Israeli protestations notwithstanding, the West Bank and Gaza can be compared legitimately – if not altogether accurately - to places such as Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei, the South African Bantustans with which Israel, sadly, was the only country in the world to maintain formal ties in the early 1980s. Ariel, “the capital of the Shomron” actually signed a twin city agreement with Bhisho, the capital of Ciskei.Indeed, Israel’s prolonged support for the apartheid regimes of white South Africa is one of the main adhesives that help the comparison between the two to stick. Contrary to latter-day revisionism, Israel’s deep links with the apartheid regime were not only a product of its international isolation following the 1973 war, but also of a basic identification of many in both Labor and Likud governments with South Africa’s self-portrayal as a bastion of Western civilization withstanding communist, anti-Zionist and Third World hordes, including the African National Congress.Whatever the other pros and cons of the apartheid allegations about Israel, they provide biblical proof, at the very least, that what goes around comes around, or as Hosea puts it, “they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
Monday, April 28, 2014
Chemi Shalev says it better than me
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/1.587895
The Incredibly Disappointing Week That Was
(This ran longer than I expected it to, it’s still a touch embryonic. If anyone reads, please do comment!)
I don’t really think it’s an accident that this leaked. I don’t really think Kerry’s assessment is wrong, either.
As the Occupation continues and deepens, a two state solution grows more and more imperiled. With that comes the choice: a Jewish state or a democracy. Plans to annex Area C only add to this problem, as would the “Autonomy on Steroids” Bantustan proposed by Naftali Bennett today. Given the events of the last week (Fatah-Hamas unity involving Gazan leadership, Abbas’ acceptance in Arabic of the Holocaust), I don’t see how anybody can take Bibi Netanyahu’s commitment to a 2 state solution at face value anymore. Even if you accept that there is a 2 state vision he’d get behind, it is as far removed from reality as Hamas’ unitary solution.
Andrew Sullivan (in a piece I disagree with for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) just posted this well-written bit: link to dish.andrewsullivan.com
Sullivan’s analysis isn’t out of place with anything you’d see on Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada. Probelmatically, it also ignores Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, or the desperate-for-peace Israel left led by Labour’s Bougie Herzog. I suppose, by Sullivan’s analysis, Americans were all pro-torture warmongers in 2004? Roger Cohen’s piece in the Times was essentially true: the status quo is sustainable for Israel, and however odious it may seem, most Israelis appreciate their safety and economic growth. That’s the real problem, particularly as Netanyahu pivots towards being a Russian client due to common ethos and the growing influence of the Soviet bloc.
The animosity between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations is real, visceral and clear as day. The neutral vote on the Ukraine may well have been the final straw for Obama (whereas Moshe Ya'alon's slur of Kerry and the lack of appropriate sanction by Netanyahu appears to have burnt that bridge.) The pivot towards Putin is as much a product of the Soviet segment of Israeli society as any other, but the Soviet anti-democratic culture has clearly suffused the Israeli body politic: this ain't your father's Israel with Labour as the party of Government. If it was, then the Olmert Plan would still be on the table, the Arab League proposal would be taken seriously, and the differences would be hashed out in short order.
My hope is that the Obama admin’s pressure cracks up the Netanyahu coalition, that Lapid bolts to the opposition along with Livni, and that a newly installed Prime Minister Herzog meets with the moderate new Palestinian President (al-Masri? Fayyad? Dahlen?) Even if you think that’s Utopian (and even I’m inclined to say that my hope might be…) I think the likelihood is that Michael Oren is right and there will be a unilateral disengagement in the near-future contemporaneous with PA efforts towards UN recognition that the US may well support. The moment that a two state solution is impossible and a one state solution is inevitable (which I contend is still a little ways off), the position of the Israelis will shift from immoral Occupier to apartheid governor.
One final bit: The Daily Beast (which also hosted Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart) just released the American Secretary of State saying this after Barack Obama spoke with similar frankness to Jeffrey Goldberg a mere month ago. There is no war with Iran. Apartheid is a loaded word meant to scare the Israeli public and government, a sort of step up from the mention of BDS a few months back. These are not things that puppets say. At what point can we speak frankly on this blog about the nature of the “Israel Lobby”: that it’s not some all powerful tail that wags the dog, but rather the more obvious answer that the reflexive Likudnik tendencies of most Washingtonians are dulling due to a combination of the obstinacy and shameful governance of the Netanyahu coalition and the deeper influence of realpolitik retrenchment following the neocon adventurism of the Aughties (as embodied in Obama’s foreign policy)?
I don’t really think it’s an accident that this leaked. I don’t really think Kerry’s assessment is wrong, either.
