AIPAC Ends Direct Contributions, Endorsements

The big news in money and politics is AIPAC's announcement that it will no longer issue endorsements or make direct contributions to candidates. This marks a substantial retreat -- AIPAC only began giving direct donations in 2021. (AIPAC will continue to operate its SuperPAC however).

Needless to say, this decision is generating plenty of crowing on behalf of AIPAC's adversaries, who've labored hard to turn it into a toxic brand amongst Democrats (and, to a lesser but not negligible extent, Republicans). That crowing is certainly justified, and I have no doubt that the degree to which AIPAC has become a boogeyman (and thereby hurting the politicians it nominally wishes to help) is playing no small role in the organization's decision. But I'll do my own crowing here as well, as from the outset of AIPAC's foray into direct contributions (so well before it became super toxic) I was telling anyone who'd listen that it was a dumb strategy that would backfire on them in spectacular fashion. AIPAC made the choice to initiate an unprecedented foray into partisan politics at the precise moment such an intervention was most fraught -- it's no accident that the just months into the program AIPAC crashed into a PR buzzsaw by endorsing a slate full of insurrectionists. 

Worse, from AIPAC's vantage point, is that their choice to join hands with the most vile Republicans imaginable irreparably damaged their credibility in Democratic primaries even though probably the most important bang-for-buck AIPAC could get is in protected moderate pro-Israel Democrats from leftier challengers. Again, I called it:

The most likely place where we're liable to see a contested race where one candidate has (from AIPAC's vantage) a much worse Israel record than their competitor is in Democratic primaries where a strong pro-Israel Democrat might face a challenge from their left that AIPAC would want to fend off (the reason this doesn't apply to Republican primaries is that I doubt there is any rightwing position on Israel -- at least that which nominally drapes itself as "pro-Israel" -- that is too extreme for AIPAC to accept. But remember, they support a two-state solution!).... But it's far from clear that AIPAC's endorsement is even beneficial these days in a Democratic primary, and associating AIPAC with GOP insurrectionists makes the brand even more toxic. If the top priority is keeping pro-Israel Democrats secure against flanking attacks, the main effect of AIPAC's endorsement list is to kneecap their own credibility.

Used to playing the game on easy mode, AIPAC proved almost comically inept at effectively interceding in progressive the moment the political waters grew choppy. And that's the generous interpretation -- the more cynical one is that they purposefully sacrificed solid pro-Israel Democrats who weren't willing to completely kowtow to a Bibi-or-bust line in favor of more radical antagonists because the latter made for better fundraising foils. Even in the brief window where AIPAC's interventions were not completely toxic amongst Democratic voters, their net effect still was to strengthen overt anti-Zionists at the expense of liberal Zionists, and it's not to see that as intentional. Either way, the lesson liberal Zionists in particular learned loud and clear was that "if you at all think of yourself as in the lane of 'I care about Israel but they, and we, need to change course substantially to align with basic liberal values', AIPAC is your mortal enemy trying to destroy your movement."

Let's Kill Domestic Spam/Scam Texters

I hate scammers. And I hate spammers. I know, controversial opinion. But seriously, I do think I harbor an outsized rage towards them, at least for someone who's never been a victim of a serious scam (save that one time with Lego).

My understanding is that many of the various scam phone and text operations operate out of organized criminal compounds in southeast Asia, making them relatively impervious to American law enforcement (germane to the aforementioned hatred, I'd mostly-earnestly support orienting our entire foreign policy towards those countries towards finding and decapitating these scam operations).

But some seem to be U.S. based. A few years ago, I alluded to the "jury service" scam call I received, where the caller on the other end of the line claimed to be from the sheriff's office. His accent was decidedly southern-American in character, which I guess doesn't preclude it coming out of a Cambodian compound, but I think more likely suggests the culprit was based somewhere in the United States (it was, I think, a little early for AI-generated deep faking, though of course that's on the horizon). More recently, I've been hit with a flurry of spam texts offering roof repairs; reading up on the angle, it seems that the perpetrators offer a deceptively low rate to "fix your roof", then do intentionally shoddy work while identifying more and more "problems" to try and drain more money out of you. That, too, is a scam which cannot be done entirely remotely, which means the operators have at least some American boots on the ground.

So if there is at least something of a domestic American spam/scam text industry, why does it not seem law enforcement is going after it with any vigor? If I were a DA, I'd answer all those texts and try to arrange meet ups where I'd toss as many people as possible in jail (this is a domain where I am 100% carceral and punitive in character). This seems like such an obvious quality-of-life "win" -- everyone hates these calls -- that any politician or public attorney that was able to really take a high profile crack at it would I think get a ton of positive attention and accolades.

Tell Me Who To Vote For (Portland Edition 2026)

I'll confess, I haven't been following local politics as much as I should. Like many, I'm frustrated with the gridlock and dysfunction on the city council, which seems to be a majority view (though of course, fracturing badly on the "who is to blame" question). But I don't have big opinions on many of the local issues of the day. And since everyone is a Democrat (at least at the municipal level), I don't even have that heuristic.

So I'll do my best, but I'm still quite persuadable. Have at me in the comments.

Governor: Tina Kotek

I guess I can understand being underwhelmed by Tina Kotek, though I think the issues in Oregon's government go well beyond her. What I don't understand is the appeal of Christine Drazan. I guess some people never get tired of thinking "things aren't great now -- maybe if we elect someone worse, they'll get better!" They won't. They'll get worse. That's how it works.

Congress: Janelle Bynum

She's doing fine. I live in a swing district now, so I couldn't do the purity-politics thing right now even if I wanted to, which I don't.

County Executive: Julia Brim-Edwards

Probably the race I'm most unsure about. Last time around, I voted for Sharon Meieran, who lost to Jessica Vega Pederson. Given how much everyone thinks JVP has been a trainwreck, I'm feeling pretty good about that call. But despite that, I'm less keen on Meieran now than I am the first time around. What once was a useful penchant for hard-truth-telling now seems like a near-Joker-like desire to burn everything to ground in a cleansing fire. There's no way that doesn't turn out to be a disaster.

So that leaves Brim-Edwards, who has locked up most of the institutional Democratic endorsements, and Shannon Singleton, who is occupying the left lane and is seen as the closest thing to JVP's successor. The latter gave me a lot of pause, and that pause coupled with the aforementioned endorsement parade for Brim-Edwards almost made this a walkover. But I was surprised to see Singleton earn the endorsement nod from the Willamette Week, and they make a good case for her both as a leader and as someone who really shouldn't be seen as JVP 2.0. That reverted what was an easy pick back into a hard one.

Ultimately, what's driving me right now is I've heard the "yes, she's aligned with X faction, but she's actually thoughtful and independent!" spiel before, and it keeps on breaking apart once people occupy higher office. Maybe Singleton will be different -- after all, she has shown more of an independent streak in her current role on the county commission. But I'm not sure it's a risk worth taking.

