Monday, August 5, 2024

Speaking of Which

I started working on this back on Thursday, the day after I posted Music Week and minor updates to last week's massive Speaking of Which (final: 263 links, 11360 words). For a while, it looked like I might actually wrap this up on Sunday evening, but didn't make it. Probably just as well, although the imminent Harris VP pick may upset some apple carts. Even if it happens (Tuesday morning, I now hear), consider it unknown to this post.

PS: Harris picks Tim Walz as VP ahead of multistate tour. For now, the best link is Perry Bacon Jr.: [08-06] Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris's running mate.

Last week I stayed clear of Israel's latest round of "targeted assassinations," most significantly that of Hamas diplomat Ismail Haniyeh (conveniently in Tehran; I imagine Mossad is already shopping movie rights to that story). Last week's lead story title ended "as US officials say a ceasefire deal is close." No one's saying that this week, as Haniyeh was Hamas's lead negotiator in those talks, which Netanyahu had managed to sideline for weeks, and now simply blew up. Rather, I devoted a large chunk of last week's post to Netanyahu's speech to Congress. Some key article cited there:

While we're at it, let's also reiterate:

This reminds me of Andrew Gillum on DeSantis: "I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist." (Gillum also noted: "he's got neo-Nazis helping him run the state.") I have at least one article below on how Trump is deciding that some Jews are "good" (love Israel, support Trump) and "bad" (oppose Trump, hate Israel), and can easily find more, e.g.:

For deeper background, see:

I also did a Google search on trump on war with iran, but it mostly revealed past deeds, not current words. E.g.:

McGeorge Bundy once explained that the difference between presidents Kennedy and Johnson was that Kennedy wanted to be seen as smart, but Johnson wanted to be seen as tough. You can use the relative importance of smart and tough as a scale for weighing most presidents. We like to think of Obama as being on the smart side, but he picked many moments to prove he could be tough (like his first order to kill Somali pirates, his numerous drone strikes, his raid on Osama Bin Laden; on the other hand, he caved in every time he ran afoul of Netanyahu, which wasn't so smart, and betrayed a deficit worse than toughness: of courage). But Trump's idea of smart doesn't extend much beyond cheating on his taxes and paying off a porn star. And while he brags about being "a very stable genius," the quality he most wants to project to the world is how very tough he is (e.g., his boasts that were he still president, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, and Hamas wouldn't have attacked Israel).

While there isn't a lot of reason to think that Trump, in his rare moments of sober reflection, wants to blunder into war, his self-image, inflated ego, his lack of analytic skills, and his incapacity for empathy all make him susceptible to the suggests of the "tough guys" he likes to surround himself with. So sure, it's quite possible that Ben-Gvir has the measure of his man. You certainly have to admit that his cunning has him playing Netanyahu like a fiddle, amplifying his power enormously.

We will, of course, continue to hold Biden and Harris responsible for own their contributions to Israel's genocide and warmongering, but we should always be clear that Trump's malice, which pervades every pore of his campaign, is much more dangerous than Biden's indifferent cowardice, despicable as it is. As for Harris, all I can hope for is that she keeps her head down until she's in a position to do something about it. Then, by all means, she must, and failure there will be catastrophic, but until she has that power, mere speculation is unlikely to be helpful. There will always be more to do later.

Top story threads:

Israel:

Israel's long-standing policy of assassinating political opponents was brought to the fore last week with the murder of Ismail Haniyeh (head of the Hamas political bureau, and chief negotiator in the "ceasefire" talks Biden has promoted and Netanyahu has sabotaged at every turn). This immediately followed Israel's major escalation of bombing in Lebanon, which included the killing of a prominent Hezbollah commander. The calculation here is pretty obvious, even though it is rarely commented on. Israel is not merely killing for the hell of it, they want to provoke reprisals, which they can use to justify further killing. They are gambling that their targets cannot hurt them, or if they do land a lucky punch -- as Hamas did on October 7 -- they can escalate to previously unimaginable levels of mass destruction.

But Israel has one weakness: it depends on American support, both to replenish its supply of munitions and to prop up an economy that has never (well, not since 1950) been so extensively mobilized for war for so long. Netanyahu knows that he cannot sustain his genocidal war without American support, so he and his allies are pulling out all the stops to keep unthinking, uncritical support flowing. You see this in the flood of propaganda, including Netanyahu's obscene speech before Congress. You see this in the astounding money that's going into purging independent thought in American politics. But the real linchpin would be if he could maneuver the US into joining the war. He achieved a partial success in getting the Houthis to fire on Red Sea shipping, with the result that the US and UK have joined Saudi Arabia in bombing Yemen. But the real prize would be getting the US to go to war against Iran. Or at least Lebanon.

