Meant to post this a little while ago. It's from an interview with Hungarian Nobelist Imre Kertesz, in which the author and Auschwitz survivor reflects on the persistence of European anti-semitism. There's no happy ending.

Am I right then, that you think of anti-Semitism as something persistent? That you do not keep the hope that this problem will disappear after some time...

As long as it is considered a problem, it will neither cease nor disappear. In any case, the Nazi death camps established for the extermination of European Jews, combined with the creation of Israel constitute a new development – a new problem, if you like – not only in the history of Jews but also in that of anti-Semitism. For instance, there is no fitting anti-Semitic response to Auschwitz – if not the denial of the very facts of Auschwitz and the Holocaust. At first this denial seemed to be an act verging on the ridiculous. Today, however, it counts as "serious academic pursuit" and if anti-Semitism is ever elevated to the level of the state, if it is considered a state programme, then the officially supported, institutional falsification of history will become possible once again, as we saw in single-party dictatorships.

In democratic states, criticism of Israel provides a new and effective avenue for anti-Semitism – particularly when Israel does something that prompts criticism, which by the way other states do, too, whether or not they have to fight for their existence. A language has developed that I would like to call Euro-anti-Semitism. For a Euro-anti-Semite, it is no contradiction to recall the victims of the Holocaust in mournful tones, and in the next breath, under the guise of criticism of Israel, to utter anti-Semitic statements. Such things have been repeated so often that they are almost cliches. Remembrance of the Holocaust is important to stop such things from happening again. But, in fact, nothing has happened since Auschwitz that would prevent another Auschwitz from happening. On the contrary. Before Auschwitz, the extermination camp was unimaginable. Today, it can be imagined. Because Auschwitz really happened, it has permeated our imagination, become a permanent part of us. What we are able to imagine – because it really happened – can happen again. [My emphasis]

I have not seen this perspective anywhere else, since discussion among those who foresee a "Second Holocaust" - see, for instance, Ron Rosenbaum - tends to take European moral revulsion at the "first" for granted. In this view, modern Europeans either don't recognize or fail to give due consideration to the signs that history is repeating itself - particularly in the demonization and gradual dehumanization of the Jews and, in the modern version, "Zionists." This view assumes that if Europeans really knew "what was coming" they would move to prevent it. But what if Europeans do see the direction things are headed and simply aren't troubled by the consequences that may await the Jews? What if Auschwitz numbed Europeans to the horror of genocide? Worse, what if it actually whetted the appetite, by revealing that such a completely insane goal - the entire elimination of this rootless, problematic clan - was achievable? These are the implications of what Kertesz' observes in modern Europe.

MORE: Read this piece by Anne Bayefsky and despair at our own government's financial contribution to the furtherance of Jew-hatred.

I believe the administration refuses me entry into the United States because of my criticism of its Middle East policy and America's unconditional support for Israel, which has led it to acquiesce in flouting Palestinian rights. And undeniably, some American groups that strongly support Israel and will allow no criticism of American foreign policy toward it have been highly critical of me. But academics, intellectuals, and organizations that have supported me — like the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Academy of Religion (I presented a keynote address to its annual meeting late last year by videoconference, since the administration would not let me enter the country to speak in person), the American Association of University Professors, and the PEN American Center — have understood that the real issue is my freedom of speech, and they have continued to lend their weight to my legal appeal of the decision.

I am not the only person concerned. The "fear of ideas" that has taken root in the United States since September 11, 2001, with the refusal to grant visas to a number of academics and intellectuals, most of whom are Muslims, strikes at the very heart of American democracy. The muffling of critical opinion should be of immediate concern to all freethinking individuals. To accept such a state of affairs is to accept that the United States, in the name of the "global war on terror" and national security, requires all citizens to think the same way.

"Fear of ideas" - indeed. Criticism of Israel? Never heard of it. O when will America ever live up to the democratic example of Saudi Arabia - or maybe Syria - where Jews piously lecture the benighted yokels about the menace of their foreign policy?

