Rootless Cosmopolitan is indeed an excellent blog. I think I found it several months ago in the comments here.
You might try reading those sometime, Ogged. If, that is, you can stand all the Jews.
Wait, I'm not the only one. Jew Party! Who wants to swap stories about their haftorah portion?
Who wants to swap stories about their haftorah portion?
We've already had the circumcision discussion, Scott.
The Rootless Cosmopolitan had excellent World Cup coverage.
That denim skirt would be considered dowdy on a Mormon. Man.
Ogged hassling aside, though, teaching, letting, or defending kids acting like that is, of course, inexcusable. Whether it's towards old Palestinian ladies or towards long-haired little boys.
That denim skirt would be considered dowdy on a Mormon
That's the point.
Crap. I just remembered that my sister has a skirt like that.
This isn't antisemitic, he didn't say a word about neoconservatives.
Also, Jewish girls are the only girls who wear skirts, in Pittsburgh at least.
10: No, it's all I can do to get him to wear his hair in a ponytail. But he did wear a pair of socks to school today that used to belong to his cousin Maya. He said to me, "these are inside out" and I said, "no," and he said, "the flower's on the inside" and I said, "you're supposed to turn down the cuff for the flower to show" and he very carefully made sure to turn down the cuff so the flower would be visible on his ankle.
6: Because only Jews are circumcised? As if. We mutilate all children equally. This here is America.
15: No, just playing on the words "haftorah portion".
That photo is a few years old. (Of course, I have only the power of assertion to back my claim, since I'm too lazy to google. But I do remember seeing it a few years ago.)
15: Not my kid, we don't.
14: Boys are allowed to like flowers, Apo. It's the 21st century.
Surprisingly, he really seems to get absolutely no shit from his peers over this stuff. All the more reason to ignore the antiquated sexists around here.
Boys are allowed to like flowers, Apo.
I said I wasn't responding to it, TrollPhD.
Isn't PK around seven? None of this stuff became important until middle school, as I recall.
"you're supposed to turn down the cuff for the flower to show"
Wow, I never thought of that before! I think my fiancee is wearing some of her socks wrong.
But I probably shouldn't tell her she's wearing her flower cuff socks wrong, unless I sandwich it between doing two really manly things.
"Okay, the free weights are all up in the attic now. Oh, and I think you're supposed to roll those socks down so you can see the flowers. Well, if you need anything, I'll be out back splitting firewood with my cock."
Exactly. Except my cock would be better suited for hammering the dents out of her car than whatever bladelike functions you seem to be imagining.
20: I took a lot of shit in elementary school for my Bionic Woman T-shirt.
Obviously, you'd use a wedge, Ned.
B, maybe you ought to balance things out a bit. Can PK grow a moustache?
25: Interesting. Now that I think of it, I remember that we were split into two camps along gender lines. But I don't think things like flowers or Bionic Woman t-shirts mattered as indications that you weren't manly so much as indications that you trafficked with the enemy. I definitely remember finding it extremely frustrating that I could not definitively show that Superman would kick the crap out of Wonder Woman in a fight. Part of that was about making sure that the apex of the hero pyramid remained uncomplicated, but part of it was definitely about being one up on the girls' camp.
20: He's six. We'll see. He's pretty cheerful and pretty good at dismissing things he thinks are dumb. Plus, he may become the class clown, in which case flowered socks will be part of the costume.
Ned, I think it depends on the socks. On these, it's turned-down-cuffs; on the socks I plan to order for myself this weekend, it's not.
26: I thought you weren't responding to it, sucker.
being one up on the girls' camp.
That's part of why PK is cool with girly stuff. He'll be damned if the girls in his class will get away with telling him flowers aren't for boys.
I thought you weren't responding to it, sucker.
I'm terrible at follow through.
28: I hope you aren't going with the pimento ones.
31: Pimento it is, actually. Probably the teal, too.
28: But look at these and these for the next time you attend a conference as BitchPhd.
I want to make fun of bitch, but all little boys do femme stuff. They just learn quickly to not do it in public, then not do it at all. I remember at around 5 or 6 I got caught with my toenails painted rainbow colors. Scarring.
"caught by slightly older boys and girls" i should add.
40.--That cracks me up every time.
39: This was kinda true of my older son, but Noah at just barely two years old is almost monomaniacal about sports—any sport—at nobody's encouragement and much to my wife's dismay.
37.1: Yes! I've seen the tights before; not gothy enough to wear those without looking like an idiot.
39: Exactly. It is my goal in life to arm my little boy against that kind of bullshit, in much the same way I was armed against the inverse bullshit when I was a kid.
Sports aren't inimical to fun stuff like liking toenail polish, you know, Apo. I take it you mean Noah doesn't care about toenail polish, but even so.
Of course, the fact is that there's nothing inherently femmy about toenail polish. Or flowers.
44: I see About a Boy II: Only in America in the offing.
44.2 it's a worthy goal. I think my own childhood was a mix of overlysensitive and undersensitive, and many of the parts where I was overlysensitive I should've been less sensitive, and some of the parts where I was insensitive I should have been more sensitive.
I'm married. I hope you're not impugning PK's dad's masculinity.
Or that of my boyfriend.
Or, for that matter, mine.
Of course, the fact is that there's nothing inherently femmy about toenail polish. Or flowers.
Or a lack of sport.
47: It's funny, he *is* really sensitive about gender stuff, but rather than conforming, his sensitivity manifests by his getting angry and declaring that he DOES TOO LIKE HELLO KITTY and no one is going to tell him he can't.
I have no idea where he gets that attitude.
Well, it speaks well for his ability to stand up for himself. Again, from my own memory, when you're a kid as long as stuff is colorful and cartoony, you like it, even if it is marketed to girls. In little boys, sneering contempt for the girly is just frustrated jealousy.
God dammit, I'm still pissed about the picture and we've already moved onto cute stories about little boys liking girly things? You suck, thread!
The other day I was in the drug store with Caroline when she wandered over into the girls' toys aisle and stared, enraptured, at a display.
Me: "Caroline, what are you looking at?"
Caroline: "Piiink thiiings"
In little boys, sneering contempt for the girly is just frustrated jealousy.
This whole process is very weird. It's funny, it doesn't get as much attention because the things girls get shut out of seem more significant, but plenty of little boys like the pretty and sparkly, and it gets tromped on, hard. (My little conformist is just falling in line. He plays with his sister's girlier toys, but doesn't do anything girlie at school.
The really freaky thing is the lockstep (almost) adult insistence that it's normal. Boys just don't like that stuff. We'd be perfectly happy to encourage them to show their interest in girly things, but they are fundamentally and innately uninterested. Which is complete nonsense -- pretty sparkly things are attractive to all sorts of kids, and the boys have to be firmly pressured by peers and adults to stay away from them.
53: The girls' toy aisle is incredibly fucking creepy, just a wall of pink gender programming as far as the eye can see. The only toys you're expected to buy for girls are things that train them to be better girls; boys get toys that let them do basically everything else. This last Christmas my year-and-half-old niece was given a bright pink stroller and baby doll. This is a toddler who's being trained to care for toddlers. What the fuck?
You suck, thread!
There are some things you just can't discuss in George Bush's America, Stras.