As the Occupation continues and deepens, a two state solution grows more and more imperiled. With that comes the choice: a Jewish state or a democracy. Plans to annex Area C only add to this problem, as would the “Autonomy on Steroids” Bantustan proposed by Naftali Bennett today. Given the events of the last week (Fatah-Hamas unity involving Gazan leadership, Abbas’ acceptance in Arabic of the Holocaust), I don’t see how anybody can take Bibi Netanyahu’s commitment to a 2 state solution at face value anymore. Even if you accept that there is a 2 state vision he’d get behind, it is as far removed from reality as Hamas’ unitary solution.
Andrew Sullivan (in a piece I disagree with for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) just posted this well-written bit: link to dish.andrewsullivan.com
Sullivan’s analysis isn’t out of place with anything you’d see on Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada. Probelmatically, it also ignores Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, or the desperate-for-peace Israel left led by Labour’s Bougie Herzog. I suppose, by Sullivan’s analysis, Americans were all pro-torture warmongers in 2004? Roger Cohen’s piece in the Times was essentially true: the status quo is sustainable for Israel, and however odious it may seem, most Israelis appreciate their safety and economic growth. That’s the real problem, particularly as Netanyahu pivots towards being a Russian client due to common ethos and the growing influence of the Soviet bloc.
The animosity between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations is real, visceral and clear as day. The neutral vote on the Ukraine may well have been the final straw for Obama (whereas Moshe Ya'alon's slur of Kerry and the lack of appropriate sanction by Netanyahu appears to have burnt that bridge.) The pivot towards Putin is as much a product of the Soviet segment of Israeli society as any other, but the Soviet anti-democratic culture has clearly suffused the Israeli body politic: this ain't your father's Israel with Labour as the party of Government. If it was, then the Olmert Plan would still be on the table, the Arab League proposal would be taken seriously, and the differences would be hashed out in short order.
My hope is that the Obama admin’s pressure cracks up the Netanyahu coalition, that Lapid bolts to the opposition along with Livni, and that a newly installed Prime Minister Herzog meets with the moderate new Palestinian President (al-Masri? Fayyad? Dahlen?) Even if you think that’s Utopian (and even I’m inclined to say that my hope might be…) I think the likelihood is that Michael Oren is right and there will be a unilateral disengagement in the near-future contemporaneous with PA efforts towards UN recognition that the US may well support. The moment that a two state solution is impossible and a one state solution is inevitable (which I contend is still a little ways off), the position of the Israelis will shift from immoral Occupier to apartheid governor.
One final bit: The Daily Beast (which also hosted Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart) just released the American Secretary of State saying this after Barack Obama spoke with similar frankness to Jeffrey Goldberg a mere month ago. There is no war with Iran. Apartheid is a loaded word meant to scare the Israeli public and government, a sort of step up from the mention of BDS a few months back. These are not things that puppets say. At what point can we speak frankly on this blog about the nature of the “Israel Lobby”: that it’s not some all powerful tail that wags the dog, but rather the more obvious answer that the reflexive Likudnik tendencies of most Washingtonians are dulling due to a combination of the obstinacy and shameful governance of the Netanyahu coalition and the deeper influence of realpolitik retrenchment following the neocon adventurism of the Aughties (as embodied in Obama’s foreign policy)?
Monday, April 21, 2014
An Orderly Treason: Part I, The Scene
Without having any real bearing on my life, I have to admit that I find the upcoming Scottish Independence vote endlessly fascinating. For a few reasons.
One one level, the UK's constitution-less, democracy is such a novelty onto itself, so any systemic change is the wonk version of watching a slo-mo version of Jenga. Those of us raised in a stable constitutional Republic have no idea what's going to happen. We can only watch the wobble and wonder.
On a more specific level, this is watching a version of our own fringe impulses play out in HD. Whether it's certain Southern states who periodically have propositions on their ballots calling for succession. Or the liberal parties where I've heard people idly talk about either allowing the Southern states to succeed or calling for the coasts to succeed and form their own union. Scotland is the reality. However, the other reality is that this is only possible in a parliamentary system where third-tier parties can affect wide change in a matter of years and make a Shakespearian power grab. The Scottish National Party is a far left party that has almost no influence in Whitehall but holds absolute power in Scotland. Labour and the Tories have been harried out of Scotland, with as much totality as Bishop Laud harried the Puritans out of England. So the SNP and First Minister Salmond are able to carve out their own fiefdom within the UK but, as so often happens when upstarts take power, they see no end to how much power they COULD have. If they would only stick their courage to the sticking post. Ask Aarron Burr.
