Back From Israel/Death Cab For Cutie: Oddest dcat Juxtaposition Ever?

I'm back from Israel and am trying to pull my life back to some semblance of normalcy. There is always something strange about going abroad during the semester. You return and jump right back into the routine and it's as if the travel never happened. The conference was great, I was pleased with my paper, and naturally returning to Israel was great but raised myriad questions and thoughts. I'll be writing about the political situation in the next few days and will keep you posted when I do.

In the meantime, rejoice that the spring will see the release of a new Death Cab for Cutie album. They promise a wholly new departure. Because bands always promise wholly new departures and are conflicted about their last album. It's the oldest rock star trick in the book. Well, after banging groupies by the handful, doing lots and lots of drugs, and drinking Jack Daniels straight from the bottle. Usually at the same time.

Off to Israel

I am off to Israel for eight days and posting may be even lighter than usual. I am giving a paper, "From Apartheid to Liberation: Race, History and South African Historiography," at a conference, "Concepts of 'Race' in the History of the Humanities," at the University of Haifa.

I have not been to Israel in several years and am looking forward to returning and seeing how things there have changed (or, perhaps, how my perceptions have changed). The Israel-Palestine conflict is in the midst of another potential turning point moment that is likely to result in disappointment even as so many of us ardently hope for the alternative.

Herf Wows the State Department

Friend of dcat Jeffrey Herf recently gave a talk at the State Department on progressive foreign policy and radical Islam. The New Republic has republished his provocative speech.
As with everything Jeff writes this is smart and provocative. I have my qualms, especially with regard to the idea that the Obama administration does not talk enough (or loudly enough) about the dangers of radical Islam. Eight years of Bush administration bombast was damaging enough, thank you very much. It's not what you say so much as what you do as you say it. Nonetheless, his piece is very much worth reading.

Considering Friedman's Rules

There are, to my mind, two Tom Friedmans. When the longtime New York Times columnist writes about the Middle East he is quite strong. I know many people see him as being too tepid or too centrist, but his book From Beirut to Jerusalem is still the one book I would advise someone to read if they wanted a primer on the Israel-Palestine question. Then there is the Tom Friedman who keeps insisting to us that "the world is flat," his metaphor for the effects of globalization. This Friedman is more miss than hit, his tepidness really becoming a problem when he veers away from an area he knows as well as the Middle East.

Friedman had an op-ed last week that kept spinning in my craw. It deals with American Middle East policy, and so plays to his strengths. In the piece he lays out "three cardinal rules of Middle East diplomacy." While I'm not convinced that he is wrong, on each of the rules I take issue.

"Rule No. 1: When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. Karzai brazenly stole last year’s presidential election. But the Obama foreign policy team turned a blind eye, basically saying, he’s the best we could get, so just let it go. See dictionary for Vietnam: Air Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky."

But in diplomacy there are times when you call things by their "real name" and there are times when it is, after all, diplomacy so you need to be diplomatic. I'm not convinced the Obama team "turned a blind eye" so much as they knew that we had limited capacity to make a difference. The question is, do we need Karzai more than we can afford to alienate him? And will any difference that we make happen behind the scenes or in front of them? In other words, what we call things seems to matter a whole lot less than how we deal with them once they become reality.

One reason you violate Rule No. 1 is because you’ve already violated Rule No. 2: “Never want it more than they do.”

If we want good governance in Afghanistan more than Karzai, he will sell us that carpet over and over. How many U.S. officials have flown to Kabul — the latest being President Obama himself — to lecture Karzai on the need to root out corruption in his administration? Do we think he has a hearing problem? Or do we think he believes he has us over a barrel and, in the end, he can and will do whatever serves his personal power needs because he believes that we believe that he is indispensable for confronting Al Qaeda?

This rule applies equally to the Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. There is something wrong when we are chasing them — two men who live in biking distance from one another — begging, cajoling and pressuring them to come to a peace negotiation that should ostensibly serve their interests as much as our own.

Not to get Clintonian on you, but this all depends on what "it" means. If by "it" we mean democracy in Afghanistan or a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine question, then yes, our partners need to want "it" more. But if the "it" in question is democracy in Afghanistan or a peaceful solution to Israel-Palestine in order to establish greater security for the United States, then we should want "it" every bit as much as they do and in some cases more.

"Which leads to Rule No. 3: In the Middle East, what leaders tell you in private in English is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language."

