Entries from June 2006 ↓
June 30th, 2006 — war
I was waiting to see how long it would take for criticism of Israel to bubble to the surface in the information war over the current crisis. Here it is, and it consists of the word disporportionate in all its variations [emphasis added in all quotes].
Naturally, the UN is one of the first out of the gate, according to UPI:
The United Nations’ relief chief says Israel’s targeting of a Gaza strip power station is counter to international law and disproportionately affects civilians.
Jan Egeland, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said Thursday that without access to power and humanitarian aid, the situation in the Gaza Strip could become catastrophic within days, with a “massive increase” in deaths.
Left-liberal Steve Clemons of the Washington Note:
Israel is demonstrating profound immaturity with its behavior, though I support the importance of negotiating and even pursuing its kidnapped soldier. However, despite its regional superpower status, Israel is showing that it tilts too easily towards responses far disproportionate to any sane or reasonable action. While Israel radicalizes Palestininans and many Arabs in the region with this behavior, it needs to know that it is eroding American support for its behavior and position.
Arab American Institute president James Zogby:
AAI President James Zogby called on the Bush administration to demand that Israel halt the systematic destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and allow diplomacy to resolve the issue of the captured Israeli soldier.
“Will Israel never learn?” Zogby asked in a press release. “The use of disproportionate power in acts of collective punishment that display callous disregard for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocents will never create peace.
The Los Angeles Times clarifies the problem:
It isn’t that the world questions Israelis’ right to feel frustrated, or to retaliate. It is simply that we cringe at the sight of a disproportionate response that could undermine prospects of ending the cycle of violence.
Israel is powerful—it is disproportionately powerful militarily to its enemies. However, in this asymmetric war, its many enemies have a disproportionate amount of sympathy from those who “cringe” at a show of force.
More evidence that American liberals cannot deal with the use of power and force (as I wrote here). Me, I think they’d better start dealing with it.
June 29th, 2006 — housekeeping
I’ll be on the road tomorrow, and then I’m going to take it easy through the holiday. I’ll blog as time allows and inspiration strikes.
June 28th, 2006 — celebrities, gossip, infotainment
I’ve only awarded one of these before (in my very first post: to Oprah vs. James Frey), so today is a red-letter day.
The best infotainment blip of the month (TM) award—for offering the best entertainment packaged with the least amount of useful information—goes to Star vs. Barbara.
Shocking, isn’t it, to be betrayed [as Barbara says she was] by someone who lies about everything from her homoerotic husband to her diamond-studded boots to her artfully stapled stomach? Meanwhile, a “source” says Jones executed her exit as she did so that “her fans would turn against the show.” We’re not sure who these fans are, exactly, but if you see any of them — probably stumbling around outside an OTB and muttering about messianic pigeons — let us know.
(via Gawker)
And, folks, it’s just beginning. Star will appeal to her base tomorrow on Larry King Live.
June 28th, 2006 — geopolitics, narratives, political culture, war
In an editorial (”Hamas Provokes a Fight“) ($$) in tomorrow’s edition, the New York Times is unusually blunt in placing blame on one side alone:
The Palestinians who futilely threw up sand berms on Gaza’s main roads to deflect Israeli troop movements were building their defenses in the wrong direction. The responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas, whose military wing tunneled into Israel on Sunday, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another. This was a follow-up to a declaration earlier this month by Hamas’s political leadership that the group’s 16-month intermittent cease-fire would no longer be observed.
The Times also has another message for Hamas: if you want to govern, you have to buy in:
The renewed presence of Israeli forces in Gaza may give a short-term boost to Hamas’s local popularity. But once the immediate adrenaline rush wears off, the Palestinians who elected Hamas, and the Arab nations on which it now depends for financial survival, need to survey the wreckage and draw the obvious conclusions. When Hamas was only an opposition movement, its provocative behavior was a major impediment to peace. As a governing party, it is far worse.
Contrary to the hopes of many outsiders, five months in government has failed to educate Hamas to the reality of the world the Palestinians live in. Hamas has merely assumed the political privileges of power without accepting the minimal responsibilities that go with it.
Finally, the paper calls on others to support Israel (morally) in this confrontation:
If things go on like this, Palestinians can look forward to endless rounds of reckless Hamas provocations and inexorable Israeli responses. That is why things must not be allowed to go on like this. It is not just Israel that needs to be delivering that message to Hamas.
Interesting development.
