Tonight the Yivo Institute in New York is holding a discussion on Walt & Mearsheimer’s book, called "’The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’, A Celebration." Wait, got that wrong– "A Critical Response." The critical responders are authors Jeffrey Goldberg and Daniel Goldhagen.
I’ve long pushed for a conversation within the Jewish community of the rightwing Jewish role in the Iraq war. Such a discussion will happen next week or ten years from now, but it will happen, because there has been a special Jewish component to the Iraq War owing to the influence of the Israel-centric neoconservatives and their fellow travelers. The fascinating question is: How long will the militant neocons gain political cover from liberal Jews because the liberals also care about Israel and worry that gentiles will blame American Jews for this war? When will liberal Jews separate themselves from the Greater-Israel-driven agenda of the neocons? (Who are opposed to Oslo, describe Israel as a gleaming democracy, and at best imagine a Palestinian "entity.")
The answer so far is that liberal Jewish intellectuals have evaded the issue, arguing that Bush and Cheney bear full responsibility for the war (Even wise Eric Alterman says as much on Huffpo lately; I gather the Nation review of Walt and Mearsheimer also said so). This is pitiable; intellectuals who generally believe in the power of ideas abandon their creed and argue that Ideas Meant Nothing. Intellectual movements mean nothing (from a people who helped propel Zionism and Communism and the civil rights movement). Presidential braintrusts mean nothing. The long snailtrail of neoconservative Israel-security-driven thinking (going back to Podhoretz and Kristol writing in the ’70s that they were abandoning the Democratic Party because a strong U.S. military was necessary for Israel)–means nothing.
Inside the progressive community, there are many Jewish exceptions to this line, Jews who have been sharply critical of the Israel lobby. Some have seen its workings in Iraq. Yivo could have invited as respondents M.J. Rosenberg, Joel Kovel, Michael Massing, Michael Lerner, Tony Judt, or Daniel Fleshler, all of whom opposed the Iraq war. John Judis of the New Republic has spoken out against Zionist demands of dual loyalty, as has Alterman. A shame none of these voices was included (although happily the panel is moderated by my old friend Nicholas Lemann, a true liberal).
I wonder what status has done to Yivo. Like so many other Jewish institutions, it’s come up in the world. Last year Niall Ferguson gave a disappointing lecture there on Jews & Money. My memory is that the event was marred by the presence on the stage of an investment banker who had nothing insightful, let alone honest, to add on the subject… Also last year, I reported that in reprinting Lucien Wolf’s expose of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Yivo suppressed the fact that if Wolf was a leading anti-Zionist. So Jewish learning is instrumentalized to a political purpose, defending Israel.
Marty Peretz is on the Yivo board. Last year Peretz said that Jimmy Carter would go down in history as "a Jew-hater"–and Jeffrey Goldberg attacked Carter in the Washington Post. Peretz’s New Republic has gone after Walt and Mearsheimer’s ideas again and again, lately by printing Goldberg’s review of the book suggesting the authors are antisemites who believe that world events are controlled by Jews.
Can American Jewish institutional life admit the horror of the Israeli occupation? Walt and Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter were motivated to write their books by the awareness that Palestinian suffering has no call on the American discourse. They wanted to change that; they’ve halfway succeeded. Now everyone outside the U.S. mainstream says that the occupation has brutalized the Palestinians (and Israel too). The Europeans say it. Many Israelis say it. American Protestants are starting to speak out about it. Before long Condoleezza Rice will say it. In an amazing report that has gotten no coverage in the American newspapers (I learned about it in Jerome Slater’s academic paper) the U.N. says that by cordoning Jerusalem, Israel has made a "mockery of religious freedom." I saw as much for myself. What kind of democracy is that? When will Yivo let these anguished voices in?
P.S. Imagine a Jewish organization holding a conference on Vietnam during the Vietnam War– imagine the criticism of the WASP establishment that gave us that disaster. Goldberg was the New Yorker reporter who in the runup to the Iraq war carried the water for Administration claims that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and had connections to Al Qaeda. During his book tour for a memoir about being an IDF soldier, Prisoners, I heard that Goldberg declined to answer questions about this reporting as off-subject. Maybe he will do so during this discussion.