To a degree this is probably true. But a lot of this depends on how much what is said in private is tied to conditions. We know you are going to say certain things to the public to save face or to present the best spin on negotiations with the United States. But the key is sticking to agreements whether we are talking about Karzai or Netanyahu. Countries are allowed to have their own policies, their own sovereignty. But the United States should not be expected to fund that sovereignty or to fight for that sovereignty. And if their sovereignty conflicts with ours, well, that's a problem.

I have been unequivocally strong in my support of Israel, much to the chagrin of many of my more left-leaning friends. But if we ask the Israelis to stop building in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem, and the Israelis imply anti-Semitism or simply spit in our faces, well, I'm inclined to delay some checks for a few weeks and to have third-rank State Department functionaries return phone calls (at their leisure) that otherwise would have gone directly to Hillary Clinton. Yes, we should worry about what they say to their publics. But they should worry even more about the things we can do once they speak ill of us.

At the FPA Blogs (Semi-Self Indulgence Alert)

There are a great deal of changes under way at the Foreign Policy Association Blogs. We are consolidating the largest network of global affairs-related blogs into a series of categores. My Africa Blog will now be in the category of "Africa and the Middle East" and will include Africa, Egypt (not up yet), Iraq, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and Middle East. I will be serving as both Senior Blogger and the Senior Editor for this category. I hope you'll continue to check out my Africa blog, the blogs in my category, and the network as a whole.

The newest addition to these blogs is Reza Akhlaghi, the first addition under my watch. He is our new blogger on Iran and his first post is must-read stuff. Here is my introduction of Reza at the Iran Blog.

Rejecting Israel-As-Apartheid (Again)

David Hirsch has an important commentary from South Africa's Mail & Guardian (via Engage) in which he addresses and refutes the Israel = Apartheid analogy. Here is a sample:

The Israel-apartheid analogy expresses moral outrage effectively but it is also counterproductive to Palestinian liberation and it encourages ways of thinking which are threatening to democratic politics. It portrays Israel as an evil, like the apartheid regime, and so implies that Palestinian freedom requires the dismantling of Israel – an aspiration which the overwhelming majority of Jews strongly oppose – and with justification.

The analogy is also a short cut to the conclusion that Israelis should be boycotted. In truth, a mass movement for the exclusion of Jews, even if not all Jews, from the academic, cultural, sporting and economic life of humanity resonates with an altogether different memory from the boycott of white South Africa.

There is a temptation to treat the Middle East as an empty vessel which we can fill with our own issues. In England thinking is often influenced by colonial guilt; in Germany Israel is understood through the lens of the Holocaust; in Ireland the Palestinians become Republicans and the Israelis Unionists. In Poland many sympathize with Israel as a small democratic nation threatened by tyrannical neighbours. In South Africa the conflict is increasingly thought of in relation to apartheid.

Israel cannot forever hold on to Gaza and the West Bank. A two state (or perhaps three state) solution has to come. But the Israel-as-Apartheid analogy is historically vacuous, a polemic without a serious intellectual foundation, and a barrier to coming to grips with the very real problems in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. A future Palestinian state or state must emerge, but not without Israel being able to be secure and safe from the states that surround it.

Obama on Israel

If there is any lingering question about Obama's depth of thought on the Middle East, on his commitment to the state of Israel or about the idiocy of the supposed Hamas endorsement of Obama this interview should put it all to rest. Obama is just about pitch perfect and you should just go read the whole thing, which is not that long.

Estrich Gets it Wrong on Obama

In an otherwise interesting piece for Fox News, I think Susan Estrich misses the mark on Obama's performance. Here is the money excerpt (and it is the point of her argument, so I'm not sure why it is buried so deep):

Asked about America's best friends in the world, Obama waxed on about NATO and our European allies before looking east to Japan. I'm not a foreign policy expert, but I've been around debates for decades and it was clear that Obama didn't get that this was the Israel question.

He didn't get that people like me, voters and donors, were waiting to hear the word "Israel" in a way that Japanese Americans were not. Japan doesn't live under constant threats; Israel does. Japanese Americans don't worry about Japan's survival in the way Jewish Americans worry about Israel. Obama's answer, in my book, was the biggest mistake of the debate.

I see a number of flaws in this argument. I agree with the general sentiment -- Israel is, if not our most important ally, at least one of them. But in an early Democratic primary debate, if Brian Williams' query was "The Israel question" then eliding Israel may have been one of Obama's wisest choices. Now don't get me wrong -- Obama's approach to Israel makes me a bit wary. But at the same time, had the red meat crowd on the Democratic left, which will have dispproportionate impact on the nomination process, heard "Israel," they would not have heard it in the way that Estrich suggests would have been good for Obama. They could do more harm to him, in other words, than "people like Estrich" can do him good. This assessment of the way primaries work seems so obvious that if it is not a truism it at least rings true: Better to have folks like Estrich waiting for satisfaction than to raise the ire of the Daily Kos crowd.

