Monday, October 28, 2013

Israel and Evangelical Christians. By Peter Wehner.

Israel and Evangelical Christians. By Peter Wehner. Commentary, October 28, 2013.

Evangelicals and Israel: What American Jews Don’t Want to Know (but Need to). By Robert W. Nicholson. Mosaic, October 2013.


Wehner:

Robert W. Nicholson has written a fascinating essay for Mosaic magazine titled “Evangelicals and Israel: What American Jews Don’t Want to Know (but Need to).” That essay, in turn, has generated commentaries by Wilfred McClay, Elliott Abrams, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and James Nuechterlein. Each of them has a somewhat different take on what Nicholson wrote; all are worth reading.
 
The Nicholson essay explores the explanation for Christian Zionism, locating it in eschatology for some Christians while in God’s eternal covenant with Israel for others. Mr. Nicholson argues that many evangelicals feel not only a strong sense of protectiveness toward the State of Israel but a deep cultural affinity with the Jewish people. But he also highlights the growing strength among evangelicals of what he calls a “new anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian movement.”
 
The latter is something I can testify to first-hand. Several years ago my wife and I left a Washington D.C. church we were members of over what I came to discover was a deep, though previously hidden-from-view, hostility to Israel. The more I probed the matter, the more disturbing it was, to the point that I didn’t feel we could continue to worship there in good conscience. So we left, despite two of our children having been baptized there and despite having developed strong attachments to the church and many of its congregants over the years.
 
Mr. Nicholson does an excellent job explaining the rise of pro-Palestinian sentiment among some segments of American evangelicalism. The basis for this movement rests in part on the belief that Israel is a nation whose very founding in 1947 was illegitimate and immoral; since then, it is said, Israel has become an enemy of justice and peace. Authentic Christianity therefore requires one to embrace the pro-Palestinian narrative, or so this line of argument goes. “The bottom line is simply this,” writes Nicholson. “More and more evangelicals are being educated to accept the pro-Palestinian narrative – on the basis of their Christian faith.”
 
As for my own attitudes toward the Jewish state, I find myself closely aligned to the view of Nuechterlein. “In the present instance,” he writes, “one need not depend on biblical prophecy or covenantal theology to find reasons to support the state of Israel.”
Israel has the only truly democratic political culture in the Middle East. It is a friend of the West in politics and political economy, and, more important, a consistent and unswerving ally of the United States. It is a regional bulwark against the radical Islamists who are its and America’s sworn enemies. The more I see of the populist Arab spring, the stronger is my commitment to Israel. I support Israel not because I am a Christian—though nothing in my Christian beliefs would preclude that support—but because that support coincides with the requirements of justice and the defense of the American national interest.
That strikes me as quite right. In a region filled with despots and massive violations of human rights, Israel is the great, shining exception. Indeed, based on the evidence all around us, it is clear that Israel, more than any nation on earth, is held not simply to a double standard but to an impossible standard. Its own sacrifices for peace, which exceed those of any other country, are constantly overlooked even as the brutal acts of its enemies are excused. (I offer a very brief historical account of things here.)
 
Israel is far from perfect—but it is, in the totality of its acts, among the most estimable and impressive nations in human history. Its achievements and moral accomplishments are staggering—which is why, in my judgment, evangelical Christians should keep faith with the Jewish state. Set aside for now one’s view about the end times and God’s covenantal relationship with Israel. Israel warrants support based on the here and now; on what it stands for and what it stands against and what its enemies stand for and against; and for reasons of simple justice. What is required to counteract the anti-Israel narrative and propaganda campaign is a large-scale effort at education, not simply with dry facts but in a manner that tells a remarkable and moving story. That captures the moral imagination of evangelicals, most especially young evangelicals.
 
I’m sure some evangelical Christians would appreciate it if more American Jews showed more gratitude toward them for their support of Israel over the years. But frankly that matters very little to me, and here’s why: What ought to decide where one falls in this debate on Israel are not the shadows but the sunlight. On seeing history for what it is rather than committing a gross disfigurement of it. And on aligning one’s views, as best as one can, with truth and facts, starting with this one: The problem isn’t with Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate or even any dispute over territory (Israel has repeatedly proved it is willing to part with land for real peace); it is with the Palestinians’ unwillingness to make their own inner peace with the existence of a Jewish state.
 
The suffering the Palestinian people (including Palestinian Christians) are enduring is real and ought to move one’s heart. Many Palestinians suffer from circumstances they didn’t create. And so sympathy for their plight is natural. But these circumstances they suffer under are fundamentally a creation not of Israel but of failed Palestinian leadership, which has so often been characterized by corruption and malevolence. Checkpoints and walls exist for a reason, as a response to Palestinian aggressions. Nor has anyone yet emerged among the Palestinian leadership who is either willing or able to alter a civic culture that foments an abhorrence of Jews and longs for the eradication of Israel. That is the sine qua non for progress.
 
To my coreligionists I would simply point out an unpleasant truth: hatred for Israel is a burning fire throughout the world. Those of the Christian faith ought to be working to douse the flames rather than to intensify them.

Palestinian Terms Leave Little to Talk About. By Jonathan S. Tobin.

Palestinian Terms Leave Little to Talk About. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, October 27, 2013.

Are Settlements Really Hurting Israel? By Moshe Dann.

