History is Happening Now

January 10, 2009

Israel and the WSJ

Filed under: Matt Yglesias, WSJ — Lee @ 8:56 pm

I want to alert readers of History is Happening Now to an outrageously biased Islamo-fascio-leftist propaganda rag making outrageously anti-Semitic claims that Israel is committing egregious war crimes in Gaza against Palestinian civilians.

The notorious rag in question? Why, the Wall Street Journal:

The United Nations charter preserved the customary right of a state to retaliate against an “armed attack” from another state. The right has evolved to cover nonstate actors operating beyond the borders of the state claiming self-defense, and arguably would apply to Hamas. However, an armed attack involves serious violations of the peace. Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them — as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable — to launch wars of aggression. That is exactly what Israel seems to be currently attempting.

And:

Israel has also failed to adequately discriminate between military and nonmilitary targets. Israel’s American-made F-16s and Apache helicopters have destroyed mosques, the education and justice ministries, a university, prisons, courts and police stations. These institutions were part of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. And when nonmilitary institutions are targeted, civilians die. Many killed in the last week were young police recruits with no military roles. Civilian employees in the Hamas-led government deserve the protections of international law like all others. Hamas’s ideology — which employees may or may not share — is abhorrent, but civilized nations do not kill people merely for what they think.

I recommend reading the whole piece. I have not blogged about the current conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza — grad school has been a bit demanding of late — but what’s noteworthy about this latest crisis is how completely unwilling mainstream Democrats have been to be even slightly critical of what seems to me to be a terrible moral, strategic, and (since we’re counting) legal error for Israel (not to mention the horrible suffering of the Palestinians). It seems as if liberal support of Israel is completely independent of its actions or the facts on the ground; as Matt Yglesias has pointed out:

I think that if people want to be honest, they need to ask themselves how many of them were sitting around the day before Israel started this action not only feeling that it would be smart for Israel to start a massive military action in Gaza but feeling so strongly about it that one would question the Jewish credentials and basic intelligence of anyone who didn’t agree. Frankly, I didn’t hear a lot of Americans taking that position. Then the Israeli government changed its policy, and a lot of Americans decided to agree with the new Israeli policy. Which is fine as far as it goes. But people who didn’t regard the previous policy as unconscionable at the time have no business suddenly deciding that it’s unconscionable to disagree with the new policy.

Indeed, the suggestion that Hamas’s horrible (albeit largely nonlethal) rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian populations didn’t simply come out of the blue — but were quite directly the result of Israel’s destructive blockade of the Gaza Strip, and its marginalization of a democratically elected government, not to speak of the forty years of occupation — hasn’t even been floated as an idea among mainstream political commentators, let alone our political elites.

To the liberal establishment, to stalwart left-leaning periodicals like the New Republic and Dissent, the recent rocket attacks just came out of the blue for no apparent reason. Even if this decontextualized account were true — it’s not, obviously — the WSJ piece points out correctly that Israel’s actions would still not be necessarily justified. Proportionality is a concept, in international law at least, that is independent of the actions of your enemy.

Whether or not you agree with the argument of this op-ed, please do give credit to the WSJ for being more open to unorthodox opinion than the Democratic party. I ask this question in all seriousness: has a single Democratic Senator — to say nothing of a certain Senator who will soon become our forty-fourth Present — said anything even slightly critical of Israel after this recent round of attacks?

Atlas, Still?

Filed under: Ayn Rand, Jeremiah Tucker, McSweeney's, Stephen Moore, WSJ — Lee @ 6:31 pm

If you want a taste of the utter lunacy of modern libertarian thought on economics, I can suggest no better article than Stephen Moore’s WSJ piece on Ayn Rand. According to Moore, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has eternal lessons to teach us, especially relevant in the wake of our recent economic crisis:

Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

Powerful stuff. Want a sense of how our government’s current interventions in the haywire market are exactly like the desperate dystopian vision of despicable-government-run-amock in Rand’s classic fictional defense of capitalism (“the second-most influential book… behind only the Bible”)? Here:

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal — stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”

Okay, so the “appropriation” of a miracle metal is exactly the same as Henry Paulson demanding a modicum of return — not control mind you, just preferred shares — of banks that were asking the government for taxpayer dollars. Indeed, when we take a little trip back to that place sometimes known as Reality, Paulson’s sin was in fact his not demanding a correlating measure of control in the banks he was helping to recapitalize. We gave our tax dollars to the banks, and instead of recapitalizing credit markets, they paid out big bonuses, acquired other companies, among other misuses of our hard-earned cash. One ought also to mention that it was partly Alan Greenspan’s faith in the ability of companies to “regulate” themselves that led our economy to the brink of a new Depression.

The more important point is that Moore is treating a government-enforced monopoly on intellectual property — which creates classic incentives for “rent seeking” behavior — as if it were the natural right of the fictional miracle steel maker. But patent rights (the “ownership” of which Moore speaks) is anything but an example of laissez-faire economics. As Dean Baker points out: there is no such thing as patent and copyright in a free market.

In short, Moore wants Big Government to use its police and courts (at taxpayer expense) to arrest anyone who duplicates the Big-Government-loving entrepreneur’s miracle steel, but Big Government using its leverage over banks to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent well is simply horrifying to him. The Big Bad Market is just too tough for Rand’s steel-maker; he demands that government protect him from the winds of the fickle marketplace. Let’s call this the philosophy of Protect Me from People Who Copy My Ideas But Don’t You Dare Tax My Capital Gains. In the same breath, government is desperately necessary for the public good but horribly destructive to it.

If you want to read a more intelligent (and humorous) invocation of Ayn Rand’s relevance to the current economic crisis, I point you to Jeremiah Tucker’s “Atlas Shrugged Updated for the Current Financial Crisis” at McSweeney’s:

Dagny and Hank searched through the ruins of the 21st Century Investment Bank. As they stepped through the crumbling cubicles, a trampled legal pad with a complex column of computations captured Dagny’s attention. She fell to her hands and knees and raced through the pages and pages of complex math written in a steady hand. Her fingers bled from the paper cuts, and she did not care.

“What is it, Dagny?”

“Read this.”

“Good God!”

“Yes, it’s an experimental formula for a financial strategy that could convert static securities into kinetic profits that would increase at an almost exponential rate.”

Hank studied the numbers. “The amount of debt you would need to make this work would be at least 30-to-1, but a daring, rational man who lives by his mind would be willing to take that risk!”

“Yes, and it’s so complex the government could never regulate it.”

“It’s perfect. There’s only one problem—half the pages are missing. Could you reconstruct it, Dagny?”

Her answer escaped her lips like air from a punctured galvanized-steel duct:

“No.”

“I didn’t think so, but why leave such an achievement to rot here? It’s the greatest thing I’ve ever laid eyes on, made by a monumental genius, the sort of mind that’s only born once in a century … Dagny, why are you fondling your breasts?”

Powered by WordPress