Sago Boulevard

Self-hating Jew Norman Finkelstein finds himself in a tenure battle at DePaul University. Dean Charles Suchar has recommended against tenure, claiming he found “the personal attacks in many of Dr. Finkelstein’s books to border on character assassination.” But Finkelstein doesn’t hold the university president or dean responsbile.

[Finkelstein] explained that since the fall the university has been “bombarded” with such pressure that it “had to make a choice between two disasters — deny me tenure and get outrage from students, or have me on the faculty for another 20 years and every month face another hysteria and claims that I am a Holocaust denier and a self-hating Jew. Between the short-term and the long-term disasters, it was prudent to go for the short-term disaster.”

I wonder why anybody would think Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier and a self-hating Jew.

Norman G. Finkelstein’s book, “The Holocaust Industry,” alleges that Jewish leaders have exploited the Holocaust for profit…

Let’s say an academic wrote a book about how the black community exploited slavery for profit and political gain. Do you think he would tenure at a major university?

Neighborhood Bully
by Bob Dylan

Well, the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man,
His enemies say he’s on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He’s criticized and condemned for being alive.
He’s not supposed to fight back, he’s supposed to have thick skin,
He’s supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He’s wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He’s always on trial for just being born.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
‘Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don’t get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won’t be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Well, he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn’t hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one’s command.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

What’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.

From the album “Infidels”, Copyright 1983 Special Rider Music

The phrase “pro-Israel” appears five times in this Foward article. Yet, interestingly, those described as “pro-Israel” have very little praise for it.

“Staunchly pro-Israel conservatives… say that Jerusalem is hindering America’s global war.” “Top Israeli officials… have been subject to unusually harsh criticism from the pro-Israel right…” Charles Krauthammer, who’s characterized as a “pro-Israel” neoconservative, “wrote a column insisting that Olmert’s ‘unsteady and uncertain leadership’ is threatening the Bush administration’s confidence in Israel as a dependable and strategic ally.”

What exactly does “pro-Israel” mean in this article? It clearly doesn’t mean “supportive of Israeli policy”, although it probably should. I suppose it might refer to well-intentioned criticism, as opposed to criticism which seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish State. But if that’s the case, there’s an obvious double-standard. Well-intentioned left-wing or moderate political writers and pundits who criticize Israeli policy aren’t called “pro-Israel”. Besides the double-standard, a news reporter shouldn’t be responsible for deciphering the intentions of the critics it cites.

I think we can put our politics aside for the moment and recognize this article for the irresponsible journalism that it is. By characterizing the neoconservative position as “pro-Israel” in an article entitled “Conservatives Slam Israeli War Strategy”, the Forward is making a clear political statement. Neoconservatism, says the Foward, is somehow intrinsically pro-Israel. It may be, but I thought I was reading a news article.

Ben Caspit proposes a speech for PM Ehud Olmert to “explain to the world exactly what we’re fighting for”.

After giving the standard platitudes about Israel’s right to defend itself (”No self-respecting state would stand idly by while rockets fall on its cities”), LA Times opinion writer, David Myers, gets to what he really thinks (via Jill):

Of course, Israel is not solely to blame for the escalating violence. But as a sovereign state with a major army, it has to be the most responsible party. What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah?

Silly me. I expect Hamas and Hezbollah to respect the dignity of human life and to not endanger civilians by using them as human shields. I expect them to realize the danger of a multi-front war at a time when Iran is developing nuclear weapons and to release the captured soldiers before the situation escalates even further.

But Myers, lacing his words with vile racism, thinks that’s too much to ask. We can’t possibly expect them to, you know, actually do the right thing. We just demand that of Israel. Those dumb Arabs just don’t know any better. And I thought the right was supposed to be “anti-Arab”.

I have no insightful or comforting thoughts to offer. Israel is now fighting a two-front war against Hamas in Gaza and against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I was happy to see today’s NYTimes editorial emphasize that Israel is “acting justifiably in the face of aggression” and recognize that it’s incredibly diffcult to conduct a military operation without risking civilian casualities.

Today is Shivah Asar Be-Tammuz, a Jewish fast day commemorating (among other things) the Roman siege of Jerusalem. It also begins the three-week-long mourning period ending with Tishah Be’av. As it has many times before, this day shall witness yet another war in Israel.

May our prayer and repentance today bring a swift end to the fighting and the safe return of Israel’s captured soldiers.

I’ll leave it to more informed political writers to provide a full analysis of Israel’s recent incursion into Gaza to free kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit (גלעד בן אביבה). What I’ll do instead is offer some scattered comments on what others have written.
(more…)

Israel’s Magen David Adom was finally admitted to the International Red Cross “ending decades of exclusion linked to the Jewish state’s refusal to accept the traditional cross symbol”. Let’s pause for a moment to fully appreciate the absurdity of excluding Israel’s medical and humanitarian organization because it refuses to adopt the overtly Christian symbol. Are Muslim countries required to use the red cross as their symbol? Of course not.