Are Settlements Really Hurting Israel? By Moshe Dann. Real Clear World, October 28, 2013. Also at the Jerusalem Post.

The Frontier in Israeli History. By Moshe Dann. NJBR, June 28, 2013. With related articles.

Nine common myths about Israel. By Moshe Dann. Jerusalem Post, January 16, 2013.

Who wants a Palestinian state? By Moshe Dann. Jerusalem Post, November 26, 2012.

The imperative of Jewish sovereignty. By Moshe Dann. Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2011.

The Palestinian Ideology Ignores Reality. By Michael Curtis.

The Palestinian Ideology Ignores Reality. By Michael Curtis. American Thinker, October 27, 2013.

Curtis:

Among ideology, a fundamental belief system, and recognition of reality, there has always been a huge intellectual gap.  History is full of instances when all too many people have refused to recognize the disastrous consequences of adhering to an ideology, usually based on myth, regardless of a reality that contradicts their firm beliefs.  The key problem is that individuals espousing some ideological point of view may have invested so much emotional attachment to it that they not only abandon objectivity, but also are incapable of renouncing a viewpoint, a myth, or a false political religion that has been discredited or may be irrelevant.  They do not want to disavow the part of themselves that has accepted falsity.
 
This is now true of the ideological believers in the Palestinian narrative of victimhood.  Almost everyone recognizes the mistakes of “true believers” in refusing to admit the horrors of the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union and the Mao Zedong years in China.  Supporters of and apologists for those regimes persisted in ignoring the reality that they were totalitarian, savagely cruel, responsible for systematic terror, and engaged in the slaughter of tens of millions of their innocent citizens held to be enemies.
 
Adherence to the ideology of Communism meant both condoning the horrors and cruelty as inevitable and refusing to accept any possible compromise or qualification of that ideology.  Nor could adherents accept that this ideological view, though partly rational, was largely a myth, albeit one capable of mobilizing people.
 
Today, that mixture of reason and myth is present in a Palestinian ideology of victimhood, an ideology that seeks to mobilize political support by insistence that Palestinians are being persecuted by Israel, a state that must be rejected.  Supporters of the Palestinian cause can argue as part of that ideology for Israeli withdrawal from disputed or occupied territory captured in 1967, for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and for a solution to the Palestinian refugee question by a Palestinian right of return.
 
But the ideology departs from objectivity in referring to Israel as a colonial power from which Palestinians must be liberated.  That power is said to oppress Palestinians and to engage in terror against them.  The reality is that it is Palestinian terrorism that has accounted for the murder of more than 1,500 Israelis over the last twenty years.
 
The ideologists may raise legitimate points about the settlements built since 1967 in the West Bank.  Yet it serves no purpose to argue that these settlements are the main obstacle to peace negotiations.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that Israeli policy has been unchanging and inflexible, that it is unremittingly oppressive, and that it is based on the argument that “Between the sea and the Jordan River there will be only Israeli sovereignty.”  It is true that this argument was made by a relatively small group among the Likud party in 1977.  But it is not the policy of Israeli governments, as has been shown by the various offers of a compromise solution on territory shown by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, and by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.
 
The Palestinian ideology has formulated the concept of Nakba, catastrophe, resulting from the Arab defeat in their war against Israel in 1948-49.  Left unsaid is the crucial reality that it was Arab armies that had invaded Israel on its creation and caused the catastrophe.  The Palestinian state, because of Arab refusal, never came into existence 66 years ago, as proposed by the UNGA resolution of November 1947, but the refugee problem did.  Moreover, it was the threat reiterated by President Nasser among others to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel and his actions producing a casus belli that led to the 1967 war and the capture of Arab territory – the now disputed West Bank and East Jerusalem.  It was this threat and consequent actions that have prevented a Palestinian state from being established.
 
The Palestinian ideology and activists on behalf of that ideology or apologists for Palestinian terrorism refuse to recognize benefits that arise from employment of Palestinians by Israeli enterprises.  Rather, they insist on the self-defeating policy of boycott, divestment, and sanctions in so many areas of life against Israel.  Or they maintain the image of Israeli/Jewish conspiracy eager to rule over an oppressed people.
 
Even more, the ideologists refuse to recognize both the security problem of Israel and the reality of the continuing attacks by Hamas from Gaza and Hezb’allah from Lebanon on Israeli civilians.  Rather, they concentrate on a number of issues: an uncompromising view of territory in the area; a solution of the refugee problem that would eliminate the Jewish State of Israel; the insistence on Jerusalem as a capital of any Palestinian state; and anti-imperialism, which means hostility towards the United States as well as Israel.  Hatred and venom are more noticeable in these arguments than are overtures of conciliation.
 
No conciliation is likely if the starting premise of Palestinian ideology is insistence on a state that must consist of the whole area of Palestine as defined in the British Mandate, thus eliminating the existing State of Israel.  Equally, the Palestinian refugee problem remains unresolved if Palestinians, and previously other Arabs who also used it as a propaganda device, persist in holding that all refugees, and now their descendants including grandchildren, have the right to return to places where they lived before the war in 1948, and most of which no longer exist.  The demographic impact of this would clearly mean the end of the Jewish State of Israel.
 
