year .) Some of these groups, like Hillel, are participating in the summit despite their own ban on partnerships with groups or individuals who “deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders.”

This is a recurrent problem for mainstream Jewish groups who want there to be boundaries on what "pro-Israel" means. Now, I have no problem with boundaries. I don't think anyone actually wants a free-for-all; we all accept that there should be certain positions which just lie outside the borders of the communal Jewish conversation, and I think "opposition to a two-state solution" is a perfectly reasonable line to be drawn. The problem, though, is that it has to be consistently drawn. It cannot be the case that one-statism is beyond the pale when asserted by a leftist Jew (or Palestinian, for that matter) but a-okay when promoted by the Jewish right. More broadly, pro-Israel can't only have a leftward boundary.

The choice is clear -- you either let all the one-staters in or none of them. I vote none, because I think one-statism is genuinely dangerous no matter who is proposing it. One can disagree with me on that front, of course. But if you're going to do it, one cannot distinguish between its leftward and rightward variants. They're two sides of the same coin, and groups like the ADL lose credibility every time the grant special dispensation to right-wing Jewish voices espousing positions that are supposedly beyond the pale.

In Defense of Law Reviews

As I get ready to take the plunge into graduate-level political theory, I've had to start thinking a little more about peer review. Peer review is, of course, what most academics consider to be the sin qua non of academic publishing; if it is not peer reviewed, then it might be utter gibberish for all we know. Law professors have a bit of an inferiority complex on this issue, as we have a unique publication process that does not include peer review. And peer review isn't the only difference between the disciplines: law articles are notoriously lengthy, notoriously footnoted, and notoriously go through a frenetic multiple-submission/expedite process to find their eventual home.

Recently I've been getting a little more exposure to the peer review process -- through a refereed conference (and follow-up journal special issue) and by developing contacts with professors in other disciplines who, just like law professors, love to gripe about the shortfalls and pitfalls of their own publication process. I've also had the opportunity to read more peer-reviewed articles -- primarily in political theory, public philosophy, and psychology -- and compare them to what I typically find in a law review. And the more I think about it, the more I think the law review system -- which is viewed with incredulity by essentially every non-law professor I've ever described it to (and by many law folks too) has a lot to say for itself.

Let's list what I take to be the key distinguishing characteristics between legal academic publishing versus the general norms:

• Most law articles are selected by second- and third-year law students on various law journals. They are usually not blinded. My understanding is that sometimes upper-level graduate students can serve as peer-reviewers, but mostly the reviewers are other professors in at least a related field studying a blinded manuscript. 
• Law reviews are much longer than peer reviewed articles. A "short" law review piece (~20,000 words) would be considered quite long in most other disciplines. Law review articles also have a tremendous amount of footnotes.
• Law articles are typically accepted or rejected "as is". Rejections come without any comment or feedback. Peer review offers a continuum of responses (accept, conditional accept, revise and resubmit, reject), and authors receive the reviewer comments.
• It is customary for draft law articles to circulate on sites like SSRN even before they're submitted for publication. This is a shakier proposition in other disciplines, as some peer-reviewed journals will outright refuse to consider a piece that has been "published" on such an online repository.
• Other disciplines submit articles to one journal at a time; moving on to the next one only after a piece is finally rejected at the journal it's currently in front of. Law review articles are submitted to multiple (often upwards of one hundred) journals at once. They move through the selection process via "expediting" -- the initial offer to publish (and deadline for decision) is forwarded to all the higher ranked journals, who then race to make their own decision. If a higher-ranked journal decides to make an offer, the process continues. Repeat until the deadline expires or no higher-ranked journal remains to expedite.
• Related to the above, law articles have a much faster turnaround from submission to acceptance.

So which of these is better? In my view, the goal of an effective publication process should be (a) to produce good articles, both in terms of making novel and effective contributions to their field and in terms of being informative and helpful for other members of the academy, and (b) to place articles roughly according to their merit -- that is, the best articles should be in the top journals, the pretty good articles should be in a pretty good journal, and so on.

On these fronts, I think law reviews perform alright. In terms of overall quality, I'd first observe that I see little difference in the strength of the articles published in the top half or so law reviews versus those published in a typical peer-reviewed context. The fact that there are so many law journals does mean that one starts to see some real iffy contributions towards the bottom of the chain (though to be fair, I've seen some utter dreck in the peer-reviewed world too). But the offerings of reputable law journals are I think every bit as strong as those of equivalent peer reviewed outlets.

I also think the internal distribution of articles is more or less on point. An article published in Harvard or Yale or California or Chicago strikes me as being as likely to make a big interdisciplinary splash as those in the flagship journals of other disciplines. And outside of that, I feel like most articles I read feel roughly rightly-placed vis-a-vis their merits. I know with respect to my own work that I've generally been pretty content with where my pieces have ended up -- sometimes I think an article underplaced a little, sometimes overplaced a little, but never wildly off-kilter with how I perceived its overall merit.

That law reviews actually do a pretty decent job selecting for quality may be surprising, given the lack of peer review. People often comment on how terrible it must be for untrained law students to hold so much sway. But the thing is most people undergoing peer review don't seem to have a ton of confidence in peer reviewers either. They're replete with horror stories about articles badly butchered or barely read at all. Basically, it sounds to me like most folks undergoing peer review are repeatedly rolling the dice until they get a reviewer who is generally sympathetic to their aims and committed to giving their piece due consideration.

Of course, that broadly describes law reviews too -- we all know that many of our submissions are barely skimmed or are rejected for reasons that, if articulated, would make us want to scream. In other words, both peer review and law review submissions require two things: the piece has to be up-to-snuff quality wise for the selected venue, and then you also have to get lucky and have it be read by the right type of reviewer.

