On Goldberg on Freeman

Here. See especially 1 and 4.

The majority of Freeman's critics (me included) reported on statements he has made in various speeches, and provided links to the full texts. Freeman and some of his supporters, on the other hand, have accused his critics of being treasonous dual-loyalists. Their argument seems to be: Opposition to Charles Freeman equals opposition to the best interests of the United States of America.

In fact, even after Goldberg explicitly quoted what he found problematic, Sullivan combed through the speech to find nothing objectionable without bothering to address what Goldberg had quoted. Even later, Joe Klein quoted Freeman, highlighting a different section than what Goldberg had quoted, saying, 'I find this wrong, but not so wrong as to disqualify Freeman.' (I'll find links later Links added evening of original post.) Both of those writers had specifically cited Goldberg, so it's not as if they can claim to have been addressing "Freeman's critics in a general sense." Whether one had agreed with Goldberg on that particular point, that it was noxious of Freeman to blame Israel for 9/11 -for what it's worth, I found Freeman's claim that the US had ceded its ability to exercise it's own judgment far more noxious- it was peculiar that Freeman's supporters didn't address the point.

One of the more interesting pieces on the controversy comes from Michael Weiss, who noted that many liberals who would ordinarily stand in opposition to the cynical "realism" of Charles Freeman were nevertheless lining up with him

This, of course, is what Freeman's supporters are accusing his detractors of doing - making judgements about Freeman on the basis solely of his position on Israel. Weiss:

An unintended consequence of this maneuver is that these same leftists appear even more obsessed with the Jewish state than do the "neocons" they purport to monitor. They also look especially stupid in this instance because they're effectively arguing that what goes on in the West Bank is more crucial to U.S. national security than what goes on in the one country which produced fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. How's that for realism?

I think it's a bit unfair for some of those Weiss accuses. One can reasonably imagine Klein and Klein would have a legitimate interest in the West Bank out of proportion to its real importance. The problem here is more the atmosphere -in which Jews who support Israel in any way are seen as disloyal to the US- than any one critic. But can we ask: would that qualify as Judeocentrism?

The role of the 'Left' in Israel

Got this in my email today from Ameinu President, Kenneth Bob:

Professor Avi Degani, the CEO of the well-known polling organization Geocartographic Institute, feels that the notion of left and right, other than in the extremes, is disappearing and that a sense of “Social Securitism” is emerging. He points to the 85 Knesset seats garnered by Likud, Kadima, Labor and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is our Home) party as evidence that people want to vote for who they believe will provide a safe and secure environment for their country and family. He says that all of the parties talk about addressing “social needs” and that the left is not perceived as “leading in caring of the workers and the weaker elements of our society.”

It's easy from here to view every Israeli election in terms of peace prospects. But, as with the election of Hamas among the Palestinians, this is at best only half the story. Bob says a lot of interesting things in there. I hope he's right about many of them.

Great News on Durban II

At first only Canada declared itself out. Eventually Israel. The US under Bush dropped out, then rejoined under Obama, then dropped out again. Then Italy dropped out.

Now,

Rumors abound that The Netherlands, the UK and Denmark may be next. Even Germany - understandably reluctant to snub anything which is formally presented as challenging racism - has confessed to being undecided.

Any one of those nations leaving would certainly make a big difference.

Burn After Reading

Saw Burn After Reading by the Coen Brothers over the weekend. The following contains mild spoilers.

It begins with a God's-eye view descending into a CIA building in DC. Inside, the camera follows, from floor-level, someone. Because the camera is so low, we are necessarily looking up at this person, giving them a sense of stature and importance. Yet we can hardly see above his knees. Immediately, the film jokes by contrasting the all seeing, which lacks detail, with the all-detailed, which lacks context.

It's a farce about middle aged characters, most of whom are sleeping around with each other, all of whom are trying to assert control over their lives and world around them. The MacGuffin is a CD-Rom with, as Brad Pitt's character puts it, "intelligent shit" from the CIA. So in addition to being a sex farce, it also works as a spy farce. While everyone strives for control, nobody, not even the CIA, has any idea what's going on. It's a perfect parody of conspiracism.

