The New Republic

The scene is ferocious. The fact that shrieks of “Allah Akhbar” accompany the bullets and blows to the dying tyrant’s last breaths only clarify how nasty the Libyan future will be. Screw you old man. So the Seals who executed Osama Bin Laden (remember they shot his wife in the leg when she attacked them but OBL was standing there like a frightened fool, they could have captured him at increased risk to themselves but could have done so, he was not armed) yet was that execution proof of how nasty the American future will be? I fully support the seals actions, why risk your life for OBL even if later the risk proved not to exist?) In Libya a young man went into a drainage ditch after an armed Gadhafi (remember he had his golden revolver with him) the soldiers there said "we want him alive" he was bloody because Nato had taken out his convoy and he had been lucky enough to be in a car that was not directly hit but still suffered extensive damage (you be in a line of vehicles where the front one is hit by a hellfire missile and see how it goes). We don't know if there were elements of Gadhafi forces who attacked, remember it was in Sirte which had not yet been secured, and if the freedom fighters killed him so that he would not escape or was killed in the crossfire or it is entirely possible one soldier who had lost his family just blew Gadhafi away, what is sure is that it was not an organized lynching. So Marty is wrong, he is leaping to conclusions where the facts are not in evidence. Gadhafis convoy was hit by a hellfire missile, he fled into a drainage ditch with a few other men. The images we have are of him being handled roughly but not being torn apart, he managed to wipe blood from his face, demanded to be treated better, these are not the reactions of someone being pounded on by an out of control mob. If I had been there and believed that Gadhafi and his guards were within that sewer I would have thrown hand grenades in first, would that have made me a murderer? Would that have meant that the future of Libya was hopeless? The only thing that is clear is Marty's relentless hatred of Arabs. Today they are having elections in Tunisia, evidence I suppose of how terrible their future will be as well. And if Libya succeeds will Marty revisit what he wrote and apologize? Osama Bin Laden is likely to rise out of the sea and walk on water first.

- blackton

October 22, 2011 at 2:44pm

Two miles (3 km) west of Sirte, there were three clusters of cars and pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns burnt out, smashed and smouldering — one group of 11 vehicles next to an electricity substation, three cars in a field and another cluster of seven pick-ups in another field. They had clearly been hit by a force far beyond anything the motley army the former rebels has assembled during eight months of revolt to overthrow the once feared leader. Inside some of the trucks still in their seats sat the charred skeletal remains of drivers and passengers killed instantly by the strike. Other bodies lay mutilated and contorted, strewn across the grass. There were 95 bodies in all, many of them black Africans. Less than half were burned alive in the vehicles. Others appeared to have been killed, some of them cut in two, by heavy calibre guns from either an aircraft or from ground fire. Others appeared to have been killed by fragmentation wounds, possibly from exploding rockets and ammunition in the pick-ups. Government fighter Ahmed al-Masalati from Misrata said he was there. He said Gaddafi’s convoy escaped at 6:30 am and went around a roundabout and came under fire from government forces. “They were trapped in these positions,” he said, pointing to the field. “At 8:15 a NATO jet came in, a Mirage. It shot at the group of 11 cars then made another pass and shot at other group at the north end who were held up in seven cars.” That account was confirmed by a Gaddafi prisoner on Friday, Jibril Abu Shnaf, who was captured not far from the convoy. “I was cooking for the other guys, when all of a sudden they came in and said ‘come on, we’re leaving’. I got in a civilian car and joined the end of the convoy. We tried to escape along the coast road. But we came under heavy fire, so we tried another way,” he told Reuters while in custody in the town of Sirte. When the air strike hit the convoy had already stopped “but I don’t know why, I was just following the others”, he said. “Then the only thing I saw was dead bodies all around, dust and debris. It went dark,” Shnaf said. “I saw this guy running,” he said, gesturing towards another prisoner beside him, “and I just followed him. I had no idea Muammar was with us until they (his captors) told us.” Gaddafi himself escaped the carnage. Mansour Daou, leader of Gaddafi’s personal bodyguards, was with the ousted leader shortly before he died. He told al Arabiya television that after the air strike the survivors had “split into groups and each group went its own way”. Gaddafi and a handful of his men appeared to have made their way through a stand of trees and taken refuge in the two drainage pipes under the highway. But NTC fighters were hot on their tail. “I was with Gaddafi and Abu Bakr Younis Jabr and about four volunteer soldiers,” Daou said, adding he had not witnessed his leader’s death because he had fallen unconscious after being wounded in the back by a shell explosion. “MY MASTER IS HERE” Government fighter Saleem Bakeer said he was among those who came across Gaddafi hiding in the pipes, each about half a metre high. Other NTC militiamen who also said they were present and, separately interviewed in different locations, all named each other as also having been at the scene and their stories matched closely. One man had what he said was Gaddafi’s gold-plated pistol. “At first we fired at them with anti-aircraft guns, but it was no use,” said Bakeer, while being feted by his comrades near the road and the drainage pipes. “Then we went in on foot. “One of Gaddafi’s men came out waving his rifle in the air and shouting surrender, but as soon as he saw my face he started shooting at me,” he told Reuters. “Then I think Gaddafi must have told them to stop. ‘My master is here, my master is here’, he said, ‘Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded’,” said Bakeer. “We went in and brought Gaddafi out. He was saying ‘what’s wrong? What’s wrong? What’s going on?’. Then we took him and put him in the car,” Bakeer said. At the time of his capture, Gaddafi was already wounded with gunshots to his leg and to his back, Bakeer said. One of the others who said he took part in the capture of the man who ruled Libya for 42 years said Gaddafi was shot and wounded at the last minute by one of his own men. “One of Muammar Gaddafi’s guards shot him in the chest,” said Omran Jouma Shawan. Another NTC official, speaking to Reuters anonymously, gave another account of Gaddafi’s violent death: “They (NTC fighters) beat him very harshly and then they killed him. This is a war.” Where he was captured, fallen electricity cables partially covered the entrance to the drainage pipes and the bodies of three men, apparently Gaddafi bodyguards, lay there, one in shorts probably due to a bandaged wound on his leg. Four more bodies lay at the other end of the pipes. All black men, one had his brains blown out, another man had been decapitated, his dreadlocked head lying beside his torso. Army chief Jabr was also captured alive, Bakeer said, but NTC officials later announced he was also dead. Joyous government fighters fired their weapons in the air, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and posed for pictures. Others wrote graffiti on the concrete parapets of the highway. One said simply: “Gaddafi was captured here.”