It helps here to understand that Israel doesn't actually care about Iran. The essential background here was explained by Trita Parsi in his 2007 book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The key point here is that while the US soured on Iran with the 1980 hostage crisis, Israel remained close to Iran throughout the 1980s -- you might vaguely recall that Israel was the intermediary in the Iran-Contra scandal -- but only turned against Iran in the 1990s, after Saddam Hussein ceased to be a viable foreign threat. Israel switched to Iran because the Americans already hated Iran, which made them easy to play with a ridiculously inflated story of Iran's "nuclear program." Obama's negotiations with Iran were intended to allay Israel's fears, but Netanyahu rejected them because Israel never feared Iran: they only faked it to cater to American prejudices. When Trump killed the deal, he capitulated to Israel, allowing Netanyahu to dictate America's understanding of allies, enemies, and interests.

While Trump did this for the most craven of reasons, Biden followed blindly because his long experience with the Israel lobby had taught him that no alternative course was imaginable. Still, providing "arms, money, and [freely ignored] advice" was the easy part. Committing US troops to conventional war against an unconquerable nation like Iran would be a much more daunting order. Of course, Israel isn't insisting that the US actually invade Iran, like their fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq. They would be perfectly happy to see the US conduct an Israel-style assault, where massive bombing denies any responsibility for cleaning up the mess. Going back to WWII, the US is used to seeking definitive solutions that lead to peace, but Israel has always understood that each victory is just a prelude to the next war, which they must eternally prepare for. Peace for them is nothing but false hope and mass delusion, which is why their warrior caste breaks it at every opportunity.

Of course, America hasn't quite become a pawn in Israel's game. Biden has little appetite for war against Iran, or even against Lebanon -- although he also has little will to resist bombing Yemen and Syria, or to move aircraft carrier groups supposedly to deter attacks against Israel. Biden, in contrast to Trump, retains at least some sense of human decency, so he can't really endorse Israel's genocide, but he tries hard to not see it, either, so he readily parrots Israel's lies and clichés -- which so far is all that Netanyahu has needed.

But it would help to see the game he and his far-right allies are playing: they don't care about Iran, and they don't worry about foreign attack; they only care about the US and Europe as a meal ticket, and even there they don't care how unpopular they become, as long as those in power toe their line; what they do care about is grinding the Palestinians down to dust, to utter insignificance, not just in Gaza but everywhere they control; unlike some genociders, they are not obsessed with killing every last Palestinian, as they know that's not the only way to render them inconsequent, but they also have no qualms about killing indiscriminately, and see that as instrumental to their cause.

On some level, most Israelis must realize that they cannot keep killing and destroying indefinitely. True, no other army has the means and will power to stop them. And there's little chance that Israelis, who have grown up under a regime that has systematically inculcated the belief that Jews are eternal victims but in Israel have become invincible warriors, will develop a conscience and decide they've gone far enough (let alone too far). On the other hand, world opinion, even in the so-called western democracies that currently sustain Israel's military and economy, is turning against Israel's war, not just because most people find this killing and destruction abhorrent when done by anyone, but because we increasingly see it as rooted in inequality and hatred, in the fundamentally unjust belief that might makes right.

We see this most clearly in America, where our most reactionary political elements, including the neocons (who led us into the Israel-inspired Global War on Terror) and the Christian Zionists (with their dreams of Armageddon) are by far the most enthusiastic backers of Israeli genocide. Granted, there is still a significant rump faction of Democrats who are loyal to Israel, but their loyalty depends on misinformation and myths, not on a belief in violence. They do want to see a ceasefire and humanitarian relief, and generally accept that diversity, democracy, and equality are not just desirable but necessary. They just have trouble holding Israel to their otherwise general beliefs. But unlike the right-wingers, it should till be possible to reason with pro-Israel Democrats. One can make a strong case that Israel is harming itself by pursuing such extreme policies.

