Share
-
Heaven On Earth
Monthly Archives: May 2010
The Contempt of the “Right-Thinking” Peacock Rhinos: J-Street goes after Wiesel.
HT/David Winick
Elie Wiesel published a major ad, “For Jerusalem,” in several US newspapers, prompting President Obama to meet hastily with him and reassure him that he understands the importance of Jerusalem to the Jews. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J-Street responded with his own ad featuring a counter-attack by Yossi Sarid, one of the unrepentant architects of the Oslo process, that dismissed Weisel as misinformed, misled, deceived, and, worst of all, “imbuing our current conflict with messianic hues.”
This last accusation is particularly significant. Any religious affection for Jerusalem on the part of Jews appears on J-Street’s radar as messianic attachment, and since, by J-Street’s analysis, compromise on Jerusalem is a sine qua non of achieving peace, such feelings are impediments to reaching a “rational” solution.
Now one of my greater gripes with J-Street concerns the inconsistency with which they apply their principle that pressure should be put “on both sides.” When in doubt, their motto seems to run, squeeze Israel. I am open to correction, but I am unaware of one formal position that they have taken in which Palestinian concessions are the principle target of their actions or declamations.
So here, the fact that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is not only historically weak, but filled with messianic overtones, indeed Jihadi messianic ones, at the core of an unrestrained apocalyptic struggle, has no bearing for him.
Only the Jews should be restrained from messianic urgings; indeed they should restrain their messianic yearnings to make room for those of the Muslims. Then we’ll have peace.
Barry Rubin, in a brilliant study of Assimilation and its Discontents, pointed out how Jews, eager to succeed in the modern world, found their talent for self-denial one of their most valuable tools, and, for example, would champion any people’s liberation cause but that of their own people. J-Street steps right into the mold, and in so doing, reveals just what levels of contempt it feels for anyone whose sensibility gets in the way of their own sure-fire recipe for peace.
And what if… what if such a strategy of self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of peace ends up backfiring? The fact that J-Street would have Israel carve up its capital to make Palestinians happy, without any attention to the religious stakes for Palestinians, speaks eloquently for a perspective I think as cruel to Jews as it is unwise.
For J-Street, Palestinians need not compromise on Jerusalem as their “capital,” despite the fact that when it lay in Arab hands, Palestinians showed no interest in making it their capital. It matters not that their attachment is part and parcel of a violent and irredentist demand for Palestine from the “river to the sea” for both Fatah and Hamas. It matters not that, in their demand for control of the sacred precincts of their “third most holy city,” Muslims treat Jewish claims with dismissive contempt.
Question for Jeremy and Yossi Sarid, and all the other believers that unilateral compromise will bring peace: What if Israel’s agreement to share Jerusalem, pressured by the Obama administration, produces the opposite effect on Palestinians? What if, rather than empower the moderates to produce matching Palestinian concessions, as you seem to fervently believe, it strengthens the position of the irredentists who argue “East Jerusalem today, Palestine from the River to the Sea” tomorrow?
J-Street: Is there a plan B here?
How PC Talk Paralyzes us: Holder before the House on Islamic Radicalism and Home-Grown Terrorism
John Hindraker at Powerline has an astonishing tale to tell: Eric Holder before the House Judiciary Committee, answers some blunt questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R. Texas). What you see is a man incapable of even thinking about, much less discussing intelligently a problem that should be at the top of his priority list.
Note how he repeats three times two obfuscatory talking points. Unlike the 10-page Arizona law, which he didn’t read despite admitting reservations about the law based entirely on hearsay, Holder has apparently deeply imbibed the memo from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano about the necessary euphemisms for topics we do not discuss.
In so responding Holder reveals himself a firm believer in a kind of “dogma” that states that Jihadi Islam is inconsistent with Islam. If Smith were less confrontational, we’d have even better documentation on what Holder – and, I’d guess, most members of this administration – consider “true Islam.”
But, not to worry. Daniel Pipes’ well-researched survey of the role of this euphemistic discourse among Western authorities fills in the interrupted gaps: “Not Calling Islamism the Enemy.”
RADICAL ISLAM? WHAT’S THAT?
May 13, 2010 Posted by John at 8:23 PMCould radical Islam be responsible for recent terrorist attacks inside the U.S.? That question doesn’t seem like too much of a poser, but it was too much for Attorney General Eric Holder when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee today. Rep. Lamar Smith tries to get Holder to acknowledge that radical Islam could have played a role in one or more of the recent attacks, but Holder apparently views it as a trick question…
SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is — in — in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
HOLDER: Because of?
SMITH: Radical Islam.
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It’s — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.
Jack Hexter wrote an interesting essay on the difference between lumpers and splitters (see also, Berlin’s foxes and hedgehogs). Splitting – every case has to be considered on its own – is a tendency of those who wish to avoid making connections. Here, Smith is lumping, driving Holder to split.
SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people…
This is the second time Holder’s used the same answer to an unanswered question. Is this a talking point?
SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?
I wish Representative Smith had had the patience to let Holder go on. I’d like to hear what variant on the opening talking point he was planning on saying.
