Is it possible for one person to write a first-rate large-scale reference book? Of course–if he’s Samuel Johnson. But even Dr. Johnson found it famously difficult to bring his Dictionary into being, and though there have been any number of noble successors to that great work, most of the significant reference books to be published in modern and postmodern times have been group efforts. The principal exceptions to this rule are books which, like H.W. Fowler’s Modern English Usage, H.L. Mencken’s New Dictionary of Quotations, or David Thomson’s Biographical Dictionary of Film, intentionally reflect the idiosyncratic personalities of their authors, and one normally turns to books such as these in search of illumination or amusement, not information.
When it comes to works of pure reference, the opposite rule holds true, and the wider the field of interest, the harder it is for an individual author, no matter how well informed he may be, to produce a book that is both comprehensive and trustworthy. Hence I was more than a little bit surprised to discover that The Oxford Companion to the American Musical: Theatre, Film, and Television (Oxford, 923 pp., $39.95) is the work of a single scholar, Thomas Hischak, and not surprised at all that it isn’t nearly as good as it ought to be.
Unearthing mistakes in a reference book is the sport of pedants, but the whole point of such tomes is that they should be scrupulously accurate, and I regret to say that I didn’t have to dig too deeply in the new Oxford Companion to pick nits, starting with an unacceptably high number of misspelled names (Sherie Rene Scott, Michel Legrand, Casey Nicolaw), missing persons (Conrad Salinger, Twyla Tharp) and mangled song titles (“Public Melody No. 1″). Nor does Hischak have the gift of writing the crisp, informative definitional prose that is indispensable to the lexicographer’s craft. Far more often than not he settles for flabby, anodyne boilerplate, especially when musical matters are involved. Here, for instance, is what he has to say about Leonard Bernstein’s compositional style: “His theatre music uses a variety of forms, from jazz to Latin to classical, and can be explosive and thrilling as well as tender and reflective.” True enough, I suppose, but does it tell you anything about Bernstein’s music beyond the immediately obvious? Another glaring example of his limp descriptive powers is the first sentence of his entry on Cabaret: “Arguably the most innovative, hard-hitting, and uncompromising musical of the 1960s, the powerful music-drama made few concessions to escapist entertainment, yet it was and remains very popular.” Again, this is true as far as it goes, but it is neither notably insightful nor memorably written.
In recent years Oxford University Press has acquired a reputation for publishing ill-edited books, and this one is-to put it very, very mildly-no exception. Somebody really should have stopped Hischak from describing Irving Caesar’s lyrics as “simple, direct, and sometimes contagious,” or referring to An American in Paris as a “symphonic suite.” At times his syntax comes totally unstuck: “Baxter’s career fell apart in the 1940s, suffered a nervous breakdown, and underwent a lobotomy before dying of pneumonia.” Poor career!
All these problems notwithstanding, The Oxford Companion to the American Musical is for the most part a reliable, fact-crammed reference tool, and I expect to keep my copy handy for some time to come. But it isn’t the vade mecum I’d hoped for, not by a long shot.
Eric
I think “even-handedness” means no more F16s paid by the American taxpayer to drop white phosphorus bombs on the children of people that Israelis from Europe kicked out of their ancestral homes in Najd (now Sderot). But then again I could be wrong. Maybe it just means stopping the flow of cash from American Jewish organizations to illegal settlers on the West Bank. Or who knows? Maybe it means heeding every other nation on earth when they say that Israel is committing war crimes. Or wait, perhaps it is about something obvious like ending the siege of Gaza. I don’t know, just some thoughts…
#1
…LOL…
you are the very embodiment of ‘even-handedness’
I think even-handedness in the middle east means no longer following lock step the type of loony conspiracy theories and lies that led us to the Iraq War. In short, Eric, you lost and lost big. Deal. With. It.
Welcome to J Street, Mr. Trager. It is a pleasure to finally have you on board.