Perhaps the Times is getting to be less juvenile and more “politically serious.” *** Or perhaps changing events on the ground are forcing some people to reassess the grand narrative.
Or maybe it’s just a fluke!
——-
***From a Nick Cohen essay in the New Statesman in October 2005 (see link above):
Please don’t tell me that it helps the Palestinians to give the far right the time of day, or pretend that Palestinian liberals, socialists, women, gays, freethinkers and Christians (let alone Israeli Jews) would prosper in a Palestine ruled by Hamas. It’s not radical, it’s barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support. The Palestinian fight is at once an anti-colonial struggle and a clash between modernity and reaction. The confusion of our times comes from the failure to grasp that it is possible to have an anti-colonialism of the far right.
While we’re at it, don’t excuse Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all the rest by saying the foundation of Israel and the defeat of all the Arab attempts to destroy it made them that way. Anti-Semitism isn’t a local side effect of a dirty war over a patch of land smaller than Wales. It’s everywhere from Malaysia to Morocco, and it has arrived here.
June 28th, 2006 — how we live now, information war, narratives, war
Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post looks at the confrontation between Israel and Hamas and sees a rerun of Lebanon:
If the Palestinians from Gaza shoot rockets on Israel as though they were in Lebanon, if they plant roadside bombs as though they were in Lebanon, if they attack IDF outposts and kidnap soldiers as though they were in Lebanon, then they should not be too surprised when Israel treats the Palestinian Authority like Lebanon and acts accordingly.
Which is what the IDF did Wednesday by driving into Gaza, knocking out electricity and knocking down three bridges.
But Keinon also warns of the differences:
But there may be one big difference. Whereas Hizbullah is concerned that a devastating IDF blow in Lebanon could hurt its political standing, and the terror organization has as a result restrained itself, this may not be the case in Gaza.
It is not at all clear whether Israeli military action in Gaza hurts Hamas politically. In what to Israeli eyes seems like the logic-defying reality that is Gaza, it is not at all clear whether blowing up bridges and knocking out electricity in Gaza weakens public support for Hamas, or - paradoxically - whether it might in fact strengthen it.
And he nails the most sensitive point of all [emphasis added]:
Furthermore, it is not even clear that Hamas doesn’t want some IDF action to further its victimization narrative in the world. Already some in the world are asking whether the capture of one Israeli soldier merits the type of military action we saw Wednesday. Besides, some are whispering, what about the 10,000 Palestinians prisoners held by Israel?
The stakes of this confrontation couldn’t be higher. And the information war—the war over narrative (that is, the war for hearts and minds)—is the most important component of all.
No one outside the Arab/Muslim world has yet (as far as I know) called the Israelis’ response disproportionate. (Although it has been criticized in Israel; I don’t remember where I read this. If I find it, I’ll link.)
I’m an atheist, and I don’t pray. But if I were a believer, I’d be praying now. Hmmm. Can I call for a deus ex machina instead?
June 28th, 2006 — geopolitics, information war, narratives, news, political correctness, political speech, political theater, propaganda, war
The BBC reports that
rival Palestinian political factions Fatah and Hamas have reached agreement on a common political strategy to try to end a damaging power struggle.
However, the British taxpayer-funded television network, whose motto is “Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation,” wants to reassure you that the war will continue to the bitter end, because Hamas will never give up the fight to do away with Israel and the Israelis.
The BBC’s James Reynolds in Gaza says that the central point of the joint manifesto is the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Traditionally that is one half of a two-state solution, but the existing drafts of the deal make no mention of the second half of this solution - the state of Israel.
This omission is deliberate, our correspondent says.
While some have argued that this means Hamas tacitly accepts Israel’s right to exist, it is becoming clear that that is not how Hamas sees it.
Hamas negotiators have told the BBC that the entire state of Israel has been built on occupied Palestinian land.
They believe that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza is a first step - not a final step.
They believe that future generations of Palestinians will reclaim all their historic homeland. And that, in the end, there will be no room for what is now the Jewish state of Israel, our correspondent says.
As the watchdog for Middle East reporting CAMERA noted in October 2001, the BBC worked hard after 9/11 to insinuate that there was a causal link between those attacks and the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. They noted that the BBC
has a global audience of well over 150 million people, with the Web site, TV and radio broadcasts delivering commentary and analysis to the world round the clock. It is, therefore, significant that throughout its coverage of the [9/11] terror attacks and their aftermath, the BBC has, in effect, played the role of PR agent for the Palestinians and the Arab world, echoing their anti-Israel line and doing damage control for the Palestinians’ tarnished image.
