Jerry Slater (who supports Sam Nunn or Any General as Obama’s VP) says I’m being intemperate in my views of Jews and money in the presidential race:
I think your attack on the Salon article is overstated, and downright
intemperate.
I refer in particular to this passage: “there was a long
and simpleminded article about Obama’s efforts to cultivate Jews with
his acrobatics on Jerusalem and Israel. Typical of the leftish press,
Salon averred that Obama’s prize is… Florida. All those Jewish voters
in a swing state. That kind of statement borders on fraud.”
Jewish influence on politics is a function of a number of variables, not
just one or two, including (no particular order intended): (1) in close
elections, the Jewish vote in swing states or districts, (2)money, and
(3)general and genuine U.S. public sympathy with and support for both
both Jews and for Israel. True, the Salon story should have dealt with
the issue of whether Jewish contributions were a factor in Obama’s AIPAC
performance, and you are right to raise it–but as an addition to the
electoral vote consideration, not as a substitute for it.
Your throw-away line about how he doesn’t need Florida, so the
explanation has to be just money, is not persuasive. Just because he
has a “plan” to win the election without Florida and Ohio–if it comes
to that–doesn’t mean that he doesn’t desperately wish to carry both states.
The an analytical problem here is that what constitutes evidence of what
explains Obama on Israel. How can we know what is in Obama’s mind?
This requires great caution in making strong statements, in whatever
direction. That said, it is not at all implausible to speculate,
reasonably, that all three factors play a role in Obama’s thinking on
this issue–and even he might not be able to tell you how they were
weighted–that is, the Florida and perhaps Ohio vote, money, and perhaps
his own views (however simplistic you and I know them to be).
Slater is surely right that I was intemperate. I can be rash. I wrote what I wrote in a flash of disgust. But was I wrong? Not really. The issue for me here is the Complete and Utter removal of the question of Jewish money and influence from the press’s consideration of presidential politics/Middle East policy. I said yesterday it borders on fraud. I believe that today too. Reporters are refusing to talk about something they know to be a large factor in our politics, witness Ari Berman’s honest statement at the Center for Jewish History in May: “At the risk of stereotyping,” Berman said, “Jews are influential beyond their numbers.” As donors, as media workers, “influential in all these different areas.” And at the same panel, Samuel Freedman described Jews as members of an “overclass.” True. Readers ought to hear about this, rather than a continual refrain about Jewish voters in Florida.
Slater is surely right when he scores me for utterly discounting the Jewish vote in Florida and Ohio. It’s true that we don’t know what Obama’s strategy is, notwithstanding the reports that he’s discounted FL. And yes, Jews can make up a swing vote, they did in ‘00. Obama right now seems to be going for every vote he can get, even in Montana, and collapsing on the Second Amendment to do so. (I think he is seeking a Reaganesque Landslide so he can declare that it’s morning in America).
The fallacy in Slater’s comments is his elision of the Jewish media presence as a factor in Obama’s thinking. And his claim that Americans love Israel. Maybe they do love Israel, but I am sure that only a few voters care about an undivided Jerusalem, and the vast majority of them are older Jews. The latest polls show that 71 percent of Americans want the U.S. to be evenhanded in its policy in the Middle East. As I have pointed out, a leftleaning Dem, Howard Dean, got his head handed to him for saying he wanted that, four years ago.
In 1968, Nixon got 17 percent of the Jewish vote, and was proud of it. He felt it made him impervious to the Jewish lobby. (So says William B. Quandt in Peace Process (1993)). Nixon was, per Slater’s view of Americans, a strong supporter of Israel. But he also wanted freedom to maneuver vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, by trying to win hearts and minds in the Arab world. That central prerogative of statecraft is one that No president has had since George H.W. Bush tried to exercise it in 1991. Obama’s craven statements before AIPAC merely recapitulate an old theme. And the question is why? Why would Nixon be impervious to the Jewish lobby–and Jewish vote–in ‘68, while in ‘92 Bill Clinton refused to criticize the illegal settlements and in ‘04 Dean was decapitated for saying he wanted to be “evenhanded,” and in ‘08 Obama has taken a position to the right of George W. Bush on the same question? I think the answer is yes in fairness, the Jewish vote in swing states, to some very small degree. But much more importantly Adelson and Saban, Jewish money; and more than that, the rise of Jews into the Establishment over the last 40 years. Nixon could write us off because we had far less power in American society. Today a candidate who writes off rightwing Jewish sentiment risks alienating the think tanks, the columnists, reporters and editors with unspoken Zionist agendas, not to mention a lot of moneybags.
Jerry, I wonder if you are afraid of such talk. I think your “intemperate” charge reflects some apprehension that if people start talking about Jewish money and power, especially in these economic times, there are going to be pogroms, a rise in antisemitism. I say I’m a journalist whose job is to describe reality–and my experience of antisemitism in this country is virtually nil, which is to say I trust my countrymen to talk about elites. What say you?
