OK Kids, He’s Dead. You Can Come Out Now.

There’s an old Yiddish saying-"alleh maisim tzadikim"-which, loosely translated, means "all the dead are righteous", or more specifically, one should never speak ill of the dead, at least not the recently departed. Thankfully, not all Yiddishisms, no matter how salient, have the force of a commandment. Even if it had in this case, I would have gladly—and publicly—broken it. As I will do now.

Sometimes, pop culture gets it right. One of those cases was OJ Simpson. Once it became obvious that he was the most likely culprit in the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, the entire country knew, no matter what the outcome of the trial, that his celebrity was radioactive; never again would he be able to cash in on his status as a pop culture icon, now forever tarnished. In fact, the oft-made observations made at the time regarding the Black/White divide in reaction to the verdict, while salient, overlooked the fact that the Black “cheering” for him had less to do with OJ than the perception that a historical pattern of racial bias in the American justice system had played out in reverse for once. OJ remained as much a cultural pariah after the acquittal, even in the Black community.

Like OJ, Michael Jackson escaped legal retribution for his misbehavior. Unlike OJ somehow he was able to maintain his privileged position in the pop culture pantheon, to the point his recent comeback shows in London sold out in a ridiculously short amount of time, this despite committing the “original sin” of “just don’t get caught with a dead girl…or live boy.” Not only did he get away with it [at least] twice, but he even practically bragged about it on national television in Martin Bashir’s 2003 ABC documentary. While much of the eulogies offered regarding Jackson praised his ostensible bridging of Black and White culture, this much is certain: his supporters during his legal difficulties cut across all ethnic and racial lines. In that sense, Al Sharpton was correct.

What is even more baffling in the case of Jackson is that America—if not the world—seemed willing to forgive him the one crime that usually garners more social opprobrium than murder: homosexual pedophilia. [It’s amazing that, in all of the garment-rending on TV that almost rivaled Obama’s groveling in Cairo, the only pundit that didn’t completely sacrifice his credibility was Geraldo Rivera, who had the audacity to suggest that Jackson somehow brought this all on himself.]

In trying to explain how this could happen, one might begin with the argument that Michael Jackson’s contributions to pop culture at large far outweighed those of, say, OJ Simpson. While this is true, I would say Jackson's status is highly overrated. One should remember, his self-coronation as "King Of Pop" occurred around 1991, when his slide into musical irrelevancy became more slippery and, concomitantly, his more bizarre behavioral tendencies became more pronounced. Take away his work as a child star [certainly, overwhelmingly the product of others’ imaginations and talents, though one should not overlook the price Jackson himself paid], and his total musical irrelevance after 1991 [his Greatest Hits album sold poorly, and his only post-1991 album of all-new material—2001’s “Invincible”—was DOA], and you’re left with four salient albums. No one can take much away from Off The Wall and Thriller—except when one considers that the real “genius” behind those albums was Quincy Jones and his production skills. Even those couldn’t save “Bad” [certainly an appropriate title for an album with only one good song, "Smooth Criminal"], and “Dangerous” had the misfortune to come out at the time when the Seattle scene began to overtake the music business, rendering it irrelevant almost immediately upon release.

More sacrilegious from a pop culture point of view were the comparisons to Elvis and the Beatles. Uh, no. Everything Michael Jackson succeeded in—recording, dancing, video media—was equaled or surpassed by Presley and the Fab Four, who certainly made more than four relevant albums, and actually played instruments; not to mention none of them had the 15-year headstart in the business that Jackson did. Jackson came along at the right time; Elvis and the Beatles created the zeitgeists that defined their times. [I’d even argue that Jimi Hendrix’ and Prince’ musical contributions are way more important, if one uses a crossover criterion.]

