I’ve not commented these last few days on the crisis on the West Bank and Israel for a pretty obvious reason. I’m not completely clear what I think. I’d like to argue that Sharon is totally right, that the incursion is essential to restrain terrorism, that the military strategy can work, that Arafat can and should be ignored, that the Bush administration has been foolish to tack against the Israeli anti-terror mission. In my gut, I believe all those things. At the same time, it also seems to me that the logic of these events leads inexorably to a regional war with unimaginable consequences – the use of weapons of mass destruction in several countries, including Israel. Under those circumstances, it is not crazy for Washington to intervene to attempt to restrain the violence. This won’t buy peace; but it could buy time. And some time could persuade the Israelis to do what they absolutely have to do to survive.
SO BUILD A FENCE: And what they have to do is construct a real barrier between Israel and the West Bank. The Forward recently ran an astute editorial that noted how all the suicide bombers have come from the West Bank, rather than Gaza. The reason? Gaza is cut off by a real, defensible barrier. Would-be terrorists can check into Gaza, but they can’t check out. If the same could be done with the West Bank, it’s possible terrorism could be reduced to much lower levels in Israel proper. Yes, there would still be the danger from some Israeli Arabs. But they are far less of a threat, and those who do use such violence should simply be imprisoned or deported. Such a fence would, however, mean ending the isolated settlements in the West Bank, consolidating those near the border, and establishing some kind of buffer. Perhaps the extent of the Palestinian terror network in the West Bank, and the horror of the suicide bombs in Israel will finally bring about a consensus in that country for abandoning the settlements. The benefit of such a unilateral withdrawal is also that Israel does not have to negotiate anything with a lying murderer like Arafat. Indeed, Israel should remain indifferent to what emerges in that neighborhood, as long as it is not used as a base for yet another Arab attack on Israel itself. Deterrence, vigilance, and the fence should make it feasible for Israel to survive in such a straitened form. And survival, right now, would be an achievement.
SCREWING THE SAUDIS: The flip-side of this, of course, should also be American unilateralism – in disentangling ourselves from the morally and politically crippling engagement with the majority of the Arab dictators. By far the most promising sign of the last couple of months has been the gradual transference of the U.S. military from the Saudi base to Qatar. David Ignatius has a good op-ed on the transition today. He’s way too optimistic about Qatar being a model for the future of the Arab world. But using Qatar as a genuinely reliable base in the region makes a hell of a lot more sense than our current arrangements – and is probably an essential prerequisite for the coming war against Saddam.
THE MUTILATION OF CHILDREN: I may be a broken record on this but the news today that circumcision may have a small effect in restraining transmission of the HPV virus strikes me as likely to be misused. The argument against the circumcision of infants is not that it might not conceivably have some future health-benefits. The argument against infant male genital mutilation is that it is the permanent, irreversible disfigurement of a person’s body without his consent. Unless such a move is necessary to protect a child’s life or essential health, it seems to me that it is a grotesque violation of a person’s right to control his own body. It matters not a jot why it is done. It simply should not be done – until the boy or man is able to give his informed consent. And to perform such an operation to protect the health of others is an even more unthinkable violation. It’s treating an individual entirely as a means rather than as an end. I’m at a loss why a culture such as ours that goes to great lengths to protect the dignity and safety of children (and rightly so) should look so blithely on this barbaric relic. Yes, I know there are religious justifications for it. But even so, religions should not be given ethical carte blanche over the bodies of children. Would we condone a religious ceremony that, say, permanently mutilated a child’s ear? Or tongue? Or scarred their body irreversibly? Of course not. So why do we barely object when people mutilate a child’s sexual organ?
SANCTIMONIOUS AND ARROGANT: “Just finished reading Father McCloskey’s “2030, Looking Backward” and his comments on “Meet The Press” from March 31. As a fellow Catholic, you shouldn’t be surprised. This is the kind of sanctimonious, arrogant triumphalism in which our church has specialized since at least the Middle Ages.” This is one reader’s view. Here’s another’s: “”Francoite!” what a wonderful term of approbation you have hurled. I suppose it is the analogue to calling some lefty a “Stalinist.” I am not a member of Opus Dei but did attend some of their prayer meetings here in the district when I was younger. What you have is earnest young men who wish to live a truly spiritual life in the truth of the Faith.” This and both sides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Letters Page.
ALTERMAN’S BLACKLIST: You may recall that Eric Alterman of the Nation recently listed a number of columnists he regards as reflexive lackeys of Israel and the Jews. In a revealing error, it turns out he named one woman, Cathy Young, who had never even written about the Middle East. Well, she was a Jew and conservative, so that was good enough for Alterman. (Yes, he was also the one complaining about bloggers’ making errors without editors.) Anyway, patiopundit has provided a very helpful hyperlinked version of the list, enabling you to read instantly the latest propaganda served up by the Elders of Zion, while young I.F. Alterman toils away as a beacon of independent thought at, er, the Nation. Enjoy.
ST-ST-ST-ST-ST-STOP!: A stutterer has been discriminated against as a driving instructor. Now there’s an ethical quandary. Would the ADA stop that here? It reminds me of the joke about the Jewish guy who applied for a job as a radio announcer. When he returned from the interview, he was asked if he got the job. “No,” he replied. “Why not?” asked his friend. “Anti-s-s-s-s-s-semitism.”
The Dish 