« May 2009 | Main | July 2009 » June 2009 ArchivesJune 29, 2009Those Damn Colorado Ski Resort Jewish BurglarsThank goodness we here in Aspen don't have problems with large-nosed burglars like they do in Vail:The Vail Daily newspaper last week took the brunt of a well-deserved public beat-down for publishing a sheriff's department press release in which a witness to a home break-in in Edwards described a suspect as being of "Jewish or Eastern European descent." June 28, 2009Is Roger Cohen a Neocon?Sure sounds like it:I think President Obama, as I wrote from Tehran, erred on the side of caution early on. He misspoke in equating Moussavi with Ahmadinejad in terms of US strategic interests. He should have been more forthright in standing with the Green Wave. Meddling be damned. This was a pivotal and historic moment. Obama should have tossed the strategy papers in the garbage and spoken from the heart. That Washington Post Crash Piece: A DissentJohn Judis didn't think much of that piece by Eli Saslow I linked to before, on the survivors of the Red Line crash. He argues that the Washington Post has ignored systemic problems with Metro, and has instead provided its readers with "fluff":And now in the wake of the Metro crash, how is the newspaper responding? With a front page fluff piece on three people who survived the crash. Maybe it's a wonderful piece, a real tear-jerker by an author with the skills of a Tony Lukas or Joan Didion. I don't know, because I am not wasting my time reading it. I am still waiting for the newspaper to do what local newspapers should do, and get to the bottom of what happened, and do it in a way that will prevent future crashes.I'm not in a position to argue that the Washington Post has adequately covered problems in the Metro system; Judis makes a strong case that it hasn't. I don't think, however, that the piece today was "fluff," and I think Judis would see that if he had actually read it before he condemned it. And by the way, bringing the human tragedy of the crash to light can only help spark the outrage necessary to reform the system. Let's See the Huffington Post Try to Do ThisThe Washington Post today features a beautifully-written article by Eli Saslow about the people who survived the Red Line crash on the Washington Metro earlier this week. The story is deeply-reported, authoritative, riveting and altogether a reproach to those who say that newspapers are somehow unnecessary, that the Huffington sweatshop and Google and the Daily Beast will keep us sufficiently informed. Read the whole thing and tell me I'm wrong.Peace is at Hand: Khaled Meshal Clears Everything UpHere's what the Hamas leader said in a recent interview:"The enemy's leaders call for a so-called Jewish state is a racist demand that is no different from calls by Italian Fascists and Hitler's Nazism."Yep, Hamas is definitely moderating. Just like the mullahs. June 25, 2009The Appalachian TrailI'm not hiking it (literally or euphemistically) but I'm heading out today for Colorado, which is like the Appalachian Trail but with less air. A bunch of us from The Atlantic will be there in the coming days for the Aspen Ideas Festival. Blogging will be light for the next little while because I'll be busy testing my ideas on the elk.June 24, 2009Well, Gov. Sanford Isn't Suffering from Dissociative FugueHe's suffering from something else entirely: Argentine Nookie Syndrome. We're watching this ridiculous man on TV now. James Bennet: "So he didn't want the stimulus money but he did want a certain kind of stimulus."Does Gov. Sanford Suffer from Dissociative Fugue?Gov. Sanford's strange vanishing act -- he was thought to be hiking the Appalachian Trail alone, until he washed up in Argentina -- prompts me to wonder if he suffers from a condition known as dissociative fugue disorder. When a person is in this fugue state, he'll pick up and travel suddenly to some random point, not at all sure why he's doing it, and sometimes with little memory of who he is. For a fuller description of this unusual condition, read this. Here's one interesting observation from the Merck Manual:Dissociative fugue is often mistaken for malingering because both conditions may give people an excuse to avoid their responsibilities (as in an intolerable marriage), to avoid accountability for their actions, or to reduce their exposure to a known hazard, such as a battle. However, dissociative fugue, unlike malingering, occurs spontaneously and is not faked.If I were on Sanford's spin patrol, I'd certainly look into this. How Long is the Appalachian Trail?It would be a long walk from South Carolina, but maybe the trail reaches into Argentina. Just a thought. Must ask Bill Bryson.June 22, 2009What Roger Cohen SawAndrew writes of Roger Cohen:He too saw this coming, and was vilified by the usual suspects for reaching for peace. If you want to read classic old media journalism by a reporter with passion and courage, his missive tonight is as good as it gets. Cohen proves the old media is not dead. May it rise again.On behalf of the "usual suspects," let me just say this: Roger Cohen in no way "saw this coming." In fact, he made a name for himself internationally as one of the leading Western apologists for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, arguing that the regime was substantially benign and that engagement with these murderers was practically a moral necessity. He saw nothing coming, nothing at all. He has even admitted as much. To his credit, last week he wrote: "I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness." When Iranian Demonstrators and Bibi Netanyahu AgreeStrange days. This is from CNN:
Who Talks This Way?From the Times today:At a news conference Monday, Hassan Qashqavi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, called the turnout a "brilliant gem which is shining on the peak of dignity of the Iranian nation." What if Khamenei and Ahmadinejad Win?A terrible thought, but what if the Iranian regime actually suppresses the revolt of the Iranian masses?I don't think this is possible, in the long run, of course: A regime that slaughters its own children has no future. But it can presumably maintain its grip on power for at least a while. What does this mean for its looming confrontation with America and, in particular, Israel, over its nuclear program? Do the events of recent days prove Benjamin Netanyahu right? Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Netanyahu told David Gregory that recent events have "unmasked" the true nature of the regime, and this is undoubtedly true: No one, not even the regime's apologists, believes that these men are secret moderates interested in seeing Iran rejoin the civilized world. So in one way, the regime's murderous response to dissent helps Netanyahu make his case that this is indeed a fanatic regime. But recent events also cut against Netanyahu's analysis, I think: The Iranian regime has exposed itself as interested mainly in self-preservation. Netanyahu told me earlier this spring that Iran is run by a "messianic, apocalyptic cult." But I think there's an argument to be made that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are grubby men mainly interested in perpetuating their power. In other words, they seem to behave like rather quotidian dictators, not religious fanatics. A confrontation with Israel would certainly threaten the stability of their regime, and the stability of their regime is something they quite obviously cherish. Trader Joe's Update (Plus: What is Israeli Couscous?)Goldblog reader Guy Handelman writes:I just came back from Trader Joes. The manager told me that they only carry 2 Israeli products (couscous and feta cheese). They already sold out of feta cheese, so I bought a box of couscous. It looks like the anti-Israel folks picked the wrong store to boycott.And this, from the Los Angeles Jewish Journal: In Los Angeles... the only unusual activity reported was that of local patrons walking into the national food chain to ask to buy Israeli products in specific.Since Trader Joe's only stocks two Israeli products, you'd think that the International Campaign to Scapegoat Israel would have picked a better target. One other question has been raised in all this: Just what is Israeli couscous? As a friend once asked, isn't Israeli couscous Israeli the way that French toast is French? I'm not sure of the answer -- I suppose there could be an Israeli variant, developed in Israel's large community of Moroccan Jews -- but this question reminds me of the great hummus debate, as well as the periodic eruption of falafel fighting, described here in this Times article by Jodi Kantor: It's nice to think that sharing a cherished food brings enemies together, easing tension and misunderstanding. But the world's rawest conflicts can include disagreements over common foodstuffs. Irish Catholics and Protestants have lightly bickered over whiskey. Turks and Greeks have feuded over coffee. And Jews and Arabs argue about falafel in a way that reflects the wider conflict, touching on debates over territory and history. ''Food always migrates according to immigration and commerce,'' said Yael Raviv, an Israeli student at New York University who wrote her Ph.D. thesis on Israeli nationalism and cuisine. ''But because of the political situation, falafel has taken on enormous significance.'' June 19, 2009Sullivan, Froomkin, Hiatt, Iran and AIPACThe incipient Iranian revolution has upset certain political categories at home, two to be exact: Scowcroftian realism and liberal interventionism (a/k/a neoconservatism). Both, IMHO, are inadequate to the current crisis. The bloodcurdling scenes of oppression on the streets of Teheran betray the limits of cold-hearted realism as an American doctrine: It is not who we are, to stand idly by. Realists believe that power, and power only, has salience in international relations, but American conceptions of right and wrong clearly do as well, and always have.On the other side of the ledger, it seems as if some neoconservatives are demanding that Barack Obama do more than he's doing simply because that's what we Americans are supposed to do: More. This seems like an unwise strategy; the smartest strategy would be to follow the lead of the Iranian protesters. If they seem to need more American moral support, or other kinds of support, then we should reconsider. But Obama's strategy so far seems basically correct: He probably could give more direct and enthusiastic rhetorical support to the demonstrators than he's been giving, precisely because he's Barack Obama and could get away with it. But the idea that we should rush in and do something makes little sense at the moment. The overarching goal is to see the birth of a democratic Iran, not to make ourselves feel good, or get in the way. That said, the liberal interventionist/neoconservative position is the easier one to understand, because it is the more human response. This has been my colleague Andrew Sullivan's basic response. He's done a phenomenal job of covering the chaos in Iran, but every so often he feels a need to throw an elbow at neoconservatives and at AIPAC, for no apparent reason, except to distance himself from people who, in the main, would like to see Ahmadinejad, to borrow a phrase, wiped off the map, just as Andrew would. Such was the case yesterday, when Andrew responded to the firing of Dan Froomkin, the liberal Washington Post.com columnist, by writing, among other things, that "maybe the quality of (Froomkin's) free-lancing was showing up the hackneyed AIPAC boilerplate they publish every day on their op-ed page." He went on to write, in reference to Froomkin's recent argument with Charles Krauthammer about torture, "Exposing the torture-monger Krauthammer would almost certainly have enraged (editorial page editor Fred) Hiatt. They look after their own the neocons." For the record, I like Froomkin's column, read it often, and am sorry to see it go, but I don't know what this controversy has to do with Krauthammer (with whom Sullivan is in fundamental agreement on the righteousness and importance of the Iranian revolution) and I certainly don't know what this has to do with AIPAC, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't lobbied the Hill on this current Iran crisis and hasn't issued any statements at all about it. I think Andrew's attacks on Fred Hiatt, neoconservatives and AIPAC are a manifestation of the aforementioned category confusion. In any case, since I can't figure out Andrew's post, I asked Fred Hiatt if he could. He sent me this response: "It is so incoherent, it's hard to know how to comment. But I will try. He says I was acting on neocon orders when we published a piece suggesting that Ahmadinejad may have actually had popular support. But elsewhere I am being attacked for publishing ostensibly neocon pieces criticizing Obama for not supporting Ahmadenejad's opposition. It's hard to see how both could be true.I'm guessing Andrew will probably have a response to Hiatt's criticism. Those Pesky ZionistsAyatollah Khamenei blames "media belonging to Zionists, evil media" for stirring up the demonstrators in Iran. And I've been told that neoconservative Zionists are supporting Ahmadinejad. Man, Zionists are busy. By the way, for a proper definition of Zionist, see here.In Memory of Stephen T. JohnsSeveral Goldblog readers have asked for information about the possibility of making donations to a fund for Stephen T. Johns' family. Here is a link to one such fund. Johns' funeral is today. A special section of the church has been reserved for Holocaust survivors. The heart breaks.DNA Tests and Hidden JewsRachel Lehmann-Haupt reports that DNA testing is helping people discover their Jewish ancestry. I think I'm going to take one of these tests. I've long suspected that I'm Jewish, and I'd like to find out once and for all.Another Fascinating LetterWhat makes people think like this? I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know. What makes people blame Jews for everything that goes wrong in the world?