- blackton

October 22, 2011 at 3:32pm

I'll just bet that Peretz loves that video of the final moments before Qaddhafi's death: he's probably watched it over and over again. Nothing gets Marty Peretz as hard as a dead Arab....

- SMacEachern2

October 22, 2011 at 4:22pm

Hilary Clinton's reaction, caught on video, was a study in crude stupidity. Perhaps she too was overjoyed at the sight of another dead Arab.

- noga1

October 22, 2011 at 6:13pm

What is a "Jew?" What is an "Arab?" Are there not billions of people of every appearance, intelligence, ethical belief and behavior, who can be lumped under these broad identity labels? What usefulness does using these labels in the comments before mine serve? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. said Shakespeare poignantly in the voice of Shylock. I am not sure off the top of my head if Shakespeare ever spoke of Arabs, but perhaps the "Moor" Othello can stand in: Soft you; a word or two before you go. I have done the state some service, and they know't. No more of that. I pray you, in your letters, When you shall these unlucky deeds relate, Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate, Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak Of one that loved not wisely but too well;

- skahn

October 22, 2011 at 8:54pm

Oh, oh, the dreaded TNR italic bug (or my own HTML icompetence) runs amok once again.

- skahn

October 22, 2011 at 8:55pm

Funny, I can't find the usual sentence in Marty's post: something on the lines of "President Obama, whose fatally misjudged Cairo speech led to Gaddafi's coup in 1969, finally listened to the advice of his betters and in his hapless way did something finally to assert American power, much as he almost certainly didn't want to, but as my friend Fouad Ajami told me over dinner in the faculty lounge at Johns Hopkins, Samantha Power is just Mary Robinson (or possibly Roger Cohen) in a red wig."