55: I generally agree with you, but on the specific stroller for a kid of that age, the injustice isn't that the girl gets it but that a boy wouldn't. At least in my playground, toy strollers were fought over as the funnest toy ever, and they were always in short supply because the boys didn't have them but wanted them. I don't know quite what made them so attractive, but they were clearly, to a toddler of either sex, superb toys.
54: The really freaky thing is the lockstep (almost) adult insistence that it's normal. Boys just don't like that stuff.
Springing from a terror of turning the boy gay (not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that) and a strong related conviction that any boy who is seen liking "that stuff" can expect to have the crap beaten out of him on a regular basis. The latter is often a reality, but then, the reality probably wouldn't exist without the convictions.
Dude, they roll! They're strollers! They roll!
I assume it's all about the rolling due to the number of little kids I see pushing strollers with no dolls in them at all.
I am equally freaked out by the long stretch of the boys' toys aisle that is camouflage green.
Back on the subject of the thread: Yeah, I really stay away from talking about Israel, because I can't think of anything to say that doesn't back me into an untenable rhetorical position. Yes, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is horrifically oppressive. Yes, the Palestinan terrorist attacks on Israel are evil. Maybe, I have concerns about a state that conditions immigration on ethnicity. No, I don't have any idea how to preserve Israel as a safe homeland for Jews worldwide without that conditioning. Yes, I am absolutely sure that if I argue about any of this someone will be convinced that I am an evil, awful person, and that someone will often be someone I can get along with in all other respects. So I tend to keep off the subject.
Yeah, not much practical difference between pushing a stroller and pushing a toy dumptruck.
The rolling is good, but little kids like playing mommy too. Our hippie parenting circle features doll sized baby slings and front packs.
I think that's it -- they're not a nurturing toy, they're a rolling toy. To the extent they're pretend fuel, it's pretend being a grownup, not pretend caring for a baby, if you see the distinction.
63: Oh, yeah, while I was breastfeeding Newt in the sling, Sally was breastfeeding her doll in a sling we'd tied up for her from an old sarong of mine. The pretend breastfeeding weirded me out a bit, but of course she hardly ever saw him with a bottle.
LB really hits the nail on the head in 61. I hate getting pulled into such discussions, because they seem inevitably doomed.
No, I don't have any idea how to preserve Israel as a safe homeland for Jews worldwide without that conditioning.
Do we want to say that any ethnic group that has been the victim of genocide (say within the last 100 years) gets its own homeland with immigration requirements based on ethnicity, a guaranteed majority of the population, and state recognition of the special status of the ethnic group?
Are we prepared to offer the same deal to the Kurds? The Tutsi? Bosnian Muslims?
In other words, I'm going to go ahead and say the things that just cause trouble and create ugly debates.
Because Juan Cole is a nutcase?
Karon is indeed good.
It seems to me that a wagon would be a much more practical toy for children of both sexes. I don't know if we ever played with strollers, but I remember very vividly having a desparate longing for a wagon at around 6 or 7. Didn't get one.
66: You're never going to get comity, because the discussion pushes too many conflicting buttons even for people who aren't blood-and-soil types (anti-Semitism vs. colonialism, pragmatism vs. humanitarianism and so on). But sometimes even the ugly discussions are necessary.
My plan is to travel back in time to 1901 with a few dozen books on the current Israel-Palestine situation, and ask Theodor Hertzl if it's really that important that Israel be located in the same place as Palestine, and would he please give serious thought to the idea of negotiating with the US to populate one of those newly organized territories as the homeland for the Jews instead of negotiating with the British.
If the discussion sets out to "solve" the Israeli/Palestinian "problem," then of course it'll go nowhere. But we can note that it's immoral that we don't see images like this one in our newspapers, and that the polity in some ways best positioned to bring about change is, and is kept, ignorant.
67: The argument is that anti-Semitism is different; other ethnic hatreds come and go, but anti-Semitism just keeps on ticking along. I'm genuinely unsure about the validity of that argument, but I'm certain that hashing it out is a great way to lose friends.
(also I might warn him about that Hitler guy)
Wagons are awesome. You can put your sisters in them.
74: That argument is pretty odd, though. I'd guess that anti-Semitism in, say, Malaysia is a bit more prevalent than it was 300 years ago.
It seems to me that a wagon would be a much more practical toy for children of both sexes. I don't know if we ever played with strollers, but I remember very vividly having a desparate longing for a wagon at around 6 or 7. Didn't get one.
You missed out. I had one, and got my kids one. We would sit our fat little baby up in it, and her sister would pull her around the yard. They loved it.
73: That, yes. It is too easy in the US for someone not politically engaged to be ignorant of how badly Palestinans are treated by Israel. While there are discussions to be had (fuck, I hate talking about this) about what elements of that ill-treatment are made necessary by security, the public discourse really really shouldn't ignore how significant the ill treatement is.
72: do you know about the "Uganda Proposal"?
see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Uganda.html
Thanks peep, it looks like my information would have probably led to their okaying that plan in 1903. And the earth would be saved!
61
It seems simple enough to me. Japan and Germany also base citizenship on ethnicity but nobody objects much because they are in fact predominantly Japanese and German. Israel's problem is that it expanded its borders in 1967 to incorporate millions of people who did not want to be part of Israel and which Israel didn't want to accept any responsibility for. The solution is to redraw the borders of Israel so that it is once again predominantly Jewish.
79
Little of the ill treatment is necessary for security because it is not making Israel more secure.
83: The devil, as always, is in the details.
80: A project that had some concrete success was the Galveston scheme which contemplated the settlement of Jews in the American Southwest, in particular in Texas. ... some 9,300 Jews arrived in that area between 1907-1914
Well, we blew that one and thus left room for GWB. It's *always* our fault.
74: Yeah, I guess I knew that that was the reply. I just never felt comfortable with it, and am not even sure how to evaluate it. It is not hard to come up with other ethnic hatreds that are as old as anti-Semitism--conflicts between Chinese, Japanese and Koreans seem to be quite old. But these tend to be more evenly balanced.
Small hunter-gatherer groups that live near more settled agricultural and pastoral groups seem to have a really shitty time of it for long stretches of history. Groups like the !kung and Mbuti seem to be common victims of oppression, but because they have no written history, it is hard to know if these things are old and enduring.
How about Vietnamese hatred of the Hmong?
Germany toned down their nationality requirement in 1999 which I thought was a very civilized move.
81: Well, Herzl certainly could have been persuaded. But I think many of the the other early Zionists were more attached to the idea of going back to the place God originally gave to the Jews.
67: The argument is that anti-Semitism is different; other ethnic hatreds come and go, but anti-Semitism just keeps on ticking along. I'm genuinely unsure about the validity of that argument, but I'm certain that hashing it out is a great way to lose friends.
I think the underlying motivating impulse is as follows:anti-Semitism seemed to be particularly virulent in the West, that it had an unbelievably horrific effect on European Jews by means of the Holocaust, and that we had a certain responsibility based, I think, on kinship claims to make sure to minimize the possibility of that happening again.
We don't have the same sort of kinship relations to many other minority groups--say the Ainu--that we do to Jews.
81: Well, Herzl certainly could have been persuaded. But I think many of the the other early Zionists were more attached to the idea of going back to the place God originally gave to the Jews.