City Council (District 4): Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman, Eli Arnold

The city council race is weird. Everyone seems to hate how the council is performing, and yet our shiny new electoral system seems tailor-made to ensure all the incumbents will win again. So I don't know why I'm stressing about this.

The last time around -- which is to say, the first time we got to vote under the new city government system -- there were approximately six trillion candidates vying for three seats. Nonetheless, all three of the eventual winners -- Clark, Zimmerman, and Mitch Green -- were in my top six. Since then, the council has been effectively deadlocked between a mainline liberal faction (including Clark and Zimmerman), and a DSA-aligned left faction (including Green) known as the Peacocks (short for "progressive caucus"). The two factions are not friends, and both blame the other for the animosity.

As far as animosity goes, I'm sure there's blame to go around. But despite ranking Green last time, I'm loathe to do so again. A lot of attention has centered around some poor choices Green has made outside the council chambers -- setting a fire in his yard in defiance of a "burn ban", missing some taxes, and some pretty vitriolic anti-police social media posts from before he was elected. I'm more concerned about some of his grandstanding in the room. As an academic freedom guy, I'm particularly incensed about his threat to withhold funds from Portland State unless they bent their school conduct disciplinary process to his political will -- a move taken directly out of the Trumpist playbook. That's just unforgivable to me.

Of course, none of this will matter. The system is designed to promote "pluralism", and I have no doubt there is at least a substantial minority of D4 voters who like Green's style of politics and want more of it. In concept I guess he could be replaced by a different DSA-aligned politician. In practice, none of them seem especially viable. As for Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold; I ranked them all last time and I've been satisfied with how the former two have performed on the council (Clark more than Zimmerman). The pro and con of Arnold is that he's viewed as essentially a Zimmerman clone, which isn't a sterling recommendation as far I'm concerned, but it beats the alternative (except, it won't actually beat the alternative).

Ballot Measure 26-267 (Community Budgeting): No

Seems like a classic Portland case of "this issue is far too important to care about doing it well." First, it's far from clear to me that budget decisions should be devolved to direct democracy (a position I've held since back when I lived in California). Moreover, in practice, it's almost assured that this fund will not be especially democratic at all be taken over by an opaque mix of lobbyists and hardcore activists with bizarre and embarrassing hobbyhorses. When even the Portland Mercury can't bring itself to give it a nod, you know there's a problem.

Consistent Enforcement of Campus Speech Rules? No, Disparate Treatment!

David Bernstein replies to an Amnesty International/ACLU report decrying crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech on campus. The report particularly hangs its hat on the issue of double-standards: many of the "rules" pro-Palestinian activists were alleged to have broken were ones the university rarely if ever enforced when flouted by other activists and protesters.

Bernstein concedes that there "is some truth to that conclusion," but ultimately dismisses the "claim that alleged viewpoint discrimination required universities to stand down, for three interrelated reasons." But of these three reasons, two are manifestly unpersuasive. The third, by contrast, has some force but is considerably more limited in scope than he lets on.

Here's objection number 1:

First, arguing some sort of estoppel for cracking down on rule-breaking is a bad legal argument. "But your honor, the government did not prosecute the last ten rapists" isn't going to get you far.

This is a baffling argument to make in the context of free speech in particular. The entire point of the rule against viewpoint discrimination is that it nullifies government actions* even in circumstances where a content-neutral rule, evenly enforced, would be perfectly justified. Bernstein's objection is tantamount to saying that entire doctrine against viewpoint discrimination should be jettisoned.

It's notable that to make this argument even marginally plausible, Bernstein has to reach to an extreme example (rape), one where we cannot imagine a well-ordered society permitting the conduct and "leveling down" is not an option. Of course, the overwhelming majority of speech-rule violations are more analogous to civil infractions or misdemeanors at most, for which systemic under- or nonenforcement is an entirely plausible policy choice. If we adopt the hypothetical to a more analogous example -- a "no parking" sign that is routinely ignored, but suddenly gets resurrected to only tow away cars at the Trump or Harris rally, then I think the "estoppel" argument might get you pretty far indeed. And all the more so in the core speech-regulation context, where the rule demanding viewpoint neutrality is about as central a lodestar as exists in First Amendment law.

Now objection number 2:

Second, the failure of universities to properly punish misbehavior by, say, climate activists was itself viewpoint discriminatory. One can hardly imagine, say, Columbia University, acting with equanimity if anti-abortion or anti-affirmative action protestors engaged in the illicit shenanigans that leftist protestors have engaged in.

This argument drives me nuts, because it asserts as fact something it admits is speculation. The failure to regulate climate activist speech was viewpoint discriminatory because we can't imagine the same administrators wouldn't have punished conservative activists for similar behavior. A version of this argument was trotted out by the conservative judges advocating an academic boycott of Columbia, and I hated it there too: 

It has become clear that Columbia applies double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct.  If Columbia had been faced with a campus uprising of religious conservatives upset because they view abortion as a tragic genocide, we have no doubt that the university’s response would have been profoundly different. 

Again, note the assertion that Columbia flatly has adopted a double-standard, based not on anything it actually did, but on how its critics imagine it would have behaved in a hypothetical-but-not-actually-real scenario ("if ... we have no doubt"). Columbia is being punished for a story the judges literally invented so they can be mad about it.

Of course, since the argument by its terms doesn't require grounding in reality, it is absolutely impossible for a university to rebut it. And I'll say flat out that I'm not at all convinced that universities have applied or would apply a "double-standard" in such cases. When David Horowitz started plastering campuses with flyers targeting student pro-Palestinian activists as "Jew-haters" (cf., recent posters at the University of Oregon assailing the campus Hillel director), I don't recall there being any attempt to impose consequences on campus constituents who may have taken part, even though I have no doubt that a diligent administrator could've dug up some rule or another they were violating. Why not? Well for one, had they done so Horowitz and his backers would've thrown a fit about liberal censorship yadayadayada. But for two, if campuses hadn't historically enforced whatever rules limiting flyering in other cases, they'd be in choppy waters if they tried to suddenly start enforcing them against the likes of Horowitz. Which is to say, they abide by a rule against viewpoint discrimination.

Now, the final objection:

And finally, civil rights law require[s] universities to take action against illicit hostile environments. Climate change activists may have broken university rules, but they did not intimidate, harass, and engage in violence against any identifiable group protected by civil rights laws. 

This is the one objection that has some purchase. I agree with it insofar as I agree that otherwise-protected speech can nonetheless be probative of motive with respect to non-protected conduct. And I also agree that some defenders of the campus protesters have undersold or been apologists for aspects of the protest that were not simply inflammatory or offensive speech but were violent, harassing, or otherwise destructive.

