Carnival on modern liberty #2

Here.

Israel is “anti-Semitic”, says American Jewish Committee

According to the American Jewish Committee:

January 8, 2009 – New York – AJC expressed alarm at prominent displays of anti-Semitism in the Greek media during the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and urged their condemnation by Greek political and religious leaders.

On December 29, leading newspaper Eleftherotypia ran a story comparing Israel to the Nazi regime and accusing it of genocide. On numerous occasions since, Eleftherotypia, among other newspapers, has featured editorial cartoons depicting Israeli soldiers in uniforms with swastikas. On January 5, Apogevmatini, another major daily, ran a banner headline accusing Israel of a “Holocaust.”

Firstly, let’s get rid of this silly word “anti-Semitic”. “Anti” means against; “Semitic” is a family of languages which includes Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, Aramaic, Babylonian, Maltese, etc; and “-ism” means a belief system. So “anti-Semitism” ought to mean “dislike/hatred of Semitic peoples”, but people don’t use it to mean that, instead they use it to mean “hatred of Jews”, where terms such as “anti-Jewish” would be more accurate.

You may dismiss this as mere pedantry, but you’d be wrong. Writing clearly is a good habit of mind to adopt, because when we’re not writing clearly, we’re probably not thinking clearly either. And if you don’t think thinking clearly is important, you are probably too stupid to read this blog; in fact, you should fuck off and die, for you are a worthless waste of space.

Anyway, the AJC think that comparing Israel to the Nazis is anti-Jewish. So what do they make of Israel’s deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai, who last year compared Israel with Nazi Germany:

Israel’s deputy defence minister has said Israel will have “no choice” but to invade Gaza if Palestinian militants step up rocket attacks.

Matan Vilnai said Palestinians risked a “shoah”, the Hebrew word for a big disaster – and for the Nazi Holocaust.

By the AJC’s reckoning, Vilnai is “anti-Semitic”. Of course, this is nonsense. Every politician or government gets compared to Hitler or the Nazis from time to time, it’s part of the territory. If Israel gets compared to the Nazis a lot it’s because Israel kills lots of people — certainly more people in an average year than most governments manage.

The AJC’s whining is contemptable: “boo hoo, someone said something nasty about Israel”. Well tough titty, AJC, killing and maiming thousands of people is a nasty thing to do. And when governments do nasty things, people will say and think badly of them. The AJC’s position amounts to saying that no-one should ever criticise Israel. Another example of the AJC’s stance is this:

January 29, 2009 – New York – AJC called today’s vicious verbal assault on Israeli President Shimon Peres by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “a public disgrace that may well encourage further outrages against Israel and Jews.”

“When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill,” Erdogan yelled at Peres, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, during a panel on Gaza at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Erdogan then stormed off the stage.

I’m sure if I looked up Peres’s public statements, I’d find some praising the efficiency of the Israeli armed forces, and any such praise means the same as “know[ing] well how to kill”, but tarted up with long words.

Indeed, supporters of Israel often feel they have to be unconditional supporters of Israel, which means they and up defending the indefensible. (A notable exception is Jonathan Edelstein, who sadly no longer blogs.) Note that there is nothing wrong with being a supporter of the Israeli people (or any other people). What is wrong is to be an unconditional supporter of the Israeli government, or any other government.

As Matthew Yglesias says of Noah Pollack:

This kind of thing really pisses me off. One simply doesn’t talk about any other country this way. Countries implement policies. In democratic countries, like Israel, those policies are subjected to debate and criticism. To have a disagreement about policies is to be engaged in political debate. But here in the United States we see this constant campaign to label political disagreement about Israeli policy or about US policy toward Israel as “anti-Israel” or even anti-semitism. It’s offensive, it’s nonsense, it’s contemptible, and it ought to stop. A person who’s opposed to the existence of Israel is “anti-Israel”; a person expressing disagreement with something the Israeli government does is criticizing public policy. It’s very hard to see how eliding the difference between the two helps the Zionist cause. The label is a useful bludgeon for Pollack to try to wield against J Street, but the blowback around the world of convincing everyone who dislikes something or other the Israeli government does that they ought to adopt an “anti-Israel” self-conception is enormous.

