Heretics' almanac

Hitchens, this time somewhat right

Christopher Hitchens has for once abandoned his firm platform of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to anything Israeli and asks a pretty good question in Slate:

There is also an element of condescension in the "corruption" explanation. Hamas says that it wants an Islamic state all the way from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. It publishes and promulgates the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Why not assume that it is at least partly serious about all this?

Of course, then he makes some outright false assertions to make sure that Israel still is at fault for every problem in the world:

For years, the PLO leadership has been at least officially committed to a two-state solution and has at least officially made a distinction between Judaism and Zionism. It has also renounced the disgusting tactic of suicide murder.

and:

Only imagine if the Israelis had been forced to recognize a West Bank and Gaza state when the PLO first accepted it 20 years ago.

Let's be clear here:

Cartoon violence

The Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten asked a number of cartoon artists last year to submit cartoons of the Mohammed, the central prophet - as most should know - in Islam. Islam takes - to their credit, imho - a highly principled stand against idolatry, and any visual depiction of Mohammed is therefore offensive.

Then, early in January of 2006, a Norwegian Christian magazine known as Magazinet also printed the cartoons, and the noise has been rising, leading to different kinds of threats, diplomatic discord, and various governmental public statements. The Danish and Norwegian authorities are for cnce doing the right thing, pointing out that while they deplore these cartoons, they are protected by provisions of free speech in the respective countries' laws. (Though it seems the Norwegians are backpedaling a bit). There are threats of boycotts, the Danish and Norwegian aid workers in Gaza fear for their lives, etc.

How modern girls get modern boys to be civilized

Caitlin Flanagan writes in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly about the apparent rise in casual oral sex among early teens, or more specifically about the phenomenon of girls performing fellatio on boys without any expectation of reciprocity, love, commitment, whatever.

Several people have told me enough anecdotes about this for me to believe it's really true.

Typically, the reaction is something like Flanagan's:

Obviously, there was no previous data to compare this with, but millions of suburban dads were quite adamant that they had been born too soon.

Suburban dads who don't have teenage daughters, I would imagine.

What to make of this?

A different spin on the Hamas victory

Sidney Zion in the New York Daily News has a different interpretation of the Hamas victory at the polls, namely that the Palestinians don't want the kind of moderation Abbas seems to favor - they want confrontation and conflict, the way Arafat did it:

On this crucial point [" the Hamas desire and obligation to destroy the Jewish state"], they simply didn't trust Abbas. He had been with Arafat through thick and thin. He was the financier of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. He even wrote a book denying the Holocaust. But he traded Arafat's kaffiyeh for a bespoke suit out of Bond St. If you look like a collaborator and talk like a collaborator - well, you lose the election.

This conflicts with the commonly-held notion that most Palestinians favor negotiations and peace.

Where Spielberg botched it

I saw the film “Munich” (is it titled “München” in Germany, I wonder?) shortly after it came out, and I'm not surprised that Spielberg is being chastised. The criticism has two points: one is that the film is inaccurate. The Israeli operatives that carried out the killings of the Munich terrorists were nothing like Spielberg's characters. The other is its moral message: all this killing isn't moving things forward. This is seen as apologism for terror and/or unfounded moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli self-defence.

Quo vadis, Hamas?

So, my left-wing friend in Israel thinks there are two basic scenarios for the new Palestinian Authority:

1) They introduce Shari'a in the territories, hook up with Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, get cut off from Western aid, but make up for it with funds from radical regimes. But they keep up the “hudna,” because it's in their own interest.

2) They start working with Third Way, including Hanan Ashrawi, etc., cozyong up to the west, trying to prove they are not the fundamentalists we think they are. Hudna, og course stays in place.

Or how about we try the radical assumption the left is so reluctant to entertain, namely that the Palestinians in fact aren't idiots. Hamas has always been pretty clear about what they want (a theocratic tyranny a la Taliban) all over today's Israel and Joran), and how they're going to get it (by the sword). or what they think of Jews and Christians. When the Palestinians embrace this platform, it's not because they're looking for peaceful co-existence with Israel, it's because they're disgusted with the way Fatah fought the war. They want better generals, not better negotiators.

It would take a delusional mind to question Israel's hard line under these circumstances. Most commentators say “well, if there was ever any doubt, there isn't anymore: we have no partner for peace.”

Pipes, annoying as he is, says the problem is that the Palestinians never have had to acknowledge defeat. When Sherman marched his men to the sea, his point - by burning every plantation he found along the way - was to demonstrate the expense for the Confederacy of continuing the war. He deprived them of any incentive, any potential reward, any will of continuing the fight. It was awful, but its a point worth remembering. As far as I can tell, wars end either (and mostly) when one part is utterly defeated, or (more rarely) when the parties are sick to death of fighting.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Never losing an opportunity...

Anyone who believed that Palestinians would choose negotiations over confrontation, and peace over victory, must be doing some serious soul-searching now. Hamas is declared a terrorist organization by the US State Department, the EU, and presumably every other OECD country. This separation barrier - notwithstanding its controversial route - might be more crucial than anyone thought, what with a Palestinian regime that has its declared platform to import and use weapons against anything Israeli.

I would imagine there are Israelis who think Gaza and everything else should be re-invaded, but the scenario is more likely that Israel will seal off the West Bank and Gaza permanently and respond in kind to belligerent acts.

Palestinian territories are a lot like Iran, except a) no nuclear arms program in Ramallah, and b) the “infidels” are mere yards away.

Debka points out that Hamas is not an independent entity - it is in fact run by nutcases in Syria, Iran, and Egypt. This is consistent with the long standing but probably true conventional wisdom that Palestinian independence is a rhetorical device among the Arab powers-that-be.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

The Hamas dilemma

Like most people I would consider reasonable, I have mixed feelings about the Palestinians. I think they have the right to all things Europeans, Americans, Australians, etc., tend to take for granted: free political, cultural,and religious expression; a political process based on checks, balances, and civil liberties; economic freedoms; and a future that promises safety, stability, and progression.

On the other hand, I don't buy their narrative of victimhood at the hand of Israelis; I don't think their nationalistic aspirations trump the Israelis' right to safety; and I think they've got to take a lot more responsibility for their past, present, and future.

In this context, elections are a good thing. Even if they don't work perfectly, they force leaders to seek legitimacy among their constituents. It forces them to account for their actions and the consequences of their actions. And the more effective a democracy is, the more honest is the political debate.

Persuading theocratic nuts

Fred Kaplan is one of the smarter regular contributors to Slate, and today he gives his readers a challenge: What to do about Iran? As he points out:

If diplomacy is the only rational solution to this problem yet the Iranians just want nukes—in other words, if there is no deal (or at least no deal that the United States would realistically offer) that would compel them to give up their dream—what's the next step?

As he points out, a lot is at stake here - the oil supply to countries that are scared of Iran, the overt threat against Israel's existence, and I suppose, limited American military flexibility given the quagmire occupation situation in Iraq.

Abramoff and Sudbø

Two dishonest and unethical people have entered my radar lately:

• Jack Abramoff, the "lobbyist" who - apparently in a pretty unconstrained fashion - traded in money for influence in Washington, happily lying and deceiving along the way.
• Jon Sudbø, the "scientist" who invented patient records, lied about his qualifications, and heaven knows did what else to promote his medical career.

Abramoff, it turns out, is a professed "Orthodox Jew," which prompted Jon Stewart to comment - with rather less humor than usual - that at least we know that he was a crook only six days a week. Sudbø is of course Norwegian, so there it is: two people I really want to disassociate myself with lest my random association (through religion and nationality) with them allow people to infer that I condone what they did.