Blue Cord

According to the Associated Press, Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled one of their TV ads which featured Rachael Ray. In the ad, Ms. Ray is shown hawking iced coffee while wearing a scarf that has a paisley pattern  resembling a popular style of kaffiyeh. The ads were pulled because some conservative commentators, such as Michelle Malkin, complained that kaffiyehs were “pro-Palestinian jihad and anti-war” and claimed the kaffieyh partakes of “violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones” She has accused supposed anti-American fashion designers of popularizing the scarves, which she refers to as “hate couture”.

I have never heard of Michelle Malkin before. A quick perusal of her website suggests that she comes from that class of opinion mongers who deal primarily in sophistry. But whatever else she may be, she is certainly ignorant about kaffiyehs.

Kaffiyehs are ubiquitous in the Middle East. They are an immensely practical and versatile garment. They are worn by most men, with the exception of those who have adopted Western style dress. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all wear them, although they are less prominent among Israelis. The only reason some people in America identify them with the Palestinian struggle is because most Palestinians wear kaffiyehs. But kaffiyehs long predate the founding of the modern state of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinians resistance.

Most kaffiyehs are white with red, black, or green designs on them. The colors are the Pan-Arab colors that were used in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I (assisted by T.E. Lawrence, who wore a kaffiyeh). Palestinians are more likely to wear the black design, while Jordanians prefer the red.¹ The King of Jordan, an ally of the US, is often seen wearing a red kaffiyeh. The green kaffiyehs are usually only seen draped over caskets, as green is the symbol of martyrdom.

Some in the US during the 70’s and 80’s did try to turn the black kaffiyeh into a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinians.  They were only moderately successful, and today the kaffiyeh is mostly viewed as simply a fashion item. Most people wear them without intending any kind of political statement. And even if the kaffiyeh was always intended as a statement of support for the Palestinians, that is not the same thing as expressing support for terrorists. I support the Palestinian people, but do not condone terrorism.

In an article with the risible title “Mainstreaming Terrorism to Sell Donuts”, someone at ????????Little Green Footballs states:

Of course, the fact that terrorists and terror sympathizers explicitly say that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian “resistance” doesn’t get in the way of their ignorant mockery.

The number of things wrong with this statement is legion. First, terrorists don’t claim that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian resistance. It is some American’s who have tried to turn it into that. Second, voicing support for Palestine does not make one a “terror sympathizer”, no matter how much the author of that article may want to imply guilt by association. And third, just because a small number of Palestinians supporters claim that it is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity does not make it so. If someone wears a kaffiyeh to show support for Palestine, then for them it is a symbol of solidarity. If they don’t have that intent, it isn’t. And in no case is it a sign of support for terrorism. Ms. Malkin and the people at Little Green Footballs don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the Palestinians and a tactic employed by a small percentage of them.

If symbols worked the way these people claim, then any non-soldier who wore camouflage pants would be automatically supporting the Iraq War. While some people may wear camouflage to show their support for the war, I suspect that the majority of them simply have no fashion sense.

Of course, one could also criticize the cowardice being shown by Dunkin’ Donuts in pulling their ad because of meaningless complaints. Just because some Philistines want to politicize deep-fried dough does not mean the company has to allow them to do so. After all, one would think that selling millions of bagels a year would be enough to insulate them from the charge of being anti-Jewish.

1. I personally own a red kaffiyeh, which I bought in Jordan. I wear it when I work on archaeological digs in Jordan. [back]

On his Town Hall blog this Wednesday, Michael Medved posted an article entitled “Biblical Liberation from Liberalism”. In the article, he echos the claim of Denis Prager that Leviticus 19:15 is “the most crucial conservative verse in the whole Bible” (emphasis his). For those who don’t know Leviticus by heart, that verse states:

You shall not commit a perversion of justice: you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow.

He goes on to say that liberals should note that Leviticus identifies favoring the poor as a perversion of justice. Since Leviticus is one of my favorite books and chapter 19 is a crux chapter, I wanted to address this.

