Jeffrey Goldberg, surely the most powerful Jewish print journalist in the country right now, wrote a vicious review in The New Republic last fall of Walt and Mearsheimer's book, The Israel Lobby that I never blogged about because I found it so unpleasant. The piece said that the two scholars were anti-semites who had purposely put themselves in the tradition of Father Coughlin and David Duke. The tone was supercilious, the name-calling was unrelenting and sophomoric. They were "tourists" in the area of Israel policy, knew nothing about Washington, on and on and on. A Nazi reference or two. And always putting himself forward as sager...
Well, we are all Keynesians now. We are all Mearsheimerites.
Today on the Times Op-Ed page, Goldberg adopted Walt and Mearsheimer's line. He said that the only thing that can save the Jewish state is the two-state solution, and the only thing that can save the two-state solution is if the stranglehold of the Israel lobby is broken.
what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel. Barack Obama and John McCain... should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.
But this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen.
This is the same Goldberg who last fall said W&M were crazy to ascribe such stupendous power to the lobby. And here he states that the lobby licenses what our most powerful politicians are "able" to say. His target is "The leadership of the American Jewish community" What does that mean? Is he attacking the Jews? The same vagueness that he denounced last fall as Jewish conspiracy theory in Walt and Mearsheimer, Goldberg employs in the Times:
These Jewish leaders, who live in Chicago and New York and behind the gates of Boca Raton country clubs, loathe the idea that Mr. Olmert, or a prime minister yet elected, might one day cede the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to the latent state of Palestine.
And he does so necessarily. For it is no easy thing to pin these Greater Israel types down. It is an easy thing to say, Aipac, but another to describe the spidering network behind Freedom's Watch with any precision.
I welcome Goldberg's new line, and his stark opposition to the lobby. It is a sign of hope for the Jewish community, a sign that the monolithic orthodoxy is splintering, as I say here so often. So why did Goldberg change? Here are my reasons:
--Israel is truly in crisis. This is, Olmert says, the last gasp for the 2-state solution. After this comes a binational state or apartheid. But Olmert needs to communicate this to American Jewry. Ergo, Goldberg.
--The lobby itself is splintering. J Street and MJ Rosenberg and Dan Fleshler and IPF have been saying in anguish for months that now is the time to push a 2-state solution and defy the lobby--well, weeks in J Street's case. Rosenberg spoke of a "seismic shift" in the Jewish leadership a few months back. Now Goldberg, the most powerful Jewish journalist and a true believer in the necessity of a Jewish state, has shifted into the anti's camp...
--Nakba commemoration has shadowed the 60th birthday stuff the way that Tibetan protesters have shadowed the Chinese Olympics, and has scared Zionists. The Nakba narrative, of ethnic cleansing and landgrab in '47-'48, has gained traction, even among progressive Jews here, because that narrative is proved on a continuing basis by Israel settlement policy, the unending landgrab and cleansing. In this piece, Goldberg is angry about the settlements, saying they have "entangled Israel unnecessarily in the lives of West Bank Palestinians..."
--The Obama Effect. Obama's example is a rebuke to all states with lousy records on minority rights. The zeitgeist is about to change, and make Israel look very very yesterday.
--Walt and Mearsheimer really have changed the discussion. I say that the MSM has tried to marginalize them. And it has. But it hasn't succeeded. Influential people have read the book, many of them surreptitiously, and it has given permission to criticize Israel. There has been a great awakening, for which W&M deserve credit. They paved the way for Daniel Kurtzer, who is Obama's adviser, and Aaron David Miller to write books showing that Nothing is going to happen in Israel till the power of the Israel lobby is stanched.
Not that Goldberg will give W&M credit. No, he spent last fall smearing them. So even here he must distance himself from W&M, saying they were wrong to say that the lobby is not in America's best interest--it is not in Israel's best interest! This is misrepresentation. One of W&M's big themes is that the lobby doesn't act in Israel's best interest. They say so in the introduction of their book, on two or three occasions in the text, and here in the LA Times, a piece on "Israel's False Friends" in which they argue that the presidential candidates "see a significant political payoff in backing Israel to the hilt, even
when it is pursuing a policy -- colonizing the West Bank -- that is
morally and strategically bankrupt." W&M like Israel and are for a 2-state solution. They are Goldberg's natural allies; Goldberg needs them.
"what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel."
NO.
NO.
NO.
what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
FULL STOP.
"what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel."
NO.
NO.
NO.
what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
FULL STOP.
"Nakba commemoration has shadowed the 60th birthday stuff the way that Tibetan protesters have shadowed the Chinese Olympics, and has scared Zionists. Its narrative, of ethnic cleansing and landgrab in '48, has gained traction, even among progressive Jews here, because that narrative is proved on a continuing basis by Israel settlement policy, the unending landgrab and cleansing."