We're all dreaming along with you, Tariq.

Professor Cliteur holds so dogmatically to his idea of secularism and the Enlightenment that any accommodation towards religious faith, specifically towards Islam, is tantamount to appeasement of religious extremism, or a form of self-hating nihilism. My objection is not to the Enlightenment as such, but to the ideological zeal of some of those who believe they are acting in its defence. If we wish to isolate and defeat religious extremism, we must must have mainstream European Muslims as our allies. The rather crude polemics spouted by Professor Cliteur will not be of much help in this endeavor.

Oh come on. There was nothing in Cliteur's essay to suggest that the defense of Enlightenment values demands the rejection of religious faith or practice. His point was only that critics such as Buruma are naive in their belief that "dogmatism" is the problem, rather than what people are dogmatic about. I'll go further. I'd wager that Cliteur would have little trouble with fundamentalism of the Christian kind, provided it made no purchase on his liberties - particularly the freedom to keep his head attached to his neck. He's keen to cite Spinoza as the "godfather of the Enlightenment," and Spinoza was no atheist. (If anything, he had too many gods - at least according to the Jewish elders who expelled him.)

Buruma, too, insists that he understands this difference. Really? As you can see above, he is quickly back to moaning about the "ideological zeal" of the world's Cliteurs. Then there's this:

I admire the achievements of the Enlightenment as much as Professor Cliteur appears to do, but I also believe that one of its greatest achievements is the rejection of dogmatism, of any kind.

So he's not a postmodernist, as Cliteur alleges; he's just fantastically enlightened - enlightened enough to see that one can be over-enlightened. This is a rejection of the "postmodernist" charge?

If you've been missing it, there's a fascinating debate continuing to unfold at signandsight.com over the recent Pascal Bruckner essay, excerpted below. Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash have each responded separately to Bruckner's allegations (i.e. that they withhold Enlightenment liberalism from those who try to escape oppressive cultural archaisms). Both are a tad puzzled - not to say alarmed - by Bruckner's suggestion that their views are shared by Bush and Blair, and somewhat amused by Bruckner's evidently indestructible reverence for the "French model." Now comes feminist Turkish-German author Necla Kelek with a rebuke for the respondents. Buruma and Ash overlook the sinister measure of conformity in the Muslim Ummah as they laud the "diversity" among Muslims, she charges. So here's the current state of play:

Buruma - Islamic practice is not monolithic; where it is extreme, it won't likely be reformed by a shrill apostate (and avowed atheist) like Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Bruckner is a French wanker who probably hasn't left the inner confines of Paris in awhile.

Garton Ash - "Pascal Bruckner is the intellectual equivalent of a drunk meandering down the road, arguing loudly with some imaginary enemies." No further description can improve on that.

Kelek - Buruma (mostly) and Garton Ash ignore the startling degree to which extremist Muslim dogmas, if not universally accepted, are nonetheless the status quo in the societies where most Muslims live.

I recommend you give all the essays a read-through. This is going to continue for awhile.

UPDATE: Dutch law professor Paul Cliteur joins the fray, with a very thoughtful piece. He argues that "postmodern" tendencies among Western intellectuals have created categories of equivalence that are in fact illusory and, at the furthest end, fundamentally dangerous, because they deny even the right of self-defense to the heirs of the Enlightenment. Buruma's book "Murder in Amsterdam," about the death of Theo Van Gogh, continues to lie at the center of the debate:

