The American Errorist

If you read one article this week

2006-02-22T10:51:00.000-05:00

The article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker about the concerted efforts of the Bush administration (especially those with Rumsfeld/Cheney connections) to make torture an available option for U.S. interrogators and to sideline and silence any critics of this policy is a chilling read.

Joe Sacco on the Danish Cartoon Controversy

2006-02-17T10:01:00.000-05:00

From the Nation:

Frankly, I don't give a damn about these Danish cartoons. In the end, yes, there is a principle about the freedom of expression that concerns me, but I'm always sorry to have to rush to the defense of idiots.

Democracy in action?

2006-02-16T10:14:00.000-05:00

According to today's Ha'aretz, the Likud party is pushing to ban the United Arab List from participating in the upcoming Israeli elections. And why? Because they are the wrong religion. You see, while any Jewish party can run on a religious platform, the Israeli right-wing can't possibly allow Muslims in Israel to do the same. And of course the excuse is that it is antithetical to Israel's "democratic Jewish nature." But of course, that's misleading. Because it's certainly not antithetical to Israel's democratic nature. What's antithetical to Israel's democratic nature (although it seems pretty ridiculous to talk about the "nature" of a government, but leaving this aside for now) would be banning parties because they talk about the wrong religion. Now perhaps you could argue that it undermines the Jewishness of the Israeli state. But of course, this isn't exactly an open and shut case, considering the very small number of seats that the UAL is going to win in the elections; they won 5 seats in the 1999 election and 2 in the 2003 election out of a total of 120, hardly enough to be considered a credible threat to the "Jewishness" of Israel. So though not at all a threat to the "democratic" part, and barely a threat to the "Jewish" part, the right-wing in Israel (and their supporters in the U.S.) feel that they are justified under the slogan of "Jewish and democratic" to try to eliminate any means of democratic expression available to the Palestinians inside Israel (as the article mentions, "in the last Knesset elections, the [central elections] committee voted to disqualify the Arab party Balad under the leadership of MK Azmi Bashara, but the High Court ruled against this decision). Three cheers for democracy!

A Museum on Top of a Grave (perhaps it is Irony's)

2006-02-10T14:58:00.000-05:00

Donald Macintyre reports in the Independent about the plans for the Simon Wiesenthal Center (based in L.A.) to build a museum of "tolerance" on a Palestinian cemetary in Jerusalem. Yes another death knell for irony, but also for shame. I think even Orwell would gasp at this affront, yet another symbolic blow to the Palestinians and the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem, in the name of "tolerance" so that Arnold Schwarzenegger can come talk about "tolerance" and shout down anti-Semitism. Are you kidding me?

(Thanks, Maha, for sending this article to me)

Arabs treated differently than Jews by Shin Bet

2006-02-06T17:38:00.000-05:00

Yes, a shocker, I know (I do hope, dear reader, that you were sitting down before you read that astounding news). In a talk at a West Bank Jewish settlement, Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin announced the racist treatment of Palestinians by the Shin Bet in an attempt to fend off accusations that the Shin Bet was treating extremist Jewish settlers unfairly.

"If I had arrested a terrorist from Nablus and Eden Nathan Zada," Diskin said, referring to the Jewish terrorist who gunned down four Israeli Arabs last August in a bid to hamper the Gaza disengagement, "they wouldn't have received similar treatment in interrogation or court."

"A Jewish detainee and one from [the Israeli-Arab town of] Umm al-Fahm, would not be treated equally by the judicial system," Channel 10 news quoted the Shin Bet chief as telling a group of teenagers in the West Bank settlement of Eli.

"If we're talking about discrimination, you would find out that the discrimination leans much more in favor of Jews than Arabs."

Of course, Zionists will tell you that Israel should be immune from the charge or racism, and that the Palestinians of Umm al-Fahm should be praising Israel to the heavens, because it allows them to vote in the Knesset. That some might not is only evidence of typical Arab ingratitude.

The "Right" to Spit on Those Below You

2006-02-02T09:36:00.000-05:00

In a display of anti-Muslim sentiment couched in terms of "free speech," newspapers across Europe reprinted a series of cartoons that originally appeared in the Danish press, that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist (doubly offensive to Muslims, as Islam considers any depiction of the prophet Muhammad blasphemous).

[France Soir]'s front-page headline declared: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God"...