Absolutely.
I will now blogspam here, in which (my) article I basically write the same thing using 5000 more words :-)
link to americangoy.blogspot.com
or
link to tinyurl.com
Americangoy, you are right. I have never agreed with W&M's insistence on speakng of israel's best interest, it is hard enough to know what america's best interest is without putting yourself in the mind of france or egypt or anyone else. israel has been gong down a wrongheaded path for a long time…
Hi Mr. Weiss.
If I may be so bold as to say here:
While the neocons always look at the problem with the following question: "What is best for Israel?", I tend to look at it from "What is best for America?".
Somehow this can be spun as anti-semitic, racist and David Duke like :-)
The ultimate irony is (and remember, my position is I do not give a **** about Israel, one way or another) is that the neocons and the pro-Israel Lobby here in the USA REALLY IS BAD for Israel.
Yes, Saddam was a danger to Israel and from a realpolitik perspective had to be taken out.
But the price of taking out Saddam is a Shia, pro Iran state and possibly (even worse case scenario) actually does become a "Mad Max" kind of a situation, a la Somalia and an actual terrorist base, for al Kaida and others.
I do not think that, from a cold blooded pro Israel realpolitik perspective (the most cynical kind) taking out Saddam is ultimately worth destabilizing the whole Middle East (which "destabilizing the whole Middle East" was actually the neocons PLAN, starting with the "Clean Break" policy paper and then the PNAC organized to actually carry those policies out).
After all, no sane (and Saddam was secular, and could play the game) would DIRECTLY attack Israel with missiles, WMD, gas, whatever.
A terrorist organization, perhaps soon BASED in Iraq (after the US inevitably leaves) will have no qualms about doing so.
I have to say I really enjoy yours and Mr. Silverstein's blogs, they are a breath of fresh air and are written pretty well, and so are a joy to read.
Cheers!
Speaking of "well written", holy cow – the above is the worst written comment of mine on any blog (hopefully you get the gist of my jumbled up thoughts).
In my defense, I have a few margaritas in me tonight and, anyway, when I post articles on my blog there is always the blessed "EDIT" option :-)
Phil, as I have stated previously, there is now no possibility of a genuine Palestinian State alongside of (or inside the control of)Israel. When the various reasons why this is become apparent, most people will realize that the two-state solution is a chimera, an unobtainable objective. And of course, you can hear the Jewish handringing which no doubt will occur when "those Arabs refuse to accept Their State which we (out of the goodness of our Jewish hearts) have sincerely tried to give them".
The 'settlements' won't go away and the arabs won't leave peacefully like they did in 1948.
The acceptance of a two-state solution by modern zionists is quite similar to their so-called acceptance of the Partition Plan of 1947. They'll draw out the negotiations over "final status" items for the next two generations, while attempting to cleanse Gaza and the West Bank with tanks, bulldozers, and strangulating seige.
Phil, I don't hear a peep out of you concerning the biggest elephant in our room: the warmongering against Iran. Are you afraid to express an opinion? or just onboard with the Party Line?
It tempting to be heartened by Goldberg's NYT op-ed, but if his recent grotesque interrogation of Obama for The Atlantic Monthly (once a screw…?) is anything to go by he still feels entitled to lord it over the political class as a gatekeeper with respect to acceptable postions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The lobby, I'm afraid, lives notwithstanding the best efforts of W&M, PW, RS and a few other admirable figures.
I found an excellent Dutch Documentary about the Israel Lobby in America. I'm sure most of you have seen it, but for those who have not, the documentary is gonna be very interesting…
link to youtube.com
Phil: I wouldn't get too excited about Goldberg's piece. And God, if he's the best Jewish journalist we have out there then we're in trouble.
Yes, he did make some helpful pts. But this passage struck me as hopelessly timid & wrong-headed: "Barack Obama and John McCain…should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.
But this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen."
He expects that AIPAC & the Jewish gerontocracy will "allow" Obama & McCain to engage in "straight talk" about the I-P conflict? Meaning, that they both should be able to call a spade & spade & criticize BOTH SIDES? Come off it, man. What kind of delusion is this guy lingering under?
AIPAC is petrified of precisely this type of freewheeling debate. They won't ever "allow" it to happen. They'll have to be dragged screaming & kicking into such a debate. And if we wait for the "grandees" to allow the candidates to talk freely, we'll be waiting till Mashiach comes if not longer.
W and M probably want a what's-best-for-America policy, but have to wrap it a slice of it's-good-for-Israel-too wrapping.
Goldberg is an Israel-firster, who is leaning towards the view that a two-state 'solution' may be a better way of screwing the Palestinians (and Israeli arabs) than the current strategy.