- ironyroad

October 22, 2011 at 9:34pm

People who criticize Peretz' post need to read some of the article he linked to: "Libya’s Late, Great Rights Record" By TOM KUNTZ Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements. Evidently, within the 47-nation council, some pots are loath to call kettles black, at least until events force their hand. Last week Libya was suspended from the body, and the report was shelved. Here are excerpts. TOM KUNTZ • Algeria noted the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [people’s republic] to promote human rights, which reflected the country’s commitment to complying with Human Rights Council resolutions and cooperating with the international community. • Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights. • The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. • [North Korea] praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights, especially in the field of economic and social rights, including income augmentation, social care, a free education system, increased delivery of health care services, care for people with disabilities, and efforts to empower women. • Bahrain noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had adopted various policies aimed at improving human rights, in particular the right to education and the rights of persons with disabilities. • Iraq commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being a party to most international and regional human rights instruments, which took precedence over its national legislation. • Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights. • Tunisia noted progress made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, such as the adoption of the Great Green Charter, which was very comprehensive and enshrined fundamental freedoms and rights as enshrined in international human rights instruments. • The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela acknowledged the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote economic, social and cultural rights, especially those of children. • Cuba commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the progress made in the achievement of one of the millennium development goals, namely, universal primary education. • Egypt commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for progress in building a comprehensive national human rights framework of institutions and in drafting legislation and supporting its human resources in that area. • The Islamic Republic of Iran noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had implemented a number of international human rights instruments and had cooperated with relevant treaty bodies. • Myanmar commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its economic and social progress, and recognized efforts in domestic legislation aimed at guaranteeing equal rights. • The United States of America supported the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s increased engagement with the international community. It called on the country to comply with its human rights treaty obligations. • The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya invited all nongovernmental organizations and other relevant stakeholders in the council to visit the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya so they could see in person the status of human rights on the ground."

- arnon

October 22, 2011 at 11:41pm

Irony, your post was anything but ironic. There was nothing more ironic in the true sense of the term than the articled posted above. Even the title was ironic: "Libya’s Late, Great Rights Record" The best irony is unintentional and is created by historical events. This is even truer than Borges' view that historical events change the meaning of literature.

- arnon

October 22, 2011 at 11:45pm

MachEachern is lamenting that one of his third world liberation heroes got slaughtered in a supposed war of liberation. Had the dead leader been say Pinochet or some other right wing pro-American dictator he would have been cheering. But Qaddafi how could they kill that North African Simon Bolivar? He is in mourning.

- arnon

October 22, 2011 at 11:51pm

Peretz is just pointing out the bizarre inconsistencies in international relations.

- arnon

October 22, 2011 at 11:53pm

skahn, you probably think you strange post is clever. It isn't, it's just grotesque. If you knew a little more about Qaddafi's rule you would agree with me. Qaddafi claimed in the 80's (I think it was then) that Shakespeare was such a great playwright who knew the human beings so well that he must have been an Arab. He specially loved Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock. How like a real Jew he was. Here is an ironic take on it: "adhafi: Shakespeare Was an Arab Named Shaykh Zubayr" http://arabshakespeare.blogspot.com/2011/04/qadhafi-shakespeare-was-arab-named.html Here is another: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/opera/3655077/But-what-is-it.html

- arnon

October 23, 2011 at 12:05am

"Qaddafi claimed in the 80's (I think it was then) that Shakespeare was such a great playwright who knew the human beings so well that he must have been an Arab" The Nazis had a similar claim on Shakespeare. And the German romantics believed that --German language being so superior -- Shakespeare in German was better than the original.

- noga1

October 23, 2011 at 8:23am

arnon: Nah. I was working in the Lake Chad Basin in the mid-1980s when Qaddhafi was meddling in Chad, and friends of mine died in the subsequent fighting. I hated the bastard. In this case, I was commenting on Peretz's lust for dead Arabs, his lip-licking hopes for "...how nasty the Libyan future will be...". I'd say that Peretz loves the idea of human misery, as long as it's applied to Arabs... but I don't think he considers Arabs to be fully human.

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 1:53pm

“In this case, I was commenting on Peretz's lust for dead Arabs, his lip-licking hopes for "...how nasty the Libyan future will be...". I'd say that Peretz loves the idea of human misery, as long as it's applied to Arabs... but I don't think he considers Arabs to be fully human.” You are confusing issues again. Peretz has no “lust for dead Arabs.” His worry about the Libyan future is legitimate. Whenever leaders (dictators, murderers) are summarily executed, it usually doesn’t bode well for the countries legal system Rumania was a case in point and there are many others. Italy after they hanged Mussolini was able to become more or less democratic because it was under occupation after the war. Peretz may be wrong, or he may be right in his predictions, but in this article I see no “lust for dead Arabs.” Your hatred of Peretz seems to be your passion and you prejudge everything he writes. It gets boring answering your prejudiced comments.