Now here's the question: who was trying to take away that right? The Danish government did not censor the original cartoons (which were published in September). So where exactly is this "threat" to free speech coming from? Where in Europe has it become impossible to ridicule Muslims? This concept that somehow it is the duty of other European newspapers to reprint this absolutely offensive crap out of a show of solidarity is ridiculous. What if a Danish newspaper had printed an anti-Semitic cartoon? Would it then be the responsibility of other newspapers around the world to reprint it? If they didn't, would free speech be in peril? It's just such a bogus pretense.

Really, I think, it is simply evidence of the commonplace anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. It wasn't that there were governments trying to quash free speech. Rather, it seemed that the Muslims were getting a bit too "uppity." What, they think that we shouldn't print cartoons that mock their religious beliefs? Well, we'll show them! And I guess some did... and gave free speech a bad name in the process.

Don't be fooled by Richard Cohen

2006-02-01T10:52:00.000-05:00

It looks like it took Richard Cohen, the smarmy, pompous Washington Post columnist, to get me writing in this blog again. Today Richard Cohen has a brilliant analysis of the Hamas victory in the latest Palestinian parliamentary elections: Here come the Nazis!

History speaks on this matter. If you asked a random German in, say, 1932 whether by voting for the Nazis he was voting for the murder of Jews and a destructive European war of unimaginable scope and horror, he would have said, "Nein!" What he really wanted was an end to the brawling in the streets, a robust foreign policy and a big thumbs-up to traditional German culture -- no more of this smutty modern art and filthy plays: "Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome." Not any more. The cabaret is closed!

I saved for this paragraph any reference to Hitler himself so as to postpone the reflexive outburst of "Nothing can be compared to the Nazis!"

But surely Cohen knows that nothing can be compared to the Nazis, except for Arabs (especially Palestinians), and so he is treading on safe ground. A simple google search of "Hitler" and "Arafat" or "Palestinian" and "Nazi" will show that the comparison is commonplace among the virulent right-wing and pro-Israel crowd in the U.S. and in Israel as well (in fact, one of the first news stories you might find would be Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel, comparing the rise of Hamas to the rise of the Nazis). Demonizing Palestinians is nothing uncommon, so stop trying to knock down that straw man Richard!

Cohen then tries to sell us the same old song and dance about the destruction of Israel. I mean, let's be honest, for all these years of people being committed to the destruction of Israel, it sure hasn't happened... oh wait, probably because Israel is a massive military power occupying Palestine, and not the other way around.

Cohen decides that for all Fatah's faults, at least it wasn't Hamas -- you know, it was a "modern" movement, like Zionism. If Cohen had bothered to do a little research, he might have noticed that Fatah grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same Muslim Brotherhood whose role as the foundation of Hamas is "medieval." He also forgets that back in the day, it was a little too modern, a little too friendly with the Soviets, had a few too many members talking about "Popular Fronts" and things of that nature. And of course, instead of understanding it as a reaction to the Palestinians' dispossession of their land and their subjugation under Israeli military rule, it was simply part of the vanguard of the latest international threat (at that time it was communism, now it's Islamofascism, in case you forgot).

Meanwhile, Cohen writes:

The mistake of the Bush administration is to think, based on not much thinking to begin with, that people are people -- pretty much the same the world over. This is why the president extols democracy. It must be what everyone wants because it is what everyone here wants. To denigrate this kind of talk suggests racism -- You mean we are not all the same? -- or a musty neocolonialism. But the hard truth is that culture and religion matter, and we should not expect moderation just because that's how we would react. Toto knows the truth. The Middle East is not Kansas.

So first of all, to have ideas that do not essentialize and demonize Arabs and Muslims is suddenly to be associated with the Bush administration. Sorry, Richie, you're not going to fit this square peg into that round hole. And just because you take down the straw men of racism and neocolonialism doesn't mean that you aren't a racist, a bigot, and a neocolonialist. Because, by all means, you are all three. Christianity (note the reference to Kansas) and Judaism are simply strong faiths, part of our progressive, modern Judeo-Christian heritage. Islam, on the other hand, is "medeival." Sharon can change. Hamas cannot. Settler fanatics are "virtually" racist, but certainly don't approve of killing innocents (from an old op-ed of his), but Hamas is the Third Reich reincarnate! Richard Cohen is almost a charicature of the Arab-loathing Orientalist and yet he takes the ideas of FrontPageMag and other flagrantly racist websites, blogs, and magazines, and sells them to the broader public in the Washington Post, telling them not to be "fooled."

