My dad's real smart, even if he doesn't agree with me on my Middle East politics, and a couple weeks ago he said something that stuck. He was saying that Jimmy Carter's book is a sign of rising anti-Semitism (something I disagree with), a sign we're entering a new phase for Jewish power in the U.S. That the result of Carter's book and Walt-Mearsheimer and other developments that I cheer and my dad fears is that Jews will have less power. I said, "So are you talking about pogroms?" My father made a little face. He's very poetical and ironical. "No. Without fireworks."
Not to belabor the obvious, but my father was saying that these big sociological questions are going to be brokered and renegotiated beneath the surface, quietly, and Jews and gentiles will adjust to a new reality. Smart guy, my dad.
I bring all this up because I just watched Obama in Springfield. You can prepare all you want for a big moment, but then the moment happens, and we're all changed. I'm excited. And I have to think one of the consequences of Obama's globally democratic dream is that, without it being explicit, without his having a fight with big Jewish backers—without fireworks—U.S. policy in the Middle East is going to shift.
I'm an optimist. But I think what's happening right now in the Jewish community is part of it. Jews are being forced to confront the contradictions in Zionism (as playwright David Zellnik says, describing his play, "Ariel Sharon Stands at the Temple Mount and Dreams of Theodor Herzl"). Despite the AJC's best efforts, all Jews are Wrestling With Zion (to quote the title of Alisa Solomon and Tony Kushner's great anthology on the subject that the AJC attacked). This is the water we're all swimming in now, questions about Zionism; and I'm betting that without fireworks, the next generation of Jews is going to think differently about this, the ground is changing under them.
I'll cite one little fact that I think makes my point. In a Zionist history I was reading the other day, I read that the purchases of land in Palestine by Jewish agencies in the early part of the last century had covenants on them. The covenants said, This land can only be sold to Jews. (When I remember the citation, I'll stick it in.) Those covenants still exist, I'm sure. You can try and justify that type of discrimination in a million ways, but there it is. Real estate covenants barring sales to blacks and Jews are what my generation helped destroy in this country 30 years ago. Obama was borne up on that idealism, and his campaign is about bringing that idealism to America's actions in the world. He's half-everything, right? The ideology of Zionism is simply out of step with that spirit, and if Obama succeeds, Zionism will lose its hold on Jewish-American intellectual life. Without fireworks.
Obama is seen as a threat to pro-Israel interests. He has put himself in the cross hairs to a degree, at least compared to the desirable alternative that is Hillary Clinton. Rosner's Haaretz blog covered this in great detail a few weeks back, summary available here. I expect that Obama is going to lose the funding race, for reasons that Richard Cohen put forward last year, if he even makes it that far into the primaries. I am not sure how it will play out until then, but it will be instructive to watch.
Also, I think you may be refering to the Jewish National Fund which administers a lot of Israel land inside the greenline. It was prevented from leasing to non-Jews until some recent Israeli Supreme Court decisions in the last few years.
I know everyone is projecting all sorts of things on Obama (who still seems somewhat of a blank slate), but I see the same potential that Phil does.
I am hopeful Obama can take us to a more reconcilable, more balanced, less emotional and less hypocritical place in terms of Middle East policies. And I think he may be able to do it even while attending AIPAC fund-raising dinners. I will be extremely disappointed if Obama takes strong pro-Likud policy stands, but I wouldn't mind and do hope he empathetically addresses people's underlying fears.
In terms of moral courage and actual policy positions, I think I would be much more comfortable now with Wesley Clark. However, Clark is less likely to heal the divide. Like me and many others, Clark is angry about our unwise and unbalanced policy choices vis a vis Israel and the West Bank, war in Iraq and potential war with Iran. Anger, however justified and however much I share it, may not be the best way to get where we want to get in the end (though I'm far from certain about this given the times). For now, though, it's still wait and see with Obama to see what kind of political and moral courage he may have.