Note: The assassination of Hamas eminence Ismail Haniyeh has become a big enough story to warrant its own section, between this one (which is mostly limited to Israel's domestic politics and military operations) and the next one (which deals with US politics and support for Israel). As usual, there is another section following on Israeli propaganda and world opinion, especially around the genocide charge. The subdivisions are useful because there's so much material to cover, and it's nice to keep similar pieces together, but it's also difficult, in that many pieces lap over from one area to another. For instance, articles specifically on the US reaction to the Haniyeh assassination may be included in the US section. The assassinations and escalation in Lebanon hasn't yet mandated its own section, so pieces on that are mostly in the US section, as my view is that Israel's attacks on Lebanon (and Iran) are mostly attempts to lead US policy.

The Haniyeh assassination:

  • Fatima AbdulKarim/Mohammed R Mhawish: From Gaza to Ramallah, Haniyeh remembered as advocate of unity.

  • Nasim Ahmed: [08-01] Ismail Haniyeh: assassinated in Israel's war on peace and quest for endless occupation. Notes that "Western sources consistently portrayed Haniyeh as a moderate figure within Hamas."

    The political murder of Haniyeh fits a troubling pattern of Israeli behaviour. Political observers have long noted Israel's fear of what is often referred to as a Palestinian "peace offensive." Throughout its history as an occupation state, Israel has been accused of targeting moderate Palestinian leaders who show the potential for engaging in meaningful peace negotiations. This strategy, critics argue, is aimed at closing the door to peace and maintaining a state of perpetual conflict that serves Israel's long-term goal of establishing its illegal sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.

  • Ramzy Baroud: [07-31] It's both criminal and desperate; that's why Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh. He also notes: "Israel chose the time and place for Haniyeh's murder carefully." Israel has persistently attempted to link Hamas with Iran, which has never made a lot of sense, but the opportunity to kill him in Iran will leave an indelible impression, as well as serving as a major embarrassment to and provocation of Iran.

  • Juan Cole: [08-02] Turkey's Erdogan denounces killing of Haniyeh, blocks Israel at NATO, boycotts it, and threatens intervention.

  • David Hearst: Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu's only goal is to set the region on fire.

  • Fred Kaplan: [07-31] What Israel's killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders could mean for war in the region.

  • Qassam Muaddi: [07-31] Israel assassinates head of Hamas political bureau amid regional escalation: "Israel assassinated Hamas politburo head Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran after a series of mounting regional tensions that included unprecedented Israeli attacks on the 'Axis of Resistance,' including airstrikes on Beirut and Yemen."

  • Ashraf Nubani: [08-05] Killing Hamas leader: an act of Israeli desperation. I understand the impulse to write something defiant like this, but I don't sense the desperation. Israel saw an opportunity and, consistent with their principles, acted on it, with little regard for future consequences, because they really aren't worried about things like that.

  • Abdaljawad Omar: [07-31] The real reason Israel is assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and why it won't stop the resistance: "Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders doesn't aim to weaken the resistance. Its real motive is to restore the image of military and intelligence superiority in the eyes of the Israeli public." I think the author is overthinking this. Once Israel's leaders decided they could get away with killing everyone even remotely associated with Hamas, with no worries about killing other Palestinians, any opportunity to hit someone on their list was automatically greenlighted. The author desperately wants to think that the resistance is a factor Israel must reckon with, but Israelis don't care. If their attacks push more people to resist, they'll just kill more. Once the telos is genocide, resistance is just positive feedback.

  • Paul R Pillar: [08-01] Trigger happy Israel and its thirst for revenge: "The cross-border assassinations reflect a national rage playing out in Gaza's carnage -- and Netanyahu's desire to keep the war going forever."

  • Reuters: [07-31] Haniyeh was the pragmatic leader of Hamas.

  • Muhammad Sahimi: [07-31] Assassination of Hamas leader in Iran puts new president in a trap: "Depending on how Pezeshkian responds, it may force the US to get directly involved in defense of Israel." No mention that the trap was solely the work of Netanyahu until six paragraphs in:

    Dialogue between Iran and the United States is, however, the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, but no one should be under the illusion that if Israel begins a full-scale war with Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iran will sit it out.

  • Erika Solomon: [08-04] Hamas may emerge battered, but not beaten, from Israel's latest blows: "The assassination of two Hamas leaders may be a short-term setback, analysts say, not enough to prevent the group from emerging intact -- and possibly more radicalized." I have very little faith in articles like this, where reporters have very little access to primary sources, and everyone they do have access to has their own interests to promote. The line here, hardly surprising given where it's being published, is basically what Israel wants you to believe: that yes, we're inflicting serious short-term losses on Hamas, but no matter what we do, Palestinians will rebound to attack again, so Israel just has to keep fighting forever, beating them down (you know, "mowing the lawn"). Still, this argument depends on sleight of hand, confusing the idea of Hamas with its organization (which was never as monolithic as supposed), but also assuming that the dynamic remains extremely polarized (that Israel and Hamas can do nothing but fight until one or the other dies).