June 18, 2009I Bet Ahmadinejad Wouldn't Let This Happen in IranJames Kirchick, who profiled the below-mentioned neocon gay porn king in The New Republic, passed along this press release:June 15, 2009 (New York, NY) -- Lucas Entertainment is proud to announce that production has wrapped on its groundbreaking adult feature, MEN OF ISRAEL. This endeavor marks a first in the gay pornographic world, as the premier Israeli film produced by major adult studio with an all-Israeli cast. Executive Producer/Co-Director Michael Lucas and Co-Director/Videographer mr. Pam were on location for over a month, diligently scouting and shooting extensive amounts of footage for the film. MEN OF ISRAEL captures not only the irreproachable, physical beauty found in each and every Israeli, but also the unique and wondrous allure of the country itself. The exotic backdrops for many of the sex scenes eclectically range from the pristine desert cliffs of the Dead Sea, ancient ruins near Jerusalem dating back to over a millennium, to avant-garde skyscraper condos in the enriched metropolis of Tel Aviv. Latest Anti-Israel Idiocy, Trader Joe's EditionNow the anti-Israel maniacs want people to boycott "Israeli couscous" at Trader Joe's. What prejudice! Israel has problems, yes (why, I just posted on one such problem), but the hard-left boycott-Israel folks are so discriminatory it's repulsive. My recommendation: Head to Trader Joe's and buy anything made or grown in Israel. I hear the Israeli couscous goes well with grilled scapegoat, by the way.American Jews and Settlements: A Divorce in ProgressIn an op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post, Samuel Freedman writes:With President Barack Obama's forceful, repeated calls for a total freeze on settlements, he is surely betting that he can assail a consistent policy of Israeli governments, both Labor and Likud, without alienating his substantial support among American Jewish voters.Freedman has written an important piece. The leadership of the organized American Jewish community - that means you, Malcolm Hoenlein - doesn't seem to understand what is happening in America, among its Jews, and also, by the way, among its non-Jews. American Jews - or let's say, for argument's sake, the Jews who voted for Obama, which is to say, most Jews - no longer conflate support for Israel with support for the settlement movement. Quite the opposite: Many American Jews see the settlements, as I have written many times, as the vanguard of binationalism, which is to say, an ostensibly Zionist movement that is anti-Zionist in effect. But liberal American Jews not only see the colonization of the West Bank as a demographic threat to Israel; they see it as a moral threat as well, a moral threat to Israel, and a moral threat to the previously mainstream understanding that justice is on Israel's side. What all this means politically is that Obama is positioned now, in ways that previous American presidents weren't, to tell Israel what it needs to hear; that the Zionist idea is just, but that the Palestinian idea has justice to it as well. He will be able to cajole, and ultimately force, Israel to make compromises that might be painful short-term (Judea and Samaria, a/k/a the West Bank, is historically Jewish, as well as, more recently, Palestinian) but that will save the Jewish democratic idea. Malcolm Hoenlein and the other grandees of the organized American Jewish leadership believe that masses of Jews will rise up against Obama if he forces Israel out of its settlements. They won't. I believe the majority of American Jews want two things: A secure Israel, and a moral Israel that is a light unto the nations. Settlements make Israel insecure, and they make it seem immoral in the eyes of the world. The Media Will Regret ThisYou can already imagine the self-lacerating criticism to come, once people in the news profession realize that they've become a bit too forgiving -- that's a mild word for it -- of the Obama Administration. David Zurawik writes, in reference to the upcoming ABC News broadcast from the White House:"[T]he TV press desperately needs to step back and question how it is covering President Barack Obama... It really is a cozy game that the White House is playing with the TV news industry, and it will be too late for us as citizens when some enterprising journalist (are there any left?) chronicles it in a book that is published two years from now. But wait, she or he will have to have access to the White House to get a decent advance, which demands its own kind of getting into bed with the administration." The Taboo That Won't Shut UpStephen Walt's desperate effort to portray himself as a brave truth-teller battling the cabal of Americans who happen to like Israel continues apace. (I have promised myself never to mention Walt, or his more academically-accomplished though equally-grubby partner, John Mearsheimer, without quoting Walt's Foreign Policy colleague David Rothkopf on their detestable careers: "They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago."After the President's very good speech in Cairo (in which he expressed disagreement with Israel's current course vis-a-vis settlements) Walt informed us that the subject of even-handedness in Middle East policy-making "had become something of a taboo issue, especially for anyone seeking a prominent career in American politics or in the U.S. foreign policy establishment." This is part of their campaign: To argue implicitly that the Jews will strike down anyone who dares question America's support for Israel. This argument also helped sell their pernicious book (published by one of the most esteemed houses in America), an irony they refuse to acknowledge. In any case, it struck me that the "taboo" of which they speak is actually no taboo at all, in the following two senses: People talk about the power of so-called Israel Lobby all the time; and they are generally not punished for speaking up (Charles Freeman was not marginalized, by the way, for speaking against the "Israel Lobby," but for his obsessional loathing of the very idea of Israel, and of course for his shilling for Saudi Arabia, and for his deep sympathy for China's Communist rulers.). In any case, if it is indeed a taboo to talk about the power of the so-called Israel lobby, it is a taboo that won't shut up. Here's some evidence: Roger Cohen, NYT, March 16, 2009: "Another distinctive characteristic of Iran is the presence of the largest Jewish community in the Muslim Middle East in the country of the most vitriolic anti-Israel tirades. My evocation of this 25,000-strong community, in the taboo-ridden world of American Middle East debate, has prompted fury, nowhere more so than here in Los Angeles, where many of Iran's Jewish exiles live." Charles Freeman, CNN, March 15, 2009: "The objective of their campaign against me was to reinforce that hammerlock, to enforce the taboo against any critical discussion of Israeli policies and what they might mean for Israel's future or the future of the United States as affected by Israel's future; to ensure that this group -- which is a very well-organized group, as can be readily discerned from their messages crowing about how they organized this campaign -- to reinforce their veto power over appointments to the government; to ensure that analysis was not value- free, but pro-Israel in orientation and, to some extent, anti-Arab; and finally, to ensure that the policy process remains supportive of whatever it is that whoever is in power in Israel demands." Scott Williamson, Indianapolis Star, March 13, 2009: Freeman's appointment in the face of such heated criticism would have been a blow to the taboo that forbids our public officials from disagreeing with Israeli policies. Instead, the successful character assassination campaign waged against him will serve as a reminder that there is still a price to be paid for criticizing Israel's actions. Editorial, The Daily Star (Beirut), March 12, 2009: One of the biggest challenges that President Barack Obama will face in office will be to confront a problem that directly impacts US national security, but that is so taboo that few people in Washington are willing to talk about it openly. That problem is America's blind support of Israeli terrorism. Glenn Greenwald, Salon, March 10, 2009: In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined. Christopher Ketcham, AlterNet, March 10, 2008: "Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States" Paul J. Bailes, redress.cc, March 8, 2009: About the worst thing one can do in America or Europe is to criticize Israel. "Freedom" even in academia doesn't allow critical comments about Israel or Zionism. Those who risk it can lose their jobs and be labelled anti-Semitic bigots. ... The gravest injustice allows Zionists to silence honest critics for violating the Zionist taboo. June 17, 2009Chait v. KaganKagan says Obama is objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Chait says, bullshit. I think I'm with Chait on this one: Obama is simply being careful. Iranian reformers don't need vociferous American support right now; such support would only serve as ammunition for Ahmadinejad.GPack on America's Foreign Policy PathologiesAn excellent piece -- read the whole thing:"[T]he crisis in Iran has flushed out all the pathologies of American foreign-policy thinking, or feeling, in the post-Bush era. It's become weirdly difficult for commentators on both the right and the left to have anything close to a normal reaction to what the world is seeing. Instead, everything gets filtered through what you think about Bush, Iraq, Obama, Israel, and other subjects that have extremely tenuous connections to internal politics in Iran and the actions of the people and the state there. On the one hand, certain neoconservatives and hard-line defenders of Israel (Max Boot, Daniel Pipes) have sounded not in the least sorry about Ahmadinejad's corrupt re-election, or even come right out and welcomed it, demonstrating that neoconservatism is an offshoot of Leninism in its preference for the morally bankrupt position of "the worse, the better." (Credit where it's due: Bill Kristol's view on the events in Iran is uncharacteristically restrained.) Martin Peretz so despises the Islamic world that he's convinced himself (going on nothing more than a "sense") that Iran, contrary to all the evidence, is overwhelmingly Ahmadinejad country. Urgent Hi-Lo Poker UpdateThanks to the 150 or so people who wrote in about my poker dilemma (Read the original post here for explanation). I'm not only sharing the e-mails that argue my side (my side being the side that says I should have won three-quarters of the pot) but most correspondents thought that since I tied the low hand, I should have won the three-quarters. I've gathered some responses down below, starting with one from my friend and mentor, Seth Lipsky, who naturally ruled against me: "You lost, alas," he wrote."If you swing (i.e., declare both high and low) you can't tie in either direction. It's as old as poker."Other readers came down on my side. Josh Chrisman: "My poker playing friends and I have encountered the same question. (One of the benefits of playing poker with engineers is that they insist on having rules for every conceivable outcome, no matter how unlikely.) Our answer is that a tie for high or low is acceptable if you have declared both. At our table you would receive three quarters of the pot, and the person with the other straight would receive one quarter. I have no official rule to offer you; just the wisdom of one crowd." David Magilner: "You won the low, so you win half the pot. You tied the high hand, so you split the other half of the pot with the other straight. Not sure if this is 'official,' but it's the way we've played for years. Think if you had just declared "high:" you would have split the pot with the other straight... From Andrew Schuering: "I think that if you both had a-5 straights you would treat it as a
split pot on the high side. Meaning in this scenario you would win
3/4s of the pot. I know that is the common practice in online high-low games (admittedly in the ones I have played you don't have declare). I guess I would sum up the reason for this as follows... You do