If anything, Estrich's assertion shows a certain amount of interest group solipsism -- a sense that the political world rotates around the axis of her concerns -- that certainly has not thus far been reflected in Obama's fundraising, in his popularity in the polls, however flawed those polls are, or in the post-debate support Obama has held and garnered. In other words, Estrich's argument is one put forth without much evidence. She so wants Obama to be hurt by not answering what she perceived as "the Israel question" in the correct way that she is asserting that such harm has been done without any foundation.

Israel, Apartheid, and Lawyerly Fools (Or: Pettitfoggery)

About once every couple of months I receive an email from a long-time antagonist and reader of my work, Chris Pettit. He used to have a significant presence in the comment boards over at Rebunk, but does not often grace us with his presence at dcat. Our loss is, well, actually we're talking all gain.

This morning the pattern repeated itself. It is always the same thing -- Chris sends along an article, and adds a little blurb basically telling me I am wrong about just about everything largely because I am not an international lawyer, which Chris is, as he'll happily tell you like a two-year-old prattling on in the only five words she knows.

But rather than describe, why not just use the evidence before me. (Note: If you send me an email that consists pretty much of ad hominem attacks geared toward me, and if that is the first email I open when I get up in the morning, my rule is that your email is fair game for public airing.)

He sent me the text to this story. The essentials are that the respected South African legal scholar John Dugard who is also the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories has compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa. I disagree, and will go into much greater detail below.

But here is what Chris added, exactly as it appeared in my inbox:

would love to see you try and spin this...you know who Dugard is...and I was one of his students...we both know he is one of the preeminent international legal minds in the world..even if you don't listen to my valid critiques you have to accept his as coming from an expert in a field you have no authority in...isn't it about time you came in from the cold?

Ahh, yes. Note the arrogance! The self importance! The name dropping! The syntax! Naturally I responded. Here is what I wrote:

Chris --
I know well who John Dugard is. And respect him very much. But when you say that I have "no authority in" the field in question, what are you talking about? I have a PhD in history, and this is a historical question. I have written extensively about South African history and I have written enough about Israel to have a pretty good sense of the realities on the ground. I have as much "authority" as Dugard does inasmuch as we both know, or ought to know, that "argument by authority" is one of the basic logical fallacies they teach you in any logic class.

You are exhibit A for why people hate lawyers. Out of the blue you email me a provocative and, yes, in its way worthwhile article, and then use your self-asserted authority to tell me, a professional historian, that a lawyer has more standing on a historical analogy than I do, indeed that I have no authority at all on this issue. The world is not a courtroom, Chris. And you are not its prosecutor. And even the most well respected legal minds can be wrong, especially when they overstep their boundaries.

I'll gladly debate this issue with you, with John Dugard, with Jimmy Carter and with anyone else who tosses out the Israel-as-Apartheid analogy. I'll gladly do it publicly. I'll gladly grant historians equal validity with lawyers on this question (I'd privilege historians, except I prefer to keep my onanism behind closed doors. Try it sometime.). But you are not into honest debate. You would rather snipe from the corners, hectoring those who disagree with you by hiding behind the judicial robes of your mentors and in the logical fallacies that allow you to assert supremacy where you have not earned it. I make no claims to authority on this matter. I make claims to have an argument that I feel comfortable defending. The very fact that Dugard wants to engage in international prosecution of Israel proves what I have argued all along: That those who toss out the Israel-as-Apartheid analogy do so not to shed light, but as an accusation. It is an argument loaded from the outset, and it is an argument I reject.
dc"

Now on to the content of the article. I'll parse paragraph by paragraph. I will place the article in quotation marks and will precede my comments with ***:

"A UN human rights investigator has likened Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories to apartheid South Africa and says there should be "serious consideration" over bringing the occupation to the international court of justice."

*** So as I said, this is not an attempt at inquiry. This human rights investigator represents a body with a long and distinct history of siding against Israel. And he comes as a law professor advocating prosecution. He has an agenda. That is fine. But let's not pretend that it makes him a disinterested broker seeking truth.

"The report by John Dugard, a South African law professor who is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, represents some of the most forceful criticism yet of Israel's 40-year occupation."