The simple red cross on a white background — the reversal of colors of the Swiss flag — was adopted as the emblem of the movement when it was founded in 1863 by Swiss humanitarians trying to care for battlefield casualties who otherwise were left to suffer.

But the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian Crusaders, and they insisted on their own red crescent in the 19th century.

When Israel’s society bid for membership was turned down in 1949, it objected to using either the cross or the crescent, and the Red Cross movement refused to admit yet another emblem.

Because admitting another emblem is so costly and difficult, right? So has the Red Cross finally permitted Magen David Adom to use the Jewish star? Sort of.

The decision early Thursday completed a complicated process that included the creation of the optional, third emblem — a blank, red-bordered square standing on one corner — that could stand alone or frame the Israeli society’s red star.

The emblem — dubbed the “red crystal” — was approved over Muslim objections in a hard-fought diplomatic conference last December. But that was only the first step, and the conference was called to complete the job.

Is anybody surprised that the Muslim representatives objected? Anybody at all? I wonder if the objections had any content at all, besides “we hate Jews”.

In response to yesterday’s suicide attack killing three Israeli, Hamas leaves no doubt as to its position on targeting innocent Israeli civilians (via Jewlicious).

“It was a natural response to the Israeli crimes, to the continued Israeli killing, incursions and arrests,” said Hamas lawmaker Mushir al Masri. “Our Palestinian people have the right to defend themselves.”

Somebody please explain to me how disguising yourself as an Orthodox Jew, hitchhiking, and then blowing yourself up in the car is an act of self defense. The victims here were chosen randomly, with no connection to military or political activity. To those who like to draw moral equivalencies between Israeli military actions and Palestinian terrorism, I say this: The poor excuse for a human being who blew himself up specifically intended to kill as many civilians as possible and civilians with no connection to so-called “Israeli killing, incursions and arrests”. It wasn’t an act of political defiance; it was a simple act of murder. And Hamas, now the leading party of the Palestinian Authority, defends it openly. God help us all if this is who we have to make peace with.

According to the most recent news reports (NYTimes & Haaretz), Ehud Olmert’s Kadima finished on top but with less seats than expected. With 99.5% of the votes counted, Kadima is expected to win 28 seats in the 120-member Knesset. Amir Peretz’s Labor Party is second with 20. The Sefardi religious party, Shas, is third with 13. Keep an eye on the news this week for speculations about coalitions.

I’m currently involved in two blog discussions about, among other things, what constitutes terrorism. One important implication that turns on how we answer that question is under what circumstance civilian casualities are justified in the name of an otherwise defensible war. Check out the posts and comments at Tikun Olam and Orthodox Anarchist.

Amitai Sandy certainly has the most interesting response to Iranian Holocaust-cartoon contest (via Dean):

Amitai Sandy (29), graphic artist and publisher of Dimona Comix Publishing, from Tel-Aviv, Israel, has followed the unfolding of the “Muhammad cartoon-gate” events in amazement, until finally he came up with the right answer to all this insanity - and so he announced today the launch of a new anti-Semitic cartoons contest - this time drawn by Jews themselves!

“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”
…
The deadline is Sunday March 5, and the best works will be displayed in an Exhibition in Tel-Aviv, Israel.

At the moment, I’m too amazed to form an opinion about whether or not this a good idea. I’m withholding judgement for now.

Egypt calls on Hamas to end violence and accept Israel (via Seth).

Egypt intends to tell Hamas leaders that they must recognize Israel, disarm and honor past peace deals, a top Egyptian official told reporters Wednesday, in a new sign of how Arab governments are pushing the militant group to moderate after its surprise election victory.

I’m not sure what kind of weight this statement has but let’s take what we can get.

A Mossad operative in Europe during the early 1970s wrote an opinion piece for last week’s Foward under the pseudonym “Resh”, criticizing Spielberg’s portrayal of the events surrounding the Munich Massacre. Even if you liked the movie, as I did, it’s always good to read the perspective of someone on the inside. In his words:

[”Munich”] badly distorts the circumstances under which Israeli intelligence operatives assassinated Palestinian terrorists outside the borders of Israel during the early 1970s. Because of the potential influence worldwide of a Spielberg film such as “Munich,” this has ramifications for both the Israeli and American responses to terrorism. Hence, the issues must be examined closely. Having served as a Mossad operative in Europe during the period in which the movie is set, I feel I can lend some useful historical perspective.

I had assumed that Likud Party leader Bibi Netanyahu was avoiding the spotlight so as not to seem eager to replace Sharon. He seems to be resurfacing now, laying out positions on key issues at a conference in Herzliya (via Nephtuli).

Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, the former prime minister also said he favors immediate steps to reduce friction with the Palestinian population, including decreasing the number of checkpoints and increasing freedom of movement along roads.

