Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece yesterday in the Times is very important. Goldberg is someone many Jews look to for guidance, and his piece is the green flag to the American Jewish community to have open war over Israel and the lobby. At last. On one side, the Adelsons and Perles who want Israel in all of historic Palestine. On the other, the Jews against occupation, the Aaron David Millers who want to divide the land and share Jerusalem. Time for a robust debate, the piece declared (giving an imprimatur to a demand Walt and Mearsheimer and MJ Rosenberg have been making for months). And it was obviously an expenditure of Goldberg’s political and personal capital: what will happen to his many friendships with the likes of Bill Kristol?
The big question I have about the piece is Whether Goldberg discussed it with Obama.
I start with the idea that Goldberg is a power journalist. He is very powerful, and you don’t get power without seeking it. In his journalistic value system, questions of power–Is it good for the Jews?–seem to trump questions of truth. The best evidence of this is the 180 he has now done from his vicious New Republic review of Walt and Mearsheimer last fall. The most revealing point in that piece was Goldberg’s statement that W&M’s book represents a historic moment in the disenfranchisement of the Jewish people in America. Goldberg was looking at the book in strict power terms: Is this good for the Jews? And he was right, that the book served to disenfranchise American Jews, or rightwing American Jews, the body of Jewish leadership, and may have been a highwater mark in the role of Jews in the American establishment. But whether or not it is good for the Jews is not an intellectual argument. The idea that Dreyfus was falsely accused caused a huge loss of power to the Catholics in the French power structure, yes; but it didn’t make the idea any less true. W&M are political scholars, they are not power guys. They were trying to tell the truth about the lobby’s influence, and yes Jewish influence, and recognized that they would be sacrificing their own access to power by doing so. Goldberg responded as a guy who has always cared most about the fate of the Jewish people. The book scared him. He went after it like a pitbull.
And a few months pass and now he comes out with a piece attacking that same Jewish leadership.
To explain it, I go back to Goldberg’s "conversation" with Obama of a week before. Not an interview, but a conversation, i.e., between equals. And indeed in this published portion, they are equals; Obama actually kisses Goldberg’s tuchis (Yiddish for you-know-what) several times, complimenting him on a recent piece he wrote, etc. And offers mild statements against the settlements, as a "sore" point across the Arab world.
But note that Goldberg is only offering "excerpts" of the conversation. So what happened in the rest of the conversation? Obama is a power guy, and he is wicked smart. And when the door closed and he had Goldberg’s assurance that it was completely off the record, he channeled the ghosts of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower and laid it on the line to his new friend:
The settlements are wrong. You know they are wrong, most Jews are against them. And not only are they wrong, they are nullifying our policy across the Middle East. We won’t get anywhere with the Arab and Muslim world until we deal with that issue, and Israel too. As Olmert has said, this is Israel’s last chance to stay a Jewish state. But Jeffrey, I can’t do diddly on this. I can’t open my mouth, I can’t talk to Rob Malley, I can’t talk to Zbig Brzezinski, no one in the realist or progressive camp, without getting hammered; because I have no cover on this issue. No cover. Because your own community doesn’t dare to criticize Israel openly, and when brilliant honorable men like Jimmy Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt open their mouths, they are cut down. Cut down. I need cover. Someone from your community has got to run interference. J Street can’t do it for me, it’s a good sign but nobody knows these guys. I love Mondoweiss, but he’s way off the reservation. I need someone everyone knows, a guy like Marty or Alan Dershowitz, look he says he’s a liberal Democrat, or Stephen Spielberg, Jeff Katzenberg, to step up and take the spears and say what you know to be true, which is that the lobby is killing us on this stuff, and hurting America. There has got to be a debate within the Jewish community over this or Jeffrey it’s just like what I said in Philly about race, Nothing will change. Nothing will change. Only this time it’s world stability that’s at stake. And it’s got to be someone from the Jewish community because look, I could talk about race because I’m black, I have standing. Here I have no standing. No standing at all. A big Jew has to say it. And maybe, maybe Jeffrey– that person is you.
And Goldberg looked across the table at the next commander in chief of the country–a guy he believes in his heart won’t sell the Jews out, a guy who has the unique ability to triangulate Arab, Jew, and American, and maybe too, just to be cynical for a second, a guy who will give him a job– and said, Aye-aye, sir.
Related posts:
- Triangulation: Leading Islamic Group Links Jeffrey Goldberg
- Was Goldberg Courageous, or Just Goin’ With the Progressive Tide?