have the best hand. Sure you may tie the other best hand but that
doesn't mean your hand is not also the best." From Eric Lin: "Easy answer. You get 3/4 pot. You get the low half, and you split the high half. Of course, home game rules vary, but that's the general rule. Next time, forget the "declare" -- cards speak." And this, from Lee Novak: "I had to laugh when I saw your post on seven card high/low poker. I've been watching/playing nickel/dime poker with my dad's family my entire life. And the only people I've ever seen play seven card high/low is my Jewish family. Some of my fondest memories are watching my 90+ year old bubbie (now passed) wearing a green plastic visor and saying, 'Oy, these cards. You should deal in jail.' So I checked with the experts on this (and also asked about the Jewish connection to 7 card high/low). My parents who continue to play weighed in as follows: Mom: "It is a winner take all answer--no ties;. Jewish people use high/low as opposed to drinking!' Dad: "Tie doesn't win! His friends were right." I'll post more responses later. Since When Do You Guys Consider Yourself White?One of many e-mails I've received about Max Blumenthal's video. I don't post these sorts of e-mails in order to excoriate Max Blumenthal for fomenting anti-Semitism, but because anti-Semitism on the Web is a phenomenon that needs to be highlighted and fought. This from a man whose name I'm withholding, because why give him the satisfaction?A few question for you: Ahmadinejad and Israel's Best Interests (Cont'd)Aluf Benn criticizes those Israeli leaders who think that Ahmadinejad is a kind of blessing for their country:The claim of pro-Ahmadinejad Israelis goes like this: The president in Iran is a puppet of the real powers - the religious leaders, led by Ayatollah Khamenei. Iran's nuclear plans have advanced and will continue no matter who is president and what that person's positions are. Therefore, it is better for us that Iran's most prominent spokesperson to be a Holocaust-denier who threatens to destroy Israel; that way it will be easier to garner support from around the world for pressure on Iran. June 16, 2009Mossad Head: Ahmadinejad Good for IsraelMeir Dagan, supreme cynic, tells a Knesset committee that the demonstrations in Iran will cease in the coming days, and a good thing, too, because Ahmadinejad is an easy foe to explain to the world:"The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element...It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran's nuclear program when he was prime minister."I understand his point, and yet am repulsed by it at the same time, perhaps because I care mainly about which Iranians have the bomb, rather than whether Iran has the bomb. Maybe this is naive -- and maybe I'm caught up, as a suspected neocon fellow traveler, in the excitement of watching Middle Easterners attempting to free themselves from such an obviously tyrannical regime -- but I have to think that the people flooding the streets in protest are not the sort of people who would want to see their country enter a nuclear confrontation with Israel. Not, God forbid, because they like Israel, but because they're rational enough, and interested enough in the betterment of their own lives, to demand a government that puts a limit on Iran's foreign adventures. I recognize that the people of Iran do not currently shape their country's nuclear policy -- and their country's policies to Israel and the West -- but one can hope for better days, when they do. Are Anti-Semitic Attacks on the Rise?The Holocaust Museum shooting last week led many people, including me, to think that we're seeing an uptick in the tempo of violent anti-Jewish attacks in America. We're certainly not in a situation analogous to that of Venezuela or France, and I would caution against overheating -- after all, no country in the history of the world has been as accepting of Jews as America has -- but the combination of white, right-wing fury, and Islamist rage is a nasty one. Here's a partial list of the anti-Semitic events of the past ten years. Judge for yourself whether this means anything:August 10, 1999: Buford Furrow Jr., a 46-year-old white supremacist on parole for assault with a deadly weapon, opened fire with a semiautomatic in the North Valley Jewish community center in California. Two six-year-old boys, a 16-year-old girl, and the receptionist were injured and a five-year-old boy was severely wounded. April 28, 2000: Richard Baumhammers killed his Jewish neighbor, Anita Gordon, in a suburban area of Pittsburgh beginning a killing spree fueled by anti-Semitic beliefs. Five individuals were killed and one victim was left paralyzed. Dick Durbin, Savvy InvestorIn my recent cover story for this magazine (you can subscribe to it and read it on high-quality paper!), I wrote about the great divide in personal finance between them that know and them that don't. I realized that I was in the category of them that don't know. In other words, there are people in America -- very few of them -- who are privy to real-time information about the true state of individual equities, and mutual funds. The rest of us, I argued, are just guessing when we invest.Well, count Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the number-two Democrat in the Senate, of being in the "them that know" category: As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.To be fair, he didn't know everything -- he was probably smart to get out of mutual funds, but his investment in Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock hasn't worked that well for him, having dropped in value fairly precipitously since September. June 15, 2009Is Dennis Ross In or Out at State?Can't tell. Ha'aretz started the rumor-mongering, but nothing definitive forthcoming from State today; he's working in the building, the spokesman sez. The only semi-definite thing I've picked up is that if he moves, he's moving to the White House. Ambinder has the best round-up.A Completely Not Important Poker QuestionThe other night, at my regular game, we were playing seven-card high-low. I had a very good hand -- ace, two, three, four, five, seven, plus a stray jack. I decided to declare both high and low (when the hands are complete, each remaining player declares whether he's going to play his high cards or his low cards -- the perfect low being an ace, 2,3,4 and six.) I had a great low, plus a straight, so I declared both high and low. There were two others still in the game; one declared high, the other low. So I was competing against both. The prize was the entire pot (which by then was in the tens of dollars), but if either the low or the high beat my hand, I would lose everything. I would win the entire pot, of course, and not split it, if I won.When we showed our cards, my low beat the other player's low, but my high hand -- a straight -- matched exactly the hand of the player who went high. We had never seen this before, and we were flummoxed. We turned to the Intertubes, but couldn't find an answer there. Eventually, the table decided that in order for me to have won the hand, I would have had to beat, and not merely, tie, both remaining players. The question out there is: What is the actual rule? Is there such a thing as a tie? Please send me your responses to goldberg.atlantic@gmail.com. Please, no e-mails telling us to stick to Texas Hold 'em. Vaclav Havel on IranFrom Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:"...Certainly there are many ways to isolate this regime, through various embargoes for example. They should be measures that are clearly not directed against the people but against this form of government. And at the same, expressions of solidarity with those who are defending human rights, with students and others, are important. In general, oil should not be more important than human rights." What Constitutes a "Decent Interval" for Iran Outreach?A Goldblog reader writes:Roger Cohen says, "In the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama's outreach (to the Iranian regime) must now await a decent interval." My question is, what would be a decent interval?Good question. Perhaps six hours for every thousand votes stolen, or two days for every demonstrator killed. Walt and Mearsheimer must hand out some sort of formula for this kind of thing at Realist Summer Camp. An Enemy of the WorldMichael Totten:
Time for An Obama Speech?Stephen Hayes thinks so:He does not need to call openly for an uprising, but he should be taking the accounts of reporters and our intelligence operatives in Iran and broadcasting them to the world. He should be amplifying the voices of the Iranians who have, once again, been deprived of any say in how they will be governed, and using them to pressure the Iranian regime at a time when it is plainly very fragile.History teaches us (see: Carter, Jimmy) that it's important to line up with the Iranian people, not against them. Now is the moment. Ahmadinejad's American ApologistFlynt Leverett, formerly of the National Security Council, compares the "election" in Iran to the 2000 recount in Florida:Look at the irregularities Mousavi is citing now: that they ran out of ballot paper in some polling precincts, that they did not keep some polls open long enough. There is no way such things could change the overall outcome which is clearly in favor of Ahmadinejad. If you compare this to the flaws of the presidential election in Florida in 2000, it seems very insignificant. On the Tragic NationalsI've taken my eight-year-old son to a bunch of Nationals (16-45) games, and he's never seen them win once. I worry that this will cause him to stop liking baseball (though he's had a good season on the Northwest Little League AA Red Sox, where his batting average is, as best as I can tell, .915).In the Post today, John Feinstein asks the obvious question: Why are the Nats holding on to Manager Manny Acta? It's a question I've asked many times myself. Here's Feinstein: There are plenty of reasons to keep Acta, a couple of reasons to fire him. J.C. Doesn't Want Israel to be a Jewish StateI guess this isn't surprising:So long as he agrees that Palestine shouldn't be a state for the Palestinians, I guess it doesn't really matter. Nazis in the ArmyThis isn't good news.On the Difference Between Jews and ZionistsIn re: Rev. Wright's recent comments, Goldblog reader Doron Arazi shares this Soviet-era joke:A prominent scientist is being summoned to his institute's party secretary. Bibi Leaves His Father's HomeAri Shavit:Benjamin Netanyahu crossed the Rubicon yesterday. In order to serve the country, he abandoned his father's ideological home. The decision to leave his home came at great emotional cost. The prime minister agonized for 10 days over the text that would redefine him. But in the end, Netanyahu did the right thing. He neither stuttered nor blinked. Instead, he placed the spotlight squarely on one irreplaceable phrase: a demilitarized Palestinian state next to a Jewish State of Israel. Does Iran Have a Right to Uranium Enrichment?David Rothkopf:We should not acknowledge international "rights" of countries that deny fundamental rights to their people. I would think that would be at the core of any Obama foreign policy (in fact, it seems to be with regard to Cuba, for example). Nor, as a practical matter, should the U.S. base critical proliferation decisions on the promises of countries that so callously break their fundamental promises to their citizens and then lie about it to the world. In fact, how about amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit the right to the pursuit of peaceful nuclear programs only to democracies? The True Nature of the Iranian RegimeI've argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama's outreach must now await a decent interval. I've also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness. Brutal and cynical? Really? Who would have thought that the Iranian regime could be so brutal and cynical and ruthless and undemocratic? Well, perhaps gay people, who are executed by the regime for their sexual orientation. Perhaps peace-loving Baha'is, who are mercilessly