The reason Mitchell-Obama-Clinton will press Israel hard on settlements — indeed harder than in 2001; along settlement freeze, think expanded Ramon settler compensation bill to immediately incentivize settlers (at least the non-ideological majority) to move back within the Green Line — and will be prepared to speak more critically of Israel than any administration in decades is precisely because the U.S. cannot tolerate downgraded Israeli strength.
Israel’s security interests (and therefore longstanding American regional security policy) require a two-state solution. To the extent that Israel’s domestic politics prevent it from acting in its own (and therefore the United States’) long-term interest, the U.S. must, and under this administration will, apply complete pressure to this end (including, as needed, by way of its power of the purse) — not merely as a well-meaning friend, the proverbial designated driver, but as sponsor, partner and patron of a national project it cannot allow to fail under any circumstance.
Particularly because security interests are at stake.
Not that this will ever happen given the Bund‘s hold on the upper-recesses of government and both parties, but what ought to be done is a complete cutoff of U.S. aid, loans, weapons, and spare parts to everyone in that region, as part of a policy of strict neutrality. The U.S. should start a Manhattan Project on alternative energy, with the explicit aim of ending purchases of Mideast oil within 10 years. Then we should turn our backs on the scorpions and snakes and walk away.
Eric – you too narrowly define Israel’s sucurity needs/interests when concluding that evenhandedness (which you correctly desceribe as one-sided Israeli concessions) will not negatively affect security.
Every evcenhanded concession weakens Israel’s security. Condi’s brilliant Rafah/ Philadelphi plan hurt Israeli swecurity. Removing settlers from Gaza hurt Israeli swecurity. Dollar after dollar that is given to the PA – frees up other money for terrorism, hurting Israeli security.
While this evenhandedness may not (although I would argue it already has) affect the qualitative edge that US has guaranteed over its hostile Arab neighbors, these concessions all serve to weaken Israel and invite war.
LogicMan (#1),
That’s a nice selection of trite tropes and dishonest talking points from the rabid anti-Semitic bigot crowd.
And how are things over at the Kos Klucks Klan and Huffpoo?
Of course “evenhandedness” here means Israeli concessions, J. Lichty.
But whether Israel’s leadership realizes it or not (and I certainly don’t care whether they do), Israel’s security necesitates that such concessions be made.
Eric R,
You wrote: “Whether Israel’s leadership realizes it or not… Israel’s security necessitates that such concessions be made.”
For the benefit of those of us who are having trouble imagining how new concessions can contribute to Israel’s security, can you be provide some hints? Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, dismantled the settlements there, and left the area to the Palestinians in the hope that they would begin to construct a proto-state. The strip was taken over by a group that is openly committed to the destruction of Israel. How are we to imagine that further concessions will bring a two-state solution closer? What kind of scenario do you have in mind?
I’m really trying to understand your point of view, but you’ll have to do a better job of presenting it in a way that makes sense to me. So far it basically sounds like “Black is white.”
re: # 9 Peter Shalen
You conveniently left out the part where Israel maintained full control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, territorial waters, and trade with the outside world and imposed a crippling blockade. Turning a colony into an open-air prison isn’t something that makes those pesky indigenous inhabitants grateful.
To AJB,
Right on!
Israel basically declared war by imposing a blockade on food, fuel and medicine. Why, because they dare to democratically elect Hamas. I don’t think Hamas would launch rockets if Israel would not have declared war. Of course in America its always, Arabs terrorists, Jews defenders. Sickening.
In my comment at #9, I was trying to let Eric R. know that I am mystified by his position, and was inviting him to explain it. I was working under the assumption that Mr. R., unlike the person who identifies himself or herself as AJB at post #10, is sympathetic to Israel, is interested in having a serious discussion rather than dismissing his adversaries with sarcasm, and keeps up well enough with current events to know, for example, that the blockade of Gaza was imposed *after* Hamas took over.