Netanyahu aides called it a defining speech that sets out the Likud’s updated platform and positions it on the center-right side of the political map.
…
Netanyahu said: “I say once again: obviously peace negotiations will involve concessions by both sides, that is also by the Israeli side. Before any peace agreement involving concessions, there will be a referendum to allow the Israeli public to decide directly on territorial determinations.”

With Netanyahu trying to appeal to Israel’s center, he’s not sounding that different from Sharon (although what he’d actually do in office is another story). The only explicit difference in policy seems to be opposition to unilateral withdrawals.

Amid a harsh critique of ailing Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, Richard Silverstein takes a swipe at Israeli democracy:

Israel is what I’d call a hybrid democracy. It is certainly not a true democracy in the sense that other western countries can claim to be.

Before we examine Silverstein’s poor argument for his thesis, let’s be perfectly clear about what democracy is. It is the self-government of a population. Check as many dictionaries and encyclopedias as you wish and you will find at least one common demoninator. Democracy entails that people have a right to determine the law that binds them.

Silverstein’s argument that Israel is merely a “hybrid democracy” is a veil for his criticism of Israeli institutions of which he doesn’t approve.

It has no constitution or bill of rights. It has no co-equal judiciary capable of engaging in effective checks and balances. The role of the military in Israeli life is much more prominent and intrusive than in other democracies. The security services are given far broader leeway to violate civil rights than in countries like our own. It is as if Israelis adapted, and watered down western democracy for the cold hard world of the Middle East.

Israel has an fiercely activist court that continues to fight for the civil rights of all citizens, both Jewish and Arab. Whether or not it is “capable of engaging in effective checks and balances” is a function of the institution, not of the democracy that establishes it. Even if we assume, falsely, that Israel’s high court is corrupt and entirely inept, it would say nothing of the quality of its democracy.

It is unfair to compare the military presence in Israel with that of any other western democracy. Israel is at war with its closest neighbors, many of whom travel freely throughout the country. Considering the urgency with which Israel must constantly respond to terror alerts, I would argue it maintains a remarkable record regarding civil rights.

All of this is besides the point, though. Israel is ruled by its people. Unpopular political leaders are regularly voted out of power and new parties freely arise to give a voice to another segment of Israeli society. That’s what democracy is.

The critical condition of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon has a faint silver lining. From Haaretz:

Israeli democracy deserves a high grade for the way in which it has dealt with the transfer of authority from an ailing prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Despite the sudden change of circumstances, Sharon’s strong personal status and the political crisis that has enveloped Israel in the last few months, the support system for the political leadership has been functioning properly.
…
Israel is considered to have strategic capabilities that only a few countries in the world possess. It is in a state of war with the Palestinians, Syria and Hezbollah, and the president of Iran wants to destroy it. Nonetheless, the shakeup in the Israeli leadership has not given rise to extraordinary public anxiety or to fears on the part of the international community.

From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a “significant” stroke with “massive bleeding” in his brain late Wednesday night, according to a Hadassah University Hospital official, and Sharon’s authority has been transferred to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

In a brief statement outside the Jerusalem hospital, Dr. Shlomo Mor-Yosef said Sharon had suffered “a significant stroke,” adding that he was “under anesthetic and receiving breathing assistance.”

A few minutes later, Mor-Yosef emerged to say that initial tests showed Sharon had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, or bleeding inside his brain. Addressing reporters in English, Mor-Yosef said Sharon had “massive bleeding and was being transferred to an operating theater.”

An Arab couple is petitioning an Israeli court, claiming that the government policy of giving greater mortgage benefits to veterans of the military is discriminatory. (Via David Bernstein )

First, it should be pointed out that the couple, “based on the number of children and siblings they have,” is entitled to a NIS 207,000 mortgage by law. Had they served in the military, however, they would receive a mortgage of NIS 255,000. This discrepancy, according to the couple, is discriminatory.

But discriminatory against whom? Arab citizens are permitted to volunteer in the Israeli military, even if not many do. But that is besides the point. Veterans are awarded benefits because of their national service. They give up 3 years of their youth, delay education and career aspirations, and risk their lives. That Israeli Jews are drafted while Israeli Arabs may volunteer doesn’t strike me as a relevant difference.

I’d go a step further and argue that even if Arabs were not permitted to serve, it would still not justify this claim. In such a situation, I would be sympathetic to a law suit demanding that the Israeli military allow Arabs to serve, but not one demanding financial benefits as though they had served.

Consider the following analogy. If I am wrongly discriminated against in seeking employment in, say, the NYPD, it’s reasonable for me demand accountability and perhaps even compensation. But, when I turn 65, is it reasonable for me to demand that NYPD pay me a pension and award me other benefits on grounds that they discriminated against me? Of course not. The pension is payment for a life of service and only those who serve receive it. Similarly, the benefits Israel affords its veterans should be limited to, well, veterans.