Viva la revolucion!

Like everyone else I know, I'm more than a little nervous as to what comes next in Egypt...

But only an utterly heartless person can see the joy of the people throwing off an autocrat and not be extremely proud. Proud not to be an American -- proud to be a human being. Today is a great day. We should all salute the Egyptians who helped make this happen.

Someone I know said, "You don't really think it's going to be a democracy, do you?"

Sadly, no I do not. The sneaking suspicion I have (which is due in part to my there's-no-such-thing-as-good-news Jewish nature) is that the Muslim Brotherhood will step in to fill the power void. Which could tilt Egypt towards two things that I really don't want to see: Sharia law and war with Israel.

But that chapter has not been written yet. I refuse to not honor the Egyptians for doing what was long overdue: Casting off tyranny.

Moreover, not only did the Egyptians rightly refuse to compromise (Mubarak had to step down. Every other ship had sailed.) But they got what they want with such admirable restraint. This revolution has been largely bloodless -- and I'm slightly stunned by this.

In a region where for the last decade or so, Palestinian suicide bombers have been egged on to do their horrific work, well, this is different. This is a change. Dare I say, a big one. And I very much hope the Palestinians are paying close attention to what happened in Cairo for the last 18 days.

We'll all see what happens tomorrow. I'm nervous. But excited, too. Viva!

Sorry, Tony -- but you're still an asshole

Political spectators with weak stomachs would be advised to stay away from New York magazine this week.

First, there's a piece about Dick Cheney's lunatic spawn, Liz, and her future as a player in the Republican party.

To my untrained, unprofessional eyes, she seems the longest of long shots. Even though the article goes to lengths to try to disprove it, Liz's kinship with Dick is really the only thing she has going for her. (It's true, she worked at the State Department, but the only substantive mention of her professional life was some screw up she was responsible for when trying to hammer out an agreement with the Egyptians.)

But a blood-relationship with Dick Cheney will not carry anyone to the White House. I doubt very much that she can pose a credible challenge to Jim Webb for a Virginia senate seat -- although I suppose it's not out of the question that she could carry some deep red fly-over state.

But almost more upsetting, in a way, is the profile of NYU scholar Tony Judt.

Professor Judt is sick with Lou Gehrig's disease. I'm very sorry for him and his family. But this doesn't change the fact that he's a pretty lousy thinker -- at least when it comes to Israel. Judt gets away with it somewhat because he's Jewish. And he gets away with it somewhat because, unlike a lot of Jewish Israel critics, he actually spent significant time in Israel.

I'll even go one further: Not all of Judt's attacks are wrong. In fact, when he says, "a growing number of Israelis, [have] been corrupted into an uncompromising ethno-religious real estate pact with a partisan God" I sort of agree with him. (And I concede that "entho-religious real estate pact" is the mark of a good writer.)

The thing that I can't stand is the fact that his invective is solely reserved for Israel.

Sure, there are fanatics in Israel -- that should come as no surprise to anybody. But I find it unfathomable that Judt can't get equally outraged by the fanatics amongst the Palestinians. Fanatics like Hamas and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade (all of which have a sharia interpretation of their future Palestinian state) have spent years directing the attacks against Israel with the intention of driving Israel further right and undermining the possibility of a two-state solution. (And have been running the lives of the Palestinians into the ground along the way, I might add.)

Yes, I concede that Israel has greater responsibilities, given that it's a functioning democracy -- but where's the disgust and anger with the other thugs who have hijacked the peace process?

Also, I thought there was a snobbishness in Mr. Judt's dismissal of Israel that I found unbearable. “Most Israelis were not transplanted latter-day agrarian socialists," Judt writes, "but young, prejudiced urban Jews who differed from their European or American counterparts chiefly in their macho, swaggering self-confidence, and access to armed weapons.”

You'll pardon my French, but that's an utterly bullshit argument. First off, what does Judt expect? "Latter-day agrarian socialists?" So Israel has to qualify morally and ethically -- according to Tony Judt's idea of a liberal democracy -- before it's entitled to its status and protection as a state?