Incidentally, if Mr. R. really does want to save Israel from itself, he might try a smidgen of humility. His sentence which I quoted with ellipsis actually begins “But whether Israel’s leadership realizes it or not (and I certainly don’t care whether they do)…” Expressing contempt for people’s opinions is not the way to win them over to yours.
Again incidentally: what’s with all the _noms de guerre_? Those of us who use our real names seem to be in a minority here. I’m sure there’s a reason for this, but I haven’t figured it out yet. (I must say that some of the noms de guerre, like Chuck Martel, are pretty clever.)
Mr. or Ms. Picture (#11),
Hamas won control of the legislature in the PA in January of 2006. The blockade was begun after Hamas took over Gaza, by force, in June of 2007. These facts are readily available to anyone with a search engine.
It was an internal dispute. Both sides wanted to control the government though Hamas had the election to back up their claims. Israel meddle in the dispute and declared war on Hamas. That is a good way to describe the blockade.
Peter, these are well-established arguments, but I’m happy to restate them here.
First, it is crucial to recall that the Quassams long predated the disengagement from Gaza.
However one may feel about the unilateral military withdrawal from Gaza, the elimination of Gaza settlements reduced an enormous unjustified burden on the IDF. However one may feel about the strategic merits of the Gaza operations, it’s clear it would have been incalcuably more difficult to carry out with settlers still living in Gaza.
But the more fundamental point is this: settlements destroy the credibility of Palestinan moderates. It makes them look like suckers. Why should Palestinians bet on responsible, two-state solution leadership, when they see the facts on the ground as increasingly diminishing the viability of such a solution?
There’s been three sorts of tactical arguments made by Israelis to defend continued settlement. If any have ever been viable, certainly none are viable now.
1) First, the argument is made that the settlements are “bargaining chips” that should not be conceded prior to a final deal.
Problem is, any eventual partner knows this — to the extent they believe in the feasibility of sitting down to talk, they know they are getting the settlements. And the converse point is even more important: to the extent Palestinians don’t believe the settlements are obtainable, then there’s no reason for them to even come to the table. And there’s certainly no sense hording chips for a game that never arrives.
2) The related argument is that the continued growth of settlements “put time on the side of Israel.” Here, the story is that without some sort of ticking clock, the Palestinians have no incentive to reach a final deal, so the growing settlements are this ticking clock.
Problem is it’s Israel that’s facing the ticking clock — demographics and democracy — and the Palestinians have long known this. Rather than punished, Palestinian intransigence is rewarded by settlement growth, increasing the perceived prospects of simply holding out for a bi-national, single state.
3) Finally, the simple legalistic point is made with respect to Oslo permitting settlement expansion.
Response here is: who cares? Flaws in Oslo’s treatment/non-treatment of settlements need not bind Israel to self-descructive policy. Besides, subsequent agreements/arrangements/understandings, including the Road Map, were fully clear on requiring a settlement freeze, and future agreements/arrangements/understandings can be equally clear as to need for settlement roll-back.
Hope that helps, Peter. I speak largely for myself at this point in how I’ve articulated all this, but you’ll be able to find many resources online elaborating on each of these various points.
Peter, as to your point in #12 on humility, it is certainly well-taken, but too much is at stake here for this to be a driving concern. It certainly won’t be for U.S. policymakers, nor should it be.
My particular point in the line you quote (“But whether Israel’s leadership realizes it or not (and I certainly don’t care whether they do)…”) was actually narrower though. With regard to the question of whether Israel’s leaders (a) are bound by overwhelming domestic political constraints and need outside help to act in Israel’s interest or, alternatively, (b) simply misunderstand in certain fundamental ways what Israel’s true long-term interests, my point was only that it really makes no difference either way. Again, given the vital security interests at stake, polite American concern for not being too pushy with wrong-headed (or wrong-abled) Israeli leaders is a luxury neither can afford.
I of course agree that humility is always helpful in winning other’s over to one’s opinion. But remember that what will be important to the current administration wont be convincing Israeli leaders, but rather in eliciting approriate Israeli behavior. Simply put, they won’t have to believe it; they’ll just have to do it.