- Jeffrey Goldberg Says American Politicians Can Say ‘Whatever They Want About Israel’
- We Are All Mearsheimerites Now: Jeffrey Goldberg Joins the Anti’s
- Was Jeffrey Goldberg ‘idealistic’ in moving to Israel and serving in its army?
{ 23 comments }
More of the same. Israel and Jews first, and then a token minority to hide behind. I think it's time to realize that the Jewish and minority interests are in direct opposition to what is best for the rest of the nation, no matter how good the triangulation, and be done with the issues.
Or was Goldberg's meeting with Obama a catalyst for a heart-changing afflatus? The 80,000 in Oregon, walls tumbling down…what does Barack Obama's name mean again?
"Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22: "And God blessed (ḇāreḵə ) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." "
(from the Juan Cole article, which went on to point out that Omar Bradley had an Arabic-derived first name–another traitor lacking the proper genes? Is that why he put the brakes on good George Patton?)
'Obama' seems to mean "true vision," which has been amplified by various hopeful hagiographers to "righteous foresight," or "visionary." I suppose "prophet" can't be too far behind.
Over the weekend an LRC blog post by Buffalo attorney James Ostrowski (a Ron Paulist, like me) hilighted Obama's statement about SUVs, thermostats, and gluttony. LRC (Lew Rockwell's website, for the non-adept) has been generally favorable to Obama, because of the hope that he will end war, maybe end Empire. This is the first ugly thing I've seen said about Obama on the blog. Ostrowski's piece was picked up by Drudge and a few others, trying to push the aburd idea that Obama will institute Pol Pot-style reforms such as food rationing and "starve your fat bourgeois ass" (SYFBA). No more will Taco Bell rule the night! White fright takes on new dimensions as White Castles are shuttered, powdered white donuts are removed from the shelves, and the Burger King, He Who fueled many a little-league rally, is toppled from his oleaginous throne.
Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.
And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?
If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?
So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.
I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?
And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.
Great Blog, BTW
Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.
And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?
If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?
So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.
I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?
And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.
Great Blog, BTW
Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.
And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?
If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?
So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.
I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?
And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.
Great Blog, BTW
Oarwell that is very funny, esp the White Castle oleaginous bit and analysis of LRC, which in the end will be important part of Obama coalition.
Lysander: I agree with you, mostly; I think that the time of the 2-state solution may have passed, that idea so pushed by the left for 30 years without a hearing, as the Israelis gobbled land. But it is not dead in the eyes of Jewish leadership, the centrist branch of it, and it's now or never as Olmert says, and Bush and Obama and others are all for it. And to Goldberg, who thinks a Jewish state is necessary for the safety of the Jews, he must throw himself into action, now
Jeffrey Goldberg says "John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel."
M & W's book clearily states and shows that unconditional support for Israel's conduct has been, and is the fundamental error. The book demonstrates many instances where this Israel Right Or Wrong approach has hurt US interests–and Israel's.
Since Goldberg agrees "unthinking American support hurts Israel," given the "special relationship," recognized by the world over in terms of very unbalanced power politics, how happens it to be that "American support for Israel does not hurt America?"
Goldberg simply dismisses M & W's book as a mere polemic. Then, by cleverly dropping the adjective "unthinking" (unconditional) regarding American support for Israel in terms of its hurting America, he erases the elephant from the room.
The American public has been continually sold on the idea that America's interests and Israel's interests are the same. No contrary information is ever given by our politicians. Now Goldberg simply asserts that's not really the case. The USA has not been harmed but only Israel has been harmed by unthinking American support of Israel. Goldberg should write fantasy books, about Fourth Dimensions where the laws of cause and effect don't exist.
This Ostrowski thing is multiplying like weevils:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&safe=off&q=obama%20%22eat%20as%20much%20as%20we%20want%20%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nb
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/4bynkd.
I am disappointed that Ostrowski did this. But, as is always salutary, let's get it out in the open and talk about it.
Phil, many thanks to you for taking the road less traveled. Your writing these past few months has been amazingly prolific and frighteningly perceptive (are you free-basing Modafinil?). The heat and light you generate redound to your honor.
PS. "I love Mondoweiss, but he's way off the reservation." Shameless mythopoeisis.