What remains a mystery is why many intelligent people stick to the postmodern frame of mind, even though so many intelligent writers - Terry Eagleton and John Searle, to name just two - have thoroughly deconstructed its tenets. I think this has to do with the postmodernist conviction that an attitude that they see as relativistic and pragmatic would help in the struggle against religious terrorism. They hope that, if we abstain from radical criticism of the terrorist mindset, we can pacify the most radical elements. This is a great delusion, as Buruma himself would have understood had he thought more deeply about the material in his own book. For Buruma profiles not only protagonists of radical Enlightenment but also Amsterdam alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb and the city's mayor, Job Cohen. Buruma writes that he met Aboutaleb - a Moroccan-born Muslim who advocates pluralism - "surrounded by bodyguards. Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he needed full-time protection." That should have stimulated Buruma to further reflection on the nature of religious terrorism. As for Cohen, he has a reputation of being much too soft. He never employs strong language against ethnic and religious minorities. He is a man of "dialogue" and "respect," refraining from almost any kind of critique that might disturb the sensitivities of religious minorities. Yet Cohen was criticized by name in the letter that was left on the body of Theo van Gogh.

More to come.

Sounds like my kind of guy. But poor Shepard comes across as a bit confused. "Fairey's works question the difference between Soviet-style censorship and absolute media control with the American media machine that creates deception through the combination of abundant and conflicting information with easy, cheap access to entertainment," reads the handout. "It is not that the public is not informed or that it lacks access to information, they are just having too much fun shopping or watching TV to care."

Oh. So if tomorrow the American government seized control of the mass media, quashed alternatives, jailed critics and punished those who sought out "unauthorized" views, Shepard Fairey might not be able to judge the difference.

Guess he's just having too much fun shopping or watching TV to care.

Anyone with a mind to contend timidly that liberty is indivisible, that the life of a human being has the same value everywhere, that amputating a thief's hand or stoning an adulteress is intolerable everywhere, is duly arraigned in the name of the necessary equality of cultures. As a result, we can turn a blind eye to how others live and suffer once they've been parked in the ghetto of their particularity. Enthusing about their inviolable differentness alleviates us from having to worry about their condition. However it is one thing to recognise the convictions and rites of fellow citizens of different origins, and another to give one's blessing to hostile insular communities that throw up ramparts between themselves and the rest of society. How can we bless this difference if it excludes humanity instead of welcoming it? This is the paradox of multiculturalism: it accords the same treatment to all communities, but not to the people who form them, denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. Instead: recognition of the group, oppression of the individual. The past is valued over the wills of those who wish to leave custom and the family behind and - for example - love in the manner they see fit. ...

Out of consideration for all the abuses they may have suffered, ethnic, sexual, religious and regional minorities are often set up as small nations, in which the most outrageous chauvinism is passed off as nothing more than the expression of legitimate self-esteem. Instead of celebrating freedom as the power to escape determinism, the repetition of the past is being encouraged, reinforcing the power of collective coercion over private individuals. Marginal groups now form a sort of ethos-police, a flag-waving micro-nationalism which certain countries of Europe unfortunately see fit to publicly support. Under the guise of celebrating diversity, veritable ethnic or confessional prisons are established, where one group of citizens is denied the advantages accorded to others. ...

The Enlightenment belongs to the entire human race, not just to a few privileged individuals in Europe or North America who have taken it upon themselves to kick it to bits like spoiled brats, to prevent others from having a go. Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism is perhaps nothing other than a legal apartheid, accompanied - as is so often the case - by the saccarine cajolery of the rich who explain to the poor that money doesn't guarantee happiness. We bear the burdens of liberty, of self-invention, of sexual equality; you have the joys of archaism, of abuse as ancestral custom, of sacred prescriptions, forced marriage, the headscarf and polygamy. The members of these minorities are put under a preservation order, protected from the fanaticism of the Enlightenment and the "calamities" of progress. Those termed "Muslims" (North Africans, Pakistanis, Africans) are prohibited from not believing, or from believing periodically, from not giving a damn about God, from creating a life for themselves far away from the Koran and the rites of the tribe.