Yes, I think Phil's Dad is right–things will shift subtly, without fireworks, and without real or ugly anti-semitism. Jews will be powerful in America (they are, we can admit I hope, a pretty elite people) but the situation of the past twenty-five years is probably an anomaly. There won't be as much reflexive kow-towing to Israel, at least I hope.
I wonder why everyone is so sure that this would require Obama's election. Hillary Clinton, I recall, was on the board of a pro-Palestinian foundation back in her Hillary Rodham days, and once you understand that the Palestinians got a raw deal and that this might be corrected, you are unlikely to forget–even if running for higher office makes you put it on a very back burner. And husband Bill, let's remember, seemed to understand this pretty well too.
I realize I was a little unclear in my comment above. To clarify, I would very much mind (and will not support him) if Obama takes strong pro-Likud positions. However, I think it is important that Obama speaks to pro-Israeli groups and identifies and empathizes with their underlying fears. Like Bill Clinton, he's far better at this than most politicians.
All this systematically misplaced idealism is beyond cynical.
You know all the reading that Phil seems to do about Zionism reminds me of Adolph Eichman who was something of a student of Jewish history. Also land purchases, yes purchases, were facilitated by the JNF, they had little blue and white boxes that you droped your spare change in and a lot of very poor people chiped in what they could. But, I wouldn't expect Phil to know anything about that. You see the JNF plants trees and works on irrigation. They don't have anything like that in any of the Arab countries, you know things that work on improving the human condititon instead of blowing them up. But i digress.
See in Oboma what you want to see, I guess everybody has their own dreams and if Phil thinks that Obama will contribute to the end of Israel, fine. But, consider this possibility. Despite what the denizens of this talk back seem to think, that Joe Lieberman is directed from jerusalem and is I believe he is the senator from AIPAC, the last thing that I and a lot of people wanted was a Gore/Lieberman victory in 2000. Why? because he would have to bend over backwards to show his impartiality. A president who was raised in Indonesia, and who has the middle name of Hussein. Is going to have to sho how tough he is on the Arabs. So, I say, Obama in 2008, I can't wait. Besides, he has a grat looking wife.
I don't think hillary has a chance even if she had all the money in the world. she's leading now because of name recognition but she has aboslutely no principles or charisma. I htink Obama and possibly wes clark will overtake her.
I think the last election was as much against the beltway as the war. Jim tester. that was the last election; heartland, populism, that sort of thing.
hillary is th choice of the machine but 08 is not going to be a machine year
A couple of other things. Obviously, Phil rates his candidates on their perceived hostility to Israel. Not on whether they would be a good president in America, It matters not whether Obama can handle the 8000 other things that a president needs to deal with, But, if in Phils mind if he hits Israel, that will make him a great president. You see thats what you people don't understand. Call it Zionism, call it Judaism, call it what you want. People contribute to the Israeli red cross, colleges in Israel, research, planting trees,positive things. The Arabs, the Palestinians, are not about building. Their about destruction. Its not about building a positive Arab society with you people, its about destoying Israel. Thats why your not going to win this.
Also, I'm curious about something. Is Phils dad proud of him. What about the rest of the family, Is he happy that their will be no more Jewish Weiss's from that line. I'd be interested in some sort of interactive on line thing with Phils father. Is he happy that he raised someone like Phil. What about his mother. The world wonders
Come on Bill, the Arab world is not what you imagine it to be.
You need to travel a bit. You will be surprised to find that the French are alright, the Europeans are not thirsty for Jewish blood and that the Arab world has real human beings in it, not to mention the Lebanese women who are drop-dead gorgeous.
You would like the Palestinians too Bill.
The discussion on the blogs and the odd newspaper article is great but this isn't turning into coherent and meaningful, or least it isn't yet.
I think the medium is the problem: computer mediated discussions are limiting and abstract.
