Month: February 2010

A reader writes:

I understand you're feeling a bit beleaguered recently. I understand that you've evolved in your views towards the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and that you've gone from what is referred to as staunchly pro-Israel to a more nuanced view. But I'm worried, that in your transition, you've gone from one echo chamber to another.

I think now you've come to the point where you're reflexively criticizing everything Netanyahu does. Every gesture he makes is inevitably a "go Cheney yourself" to the Obama administration. Everything is designed to make negotiations impossible, or inevitable failures. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a slimy douche who would sell his mother for half a klondike, but the other side ain't better.

All the movement since Obama came to power has been on the Israeli side. Netanyahu is the one modifying his opinions. Netanyahu is the one offering to sit down. Netanyahu instituted a moratorium on settlements. Netanyahu is punishing soldiers that refuse to follow orders for future withdrawals. Are these half-measures? Sure. Is he still beholden to his right-wing base? Sure. But what was the last move the Palestinians made? No matter what Netanyahu says, the Palestinians say the same thing back: No talks until all settlement comes to an end.

Today you're analyzing two NYT articles, and reflexively interpreting them as the devious machinations of a Netanyahu out to embarrass Obama. Are you sure that's what it is? Netanyahu didn't call the Cave of the Patriarchs a "Zionist site". You did. He referred to 150 archaeological and Zionist sites, among them the Cave of the Patriarchs. Some sites are archaeological, and some are Zionist. Some are both. I'm almost certain he meant that the Cave was an archaeological heritage site of national importance – which it of course is. You seem to be insinuating that he wishes to commemorate the Goldstein massacre – hence, the "Zionism", I suppose. This seems to be a reflexive and intemperate interpretation that really isn't called for. Just because Israel makes something a national site doesn't mean it's a Zionist monument – no Arabs allowed!

Next, you draw attention to the Tu B'shvat planting ceremony. Let me get this straight: Because Netanyahu announces that Israel plans to retain a densely settled settlement in the West Bank near Jerusalem – a position it has always maintained – this is a particular strong insult because he did it on Jewish Arbor Day? Because George Mitchell was shuttling back and forth? Why must Netanyahu always have to be the one to not do anything, or say anything to upset the Palestinians? Would you like him to stay away from the West Bank altogether? Act as if he's already given up everything. Most commentators agree that Israel will end up with the Etzion bloc anyway – what's the big deal? Again, have the Palestinians done nothing intemperate?

Please try to take a balanced view of things. You don't have to be on one side or the other. This isn't binary. There are plenty of people articulating the Palestinian side, and plenty of people advocating for the Israelis, but precious few realists in the middle.

He did not propose a total freeze on settlement construction. He refused. And my point about the Cave of the Patriarchs was in no way that he was commemorating Baruch Goldstein, for Pete's sake. That site's status is far far deeper than some religious terrorist's relatively recent mass murder. My point was that it was not exactly sensitive timing, and was bound to stir up a huge amount of emotion that would make any sort of peace talks impossible right now. And yes, I think he should stay out of the West Bank right now as much as possible, if he genuinely wants peace – but I don't believe he does. I believe he wants permanent annexation of the West Bank and a war with Iran. Another writes:

You take the easy way out by labeling Netanyahu and his government as the obstacle to a two state solution. You forget that the Israeli people voted in this right wing government and supports his government. The Israeli people mistrust the American government and are extremely wary about the two state solution. Netanyahu is simply the people's representative and so is elected to carry out their will.

Also, it is naive to think that the Israeli government will ever pull out of the Etzion settlements. These "settlements" are not comprised of trailers on hilltops. Rather, these are vibrant cities and are centers of Torah scholarship. Their inhabitants are not extremist settlers.

Actually, that was my point. Israel is now at a pmoment where Netanyahu occupies the fricking center. Most Israelis despise the US president and want him to fail in reaching some kind of rapprochement with the moderate Muslim world. And on the West Bank, we do finally have a leadership that might actually be able to deliver something. (Hamas is, of course beyond any relationship.) Reaching out to the Muslim middle, as Obama did at Cairo, was one reason I and many others supported him. He won the election. We wanted change. And it seems to me that it is long past time that a foreign country that is purportedly an ally should stop behaving this way if it wants the US alliance to continue.

I favor what I believe, rightly or wrongly, are the interests of the United States. And I can understand if some draw the line at anything that might risk the actual security of Israel. But freezing construction of settlements on the West Bank? How could that affect Israeli security? Many Israelis believe it is essential to Israel's future security. It is the least Israel could do to help its largest ally and supporter. But even this … is out of the question and followed up by provocation after provocation.