I thought that the idea was that you couldn't get a critical mass of Jews collected from the diaspora unless there was something strong to connect them all, like a historical land to which they all had attachment.
88: Yeah, as I recall opposition to the Uganda plan came largely from Russian Zionists who had a stronger connection to traditional religious ideas about Israel than highly assimilated Austrian Jews like Herzl.
We're barely using either of the Dakotas. If we moved all the residents into one or the other, you could fit something like nine or ten Israels into the abandoned one. And the Russian Jews would have found the weather familiar, at least.
I'm sure the Sioux would have loved that plan.
93: Have you been to North Dakota? I wouldn't move an ethnic group there as a punishment.
93: but we (suddenly I'm feeling very Jewish!) decided to take Miami and Phoenix instead.
Indians don't count, teo. Didn't you take American history?
I took American history. It mostly consisted of "no, really, guys, the Indians count!"
Here's what you do. Give the West River portions of both dakotas back to the Sioux. The East River portions can go to the jews. Screw Whitey.
The capitalization in that comment is even more odd than my usual standards of excellence in oddity.
"no, really, guys, the Indians count!"
Poor, gullible, teo.
Screw Whitey
What did Whitey Ford ever do to you?
It's all about Florida, people. For one thing, the sovereign Jewish people of Florida wouldn't have stood for all this global warming.
an unbelievably horrific effect on European Jews by means of the Holocaust, and that we had a certain responsibility based, I think, on kinship claims
This is a pretty accurate diagnosis, I think. When I was a kid, for example, my school always put a lot of pressure on us to recognize that the Holocaust was unprecedented in human history, precisely because its victims were so appealing (i.e., literate white Europeans).
89: that it had an unbelievably horrific effect
Yeah. Anyone besides me old enough to remember listening to the UN vote on the radio in 1948? The tension in the house was terrific. I certainly didn't understand it all but I sure as hell knew something important was happening and it was presented as something very important to MY survival. The camps and ovens were still fairly recent events, lots of GIs had seen the results, survivors were still looking for relatives and friends, etc. Very intense stuff and not ancient history.
'Twasn't unbelievably horrific, seeing and hearing is believing.
104: Except that they were confused by those ballots and voted for Buchanan.
Agreed that strollers--rather than wagons--are good rolling toys for kids from about 1-3. First, they push rather than pull, so kids can use them as walkers and see what's in them, neither of which can really be done with wagons (or dump trucks). Second, like LB says, they're both rolling and nurturing toys. Third, they're imitative: kids that age are themselves pushed in strollers. It's just basic imitating mom and dad stuff.
Another fabulous toy for a kid that age is a little broom and dustpan set. I'm totally not kidding.
Matt and I are proof that there is more than one kind of Whitey.
108: Jesus, I wish we'd never gotten Noah a toy broom. He's a fucking menace with thing.
106: It was a memorable event in my mom's life.
She was a teenager in Tel Aviv at the time.
Seriously, when my hockey stick fear reaches the level that I have to hide them, I always forget the broom. I'm considering just wearing a cup 24/7.
Another fabulous toy for a kid that age is a little broom and dustpan set. I'm totally not kidding.
Is that supposed to be an imitative thing too? Because any kid of mine wouldn't have the first freaking clue what to do with them.
116: the broom makes a good weapon, regardless.
The thing that pisses me off about Israel/Palestine discussions is that, outside of a very small minority of Yglesias-type* liberals, no one appears remotely willing to just apply the basic principles of liberal internationalism, widely held or at least given lip service by most lefties, to the situation. So everyone is willing to say in principle that colonialism is bad, that torture is bad, that indefinite detention is bad, that terrorism can't be confronted only militarily but must also be addressed politically, etc., and in fact when any of these subjects come up in the context of Iraq you'll hear liberals harp on them til they're blue in the face. But heaven forfend that anyone apply the same fucking lessons to Israel, because that might make our dinner conversations uncomfortable.
*here to be taken to mean "unusually bright, honest and analytical," not "Jewish."
Michael Chabon's next book is an alternate universe story in which European Jews resettled in Alaska.
Kids do love toy strollers. Not only do you push them; you get to stand up at the same time.
They are great for learning to walk with too. Just put some heavy books in them.
118: I know I've had the same experience in the context of dinner conversations with other Jews: criticism of Israel is very taboo in most Jewish circles. Does this really happen with non-Jews as well? That's weird to me.
118: can't say I've met many pro-colonialism etc liberals in this context - if anything I think you've got the sign wrong about consistency on Israel (except for Chomsky fans).
One vote for a Kurdish homeland (pony included).
118: What you describe seems to be general consensus amongst my friends, at least the ones I've had this discussion with. Outside that fairly small group though, such discussions invariably fall apart rapidly. I think LB is questioning the utility of having the conversation in many contexts, where it is extremely likely to derail really quickly.
I'm kind of nervous about a Kurdish homeland, myself.
121: Well, in a crowd of entirely non-Jewish, it actually feels even more uncomfortable. Talking about an important part of another ethnic group's identity, no matter how coherent and apt your argument, will always seem pretty presumptuous and a little obsessive/bigoted without someone representing the group around.
It's like talking behind someone's back, only you're doing it to an entire group. When you're the personification of "The Man", you can't really get away with that shit.
Stras beat me to it with 118.
The problem is not that there aren't rhetorically and logically tenable positions; the problem is that people in North America especially are accustomed to cutting off the debate by shouting "anti-Semitism!" There was a time when that might have been understandable, but that time is past, and it's necessary for people to get their heads around that.
I'd say even the "bolt-hole" argument is getting pretty threadbare by this point. It sounds superficially plausible, but how many Jews really long for a "bolt-hole" that's increasingly an armed camp in perpetual conflict with a widening circle of enemies? How much sense does even make to conceive of states this way in an increasingly nuclear age?
121: Does this really happen with non-Jews as well?
Lots. The fear of enabling anti-Semitism often outweighs distaste for colonialism. And I suspect a lot of people have friends or acquaintances with ties to Israel even if they're not Jewish themselves.
"criticism of Israel is very taboo in most Jewish circles"
In my experience more Jews are vocally against Israeli policies relative to the liberal mainstream than the opposite. Maybe that comes from not hanging out with conservatives.
Does this really happen with non-Jews as well?
It really does. I have friends who I can tell want to say angry things about Israel, but don't even when it's just the two of us talking, and I'm a Shia, for crying out loud. They might just be very sensitive to the fact that my ex is Jewish, but that shouldn't really matter, given that there's no essential relation between being Jewish and supporting Israel; I think it's just an internalized taboo.
The fear of enabling anti-Semitism often outweighs distaste for colonialism.
Do that many non-Jewish would-be Israel critics think they'd actually be "enabling anti-Semitism"? The impression I get is that people are always afraid of being perceived as anti-Semitic, which is something else entirely.
I'd say even the "bolt-hole" argument is getting pretty threadbare by this point.
I'm not Jewish, but this I disagree with vehemently. If I were Jewish, I would never, ever give up the place to run.
Also, I think the ground under the I/P has shifted dramatically, and continues to do so. And I think the neocons fucked Israel, however unintentionally, pretty hard.
In families I know of (not mine) discussions of Israel/Palestine risk getting bogged down in a fight between the anti-Semites and the anti-Arabs.
