Judeosphere

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published three reports this month critical of the Palestinian Authority (PA). First, this 101-page report faults the PA for failing to prevent violence against Palestinian women and girls. Next, HRW declared that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks against civilians and take immediate steps to halt them.” And, one week ago, HRW issued this press release:

Calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack is at worst human shielding, at best failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. Both are violations of international humanitarian law.

On Monday, the BBC reported that the IDF had warned Wael Rajab, an alleged Hamas member in Beit Lahiya, that that they were preparing to attack his home, and that a call was later broadcasted from local mosques for volunteers to protect the home.

“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”

Various media have reported that other Palestinian officials and armed groups have voiced support for these tactics. In a visit to Baroud’s house on Sunday, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority reportedly said: “We are so proud of this national stand. It’s the first stop toward protecting our homes … so long as this strategy is in the interest of our people, we support this strategy.”

“Prime Minister Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk,” said Whitson.

Apparently, this latest press release was the last straw for our favorite defender of truth, justice, and free speech, Norman Finkelstein. He’s just written an article for Counterpunch (of course) titled, “Human Rights Watch Must Retract Its Shameful Press Release”:

In what must surely be the most shocking statement ever issued by a human rights organization, HRW indicted Palestinian leaders for supporting this nonviolent civil disobedience.

Why this headlong rush to judgment?

Was HRW seeking to appease pro-Israel critics after taking the heat for its report documenting Israeli war crimes in Lebanon?

After Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech in 1967 denouncing the war in Vietnam, mainstream Black leaders rebuked him for jeopardizing the financial support of liberal whites. “You might get yourself a foundation grant,” King retorted, “but you won’t get yourself into the Kingdom of Truth.”

HRW now also stands poised at a crossroads: foundation grants or the Kingdom of Truth? A first step in the right direction would be for it to issue a retraction of its press release and an apology.

Similar fighting words can be found over at the blog of Helena Cobban, “a writer and internationally syndicated columnist on global affairs” who contributes to the Christian Science Monitor, Boston Review, New York Times, Salon, and the Economist.

Cobban sits on the Middle East advisory committee of Human Rights Watch–and, not so long ago, she was defending her colleagues against the smear attacks of “Israel’ s blindly ardent defenders.”

But, hey that was then, this is now. HRW’s latest publications have prompted her to denounce “Sarah Leah and the rest of HRW’s very comfortably paid apparatchiks” and to lash out against “Human Rights Watch’s august leaders sitting in their comfy homes in New York.” (By the way, what’s the view from Cobban’s window? “The fall colors here in central Virginia are just spectacular this year.”)

Cobban argues no crime, no foul since “there has been no suggestion of any coercion being applied on anyone to participate in this quite voluntary human-shielding action.”

Maybe Cobban should pay a visit to the Crimes of War Project website, which, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, published this important reminder about prohibited behavior during times of war:

They further include prohibitions against the use of human shields or hostages, whether voluntary or involuntary, and whether by attackers or defenders, in order to protect military objectives.

Both attacking and defending military forces have independent and non-derogable legal obligations toward civilians in the course of combat operations. Their respective obligations merit equal emphasis in media reporting and commentary as well as in monitoring by human rights organizations and other concerned individuals, non-governmental organizations, and governments and international institutions.

They key words here are “voluntary or involuntary.” There’s a reason for that prohibition. By holding governments accountable–even for “volunteers”–it (hopefully) minimizes civilian casualties in times of war. And by including “voluntary” human shields under that umbrella, it prohibits governments from later claiming that civilians herded into military facilities were there of their “own free will.”

Bending these rules sets a deadly precedent, whether it’s done by the Palestinian Authority or Israel.

Wow, I can’t believe that people fell for that fake “yellow badges” story in Iran. I mean, really, why would anyone expect the worst from a theocratic government that denies the Holocaust and executes teenage homosexuals?

Still, as to be expected, Juan Cole was in full smug mode after the story was retracted:

The whole thing is a steaming crock….There are still tens of thousands of Jews in Iran, and expatriate Iranian Jews most often identify as Iranians and express Iranian patriotism. I was in Los Angeles when tens of thousands of Iranians immigrated, fleeing the Khomeini regime. I still remember Jewish Iranian families who suffered a year or two in what they thought of as the sterile social atmosphere of LA, and who shrugged and moved right back to Iran, where they said they felt more comfortable.