persecuted by the regime. Perhaps Iranian Jews, who are forced by the regime to abase themselves before gullible Western journalists. Perhaps the families of women stoned to death after being accused of adultery by the regime. Perhaps the dissidents of the universities, who know that a country led by a dictator who calls himself "Supreme Leader" isn't actually an incipient democracy. Perhaps the liberal Shia reformers, who know that their country has been hijacked by obscurantist fundamentalists. Perhaps Israel, which is regularly threatened with extermination by these same obscurantist fundamentalists. Perhaps men like Elie Wiesel, who know that Holocaust denial is a crime against history. Perhaps the moderate Arab states of the Gulf and beyond, who quake in fear of a nuclear-armed Iranian empire. Perhaps the International Atomic Energy Agency, which watches helplessly as the regime defies the demands of the U.N. Security Council. Perhaps the families of Iranian terror victims around the world, including those in Argentina, where Iranian agents bombed a Jewish cultural center, killing 85 innocent people. I'm sure there are others who could have told us about the nature of this regime, if only we had asked. June 12, 2009Netanyahu's Clever StrategyAmitai Etzioni:Netanyahu succeeded overnight in taking back a very major concession that previous Israeli governments had made and turning it into a significant bargaining chip. For years - surely ever since Ehud Barak made his famous magnanimous peace offer - Israeli support for a two-state solution was more or less taken for granted. In a surprisingly short period, Netanyahu has put Israel into a position in which if it agrees to two states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will be able to say that they and Obama have wrested a major concession from Israel's "right-wing government." The Sewers of the InternetGoldblog reader Jeff Bergman writes, in reference to Michael Gerson's excellent column:Here's a question -- has any good ever come out of the comments section of a major on-line content provider? You don't provide a blackboard for every hater out there at the bottom of your blog -- why does the Washington Post think that it's a good idea? Why not make these guys at least get their own damn blogs?The thinking is that comments sections engage existing readers, and bring in new readers, especially the ones with big mouths. But I've only rarely read something in a comments section that was worthwhile. In my own case, I get enough anti-Semitism through e-mail; I'm not such a masochist that I would want to make myself even more available to douchebag Jew-haters. Hannukah Parties at von Brunn's HouseA great letter in today's Washington Post:
"Who Cares Who Wins the Iranian Election?"Rosner raises an interesting question:It is also easy to forget that what makes Iran dangerous is not merely its pursuit of nuclear weapons but, rather, its campaign for regional hegemony, which is emboldened by nuclear development. In his Cairo speech, President Barack Obama reaffirmed "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." But until that goal is reached, there are big differences among the various nations armed with nukes. What makes Iran different is the goal that country is pursuing, not the means it is using. This is why Iran--and not France or India--turned out to be what experts call "one of the most critical national security challenges facing the United States."In my conversations with leaders of moderate Arab states, it became clear to me that many of them want Ahmadinejad to stay president: His rhetoric helps makes their case that Iran is a danger to them. They don't expect Iran to change under new, more "moderate" leadership, because national security and foreign policy are not in the hands of the president, in any case. Me, I'm slightly more hopeful than that: Maybe something extraordinary is brewing, and maybe the ayatollahs are learning that they are truly out of step with many of their people. One can hope. Wise Words About MemoryFrom Erica Brown:"We cannot simply feel a moment of sadness and move on, as if this is yet another example of what happens when guns get into the wrong hands." What Judith Warner Left OutReading Judith Warner's column this morning on the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column. This is true for other columnists on the liberal side of the spectrum. The murder of Private William Long seems to be of no concern, and without larger meaning.Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, great thinkers like Glenn Beck are blaming the attack on Holocaust Museum on -- well, it's hard to figure out what he's talking about, but it is safe to say that he's not blaming white America. And bloggers like Debbie Schlussel are blaming Islam for the Holocaust Museum attack. Go figure. The attacks in Arkansas and Washington are both manifestations of a radical type of intolerance, and they are linked in very deep ways. The left, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge Muslim intolerance, and the right, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge white, Christian intolerance. But they both exist, and they should both be acknowledged. Holocaust Museum DenialThe Aspen Ideas Festival is coming up soon, and all of us here at the Atlantic have to bring an idea. Usually mine are of the "put-the-mayo-in-the-tuna-can" variety, but here's a better idea: Holocaust Museum Denial. We should try to convince anti-Semites that the Holocaust Museum itself doesn't exist, that the alleged presence of the alleged Holocaust Museum on the National Mall is actually just another aspect of pernicious Zionist propaganda. If the nutjobs don't believe it's there -- and they're gullible enough to believe that, since they already believe that the Holocaust itself never happened -- then they won't attack it.Like I said, just an idea. Thankful for the Existence of the Holocaust Museum From Deborah Lipstadt, who was in the Holocaust Museum, teaching a class about the evil known as Holocaust denial, when the shooting occurred:
June 11, 2009Rev. Wright ClarifiesHe meant "Zionists," not "Jews," he sez. In other words, he regrets speaking plainly instead of deploying a euphemism.Same Hatred, Different IdiotsShaun Raviv pointed me to 50 Cent's website, which features Max Blumenthal's video of drunk young fools in Jerusalem, and the comments section is rife with craziness and hate and also inadvertent humor and the occasional pungent piece of analysis. As a service to Goldblog readers, I've culled some of the most interesting comments:We should stand back and let the Arabs have their way with them. See what they think then. I'm laughing at the tool who said "White power! Fuck the Niggers!" @ 0:55. Neo-Nazi's would stomp his semitic ass into Gefilte fish!! He's a retard!!Note the proper spelling of "gefilte." nobody like jews , not even eric cartmanMight be true, actually. Jews have always felt like they are a superior race - they don't give a shit about Americans or anyone else in the world. It's crazy that they are repeating the same racism they felt in WW2 against the Palenstenians. I don't know what Israel has done for America as a so-called ally except make all the Muslims in the world our enemy. I am so proud and confident of Obama - if anyone can make this right he can. Listen people and listen good these people are ignorant there drunk and their statements mean nothing. By the way don't believe in the hype that America is going to help the world. When in fact America is the one that needs help WAKE UP!!!!!!!!. And plus this is a very important fact their not the real Jews that the bible speaks of we are the minorities Blacks, latinos,mexicans. People of color. Their the synagoue of satan look it up!!!! DON'T BE FOOLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "FUCK THIS STINKING HOMO YA MOTHER FUCKERS WE FIGTHING YOUR WAR CAUSE YA PAIS U.S.A FOR PROTECTION RACIST COWARD WHY YA DONT SAID ALL DAT SHIT HERE IN N.Y. BECAUSE OF YA JEW HOMOS IS DAT DA WORLD IS FUCK UP BUNCH OF CHICK WITH DICKS,, FUCK ALL OF YA, 4 BEING RACIST AND COWARDS..BITCHES HOLD YOUR OWN YA SCARED FROM MUSLIMS,,AND IN U.S.A. YA PAID 4 PROTECTION FUCK YOUR MOMS=GIRL=SISTERS"]" "Man, That Whole Nation Needs Therapy And Counseling"Yes, well, maybe. "THESE KINDA VIDEOS SUCK AND SHOULDNT BE PUT UP, CUZ THIS IS HOW WAR STARTS! OR ATLEAST HATE A RACE ISSUES!"I don't disagree with that. "Wow... I guess I really have been onto something...I don't picture this selling big, but you never know. This last one might be from Rahm Emanuel. Finally, there's this piece of universal wisdom: all i gotta say is...i want pussy!! lmao The Nazi of MensaDarryl Fears and Marc Fisher have written the best portrait so far of the Holocaust Museum shooter:Von Brunn, who lives in Annapolis, was known for decades to fellow white supremacists who read his elaborate conspiracy theories on his Web site and met him through a network of radical racist groups. He was smart enough to join Mensa, but even admirers considered him a loner, a hothead and a man consumed with hatred. Guns and JewsI've never had that much respect for the Wackenhut security company before. I've seen it operate in several countries, and it is not staffed, generally speaking, by the most enthusiastic, go-getter types. But Wackenhut certainly performed well yesterday, at a tragic cost. The guards responded to Von Brunn just as they should have, and shot him immediately without hurting a single bystander. If the guards had not been armed, the Holocaust Museum would have been the scene of a massacre.I think the Jewish community should take this as a lesson, in particular those institutions that are only "protected" by unarmed guards. You can't fight a rifle or a shotgun with a stick, or a whistle, or good intentions. Only armed guards are at all capable of stopping an attack. American Jews -- and this is broad generalization here -- are queasy around weapons. This queasiness is rooted in our urban and suburban existence. But one of the lessons of the Holocaust to me -- I said this in my book, Prisoners, to some criticism -- is that it is more difficult to kill an armed Jew than an unarmed Jew. I'd rather see Jews guard Jewish institutions than non- Jews, because it's our responsibility to defend ourselves (that's my vestigial labor Zionist ideology speaking), but if JCCs and synagogues and Jewish museums don't want to pay extra for Israeli guards, than at least they should hire well-trained and armed protection. Wackenhut would do quite nicely, it seems. Obama Forgot One Middle Eastern InjusticeAndre Aciman:The president never said a word about me. Or, for that matter, about any of the other 800,000 or so Jews born in the Middle East who fled the Arab and Muslim world or who were summarily expelled for being Jewish in the 20th century. With all his references to the history of Islam and to its (questionable) "proud tradition of tolerance" of other faiths, Mr. Obama never said anything about those Jews whose ancestors had been living in Arab lands long before the advent of Islam but were its first victims once rampant nationalism swept over the Arab world. Nazis Had Threatened the Museum BeforeZachary Goelman reports from the front-lines of white supremacy.June 10, 2009The Stupidest Thing Said So Far About Von BrunnVia Andrew comes this stunning statement from Debbie Schlussel:"Make no mistake. Muslims created this atmosphere where hatred of the Jews is okay and must be "tolerated" as a legitimate point of view. The shooting today is just yet another manifestation emanating from that viewpoint-another manifestation of the welcome mat that Muslims rolled out for fellow anti-Semites of all stripes to no longer be afraid to come out of the closet."Maybe this was meant to be a parody, I don't know. I've never read Debbie Schlussel before. But if it's meant seriously, then it's ridiculous. White Christians have done an excellent job being anti-Semitic for several hundred years -- almost a couple of thousand, actually -- without any help whatsoever from Muslims. In fact, it is Muslim Jew-haters who rely on the publications of European and white American