First Minister Salmond thinks he has a shortcut to being Prime Minister Salmond. I know that that is slightly slanderous, since we can name plenty left wing leaders who wish to escape right wing control during Republican years, and vice-versa, based mostly on sincerely held beliefs and not personal ambition. I have no good reason to assume that Salmond is any different.
I just have my assumptions.
(I have more to write about this but wanted to do it in pieces, this one just meant to set the scene.)
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Healthcare Reform 2: The Quickening
My co-author, being an ignorant slut, is still parroting his belief that what he reads on the syndicated NYT opinion pages or the WSJ opinion pages have any traction within the larger right-wing rank and file. Specifically, on one topic: healthcare.
What my friend cannot seem to see is that healthcare reform reform, much like immigration reform, is a cause without an Army. On the right-wing. A banner with no legions behind it. Those who even broach the idea, in a lesser-of-two-evils vein, are almost immediately shot down as collaborators. The right-wing (not even the far right) have talked themselves into a corner. They have not said that ACA is wrong or ineffective or bad policy. They say, and have the conviction I might add, that it is fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal. Without a hint of irony, they say that President Obama and all those who have passed ACA are guilty of treason. They say this quietly, to their own. Boehner goes on TV and says that ACA is bad policy but I think we can finally appreciate that this is the thin veneer of moderation. Most of his members and the blogs and the talking heads, when discussing it, say words like "un-American" and "unconstitutional." This is the reality of the right-wing.
They no longer have the ability to talk about ACA in any vein except the repeal vein. I think most pundits say and think that they refuse to talk about anything but repeal out of some simplistic old-fashioned stratagem of refusing to accept defeat and give your enemy a victory by backing down. Buying time for them to work a backroom deal. That would imply that they COULD talk about anything but repeal. The rank and file right-wing will paint anyone who even attempts to keep and alter ACA as on par with Neville Chamberlin's negotiations. Fundamentally flawed.
The polling about whether this constituency or that group supports certain provisions, such as the pre-existing conditions provision, misses the point entirely. The author, the brief history, the name, the paper the law is written on is, itself, toxic in the right-wing's calculus. And let's be honest, this isn't SS or medicare or income tax, which all share a similar hatred with ACA in the eyes of most of the right-wing. Those are propped up by a much longer history to make them appear much more solid and complicated in the calculus of the rank and file. That time has interwoven them into the fabric of many people's idea of America. ACA has no such luck. To right-wingers of all stripes it is a cancer within the American system. The (vast) majority of right-wing is convinced of two things (1) repealing ACA is possible and (2) repealing ACA is their patriotic duty.
No reform plan, no matter how well made or sensible or conservative will make it past the most vocal/passionate/convinced/active members of the right-wing, or as more commonly known: the Republican primary voters.
What my friend cannot seem to see is that healthcare reform reform, much like immigration reform, is a cause without an Army. On the right-wing. A banner with no legions behind it. Those who even broach the idea, in a lesser-of-two-evils vein, are almost immediately shot down as collaborators. The right-wing (not even the far right) have talked themselves into a corner. They have not said that ACA is wrong or ineffective or bad policy. They say, and have the conviction I might add, that it is fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal. Without a hint of irony, they say that President Obama and all those who have passed ACA are guilty of treason. They say this quietly, to their own. Boehner goes on TV and says that ACA is bad policy but I think we can finally appreciate that this is the thin veneer of moderation. Most of his members and the blogs and the talking heads, when discussing it, say words like "un-American" and "unconstitutional." This is the reality of the right-wing.
They no longer have the ability to talk about ACA in any vein except the repeal vein. I think most pundits say and think that they refuse to talk about anything but repeal out of some simplistic old-fashioned stratagem of refusing to accept defeat and give your enemy a victory by backing down. Buying time for them to work a backroom deal. That would imply that they COULD talk about anything but repeal. The rank and file right-wing will paint anyone who even attempts to keep and alter ACA as on par with Neville Chamberlin's negotiations. Fundamentally flawed.
The polling about whether this constituency or that group supports certain provisions, such as the pre-existing conditions provision, misses the point entirely. The author, the brief history, the name, the paper the law is written on is, itself, toxic in the right-wing's calculus. And let's be honest, this isn't SS or medicare or income tax, which all share a similar hatred with ACA in the eyes of most of the right-wing. Those are propped up by a much longer history to make them appear much more solid and complicated in the calculus of the rank and file. That time has interwoven them into the fabric of many people's idea of America. ACA has no such luck. To right-wingers of all stripes it is a cancer within the American system. The (vast) majority of right-wing is convinced of two things (1) repealing ACA is possible and (2) repealing ACA is their patriotic duty.