Certainly not. Why shouldn't Israel be urban? Why shouldn't it be modern? Why shouldn't it be western-centric? None of these offenses punishable by death. Nor have I ever heard of any other state who had to defend itself on such existential (and ridiculous) grounds. (As for the claims that they're macho and prejudiced: Some are, yes. But these, too, are not offenses worthy of a suicide bomb in a market place.)

I agree with Mr. Judt that Israel is committing a slow form of suicide in its attachment to the West Bank -- but when he says that the idea that Israel will ever leave is a "fantasy" I have to reply: What have you been smoking? Israel has pulled out of territory five times in the last three decades. They abandoned settlements in the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty. They abandoned settlements in Gaza without a peace treaty. The other three times (Lebanon, Lebanon and Gaza) there were no settlements to dismantle or abandon. While I don't see Israel leaving the West Bank right now, it's absurd to say it will never happen.

I only hope that Mr. Judt remains healthy long enough to see himself proved wrong.

Is Israel the best place to crash a wedding?

Glimpse.org seems to think so.

And I don't disagree.

The first wedding I went to in Israel was for the son of a friend of mine. I went in full suit and tie -- and I think I was the only person (aside from the groom) who was that dressed up. Yes, I think you could walk in off the street and be treated pretty well at an Israeli wedding. And Israelis, for the most part, don't care too much about breaches of protocol.

This video seems to have a slightly different philosophical bent than everyone's favorite Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn comedy, Wedding Crashers. (For one thing, it looked at the question somewhat more realistically.) Yes, Wedding Crashers is correct: Almost anyone can crash a wedding.

But whereas the stars of Wedding Crashers went all out and made toasts, to embrace the bridge and groom, and to become the center of attention, Glimpse advises more modesty. They're probably right.

But they agree on the important stuff. A crashed wedding means: Lots of free food, lots of dancing, lots of horny single people. (Although, you're not going to meet anybody at an Orthodox Jewish wedding if the dancing and dinner is separate. Crash the less religious weddings in Israel for that.)

The real reason to get mad at Andrew Sullivan

Is it me, or is this whole "Andrew Sullivan is an antisemite" thing the most ridiculous internet/media dustup of all time?

I guess I should start by recounting the whole sordid drama:

The arts editor at the New Republic, Leon Wieseltier, wrote an extremely pretentions, extremely personal, and dubiously reasoned attack piece on Sullivan suggesting (without coming right out and saying it) that Sullivan's views on Israel bordered on antisemitism.

The charge is, in a word, ludicrous. (Not just ludicrous -- it's also vile.)

Sullivan replied persuasively. Wiesltier counter-replied (calling Sullivan's response "sentimental"). And, since then, many other writers and bloggers have weighed in.

I've read Andrew Sullivan every day for the past five years (with a few days off here and there) and I have never detected the faintest whiff of antisemtism in his writing. Nor have I seen any writing that could be legitimately described as unfair to Israel (even if I don't always agree).

The real question, however, is:

What the hell was the fight between these two?

The way Sullivan describes it, he and Wieseltier were once BFF. And then there was some falling out. Sullivan coyly demurred to tell us what the falling out was over. And that is something worth getting upset over. Come on, Andrew. Out with it! Your readers have the right to know!

Well, that's big-o'-ME, too!

The Times is reporting on a somewhat unlikely schlubby/stud.

There's a guy in Israel who has apparently been living in some sort of polygamist compound with 17 wives.

I've always been pretty much a civil libertarian in these matters -- heck, if 17 women want to be with one dude, well, who am I to say that this is wrong?

But, eerily enough, this story comes out on the week that I was reading Jon Krakauer's book about Mormons (as well as polygamy and murder) called Under the Banner of Heaven -- and I have to say, Krakauer puts forth probably the best case for why polygamy is harmful.

If you don't know anything about Mormonism (or, more accurately, Mormon Fundamentalism) you should pick up a copy of this book. It's fascinating. I had no idea just how big a deal polygamy was to the Mormon religion, and its history. Nor did I realize that there are tens of thousands of Mormons living throughout the United States in a way of life that quite frankly resembles the Taliban. (Mainstream Mormons rightly distance themselves from these kooks.)