- arnon

October 23, 2011 at 2:55pm

"Hilary Clinton's reaction, caught on video, was a study in crude stupidity. Perhaps she too was overjoyed at the sight of another dead Arab" No, she was not. In the video, it was clear that Qhadaffy was not dead yet. Her comment was "unconfirmed report that Qhadaffy has been captured", not dead. She was just elated that the colonel was in custody.

- scrubby

October 23, 2011 at 3:37pm

"She was just elated that the colonel was in custody." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y She certainly was elated: We came, we saw, he died.

- noga1

October 23, 2011 at 3:48pm

arnon: If you're bored, I suggest that you stop trying to police these comment threads: it's a pretty simple solution. And there's no worry for Libya's future in this last Peretzian outgassing: he'd had some trouble finding video of Qaddhafi's last moments, and he wants to make sure the folks who follow him at TNR can enjoy that video without the bother that he'd had. It's as if he's been pursuing some particularly obscure form of pornography, and is all proud when he finally located it.

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 4:44pm

I do't police threads, SMacEachern2. If I did I would use my non existent delete button rather than comment on every nut case who can't read or makes up the meaning of what is said: For example, where does he day that he want people to enjoy the video of a dead Qaddafi? Is it Peretz hatred (Jew hatred?) that get in the away of comprehension, Mac?

- arnon

October 23, 2011 at 4:56pm

arnon: "It’s a little hard to find. But the search is worth it." And it's pathetic to see the way that you and yours prostitute the concept of anti-semitism for cheap rhetorical purposes. It should be a serious charge, but you demean every victim of the Holocaust when you fling those kinds of accusations about. You should be ashamed of yourself.

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 5:09pm

I don't think anyone mentioned antisemites in this thread but Smac being such a keen guardian of terminologies I would appreciate hearing from him/her how he/she defines antisemitism. Just so that we know where exactly we differ on that head.

- noga1

October 23, 2011 at 6:54pm

SMacEachern2, isyour hatred for Mr. Peretz is based on anything other than the fact that he is Jewish? Has he done anything to you personally? From reading your comment one would think that you were hired to guard Qaddafi's honor and good name?

- arnon

October 23, 2011 at 7:14pm

noga1: "I don't think anyone mentioned antisemites in this thread ...." arnon: "Is it Peretz hatred (Jew hatred?) that get in the away of comprehension..." Get it together, boys.

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 7:28pm

arnon: I dislike Peretz because he's an asshole, apt to cheap chest-thumping and sneering at people who he thinks are his inferiors.

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 7:31pm

smac is not going to rise to the occasion, I see. Much more fun to indulge in sneers and jeers than to try to explain what he/she understands by "antisemitism".

- noga1

October 23, 2011 at 8:12pm

SMacEachern2 "arnon: I dislike Peretz because he's an asshole, apt to cheap chest-thumping and sneering at people who he thinks are his inferiors." Me thinks you are projecting, Mac. The sneer is pasted on your countenance.

- arnon

October 23, 2011 at 8:49pm

noga1: ? I think that arnon gave quite a concise definition: Jew-hatred. How should I have interpreted that, besides as an accusation of antisemitism?

- SMacEachern2

October 23, 2011 at 11:15pm

Hey, go easy on the SMac.. If I hated the idea of self-determination of Jews in their historical homeland or got hives every time I heard the words Zionism or Zionist, then I'd hate Marty Peretz too. Non sequitur.. I'd rather be considered an anti-semite than an anti-Zionist. At least anti-semitism could be blamed on society itself.. "No Jews in *my* neighborhood!" "Go back to Palestine!" The anti-Zionist takes things a step further "No Jews *anywhere*".. "Go back to the ghettos, just as long as it's not in your historic homeland"

- dream

October 24, 2011 at 4:16am

SMacEachern2: You are not answering my question: What is YOUR definition of antisemitism?

