Looks like the Pope's PR people have gotten him out in front of the recent anti-semitic commentary:
Pope Speaks Against Anti-Semitism
Friday, August 19, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The Glamour of Protest
It's been all over the New York Times for a week, so I won't link to a specific article. But the Isreali pullout from Gaza has received the royal investigative journalism treatment, repleat with interactive guides and in-depth interviews.
It's been illustrative: so much of the daily lives of Isrealis, what one might call the "Jewish side of the story," has gotten overlooked in the last few years of Infatada coverage and Palestinian/Isreali negotiational struggle. For a few weeks, now, we see Jews in an internal struggle, debating land for peace in a very viceral, and emotional, way.
It makes for great newspaper copy. The newspapers love a story of protestors, conflict, heartrending and vivid emotion. Plain old tragedy - an endless parade of bombing deaths, life under terrorism, etc. - that gets old pretty fast. (Witness Iraq.) What's news is chants, civil disobedience, clashes with police.
In a very real way, the coverage of this story has humanized the difficulties of the Isreali situation. Up until now, it has been Hamas and Palestinian terrorists who have received the sympathetic coverage, the media bluster, and the faux analysis. Perhaps that's why world sympathy has tended to sway toward the Palestians.
Will coverage of the protests by Jewish hardliners and religious extremists sway public sympathy back the other way? My guess is that it will, at least for a time. The public loves this stuff: the passionate young people, the clash with police. We love the bad boys, the martyrs, the hardliners precisely because they seem so passionate and so committed: whether or not the cause is just, or historically accurate, or logically necessary.
In this case, I believe that intellectually, Sharon is right and the protestors wrong: the pullout from Gaza will strengthen Isreal. It is not a retreat but a strategic regrouping. Why waste precious Army resources guarding a few thousand settlers and imprisoning millions of Palistinians into a makeshift fortress, when you can pull back to more defensible lines, better distribute resources, and focus on core territory? Whether or not this will lead to further road map negotiations, I don't know. It's really less important. The key is that it's militarily sound. Even if Gaza became a "terror hotbed," it would certainly lead to more easily defendable borders, more ability to strike back and defend. So it's a strategically wise move.
However, I've come to actually appreciate the protests by the religious hardliners. Those people are not only making a point - that Isreal is being asked to give up land in exchange for nothing (no peace, no settlement, not even a real truce). But rather, that people who are actively living lives and have created homes, communities, a future out of a desert landscape, are giving all that up largely without violence (the little violence today I find very disturbing), but with a forceful, heartfelt petition that is the core of a democratic society. Their voices are heard, yet they are still one with the army, one with the Isreali state, and even with the government they disagree with.
Contrast this to the lawnessness we see all around in the region: from Sunni terrorists blowing up Shiites in Iraq, to the petty bickering, self-aggrandizing, and distrust in the Palestinian Authority, to the mysogeny, non-democracy, and secrecy of the Syrians and the Saudis. We owe the religious hardliners and anti-withdrawal protesters in Isreal a real debt: they've demonstrated, once again, that Isreal is the only democracy in the region, and how a democracy registers, deals with, and implements diffucult, wrenching decisions as a society. And that moral equivalencies between Isreal and the Palestinians simply do not work, when one side is a functioning democracy, and the other a poor, unrepresented and fractious populous ruled by gangs of theives, blood-royalty, and terrorists.
It's been illustrative: so much of the daily lives of Isrealis, what one might call the "Jewish side of the story," has gotten overlooked in the last few years of Infatada coverage and Palestinian/Isreali negotiational struggle. For a few weeks, now, we see Jews in an internal struggle, debating land for peace in a very viceral, and emotional, way.
It makes for great newspaper copy. The newspapers love a story of protestors, conflict, heartrending and vivid emotion. Plain old tragedy - an endless parade of bombing deaths, life under terrorism, etc. - that gets old pretty fast. (Witness Iraq.) What's news is chants, civil disobedience, clashes with police.