Fourteen year old girls are essentially kidnapped, raped and sold into slavery to men two or three times their age -- with the happy consent of their families.

Do these girls have any choice? Of course not. When they raise any objections whatsoever they are told that they will be cast into the farthest reaches of hell. Local police and prosecutors are deferential to the church, and rarely intercede.

So schlubs reading this: If, upon reaching your studliness, you decide to start a polygamous compound in Israel, don't expect any support from yours truly! True schlubs are not for bigamy.

Gaza goes bananas

Lawrence Wright (the author of what was far and away the single best book about Al Qaeda, The Looming Tower) has a must read piece in the New Yorker this week about Gaza.

I think the more interesting part of the article is the beginning and end (the stuff about Israel's recent Gaza war is mostly familiar).

Gaza sounds like absolute hell. And Hamas seems to be only getting crazier. As a portrait of the Byzantine nature of life in Gaza right now, it's one of the best recent pieces I've yet read. It also includes the following quote:

'Mozini [one of the Palestinian negotiators with Israel] began reciting the names of Gazan prisoners who had received sentences of more than a thousand years [whom Mozini insisted be released]. Hassan Salameh, a Hamas operative, is serving forty-eight consecutive life sentences for recruiting suicide bombers. Walid Anjes helped plan the bombing at Moment and two other devastating attacks. He has twenty-six life sentences. Mozini mentioned a prisoner named Abdel Hadi Suleiman Ghneim: “He was riding in a bus. All he did was grab the steering wheel and take it over a cliff.” He laughed. “Sixteen people were dead and many wounded—even Ghneim was wounded!” Ghneim received a life sentence for every person who died on the bus. These punishments struck Mozini as ludicrous.'

This is the kind of thing that makes you think there is no hope whatsoever.

I mean, Palestinian officials are surprised that Israel would sentence terrorists who drive buses off cliffs to hundreds of years in prison? This is what gets them outraged? (Or, even worse, makes them laugh?)

If the Palestinians want to get outraged at Israel, Wright offers more than enough ammunition. The fact that 300 children were killed in the recent operation is enough for me.

This doesn't mean that Israel loses all moral credibility, obviously -- but it is also obvious that the Israelis were much more reckless than they are willing to concede in this January operation. Look, war is hell, and collateral damage is inevitable. But why was Israel shelling schools, for chrissake? I'm sure that part of the reason was faulty intelligence. And Israel would much rather conduct their war from the safety of a predator drone relying on what intelligence they have. But that's really no excuse. Israel has a responsibility to shield the Palestinian civilians -- and they've done a shitty job. If they are going to invade another country, Israeli soldiers need to assume some risk. They avoided it with horrible consequences.

Tzipi Livnit also has a memorable quote: "Israel is not a country upon which you fire missiles and it does not respond. It is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild."

Quite frankly, I think Livnit is right. Israel should respond (aggressively) towards acts of terror against its civilians. That's not the issue. But not all Palestinians are terrorists -- and I'm not sure Israel has learned this lesson.

The only thing hopeful in this whole article is towards the end. Hamas sponsored a workshop entitled, "How to Talk to Israel" -- and the Palestinians were asking the kinds of questions I've always wished they asked. (I.e., that they should stop saying one thing amongst themselves -- that they'd like to destroy Israel -- and another thing to the rest of the world; that they should think through the consequences of indiscriminate acts of violence; that they have atrocious leadership problems.)

Let's hope they keep asking these questions -- but I don't see how you can finish reading this article and feel even a glimmer of optimism.

Now THAT sucks

One of the big questions I've had for the past four years was:

If Ariel Sharon has been in a coma since his stroke four years ago... is he still fat?

I mean, he's on an IV drip, no? Don't you lose weight on those things? He's certainly not eating like he used to. I figured that the one good thing for Sharon would be waking up from his coma and discovering himself a hundred pounds lighter. I mean, would that make up for the coma? No. But it would be the one really awesome fringe benefit.