Turns out this person we're following, played by John Malkovich, wearing a 3-piece suit and bow tie, enters a meeting where he is demoted. The stature and importance the camera gave to him in the hallway is a bit of a joke. A coworker accuses the Malkovich character, Ozzie Cox, of being a drunk. The accusation is true (a later allusion to the Rio Bravo scene where Dean Martin pours a shot of whiskey back into the bottle without spilling a drop makes this clear), but Cox responds by accusing his Mormon coworker of seeing everyone as a drunk. Cox claims in the meeting he is being crucified.

At home, his wife walks in and asks if he picked up the cheeses. It's intentionally difficult to hear, as his wife is at the front door while the audio is from the kitchen. It wasn't just me - after the reference to crucifixion in the previous scene, Soo also heard some mumbling about "Jesus" instead of "cheeses." The mishearing speaks to limited information with which to understand the world, undermining notions of knowability.

Later, after meeting the Frances McDormand character, after her insurance company has refused to cover several cosmetics surgeries, she is seen with her head down and palms up as if pleading in frustration. On the wall behind her is a meditating Buddha, head up and palms on knees, which really digs in at her inability to accept change.

All of these references to religion so early on -counting liberally, there's 5 that I mentioned; to be overly conservative, there's at least 3- made me wonder if the Coens were saying something from a Jewish perspective. We know they picked up the adaptation of Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union, so it seems they'd like to say at least a little from that particular perspective. The timing is about right for the film to be a response to Mearsheimer and Walt. But I doubt it. It seems like an over-determined reading.

Except for one minor character being Mormon, all of the religious references -even the cheeses- speak directly to power and control, obvious themes in the film. So they don't really push for a "Jewish" interpretation. Unless we deny that the Mormon reference can just be folded into the others. (For what it's worth, there's no reason to think religion should suggest morality. There is no sense of morality, just absurdity and irony.)

I wonder if anyone else would argue for the film as a response to antisemitic conspiracism?

A New Low

Thought the anti-imperialist left was upside down on Israel? This marks a new low. I might be open to a call for ending "sanctions against Zimbabwe" (knowing little about them) if there were some reasonable alternative offered. Humanitarian intervention? Never for these folks. Their best is "Let’s hope that President Robert Mugabe and the Zanu-PF will live up to the expectations and this crisis will only be a bad memory!" (Their exclamation point!) I doubt by "crisis" they're referring to the whole of Mugabe's rule. And so the call to end sanctions can't be understood as anything but support for Robert Mugabe.

Do read comment 5, btw. "First, there are no economic sanctions against Zimbabwe... There are sanctions against named Zimbabweans - the leaders of ZANU-PF and their spouses and associates. The main impact of these sanctions is that Grace Mugabe cannot go shopping at Harrods." I've already admitted to knowing relatively little about the international response to Mugabe, but the US sanctions -which are indeed against "named persons and entities"- can be found here. I trust no one will mind if I don't go searching for Britain's sanctions, though they're more specifically at issue.

I'm not surprised to find Jean Ziegler among the signatories. Among other oddities, he's called biofuels "a crime against humanity." He's more famous for similarly unhinged attacks against Israel that have become rote in the anti-Zionist cause. And for co-founding the Gaddafi Human Rights Prize, which he himself shared -he turned it down, but not for reasons the sane might expect- with Holocaust denier Roger Gaurady in 2002.

Long-short: Fortunately, there are other Lefts.

Joker One

Kinda off topic for this blog, but if you didn't catch Terry Gross's interview with Donovan Campbell, it's a must.

Former marine Donovan Campbell led a platoon against insurgents in Iraq. His memoir of his experiences is Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood.

Helping Dongsa move

Yesterday, I helped my Dongsa move. We met one of the tenants in the new building, Ya'el. By the name, I asked if she was Israeli. She was, and explained that she's lived in a lot of places. LA was shallow; she hated Phoenix. And we talked about Israeli politics. She's pretty close to Meretz. However, last time she voted - and she said she was proven right about this, though she was also clearly a little embarrased about it - she voted for Begin. Her thinking, Israeli thinking at the time as she characterized it, was that only a real hardliner could make concessions for peace work. That said, she's really upset by the current government. But when I said I hoped it wouldn't last two years, she said confidently that it wouldn't even last that long.