LGF parodies itself

I've long been giving LGF the benefit of the doubt. The comments sections are filled with rabid anti- muslimists, but I always looked at Charles' comments as satirizing the fanatic muslim extremists only, not the average muslim in America (like myself) who loves their country and believes in their faith. Charles and I might have disagreed on virtually all aspects of the Palestiian struggle, the role of CAIR, etc. - but I honestly thought that these differences of opinion were based on consistent principles.



Until now. via Tacitus, LGF has reached a low that shatters my desperate rationalizations.



The topic? a beautiful article in Voice of America about Muslims honoring and celebrating the 4th of July in Philadelphia:

As a crowd gathered on the lawn in front of Philadelphia's Liberty Bell Pavilion, a group of young Muslims kicked off the annual convention. Their ceremony began with a reading from the Koran, followed by a chorus of children singing the National anthem, then a recitation of the Constitution's first ten amendments.



Twenty-five-year-old Azra Awan from New Jersey says she chose to read the Bill of Rights because the document is symbolic to her.

I've been proud to call America the greatest Islamic country in the world, because only here are the principles freedom of speech and religion that are outlined in the Qur'an so beautifully realized and implemented. Far more so than any Abbasid dynasty could ever have attained.



In the context of this muslim perspective on freedom (which is, I gather, also the point of our Iraq adventure which the LGF groupthink so emphatically supports) there are some insiights into balancing the religious responsibilities with the real world:

Ms. Awan felt uncomfortable at first when she decided to "cover," or wear a hijab, at the age of 12.



"It was the Gulf War and I started covering the same day that the war started," she said. "It kind of worked against me in that sense because I had a lot more people teasing me, making fun of me and I remember it being very difficult. I came home the first day and cried. I didn't want to do it again. But I kept motivated and my friends and I, they continued with me, and from then on we just continued growing."



In contrast, 22-year-old New Yorker Sobia Ahmab says there was no conflict between her religious life and her secular life while she and her group of friends were in high school or college.



"We were born and raised here so we don't feel like we are from a foreign country or anything, you know," she said. "But our religion because it takes a precedent in our lives, it goes in hand in hand. Sisters, we cover, everyday going to school covering, but still keeping our identity. We're still hanging out with the girls [non-Muslim friends], doing the projects, doing everything. Lunchtime, whatever, sports, gym, I mean we take part in everything but within the boundaries of Islam - being modest and things like that. So it's not that hard if you are strong in your identity. It's really not that hard to do it."

As the book about my own community, Mullahs on the Mainframe, illustrates, it is no small feat to exist in a wildly diverse and multicultural society such as America and still retain your own culture's values and practices. Identity is the foundation of community.



What is Charles' take on the passage above? "Case in point�an approving article on Muslims in Philadelphia spreading the intolerance and misogyny of fundamentalist Islam over the Fourth of July holiday."



The irony of Charles' attitude towards the successful assimilation of Muslims into the fabric of American culture - which would slove the threat from fnaatic extremism - is clear. And profoundly disappointing.

Option to Return

Jonathan has some absolutely solid analysis of the minor riot in Ramallah today. The real story is that a respected and independent pollster, Khalil Shikaki, is about to release a new poll of the Palestinian public that reveals that although 95 percent of Palestinians residing in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and the occupied territories want the right of return to be recognized in a final peace treaty, far fewer of them would actually exercise it. In fact, only 10 percent of the 4500 households that took part in the survey intended to reside permanently in Israel, and the proportion decreased even further "if the refugees were told that they would have to take Israeli citizenship or that their old homes were gone." In contrast, 54 percent were willing to accept compensation and the right of return to a Palestinian state in lieu of Israel, and 23 percent expressed the desire to move to other countries or stay where they were. (I've just cut and pasted Jonathan's summary).



Jonathan finds great optimism in this poll, and reflects on how it might mean that Right of Return is not nearly the Sword of Damocles over the Peace Process that everyone had imagined:

Perhaps most importantly, these poll numbers indicate that it may be possible for Israel to allow a conditional right of return at little risk to its integrity. Of the four million Palestinians who claim descent from the 1948 refugees, it is likely that fewer than 250,000 would insist on returning to Israel, particularly if they were required to become Israeli citizens. If a peace accord included an assurance that Palestinians could become citizens of the countries where they now live, this number would be even smaller. The 250,000 figure, assuming its accuracy, is approximately equal to the number of Palestinians who are currently living illegally - and, for the most part, peacefully - in Israel.