Yeah, Iran does sound like a great place to live. And, my suspicions were further confirmed by a post by Matt Barganier over at the Antiwar.com blog. Reflecting on the 13 Jews who were accused of spying for Israel and arrested in 1999, he writes:

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t sound like the Third Reich to me. First, to paraphrase Woody Allen, even paranoid tyrants get spied on. I’m sure that Israel, for perfectly understandable reasons, has plenty of spies and other operatives in Iran. I’m equally sure that these particular fellows were railroaded, given the fact that they were released so quickly. But that’s the amazing part – three were acquitted right off the bat, and all had been released, three under direct pardon from the Aya-freaking-tollah, within a few years of their arrest…13 Jews were executed between 1979 and 1998, but again, a lot of people are executed in Iran for a lot of reasons, and 13 isn’t genocide.

Hey, thanks Matt! On behalf of Jews everywhere, I’m profoundly relieved to hear that the Iranians are equal-opportunity executioners! You should write ad copy on behalf of the Iranian government (“Visit Tehran: No Executions of Jews Since 1998!”) I guess over at Antiwar.com and Informed Comment, a theocratic regime that doesn’t commit genocide is considered “progressive.” It kind of reminds me of that Onion article about Patrick Buchanan a few years back:

Eager to gain momentum in the fight for delegates, Republican presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan reached out to gay voters Monday at a stump speech in South Carolina, pledging that he would not incinerate homosexual Americans if elected. “In a Buchanan presidency, gays would not be incinerated,” Buchanan said before a crowd of 2,000 in Spartanburg. “I will not rule out public floggings, horse-propelled skewerings, iron-bar impalings or churchyard genital chainsawing, but I will draw the line at incineration.”

But, I digress…After reading these posts, I was half-prepared to pack my bags and move to Iran myself, since, according to Juan Cole, it’s sooo much nicer than that whole fake, sterile LA scene. But, then I read this account, by an Iranian Jewish ex-patriate in LA that Juan Cole apparently neglected to speak with:

There had been a noticeable increase in the amount of anti-Semitism coming from the Iranian press beginning around 1993. By 1995, Jews were accused of bringing AIDS into Iran and causing economic chaos….That same year, Fayzollah Mekhubabt, a 78-year-old cantor in a Teheran synagogue, was taken to prison. His eyes were gouged out before he was executed. Mekhubabt was buried in a Muslim cemetery. His family was forced to disinter his remains in order to bury him in a Jewish cemetery.

And, then there’s this report from the JTA:

Despite the official status of Jews as a tolerated minority, several Iranian Jews living in America interviewed by JTA attested to popular, even “rampant,” anti-Semitism in Iran in the form of job discrimination and the destruction of personal property. “You lived quietly and into yourself,” said one Tehran native who moved to the U.S. in 1982 and asked to remain anonymous. He described the communal philosophy as “You don’t bother them; they don’t bother us.”

Jews in Iran try to “minimize contact” with their Muslim neighbors “out of fear of exactly these kinds of incidents,” he said, referring to the arrests. In 1998, Iran executed a 60-year-old Iranian businessman for allegedly spying for Israel, according to Human Rights Watch. A year earlier, two people were hanged after they were convicted of espionage charges, according to Amnesty International. In 1996, an anonymous Iranian Jew testified in the U.S. …that he was imprisoned for more than two years because he was suspected of spying for Israel.

The man reportedly said he had been arrested, held and then released “suddenly, with no explanation.” But he said he was “under constant surveillance” and told to leave Tehran. His case was “extreme,” he told the committee, but exemplified the “constant state of fear” in which Iranian Jews live.

And, then, of course, the text of a letter sent by Iranian Jews to their president:

How is it possible to ignore all of the undeniable evidence existing for the exile and massacre of the Jews in Europe during World War II? Challenging one of the most obvious and saddening events of 20th-century humanity has created astonishment among the people of the world and spread fear and anxiety among the small Jewish community of Iran.

Ya know, if you want to make the case against bombing Iran, be my guest. I also happen to believe it would be a bad idea. (So, in fact, do Iranian Jews.) But don’t make your case by whitewashing the Iranian regime. You can oppose a war and oppose theocratic fascism at the same time.

The conspiracy theorists who claim that the Jews were behind the “moon landing hoax” are going to love this story from the Jerusalem Post:

Israelis own 10 percent of the privately owned area on the moon, according to Tom Wegner, a spokesman for Crazyshop, a company that sells plots of moon land to private individuals in Israel.

About 10,000 Israelis have purchased moon property since it became available in 2000. Of the 10 million acres sold worldwide, 1 million are owned by residents of Israel, Wegner said Wednesday.

The United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty banned states from purchasing land in space, but allowed individual citizens to purchase land, said Movshovitz.

As a result, it is possible that in the near future NASA will have to buy land from the private property owners, enabling them to demand large sums for their plots.

