There were around 120 people in attendance, mostly students (obviously). Finkelstein spoke for about an hour and a half and then took questions for another forty five minutes. His talk was essentially a basic history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, nothing that I hadn’t heard before. It’s hard to do that in an hour and a half and Finkelstein spent most of his time talking about pre-1967 events. In what I’ve read of his work (a book and various interviews), he comes off as somewhat arrogant and combative. So it was surprising to me when he came off as pretty mild and conciliatory during his lecture. Aside from microphone trouble and some odd over-explanation (am I overestimating the student body when I say that he didn’t need to define caveat and quid pro quo?), he did quite well.

The question and answer period was pretty boring. He asked for “dissenters” to come up first, obviously used to people objecting strenuously to his statements. We only got one towards the end, though it was hard to tell if he was annoyed at what Finkelstein had said or was having trouble processing information that was so contrary to what he had heard before. His question led to the most interesting (to me) point of the night. He took issue with the practicality of refugees returning to Israel, the so-called “right of return” issue. Which is a genuine problem and Finkelstein’s response was that it’s unjust to refuse them such a right and that if Israel is going to do so, they need to make them an offer. An obvious position in retrospect, but it struck me because that’s an issue that I often dismiss out of hand because there’s simply no chance of Israel accepting a right of return.

So not the most interesting night, but a fairly unique one for this campus. He was brought here by a couple of students from Gaza, which should answer the question of why we would get someone like Finkelstein.

One can always say a robust response to radical Islam’s atrocities helps Hamas, al Qaeda, etc., to recruit. But recruiting is aided at least as much by successful terrorist attacks to which the response is too meek. The people sitting on the fence — the ones who are sympathetic to jihadi aims but ambivalent about jihadi methods — are attracted most of all by the prospect of being with a winner. Sure, a robust response that communicates the resolve to keep fighting until the jihadists are crushed may bring in a lot of new recruits; but it also scares off a lot of prospective recruits while killing off the experienced ranks of a terrorist organization — making the organization, on the whole, a less dangerous killing machine. That’s why it remains the right thing to do.

Uh, no. If you’re weighing an incorrect political calculation against preserving your identity, the latter will win. The latter is how these strikes are viewed by Palestinians. I don’t understand why these people believe Israel can bomb the Palestinians into submission. I guess they feel they’re striking back against evil and feel the need to provide some sort of rational basis for it, but it’s not exactly convincing.

There’s a reason this conflict brings out so much vitriol on both sides. One side identifies with a legitimately threatened nation. The other side identifies with a legitimately oppressed people. It’s not really that neatly divided, but you almost always seen one of two response to flare ups:

• Palestinian terrorist group x is killing/attacking Israelis and they must respond with enough force to stop it
• Yes, Palestinian terrorist group x is killing/attacking Israelis, but the response is unjustly wreaking havoc on Palestinian society and making the problem worse.

There seems to be little variation from those two views. That’s not to criticize anyone, given that my last post fits into the second view. It’s hard to determine which view is actually “correct.” The history of this conflict is so tied up in arcane minutia of who did what first, who broke what agreement, was there a definite article in agreement x, etc. Most of it is arguable, even if I’ve made up my mind on a lot of it, and both sides have cause for moral indignation.

I don’t mean to equivocate. What Steve T terms “selective empathy” is a phenomenon that partisans on both sides suffer from, but it is more common on the Right. Regardless, we’re still talking past each other.

It comes down to this for me. Israel is attempting to control (or occupy) a region that is, ethnically and religiously, completely different. Suicide terrorism is the standard response to this situation and it works. Increasing control or increasing the harshness of the occupation does not make people give up. That’s not how human nature works. The fact remains that Palestinian terrorism is largely a response to Israel, which means Israel is holding the cards. They can’t end this by doubling down and Palestinians can’t simply roll over. We can talk about the moral abomination of suicide bombings all we want, but it doesn’t change the fundamental shape of the conflict.

1. Bomb the fuck out of Gaza.
2. ???
3. Peace!

It seems pretty clear: Israel is bombing Gaza with no realistic chance of achieving any reasonable objective and is killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process. Yes, Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel. Eventually, isn’t one side going to figure out that this isn’t working? I suppose it’s naive of me to think so.

It looks like it’s good that he lost. The “dictator for life” label one of the chages is getting is kinda silly, but there are other authoritarian moves. Says HRW:

However, this proposal would still allow the president to suspend other fundamental due process guarantees, including the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, the right against self-incrimination, the right not to be convicted for a non-existent crime, and the right against double jeopardy. In addition, the proposal appears to allow for the suspension of the rights of a defendant to know the charges and have access to the evidence against him.

The suspension of the presumption of innocence, the right against self-incrimination, and other guarantees of a fair trial would be in violation of international law, which prohibits their suspension even in times of emergency or armed conflict.

…

The proposed changes would greatly enhance the president’s power to impose and maintain the states of emergency in which these basic rights could be suspended.

It would broaden the circumstances in which the president could impose states of emergency, to include not only “catastrophes,” “calamities” and “other similar situations,” but also cases where “a certain and imminent possibility exists for the occurrence of situations capable of originating catastrophes, public calamities and other similar situations.” This is of concern, because, as the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, “not every disturbance or catastrophe qualifies as a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” and would justify restrictions or suspension of protected rights.

The proposal would eliminate the existing time limits on states of emergency, leaving it entirely to the discretion of the president to determine when an “emergency” has ended. Under the proposed amendments, the president would still be required to seek congressional approval for an emergency decree (within an eight-day period), but would not need authorization to extend it. The proposal would also eliminate the power of the National Assembly to revoke the state of emergency.

Chavez seems to be constantly half a step away from claiming a U.S. coup is imminent and if he could convince the National Assembly to agree with his claims, he’d become essentially a dictator, with no constitutional way to stop him.

Mark seems pretty sure Chavez will be ousted in the near future. I’m not naive enough to think that’s not a possibility, but Chavez himself may beat us to it. He’s handling the loss well enough so far, but he does have an authoritarian streak. How much will he push and how much will the people of Venezuela take?

Certainly something to watch.

Then again, completely ineffective communists are the best kind, aren’t they?

Also, did you know California is trying to outlaw mixed breed dogs? My head is going to explode.

Lina Joy, 42, had fought the decisions of Malaysia’s lower courts in an effort to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card, arguing that the constitution guaranteed her religious freedom.

But the panel of three judges decided, in a majority verdict, that it had no power to intervene in cases of apostasy. These cases fall under the jurisdiction of Malaysia’s Sharia courts, which run in tandem with the country’s civil courts.

Man, that has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Sharia courts running in tandem with civil courts? Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Who doesn’t want a court enforcing backwards laws from the 10th century? I mean, I know I’m all about submitting to a religion founded by a delusional pedophile. Aren’t you?

Two-hundred Muslim protesters who gathered in a prayer vigil outside the court yesterday greeted the verdict with cries of “Allahu Akbar” (God is great).

Hooray! Let’s force people to officially be Muslim, but not actually be one! Do these people think they get points or something for keeping people Muslim in the eyes of a government? I’m at a loss to explain the celebration here.

(via Ezra Klein)

In other news, Beryl is entertaining. Useful? No. Entertaining? Yes. Bending down the corner of a window to see behind it is endlessly amusing to me.

Also, which part of “free speech” does the EU not understand?