This suggests a possible compromise on one of the most contentious issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians. The broad outline of such a compromise would involve Israel symbolically recognizing that it is the homeland of the 1948 refugees, but limiting the actual number of returnees to 250,000 - a limit that is unlikely to be tested. Returnees would be required to accept Israeli citizenship and undergo a security check, with Israel having the right to exclude all persons associated with terrorist groups. Those exercising their right of return would be admitted over a five-year period, which would ease the strain of absorbing them into Israeli society and would allow the project to be reviewed or canceled if any returnees engaged in terrorist activity. Priority would be given to refugees with family in Israel, who would at once be the most compelling humanitarian cases and the least likely to commit terrorist acts.



Those not returning to Israel - the vast majority - would have the choice of returning to Palestine or becoming naturalized citizens of their host countries, with full civil rights. "Full civil rights" is admittedly a relative term in countries like Lebanon or Syria, but it would result in the refugees obtaining passports and being freed of property, educational and occupational restrictions. In addition, both returnees and those who remained elsewhere would receive compensation in lieu of their former property - a solution that has been adopted by Eastern European countries with respect to property that was confiscated by Communist governments. Ideally, a final settlement would also provide for compensation for those Jews who became refugees after the establishment of Israel, but this would require the agreement of many more countries. Possibly these refugees could be compensated indirectly by placing most of the burden of repaying the Palestinian refugees upon the international community rather than upon Israel.

I see the pelting with eggs of Shikaki by a Arafat-loyalist mob as a great sign - because it is a clear sign of a dissonance bweteen a political elite and the people the nominally purport to represent.



The average Palestinian is quite aware of cause and effect. Assertions that the bulk of the P population support violent terror attacks directly contradict the common sense axiom that all people are rational actors - and therefore the assertion that the majority support terror that is clearly detrimental to their efforts at survival is clearly flawed.



So I'm not surprised either, and in fact the Binational State solution is way ahead of Jonathan, as they explicitly deal with the Right of Return is a way much as he describes. In fact one of the major critiques that I encountered when last I blogged about the binational state was that its solution regarding Right of Return was too optimistic (cue the menacing Palestinam Demographic Majority and the instant destruction of Israel theme music). This poll does a lot in my mind to think that a federal system implemented in I-P with demographically-derived borders would NOT be derailed by the Right of Return issue at all.

roadmap to murderville, indeed

via LGF, come the alternative peace plan by Israeli Tourism Minister Benny Elon. I'm interested in discussing this plan in a context removed from the bile of LGF's forum denizens:

The PA

Immediate dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, a non-viable entity whose existence precludes the termination of the conflict.



Terror

Israel will uproot the Palestinian terror infrastructure. All arms will be collected, incitement will be stopped and all the refugee camps, which serve as incubators for terror, will be dismantled. Terrorists and their direct supporters will be deported.



Jordan

Israel, the US and the international community will recognize the Kingdom of Jordan as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Jordan will once again recognize itself as the Palestinian nation-state.



In the context of a regional development program, Israel, the US and the international community will put forth a concerted effort for the long-term development of Jordan, to rehabilitate its economy and enable it to absorb a limited number of refugees within its borders.



The territories

Israeli sovereignty will be asserted over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arab residents of these areas will become citizens of the Palestinian state in Jordan. The status of these citizens, their connection to the two states and the manner of administration of their communal lives will be decided in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan (Palestine).



Refugees

Israel, the US and the international community will allocate resources for the completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948, as well as the full rehabilitation of the refugees and their absorption and naturalization in various countries.



Normalization

After implementation of the above stages, Israel and Jordan (Palestine) will declare the conflict terminated. Both sides will work to normalize peaceful relations between all parties in the region.

my personal opinion is, that as a psychological treatise on the mindset within Likud, it speaks volumes. But for the purposes of civil debate, I intend to take it absolutely seriously. I think that this plan might actually be an interesting catalyst. I've invited some other bloggers interested in the PI conflict to comment, I hope that some of them take me up on the offer.



Would Elon's plan work in reducing violence? bringing peace to the region? ensuring Israel's subsequent security? From the perspective of Israeli self-interest, I think these questions are worth asking.

response to yourish about burkas and bikinis

I have to object to Yourish's characterization of my burka and bikini post as "all american women are just as oppressed as Saudi women."



first of all, not all women in America wear a bikini 24-7.



second, of those who do, not all are FORCED to wear the bikini by a man. Some do so because they like to.



The essay I wrote took great pains (which Meryl ignored, apparently) to focus its analysis on the articles of clothing, not the women underneath. The burka is often used as a tool of misogynistic oppression. This is enforced with violence and social stigma.



But the burka is also a symbol - when willingly adopted - of modesty and control over how the woman interacts with society. Many women who wear the veil or similar modest dress do so because they perceive a great benefit to it (including my wife).



Likewise, the bikini can for some be a symbol of female liberation or simple vanity or any other perfectly reasonable expression of a woman's free will and pride and independence.