Well, it turns out, he's still fat.

"He looks about the same," says his doctor, Shlomo Segev in this article in the Daily Beast. "You would recognize him."

Man, that sucks.

I've got my money on Obama

It looks like President Obama's plan to make Bibi Netanyahu self-destruct is proceeding along nicely.

Haaretz is reporting that Bibi is quickly coming unglued -- over really ridiculous, stupid shit.

1) Kadima, the centrist opposition party, was passing out anti-Bibi stickers in the Knesset cafeteria -- and Bibi was so angered that he called a press conference!

(Seriously?)

2) Nobody in his cabinet takes him seriously. Ehud Olmert was called in for a meeting with the prime minister and spent the whole meeting talking about Bibi's negative media coverage.

("Is this what he called me in for?" Olmert reportedy asked an aide.)

3) He's upset that his speech at Bar Illan University calling for a two-state solution didn't become (get this) "mandatory reading at schools in the United States"...

(Uh.... huh?)

4) He privately thinks David Axlerod and Rahm Emanuel are self-hating Jews.

This is getting so good.

One of Obama's real strengths is his patience. He generally knows that given a certain amount of time, a bad politician will self-destruct. He did it with Hillary Clinton. He did it with John McCain. He's currently playing the same strategy with what seems like the entire G.O.P. (It seems like a really, really winning strategy.)

Looks like Bibi got the treatment, too.

Although it really isn't any surprise. This seems like an almost play-by-play retelling of Bibi's last stint as Prime Minister. Back then, he was again acting incredibly rashly, throwing tantrums, and feuding with an American President.

Let's not forget that Bibi once -- rashly, in a fit of pique -- tried to assissinate terrorists in Jordan, one of only two Arab countries with a freaking peace treaty with Israel. (A treaty that was more than 40 years in the making.)

And all this happening just 100 days into his new government?

I give Bibi less than a year.

Bedtime for Bibi?

As a stalwart supporter of Israel, with many Israeli friends and relatives (and who actually lived there for 12 months) I have to say this: I'm extremely relieved that President Obama is coming down very hard on Bibi Netanyahu on the issue of the settlements.

I admit that part of this comes from a personal revulsion for Bibi.

For a thorough discussion of Bibi's numerous diplomatic errors and lapses in judgment, I recommend Dennis Ross' great book The Missing Peace. (I've never quite understood why this book wasn't more widely appreciated. It's a big book -- but it's really well done.)

And more than just his mistakes in governing, I always thought that Bibi was among the more venal and self-interested politicians on the planet.

Shortly before Yitzhak Rabin was killed, it was Bibi who was leading the rallies against the peace process -- rallies which were filled with the kind of bile and venom that eventually coaxed Yigal Amir into murdering Rabin. (For more on this, read Murder in the Name of God.)

Of course, it's ludicrous to blame Bibi for the actions of Yigal Amir. But there were hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of trigger-happy yahoos at those rallies. Bibi happily stoked those fires. And unlike other disgraced Israeli politicians -- Menachem Begin, who left the public sphere awash in guilt; or Arik Sharon who actually put the Israelis and Palestinians back on the path to a two state solution -- Bibi never seemed to learn from this episode or even feel bad about it.

But more than my own personal dislike for Bibi, I also happen to think that the administration's approach is the correct one.

Look, Israel has many intractable problems, most of which will probably not go away simply by dismantling the settlements. I've often thought that the settlements were a club the rest of the world used to bash Israel and not confront the numerous political failures of the Palestinians. But that doesn't change the fact that the settlements are a cancer on Israeli society.

The numbers won't change, no matter how much the Israelis wish they would: Jews will not be in the majority in that land if they hold onto the West Bank for another decade. At that point, Israel will have to decide between being a democracy and being a Jewish state. They won't be able to do both.

And I'm not sure Israel can get rid themselves of this land without outside intervention.

Like every democracy on earth, a single significant constituency (in this case the settlers) has the power to do great damage. The "facts on the ground" make it extremely difficult to reverse course without a big national consensus.