    I am reasonably certain that as long as Israel acts like Goliath, many Palestinians will want to resist, and will search for leverage they can use to assert their dignity and fight back. Hamas was one of many organizations that attempted to channel Palestinian desires for justice into effective political action. I think it's fair to say that it failed, repeatedly, but most definitively on or shortly after October 7, when in an act of desperation, the organization exploded like a suicide bomber. I suppose it's possible that there is still some sort of residual organization in Gaza, more likely as isolated cells than under any sort of unified command. Emigres like Haniyeh could continue to represent themselves as Hamas for diplomacy, but that just made them targets for Israel. No doubt there are others formerly associated with Hamas, some with their militia and many more mere civil employees of the Hamas-run de facto governance (now destroyed), and those people would continue to look for opportunities to resist, but they no longer constitute an effective force. Within a week or two, Israel could simply have declared victory over Hamas, and no one would have disputed them. That they didn't is because Hamas is their idea as much as it ever was a Palestinian idea. Hamas is Israel's ticket to genocide, so as long as they want to keep killing Palestinians -- and clearly they are nowhere near satiated yet -- they have to keep the idea of Hamas alive. Which is what they've done. And will continue to do, as long as you keep buying their hasbara.

  • Syeda Fizzah Shuja: [08-01] Haniyeh's assassination unleashes a new era of political violence.

  • Robert Wright: [08-02] The Haniyeh assassination will haunt Israel. Cites David Ignatius (below), quoting: "The Israelis are still stuck in a zero-sum game. But Israelis should ask themselves how well the hard-nosed, forever-war approach has worked in practice." They'd probably answer that they're still fighting, and killing more than they are losing, so it's working out just fine.

  • Middle East Monitor: [08-04] Massive rally in Istanbul to mourn Hamas leader Haniyeh, support Palestinians in Gaza.

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Israel vs. world opinion:

  • Yousef Aljamal: [08-02] Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Where is the outrage? That's not the question I would ask. People who know about this are plenty outraged -- probably more than is good for their own health. The bigger problem is who doesn't know? And who doesn't care? The question of starvation was raised almost instantly, with the blockade of food imports and a bombing campaign directed at agricultural resources (especially greenhouses). Since then, we've seen some deaths reported, but it's not clear how they're being counted -- or if they're being counted. The broader issues of malnutriton are hard to quantify, let alone report.

  • Kribsoo Diallo: [08-03] African attitudes to, and solidarity with, Palestine: From the 1940s to Israel's genocide in Gaza: "Kribsoo Diallo reviews African perspectives on Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, the rise and fall of Zionist influence in Africa, and the state of African grassroots solidarity with Palestine."

  • Faris Giacaman: [07-30] Netanyahu's willing executioners: how ordinary Israelis became mass murderers: "After ten months of relentless genocidal war, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that both the Israeli state and society are partners in the genocide. The picture that emerges is a genocide from above and below." Obvious reference here to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 1996 book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, which argued that the Nazi Judeocide was a reflection of widespread vitriolic anti-semitism among ordinary Germans, as opposed to the view that it was an aberration driven by fanatical Nazis, often operating in secret. I haven't read that book, but I've always been suspicious of its thesis, which just doesn't strike me as the way things work. Still, this seems like a fair question to ask of Israelis right now. I can't really tell: there is a lot of personal dislike of Netanyahu in Israel, but there doesn't seem to be much serious opposition to his war policy (which some would argue is a personal stay-out-of-jail strategy). While I recognize his war as flagrantly genocidal, Israeli propaganda takes great pains to deny and deflect, and therefore to shelter supporters from having to acknowledge the consequences of Israel's actions. If they knew better, would they care?