Happy New Year: A look back at Iraq in 2005; What, is Tulkarm in Israel now?

2005-12-30T11:43:00.000-05:00

Yes, I haven't written anything in a long time. I've been busy.

But now that the New Year is approaching, perhaps its time to take a look back at 2005. And that's what Eliot Weinberger did with regards to Iraq in the most recent issue of the London Review of Books. I definitely recommend reading it -- personally, all these things we hear about Iraq tend to blur together: you can't remember what was said two years ago or two weeks ago. So it's interesting to look back and see the kind of trajectory of the war in Iraq over the past year, as well as the trajectory of the Bush administration's talking points vis-a-vis Iraq.

Also, on a totally unrelated topic, I am a bit frustrated with the Guardian today. Usually their coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict (and of things in general) is quite good. However, they currently have a headline and link from the World News page that read "Suicide Attack in Israel" and "Three killed in Israel suicide attack," respectively. Now that's all well and good except for the small fact that the bombing actually took place inside the West Bank at a checkpoint near the Palestinian town of Tulkarm. So what, is Tulkarm part of Israel now? I know there are some people that think it is, but I should hope the Guardian wouldn't fall into this group. Why not: "Three killed in West Bank suicide attack";
"Suicide Attack in West Bank"? Anyhow, I fired off a letter to the editor and if anybody else would like to, here's the email address: letters@guardian.co.uk.

So cheers, and a Happy New Year to all!

Buying Good Press (And Not Just In Iraq)

2005-12-15T10:17:00.000-05:00

From a story in the Guardian about Bush's "accepting responsibility" (whatever that means) for the invasion of Iraq and the bad intelligence preceding it:

It was revealed yesterday, on the eve of elections in Iraq, that the Pentagon had set up a $300m (£170m) psychological warfare operation that involves placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets across the world, including those of its allies, without disclosing the US government as the source.

One of the military officials in charge of the programme told USA Today the campaign was designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. It will target newspapers, websites, radio and television.

Rev up the propaganda machine! It's interesting to note that "counter[ing] terrorist ideology" and "sway[ing] foreign audiences to support American policies" are seen as flip sides of the same coin here. Could it be that we're quickly approaching the point where "terrorist ideology" is defined as that which does not "support American policies"? (Though of course to some extent we're already there.)

Guilty Plea for Borf

2005-12-13T09:51:00.000-05:00

From a sign above the Roosevelt Bridge to the building above a Connecticut Avenue Cosi, Borf struck with greater frequency and more splash than anyone since the prolific Cool Disco Dan in the 1980s, authorities said.

"He was very good at what he did," said Dennis Butler, the D.C. public works official in charge of abating such nuisances, "but it was unwanted art."

Unwanted by whom?

Foreign Fighters in Iraq

2005-12-09T10:14:00.000-05:00

No, not al-Qa`ida. Aegis. Remember how we all thought it would be a great idea to have thousands of foreign armed mercenaries in a war zone with no kind of military oversight? Yeah, that's working out great, especially for Iraqi civilians who get shot at while driving, then videotaped and posted on the internet for some asshole's chuckles.

Arian not guilty, NYT bummed

2005-12-07T12:14:00.000-05:00

No wonder the Bush administration doesn't want terror supsects or "unlawful combatants" to have access to the due process of the American judicial system. You see, if that were the case you need what legal experts call "evidence." And despite an admitted 10-year campaign to indict Sami al-Arian on terrorism charges, and despite the PATRIOT Act that allowed them, finally, to push ahead with those charges, what the U.S. government didn't have much of was evidence. And so the Arian trial came to an end yesterday with the defendent being found not guilty.

You see, here's the type of "evidence" that the U.S. had:

In bringing the case against Mr. Arian in 2003, the department relied on the easing of legal restrictions under the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act to present years of wiretaps on the defendants in a criminal context.

In the conversations cited by prosecutors, Mr. Arian was heard raising money for Palestinian causes, hailing recently completed attacks against Israel with associates overseas, calling suicide bombers "martyrs" and referring to Jews as "monkeys and swine" who would be "damned" by Allah.

But much of the conversation and activity used by prosecutors predated the 1995 designation by the United States of Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a terrorist group, a designation that prohibited Americans from supporting it.