Multiculturalism is a racism of the anti-racists: it chains people to their roots. Thus Job Cohen, mayor of Amsterdam and one of the mainstays of the Dutch state, demands that one accept "the conscious discrimination of women by certain groups of orthodox Muslims" on the basis that we need a "new glue" to "hold society together." In the name of social cohesion, we are invited to give our roaring applause for the intolerance that these groups show for our laws. The coexistence of hermetic little societies is cherished, each of which follows a different norm. If we abandon a collective criterion for discriminating between just and unjust, we sabotage the very idea of national community. A French, British or Dutch citizen will be prosecuted for beating his wife, for example. But should the crime go unpunished if it turns out that the perpetrator is a Sunni or Shiite? Should his faith give him the right to transgress the law of the land? This is the glorification in others of what we have always beaten ourselves up about: outrageous protectionism, cultural narcissism and inveterate ethnocentrism!

Read the whole thing, as they say.

[ht: aldaily.com]

Another expert quoted by Segodnya ["Today"], former parliament deputy speaker Viktor Musiyaka, pointed to a discrepancy between the constitution and the 1991 law on referenda, which obliges parliament’s presidium -- a body scrapped more than a decade ago -- rather than the president to set the date for a referendum.

The way the politics are moving here, that presidium could be back sooner than anyone expects.

Meanwhile, U.S. soccer continued its shockingly brutal colonization of Fulham FC in the English premiership, with MLS shipping Clint Dempsey to the club this week. If not for the club's failure to reach terms on a transfer with defender Oguchi Onyewu, Brits would be facing the prospect of a four-Yank starting lineup in their top division - and Americans, no doubt, would be facing the specter of Brit Sissies begging the International Court of Justice for relief.

Elsewhere, Portuguese star Luis Figo says his decision to accept a transfer to Saudi club Al-Ittihad was not about the money. He just likes Sharia law, maybe.

UPDATE: Eat our dust!

Canada police find head of stolen Ukraine statue

By Cameron French Wed Jan 3

TORONTO (Reuters) - The desire to cash in on soaring copper prices is being blamed for the theft of a bronze statue brought to Canada over 50 years ago to commemorate Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko.

Police recovered the head of the 3-meter (10-foot), two-tonne likeness this week at a metal recycling business just west of Toronto.

They are now hunting for the body, which is estimated to be worth somewhere close to C$20,000 ($17,000) in scrap metal, but has a far greater value to the 1 million strong Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. ...

"We do (see a lot of scrap metal theft)," said Halton Region police public affairs officer Peter Payne.

"But this is the first time in (the area) we've ever lost a valuable piece of metal artwork that's been reduced to scrap. It's pretty unfortunate."

Bronze is largely made up of copper alloys. Copper has approximately doubled in price over the past two years. On Wednesday the copper price in London was $5,855 a ton.

Earlier in December, a 250 kilogram (550 pound) copper statue of Greek mythological figure Atlas was stolen from in front of a metal fabricating company in north Toronto. The statue was later recovered and a man was charged.

We have this idea in America that pedigree doesn't matter. Never mind your ma and pa, set your own sights, and you are what you make of what God made you—that's the idea. The ancestors held its truth to be self-evident, but we have come to call it our dream, and it follows that our inclination to be entertained by success, to be inspired by excellence and enterprise, and to heroize genius increases in direct proportion to the inauspiciousness of an achiever's origins. So it should probably come as no surprise that the man who is very likely better known to more of the world by more fabulous titles than any other American—His Bad Self, Mr. Dynamite, Soul Brother No. 1, the Sex Machine, the Hardest-Working Man in Show Business, Mr. Excitement, the Ruler of R. & B., the Godfather of Soul, King of the One-Nighters, the Minister of the New New Super-Heavy Funk, the Forefather of Hip-Hop, Mr. Please Please Please, James (Butane) Brown—was not only born dirt-poor and black (with a heavy dose of American Indian blood) at the height of the Great Depression, in the depths of the Jim Crow South, but also claims to have been born dead.

There will never be another James Brown.

Bush accused of gagging critic of Iran policy

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday December 18, 2006
The Guardian

The White House yesterday faced fresh accusations of tailoring intelligence to suit its political viewpoint from a former CIA analyst barred from publishing a critical newspaper commentary on American policy towards Iran.