Nevertheless, that fact may provide the first explanation as to why Jackson kept getting free passes: as we were continually reminded, we “grew up with him”. I suppose one can’t underestimate the power of nostalgia, but also that people bizarrely considered him almost as a “family member”. It becomes difficult to re-examine such a childhood icon with a more jaundiced eye, even when the behavior of said icon becomes increasingly inexplicable. In fact, the media's treatment of him as a freak, while accurate, may have eventually led everyone to simply shrug their shoulders even as his behavior advanced from the grotesque to the reprehensible [viz., dangling his "son" over a hotel balcony]. Consider also that Jackson’s celebrity colleagues almost to a person categorically denied the possibility that Jackson could ever hurt a child, add the almost divine currency attributed to celebrity pronouncements to the penchant for nostalgia, and Jackson’s shield became almost impenetrable. It even served to exaggerate his cultural importance, which circuitously reinforced said shield.

A second explanation, a two-fold observation regarding child psychology and general attitudes toward others’ children, may be the most disturbing. By all accounts, during Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau brilliantly dissected the accuser’s and his mother’s testimony, enough to elicit the eventual acquittal. At the time, I had a theory that, if the situation became dire, Jackson’s defense team had a “nuclear” option: to claim that Jackson was emotionally no more mature than his alleged victims and therefore, as an emotional [if not sexual] 12-year-old, could not form the requisite criminal intent. It never came to that, even if the spectacle of Neverland Ranch ensured that it would not take a trained psychologist to come to the same conclusion. The fact that people were willing to air this “excuse” for Jackson at the expense of his victims indicated that, in line with all the reason delineated above, there was always something more important to consider than the welfare of someone else’s children. [I always thought this was one of the fatal flaws in public education: the notion that someone would willingly cover someone else’s kid’s tuition. But that’s for another time.]

To provide a perfect summing-up: one item in Jackson’s oeuvre repeatedly touted as one of his greatest achievements was the “Thriller” video where Jackson turns into a monster onscreen. One wonders whether Jackson was trying to tell us something. Apparently, no one was really paying attention.

No one wanted to.

Only If We're Stupid Enough To

The adage “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a way of life in the Middle East. In a similar vein there are occasions when your ideological opponents make your job easier.

Tony Judt has done that in an Op-Ed in today’s times where he dccries the possibility that West Bank settlements will ever be evacuated [see excerpt below. If you want to read the rest of the article, go to the link; I don’t fell particularly obligated to reprint his spurious allegations about the “legality” of Jewish civilians living East of the Green Line, despite the elevations of said allegations to truisms.]

Where mine and Judt’s premonitions—if not hopes—intersect is this:

There will never be a “contiguous”, “viable”, “Palestinian State” comprising the two distinct unrelated geographic entities of Gaza and the West Bank—as long as the Israelis aren’t stupid enough to create it themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22judt.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th&adxnnlx=1245672177-7tRWY 5da1m9/BS82Mmt3Q

excerpt from Fictions on the Ground By TONY JUDT June 22, 2009

Despite all the diplomatic talk of disbanding the settlements as a condition for peace, no one seriously believes that these communities — with their half a million residents, their urban installations, their privileged access to fertile land and water — will ever be removed. The Israeli authorities, whether left, right or center, have no intention of removing them, and neither Palestinians nor informed Americans harbor illusions on this score.

To be sure, it suits almost everyone to pretend otherwise — to point to the 2003 “road map” and speak of a final accord based on the 1967 frontiers. But such feigned obliviousness is the small change of political hypocrisy, the lubricant of diplomatic exchange that facilitates communication and compromise.

There are occasions, however, when political hypocrisy is its own nemesis, and this is one of them. Because the settlements will never go, and yet almost everyone likes to pretend otherwise, we have resolutely ignored the implications of what Israelis have long been proud to call “the facts on the ground.”

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, knows this better than most. On June 14 he gave a much-anticipated speech in which he artfully blew smoke in the eyes of his American interlocutors. While offering to acknowledge the hypothetical existence of an eventual Palestinian state — on the explicit understanding that it exercise no control over its airspace and have no means of defending itself against aggression — he reiterated the only Israeli position that really matters: we won’t build illegal settlements but we reserve the right to expand “legal” ones according to their natural rate of growth.