Related posts:
- Yivo Owes Walt and Mearsheimer an Apology. Or a Stage
- It’s time for Yivo to host a debate with Walt and Mearsheimer
- A ‘Frightening’ Evening at Yivo Institute, Talking About Walt & Mearsheimer
- Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?
- Do the Goyim Get to Register an Opinion Re Walt/Mearsheimer?
{ 18 comments }
A little ranty Phil.
"The answer so far is that liberal Jewish intellectuals have evaded the issue, arguing that Bush and Cheney bear full responsibility for the war."
This is an accurate summary, absent the exageration of the term "full".
The BIG reason that liberal Jews don't criticize Israel as much as or in the way you would like them to, is for two reasons:
1. Because Israel is their family, and the most ethical and effective manner to influence one's family members is by intimate suggestion, not by public denunciation.
2. Because they find that to demonize Israel and to stand in lockstep with left and/or fascistic anti-Israel zealots is equally wrong and innaccurate.
The far left constructs a silencing of liberalism, and you join in that silencing.
I know your liberal family. They express to me a sentiment of simultaneous assertion and compassion (I only see them at the same events that I see you). That is the majority Jewish voice, and even the majority of Jewish money.
Well put Mr. Witty. I'm sure you'll be denounced as a fascist apologist gargoyle by the hyterics here, but you seem to be able to shrug them off quite well. Indeed, Mr. Weiss appears to be a sensationalist who is prone to extreme pronouncements. I dare say I much prefer the more serious MJ Rosenberg to Philip Weiss.
Israel is family? By that thinking then, you understand exactly why Muslims will not ever criticize suicide bombers, and do not hold it against them? After all, they are members of the same family.
What is "anti-Israel"? Is it being against the existence of Israel (the only nation-state that claims a "right to exist") or is it being against the policies of Israel?
Further, why is this dual loyalty something that we American Gentiles should trust? Just because the majority of Americans are more upset about immigrants cheering for their home country in soccer games than about policy that is detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States doesn't make the latter far worse than the former. The ability to hide a message in clever talking points rather than wrapping a flag around it doesn't make it any less insidious.
"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife."
Theodore Roosevelt
Further, some "family" members who are actually on the front lines object:
We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.
Seems maybe before the USA will take things equally seriously, we need to bring back the military draft.
My comment for this post (that I uploaded in the wrong place):
http://tinyurl.com/377trx
The IDF refusniks are courageous.
Many spend a great deal of time in jail, and experience a great deal of censure in their communities, for their opinions and actions.
But, in most cases, the type of service that soldiers experience can be negotiated. Those that are stationed at roadblocks, but who have confusion as to their mission, are not effective at their jobs. They make mistakes. They are often the ones that harm, as they are over their heads in tension and confusion.
Phil expresses that he doesn't understand why liberal Jews aren't on the streets, or the phones.
He should understand.
PW: 'Can American Jewish institutional life admit the horror of the Israeli occupation?'
RW: 'Israel is their family …'.
i.e. Tribalism rules.
'…the most ethical and effective manner to influence one's family members is by intimate suggestion, not by public denunciation.'
So where and when is this intimate suggestion happening? It isn't, and it isn't going to happen in the near future. On the contary. All the evidence points to the opposite.
'… demonize Israel and to stand in lockstep with left and/or fascistic anti-Israel zealots is equally wrong and innaccurate.'
On the contrary, to condemn Israel ('the horrow of the Israeli occupation' is both right and accurate. And to label such condemnation left-wing and zealotry is to abuse the language (disgust for Israel's criminality transcends the ideological spectrum, and is rooted not in zealotry but in the most basic morality and intelligence).
I.e. tribalism rules, and its contemptible implications are covered over by denial and mendacity.
In short, Witty and his ilk have their head up their arse and blood on their hands.