anti-Semites -- most notably the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the International Jew -- for inspiration. I hope Schlussel retracts this absurd piece of "analysis." Does she have any idea what this country was like in the 1930s? I don't think Muslims dominated the German Bund. The Hobby Horses Come Riding InToday shouldn't be about the gun-control debate or any of the other usual debates. Today should be about two things: Remembering a victim of terrorism, and thinking about what in this world would make someone commit an act of intolerance and violence against a museum built to remind people of the dangers of intolerance and violence. Also, perhaps, the timelessness of the mental illness known as anti-Semitism.Racism "Ate Him Alive"Von Brunn's ex-wife describes life with the abusive alcoholic.The White Supremacist Obsession with ListsA few days ago I wrote about the endless stream of emails I receive about Tim Geithner's alleged Jewishness, emails that usually contain long, torrid lists of Jewish names. It turns out -- no surprise at all, I guess -- that Von Brunn was also a big lister of Jews.A Black Man Dying in Defense of the Holocaust MuseumTa-Nehisi writes:Perhaps this means nothing but I feel that I should acknowledge that a black man was killed on guard duty at the Holocaust museum. That may mean nothing. But I think it should be said.No, it means something. More than something, in fact. The great tragedy of the rift between blacks and Jews is that while we waste time arguing with each other, our common enemy -- racialist fascism -- goes unfought. Add Stephen Tyrone Johns to the group that includes Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman. All were victims of the same sick ideology. The Art of James von BrunnYou can see it here.Stephen Tyrone JohnsHe worked at the Holocaust Museum for six years, and he died in its defense.Race and RevisionismIt's all of a piece: Here's Mark Weber, the Holocaust revisionist I quoted earlier, on race: "I don't believe it's possible for Black Americans to be assimilated into white society."Why We Need a Holocaust MuseumFrom James Lileks (h/t Instapundit). Read the whole thing. It won't take you long.The Unique Threat Against Jewish InstitutionsFrom Rabbi David Saperstein:"This represents something else that is perhaps distinct to Jews in America compared to other groups. Other religious targets may be subject to vandalism or even discriminatory acts but there are few other religious institutions that day in and day out must be concerned about acts of terrorism in the form of bombs, gun attacks, etc. On many levels Jews have been and remain the quintessential victims of religious intolerance and hatred in western civilization." The Holocaust Museum Guard Has DiedAccording to CNN.Leading Far-Right Holocaust Denier Says: It Ain't UsI just called Mark Weber, the director of the Institute for Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial organization in America, to ask him if he knew James Von Brunn, and to find out what he thought of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Weber said that the shooting is a "terrible and stupid and criminal thing, and any reasonable person would condemn it." He said he knew of Von Brunn because "people have sent me things from him, but that's all I know about it."I asked him if his far-right organization, which sponsors conferences and magazines that deny key aspects of the Holocaust, has created an atmosphere in which white supremacists feel compelled to attack Jewish targets. He got angry and said "every movement and organization has insane people in it. What was this guy's point? I can't even figure that out." I suggested that one point might be to drive away tourists who hope to learn about the Holocaust but who don't want to endanger their families while doing so. Weber said he was opposed to the creation and maintenance of the Holocaust Museum, because "obviously this museum doesn't exist as an expression of altruistic concern for humanity but as an expression of the enormous power of the Jewish community." But he said he would never countenance violence against it. He did say, however, that it does not depict history accurately; for instance, he said, gas chambers never existed. You get the idea. A Fascinating E-Mail About Holocaust DenialThe Anti-Defamation League found this in its archives:
"Time to Flush All Holocaust Memorials"This just received from the Anti-Defamation League, on the shooting suspect:The suspect, identified as James Wennecke Brunn, is a long time white supremacist and anti-Semite who often uses the name James von Brunn. Born in 1920, Brunn is a veteran of World War II and retired Naval Reserve officer. Brunn worked in advertising and other professions until he retired. He now lives in Maryland and describes himself as an "artist" and "writer;" however, his magnum opus is a self-published anti-Semitic book, Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog ("Kill the Best Gentiles"). He has written many anti-Semitic essays as well. In recent years, he also created an anti-Semitic Web site, which he called "The Holy Western Empire." The museum shooting is not the first time Brunn has exhibited a willingness to use violence with regard to targets he considered connected to Jews. On the Pervasiveness of Holocaust DenialA well-timed column today from Michael Gerson:In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald. Von Brunn's Federal Reserve ObsessionFrom his crazed website:Over the years Revisionists have asked me to write about my effort in 1981 to place the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (FED), under legal, non-violent citizens-arrest. The subject resides in my memory like old road-kill. What could have been a slam-bang victory turned into ignoble failure. Recalling all of this presents an onerous task. I am getting near the end of the diving board. "Hitler's Worst Mistake"More thoughts from the man MSNBC is reporting may be the Holocaust Museum shooter:HITLER'S WORST MISTAKE: "Blessed Be the Pro-White Activists"Stormfront, the racist website, has this posted about James W. von Brunn, the man MSNBC is reporting is the shooter at the Holocaust Museum:James W. von Brunn holds a BachSci Journalism degree from a mid-Western university where he was president of SAE and played varsity football. An 88-Year-Old White Supremacist?That's what MSNBC is saying.The Shooting at the Holocaust MuseumNobody knows nothing yet, so no overreaction or underreaction or even ordinary reaction here. Let's wait and see who it was who did this first.Rev. Wright on "Them Jews"I suppose what them Jews should do is ignore Rev. Wright. But I can't help myself:Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said:"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
The Oeuvre of Max BlumenthalA couple of dozen Goldblog readers have asked me to condemn Max Blumenthal for his video of young drunk Jews saying terrible things about Barack Obama. I can't quite bring myself to issue such a condemnation. Yes, I've studied young Blumenthal's videos, and yes, he wields his camera as a weapon against Jews he doesn't like, but here's the thing: He didn't force these young adults (not "kids," as a couple of letter-writers would have it) in Jerusalem to say the things they said. They did that all by themselves. Several e-mailers complained that the subjects of Blumenthal's film were drunk, and therefore not accountable for the ugliness that came out of their mouths.Sorry, no dice. No one I know believes that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic only when drunk. The fools in Jerusalem had these thoughts in their heads; alcohol cannot plant ideas that aren't there. And yes, they are not represenative of anything much, and yes, Blumenthal would be a journalist, rather than a propagandist, if he had noted that American Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers. I understand all the arguments, and I of course understand the argument, as I'm sure Blumenthal does too, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is expressed by religious leaders while sober. It is true: Max Blumenthal gets famous by highlighting the behavior of idiotic Jews. It's not a profession I would choose, but it's hard to blame him for the racism of other people. The Taliban's War on HotelsTerrible news out of Peshawar -- the Pearl Continental has been attacked by the Taliban. As of this writing, eleven people are dead, including two foreigners. The Pearl in Peshawar was really a lovely hotel, with an excellent Chinese buffet and quiet spaces in a tumultuous city. It was civilized, which is why the Taliban hates it.June 9, 2009Announcing the Arrival of Tablet MagazineNextbook's new on-line magazine, Tablet, is now up and running. It is edited by Alana Newhouse, who is very smart, and it has all sorts of very smart writers contributing to it, and looks to be all around very smart, and a great alternative to the general mediocrity of Jewish publications, print and on-line. I haven't yet combed through it, but will later, but in the meantime, you should. By the way, I'm supposed to contribute to it as well. I don't know if that's an advertisement for or against, but there you go.Now Obama is Hitler?If I'm not mistaken, that's what Frank Gaffney is kinda, sorta saying:After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.I swear by Allah this is crazy. Clawson: Khamenei "Worried" About Future of His RegimeOne of the smartest people I know on questions relating to Iran is Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I asked him four questions about the just-past Lebanese election, and the upcoming Iranian election, and the possibility of renewed war between Iran's proxies and Israel. Here is our exchange:
Jeffrey Goldberg: When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, does it matter who the country's president is, or is the nuclear program in other hands? Patrick Clawson: Iran's Leader -- or as he insists on being called, "Supreme Leader" -- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the one who has both the constitutional authority and the power in practice to call the shots on foreign and security policy. Iran's presidents are more cheerleader-in-chief than commander-in-chief (Khamenei controls the armed forces, among his many other powers). The nuclear issue is firmly in his hands. That said, the choice of president is important. Not because the president has much authority on the issues we care most about, but because the choice says much about the Leader's intentions. When the Leader is confident that the Islamic Republic can ignore the West, he sanctions the elections of a hardliner like Mahmood Ahmadinejad. When the Leader is persuaded that Iran has to sound more conciliatory - to blow smoke in our eyes instead of spitting in them - he allows a reformer" to win. JG: Will Hezbollah's semi-defeat in the Lebanese election make it more conciliatory, or will it send it back to its jihadist roots? PC: Unhappy that it and its allies lost the recent Lebanese elections, Hezbollah may well take up arms to insist that it retains its powerful role in Lebanon's government - a good example of how the principal victims of Iran's proxies are Arabs rather than Israelis. Even before the election, Hezbollah was claiming that no matter what the election results, Hezbollah was still entitled to enough cabinet seats - a "blocking third" - to prevent the cabinet from taking positions of which it disapproved. Hezbollah had sent its militia to occupy all of Beirut, including the Christian-majority East Beirut, to demand this "blocking third." While the reform March 14 movement agreed to this under duress, that agreement - the Doha Accords, negotiated by the Qatari government - was to expire with this last election, but Hezbollah insists the Doha Accords formula will remain valid. So the friends of Lebanon are likely to soon to confront the question: if Hezbollah picks up arms to reverse the election results, what can the West and moderate Arab states do to shore up Lebanon's democratic forces? JG: When do you expect the next eruption in violence between Iran's proxies and Israel?