But the reality is that the vast majority of campus pro-Palestinian speech -- even that which was understandably offensive, even that which formally may have violated university rules -- was not violent or harassing in a legally-cognizable way. The defense of universities cracking down on actual instances of actionable harassment is fine as far as it goes, but the more numerous instances of universities cracking down on non-harassing speech cannot justify itself via stolen valor. And while I'm not so naive as to think that people would stop being fair weather friends of free speech if universities didn't try to cloak the latter in the aura of the former, there's little doubt that the draconian hyperpolicing of protected speech did more to delegitimize legitimate university interventions than the instances of legitimate intervention did to justify the hyperpolicing.

* For purposes of this post, I'm treating all colleges as if they are akin to government actors, as many private universities at least purport to extend First Amendment-inspired free speech protections that are meant to guard against collegiate administrative overreach.

The Disappointment of a Man-Child

Last year, as I approached forty years old, I mused about one of the things I missed most about being a kid -- enthusiasm. Not having it, but people being responsive to it. Everybody loves when a kid is excited about something, and they'll often go out of their way to indulge in that excitement. The kid who loves flying gets a tour of a cockpit; the kid who loves cooking might get some tips from a chef. Adults don't get that. That's not wrong -- it's wholly understandable why not -- but it is something I miss.

The other day, I was reflecting on a corollary to that thought, which is as an adult, people don't typically care if you're disappointed. For example, I think the Supreme Court is doing a lousy job. Worse than that: I'm heartbroken at how they have, in my view, being downright cruel and capricious, wrecking lives in pursuit of a narrow partisan agenda. I also know that John Roberts does not care that I think that. Even if I were in a position to confront him (and I swear I was thinking about this before the NYT posted that article about John Roberts getting protested at his vacation island), he wouldn't really care. He'd think I was a schmuck. By contrast, if a child expressed disappointment, or fear, or grief -- "you made my friend's mom disappear" -- I think that would cut different. I'm not saying his heart would grow three sizes that day, but knowing that a kid sees him as their monster-under-the-bed would I bet affect him in a materially different way than knowing that I see him that way.

One of the shortfalls of modern democracy is that, even when we have (deservedly) big feelings about things, it is very hard to feel heard. We feel like we're screaming "this is hurting me", and it's impossible to get anyone to care. In the legal space, I'm more qualified and connected than 99% of Americans, and it's still impossible for me to imagine that my opinions could ever influence anyone with influence one whit. That's incredibly draining. It's also, again, largely unavoidable. This a problem that's been addressed by everyone from federalism enthusiasts to Michael Sandel's "Democracy's Discontent". But it's hard not to miss the sense that people care when you hurt.

Harris Be Harris

For folks of a certain age, it was a bit amusing watching the post-retirement revival of longtime ADL chief Abe Foxman as a progressive mensch. In his dotage, he became unsparing in his criticism of a Jewish establishment that had (in his fabulous coinage) "Washington Post syndrome" (a maddening refusal to take on mainstream conservatives no matter how extreme they get, coupled with hyper-policing of the mainstream left). You loved to see it.

Sadly, if this article on J Street's newly emergent clout amongst old-school Jewish establishment "heavy hitters" is any indicator, ex-AJC chieftain David Harris will not be undergoing a similar redemption arc.

An influential vote against J Street at that meeting [on whether to admit J Street to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations] was the American Jewish Committee, which nullified the nod J Street had received from other mainstream groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Reform movement. 

David Harris, then the AJC CEO, said he doesn’t regret the way his group voted then and that he would recommend the same vote now. 

“I don’t believe it is the role of American Jews — who live thousands of miles from Israel, reject aliyah, don’t face life-and-death military service and don’t have to take their children and elderly to bomb shelters day and night — to seek to influence existentially important issues affecting Israel and its vital link with the United States,” he said. 

He added that such lobbying for U.S. pressure on Israel is “inappropriate and, yes, harmful.” The same goes, he said, for right-wing groups that seek U.S. pressure on Israel for their favored outcomes.

Ah yes, a principle that applies exactly same for right-wing and left-wing groups, with the small exception of it absolutely never applying to right-wing groups.

Anyway, as much as I enjoy one last opportunity to be cranky at David Harris, the article is actually one of general good news, in that Harris position is increasingly an outlier, and other bigwigs with impeccable "establishment" credential are stepping up to give J Street their hechsher. Long past due, of course, but progress is progress.

The Power of Positive Thinking

My wife and I are finally watching Season 4 of Ted Lasso. Much has been written about the show's relentless positivity, and the degree to which it is or isn't an appropriate message for the present moment (even with Season 3's attempt to complicate the roots and results of Ted's positive affect, I still do think the fundamental message of the show is pro-positive).

It did feel to me like, as a show Ted Lasso was the apex of a particular type -- the response to the anti-hero era of Peak TV television that wanted to show the virtues of optimism and doing the right thing without being hokey about it. But now that I think about it, was that ever really a "trend"? What other shows fall into the category (one can't have an "apex" of category with only one member)?

The obvious answer, and what I'd deem the inaugurator of the style, is Parks & Rec. And another I'd argue for is The Good Place, whose underlying ethos did seem view trying to be good as a force which, if persistent and relentless enough, could conquer all things. But what else? Community? It's a sweet show at root, but I think its core is less human decency and more the joy of whimsy and absurdism. Brooklyn Nine Nine? Maybe -- one could argue that its positive core is what made the show "work" as a cop show in the middle of the Black Lives Matter era. But still, I feel like I must be missing something -- more than one something, in fact. But I'm drawing a blank.

Ousting Netanyahu Will Not Be a Reset

An Israeli election is coming up, and while the polls remain tight, the betting edge seems to be that an opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot will be able to oust long-reigning incumbent Bibi Netanyahu (though -- despite protestations to the contrary -- likely not without help from Arab parties).

This is a result that would not be unwelcome amongst American Jews. Netanyahu has a dismal -27 favorability gap, with two-thirds of American Jews hoping he gets replaced after the next election. It's not hard to understand why. Netanyahu was at the helm for the worst military disaster in modern Israeli history, then followed it up with a spree of reckless militarism whose main motivator was neither entrenching Israeli security nor securing the safe release of the hostages but rather lay solely in keeping himself out of prison. He's blatantly corrupt, joined at the hip with far-right extremists both domestic and international (including but not limited to price tag terrorists running riot through the West Bank), and launched a veritable tsunami of attacks on Israel's democratic institutions. And of course, there's the fact that he's precipitated a catastrophic, across-the-board collapse in Israel's public support in America and elsewhere in the west. 