- noga1

October 24, 2011 at 6:47am

The Arab "spring" future is here and it looks to be a cloudy one: Early signs in Tunisian election point to strong Islamist showing, monitors call the vote fair Text Size PrintE-mailReprints By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 24, 8:42 AM "TUNIS, Tunisia — Tunisian authorities counted votes Monday in the first free election in the nation’s history, with early signs that a once-banned Islamist party is leading in the country that unleashed uprisings across the Arab world. Radio Mosaique FM posted results from polling stations around the country Monday, with many showing a commanding lead for the moderate Islamist party Ennahda. An Ennahda victory in a comparatively secular society like Tunisia could have wide implications for similar religious parties across North Africa....." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/early-signs-in-tunisian-elections-point-to-strong-islamist-showing/2011/10/24/gIQALejhBM_story.html

- arnon

October 24, 2011 at 9:39am

Smac, Thank you for your supportive comment. Arnon, thank you for your comment addressed to me. I am giving it all the consideration it deserves. My point, which I will write again, concisely, without Shakespearian quotes, is that words such as "Jew" and "Arab" are so broad and vague, that they have little or no meaning. I suggest that others reading TNR articles, posts, and comments refrain from generalizing about people's intelligence, morality, intelligence, and dependability by using such labels. Please feel free to apply whatever label you wish to me. For example, my ancestors were Eastern European Jews. In my last job, I worked closely with a Muslim (though I suspect like me he was agnostic) born in Morocco. I am a man (at least when I put on my pants this morning I appeared to be. I am 67 years old old, so I am a senior citizen. I collect Social Security and use Medicare. I live in Washington. [state]. I am married. I am a father. I love my daughter and her partner so I am a queer lover. I could go on, but I will stop. This should provide enough labels for those on TNR who wish to insult me with generalizations about me for months. Oh, yes. I volunteer for the Red Cross. As such, I urge people to be prepared for earthquakes (noticed what just happened in Turkey), floods, tornadoes (my mad-brother--not joking--schizophrenia/bipolar--lives close to Joplin, MO), hurricanes (my sister was in flooded area of VT), and whatever disaster might strike your area. Be careful out there.

- skahn

October 24, 2011 at 10:01am

Also, watch out for floods of italicizing and addictions to TNR silly commenting.

- skahn

October 24, 2011 at 10:02am

More "good news" from Libya: "Revolution Won, Top Libyan Official Vows a New and More Pious State" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/world/africa/revolution-won-top-libyan-official-vows-a-new-and-more-pious-state.html?pagewanted=all "When Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the chairman of the Transitional National Council, pronounced the end of the uprising, the crowd reacted with shouts of “God is great.” This was not long after people sang the bouncy national anthem of pre-Qaddafi days, which was revived to help celebrate the downfall of the dictator, who was killed on Thursday after he tried to flee Surt. Two strands — a new piety and all-purpose, freewheeling happiness — dominated the ceremony. Mr. Abdel-Jalil, stooping humbly to shake hands in the crowd and embracing the elderly relative of a fallen rebel, made clear that personality would have nothing to do with the new order. “We are an Islamic country,” he said as the sun descended. “We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government. The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.” Among other things, he promised that Islamic banks would be established in the new Libya. He also talked of lifting restrictions on the number of women Libyan men can marry, The Associated Press reported. The comments reflected not only the chairman’s personal religious conservatism and the country’s, but also the rising influence of Islamists among the former rebels. The Islamists, who include some influential militia commanders, have warned that they will not permit their secular counterparts in a new government to sideline them. Some of the secular former rebels contend that the Islamists have successfully exploited the country’s power vacuum, infusing the conflict with religion and criticizing those not considered sufficiently pious, including women who do not wear the head scarf. Other tensions were evident on Sunday, including regional rivalries that have hampered the interim government for months. Many anti-Qaddafi leaders from other regions, for example, have complained that the makeup of the interim government skews heavily toward eastern Libya."

- arnon

October 24, 2011 at 10:27am

noga1: "You are not answering my question: What is YOUR definition of antisemitism?" ? I thought that I did. arnon used quite a concise definition - Jew-hatred - in his accusation, and I think that's quite useful to be going forward with. That does not, of course, preclude disliking an asshole like Peretz simply because he's Jewish: as far as I know, assholes occur in the membership of every religious and ethnic group there is.