PC: Just as Hezbollah is more of a threat to Lebanese democracy than it is to Israel, Hamas in Gaza has killed more Fatah supporters than Israelis. Similarly, the various insurgent and militia groups that Iran helps in Iraq kill many more Iraqis than Americans. Iran's proxies have not done well fighting Israel. Hamas' standing in Gaza has not been helped by its poor showing in last winter's fighting against Israel nor from the continuing suffering since then. And for all its bravado during the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah is no more popular in Lebanon today than it was before that war. It is seen by many Lebanese as a tool of Iran, one reason it and its allies did poorly in the recent elections. So, with any luck, Iran's proxies will exercise considerable caution before they take on Israel again. JG: There are clearly large numbers of people in Iran, the urban
elites and the young most particularly, who seem unhappy with their
government's priorities. Do you think we could be on the cusp of
something new and different, and, from the Western perspective, better?
PC: The majority of Iranians are profoundly unhappy with the government of the Islamic Republic, but that does not necessarily mean that change is imminent. What keeps the regime in power is its support from a dedicated minority of true believers, which is at least ten percent if not twenty percent of the population. The regime can count on its fanatical backers to use force - deadly force, if need be - to stop protests and keep the public in check. Those unhappy with the current system have overwhelmingly dropped out of politics, convinced that real change is not possible. But Iran's Supreme Leader is worried about the vulnerability of the regime. The main focus of his public speeches is about the danger of "soft overthrow" from "Western cultural invasion." Khamenei warns that the West is plotting a "velvet revolution" like that which overthrew the Czechoslovak communist government in a mere one week's time. He is so terrified that the Islamic Republic could be quickly swept away that he has the security forces lock up journalists (like NPR reporter Roxanne Saberi), civil society activists promoting people-to-people exchanges (like the Wilson Center's Haleh Esfandiari), and physicians active in scientific exchange. Presumably Khamenei knows something about his own country, and he worries that the regime is vulnerable. Let us hope he is correct. June 8, 2009The Dangers of Fundamentalism, Part 94From the Kansas City Star: Is Obama God?Pete Wehner has a simultaneously amusing and disturbing post up about a strange exchange between Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews on Matthews' show last Friday:"Thomas, commenting on Obama's Cairo speech, said, 'I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God.' And when Thomas was asked by Matthews, "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied, "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years."On the matter of whether Obama is "sort of God," I would only say that this kind of thinking is one reason it's useful to believe in the One God, as a way of checking human hubris. On the other question, of whether Thomas was correct in saying that "we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way," Nexis tells a slightly different story about whether Thomas himself felt "that way" in the mid-1980s. Then with Time Magazine, he wrote the following in January, 1985: "Viewed broadly, Reagan's agenda seems hamstrung by internal contradictions. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how he can spend more for defense, refuse to raise taxes or cut Social Security, and still chop the annual deficit in half. He almost certainly cannot expect the Soviets to reduce their arsenal of heavy land-based missiles while the U.S. plunges ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Reagan seems so dreamily unconcerned with these realities that even some of his own backers fear he may lose control of future policy struggles. Incredibly, only two months after Reagan won back the White House by a landslide, and before he had even been sworn in for a second term, many in Washington regard him as little more than a lame duck...."Then there's this story, from October, 1984, concerning reports that Reagan's CIA was secretly teaching the contras how to torture their enemies: "The 89-page booklet entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare is a primer on insurgency, a how-to book in the struggle for hearts and minds. Some of the "techniques of persuasion" are benign: helping the peasants harvest crops, learn to read, improve hygiene. Others are decidedly brutal: assassination, kidnapping, blackmail, mob violence. It could be a manual for the Viet Cong or the Cuban-backed rebels in El Salvador. If it were, the Administration would likely be waving it as proof of its thesis about the sources of insidious world terrorism. In fact, however, it is a publication of the CIA, written for Nicaraguan contras seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime. Its disclosure last week came as a political embarrassment to the Administration and a major moral one for the U.S. It stirred memories of CIA abuses that were supposedly outlawed a decade ago and gave Democrats a potentially hot new campaign issue."And this, from September, 1985, about negotiations with the Soviets: "The Administration's hold-fast position may be a sound negotiating tactic, but it gives the Soviets an edge in the war of words. The rhetoric level will increase this week as both Shevardnadze and Shultz give major speeches to the U.N. General Assembly at the opening of its 40th session. The Soviets continue to build up the summit as a "window of opportunity" for a major breakthrough in arms control that may not arise again "for a very, very long time." The U.S. just as resolutely tries to play down such talk as "wishful thinking." At his press conference, Reagan said the summit should be viewed as "a beginning point for better relations, a starting point for progress." A critical question is how public opinion will respond in Western Europe. If the U.S. is ultimately viewed as an obstacle to nuclear sanity, the result could be disarray in the alliance and strong pressure to make concessions. The Administration is trying to keep the Allies in line by dangling lucrative defense contracts for SDI research. Last week the U.S. appeared to be close to signing agreements with the British and West Germans to clear the way for such research."Memories grow hazy, of course, but it's worth noting that most of the mainstream press in the 1980s thought that Reagan was a dimwit and a lunatic, and that the Soviet Union was immortal. Charles Taylor, Jew for JesusGoldblog reader Mike Schilling writes, in reference to the Liberian warlord Charles Taylor's apparent embrace of Judaism:If you read the Foreign Policy article to the end, it's OK: "Q. Does that mean he has rejected Christianity then? Because that's quite a radical departure. A. No, no, no he hasn't rejected Christianity. He has always been a Christian. He just decided to become a Jew. He wants to follow the two religions." So he's actually a Jew for Jesus. They can have him. I Agree With Roger CohenOn the subject of Philip Roth. Cohen writes:But don't get me started on the academy, whose prejudice against the United States and failure to recognize Philip Roth is beyond scandalous. "American Pastoral" alone merits the Nobel several times over. A further prize, for proving the creative fecundity of late life, should be accorded Roth.His anger is entirely justifiable -- I mean, Pearl Buck gets a Nobel, and not Roth? The whole thing is nuts. On another level, I'm not sure Cohen is reading deeply the later Roth. The young Roth treated his Judaism as comedy; the older Roth has explored, seriously and at length, the marginal nature of Jewish existence. Not something that seems to preoccupy Cohen. Semi-Good News from LebanonHezbollah made no electoral advances yesterday, which is positive news (unless you happen to be Hezbollah's Jewish supporter), but Avi Issacharoff notes that not much, in fact, will change:For the duration of their next term in power, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's cabinet and majority leader Saad Hariri's coalition will be dependent on Hezbollah's goodwill. With last summer's violent showdown, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made absolutely clear who is in charge. Tim Geithner, Not a JewThe Goldblog inbox is regularly visited by correspondents eager to make the case that the world economy is controlled by the Jews. Most of them make the case, at best, in semi-literate fashion (when anti-Semites write properly, or even use spell-check, I'm going to start worrying), and a surprising number of them make their arguments through the use of lists, which is to say, they provide me lists of prominent Jews as proof that.... there are a lot of prominent Jews. Where it gets highly amusing is when these lists contain the names of people who are quite obviously not Jewish. These days, the lists are dominated by one name: Tim Geithner. I've received dozens of e-mails claiming that Geithner is Jewish, and in the sway of nefarious Wall Street Talmudists. Here is an excerpt from one such letter:"The jew Summers and the jew Geitner are giving our goverment to the Isrealis locks stocks and barrels. This is the plan from the beginning with the jew bernanke and obama who is suported by the jew emanel. obama gets all his money from jews and they are using the american tax money to push the arab out of palestine forever."I always thought it was "lox, stock and barrel," but never mind that. Here's another: "Geithner is the zionist who is controlling the taxes and is under the complet control fo the mossad the zionist murder agency. this zionist is only one. the zionists are everywhere in the government of america." It is true that Larry Summer and Ben Shalom Bernanke (anti-Semitic letter writers are always sure to mention his actual middle name, which is a beautiful middle name) and I suppose the Jewishness of Summer and Bernanke alone is enough to send anti-Semitic fevers spiking. But I'm sorry to report that Timothy Franz Geithner is extremely not Jewish. This is not to say that some of his best friends aren't Jewish, but the man quite obviously doesn't show up on my Jewdar for any number of reasons, including that crucial "Franz." In fact, Geithner is, as best as anyone can tell, a member of the United Church of Christ. Personally, I'd be happy to claim Geithner for the tribe (I'm happy to claim nearly everyone, except Charles Taylor), but I think the secretary is quite permanently seated on the Christian side of the aisle. In other words, please stop writing, anti-Semites e-mailers. Or at least come up with someone new. June 5, 2009The Party of the First PartIt's Friday: No Buchenwald commentary today, just the Marx Brothers:The End of Jury DutyThe truth is, I'd like to be picked