Naw, no harm to the USA. The 9/11 Commission's early drafts
included motive, and the I-P conflict was originally given as a very significant cause; this was reduced in the final report to a footnote. You can go to YouTube and watch C-SPAN's coverage
of congressional questions to the 9/11 inquiry panel. You will watch the panel all looking at each other in stunned silence when they are asked about motive for the 9/11 attack. Finally, one courageous soul gulps and says Palestinian suffering was key, though not the only cause. Other YouTube videos show how a few press knights tried to address this in the aftermath, but
were quickly brushed aside, both in congress, and with a mike stuck in their face out on in public.
2-states possible if palestinians are willing to accept a half dozen prison cells as a state. they will have walls and armed guards and overflying drones and f16s for security. and spies.
who would reject this "state"?
how does one engage sociopaths, psychopaths, psychotics in robust debate? those are the jews. then we have the rapture, monkey-"christians". to speak with them, first their heads need to be lopped off.
for there to be peace in the ME, israel needs to be removed as a state of for and by the jews. palestine needs to return and jews can be citizens not the insane, greedy overlords. the crimes that the jews have committed against the land(lousy buildings, roads, walls) have to be addressed. all zionits have to be chopped at the neck.
The Catholic Church lost power in France long before the Dreyfus Affair.
The real loser was the French military, which was so afraid of admitting a mistake that it resorted to anti-Semitism in an attempt to shut up critics at a time when such tactics were no longer effective.
May 19, 2008
Like It or Not, It Belongs to All of Us
Whose War?
By CINDY SHEEHAN @ Counterpunch.org
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
-William Tecumseh Sherman
america's brown shorts(crap pants at the 1st loud sound. note wolfowitz at 1st visit to iraq) love war for israel. they will sacrifice every nonjewish american to make israel into GREATER ISRAEL". their brown shorts loafer lickers will do support whatever: lie is truth, war is peace, slaughter is democracy….
Settlements can be dismantled with some amount of low-key civil war in Israel. For that the Israeli public needs to be on board, most of it. That requires a strong leader. Despicable Sharon was one such: there is a lot of historic justice in what befell him, but it'll be a pity if it turns out he was actually the only one capable of removing the settlements.
Bi-national state would have been a great thing if it had had any chance of success, which is unlikely: look, if Belgium is on the brink of a split…
And Jeffrey Goldberg now has competition about the younger American Jews for who should be head of the heap. Younger Jews reject Goldbergian views for Larisa Alexandrovna, who wrote this in HuffPo last week on the topic of Bush's visit to Israel. She writes for Millennials.
"What this blind adoration finally proves to me is that the right-wing regime that has overtaken Israel cares nothing for its people, its heritage, and the tragic history that they now honor by applauding a man whose family-fortune was built on the bodies of their loved ones. Like their Republican (and Lieberman) counterparts in the United States, Likud does not represent its people, rather, it represents its owners. Likud has traded Israel, its Jews, their heritage and history for the same golden calf purchased and sold by the far-right wing in the United States."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/all-the-presidents-nazis_b_102022.html
some snips from larisa alexandrovna linked by MRW:
"Your speech on the Knesset floor today was not only a disgrace; it was nothing short of treachery. Worse still, your exploitation of the Holocaust **in a country carved out of the wounds of that very crime**, in order to strike a low blow at American citizens whose politics differs from your own is unforgivable and unpardonable.
"Well Mr. Bush, the only thing this comment lacked was a mirror and some historical facts. You want to discuss the crimes of Nazis against my family and millions of other families in Europe during World War II? Let me revive a favorite phrase of yours: Bring. It. On!
The All-American Nazi
Your family's fortune is built on the bones of the very people butchered by the Nazis, my family and the families of those in the Knesset who applauded you today…"
larisa, address your false statements above. larisa, address the jews in the admin who directed this speech. larisa, address the jews with the pres.
larisa, the pres is a bump on a log – a doofus bump. address those who hold the power. those who control both the v-p and the pres and both houses of congress.
larisa is a waste of time.
"I love Mondoweiss, but he's way off the reservation."
I cannot help but smile.
Some meta talk: I love the blog format, because a genuine journalist like Phil has the freedom to indulge his Dickensian storytelling side and just make up a great Obama monologue. As a novelist and storyteller myself, I approve of this message.
Who knows if the scene played out like this at all? Only the storyteller has the freedom to speculate thus. And many fine journalists have also written great novels. (Dickens, yes; how about Tom Wolfe? Hemingway? Rebecca West?)
I hope this version of reality approaches the truth… I need some hope this morning.
highly interesting, and yes Leila it has a very special tone.
the best to you.