No reform plan, no matter how well made or sensible or conservative will make it past the most vocal/passionate/convinced/active members of the right-wing, or as more commonly known: the Republican primary voters.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Stephen Walt joins John Mearsheimer again
This strikes me as not unlike the moment in which John Mearsheimer doubled down on his defense of the anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon.There is, at this point, good reason to believe that both Mearsheimer and Walt's motives are indicative of something much darker, and their analysis should be viewed through that prism.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082 (I don't think it's paywalled, as I don't sub and was able to read it in full.)
Shalev: "Aren’t you absolving the American hawks, who ruled this country for at least eight years, of any responsibility? Are you saying that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were just putty in the hands of the Israel lobby? Are they simpletons?"
Walt: “Well, if you’ve read the book and I haven’t persuaded you, then I haven’t persuaded you. And we’ve spent almost all of our time talking about one chapter of the book.”
I certainly think that Walt and Mearsheimer had impeccable academic credentials prior to the publication of the Israel Lobby. However, I think that's inapposite here. The question is one of motivation and overtones. I don't think that the article was unfair in its depiction of Walt.
Shalev was very, very upfront about his own misgivings heading into the interview and while I obviously posted the salacious "money quote" from the very end, I don't think there's any misrepresentation there, either Mearsheimer & Walt's original critique was massively mono-causal, used a definition for the Lobby so broad as to be worthless, and utterly imbalanced. I don't think it's a stretch to say that their support for Israel doesn't go much past lip service (which is strange, especially considering Mearsheimer's own advice on the former Yugoslavia.) This is probably a point where I should make clear that I am strongly opposed to the sitting Likud-YB coalition, the rightward drift empowering the likes of Uri Ariel, Moshe Ya'alon, the forever odious Naftali Bennet and his disturbing Area C annexation plan, and look forward to the moment that the burgeoning Labour-Shas alliance forms the basis for a new coalition (perhaps picking off Livni/Hatnuah? Would Lapid go back on his promise to avoid any coalition with Shas?) after elections (which seem like they might happen soon?). A peace based on the Kerry Framework, the 08 Olmert offer, or the '02 Arab League Initiative would be immensely preferable to the untenable, morally and pragmatically appalling Occupation.
I think it's reasonable to mention that the imagery invoked by The Israel Lobby is similar to the tropes which have defined anti-Semitism for ages. It's obviously important to consider that when writing on the topic. The allegation, repeated by Walt in this interview, that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog (in the personage of Paul Wolfowitz, to start) is a deeply troubling one. It is not hysterical to say that the modern anti-Zionist cottage industry (the Andrew Sullivan/Mondoweiss school, not quite the MEM/Electronic Intifada variety) owes a heavy debt to Walt and Mearsheimer.
Moreover, Mearsheimer's own dark motivations were made clear when he endorsed - and then doubled down - a book by Gilad Atzmon, an outspoken anti-Semite of the most boorish variety (http://www.theatlantic.com/.../john-mearsheimer.../245518/ I went with Goldblog, but Walter Russell Mead is similarly useful if you'd prefer:http://www.the-american-interest.com/.../john.../ ). Here, Walt took a step in the same direction by elucidating what amounts to a rank conspiracy theory with deeply pernicious undertones. It's not the first time, either (http://ottomansandzionists.com/.../stephen-walts.../ ).
That's the point of this post. Not that Adelson-style blind faith and devotion to Eretz Yisrael is the only politically viable statement (it's prima facie not), but rather that Walt has given away his darker motives, just like Mearsheimer, and it's time that we reckon with that in the discourse, just as we should any other factor.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082
Shalev: "Aren’t you absolving the American hawks, who ruled this country for at least eight years, of any responsibility? Are you saying that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were just putty in the hands of the Israel lobby? Are they simpletons?"
Walt: “Well, if you’ve read the book and I haven’t persuaded you, then I haven’t persuaded you. And we’ve spent almost all of our time talking about one chapter of the book.”
I certainly think that Walt and Mearsheimer had impeccable academic credentials prior to the publication of the Israel Lobby. However, I think that's inapposite here. The question is one of motivation and overtones. I don't think that the article was unfair in its depiction of Walt.