** I assume we are talking less forceful than, say, Nasser's assertion that the Arabs were going to drive the Jews to the sea prior to the Six Day War and less forceful than Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist? Hamas wields a bit of power in the current Palestinian configuration by the way. But yes, the criticism coming from Dugard is forceful. And he does come to criticize. He also is a law professor, which, as we've learned from Chris Pettit, is the highest form of life, with international law professors at the top of the food chain.

"Prof Dugard said although Israel and apartheid South Africa were different regimes, "Israel's laws and practices in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories] certainly resemble aspects of apartheid." His comments are in an advance version of a report on the UN Human Rights Council's website ahead of its session next month."

*** How kind of him to pause to recognize that Israel and apartheid South Africa were different regimes. Next: John Dugard acknowledges that water is made of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. But don't you believe it until he brings that truth. In any case, note that word "resemble." If I may play litcrit theorist for a moment, what does it signify? OK, enough litcrit jargon. In this context "resemble" is a sloppy word used sloppily. Lots of things resemble others. Kansas resembles Colorado. Peter Gammons resembles Andrew Jackson. Kiwis resemble muddy golf balls. But only a fool would travel to Kansas for a ski weekend. Only a fool would want Andrew Jackson's opinion on Curt Schilling's contract status. And only a fool would try to use a sandwedge on a kiwi. I'm no lawyer, but the burden of proof might require something a bit stronger than a resemblance proferred by someone arguing that the resemblance warrants prosecution.

"After describing the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank, with closed zones, demolitions and preference given to settlers on roads, with building rights and by the army, he said: 'Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report.'"

** Here's the thing. Dugard's entire argument hinges on the following words: "Can it seriously be denied . . .". Everything that follows his attempt to bully through language requires that one buy the assertion that there is only one serious side of this argument. In fact the "racial group" argument tends to fall flat on its face because, and here is the kicker: Jews are not a race. Well, other than for those who want to see them eradicated. And I'm not certain whether Palestinians qualify as a race in any meaningful way. Furthermore, yes, it can be seriously doubted that this is merely a racial matter in light of the well more than one thousand dead Israeli civilians from suicide bombers coming from the territories since the September 2000 declaration of the second intifada. Ignoring the political realities on the ground makes me, well, question your seriousness. We'll ignore the horribly turgid final sentence in that last paragraph. Actually I change my mind -- that is a horribly turgid final sentence in that last paragraph.

"He dismissed Israel's argument that the sole purpose of the vast concrete and steel West Bank barrier is for security. 'It has become abundantly clear that the wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers,' he said."

*** Well, he dismissed the argument. That's it then. Discussion over. Oh, hold on -- we still have those dead Israelis. Vexing, they. Because the timing -- the chronology, the sequences of events (though though I'm no authority, no lawyer, on such things) matters. And in that sequence of events we have many years of Israeli governments pushing for, negotiating for, peace. We also have many years of Israeli governments trying the iron fist approach. All of this antedated the building of the Wall. So to assert that the wall has no relation to security is to claim that there are no security issues for Israelis to worry about. Let me tell you about a wonderful beach front bar in Tel Aviv called Mike's Place . . .

"Gaza remained under occupation despite the withdrawal of settlers in 2005. 'In effect, following Israel's withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed-off, imprisoned and occupied territory,' he said."

*** More lawyerly verbiage: "In effect." Beyond the disputable nature of the assertion, let us keep in mind more of the realities on the ground -- Hamas is in charge in Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. In the intervening months since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza (for which Israel was criticized for acting "unilaterally," just as they were criticized for staying in the territories. No win.) missiles have regularly come across the Gaza border aimed at Israeli citizens in Israel. These missiles did not have as their intended target Israelis in Gaza. Nor have suicide bombers from Gaza had as their targets Israeli settlers. They have had as their targets people living in Israel proper, which even the UN continues to recognize, at least for the time being, even if Hamas will not. Maybe, just maybe Dugard's prosecutorial zeal makes him look at the issue with a jaundiced eye. A lawyer selectively use evidence? I'm aghast too. But this is what it has come to. I guess we'll never be innocent again.

"Prof Dugard said his mandate was solely to report on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and he described as a violation of international humanitarian law the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza into Israel. 'Such actions cannot be condoned and clearly constitute a war crime,' he said. 'Nevertheless, Israel's response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes.'"