    But I will note that there are several reasons to think that Israelis are more popularly aligned with their government's genocidal policies than Germans were in the early 1940s: Israel is a much more open democracy, so those (except Palestinians) who oppose government policy can (generally) speak out and assemble to protest without fear of jail and torture; while the press in Israel has been fairly tightly controlled, there is still much more information available about the atrocities than was publically available in Germany; the Holocaust took place under cover of total war, toward the end of a long era of European imperialism, where racism was casually accepted and rarely challenged, whereas today most of us know better; in particular, we know much about the Nazi example, and about many other examples of systematically racist behavior, some also amounting to genocide. For an Israeli (and even more so if you're simply an ally of Israel) today, it's much harder to pretend you don't know what's going on, and/or that there's nothing you can do about it.

    By the way, some old pieces on Goldhagen's book:

  • Robert Kuttner: [08-02] Bibi's death wish:

    Is Netanyahu deliberately provoking a regional war that will be disastrous for Israel? Unless he is certifiably insane, his motive has to be to drag in the U.S., not as mediator but as more explicit military protector. And the strategy is working. . . .

    But Israel is certainly guilty of the most barbarous sort of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And Israel's reckless killing of civilians in Gaza violates international law as well as human decency, whether or not it meets some legal test of genocide.

    If you need a primer on the daily humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian population, you owe it to yourself to read Nathan Thrall's book, A Day in the Life of Abed Salama. Israel's actions in the occupied West Bank meet any test of apartheid, and Israel is behaving precisely like a colonial power.

    In some respects, the South African apartheid regime was more benign. They didn't kill Nelson Mandela, and in the end they released him in full recognition that he would be the country's next president. If only F.W. de Klerk, the last president under apartheid, who recognized the inevitability of Mandela and the end of white rule, were a role model for Netanyahu.

    This example is a reminder that if you want peace, you need strong and credible leadership on the other side, to sell the deal to people who have little if any reason to trust you. Israel could have done that with Arafat in 1993, but instead they undercut and marginalized him, even bolstering Hamas to weaken Fatah. They could have done that with Hamas when it won elections in 2007, but they rejected the results. Israelis like to complain that they've never had a "partner for peace," but the more serious problem is that Palestinians have never been allowed to choose their own leaders. It was the British who selected Hajj Amin Ali Husseini and his successors. Israel arranged for Jordan to rule the West Bank from 1948 until they were ready to take it over in 1967, and even later made sure it was Jordan and not the Palestinians running the Waqf. Israel brought in Arafat rather than deal with the Intifada leaders.

  • Craig Murray: [08-02] The Israeli nihilist state: "The apartheid state appears to have no objective other than violence and an urge for desolation."

  • Joseph Massad: [07-29] Why the West created a new dictionary for Israel and Palestine: "Seeking ideological uniformity on the issue, western officials and their media accomplices have long recognised the centrality of language to their political indoctrination project."

  • Nylah Iqbal Muhammad: [08-03] Understanding the connections between the Congo and Palestine genocides: "Friends of the Congo Executive Director Maurice Carney and Professor Eman Abdelhadi discuss the intersections between the genocides in the Congo and Palestine."

  • Zainab Nasser: [08-04] Living remotely: a Palestinian expatriate's struggle from Gaza to Beirut: "The sun rises over Beirut and the city stirs to life. For many, it's a new day filled with promise and potential, maybe hope or pain. But for me, a Gaza-born expatriate who spent 25 years in Gaza, each dawn brings a blend of hope and dread."

  • Corey Robin: [08-03] Two paths for Jewish politics: "In America, Jews pioneered a way of life that didn't rely on the whims of the powerful. Now it's under threat." Starts with a personal story:

    Having never thought that it wasn't, I flashed a puzzled smile and recalled an observation of the German writer Ludwig Börne: "Some reproach me with being a Jew, others pardon me, still others praise me for it. But all are thinking about it."

    Thirty-one years later, everyone's thinking about the Jews. Poll after poll asks them if they feel safe. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris lob insults about who's the greater antisemite. Congressional Republicans, who have all of two Jews in their caucus, deliver lectures on Jewish history to university leaders. . . . But as I learned that summer in Tennessee, and as we're seeing today, concern can be as revealing as contempt. Often the two go hand in hand.

    Consider the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which the House of Representatives recently passed by a vote of 320-91. The act purports to be a response to rising antisemitism in the United States. Yet the murder of Jews, synagogue shootings, and cries of "Jews will not replace us" are clearly not what the bill is designed to address. Nearly half of Republicans believe in the "great replacement theory," after all, and their leader draws from the same well.