Nice to see that five years and many Islamist nihilst butcheries later, the Beeb is still making the moral case for the proud butchers of Hamas, and that it is making every effort to boost the morale of Hamas’s supporters.
June 27th, 2006 — books, culture, media, publishing
I said a while back that the future of books is already here. Now Jason Epstein, former enfant terrible of the book publishing business, has unveiled his latest contribution to that endeavor:
If former Random House editorial director Jason Epstein has his way, as early as next year people will be able to order books online in just about any language. And faster than you can say “Grande Caramel Macchiato,” they will be able to be pick up the finished product at a nearby bookstore, coffee shop or copy shop.
At least that’s the concept behind Epstein’s latest venture, On Demand Books, which he founded last year with former Dean & DeLuca president and CEO Dane Neller and technology expert Thor Sigvaldason. The company recently received an infusion of cash, nearly $766,000, from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and has begun beta testing its Espresso Book Machine, which can print black-and-white text for a 300-page paperback with a four-color cover, and bind it together in three minutes.
“Our goal is to preserve the economic and ergonomic simplicity of the physical book,” said Epstein, who laments the disappearance of backlist and ready access to books in other languages. By printing from digital files, ODB hopes to make warehousing—and much of today’s distribution model—obsolete. “In theory,” said Epstein, “every book printed will be digitized, which means the market will be radically decentralized. A bookstore with this technology, without any expense to themselves [other than the machine] can increase their footprint.” Of course, that also means that Kinko’s or Wal-Mart can transform themselves into mini-bookstores, especially given the machine’s affordability. Neller anticipates that it will retail for less than $100,000….
In April, the first Espresso Book Machine was installed at the InfoShop at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., which has loaded 200 of its titles online for the three-month test period. Two additional Espressos will be installed at the New York Public Library and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, in Egypt, in September.
(via Publishers Weekly $$)
June 27th, 2006 — culture war, geopolitics, how we live now, information war, narratives, political culture, politics, propaganda
The Danish “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, who caused enormous controversy with a book that exposed
—through hundreds of detailed, meticulously footnoted examples—a pattern of exaggeration and statistical manipulation, used by green groups to advance their pet causes, and obligingly echoed through the media
is at it again. He’s the editor of a newly released paperback edition of a book called How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place. Here, from the Economist, is the backstory—and the setup for the debate that’s sure to rage.
TWO years ago, a Danish environmentalist called Bjorn Lomborg had an idea. We all want to make the world a better place but, given finite resources, we should look for the most cost-effective ways of doing so. He persuaded a bunch of economists, including three Nobel laureates, to draw up a list of priorities. They found that efforts to fight malnutrition and disease would save many lives at modest expense, whereas fighting global warming would cost a colossal amount and yield distant and uncertain rewards.
That conclusion upset a lot of environmentalists. This week, another man who upsets a lot of people embraced it. John Bolton, America’s ambassador to the United Nations, said that Mr Lomborg’s “Copenhagen Consensus” (see articles) provided a useful way for the world body to get its priorities straight.
Mr. Bernays
would have approved of the argument that’s sure to ensue.
By the way, where is Al Gore [aka the savior of 2008]? I hear his movie didn’t do so well.
June 27th, 2006 — cartoons, culture war, how we live now, movies, political correctness
To broaden the appeal of the Superman remake to global audiences, the screenwriters have also remade the superhero’s image and motto. It is now:
“Truth, justice, and…all of that stuff.”
Jeanne Wolf spoke to Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris:
Mike: “When it comes to “the American way,” that’s tricky.”
Dan: “I don’t think ‘the American way’ means what it meant in 1945.”
Mike: “He’s not just for Metropolis, and not just for America.”
Dan: “He’s an alien, from Krypton; he has come to Earth to be kind of a savior for this world, not our country … And he has no papers.”
Mike: “What would happen with the immigration laws we have now?”
Dan: “I’d like to see someone kick him out!”
Not just in our name, Supe!
(via The World Newser)
June 27th, 2006 — celebrities
The Coop was scheduled to speak at the 92nd Street Y tonight. But his talk has now been cancelled, because bad weather has prevented him from flying back from his most recent reporting assignment, in New Orleans.
(via Gawker)
Don’t despair.
Anderson Cooper Will Be Here Thursday, September 7