*** Finally. At least he recognizes the "war crimes" of the Palestinians. Yet I'm not so certain that Israel's response has been "disproportionate" and I believe this is an area in which honest people can engage in honest debate. But on this issue John Dugard, like Chris Pettit, is not an honest broker. Putting on a prosecutor's robes does not make one an impartial observer -- it does quite the opposite. Favoring some evidence over others is a lawyer's job, to be sure. But knowing as much, I think we are entitled to question whether or not we should privilege lawyers on such matters.

The article I have excerpted is, in its entirety, what Chris sent me, which allowed him to assert that I have no "authority" on such matters. But what I am seeking is not authority. Authority may be the least interesting facet of all of this. Instead I seek something far more important. I seek truth. Among the many differences is that I understand my own fallibility. I also don't cower behind someone else's reputation, which blinds me to their problematic assertions, and I don't claim "authority" where I have none and where "authority" is not at all the issue.

You Stay Classy, Mr. President!

Andrew Sullivan reports via a review in Haaretz of Uri Dan's book Ariel Sharon: An Intimite Portrait, a rather unedifying anecdote about our president.

Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!"

dcat is no pollyanna. Far from it. Lord knows I know the business end of profanity, which I think has a perfectly acceptable and indeed necessary place in the language. And it is pretty easy to work up fake outrage when presidents are caught spewing profanity, telling off-color jokes, or generally acting like the world is their locker room. But this seems to cross a host of lines, as evidenced by Sharon's reluctance even to repeat the tale. At best it is unseemly. And for many of us it reaffirms the impression that Bush is unsuited for his position.

Herf and Markovits on Anti-Semitism

Friend and mentor of dcat, the respected historian Jeffrey Herf, has an important piece that he has written along with the comparativist German Studies scholar Andrei S. Markovits at The New Republic online. In it they take issue with John Judis' downgrading of what constitutes anti-semitism. Here is the concluding paragraph:

Israel's critics in this country have the freedom to say what they wish, including the freedom to exaggerate vastly the power of Jews and the Israel lobby. We who criticize some of their views also have the freedom and obligation to explain why we think such arguments are false, dangerous, and bear comparisons to older anti-Semitic traditions. In a period in which Iran's president threatens to wipe Israel off the face of this earth and Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda seek its destruction as well, a weakening of American support for Israel would be a catastrophe of the first order not only for Israel, but for its supporters in this country. It would also be both a strategic blunder and moral debacle from the perspective of U.S. national security in the conventional sense of that term.

But do read the whole thing.

The Downside of Peace?

Michael Oren has forgotten more about Israel than I will ever even begin to know. But something about this op-ed in today's New York Times struck me as being slightly askew. basically he posits that Israel and Syria might be working toward a secret peace accord. And he hints that such an agreement might be bad for the United States and our relationship with Israel.

The last thing Washington wants is a Syrian-Israeli treaty that would transform Mr. Assad from pariah to peacemaker and lend him greater latitude in promoting terrorism and quashing Lebanon’s freedom. Some Israeli officials, by contrast, see substantive benefits in ending their nation’s 60-year conflict with Syria. An accord would invariably provide for the cessation of Syrian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, which endanger Israel’s northern and southern sectors.

More crucial still, by detaching Syria from Iran’s orbit, Israel will be able to address the Iranian nuclear threat — perhaps by military means — without fear of retribution from Syrian ground forces and missiles. Forfeiting the Golan Heights, for these Israelis, seems to be a sufferable price to pay to avoid conventional and ballistic attacks across most of Israel’s borders.

The potentially disparate positions of Israel and the United States on the question of peace with Syria could trigger a significant crisis between the two countries — the first of Mr. Bush’s expressly pro-Israel presidency. And yet, facing opposition from a peace-minded Democratic Congress and from members of his own party who have advocated a more robust American role in Middle East mediation, Mr. Bush would have difficulty in withholding approval from a comprehensive Syrian-Israeli agreement.

I'm not certain I understand how a peace agreement between israel and Syria harms the United States and our relationship with Israel in any substantial way, especially if such an agreement served to have Syria recognize Israel's right to continuing existence and forced Syria to stop supporting organizations devoted to Israel's withdrawal. It is simply hard to envision Israel signing a peace agreement with Assad and then watching as Syria overruns Lebanon, which Oren implies. As for unilateral Israeli action against Iran? I do not see how a peace agreement would make all that much difference, and such an agreement might in fact put Syria in the position of deterring Iran's fantasies. There must be something here that I do not see, but Oren's argument strikes me as an example of looking for a dark lining behind a silver cloud.