Don’t you see it? The moon landing hoax was actually part of a real estate scam nearly forty years in the making!!! We faked the film footage so that everyone would be suckered into thinking that the moon was a barren, lifeless rock. Then, lunar property values plummeted…and we bided our time until conditions were ripe to buy up all that choice extraterrestrial real estate at a fraction of its actual value. It’s brilliant!

Also, Henry Kissinger killed Princess Diana. I have proof.

The Financial Times serves up this editorial on the Walt & Mearsheimer paper:

Doctrinal orthodoxy was flouted last month in a paper on the Israel lobby by two of America’s leading political scientists….They argue powerfully that extraordinarily effective lobbying in Washington has led to a political consensus that American and Israeli interests are inseparable and identical.

Only a UK publication, the London Review of Books, was prepared to carry their critique, in the same way that it was Prospect, a British monthly journal, that four years ago published a path-breaking study of the Israel lobby by the American analyst, Michael Lind.

Moral blackmail – the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism – is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views.

Judgment of the precise value of the Walt-Mearscheimer paper has been swept aside by a wave of condemnation. Their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned, while Harvard has energetically disassociated itself from their views. Mr Walt’s position as academic dean of the Kennedy School is in doubt.

On various counts, this is a shame and a self-inflicted wound no society built on freedom should allow.

Oh, please. First off, don’t you like that line about how “Walt’s position as academic dean” is in doubt. Hey, FT, it’s not “in doubt” – he’s stepping down in June because because his tenure as academic dean is over. (Though, I imagine it makes for a better sounding editorial to claim that he’s being hounded from his position by the thought police.)

Second, let’s keep in mind that this paper is not just a critique of AIPAC…Walt & Mearsheimer are attacking the Lobby (capital “L”), which they portray as a network of pro-Israel individuals, organizations, think tanks, academics, and media institutions who collectively maintain a stranglehold over U.S. foreign policy—and, in doing so, have brought down the wrath of Al-Qaeda upon the United States, and forced America into a war in Iraq. This is volatile stuff. (Even Christopher Hitchens, no fan of Israel, found their conclusions “partly misleading and partly creepy.”) At best, it’s an example of oversimplified scholarship and intellectual overreach (see, for instance, Noam Chomsky’s critique) ; at worst, it regurgitates well-worn conspiracy theories that portray supporters of Israel as a shadowy fifth column in the body politic.

Which brings me to point three, concerning this FT comment about how “their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned,” and how this is undermining the principles of free society.

As the Brits would say, “Bullocks.”

Shall we take a moment to recall the furor over another highly questionable academic study some years back, titled The Bell Curve?

A brief overview: In 1994, Richard J. Hernstein (a prominent psychologist) and Charles Murray (a political scientist) published a book exploring the role of intelligence in American life. The study was hugely controversial because of two chapters on race and intelligence—essentially, the authors argued that group differences in IQ between blacks and whites are primarily genetic.

The book was a bestseller, defended by some, but criticized by many others who cast significant doubts on the methodology and motives of the authors. Stephen Jay Gould, released a revised and expanded edition of his 1981 work The Mismeasure of Man intended to refute many of the Bell Curve’s claims regarding race and intelligence. A collection of essays condemning the Bell Curve was published in 1997 under the title Measured Lies.

A condensed version of the study was published by The New Republic. The editor at the time was Andrew Sullivan, who later called it one of his “proudest moments in journalism”, and added that “I’m proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did.”

Writing in Slate, Stephen Metcalf had this to say about such “moral courage”

Imagine that the labels “morally courageous” and “intellectually honest” didn’t refer to inner personal qualities but instead were prizes in a language game. The goal of the game is to be awarded the labels “morally courageous” and “intellectually honest.” To win the prize, you must obey the rules: Never parrot conventional wisdom, and whenever possible, cast yourself as the victim of a speech-suppressing enemy….As is usually the case, the downgrading of truth brings with it an upgrading of sheer chutzpah, frequently under the guise of moral courage.

By the rules of our language game, however, the motives of people who distrust (or, frankly, revile) The Bell Curve are instantly suspect, while the motives of people who spend their entire professional lives trying to prove black people are dumber than white people escape all scrutiny.

Metcalf’s words have a familiar ring when it comes to the Lobby. We hear people like the FT editors praising Walt and Mearsheimer for their “courage” in confronting a taboo subject, defying doctrinal orthodoxy, and speaking truth to power. Accolades are heaped upon the London Review of Books, since no American publication would “dare” publish it. Those who attack Walt and Mearsheimer’s scholarship are deemed opponents of free speech or purveyors of moral blackmail.

Here’s something that the editors of the FT should keep in mind: Criticizing an academic study–especially one that is published with the expressed intent to provoke controversy–is not an assault upon free speech, it is the very definition of free speech. Those who speak out against this study are no less morally suspect than those who spoke out against The Bell Curve.

