Author: JoelDanWalls

I’m a progressive. My politics are of a social-democratic variety. I’m Jewish. And I’m a Zionist.

The last phrase is going to raise the hackles of some readers, perhaps a lot of readers, just as my hackles are raised when I read people attacking Zionism. It has taken me awhile to puzzle this out, although the explanation is, I think, pretty straightforward: we mean radically different things by the word “Zionism”. For someone of my generation (born in the 1950s), and even more so for my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, Zionism was a radically hopeful and forward-thinking ideology behind the movement for establishment of a Jewish homeland. It was about gestures such as planting trees in Israel in honor of a boy’s bar mitzvah. It was about rebirth from the ashes of the Nazi death camps and the pogroms of the Russian Empire. It was about self-reliant social democracy as represented by the kibbutz. And it was pretty much a reflexive attitude among Jews. I’m going to call this ideology Zionism1. For many on the political left today, however, Zionism has nothing to do with any of what I just mentioned. Instead, it’s a reactionary ideology in the service of the repression of Palestinian Arabs, inextricably linked with the corrupt and distinctly unpleasant Benjamin Netanyahu and with evangelical “Christian Zionists”. I’m going to call this latter ideology Zionism2.

There’s nothing in common between Zionism1 and Zionism2.

I’ve called out some diarists here whose critiques of Israel and Zionism have, in my opinion, crossed the line into using dog whistles that evoke traditional anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish control of the media, say, or Jews as disloyal to the countries where they live. I find this sort of dog whistling to be distressingly common in the pages of certain left publications, with Counterpunch my Exhibit A.

One rebuttal to what I’ve just written is commonly framed as “you’re just trying to discredit all criticism of Israel by portraying it as anti-Semitic”. Not at all. Israel has plenty to answer for. Half a century of occupation of Palestinian territories ought to be regarded with distress and anger. But distress and anger don’t justify stupid anti-Semitic dog whistles.

Another rebuttal is commonly framed as “you’re intentionally conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism”. And here we get tripped up by that word “Zionism”. Those using this rebuttal equate Zionism with what I’ve called Zionism2; if they’ve ever even heard of what I’ve called Zionism1, they probably regard it as some sort of fossil and of no relevance whatsoever. They are very mistaken.

So where am I going with this? Most simply put, consider this a plea for making your arguments clear and for avoiding terminology whose definition is unclear or contested. If Zionism for you is what I’ve called Zionism2, ditch the term entirely and write about the particulars. Sure, it’ll take you an extra two or three minutes, but you’ll be forced to be precise and you’ll wind up with a stronger argument in the end. But if you instead opt for lazy, familiar labeling, expect pushback.

Bet on it.

Reliable sources report that Arthur Gilroy has been in close consultation with Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Julian Assange and the reanimated corpse of Andrew Breitbart about the topic for his fifteenth Booman Tribune diary this month. Gilroy, a professional musician from New York City known for his stream-of-consciousness reports filed from roadside diners throughout the northeastern US, and for his exegeses of the Bible, the lyrics of Bob Dylan, and the plays of William Shakespeare, is thought to be preparing another hagiographical essay about former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D–TX). However, this reporter has learned that Gilroy’s strategists are recommending he return to his roots and instead write a concise summary of Ron Paul Thought. A title for this work has yet to be chosen, but in a telephone conversation yesterday, Gilroy acknowledged that he was leaning toward WTFU .

Watch.

A simple question: How is it possible that nobody looked at Mr. Northam’s college and medical school yearbooks when he was running for governor?

…it seems reasonable and appropriate to note that not everyone is so enamored of the Texan. Here is a link to another perspective about Beto O’Rourke’s excellent adventure, which  “drips with white male privilege”. Excerpt:

“Imagine this: A 46-year-old former congresswoman and mother of three, who just lost a Senate bid to one of the most despised incumbents, sets off on a road trip adventure to clear her head. She Instagrams part of her trip to the dentist. She gives a two-hour interview to The Washington Post where she shows no real knowledge of policy. Like a first-year college student, she pontificates on whether the Constitution is still a thing that matters after all these many years. And then she writes a stream of consciousness diary entry, where she is all in her sad and confused feelings, over … something…

“This is Beto O’Rourke’s navel-gazing, self-involved, rollout of a possible rollout of a possible presidential campaign. Oprah Winfrey’s couch is next. This could never, ever be a woman. We’ve seen the field fill up already with women. And we’ve seen how they think they must run — as serious, surefooted, policy experts with big ideas.”

I just read this intriguing piece about Tucker Carlson and right-wing populism. Excerpt:

“Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.

“America’s ‘ruling class,’ Carlson says, are the ‘mercenaries’ behind the failures of the middle class — including sinking marriage rates — and ‘the ugliest parts of our financial system.’ He went on: ‘Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.’

“He concluded with a demand for ‘a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don’t accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement.’

“The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, ‘Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars.’ More broadly, though, Carlson’s position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.”

Carlson seems to have digested the contradiction on the right between attributing the woes of the white working class to economic forces beyond their control, while attributing the problems of communities of color to supposed minority cultural pathologies.

