Ralph Seliger has a piece at Meretz selling Joe Biden as Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace to progressive Zionists. Seliger writes, "This JTA news service profile of Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware should reassure both nervous pro-Israel voters and those who seek a reasonable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The excerpted piece says that Biden has sparred frequently with the pro-Israel community on "settlements," but there is no evidence of this sparring offered, and what is offered are the usual testimonials by Biden to the righteousness of Israel and the bankruptcy of the Palestinians, and the non-connection between the Iraq war and the Israeli occupation.
Seliger's selection of this piece demonstrates the tight ideological corner the progressive Zionist community finds itself in. Right now the two-state solution is in utter peril and you'd think that they would be calling on candidates to come out against the occupation to save Israel, and quoting Jimmy Carter and Ehud Olmert on apartheid. But no, Seliger knows that even if he personally gave Biden cover for such a strong anti-occupation position, it would send Meretz's progressive constituents running. That's because progressive Zionists are scarcely distinguishable from AIPAC in terms of being "nervous pro-Israel voters." As a Brit Tzedek board member pointed out recently, the huge blocs of fearful Jews and realistic-peace-Jews are neighbors–while Palestinian-solidarity Jews like me aren't even at the table.
Seliger's comments suggest that the Meretz community is as fearful about Obama as the more conservative Jewish community, and in order to win the fearful to Obama he has to offer AIPAC-style red meat. Why isn't Meretz saying, "Obama and Biden are too soft on settlements! The 2-state solution is in danger!" (The line even Jeffrey Goldberg has.) Because the occupation is not the litmus test. Unvarying support for Israel is the litmus test! And that's the problem.
there are at least 3 topics at commentary blog on some alleged interaction biden had with some israeli guy about the settlements from like 1982.
One conflict that I have with Phil is how he positions his headlines.
Very hot, far more often than not casting aspersions on Israel, Jews, Israelis. The content is less so, but not significantly so.
Brit Zedek is an interesting organization in that respect. It casts its peace-seeking, its occassionally very harsh criticism, nearly solely in positive fashion. Analagous to J Street. "A better way to be pro-Israel".
I like it much better. It is a form that is possible to attract effective and dedicated individuals, whereas the "dissenting" resentful form attracts only angry people.
Brit Zedek does attract individuals that experience a disconuity between rah-rah Israel approach and a humble live and let live approach, but evokes compassion rather than anger from that discontinuity.
I look at Phil's audience, and I see very very few new voices, very few new perspectives, very little diversity.
I don't think he is educating.
And, in that respect, I call this blog work a failure.
Being Jewish, he has insight into what would positively appeal to the best of Jews' sensitivity.
But, here in the blog, he often dares Jews to be offended. He intentionally is a little biting.
I like being respected more than I like being dared.
Others do as well.
Don't forget to occasionally comment on the actual subject of Phil's posts, Richard.
Otherwise people might start to get the impression that you're more interested in stopping the conversation, than in contributing to it.
Phil's comments were on the distinction in orientation.
He's a Palestinian solidarity Jew. I'm merely sympathetic to human experience, and pro-peace.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict has received the right amount of attention in the race. Some, but not fixated.
I look at Phil's audience, and I see very very few new voices, very few new perspectives, very little diversity.
Very few. Very, very little.
I don't see any zionists commenting, for example. Adding a few zionist perspectives would greatly increase the FEEL of diversity on Phil's blog.
Instead it feels like a monolithic block of anti-Semites.
Instead of embracing, Phil talks down to J Street, myself, and others. Politeness aside, he only references us to refute us.
Where is Phil's open-mindedness?
I can see Phil's audience here and they are a bunch of closed-minded ideological conformists. Every one of them seems to drink the "Palestinians are humans" kool-aid.
If Phil were more concerned with his tribe, he would start censoring his more intelligent critiques in favor of feel-good pieces about the Birthright program, or Israeli chicks on the beach playing volleyball.
If he were concerned with America, he would endorse Barack Obama's fielty to the zionist cause. Zionism is good for America. That's why the word itself is almost never uttered in the American media–like G-d, it's too damn good and holy to even be mentioned.
It is good that Barack Obama picked Joe Biden. It shows that he values diversity the same way I do.
Americans will be able to choose between four wealthy senators. Four committed zionists. Two slightly different platforms.
Sometimes it seems like Phil wants to be a part of that process. He carries water for Barack almost every day. Why can't he just affirm that zionism is good, so he can get in to the only game in town?
Funny.
But Phil himself knows that his time here is largely wasted. (as is mine).
"I look at Phil's audience, and I see very very few new voices, very few new perspectives, very little diversity.
I don't think he is educating.
And, in that respect, I call this blog work a failure."
Does this mean you won't be posting here anymore?
It shouldn't surprise me that Phil would come up with this hostile and completely false, ideological position. My point about Biden is that he supports an end to settlements, as we all do, and is prepared to debate this with nervous Jews who don't understand that a two-state solution and ending the occupation are in Israel's best interest.
I don't know if Phil believes in peace in the Middle East. He clearly does not believe in peace with me nor with these terrible people he calls "progressive Zionists."