They are criminal Israel's life support system.
EJ,
You demonstrate the characteristics of the "left" or whatever fringe, by your militancy.
It invokes reaction, not sympathy.
Why would someone stand with you in solidarity about anything, if they know you could and do turn on them so viciously?
Left? no. Conservative.
Fringe? no. Mainstream.
Is it 'fringe' to find revulsion at ethnic cleansing, more, ethnic cleansing as the raison d'etre of state building?
Zionism is not racism? Are the endemically racist consequences of (political) Zionism an accident?
Again the systemic abuse of language to camouflage a pathological condition.
Can one imagine a German American writing to the American media, lobbying the American governmental apparatus, with the cry – Nazi Germany is our family?
Former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni was interviewed in the Arab-Israeli newspaper Ma al-Ahdath on November 1.
'I am not proud of this state because I see what is happening in it as being very grave … We have been occupying another nation for 40 years now [60?], and it is a mark of shame and disgrace that has no justification.'
Halutz and Barak, she claims, are war criminals who should be tried at the International Court of Justice.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3466594,00.html.
Add the rest of the Israeli governmental apparatus.
RW et al – it's time to join the human race.
"Those that are stationed at roadblocks, but who have confusion as to their mission, are not effective at their jobs. They make mistakes. They are often the ones that harm, as they are over their heads in tension and confusion."
This is typical Witty speak. Those who attempt a realistic description of what the IDF is up to in the occupied territories are 'demonizing' Israel (the term 'demonizing' is the prize item in Witty's vocabulary). He provides instead some apologetic nonsense about 'tension and confusion' to hide what is really going on there.
From the statement by the IDF sergeant (res.) Liran Ron Furer that appeared in Haaretz on 11/21/2003 the very opposite appears to be the case. It was when people got more confident about their role, i.e. about the fact that they could do almost anything with impunity, that the real sadistic impulses came out. Furer emphasizes that this happened when serving at the checkpoints became 'routine', in other words when 'tension and confusion' were minimized.
The fault, of course, is with a system in which this type of impunity exists. There is no suggestion here that these soldiers are in any way abnormal.
"The more confident I became with the situation, as soon as we reached the conclusion – each one at his own stage – that we are the rulers, we are the strong ones, and when we felt our power, each one started to stretch the limits more and more, in accordance with his personality. As soon as serving at the checkpoint became routine, all kinds of deviant behavior became normal. It started with 'souvenir collecting': We'd confiscate prayer beads and then it was cigarettes and it didn't stop. It became normative behavior.
After that came the power games. We got the message from above that we were to project seriousness and deterrence to the Arabs. Physical violence also became normative. We felt free to punish any Palestinian who didn't follow the 'proper code of behavior' at the checkpoint. Anyone we thought wasn't polite enough to us or tried to act smart – was severely punished. It was deliberate harassment on the most trivial pretexts. …
At the checkpoint, young people have the chance to be masters and using force and violence becomes legitimate – and this is a much more basic impulse than the political views or values that you bring from home. As soon as using force is given legitimacy, and even rewarded, the tendency is to take it as far as it can go, to exploit it much as possible. To satisfy these impulses beyond what the situation requires. Today, I'd call it sadistic impulses …"
"Zionism is not racism?"
From Joel Kovel's latest book entitled Overcoming Zionism. Via Joachim Martillo http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/11/kovel-pulls-no-punches.html
# The liberal Zionist tries to solve the riddles of bad conscience by squaring the circle. He returns to the same starting point, of Jewish ethnocracy, only he has provided it with a more enduring and less episodic basis than the state terrorist. (p. 161)
# We would hold in this regard that Zionism became profoundly racist once it achieved its state, nor can it ever cease being racist so long as the Jewish state is its necessary expression; that the basis structure of Zionist racism is set forth by the bad conscience; and that the racist character of Israel constitutes its most basic indictment, that it is state-structured racism. (p. 163)
# … Zionism has woven an amazing web of deception to conceal its racism and evade the linkage with South African apartheid. (p. 165)
# In their construction of a Jewish state the founders of Israel drew upon centuries of experience in rabbinical obfuscation. In contrast to apartheid South Africa, which attempted to clothe its racism with utopian rhetoric, the Zionist state devised regulations to show that it was not racist at all. (p. 167)
# Think of how much better the "great American democracy" would be if it were to begin to confront its murderous past — one sign of which would be to build a great museum about the annihilation of indigenous cultures, and another one on the slave trade and its consequence, alongside, or even, haven forfend, instead of the Holocaust museum, which deflects attention from America's lost history. (p. 191)
# The notion of a "democratic Jewish state" is ipso facto racist. (p. 206)
It is simple to square the circle of Zionism.