I think that a progressive American-Jewish community strategy conference would be a great next step. One could directly model it on the yearly Herzliya Conference, which is also aimed at helping to formulate strategy. The best place to have it would be in New York City.
Invite a lot of those already involved in the conversation to give talks (such as those from IJV and other progressive groups), but try to focus on Jewish and Israeli voices in order to keep things focused. It shouldn't turn into a simplistic emotional "blame Israel" festival, but rather a coherent discussion of issues, improving our understanding of the past and the ways to move forward in a positive and effective fashion. Have radicals and more mainstream progressives present ideas and discuss issues. There should be a panel on George Soros' idea of a progressive alternative to the right-leaning pro-Israel lobby. There will be a lot of disagreement but there might also be some clear things and courses of action people come to agree upon. There will be absolutely amazing conversations in the hallways and so on.
It may turn into a major turning point in uniting the left into something coherent and meaningful. The issues are complex, but there are solutions and ways of coming together.
When I said this: "The discussion on the blogs and the odd newspaper article is great but this isn't turning into coherent and meaningful, or least it isn't yet." I don't mean that what has happened isn't meaningful, as Philip says in the blog post above things change under the surface first.
But I am speaking more to the previous post of Philips were he said there are three separate camps in the American Jewish community that may find it hard to work together. I think that is a very true point. But I think that they can come together on specific issues, and such a strategy conference would be one of the better ways of seeing where unity can be achieved. I think there is more agreement under the surface than people realize, and also that currently there isn't that much understanding of the details of those three approaches but rather a lot of fear and misunderstanding.
My experience with speaking at yearly conferences has been excellent. It really moved forward my research and it also helped me find collaborators I wouldn't have found elsewhere. Conferences, if they are well run and the speakers are of high quality, are really effective breading grounds for new ideas and approaches.
it's not really a matter of moderate or leftist jews should consider starting another movement or backing another candidate. it's that if jews in general keep allowing the neo cons to speak for them they are going to have to pay for it.
lester wrote: "it's that if jews in general keep allowing the neo cons to speak for them they are going to have to pay for it."
Lester, this type of thinking is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are engaging in behavior that is reminiscent of the far xenophobic right.
ben- you'd prefer alan colmes?
Lester, Lester, Lester, how does it go again. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer?
Bill,
Your comments show great thematic consistency. Basically, anybody who criticizes the far-right policies of Israel, in any way or to any degree, is contributing to the destruction of Israel. The blogger and nearly all the commenters, with all their disagreements, believe just the opposite — that it Israel's own far-right policies that are the biggest danger to Israel. I find your comments unintelligent and boring. They are not making a dent. I don't really think this is the blog for you. Why not try Little Green Footballs?
Itzy, not feeling the love man.
But a thought did occur to me. Howard K Stern sounds suspiciously like a Jewish name. Is it possible that he is really a Mossad agent sent to impregnate Anna Nicole Smith. then of course the Mossad whacks her and her son. He becomes the guardian of the daughter and takes control of her estate. Then the money gets funneled to the IDF,ADL, AIPAC. It sounds plausible to me. And since Phil is an ace investigative journalist. And since bucking the LOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is an act of courage that knows no bounds. Hell its right up their with flying a B-17 over Ploesti in 1943. Perhaps he should look into this. It could be the makings of another Phil Weiss book.
I can't answer for the guy, but from what i gather Phil probably has too much on his plate just now. Hey, you know what? Since you've gotten this far with the story, why not keep going? — go for the whole enchilada! We all know in reality there IS NO LOBBY — so there's nothing stopping you. It doesn't take any courage.
Harnessing the fight against zionist racism and the fight against US racism to one another is a good way of losing both of them.
It is merely a variation on the usual Jewish Leftist evasion of responsibility for Israel, really, because it leads, through the argument that the struggle against zionism is merely one instance in a struggle against racism, sexism, imperialism, capitalism, and etc etc etc everywhere, to tacit acceptance of the zionist status quo.
