Heretics' almanac

Making it clear with the Palestinians

In Slate, Shmuel Rosner makes a point that should not be lost on anyone who actually wants to see peace in and around Israel and the Palestinians. The dilemma, which Blair and others seem to want to sidestep, is this:

What if the democratically elected Palestinian government doesn't want peace with Israel?

There are lots of pundits who believe that the Palestinians voted for Hamas not because they agreed with Hamas's political platform of fundamentalism, terrorism, and rejectionism, but because Hamas is less corrupt than Fatah. And the corollary therefore must be that Israel should redouble its efforts to soften up on the Palestinians, e.g., dismantle the barrier, get rid of the checkpoints, release prisoners, etc. And that a further corollary to that is that Israel's failure to do will cause more terrorism.

Rumsfeld pissing away his own legacy

In parsing the Bush administration's many mistakes and follies, I've had a hard time getting all that worked up about Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe it's because I can't help but admire his intellect, that he has the courage of his convictions, and that he isn't wrong as often as most people think. His vision for a new military doctrine is correct, if incomplete; and he also has the right idea about strategy formation under uncertainty.

But lately, his fatal flaws have become apparent to me. His remarks as Bush announced his departure were nearly insufferable; and it's distressing, to say the least, that he persists in thinking that the US has the upper hand on the strategically imperative of securing peace and stability in Iraq. In having such a rigid mindset, he's doing his own legacy a huge disservice. The US has the unrivaled capability in the world today to effect the demise of a regime, and this is a profound strategic advantage.

Unholy alliances to destroy history

Say what you will, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no fool. His Holocaust Denial Festival in Iran may not impress the mainstream political establishment or any serious historian, but it demonstrates an understanding of the anti-Israeli and frankly antisemitic political culture that the rest of us are missing. By assembling a bunch of hacks - who nevertheless have populist appeal - and giving them the venue to speak without being discredited, Ahmadinejad is giving them credibility and standing.

This is because he knows that hating opposing Israel is the purest of virtues in certain circles, something that outweighs much else. The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, for example, devotes narry an editorial inch to this travesty but has written countless op-eds of mostly shoddy quality to condemning Israel. The news reporting concedes that the "conference" is "controversial," while reporting that  "Iran's president" thinks Israel will go the way of the Soviet Union. And of course, the news that "several rabbis" are also attending the "conference," leaving readers with the idea that Holocaust revisionism is widespread also among Jews.   

A word about the n-word

So Andy Dick made a joke using the "n" word and had to apologize. He apparently used it to make a point about Michael Richards's blow-up, and there's more apologies going around.

I think the "n" word is offensive, and I don't think anyone should use it. But there's something very bizarre about the logic. If the "n" word is offensive uttered by anyone that wouldn't be the target of it, why is it ok to use it if you're the target? Why should the word mean something completely different depending on the skin color of the person who is using it?

I guess the answer is that the person who could be characterized that way has experienced the bigotry that goes along with the use of the word from the other side, so to speak, but so what? Either a word has a negative connotation or it doesn't. I think it does.

Everyone's dumping on Bush, and then what?

First Rumsfeld, then Gates, then the Baker gang have gone public to say that the US is failing in Iraq. Listening to CNN in the background, Eagleburger says that the leaders of Iran, Syria, Jordan, everywhere say that the Israeli-Palestinian impasse needs to be resolved before the US can hope for a constructive dialogue with these countries.

Oh man, has Bush screwed up. The US is now in a position of having to beg for dialogue with these anti-democratic regimes that exist purely on the basis of a notion of an external enemy. Israel is in the position of having to make concessions that will put its citizens' lives at risk in order to keep a vital ally. The world has lost round one in the war against terrorism.

Not that any knee jerk detractors have any reason to gloat (as if anyone should gloat over a bloody, protracted, fucking mess of a war).

Things I've done - have yet to do

Read on, with TOH to Something Something

PC Holiday

All over New York, Christmas trees and Hanukkah menoras are popping up. I'm reminded of an old episode of Friends that has Rachel, Phoebe, Joey, etc., decorating for Christmas, and Ross polishing a Chanukkah menorah. Yeah, all that time Christians are busy making cookies, decorating, buying trees, etc., is about the time it takes Jews to polish the Chanukkiah.

Another anecdote: several years ago, the US Postal Service issued a chanukkah stamp to round out the annual Christmas stamps. When asked whether he was satisfied with this, a leader of a Jewish organization said, "No. The USPS is missing the point. We don't think any religious holiday should be explicitly endorsed by the USPS."

So here's where I'm at. I'm touched that so much effort is made to include others in the holiday celebrations, and I think there's much to be said for a shared observance of the middle of winter, lighter times, and certainly themes of generosity, peace, etc.

But I'm fine letting the Christians celebrate Xmas. I don't begrudge them their celebrations at all and think they should make the most of it. I don't get offended when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, but I'm always a bit unsure whether I should tell them that it's not applicable. Usually, I smile and say "thanks and the same to you."

Pix of killing in Iran in 1979

Probably one of the best papers on news reporting, the Wall Street Journal recently found and published the identity of the photographer of a Pulitzer Prize-winning shot of an execution in Iran. Eleven men, condemned by a show trial with no evidence, were lined up at an airport. What looks like irregular soldiers armed with G-3s crouched in front of them. And then they're shot, apparently in the chest, falling backward and collapsing behind the spot they were standing. The series of photographs shows one of the executioners putting a bullet in their heads afterwards.

Very disturbing images. One of those executed is apparently already in bad shape, and he's lying down when they shoot him. Dust flies up as the men collapse. They're standing there blindfolded, probably knowing what's about to occur but resigned to doing nothing but wait for it to happen.