P.S. Jerry Slater says he’ll let his response stand for the time being. These issues are complex, and he deals with them in a long paper he’s preparing on Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. I look forward to that.
Related posts:
{ 23 comments }
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3714016
Weiss. This might be of interest to you.
I can not seem to locate your e-mail, so please delete this after your viewing.
Phil:
It is no accident IMHO that the big increase in Jewish power and influence since President Reagan took office coincided with the "financialization" (as Kevin Philips describes it) of the US economy. The heavily Jewish financial industry vastly hiked its share of corporate profits and stock market wealth over this period.
But now this bastion of jewish wealth and power — shown to be rife with fraud and deceit on a monumental scale — is starting to implode. Over time this is bound to significantly reduce the ability of the Jewish establishment to dominate the US economic and political scene
This bodes well for a more peaceful Middle East.
Phil, i repeatedly tell my jewish girlfriend that you are my favorite jewish american writer…you reek of yankee doodleism on the 4th of july and for this i applaud you.
jews in america ought to have a chance to read more of you, my guess is that most younger jewish americans would side more with you than with what the shtetl mentality crowd would wish.
Phil,
I think that Slater was being kind to you in calling you intemperate.
I think a more accurate and more insightful statement than "there is Jewish money in politics" is that "there is money in politics".
One is a racist statement, the other a political.
You know DAMN WELL that Jewish donors give across the gamut of political spectrum, but historically primarily center-left and nearly entirely independantly of positions on Israel.
Further, it is a GOOD THING to care, to care about the comprehensive state of American politics, to care about the comprehensive state of Israel's well-being.
Both goods.
You can add another good to caring about the state of Palestinian well-being.
But, to the extent that you blame Jews in general or Jews for caring about Israel for America's decline, you are in the pasture.
I'm surprised that you, a professional journalist, would allow yourself to go ahead and hit the post button on screeds.
You definitely corner your professional options. You want to work for only for Pat Buchanon for the rest of your professional life, or only get published talking about male infedility?
Why not be a more circumspect, and restrain your public raging?
You don't have to send every e-mail, every post that you draft. You can call it a draft, and think a bit before shooting.
off topic,
could you say more of the dallas news article you sited about. i am too lazy to buy it. it seems to be saying that cheney is criticizing the government, as halliburton chief, for sanctioning countries of the mideast. that it is bad for business. and that until 1996(?) iran was a major client of big oil. am i right?
if so, this is pretty interesting. cheney underwent a huge shift. though my understanding is that he was on board with the clean break crowd very early.
what is slater's motive? phil is surely and obviously right. slater- more dust thrown in the eyes. is he jewish? or works for them? or an academic who has been programmed? WHAT IS THIS INSANITY?
there is a psychological phenomenon called splitting. in a narcissistic disorder a person can know one thing, say, for example, they are taking advantage of someone, even perhaps admit it, and then deny it categorically and passsionately with a great sense of being victimized by the accusation, of a deed a part of them knows they committed. they have split into parts.
i believe that these people truly are indignant at the accusation of dual loyalty, feel truly victimized by it. they believe their elaborate rationalizations, yet can go to aipac and say 'vote for israel first, screw america'. and the two parts aren't aware of each other in some way.
i would go insane without phil. thank god for phil.
Witty: "Jewish donors give across the gamut of political spectrum, but historically primarily center-left and nearly entirely independantly of positions on Israel."
This is wrong, and Witty knows it, although it is difficult to prove. Few US Jewish Zionist donors will publicly come out and admit their disloyalty to America in the fashion of billionaire Haim Saban and say something like: “I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." That would be far too honest. But nearly all of them think along the same lines (Israel first) and you know damn well they apply this litmus test before they donate to any politicians. And the politicians know this, too.
The problem with guys like Slater is that they are intellectually dishonest about issues like this, and they don’t like it when guys like Weiss aren’t, because it shows them up as intellectual cowards on the issue.
The Israeli-Palestinian issue will never be solved until the elephant in the living room — the predomination of wealthy US Jewish Zionist money being used to buy wars and Israel first policy in corrupt Washington, is addressed.
Slater may courageously criticize unbalanced US media coverage on the I-P conflict, but that, too, goes to the predomination of US Jewish Zionist money in terms of US media ownership.
Wealthy, insular Jewish American Zionists who get off on playing toy soldier with US troops and Arabs (and now Persians) are the last people in the world who should be directing US Mideast policy. But in effect, through their money, they are. Why does Slater have issues with Weiss pointing this out?
Tom Friedman in today's NYT, trying to get Obama to focus on someone other than ex-military for his VP slot, says the economy is more important. well of course it is. that doesnt mean Obama should fall for this obvious set-up by Friedman.