- SMacEachern2

October 24, 2011 at 10:27am

"Jew hatred" is not specific enough a definition. When is a statement deemed as hatred against Jews? When is a statement simple criticism of human foibles? When is a criticism of human foibles, when outlandish and singling out particular people who happen to be Jewish - no longer just criticism but motivated by more aparticular animus such as antisemitism? Do you accept the EU working definition for antisemitism? http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

- noga1

October 24, 2011 at 11:28am

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/a-moral-tipping-point-on-gaddafi-s-gory-end.html "You can observe that the West is not necessarily in the best position to teach the rest of the world lessons about revolutionary mercy. After all, don’t the Europeans still have on their consciences the massacres of September 1792 in France? What about the women whose heads were shaved after the liberation of Paris? Mussolini hung by his feet and abused? The Ceausescus slaughtered like old cattle? I don’t buy it. I may be an incurable romantic, or what amounts to the same thing, an unreconstructed opponent of the absolute evil that I believe the death penalty to be. There is, in the spectacle of Gaddafi’s lynching, something revolting. Worse, I fear that it will pollute the essential morality of an insurrection that had been, up to that point, almost exemplary. And anyone who knows something about revolutionary history knows that this could be the tipping point at which a democratic uprising begins to degenerate into its opposite."

- noga1

October 24, 2011 at 12:06pm

Another view of the killing of Qaddafi: "A Moral Tipping Point" Bernard-Henri Lévy on the unsettling implications of Gaddafi’s gory end. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/a-moral-tipping-point-on-gaddafi-s-gory-end.print.html

- arnon

October 24, 2011 at 1:09pm

"Let’s see if I got this right. Water-boarding is torture and unacceptable. But assassination is murder and is acceptable. " This again? I guess Peretz's use of another blogger's words, rather than his own here, is his roundabout way of saying he supports waterboarding. That Peretz pointed out this so-called "inconsistency" shows he has no understanding of America's military, and really has no interest in digging into that great institution. Here's the thing: waterboarding is a form of torture used on those CAPTURED in battle. Assassination is about those who have RESISTED capture and could very well shoot you (or summon people to do so) if you simply try to move in and capture them by, say, simply surrounding them and telling them to drop their guns. Once you take an enemy off the battlefield, it's best to restore some sense of calm in those who have done the job (i.e. taken the enemy off the battlefield) by not torturing than by torturing and thus exposing your warriors to more violence than is absolutely necessary. American soldiers are taught to resist waterboarding. America has executed enemies for performing it. The practice-along with others of its kind-has never produced good intel. In typical Peretzian fashion, he doesn't actually name any American opponents of, say, waterboarding who celebrated the assassination of Qaddafi, so ol' M.P. just comes off as bitter at those nasty, wasty Liberal lunks (Nevermind that the first opponents of torture in today's War on Terror were apolitical, active-duty US servicepeople.) for daring to criticize brave hawks like him over the hawks' view of waterboarding and other such questionable techniques. There was already chaos-much of it, to put it gently, involving gunplay-on the ground in Libya, long before the dictator was shot, and based on that fact, I figured he would be shot. Would M.P. have preferred to see American and Allied ground troops policing the scene? He doesn't say. He's just really, really ticked at the opponents of torture.

- JTester

October 24, 2011 at 1:25pm

Arnon, as usual when you are not addressing me or commenting about me, you make some good comments or include good links. The Bernard-Henri Lév article makes good points about the difficulty of fighting evil without becoming evil.

- skahn

October 24, 2011 at 2:16pm

JTester: “Here's the thing: waterboarding is a form of torture used on those CAPTURED in battle. Assassination is about those who have RESISTED capture and could very well shoot you (or summon people to do so) if you simply try to move in and capture them by, say, simply surrounding them and telling them to drop their guns. Once you take an enemy off the battlefield, it's best to restore some sense of calm in those who have done the job (i.e. taken the enemy off the battlefield) by not torturing than by torturing and thus exposing your warriors to more violence than is absolutely necessary.“ Leaving aside you moralistic conclusion which adds very little to the distinction you are trying to make, It’s not at all clear that a soldier’s being taken prisoner means that he or she has surrendered. Many of the detainees waterboarded were captured not in a battlefield but while in the process of carrying out acts of terror against civilians or of giving orders for others to do so. Hence your distinction between assassination of enemy combatants and waterboarding captured terrorists is not that clear cut. I don’t necessarily agree with Peretz that if one form fighting an enemy is allowed (assassination) than the other form of dealing with that enemy waterboarding should also be allowed. My only point is that J Tester’s distinction and critique is too simplistic.