However, there are some cases where women wear a bikini solely in order to comply with a male-driven social expectation by society. That is the subject of my post, because the simple fact that such social coercion exists means that the bikini can no longer be considered a truly neutral article of clothing.



Many Muslim writers try to make a case for the burka as a symbol of freedom alone, ie ascribe a purely positive value to it. They ignore the negative side of the coin (whether it is pos or neg. depends entirely on the rationale behind why the woman chooses to wear it).



In the same vein, most people like Steven Den Beste who ascribe to the bikini a symbolism of absolute American liberty are also assigning a purely positive value without acknowledgeing that there is also a negative coercive aspect.



The burka and the bikini - when embraced of free will - are equal symbols of freedom, and that is why I have referred to America as the greatest Islamic country in the world many times on my blog. The concept of persona liberty and choice is essential to both American society and Islamic theology regarding the value of religious action.



The impetus to write the burka and the bikini post was solely to counter the simplistic claim that bikinis are American and Free and burkas are totalitarian and slaved. In actual fact, they are both just pieces of cloth. What truly matters is the freedom of the woman wearing it.



I also refer you to Jeanna D'Arc's insightful piece about patriarchal oppression. Also, Jane Galt had some related perspectives about cultural imperialism that are must-reads.



UPDATE: Meryl responds. I concede that she had not used the word "all" in characterizing my post (ie, all american women who wear the bikini are oppressed). However I can be forgiven for thinking she meant the generalization, given the surrounding context of her post that quoted me. In that post, she used me at the tail end of an argument building a systematic case that muslims are ass-backwards about their perceptions of women and freedom (I even got tagged with "even"). I'm glad to hear that I was kmistaken in my inference and that she really does not believe that I consider all American women who wear the bikini to be oppressed. We seem to be in total agreement.



In fact, the agreement continues about those (few, not all) bikini-wearing American women who I do consider to be oppressed! Meryl writes:

Yes, it can be all of those things, and more. But let's face it: The bikini is, for the most part, a symbol of "Look at me! Aren't I sexy?" I seriously doubt that little Brittany-on-the-beach is thinking of anything remotely resembling female liberation, no matter how many articles in Ms. (or posts by Steven Den Beste) to the contrary. More likely they're thinking, "Is that hottie is looking at me?"



As a teenager, I never even considered one-piece bathing suits. Same for when I was in my twenties. It wasn't until I hit my mid-thirties (and picked up a bit of flab) that the desire to show off my body that way cooled down.

The fact that Meryl portrays this absolute validation of my point as a disagreement suggests that she's more interested in disagreement for its own sake than any meaningful dialouge. However, there's a deeper reason than mere personal antagonism - she lets this litle sentence slip by:

The bikini was not invented to become a symbol of social coercion.

In other words, the burka was. she suggests that the burka was created for the express and sole purpose of ubjugation of women. The religious requirement of modesty, and the testimony of many women who wear various forms of hijab, burka, ridah, etc is at one stroke rendered meaningless. In a sense, she is just repeating exactly one-half of my argument (two fourths, actually, the bikini = good and the burka = bad parts). The remaining two, bikini = bad and burka = good, are simply inconceivable - and if an educated Western woman can't see the dogma inherent in that, ie simply cannot see the burka and the bikini as simple pieces of cloth, then I wonder what hope there is for true understanding. I've been shouting into the vacuum all along after all.

strange bedfellows

I knew that there was something different about the situation when the terror groups adopted the language of the hudna for their cease-fire. Even as comitted a partisan as Yourish has acknowleged that there are tangible results.



But there certainly is a dark cloud to the silver linings. An article in Ha'retz raises some important cautionary points in its analysis:

... the present hudna has given these [terror] organizations a similar political clout that the suicide bombings gave them - a lever to dictate policy. Joining the Palestinian Authority may deprive them of this power.



This new power balance puts both Israel and the PA in a position they tried to avoid in the present and previous intifada. Israel is conducting negotiations with the PA although the terrorist attacks are continuing, while the PA is forced to give in to organizations it regards as an ideological enemy.



The struggle is therefore for time and achievements. In less than three months, the organizations will consider themselves exempt from the hudna and the PA will have to decide if it is fighting them or joining the Palestinian public that supports them.



Israel's objective is to make the PA's decision unbearably difficult. This will not be accomplished by tight-fisted negotiations over the release of prisoners, staging fake evacuations of mock outposts, the bluff of easing up on the traffic restrictions or dragging out the talks. Israel and the PA are now engaged in a tug-of-war with the opposition

groups for Palestinian public opinion.



