When Invoking the American Interest, Better Not Spell ‘Harbors’ ‘Harbours’

by on February 24, 2008 28

With appropriate scorn, Dan Fleshler has picked up a memo in
which the Obama campaign distances itself from any critical statement ever made
about Israel by anyone who ever shook hands with Obama or sent him his resume. Obsequious
and horrifying. Oh and by the way, "the Israel lobby" is a canard.

According to the memo, one of the people Obama will have nothing to do with
is the great Rob Malley. Malley’s former colleagues from Camp
David days are upset about this.  M.J.
Rosenberg publishes the statement:

The [critics] claim that he harbours an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought
to undermine Israel’s
security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort
to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked
tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and US national
interests…

We have real differences among us about how best to conduct US policy toward
the Middle East… But whatever differences do exist, there is no disagreement
among us on one core issue that transcends partisan or other divides: that the
US should not and will not do anything to undermine Israel’s safety or the
special relationship between our two nations. We have worked with Rob closely
over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted consistent
with it.

The statement is signed Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, Sandy Berger,
Daniel Kurtzer, and Martin Indyk. Indyk is an Aussie transplant, who surely is
responsible for "harbours." Call me xenophobic, I don’t care. That
gives me the willies.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss

{ 28 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 10:56 am

    You're generating your own "willies" Phil.

    I like their statement.

    You don't regard the relationship between Israel and the US as special, intimate?

    You see it only as a geo-political one?

    Also, did you cover or comment on Brezhinski at all when Carter was president? I did slightly. He was a hawk.

    While he might not have chosen Iraq as the site of US muscle, he likely would have chosen elsewhere.

    He's NOT my model of whom president's should obey. He's a voice only, and not all that different than the neo-conservatives that you criticize.

  2. Jim Haygood says:
    February 24, 2008 at 10:57 am

    Wow, these arcane, exclusively Jewish critiques of obscure third and fourth-level staffers from long-ago adminstrations on esoteric points of middle east policy provide gripping drama indeed.

    Witty is right — definitely there's no Israel Lobby. LOL!

  3. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:12 am

    "Oh and by the way, "the

    Israel
    lobby" is a canard."

    The "Israel Lobby" is a canard, not in the sense that there aren't people that undertake dirty tricks in their zeal to do what they believe defends Israel.

    Its a canard in its imprecision, and its inference of conspiracy.

    You personally have options of other language to use to describe what you observe, that do not generalize so.

  4. the sword of gideon says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Speaking has a card carrying member of the all powerful, all knowing, LOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I have to tell you that a statement that is signed by three of "Bakers Jewboys", Sandy "Burgler" and Martin Indyk, the epitome of the "court Jew", In defense of an Arafat suckup like Rob Malley, is astounding in its irrelevance.

  5. Jim Haywood says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

    "The 'Israel Lobby' is a canard … you personally have options of other language to use."

    In all seriousness, would you prefer the term "Jewish Lobby," which is unselfconsciously employed in the Israeli press?

    Man … some folks sho' is hard to please!

  6. Charles Keating says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:39 am

    During Truman's early days in the big seat it was called the Israeli Lobby or "those Zionists guys taking over our jobs, pushing us out with Walt Winchell's pencil."

  7. americangoy says:
    February 24, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Mr Weiss' this blog is on fire – en fuego if yah will :)

    Great catch re: "harbours".

    And Mr Richard Witty – the relationship between Israel and America is a special one all right – like a "special" kind of love between a pimp and his whore…

  8. liberal white boy says:
    February 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Mondo White Boy endorses Ralph Nader For President.

  9. Charles Keating says:
    February 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    What did Rob Malley do, put (in great detail) the blame for peace failure on all three key actors back then, instead of just Arafat? Is there now also something too stilted about being a part of the International Crisis Group's Mission, working to prevent and resolve deadly conflict as its Director of Middle East/North Africa Program?

    I like this statement:

    "But whatever differences do exist, there is no disagreement among us on the core issue that transcends partisan or other divides: that the US should not and will not do anything to undermine the USA's safety."

    Canards: The Farm Lobby? The Insurance Lobby? The Gun Lobby?
    Not precise, hence smelling conspiratorial.

    How about The Help Israel Movement?
    Or The Pro-Israel Community?
    Or Right-Wing Zionism & U.S. Foreign Policy?

