David Shulman on Gaza

“Can we make any sense of Israel’s policy toward Gaza? I think we can—a rather sinister sense—but only if we look beyond the mass of sometimes conflicting details that have emerged since the attack on the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” on May 31. On the face of it, it’s hard to understand how any government could have decided to do anything so obviously self-defeating. At the very least Israel has handed Hamas a major propaganda victory, one that should easily have been foreseen. On the other hand, there is surely something about the whole foolish, deadly episode that is emblematic of Israeli’s current approach. Listen, first, to the public statements.

““Everything would have worked fine, but the passengers reacted inappropriately.” Thus, a headline describing the reaction of the captain who led the Israeli naval commando team onto the Mavi Marmara—the Turkish ship that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza as part of the flotilla—and who was wounded in the ensuing struggle. (He was said to be speaking from his hospital bed.) He is certainly not alone in taking this view of the incident. In his first public statement after the debacle, Defense Minister Ehud Barak also blamed the activists on board the Turkish ship for what happened; he later added, in a striking non sequitur, that in the Middle East you cannot afford to show weakness, though that is precisely what the Israeli attack had demonstrated. Spokesmen for both the army and the government repeatedly said that the soldiers were in danger of being lynched—as if they were innocent victims of an ambush rather than, in effect, state-sponsored pirates attacking a convoy carrying humanitarian aid in international waters. The Israeli genius for “designer victimhood,” to borrow a phrase from the Indian political philosopher Jyotirmaya Sharma, is capable of surprising flashes of ingenuity.”

Matthew D'Ancona on Initiativitis

If Labour had held on to power on May 6, I think it is a safe bet that an official investigation into the Cumbrian massacre would already have been announced. In the Commons on Thursday, Alan Johnson, the Shadow Home Secretary, asked his Conservative successor at the Home Office, Theresa May, a series of rapid-fire questions that hinted heavily at what he would have done if still in office. Would there be a review of firearm laws? Were the follow-up checks on those issued with firearm certificates adequate? Was co-operation across police forces sufficient? Was a small, rural force such as Cumbria’s “properly equipped to deal with events that are more often predicted to happen in urban areas”?

One could see the former home secretary’s nerve-endings twitching with the old instinct to open an inquiry, launch an initiative, assemble a taskforce, appoint a firearms “tsar”. It is to the Coalition’s credit that it has thus far resisted this temptation, often clumsily but accurately described as “initiativitis”. When the nation’s attention is gripped by a tragedy of this scale and horror, the pressure upon a prime minister to make promises, no matter how vapid, and take action, no matter how rushed, is immense. But David Cameron showed courage and maturity in declaring that there wasn’t always “an instant legislative or regulatory answer”.

Obama

Obama’s besetting political fault is his automatic adoption of the tone of command, accompanied by a persistent reluctance to be seen as the source of the policy he commandeers.

Obama acted on the assumption that the establishment is one and irreplaceable, and must be served in roughly its present form. This assumption he seems to have acquired between the summer of 2008 – the time of his capitulation on domestic surveillance and his Aipac speech affirming support for Israel – and the National Archives Speech on security a year later. The trajectory was completed by the sacking last November of Greg Craig as White House counsel: Craig was the lawyer who drafted Obama’s original plan for the closing of Guantánamo.

Lex on Muni CDS

Always eager to deflect blame for fiscal lapses, state officials have pointed the finger at a small but growing market for municipal credit default swaps. There is no evidence, however, that banks are acting as anything but bond market facilitators. The first and loudest protests have come from – surprise, surprise – the state with the highest CDS prices, California. Treasurer Bill Lockyer has expressed indignation that prices imply California is riskier than many developing nations. With its intractable deficit, dysfunctional politics, powerful unions, inability to devalue and taxpayers who can decamp to states with lower taxes and better services, the CDS market may be right.

Mark Lillo on Tea Party Jacobins

A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets............The new Jacobins have two classic American traits that have grown much more pronounced in recent decades: blanket distrust of institutions and an astonishing—and unwarranted—confidence in the self. They are apocalyptic pessimists about public life and childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem when it comes to their own powers.

Lex on Monetary Tightening

In their dreams monetary authorities tighten like Kaa, the Jungle Book python. Hypnotise the rank and file with assurances of a commitment to growth, while stealthily withdrawing various measures of support. Then, without anyone realising that the squeeze is actually on, the policy coils keep a firm grip on inflation.

Wyatt Mason on Celine

Spliced from a 1984 interview published in French in LaQuinzaine Littéraire, Roth's approbation reads differently in its original, unbowdlerized form:

To tell you the truth, in France, my Proust is Céline! There's a very great writer. Even if his anti- Semitism made him an abject, intolerable person. To read him, I have to suspend my Jewish conscience, but I do it, because anti-Semitism isn't at the heart of his books, even Castle to Castle. Céline is a great liberator. I feel called by his voice.

Just as Roth's "Jewish conscience" was itself silently suspended by editorial sleight of hand, a no less misleading elision of Céline's posterity has been made. Henri Godard, editor of the Pléiade edition of Céline's novels, has argued that, taken together, the eight novels possess a "dynamic unity" without which "it is not possible to get the true measure of Céline." This does not go far enough. Once one extends the reach of Godard's claim to include the anti-Semitic trilogy, the congruence of Céline's wink-wink misanthropy with his unblinking sociopathy becomes apparent. It is not that we shouldn't read Céline because he was, at a profound level, contemptible. It is rather that, to understand Céline, we must be ready to, and permitted to, read all that he wrote. Only in this way can we begin to understand what we are saying when we might think to class him as—of all things—a humorist.