There's not that much overlap.
worth a repeat:
"Goldberg is an Israel-firster, who is leaning towards the view that a two-state 'solution' may be a better way of ######## the Palestinians (and Israeli arabs) than the current strategy.
There's not that much overlap. "
Posted by: otto | May 19, 2008 at 02:58 AM
what is the best way to secure the state. to hell with the natives.
"The acceptance of a two-state solution by modern zionists is quite similar to their so-called acceptance of the Partition Plan of 1947. They'll draw out the negotiations over "final status" items for the next two generations, while attempting to cleanse Gaza and the West Bank with tanks, bulldozers, and strangulating seige."–cogit8
This comment is very perceptive, and based on historical probability. Kind of like a judge looking at X's long rap sheet, and asking him/her self, "Is this guy gonna change?"
In a later article Phil says he's now thinking a one-state solution is the only possibility. I'm thinking the same way.
What goes around comes around, eventually. No matter the original Auschwitz justification, no Palestinian contributed to those smokestacks; the human smoke itself is offset by Nuremberg & Geneva, and sticking it to colonialism– witness how apartheid S Africa was made naked, and sent packing.
The American Indians will never get their own nation, nor the Roma–maybe the Kurds, in the land where they are the only tribe there.
The nation state itself is battered constantly–by 6,000 key people across the globe who's actions affect us all continually. The 24 neocons who brought us the Iraq war are bound to lose in the long run. But it will take an invasion by aliens from outer space to beat those 6,000. The gap between the rich and poor grows by the day; the world is a market with information asymmetries, designed obsurity, moral hazard.
Nearly everybody wants in on the Lotto. Even in remote tribes in Africa they see American TV and what it promotes. Every Chinese
wants what they. This is a new world phenomena. You can't keep them all down on the farm–not even if you have a private wedding for your daughter Jenna.
This is a major turn of events. And Philip Weiss deserves significant credit for his long-term pursuit of such a change in the American Jewish community. Without people like Philip, this type of sea change just wouldn't be possible.
To those who think Phil's encouragement at Goldberg's piece is misguided I think you're missing the point.
In the context of Bush era Neocon dominated Middle East politics what Goldberg said (in parts) is hugely significant.
And as opposed to W&M and Carter this is coming from the inner sanctum – so to speak.
If people are prepared to stick their heads above the parapet on this potentially career ending subject then maybe we should take the baby steps for what their worth.
I also reviewed the Goldberg article. My assessment wasn't as rosy as yours. But it agrees with many of the comments I've read here.
I titled my article:
"Final Solution" For Palestinians
link to futurenewstoday.blogspot.com
I think Goldberg is just playing good cop to AIPAC's bad cop. It's just a way of deflecting criticism when there is no intention of dismantling any settlements. The intent is clearly to "transfer" the Palestinians out of "Greater Israel".
The fear within the Israel Lobby is that an anti-Apartheid type of movement is gaining traction and Goldberg and J-Street are just doing good PR work to try to deflect some of the harsher criticisms. It's sort of like saying we in the Jewish community can handle this internally, we don't need people from the outside telling us what to do.
This isn't the Chinese government after all that calls the Dalai Lama a wolf. The Israel Lobby knows how to do PR. They are big enough and strong enough that they can split up and coordinate their public statements for maximum effect.
Of course Obama would NEVER be allowed to say in public what Goldberg has said. I was checking today to see if Goldberg would get slammed as being anti-Semitic in response to his article. HE WASN'T! That right away tells you something is up. That's how I happened to find this article.
I didn't know about Jeffrey's review of W&M's book, but do you really think that he has had some sort of epiphany and radically changed his views overnight? Not a chance.
Don't be duped! Until I see all the settlements, "legal" and illegal, removed from the West Bank I give no credence to the new softer Israel Lobby.
The crisis in Occupied Palestinian Territories is so dreadful, the Israeli public so indifferent to human suffering, that any change to status quo may prove itself to be even worse (based on the rule that any changes to status quo brought about by this occupier are, deliberately and invariably, for the worse).
Talk about bi-national state, suddenly exploding on to the Jewish-American liberal scene, may well be another cynical delaying tactic, which will allow wall to be build; water to be diverted; settlements to be expanded and punters to be de-sensitized.
Two state solution is internationally accepted and has all the legal framework ready in the International Law and has support of the international community (inluding, in theory, USA).
But do we really want Palestine as free and sovereign and independent as Gaza is right now? At, what, ?1600 Kcalories per person per day and less than 25g of protein a day; traumatised with sonic booms and socially engineered to the slow descent to the Hobbesian hell? Is that the vision of future two state solution?
Take your pick, dear reader…