    The bill will instead outfit the federal government with a new definition of antisemitism that would shield Israel from criticism and turn campus activism on behalf of Palestinians into acts of illegal discrimination. (Seven of the definition's eleven examples of antisemitism involve opposition to the State of Israel.) Right-wingers who vocally oppose the bill -- Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk -- have little problem with its Zionist agenda. They just worry that it will implicate those who believe the Jews are Christ killers.

  • Ilan Pappé: [08-01] To stop the century-long genocide in Palestine, uproot the source of all violence: Zionism. This led me to another historical piece worth perusing:

  • Rick Staggenborg: [07-31] Why do good people support genocide? "I met with a Zionist to discuss whether it was a 'plausible' case that Israel's tactics constituted genocide."

    At her request, I supplied links to the sources of my claims, including Israeli newspapers and mainstream press articles citing Israeli sources. She said little about the information I shared. Instead, she raised new arguments each time we met for why Israel had "no choice" but to continue its wholesale slaughter of the population of Gaza.

    I eventually realized that she was able to support the destruction of an entire people because she didn't want to confront the facts. I think she suspected that knowing the whole truth might undermine her deeply held beliefs about Israel and perhaps Zionism itself.

  • Kathleen Wallace: [08-02] How will our great grandchildren look back on this chapter? "What is going on in Palestine is, as they say, simply a laboratory for the rest of the world. To not take a stance on such horror is to sign your own death warrant." Not too far back, the author also wrote:

    • [06-07] Does America have narcissistic personality disorder? "As a way of feeling powerful, the worst narcissistic traits are often emulated, and I think this is what we are seeing in the MAGA movement." The author notes "nine basic criteria to diagnose the personality disorder," and finds the US "currently meets all of them."

      1. A grandiose sense of importance.
      2. A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success and power.
      3. A belief that they are special in such a way that only other high-status peoples or institutions can understand them.
      4. A need for excessive admiration.
      5. A sense of entitlement.
      6. Interpersonally exploitative behavior.
      7. A lack of empathy.
      8. An envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her."
      9. Arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    • 05-03] More than just protests for Palestine: existential hope for the world: "Americans have been told that Israel is their only true ally in that region of the world. But nobody wants to know how that situation came to be."

  • Robert Zaretsky: [08-05] Israel's use of torture is a travesty -- just like it was for the French in Algeria 70 years ago.

Election notes:

  • Karen Greenberg: [08-04] Will election 2024 traumatize us? Drawing on her experience with the Guantanamo prison program, the author asks the question, is our political system designed to resign us to a state of "learned helplessness," where we give up all hope?

    The goal was simple: to reduce that prisoner to a profound state of complete paralysis and disempowerment in which, having no hope of relief or escape, he would do whatever his captors wanted. Detainees would see that there was no way out but to answer their captors' questions, which, it turned out, often led them, in desperation and a state of learned helplessness, to confess to things they hadn't done, to confess to whatever their captors wanted to hear.

    Having studied and written about the nightmare of those prisoners and Guantánamo for so many years now, it's been supremely jarring to see the term "learned helplessness" re-emerge in connection to the current unnerving state of American politics and the 2024 presidential election. Yet, in many ways, it seems a strangely appropriate lens through which to view the world of Donald Trump and the rest of us. It was true, as many commented, that a sense of learned helplessness indisputably crept into the mindset of so many of us in this country -- at least prior to Joe Biden's decision not to pursue a second term as president.

    But with Biden's exit, the election feels far less gloomy right now. No matter how improbable election of Kamala Harris may have seemed before Biden dropped out, it now feels like we finally have a fighting chance, and with that comes a sense of euophria that has been sadly lacking from our lives since, well, practically forever.

  • Rebecca Jennings: [08-02] An influencer is running for Senate. Is she just the first of many? "Caroline Gleich's Utah Senate campaign is a sign of the blurring lines between digital creators and politicians." This doesn't strike me as so weird. She sounds like a good candidate.

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-31] What ever happened to RFK Jr.?

Trump:

Vance:

And other Republicans:

Harris:

Biden:

And other Democrats:

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

Other stories:

Obituaries

Books

  • Usman Butt: [2023-07-09] Avi Shlaim's memoir Three Worlds: Mossad, Mizrahim, and the loss of Iraqi Jewry: "Avi Shlaim's memoir is an elucidating account of split worlds under duress. Deeply researched, Shlaim reveals the factors behind his leaving Iraq for Israel, and how the Israeli secret services stoked tensions to facilitate this exodus."