Jews are a people. We deserve to self-govern, if that is what we choose.
We don't have a right to oppress. zionism (small z) is constructed of that vision, all/nothing.
Zionism is the combination of assertion and kindness, a good neighbor.
The majority of Jews retain that liberal perspective, some elements of it newly learned, some traditional.
The three choices for Jews are:
1. Oppress, thereby losing our integrity
2. Live assertively and kindly
3. Run and hide, assimilate thoroughly
Israel, glory of God.
and then there is israel birthed by zionism.
what a difference between the mythical land where a loving merciful God was the covering of a people who were supposed to be exemplars of humanity, and the bellicose racist nation hellbent of oppressing another race living in their midst and determined by their arrogant unwavering nature to exert their will and see their initial plans come to fruition.
whom i feel sorry for the most are the everyday mom and pop jews living in middle america or any other nation on earth who, through the deception foisted upon them through the many organizations whose job it is, and has been, to propagate the israel myth, still are not aware of the nature of the beast that israel is, and are destined to support it because it represents to them that holy land to which they can run when the nations turn on them.
how sad for the zionist to treat them in such a demeaning way, my guess is that in the history of the gentile nations that have turned on the jews at one time or another there has been nothing as despicable as what the zionist are doing to their own today.
although the jewsagaisntzionism.com would probably say that this is just a repitition of an old story.
Samuel – Israel is a fu*ked up middle east nation – like all of the fu*ked up middle east nations. That the Jews should have a homeland is something I don't begrudge them. Seems to me most of the Israelis, or at least a large portion, want to live in peace with the Palestinians in a 2-state solution, but the hard men of Palestine don't want them to. The hard men of Israel don't want to give the Palestinians their rightful due. On this we should all be united against both groups of hard men. That you deem to call Israel a "beast" and somehow worst than the killa militias that would bayonet the babies of the Israelis makes you a biased prick. The solution is a two state solution. All those who oppose such a resolution are also pricks. All those who wish to paint the Jews as evil are pricks. All those who wish to paint Muslims as evil are pricks. I hate all you pricks.
"Because Israel is their family, and the most ethical and effective manner to influence one's family members is by intimate suggestion, not by public denunciation."
Meanwhile, it is day 13,823 of the Occupation and counting. Your patience is saintly, RW.
"Oppress, thereby losing our integrity."
Yes, precisely. Or rather, adjusting the tense to reflect the facts on the ground: "oppressed for 40 years and lost our integrity".
That is the big task of liberal Jews, to convince other Jews that it is safe to not oppress.
For a very long time, it objectively was NOT safe to do so.
Its an open question if it is safe to now, to what extent, and in what manner.
Stating that Palestinians seek justice, where justice is not offered in return, is just rhetoric.
It can change to substance, but not by repetition or by volume, or by agitation. Acceptance of the other is a component of shifting rhetoric to substance.
"Jews are a people. We deserve to self-govern, if that is what we choose."
The proposition that Jews are a people and therefore 'deserve' to self govern is slightly less unreasonable than the assertion that Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses 'deserve' to self govern. However, the implicit idea that Jews can 'choose' to do so on other people's land, maintaining that what ignorant scribes wrote a few thousand years ago is giving them a certificate of title, is for outsiders unreasonable beyond belief.
Comments on this entry are closed.