- arnon

October 24, 2011 at 4:48pm

… I don’t buy it. I may be an incurable romantic, or what amounts to the same thing, an unreconstructed opponent of the absolute evil that I believe the death penalty to be. There is, in the spectacle of Gaddafi’s lynching, something revolting. Worse, I fear that it will pollute the essential morality of an insurrection that had been, up to that point, almost exemplary. And anyone who knows something about revolutionary history knows that this could be the tipping point at which a democratic uprising begins to degenerate into its opposite… … but that the nobility of the conqueror is measured in how he treats the vanquished… I read Levy’s short bit in Newsweek even before I noted that Arnon had, helpfully here, linked to it. The piece is very Levyesque, hallucinatory (some may call it impassioned) prose driving to exclamatory conclusions. In the bits that I quoted I tried to locate Levy’s starting point. That point seems to be his opposition to the death penalty. And that point is added to do by the savagery in the treatment of Kadaffy culminating in his execution. A consequence of Levy’s starting point is, it logically seems, his presumable opposition to the execution of Kadaffy even had he gotten some legal process. (And on that same starting point I surmise Levy stood against Saddam Hussein’s execution, but I don’t know.) While I join with Levy in finding something pitiable in the kicking, stomping, punching out and brutal manhandling savagery attending a shot, bleeding and dishevilled Kadaffy, I disagree with what I take to be Levy's opposition to any execution of Kadaffy. Not to turn the issue into whether capital punishment, but the retributive justification for it in domestic criminal law, itself undermined by the possibility and reality of sentencing error, can here be detached from that domestic setting to be so powerful so as to make anything but a death sentence incredibly counter intuitive. I think, if I’m right from in what I extrapolate to be Levy’s position, he would be dead, and, ironically, inhumanely, wrong to oppose Kadaffy’s execution, after process, on the basis of the consistent application of his, Levy’s, principles. The other problem I have with Levy’s piece is his either/or assertion that, as he puts it, “Two outcomes are possible.” I find his way of looking at the future regime being so umbilically tied to the manner of Kadaffy’s final hours to be way too binary and way too emphasizing of the significance of the manner of Kadaffy’s death. Does the manner of his death warn as to ominous possibilities, as if a possible harbinger of them? Surely. But will the nature of the regime to come be necessarily informed by Kadaffy’s death? Not necessarily at all, I’d argue. Too many things can over time render Levy's stark over general alternatives absurd in their exclusion of possibilities. These points raise problems I typically have with Levy apart from his exclamatory, declamatory style: the unflinching application of principle where context and circumstances argue persuasively otherwise; and consistent with that his typical posing of middle excluding alternatives.

- basman

October 24, 2011 at 6:11pm

p.s. I was just thinking, of who or of what does Levy's intensely personal and intensely exclamatory prose remind me. It just came to me: Levy writes they way Dostoyevsky's characters talk, think to themselves and even write, when they do write. In Dostoyesvsky, of course, we have unmitigated brilliance. In Levy, we have, well, we have Levy.

- basman

October 24, 2011 at 7:14pm

noga1: The EU working definition of antisemitism looks fine to me, albeit somewhat more wordy. "When is a criticism of human foibles, when outlandish and singling out particular people who happen to be Jewish - no longer just criticism but motivated by more a particular animus such as antisemitism?" arnon: "Is it Peretz hatred (Jew hatred?) that get in the away of comprehension..." One of the notable elements in both your writing and arnon's is those little question marks. Briefly put, both of you - like a number of Peretz's other acolytes - like to intimate antisemitism, even when you don't have the guts to make a straightforward claim that it exists.

- SMacEachern2

October 24, 2011 at 10:15pm

SMacEachern2 “One of the notable elements in both your writing and arnon's is those little question marks. Briefly put, both of you - like a number of Peretz's other acolytes - like to intimate antisemitism, even when you don't have the guts to make a straightforward claim that it exists.” I don’t have the guts to say that “antisemitism exists?” I don’t know who you have been reading but it couldn’t have been me. Antisemitism exists, it’s real and it exists almost everywhere, and as Saul Bellow reminded us recently, quoting WH Auden “Everybody is anti-Semitic sometimes.”

- arnon

October 24, 2011 at 10:48pm

"even when you don't have the guts to make a straightforward claim that it exists." You are not a serious person, smac. You can only engage through sneers and insults which often barely conceal unholy sentiments (like antisemitism). A waste of time, you are.