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious…
Wow. That’s three times in a row. Definitely a talking point. Note the splitters resistance to strong statements: “Okay, I’ll grant you ‘potentially religious,’ but it’s still to early to say. Let us splitters do some research for a while…”
Peacock Rhinos: On the nature of Ionesco’s Rhinoceros in the early 21st century
In a recent comment on a Goldstone post, Eliyahu made the following comparison:
Eugene Ionesco’s play, The Rhinoceros, has a lot of insights relevant to the “peace camp” and to people starring in the field of “international human rights advocacy” and “peace” advocacy. I think the term rhinoceros or qarnaf [קרנף] in Hebrew fits richard richard goldstone rather well. He’s a rhino in Ionesco’s sense. He is morally insensitive. He is an opportunist. He is devoid of scruples in his field of endeavor. He serves as his master’s voice. He has masters as he indicated by saying that he really didn’t want to take on the assignment. But he is part of a movement and/or a gang and cannot refuse, no more than a mafioso can refuse an assignment. He is expected to comply. His field of endeavor, his assigned task, is to pose as a highly moral man while acting immorally. He puts on the pose of a man of conscience, of a serious man. But he is shallow. He has a weak conscience.
Ionesco’s play referred to what happened in Vichy France as normal, relatively decent people became corrupted by favors, by receiving positions giving them power over other people, by the opportunity to bully others, etc. These people became like the thick-skinned, supposedly insensitive rhino in Ionesco’s metaphor. Unfortunately, the rhino metaphor can describe what is happening throughout the world, including the civilized world.
I ran this by my friend and associate (who considers himself extreme left), and his response was interesting. Many of Ionesco’s rhinos knew they were unprincipled. They openly sided with power and, as Eliyahu points out, were devoid of scruples. Goldstone, he argued, is full of fine thoughts, a beautiful soul who thinks much of himself. He struts on the stage as a moral voice. He’s a peacock.
But, I objected, beneath this veneer lies the heart (and hide) of a rhino. He is thick skinned in the sense that nothing can penetrate to even give him pause. (it is interesting that self-criticism is just not part of his repertoire. He’s admitted no mistakes, even as he expect – no, demands – that Israel bear its breast in public.)
He has his ideas, some public – the importance of the ICC and the human rights movement – and some private – Israel should be held to a higher standard – and it really doesn’t matter to him whether they contradict each other, whether the way he proceeds will work, or destroy his work. As long as that chorus keeps singing his praises, he’s not going to give an inch. The peacock feathers are the cloak of high moral-mindedness that Goldstone and so many others – including journalists – adopt, even as they pursue a rhino’s goals.
The reports coming from the “human rights community” in which at both HRW and AI, dissent is systematically throttled, suggests that this is a breeding ground of peacock rhinos.
UPDATE: William Briggs summarizes Thomas Sowell’s latest book, Intellectuals and Society, which describes the Peacock-rhino (or, as E.G. would have it, the Rhino-cock), with a quote from T.S. Eliot:
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it; or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
Read the rest: it will sound painfully familiar.
The Media Honor-Shame Game: Humiliate Israel, Spare and Taunt the Arabs
I have been working with a powerful new tool that an associate has prepared for me at Second Draft. We’ve been recording all the news coverage from CNN and BBC since December 27, 2009 that deals with Israel (and some relevant other coverage). As I go through the coverage, it’s hard not to notice how much the journalists themselves (especially the anchors like Jim Clancy of CNN and Jeremy Bowen of BBC) are hostile to Israel. Bowen even admitted how much he’s enjoying the dust-up between Israel and the US.
‘It has been an unusual and enjoyable new experience to be able to look on as the Israelis argued with their most important ally. The fact that the dispute is over Jewish settlements is even better for the Palestinian [sic].’
Nothing like a good dose of Schadenfreude to make a journalist’s day.
But beneath this fairly obvious layer, I’ve begun to detect something else: a game of honor-shame in which the media plays the role of taunter.
It follows three basic principles.
1) Play up Israeli insults to the Arabs and the West, thus taunting those so insulted to retaliate.
2) Play down Arab insults to Israel and the West, thus
3) Taunt Arabs into becoming more hard line.
The overall contribution of these subliminal messages which pop out here and there, is to stir hostility to Israel. It is as if the journalists want, above all, to have Israel get slapped in the face. Apparently their own efforts just don’t seem to satisfy them.
1) Play up Israeli insults to the Arabs and the West, thus taunting those so insulted to retaliate.
The following, from BBC announcer Kathy Kay gives a good sense of how it works from a news anchor:
You can watch the whole file, but the opening soundbite sets the tone:
The Vice President gets a very public slap in the face when he visits Israel… is the US going to let this ride?”
(Another) Open Letter to Judge Goldstone
The following appears (in an earlier draft) in the Jerusalem Post. This version contains links, and an added paragraph on incitement (HT/Elihu Richter).
Dear Judge Goldstone,
I am one of those who have read your report, and have followed your subsequent comments about it. I just read your most recent statements in the Jerusalem Post and Ha-Aretz (for those who can’t read Hebrew, consult the CAMERA’s discussion). Once again you repeat, unchanged, two prominent claims:
1) If only Israeli had cooperated, things might have been different; and
2) No substantive criticism has arisen to challenge your findings.