The issue of the future of Jerusalem is also related to the fallacious Palestinian ideological narrative of victimhood.  This asserts that Jews have no historic right to any area of Mandated Palestine, since they lived there for only a short time, if at all.  This assertion means there is no connection between Jews and their ancient homeland and their historic holy places.  Rather, the ideology identifies “Palestinians” with the Canaanites of several thousand years ago and asserts that because there have been Islamist conquests of the area since the 7th century, they are another Islamic group having a right to the land.  In this absurd distortion of history, Israel has no legal right to Jerusalem or anywhere else in Palestine.
 
The Palestinian ideology has incorporated what is now the politically correct mantra of opposition to colonialism and imperialism.  Not only is Palestinian self-determination an end in itself, but it also implies the end of Israeli colonization.  An ideology of this kind can hardly be the basis of peace negotiations when it, above all in the version of Hamas and other radical Islamists, calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.  Nor can it be useful if Palestinians insist on preconditions or concessions by Israel before any negotiations start.
 
If Berlin and Vienna are trying, with considerable success, to come to terms with their infamous past of Nazism, why can’t Palestinians do the same in recognition of the Jewish past in Palestine?  That recognition is not near at hand.  Instead, Hamas’s answer is building a very large, well-constructed, and sophisticated tunnel from Khan Younis in the south part of the Gaza Strip into Israel in order to attack civilians in Israeli border towns and villages.  Hamas, the Islamist expression of Palestinian ideology, prefers to waste resources of its subjects and to invest in terror, not peace.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

The Myth of American Isolationism. By Andrew Bacevich.

The Myth of American Isolationism. By Andrew Bacevich. Real Clear World, October 26, 2013. Also at TomDispatch.

We Didn’t Listen. By Daniel Gordis.

We Didn’t Listen. By Daniel Gordis. DanielGordis.org, October 17, 2013.

How Israeli Society Remained Intact. By Yossi Klein Halevi. NJBR, October 23, 2013.

The Rise and Fall of Israel’s Settlement Movement. By Jeffrey Goldberg. NJBR, October 14, 2013.

Yossi Klein Halevi on “Like Dreamers, ”New Book on Legacy of Israeli Paratroopers. By Michael M. Rosen. NJBR, September 29, 2013. With related articles and audio podcast.

Gordis:

This is the sort of region that periodically forces us to ask ourselves probing questions about our condition and how things got to be the way that they did. Did we intend to get where we are? In what direction would we now head if we were wise? Is change necessary? Is it still possible?
 
It is those sorts of questions that lie at the heart of Yossi Klein Halevi’s new book, Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who United Jerusalem and Divided a Nation. Klein Halevi, long among Israel’s most thoughtful, penetrating, honest and compassionate writers, has now written his magnum opus. Many books in one, Like Dreamers is, on the surface, the story of seven paratroopers who liberated the Old City of Jerusalem in June 1967. But as told through the lives and eyes of these seven men – before the war, during the battles and long after the guns have been silenced – Like Dreamers is also a social history and, no less, the story of the internal Israeli conflict about the settlement project, from its very inception and for decades following.
 
Like Dreamers is, of course, not the first book to cover the issue of the settlements. Gershom Gorenberg’s Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements 1967-1977 is a very thorough and largely accurate history of the origins of the settler movement. The differences between the books, though, are legion. Gorenberg’s is a story of a blundering national policy, “crafted” almost by accident, while Klein Halevi’s book is the story of people. The men who fought to liberate Jerusalem had come to that battle from very different social and political backgrounds; they went on, in some cases, to found Gush Emunim and in other cases, to become the mainstays of the peace camp. Seeing the two sides through the loves and losses, the triumphs and failures of those who were at the core of these movements affords us a three dimensional understanding of what has unfolded here in a way that no other book, of which I’m aware, ever has before.
 
An infinitely more important difference, however, is that books like Gorenberg’s (and like Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism, among others) drip with venom and anger. To people like Gorenberg, Beinart and Jeremy Ben-Ami, the settlement project is so foolishly immoral, so callously disregarding of the Palestinians and so corrosive of Israel’s international standing that their books are at the end of the day just broadside attacks on both the policy of settlement building and on the men and women who were at its core.
 
Klein Halevi is by no means oblivious to the problems of the settlements. When Arik Achmon (a central character in Like Dreamers) is exposed to the worldview of Rabbi Moshe Levinger, Klein Halevi writes for Achmon, “A foreign spirit, antithetical to Zionism, was stirring.”
 
Throughout its 500+ pages, Like Dreamers shows time and again some of the dangerous impulses at the heart of the settlement movement.
 
But – and here is where Klein Halevi’s genius truly shines – the book shows equally compellingly the powerful moral and Zionist commitments of both the settlers and the peace camp. On the most divisive issue faced by a highly divided state, Yossi Klein Halevi gets us to admire, perhaps even to love, the leaders of both. In prose so compelling that it reads like a novel, Like Dreamers makes clear that the real settlement story is not good guys versus bad, Zionists versus non-Zionists, or colonialists versus territorial minimalists. It’s something much more complex and infinitely more nuanced.
 
Like Dreamers is almost talmudic in its holding up of conflicting positions for each side to critique and defend. On the one hand, profound Israeli leaders, committed Zionists – from Ben-Gurion to Yeshayahu Leibowitz – said almost the minute the war was over that Israel ought to give most of the territory back; Israel would callous its soul by ruling over so many Palestinians (though interestingly, none of Klein Halevi’s characters ever really speak for the Palestinians, so their positions remain only assumed, their voices the ones we end up wishing we’d heard more of).
 