You see, some people still believe that to be guilty, you must commit a crime. Not just support unpopular political positions (or unpopular moral positions). I don't think anybody could quote me calling suicide bombers "martyrs" or referring to Jews as "monkeys and swine" (certainly, I find this second example extremely disgusting). But that doesn't mean that I think that anybody who says this kind of thing should be shipped off to prison as a terrorist. I think that's a freedom of speech issue, and I think that the first amendment, which happens to protect free speech, is a pretty damn good thing about America, and that upholding it, even in the case of a person whose speech and views are politically unpopular, pushes America further toward the ideals that it claims to stand for. The New York Times, on the other hand, seems to disagree. Because their headline for the story of the Arian verdict is as follows: "Not Guilty Verdicts in Florida Terror Trial Are Setback for U.S." Not a setback for the Bush administration. Not a blow to the PATRIOT Act. No sir, a "setback for the U.S." Damngumbit, these jurors must just hate America, they want to set it back so far. Yknow, maybe jury trials in general for "accused terrorists" are just setting us back. Just ship 'em off to Gitmo, right?

And now for a poem...

2005-12-05T14:09:00.000-05:00

Read the story at the Guardian. This poem is really too funny.

The leader

Patient and steady with all he must bear,
Ready to accept every challenge with care,
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real,
Isn't afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn't conform to the usual mold,
Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do
Never back down when he sees what is true
Tells it all straight, and means it all too

Bracing for war, but praying for peace
Using his power so evil will cease:
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man who will do what he must

Shimon + Arik

2005-12-01T10:25:00.000-05:00

So I guess I read too much into those early reports that Shimon Peres was going to stick with Labor. He isn't. And, as Daniel Ben Simon writes in his op-ed savaging Peres in Ha'aretz, he's Sharon's problem now. Ben Simon writes this about the great Nobel laureate:

One has to admire the political maturity the Israeli voters have shown when it comes to Shimon Peres. With their sharp senses, they picked up on what colleagues, individuals with vested interests and benefactors tried to cover up for years. The aforesaid always marketed Peres as someone who is driven by peace and the good of thecountry, and as a man of the world who could bestow honor on the state. But the simple folk, those who have it tough, those with morals and a conscience who truly have the good of the country at the forefront of their concerns, have always seen him as an incorrigible opportunist, a politician lacking in qualities, a power-hungry individual who became addicted to the pleasures of the government.

Good riddance for Labor -- the only problem is that the same people who are convinced that Peres was the ultimate "warrior for peace" think the same thing of Sharon now. The two coming together has cemented their collective identity as the grizzled old warriors with hearts of gold. Ugh.

Homophobia in UAE

2005-11-30T12:55:00.000-05:00

From the Guardian:

More than two dozen men arrested at an allegedly gay party could face compulsory hormone treatment, officials in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, said yesterday.

Police, who raided the party earlier this month in Abu Dhabi, said some of the men had been wearing women's clothes and makeup.

The men are also expected to face trial on charges relating to adultery and prostitution which could result in jail sentences and flogging.

The US state department called on the authorities to "comply with the standards of international law" and stop any hormone treatment.

Yes, and you know what, perhaps the jail sentences and flogging are unwarranted as well.

Land for peace? Sharon says no deal.

2005-11-23T10:34:00.000-05:00

Relating this back to what I wrote yesterday, Sharon is not interested in a "land for peace" type of deal with the Palestinians. No, as one of his close advisors, Eyal Arad, admits:

Since 1967, almost the entire international community and at least half the public in Israel assumed the conflict would be solved based on the formula of territories for peace.... This formula is both false philosophically and naive politically.... The territorial problem was not the root cause of the conflict ... What the Palestinians sought was not really territories that they could control and run in the form of the Camp David proposal. What they really sought was independence.

That is, the Israelis don't need to deal with issues of borders or land or viability or Jerusalem or a resolution to the refugee situation — just announce that the Palestinians have a state and these problems are solved. In fact, this is exactly what Azmi Bishara said at the annual conference of the Palestine Center in Washington, DC, this past weekend. As Bishara explains (pdf):

When people like Sharon and Bush suggest a Palestinian state, they take it from the final status language, although in Oslo there is no mentioning of a Palestinian state — there is mention of solving these four issues [refugees, Jerusalem, borders, and settlements] whereby a Palestinian state would be a logical result, if Israel gives up Jerusalem — East Jerusalem — and withdraws to the border of June 4, 1967, and if the right of return is recognized and settlements are dismantled. Of course in that case there would be a free Palestinian state, but the logic of Bush and Sharon is to give the Palestinians a Palestinian state instead of all that.