Obama proffers an unnaturally romantic view of the Democratic Party for a person of his age.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gray02102007.html
Itzy, obviously Phil is the Edward R Murrow of our times. Hell, he says so him self.All I'm saying is that for a guy of his nobility, his all around greatness, and courage. This story is made to order for him. Why at this very moment there are probably ADL/AIPAC assasins stalking Phil but surely a man of his greatness can look into this story.
According to Walt-Mearsheimer, Jewish contributions make up 60% of the funding for Democrat presidential candidates. Most of these contributions are from pro-Zionist. Getting a more "even-handed" candidate in such an environment is just not going to happen. It's a silly idea from the start. Either Obama folds and goes pro-Israel, or he doesn't get anywhere.
bill- the germans are a great people with a glorious history. don't you agree?
Have to love Stalingrad Les. I always loved the picture of the 6th army marching off to Siberia. But, you must know that from the stormfront get togethers
The Martian Perspective [Victor Davis Hanson]
A person from Mars reading the latest communication from the Hamas/Fatah summit in Saudi Arabia might conclude there is something very wrong with the West that would inspire the Palestinians to say such crazy things.
Reuters ran the account of the agreement by its reporter Mohammed Assadi. In it, we are told by Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad, thanks to Saudi talks with the Americans and Europeans, there is a good chance to "market this agreement" in order to "win back Western aid halted because of Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel."
But then the Hamas spokesman warned, "They cannot ignore this agreement and impose their own conditions."
Of course immediately Nizar Rayyan, "a senior Hamas leader" is reported as assuring that "Hamas would never recognize Israel and that the deal on the government does not change the movement's position." In his own words, "We will never recognize Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination."
And what is the source of the internecine killing on the West Bank? The Reuters article goes on to announce that the sanctions, in the mind of Palestinians, "were partly to blame for the violence that has killed 90 people since December."
Consider the logic of the Palestinian position: A group dedicated to destroying the only stable democracy in the Middle East announces that it wishes to "market" an agreement to restore American and European handouts, whose cutoff is supposedly responsible for their own civil war on the West Bank.
We should ask the following:
What has America done to suggest to a terrorist organization that it has an inherent right to American taxpayer money because it has found a way to market or soft-peddle its intention to destroy a democracy? The money quote of Hamas is the key phrase "they cannot…" Only in the Middle East does the recipient announce to the benefactor the conditions of the hand out.
Why would any Arabs want any money from the US, when the latest Zogby poll, we are told, reveals that the United States is the least popular country in the Arab collective mind?
Surely a proud people would logically announce, "We do not wish one cent of tainted American money"? And surely they would not suggest the lack of such tainted American money leads them to kill each other.
And why, with $500 billion in excess petrodollars floating around the Middle East, is a few hundred million from the US, that is pouring money into Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan, seen as the make or break subsidy that either ensures peace or leads to war?
Couldn't Hamas simply instead ask Iran, to cut back a little on the rockets to Hezbollah, and send it instead a few million for groceries?
And if impoverished, where does the money for all the machine guns, rockets, RPGs, and explosives come from?
And does any Reuters reporter grasp the irony that it is precisely the US cut-off of this subsidy that at last has made Hamas pay any lip-service at all toward reconciliation?
This bathos summarizes what infuriates Americans the most about the Middle East-a sort of infantile, passive-aggression, in which America is alternately blamed, then shaken down for cash, libeled and simultaneously beseeched.
Worse still, is not just the fact that Fatah and Hamas act in such a bizarre manner- but rather what is it about us that has led them to believe that it will work?
And what would be so difficult about something like the following request to the Palestinians: please issue a statement recognizing Israel as a sovereign nation and renouncing terrorism, and then the US and Europe will consider aid in a degree commensurate to that offered by the Arab League? Period.
I agree with bowden. I don't know where all of Phil's optimism comes from about Obama. The money is what clearly drives the issues of American politics, and if pro-Zionist Jews are contributing 60% (Richard Cohen of the WPost said 65%) of the money to the party that will probably win, then I don't see any change at all with regard to Israel.