This is the time for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to demonstrate leadership and turn the "painful concessions" into real acts. Otherwise the hudna will be merely a brief interval for cleaning weapons.

back to the grind

unlike Daily Kos, which argues today that Tenet's admission of guilt for Bush opens more questions than answers, I must confess to a deep pessimism about whether the YellowGate scandal will indeed intensify or simply peter out. Its the weekend, the press is congratulating itself for having done some real journalism for once, Bush is back from Africa and the news cycle will be dominated by something new. I think all the elements are there for the media to take yet another pass. After all the narrative, which is what the media crave above all else, is nicely closed with the Tenet hara-kiri.



However, Dean was on fire on CNN yesterday:

KARL: The president and his national security adviser are saying that the CIA, and George Tenet specifically, cleared this speech and signed off on it. Does that get the president off the hook?



DEAN: We don't know that. The fact is that [former U.S.] Ambassador [to Niger Joseph] Wilson, in a public statement in The New York Times, has indicated that his report showing that there was no involvement between Niger and Iraq in terms of the uranium deal went to the office of the vice president, the secretary of state and the CIA. So I don't know what the president knew and when the president knew it, but I know that this intelligence-handling is a disaster for the administration at best, and either no one got to the secretary of defense or the president, or his own senior advisors withheld information.



So this is a serious credibility problem, and it's a lot deeper than just the Iraq-Niger deal, it has to do with assertions by the secretary of defense that he knew where weapons were that turned out not to be there, it has to do with assertions by the vice president there was a nuclear program that turned out not to exist, and assertions made by the president himself, not just about the acquisition of uranium, but also about the ability of [deposed Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] to use chemical weapons on the United States. We need a full-blown public investigation not held in Congress but by an outside bipartisan commission.



KARL: Condoleezza Rice specifically mentioned George Tenet, and now the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is specifically saying that George Tenet had a responsibility to tell the president about this but didn't.



DEAN: It's beginning to sound a little like Watergate. They start throwing people over the side. The deeper you go, the more interesting it will be. It's very clear that it may be George Tenet's responsibility, but that information also existed in the State Department and it also existed in the vice president's office, so they will not get away with simply throwing George Tenet over the side.

As usual, he will be the only one asking the tough questions in public - and that will draw even more people to him. Don't expect the other major candidates, who voted for the war on Iraq, to join Dean in questioning Yellowgate and Tenet's highly suspicious (even to conservatives) timing.

copyright expiration is profitable

brilliantly argued:

LXG is based on a comic book entitled The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which hit the shelves a few years back and chronicled the adventures of a late-19th-century crime-fighting team composed of the most remarkable literary characters of the Victorian Age: Allan Quartermain, hero of King Solomon�s Mines, H.G. Wells�s Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, and the legendary Captain Nemo. Together they travel the world, interact with the fictitious creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Allan Poe, and even come to loggerheads with the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu. It was a series that caused a stir amongst the comicati because it had it all: intelligent writing, literary allusion, and guys with superpowers punching the crap out of each other.



The book�s author, Alan Moore, was able to create this literary-parallel universe because the protagonists are all within the public domain, and so are not owned by any one person or corporation, and thus available for anyone to use without having to pay royalties. This is why you can watch low-budget Sherlock Holmes mysteries on PBS, buy a copy of Alice in Wonderland for under five bucks, and see Shakespeare in the park for free.

...

Curiously, many of those who fought the hardest for the [Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act] were those who had benefited the most from the public domain. Disney, afraid of losing exclusive control of Mickey Mouse (who first appeared in 1928 and would have gone public this year), lobbied vigorously for the 20-year extension, despite having made billions off such classic characters and stories as Cinderella and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Also in favor of the extension was the Motion Picture Association of America, the same institution that oversaw the production of the aforementioned LXG, a film that adds Tom Sawyer and Dorian Gray to the comic book�s original roster.

...

Disney�s arguments notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that Steven Spielberg or John Grisham would change vocations knowing that their great-great-great-grandchildren would miss out on some royalty checks, or that J.K. Rowling would scrap her series without reassurance that Harry Potter wouldn�t guest star in a comic book within 69 years of her own dying day.



And at some point lengthening the copyright term surely stifles more creativity than it fosters. Just think: If just anyone could make a James Bond movie, MGM might invent some new heroes instead of churning out 007 flicks every 16 months; if Disney�s canon was turned into open game it might come up with some new material instead of plundering its own theme parks for movie ideas, in the case of the current Pirates of the Caribbean Johnny Depp vehicle.



Contrawise, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen � one of the most inventive comic series in recent memory � was made possible by the original copyright laws that recognized the public domain as a boon to artists, not a burden. Alas, the 2003 Supreme Court didn�t see it this way � it upheld the SBCEA, thereby keeping Mickey Mouse in his cage for another generation.

RWT (Read the Whole Thing).