Their logic is as follows: if you had a Palestinian partner for a Palestinian state without solving these four issues, whether the state is a final status solution or a transition period for 20 or 30 years, the four issues will be dissolved and will vanish. Take for example the refugees — if you had a Palestinian state without giving them the right of return, they would be citizens of the Palestinian state abroad. Instead of refugees they would be immigrants. They would be guests in Lebanon, etc., and would have Palestinian passports which would solve the problem of their settlements in foreign countries. They would no longer be a demographic threat in Lebanon because they have a nationality and a passport, yet at the same time they would not be given the right of return.... Their problem will remain, but they — as problems for others — would be solved just by these magic words, “statehood” and “passport.” Thus the refugees issue will become one of expatriates — they have their state, they can go back to their state if they like.

On Jerusalem and borders, the belief is that Palestinians won’t have to sign giving up Jerusalem and borders so that nobody will be called a traitor, and if they had a state — even if it is on 40 percent of the West Bank, as Mr. Sharon wants and as Mr. Bush agreed to [in Bush's letter of assurances to Sharon of April 2004] — this occupation and colonial issue will disappear magically by changing expressions and the word from one of occupation to a dispute between two states. You will have a Palestinian state and you have Israel. Between them, instead of the issue of occupation, you will have a “territorial dispute.”

Do you know how many territorial disputes there are in the world, even between Arab countries? So, the urgency of the Palestinian national issue as a colonial issue, and the sting, will be taken away. The Palestinian issue will be given its size, like Israel wants it to be given, as a trivial territorial dispute between two states. As you know, states have monopolizing power over violence, and the Palestinian state will be asked to monopolize violence, to monopolize arms, and to prevent struggle against Israel. It will be a struggle of two states, not a national liberation movement of resistance. It will be a territorial dispute between two states that has to be solved in a peaceful way, and an armed struggle has to be neutralized — for there is no place for it. Why? Because there is a Palestinian state now, and [armed struggle] is not contradicting Israel but it is contradicting the legitimacy of the Palestinian state. It will be thus a problem of the Palestinians, and no longer the problem of Israel. You see it is all very interesting.

On the issue of settlements, what will a Palestinian state do for the settlements? Settlements inside the areas of the Palestinian state, which are called the (illegitimate) “outposts,” along with some of the settlements deep inside of the 40 percent of the land for the Palestinian state, will probably be taken out. However, all the rest — which make up 60 percent of the West Bank and which are called “Area C” according to the language of Oslo — will be expanded. Actually, there will be an apartheid system called “two states,” with cantons, etc. The system in itself will involve privileged settlers — owners of the place, sovereigns who have the right to move freely, who consider the land historically theirs — and cantons in which the Palestinians live, called a “state.”

This is the logical result of the thinking of Sharon and of Eyal Arad. The Palestinians don't need land. They don't need an end to occupation. They don't need any of these things that Israel doesn't want to give up. However, giving them a "state" (if it comes with none of these things) does no harm to Israel — it merely changes the terminology of the conflict — and indeed puts it in a much more advantageous situation vis-a-vis the international community, the Arab world, and so on, by changing the conflict from one of occupation and resistance (with much symbolic importance) to just another dispute between states.

Come on now, Prof. Cole

2005-11-22T10:36:00.000-05:00

Juan Cole is happy that Sharon left the Likud. Yes, it's always nice to see unpleasant coalitions fall apart. But did Cole not notice all the Likudniks following Sharon over to his new party? It's not that Sharon's renounced Likudnik political thought -- he just got sick of hearing dissent from within his own party. But Cole seems to think that Sharon is simply a "security hawk" who isn't interested in the "expansionist, colonizing and fascistic" politics of the Likud. That "continuing to steal Palestinian land" and "never trading land for peace" are the kinds of crazy Likud ideas that Sharon could no longer tolerate. You wouldn't be surprised to hear Cole calling Sharon a "man of peace" in the next sentence.