I'm not a fool. Netanyahu is out to destroy Obama's outreach to the Muslim world. In that battle, I stand with Obama and have every reason to be frustrated with the direction Israel is taking. No more excuses. It's getting pathetic.

The University of Mississippi is seeking to replace its mascot, Colonel Reb, out of concerns that the Confederate caricature is outdated and offensive. Enter the Internet:

Tuesday, the students voted in favor of crowning a new mascot to represent Rebel Nation … and the favorite so far is none other than the most famous Mon Calamari in the entire universe. Several pro-Ackbar websites have recently emerged — making the Admiral the heavy favorite.

Support the cause here.

(Hat tip: BF)

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white. I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life," – Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverly Hills 2010, to Fox News. She added, "I have a lot of friends that are gay."

Max Fisher rounds up the various ramifications and reactions.

A glimpse into a potential Republican future.

Douthat explains his opposition to the health care bill:

[In Chait’s view, and the view of many liberal pundits when] the Republican Party is bereft of ideas, and the Democratic Party is flush with them, the thing for serious people to do is get with the liberal program, and spend our time either flogging Sarah Palin and John Boehner or rallying support for the right-of-center elements in left-of-center bills. They’re disappointed that I’m not inclined to that approach, which is fair enough. But I’m disappointed, too.

I look at liberal commentators and see a group that’s intent on being on-side against Republicans, and that’s willing to downplay significant weaknesses in major legislation (be it the stimulus, cap-and-trade, or now health care) in the quest to get things done. And when I try to imagine how the writers at the New Republic would respond if a Republican administration, in a time of massive fiscal crisis, pushed the main funding mechanism for a new entitlement out eight years from the time the bill was passed — well, I don’t have to imagine very hard. So we’re all disappointed with each other. And that, I suppose, is politics.

I have tried to chart a Rauchian course somewhere in between – with some deference to Obama’s campaign promise, the obvious need for something to be done soon, the potential for future reform by acting on good elements already in the bill, and, I have to say, a moral sense that leaving people without any health insurance or ability to get any is just, well, wrong. Here I go again, I guess. I haven’t mentioned my faith in this debate but it has animated me lately on this question.

Ross is very much aware of our faith’s demand that the sick be treated as dignified human beings, rather than as desperate entrants in emergency rooms, or as bankrupted middle class folks whose illness is compounded by deep financial insecurity and anxiety.

I have been in the midst of serious illness and disease and I learned in those years that as a human being, I could not look away. Now I know, of course, that there are many ways to do this and I also know that there are many benefits to more free market approaches. I would be dead without the drug companies as I have always pointed out. But I also know we are in economically depressed times and the anxiety is greater than ever. And there is plenty in this bill – health insurance exchanges, cost control experiments – that could grow in importance in time.

No health insurance reform will be perfect. In my view, this one will do for now. And yes, conservatives should support it and get back into office and reform it and adjust it and hone it to make it better.

Florida, Massachusetts, 8.30 am

Brendan Nyhan reviews uses of reconciliation from 1980 to 2008. Ezra Klein has more:

NPR's Julie Rovner has a fantastic article explaining that the reconciliation process has actually been used for almost all major pieces of health-care legislation passed over the past 20 years. COBRA — which stands for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, but has come to mean the much-beloved program that lets you keep your health insurance when you lose your job — was done in reconciliation. The Children's Health Insurance Program was done in reconciliation. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which is the legislation that tells hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid that they have to at least screen any patient who enters the emergency room, regardless of insurance status, was done through reconciliation. Welfare reform, which disentangled Medicaid from welfare, was done in reconciliation.

Scott Horton recommends David Luban's analysis of David Margolis's memo and adds:

The Margolis memo simply doesn’t make sense as a discussion of legal ethics. It is a political document and has to be understood that way. It tells us that Department political interests trump ethics.

Over the past two years, I have consistently been told by insiders at Justice that an elaborate game was played to try to slow down or block the OPR’s report. Efforts were made to pressure OPR to rewrite its report, to adopt softer standards, to allow Yoo and Bybee to respond internally, and to require OPR to address the responses. I was told that one man was consistently behind these tactics: David Margolis. So, far from being an objective and impartial analyst, Margolis became engaged in the process at least by the fall of 2008, as an advocate for Yoo and Bybee and opponents of OPR.

It cannot be easy for a DOJ institutional figure like Margolis to acknowledge that the Justice Department housed war criminals. But Eric Holder seems perfectly content with it as well. It takes time for the establishment to expose itself. Remember: only the Lynndie Englands go to jail in America; their commanders get to go on NPR and spin.

Unsettling footage and transcript of Basij encircling and intimidating Rafsanjani's daughter, a women's rights activist.