I think Prager and Medved are wrong about this being an important conservative verse for a couple of reasons. First, what they are doing is prooftexting. Conservatives did not arrive at their conservative opinions based on this verse. Instead, they have simply found a verse that agrees with what they already believe. Liberals sometimes do this as well, but it is wrong in both cases.

Second, it seems that this verse also condemns showing preferential treatment in court for the rich, but I rarely hear conservatives arguing that this should be changed. Instead, they go along with a system where the rich can afford better lawyers and are acquitted even when guilty, while the poor cannot afford adequate legal representation.

Third, this verse is only talking about what happens in a court case. It does not mean that government should not help the poor in other cases. Medved states:

As I argued in my recent townhall column about the essence of liberalism (posted on March 21st), the outlook of the left insists upon favoring the poor and the unfortunate—and thereby injecting unfairness and discrimination into the very core of politics and government.

This has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:15. Favoring the poor out of court is not condemned by this verse. In fact, favoring the poor is illustrated in other instances in the Bible, including Jesus’ words that the kingdom of God belongs to the poor (Luke 6:20). Does Medved think that Jesus was going against Leviticus 19:15 in saying that the poor will inherit the kingdom? What about when Jesus told people not to invite rich neighbors to their parties but instead invite the poor (Luke 14:12-14)? Isn’t that giving the poor preferential treatment?¹

In short, Leviticus 19:15 does not support the burden that Medved and Prager want it to hold. Conservative positions may or may not be correct, but they have little to do with Leviticus 19:15.

1. For those who would point out that Medved is Jewish and doesn’t follow the New Testament, I agree. But at the same time, Prager — whom Medved is quoting — felt free to write a column explaining to Christians that Jesus would not support Democratic policies. [back]

As I have mentioned a couple of times before, one of my guilty pleasures is listening to talk radio. I love arriving at work feeling like my head is going to explode because of these guys’ willingness to lie, slander, and commit logical fallacies in order to score political points.

Yesterday I was listening to Denis Prager mention something about the Bible. I went on the web to find what it was, but found an article he wrote last December instead. It is on Townhall.com, a site whose main purpose seems to be to provide an outlet for people who like to think of the weirdest thing they can say about liberals and then write something even more outrageous.

Prager wrote an essay entitled “The culture war is about the authority of a book,” that book being the Bible. Now in my opinion, the “culture war” is mostly an idea invented by conservative pundits. It has no more reality that the imaginary “Red State / Blue State” divide that both liberals and conservatives like to tout. Both are merely ways to get the base fired up. But Prager begins by saying,

If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah?

While it would be easy to criticize him for his questionable use of the term “divinity” in this context, I want to stick to his main point. He goes on to say,

Name the issue: same-sex marriage; the morality of medically unnecessary abortions; capital punishment for murder; the willingness to label certain actions, regimes, even people “evil”; skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel. While there are exceptions — there are, for example, secular conservatives who share the Bible-believers’ social views — belief in a God-based authority of the Torah is as close to a predictable dividing line as exists.

This nothing more than another example of the “liberals don’t believe the Bible” argument that gets trotted out all the time. Prager shows that he knows this, because he points out that there are some secular conservatives who don’t believe the Bible but agree with his stance on these issues. In other words, the determining factor is not whether one believes the Bible. Instead, it is your political philosophy.

I am an example that disproves what Prager asserts.¹ I fully accept the authority of the Bible (or more precisely, the authority of God as exercised through the Bible), but I disagree with him on a number of these issues. Our difference come about not because of a disagreement in authority but because of a disagreement in interpretation. I hold positions counter to him on five out of six of these issues, but I do so because of how I read the Bible.

It is ironic that this argument is coming from Prager, who is Jewish. Similar arguments have been used against Jews in the past, saying that their problem is that they do not accept the authority of the entire Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Although Prager and other talk show host decry the idea of tolerance as a liberal notion that is destroying America, that tolerance is what enables him to be accepted as a conservative.

Prager includes the term “Judeo-Christian” in his article.² The term “Judeo-Christian” was first used at the beginning of the 20th century and only gained popularity during World War II, when the west was trying to distance itself from Hilter’s “Christians only” policy. In other words, fewer than 100 years ago the same argument would have been used as a way to attack people like Prager.