But other Jews – motivated not by hatred or disregard of Arabs, but by love of Israel – disagreed. The Jewish state had always been a story of acquiring land and then building on it. That was the story of Tel Aviv and Petah Tikva. It was the story of Karmiel, built on land captured in the War of Independence. Why then should the land taken in 1967 be any different, especially in places that Jews had lived in as late as the 1930s and 1940s until rabid Arab violence forced them to flee?
 
Could Israel have stymied the impulse to return to those places in 1968 without smothering the most passionate Zionist impulses still remaining? Can it do so now?
 
What Israel should do now is a question that Like Dreamers wisely never addresses directly. But there are hints. Of the seven paratroopers Klein Halevi follows, he seems most spiritually connected to Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun. And in an article in Nekudah, the settler’s publication, Bin-Nun had advocated a policy of “no annexation and no withdrawal,” and instead, dividing the West Bank into Jewish and Arab cantons. The Jewish areas would vote in Israeli elections, and the Arab cantons in Jordanian. Even Bin-Nun acknowledged that this was a far from perfect solution, but as Klein Halevi then writes for Bin-Nun, “there [is] no perfect justice in this world.”
 
Does Klein Halevi mean to endorse something along the canton approach? He never says. His purpose in this book is entirely other: He aims to teach us a complex and fascinating history, and to introduce us to seven fascinating, frustrating, passionate men who reflect the wide diversity of Israel’s complex society.
 
But there is one lesson he definitely does want to teach. In May 1996, with the peace process seemingly marching forward and the future of the settlements very much in doubt, a young man asks Bin-Nun “What went wrong?” The rabbi’s response was chilling: “We didn’t listen to the moral arguments of the Left,” he replied.
 
If there is any line in the book in which a character speaks for Klein Halevi, that is the one. More important to him than the position we take is his hope that we might come to realize that there are powerful moral, Zionist and strategic insights on both sides of this painful divide. If Bin-Nun believes that the settlers’ greatest failure was not hearing the moral insights of the left, Klein Halevi insists that what ails our entire country is our inability to listen to the other and to learn.
 
In Like Dreamers, we have a history. We have great yarn, brilliantly told. And we are exposed to Klein Halevi as a teacher of great moral weight, begging us to realize that if we truly wish to preserve this little state of ours, there is nothing we can do more important than beginning to hear and to grow from those whose views are most challenging to our own.

 


Why the World Can’t Agree Over Climate Change. By Fareed Zakaria.

Why world can’t agree over climate change. By Fareed Zakaria. Fareed Zakaria GPS. CNN, October 26, 2013.

The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. By Camilo Mora et al. Nature, Vol. 502, Issue 7470 (October 10, 2013).

Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. By Jennifer Jacquet et al. Nature Climate Change, October 20, 2013.




60 Minutes: Benghazi Was a Planned, Sophisticated Attack. By Lara Logan.

60 Minutes: Benghazi Was a Planned, Sophisticated Attack. By Lara Logan. Real Clear Politics, October 27, 2013. Also at 60 Minutes, YouTube.



The Republican Embrace of the Welfare State. By Andrew C. McCarthy.

The Republican Embrace of the Welfare State. By Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review Online, October 26, 2013.

Coming Soon: The Epic Battle Between Obama and the Tea Party Movement in 2014. By Carl Boyd, Jr. Tea Party News Network, October 27, 2013.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Israel’s Brain Drain. By Gershom Gorenberg.

Israel’s Brain Drain. By Gershom Gorenberg. The American Prospect, October 24, 2013.

Why are so many Israelis teaching at American universities? Because Israel is starving higher education.

Gorenberg:

A band was warming up for a free concert on the green quad of Hebrew University's Givat Ram campus before noon yesterday. The vocalist belted out a few lines of Amy Winehouse in English—“They tried to make me go to rehab”—then switched into Hebrew to talk to the soundman. Across the crowded lawn in front of the neural computation and life sciences buildings, a student was learning to walk a low tightrope stretched between two trees, and mostly falling off. The Israeli academic year starts only in October, and classes are finally back in session.
 
Givat Ram is the physical sciences campus of Hebrew University. Among the scientists who do not have labs there, and who will not be teaching there or at any other Israeli university this year, are Arieh Warshel and Michael Levitt. Warshel and Levitt were named earlier this month as two of the three winners of the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Warshel, who was born in Israel and studied through his doctorate at Israeli universities, teaches at USC in Los Angeles. South African-born Levitt, who taught at Israel’s Weizmann Institute in the 1980s and holds Israeli citizenship, is at Stanford. The prize makes them stand out; the geography of their career paths does not. Israel suffers worse brain drain than any other developed country. Its scholars might as well receive suitcases rather than diplomas. “What’s the best Israeli ‘university’? The one composed of all the Israeli academics abroad” a professor told me this week in a bittersweet tone.
 
In a committee room in the depths of the Knesset Wednesday, just a few hundred meters from the quad where the band was warming up, the president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Ruth Arnon, was a delivering a thick report on the state of the country’s academic research. A brief abstract could read: “We were once stars on the world stage; we are going downhill; talent is leaving. We need money.” A separate study on Israeli academia, due to be published next month, paints an even starker picture. For every ten tenured or tenure-track faculty at Israel’s colleges and universities, there are nearly three Israelis in parallel positions in the United States, according to the Taub Center, a Jerusalem-based social-policy institute. This is a rate of intellectual exodus on a greater scale than that of any other country in the world.
 