I'm kind of nervous about a Kurdish homeland, myself.
And I think a Kurdish homeland will be Israel II in terms of problems, except not as fun and much more bloody.
125 seems very wrong to me. Kurdish nationalism seems like it would be a relatively important part of Kurdish identity, but that hasn't stopped plenty of Americans from discussing the merits and pitfalls of Kurdish independence, with or without the presence of actual Kurds in the conversation. Is that "presumptuous and a little obsessive/bigoted"?
Do that many non-Jewish would-be Israel critics think they'd actually be "enabling anti-Semitism"? The impression I get is that people are always afraid of being perceived as anti-Semitic, which is something else entirely.
Not quite the impression I get. It's not being perceived as anti-Semitic, but rather, simply being accused of it -- an often disengenuous charge, in my view.
I'm in the possibly odd situation of simply not knowing whether I'm Jewish (adopted, just don't know, could be), so my own participation in, and experience of, such conversations is apparently outside the parameters of the discussion as framed here, i.e. among Jews, among non-Jews.
I'm not Jewish, but this I disagree with vehemently. If I were Jewish, I would never, ever give up the place to run.
This seems patently crazy to me. Do you really think Jews are safer in Israel than they are in the United States?
134: What relationship do we have to the Kurds that we might want to be particularly sensitive to them? What history of anti-Kurdism is there in the West to worry about?
130: Do that many non-Jewish would-be Israel critics think they'd actually be "enabling anti-Semitism"?
On the left, at least, I think that's often a real fear. After all, most of Israel's critics in a North American context really were anti-Semites before a certain point in time; as uncomfortable conversations about Israel go, I remember having one during my undergrad years with a group of barely-disguised crypto-skins that's sent chills down my spine ever since. When the familiar examples of anti-Israeli sentiment were guys like that (or like Col. Qadafi), and the familiar examples of pro-Israeli sentiment were the B'nai Brith, it wasn't hard to dismiss anti-Israeli sentiment out of hand. And I think a lot of people are still in that space, despite the fairly radical changes in the parameters and composition of the debate in the last decade.
133.--Well, yes, that's what I fear. And Virtual Kurdistan is entirely landlocked, isn't it?
Do you really think Jews are safer in Israel than they are in the United States?
Well, they're better armed, at least...
136: Nobody built a bomb shelter to immediately clamber into. It's insurance: you use it when you need it.
137: What does our relationship with the Kurds have to do with it? 125 makes an argument that applies to all ethnic groups, not just ones with whom we have close historical ties.
Of course, America was, in fact, complicit in the slaughter of Iraqi Kurds. That Americans don't really acknowledge this doesn't make it any less true.
And there's still some real anti-Semitism attached to criticism of Israel. My mother (who must never find this blog. Even if she does, she'd never read the comments. I hope.) has firm opinions rationally critiquing Israel for all the same reasons plenty of reasonable decent people do. And she's an anti-Semite. Nothing that's a problem in public or anything, "some of her best friends are...", but clearly and definitely, and it's part of what motivates her pro-Palestinian position.
This gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies, because I think she's largely right on the merits of her position on the Palestians, but I know she gets there because she's not fond of Jews.
134: Partly it's the difference between discussing whether something imaginary should be real (ostensibly constructive) and discussing whether something extant should be non-existant (ostensibly destructive). The other part is probably fear of being construed as anti-semitic.
To be honest, it just doesn't come up that often among my friends. We're way more likely to discuss trade and Asian politics.
142: I see the merit in 125, as adjusted by me. I was agreeing with it to that extent, that's all.
We've been complicit in a lot of bad things. What matters is the acknowledgment.
Nobody built a bomb shelter to immediately clamber into. It's insurance: you use it when you need it.
"When you need to use it"? Is David Duke about to become president anytime soon? Look, it's not just that American Jews are fairly safe from serious anti-Semitism in America, it's that Israeli Jews aren't that safe in Israel. When I think "bomb shelter," I think about something that's safe, secure, and stable. "Safe, secure, and stable" does not describe the Mideast in 2007.
Talking about an important part of another ethnic group's identity.
Is support for certain Israeli policies essential to be Jewish? I think it'd be a fascinating discussion, but then I look at Sausagely getting hammered by various people and think the social unpleasantness isn't worth getting concerned about distant injustice.
I am ashamed of that conclusion. May I get more like McManus.
I've long held that the best place for Jewish resettlement was the western portions of Nebraska and Kansas, since they're virtually a land without people right now. But then I was thinking the other day, heck, why don't we just turn over all of Nebraska? Maybe Ioway could annex Sarpy County, so we'd still have Offut AFB, and of course we could expand the relatively small reservations a bit just to be nice, but basically they could have the whole state. Then they'd be nicely insulated from the nearest concentrations of Muslims in Minneapolis and Detroit, with lots of good arable land, and a pretty decent infrastructure too. Omaha is already a center for all kinds of medical stuff, that would just be icing on the cake. (Because it would attract a lot of Indian and Chinese doctors and biomedical researchers, you see, and then the excellence of Omaha cuisine would skyrocket.)
Is David Duke about to become president anytime soon?
Never say never. The Reds took two Presidential elections in a row, and the New Populism scares me quite a bit. And they aren't that unsafe in Israel--I have no idea what the death rate from terrorism in Israel is, but I don't think it's cutting into the birth rate.
143: And some raging anti-Semites were motivated by their anti-Semitism to oppose the Iraq war (Pat Buchanan, for instance). That wasn't a reason to not oppose the Iraq war, and it certainly wasn't a reason not to speak out about it. That bad people (or people with bad traits or bad motives) may be on your side doesn't make your side bad.
143: And there's still some real anti-Semitism attached to criticism of Israel.
Unfortunately, though, there is no side of the Israel debate that is free of anti-Semites, and no argument involved pro- or anti- that will not have anti-Semite backers in some form. Many of Israel's most vocal non-Jewish "friends" in America are interested primarily in throwing weight behind the most militant faction of Israeli society for their own reasons -- they don't necessarily like or care about Jews.
(Of course, Zionists themselves have never had any illusions about this; their guiding assumption, somewhat understandably, has always been that anyone who wanted to help them might be doing so for the wrong reasons, but as long as Israel's ends were fulfilled that wouldn't matter. And for a while that reasoning seemed to pay off.)
Never say never.
Break me a fucking give. Outline for me a plausible scenario in which anti-Semitic pogroms come into style in the modern U.S.
152: I tell you what: show me your model that predicts the Holocaust first. I'll work off of that.
Partly it's the difference between discussing whether something imaginary should be real (ostensibly constructive) and discussing whether something extant should be non-existant (ostensibly destructive)
Wait a second. Who said anything about questioning Israel's right to exist? How is criticizing Israeli policy automatically "discussing whether something extant should be non-existant"?
148: Actually, since it's a big, open area many times the size of Israel, I think we should expand its purpose. Make it open to all historically persecuted minorities without a nation where they're a majority. Free land for all Jews, Hmong, Tutsis, Kurds and anyone else with a good claim to lacking a homeland. Since most of these groups seem to number in about the millions or maybe tens of millions, they will form a pretty good plurality that doesn't need to worry much about a monoculture's oppression.