Indeed Pollack is clearly talking Pollacks. Why the shrillness? Why the urge to remove all nuances, to force all debate into a black-and-white you’re-for-us-or-against-us polarisation? I think it’s because the Pollacks of this world, the unconditional supporters of Israel, know that their case is often weak.

Which of course it has to be. When you commit yourself in advance to defending any policy that a government is ever going to do, you’re going to find yourself defending the indefendable, which is why Noah Pollack — and the echo chamber that is Harry’s Place — are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

(via Greater Surbiton)

Carter’s broadband tax proposal is crap

Lord Carter has proposed that every broadband user be taxed £20 a year, with the money going to a body that helps the music and film industries track down illegal filesharers. In detail:

An additional charge for broadband use will be proposed by ministers today as part of a plan to stamp out music and film piracy.

Lord Carter of Barnes, the Communications Minister, will propose the creation of a quango, paid for by a charge that could amount to £20 a year per broadband connection. The idea will be at the heart of the Digital Britain Green Paper to be unveiled by ministers, which includes plans to create jobs by boosting broadband take-up.

The agency would act as a broker between music and film companies and internet service providers (ISPs). It would provide data about serial copyright-breakers to music and film companies if they obtained a court order. It would be paid for by a levy on ISPs, who inevitably would pass the cost on to consumers.

This is obvious nonsense. All it would do is:

1. create another big bureaucracy that would waste money

2. prop up the music and film industries’ failing business models. If we want the UK economy to prosper, we should support new riseing successful business models, not subsidise failing ones.

3. make braodband more expensive which will obviously not encourage wider adoption.

I am not convinced that Britain should have a broadband tax, but if it does have one it should be done properly (also here).

OLPC XO-2 hardware will be open source

The second generation One Laptop Per Child computer, the XO-2, will use open source hardware, so that anyone will be able to make copies of it. Accroding to Nicolas Negroponte:

One important thing about the XO-2 is that we’re going to do it as an open source hardware programme. The XO-1 was really designed as if we were Apple. The XO-2 will be designed as if we were Google – we’ll want people to copy it. We’ll make the constituent parts available. We’ll try and get it out there using the exact opposite approach that we did with the XO-1.

(via Techdirt)

Full service has been resumed

Seen on abu muqawama:

Dear World:

We, the United States of America, a top quality supplier of the ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for our 2001-2008 interruption in service. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service outage has been located, and a decision was taken in early November to completely replace the software responsible. The new software became fully functional on January 20, 2009. Early tests of the newly installed program indicate that we are again operating correctly. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage. We look forward to resuming full service and hope to continue improvements in the years to come. We thank you for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Cautiously optimistic about Middle East peace

I’m cautionsly optimistic about Middle East peace. Why?

1. Obama (probably) thinks like me. Obama and his administration are clever and understand foreign affairs. I flatter myself that I am also clever and understand foreign affairs. If two people both understand a problem, they will likely come to the same solution — think of two people solving the same arithmetic problem, for example. I think that achieving peace between Israel and Palestine and the wider Arab world is important to American interests. It follows that Obama may well think the same way.

2. George Mitchell. Obama has appointed Mitchell as his Middle East peace envoy. Mitchell previously achieved peace in Northern Ireland. It’s a good sign that Abe Foxman and Gary Bauer have complained that Mitchell is “fair” and “evenhanded”.

3. Obama is taking personal interest in the peace process:

“The charge that Senator Mitchell has is to engage vigorously and consistently in order for us to achieve genuine progress,” Mr. Obama said in the Cabinet Room of the White House, according to The Associated Press. “And when I say progress, not just photo ops, but progress that is concrete.”

4. Obama’s interview on al-Arabiya struck the right notes (my emphasis):

On Middle East peace, Mr Obama reiterated his administration’s support for Israel and its security but also suggested Israelis would have to make some tough choices.

“Ultimately we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what is best for them. They are going to have to make some decisions,” he said.

“But I do believe the moment is ripe for both sides to realise that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.”

5. In my opinion, a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for peace is American pressure on Israel to dismantle settlements. Obama probably agrees with me (see 1 above).

None of this means that peace will be achieved or is even achievable. One confounding factor is Hamas. Obama no doubt would prefer Mahmoud Abbas over Hamas as a negotiating partner. One stratagem that Obama may try is to attempt to sideline Hamas. For example, if Abbas is able to create a Palestinian state in negotiations with Obama and Israel, Abbas’s stock will rise and Hamas’s will fall. Obama may be able to use the threat of this to force Hamas to take a moderate line. Hamas may counter with a few strategically-timed rocket attacks on Israel, aimed at derailing the talks. Obama and Abbas might then counter-counter by achieving a Palestinian state in the West Bank only, and leaving Gaza until later.