And this is where law reviews' multiple submissions scheme is really good. As much as we like to agonize over it, I think it's fair to say that journals fall into broad "buckets" of prestige within which they're relatively interchangeable. There are exceptionally good journals (Yale, Harvard, Chicago, California, etc.), very good journals (Minnesota, BU, BC, GW, Notre Dame, etc.), quite good journals (Arizona, Florida, George Mason, Georgia, etc.), and so on. I imagine the same is true in other disciplines. And most of us, if we're being honest, have a decent idea of where our articles deserve to be in that pantheon. Now, let's say that in each "bucket" there is one journal that has that lucky confluence of a good reviewer who will give your piece its due. If you're submitting sequentially, it might take up to ten tries before you hit that jackpot (and that assumes you haven't lost faith about how good your piece is). But with multiple submissions, it doesn't matter if nine of the ten relevant journals reject your piece without reading it; you only need the one offer. Placing the piece in front of every journal at once means you get to pull the slot lever of every machine. The multiple submission process may be frenetic, and it certainly isn't perfect, but I believe it does a faster and more efficient job of matching articles to their proper academic homes.

Finally, I'll forward a proposition that I think will be quite controversial but I'm willing to defend: the structure of legal publishing produces better articles. The jabs against law review articles are that they're long and excessively footnoted. The former doesn't bother me at all; I just view legal articles as replacements for the books we don't write. The latter is probably a sop to the student editors who are not, of course, experts in the field. But that's a good thing too: one great thing about legal scholarship is that it is generally relatively accessible to novices. If I'm trying to learn about a new area of law, I can pick up pretty much any article in the field and will be greeted with a buffet of relevant sources and explanations that make it easy to quickly pick up the basics of what they're talking about. This is very different from other disciplines, where if you don't come in with a pretty healthy grounding to start you'll be utterly lost within four pages. I think this is attributable to the fact that while other academics write for one audience -- fellow specialists in their subfield -- legal academics write for two. We do write for a subcommunity of specialists, but we also write for the intellectually curious amateur, a/k/a, the law review editor. And I think keeping that second audience in mind produces scholarship that is more lucid, more practical, more cogent, and ultimately more meritorious than that which is found elsewhere.

Now, none of this is to say that peer review lacks for benefits. But some of these (like blind review of manuscripts) could be easily incorporated into the law review process. And others (like reviewer comments) probably cannot be, but are easily replaced by the norm of pre-publication distribution of SSRN drafts and other like ways of soliciting feedback on papers before, during, and after the publication process.

Law professors often lack doctorates, and so we sometimes feel like step-children to the "real" academy. But I think we should buck up. I think the state of legal scholarship is actually quite strong. It produces quality articles, and sorts those articles in rough accord with their merit, and it channels scholarly writing in a direction that I think is more accessible and effective than that which prevails elsewhere in the academy. Our bizarre, idiosyncratic, unique system of publication is actually something we can be quite proud of.

JVP Disassociates from Alison Weir

I first came across Alison Weir in 2009, when she was asserting that Jews really did ritually murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rites. Unsurprisingly, this was pretty much the last time I paid attention to Weir, as this sort of obvious anti-Semitic crackpottery doesn't really hold much interest.

But others disagree, such as the far-left "Jewish Voice for Peace" organization. I've paid more attention to JVP, because I'm quite interested in their Herman Cain-type role in the structure of discourse between Jewish and non-Jewish actors. To wit, JVP's main function in that discourse is not to persuade Jews, but rather to say things that non-Jews really love to hear from Jewish mouths. Derrick Bell's notion of superstanding springs to mind.

I digress. JVP had previously worked with Weir, but now they have reportedly informed Alison Weir that those days are over, citing her association with various hateful and bigoted groups. I say "reportedly" because tracking down direct sources on this is surprisingly difficult to find. One blogger has what appears to be the original letter by JVP, and Weir has responded to it on her Facebook page, so she apparently thinks it is genuine, but the whole thing is a little murkier than I'd like.

In any event, assuming everything is as stated, I have a few thoughts. Obviously, it's good in some sense that JVP has (finally) decided to cut ties with a bigot like Weir. Even if it was six years after she came out in defense of the blood libel. But what's interesting about their statement of disapproval is that they don't actually object to anything Weir has said (again, not even the blood libel bit, which is a gimme!). There would seem to be plenty to choose from, but JVP is distressingly silent on that point. Their objection is rather wholly associational: Weir has "chosen repeatedly to associate [her]self with people who advocate for racism." They cite a variety of far-right White supremacist sorts whom Weir has appeared with, or been promoted by.

Now to be sure, it is troubling for anyone to knowingly appear on neo-Nazi or White supremacist radio shows, and that is worthy of condemnation. But it is more than a little odd that this is the sole focus of JVP's attack. Shorn of any indicator that JVP finds anything objectionable in Weir's own statements, it seems that their main problem is that Weir makes it embarrassingly clear that their shared ideology -- the essentially indistinguishable perspective of Alison Weir and Jewish Voice for Peace -- has significant resonance with and appeal for neo-Nazis. That far-left/far-right synergy has always been soft-pedaled by groups like the JVP, and their problem is that Weir won't play ball.

To be clear, JVP had two decent options here. It could explicitly note and condemn specific views by Weir that make her such an appealing figure for neo-Nazis. That would put daylight between themselves and their positions and those which carry the endorsement of the David Dukes and Gilad Atzmons of the world. Or if they really don't have any substantive objections to anything Weir has written, then they could show some introspection and inquire as to why their shared ideology gains such a receptive audience amongst the reactionary far-right.

