Israel I: Terrorball

I am an Israeli-American, holding dual citizenship in both countries. This has been nothing but grief for me, both in the narrower sense of my life not being made easier when I tell security people that I was born in Jerusalem, and in the larger sense of the stress and anxiety I have for my extended family which remains in Israel. And I am not Muslim -- I am an American Jewish citizen who has lived here since I was three months old. I cannot imagine how incredibly worse it is for Palestinians, who have to turn on the radio and hear bullshit like "All Young Muslims Should Be Strip Searched."

At any rate, one of the evidences of my heritage is that my mother and I now almost daily get into strongly worded debates over Israel and its future. My mother is a pacifist -- actually more of a pacifist than I am, since she favored immediate withdrawal from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and although I was against the war in Iraq, I believed that it was our responsibility to attempt to guarantee some functional stability before we left -- but she doesn't understand how I am against the Israeli incursion into Gaza.

This debate has been going on and on and in the end, the difference in our beliefs, both in Gaza and in Iraq/Afghanistan, boils down to Terrorball.

My mother is not happy about 1300 people killed in Gaza by Israelis. But from her perspective, how can Israel not respond to rockets falling on her country? Even the Israeli Government admits that in the year leading up to the Gaza War, only a handful of people have been been hurt or killed. The issue my mother is skirting, and which the logical problem at the heart of Terrorball rests on, is the issue of proportionality. More specifically, it deals with the One Percent Doctrine. If there's a 1% chance of terrorism, Cheney says, we have to use force. Irregardless of what the bait is, when it comes to terrorism, we have to respond with force.

Anyways, that's one aspect of the dispiriting personal conversations I've had around Israel. Most of it boils down to the fact that Avigdor Lieberman is the face and power-broker of my country.

A Litmus Test For Newspapers

I was thinking about the Wall Street Journal recently, and its seeming decline in partiality and editorial quality ever since Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Then I was wondering, "How did I come to the conclusion that the Wall Street Journal has declining editorial standards, considering I don't read the Wall Street Journal."

I realized that it is because I get my news from Google News, and in Google News I see Wall Street journal headlines and literally it is just the headlines that sometimes get me steamed enough to not ever want to crack open a Wall Street Journal again.

I wanted to come up with a litmus test for partiality in news, and I came up with a simple one that is, almost certainly, reductive beyond all belief. If I ran a newspaper, I said to myself, I would make sure that its headlines contained no modifying adjectives, and could only use action verbs relating to an event. If the headline was about someone something said, it goes in the politics or opinion section. Period.

With that in mind, let's look at the front page of the New York Times.

UN Officials Say American Aide Plotted to Replace Hamid Karzai. Notice that are not only one, but two modifiers between this headline and US Replaces Hamid Karzai, the headline of an actual event. UN Officials SAY that the American Aide PLOTTED. Is this important news? Perhaps. But is it actually true that a plan that went nowhere and might not actually have existed is the top story of today?

M.T.A. Approves Big Service Cuts In Transit. Well, I'd prefer something more descriptive than "Big Service Cuts" since it basically puts the fear of God in your average NYC person. I've also always been torn about whether the New York Times should carry local news on the front page, but I guess it is still the New York times.

That Tap Water Might Be Legal but May Be Unhealthy. Is this an opinion article? I read the article, and it bundles together a bunch of anecdotal evidence (a lack of increase in regulated chemicals) with a bunch of not-very-in-depth-examined studies about the health of tap water in America. The Times appears to be choking on impartiality. Clearly they think our water is unhealthy (as it is a front page story), but then they don't want to say "Your water is unhealthy" so they throw in a bunch of tempering words, making the article easily forgettable. The net effect of this article will probably just to be to convince more people to buy bottled (tap) water.

Pakistan Reported To Be Harassing US Diplomats. Who is reporting it? US Diplomats. In fact, most of the article appears to be an interview with "One senior American diplomat." Is it true? Well, a senior American diplomat said it, right?

I was kind of hoping that one of the Times' headlines would be a statement, like US Commits 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan (which is an event) or Bomb Kills X in Helmand Province (which is an event) or House Passes Temporary Finance Measures (which is an event).

As for the WSJ:

Insurgents In Iraq Hack US Drone (which is an event -- but bonus points for their web edition carrying Readers React - 'We Can't Be This Stupid!')

US Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund - not an event in the present tense, but a promise of an event in the future, which I think is acceptable news.