Sharon is still about stealing Palestinian land. He just knows that its much easier to do with the approval of the international community. Please tell me where Sharon is offering land for peace, except only in the most perverted sense that Sharon thinks that Israel should get peace and the Palestinians might get to keep a few dunums of land -- with walls and checkpoints and settlements and settler roads, of course.

Is Cole so mesmerized by the Gaza withdrawal that he can't see what's happening in the West Bank, in Jerusalem? Did he buy into the hype?

Cole suggests that Israelis rally around Amir Peretz, who recently approved of the upcoming publishing of 350 tenders for new homes in the Ma'ale Adumim settlement in the West Bank. (You see, that's how land for peace works. Take the land, then offer back some part of it for peace.) And of course, if the Palestinians aren't so pleased about this, it only makes them rejectionists.

Indeed, Cole foresees a lack of "real progress on Arab-Israeli peace any time soon" because there is no strong Palestinian leader (and because Sharon isn't interested in talking to the current leaders) and laments the fact that "You can't declare peace unilaterally, the way you can war." Especially if the "peace" you are declaring is simply a rearranged form of domination and occupation. Perhaps one could unilaterally end the occupation, though? Does Cole really believe that the Palestinians should be forced to negotiate a partial withdrawal of the occupation and have it called "peace"?

Meanwhile, Yossi Sarid has one of the better comments on the Sharon situation that I have had the chance to read so far. His analysis is not limited to Israeli politics, and in my opinion critiques rather well the American Democratic party. It is very much a comment on the talk of the political "center" and of "moderates."

I've never understood what is meant by this "political center" that everyone fawns over. What's the secret of its charm that makes everyone rush to it, crowd around it, so that its suffocating crowdedness overflows. But it is possible the secret is not so deep, and is actually quite evident to the eye and easy to decipher.

The name of the secret is opportunism. Instead of adopting a clear position, this way or that, it is a lot easier and certain to adopt two positions at once, even if both don't suit one another, even if they are partially or totally contradictory. The political center is the playground of the seesaws - they sit there seesawing to their pleasure, this way and that, this way and its opposite. First they find out what the public mostly wants, and according to that ephemeral desire, they have fun. Constantly looking for "the middle ground," as if these knights of public opinion are saying to themselves "tell me where the Archimedes point is and I'll tell you where I am."

The people of the center are considered responsible. They are not, heaven forbid, extremists. Their approach is seemingly thoughtful and measured. They are people for all seasons, every situation, every person, even if they usually don't give a real answer to any situation.

Absolutely.

Egyptian Elections

2005-11-21T16:45:00.000-05:00

The Los Angeles Times reports widespread violence in Egypt as that country held a second round of parliamentary elections.

CNN yesterday was running a program called "Egypt: A Test Case for Democracy." Of course, the unstated is that it's a "test case" for "democracy" in the Middle East or the Arab world or the Muslim world. After all, if Egypt were none of these things (Arab, Muslim, located in the Middle East), this would not be the kind of language being used. Describing Egypt as a "test case" implies (1) that "democracy" is previously unknown in the generally undefined Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern world and that (2) the outcome there can generally be used to predict the path ahead for "democracy" elsewhere in the generally undefined Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern world. That is, if things go well in Egypt, perhaps other Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners should be permitted to vote; if not, "democracy" over there might be something we should be scared of.

And watch out, warns CNN, because: "the first flush of freedom [could] trigger an explosion leading to Washington's worst nightmare: Islamic extremists in power in Cairo, on the border with Israel". And I guess we better be really really worried because these clashes between opposition supporters and the government could well be the "explosion" that they're talking about.

Which just goes to show you that these Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterns just keep failing their "tests." I mean, they can't seem to handle the "freedom" we gave them in Iraq. And even after we gave them lots of "democracy" and purple ink for their fingers, they still can't get along. They went to France, where democracy was practically invented (not to say that we don't do it better here in the good ol' U.S. of A.), and they couldn't seem to get along there. I mean, how many more tests do these people have to fail before we all get the point. They are just simply incompatible with democracy, culturally/religiously/regionally, or whatever. And so that means it's okay to kill them. In the name of democracy, of course.

Sharon's new party

2005-11-21T12:36:00.000-05:00

So I'm still trying to figure out how Sharon leaving the Likud is going to play out. Obviously, it hurts the Likud. I mean, when the incumbent prime minister quits your party, that's not a good thing. And Sharon has taken 14 Likud MKs with him, which means he gets some Likud money for his "National Responsibility" party -- another blow to Likud.