But the tactic they've chosen does neither. It's a head-in-the-sand approach that condemns Weir for not keeping up the ruse. They're not upset that Weir articulates anti-Semitic beliefs. They're upset that Weir reveals that the brand of anti-Israel activism they jointly espouse is one that is happily embraced by, and seen as an instantiation of the values of, reactionaries and neo-Nazis the world over.

Assassin's Creed: Rogue Review

Last night, I beat Assassin's Creed: Rogue. As an entry in the Assassin's Creed franchise, it's above-average (literally -- I'd slot it into my overall rankings at #4, ahead of Revelations but behind Black Flag. Obviously, it's the best entry in the franchise from this past year (ugh, Unity). It's far less glitchy, the controls are smoother, it didn't eliminate the "whistle" functionality (wtf, Unity?). But what really impressed me most was that, even though Rogue was in some ways an afterthought on a last-gen console (it's for the XBox 360 and PS3, not their successors), it in many ways tried to do a bunch of genuinely new things for the series that I think were all successes.

Rogue is set in between Assassin's Creed 3 and 4, right in the middle of the French and Indian War. Most reviews I've read have focused on the game "bridging" those two stories, which honestly I did not think it did a fantastic job of. More interesting was that this is the first game to really unabashedly put you through it from the perspective of the Templars. And the game hit exactly the right pitch here. In true Tie Fighter fashion, the Templars don't see themselves as the bad guys. From their vantage, the Templars are a force for order and peace against the violent chaos of the assassins. The main protagonist moves from the Assassins to the Templars for morally understandable reasons, but the game quite properly never leaves the gray area by presenting the Assassins as irredeemably corrupt monsters. By game's end, I wasn't convinced the Templars were the good guys of the series -- but I didn't view them as cartoon villains either.

Gameplay-wise, Rogue is mostly like Black Flag with its sailing around and piracy (excuse me, "privateering"). That's still fun, though maybe a little less so than it used to be. The main innovations Rogue offers are mostly on the land, and both make sense given the Templar-side focus of the game. The first is the "stalking" mechanism, borrowed from the multiplayer of previous games. Basically, scattered throughout the world are assassin's lurking in their usual spots (hay bales, vegetation, ledges) looking to ambush you. As you get closer to them, whispers start to pick up and you have to start searching to see if you can spot them before they spot you. It's a great way to make you feel hunted without making running through the world a chore (again, looking at you Unity). And there's no greater sense of accomplishment than spotting an assassin ready to pounce, quietly sneaking up the scaffolding behind her, and slitting her throat before she knows you're there.

The second interception is a clever play on the standard-issue assassination missions from games past. Of course, you're not an assassin now, so what's your new job? Intercepting assassinations. You get a target to protect and have to hunt down several assassins (usually about a half-dozen or so) before they take out your man. Again, it lends itself to a great, secret-service style energy as you frantically scan the crowd looking for that guy whose leaning against the wall just a bit too casually -- get him before he gets your man.

All that said, the game certainly isn't perfect. Most of it's drawbacks can be boiled down to its relatively small length. That means that the inevitable "turn on your friends" narrative doesn't pack the emotional punch it should, because you barely had a chance to interact with those guys in the first place. It also means that you never have to visit most of the relatively expansive world (comprised of three regions: New York, the North Atlantic, and the Hudson River Valley). I'm a natural explorer in these games, so I tended to travel around on my own initiative to gather collectibles. But it's true that the game will never take you to most of its places on its own -- even on side quests (of which there are relatively few).

The biggest disappointment, really, is that Rogue didn't get the time and attention it deserved. Rogue had the potential for true greatness, but was stuck in Unity's shadow and so didn't get to spread its wings as wide as it should have. Given the disaster that was Unity, this is a major disappointment. It makes you wonder what could have been.

Doing Anything for Iran

There is an old joke amongst academics, one that I guess is probably falling out of favor but which I still find funny, that goes as follows:

An attractive female student walks into her professor's office, closes the door, and walks suggestively toward him. "I'd do anything to get an A on the final exam," she says.

"Anything?" the professor asks, eyebrows raised.

"Anything." She replies.

"Would you even," the professor leans in, "study?"

I'm reminded of this joke when I think about Israel, Iran, and all those (Netanyahu being the most prominent) who insist that the Palestinian question is trivial and unimportant compared to the existential threat of a nuclear Iran. They keep saying how we need to do anything to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. "Anything?" I want to ask. "Anything!" they thunder. "Would you even ... withdraw from settlements?" Of course not. That's a bridge too far.

The partisans in the crowd will no doubt insist the two issues should have nothing to do with one another. The President has, for his part, argued that Israel's continued settlement expansion is a major impediment in building global support for policies protective of Israel (such as, say, containing Iran). And he's made it quite clear that he could do a lot more for Israel vis-a-vis Iran if Israel did more for the Palestinians. Maybe he's being unfair. But if Iran really is the serious, eliminationist, existential threat that Netanyahu claims that it is (and I think there is ample reason to support that assessment), then it is more than a little unbecoming for him to put Israel at greater risk of utter annihilation to preserve a few outposts in a desert that everybody agrees should never have been built in the first place. It makes one think that maybe it's Israel that doesn't take the Iran threat as seriously as it should.