Mexican Drug Boss Killed In Raid (event)

The only one I spot which isn't an event (or which doesn't lead with Opinion:) is:

Bernanke Foes Seek to Curtail Fed.

Well, well, I didn't expect the WSJ's headlines to do better for me than the NYTimes. Ah well.

Obamadministration: Envoys

Via Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder reports on Obama's new Envoys.

I was wondering where Richard Holbrooke got off to. If you look back at my original (and wildly inaccurate) predictions of the Obaminet, you'll see I predicted a higher prediction for Holbrooke. I've heard some criticisms of Holbrooke, but he still seems to me a highly competent--if perhaps controversial and sometimes big-mouthed--public servant. But chief envoy to South-East Asia is a very flexible, complex, and difficult role.

Think about it. On the one hand, he's going to be coordinating war between Afghanistan-Pakistan and Taliban-Al Qaeda. On the other hand, he's going to be preserving peace between Pakistan and India. And then on top of that, he's going to be dealing with the implications and trade policy of the new emerging India of which we've heard so much about.

So, not Secretary of State. But still crucial.

The Obaminet: National Security

Three new names on the Obama rolls:

John Brennan. Actually, John Brennan isn't in the incoming cabinet, but I would like to point out his conspicious absence, and the letter that announced it. Now, I wasn't at the CIA, and I can't judge how disingenuous or not disingenuous his claim of being passed over because of his opposition to waterboarding is, but what is clear is that A) he did not fight waterboarding outside of the White House, and that B) he was in favor of other methods of torture.

There comes a time to resign. There is a point in a Presidential Administration where if you stay, you are responsible for the Administration's actions. Say what you will about Colin Powell dissenting in private: he stayed in the Administration, and therefore he bears the responsibility of the War in Iraq.

I'm glad that the Obama Administration understands that (I can't believe that the letter was published without Obama's staff knowing). The point is, at least someone had to pay something for their involvement in this terrible event in our history.

Robert Gates. This name has been on the list since the days of the campaign, and the only thing that may have surprised some people (who expected Obama to be a big turn to the left) is that the name is still on the list. I like the rumor I've heard that he may only stay for one year (read: he may only stay until we're out of Iraq). Although Gates has overseen a period of significant progress in Iraq (still not nearly enough), it's difficult to say how much he personally is responsible for that (although this is the reverse flip-side of the aforementioned institutionalized responsibility), and Afghanistan has most certainly not improved (see below).

Also, I do want to see a good solid Democrat replace this position once Gates leaves. I am a little frustrated that the appearance is of there being no qualified commanders on the left. I am very, very much in favor of the next Secretary of Defense being ret. Gen Wesley Clark; Clark is an extremely competent man, a very humble man, a great public figure (if not a very inspiring leader, in the political sense). He's also a Democrat, to prove that we Dems can run our own military.

But that's a consideration that should come second after "who is most competent." I only put forward Clark's name because I think he's very competent (to the limited degree that I, outside the military, can judge competence).

Adm Jim Jones. Another of the "very competent crowd," and someone who John McCain was looking to put in the same position--a nice touch on both scores. But what I find even more important than his position in the marine corps is his position as a former commander of NATO. Right now, our involvement in Afghanistan is going from poor to piss-poor, and part of the problem (or result) is an increasing strain among the relations of NATO nations. France and Germany want to avoid being heavily involved in the fighting, to the dismay of Canada, the UK, and the US. A former NATO Commander in the White House signals a greater degree of military cooperation; the President of the United States will be getting his advice from someone who has worked closely with the military of each of these countries, and as the new President looks to formulate a new plan in Afghanistan (the one thing I haven't heard from him), he's going to be hearing a lot about Europe's role in this.

This inclusion of Europe will apply to other national security issues. How does Europe play into the Israel-Palestine situation? How does it play into the Iran situation? India-Pakistan relations may be the new front to test Obama. No matter what, Europe will be involved in the future of our security. Walking away from that deeply historic bond was one of the greatest failures of the Bush Administration, and walking back will be Obama's first big improvement over our national security environment.


So far, my enthusiasm about Obama's picks have ranged from caution to applause. But Obama's picks are not going to be important based on his reasoning going in. They're going to be judged by what they result in. These three are fairly safe bets, politically; some of his other picks (Clinton most of all) are true political gambles. If they pay off, they pay off big.