The reasons for Israel’s brain drain are not solely economic. But government funding—or lack of funding—for higher education is a core problem. The financial starving of academia is a function of the wider shift in government policy away from the welfare state and toward privatization—and toward spending an unknown part of national resources on settlement and on the ultra-Orthodox segment of Israeli society. And a crisis in relations with the European Union over settlement policy threatens a major remaining source of funding for research.
 
With rare exceptions, Israeli scholars aren’t leaving for ideological reasons. They aren’t boycotting their country. Israelis leaving for foreign universities normally say that they intend to come home after their doctorate or the post-doc, or that the offer of a tenure-track position or better research conditions abroad is too good to refuse.
 
Ironically, the emigration rate is partly due to the success of Israeli academia. “We educate a lot of people to a very high level,” and professors are well known at universities abroad, says Jonathan Fine, a Bar-Ilan University linguist. So they are able to help place their protégés in doctoral programs or post-doctoral slots at top institutions overseas.
 
To maintain their own level, Israeli institutions want to hire scholars trained at the best American and British universities—which also happen to have more fellowship funds than their Israeli counterparts. Yet those scholars are the most likely to get offers to stay overseas. Back home, the number of tenure-track openings has shrunk with budget cuts; research funding is leaner; salaries are smaller than they are across the sea, especially in fields such as business and engineering. Even professional literature in the humanities is harder to get. A professor explained to me that Israeli university libraries subscribe to fewer online journals. It’s a form of privatization, he said, only a quarter in jest. To get many articles, a scholar has to pay out of his own research funds or personal cash.
 
So we’re back to budgets. Here the Taub report, written by Ben-David, presents a stunning picture. During Israel's first 25 years of independence, from 1948 to 1973, it invested generously, dedicatedly, in higher education. It was still a developing country. In the earliest of those years, Israel was so poor that food was rationed, the report notes. The country was flooded with Jewish refugees from Europe and Islamic countries who were living in tents. The country acted like poor parents working long hours at their corner market to send their kids to college. The ratio of university faculty to the population rose steeply, until it approached the U.S. level in 1973. From that peak, the ratio of professors to population took a sharp turn down and has continued to slide. Other indicators show the same slide. In real terms, public funding per student in higher education today is a third the level it was in 1979.
 
The initial catalyst for cutbacks, it appears, was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which exacted a huge economic as well as human cost on Israel. But funding kept falling after the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, which led to a steady drop in defense outlays. The country joined the developed world; high-tech became the engine of the economy. Yet higher education suffered. When I spoke with Ben-David this week, he noted that a delayed effect of the war was that the Labor Party lost power for the first time in 1977.  But, he said, the trend of cutbacks continued even during periods when Labor returned to power. To that comment, let me add a gloss: By the time Labor was back in government, the party’s name was a historical relic of its social democratic past. The major parties barely differed in their pro-market, pro-privatization policies. But the private sector wasn’t making up for government investments in basic scientific research, much less in humanities faculties.
 
Ben-David focuses his criticism on government’s spending priorities and the lack of transparency in its budget. “No one has a clue,” he points out, about how much the Israeli government spends on West Bank settlements, or on supporting an ever-growing number of ultra-Orthodox families in which the men devote their lives to religious study rather than work.
 
One potential cost of settlement, however, is quite public. Israeli researchers depend heavily on European Union grants and partnerships. Israel is now negotiating with the European Union on participation in Horizon 2020, Europe's next seven-year research and development partnership. But the EU guidelines issued in July finally put teeth in Europe’s policy that sovereign Israeli territory is defined by the pre-1967 border, or Green Line. EU research grants are not to be spent beyond that border, and the guidelines specify that any new agreements with Israel must explicitly state this condition. “Not signing the scientific cooperation agreement with the European Union is an irreversible and disastrous step for Israeli science and the country as a whole,” warned Arnon, president of the Academy of Sciences, In an open letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week. Since she has a nonpolitical position, she did not state the subtext: Refusing to acknowledge that the occupied territories are, well, occupied would be the final blow to research in Israel.
 
When the Nobel Prize in chemistry was announced, Netanyahu phoned Arieh Warshel on the far side of the globe to tell him, “We are proud of you.” If it weren’t for the policies of Netanyahu and his predecessors, perhaps that would have been a local call. As it is, Israeli universities very much need a rehabilitation program.


Moving from Left to Right. By Charles Krauthammer.

Moving from Left to Right. By Charles Krauthammer. National Review Online, October 24, 2013.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Loving Us to Death: How America’s Embrace Is Imperiling American Jewry. By Jonathan S. Tobin.

Loving Us to Death: How America’s Embrace Is Imperiling American Jewry. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, November 2013.

Why Bother Being Jewish? By Caroline Glick. NJBR, October 8, 2013.

American Jews: Laughing But Shrinking. By Jonathan S. Tobin. NJBR, October 1, 2013. With related articles.
 



This Egyptian Writer is Way, Way Too Excited About the Country’s Military Leader. By Max Fisher.

This Egyptian writer is way, way too excited about the country’s military leader. By Max Fisher. Washington Post, October 24, 2013. Also here.

Catch the Al-Sisi mania. By Lubna Abdel Aziz. Al-Ahram Weekly, September 17, 2013.