So safe to say, Netanyahu's political death will not be mourned. But there is a sense I'm getting amongst some American Jews who genuinely detest Netanyahu who seem to think that this election could be a big reset button. If Israel can just get rid of Bibi, things will go back to the way they were. Indeed, there's almost a sense that if the election doesn't mark off that sort of reset, it'd be a form of cheating, or (depending on one's point of view) vindication: You said your problem was just that Bibi was a monster, but now he's gone and you're still mad at Israel!

What this misses, of course, is that the ascendant tide of Israel criticism is not, at root, an issue of a personality conflict. It stems from real objections to real policies. If you have a problem with settler terrorism, then the Israeli government has to actually start tackling settler terrorism. If you think the occupation is unlawful and that Palestinians deserve independence and self-determination yesterday, then you'll need to see tangible steps towards effectuating a real Palestinian state. If you think the Israeli military has been reckless (to say the least) in targeting civilian infrastructure, then you'll need to see actual restraint in Israel's military adventurism. If none of that changes, the fact that a different butt is in the PM's chair won't alter anything.

The counter to that is that for many years Israel was occupying the Palestinian territories, had a problem with settler violence, etc. etc., but there still was widespread support for Israel -- so the policies cannot be the issue. But what that misses is a matter of inertia. There was a lot of ambient support for Israel in America for basically my entire lifetime, and it accordingly took a lot of energy to dislodge that boulder and get it rolling in a different direction. It is testament to Bibi's, er, "abilities", that he was able to accomplish that -- it was no small thing, and it's reasonably likely that Israel under different and even marginally-competent leadership these past few years wouldn't have seen this collapse in public esteem. But expecting Bibi's ouster to put things back to where they were is like shoving a rock down a hill and then expecting it to teleport back to the top once you stop pushing. No -- now you've got to deal with momentum in the opposite direction, and it will take a lot more than simply freezing Bibi's most offensive and inflammatory policies to undo the damage he's caused.

This doesn't mean that I'm one of those people who thinks this election is irrelevant, or that any of the opposition party leaders are materially indistinct from Netanyahu. I don't believe that (indeed, I think it's a cousin to the same lazy "both parties are the same" BS one sees in American politics). As pessimistic as I may be that Eisenkot will do all the things it would take to fully right ship when it comes to Israel's democratic future, he still will be an incalculable improvement over Bibi and his gang of incompetent fascists -- an assessment which should underscore just how wretched Bibi's reign has been. But the belief that ousting Bibi is all it will take to put things back the way they were is cope, not reality. Whether they like it or not, Israel under any leadership is going to have to deal with a new global orientation that increasingly is not going to tolerate endless occupation, accelerating illiberalism, and infinite disregard for Palestinian human rights. You can thank Netanyahu for that -- it's a legacy that will long outlast his tenure.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXXII: "The Rise in Transgenderism"

 

Some folks decided to check in on former U.S. Representative and Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney.

Admittedly, for me "Jews are playing a disproportionate role in fostering social acceptance of transgender youth and adults" is less of a "blame" and more of a "credit". Still, this is part of a long, not-especially-slow slide by McKinney into the depths of far-right antisemitism.

While it was not this explicit, even as a congresswoman McKinney definitely set off my and many other Jews' antisemitism radars. But precisely because it wasn't this explicit, there was also that sense of anxiety: am I just seeing things? Am I too sensitive? After all, for all the talk about how Jews toss out antisemitism allegations at the drop of the hat, there's also, well, a lot of talk and pressure that presumes Jews toss out antisemitism allegations at the drop of the hat. 

In that context, the one silver lining I have from watching McKinney's progression regression is that it validates those instincts. We were not, in fact, seeing things, we were onto something real, and maybe our intuitions -- even when not fully formed -- are worth paying attention to after all.

Nonnegotiables

A new group of Michigan Jews has released what they call a list of "nonnegotiables" they're demanding out of Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed before they'll give him their support. This is nominally a different and unrelated group from those who are actively urging a vote for El-Sayed's Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, though to my mind the difference seems thin. In general, I think the absolute nicest thing one can say the people making these demands is that they are comparable to Muslim and Arab voters who either refused to vote for, or dragged their feet on supporting, Biden/Harris over Donald Trump because of their concerns about Israel/Palestine, and if you're like me that's not a very nice comparison at all.

Anyway, the letter's "nonnegotiables" are listed as follows:

• “Jewish safety — including for Zionist Jews — in Michigan and across America”; 
• “Our right to define our own Jewish identities”; 
• “Jewish sovereignty in Israel”; 
• “Welcoming our full participation in American political life”; and 
• “An affirmative vision for a better future in the Middle East.” 

One could do a line-by-line parsing of what these demands actually mean, but I think the best way to think about it is to envision what would happen if Abdul El-Sayed paired acceptance of these premises with a companion list of additional "nonnegotiables" which also must be accepted:

• “Palestinian safety — including for anti-Zionist Palestinians — in Michigan and across America”; 
• “Our right to define our own Palestinian identities”; 
• “Palestinian sovereignty in Palestine”; 
• “Welcoming our full participation in American political life”; and 
• “An affirmative vision for a better future in the Middle East.”

Now, to be clear, I am not suggesting that the El-Sayed campaign respond to this petition with this companion list. Such a response would undoubtedly be viewed as inflammatory and a provocation. But that itself is revealing -- why would this be viewed as a provocation? More broadly, what can we learn from the likely response to this hypothetical initiative?

Well, for one, the last bullet point is vague to the point of meaninglessness. If it is meant to be a palette cleanser demonstrating that this is not just about punching left, it doesn't work. And most of the other bullet points lie in that interstitial space where either they're banal and obviously accepted by any mainstream Democrat (of course nobody should be subjected to violence due to their identity) or are trying to smuggle in considerable more controversial premises under the guise of the aforementioned banality (e.g., presenting certain forms of speech or political advocacy -- particularly condemnations of Israeli or Palestinian actors deemed overly harsh -- as a safety threat).

This is most obvious in the third bullet point. I have no doubt that a "nonnegotiable" demand to recognize "Palestinian sovereignty in Palestine" would be viewed as extraordinarily provocative by the signatories of this letter, because it at the very least raises the question "what counts as 'Palestine'?" Are we demanding one state from the river to the sea, the entirety of which must be under Palestinian rule? Or is this a two-state solution, with Palestine comprised of the West Bank and Gaza and existing alongside Israel -- in which case stating that the the former should have "Palestinian sovereignty" is perhaps simply a vindication of Palestinian's equal rights to national self-determination? But the thing is, that same ambiguity exists in "Jewish sovereignty in Israel", which also does not clearly delineate if we're talking about a Jewish majority in pre-67 Israel or also a right to rule over the West Bank and Gaza. The former is something that sits well within the norms of contemporary nation-states, the latter is a demand for formalized apartheid. That's a rather large gap, and so one can understand those who are skittish about issuing an unqualified endorsement without having certainty of what exactly is being endorsed. On this point, it is especially notable that while the letter stresses sovereignty as a "nonnegotiable", it does not speak of democracy at all; the only substantive mention of democracy is when it calls the vision of "'one democratic state' between the river and the sea, with 'equal rights for everyone'" a smokescreen for the destruction of Israel.