The other half of my frustration with conservative criticism of America's policy towards Iran is that I continue to have no sense about what alternative the conservatives think we should be pursuing (two years ago I mentioned how, just as the far-left has strained to figure out which side in the Syria conflict is "Zionist" so they know who to oppose, conservatives are straining to get a bead on what Obama's policy on Syria is so they can advocate the opposite). The Hudson Institute's Michael Doran penned a letter to my liberal Jewish friends that embodies the sin. Doran describes himself as a non-Jew who is an expert on middle east policy. His letter opens with a farcical claim that Obama suggests that his Jewish critics are exhibiting "dual loyalty"* and ends with an are-you-still-beating-your-wife question about whether Iran should "be the dominant power in the Middle East, and should we be helping it to become that power." In the middle is a lot of ventilation about how terrible America's policy has been towards Israel, Iran, and Syria, but not a hint about what we should be doing instead. Consider this passage:

The plain fact is that the United States is doing nothing to arrest the projection and expansion of Iranian power in the region; quite the contrary. In Lebanon, for example, Washington has cut funding for Shiite figures who remain independent of Iran’s proxy Hizballah. In Iraq, the United States, through the Iraqi armed forces, is actually coordinating with Iranian-backed militias and serving as their air force. Indeed, wherever one looks in the Middle East, one can observe an American bias in favor of, to say the least, non-confrontation with Iran and its allies.

The pattern is most glaring in Syria, where the president has repeatedly avoided conflict with Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s closest ally. The tendency surfaced again a few weeks ago in connection with mounting evidence that Assad has routinely attacked his own people with gas. If true, this fact should trigger a sharp American response in keeping with the president’s famous “red line” on the use of chemical weapons. But when questioned on this matter at a press conference, he contrived to find a loophole. Assad’s forces, he said, have been deploying chlorine gas, which “historically” has not been considered a chemical weapon.

We are "doing nothing to arrest" Iran's power projections. We have "avoided conflict" with Syria. We have a "bias" in favor of "non-confrontation." Well, how should we "confront" these countries? Missile strikes? Ground troops? A tactical nuclear strike? Something non-violent? Doran doesn't say. I leave Doran's article without even a smidgen of an idea of what alternative foreign policy he'd prefer, unless he really is just advocating an all-out regional war (I have to add here that complaining about Obama's ambivalent Syria policy without mentioning the complication that ISIS brings to the table is nothing short of shocking).

Ultimately, one suspects that the major factor determining whether the Iran deal is a success or a failure will be whether the international community is willing to put some teeth into enforcing it going forward. That, in turn, depends a lot about how willing the West is to go to the mat for Israel when the chips are down, and that no doubt depends on Israel's standing in the world. Which, to circle back, suggests that maybe Israel should trade what it claims to be the trivial, unimportant conflict to shore up its standing in the major, existential one. That's what one does if one really thinks all options should be on the table. One of those options is saying "in a world where we're on the cusp of having a hostile, nuclear armed regional power on our doorstep, we simply can't afford the diplomatic and security costs of occupying the West Bank anymore."

To be sure, I've read enough complaints about the Iran deal from enough parties I respect for me to believe that it is decidedly worse than ideal. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd no doubt craft a different deal. Of course, if I could wave a magic wand I'd convert Iran into a liberal pluralist democracy which respects all of its neighbors and is friends to all of the woodland creatures. One makes deals with autocratic regimes pursuing nuclear weapons under less-than-ideal circumstances -- that comes with the territory. What I haven't seen is any plan or proposal that would lead to a better deal (or any alternative to signing a deal that would lead to better results than not having one). The conservative refrain that we need to do "anything" to stop Iran from getting a bomb seems to boil down to either one thing (war) or nothing (if they reject war).

* The claim is farcical because Obama is quite adamant that he believes his policies are in Israel's interest and are reflective of Jewish values --as Doran concedes. We might disagree with Obama descriptively on both those points, but by framing the debate in that term he's obviously saying it is permissible and salutary for Jews to think in terms of their own values and sense of what is good for Israel, and that this is a permissible (indeed, valuable) form of deliberation. If anything, this is sterling refutation of the scurrilous dual loyalty charge.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XIX: FIFA Arrests

Like most people, I was shocked, just shocked to find out that over a dozen FIFA officials were arrested on suspicion of corruption. One explanation for the arrests is that FIFA is notoriously corrupt. Another explanation is, as always, more plausible (both tweets via Adam Holland).

The most #corrupt nation on earth #worldpolice calling the shots , what Zionist did fifa upset? #FIFAarrests #coverup

— Edinburgh festival (@Edinburghcentre) May 27, 2015

Zionist hasbara : @nytimes saying "it's time for Blatter to go" after calls to @FIFA to suspend #apartheid #Israel https://t.co/QMMjex99So

— Hamzaoui Kallas (@Hamzaoui_Kallas) May 27, 2015

The latter tweet, of course, refers to an upcoming vote by FIFA to suspend Israel's membership. Now one might wonder why would a noted "Zionist hasbara" organ like the New York Times turn on Sepp Blatter when he's been trying to head off the suspension vote. Indeed, I actually think news of these arrests makes the suspension vote far, far more likely to pass. If there's one thing FIFA needs right now, it's a distraction. And there is no better distraction that a high-profile dose of Israel-bashing guaranteed to set off an international firestorm. It might be bad publicity, but from FIFA's vantage that's a relative term, and it's better bad publicity than "we're basically a racketeering organization." (Maybe we can call this "BDS-washing"!).

But I suspect there's no use trying to plumb the logic of those devious Jews. The important thing is that any one who thinks that these FIFA arrests are a good thing for soccer or for public integrity is a puppet of the grand Zionist conspiracy and should be called out as such.

UPDATE: Apparently this has been part of a long game -- see this 2011 article where a disgraced FIFA official from Trinidad and Tobago blamed "Zionism" for his downfall.

Net Metering in Nevada

At Vox, David Roberts has a really good piece on the status of "rooftop solar" programs in Nevada. What I particularly like about this post is that it gives a fair shake to the problems such programs cause for incumbent utilities, even though Roberts (like myself) is broadly sympathetic to rooftop solar and so opposes utility efforts to stifle them. If you're interested in the future of renewable power and electricity markets, and want to get a perspective on the situation that doesn't gloss over the real transition problems that exist (often called "stranded costs"), I highly recommend you take a gander.

