Two wrongs

I like Matthew Yglesias’ analysis on the Gaza assault, his willingness to be critical of both sides and of the unfortunate pro-Israel glossing that minimizes the Palestinians’ grievances. Quoting a Michael Cohen piece on the Democracy Arsenal Web site, he agrees that “Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence” if Israel dismantled its settlements, while the converse — “the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve” were “Hamas … to recognize Israel.”

Yglesias, however, offers a corollary proposition that is no less true:

If Hamas were to recognize Israel tomorrow tomorrow, Israel would not turn around and renounce settlements; but if Israel were to dismantle all settlements the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

Yglesias points out that Cohen’s analysis (and the general bias of the American media and political elite, I would add),

by arbitrarily shifting the standard, so that Israeli actions are judged according to whether or not they would magically cause the other side to become reasonable, whereas Palestinians are merely asked whether or not making unilateral concessions would in some sense make reconciliation easier to achieve, … has managed to put a heavily pro-Israel spin on the banal observation that both sides could do more to improve the situation but that achieving real peace requires steps on both sides.

Meanwhile, of course, there’s still such a thing as ethics and so forth. Vaguely pointing rockets at civilian areas and hoping they kill as many people as possible is wrong, completely independently of whether or not Israel is also doing things that are wrong. I think that’s a point that’s pretty well-appreciated in the American conversation on this. But by the same token, Israeli actions that are wrong are wrong independent of whether or not Hamas is launching rockets.

I think that is key. Neither side in this horrible situation has acted particularly well and both need to back away from the precipice.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

More bad news on the economic front

I was watching one of the cable news stations this morning with the sound off while I ran and I was caught off guard by a graphic that said “Economy likely to be better in 2009.” Huh?

A strong opening for the Dow Jones Industrials today offered some cause for optimism — but only if one focused solely on stocks and not on the issues affecting the larger population. That, however, explains only part of the seemingly out-of-kilter optimism.

At issue is the use of market experts to talk about the economy — people who follow stock market trends but who, for the most part, completely missed the cracks spreading throughout the foundation. Most assumed what we were facing earlier this year was a temporary cooling, most saw the extreme growth in housing prices as a permanent expansion, acting like cheerleaders rather than analysts.

So when we hear them talking now, shouldn’t we be a bit more cautious, a bit more skeptical — expecially when their modest optimism is contextualized by headlines like these?

I think we all know the answer.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Harry’s hypocrisy

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake explains the hypocrisy of Harry Reid’s — and the Democrats’ — hardline stance on Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat.

(T)he decisions Reid is making right now are politically motivated, with little regard for the law. The Democrats are only in this position, and looking so compromised, because of bad decisions Reid has made in the past.

How will it look if the Sergent at Arms bars Burris from the Senate floor, but did nothing to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove when they defied Senate subpoenas?

How will it look if they refuse to accept Burris into the Democratic Caucus after having accepted Joe Lieberman, who spent years enabling Bush administration crime and corruption as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee?

How does it look to be screaming about Burris’s “taint” when they did nothing for decades about Ted Stevens, and gave him a standing ovation even after he’d been convicted? Or for that matter, their inaction with regard to Larry Craig?

How does it look now that Reid is manipulating Senate procedure to exclude Burris, but simply shrugged his shoulders over Samuel Alito, warrantless wiretapping and the Military Commissions Act?

How does it look? Hypocritical and overly political.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.