The reality is that, if these Jews can understand why they might hesitate before unequivocally signing on to supporting "Palestinian sovereignty in Palestine" as "nonnegotiable" -- even if they truly have no quarrel with a sovereign Palestinian state that sits side-by-side with Israel -- they should understand why an El-Sayed might insist on a bit more clarity regarding "Jewish sovereignty in Israel." I agree that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable that there exists a state with a Jewish majority and that one should not demand such a state's dismantlement simply because one thinks the exercise of Jewish self-determination is inherently illiberal. I also agree that there is something very objectionable about a state that may or may not have a Jewish majority permanently subjugating its Palestinian residents because it determines that granting them equal citizenship and voting rights would mean that Jews no longer would exercise "sovereignty." And while it's true that the former position viewing the very existence of a Jewish-majority state in any context as abominable has very real supporters, it's also true that the latter position asserting an entitlement to permanently subjugate and dispossess Palestinians if necessary to vindicate "Jewish sovereignty" ("from the river to the sea") has no small share of backers in the current Israeli government, to say nothing of those abroad. So what, exactly, are we talking about?

In concept, I think El-Sayed's stated opposition to "ethnostates" is a perfectly valid way of parsing the difference: there is nothing wrong with there being an Israel so long as it adheres to the basic demands of liberal democratic equality -- which certainly does not necessarily impugn the existence of a nation with a Jewish majority or even a Jewish national identity, but does impose a set of basic commitments regarding equal voting and citizenship rights -- and this is the same standard we should assess any other nation by (not objecting to Japan or Ireland or Egypt having a particular national identity, but very much objecting if they permanently withhold full voting rights from certain ethnic groups in order to maintain that identity). But unfortunately, this is an area where the letter writers seem determined not to take "yes" for an answer, lashing out at "cleverly worded arguments" on the subject of "Jewish sovereignty", which here seems to be an elbow thrown precisely against people who validly ask the "what exactly are we talking about" question.

So that's my ultimate read. Is this letter being issued in good faith? My answer to that is to ask whether the letter-writers would endorse without qualification the parallel list of "nonnegotiables" I listed above. If they would, then I think these demands are valid ones. If not (and again, not because they necessarily "oppose" the demand, but because they think there are areas of ambiguity or blurriness that need clarification) then I think that same grace should be extended here -- but the tenor of "nonnegotiable" strongly suggests that such grace will not be forthcoming, and that asking for said grace and clarification would instead be dismissed as another "cleverly worded argument" meant to disguise one's bigotry.

Settler MAGA and Settler Susan Collins

The Dispatch has an interesting article about how violent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian civilians are "dividing" the settler movement. In one corner, there are those who insist the attacks are aberrational. They condemn them, but also clearly see a significant part of the problem as the "embarrassment" they cause to the settlement cause.

“An overwhelming majority of the settlement movement opposes these acts,” Oded Revivi, a former senior figure in the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of all the local authorities in the West Bank, told The Dispatch. He said the violence posed both a moral problem and a threat to the legitimacy of the settlement movement. “This is an extremist minority that, quite simply, does the settlements no favors,” he said. “It puts the settlement movement in an embarrassing position and undermines its legitimacy because of these acts.”

Then there is the corner that actively endorses the violence.

In an interview with The Dispatch, Yehuda Shimon—a lawyer who volunteers with Honenu, an organization that provides legal assistance to Israelis facing criminal proceedings over nationalist-related offenses, and a settler himself—unequivocally defended acts of violence by extremist settlers.

At first, Shimon denied that there was such a thing as settler violence at all, repeatedly pointing to Palestinian acts of terrorism. “The entire ‘settler violence’ campaign is something the left-wing media made up. There is no such thing as ‘settler violence,’” he said. He later acknowledged that there is “very limited violence” by settlers, but quickly added that it stems from the fact that “settlers are fed up with taking it,” arguing that Israeli authorities haven’t done enough to prevent terrorist attacks on Jews in the West Bank.

The second reason Shimon cited for settler violence: retribution. “Revenge is a feeling that exists among all peoples,” he said, invoking the American response to the attack on Pearl Harbor as an example. Shimon then made the case for collective punishment: “There is no such thing as uninvolved people. If they had eliminated Sinwar and Hitler when they were children, that would have solved a lot of problems.”

This isn't even the half of it -- Shimon did an interview with the BBC that was unabashedly genocidal ("I think now, after they killed one Israeli, we need to kill all the people in Tal and Sarra, even Jit and Farata.... One Jewish life, it's 10 million [Palestinians]."). He is a true sociopath and a monster, and we shouldn't diminish that a whit.

It would be easy to dismiss Shimon as an outlier, and take Revivi at his word that the "mainstream" position is condemnation of violent settlers. But that is in many ways far too convenient a take. Shimon himself might genuinely be an extreme example, but the article makes clear that it's his people that ultimately are holding sway over Israeli government policy in the West Bank. They're the reason why the IDF "stands down" in the face of violent settler activity; they're the reason why the Israeli government intercedes to sabotage efforts by the security services to actually try and clamp down on Jewish terrorism. It's very much akin to the relationship of MAGA and the GOP, where we're all supposed to pretend like the racists and the extremists are some outlier faction as opposed to the clearly dominant force within the movement.

Meanwhile, the "moderates" (if you will) give off extremely strong Susan Collins vibes. There's a lot of lip-chewing and brow-furrowing, and the regular expressions of "concern" over what's going on. But when push comes to shove, they aren't really willing to endorse substantial, concrete initiatives to crack down on settler terrorism. If they oppose violent settlers, they oppose doing absolutely anything to stop them even more.

The scourge of violence by settler extremists, aided and abetted by the Israeli government, against innocent Palestinians is at a fever pitch. It is in fact dangerous for Israel's security and public image; it would also be abhorrent and evil and demanding of opposition even if it had no negative implications for Israelis at all. Like with the GOP, it's good, I guess, when some people who are part of that "faction" eventually see the light and speak out against the violence and abuse. It's all hands on deck. But at the same time, we cannot wait for the settler leaders to come around to doing something (even if we do buy that they're actually interested in "doing something", which one may not) before we ourselves commit to do something. If the Israeli government wants to lash itself to the mast of protecting violent settler terror-thugs, they should expect to face the consequences of that choice in the international arena.