The Rihanna Israel-Palestine Controversy That Never Really Happened. By Max Fisher.

The Rihanna Israel-Palestine controversy that never really happened. By Max Fisher. Washington Post, October 24, 2013. Also here.

Fisher:

U.S.-based Barbadian pop star Rihanna’s big concert in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv had one very brief, strangely political moment. When performing the song “Pour it Up,” according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, she substituted the lyric “All I see is dollar signs” with the phrase “All I see is Palestine.”
 
The switch-up generated controversy and discussion on the Israeli Web and in somesegments of the Arab press. It was picked up by lots of American aggregators. The choice of words seemed not just political but deeply provocative.
 
Except it turns out that it didn’t really happen.
 
First, here’s why it was controversial. It wasn’t clear whether the lyric was meant as simply a generic nod to Palestinians, perhaps a subtle suggestion that Rihanna’s audience of some 50,000 think about the Palestinian territories and Israeli policy toward them, or whether it meant something more.
 
Much of the online discussion focused on the fact that Rihanna apparently did not say the word “Israel” during her performance and had come under pressure to cancel her show from some pro-Palestinian groups that support boycotting Israel. In singing “all I see is Palestine” in the middle of Tel Aviv, was Rihanna suggesting that the city should be considered not part of Israel, but part of a single Palestinian state? Didn’t that sound uncomfortably close to the rhetoric of anti-Israeli groups that insist the entire country is illegitimate and should be dissolved?
 
If these sound like overwrought questions to you, then it turns out that you are correct. Simone Wilson, a writer at the site JewishJournal.com who has been impressively persistent in covering this story, got ahold of a cellphone video recorded by a fan at the concert. And it turns out, as best one can tell from watching the video, that Rihanna used the normal lyrics. She didn’t mention Palestine at all. Wilson also noted that a Jerusalem Post reporter had expressed earlier skepticism about the controversial lyrics, pointing out that no other Israeli journalist at the concert had heard “all I see is Palestine.”
 
The whole episode was pretty silly. So why are you reading about it? Because this is a reminder of how remarkably sensitive the politics of the Israel-Palestinian conflict can get, and indeed always are. The mere hint of a one-word political statement by a 25-year-old Barbadian pop star, during a highly non-political event, was enough to generate controversy and debate in multiple countries.
 
The fight over symbolism can sometimes feel almost as vicious as the fight for territory; recall the endless rounds of controversy and allegation and conspiracy-theorizing over the photos of children who were killed or wounded during the November clashes between Israel and Gaza. The difference, of course, is that what Rihanna said, or in this case didn’t say, is of next-to-zero actual significance. What is of significance is that both parties to  the Israel-Palestinian conflict are so primed for controversy and outrage, so hawkishly ever-alert for the slightest indication of someone taking sides, that this incident would become a story at all.


America’s Original Sin: The Legacy of White Racism. By Jim Wallis.

America’s Original Sin: The Legacy of White Racism. By Jim Wallis. Sojourners, November 1987.

The Most Controversial Sentence I Ever Wrote. By Jim Wallis. Sojourners, October 24, 2013. Also at The Huffington Post.

12 Years a Slave: A Conversation on Race. Sojourners.

The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias: 12 Years a Slave Holds Nothing Back in Show of Suffering. By Manohla Dargis. New York Times, October 17, 2013.

What Really Became of Solomon Northup After His “12 Years a Slave?” By Mark Robichaux. Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2013.

Twelve Years a Slave. By Solomon Northup. New York: Miller, Orton, and Mulligan, 1855. More editions here. Audio book here and here.




Wallis (Original Sin):

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another.

To make such a statement today is to be immediately accused of being rhetorical or, worse yet, of being “reminiscent of the ’60s.” The reaction is instructive and revealing. The historical record of how white Europeans conquered North America by destroying the native population and how they then built their new nation’s economy on the backs of kidnapped Africans who had been turned into chattel are facts that can hardly be denied. Yet to speak honestly of such historical facts is to be charged with being polemical or out of date. Why?
 
One reason is that racism is no longer a hot topic. After the brief “racial crisis” of the ’60s, white America, including many of those involved in the civil rights movement, has gone on to other concerns. Also, the legal victories of black Americans in that period, as far as most white Americans are concerned, have settled the issue and even left many asking, “What more do blacks want?”
 
Federal courts have recently interpreted civil rights legislation—originally designed to redress discrimination against black people—as applying to the grievances of whites who believe affirmative action programs have “gone too far.” In addition, popular racial attitudes have changed, attested to by the opinion polls and the increased number of black faces appearing in the world of sports, entertainment, the mass media, and even politics. After all, The Cosby Show is the highest-rated TV series in the country, and Jesse Jackson is running for president.
 
Indeed, in the two decades since the passage of momentous civil rights legislation, some things have changed and some things haven’t. What has changed is the personal racial attitudes of many white Americans and the opportunities for some black Americans to enter the middle levels of society. (The word “middle” is key here, insofar as blacks have yet to be allowed into the upper echelons and decision-making positions of business, the professions, the media, or even the fields of sports and entertainment where black “progress” has so often been celebrated.) Legal segregation has been lifted off the backs of black people with the consequent expansion of social interchange and voting rights, and that itself has led to changes in white attitudes.
 
What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of black people. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.
 
