Richard Witty and I have been emailing one another about the Israel lobby definition issue; and I will post that exchange soon. But this a.m. he jumps the gun and asks me a bunch of very socratic questions. As if to deny there is any such thing in the word lobby apart from an antisemitic accusation. Richard, I must say I find your tone casuistic. There is a real problem here in American politics, signified by the incident I have mentioned in which Adam Schiff, a liberal congressman representing Obama, could say a critical word about the settlements (colonies by any true measure) before a Jewish audience in Ohio. If you think this is a problem of antisemitism, you’re simply mistaken. It’s a problem in our politics. They are broken. The widespread view that the settlements are a hateful appendage to American politics has no voice in our politics. And it is dragging this country down in the world.
So I begin with that obvious moral issue. And then I try and say what is causing it. Your questions are all very smart. It is interesting that Bronfmans were on both sides of the lobby per Walt and Mearsheimer. Yes W&M did say loose coalition. It is true that the lobby has morphed. It is true that APN is part of the lobby and dissent both. Fine. So many contradictions!
And still there is a force that causes Schiff to say these horrifying things. And that force is alive on the left in our politics!
I say, let’s have more info. more and more. Let us talk about this terrible force in our politics that keeps Americans from openly attacking the settlements. You seem to be saying, Shut up. And god knows I felt the same way when there were terrible forces in our politics that were against women’s rights and gay rights, coming out of religious opposition. And I did not say, Oh there are some evangelical Christians who like gays, I said, let us get the fundamentalists out of our politics, or anyway let us counter them and identify them. And I did not call for the persecution of the fundamentalists.
I sense an enormous Jewish defensiveness in your comments. You have spoken openly of my financial difficulties that I told you about in conversation. Fine, I have no problem with that. Public/private issues are not some giant wall for me. Well I know that you have some personal exposure to Holocaust narratives and that they are important to you. And I would urge you to understand that the Holocaust was in its history and we are in a new moment in history. I urge you as a fellow Jew to look at this moral blot in our politics right now, in which racist and apartheid policies far away in another country, as geographically distinct from us as France or North Korea or Iran, cannot be condemned by our politicians out of fear and (Chuck Hagel) intimidation, and try and say why it is there, why is this happening. Rather than erecting rhetorical palisades…
Jim Haygood puts his finger on the most important issue for me as a leftwing Jew. Here in America we have had one democratic liberation after another in our lives, from the civil rights struggle to gay rights, to women’s lib. Democracy democracy democracy. And then, out of some autochthonous atavistic impulse, American Jews are supposed to put all that aside when they come to minority rights in Israel/Palestine. And they do it, that is the problem!
Richard will say I am generalizing. Yes I am. There are many notable exceptions. But I will point to two non-exceptions. Joe Lelyveld (son of the Israel lobbyist Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld) in the pages of the NYRB, and Terry Gross on Fresh Air last year both rejected Jimmy Carter’s use of the word apartheid. Two liberal American Jews, saying that word was wrong, and shouldn’t be used. I heard Terry go after Carter on her show for using the word in his title, and Lelyveld more rabbinically picked the word apart in the NYRB.
Well last week Israel Policy Forum, which is yes, both inside and outside the lobby I am working against–is claimed by the lobby and is also resisting it, which I know is hard to get your head around, but is true–held a splendid conference call with David Kimche, a former Foreign Ministry director under Begin I believe, Likud, who said that the checkpoints and separate roadways (roadways for "Jews," Kimche said, disputing CAMERA’s assertion that these roads are for Israeli Arabs too) in the West Bank are bad for Israel– even, Kimche said, "apart from the apartheid implications."
Kimche is simply another Israeli who uses the word apartheid, as many tormented Israelis do, to describe the apartness that the separate roadways and walls are used to establish (as opposed to pure security). But that word is not allowed in the U.S. discourse, and the ban is enforced by liberal Jews here.
We don’t have to live there. Israel is a weak state unable to lift itself out of that cycle of violence. And if there is one thing we Jews here can do, in a very powerful state, which has absolutely respected our minority rights as it has progressed into modernity, is to apply those American lessons to Israel, to help Israel/Palestine as liberal Americans. In Gross’s deference to Israel, in Lelyveld’s, I discern the Jewish idea of aliyah. That Israel is somehow higher ground spiritually. When actually it is a militarized state in a crisis, where all identity, Jewish and Arab, is now shaped by violence.
Phil,
The questions that I ask are not reactionary. They are sincere.
I'm sorry if I violated confidence in speaking of your personal financial status. You brought up the issue of guilt of Jews' (general) elitism. Its a foreign world to me. My Jewish environ is of common working people.
"That Israel is somehow higher ground spiritually. When actually it is a militarized state in a crisis, where all identity, Jewish and Arab, is now shaped by violence."