Obama the Zionist, Part II

Back in 2008, I wrote a post noting how then-Senator Barack Obama was one of the few non-Jewish politicians who seemed to really "get it" with respect to Israel -- articulating the interest Jews have in an independent and sovereign homeland in language that resonates with how Jews understand our own situation. This is what convinced me that Obama was obviously a friend of Israel and a friend of the Jewish community, and nothing that has happened in the ensuing seven years has shaken that feeling.

Now, Jeffrey Goldberg recaps an interview with the President that reaffirms my instincts in stark terms. There is essentially nothing the President says here that I wouldn't endorse. Iran is indeed a radical anti-Semitic regime -- but that doesn't mean that they can't be engaged with and contained using the normal tools of statecraft. Netanyahu's warnings about the "horde" of Arabs voting in the elections was despicable and an abdication of the principles underlying Israel's founding charter -- and the President here does no more than echo Israel's own President. And he's right about this:

“Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire?” he said, in defining the questions that he believes should be asked. “And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”

These are the words of a man I'm proud to call an ally. A much better friend and ally, I'd say, then many others whose loud words about "supporting" Israel aren't grounded in concern about preserving its democratic character, much less in any general commitment to self-determination and political equality. As I observed quite some time ago, "Part of being an ally means sometimes taking your friends aside and telling them when they need to chill." That is a role that matters more, not less, because Israel is in a "bad neighborhood" and faces genuine dangers (and a not-insignificant number of people who think that there shouldn't be an Israel at all). Obama gets that and has done, in my view, a very good job in a very tough situation (including dealing with a Prime Minister who he clearly dislikes and who clearly dislikes him back).

So thank you, President Obama, for being a friend under a tough circumstances. Which, after all, is exactly when friends are needed the most.

Interviews with Friends: Audrey

I always enjoy in-depth celebrity interviews -- the one's where you just get to dive into their life and thoughts on all sorts of random subjects. But that got me thinking how I'd love to see one of those done with one of my friends. I have interesting friends! And I'd love to get the full backgrounder on their life stories and their opinions on the issues that move them. Thus was born what I hope will be a regular feature: "Interviews with Friends." It's just what it sounds like: I interview a friend of mine, then post the results on the blog.

Audrey and I met at Carleton, where she and I shared a major of Political Science and the status of east coast transplant. Audrey often self-describes herself as a gangly nerd in braces which is bizarre to anyone who knew her at Carleton, where she stood out as exceptionally poised and glamorous. She is also a devout Christian—an identity she grew into while attending Carleton—and a proud Philly native. Audrey returned to the City of Brotherly Love after college, briefly attending law school before switching over into social work, and continues to live and work in the city.

 Me: First, let's get the brief biography. I know you're a Philly girl -- were you born there, or when did you move?

Audrey:  I was born and raised in Philadelphia, PA. Moved to Minnesota for undergrad, and then returned to Philly for the rest of my life (to date, anyway).

Me:  Tell me a bit about your family and your childhood in Philadelphia.

 Audrey:  My dad emigrated from Haiti in his twenties, and my mom emigrated from Peru when she was about 14. They met at work (ooooh, scandalous), got married, and along came a daughter. My dad insisted that I be named after Audrey Hepburn; my mom was a fan as well. I was the only biracial kid in my school. I didn't quite blend in with any particular group, but had a few close friends of the Puerto Rican persuasion. Which is now actually really interesting to me, since Latinos don't have a "race," per se.

Me:  Any siblings?

Audrey:  I have five older siblings on my dad's side. Although I am close with one of my sisters, I think that the age gap prevented me from becoming closer with the others. For all intents and purposes, I was pretty much raised as the baby of the family/only child.

Me:  What did your parents do? You said that they met at work?

Audrey:  My mom was (and still is) a social worker. My dad did something with computers and consulting (which I never quite understood). Something about before C++ and up-and-coming tech in the '80s. He tried to explain it to me, rest his soul. But I am still fairly clueless.

Me:  When did your father pass away?

Audrey: He passed away on 1/27/2010, subsequent to a courageous battle with colon cancer. He actually lived for a few years past his initial 6-month prognosis. No complaints there! He loved music, was a polyglot, and played several instruments. I think that I get my artsy/creative sense from him.

Me:  Well then he's passed on a pretty solid legacy!

Audrey:  Agreed!

Me:  So, you mentioned that you were the only biracial kid at your school. What was the general demographic of your neighborhood? Was it wealthy, or poor, or middle-class, or a mix? Likewise, predominantly white, black, Latino, or diverse?

Audrey:  My neighborhood, at the time, was working class but on the lower side of the income spectrum. My school was pretty diverse racially; a few first-generation-ers, like me. A few Caucasian, Asian, Black, Latino. No biracial kids for some odd reason. I moved to a more suburban neighborhood during my freshman year of high school, which was very White. But my high school, which was a magnet school, was very, very mixed. I made a few biracial friends there!

Me:  Obviously, you're super-smart so it makes sense that you'd go to a magnet school. At the same time, not every smart kid decides they want to go to a school like that. What made you decide that was the right program for you?

Audrey:  Great question, and thanks! I went to Catholic school for 8 years, and knew that I wanted a more, um...open-minded learning setting for high school. Before we moved, I would not have survived at my neighborhood high school. I was a certified nerd, with the glasses AND braces to prove it, and I'm sure that I would have been shoved into a locker at my neighborhood high school. I also had the highest GPA in my class in grade school (can you be valedictorian in 8th grade? Because I was. I wasn't ever again in life...but I digress). So I thought that a magnet school, while public, would help me avoid being marginalized for my nerdiness.

Central High School is one of the best high schools in Philly. I hate to admit it, but Central is #2. Masterman is #1, and I didn't get in, so I chose CHS.