But Likud is not disappearing. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Benjamin Netanyahu will vie for the leadership. Bibi is a fanatic, but he is a former prime minister of Israel. That ain't nothing. And Shaul Mofaz, the Likud defense minister who Sharon would like to come join his new party, it seems will throw his hat into the ring for the leadership of Likud.

And although Yossi Beilin thinks this is a victory for the "peace camp" (whatever that means these days in Israel), that doesn't seem to be the case. It remains to be seen how Labor will do under the leadership fo Amir Peretz, but I would guess that the two most powerful parties will be the Likud (the incumbent party) and Sharon's new party (the party of the incumbent prime minister). This appears to be a shift to the right (in theory if not practice).

I think it's quite possible the big loser here will be Shinui. Shinui presented itself as the "moderate" or "concervative" option to those folks who thought that Labor was either ideologically bankrupt or too far to the left but didn't want to get into bed with the religious far-right.

Or it could be that Labor keeps slipping. Either way, any true peace camp remains totally marginalized. Somehow Beilin still gets his name in the paper, despite his belief that Sharon and the 14 Likud MKs are part of the "peace camp." What a joke.

Oh, and speaking of people you're tired of hearing from or about, the Washington Post hints that Peres may soon join Sharon's party. However, Ha'aretz reports that the word from Peres's camp is that he's going to stick with Labor (for now).

In other news, every public school student in Israel today will spend an hour learning about Jonathan Pollard.

Today, for the first time since he was incarcerated over 20 years ago for spying for Israel, a local government authority is seeking to express what it sees as the broad public support here for "Pollard's contribution to the State of Israel."

In accordance with a directive by Education Minister Limor Livnat, all schools will spend one hour tomorrow learning about Pollard's case. Teachers will recall the events leading to his imprisonment in the United States, and they have been instructed to discuss the obligations of Israel toward him with their students.

Ugh. It's good to know that your closest allies can celebrate somebody imprisoned for spying against you! That's what friends are for, right?

Torture in Iraq

2005-11-16T11:25:00.000-05:00

So I'm always about an issue and a half behind on my reading of the New Yorker. Which means I just read Jane Mayer's intensely depressing and upsetting article about the death of Manadil al-Jamadi at the hands of the CIA in Abu Ghraib. If you haven't read it yet, I suggest that you do. There is no doubt in my mind that the US is torturing detainees in Iraq and Romania and Thailand and wherever else. And there's no accountability -- and will be none under this administration, McCain amendment or no McCain amendment. Furthermore, as the Guardian reports yesterday:

More than 35,000 Iraqis have been detained by American troops since the invasion of the country but only a tiny fraction have been convicted of wrongdoing....

About 21,000 have been released without ever being charged or tried. Of the 1,300 who have been charged, only half have been found guilty.

Some 13,500 Iraqis are still being detained, more than double last year's total, according to official American figures.

This means, even for those advocates of torture (and I am not one -- if every single person detained were guilty of some charge I would be against torturing any of them), that we're probably abusing a good number of innocent Iraqis.

"The president already decided."

2005-11-16T11:18:00.000-05:00

I came across a transcript of a 2 November presentation at the Council on Foreign Relations featuring Uzi Dayan, former security adviser to Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, and there is an interesting little tidbit on the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Look, first of all, the whole situation -- it's a good one for Israel. We are not [sic] the enemy of Iraq. Iraq took part, participated in all the wars against Israel from '48.

And we don't have a common border with Iraq. We don't have a joint border. We don't have conflict of interest. And the same time, Iraq was kind of a bitter enemy against Israel.

So making this change in Iraq is very good from the Israeli strategic point of view. And actually, all the main enemies of Israel are on a kind of -- on what is called the elephant trail of this war. I'm talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Iran, talking about Syria, about Libya. So I think that for Israel it's a good move....

And I was in charge those time [2001 and 2002] on the strategic relations between Jerusalem and Washington. And it was the first time that I could come to Washington and ask what I was always been -- would ask here: "What is your strategy?" So I said phase two is going to be Iraq. And I said, "What's going to be the trigger to this war?" And the officials that I talked to said, "What do you mean by trigger?"

