In Context

They both make me sick.  They represent the poles that are tearing this country apart.  For  a while, I thought the Tea Party movement was representing the center.  Silly me.

Beck and Palin just don't get the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  And that floors me.  The potential GOP sweep in November is starting to look to me like one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments.  Been there and done that, back when I was a Democrat.

Why is it that "the centre cannot hold?"  Yeats' vision suggests that the extremes lead to apocalypse.  That sounds about right to me.

You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... the Twilight Zone.

They're here!

21.   [IRS] Agent Gentry also informed Z STREET's counsel that the IRS is carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel.

22.   Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET: "these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies."

This is not a joke.  This is not a spoof.  This is not the country I grew up in. This is happening, now. 

Solomonia nails the J Street connection. 

Enough, already.  Whatever your political persuasion, if you're an American, you should be outraged.

Rauf tapes (so far).

No big shocks there and can't say I'm surprised.  The bang on any given story is often inversely proportional to the hype.  Or at least perceived that way.  Which is why excessive hype is often not the best strategy.

Still, a "moderate," he ain't.  At least in my book.  OTOH, I'm beginning to think that this notion is worth considering.  Maybe this really is as good as it gets.

Depressing.

I just love Jeff Jacoby's column in the Globe today.  I've read similar sentiments elsewhere, but this one cracked me up.  I needed the laugh.

Let's face it, Mr. President, you're not exactly a standout in the joie de vivre department. P.G. Wodehouse says of one of his characters, "He had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life, and found a dead beetle at the bottom.'' With all due respect, that character sounds like you.

For a guy who spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars single-mindedly running for the presidency, you don't appear to take much pleasure in the job.

Hey, sometimes an excerpt doesn't quite cut it.  You really do have go read the whole thing.

SoccerDad challenges this WaPo editorial chastising the petty, narrow-minded, bigoted Americans who dare to voice opposition to the building of a hundred million dollar shrine to the glory of Islam a stone's throw (so to speak) from Ground Zero.  The Post believes it has identified "three strands" (that many?) of argument, one or more of which, it claims, suffice to neatly explain the only possible bases for this folly.  I'll summarize:

1. The 9-11 terrorists really did represent Islam and "to pretend otherwise is a dangerous delusion"
2. Al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam, but people naturally associate the two, so it would be "insensitive to locate anything Islamic so close to the scene of the crime"
3. (This one is for politicians only)  Since most Americans oppose construction of the mosque, it's "useful" for Republicans and "safe" for (wimpy) Democrats to join the chorus.

The Post, unsurprisingly, deems all three of these straw so-called arguments "objectionable."

Let's just ignore that last cheap "politicians" shot.  At best, it describes the motives of a dozen or so members (or would-be members) of Congress (hey, who knew there was pandering in Washington?).  The other 67.9999% of Americans who oppose the mosque, we are to assume, rely on either "strand" #1 or "strand" #2.

There are, of course, a number of Ground Zero Mosque opponents who subscribe to some version of strand  #1.  They have a point and it's a well considered, well documented point with which one can certainly disagree, and many do (see, e.g., strand #2).  What's chiefly "objectionable" about the Post's strand #1 is the simplistic and dismissive way it's phrased ... by the Post.  The implied message there is the one GZM opponents are constantly accused of and have repeatedly disavowed, i.e., that Islam is bad and Muslims should therefore be denied the right to build places of worship.  No one is saying that.  Hence, the straw.

Strand #2 contains the word "insensitive," and therefore might at first glance be credited with accurately representing an argument made by GZM opponents.  That word is surely the one most widely associated with objections to the project.  But it's the connector, the "people naturally associate the two, so ..." premise that misrepresents the argument and straws this strand all up.

The fact is that there are any number of articulate and rational reasons given for opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.  The Post simply chooses to ignore them all and knock down its own straw men.  Shoddy.

Here are just a few:

The 9-11 terrorists did attack America in the name of Islam and their associates continue in their attempts to do so today.

Islam has a long and undeniable record of proliferation by force, of which the historic conquest of Cordoba is a particularly prominent example.

There is a growing (?) body of evidence that Imam Rauf is not the model of tolerance and moderation he is made out to be by GZM defenders.  To the contrary.

