Heretics' almanac

Carter and words

Jimmy Carter's book Palestine:Peace not Apartheid gets support from the usual places, but a number of well-considered critics find serious shortcomings about it at best. Dershowitz and the ADL pretty much denounce it as an error-filled polemic.

Carter won't debate the book with Dershowitz, whom he apparently considers profoundly ignorant on the subject. He's also met with a number of Jewish leaders to assure them that never mind what he writes, he really has nothing against Jews or even Israel's existence, for that matter. One quote:

Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not Israel. He should go to the second word in the title, which is "peace." And then the last two words [are] "not apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country.

Carter has gone to some great lengths, after the book was published, to make it clear that the term "apartheid" is used in a very limited sense, namely that Israel's policy amounts to stealing land that rightly belongs to Palestinians, or at least fall within the borders of a future Palestinian state.

But who in the world would ever choose a title that required so much parsing to understand? It's like a comedian having to explain why his joke is funny. It's pathetic.

The naive cynicism in the Norwegian political elite

Hilde Henriksen Waage has been anointed as Norway's most prominent expert on the "Middle East conflict," and so Norwegian media accept her views as something close to gospel. For her own part, she has been complaining about the murderous tendencies of the pro-Israeli groups in Norway, encouraging Jostein Gaarder to go undercover after his op-ed this summer.

It isn't clear to me why anybody would believe Waage is the least bit objective, except of course for her own assertions that she is. Her most important "contribution" to the body of knowledge around the issue is that she believes that Norwegian diplomats were manipulated into promoting Israel's interests at the expense of the Palestinians during the Oslo process. You know, the one that led to Barak making several offers to Arafat that would have established a Palestinian state, Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and so on.

What about Foley's fall should be self-evident

I have to imagine the mood in the West Wing is dismal these days. And that there are a lot of people who can't help but gloat, but in a classy way. As John Dickerson points out, this is a time for the Democrats to stand back and let the Republicans dig the hole even deeper.

In truth, scandals such as these shouldn't invite partisan politics. There is no reason to believe that the Republican party attracts more scumbags than the other party, what's it called...? And if there is, it better be substantiated pretty thoroughly to be used as political currency.

What's a little strange about all this is that it isn't entirely clear what Mark Foley did wrong, at least by a narrow definition. He may have been inappropriate with the pageboys, but he didn't assault them, try to seduce them, or get them involved in pornography. I mean, he cut awfully close to being a child sex offender, and the investigation has yet to show the connection between nasty thoughts and words, and actual actions.

In defense of Christopher Hitchens

I listened to a podcast yesterday - it would have been NPR or Slate, I'm not sure which - that featured Christopher Hitchens. Anyone who reads this blog will know I don't hold much of a light for Hitchens - I think he's absolutely wrong about Israel, over the top on Mother Theresa, mostly wrong and unrepentant on Iraq, wrong on Clinton, but mostly right on Kissinger. Part of my disagreement with him stems from his previous, prominent role in The Nation, that largely unimaginative left-wing rag that gives Ann Coulter all the material she needs to get invited to prime time talk shows.

Yet the podcast told me that Hitchens is rejected, abandoned, and reviled by his former left-wing compatriots and sometime "friends." And though you might think I'd gloat over that, I don't. It's a shame that the left would reject a person because he showed intellectually honesty, and it shows us just how useless the far left is in politics. In one public meeting, George Galloway told the audience that Hitchens had transformed himself from a "butterfly" to a "slug" for siding with Bush on Iraq.

V and terrorism.

You have to wonder what it is about V for Vendetta that captures people's imagination (I haven't seen it yet), but the film critic on NPR asked the rhetorical question - what if you had to choose between joining the terrorists or supporting a totalitarian, fascist regime?

For some people, of course, the question isn't rhetorical. All terrorists, at some level or another, believe their tactics are justified because their enemy - a monolithic, morally unjustified regime - is so awful there is no other moral choice. It doesn't much matter whether they are delusional or lucid - the narrative finds basis in all kinds of historical revolutions where right triumphed over wrong.