"On one side, the Adelsons and Perles who want Israel in all of historic Palestine. On the other, the Jews against occupation, the Aaron David Millers who want to divide the land and share Jerusalem. Time for a robust debate, the piece declared (giving an imprimatur to a demand Walt and Mearsheimer and MJ Rosenberg have been making for months)."
The debate described above is not robust enough.
Neocons acting as Zionist intelligentsia and as a Jewish special interest group manipulated the US government into destroying Iraq and into giving Israel a free hand to cluster-bomb Lebanon.
The same constellation of mostly Jewish special interest groups is lobbying for an intervention in Sudan, has made a mess of Somalia, and is working for an attack on Iran.
The State of Israel is the keystone of this politics, which is the virtual neo-imperialist neo-colonialism of 400-500 hyperwealthy Jewish Zionists with assets of $300 million to $30 billion.
It is fairly easy to identify who these guys are. They are often discussed in this blog as are their employees within the organized Jewish community and the Zionist intelligentsia that serves the Imperium.
To free the USA from domination by this virtual imperial state, the keystone must be removed.
Discussing the issue is simply fair play in view of the discourse that the Neocons have created, and proposing the arrest of the Zionist Jewish imperial class with concomitant seizure of assets is also completely appropriate because its lackeys have been lobbying and conspiring successfully for exactly such treatment of Arab and Muslim Americans for daring to question whether supporting the State of Israel is a requirement of American citizenship.
Joachim, can you please elaborate a bit on what Somalia and Sudan have to do with Zionist intelligentsia? A sincere question.
I saw Obama talking on TV today.
You know, except for all the career accomplishments, Obama is a little bit like Ralph Nader.
Obama will be steering this ship holding something, I don't know what, it might resemble a wheel-like object, but it won't really be connected to the rudders of the craft.
Obama's "Washington is broken" routine is great populism, I can certainly dig it. It feels good.
But the media have him jumping through hoops, the progressive branch of the lobby is coalescing behind him, dooming him to inaction, he's sold out his own former preacher to zio-wash us on "Islamic radicalism" (as if anything could be more irrelevant to actual Americans' interests), he'll lack the leverage/will to do anything "painful" regarding settlements until he's re-elected, and Wall St money is making him even less likely to do anything to curb financial bubble blowing.
And what about when that 2012 election comes, and it's Jeb Bush and Condi Rice saying they can get us out of Iraq (and into Iran, Syria, Venezuela), and our guy doesn't have the foil of President Bush to use when he is the one in charge and "Washington is (still) broken", with Democrats in the House and Senate too, and the U.S. still mired heavily in Iraq, taking increased casualties in Afghanistan, and all but offering to paint the Statue of Liberty in Chinese garb or the red and yellow flag?
High five! Great success!
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/israeli-incited-genocide-in-darfur.html
The blogentries at the end of http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/03/monsters-hillary-clinton-samantha-power.html describe the connections of the Darfur Activism to the organized Jewish community and Israel Advocacy.
As for Somalia, the Islamic Courts apparently almost got their act together when Neocons (Zionist Intelligentsia) in the Bush admin. decided they were part of al-Qaida (not true). As a result, the US bombed somalia and sent in the Ethiopians as surrogates to destroy the best hope for rebuilding Somalia in about 17 years.
I'm all for holding the Catholic Church, to which I belong, accountable for its shortcomings. The Dreyfuss affair, had NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church; quite the opposite.
At the time, practicing Catholics serving in the French army faced a glass-ceiling that kept them from having a career as an officer. Not only was the Catholic church or were right-wing Catholics not involved; they couldn't have been involved, as they had no influence in the circles in which the Dreyfuss affair played. Accusing the Catholic church of complicity in the scapegoating of Dreyfuss is as idiotic as suggesting that the Finns were responsible for the maltreatment of the Tasmanians.
What happened in the Dreyfuss affair, or so knowledgable sources say, is that the French discovered that they had a mole who was betraying their country to the hated Germans. Unfortunately, the mole, whose identity was eventually ascertained, was very closely allied to some extremely powerful and very ambitious officers high up in the French army's general staff. Bringing him to justice would have ended their careers, but not holding anyone accountable was not politically possible.
So Dreyfuss, a Jew, who had less political clout, was made the scapegoat, and then eventually exonerated. Such things happen in every country, even if they aren't always discussed.
Comments on this entry are closed.