Like it or not — I certainly do like it — this is the way things are now.
Eric,
Many thanks for taking the trouble to clarify your position.
Our viewpoints are certainly very far apart. Here’s a question for you. If settlements destroy the credibility of Palestinan moderates, shouldn’t dismantling the settlements in Gaza have increased their credibility? The only reaction among Palestinians that I recall reading about when Israel withdrew from Gaza was that it must be some kind of underhanded Zionist trick. And of course the locals destroyed the greenhouses that American Jews had bought from the settlers in order to give the locals a chance use them. I don’t remember a single word from moderates to the effect that something good might have happened. Do you?
Stephen Walt captures beautifully the vague idea of “even-handedness” harbored by those who want to pressure Israel for more concessions.
“They [the settlements] need to go, and let’s try to work out a security arrangement that will protect Israel with them gone.”
The unqualified assertion is that the settlements must go. The weak corollary is that we will TRY to work out a security arrangement that will protect Israel with them gone.
No Israeli can be rationally condemned for finding that even-handedness a shade too cavalier about his national security. (Of course, Walt’s formulation is also simplistic, as is usually the case with the self-consciously “even-handed.”)
We will see what George Mitchell and Barack Obama consider the best approach, and whether it prioritizes elimination of the settlements above a reliable security situation for Israel. Assuming that it does, “even-handed” is the last thing we will be able to call a policy that favors the aspiration of Hamas over the security of Israel.
Peter, the disengagement is a mixed bag, largely because of its unilateral nature.
Around this time, my personal perference — one I still stand by — would have been for Sharon to hand over the keys to the all of the military bases, settlements and other formerly Israeli structures of Gaza to Abbas as a carefully orchestrated confidence building measure.
As carried out, there was little in the disengagement to clearly communicate that it was a reward for Abbas’ moderation, nor is it even clear that such a reward was any part of Sharon’s intention.
(As to the Zuckerman/World Bank greenhouses, we’re in total agreement — the destruction was absolutely unconscionable and deeply, deeply tragic and disappointing.)
But specifically with respect to the evacuated settlements, the key pay off to Palestinian moderates was actual living, breathing proof that, despite all the scare campaign about Israeli civil war, if if Israel chose, settlements were actually fully dismantleable.
Abbas himself did respond very positively on this specifically at the time:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/12/gaza/
I think there’s also a strong case to be made that it was a big help in consolidating both Abbas’ and subsequently Salam Fayyad’s respective leadership roles in the West Bank, a foundation that I think could have been very helpful with a different approach out of Washington.
In Gaza itself, though, I think there’s no denying that the unilateralism of the move also allowed Hama take credit for it as a victory for intransigence and resistance. The military gains for the IDF of freed resources were very real, but the narrative was conceded to moderates’ detriment.
Ultimately, as a J Streeter, I’d tell you it goes exactly to the same point — that had Bush demanded more of Sharon in how he handled the disengagement, Israel would likely be in a much more productive place with it.
It’s a very useful question though. Shabbat shalom.
The best thing that could happen to the Palestinians is to be defeated militarily and put under the trusteeship of grownups. In all these years they have not managed to graduate from a bunch of corrupt thugs to anything resembling a functioning society. They need babysitters to manage their affairs for the next decade or two.
And before you accuse of being heartless: I don’t see many Palestinian sympathizers giving a damn about the millions of victims of other conflicts around the world. The reason people care about Palestinians is because they picked a fight with the Jews.
Shalen, you’re misinformed. The blockade was intensified and instituted as full-time policy in June 2007, but border closures were in effect between 50-60% of the time between disengagement in fall 2005 and the elections in early 2006. The data is available here, if you care to look through it: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection§ion_id=10&static=0&edition_id=&format=html
It was surely in part Hamas’ promise to resist these closures that brought it to power in the first place.
J.E. Dyer,
If I may ask, what are your reasons for seeing residential settlements in the territories as relevant to Israel’s national security?