In truth, "terrorism" - as it should be defined - has nothing to do with its purpose. It is a tactic that is morally unjustified regardless of who perpetrates it, or for what pretext ro reason. If we lived in a world where morality carried real weight, its use would delegitimize its ends.

Under Wiki-attack

I am under attack in Wikipedia. Another editor who calles himself Midgley and is in all likelihood the same person as one Adrian Midgley, is accusing me of bad manners and extreme bias. He's more or less surreptitiously leaving messages with other editors I've had disagreements with and making various kinds of accusations other places - implying that I'm drunk, trying to ridicule other information he finds about me on the web, and trying to convince people that since I have a son he's inferred is "autistic," I am blind to his superior knowledge and intellect, and admin action is needed. Presumably he wants me to be banned or reprimanded or something. He isn't clear what sanctions he thinks are appropriate.

He has also started looking at other articles I've been involved, claiming that it is a matter of opinion whether Mordechai Vanunu was prosecuted and convicted of treason. I suppose he believes that the judges, the attorneys and Vanunu himself may possibly have been hallucinating when the verdict was handed down; maybe that if you think about it, the whole universe is a subjective experience. Wow, man.

Sanctity of life and dignity of death

I for one was surprised that the Supreme Court - by 6 to 3 - upheld the Oregon "assisted suicide law." I don't know if it's mostly a victory for the "death with dignity" crowd or the "states' rights" crowd, and I suppose time will tell when the issue reappears before the court in a more refined way. In the meantime, those who were against the Oregon law invoked various "sanctity of life" arguments in protest against the (presumably) "activist" court. In a seemingly unrelated matter, the prison authorities who were responsible for executing Clarence Ray Allen announced that they had every intention of resucitating Allen should he be dying of a heart attack before the execution. They said they wanted to "uphold the sanctity of life" before killing the guy.

Sanctity of life. I have to say, I believe in it. I am not sure I would have voted for the Oregon law, though I have to admit I would not judge anyone who avails himself or herself of it to "hasten" their inevitable death.

Hitchens hates Sharon because he has nothing better to do

Anyone who wants to understand why so many Jews worry about antisemitic tendencies from the left need only read a more or less random collection of rants from Christopher Hitchens, the latest one his  premature obituary over Arik Sharon.

I hold no candle for Sharon, and he's a man that in spite of many accomplishments is very difficult to like. He's managed to build way more enemies and adversaries in his lifetime, and every shining moment has been accompanied by a dark spot.

But I am learning to despite Christopher Hitchens, who makes me want to mount a vigorous defense of Sharon and everything he's done.  For example, Hitchens writes:

Stunt? What stunt?

There should be a website (maybe there is one) for monitoring all the ways in which the Republicans are using their majority in both houses of Congress to marginalize the Democrats from the political process.  Meetings held in basements, lights shut off in the middle, are things we've witnessed that obviously pass as proper parliamentary procedure in the GOP.

So when the Dems force a closed Senate session to discuss something as, well important, as the basis the president had for bringing the country to war; and the Republicans complain bitterly; it is very hard to take the GOP lawmakers seriously.  The war in Iraq is costing us well over $200 billion in financial terms and well over 2,000 American lives (and countless Iraqi lives) in human terms.  Seems ot me it's something that ought to be questioned, again and again.

Karl Rove's genes and parentage

So I get this email from a Norwegian domain:

Karl Rove has nothing to do with Norway...It was his adoptive father who had some Norwegian ancestry. KRs mother was, reportedly, Jewish. I do not know what his father was.  Norwegians take pride in being honest. Please stop labelling KR Norwegian.

This is presumably in reference to this article.  Now let's parse what this reader is trying to say.

Apparently, he's upset by the fact that Karl Rove's Norwegian roots aren't genetic; it was his adoptive father's grandfather who immigrated from Norway.  Rove consistently refers to himself as "Norwegian," meaning "Norwegian-American."  His justification presumably is his cultural, not his genetic heritage.

As well it should be.  Does the writer actually believe that Norwegian genes conveys upon their carrier a greater sense of honesty than other genes?