If you ever needed a reminder of how important the realist intellectuals’ spring assault on the Israel lobby is, today’s Times bore it out. Its polls show that most Americans feel that Israel’s indiscriminate destruction in Lebanon will lead to a wider war, and that we don’t have a dog in that fight and shouldn’t get involved. “Support for the president’s staunch backing of Israel goes only so far…” intones the Times: 39 percent say they approve it, but 40 percent say we should be neutral on its latest conflict.
We are all realists now… Most of us anyway.
The poll underscores what the prescient David Brooks meant but refused to say openly some weeks back when he spoke in code about isolationist populists versus interventionist “elites” in foreign policy. Translation: The interventionist elites side with Israel all the way to the destruction of two Arab capitals, and Damascus and Tehran while we’re at it. The isolationist populists are the American majority, burned by neocon delusions about Iraq, wary of getting involved in this unending cycle of violence that will only see an end when we exercise our power as the offshore balancer.
Brooks was talking in code because the politics of this are so frightening to the Brooks-Beinart elite. When you have an American groundswell saying one thing—Hizbullah is crazy, but so is Israel—and neither party representing those views, a Ross Perot could emerge, or some other demagogue. Who will respond to this feeling politically? Not the mainline Democrats. They demonstrated the power of the Israel lobby when they sandbagged Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki for criticizing Israeli “aggression” in Lebanon. While in Connecticut Ned Lamont is afraid to say a word against our Israel policy, till August 9 anyway.
Here’s one flicker of light. Last night on Hardball, Republican strategist Ed Rogers sounded the majority position when he called the Israel-Lebanon fighting a “sideshow” that can “hurt America’s interest in Iraq.” The Democrats should never have confronted al-Maliki over his anti-Israel statements; they were acting “not in America’s interest.”
The invocation of an American interest that is not Israel’s, by a political strategist—holy moly. If you can run against the gun lobby, why not the Israel lobby? I can’t wait for October. Then maybe some gutty congressional aspirants will run on that idea, and find a movement behind them.
You are a liar.
This is not mentioned anywhere in the poll:
"polls show that most Americans feel that Israel's indiscriminate destruction in Lebanon will lead to a wider war, and that we don't have a dog in that fight and shouldn't get involved."
The poll results:
- 39 percent indicated they approved of Bush's staunch backing of Israel
- 40 percent said the United States should avoid saying anything at all about the conflict
- 7 percent said the United States should criticize Israel.
You suck as a journalist. The Observer should review the misinformation that you purport to be fact and can you.
Wake up Observer Editors- fact check.
Save the Observer- Can Weiss
I have trouble buying the assertion that Brooks spoke in anti-semetic code. I think its a bit loony that you would keep mentioning this idea when it adds nothing to your argument. Its true that the neocons have some Jewish roots and are undoubtably pro-israel. But AIPAC and other rightwing "zionist" groups are not identical with neoconservatism.
Talking about Jews is a dangerous business both for the speaker and for Jews. Precision is required.
What do you think about the seeming gap between Neocon's very strong support for Israel, and the conventional wisdom that a Jew cant be elected as president? The Republican/Neocon base would never allow it?
Curious…