Right now that consensus doesn't exist. (It did, back in 2000. No more.)

I think the only country that has the sway to force Israel into this kind of confrontation with its own political forces is the United States. We can think of it as an intervention: Israel is not strong enough to do this on its own. It needs our help. I'm glad we're helping.

Screw you, I'd rather die

A heartbreaking story in the Times today (which really should have been a page one story) about how the Palestinian Authority has basically ordered Palestinians to stop going to Israeli hospitals.

Like the conflict itself, it's one of those things where you can sort of see both sides of things.

On the Palestinian side:

Their government is bankrupt and they're pouring money into what is essentially their enemy's coffers. And one of the Palestinian doctors pointed out (with some merit) that it creates a culture of dependency. (I don't agree with this interpretation, but it has its points.)

On the Israeli side:

It's not as though Israel is making a profit on this. They're treating Palestinians for the same cost that they're treating Israelis. (At a much lower cost than it would be to treat them, say, in the U.S.) And the fact is, dependency or not, Israel has much better medical care than you can get in the West Bank or Gaza. People will die without access to their technology and expertise.

Sigh.

"We couldn't do it with Arafat and it looks to me... we can't do it without him"

I've tried to stay as far away as possible from the Arab/Israeli conflict on this blog -- because it's probably the rawest of all political issues, and I'm not interested in making enemies. (Plus, I've found that I'm usually no good at convincing anyone of anything.)

However, for those who do care about the conflict (as I do) it's worth looking at this bloggingheads dialogue between Eli Lake and Clinton administration official Aaron David Miller -- if only for this bit of wisdom:

"We couldn't [do a peace deal] with Arafat," says Miller, "and it looks to me...we can't do it without him."

It's funny, that was the conventional wisdom back in the 1990s, but it has fallen so out of vogue that it came as a blazing insight when I heard it yesterday.

There's a lot of truth in that.

After Yasser Arafat died my immediate thought was that a huge stumbling block to peace had been removed and that now the serious people could take over. Well, it's been well over four years and the serious people seem weaker and less relevant than ever. This is not to say that Arafat wasn't a stumbling block. He was. A major one.

But I think Miller is right when he says that Arafat had the power to make a deal happen -- if he wanted to. It's just that nobody could figure out what could make him want to.

Sandler 2.0

I'm a little late getting to this, but my friend Daniel Treiman had a pretty funny article in The Forward a few weeks back arguing that Adam Sandler (schlub extraordinare) is, in fact, "the most important living Jewish commentator".

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

Daniel's thesis is, more or less, that Sandler has done more to make Jewishness (or Israeliness, as is the case in "You Don't Mess with the Zohan") a normal, every day, accepted American thing.

It's true, there's something about Sandler that has penetrated the American psyche. When Eric Cartman was trapped in a robot-suit in Hollywood as "Awesome-o" and he was being asked for movie ideas, every single one seemed to involve Adam Sandler in some way. Did Eric (a fervent antisemite) care about Sandler's Jewishness? Not really. So in that sense, I think Daniel might be on to something...(but most important Jewish commentator? Come on!)

I'd say that Sandler has done as much for schlubs, though, as he has done for Jews.

Is this man a schlub?

Uh, yeah. Adam Sandler is a mega-schlub.

In fact, should you wish to see his schlubbiness on full display, by all means check out, "You Don't Mess With the Zohan." I saw it this weekend, and I admit to letting loose a few guilty chuckles of laughter. (Some of the Israeli jokes were really spot on. Others, not so much. But it was a lot better than "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.")

Sandler is one of those weird cases where I sometimes think he isn't that much of a schlub, actually. And I am one of the few people I know (besides my parents) who think he might have hidden depths as an actor. He wasn't a schlub in (the extremely underrated) "Punch Drunk Love" -- he was just extremely strange. He wasn't a schlub in (the also underrated) "Spanglish." Just the ultimate nice Jewish boy.

But someone got the idea of casting him as the Israeli Warren Beatty in "Shampoo." An inspired idea in its total insanity. And in that role the schlub shines through clearest of all.