Now your first claim is a counter-factual, hence speculative. But even then, it’s misleading. While Israel didn’t cooperate officially, through various channels (Israeli NGOs, Daniel Reizner, the former head of the International Law department at the IDF), Israel submitted extensive evidence to your committee. You not only ignored these submissions, but to this day refuse to put them up at the UNHRC website devoted to your Mission.
Your second claim, however, is more concrete; and here the evidence against your is formidable. There is an extensive and substantive critique of your Report. In fact most close readers – even neutral ones – find the Report surprisingly unprofessional and stunningly credulous in its handling of evidence. These critiques are available online (collected at a handy website), and your denial that they have any substance contradicts your second claim categorically. Why would it have made any difference if Israel had participated in the Mission’s work, since you have and continue to ignore any evidence that contradicts your findings against them? Are you really saying, it’s too bad Israel didn’t participate because then the findings would be still more damning?
Goldstone to JPost: If only Israel had cooperated…
As a result of the dust-up about his grandson’s bar-mitzvah in South Africa, Goldstone had to address the concerns of the Jewish community there. Here’s his apologia. I’ll be writing a column in the JPost in response later this week. My initial responses here; suggestions welcome. For readers unaware of my substantive quibbles with Goldstone, see the two part article at MERIA.
If only Israel had cooperated
By RICHARD GOLDSTONE
05/05/2010Excerpts from a statement by Judge Richard Goldstone for the meeting with South African Jewish community leaders on Monday.
Let me say that I have taken no pleasure in seeing people around the world criticize the South African Jewish community, and I commend the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and all responsible for bringing an end to the unfortunate public issues that had arisen relating to my grandson’s bar mitzva. My family and I are delighted that I was able to attend the bar mitzva on Saturday, and that it was such a joyous and meaningful occasion. I am deeply grateful to Rabbi Suchard, the members of the committee and the congregation at Sandton Synagogue for having made this possible.
Imagine the reaction of Gazans were Mosab Youssef to come back for a wedding. People take this “amicable” resolution for granted. It’s actually testimony to the extraordinary tolerance of the Jewish community in South Africa.
Without more, allow me to turn to the Gaza report that has caused so much anger in this and other Jewish communities. It is well-known that initially I refused to become involved with what I considered to be a mandate that was unfair to Israel by concentrating only on war crimes alleged to have been committed by the IDF. When I was offered an even-handed mandate that included war crimes alleged to have been committed against Israel by Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, my position changed.
Let’s leave the quibbles about whether or not the mandate did change. Let’s say it really did empower you to go after “both sides.” What did you do with Hamas? Here’s a wordle of your report.
If I hadn’t marked it, you’d never find Hamas.
If you had been “even-handed,” then half (at least) of your work would have been about Hamas using their own civilians as shields. Instead, you indirectly accused them of what everyone already knew – they targeted civilians in Israel. The real story, the one your allegedly changed mandate would have permitted you to reveal to the world, was how they targeted their own civilians.
I have spent much of my professional life in the cause of international criminal justice. It would have been hypocritical for me to continue to speak out against violations of international law and impunity for war crimes around the world but remain silent when it came to Israel simply because I am Jewish.
No one is after you for speaking out about Israeli military misdeeds. Everyone can do that, none so energetically as Israelis. It’s the eagerness to judge them “war crimes” and “possible crimes against humanity” on the one hand, and the reluctance to look at the context of Hamas’ use of civilian shields on the other, that has people up in arms. Your defense, tiresomely repeated, is either dishonestly jejeune, or a deliberate feint. In either case, it’s unworthy of someone who would have us take him seriously as a major contributor to the culture of human rights that we all would like to succeed.
Dershowitz on the Latest Revelations about Goldstone
Alan Dershowitz has a piece up at the Hudson Institute about the recent revelation that Goldstone had a nasty record as judge in South Africa during apartheid. The original revleations to which Dershowitz refers to are here (full report in Hebrew) and here (summary in English), and Goldstone’s defense his here.
Legitimating Bigotry: The Legacy of Richard Goldstone
May 7, 2010 1:58 PM
by Alan M. DershowitzRichard Goldstone, author of the notorious Goldstone report, did not become a South African judge in the post-Apartheid Mandela Era, as The New York Times and other media have erroneously reported. He accepted a judgeship during the worst days of Apartheid and helped legitimate one of the most racist regimes in the world by granting the imprimatur of the rule of law to some of the most undemocratic and discriminatory decrees.
Goldstone was–quite literally–a hanging judge. He imposed and affirmed death sentences for more than two dozen blacks under circumstances where whites would almost certainly have escaped the noose. And he affirmed sentences of physical torture–euphemistically called “flogging”– for other blacks. He also enforced miscegenation and other racist laws with nary a word of criticism or dissent. He was an important part of the machinery of death, torture and racial subjugation that characterized Apartheid South Africa. His robe and gavel lent an air of legitimacy to an entirely illegitimate and barbaric regime.