Racism originates in domination and provides the social rationale and philosophical justification for debasing, degrading, and doing violence to people on the basis of color. Many have pointed out how racism is sustained by both personal attitudes and structural forces. Racism can be brutally overt or invisibly institutional, or both. Its scope extends to every level and area of human psychology, society, and culture.
 
Prejudice may be a universal human sin, but racism is more than an inevitable consequence of human nature or social accident. Rather, racism is a system of oppression for a social purpose.
 
In the United States, the original purpose of racism was to justify slavery and its enormous economic benefit. The particular form of racism, inherited from the English to justify their own slave trade, was especially venal, for it defined the slave not merely as an unfortunate victim of bad circumstances, war, or social dislocation but rather as less than human, as a thing, an animal, a piece of property to be bought and sold, used and abused.
 
The slave did not have to be treated with any human consideration whatsoever. Even in the founding document of our nation, the famous constitutional compromise defined the slave as only three-fifths of a person. The professed high ideals of Anglo-Western society could exist side by side with the profitable institution of slavery only if the humanity of the slave was denied and disregarded.
 
The heart of racism was and is economic, though its roots and results are also deeply cultural, psychological, sexual, even religious, and, of course, political. Due to 200 years of brutal slavery and 100 more of legal segregation and discrimination, no area of the relationship between black and white people in the United States is free from the legacy of racism.
 
IN SPIRITUAL AND BIBLICAL terms, racism is a perverse sin that cuts to the core of the gospel message. Put simply, racism negates the reason for which Christ died—the reconciling work of the cross. It denies the purpose of the church: to bring together, in Christ, those who have been divided from one another, particularly in the early church's case, Jew and Gentile—a division based on race.
 
There is only one remedy for such a sin and that is repentance, which, if genuine, will always bear fruit in concrete forms of conversion, changed behavior, and reparation. While the United States may have changed in regard to some of its racial attitudes and allowed some of its black citizens into the middle class, white America has yet to recognize the extent of its racism—that we are and have always been a racist society—much less to repent of its racial sins. 

And because of that lack of repentance and, indeed, because of the economic, social, and political purposes still served by the oppression of black people, systematic racism continues to be pervasive in American life. While constantly denied by white social commentators and the media, evidence of the persistent and endemic character of American racism abounds.
. . . .
 
THE STRATEGIES FOR HOW black people must confront and finally overcome the ever-changing face of white racism in America must always originate within the black community itself. White allies have and can continue to play a significant role in the struggle against racism when black autonomy and leadership are sufficiently present to make possible a genuine partnership. But an even more important task for white Americans is to examine ourselves, our relationships, our institutions, and our society for the ugly plague of racism.
 
Whites in America must admit the reality and begin to operate on the assumption that theirs is a racist society. Positive individual attitudes are simply not enough, for, as we have seen, racism is more than just personal.
 
All white people in the United States have benefited from the structure of racism, whether or not they have ever committed a racist act, uttered a racist word, or had a racist thought (as unlikely as that is). Just as surely as blacks suffer in a white society because they are black, whites benefit because they are white. And if whites have profited from a racist structure, they must try to change it.
 
To benefit from domination is to be responsible for it. Merely to keep personally free of the taint of racist attitudes is both illusory and inadequate. Just to go along with a racist social structure, to accept the economic order as it is, just to do one's job within impersonal institutions is to participate in racism in the ’80s.
 
Racism has to do with the power to dominate and enforce oppression, and that power in America is in white hands. Therefore, while there are instances of black racial prejudice against whites in the United States today (often in reaction to white racism), there is no such thing as black racism. Black people in America do not have the power to enforce that prejudice.
 
White racism in white institutions must be eradicated by white people and not just black people. In fact, white racism is primarily a white responsibility.
 
We must not give in to the popular temptation to believe that racism existed mostly in the Old South or before the 1960s or, today, in South Africa. Neither can any of our other struggles against the arms race, war in Central America, hunger, homelessness, or sexism be separated from the reality of racism.
 
The church must, of course, get its own house in order. It is still riddled with racism and segregation. The exemplary role of the black church in the struggle against racism offers a sharp indictment to white churches, which still mostly reflect the racial structures around them.
 
The church still has the capacity to be the much-needed prophetic interrogater of a system that has always depended upon racial oppression. The gospel remains clear. The church still should and can be a spiritual and social community where the ugly barriers of race are finally torn down to reveal the possibilities of a different American future.


Wallis’s article is another left-wing diatribe against Jacksonian America as irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. A classic example of liberal exploitation of white guilt. While Wallis is right about the central role of white supremacy in much of American history, he indulges in left-wing demagoguery when he accuses all white Americans, simply by being white Americans, of perpetrating racism, exploiting minorities, and benefiting from structures of racial domination. He is obliviously to the desperate situation of the white Jacksonian working and middle classes. Wallis wrote this article in 1987. In 2010 he accused the Tea Party of racism, saying it was driven by “an undercurrent of white resentment.”

Remembering Larry Goodwyn. By William Greider.

Remembering Larry Goodwyn. By William Greider. The Nation, October 23, 2013.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Michael Barone: America is a Multicultural Country from Our Colonial Beginnings. By David Austin Walsh.

Michael Barone: America is a Multicultural Country from Our Colonial Beginnings. Interview by David Austin Walsh. History News Network, October 21, 2013.

Political Science Says Syria’s Civil War Will Probably Last at Least Another Decade. By Max Fisher.