This isn’t an endorsement of Mr. Carlson, whom I consider another of Donald Trump’s cheerleaders when push comes to shove. But it’s an interesting read nonetheless and, I would suggest, ties in to what Booman has written on the subject of re-engaging the white working class with the Democrats’ program.

The Atlantic monthly has published exchanges between Roger Stone and Wikileaks that Wikileaks has been denying existed. Wikileaks has repeatedly denied their existence.

I’m sure that The Saintly Glenn Greenwald is already kicking back with a refreshing tropical drink in Rio de Janeiro and writing a rebuttal to The Atlantic, and that that rebuttal will be duly repeated here by the usual suspects, who will assure us that exchanges between Stone and Wikileaks may have occurred but didn’t matter. Those remarks will be peppered with condemnations of “the Clintons”, who we ought to recognize as the real villains, and with reminders that The Saintly Julian Assange is a martyr to free speech.

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Here’s a sample opinion poll showing the trends as of May 3. Emmanuel Macron’s lead over Marine Le Pen is 20% and has been at that value for a week.

The accompanying story (in French) is interesting for what it illustrates about French politicking versus American. The two candidates savaged one another in their recent debate.

The runoff election takes place this coming Sunday.

“Squaring the circle” is an allusion to a task that seems straightforward but is actually impossible: Drawing a square that has the exact same area as a circle. The explanation has to do with irrational numbers and quickly gets all nerdy sounding. But “squaring the circle” is a metaphor, and it’s one that came to mind as I read Booman’s piece about a dangerous electoral realignment and readers’ responses to his blog post. The theme of Booman’s piece and those responses was how to bring back those white working class Rustbelt voters who flipped and went for Trump in 2016. There was a lot of discussion about approaching this task on the basis of  policy. Sounds fair enough, right? Of course, this approach is predicated on the assumption that people calmly and dispassionately size up the policy positions of opposing candidates, opposing parties, and then mark their ballots. But of course there’s another line of argument: that those white working class Rustbelt voters flipped to Trump as an expression of their resentments: resentment about rapid cultural change; resentment about race; resentment about “press 1 for English; para español, marque el número 2”; and especially, a general desire to poke liberals in the eye. We all know folks whose political stance seems to boil down to “if that smart-ass liberal likes it, then I’m against it”, even if taking that stance is objectively self-defeating.

Here’s the question, then: Is it plausible–it is rational?–to pitch policy proposals to people who don’t give a damn about policy? Who are seething with resentments? I believe Booman is saying that we either do that or yield the territory to neo-fascist manipulators like Trump.

I don’t know how to square this circle. I’ve taken the personal decision to try to be very mindful of how I talk and write about the folks whose votes seem to be about resentment, however. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met anyone who responded positively to be told he’s a ignorant, bigoted fool.

British DJ sentenced to year in Tunisian jail for Muslim call to prayer remix

Excerpt:

A British DJ has been sentenced to a year in jail by a Tunisian court after he played a remix recording of the Muslim call to prayer in a nightclub.

The London-born Dax J, who left Tunisia after last weekend’s incident, was charged with public indecency and offending public morality, said Ylyes Miladi, a spokesman of a court in the town of Grombalia.

Tunisian authorities shut down the nightclub in the north-east town of Nabeul and began an investigation after a video, widely shared on social media, showed clubbers dancing to music that included the call to prayer, sparking a storm of debate.

“We will not allow attacks against religious feelings and the sacred,” the governor of Nabeul, Mnaouar Ouertani, said when the club was shut down….

The court dismissed charges against the nightclub owner and an organiser of the event in the coastal resort, but the prosecution has appealed saying the two should have checked what the DJ would be playing.

Tunisia’s religious affairs ministry has said: “Mocking the opinions and religious principles of Tunisians is absolutely unacceptable.”

****

This sort of thing–prosecution for what amounts to blasphemy–was not uncommon in the West in the not-so-distant past. Blasphemy laws still exist in the UK and some folks there still make noises about using them, but they’re not enforced.

I realize something akin to a “religious affairs ministry” still exists in a few Western nations, but as far as I know, they’re not about enforcing orthodoxy or punishing heterodoxy.

It should also be noted that it’s not just in predominantly Muslim countries that offenses against religious sensibilities are punished. One doesn’t go to Thailand and climb on or deface figures of the Buddha, say.

9:00 p.m.

The Netherlands’ main exit poll suggests that Prime Minister Mark Rutte has won the Dutch elections, easily beating anti-Islam firebrand Geert Wilders.

For the two-time prime minister Rutte, the poll indicated that an economic recovery and his hard-line handling of a diplomatic dispute with Turkey over the past week has won him support.

The Ipsos polling company gave Rutte’s party 31 of the 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, compared to 19 seats for 3 other parties, including that of Wilders. Weeks or months of coalition talks are expected to follow.

The exit poll was conducted at 43 of the 9,300 polling stations across the country Wednesday. It had a margin of error of two percentage points.

AP website

Analysis here at The Guardian. Sounds as if a stable coalition is going to be difficult to achieve.

Waiting to read what oui has to say.