for a good trial, like a cocaine distribution ring, or Scooter Libby. But the only trials I've ever been on have been real sleep-inducers. So I'm glad I was ultimately rejected. Rachael Brown was rejected as well. But that's because she's a hooligan.Is Obama Trying To Overthrow Bibi?It seems to me that Obama is trying to force the collapse of Netanyahu's government. I base this mostly on intuition. Of course, the Obama Administration would never claim to be interfering in the internal politics of another country, but it seems obvious that Netanyahu's narrow coalition won't survive sustained American pressure on the settlements question. Netanyahu is in a terrible spot: He must preserve, at all costs, Israel's strategic relationship with Washington; on the other hand, he has right-wing coalition partners who are myopically obsessed with the status of the Neve Manyak outposts. Something is bound to break, and when it does, the Netanyahu government collapses. Which doesn't mean that Netanyahu is out of power. It means that he then shares power with Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima Party. If I were an American policymaker, that's the Israeli coalition I would hope for: Netanyahu-Barak-Livni, rather than Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman. You watch: It's coming.Drunk Jews Spouting Racist NonsenseMax Blumenthal goes to downtown Jerusalem and prompts drunk American Jewish kids to say horrible things about Obama. On the one hand, Blumenthal is an exploiter who doesn't seem to like Israel very much; on the other hand, the things these pathetic kids say are repulsive and the yeshivas that sent them to Israel are due for a serious soul-search this Yom Kippur. Their children are an embarrassment to Judaism:Wolpe: Obama Misunderstands Jewish AspirationsDavid Wolpe on the big speech:The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied." That is not true, and unfortunate to say. The aspiration is rooted in deep, enduring roots in the Land of Israel, which the Islamic world has lately taken to denying. Claims that the Temple never really stood in Israel, or that the Jewish connection to the land is a later fabrication, are also malevolent and ignorant denials of history. Jews do not claim Israel because we were slaughtered; that merely proved the necessity of a refuge. We claim Israel because it is our ancient homeland. That the world proved incapable of living in peace for centuries proved not our entitlement, but its urgency of fulfillment. And he might have mentioned that much suffering was a product of the Islamic world; while many historians argue that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity (an argument I believe has a great deal of merit) nonetheless the catalogue of Jewish suffering under Islam is considerable and should have been noted. Obama is LivniDaniel Gordis says that the real news out of Obama's speech is that he is, fundamentally, Tzipi Livni:"President Obama assumed positions virtually identical to those of Israel's political center -- namely, that the Palestinians must renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, while Israel must cease settlement building and permit a Palestinian state to arise. Now, Benjamin Netanyahu's problem is that it's difficult to distinguish between President Obama and Tzipi Livni. And in Israel's recent elections, Livni and her Kadima party won more votes than anyone else." The Israeli Reaction to Obama's SpeechOn the Israeli reaction to the Cairo speech, from Goldblog reader Jared Sagoff:The whole thing reminds me of the old Jewish joke about the unattended baby on the beach who wanders into the ocean, only to be miraculously saved by an attentive lifeguard. When the mother returns, she looks the lifeguard dead in the eye and says, "well, you know, he had a hat!" June 4, 2009The AP Doesn't Exactly Understand the Middle EastFrom a dispatch today, entitled, rather stupidly, "Analysis: Obama's Islam success depends on Israel":"Among the long list of problems that cloud American relations with the Islamic world, none is more troubling in the Muslim streets and halls of power than U.S. ties to Israel and massive support for the Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East." Umm, no. Unicorn Poop Mystery SolvedI'm still not sure I understand the reference.Quote of, Quite Possibly, The YearFrom today's Times:Justice Steven G. Breyer was one of several on the court who suggested during oral argument that he was untroubled by the search. Justice Breyer said that when he was that age, boys stripped down to their underwear in the locker room and "people did stick things in my underwear," a comment that produced hearty laughter from Justice Thomas. Meshuggeneh Mike Scheuer Strikes AgainFrom the National Journal website, which features Scheuer, who recently accused Rahm Emanuel of treason for, you know, being Jewish and liking the Jewish state:The crux of the problem for the administration is that because the president is in the pocket of the Israel-First lobby of U.S. citizens; has decided against drilling and thereby increased the sway of the oil-rich Arab tyrants over our economy and foreign policy; is increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan enough to provide more casualties and humiliation but not enough to bring victory; and is pursuing the endless failure known as the "peace process" and therefore needs to keep bribing Mubarak to pretend Egypt does not hate Israel, Obama has few things to offer his audience except words unmatched by deeds. Jury Duty HellHour six: Rachael Brown was picked first -- first, of hundreds of people -- for jury selection, so she left me. I think she was picked because she was putting her feet on the furniture and behaving in that generally rowdy way one associates with Atlantic editors.Now they're playing us "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." If anyone out there sees this blog post, please rescue me. Am I Projecting?A Goldblog reader writes:It was a great speech but you're projecting, as is Andrew Sullivan in quoting your post on his blog. An Absolutely Extraordinary MomentAn African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.Promises, Promises (Netanyahu Version)The Netanyahu folks are upset because Obama isn't keeping promises made by the Bush Administration:The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into the White House.But it's worth pointing out that Netanyahu isn't keeping the promises made by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, in particular the promise to support the creation of a Palestinian state. "What Was There Not to Agree With?"Smart words from Ya'acov Lozowick:The narrative he presented and the vision drawn from it were admirable. It was a fine articulation of an Enlightened goal for humanity. Sadly, it's a rare politician who ever takes the time even to try to make such an encompassing articulation, much less set it up as a beacon to guide the formulation of policy. He deserves credit for trying. His determination to "tell truth" was also admirable: the speech may have been an interpretation of history but it was consistent and honest about its essential components: Fight violent extremists; two states in Israel/Palestine (with a loud rejection of Holocaust denial); no nuclear race which at this point means no nuclear Iran; democracy (tho he could have been more explicit for my taste); equality of women; respect for all religions (though he mentioned only the Abrahamic ones); equal opportunities. The Atlantic's Getting a Guest-Editor, TooNewsweek has hired Stephen Colbert to "guest-edit" its next issue. It's a great idea, so great that I am pleased to announce that the Atlantic is appointing Harriet Beecher Stowe as its first guest-editor. A former editor of this magazine once said that an issue of the Atlantic with Abraham Lincoln on the cover is our version of a swimsuit issue.Jury Duty Update9:46 a.m. One hundred and fifty D.C. citizens sitting in a room, doing nothing. "The Perfect Storm" is now showing. Rachael just got yelled at by a Superior Court apparatchik for putting her foot on a chair. Rachel is an outlaw like that. "These are new chairs, we're trying to keep them nice," the apparatchik said. They're not so nice, actually.Maybe the Best E-mail EverFrom a Goldblog reader:Jeffery,Two issues: One, my name is "Jeffrey", not "Jeffery", and two, I wasn't on Fox News this morning, or ever. But I'm very curious to figure out who was, and what the hell a "unicorn/poop evaluation" is. Obama: Friend of Israel, Part III'm on jury duty right now (and so is another Atlantic staffer, Rachael Brown, which means that about twelve percent of the entire Atlantic staff is in room 3130 of the Carl Moultrie D.C. Superior Court Building) and for whatever reason, the televisions in the juror holding pen, a/k/a the Huis Clos room, are showing an antique video about the career of Pete Rose, rather than the news, plus my connection to the Intertubes is slow, so I'm at a little bit of a deficit in reference to Obama's speech. From what I've seen, he established his strong belief that Israel should be a Jewish-majority democracy; he argued that the Palestinian use of violence has been counterproductive and immoral, and he didn't shift away from the traditional American understanding of Hamas; and he argued that the American idea and the Islamic idea can coexist, which is good, because it pisses off Osama Bin-Laden.One worry grows from what he didn't say in this passage: What he didn't say was that many Palestinian problems are self-created; that so much unhappiness could have been avoided if Arabs had accepted the right of Jews to return to their ancestral home. But it is also undeniably true that the Palestinians deserve the dignity of their own state, and that state, by the way, is a key to Israel's salvation. More later, once I watch a recap of the 1975 World Series, which was one of the greatest ever and a lot more uplifting than the Middle East. Obama: Friend of IsraelDear Settlers,Enough already. Sincerely, Barack Obama June 3, 2009Stoked for ArmageddonNational Geographic this month publishes a caricature of a piece about Christians in the Holy Land. The writer, Don Belt, seems to think that it is Jews who are driving Christians out of Israel. I'll come back to that nonsense later, but for now, read this, from the lede, about Jerusalem's Old City at Easter, which he describes as "livid and chaotic," whatever that means:Every face on Earth seems to float through the streets during Easter, every possible combination of eye and hair and skin color, every costume and style of dress, from blue-black African Christians in eye-popping dashikis to pale Finnish Christians dressed as Jesus with a bloody crown of thorns to American Christians in sneakers and "I [heart] Israel" caps, clearly stoked for the battle of Armageddon.Clearly stoked for the battle of Armageddon? How does he know this? Mr. Belt's prejudices show through a little bit too obviously, no? Not all American Christians who love Israel love it because they dream of Armageddon. But to Mr. Belt, any Christian who expresses support for Israel is "clearly stoked" for the apocalypse. National Geographic is carefully-edited; how does a sentence like this one get through? June 2, 2009This is What Happens When Blacks and Jews Get TogetherI'm very much for staying Jewish, but that doesn't mean you can't also be black. Just ask this rabbi, or this rabbi. In reference to a recent conversation with Ta-Nehisi, see for yourselves what happens when blacks and Jews really get together: Sophie Okonedo Ben Harper Lenny Kravitz Maya Rudolph Joshua Redman