Of course, Hamas are not the only ones who may attempt to derail the talks. The Israeli government, particularly if Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister, may prefer a strategy of creating “facts on the ground” i.e. settlement building, and may also try to derail the talks by escalating violence. One tactic that Israel may try is assassinating Hamas leaders in the hope that Hamas will reply with rocket attacks so that Israel can use them as an excuse to bomb the shit out of Gaza again. On the other hand, maybe Netanyahu would be a good leader for prospects of peace, on the Nixon-in-China principle.

A broadband tax for the UK?

Further to my previous post suggesting that the UK isn’t going to institute a “3 strikes” law, there is speculation that the government might instead introduce a broadband tax, where ISPs’ customers will pay and the money going to the music industry to compensate for the loses they’ve suffered through P2P filesharing. According to The Times:

Lord Carter [...] may suggest additional charges on customers’ broadband bills to compensate the music industry.

There are a number of issues with any such proposal:

Britblog Roundup #206

Britblog Roundup #206 is up at Mick Fealty’s Brassneck.

Next week is the turn of Natalie at Philobiblon — your nominations should go to britblog AT gmail DOT com.

UK rules out “3 strikes”

The RIAA has been pressuring the UK government (and other governments throughout the world) to introduce “3 strikes” laws that would disconnect people from the Internet, after 2 warnings, if they are accused of illegal P2P filesharing.

However the British government has now ruled out 3 strikes:

Internet service providers will not be forced to disconnect users who repeatedly flout the law by illegally sharing music and video files, The Times has learnt.

David Lammy, the Intellectual Property Minister, said that the Government had ruled out legislating to force ISPs to disconnect such users.

Speaking ahead of the publication of a report on the future of Britain’s digital industries, Mr Lammy said that there were very complex legal issues wrapped up in enforced disconnection. He added: “I’m not sure it’s actually going to be possible.”

Indeed Lammy thinks that file sharing is a relatively minor problem, like stealing a bar of soap when you check out of a hotel:

Mr Lammy, who has begun a big consultation entitled Developing a Copyright Agenda for the 21st Century, said that there was a big difference between organised counterfeiting gangs and “younger people not quite buying into the system”. He said: “We can’t have a system where we’re talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap – there’s a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.”

He said he hoped the memorandum of understanding would mean that the Government did not have to apply “the heavy hand of legislation”.

The music industry is predictably not happy with the soap analogy:

Music industry figures said they were disappointed by Mr Lammy’s comments. One senior figure said: “The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I’m sure that hotel chain would do something about it.”

It appears that Lammy is actually quite clueful and appears to realise that disconnecting millions of people from the net for filesharing is a total non-starter legally, politically, economically and technically:

• Legally: How do you tell who is a filesharer? What level of evidence do you require? — if it is merely on the music industry’s say-so, that’s unjust. If someone is cut off, won’t that punish everyone who lives in that household? What’s to stop them simply signing up for another ISP — and if you prevent that you’re going to have to have a big long list of people who’re banned and an enormous problem with false positives and people moving house.
• Politically: Pissing off millions of voters just before a general election is unlikely to improve the government’s chances in that election.
• Economically: The internet is now a vital part of the country’s economy. Cutting off large numbers of people would seriously harm the economy.
• Technically: If 3 strikes was implemented, geeks would invent new protocols that are undetectable, and filesharers would all migrate to them.

There a quite a lot of vested interests being hurt by the Internet now, and if they had seen it coming would no doubt have tried to strangle it 15 years ago. But they didn’t see it coming, because they are ignorant and clueless about technology; indeed the music industry’s response to the challenge of the Internet has been a mixture of cluelessness, arrogance, and malice.

So if 3 strikes isn’t the solution, what is? It appears the government might favour a compulsory levy on broadband users, which I’ll talk about in a future post.

(via TorrentFreak)

Carnival on Modern Liberty #1

The first edition of the Carnival on Modern Liberty has been published on Liberal Conspiracy.

And it has a spiffy logo:

Carnival on Modern Liberty