Shalev was very, very upfront about his own misgivings heading into the interview and while I obviously posted the salacious "money quote" from the very end, I don't think there's any misrepresentation there, either Mearsheimer & Walt's original critique was massively mono-causal, used a definition for the Lobby so broad as to be worthless, and utterly imbalanced. I don't think it's a stretch to say that their support for Israel doesn't go much past lip service (which is strange, especially considering Mearsheimer's own advice on the former Yugoslavia.) This is probably a point where I should make clear that I am strongly opposed to the sitting Likud-YB coalition, the rightward drift empowering the likes of Uri Ariel, Moshe Ya'alon, the forever odious Naftali Bennet and his disturbing Area C annexation plan, and look forward to the moment that the burgeoning Labour-Shas alliance forms the basis for a new coalition (perhaps picking off Livni/Hatnuah? Would Lapid go back on his promise to avoid any coalition with Shas?) after elections (which seem like they might happen soon?). A peace based on the Kerry Framework, the 08 Olmert offer, or the '02 Arab League Initiative would be immensely preferable to the untenable, morally and pragmatically appalling Occupation.
I think it's reasonable to mention that the imagery invoked by The Israel Lobby is similar to the tropes which have defined anti-Semitism for ages. It's obviously important to consider that when writing on the topic. The allegation, repeated by Walt in this interview, that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog (in the personage of Paul Wolfowitz, to start) is a deeply troubling one. It is not hysterical to say that the modern anti-Zionist cottage industry (the Andrew Sullivan/Mondoweiss school, not quite the MEM/Electronic Intifada variety) owes a heavy debt to Walt and Mearsheimer.
Moreover, Mearsheimer's own dark motivations were made clear when he endorsed - and then doubled down - a book by Gilad Atzmon, an outspoken anti-Semite of the most boorish variety (http://www.theatlantic.com/.../john-mearsheimer.../245518/
That's the point of this post. Not that Adelson-style blind faith and devotion to Eretz Yisrael is the only politically viable statement (it's prima facie not), but rather that Walt has given away his darker motives, just like Mearsheimer, and it's time that we reckon with that in the discourse, just as we should any other factor.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
On Ascendant Israeli Conservatism
I certainly think Israel is veering rightward in a problematic way. However, the conflation of this with the rise of religiosity is indicative of a seriously thin understanding of Israeli politics.
The latest election cycle was predicated on Lapid’s Yesh Atid’s ascendancy, which is a secular party which sought (successfully) to integrate the Ultra-Orthodox through ending draft exemptions and the like. FM Lieberman’s YB is a secular-zionist party. Naftali Bennett is threatening (with no seriousness) to bolt from the Coalition. The latest rumblings are that there’s a Shas-Labour union in the offing (potentially with Meretz?) which is trying to pick off Lapid and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah (something that I think is actually fairly likely, in a way similar to the undoing of Barak’s tenure in the early 00′s.) Herzog (Labour leader who is explicitly pro-peace) has been saying that Israel needs to adjust to something similar to the Arab League Initiative terms!
Pegging religiousity to ascendant conservatism in Israel is utterly falacious. The State of Israel remains a recognizable liberal democracy and I sincerely doubt that’s changing any time soon, even with the demographic shift underway due to massive Haredi birthrates.
I think the Times is right here. If Kerry were to just publish his rumored framework and leave it on the table as the official US position, it would have to effect of likely breaking the Likud-YB coalition. Most of the Israeli moderate right, and virtually all of the center and left seek a peace deal and the Kerry Framework would placate all of those groups. In the meantime, it would leave open the possibility of someone more sensible like Livni, Herzog, or Lapid becoming PM, and that is obviously an outcome the Obama administration would prefer. Similarly, an officially stated US position might actually push the Palestinians to move away from Abbas (who certainly isn’t the most moderate leader the Palestinians could put forward) and towards someone new and more reasonable such as Dahlen, al-Masri, or Fayyad.
Chag sameach!
Friday, April 11, 2014
In re. Warrior
(This is my original writing, culled together, and originally posted on CagesideSeats.com)
I figured I'd pile on with Warrior. He was my first favorite wrestler, and I had this bizarre moment on Monday night as he was welcomed onto Raw when I was just as excited, just as psyched, and could remember distinctly the last time, in 1996, I eagerly awaited the return of Warrior.
When I was a freshman in college, I shlepped out to the Island on the LIRR to hear Warrior speak.
He gave a big ol' speech to College Republicans or Federalists or whomever about how "queering don't make the world work", "the founders had balls so big they dug trenches when they walked" and "philosophy isn't fake, like rocket science. It's real, like concrete." Nobody really cared.
Once his speech was over, Warrior turned around and gave out a snort and he was suddenly The Ultimate Warrior. For the next hour, he completely candidly answered every question about his career and his life, including his steroid abuse (he couldn't get over 300 lbs, and if you wanted to be a serious bodybuilder/wrestler in the 80's, you took steroids to get over your natural limitations. That's just how it was.)
Afterwards, and this is the really fucking cool part, he actually talked to everybody who waited to speak to him. Not to shake your hand, ask your name and take a picture, but spoke to you for a real conversation. I waited probably 45 minutes, and it was clearing out so I went a little longer. We talked about Nietzsche (hey, I was a freshman!)