The reassurances Mr. Netanyahu offered the settlers and their political constituency were as well received as ever, despite being couched in honeyed clichés directed at nervous American listeners. And the American news media, predictably, took the bait — uniformly emphasizing Mr. Netanyahu’s “support” for a Palestinian state and playing down everything else.

However, the real question now is whether President Obama will respond in a similar vein. He surely wants to. Nothing could better please the American president and his advisors than to be able to assert that, in the wake of his Cairo speech, even Mr. Netanyahu had shifted ground and was open to compromise. Thus Washington avoids a confrontation, for now, with its closest ally. But the uncomfortable reality is that the prime minister restated the unvarnished truth: His government has no intention of recognizing international law or opinion with respect to Israel’s land-grab in “Judea and Samaria.”

...[I]f I am right, and there is no realistic prospect of removing Israel’s settlements, then for the American government to agree that the mere nonexpansion of “authorized” settlements is a genuine step toward peace would be the worst possible outcome of the present diplomatic dance. No one else in the world believes this fairy tale; why should we? Israel’s political elite would breathe an unmerited sigh of relief, having once again pulled the wool over the eyes of its paymaster.

Teheran Eats Itself

For starters, you have to give Iran some credit. As a state that is undoubtedly theocratic, to hold elections that go beyond the Islamist tenet of “one man, one vote, once” might be considered an accomplishment, allegations of fraud notwithstanding. [As we know all too well, a polity need not be theocratic in nature to engage in voter fraud.]

As I’ve hinted at repeatedly in this forum, one of the reasons I am convinced that the American military misadventure in Iraq has been so damaging is that it has taken away resources that could have been used in operations against more dangerous players, like Iran. This would have been one such scenario, a perfect opportunity for the United States to use something other than simple diplomatic persuasion to better forward two of its stated interests: one, to better facilitate the viability of democratic institutions in the Middle East; and, two, to improve relations with the Islamic world. And, if we weren’t necessarily going to shore up an ostensibly duly elected Islamic regime, we could have taken advantage of an emerging power vacuum, reduce the influence of the Mullahs, and certainly done no worse than we’ve done in Iraq, especially since the initial crisis would have been of the Iranians’ own making.

As it is, the developing conflict provides an opportunity for the United States to experiment with it newly stated foreign policy approach of appeasing Islam, and to better gauge the possibilities inherent in an Islamic society tearing itself apart without it being our responsibility, as it became in Iraq. Obviously, American military options vis-a-vis influencing election outcomes are off the table. However, a wait-and-see approach with the most overt response being nothing more than the most lukewarm of diplomatic protests against the alleged electoral improprieties allows for the possibility that if Madma-dinejad is declared the winner and invited to form the next government, the Iranian streets will spill over and become too much for Tehran to handle.

The worst thing we can do, of course, is send Jimmy Carter to broker a compromise that maintains the status quo. That would serve as the strongest possible indicator of appeasement being US policy. One can only hope that option remains considered politically untenable.

As far as I’m concerned, though, the best possible outcome would be for the Israelis to take advantage of the bungled transmission of power and start bombing the nuclear sites now, or at least when it becomes increasingly clear that Tehran is too self-involved to truly present a unified response. One can expect that any aggressive Israeli action will unite the populace behind whoever is in power, because neither candidate is exactly philo-Semitic. However, taking advantage of the Persian power vacuum, while it would not mute the international diplomatic opprobrium that would emanate from all corners of the globe, would certainly serve to make any Iranian response less coherent and cohesive than it otherwise might be.

And, just like with Osirak in 1981, the world will thank the Israelis. [Under their breath, of course.]

Obama In Cairo II: The Triumph Of Saidism

Much has been made of the fact that President Obama speech was so overtly reverent of Islam and Islamic history in his Cairo speech. In the June 9 Washington Times Frank Gaffney makes the argument that Obama should be termed America’s first “Muslim” president” the way Bill Clinton was America’s first “Black” President.