As a non-Jewish American, let me just say that I am truly scared for the future of this country. The country is going bankrupt as a result of imperial policies that are unsustainable, we are about to start another pointless and destructive war, now with Iran, and our transportation and urban and suburban infrastructure is unsustainable for the long term. On top of this, our leaders are under the thumb of religious fanatics who believe that it is their God-given right to steal land from the caretakers of the world's most precious resource, oil.
Could things be any worse than they are right now for this country?
The paradox is that most non-lite Jews are like Phil, clinging to a romantic concept of Jews uniting with other so-called Oppressed Peoples and re-enacting Sinai, with these grateful Oppressed Peoples as the new Erev Rav.
It worked in the nineteen-sixties (he seems to think), so why not do it again now?
bill- have you ever read "the man outside" or seen the play? Not to downplay the horrors of the holocaust, but it wasn't much better serving unlimited deployments on the frontlines. unless you consider freezing to death in Siberia easy.
victor david hanson is a janitor posing as a professor.
It's unfortunate that Phil has resorted to censoring comments. Since this is his blog (and the comment was off toppic) I will not repost my censored friday's comment from the "venerable conspiracy edge" addressed to Ben.
Anonymous says: "It's unfortunate that Phil has resorted to censoring comments."
Unfortunately, he may not be going far enough after trolling through Bill Pearlman's infantile and racist comments about Arabs, comments about Mr. Weiss' parentage, and intimation of Nazi- or Communist motives to others.
Nice to see the paradigms of the tried & true tactics of the Christian-right and neo-cons — trying to destory debate by engaging in 5 year old name-calling.
Hey, Bill "O'Reilly" Pearlman — Don't separate your shoulder slapping yourself on your back for your immature outpourings.
Fianlly, you missed the point about the JNF — its engagement in discriminatory practices regarding who could lease land (until the Court stopped it) — how is Israel different than pre-1960's America or South Africa? If you substitute the word "black" for Arab in your posts, all can see how your rhetoric is blatant and obnoxious racism.
I wouldn't mind if most comments by lester and Tony were filtered, but that's just me. It must be hard to run a blog, and I think comment sections are normally pretty rough and tumble places — this is the first real blog I've actual spent time to comment on. I am thinking that it isn't that productive of an activity in the grand scheme of things.
Here is another piece from Haaretz about why Obama scored so low on what the columnist was calling the "Israel Factor":
- Why Obama came last, By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz U.S. correspondent
On Wikipedia, there is a page on Obama's political views. I suspect it is monitored and probably even controlled by Obama's team. In the section on "Israel-Palestine" it says this:
Thus Obama is being as pro-Israel as he can. Thus it is still strange that he gets so low marks from the Haaretz columnist. Maybe the Haaretz guy is just an outlier? Who knows.
Tony my man, I'm wounded by that slashing rhetorical attack. The JNF holds land in trust for the Jewish people. If they weren't there OPEC could buy up the whole country. And Its illegal for Jews to buy land in any Arab country. It carries the death penalty to be the seller. But that doesn't bother you, just the Jews.
And actually I'm more of a of a Michael Savage fan. O'Reilly can be a little liberal for my tastes.
bill- who cares what radio show you listen too?
ben- you're gay
The pro-Israel people bought Obama a long time ago. His views mirror those of AIPAC exactly. As someone said before, when 60 to 65 percent of Dem presidential funding comes from Jewish (overwhelmingly pro-Israel) sources, there can be no independent Mid East foreign policy. These realities cannot be changed. The more peacefully-minded people would be better off trying to change AIPACs opinions rather than change US policy.
Pearlman actually brings up an interesting point about why the JNF has what appears to be a racist or nationalist policy, as well as the issue as to why people like Tony never complain about worse rules against Jews in the Arab countries.