Political science says Syria’s civil war will probably last at least another decade. By Max Fisher. Washington Post, October 23, 2013. Also here.

Armed intervention and civilian victimization in intrastate conflicts. By Reed M. Wood, Jacob D. Kathman, and Stephen E. Gent. Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 49, No. 5 (September 2012). Also here.

Veto Players and Civil War Duration. By David E. Cunningham. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 4 (October 2006).

The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement. By Barbara F. Walter. International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Summer 1997).

The Four Things We Know About How Civil Wars End (and What This Tells Us About Syria). By Barbara F. Walter. Political Violence at a Glance, October 18, 2013.

Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer Than Others. By James D. Fearon. Stanford University, July 12, 2002.

Civil war termination. By James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin. Stanford University, September 12, 2008.

How Israeli Society Remained Intact. By Yossi Klein Halevi.

How Israeli society remained intact. By Yossi Klein Halevi. The Times of Israel, October 22, 2013.

Resolving Israel’s internal war of atonement. By Yossi Klein Halevi. The Times of Israel, September 9, 2013.

Why Things are Looking Good for Israel. By Jonathan (Yoni) Shimshoni and Nimrod Hurvitz. History News Network, October 21, 2013.

The Post-Islamist Era. By Ali Ibrahim.

The Post-Islamist Era. By Ali Ibrahim. Asharq Al-Awsat, October 22, 2013.

Why China’s Middle Class Supports the Communist Party. By David S.G. Goodman.

Why China’s middle class supports the Communist Party. By David S.G. Goodman. The Christian Science Monitor, October 22, 2013.

Those in the West commonly believe that economic growth and a burgeoning middle class in China will lead to democratic reform. But research on China’s middle class shows its lack of opposition to the Communist regime as well as some support for the party-state.

The Republican Schism: Main Street vs. K Street/Wall Street. By Erick Erickson.

The Republican Schism. By Erick Erickson. RedState, October 22, 2013.

Erickson:

There is a data set within yesterday’s CNN poll that even CNN largely overlooked, but that explains so much of the current tension within the Republican Party.
 
Long after we are dead, pundits and political reporters will still talk about the Rockefeller Republicans vs. the Conservatives and other such archaic divisions that no longer exist except in the rhetorical habits of pretentious political reporters. The real division within the Republican Party now isn’t even between those who call themselves tea partiers fighting the establishment. “Tea party”, like “conservative” and “Republican”, has less meaning these days and I increasingly dislike using the word. Admittedly though, everyone would consider me one based on the general parameters of what the tea party is.
 
In any event, the real fight within the Republican Party now is between those who believe we actually are at the moment of crisis — existential or otherwise — and thereby must fight as we’ve never fought before and those who think the GOP can bide its time and make things right.
 
At this moment, this boils down to a fight largely between Main Street and the K Street/Wall Street Alliance within the GOP. This gets us back to the CNN poll and the data set even CNN really missed.
 
CNN asked, “Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Republican Party is in control of the U.S. House of Representatives?” 54% say it is bad for the country. The polling is among all adults. With registered voters the number is 52%. With likely voters it would probably be a 50-50 proposition. The follow up question was not whether the public would prefer the Democrats to be in charge, but “If you had to choose, would you rather see John Boehner remain as Speaker of the House, or would you rather see Boehner replaced as Speaker by another Republican?” 63% of adult Americans would like him replaced.
 
Go into the subsets for far more interesting numbers.
 
One-third of self-described conservatives think it is bad for the country that the GOP is in charge of the House of Representatives compared to only 14% of people self-identified as supporting the tea party. 55% of conservatives want John Boehner replaced by another Republican. 60% of those who support the tea party want Boehner replaced.
 
While the margin of error goes up significantly in the subsets, this is a pretty consistent finding and one that complicates a lot of reporting about voter angst and anger toward the GOP. A lot of conservatives are angry at the GOP too. They want a Republican Party willing to fight They are gravitating toward candidates and third parties willing to fight and eschewing those who are too establishmentarian.
 
Add in another poll. Almost half of Americans want every member of Congress replaced. “Among Republicans and Republican leaners, a 52% majority say Congress would be better off if most of the current members were replaced,” USA Today reports. Likewise, a recent Pew survey showed that roughly a third of Americans want their own member of Congress replaced. Usually the polling shows people want congressmen replaced, but they like their own congressmen. Now, at its highest level in a very long time, people want their own congressman replaced too.
 
While all the polling suggests a very real anti-establishmentarian mood in the country and within the GOP, small donors are gravitating toward conservative groups willing to fight. Heritage Action for American, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Senate Conservatives Fund, Madison Project, etc. are all seeing small donors and activists gravitating to them. As attacks on these groups intensify from Republicans in Washington, their support from the grassroots correspondingly intensifies.
 
This is shaping up to be a more destructive primary season for the GOP Establishment than either 2010 or 2012. Making it even more brutal, the Chamber of Commerce and large corporatist donors are teaming up to help the Establishment. With a base already feeling ignored by the K Street/Wall Street alliance whispering in the Establishment’s ear, the Chamber and large donor support of Establishment candidates will just give the base and conservatives more fodder for attacks.
 
Ultimately though, and this is the key everybody is missing, we have arrived at this point because the leadership of the party has fundraised off its opposition to Obamacare in two campaign cycles, but has never aggressively sought to oppose it legislatively.
 
There will be hell to pay because of it.