In a very real way, the coverage of this story has humanized the difficulties of the Isreali situation. Up until now, it has been Hamas and Palestinian terrorists who have received the sympathetic coverage, the media bluster, and the faux analysis. Perhaps that's why world sympathy has tended to sway toward the Palestians.
Will coverage of the protests by Jewish hardliners and religious extremists sway public sympathy back the other way? My guess is that it will, at least for a time. The public loves this stuff: the passionate young people, the clash with police. We love the bad boys, the martyrs, the hardliners precisely because they seem so passionate and so committed: whether or not the cause is just, or historically accurate, or logically necessary.
In this case, I believe that intellectually, Sharon is right and the protestors wrong: the pullout from Gaza will strengthen Isreal. It is not a retreat but a strategic regrouping. Why waste precious Army resources guarding a few thousand settlers and imprisoning millions of Palistinians into a makeshift fortress, when you can pull back to more defensible lines, better distribute resources, and focus on core territory? Whether or not this will lead to further road map negotiations, I don't know. It's really less important. The key is that it's militarily sound. Even if Gaza became a "terror hotbed," it would certainly lead to more easily defendable borders, more ability to strike back and defend. So it's a strategically wise move.
However, I've come to actually appreciate the protests by the religious hardliners. Those people are not only making a point - that Isreal is being asked to give up land in exchange for nothing (no peace, no settlement, not even a real truce). But rather, that people who are actively living lives and have created homes, communities, a future out of a desert landscape, are giving all that up largely without violence (the little violence today I find very disturbing), but with a forceful, heartfelt petition that is the core of a democratic society. Their voices are heard, yet they are still one with the army, one with the Isreali state, and even with the government they disagree with.
Contrast this to the lawnessness we see all around in the region: from Sunni terrorists blowing up Shiites in Iraq, to the petty bickering, self-aggrandizing, and distrust in the Palestinian Authority, to the mysogeny, non-democracy, and secrecy of the Syrians and the Saudis. We owe the religious hardliners and anti-withdrawal protesters in Isreal a real debt: they've demonstrated, once again, that Isreal is the only democracy in the region, and how a democracy registers, deals with, and implements diffucult, wrenching decisions as a society. And that moral equivalencies between Isreal and the Palestinians simply do not work, when one side is a functioning democracy, and the other a poor, unrepresented and fractious populous ruled by gangs of theives, blood-royalty, and terrorists.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
The Stupididium.....
When you look over these statistics that break down how opinions about gay marriage fall, it's interesting to note that it is more opposed by people over 35 than by younder people (and even more opposed by people over 60). It's also more opposed by less educated people, and by more religious people.
Not unexpected, but it does pose a quandry. Because I've never been very good at figuring out how to talk to irrational, stupid old people.
Not unexpected, but it does pose a quandry. Because I've never been very good at figuring out how to talk to irrational, stupid old people.
A Cuddly Conservative?
I know we're supposed to be freaked out by conservatives - and I know that we don't hardly know much about this guy, Roberts. But the more I read...the more I actually like him (despite his "conservative" views).....
Roberts Helped Group on Gay Rights
Maybe he actually is an astute pick to replace O'Conner, another mainstream conservative with an open and reasoned approach to the law.
If I were going to prepare to argue a case for gay marriage in the high court, this is the guy I'd prepare my arguments for. If we have a constitutional argument in our favor that really holds water...I think that not only would we convince him, he'd have to, out of logical necessity, become a forceful advocate for our cause.
Roberts Helped Group on Gay Rights
Maybe he actually is an astute pick to replace O'Conner, another mainstream conservative with an open and reasoned approach to the law.
If I were going to prepare to argue a case for gay marriage in the high court, this is the guy I'd prepare my arguments for. If we have a constitutional argument in our favor that really holds water...I think that not only would we convince him, he'd have to, out of logical necessity, become a forceful advocate for our cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