Prager’s sardonic use of this tactic also happens to violate one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Unless I am mistaken, that commandment is found in the same Torah whose authority he claims to support.

1. Technically, I am a moderate, but Prager and other talk show host of his ilk would consider me a liberal. [back]
2. Although I have never met a Judeo-Christian, I am told they are very nice people. [back]

Over the past few years, one of the ways that conservative talk show hosts have been attacking the idea of global warming is by claiming that it is a religion.  I was reminded of this on Thursday listening to the Howie Carr show, but I have heard other hosts do it as well.

I don’t want to get into an argument over global warming.  What I have a problem with, however, is these hosts saying that global warming is a religion.  The reason this seems problematic to me is that the view they seem to have of religion is that it is a set of beliefs that someone holds despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  These host all think that there is no evidence for global warming, so when they claim people believe it as a religion, they are implying that holding a religious belief is irrational.

I am surprised that conservative talk show hosts would take this approach, and I am even more surprised that their conservative listeners would let them get away with it.  After all the conventional wisdom is that conservatives are more religious than liberals.  This means that when conservative talk show hosts refer to global warming as a religion, they are in fact insulting the majority of their listeners, who are religious.

This is not limited to secular broadcasters either.  I have heard Christian political talk show hosts make the same claim about evolution, i.e., that it is an irrational system not supported by evidence which people nonetheless believe.  They even call it a religion.  Why would a Christian host define religion in such a way?

About three weeks ago, as I was driving back from Tennessee, I happened to hear an interview with Stephen Biddle from the Council on Foreign Relations. He was talking about the fact that the current conflict in Iraq has more to do with different groups within Iraq attacking each other than it does with Iraqi groups attacking US troops. While there are certainly some who attacking Americans, this is not the main source of unrest. Notice how often we hear of bombings in market places and attacks against members of the Iraqi government.

This got me thinking of more seriously of an idea I have had about a way forward in the mess in Mesopotamia.

The current borders of Iraq and indeed all of the Middle East were drawn up by the British and French in the wake of World War I. Prior to 1932, Iraq did not exist. Despite this, the US policy in Iraq right now seems to be assuming that the current borders make sense when in fact they don’t. If you look at a map, the borders don’t follow any natural divides, nor do they reflect the ethnic makeup of the region. For example, the drawing of the map after WWI took no notice of the fact that a third of the population of Baghdad was Jewish. Instead, they just set up an Arab state.

Why, then, are we attempting to keep Iraq whole? It is not like it has any historical precedent. Would it not make more sense to divide it up along ethnic lines? If the primary source of the hostility is Sunnis fighting Shiites, Shiites fighting Sunnis, and Shiites and Sunnis fighting Kurds, why not send everyone to their own room. This is how my mother handled things when my brother and I were fighting.

This approach worked well in the Balkans in the wake of the collapse of Yugoslavia. It put an end to ethnic violence. Everyone got a share in the power, but it was a share that they themselves controlled. If we followed this approach in Iraq, it would alleviate worries about Shiite reprisals against the Sunni minority. It would protect the Kurds from ethnic violence. And it would give democracy a chance of actually succeeding in the region.

As you can see from my hastily drawn map above, the different groups already are somewhat settled according to their ethnic and religious identity. This map, of course, is oversimplified and does not show the pockets of groups that live outside of their majority area. And we would also have the problem of what to do with the region around Baghdad, which is a mix of Shia and Sunni. Surely, however, such problems are no more difficult to solve than the current difficulties. Some people would have to move, but many are already moving because of the violence. Wouldn’t they prefer to be moving because they had a chance at peace?

I think another benefit would be that the international community would be more likely to support this idea. The UN was the one that orchestrated this in the former Yugoslavia, and troops from different UN countries could be the ones that helped defend and build each of the independent countries. I think an international presence instead of a US presence would also decrease animosity towards the governments in each country.

I know this idea has been floated around a bit, but it has not been discussed as much as I think it should. What do you all think? Is it feasible? Is it workable? Is it better or worse than our approach now? If we truly believe in democracy, shouldn’t we at least put this idea before the Iraqi people and let them decide if they want to pursue it?