And there's still some real anti-Semitism attached to criticism of Israel.
And there's not-even-veiled anti-Arab sentiment on the pro-Israeli side--if we can bracket that, we can bracket the anti-semitism.
146: The standard answer to the first part is that the German Jews thought they were safe too, and look what happened. I don't necessarily agree with that analysis, but that's the answer you hear. As for the second, Israel may not be in a safe part of the world, but the point is that the Jews are in charge there and have a top-notch military, so if anyone's going to try another genocide they have the means to stop it. I really don't agree with that analysis, but, again, it's the standard answer.
Who said anything about questioning Israel's right to exist?
Not you, but it's something that comes up from time to time.
And I don't know how serious the Dakota proposals are, but if you'd plopped a bunch of eastern europeans in the middle of rural America, then it would be America today with the "jewish problem." People hate the nearest different people.
154: Oh, well, that's different. I never really feel any compunction about criticizing some of the heavy-handedness of the Israeli government, regardless of company. I was just jumping to conclusions because of my own extreme discomfort with the founding principals of Israel due to liberal gut feelings that no nation should base its identity upon ethnicity or any kind of religious tradition.
153: There were already a shitload of pogroms in Europe before the Holocaust, Tim. Followed by the rise of right-wing political parties that started calling for the mass incarceration and killing of Jews. That sure as shit shouldn't have been too hard to predict. Show me the pattern of recent anti-Semitic violence in America that would lead a reasonable observer to believe that it's safer for Jews in Israel than in the U.S.
The minority group that's most at risk of a Holocaust-like event in America isn't Jews, it's Muslims. This should be terribly, terribly obvious right now.
149: And they aren't that unsafe in Israel--I have no idea what the death rate from terrorism in Israel is, but I don't think it's cutting into the birth rate.
Terrorism actually isn't the main reason I don't buy the "bolt-hole" argument. It's more that concentrating population as a security solution just doesn't make that much sense in the age of modern warfare. The remainder of the Middle East isn't going to stay non-nuclear forever (after all, what reason does it have to do so?), and Pakistan's nukes may well not always be trained at India. If Israel must always be preserved as an ethnic state in order to function as a "place to run" -- in most views meaning it can never entertain the right of return, which probably will be on the table if the post-'67 issues are ever resolved -- then it cannot practically function as such a place.
153: I dunno about a "model" but there was a decade and a half of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda (which the Left warned everyone about), suppression of dissent (which the Left warned everyone about) ever-more vicious pogroms and political riots (which the Left warned everyone about), the Third Reich's support of Franco and the Falange (which the Left warned everyone about) and the earliest reports of the Holocaust itself, which, surprise surprise, the Left warned everyone about.
I don't think David Duke could personally ever become President of the US, but we've certainly found to our horror that the current administration can carry out policies that Duke would applaud and there's no insurrection, or rioting or even much of an electoral penalty.
I think Lenin said that we should never ignore the differences between the bourgeois parties -- the corollary today might be an exhortation to focus intently on the similarities of the reactionary parties.
Of course, as we all know, this time around it will be (and already is in small degree) the Muslims being shipped to the camps, but that's just an accident of history.
Wait a second. Who said anything about questioning Israel's right to exist? How is criticizing Israeli policy automatically "discussing whether something extant should be non-existant"?
Again, the argument is that barring the right of return, which most people making this critique include as problematic, that Israel would not remain Jewish-majority for long, and at that point would no longer exist as Israel.
159: I think people would have much more trouble with the "giving up American territory for free" part of the agreement than they would with the "them Jews are awful close to us now" part. We're talking about the midwest, ogged. Surely you know that we don't bomb people here. Anti-semitism at its worst here consists of asking "Did they really had to charge so much for the lox?" *nudge nudge wink wink* as you walk out of the deli.
Personally, I don't buy the "bolt-hole" argument for the reasons DS gives in 162.
If one cares about preserving culture (say, one's language), then America might be said to be a very dangerous place. It's hard for me to get too upset about say Yiddish, but if we went with the one-state solution for the problem of poverty in China I'd feel differently.
166: Yes, it always did seem exceedingly generous of Allied powers to give away someone else's land.
Again, the argument is that barring the right of return, which most people making this critique include as problematic, that Israel would not remain Jewish-majority for long, and at that point would no longer exist as Israel.
Full citizenship rights for the 3.5 to 4 million Palestinians living on Israeli territory and the 1.4 million Arabs already living in Israel proper would ostensibly do the same thing.
Anti-semitism at its worst here
Sure, but it would have been much worse. Anyway, just a silly counterfactual.
Are we talking about whether Israel is a "good idea" now? Seems to me that Isreal is a totally understandable neurotic reaction to a horrible evil, and that it can't possibly last--there are just too many Arabs and too few Jews in too little space. I have a naive hope that it can all end with the acknowledgement of demographic inevitability, but I suspect that lots and lots of people will die first.
166 is largely true -- in large part because the American Midwest doesn't come with the population and resource management issues that the Middle East comes with. One could, of course, expect a considerable up-tick in anti-Semitism and kooky "Zionist Occupation Government" groups.
164: That's not what I get from that at all. When I hear someone talk about "Israel's right to exist," I assume they're talking about critics of Israel's existence, not critics of Israel's existence as a Jewish-majority state.
It's hard for me to get too upset about say Yiddish
Um, why? I'm pretty upset about Yiddish. But I think we've had this discussion before.
165: I hardly think ADL skinhead-baiting qualifies as something a "reasonable person" would discern to be a "pattern". Banging the "Nazis Under Your Bed!" drum is how they make their money, after all. Neo-Nazis and Klansmen are despicable people, and I never shed a tear if I hear that something bad has happened to one of them, but at most they constitute .005% of the population of this country, and their ability to recruit any more than that is sharply limited. Furthermore, they're economically and socially marginalized. If you want to talk about white people (including Jews), especially those in positions of power, who have a deep-seated hatred and suspicion of Muslims and Arabs, however, you start to talk some pretty significant numbers indeed.
174: But the whole idea of "Israel" is that it's a Jewish state.
177: Too bad that it's got all those other people living there, then.
Quick note on 170: Yes I do know that the 1.4 million Arab citizens of Israel already have equal protection rights under Israeli law, but they still seem to be lumped in with the Palestinian Arabs as an interest group when I hear people bring up Israeli demographics.
178: Well, yes. I didn't say it was a good idea.
174: Yeah, I think you're just being obtuse there. The patch of land isn't going anywhere -- it's still going to exist. I think any discussion of "Israel's right to exist" has an implicit "as a Jewish state" attached. If you want to foreground that language and object to it, that could make sense, but refusing to acknowledge that that's what people are likely to mean is going to lead to pointless misunderstandings.
On "Israel = Jewish state," here's a thought experiment. Let's say Israel keeps the right of return, but for whatever reason diaspora Jews just all decide to stop emigrating to Israel, and the population growth of Jews within Israel isn't enough to sustain a Jewish majority there. Would we say that Israel had ceased to exist, and that those diaspora Jews who decided not to move there were responsible for its destruction? That seems absurd to me.
174: Those are meant to be the same thing. If Israel is to be a Jewish state, and not just another country that's not so bad to live in that has a fair number of Jewish people, then the idea central to that is that the Jewish people are the ones in charge for once. If that's the idea of Israel, then anything that changes that turns Israel from The Jewish State into an unremarkable little republic can easily be construed as anti-Israel.