Well of course every time Phil talks about jews and money he gets attacked.
E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e knows about money in politics…it's our national cancer.
But zionist who put huge amounts of money into politics for the sole purpose of trying to control US foreign policy in the ME and more favortism for Israel should be talked about…and rooted out for that matter.
Again, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates (prior Rumsfeld) are the individuals responsible for American foreign policy.
They were either elected and/or their position was approved by the US Congress.
If you don't like the selection of staff, elect someone different. If you don't like the approval of official positions (very few Jewish), write to your Congresspeople, or elect different one.
I doubt the assertion "x is Jewish. They inevitably are dually loyal" will carry much weight with a responsible Congressperson.
They recognize racism.
You'd have to make more substantive arguments about a prospective official.
If Mondoweiss is little more than drunk screeds, one must wonder why Rich Witty is still here trying to get his old friend Phil off the justice juice. I mean, really. After all these years?
He's too far gone, Rich.
Wait until he's on his death-bed, or at least gone senile–you know, when there's no more acumen. Then perhaps a fuzzy brain like yours can have its way with 'im.
Your emotional appeals to Phil that you want to sound high-minded are almost entirely passive-aggressive and pathetic. One does wonder why you don't email them directly to Phil? Do you think you are publicly shaming him here?
No one with common sense and conscience could support the idea that militarist Jewish colonialism financed by capitalist imperialism is a "GOOD", at least not in any moral sense.
But maybe you mean that zionism is a GOOD as in "something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want", or "advancement of property or resources" (mw.com)
But wait–weren't we going to NOT talk about that!? And force everybody else not to, as well!?
Maybe you can change your slogan, Richard, from zionism is a GOOD to zionism is SWELL!
What do you think?
Intemperately yours, MM
_____________________________________________________________
"i would go insane without phil. thank god for phil.
Posted by: peters | July 04, 2008 at 12:45 PM"
Me too. And I can tell you as an ex-New Yorker who has settled where there are a lot of younger Jewish kids (under 25) that all of them think like Phil, and groan about their Elders' POV, except to say that if they appear to go along with it they get more toys. Which is pretty funny. One of them told me, "If I go and do that Birthright shit this summer, I get a Beamer."
And, oh, BTW, the kids I talk to agree with Avrum Berg. They think Israel should just be one country, not based on any religion (just like the USA) but that Jews should have a right-of-return as a special dispensation. They dont like the racism, and call it typical Boomer mentality. They dont know how to deal with the fact that Palestinian land was stolen. That issue bothers them, and how it should be resolved seems intractable at this point. One kid said to me, "You dont let your friends drive drunk, but that's what the US does to Israel. But then my parents and grandparents grew up in a time when you had three martinis for lunch, so they dont see anything wrong with cutting some slack for excess."
[My niece goes to school to univ. with this crew, and they hang out at my house once or twice a month.]
________________________________________________________________________________________
Richard Witty, read this and then try to pass off your statement at 11:12 AM as having any truth to it.
Wall Street Journal
Jun 18, 1996. pg. A24, 1 pgs
WASHINGTON — When House Ways and Means staffers began hard bargaining recently over a bill aimed at penalizing foreign firms doing business with Iran, one outside group sat at the table — Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby.
The group's presence was fitting. Aipac had helped shape a similar bill to combat Iranian-backed terrorism and guide it to unanimous Senate passage last December. To raise the issue's profile, it orchestrated threats against foreign companies considering commercial ventures with Tehran and even set up an Internet site loaded with information about Iran.
The measure, which the House is expected to approve today with the Clinton administration's blessing, infuriates some of the U.S.'s closest European allies. Last week in an undiplomatic outburst, the European Union's top executive turned to President Clinton during a joint news conference to complain that it wasn't "justifiable or effective for one country to impose its tactics on another."
But for Aipac, known formally as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the measure isn't just a way to fight international terrorism. It offers the chance for a comeback of sorts, a badly needed way to burnish its own image. [...]
Aipac's funk began in 1992 when Israeli voters elected the Labor Party's Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister, ending 15 years of dominance by the hard-line Likud bloc. On a visit here, Mr. Rabin met privately with Aipac's top leaders, many of whom are conservative and cozy with Likud. The new prime minister read them the riot act, gruffly telling Aipac officials that he would conduct foreign policy directly with the White House and that they should stay out of the way.
Shocked and searching for a way to remain relevant, Aipac hit upon the perfect vehicle — Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Since 1993, the New York Republican had been offering sweeping Iran sanctions bills. Despite the general animosity toward Tehran, the bills languished in Congress. Aipac recognized that all that was needed was an organized effort to refine the legislation and push it through. The lobbying group decided to become the locomotive.