Yes, his political views were odious, but he really was all about motivating people. Yes, he was supposedly awful to fans in his heyday, but he couldn't have been better in retirement. Things change, people evolve. I'm glad he made peace before he died.
I shat on Warrior's promo from Raw because I thought the mask was ridiculous, his delivery was poor, and he just didn't look or feel or seem like Warrior anymore. I hadn't really paid attention to the words. He gave his own eulogy, for the gimmick and for the man. I regret that now, because this was a sick man doing his best to recreate my childhood hero in an honest and faithful way, and because I didn't even pay attention to what he was saying. I was too busy paying attention to the aesthetics. In fairness, aesthetics were what defined Warrior during his prime.
This is the first time a celebrity ever really upset me, and I finally get what Baby Boomers felt when Mickey Mantle passed away.
I'm also taking the liberty of including a link to this:http://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/6/13/3081645/css-pro-wrestling-tournament-match-3-gorgeous-george-vs-14-ultimate#105210931 (opens in new window)
It's what I consider to be my best, and it is certainly my favorite, comment I've ever made at cSs. Keep in mind that it was summer of 2012, but it delineates how I perceive Warrior's career, and especially how I think he really did get short shrift prior to making peace with Vince McMahon. More than anything, it shows us what Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart, and Warrior himself were wise enough to know: if you care about your legacy in the pro wrestling business, then you must be willing to find peaceful terms with Vince McMahon for it to be shared.The returns are early, but it seems like Vince will actually be a good custodian for Warrior's legacy, a fact made all the more remarkable when you consider the DVD produced nearly a decade ago at the nadir of their relation.
If the Reality Era has indeed kicked off, then The Ultimate Warrior's farewell address may well be looked at as a moment that embodies it, either in tandem with or even moreso than the way in which Brock Lesnar ended the Streak of an older athlete who happened to be The Undertaker. In that promo, Warrior made it clear that the fans drive the product, and Warrior made it clearer than ever that there's a huge distinction between the public kayfabe character and the private man.
Still, I'll always believe. *snort*
Not that anti-Semitism is still ingrained in Western culture or anything...
"In parts of Spain, and especially in the north, locals use the term “killing Jews” (matar Judios) to describe the traditional drinking of lemonade spiked with alcohol at festivals held in city squares at Easter, or drinking in general.
Leon will hold its “matar Judios” fiesta on Good Friday, April 18, where organizers estimate 40,000 gallons of lemonade will be sold.
The name originates from medieval times, when converted Jews would sometimes be publicly executed in show trials at around Easter, Maria Royo, a spokesperson for the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain told JTA."
Rhetoric (I feel like Camera)
During my time as a Violet, I studied rhetoric fairly closely. Let's put those chops to use!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/middleeast/mideast-tensions-sideline-a-gazan-marathon-runner.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0
Continuing its recent trend, the NY Times has run an article sympathetic to the plight of a Palestinian distance runner. To be clear, it flat out sucks that this poor fellow's running career has been derailed due to the I/P conflict, and it serves as (once again!) a reminder as to why a 2 state solution is urgently needed for the most practical of purposes. It is prima facie ridiculous that Palestinian runners cannot cross Israel to get from Gaza to the West Bank for the purposes of running a marathon and Jodi Rudoren is right for highlighting this. Security clearances can and should be issued, and this is emblematic of the childish tit for tat which has characterized the Likud-YB's governance, particularly as of late. So, how clear are we that ol' Anime Bollocks thinks there's a massive human toll to Gazan oppression and that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith? Crystal. Now, onto the meat of this...
That having been said, leave it to the Old Grey Lady to give short shrift to the Israeli side in this highly biased piece. The article dedicated exactly one line to the militant anti-Zionist Hamas gov't, made exactly zero mention of the rising Islamic Jihad movement which is even further radicalized than Hamas, mentioned "occasional Israeli airstrikes" without citing the fact that they are *always* measured and in retaliation to state sanctioned rocket attacks on southern Israel (ask the good folks of Sderot how they feel about this), and while it took pains to describe the impoverished nature of Gaza due to Israeli sanctions since the 2005 withdrawal, made only a brief reference to the fact that Egypt imposes the same policies right down to the Rafah border crossing. Continuing its recent trend, the NY Times has run an article sympathetic to the plight of a Palestinian distance runner. To be clear, it flat out sucks that this poor fellow's running career has been derailed due to the I/P conflict, and it serves as (once again!) a reminder as to why a 2 state solution is urgently needed for the most practical of purposes. It is prima facie ridiculous that Palestinian runners cannot cross Israel to get from Gaza to the West Bank for the purposes of running a marathon and Jodi Rudoren is right for highlighting this. Security clearances can and should be issued, and this is emblematic of the childish tit for tat which has characterized the Likud-YB's governance, particularly as of late. So, how clear are we that ol' Anime Bollocks thinks there's a massive human toll to Gazan oppression and that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith? Crystal. Now, onto the meat of this...