Clarence – Why would we want to have a person be president who can be bought?
Why don't we just elect Ross Perot or another billionaire who can't be bought.
Or why don't people who don't like Israel contribute more money to campaigns. There is nothing stopping them. And that would dilute any supposed power of these Jews.
Perhaps we should boycott all Jewish businesses and institutions in order to bankrupt Jews so they don't have so much capital to play with. Maybe we could get a list of the good jews and the bad jews and only give business to the good ones. Or just to be sure, none at all.
Or perhaps we should just ask the Saudis to send more money over here. They are already funding quite a few retired State Department employees. What's another couple of billion.
I mean, lets be honest, isn't that where this conversation is leading to? No pogroms, but a return to the good old thirties when Jewish quotas were common and the best clubs forbid members of the Hebrew tribe.
First of all, please take my word for it: what follows is not meant to be an apologia for The Lobby or an argument that it doesn't have much power. Or course it does.
But I've been studying the issue of "Jewish money in American politics for awhile and some of the assertions that are being made on this blog are too simplistic.
Political contributions from American Jews should not be automatically conflated with donations from the AIPACers and other right-wing Zionists (which has been the implication from those who keep talking about the high percentage of Jewish contributions to the Dems).
There is no doubt that American Jews contribute much more than their proportionate share of donations to American politicians. One commonly accepted although unproven estimate is that Jewish donors account for about 50% of the Democratic National Committees budget.
But most Jewish political donors give mainly because they are liberals on domestic issues or have strong opinions about matters that have little or nothing to do with Israel. As I've noted before, the pro-Israel right has an advantage because Israel is their mission in life, whereas more liberal Jews tend not to be single-issue voters and donors.
As with every other aspect of Jewish politics the [pro-Israel] PAC fascination is misleading, JJ Goldberg noted in his book "Jewish Power."
`Jewish money is certainly the biggest chunk of money in the Democratic party, says a political consultant who specializes in fundraising. `But when you talk about Jewish money, pro-Israel money is a relatively small piece of the puzzle.
In my experience, the right wing pro-Israel money is very targeted. It is used very adroitly to bolster certain favorites among incumbents and, occasionally, to punish politicians who don't vote the way the right wing wants them to. And there are a great many other explanations for the conventional Israel lobby's considerable power. But the actual dollar amounts from people and PACS that support right-wing Israeli policies are not nearly as large as is commonly assumed.
That becomes apparent if one looks at the web site of the Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org), which analyzes Federal Election Commision records.
The CRP divides most PACs and individual political donors into industries (both corporate and ideological). One of them is the pro-Israel industry, which consists mainly of people and PACs in the AIPAC network. That industry ranked only 39th out of the 122 industries that gave to Congress in 2004.
I am writing this because it gives me hope that The Lobby can, under the right circumstanes and with enough money from Jews and non-Jews, be challenged. However, in order to do so, one has to accept the deplorable nature of campaign financing in this country, which is a form of legalized bribery. Much as it disgusts me, if I can't change it, I want to have people I agree with donating the money.
It is very disturbing to think 50-60% of money for the Democratic Party comes from a group that is represented by just 2% of the population. This debate is long overdue.
From what little I know from my own activities in politics, what Tough Dove says above is plausible. Hope it works out; our nation is hanging in the balance.
This is a silly discussion in some respects. Jewish Americans give more money to political campaigns not because they want to control American Foreign Policy, but because they are keenly interested in public issues and feel passionately about their positions. Both liberal and conservative Jews. They should be applauded for actually caring. All of these interpretations/accusations of Jewish activism in politics as some sort of conspiracy is pretty pathetic. The real crime here is the utter lack of interest and investment in politics by non-Jews. Siena's earlier points, while likely made for other reasons, actually have some truth to them. Instead of crying about how Jews contribute so much money, stop being such tightwads and donate more money. Jews make up 2% of the population you say, well then it shouldn't be too hard for the other 98% to come up with equivalent bribe money for the politicians.