I suspect 172 gets it right.
Would we say that Israel had ceased to exist, and that those diaspora Jews who decided not to move there were responsible for its destruction?
Yes, and there are people who do say this.
Are we talking about whether Israel is a "good idea" now?
That's what I'm generally talking about. I'm too young and too lacking in historical perspective to really second-guess events of 60 years ago with any kind of certainty.
I agree that it made some sense at the time, it was probably impossible to understand just how thorough the guilt over the Holocaust would be in Western Europe back in 1948 (hell, they're even willing to curb freedom of speech over it). But I also agree that it probably makes very little sense as it exists and the moment. And unfortunately, I agree with your suspicion about the future path.
That is, they warn that it could happen, and in exactly those terms.
182: Yes, although people would probably not be so broken up over it. If no Jews are facing enough hardships to make the move worthwhile, perhaps Israel's day has passed.
Errr... the correct tense should be "will have passed", I think (since I'm talking about a future hypothetical and not current events)?
The "right to exist" stuff is of course where it starts to get hot.
Really, the "right to exist" polemic is meant to frame people who deny the practicality, necessity and moral authority of an ethnocratic Jewish state in the Middle East as would-be genocidaires who dream of seeing the Jews driven into the sea. To a degree, understandable, as such people really do exist.
But of course, no state anywhere comes into being with innate qualities of practicality, necessity and moral authority that bequeath it an eternal "right to exist." States exist as long as they are practically viable and defensible and are able to retain moral authority in the eyes of their citizens and allies (which flows from the ability to convince citizens and allies of their necessity). When they lose some or all of those qualities, they cease to exist. This routinely happens to states of all descriptions across the globe, and it's simply not possible to exempt Israel from that process.
The truth is, the "right to exist" thing is a red herring. But that's one of the things that even the most vociferous of Israel's critics are often unwilling to state, because it's sure to snag the "you're an eliminationist!" tripwire.
184: I think that's a needlessly apocalyptic way of phrasing it. "The end of Israel" calls to mind images of what Iran hawks think will happen if the Crazy Persians get the bomb. Someone like Tony Judt isn't calling for the destruction of Israel; he's calling for an Israel that incorporates Jews and Arabs. I have no idea if that's workable, or realistic, or more realistic than a two-state solution (which strikes me as incredibly problematic on its own), but it's not the same thing as eliminating the state of Israel. It's making a fairly radical change to Israel, but under the assumption that this change is necessary. Framing it as the end of Israel's existence makes any discussion of the issue beyond the pale, because you can't very well call into question Israel's existence without kind of sounding like a Nazi.
there are just too many Arabs and too few Jews in too little space.
With all due respect, ogged, this is a woefully incomplete description of the problem. There is lots of open space in the Arab world. The greater problem is that many governments do not want the Palestinians as their citizens and many Palestinians do not want to go someplace else. And there are many people--and governments--in the Middle East who want the Jews driven out of Israel; the problem of the survival of a significant, autonomous Jewish community in the middle east is about much more than the Jews accepting demographic inevitability.
I think you're right to criticize the usage for the reasons you give -- I just don't think you can do that without taking it head on. Refusing to acknowledge that that's what people mean by 'calling into question Israel's existence' is just going to involve everyone arguing past each other.
And there are many people--and governments--in the Middle East who want the Jews driven out of Israel; the problem of the survival of a significant, autonomous Jewish community in the middle east is about much more than the Jews accepting demographic inevitability.
And this is also a real point -- there is a genuine, non-paranoid, possible safety issue for Jews in Israel if it becomes no longer a majority Jewish state.
I've lived as a Jew for nearly thirty years, observing Jewish sabbaths and holidays and attending services while not observing or attending Christian ones, and have been formally converted for over a dozen years. While not raised to this issue, I've lived with it for a long time. I think there has been a lot of movement toward Yglesias's view in that time. My late mother-in-law, my mentor in these matters, explained that the few people a generation or so for whom universal values trumped peoplehood, of whom Hannah Arendt was the outstanding figure, were almost universally thought to be too hard and uncaring even by people who couldn't disagree on principle. But she thought there was a fundamental dissonance between the widespread revulsion among Jews against force used by the US and other countries, and the support of it in the case of Israel. She expected this would be resolved, to the degree it would be, by a minority who would extend the Israeli sanction to include the US, neocons basically, and a majority who would extend the disposition against force and war to include Israel, particularly as existential threads from foreign militaries receded. And she thought this change would be generational.
Seriously, though, by now empty places like North Dakota are empty for a reason. There's really no empty land anymore, except in a few scattered civil war freefire zoones.
There is lots of open space in the Arab world. The greater problem is that many governments do not want the Palestinians as their citizens and many Palestinians do not want to go someplace else.
Wait. Why is it incumbent upon Palestinians to pick up and move to other countries, rather than getting full rights in the land where they live?
Basic question: how much does it change Israeli Jews' demographic problem to go 2-state, lop off Palestine, and just have the Arabs inside the pre-67 borders to deal with? If that happened, could immigration and baby-making do the trick?
There is lots of open space in the Arab world. The greater problem is that many governments do not want the Palestinians as their citizens and many Palestinians do not want to go someplace else.
Arabs share a language (but even local dialects aren't totally mutually comprehensible), but it's not as if you can just plop a Palestinian Arab any old place and problem solved. To say that the "problem" is that the Palestinians just won't go away seems a bit convenient.
To say that the "problem" is that the Palestinians just won't go away seems a bit convenient.
Well see, I never said that. I was reacting to the claim that this is all about too many people and too little space and demographic inevitability.
"he's calling for an Israel that incorporates Jews and Arabs."
Funnily enough, it does already. It's more like he wants to give Hamas the keys to the Israeli air force in the absence of superpowered ponies.
"rather than getting full rights in the land where they live?"
That's what everybody rational is for - it's the two-state solution following the Clinton Parameters.
191, 196, 198: And we're off.
Sorry. I'll drop from the thread; let Friday night comity be restored. I've huge piles of work to do anyway.
202 was me. Also I'm taking 200's hint and getting back to exploding galaxies.
Don't drop on my account, I was just identifying the moment when the conversation makes me get avoidant.
I think the topic we should focus on is Israeli abortion policy.
What does rich John Edwards say about Israeli abortion policy in his big house made of poverty-stricken stem cells?
I'm not annoyed yet!
It's the Persian way. "I'm very sorry to have to do this" he says as he SAWS YOUR HEAD OFF.
That's what everybody rational is for - it's the two-state solution following the Clinton Parameters.
And what, pray tell, were the Clinton Parameters? Does this refer to the deal Arafat famously walked away from in 2000? Because I don't think anybody rational is actually for a Palestinian "state" carved up by Israeli settlements, checkpoints and military outposts.