Trust and Traffic Lights (and Robots)

Suppose you stop at a traffic light. There are, say, four cars ahead of you. Eventually, the light turns green. When that happens, the first car goes. The second car waits to see the first car go, then it goes. The third car waits until they see the second car go before it goes, and so on. By the time you are able to start moving, several seconds have elapsed from the light turning green -- a lag that results from us double-checking that the car in front of us will actually move when it is supposed to. All those seconds could be saved if we all just trusted each other to go when the light turns green.

Now, obviously, there are many reasons why one shouldn't do this beyond just "trust". There's the obvious possibility that someone won't react immediately to the green light. There's also potential differences in how fast a car would move even if all cars started moving at the same time. And then there's complications if one car was turning instead of going straight.

Still, it does seem to me that robot cars, in communication with one another so they know how fast they'll be going, when exactly they'll start driving once the light turns green, and if any car is turning or doing something wonky, could circumvent many of these problems (if we trusted them to do so, that is). I wonder how much commute time would be saved by that change -- an impossible task for humans, but well within the capacity of a hypothetical fleet of driverless cars.

Lander Does For Self

The Jerusalem Post reports on Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander being harangued at a protest (against a Hindu nationalist event hosted at Madison Square Garden) for being a "Zionist". This was notable because Lander ousted incumbent Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman in part by hitting him from the left on Israel/Palestine, and Lander has been a sharp and staunch critic of the Israeli government throughout his career (even as he still think Israel should exist).

Given that backdrop, there were a lot of crowing comments on the JPost story to the tune of "See? No matter how much you prostrate yourself before the haters, you'll never win." This is true. But the correct lesson to draw from it is exactly the opposite of what the commenters think it is. If the antisemites will be antisemitic no matter what, then the right thing to do is to do the right thing. Why not, if it won't make a difference either way? If Brad Lander thought that positioning himself as a sharp Israel critic would immunize him from antisemitic attack, he was naive and wrong. But I doubt that was his thought process. More likely, he took the positions he took because he thought they were right. So why should he let some antisemitic idiot coerce him into doing wrong?

There's another, subsidiary lesson to this story though, one that relates to the Hasan Piker line that if Jews don't distance themselves from Israel, "eventually someone’s going to come around and take action .. against American Jews." Even viewed as purely descriptive/predictive, the flaw here is the assumption that the antisemite has reasonable demands that Jews can meet. But that isn't the case. To the extent the antisemitic wants anything out of Jews, it is supplication and submission. And for that reason, the sort of person making such demands can never be fully satisfied, and the Jew who tries to accommodate them will be chasing after an endlessly moving target. Criticize Israel? Not good enough, you still call yourself a Zionist. Don't identify as a Zionist? Not good enough, your synagogue still has an Israeli flag out front. Don't attend the synagogue? Not good enough, you still go to Israeli restaurant. Don't patronize the restaurants? Not good enough, you don't cheer the thought of your Israeli family members being kidnapped or worse.

I'm told that the context for Piker's remarks was seeking to advise an anti-Zionist Jew on arguments that might persuade their co-religionists to be less Zionist -- a counter to the notion that Israel would keep Jews safe. The fact that this argument resulted in a massive, furious backlash from the bulk of the Jewish community might seem proof of the seemingly obvious point that Hasan Piker does not actually have a good read on how American Jews. But beyond that, the Lander example is one of many that shows why this logic is so toxic -- it places Jews on an infinite treadmill of appeasement that will never satisfy the antisemite (for he loves to watch the Jew run and sweat). The only thing it accomplishes is the suffocation of Jewish life, a battery of public commentary sequentially explaining why any way that any Jew does anything Jewish is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So again, if you think that taking the "right" stance on Israel/Palestine will satiate those who enjoy watching Jews squirm, you're wrong. It won't. But to reiterate: the lesson to draw from that is not to take a wrong stance. It's to take the right stance because it is right. The haters will hate you no matter what you do, so don't do it for them. Do it for self.

The Flight 93 Court

"The Flight 93 election" was a term used by conservatives in 2016 to justify voting for Donald Trump. The basic idea was that, even though Donald Trump was essentially everything we, well, knew he was -- a racist, an idiot, a wrecker -- the absolute, desperate need to stop Hillary Clinton from being elected required action that may well be suicidal. "Charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. [But] if you don’t try, death is certain."

Of course, to state the thesis is to underscore the absurdity-cum-perniciousness: the tier one emergency requiring conservatives to abandon all prudence and storm the cabin, was .... the possibility that a bog-standard Democratic politician might win the presidency. It is the prospect of ordinary democratic governance that was the emergency, and that shouldn't be forgotten. As Jamelle Bouie has noted, a running theme of contemporary conservative ideology is the belief that democratic outcomes are fundamentally illegitimate if they result in traditional White men losing. This is what unifies everything from birtherism to January 6 to the attack on mail-in ballots to great replacement theory.

In that vein, I think we might do well to start thinking of the current Supreme Court as a "Flight 93 Court". Over the past several months, it has interceded again and again -- with increasing levels of recklessness -- to sow chaos into the democratic system to the advantage of the Republican Party and the detriment of Democrats. First (well, not "first", but we'll start here) we had Callais, gutting the Voting Rights Act to enable Republican gerrymanders throughout the south and hopefully net the GOP a few more crucial House seats. Callais was followed by Milligan, and then today the Supreme Court's decision to intercede and (for now -- it's a wonky procedural posture) block a challenge to Donald Trump's efforts to sabotage mail-in voting in advance of November's election.

Aside from their obvious partisan tilt, what stands out about these decisions is their perversion of normal legal rules and processes -- blasting past the Court's own nominal guardrails to reach the preferred political result. The most obvious specific is the so-called Purcell principle, which supposedly forbids courts from issuing late-breaking alterations to the rules governing elections in close proximity to said election, but has very quickly developed the implicit caveat of "...unless doing so would benefit Republicans." But there are others. The Court's slaughtering of Humphrey's Executor -- and not just that they did it, but the way they did it; clearing the path for Trump's firings on an emergency basis notwithstanding the clear then-operative precedents that made them obviously unlawful -- spoke to a Court that is positively scrambling to let Trump consolidate as much power as possible, as fast as possible.

It is no revelation to anyone -- even someone as ideologically cocooned as John Roberts -- that these cases are obliterating the Court's legitimacy. Reforms like Court-packing, once viewed as fringe complaints from sore losers, are rapidly becoming litmus tests for any serious Democrat seeking higher office. It is almost impossible to imagine the Supreme Court surviving in its current form in the next Democratic trifecta. Last year, Justice Barrett lectured critics that "agree or disagree with the decisions that the court reaches ... we are engaged in a legal enterprise." The prevailing sentiment among liberal legal observers is to reject precisely this: that we are well past simply disagreeing with the decision the Court reaches, and into the terrain where the Supreme Court should no longer be viewed as engaging in a legal enterprise at all.