I think that you might have to accept that it is both, as difficult as that is to get your head around.
Just for reference,
There is a flip side to my comments being described as defensive. That is that they are posed in relation to some comments by you and others, that are offensive, particularly the imprecise and general.
In Gross's comments, mine, others, there is some respect for what we don't know.
We don't know if Zionism is the best answer to the real problems of common public misunderstanding and contempt of Jews' life. We wonder if it is true, and bristle at rancor that eliminates options without replacing them with other confident ones.
We don't know if we will need a refuge, as my mother-in-law NEEDED a "safe" place to go after being asked to return to her home village to find her house occupied (by people who would do violence to her to preserve their occupation), and taunts of how come she got away.
Some of the comments expressed here, that consistently express contempt for the choices that individual, American organized, and Israel and Israelis, have and continue to make, indicate that maybe I/we will need a refuge.
We share the view of desiring transformation of Jewish identity and practise to a more benevolent approach, accepting first rather than shooting first.
Its unclear to me though if you regard that as "we" changing or "they" changing.
On the settlements.
I find the expansionistic structure of state sponsored dispossession accompanied by state-sponsored settlement construction, peopled by fanatics that regard the land as Jewish, as distasteful.
In contrast to the theology of the yeshiva that was attacked this week, I regard that institutional construction as a in violation of Torah, not in fulfillment of it.
"If you keep my commandments I will give you the water in its time" (Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor).
And, at the same time, I KNOW some settlement residents, people that went there TO start spiritual and ecological communities, not to expropriate, and not to oppress. Perhaps naive people, that got there and didn't realize that their neighbors would hate them for any association with the institutional expansion or prior dispossession.
"They should have known".
I don't know. I went to live in a spiritual community in Oregon in 1973, and we had the audacity of using stream water to water our gardens that someone downstream was watering their livestock and the flow diminished. Three friends of the neighbor lined up on our property during hunting season with shotguns and pounded away for four hours shooting at anything that moved. (The postings of "no hunting" somehow got torn down.)
"We should have known".
I found it difficult to get my head around the idea that the settlers (in general) were human beings, and that their actions should determine their guilt or innocence.
But, also that Israel should undertake to apply rule of law regarding title in a color-blind manner, and compel that title claims be cleared up, not ignored.
I don't like "big-word" descriptions of events and relationshps that are more specific than the rhetorical. I find that it hinders the ability to restore justice, and instead encourages rage.
For example, Carter used the term "apartheid" to describe the relation between Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank. Later he clarified that the term might not be accurate, that in fact he regarded the status of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (different) as worse than the apartheid description, something new.
When I was in parts of the West Bank in 1986, it didn't feel worse than what I imagine of apartheid. I understand that after the Oslo commitments unraveled, that has changed. Obviously I missed something, as the intifada occurred the following year.
Carter did say that within Israel, the status was NOT apartheid.
What's in a word? It depends on one's role. If your (I mean your's) role is to organize mass movement, then maybe the general is more effective. If your role is to convey confidence to Israelis that they have the scope to relax their fears, then the name-calling is more upstream current in an already stressed effort.
That is the significance of my questions to you about what you mean by "post-Zionism" substantively.
Does it mean just a generaltional change (the Zionist generation passing to the post-Zionist generation), or is it more substantive as in "Zionism is no longer needed, as all society is permanently safe and respectful."
Philip – Witty may indeed be defensive at times, but your reactionary and at times hysterical reactions and inclination to ignore confounding contextual factors in the both Israeli-Palestinian politics and American politics makes you someone living in a very glass house.
"I said, let us get the fundamentalists out of our politics, or anyway let us counter them and identify them. And I did not call for the persecution of the fundamentalists."
Isn't that a form of persecuting the fundamentalists, to prohibit their participation in political discourse.
News flash for Richard Witty: the Lobby DOES exist. Thanks to Phil's heads-up, I just got back from standing in front of the Rockleigh Country Club where Bergen/Rockland AIPAC is hosting Peter Beinart this evening. With a sign, I might add. It read:
No more WAR$
for I$RAEL
As expected, this did not make me Mr. Popularity. If looks could kill, I'd be dead now. The dollar signs particularly pissed off a couple of folks. On the other hand, to my surprise, the reaction was not universally negative. A couple of people smiled. A kid in the back of his parents' car gave me a thumbs up. Evidently, there may be a tiny minority of antiwar Israel supporters in AIPAC.
Three interactions. One guy rolled down the window and became abusive. "Arab fascist Islamic pig!" he shouted. I don't look Arab, but it was interesting to see the Fox News programming at work. I just smiled and laughed it off. "Shalom, Rebbe!" I bid him.