Me:  You can't feed me a line about "open-minded learning" without follow-up. What were your thoughts on Catholic school education, and how did you come to realize you wanted something more "open-minded."?

Audrey:  Um... I think that I just felt, as a 12-year-old, that the belief system was so...rigid. And I was really starting to question the whole praying to statues thing. Seemed like idolatry to me, I don't know. I have Catholic friends (I sound like the racist person at a dinner party now, right?), and I respect their beliefs, but I just couldn't envision myself growing mentally and intellectually at a Catholic high school.

Me:  That's really interesting, and definitely something I want to return to. But when you talk about being "shoved into a locker" -- you mentioned that you had just moved to a predominantly white neighborhood but that the magnet school was more diverse .Was there a racial element to your concern about going to the local public high school, or was that not really on your mind at the time?

Audrey:  Oh wait, backtrack. So before I moved to the predominantly White neighborhood, I was in the more racially diverse but also lower income neighborhood. So I think that the concern was that the kids at my neighborhood high school would have attacked me for being a nerd. I don't think that I had much concern in the way of racial differences. I think that my primary concern was bullying, and "fitting in." Not being popular, but just...not being teased incessantly. I was bullied waaaaayyyy too much (not that any amount is tolerable or reasonable). But it just happened like, every day.

Me:  Oh okay -- I was confused on timeline.

Audrey:  Yeah, I didn't move until 9th grade

Me:  That's terrible. Now you've pretty emphatically put the emphasis here on being bullied because you were a nerd, had glasses, etc., and not a more "racialized" story one sometimes hears on Fox News (though President Obama has sometimes said this too) about "acting White" by being studious. I've generally thought that "acting White" was just a localized version of "nerdy kids get bullied" -- which is still terrible, absolutely, but it isn't a specifically racialized problem. What are your thoughts on that?

Audrey:  These are great points that you raise. I do recall being told that I "talk White" or "sound like a White girl" or "act White." I probably didn't help my case by attempting to debate those fools on how asinine they made themselves seem, by implying that only White folks have proper decorum or command of the English language. So I suppose, in retrospect, part of my underlying concern was in fact racialized.  It was slightly more difficult for me, I think, because I didn't really have a racial niche.

Me:  Obviously your identity as a biracial woman is really important to you. And while we have a very famous biracial American now, in the form of Barack Obama of course, from my outsider’s vantage point it seems his rise to prominence has been a decidedly mixed bag in terms of how people think about bi- and mixed-race persons in America? How have you seen the treatment of that identity shift over your life?

 Audrey:   I don't really think I have experienced a shift in treatment. I find that people still want to categorize me, either as "exotic" or "mixed" or "Black." In the same way that Obama is biracial, yet referred to as the first "Black" president, I think that many followers of the "Coffee Drop" theory wish to label me as Black. Which, to this day, bothers me. Not because I have textbook self-hatred, but because there is an entire White half that, I feel, gets dismissed when I'm not referred to as biracial. I have seen, overall, a shift towards more people of color stating (incorrectly) that they are biracial, when I really think that they mean multiracial. I think that there continues to be a misunderstanding of what a biracial identity is, or isn't.

Me:  That's really interesting. It does seem like it's very either/or -- sometimes you see this sort of faux-play up of Obama's biracial background as a means of showing he's not really Black, which obviously he rejects and seems to me to be a statement made in bad faith. But at the same time, it's also clear that we're oversimplifying his identity in a way that doesn't really do his experience any favors.

Audrey:  Exactly. And I'm not sure what the ideal answer/solution is. But I do think that it's important that we continue to allow individuals to have their own identities, whether they be biracial, or trans*, or Asian, or whatever.

Me:  Agreed. Though I am deeply disappointed that we couldn't come to an ideal solution to the problem of American racial identity in the space of a gChat conversation.

Me:  So how did a Philly girl like yourself end up going to rural Minnesota for college? It seems there must be some sort of story there.

Audrey:  Correct. I was at a magnet, college preparatory high school. I was in class, and Todd Olson (former director of the Carleton Liberal Arts Experience) showed up with my guidance counselor, and asked for five minutes of my time. I was annoyed with missing part of my lesson, but agreed to meet.

Todd: What do you think about Minnesota?

Me: Minnesota? Um...never been there.

Todd: There's a GREAT school there. Carleton. Heard of it?

Me: No...

Todd: Well you SHOULD have. Come visit us. And we'll waive your application fee.

Me: Okay...

So I visited, sat in on a Poli Sci class, attended an Ebony performance, and loved it. I liked the smaller class sizes and reputation among liberal arts institutions.

Me: That's ... unnervingly similar to my experience (right down to the Todd Olson connection).

Me:  Now, I'm going to be straight with you: I think you would have stood out anywhere you went -- you've got this "Josephine Baker goes to Paris" thing going on that's just absolutely killer.

Audrey:  Well, thanks! I still feel like the scrawny, awkward nerd girl in glasses AND braces.

Me:  But I think it's fair to say that in super-Scandinavian rural Minnesota, you really stood out. Did you feel that way?

Audrey: Um...I don't really recall feeling like an "other" at first glance. I came from diversity, and while Carleton wasn't the MOST heterogeneous microcosm, it didn’t alarm me. I didn't start to feel like I stood out until second term, I think, because my White brethren kept commenting that I looked "exotic." I mean, I had gotten similar comments in Philadelphia from my browner-skinned folks as well... But it happened much more often in Minnesota.

Me: In general, did Carleton mostly lived up to your expectations?

Audrey:  Indeed, it did. I think maybe I felt like more of an "other" in terms of class/socioeconomic status. During my first week, I met someone whose family owned a small island. He had three televisions. In his dorm room. People were never rude or snobby, per se, but there were subtle reminders of my working-class, first-generation status.