Flynt Leverett, a former Middle East analyst at the CIA and the National Security Council who has criticised the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq and for its handling of Iran, accuses the White House of pressing the CIA to demand sweeping cuts to an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times on Washington's policy towards Tehran....

Mr Leverett said he was ordered to drop references to Iran's cooperation with the US on Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks. He claims the White House has had no objections to similar assertions by less critical analysts.

Uh huh. The administration - no, I'm sorry, "Bush" - has not objected to other people saying the same thing Flynt Leverett wants to say, maybe because these other people are "less critical" of its/his policies.

So basically, Flynt Leverett believes that there's a gag order on Flynt Leverett (if that is his real name). News to me!

More news to me: The administration - or "Bush" - spends time trying to prevent negative portrayals of its/his policies from appearing on the New York Times op-ed page. I'll say it: Mr. President, this war is lost and forces must be redeployed immediately - to PBS!

GWEN IFILL: Is that at the root of the lot of this, just basic, old-fashioned lack of trust?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think that's an inaccurate reading of the record. I think that Iranian cooperation with the United States on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was critical to the success of our efforts to get rid of the Taliban and stand up the Karzai government in its stead.

From an Iranian perspective, their reward for that was to be labeled part of the "axis of evil" in President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union address.

There is considerable distrust and historical baggage on both sides; that's part of what makes this a difficult issue to move forward. But to say that that baggage and that mistrust is a reason for not trying, when it is manifestly in U.S. interest to try, I think is a real strategic misjudgment.

Clear and hold, Mr. President. Clear and hold.

Jack Palance died at 87. He was from Ukraine - "Believe it or Not."**

Viktor Yanukovich visited Washington for meetings with senior U.S. officials. He told American audiences "There can never be too much democracy, just as there can never be too much freedom." Then he fell over on his side and began pounding the floor as he convulsed with laughter.

Back home, Ukrainians are still not sure who is in charge of the government. Yanukovich-appointed government ministers barred Ukraine's pro-Western foreign minister, Borys Tarasyuk, from a cabinet meeting, explaining (according to Tarasyuk) that his name wasn't "on the list."

The Rada passed a bill to recognize the 1932-33 famine as a deliberate act of genocide, undertaken by Stalin's regime, in which millions of Ukrainians perished. In a nationally televised broadcast, Viktor Yushchenko said, "Those who deny the man-made famine hate Ukraine deeply and convincingly, hate us, our spirit and our future." This group presumably includes virtually the entire majority coalition in the Rada, since its deputies sat out the vote so as not to offend the Putin government in Russia.

David Duke was awarded a doctorate in History by a prominent university in Kyiv that has traditionally fixated on the "Jewish question." (The State Department says the school gets some of its funding from Middle Eastern governments. Go figure.) It was his second visit.

**TV show he hosted with his wife in the 1980s.

The Hastings affair calls up a larger issue, which is that Congress is entitled to whichever Members and staff it wishes to have on the intel committee. Because of the separation of powers principle, Congress - not the FBI - does the vetting. And as the Hastings matter demonstrates, this is not a fail-safe process. Although Hastings would surely be denied clearance to review intelligence in the executive branch, his election to Congress suffices to qualify him in the legislature. Even if he were not seated on intel, Hastings - as well as any other Member of the House or Senate* - is entitled to receive classified briefings and to review material that is withheld from the public. Now, having known Hastings, I have no doubt he can be trusted, in spite of his history. But that conclusion is separate and apart from the question of whether he - or perhaps others in Congress - should be permitted access to this information. To choose an extreme example, let's imagine that former KKK wizard and implacable Jew-hater David Duke is somehow elected to Congress (he didn't miss the governor's mansion by much). Is that really enough to justify his access to the nation's secrets? Maybe. But one can also see how this arrangement might conceivably place the country's security in the hands of a deluded voting majority in one Congressional district.

*Some Members in the House, including Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and Pete Stark have refused over the years to sign the official secrecy pledge, and are thus excluded from reviewing classified material or receiving classified briefings.