Two others came outside the gate to debate. In both cases, the debate came down to whether Iran is a threat to the U.S. As an unapolegetic noninterventionist, I say no, while they said yes. We agreed to disagree. Interesting point about these conversations is that both guys approached me with a defensive opening line, indicating they thought they were dealing with some unreconstructed foam-at-the-mouth antisemite. One asked me, "Are you against wars for the Jews?" "I didn't say that," I pointed out. "Please don't try to put antisemitic words in my mouth."
I stood my ground politically, but spoke respectfully, and both parties walked away understanding each others' views, if not agreeing. One had claimed he had a son in Sderot. "Good luck with your son," I told him. "That's why we have a lobby," he replied.
A local cop pulled up to ask what I was doing. His main concern was that I not trespass on the property. Another guy, a real estate appraiser, stopped his car, gave me his business card, and wanted to know how he could join my organization. LOL! There's not one. But maybe I'll turn him on to Mondoweiss.
Well, that's enough excitement for one evening. For years, I've wanted to confront AIPAC. Finally got to do so today. Yeehaw!
Very sad news. Those were not thumbs, and that sign you received was not a thumbs up.
The feeble Sword is posting in my name again. He has no respect for Phil or his blog, or anybody on it who does not agree with his infantile and deadly stance. I commend Jim Haygood for his courage.
Richard:
I really am impressed. Obviously I'm mostly on Phil's side, but the comments you made are startling and convincing. I think the ball is in his court.
RE: "Richard:
I really am impressed. Obviously I'm mostly on Phil's side, but the comments you made are startling and convincing. I think the ball is in his court.
Posted by: Charles Keating | March 13, 2008 at 05:05 PM"
I did NOT post this message. I think the feeble Sword posted it.
richard, you're right about the fundamentalists– if i had been for prohibiting them, that would be a form of persecution. i wrote sloppily. I wasn't ever for prohibiting them. I was completely in favor, tho, of the media coverage of their agenda.
there is very little mainstream coverage of the israel lobby. thats what i want to change… im not an activist here; im a journalist. im really mostly interested in factual issues, though yes i have a strong point of view. and i'm interested in sunlight.
also: i will never accept that israel is higher ground spiritually than the u.s. or the u.s. is higher ground than israel. this goes against my religious beliefs. i believe there are sacred places everywhere, though yes israel has a corner on the religious history…
more to come… phil
Higher ground spiritually has nothing to do with this place or this person is better or worse in the spiritual game.
Its not higher than another, but also is. "Religious history" is shared consciousness. "Chosenness" is more intimate than objective. (Its not really "obective" at all.) A hyper-zoom in closeup.
In my hometown there is a local shrine, a site of an asserted miracle. (I don't know the details.) Many locals come to pray at the chapel there. My wife used to go there periodically. Not to idolize, but in recognition of the prayer brought to the site, even if in a different tune. (Both she and I were not exactly taught a tune, so we didn't have as much a native language, as a comfortable familiar, which for us was noted in feelings more than in physical references.)
It is a higher ground, and not different than the higher ground that I habitually visit to walk.
On writing sloppy. That is the danger of generalization. At times you have apparently meant that you wish to prohibit them in ways. And, at times you have apparently meant that you wish that the "Israel Lobby" shut the fuck up, in ways. And, at times, from similar psychological construction, they've stated that they wish that you would shut up, in ways.
Thanks for the kind response.
Richard, hasn't Phil taken issue with Zionists (such as the neocon Kristol the younger) who DO NOT disclose their religious fundamentalist agenda but instead wrap their fevered warcries in an American flag? That doesn't sound to me like Phil telling fundies to shut the fuck up, it sounds like an invocation for the media to identify who's a fundie, or for the fundies to self-identify, as the Christian ones do.
Jim Haygood — awesome sign, can I join your organization too?
americas warring faction….like it or not.
"Petraeus to NATO? A Bad Idea.
Max Boot – 01.22.2008 – 12:00
Would it have made sense to replace Eisenhower in early 1945 or Grant in early 1865? Only someone who thinks the answer to those questions is “yes” would be in favor of replacing David Petraeus as the senior commander in Iraq anytime soon. Yet, according to this New York Times article, there is serious consideration being given to sending him to NATO as Supreme Allied Commander later this year."
is this the unamed lobbys handiwork (influence)?
what is lobby, and on behalf of whose america?
"And still there is a force that causes Schiff to say these horrifying things."
It wasn't clear to me what you were describing as Schiff's comments.
Can you restate what occurred, and how you interpreted it?