Me:  Now, the other part of your identity which perhaps isn't stereotypical-Carleton is that you're a very devout Christian. How did that play out in your college experience?

Audrey: You know, it's interesting that you ask this. And I'm finally not so super embarrassed to explain the connection. So yes, I was raised Catholic, and always leaned towards the Jesus camp. But I wasn't formally "saved" (Christian-speak for when you make it a personal decision to acknowledge, believe, and say that Jesus is God, etc.) until about halfway through college. I remember going through a pretty deep depression after my college boyfriend and I parted ways. I was searching for deeper meaning, etc., and whilst on a Habitat for Humanity trip with some Carls, I wandered into a Christian bookstore, picked up a Teen Study Bible (which I had never seen before; I had only read the sleep-inducing King James Version), and was HOOKED! I was actually teased by a few of said Carls for "believing in that nonsense" and not having more "common sense and logic." But a kind, Atheist classmate defended me, and retorted that I wasn't hurting anyone with my beliefs.

So right, read my Bible a lot, and then, during the summer of 2006, I visited a high school friend's church (he had been inviting me since high school, lol), and walked down the aisle and formally accepted Christ. I returned to Carleton that Fall very gung-ho about my faith, and was waaaayyyy too judgmental (but I was a newer Christian, and didn't quite know how to really walk in a non-judgmental, loving fashion as Jesus did yet). Oh yeah, and I fell off the bandwagon, partied too much, got inebriated, and made all-around poor decisions during my senior year at Carleton. But then I came home, got back on track, and certainly haven't been perfect since. The whole grace, mercy, and love aspect of God is still amazing to me. I'm totally imperfect, and there is nothing that I can do to be deserving of God's love, and yet...I accepted Him and He accepted me, and I am still His work in progress.

Sorry for the Jesus-freak moment.

Me:  It's no problem. One thing I liked about Carleton was that it really seemed to welcome all sorts of people. That's a cliché, but I think at a lot of places "welcoming" means a sort of performative leftism that isn't actually all that welcoming to, say, first-gen college students, or people of faith, or racial minorities, or anyone who isn't in on the performance. But Carls are chill -- not necessarily the most socially graceful, but genuinely non-judgmental about these sorts of things (with, of course, exceptions) That was my experience anyway.

Audrey:  Yeah...I think maybe some folks were also "Minnesota nice" about it? As in, there was a generally friendly aura, even if they disagreed with a certain lifestyle choice, or had presuppositions about race, etc.

Me:  I think that's true. I've heard mixed reviews about "Minnesota nice" -- some think it's just a cover for exclusion -- but I've always found it charming myself.

Me:  Anyway. After college you briefly attended law school [at Drexel University], then switched to social work. Why law school, and why the switch?

Audrey: Ah, my law school stint. Yes, I was fortunate enough to have a summer associate gig during 1L summer. I didn't feel that I was making a difference. I went to law school thinking that I would save the world, and somehow ended up in a posh office reviewing a multimillion dollar contract involving corporate buyout and I was like, "Oh no! I sold out!"

My dad became increasingly ill with colon cancer, so I took a leave of absence during 2L Fall. Then dad entered hospice, and passed away. Which caused me to re-think things. So I decided to become a counselor. Or at least, get my Master's in it. Which I did, and I ended up in case management, which is a good fit for me. It allows me to use my administrative and critical thinking skills, as well as my inclination to counsel and nurture people.

Drexel told me that I can return to finish my J.D.. And now that I've been roped into working with the First Judicial District's Mental Health Court, I have considered it

Me:  As a cheerleader for the legal profession, we'd be happy to have you back, but the important thing is to do what makes you happy.

Audrey:  Agreed. And thanks! At this juncture, I want to see how far I can go in my career without additional schooling. I don't want to be a "forever student."

Me:  ... she says, to the man about to return for his doctorate, Last  line of questioning before we wrap up: You've been very involved in the recent protests against police violence that have occurred across the US. How did you get involved in that?

Audrey:  Two words: social media. I would see random event info. on my Facebook Feed, or hear about preparation on the news and then re-post online. Also, working for the courts has its perks, in that we get inside information to ready ourselves for any potential traffic, challenges, etc.

Me:  It seems like this round of protests has finally put the issue of police violence on the public radar in a serious way. Why do you think that is?

Audrey: I think that social media plays a vital role here as well (coming from someone who recently deactivated Facebook). It has become easier to organize, assemble, and protest, and to know details about these events, because of sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. In addition, it's difficult for folks to ignore, as legitimate news articles are posted, shared, and re-posted.

Me:  Are you optimistic or pessimistic about how things will progress on this issue in the near-term?

Audrey:  I would love to end on an optimistic note, so with that intention in mind...I am hopeful that, although in the short-term these challenges will continue to arise within our society, we will collectively develop better means to address issues of police militarization, and problems with institutionalized racism and socioeconomic/educational disparities.

Me:  Last question: What does the future hold for Audrey?

Audrey:  Having faith, helping folks in need, and happiness. And alliteration.

Me:  An excellent life motto if I've ever heard one.

This interview was conducted on gChat over several days. It has been edited for length and clarity.

The FIFA Field

The Palestinian Football Association (PFA) is pushing ahead with an effort to expel Israel from FIFA, citing restrictions on the movement of Palestinian soccer players and the fact that various Israeli settlements field soccer teams. Israel offered a compromise addressing the former complaint (ignoring the latter), but the PFA rejected the overture.