My guess is that in the end the amount of money has less to do with so called Jewish influence over foreign policy regarding Israel, as the actual geo-political realities of the region. For all of Israel's faults, they don't look so bad to the powers that be in comparison to their neighboring states, especially from a Christian point of view.
Luke wrote: "This is a silly discussion in some respects. Jewish Americans give more money to political campaigns not because they want to control American Foreign Policy, but because they are keenly interested in public issues and feel passionately about their positions. Both liberal and conservative Jews. They should be applauded for actually caring. All of these interpretations/accusations of Jewish activism in politics as some sort of conspiracy is pretty pathetic."
Reality check:
Here is a must-read commentary on Iran, AIPAC and what the New York Sun calls the ATM for American politicians:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
"…So, according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of "influential" donors is a key part of the "ATM for American politicians"; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates — such as Clinton and Edwards — are embracing AIPAC's anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.
If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). But this is what the New York Sun reported on Thursday.
…It is simply true that there are large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel's interests and they perceive it to be in Israel's interests for the U.S. to militarily confront Iran. That is what the Sun and the Post have made clear.
There is just no point in denying that or pretending it is not the case, and in any event, the way in which these groups have ratcheted up their explicit anti-Iran advocacy has made it impossible for these facts to be concealed any longer (and, as I have noted before, neoconservatives have been increasingly arguing that American Jews of all political stripes are compelled to support the Bush administration because of its supposedly "pro-Israel" policies — a claim grounded in the very "dual loyalty" theories which they claim to find so offensive and outrageous when advanced by others)."
**********
Here is the original New York Sun article:
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=47843
Here is another one:
**********
Rice Briefs Jewish Groups as Palestinians Make Deal
Says U.S. Wants To Create Political Horizon, But Wont Pressure Israel
Nathan Guttman, Forward, Feb 09, 2007
http://www.forward.com/articles/rice-briefs-jewish-groups-as-palestinians-make-dea
Washington Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Thursday with leaders from major Jewish organizations to discuss the latest developments on the Israeli-Palestinian front. The meeting took place minutes after a formal announcement was made in Mecca regarding the agreement reached on a Palestinian national unity government.
Rice, who had yet to read the new Palestinian platform, said that the United States was still insisting that Hamas accept all three conditions set forth by the Quartet: recognizing Israel, renouncing terror and accepting existing agreements with Jerusalem. She told the Jewish leaders that even if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sits in a unity government with Hamas, America would continue viewing him as a partner for negotiations. At the same time, Rice added, the United States would not meet with P.A. ministers aligned with Hamas.
As she responded to questions from representatives of Jewish organizations who attended the meeting, Rice detailed her goal of providing the Palestinians with a political horizon. She said that the goal of identifying a final destination, as she called it, is to eliminate misunderstanding between Palestinians and Israelis and to improve the atmosphere. According to several participants, Rice stressed the need to show the Palestinians that the key to achieving an independent state is in the hands of Abbas, not Hamas.
She also assured participants that the United States would not apply any pressure on Israel and would not come up with its own suggestions for the political horizon once negotiations begin. Rice is sponsoring a February 19 meeting between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
She was very reassuring, said one of the Jewish leaders who attended the meeting.
Rice also addressed the issue of Iran, saying that Teheran is vulnerable to international pressure; the international pressure on the Iran, she added, should continue. Contrary to the Russian view, Rice said, the United States believes that the pace of the actions against Iran should be picked up, because of the developments in its nuclear program.
The meeting, which took place at the State Department, lasted 45 minutes and was attended by leaders and Washington representatives of 15 major Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, the United Jewish Communities, Jewish Council of Public Affairs, Americans for Peace Now, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Hillel, and the Republican Jewish Coalition, as well as Agudath Israel of America, Chabad, the Orthodox Union nd representatives of the Reform and Conservative synagogue movements.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | February 9, 2007 11:49 AM
***********
Yeah Luke, keep insulting Americans' intelligence.