Real talk: Gaza is an independent, Islamist state which is under heavy sanctions from its two neighbors due to its policy of state-sponsored terror. It sucks to be a citizen there, and that's because the government is oppressive and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a neighboring state. Israel's hands aren't clean, but their actions are understandable. This runner's plight should have been framed as a reason for a continuation of the peace talks, a revived set of talks along the Arab League Initiative, something, but not a puff piece on how rough and tumble it is at the hands of the Israeli oppressors.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
On Warrior
When I was a freshman in college, I shlepped out to the Island on the LIRR to hear Warrior speak.
He gave a big ol' speech to College Republicans or Federalists or whomever about how "queering don't make the world work", "the founders had balls so big they dug trenches when they walked" and "philosophy isn't fake, like rocket science. It's real, like concrete." Nobody really cared.
Once his speech was over, Warrior turned around and gave out a snort and he was suddenly The Ultimate Warrior. For the next hour, he completely candidly answered every question about his career and his life, including his steroid abuse (he couldn't get over 300 lbs, and if you wanted to be a serious bodybuilder/wrestler in the 80's, you took steroids to get over your natural limitations. That's just how it was.)
Afterwards, and this is the really fucking cool part, he actually talked to everybody who waited to speak to him. Not to shake your hand, ask your name and take a picture, but spoke to you for a real conversation. I waited probably 45 minutes, and it was clearing out so I went a little longer. We talked about Nietzsche (hey, I was a freshman!)
Yes, his political views were odious, but he really was all about motivating people. Yes, he was supposedly awful to fans in his heyday, but he couldn't have been better in retirement. Things change, people evolve. I'm glad he made peace before he died.
Yesterday, I shat on his promo from Raw because I thought the mask was ridiculous, his delivery was poor, and he just didn't look or feel or seem like Warrior anymore. I hadn't really paid attention to the words. He gave his own eulogy, for the gimmick and for the man. I feel very bad about that post, especially because he really was my hero growing up.
I'm gonna stop now because I'm at work and I'm getting the feels. This is the first time a celebrity ever really upset me, and I finally get what Baby Boomers felt when Mickey Mantle passed away.
In re. Zion
This is, I think, the first time I ever really spelled out my case for Zionism. It was in response to a troll, but I think it's valid. Unedited, here it is.
"I find your use of the phrase "ideally shaped" interesting. Would you care to clarify it? Are you aware that the majority of Israelis are secular and support a 2 state solution? Or that a state can have a state religion and still fulfill a promise of equality and largely secular governance, like England or Denmark does?
Look, I'm a secular member of the Diaspora myself, and I identify as a Zionist. That is to say that I believe that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination as expressed through a sovereign national homeland. Moreover, I believe that right exists as a fact in 2014 because Israel exists and there is an 80/20 Jewish majority within her borders.
We can argue the Nakba, the placement of settlements (which don't expand outward, but rather grow denser within settlement blocs which are almost universally placed strategically on the borders of the Green Line), or the treatment of Palestinians within the Occupied Territories or the Gaza, but the fact is that this Zionist project has created a bulwark of actual democracy in the Middle East while also growing into a first world economy. This is to say nothing of the incredible historic persecution of Jews which continues to this day in France, Hungary, and as state policy throughout the Arab world.
The existence of a Jewish state is important because there is an Israel which is succeeding, because that state has saved Jews from the world over (look up Aliyah from Ethiopa or the Arab States in 1948) and offers a right to self-defense and self-determination, and this state has a right to exist like any other state does.
It's not a matter of pro-military or pro-Zionist (which just means that you support the existence of a Jewish sovereign nation state) in the abstract, but rather a question of whether or not you think that France should exist for the French, Australia for the Australians, or Israel for the Jews."
Monday, April 7, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
Learning to eat shit and like the taste
http://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-palestinians-view-the-peace-talks-collapse-and-its-consequences/
"Speaking to The Times of Israel from London, Rajoub explained that “the status quo will not continue.”
He added that he was “convinced” that “big changes will take place if the Israeli occupation and settlement construction continue. We won’t raise a white flag.”
Rajoub added that he didn’t trust Netanyahu, who had become a “pathological liar.”