I highly doubt that this gambit will pass, requiring as it does 3/4 of FIFA's membership to vote in its favor. But I suppose one never knows in the context of resolutions on Israel and international bodies. What I am certain of is that if the resolution passes, the reaction from American and Western Europe will be swift and furious, and probably will entail them withdrawing from FIFA altogether. Which, come to think of it, would be one of the best things that could happen for international soccer, as FIFA is an utter disgrace. So, you know, there really is no losing here.

Midweek Roundup: 5/20/15

Blog's been quiet, but a roundup will fix that!

* * *

Even in the South, where entrenched utilities rule, Florida stands out for its anti-competitive electricity policies. But a rare Enviro-Tea alliance may change that to enable California homeowners to access the state's abundent solar resources.

Speaking of conservatives doing unusual things, Nebraska looks set to abolish the death penalty. Says one GOP state senator: "If government can't be trusted to manage our health care ... then why should it be trusted to carry out the irrevocable sentence of death?" Not quite the argument I'd make, but that's what happens when you work bipartisan.

Seeds of Peace is just one of many fantastic groups that approach conflict-resolution by bringing people together, rather than driving them apart. It's a great organization worthy of your support.

Reading about this conference, which focused on remedying growing gulfs in the Jewish community over various Israeli policies, is quite depressing. There's this weird disconnect wherein conference participants take views that really aren't that far from J Street, but are appalled that anybody would listen to a terrible group like J Street. It's a weird sort of denialism and it doesn't exactly inspire confidence at the ability to right ship.

Hey, remember that oft-heard complaint about how Palestinian leaders say one thing to Western audiences and another to the people at home? That's what springs to mind when I hear Bibi insist to an EU envoy that he supports a two-state solution.

Post-Grading Roundup: 5/13/15

Exams are graded and turned in. I've yet to have an angry mob of students assail my office door (or email inbox). And my browser is starting to be overrun. So let's clear some debris, shall we?

* * *

* The always-provocative Northwestern Law Profesor Eugene Kontorovich explores how the international community and international press has reacted to other blockades in situations analogous to the Israel/Gaza conflict (e.g., Georgia/Abkhazia, Sri Lanka/Tamil, and Saudi Arabia/Yemen). In all cases there seem to be few claims that the blockades are illegal (indeed, there seem to be few instances where people pay attention at all).

* Eugene Volokh has the rundown on a really bizarre story out of Canada, where some reports have high government officials threatening prosecution of anti-Israel BDS activists (on "hate crimes" charges), while other officials dismiss those reports as "conspiracy theories." It's unclear what is going on, but if I had to guess the government is not planning to prosecute anyone for mere advocacy of a boycott, but might be indicating its belief that actually carrying out such a boycott would constitute illegal national origin discrimination. But that's really a wild guess on my part.

* Speaking of national origin discrimination and boycotts, a proposed BDS resolution at an Ithaca co-op was rejected after co-op attorney's determined it would put them at risk of liability under New York human rights laws (which prohibit boycotts based on national origin). This interests me, since I've always though the BDS movement was vulnerable to this point of attack, but I hadn't seen it get much traction up until this point. And to be clear: the attorneys are not saying adopting a BDS resolution is illegal, only that it raises a sufficiently colorable risk such that it might (for example) affect their insurance rates. That seems pretty incontestably true.

* A South Africa columnist sharply condemns those rallying around a student leader who expressed admiration for Hitler (the defenders, needless to say, are accusing the student's administrative critics of being "puppets" for the shadowy Jewish conspiracy supposedly funding the university). I'm of two minds on this: On the one hand, the column really is well done and unapologetic in its condemnation of this form of anti-Semitism, even when it (as always) tries to cloak itself as mere "anti-Zionism" (and the author makes abundantly clear that he agrees with the basics of the anti-Zionist position). On the other hand, I feel like if I'm getting excited that a columnist is able to unapologetically condemn praising Hitler, I might be setting the bar too low.

* My latest draft paper is up on SSRN. It's titled The Siren Song of Strict Scrutiny, and explains why the failure of sexual orientation to be elevated to the ranks of a "suspect classification" is actually a very good thing for the gay rights' movement.

Extra-Diverse Democrats, Part III

Last month, I noted how Republicans would inevitably describe Hillary Clinton following Barack Obama as Democrats engaging in "affirmative action." Wayne LaPierre grouping both Obama and Clinton as naught but "Demographically Symbolic" Presidents gave me an n of 1 , but I claimed vindication. And now look: the Weekly Standard has devoted a cover story to the theory authored by Joseph Epstein (via)!

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016 she will not only be the nation’s first woman president but our second affirmative-action president. By affirmative-action president I mean that she, like Barack Obama, will have got into office partly for reasons extraneous to her political philosophy or to her merits, which, though fully tested while holding some of the highest offices in the land, have not been notably distinguished.

If by "second", Epstein means "forty-fifth", he might be on to something (though admittedly, it is hard to argue that George W. Bush's rise to the presidency benefitted from any factors "extraneous to [his] political philosophy or to [his] merits"). But of course, any time women or non-White people rise to any level of political or social prominence, their accomplishments are dismissed as simply undeserved gifts bestowed by guilty White men. They never earn it on their own the old fashioned way: say, by being born into a political dynasty or by benefitting from only members of one's social class having the right to vote or by appealing to crude public sentiments of xenophobia and victimhood or by knowing that the only candidates adjudged to be "viable" would be ones who shared their race and sex. That's choosing a president on the merits.

Let's be clear: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were and are every bit as qualified and meritorious as your typical President before them. That's true regardless of whether or not one subscribes to their policy preferences. The only work "merit" is doing in the above critique is stand as a proxy for their non-White male character. Just like the Sotomayor confirmation, where " Princeton, Yale, and nearly two decades of federal court experience makes one a big ol' dummy [unless your name is Samuel Alito]", the veneer here is so thin it is incredible even the Weekly Standard was able to get it out with a straight face.