Having seen frequently here in Contentions your extensive knowledge of military matters, I assume your considerations do not relate to geostrategic considerations as such.
Rather, I imagine you mean tactical/diplomatic considerations of some sort. I would be much interested to hear what these are for you specifically.
Cheers.
Eric R.,
Here is a passage from the article you linked to:
“Palestinians rushed into the abandoned settlements, firing guns, singing and in some cases setting fire to abandoned synagogues.
“Abbas said the joy of the Palestinians was understandable after years under Israeli rule. ‘They have to express their feelings,’ said Abbas.
Somehow this sums up why I’m so suspicious when Abbas (who by the way has, quite literally, a Ph.D. in Holocaust denial) is described as a moderate.
Shabbat Shalom to you too.
All of the above arguments are irrelevant once we consider the obvious: no conceivable Palestinian government can be trusted to make and enforce any peace treaty that the majority of Israelis could live with–or, for that matter, one that they couldn’t live with. The “Right of Return” (to mention just one manufactured grievance) will always be a cause for war–if the Palestinian regime in power at one point doesn’t invoke it, they will be overthrown by another that will. Please, someone contradict me: explain who, exactly, among the Palestinians you imagine taking power, holding power and making a real, permanent arrangement with Israel. Produce a plausible scenario, instead of obsessing about another round of dutiful “peace processing” by the same old failures. Once we realize that there can’t be a peace deal in the forseeable future, the question becomes what actions Israel can take unilaterally to maintain its security without precluding the possibility of future arrangements with Egypt, Jordan or some very different Palestinian community. As long as “everyone knows” what the final deal will look like, the Palestinians have no reason not to wage perpetual war–it’s all freebies, with nothing lost but the lives of their subjects, and the Palestinian leaders think they are doing their subjects a favor by martyring them. The only way to make any kind of peace possible is by responding to each act of war with new settlements and deportations–only the fear that they will lose anything has the slightest chance of changing Palestinian behavior.
That last sentence should read “the fear that they will lose everything”
Adam,
If anything I’m more pessimistic about the chances for peace than you are.
You say “only the fear that they will lose anything has the slightest chance of changing Palestinian behavior.” In the short term I don’t think anything can change the warlike behavior of Palestinians *as a people.* The Palestinian national identity, which did not exist before the founding of Israel, is based on hatred of Israel and nothing else. Plenty of individual Palestinians surely do see the virtue of peace, but a nation cannot be led by people who reject its raison d’etre.
I suppose there are historical cases in which the culture of a nation was transformed to make it peace-loving, like the Japanese culture after World War II. Among the Palestinians, with the support for their cause throughout the Moslem world, in the UN and in much of Europe, along with the indoctrination in their schools since Oslo, the incentives are all in the direction of reinforcing their warlike and self-destructive world view.
Peter Shalen, I couldn’t agree more. The Pals are beastly savages. They will not relent in their Jew-hatred until we wipe them off the map.
Adam, thanks for crystalizing the arguments down to one salient statement. There are fantastic back-and-forths above, but it still all boils down to not having any credible partner on the Arab side and no one in any government position will have the balls to say so.
We’re wasting a whole lot of pixels here. Fun to read, but ultimately, irrelevant. The old adage of “when the Palestinians put down there guns…” while trite, expresses the situation perfectly.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Israel did, in fact, freeze settlements for a year and see what change in the Palestinian position would result. My guess is none but that might at least abate the constant assertions that the settlements are an obstacle to peace.
Maybe greater pessimism than mine is warranted; still, I think Israelis should do what they can not to limit future possibilities, on the condition that they don’t endanger themselves in the meantime.
Thanks, Grantman–the back and forth does a bit of harm too, as the fantasy of the “perfect” agreement, of finally “getting it right” this time can only lead to pressure on Israel and encouragement to further intransigence on the Palestinian side.
Adam,
I’m fine with what you suggest that the Israelis do. I only hope they turn out to have the choice that Eric R. would like to deny them.