Hey Tony why don't you go fuck your mother up her ass and then suck your father's dick you fuckwad.
Thanks to reading this blog (not so much what Weiss writes, but trying to weigh the various POVs of the commenters), I have come to the following conclusion:
American Jews have a gross structural problem that we have to solve; nobody else can solve it for us, and if we don't solve it, both we and Israel are screwed, not to mention the rest of the country and the world. It is the fact that although most Jews in this country are fairly pragmatic and sensible in their private views about Israel — the power structure of the American Jewish community, that is, the most influential lobbyists and the sources of most of the campaign contributions, the so-called "Jewish leadership," is dominated by a minority of right-wing, pro-Likud, extremely wealthy Jews whose views on Israel correspond very well to the "christian right."
To put it simply, this "Jewish leadership" pushes policies that DO NOT reflect where most of the American Jewish community is at. This is the central problem. (75% of American Jews voted for Democrats in this last election, higher than almost any other ethnic group except blacks.)
For too many American Jews, even the ones who do not support Likud policies, Israel is not so much a real country as it is an instrument for the manipulation of mental imagery to which they are wired by both culture and mass media, a mighty Wurlitzer with lots and lots of buttons connected to their brains and their endocrine systems.
As for this so-called Jewish leadership, with this buildup now for an attack on Iran, I know the people pushing it, Christian, Jew, or whatever, are vicious, soulless, batshit crazy — and I can only say this: Things have reached the point that I, as an American Jew, and a patriotic American, have to regard these so-called pro-Israel leaders as a threat not only to Israel, but to America, and thus DOUBLY to me and my family. Israel is supposed to be a bulwark against antisemitism, but in reality it's just the opposite. Their actions encourage all genuine antisemites, they stifle honest debate by smearing all their critics as antisemites, and they attempt to capitalize on fear of antisemitism to rally support from Jews — which means they see it as to their benefit for Jews to remain in a state of fear. (It has long been known that love and fear are the first principles of magic and the greatest tools by which to manipulate societies.) Furthermore they corrupt five thousand years of Jewish tradition by claiming to BE that tradition when in reality they are nothing but a parody of that tradition, just another 19th-century nationalist ideology — but with the peculiarity that they and their so-called "Christian" friends have at their disposal some of the most powerful symbols of western culture to wield for their own megalomaniaca; ends.
Only when American Jews begin to understand this will they be in any position to counter it. I repeat, the people pushing these insane policies, whether Jewish, Christian, or whatever, are a direct threat not only to Israel but to American Jews as well.
I don't care if you call them Zionists or what, there are many different kinds and shades of zionism, but only one, the fascist one, is being heard in Washington. Whatever the problems with zionism in general, the central issue we are facing now is not in the concept of zionism per se, but rather, how Jewish people who have alternative ideas of what is good for israel (just as many Israelis do) can gain the ear of people like Obama — assuming he wants to listen. We American Jews need our own version of "Netroots," and it doesn't matter so much if it's Obama, but it does matter that there should be somebody who listens to us instead of to AIPAC. Because if all of us sent $20, that too would buy a lot of ads.
Itzy, nice speech, now that your done prostrating yourself in front of people that want Israel wiped out do you feel better. Do you think they like you better. Do you think your the "good jew" who is better and more noble. Just asking?
Bill,
I really don't give a shit. The only time I prostrate is Rosh-hashona/yom kippur. I don't know and I don't care who likes me better, I said what I believe and I hope some others believe it too.
Plenty of places to put your money Itzy, stormfront, Hezbollah is always looking for contributions, Neturi Karta. JVP ( a misname if I ever saw one ) Whats with the angst, ANSWER, ISM, there are places for you to volunteer. They might even throw in a free kaffiyeh
Bill,
That's what we all love about you, Bill — the subtlety.