Whatever good intentions the proponents of this mosque may have, the message that building it will send to those who seek to destroy us is a potentially dangerous one.

The developers refuse to rule out funding of the project from Iran and Saudi Arabia, which should raise serious questions as to the true message the mosque is intended to convey.

These and like-minded families (yes, of course others differ, so what?).

This mosque could well have the effect of eroding interfaith dialogue, tolerance and understanding rather than facilitating it.

There are more, but those should suffice to crack open the tidy little box into which the WaPo editorial board has tried to stuff all of the mosque's detractors.

To be continued...

Shabbat Shalom.

Newt:

Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington

They don't?  Epic fail, on so many levels.

Honorable mention:

There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some, and I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded? How is this being ginned up?

Was there something in the water?

Let them be clear.

Don't deny our rights: An open letter to Mahmoud Abbas

22 July 2010

We are Palestinians of diverse perspectives and affiliations -- scholars, intellectuals, artists, activists, trade unionists, human rights advocates and civil society leaders, inside historic Palestine and in exile -- who are united in our commitment to the fulfillment of the fundamental rights of all Palestinians, particularly our inalienable right to self-determination. This universally sanctioned right encompasses, at a minimum, freedom from occupation and colonization in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including Jerusalem; full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

During a 9 June meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, you reportedly said: "I would never deny [the] Jewish right to the land of Israel," a statement that you have yet to retract. We regard this announcement, which adopts a central tenet of Zionism, as a grave betrayal of the collective rights of the Palestinian people. It is tantamount to a surrender of the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel to live in equality in their own homeland, in which they have steadfastly remained despite the apartheid regime imposed on them for decades. It also concedes the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

No Palestinian institution or leader has ever accepted an exclusive Jewish claim to Palestine, which is irreconcilable with the internationally recognized rights of the Palestinian people. Our rights inhere in us as a people; they are not yours to do with as you please.

(via IMRA)

Note the list of initial signatories.  And especially of the subsequent endorsements.

Do these folks speak for all palestinians?  Of course not.  But recent polling would indicate that they speak for a substantial number of them.

Is it peace yet?

One of them, anyway.

Ground Zero's wounds are still too deep to build upon by Aaron David Miller

Yes. That Aaron David Miller. What can I say? He got this one exactly right.

If there is one lesson to be learned from the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, it is that messing with memory, particularly traumatic memory of the first order, is akin to messing with Mother Nature: It rarely ends well, no matter how good the intention.

I learned this the hard way 12 years ago, when my idea of inviting Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to visit the Holocaust museum in Washington proved to be a disaster. There is great danger in misappropriating memory and attempting to link it to another agenda or to a tragic historical experience seared in the minds of millions. However the controversy over the proposed mosque and Islamic center in Lower Manhattan plays out, the outcome is bound, for many in this country and elsewhere, to keep raw and open the wounds of Sept. 11, 2001. And the benefits do not appear to be worth the risk.

Much more here (via Solomonia).

It's an approach that reaches deep down to what I believe is at the real core of the opposition to this offensive project. Not racism, not Islamophobia (or any other phobia), not politics. Sure, there are people out there appropriating this issue for their own agendas. There always are. The attempts to brand the rest of us with their malice is just another distraction.

It's the second miserable August in a row for Democrats. Maybe they want to strike the month from the calendar. Or at least find out who's funding it.

The whole thing.

Krauthammer, I'm afraid, was not in his best form today.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

As I said, the other day, sometimes analogies fail.  Badly.  Whether or not Islamists represent "only a minority" of Muslims, there is an argument to be made that they represent "true" Islam.  They certainly think so.  And if Nazis continued to have the influence today in Germany that Islamists appear to have in the Muslim world, plenty of Germans might be just fine with a German cultural center at Treblinka.  (To say that no German "of goodwill" would propose such a thing is simply begging the question.)

And then there's this.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics.

I'm absolutely certain that CK didn't intend to say that restrictions on liquor stores near schools are "for reasons of aesthetics."  But that is, in fact, what he said.

Because I totally concur with Krauthammer' s message, I wish he had delivered it in a stronger package.  It's hardly original, but it bears repeating until it gets through.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

But of course.

Shabbat Shalom.