I have been checking in with this blog for months now, occasionally looking at the comments. My area of interest is how Jews are reacting and digesting the fresh air that Weiss is bringing to this topic. Witty ALWAYS posts. I can't read him anymore. These endless arguments of his that are so deluded and meant to delude both himself and others are toxic to read. What I have found out however is that he is quite sincere and he actually does believe what he writes. I apologize for getting personal here but the frustration with people taking him seriously is driving me to it. It would be more honest if he just said he cares more about Israel than the US, that he is scared and needs Israel as a refuge, and that he doesn't much care about who pays for these attitudes. Whether it is Palestinians, Lebanese, American taxpayers, Us soldiers , or the many millions of Iraqis who have died because of this war on behalf of Israel.
Peters :
I share your frustratuon with Witty.
All that I have learned from Witty is that Jews lack self-awareness and they are dooming themselves by dual loyalty.
(Tragically, they are dooming us ,too)
Peters:
Many millions of Iraqis have died? Do tell!
It is Jews like Witty that American gentiles like myself disapprove of.
Now, we all know all Jews aren't like Witty, I don't personally know any Jews like him.
But we also know that the Jews who think like Witty, the AIPAC'ers and such, and have some political influence are hurting our own country.
The question is why is Witty even living in the US? Why isn't he in Israel? Why hasn't someone who constantly talks about anti-semtism and another holocuast being right around the corner already fled to Israel?
With citizenship available to him in Israel he has to be deranged somehow to keep living here with all this anti-semitism he obsesses about.
Posted by: peters | March 13, 2008 at 08:08 PM
DITTO
Weiss: "In Gross's deference to Israel, in Lelyveld's, I discern the Jewish idea of aliyah. That Israel is somehow higher ground spiritually. When actually it is a militarized state in a crisis. . . "
A good point well made.
"One had claimed he had a son in Sderot. "Good luck with your son," I told him. "That's why we have a lobby," he replied."
Please everybody – reread this from Jim Haygood's post.
"One had claimed he had a son in Sderot. "Good luck with your son," I told him. "That's why we have a lobby," he replied."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963200.html
Ten Commandments for Arab and Jew at war
By Bradley Burston
Tags: Ten Commandments, Israel
There is no conflict in the world more complex, more closely watched, and more historically intractable than the war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, a tireless blood feud now on the threshold of its seventh decade.
It helps little that each side lays claim to ultimate morality and consummate victimhood.
For Palestinian Muslim and Israeli Jew both, many of the most strident calls for escalation, for war until absolute victory, for refusal to compromise, for justifying injury to civilians on the other side, in fact, for eradication, political or physical, of the other side, come from ultra-nationalist religious leaders.
With radicalism at the clerical level having tainted and to some extent warped both Islam and Judaism, perhaps now is the time for the rest of us believers to put in our two cents.
…
Notice: I did not post the following juvenile message:
"Peters:
Many millions of Iraqis have died? Do tell!
Posted by: Charles Keating | March 13, 2008 at 08:33 PM"
Rather, I agree with peters's observation regarding who is paying with blood and treasure for the wars mentioned, and for whom.
I'll continue to post, unless Phil personally asks me not to, and then I'll post one tirade about hypocrisy and then leave, and won't invite him to visit.
Kudos to Jim Haygood, both for demonstrating outside the Rockleigh Country Club and for his consistently insightful and often amusing comments.
Thanks, doonga. One thing I forgot to mention. Both Peter Beinart and Dan Senor arrived in stretch limos, so I had the pleasure of waving my sign at them through the tinted windows.
I don't know anything about Beinart. But having seen Senor in his role as apologist and propagandist for the Iraq occupation, I regard him as an odious figure who literally has blood on his hands. No, not millions of Iraqis, but tens of thousands. (The official policy is not to count — hey, it's only Arabs.)
"When actually it is a militarized state in a crisis, where all identity, Jewish and Arab, is now shaped by violence."
Do you see the remedy to this to be political (as in changing institutional relations) or spiritual (as in changing attitudes and relationships)?
I see the sarmatian has put aside his fried penguin lunch and come see Witty being chastised by the restless natives. If only the one D would stop chasing tasty carotids for a while…
I guess I'm troubled by the silence of our resident undead.
I certainly can respect someone's feeling that Israel is higher ground spiritually speaking but what I will not accept is the US getting sucked into fighting the resulting wars over what seems to be none of our business.
I certainly can respect someone's feeling that Israel is higher ground spiritually speaking but what I will not accept is the US getting sucked into fighting the resulting wars over what seems to be none of our business.
Well said as usual Jim, and very well done.
Maybe we can expect to see more such demos at AIPAC gatherings, secret or not. Which makes me wonder how the protests at Lev Leviev's have been going.
'Do you see the remedy to this to be political (as in changing institutional relations) or spiritual (as in changing attitudes and relationships)?'
Well it's both, but politics first as we may not have time to keep waiting for Zionist attitudes to change. AIPAC must be registered as a foreign agent for a start; then the US must use military and financial threats to force Israel to the table in good faith. If attitudes change after that, fine, but it would be hopeless trying it the other way around.