Meanwhile, Walt has said that he and Mearsheimer stand behind their work, but are declining to respond to specific criticisms being raised. “Anybody who writes on a controversial topic is bound to face criticism and may also face personal attacks of various kinds,” he said. “Our purposes in writing the piece was to open up a broader discussion of American policy in the Middle East. We hope people will read what we wrote and engage in a serious discussion of the arguments.”

Such remarks prompted University of Chicago professor Daniel Drezner to comment: “So let me get this straight: the authors have written and published a paper because they want to provoke an open debate — and then decide not to respond to any of the critiques made of the paper.”

Or, to quote the FT: “On various counts, this is a shame and a self-inflicted wound no society built on freedom should allow.”

A blogger visiting Tehran snapped some photos of the mural work that adorns the outside of the former U.S. embassy building (aka, “Great Satan Central Command”).

One photo stood out among the rest. Notice that the mural (bottom left) bears an uncanny resemblance to the artwork on the cover of L. Ron Hubbard’s turgid science-fiction novel, The Invaders Plan.

Looks like a classic case of copyright infringement to me. So, in the interest of promoting international goodwill, I have some free advice for the Iranian government: Paint over that mural as soon as possible. I know you’re concerned about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, but you’ve crossed a dangerous line here: You’re fucking with the Scientologists. They will harass you with endless lawsuits. And it won’t end there. Next, you’ll start getting mail offering you “Free Personality Tests.”

Trust me on this. The followers of Xenu have even less of a sense of humor than the mullahs.

I’ll be gone for about a week. But, while away, I’ll post some “blasts from the past” in the Judeosphere archives, starting with this one:

“Rating the Realists”

During the last few months, I’ve seen a number of editorials demanding that pundits be held accountable for their “complicity” in making the case for war in Iraq.

Writing in the National Interest, Justin Logan offers what he considers to be a practical solution:

Thanks to news cycles and short attention spans, pundits get away with murder. Columnists and talking heads can issue endless prognostications about what Iraq will look like in another six months, and because nobody’s going to remember to follow up six months on, it doesn’t matter whether they were right.

The best way to correct the situation is by developing a predictions database, where experts can weigh-in on specific, falsifiable claims about the future, putting their reputations on the line. Something like this was envisioned in a DARPA program developed under Admiral John Poindexter in 2003. The so-called “policy analysis “market” was designed to allow analysts to buy futures contracts for various scenarios. As the value of these contracts went up or down, other analysts could observe and investigate why, determining how and why others were “putting their money where their mouths were”, and whether they should do the same.

Well now, that’s interesting. What’s also interesting is that Justin Logan is an analyst at the Cato Institute, which is affiliated with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are among the Coalition’s founding members.

So, I find myself wondering: How would the venerable foreign policy realists fare in this proposed predictions database? Here’s a sampling:

John Mearsheimer: An academic with such a wretched track record, that if he had been a royal astrologer he would have been beheaded. His 1990 opus [pdf] for the Atlantic Monthly, “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” confidently predicted that the decline of the Soviet Union would usher in a new arms race in Europe, with nations–especially Germany–rushing to build nuclear weapons. In a 1991 NYT editorial [pdf], he made the case for the First Gulf War, predicting that “a quick victory will reduce losses on both sides.” (Iraqi casualties: 40,000 dead troops and more than 140,000 dead civilians.) In 1993, he declared [pdf] that a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent was “inevitable”, since the country would never return its nuclear warheads to Russia. (In 1995, Ukraine returned all of Russia’s nuclear weapons.) Then, in 1998, he said [pdf] the Kosovo peace agreement was “doomed” to fail because “neither the Albanians nor the Serbs are likely to stick to it.” (One year later, Milosevic agreed to withdraw troops from Kosovo, and the Kosovo Liberation Army agreed to disarm.)

Leon Hadar: His famous 1992 essay, “The Green Peril,” declared that fundamentalist Islamic movements posed no threat to the West. (Hey, how did that turn out?)

Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute: A man who has predicted war so many times it’s a wonder that we haven’t been bombed back into the Bronze Age. In the last eight years he’s warned of a forthcoming war with China; a forthcoming Turkish war against Greece; a Marxist/narcotrafficking takeover of Colombia; and war with North Korea.

Steven Clemons, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation: In 1998, he predicted an “economic tsunami” would soon strike Japan, and then engulf America and the entire global economy. (Ahhh! Run away! Run away!)

And there, my friends, are the “realist” pundits. By all means, let’s add them to the “predictions database,” so everyone can see firsthand their true market value.