I said, "This is a war that you -- you have to set up a strategic goal, and then, not less important, derived achievable missions in order that the generals' and the politicians' statement will have a common language. Well, what are we going to achieve? It's not enough to set a strategic goal. You have to derive from it achievable missions. And then you need a trigger."

And the answer that I got here was, "We don't need a trigger. The president already decided," which is a very interesting response.

Not that this is shocking news at this point, of course, but it's also interesting to note the level of involvement of the Israelis in the lead-up to the war.

Solidarity with Murad and Munir

2005-11-08T11:01:00.000-05:00

Dror Mishani has an excellent op-ed in Ha'aretz today discussing the way the riots in France have been spun by those trying to advance an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab agenda. (He writes specifically about this phenomenon in Israel, but it is certainly not limited to Israel.) In its closing he writes:

This is a fateful time of trial for this left and for the values it represents. As opposed to the riots of May 1968, this time the struggle is not being led by students of philosophy and literature, and it is not taking place at the attractive square of the Sorbonne. This time those taking to the streets are young men named Murad and Munir, and the struggle is taking place in the gloomy suburbs around Paris, Marseilles and Rouen. And if the old French left will know how to reject the great hatred and fear of Muslims and Islam (the United States, of course, rushed to warn its citizens not to go to the "battle areas"), will recognize the fact that this struggle is not about Muslim occupation of Europe, but about economic and social equal rights, and will once again demonstrate its famous solidarity, these riots could be the beginning of new hope for all the leftist movements - hope for a truly multicultural Europe. If not, not only France, but the entire world, will remain only with the realm of values represented by U.S. President George W. Bush, and with our big talkers, who know that "that's what happens when there are too many Muslims."

Newsweek coverage of French Riots

2005-11-07T13:57:00.000-05:00

Angry Arab provides a link to a Newsweek story on the Paris riots asking "will the riots swell the ranks of jihadists in Europe?" Christopher Dickey, the author of the piece and Newsweek's Paris bureau chief, writes:

The first and most obvious casualty was the reputation of French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

Hmmm... it would seem to me that the first and most obvious casualties were the two boys who were electrocuted. And perhaps then the poor suburb dwellers who have lost businesses or property in the riots. You know, like, actual casualties. Not some asshole's reputation.

French Riots and Islam

2005-11-07T11:21:00.000-05:00

It's interesting to see the attempts to tie the riots in France to Islam, as the Washington Times did with it's Friday lead headline "Muslim Youths Battle Paris Police." Similarly, I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were bringing on Fuad Ajami to talk about the French unrest. Ask yourselves why one would want the opinion of Fuad Ajami (whose scholarship is on Lebanon, especially the Shia of Lebanon, and who on his website lists the following as areas of expertise: Middle East; Persian Gulf; Iran; Iraq; OPEC; international relations; Islamic religion, culture and law) on what is going on IN FRANCE!!! Would it not be useful to have somebody who knows very well the situation in France, who is knowledgable on the social and economic conditions of the Parisian suburbs, of the tensions between the residents of the housing projects and the police, between these residents and the government, the issues specific to immigrant communities in France. And yet, because many of the immigrants living in the housing projects happen to be Muslim, NPR can ask anybody who bills themselves as a "Middle East" expert, and he or she can make some generalizations, and it is reinforced that there is some fundamental character of Islamic culture that leads to violence, and so on.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports:

The country's biggest Muslim fundamentalist organisation, the Union for Islamic Organisations of France, issued a fatwa forbidding those "who seek divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes private or public property or can harm others".

And yet the rioting continues? But I thought all we had to do was ask Muslim organizations to condemn something and that would be that (or so I gathered from reading Tom Friedman's drivel). Perhaps this isn't about Islam after all. Perhaps it has something to do with the inequitable treatment of immigrants in France (and Europe more generally).

"These are young people who are generally resigned, they face discrimination everywhere, for housing and work, and their malaise gets expressed in violence," said Ahmed Touabi, principal of an elementary school in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil. The troublemakers "feel rejected by France, and they want to spit on France."

Hmmm... I wonder how being called "scum" by a major political figure would lead one to feel rejected? One scary thing is that this isn't limited to France, and indeed there were incidents in Brussels and Berlin over the weekend.

Heartbreaking

2005-11-07T11:04:00.000-05:00

While 12-year-old Ahmed al-Khatib's parents were forced to make the decision to donate his organs so that others might live, the IDF was busy circulating photos to show how realistic his toy rifle was.