Tuesday, June 17, 2008

On this and that

It has been a slow week around here, what with my schooling picking up and my workload increased as of late, so my apologies.

There have been some fine posts by others in the blogosphere this week, and here are just a few of them.

Roberta Seid writes about Rachel Corrie
’s recently published diary at Commentary.
“The diaries demonstrate little introspection. Rachel Corrie rarely questioned herself, her opinions, or her motives. In her writings, she attempted no human portraits, except very brief ones of her first love, Colin, and even these are about how he reacts to her. Hers is a hermetic world, and her idealism was similarly focused inward -- an inchoate, vague passion that fastened on a variety of the progressive causes espoused by her family, home town, and college, Evergreen.

All this made Rachel ripe fodder for the ISM. This Palestinian-led organization callously recruited idealistic, na├»ve “internationals” to break Israeli law, violate IDF security zones, indoctrinate them with its peculiar version of the conflict, and to groom them as future speakers for its anti-Israel cause. While soothing volunteers by insisting that ISM engaged only in non-violent resistance, the organization nonetheless defended and abetted Palestinian violence (its website affirmed the “right to armed resistance against occupation”) and was committed to dismantling Israel’s counter-terrorism measures which were intended to prevent the mass murder of Israelis.”

New Centrist writes about the Goetz trial and some of its ramifications.
“Crimes that simply would not be accepted by the police or community are getting more frequent. It is in this context that a black Bernhard Goetz may potentially emerge.
The charge of “excessive force” against his assailants was often leveled against Goetz. But the level of force was necessary to let criminals know thuggery can be a hazardous occupation. Again quoting Cohen, “Goetz sent that message more dramatically than anyone in recent memory, and it was precisely the ‘excessiveness’ of the force he used that underscored it.”

Ryan Christiano writes at NeoConstant about the future of American foreign policy after Bush.
“This would be a foreign policy based upon a hybrid “Realistic Idealism”. The United States has the right, though not a duty, to intervene in tyrannical regimes that violate the natural rights of the individual. Future American Administrations should place diplomacy first and foremost, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the right of such governments as Iran’s and North Korea’s to exist. The principle of conditional sovereignty does not always result in regime change. Conditional sovereignty does insist upon the interjection of morality into International Relations.”

1 comment:

TNC said...

Thanks for the link!