Brooks, Emanuel in Secret Hava Nagila CabalA correction to an earlier post: According to David Brooks, it was David Brooks who handed the Secret Service agent the "Hava Nagila" sign, who then handed it to Bruce Springsteen, who then played Hava Nagila, proving that America is indeed the Promised Land. Rahm Emanuel actually handed it to Brooks, who was seated in front of Emanuel, which is as it should be, vis-a-vis journalistic privilege.The Case Against Gay Marriage, Schulman StyleThis Sam Schulman, who believes that Hezbollah and Merrill Lynch are the same thing, is quite the tool. I'm sorry I missed Ta-Nehisi smacking him down.Obama Said it All BeforeSo let's stop acting surprised when he calls for a settlement freeze. This is from my interview with him a year ago on this very subject:"I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically. A Conspiracy of EuphemismThe eight a.m. NPR news update today included word of the fatal shooting of one soldier and the wounding of another outside an army recruiting station in Arkansas. The news reader, Nora Raum, outlined the incident and stated that the shooting appeared to have "religious motivations." She did not name the suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, or tell NPR listeners what those religious motivations might be. In other words, it could have been a radical Unitarian who gunned down the soldiers, or possibly a violent Presbyterian.Why the shyness? Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long? Hezbollah = Smart Money MagazineNow comes The Wall Street Journal with an opinion article that is one of the most inane and illogical quite possibly ever published. In this piece, I am accused of being a "soft-bitten" journalist, for sharing, in a sort of limited way, some of my financial woes and worries in this Atlantic cover story. The writer of the article, a person named Sam Schulman, has a theory, that journalists were once "worldly-wise, tough-minded and cynical." He writes:"Having seen it all, they knew the phonies and the angles they played. They could turn on the idealism for a family audience until deadline -- and then turn it off when they put on their fedoras or fixed their faces and went off for a few quick ones that would restore their sangfroid for another day. That was then. Today's reporters are unreluctant confessors of how they've been conned."Schulman begins by attacking Edmund Andrews, the New York Times reporter who wrote recently about his own personal debt crisis. Then Schulman writes: Schulman writes that my "delusions" were very deep: "Mr. Goldberg seems to have trusted a random financial adviser at Merrill Lynch, believed that ordinary stockbrokers possess privileged information that they share with small-portfolio clients, that the 'brokers and wealth managers and cable-television oracles who make up the financial-services industry' are primarily interested in growing the nest egg of people like Mr. Goldberg and never worry about how they themselves might make a buck."He then writes: Yes, this is his argument: Because I have shown myself to be hard-bitten and cynical about the intentions of Hezbollah, I should have also been hard-bitten and cynical about the intentions of Merrill Lynch and Smart Money Magazine. I mean, I suppose it's possible to see his point. Take Hezbollah: It is a radical Shi'ite terrorist group, sponsored by Iran, that conducts suicide bombings and has murdered many dozens of children. It is also responsible for the killing of two hundred and forty-one United States Marines. It seeks to impose radical shari'a rule on Lebanon, and use it as a base to export its radical brand of Islam to the rest of the world. Now, take Smart Money Magazine. It is a monthly service magazine published by law-abiding Americans that provides advice, often erroneous, on how to increase the worth of one's portfolio. It also has a strong service journalism component.No doubt many people share such beliefs. But Mr. Goldberg has spent years covering the Middle East. He has lived among terrorists and murderers, seeing the worst of human nature. Yet he also believed that, armed with a subscription to a single financial magazine, he could put together a stock portfolio that would outperform index funds and mutual funds alike." Indistinguishable, right? Seriously, this is Mr. Schulman's argument, that a person who mistrusts Hezbollah and Hamas should also mistrust Smart Money and Merrill Lynch. Really, not much of an argument on which to hang an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. June 1, 2009On Israel's ObligationsTamara Cofman Wittes writes in regarding my last post on narcissistic settlers:You wrote: "Everyone knows that most settlements would actually become part of Israel in a final peace deal. So these settlements should probably be allowed natural growth. But only if the settlements beyond the security barrier, the settlements in the heart of the Arab West Bank that everyone and his rabbi knows will soon dissapear, are frozen in place, and only if Israel acknowledges that the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine." The Unbearable Narcissism of the SettlersFrom Yediot, further ridiculousness from settler leaders, who have no sense whatsoever about the actual threats facing Israel, and no sense at all of how they sound to the world, and to their fellow Jews:The demand to prevent natural growth in settlements is unreasonable and is akin to Pharaoh's demand that all firstborn sons be thrown into the Nile River," said Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz ahead of Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting.Where to begin with this nonsense? With the implicit accusation that Barack Obama is pharaoh (which makes Hillary his vizier, or something)? Since the United States partially underwrites Israel, it has the right to make certain demands; since this demand is something that the majority of Israelis, in any case, understand, it's hard to see this as something akin to slavery. Here's the thing: The settlers are arguing that their human rights would be violated if they were made to move to Israel. That's right. It used to be that a person could fulfill his Zionist destiny in a place like Petah Tikva, but no more: Now, it's a sin against God, apparently, to live anywhere but in a government-subsidized trailer on a barren hill in the mountains of Samaria. I don't have any problem with the American demand for a settlement freeze; the settlements are an impediment to peace, they are a security burden, and they are petri dishes for the worst sort of fundamentalist messianism (and therefore profoundly anti-Zionist, at least according to the Zionist vision of men like Herzl and Ben-Gurion). Now, of course, there should be some delineating going on here -- everyone knows that most settlements would actually become part of Israel in a final peace deal. So these settlements should probably be allowed natural growth. But only if the settlements beyond the security barrier, the settlements in the heart of the Arab West Bank that everyone and his rabbi knows will soon dissapear, are frozen in place, and only if Israel acknowledges that the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine. Israel and its friends in America know that the only hope for a two-state solution come in the form of an empowered and moderate Palestinian Authority. Is there a good chance that the Palestinian Authority isn't, in fact, moderate? Is there a good chance the Palestinian Authority will never be powerful? Yes. But this is the only hope. And one of the the surest ways Israel, and America, could help make the Palestinian Authority more powerful is to freeze settlements now. Israel faces a threat to its existence in the form of the Iranian nuclear program. It doesn't face a threat from the demand that a small number of Israelis eventually leave the West Bank and live in Petah Tikva. Wal-Mart CEO To Receive Cesar Chavez PrizeWell, no. But something similar is taking place: Syracuse University's journalism school is giving Arianna Huffington, who believes that journalists should work for free, an award. Simon Dumenco has details."Cruelty Is Important"One thousand, two hundred and fifty columns later, my poker buddy Marc Fisher is giving up writing, temporarily, I hope, for a grown-up job. He'll be trying to help The Washington Post figure out ways to tell stories so compelling that people will actually pay money to read them. But his column will be missed. In his last column, he writes about his historic encounter with one of the Post's legends:On the first day I was given this space to play with, the great columnist Mary McGrory summoned me to her office with a note: "Come see me. I have three words for you." Jack the Rabbit and Weak-Knees WillieCan apparently teach the Jewish community something. Seth Cohen learns Jewish lessons from the Boss:"Mister I ain't a boy, no I'm a man; and I believe in a promised land" (from Promised Land). The Mysteries of the TSAA Goldblog reader writes about a recent encounter with a Transportation Security Administration officer at JFK:As I passed thorough the metal detector, my carry-on bag was flagged by the TSA and, after a cursory inspection of my turkey sandwich (which was judged to be benign), the TSA officer pulled the culprit item in my toiletry kit: L'Oreal's Studio Line Invisi-Gel. "This gel container's too large. You'll either have to check your bag or I'll keep this." I shot the officer a plea for sympathy: "My Invisi-Gel?" "Don't worry," she added encouragingly,"You can get another one at Rite-Aid."The official answer is, Of course TSA employees don't get to keep the often-expensive, often-unopened health and beauty products that end up in TSA waste bins. The unofficial answer is, If you were an underpaid federal employee looking at a thrown-away bottle of L'Oreal's Studio Line Invisi-Gel (whatever that is), would you take it if you could? Palestinian Ambassador: Two-State Solution Will Destroy IsraelPalestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki, in a TV interview this month, translated by MEMRI:They talk about a two-state solution, and when that is achieved... Even Ahmadinejad, leader of the rejectionists throughout the region, said he supports a two-state solution. Nobody fools anybody. From another interview recorded last month: Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