Given this cascading, calamitous drop in the Court's public esteem, what is prompting the Roberts Six to press forward? It's not commitment to legal principle -- again these cases stand out for their lack of consistent principle and their deviation from established precedential and doctrinal pathways. Rather, these cases give the unmistakable sense of a Supreme Court that is ready to do anything and everything -- no matter how reckless or lawless -- to stop the Democratic Party from taking power in 2026 and 2028. Nobody seriously thinks that the Court is announcing "law" in any meaningful sense, if by that we mean principles that will govern Democratic and Republican administrations in equal measure. The Court's rush to intercede to maximize Donald Trump's personal authority will not carry over to a Democratic administration. The Court is throwing caution to the wind because it views a Democratic political triumph as an existential threat. It is charging the cockpit, knowing it might die.

Much like the original "Flight 93" justification, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, the existential emergency prompting the Court's charge is little more than the prospect of Democrats winning. I'll concede there is a slight difference in this context because of the aforementioned emergent Democratic consensus that the Supreme Court needs to be utterly transformed at the nearest possible opportunity -- but again, that is a tide of revolutionary sentiment that is entirely of their own making. A regular, modest conservative Court would not have prompted this sort of backlash (precisely because, to crib from Justice Barrett, legal professionals do know how to distinguish between outcomes they disagree with and outright judicial lawlessness).

So the Court is locked in on its path. It will endorse all of Trump's lawlessness, it will imperil democracy itself. It may kill us all in the process. But standing in the ruins of a shattered electoral system, they'll at least be able to tell themselves that they did everything they could to stop Democrats from winning.

More Catholic than the Bishops

When I wrote Liberal Jews and Religious Liberty, my goal was to demonstrate how conservative proponents of expansive religious liberty exemptions would prevent liberal religious claimants from accessing those same protections. For example, I predicted that conservatives would challenge the authenticity of Jewish religious commitments insofar as they were liberal (and thus presumptively non-religious in a universe where true religion = conservative Christianity).

With that in mind, this is a great story about brewing contretemps between the Attorney General of Florida, James Uthmeier, and the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops over the subject of vaccine mandates in schools. Florida law requires that private schools in the state's voucher program to allow parents to religiously exempt their children from school vaccine mandates. As an expression of their own religious commitments, however, Florida's Catholic schools do not want to permit such an exemption, as part of its pursuit of the "common good" and ensuring that its schools are safe havens for the elderly and children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

In a fit of extraordinary arrogance, Uthmeier (who is himself Catholic) simply asserted that the bishops had "no legitimate religious reason" for denying vaccine exemptions. When the bishops replied that it was not for a state official to tell the Catholic Church what its religious commitments are, Uthmeier whined that vaccine mandates would represent a "completely new teaching." There were a lot of theological/antisemitic reasons why I felt Jews would be especially vulnerable to this sort of authenticity-policing, but it is striking to see that even the Catholic Church can have the authenticity of its religious views questioned when it speaks in a more liberal voice.

Uthmeier also questioned "whether a private school that doesn’t follow state laws protecting parental rights and deeply held beliefs should still be permitted to participate in state programs and receive state funding." This is, indeed, the million-dollar question that will arise again and again now that the Supreme Court has detonated historical barriers between church and state in allowing (and in many cases compelling) state funding of religious schools (and this very controversy illuminates why government "entanglement" with religion was historically seen as such a threat to religious liberty). 

Of course, the question Uthmeier raises is not intrinsically partisan -- in other cases, the variant will be a religious school that wants to discriminate against LGBTQ kids in defiance of state laws requiring equal treatment. But this situation represents a particularly weak case for denying a religious exemption to the church, since the entire premise of the Florida law is about protecting rights of conscience. It can't hold that out as a paramount interest and then withdraw it for religious claimants who express the "wrong" view.

Nonetheless, resolving these cases will be inherently messy, which leaves a lot of room for bias, which leaves ample opportunity for religious and political favoritism. So my baseline prediction remains that conservative adjudicators will grant the exemptions when it favors conservative beliefs (you can discriminate against the gay kids), and will not when it doesn't (you can't have a vaccine mandate). Either the Supreme Court didn't intend for that sort of religious preferentialism to be the consequence of its new free exercise jurisprudence -- or it did.

What's in the Polling Water in the Midwest?

When Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for Michigan Senate in a nail-biter, there was some talk about this actually being a disappointing outcome for the insurgent left given late polling that suggested El-Sayed running away with the race. This struck me as basically centrist cope -- one doesn't get to claim a moral victory of losing more narrowly than expected when you outspent your appointment by approximately seven trillion dollars -- but it did race significant questions about what went wrong for the pollsters.

Tonight, David Crowley narrowly upset Democratic Socialist Francisca Hong to win the nomination for Governor of Wisconsin in another race where late polling had given the progressive a commanding lead. In contrast to the Michigan race, I think this really does reflect poorly on Hong, as for an "outsider" candidate she couldn't have asked for more a glide path to the nomination watching her field of competitors implode around her (Crowley actually dropped out of the race a month ago before jumping back in, which is wild).

(Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan easily won the Senate nomination over Rep. Angie Craig in another progressive/moderate showdown, though this felt more expected.)

So we now have two major midwestern Democratic primary races that were defined by huge polling misses, both in the form of vast overstatements of the strength of the lefty candidate. The big question is what does this mean for November? Does this suggest an electorate that is more conservative than polls are letting on? Or is it actually just showing that there are more "normie libs" whose voices are being drowned out? More than the results, that's the question that's going to keep me up at night.

Moral Luck Sucks

Every once in awhile, I fall into a deep, existential panic over the concept of moral luck.

Moral luck, per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control." It presses against a very common intuition, which is that we should not be held accountable for things that we did not choose or which are out of our control (i.e., the products of "bad luck").

For example, suppose two drivers each strike and kill a pedestrian. One did so after carelessly running a stop sign. The other was driving perfectly carefully, but a pedestrian happened to jump out on the street and was struck. The first driver we generally agree can be held liable, often even criminally liable; the second driver we do not, because the former made a bad choice (driving carelessly) while the latter did not.

But here's the thing -- all of us, even those of us who are generally good drivers, have probably run a stop sign at some point in our lives. I have, and I've gotten a grand total of one traffic ticket in my entire life.* 

Do you know what happened the time I ran a stop sign?