If by the “back and forth” you and Grantman mean the discussion on this thread, I don’t agree that it’s harmful. I joined the discussion because I wanted to find out what Eric R. meant by his earlier posts. He was kind enough to give me a detailed explanation, and although his answer frightens and depresses me, I think I’m better off knowing what I may be up against if the Obama administration acts the way Eric wants it to.
One more point: I have the sense that there have been fewer comments posted recently by Israel-bashing trolls. If this is because the editors have decided to start deleting such comments then I’m glad. If this is the case I would like to call the editors’ attention to the comments posted by the person calling himself Daniel Gold. All his posts call for genocide against the Palestinians, and are obvious intended to discredit the rest of us.
Or, rather, obvious-ell-why.
Peter Shalen, don’t be so naive. If an entire group of people declared its implacable desire to perpetrate another Holocaust against the Jews, as the Pals do, would you suggest we just sit by and let it happen? Capitulate to latter-day Nazis? Or should we take preemptive steps to stop this genocide, at all costs? The bloggers at Commentary have demonstrated time and again that Pals are irrational, immoral, and otherwise unstoppable. You are a Chamberlain-style capitulator who refuses to address the hard questions and obvious truths.
And I’m not trying to “discredit” anyone. You discredit yourself by being so obviously anti-Semitic.
I agree with you about Daniel Gold and, of course, you’re right about the give and take on this blog–it’s the discourse in the wider world, the fantasy world of the “realists,” where the question is what precise degree of Israeli capitulation will finally produce the desired “breakthrough,” that I have in mind.
Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools
[Elliott, paraphrasing August Bebel]
It is rather cute that AJB and others worry about the so-called “indigenous” inhabitants of Gaza while forgetting that the Land of Israel was a Jewish country long before the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Moreover, the Americans among that crowd of critics forget that the USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and so on, were originally inhabited by indigenous peoples whose descendants have relatively little power today in most of those countries named. So if you really believe that Israel stole its land from “indigenous Arabs” or “palestinians” [an ethnic group that never existed in history, just as there was never an independent state or nation called "palestine"] and you think that you are concerned in principle with indigenous rights, then you should be principled and get out of the USA or Cuba or Canada, etc., and go back where your ancestors came from. Israel is the restoration of an ancient nation, not a new invention.
Eric T points out that Sen. Mitchell –whose mother seems to have considered herself Arab– was very adamant about Jews living in Judea-Samaria. He was agin it. Sounds racist to me. Is Mr Obama going to start his presidential term with a racist policy against Jews?? The League of Nations endorsed [1922] the Jewish National Home juridcally erected in 1920 at San Remo. Under this principle Jews had the right to settle throughout the JNH in recognition of the historical ties of the Jewish people to that land. Furthermore, there were always some Jews living here despite Arab, Seljuk Turk and Crusader massacres of Jews in the Land of Israel.
Eric T is right to point to the rather hypocritical use of the term “evenhanded” in US political discourse. I am concerned about the racism implied by the anti-settlement policies of Mitchell, Obama, the State Dept, etc. The J Street gang is beneath contempt. Who are these hirelings of Soros or of whomever, to be dictating what is Israel’s security interest?? Driving Jews out of their homes and forbidding Jews to live in Judea-Samaria are anti-Jewish racist policies. A ban on Jewish settlement and/or habitation in Judea-Samaria endangers Jewish residence rights elsewhere in the world.
Those here who are openly hostile to Israel and complain about how Israel unfairly shunned the democratically elected Hamas govt, may not have read the Hamas charter. This document is Nazi-like in its explicit call for murdering Jews in principle. Most notably, it contains a quote from a medieval Muslim fable from the Hadith literature [at the end of Article 7], which I summarize:
At Judgement Day, the Muslims will fight and kill the Jews who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.
The Hamas’ genocidal hatred of Jews goes back, therefore, to the Middle Ages, and has nothing to do with anything that Israel has done except to exist.