Since he's busy writing a book that's likely to attack us as thoroughly as he can, it's apparently in his interest to label us as enemies. This is sad and a disservice to truth.
But Phil himself knows that his time here is largely wasted.
Could say the same thing of Jeremiah.
Ralph Seliger claims that the point of his piece is that Joe Biden is wlling to go toe-to-toe with "worried Jews" and convert them to the position of ending the settlements. (Apparently there are still of lot of Meretz Jews in need of conversion on this point; I didn't know that.)
Phil Weiss claims the piece seemed to be more about reassuring Meretz Jews that Joe Biden is a true friend of Israel. (The eternal question.)
Luckily we have the piece itself to examine so we can make up our own minds. Personally, I'd be surprised if anyone could read that and side with Seliger's interpretation. Just on the basis of word-count, 99% of the piece is devoted to proving Biden's loyalty to Israel. There is next to NOTHING about any willingness to hold Israel responsible for its actions. It's a wonderful testimonial, but for an Israeli candidate, not an American one.
I say, guilty as charged.
link to meretzusa.blogspot.com
BTW, what in Phil's post justifies Seliger's throwing around the term "enemy"?
I'd call Meretz "liberal Zionists" rather than "progressive Zionists." I meant that in the sense that they are willing to criticize government policy, but only to a point. They are not willing to stray too far fr. a perceived Israeli consensus around certain issues usually related to national security & relations w. the Arab world.
Personally, I broke w. Meretz & specifically Yossi Beilin when they supported the Lebanon war (at least at the beginning). That war should have been clear to any progressive that it was a disaster from the get go. Opposition to it was a litmus test for me. If you couldn't see yr way to opposing the war then you weren't a true progressive. If you could (& not many of us could), you were a progressive.
True, Meretz eventually came to oppose the war. But too late to have any impact.
Finally, I consider myself a progressive Zionist who is critical of both Meretz and Brit Tzedek at times.
Meretz regards the security of Israeli civilians as a valid responsibility of good governance.
They distinguish between response and over-reaction, thankfully.
I don't know what proposal you had with regard to the abduction and accompanying events in Lebanon. I doubt you had a confidently good one. No one did.
The context at the time was that there had been shelling of Sderot and Ashkelon for years, escalated, two abduction attempts in Israel from Gaza, an abduction attempt and large caught bombing attempt from the West Bank in the week before the Lebanon hostilities started.
When Hezbollah initiated its abduction by shelling two cites within Israel (one civilian) before conducting the planned abduction within Israel, Israel perceived that as initiation of an opportunistic THIRD front and by a force that was organized and highly armed.
They directed their attention nearly solely to Lebanon.
By rejecting initial UN requests for the release of the soldiers, they signaled their intent to go to war, literally.
The criticism of Israeli military actions by Meretz began rationally, when it became obvious that the military effort in Lebanon had ceased being defensive or even rationally oriented to freeing the abducted soldiers.
On the left, they entirely neglected the context of the conflict, and Juan Cole insisted for a week that the abduction had occurred within Lebanon, in spite of published UNIFIL reports that the abduction had occurred in Israel. He believed Nasrallah more than UNIFIL.
If you "broke" with Meretz on that merit, then you took an odd position in my book.
I think it is important for Phil to note Seliger's reaction to the tone of the comments.
You might agree about a lot, but the feeling of attack is conveyed in many of Phil's posts.
And the audience loves it.
If you "broke" with Meretz on that merit, then you took an odd position in my book.
Yeah but your book is the Book of Stupid.
Olmert admitted they'd been planning the war before the kidnappings. And the clusterbombings at the end made the original intent quite clear.
Why did Israel occupy the Littany basin from 1982 on?
Did water have anything to do with it?
As a zionist you ought to be thanking Richard Silverstein for his principled stance. He's got his progressivism and his zionism in the right proportion. No Lebanon war apologist is going to score points with any non-zionist progressive, that's for sure.
Years from now, Richard will be telling readers that he vigorously opposed the 2006 Lebanese war.
(But he won't tell them where he was doing it.)
I opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan. I opposed the US invasion of Iraq.
I supported Israel's effort to return their abducted soldiers, and condemned Hezbollah for intentionally shelling non-military targets in the original abduction process and later.
A humanist should.
Here's something that describes how I feel about Mondoweiss -
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." ~ William Blake
~
Blake AVOIDED politics.
"I opposed the US invasion of Iraq."
Then why won't you tell us where you did it? We could look up your work and it would make inspiring reading for "liberal Zionists" currently engaged in the struggle against war in Iran.
Haaretz on the Lebanon war–
"In a war INITIATED BY ISRAEL against a relatively small guerrilla group several kilometers away from home, the results are all the more painful."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/891930.html
Blake AVOIDED politics.
Posted by: Richard Witty | August 28, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Everyone is free to choose the 'truths' that are important to them. The quote stands as given.
~
Thanks Lance, I put that in my notebook. It's a good maxim for this Age of the P-R Man.
On Blake,
Be sure that you are talking about the same thing that he is.
If a quote is literally what you quote, but very different than the author's meaning, is that even a quote?
Richard, I suspect you will never be able to understand the meaning of that quote. Not in a million years.