  10. Jim Haygood says:
    February 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Charles,

    The passage you quoted ended, "… not do anything to undermine ISRAEL'S safety." You typed it the way you and I would have drafted it.

    By the way, would cutting off U.S. funding undermine Israel's safety? One possibility is that going cold turkey on its customary dollar diet would compel Israel to negotiate a sustainable peace, rather than belligerently setting impossible preconditions to preclude any real negotiations. In other words, it might enhance Israel's safety.

    So please sign me up for your Pro-Israel Community.

  11. Charles Keating says:
    February 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Canard: An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

  12. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    "Canard: An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story."

    Exactly. In its generalization and imprecision. A form of collective guilt, by association.

  13. Charles Keating says:
    February 24, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Mister Witty: You mean like "Islamofacism" or "terrorism" or "anti-semitism"? How about "communism"? All a tad general and vague, no? Why does the chattering class use such labels? Why does it use terms such as "the farm lobby, insurance lobby, gun lobby, etc.? W & M used "Israel lobby" as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coaltion of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. They also specifically state it is not some sort of cabal or conspiracy early in their book 484 page book. As as they say too, the term Israel lobby has been common public parlance for a long time in the media. I guess their sin is they don't confuse
    the red, white, and blue with the white and blue. Rather, they say, for 484 pages, there's a difference.

  14. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    It would have been wonderful if Walt/Mearsheimer had actually defined it, RATHER than describe it as a "loose coalition" for some "pro-Israel direction" (those weren't their words).

    I personally didn't find that they stuck to the discipline of their early acknowledgement that the "Israel Lobby" is legal, non-conspiratorial. Instead, they later implied that it was.

    What do you think? Do you think that the "Israel Lobby" is a legitimate, legal, non-conspiratorial entity? Or, something else?

    If legal and non-conspiratorial, then the best way to "fight" the lobby, is to propose better policy RATHER than attack and prospectively exclude the messenger.

    Content.

    Certainly, the habit of identifying a Jewish name in a list, and then distrusting the content on that basis, must strike you as repugnant, even if Phil does it.

  15. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Change that last comment, to even if Phil does it occassionally.

  16. the sword of gideon says:
    February 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Come on Rich, Phil keeps track of Jews so well you'd think he was a loyal Nazi party functionary enforcing the Nuremberg laws. But I have to admit that the rest of the crew here is generally pretty adept at tracking every story, everywhere, that pertains to World Jewry. It makes me wonder if guys like "American Goy" ever do anything else, go to the movies, a ball game, whatever. Or do they just spend their day searching the net and whacking off to pictures of Adolph and Yasser.

  17. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Sword,
    I know Phil personally. In person he listens.

    He's a journalist.

    I wish that he more respectfully presented some of the arguments of those that he opposes, rather than name-calls, so that people could evaluate the views and relative importance, candidly and coolly.

    He seems enamored with the David/Goliath story, the underdog. Its an important sensitivity, to care about those that are harmed.

    I observe multiple parties getting harmed. Not just Sderot residents, but also Gaza residents.

    I take heart in the peace-seeking efforts of some of the more humane orthodox to form agreements with Hebron Palestinians to live and let live. (Different people and approach than the subject of the Hebron tour that he went on and is touring the east coast.)

    I get distressed by the ideological, whether conservative Zionist, or Palestinian nationalist, or pan-Arabist, or pan-Islamist, or Shiite, or strident Norman Finkelstein.

    I get distressed when Phil presents material that appeals to the ideological, to the rage, rather than to the humanization.

    Humanization of the other seems to me to be the manner by which xenophobia and oppression is in fact fought, by evoking compassion for the other, rather than invoking resentment.

    I was last in Israel in 1986. I visited third cousins that lived in Arad, then the site of an annual folk festival. My cousins were recorded Zionist folk singers, but over time came to know individual Druze, Bedouin, and Palestinian Arab performers. I visited them the week after the festival, and many of the performers were still around.

    One night we spent with an Israeli Christian Palestinian group. They were friendly enough to hang out together and sing together, some in Hebrew, some in Arabic.

    After the intifada (the first), they told me that it was no longer possible for them to interact so easily with Palestinians. They said that a divide between them occurred, a discomfort that didn't exist before, coming from both. But also, that the Palestinians were overtly threatened if they performed in public with any Israelis, even informally.