Netanyahu “didn’t uphold agreements and is leading [Israel] towards disaster,” Rajoub said.
“On the one hand, he talks about a Palestinian state, but in the same breath, continues to expand the tumor called the settlements. He is trying to control the conflict instead of solving it. But he – and you – need to understand something,” he said. ”We are in a difficult, even very difficult, stage. The Israelis can’t go on eating honey while we eat shit. Either we both eat honey, or we both eat shit. You must decide what you would like to eat.”"
Somewhere, Stephen Walt is cackling
http://nyti.ms/1kx7SBM
"The new Palestinian demands, according to Maan, included a written commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recognizing a Palestinian state along the border lines from before the 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as the capital; the release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners; and an end to Israeli travel, import, export, fishing and farming restrictions in the Gaza Strip.
Israeli officials involved in the talks said they could not agree to such conditions because they were final status issues that need to be negotiated.
Several Palestinian leaders were quoted in the local news media Friday as saying the Maan report was not accurate, but they declined to specify what new demands had been made."
The real upshot to all of this is that Naftali Bennett is emerging as a cross between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney, but with vastly more wit.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
The Urban Myth of Party Shifts
I was talking to my co-author on Gchat, specifically about his hilariously ridiculously child-like optimism about a left/libertarian shift in the entire Republican platform. He bases this idea mostly on Paul Ryan's proposals, Rand Paul's "popularity", and the overall conservative "intelligentsia" like Ross or others of the "respectable" crowd. I'll let him go into the details of where he thinks the party is headed in his own post but trust me, it's a laundry list. Of stupid.
First of all, the conservative intelligentsia has just about zero traction inside the party. I cannot think of a more perfect example of inside-the-beltway isolation than the "autopsy" Priebus commissioned after Romney's re-enactment/slow mo version of the Hindenburg in 2012. That was a report commissioned by the intelligentsia for the masses/candidates. It has been universally ignored/mocked/outright denied by the entirely rest of the party to the point that he has had to disown his own baby. And it was fairly watered-down advice. This was the bare-minimum that the party intelligentsia thought was actually feasible! "We don't need to change on SSM, just don't openly mock or insult LGBT Americans and let's keep a little quiet on this for a while." Good lord, fellas, good lord. Apparently Arizona/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia/Missouri/Indiana/Kansas/et. al. didn't get the memo.
Second, neither party does tidal shifts. Republicans didn't after 2010. They didn't after 2012. We didn't after 2004. And contrary to popular belief, the Democrats didn't in 1992. As simple proof, I would ask anyone to look at the party platforms from the 80s to now and tell me where the big differences are in philosophy or substance are. Being perfectly honest, if they have changed at all, it has been more conservative/more liberal.
I think this urban myth about the shifting party comes from the optics of one big concession, which is usually in the form of a switcheroo. Clinton did Welfare reform, mostly to avoid deeper cuts or complete nixing. Bush replaced Rumsfeld, in order to continue the wars. McCain came out in support of woman's equality......by nominating Sarah Palin. I could list others on all three of those moments in time but I think you get the picture. The parties only shift so far and generally it's by semantics rather than position.
However, when it does shift on a position, it's almost always to the detriment of all other positions. Bush gave the right a marriage amendment position and in return they shut up about abortion/vouchers/school prayer. Obama gave the left DADT repeal and a SSM position and they have generally shut up about the environment/abortion/surveillance/Afghanistan. The party base gets satisifed and the intelligentsia gets satisfied at the same time. They can all walk away saying "we're moved the party." The only problem is they don't realize that this has blunted any momentum left or right.
So, my prediction, the Republican party will come out in support of SSM and/or immigration reform in the intermediate future (I heavily lean towards being 2 or 3 cycles away from any actual change in the party). And that's it. They will be able to tell themselves that they have "evolved" or whatever, just like Clinton convinced them that the Democratic Party had "evolved" or whatever, and just keep on turning.
I know this seems to say that both parties are equal in this sort of dance but I think the opposite is about to happen. The formerly fringe ideas of the Democratic party (immigration reform, SSM, pot reform) are going to continue to get popular until they are passed. Then the Republican party will simply grow around those ideas and accept this new America. I do not however think that the party will do so en masse and of their own volition now or anytime in the future. The elderly right now hate these ideas and they pretty much control the primaries. The baby boomers will be the elderly when our generation is in control and they merely loathe the ideas. A step up but not nearly high enough for the Republicans to see the new America before it's right on top of them.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
On trutherism
http://ottomansandzionists.com/2013/10/31/israel-lobby-truthers/
I just saw this and thought it an invaluable reference. Someone should staple this to Andrew Sullivan's head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)