Even a two-state solution along '67 borders is pretty problematic. How well is Palestine going to function as a bifurcated state separated from itself by a fairly hostile neighbor? Israel would still have the advantage of being able to cut off, invade or shut down Gaza pretty much whenever it wants, and unless it drastically changes its approach to foreign policy and preventive war, there's no reason to think it wouldn't do so periodically, just as there's no reason to think Hamas and Islamic Jihad wouldn't continue with suicide bombers and rocket attacks. I don't see how this situation is really that more workable than a one-state solution. It's just more politically acceptable.
everybody rational
All three of them, and those in a snowed-in monastery somewhere in Tibet? There's no rationality, it's all based on emotional attachment to land, grievances, and what a very confused and ambiguous god tells people who wander around in the hot sun for too long.
The only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to be settled is by mushroom clouds.
Creating DakotaZion would be very efffective, but it won't happen for the same reason, only ^10, that you can't just move all the palestinians into some surrounding arab countries: coordination, not 'giving in', historical ties to the land, etc.
Having seen the picture and not read any of the comments here, I am now prepared to vote for any candidates the Jihadi party cares to nominate in the next election.
I wish there were a way to have this conversation without the anger, y'know? There are new things being said here that I think are worth thinking about, but I'm really put off by the hostility. Shouldn't be surprised.
Thanks for this photo, which shows that Jews have no moral claim to superiority over Palestinians. Jewish kids yank on Palestinian women's head coverings, and Palestinian kids kill Jews in suicide bomb attacks. The same.
Gosh, you're right GB. The Jews really are inherently more moral than the Palestinians, whose children are all suicide bombers. Thanks for explaining the entire Israeli/Arab conflict so clearly.
Jewish kids yank on Palestinian women's head coverings, and Palestinian kids kill Jews in suicide bomb attacks. The same.
And this is the subject that has the power to turn the blogosphere into Fox.
Thanks for this photo, which shows that Jews have no moral claim to superiority over Palestinians. Jewish kids yank on Palestinian women's head coverings, and Palestinian kids kill Jews in suicide bomb attacks. The same.
Dude, do you really want to match up body counts?
Aren't some things too stupid to respond to?
They should be, but it's late on a Friday night and there's nothing else going on.
I propose a worldwide moratorium on fucking.
Shut up, Stanley. Why are you commenting?
Speaking of worldwide moratoriums on fucking, I went to see Children of Man tonight. Damn, that's a great movie.
Man, men, whatever. It's all sexist anyway.
Damn, that's a great movie.
Did you think so? It's great looking, and pretty gripping, but fuck if I know what it's about, or what it's saying about what it's about.
That's what we need to talk about: how can anyone think it's ok to make a movie that doesn't have titties in it? If these bastard commenters are honest, they'll admit that they go into every movie hoping to see titties, and they feel cheated if they don't. Eh, bastard commenters?
With what enforcement mechanism?
Mandatory viewings of this should suffice.
Shut up, Stanley. Why are you commenting?
Preach; practice. Them's the rules, b.
"Children of Man" would be even more religious than "Children of Men".
they'll admit that they go into every movie hoping to see titties, and they feel cheated if they don't.
Word.
Mandatory viewings of this should suffice.
Yep, that'll do it.
228: Great-looking, gripping, and complicated: in what ways are these three things not good?
Nice try, B, you slippery eel. It wasn't "complicated" as in "complex and sophisticated," but as in "this probably doesn't make any sense."
Maybe you're just not very bright. What parts of it didn't make sense?
Oh, who can fucking remember. Some people have posted about it. But I can't even remember the posts. Let's comitize: Clive Owen is a movie star.
Which is to day, b/c that sounded awfully didactic and ponderous, that I found it awfully thought-provoking, and kind of liked how it wasn't bashing me in the head with a Heavy Moral, or tying everything up with a pretty bow in the end. I liked the unexplained parts of the context the story took place in, and the way that my emotional reactions to the situations--like, oh, that's depressing, I can imagine being suicidal, wow, that's an interesting thought, that that particular situation would make one suicidal (even leaving aside the apocalyptic stuff), hmm; and then, yay, a baby! but hmm, really? Isn't a single specimen of a species really pretty much depressing, regardless? So what?
I really liked the scene where the soldiers stopped firing, and then started firing on their own army.
I do have to say, though, that if that woman was 8 months pregnant, I'm an elephant. Also, way easy labor. Not that that doesn't sometimes happen, but, man.
The most interesting thing, to me, was the irregular spacing of the buttons on Clive Owens' future shirt.
One of my friends (half South Asian, half Jewish, all New Yorker) is fond of saying he's opposed to all religious states carved out by England after WWII: both Pakistan and Israel.
Aren't some things too stupid to respond to?
I read your post as intending to send the message, "See, the Jews aren't nice to Palestinians, either, so it's all a wash." Well, if the best you can stack up against a generation of Palestinian children being indoctrinated into a culture of suicide-bombing genocidal "martyrdom" is a photo of two Jewish kids acting rudely toward a Palestinian woman... you're wrong. It's just that simple.
"too stupid to respond to" s/b "uncomfortably at odds with the fantasy world of moral equivalence I have spun, cocoon-like, around myself"
I read your post as intending to send the message, "See, the Jews aren't nice to Palestinians, either, so it's all a wash."
Oh go fuck yourself. The post is obviously nothing of the sort.
Fuck you, asshole. See, I can curse, too.
Wow, that felt good. I'm a big man now!
By the way, have you guys heard of this blog called Rootless Cosmopolitan? I hear it's worth reading.
BTW, if anyone would care to expand upon the non-profane part of gswift's words of wisdom, then by all means please do share with me as to the true message of Ogged's post, which I have apparently blatantly misread.
I'm willing to be enlightened, but "go fuck yourself" just isn't doing the trick.
"share with me as to the" s/b "share with me the"
please do share with me as to the true message of Ogged's post, which I have apparently blatantly misread.
Fine, let's go real slow then.
First sentence is a dig at one side media coverage of the conflict in the U.S. Then there's a couple sentences of snark. We then segue into Ogged pointing us towards a blog by an editor of Time.
Okay, so you seem to be asserting that a whole post is no more than the sum of its parts, each taken literally. I disagree.
But at any rate, taking you at your word that the photo in question illustrates the other side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the side that America's "one side media coverage" is ignoring, makes my point all the more clearly: On one side, you have a death cult that indoctrinates young children to carry out terrorist bombings deliberately intended to kill as many civilians as possible, and on the other side, you have kids acting like brats.
I disagree that these two sides are equally newsworthy. I mean, I just can't see the headlines, can you? "Jewish girl tugs head covering of Palestinian woman! Possible whiplash suspected! Details at eleven!"
Finally, I note that an international peacekeeping force in Hebron, enforcing a buffer zone between the Palestinians and the Israelis, was at one point forced to flee after being attacked by... the Palestinians.
Yeah, apartheid has a way of pissing people off.
But what the fuck do I care? Israel is a country of what, 6 million where approx. 1 out of 4 people are Arabs. Furthermore, they are completely surrounded by Muslim Arab countries. Israel exists because of aid from the U.S., a country whose composition is increasingly of people with no dog in this fight. The way Israel is going about this, it's not a matter if that sun blasted rock of a country goes down, but when.
Israel is a country of what, 6 million where approx. 1 out of 4 people are Arabs.
Funny how you never see an Arab country where approx. 1 out of four people are Jews.
Also, it would be one-sided of me not to acknowledge a positive step by the Palestinians: They are, thankfully, keeping their latest round of senseless killing to themselves.