    While it was necessary historically for the Palestinians to speak up, and assertively, to improve their legal status, lot, and sentiment, the militancy killed the baby with the bathwater.

    A single democratic state based on mutual respect induced by a resistance that violently threatens people that sing together?

  18. Richard Witty says:
    February 24, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Did you all catch that Ralph Nader announced that he is running as a green again, and he did mention Israel?

    At least he also mentioned the numerous Zionist peace activists, that deserve support.

  19. Ben says:
    February 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Obama himself deals with similar issues a little more thoughtfully than surrogates like Levin. He spoke at a Cleveland Jewish Community meeting today. Among other things he dealt with concerns about his elderly pastor in Chicago — presenting his background in a sympathetic manner and concluding shrewdly with this:

    I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the Pastor. He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion directed at African Americans that maybe a possibility that’s just – I am not suggesting that’s definitive.

    Smart dude, Obama; he knows how to reach his audience.

    Obama comments

  20. LeaNder says:
    February 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Adolf, sword of gideon, Adolf. That's the way he spelled his name.

  21. americangoy says:
    February 24, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    I have no life, obviously :-)

    Actually, however I might disagree with Richard Witty's views, it is a joy to read his well written posts.

    For every one of the "I go shoot non-Jews with my Israeli made Desert Eagle!" there are real gems of comments buried in here.

  22. Gene says:
    February 25, 2008 at 12:10 am

    Witty: "What do you think? Do you think that the "Israel Lobby" is a legitimate, legal, non-conspiratorial entity? Or, something else?"

    There's nothing illegal about AIPAC (or anyone else) putting Israel first. But it is dreary, unsavory and decidedly un-American.

  23. Gene says:
    February 25, 2008 at 12:38 am

    I've often wondered where the notion came about that we have a "special" relationship with Israel. I know John Kennedy used the term in a talk with Golda Meir. But I don't know that Kennedy's 45 year old opinion is binding on the rest of us today. The only country I feel even the slightest special relationship with is England (not suprising given so much of our heritage, not to mention our many of genes themselves, comes from there.

    But we have no common history with Israel and until recently few common genes.
    Israel had its origins in socialism. One of its prime ministers once boasted to Khrushchev that Israel had a purer kind of communism (he meant the kibbutzim) than the Soviet Union did.

    I don't know how this makes Israel special to us. I would think we would consider English-speaking countries like New Zealand or Australia or Canada a lot more special to us than Israel. Though I can't remember the last time anyone said we had a special relationship with New Zealand.

  24. Jim Haygood says:
    February 25, 2008 at 7:11 am

    America's only 'special relationship' — with the U.K. — derives from being a former colony. In recent years, the special relationship has been turned to dark purposes — fighting together in the middle east; spying on each others' citizens. We'd probably be better off without it.

    A 'special relationship' with Israel is a canard concocted by flatterers for the sole purpose of keeping the $3 billion a year of tribute flowing. In actuality, it's a stunted, unilateral relation in which the U.S. does all the giving, and Israel does all the taking. Even worse was Bush's inarticulate, misleading description of Israel as an ally. 'Ally' has a specific legal meaning: a treaty partner. There is no defense treaty between the U.S. and Israel … and God willing, there never will be.

  25. James says:
    February 25, 2008 at 10:13 am

    In addition to its special realtionship with Israel, the USA has a special relationship with China and it will become even more special in the years to come.

    The USA has had a very special relationship with Saudi Arabia.

    I'm sure Ed and Jim will join me in a call to kick out all the Jews, Arabs, and Chinamen and lock the borders.

  26. anon says:
    February 25, 2008 at 11:18 am

    "the USA has a special relationship with China"

    but our politicians compete with each other over how to treat China like shit. what are you talking about?

    and did you notice Steven Spielberg's "special relationship" with China?

    special relationship isn't the same thing as buying something the other wants to sell.

  27. Charles Keating says:
    February 26, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Richard: "The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that activey works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." The Israel Lobby and U S Foreign Policy, at p.5

    I guess you didn't read W & M's book.

  28. aa says:
    February 26, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    yes, Richard. All that stuff about "control" is in your own mind; because it's not in the book. Same with "conspiracy" and "illegitimate".

Leave a Reply