Month: July 2006

A reader writes:

I disagree with the Adesnik theory on the media and Israel. The absence of real debate about Israel’s bombing of Lebanon (other than how loudly should the U.S. cheer it on) is as much a result of the fact that any criticism of Israel‚Äôs tactics is quickly labeled ‘viciously anti-Israel’ (at best) by all but a fringe. I’m a conservative supporter of Israel who thinks Israel has the right to respond to Hezbollah but fears the scale of the response is a tragic mistake.  I recently saw a quote from Henry Seigman: "Israel’s political and military leaders remain addicted to the notion that whatever they have a right to do, they have a right to overdo." I think there is some truth in that. We so often demand forbearance of Israel’s neighbors, but I do not recall (since maybe Eisenhower) where we’ve demanded it of Israel (by the way, for Netanyahu to compare the relatively ineffectual shelling of Northern Israel to the Holocaust trivializes the Holocaust and does us all a disservice). 

I wish media outlets like yours ‚Äì where sensible conservative discussion can be seen on any subject ‚Äì could also discuss the possibility that Israel’s tactics might play directly into the hands of Ahmadinajad, and that the U.S.’s knee-jerk support of the bombing undercuts our "continued outreach to Iranian [Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian, etc.] civil society".  Israel is unfairly made the scapegoat for so many of the region’s tyrants and maniacs.  But the Israeli hardliners (like our own neo-cons) make it much easier for them to do so. The notion spread by the neo-cons that the "road to peace in Jerusalem runs through Bagdad" is more likely the opposite. But it’s going to take more honest criticism of all parties in the region including Israel, for that to happen. 

I certainly don’t believe that all criticism of Israel is illegitimate. But in this case, Hezbollah’s Islamist ideology, its threat to the fragile Lebanese government, its initiation of hostilities, and its close links to Tehran make me reluctant to condemn any attempt to degrade its military potential as much as possible. I’m heartened by the fact that many Arab countries are uncomfortable with Hezbollah as well – the Sunni-Shiite division is one the West should exploit as shrewdly and relentlessly as possible to further our interests in the region. I’m also happy to see that this small, yet brutal war may actually get the European powers to police the Israel-Lebanon border. But there are times when Israel’s actions have actually damaged the country – the occupations of Gaza and Southern Lebanon high on the list. In this I agree with the reader: I don’t think supporting Israel requires never criticizing its government. Au contraire.

"This is one reason why Glenn Reynolds’ calling the Blogosphere an "Army of Davids" annoys me to no end. If you have a passing familiarity with the Bible, you know that there can’t be an Army of Davids:  David was David because David was unique. He did something no one else could (or would). He had, one could say, an expertise that everyone else lacked.

Talking about an Army of Davids – suggesting that everyone is David (one envisions the scene at the end of Spartacus or, perhaps, Malcolm X) – misses the whole point of what it means to be David, i.e., that not everyone can be him.  Indeed, almost no one can be David. David is rare; he’s special; he’s unique.  It’s easy to forget that; it’s easy for me to forget that," – Obsidian Wings, yesterday.

The Jews are the AIDS of the world. An insight into what is preached among the Palestinians – Hitlerian anti-Semitism.

A reader writes:

I’m surprised you don’t understand why many liberal blogs are (let’s call it) reticent on the subject of the current mideast war. These blogs are dedicated to helping the Democratic Party recapture Congress this November, which requires ongoing demonization of the Bush administration. Since the Bush administration resolutely supports Israel, these bloggers would then have to demonize the Jewish state ‚Äì thereby antagonizing the large Jewish liberal voting bloc. But they cannot ally themselves with Israel either, because  1) anyone the Bush administration supports is automatically evil or fraudulent; 2) alliance with the administration on any major issue is not allowed (see Lieberman, Joseph); and 3) in any contest between a western-style power and a guerilla opponent, the left must side with the guerillas.

Also, the left these days, especially the antiwar movement, is loaded with anti-Semitism. Liberal bloggers may be afraid of the hate mail they’ll attract if they even discuss the issue, which can then be highlighted by conservatives. Already, the Weekly Standard has gleefully dragged some of the e-mails received by Kos into the light.

I think this reader misses an important distinction between many liberal blogs and those of the anti-war left. But his point about the latter is surely valid.

Here’s the money quote from a great interview with Matt Stone, Trey Parker and Comedy Central’s Doug Herzog on the refusal of Viacom to allow even a simple image of Muhammed on their cable channel:

Matt and Trey learned the ridiculous reality that they can show Jesus defecating on George Bush, but they can’t show Mohammed. Matt said, "That’s the point. It’s open season on Jesus." Trey added, "Yeah. You can do anything you want to Jesus."

Violence works, in other words. As long as corporate cowards like Viacom reward it.

(Hat tip: GOP Vixen.)

Manhattan, 8.15 pm.

(Thanks to my other half, who has more technical expertise than I do, you can now click on these pictures and get a larger, more detailed version in a pop-up window. My bad for not figuring this out earlier.)

Why the strange reticence on recent events in the Middle East? David Adesnik has a theory. On a related note, I was biking Saturday past the "Peace Vigil" held each week in Provincetown. One sign read: "Stop Israel’s Slaughter of Innocents in Palestine and Lebanon." I have never seen a sign in the weekly vigil calling for an end to terrorism. Strange for those committed to "peace".

My take on the growing conservative debate over Iraq in yesterday’s Sunday Times of London. Money quote:

[W]hat you have begun to see in America is a deep and deepening split on the right. The neocons, still steeped in ideological conformity, have responded to setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere with louder calls for upping the ante. The solution to the mess in Iraq is … to bomb or invade Iran. The obvious next step in the battle between Hezbollah and Israel is … for Israel to re-invade and occupy southern Lebanon. If that fails … invade or bomb Syria.

Last week, two deans of neoconservatism issued clarion calls along these lines. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer urged an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol argued that the best response to the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah attack on Israel was the following: "We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?" You might say that the mindset of the neocons is very September 12. It has not altered one jot since that day. It is as if we have learnt nothing from the debacle in Iraq about the limits of military force in changing culture and politics in countries we do not fully understand and do not have the expertise or manpower to micro-manage.

It is as if the past five years had never happened ‚Äî and in the rigid, theoretical worldview of the neocons, they haven’t. But non-neoconservatives have actually observed the past few years and committed the cardinal sin of thinking about them.

I should add that I don’t doubt, as I write in the column, that the neoconservative insight into the Middle East isn’t, in many ways, a deep and important one. It just requires adaptation and adjustment under fast-changing circumstances.

William F. Buckley is the latest to come to the conclusion that this administration has long abandoned conservatism for something only coherent in what passes for Karl Rove’s mind. I look forward to Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and Ramesh Ponnuru excommunicating Buckley from the conservative movement. Money quote:

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology ‚Äî with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge … There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don’t believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable."

The failure is as much intellectual as political. Today’s Republicans have abandoned limited government conservatism, fiscal prudence and foreign policy pragmatism for a form of fundamentalist, spendthrift authoritarianism at home and utter recklessness abroad. It will take a very long time before this country – and conservatism as a political tradition – recover.

Here are the finalists for the Mr Gay Competition, to be held in Palm Springs this October. It’s no big deal, a tiny little event in the grand scheme of things. But I cannot help but notice that Iraq has a finalist, along with Israel, Nigeria, Lebanon, Poland and, my favorite … Vatican City. (Hat tip: a great little blog I’ve just discovered called Middle East Gay Journal.)