The making of documentary that appears on the DVD is pretty interesting, too. Amazing amount of work went into blocking out the camera shots and rehearsing as huge swathes of the movie were shot as single (10 or 15 minute) takes with no cuts using a single camera. Big technical demands placed on the actors.
Also, I want to look like Clive Owen when I grow up...
Also, I want to look like Clive Owen when I grow up...
Seems to be a lot of variation on this. Some women swoon, then there's my wife and her ilk, "great actor, but not a good looking man at all."
Really, GB, go fuck yourself and die.
I find Ogged's reaction to Children of Men interesting but puzzling. Not being able to tell what a movie is "about" and feeling that it probably doesn't make any sense don't seem like the same order of problem to me. I didn't find anything incoherent about it at all, but agree that it didn't seem to be presenting much in the way of pointed commentary on the events it presented. I like that, myself ("if you want to send a message, try Western Union").
It is true that the plot itself is fairly thin in that it doesn't have much in the way of surprises or complexity; the heft of the film comes from the detail and plausibility of the milieu and seeing how people navigate it, rather than the events themeselves. I thought that element was more than enough to hold up a movie, especially in combination with excellent acting, direction, editing, and art direction, but can certainly understand if someone with different priorities didn't like it as much as I did.
strasmangelo jones, my tongue in cheek response to gswift notwithstanding, I refuse to sink to your immature, irrational level. Obviously you have no intelligent points to make. Why not go watch videos of skateboarders wiping out on YouTube or something?
It's amazing, if not surprising, to see how quickly the Rational Enlightened Voices of the blogosphere expose themselves as belligerent, ill-tempered, unthinking bullies as soon as someone passes on the opportunity to join in their circle jerk of moral equivalency.
If Hamas and Fatah can't even stop killing each other, how on earth can anyone expect Israel to make peace with them? At some point, perhaps you will realize that Israel, and whatever injustices it may perpetrate as it desperately struggles to ensure its mere survival, cannot possibly explain all the nihilism, violence, and sheer immorality that emanates from the Palestinian territories, and that maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors bear some shred of responsibility for their actions and their circumstances.
Or perhaps not.
The only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to be settled is by mushroom clouds.
Unfortunately, this is true. It will be solved when the entire area is an unlivable radioactive hot zone. And seriously, GB: the post was about how the media covers the conflict, and your heated reaction to a point that nobody here has made is exactly why nobody wants to talk about the issue. And why people like me are totally out of patience with both sides and half wish they would just ahead and get the nuking over with already.
Level one liberal argument: "Go fuck yourself"
Level two liberal argument: "Go fuck yourself and die"
I have no idea what Level Three holds in store, but I am sure it will be similarly compelling.
Cross-posted with 260 with 261. Saying a post and its comments can be about the media coverage of an issue, but NOT about the merits of the issue itself and whether they actually warrant a particular kind of coverage, seems like splitting hairs to me. But if that's the way it is, fine. I'll play along.
So, how about that Clive Owen?
I refuse to sink to your immature, irrational level
You sunk way below that once you started cheering on Palestinians killing each other, GB.
If Hamas and Fatah can't even stop killing each other, how on earth can anyone expect Israel to make peace with them?
You're aware that Fatah is being armed by the US, right? And that the US and Israel have been starving Palestine of funds and tax revenue since Hamas was elected in an effort to destabilize the government, in the hopes that Fatah would eventually rise up again and reclaim power? So given that Fatah/Hamas violence is being actively encouraged by the US and Israel, how the hell are you interpreting this burgeoning civil war as the Palestinians entirely rejecting peace?
Seriously, let's not engage GB on this, mkay?
GB, I am, with some sadness, breaking my policy of doing my best to ignore your comments in order to point out that when you enter a thread by saying things like
Thanks for this photo, which shows that Jews have no moral claim to superiority over Palestinians. Jewish kids yank on Palestinian women's head coverings, and Palestinian kids kill Jews in suicide bomb attacks. The same.
and
Well, if the best you can stack up against a generation of Palestinian children being indoctrinated into a culture of suicide-bombing genocidal "martyrdom" is a photo of two Jewish kids acting rudely toward a Palestinian woman... you're wrong. It's just that simple.
it's really inane to say, oh, these liberals, they're so irrational when people mess with their cocoon, as if you'd brought to the table some hard-hitting arguments and powerful, yet neutrally-stated, observations and received only calumny in response.
For reasons I don't understand, you take a bizarre reading of the original post-- you seem to think that this is Ogged's level-headed best effort to make a case against Israeli policies and that the worst charge he can come up with involves am individual case of teenagers' malfeasance. ("Rude" I think is not the right term.) Like Farber's more oddball utterances, your remarks strain interpretive charity to the breaking point; it's genuinely hard to know whether you're best understood as making well-intentioned mistakes or willful misinterpretations. To then wonder why people won't engage at a sophisticated level is pretty ridiculous.
Damn, 266 is obviously right, but I've done all this typing.
Everything GB brings here is that same centrist provocation, repeating the conventional wisdom in a snarky way as though it were his own brilliant thought. Cokie Roberts with lots more attitude.
Any time the Palestinians are mentioned the suicide bombers have to be mentioned too: not just a good idea, it's the law. Otherwise we're practicing moral equivalency.
No Israeli has ever killed an Arab in the whole history of Israel, but do we mention that simple fact? No.
Could we refer to him as "Cokie on Steroids" from here on?
Clive Owen is really very handsome.
, if the best you can stack up . . . is a photo of two Jewish kids acting rudely toward a Palestinian woman... you're wrong.
Not about GB specifically, but rather about my exhausting with this kind of rhetorical maneuver. "if the best you can do is x, you're wrong."
Well, no shit. Only, as any person with an ounce of intellectual integrity knows, X is not, in fact, the best *anyone* can do on Y subject.
Ditto It's amazing, if not surprising, to see how quickly the Rational Enlightened Voices of the blogosphere expose themselves as belligerent, ill-tempered, unthinking bullies as soon as someone passes on the opportunity to join in their circle jerk of moral equivalency.
Blah blah, typical trollish (not that GB is *really* a troll) "you can't tolerate dissent!" bleat. No. We can't tolerate stupidity. If you actually have an argument, please make it: if all you want to do is say that one picture doesn't prove that the Palestinians aren't bad bad people, well then, you deserve to be ignored.
Why I'm not doing that, I don't know.
Probably because I'm cranky over Clive Owens not being (my other) boyfriend.
"if you want to send a message, try Western Union"
I'm not generally a message kind of guy, but didn't it seem like this movie was supposed to have one? Anyway, I liked it! But it didn't feel like it hung together much.
I don't get the not hanging together thing *at all*. The story was coherent, the situation comprehensible; not having a big message, but rather perhaps a lot of things to think about, was a good thing.
You need to move beyond your Romanticist notions of the unified text, Ogged.
It's the first movie I've seen since I was a kid where I managed to suspend disbelief. I'm almost always wondering why, if the sunlight is there, the shadows are here, why the expert shot can't hit when he needs to, why she just didn't walk away, why the bad guy talks too much, and so on. That long take of the battle towards the end was intense. The very end was hokey but I'll forgive that. This time I didn't think I wasted the ticket money, as I do for about 99.9% of the movies we see in theaters.