When the Republicans took over Congress in early 1995 and Sen. D'Amato became chairman of the Banking Committee, the bill's fortunes — and Aipac's — were about to change. The administration regularly attacked Iran's support of international terrorism and urged its allies not to do business with Tehran. Then, thanks partly to an Aipac research paper shared with the White House, the administration learned to its embarrassment that U.S. oil companies were Iran's biggest customers by far. [...]
Ironically, the recent election victory of Israel's hard-line Likud party, which is likely to stall peace talks, could create tensions between the U.S. and Israel — and re-energize Aipac's basic mission. "If Clinton tries to put pressure on Israel," says Morris Amitay, a former executive director of Aipac, "he'll find that Aipac will be working with a lot of people in Congress, particularly the Republican majority, who will be happy to take on the White House."
(30)
Richard if you want to know what racist is check this out…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IooFrJ6lfdA
first they came for the arabs, who else is next?
once the blame game starts you know what happens next…just ask the muslims.
it could happen to almost anyone…any group that would be seen as terrorizing the u.s could be seen as criminals to be profiled.
aipac is the greatest intelligence operation ever ran in any country, the host country actually believes that the trojan horse is in its best interest.
Witty: "Again, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates (prior Rumsfeld) are the individuals responsible for American foreign policy. They were either elected and/or their position was approved by the US Congress."
Bush is a "Christian" Zionist, Cheney recognizes Israel is an excellent pretext/excuse to expand Empire/markets, and that Jewish Zionist are expert liars/fabricators, and thus hired JZ's like Feith and Wolfowitz to build a false case against Saddam, probably relying on Israel for document forgery. Rice is a yes woman. Congress, and the mainstream US media, are Zionist Occupied Territory.
US Jewish Zionists say: well, we're good at what we do. Why apologize?
The Nazis were good at what they did, too. Did that make them morally right?
Ed makes a good point here,
"Few US Jewish Zionist donors will publicly come out and admit their disloyalty to America in the fashion of billionaire Haim Saban and say something like: “I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." That would be far too honest. But nearly all of them think along the same lines (Israel first) and you know damn well they apply this litmus test before they donate to any politicians. And the politicians know this, too."
I say that the proof is in the pudding -
few US Jewish Zionist donors publicly admit that their donations are single issue in nature, but the recipients (American politicians) seem to have no qualms about it, repeatedly trumpeting that the security of Israel is thier number one foreign policy issue. Failure to do so would certainly cause the donors to turn off the spigots.
PM
The difference between Phil and Mr Slater is that Phil is a leader and Slater a follower. That's no slight, most of us are followers. Leaders fearlessly exercise thought independent of the usual shibboleths, the truth being more obvious to them, their sight less clouded by fear and conformism. The path of least resistance is not the siren song for them that it is for others.
And so you see people like Phil, Tonies Judt and Karon and a few others, who heard the horses' hooves long before most of their peers were even aware that Richard Witty's posse was even in the saddle (but then, we always are, aren't we?) They are barometers more sensitive to mood than most, and more cool in their analysis of change. Their thought has reached destinations in just a few giant strides, that the Slaters can only approach incrementally.
Let's hope they catch up one day.
The phenomenon of the political impact of Jewish wealth predates and parallels Zionism and must be factored into any study of European history since the beginning of the nineteenth century (since the fifteenth century for Eastern Europe).
See an earlier Mondoweiss comment for a remark about Friedman and the elimination of the draft.
The garbled hyperlink is The Yids Take Over: Nixon, Southern Strategy, Neoconservatives, and Neoliberals.
There is another often overlooked component to the damage that Neocon Jabotinskian/Neolib Friedmanite ideology does to the world.
Irving Kristol, who straddles both the Jabotinskian and Friedmanite factions, attacked the New Class and ecological activism in the 70s in order to market his ideas and get funding. Bushite opposition to environmental regulation can often be traced back to this intellectual source. (I remember a 1970s WSJ op-ed which was practically a pitch for money.)
This is what Phil's talking about. America's elite young learn their enemy's language:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402093.html
Jerry Slater: "…(3)general and genuine U.S. public sympathy with and support for both.."
For Israel,he means.This slight of hand sophism confuses cause with effect. It is the lack of reporting of the influence of Jewish money on politics, that may have alot to do with this public sympathy for Jews and Israel. And come to think of it may be why Jerry is so upset about Phil's exposure of what the truth really is..
The truth might summon up the bogey man…
and is it persecution or loss of privlige that he fears??
Anyway the spectre of antisemitism is always set, by another slight of hand, against the negative outcome of keeping the truth about Israel and the actions of Jewish billionaires
from the public. People are killed and maimed in wars to keep Israel "secure", but no matter, as long as antisemitism is kept at bay… Isn't this the hidden premise?
Comments on this entry are closed.