  • Louis Menand: [07-22] When yuppies ruled: "Defining a social type is a way of defining an era. What can the time of the young urban professionjal tell us about our own?" Refers to Tom McGrath: Triumph of the Yuppies: American the Eighties, and the Creation of an Unequal Nation.

  • Jordan Michael Smith: [08-02] The foreign policy mistake the US keeps repeating in the Middle East: "In 2024, the US faces some of the same challenges in the region that it did in 1954." Review of Fawaz A Gerges: What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, a title which alludes to Bernard Lewis's 2002 book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. I read the latter back when I was desperate to read anything on the Middle East, but it mostly just showed me how idiotic western orientalists can be. I haven't read any of Gerges's many books -- most appear to be primers on jihadism for his UK readers -- but he's been working long enough for the imperialist ardor to wear thin. So expect some insights, but also some aggravation. For instance, consider this pull quote:

    The real lesson of America's Cold War policies is that interfering in other countries should only be done when our most vital interests are at stake, we have competent leaders, and we can do more good than ill.

    On the surface, that seems sensible, but every clause melts into goop the moment you reflect on it. Rather than dissect it, let me suggest instead:

    1. Never interfere in other countries. If they are friendly, be friendly. If they are hostile, be wary. If they stink, take your business elsewhere. But don't think that you can or should change them. Ever.
    2. Only domestic interests are vital. Governments are responsible for taking care of their own people, within their own territory, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks "we" have an interest outside the country is wrong, and up to no good.
    3. It's ok to conduct international relations, as long as it's done in a fair and open manner, with mutual respect, not clouded by the projection of power or avarice.
    4. Competent leaders are good. I wish we had some. But no one can judge the competency or fitness of other people's leaders. So don't.
    5. It's impossible to calculate the balance of good and ill: the terms are poorly defined, hard to quantify, and especially hard to anticipate well into the future. The best one can do is to avoid ill at every opportunity. That should leave room for good.

    From WWII on, US interaction with the Middle East has produced one blunder after another, each couched in the notion that we have material interests in the region that need to be advanced or at least defended through alliances with groups that had their own independent and sometimes conflicting interests, and deveoped through ideologies that have only served to further muddy the picture, and to totally befuddle the minds in Washington who think they are in charge. It wasn't always like that. Pre-WWII US interaction was relatively benign: American missionaries established great universities in Beirut and Cairo, tactfully enough that they didn't get tagged as Crusaders; the US refused to join the Great War against the Ottoman Empire, and refused a mandate over post-war Turkey.

    Things started to change in the 1930s when American oil companies came to Saudi Arabia, but even there they made much more equitable arrangements with Aramco than the British did with their Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Eisenhower policies Gerges is so critical of were still rooted in past good will, even as it was rapidly being squandered to backstop British imperialism and the global oil monopoly, and ultimately to gratify Israel's every whim. One can imagine ways to unwind some of the worst effects, but there's little chance of that happening until you first realize that the entire project was rotten from the start.

  • Alexander Sorondo: [07-31] The short shelf-life of the White House tell-all: "Fly-on-the-wall West Wing books age like milk. Why do journalists and publishers bother?" Maybe they like milk? So few books stand the tes to time, it's almost silly to think that they should. One may question the value of "insider" stories, as compared to broader-based studies and deeper histories, but there's no reason they can't contribute something.

    Franklin Foer's book on Biden, The Last Politician, gets a mention, especially because something very significant (October 7) happened just a month after it came out. I'll admit I bought a copy, then didn't read it in a timely fashion, and at this point probably never will. But when I bought it, I thought there was a deficit of information on how Biden was operating around lots of issues -- especially on the Afghanistan retreat, which I thought he got a bum rap for, but with Biden it's hard to tell what's art and what's just klutziness.

    While it's always possible to publish too soon, books do take long enough to write that authors can get beyond first impressions and instincts. I rather doubt that Thomas Ricks meant to call his Iraq War book Fiasco, but by the time he finished, the title was obvious. Similarly, I thought Rajiv Chandrasekaran's reporting from Iraq was really shallow, but by the time he turned it into a book (Imperial Life in the Emerald City) he had a real story. The author here seems to prefer memoirs over journalism, but his examples (Bill Barr, James Comey, Anthony Scaramucci) aren't very persuasive.

Music (and other arts?)

Chatter

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 254 links, 12958 words (17123 total)

Current count: 256 links, 12995 words (17190 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.