Nothing. Nobody was killed or hurt or frankly even noticed. Which is the case 99% of the time people run stop signs. It is a very unlucky 1% who run a stop sign exactly when a car or pedestrian is crossing as well and seriously hurt someone. Again, unlucky.  It is not in the driver's control whether someone jumps out into the street or not. Yes, the more often one runs a stop sign the more one plays the odds. But ultimately, it is purely a matter of luck that I was in the 99% that hurt nobody, versus someone else who hurt someone. Yet that pure luck distinguishes someone whom, at best, we might say deserves a $100 ticket from someone we'd say deservedly should spend decades in jail for vehicular manslaughter.

And that thought makes me dizzy. I'm very much a rule follower. Other than that one traffic ticket, I've never been involved with the law in any way, shape, or form. And yet, it is just a matter of good fortune that I -- living the exact life I've lived and making the exact choices I, the consummate rule-follower, made -- could have been sent to prison for decades with nobody thinking it at all unjust.

No moral to the story. Just sharing a thought that's responsible for this month's bout of insomnia.

* It was for an illegal right turn while driving to school. The route from my house to school included a right turn on a street with a "no right turn" sign operative from 7 AM - 9:30 AM. That didn't affect me, though, because I drove to school at 6 AM. But one day there was a two-hour snow delay, so instead of driving at 6 AM, I was driving an 8 AM. A cop posted up on the corner and probably bagged half the senior class. Yes, I'm still salty about this.

It's Not ALWAYS a Conspiracy

In a rematch of their 2024 contest, Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell prevailed over former Rep. Cori Bush, whom Bell ousted in his own primary challenge last cycle. While Bell won the 2024 race by approximately 5 points, he's expanded his lead to over 20 this time around.

But I actually want to flag a tertiary point. When looking for a news report on the race and its outcome, I happened to click on the NBC article (for no other reason than it was near the top of the Google results). The story interviews two voters, both of whom supported Bush. Which I found a bit odd, given that Bush, you know, lost (and lost by a wide margin). The broader copy, to my ears, also seemed to center Bush's "theory of the case" (if you will) regarding Bell being "bought" and Israel being the critical issue.

If I were a different sort of person, I'd spin out quite the tale about this -- of media bias and journalistic narratives and a clear ideological agenda keyed against politicians like Bell and in favor of those like Bush. But my actual point is the exact opposite: there is no conspiracy here. Is it probably better practice for NBC to interview voters who support the winning candidate when reporting on said candidate winning their race? Yeah, I think so. But these things happen, and they happen to candidates from all across the political spectrum, and so plucking out one discrete instance of it and saying "See! See! They really are all out to get us!" is not actually a valid move -- whether it's on behalf of a Bell-sort or on behalf of a Bush-sort.

In any event, congratulations to Wesley Bell, Abdul El-Sayed, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, William Lawrence, Jeremy Moss, and all the Democrats who secured their nominations tonight. Let's get out there and win some seats!

Racist Idiots Continue To Be Mad That Caitlin Clark Is Not Racist, Part II

A few years ago, I flagged a fun phenomenon afflicting WNBA superstar Caitlin Clark. You see, as a White superstar in a league with many Black players, racist idiots really wanted Caitlin Clark to be racist. And when she declined, they got very mad at her.

This week, as teammate Sophie Cunningham more explicitly positioned herself as the darling of the right-wing grievance crowd, the knives are back out for Caitlin Clark.

It's hilarious how Walsh doesn't even consider the possibility that Clark doesn't think she's been subjected to "anti-white racism." The only explanation for her reticence to name it is that she's a coward. Likewise, it does not strike me as out of character that a fierce competitor like Clark is uninterested in bawling about how hypothetical trans competitors will be just too good for her to handle. But of course Walsh can't comprehend that a woman might actually have a bit of pride in her basketball abilities such that she doesn't fear open competition. Surely Clark must know she's an inferior, right? Right?

What this reminds me of, incidentally, is a story I've told a few times about how certain "allies" react to my account being Jewish at Berkeley. They start with the assumption that Berkeley is an antisemitic hellhole and come ready to lend aid and comfort to a Jew like me who must have suffered terribly during my time there. But to their surprise, I tell them that this wasn't my experience, and while it certainly wasn't an idyllic paradise and I won't speak for anyone else at a huge campus like UC-Berkeley, I generally was quite comfortable as a Jew there. And this response is infuriating, and my would-be "ally" turns on me with a vengeance, convinced that only a spineless, self-hating Jew would refuse to confirm their narrative about pervasive Berkeley antisemitism.

And then they wonder why folks like me don't recognize them as the true allies of the Jews.

Clark is going through the same thing. A bunch of right-wing white knights ride out on her behalf to defend against the terrible mistreatment and oppression she labors under. Clark demurs, indicating that this is not her experience and not a description she identifies with. And then her would-be saviors savage her for her impertinence -- she's a coward, she's spineless, she's a race traitor. No doubt, they will continue to wonder why Clark doesn't view them as her buddies.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXXI: Migrants from Morocco

On Thursday, a large influx of migrants (reportedly 60,000) crossed from Morocco into Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the mainland African coast. This has led to a lot of far-right chirping and no small number of conspiracy theories. And where there are conspiracy theories, well, you know what's going to follow -- it's a Zionist plot, done to "punish" Spain for its pro-Palestine advocacy.

At first it was just the usual assortment of Twitter randos, notable only for giving us the never-before-uttered phrase "Zionist-occupied Morocco". But it has definitely broken containment. Al-Jazeera has a "just raising questions" column that doesn't allow a complete lack of evidence to interfere with a "[w]hether Israel is indeed involved ... remains to be seen" conclusion. Then Javier Bardem got in on the action, with a profoundly weird Instagram post implying that actually Morocco is a European power invading African Spain (with the same "we don't know who engineered this crisis", but we sure feel confident suggesting it's Israel!).

One thing this particular incident inspired me to do is reflect on how I deal with statements blaming "Zionists" or "Israel" in this series. It's called Things People Blame the Jews For, and as approximately three million BlueSky users are quick to remind us, "Jew" is not a synonym of "Israel" or "Zionist". And of course, I do not contest that Israel does any number of things for which it can be "blamed" for (and which it would never occur to me to put into this series). So what does make a "blame the Zionists" post TPBTJF-qualified?

The basic answer is that I'll include an incident if it's clear that "Israel" or "Zionist" is standing in for the role Jews have historically occupied in conspiracy theories -- as a ready-available source of blame for generic bad things that have no significant connection to Israel or Jews at all (beyond the normal connections that can always be found between one significant social group and another). People race to that explanation not because it's objectively all that plausible, but because it will always feel plausible to those for whom "it's the Jews fault" always has an above-baseline ring of truth to it.

If one buys into the "punishment" argument, one could basically say that any bad thing that happens to any country which is critical of Israel can be plausibly suggested to trace back to Israeli malfeasance (see also: Egypt suffered from some controversial World Cup calls because Israel). This is very convenient for the leaders of said country, but not very convenient for people actually interested in the true sources of said bad thing.