- noga1

October 25, 2011 at 6:47am

noga1: "A waste of time, you are." You're channeling Yoda now? And as I said, at some point I hope that you both will realise the dangers of this casual prostitution of the concept of antisemitism that you regularly indulge in. Unlike you two, I take the Holocaust seriously - too seriously to try and use it to score cheap little debating points.

- SMacEachern2

October 25, 2011 at 10:19am

Arnon and I are not "you both". And the fact that you cannot see that is indicative of your own broad brush strokes that cannot notice the difference between two posters just because both are advocates for Israel. It makes me wonder if this claim of "casual prostitution of the concept of antisemitism" is not one of the clichoid, automatic statements you make whenever you notice a pro-Israeli inclination, by way of "argument". You don't impress me with too keen an intellect. You are quite happy to be ensconced in your prejudices (and yes, in your case I think you are antisemitic, whether you take the Holocaust seriously or not. The attitude towards the Holocaust is not the make-or-break of an antisemite but you would have to care and know something about it in order to understand this simple statement).

- noga1

October 25, 2011 at 11:54am

noga1: "It makes me wonder if this claim of "casual prostitution of the concept of antisemitism" is not one of the clichoid, automatic statements you make whenever you notice a pro-Israeli inclination, by way of "argument". Nope. It's my reaction to accusations by you both (again) that I'm antisemitic because I criticize Martin Peretz - an asshole who happens to be Jewish, and whose hatred toward Arabs and Muslims (whether in the Middle East/North Africa or in the USA) has been well documented. You're not unique: Peretz himself prostitutes the concept of antisemitism in just the same way. All of you should know better.

- SMacEachern2

October 25, 2011 at 12:51pm

"Nope. It's my reaction to accusations by you both (again) that I'm antisemitic because I criticize Martin Peretz " Then you will need to support this statement by providing a quote from a comment I wrote here that says exactly what you accuse me of saying. (That I call you an antisemite because you criticize Peretz). Since you sound so confident in your comments I'm sure you will have no trouble finding an example.

- noga1

October 25, 2011 at 1:00pm

SMacEachern2: " that you both will realise the dangers of this casual prostitution of the concept of antisemitism that you regularly indulge in. Unlike you two, I take the Holocaust seriously - too seriously to try and use it to score cheap little debating points." The Holocaust wasn't the beginning or end of antisemitism. The danger today is see only a potential Holocaust as "serious" antisemitism." The antisemitic prostitutes deny antisemitism. They absolve themselves of the charge by claiming that they are Nazis. Hence to them Qaddafi or Ahmadinejad can't be antisemites. Nor can Hamas be an antisemitic organization. Nor can the "moderate Islamist" who just won an election in Tunisia be an antisemite even though he blessed the mothers of suicide bombers. Mac lives in a simplistic universe. This is why he also talks of "you both" even though Noga and I usually don't agree. As Peretz criticizing any single comment is not a sign of prejudice, criticizing him obsessively as Mas does is a sign of prejudice.

- arnon

October 25, 2011 at 1:52pm

I'm still looking for SMacEachern2 to back up his claim variously expressed as Peretz gets hard ons at the sight of dead Arabs or that a dead Arab is a good Arab: ...I'll just bet that Peretz loves that video of the final moments before Qaddhafi's death: he's probably watched it over and over again. Nothing gets Marty Peretz as hard as a dead Arab.... He might answer that he's being hyperbolic to make a necessary point. On that basis, I'd like to see textual references that back up that rationale. SMacEachern2 by the way is no fool; he's as smart or smarter than most commenting here in my judgment, my having read his comments off and on over the years. He does himself no favour by such vitriol, of course.

- basman

October 25, 2011 at 6:56pm

Here are some posts for Mac to contemplate about antisemitism in the post Holocaust era: http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/on-being-chosen-eve-garrard/#comments http://hurryupharry.org/2011/10/25/steve-hedley-rmt%E2%80%99s-london-transport-regional-organiser-youre-one-of-the-chosen-people/

- arnon

October 25, 2011 at 7:40pm

If antisemites were all invariably stupid, Jews would have very little to fear from them. Being smart and being antisemitic are not mutually exclusive, as history ought to teach us.

- noga1

October 25, 2011 at 8:03pm

10/25/2011 - 8:03pm EDT | granted.

- basman

October 26, 2011 at 3:20pm