While Gaffney’s arguments are salient, I would posit that it was less the triumph of Obamaist Islam [or Muslim Obamaism?] as it was a triumph of Saidism: that is, the acceptance of Edward Said’s theses of “Orientalism” and the concomitant necessity of the West to accommodate itself to the Eastern cultures it had “misrepresented” and “oppressed” for its own benefit. One might notice a correlation between the election of a [true] Black US President and the implementation of a type of “affirmative action” vis-à-vis the Islamic world based on Said’s proscriptions, among other things.

A better explanation might be found in two books by Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom. Bawer, a gay man who moved originally to Amsterdam with his partner in the 1990’s due to fears that the Christian Right was going to turn America theocratic, found that Europe seemed to have resigned itself to an inevitable Islamic takeover of the continent, and the elites enforcing the rigid doctrines of political correctness seemed to be positioning themselves for favorable treatment in an eventual Eurabia.

One might wonder whether US policy is leaning in this direction. The only other explanation I can think of is that, by making accommodating overtures to the Muslim world, Obama hopes that the religion will “reform” and “Westernize” itself, much as Christianity did. However, when one remembers that a) it took Christianity nearly two millennia to do that and b) in this regard, Islam has been unmistakably devolving, one wonders if this has truly crossed anyone’s mind.

Obama in Cairo, Part I: A Real Paradigm Shift

If you’re pro-Israel [like I am], and your politics more or less revolve around issues most salient to the Middle East [like mine do], your worst nightmare has now come true.

In 1993, Time Magazine chose Yasser Arafat, F.W. de Klerk, Nelson Mandela, and Yitzhak Rabin as their “Men of the Year”, under the rubric “The Peacemakers”. This was no mere historical accident. It has long been a progressive truism—albeit a comparatively muted one—that Israel’s democracy was/is of the “herrenvelok” variety is analogous to South Africa’s apartheid regime, in degree is not in kind. [Whether the Israeli leadership was panicked into implementing the Oslo agreement in 1993 when they realized that a rapprochement was imminent in South Africa is an interesting matter of conjecture.]

This notion has had great currency in most of the free world [to say nothing of the “unfree” world], with until now, the exception of the United States. With the exception of the State Department—which still hasn’t gotten over the fact that it was overruled by President Truman in 1948 when he recognized the new independent State of Israel over its vehement objections—the US, at least in public, has for the most part, been Israel’s most steadfast ally, certainly for the last 40 years.

Specifically, the US was committed to the continued existence of Israel as THE Jewish State. President Obama’s speech in Cairo indicated that those days are now over.

While it’s certainly true that the United States’ policy regarding settlements [as evidenced by the American’s continued opposition to their existence, and characterization as such as “impediments to peace”] and Jerusalem [as evidenced by the longstanding refusal to move the American Embassy there], the tone of this speech, in combination with the rather deferential—if not outright servile—attitude toward Islam indicates that the scales have shifted.

One can say that United States policy is “equally accepting” of Jews and Palestinians’ “national rights” to the same piece of real estate. What this means is the United States’ new policy is to pressure Israel to “peacefully” vote itself out of existence as the Jewish State; the “Road Map” leads to a one-state solution.

For mostly obvious political reasons, this cannot be stated publicly. Yet. However, Winston Churchill’s formulation “The Jews are in Palestine [sic] by right, not by sufferance” has been reversed.

There is one hopeful development that has been overlooked. As it becomes increasingly clear to the Israeli populace that the rest of the world expected the Oslo process to lead to the eventual establishment of a “binational” state, the Israeli electorate has finally woken up to the idea that only they can truly look out for their own interests. In 1999, when Prime Minister Netanyahu stood up to American pressure and was turned out of office by the Israeli electorate, the political zeitgeist was different. Ten years later, most of Israel believes that peace has been given more than a chance, and that the Palestinians and their supporters are playing a zero-sum game.

The question of Israel’s existence will be answered ONLY by the Israelis themselves.