The Forward used to be fearful about the charge that Israel-centric neocons drove the Iraq war planning. When Walt and Mearsheimer said as much, the Forward accused them of antisemitism; “in dark times blame the Jews.” Now, in the wake of the Talansky-Olmert scandal, in which diaspora revolving-door-ism and tail-wagging-dog-wagging-tail-ism has reached a new height, the Forward is making jokes on the same subject: “In March 2003 came the few dozen Zionist neocons who finagled the Bush administration into invading Iraq for Israel’s benefit.”
What did Freud say about jokes?
The same editorial blames journalists for spilling “rivers of ink” on Sheldon Adelson. Oh my, the third richest man in the country, the funder of birthright, One Jerusalem, and Freedom’s Watch, and the Forward is urging journalists to be incurious? What has befallen my people in the age of neoconservatism?
Oh I can’t get enough of this one. The piece ends with the comment that half of Israeli society wants to give up the West Bank, the other half doesn’t. And we expect that brutalized society to figure out the answer? These folks need international pressure…
(Thanks to Joachim Martillo for the headsup)
Israel needs outside pressure? From all those informed Americans who know half of Israel wants to give up the West Bank?
The Forward: “The sentiment that seems to come out of some quarters in Israel is that Diaspora Jews can and should speak out on the affairs of every country, except the one they care about most deeply."
Talk about a Freudian admission from both the Israeli and diaspora perspective that the nation-within-a-nation of Zion is more loyal to Israel than America. But of course diaspora Jewish Zionists care “most deeply” about Israel; in the retrospective not only of recent events, but of decades, don’t all their actions bear that out? And this applies to more than just the issue of Zionism and wars for Zionism. Why, just look at how Hollywood has trashed American culture, and how Wall Street Jews and Jewish Zionist politicians have prostituted America for a quick buck. It’s all consistent with the behavior of a group with one foot in Israel, and one in America, and a group that has a burning, latent hatred of non-Jews.
Outside pressure? From the US? Not going to happen. Even though support for Israel is likely to weaken here, I do not believe the US can ever pressure Israel to do anything — the issue will remain too contentious here. Because the pressure will have to be immense. The opposition in Israel is just too intense. That is why we should start backing the one-state solution. Here is why. The status quo can not be maintained. The apartheid solution just won't work. This leaves very few choices. Transfer and/or genocide would probably be unacceptable to the rest of the world. What choice remains but the one-state solution.
We should push for that now because then a world wide political movement pushing for civil liberties for all Palestinians could start today. This question is always pushed into the future during the two-state debate. The other virtue of a political movement for one-state is that it may create the pressure that is needed to break the opposition to a two state solution. If not, then at the end of the process, the Palestinians would have their civil liberties inside the State of Israel.
Give up the West Bank to whom?
A US occupation to protect the civilians from the effects of triangular civil war?
Somewhat OT:
Sy Hersh in today's FT Magazine (sub req'd)re Iran, Israel and Obama:
“We’re still doing crap there. A lot of stuff that’s not publicly known. And our intentions are not good. And now we have the Israelis with us, who see Iran as an existential threat. You’ve got the clock running. You’ve got a guy running, Obama, that neither the Israelis nor the White House wants to win. He’s a different kettle of fish. He doesn’t collect $50m a year from the American Jewish contributors in New York. They don’t have their hooks in him as much.”
Here's a good article about the importance of Klein in what yet may reach the status of a public debate, including kudos to Phil: link to antiwar.com
Here's a good article about the importance of Klein in what yet may reach the status of a public debate, including kudos to Phil: link to antiwar.com
Maybe Klein feels the ground shifting beneath his feet, unlike Witty, who has less sensitive feet, and just wants to jump on the bandwagon emerging; anyway, here's the current timeline context:link to electronicintifada.net
Thanks for bringing up this editorial Phil. Your observations are often incisive and your writing is always excellent, but you seem to have glossed over some of the other notable observations that can be made about this editorial. There are at least two observations that cannot be left unsaid:
First, the Forward openly recognizes that Diaspora Jews harbor dual loyalties: When it ridicules the nativist thinking in Israel that "Diaspora Jews can and should speak out on the affairs of every country, except the one they care about most deeply" The Forward readily concedes that the foremost loyalty of Diaspora Jews is not to their native country but to Israel! This really isn't too different from the assumptions made by nativists here who hold that a cosmopolitan “globalist” elite is willing treat our country like a rented mule. They will use this country to wage needless wars of aggression miring us in more debt than we can afford to pay. They care not if America collapses. They have no enduring interest in this country and can and will pack up and leave once the sh!t hits the fan. After all, they are Jews in exile first; Americans second.
Second, the Forward disparages America's democratic political tradition as one that is inherently corrupt and it openly expresses totalitarian leanings. The Forward ridicules American style democratic reforms. It prefers "backroom nominating committees" to primary elections, arguing that the electoral process and the need to raise funds make the system even more corrupt than it would otherwise be. Moreover, it also denounces the personal election of prime ministers because the process "frees Israelis" from the pressure to vote for a major party. This prevents the consolidation of power into only a few political parties much as our two party system does in the United States.
If anything, most people would prefer a political system in which voters can choose from a large number of political parties all of whom have a realistic chance of being represented. It would certainly be more democratic than the kind of two-party politics we have in America. Our two-party stranglehold on politics leads to a great deal of cynicism and low voter turnout. As Goldwater said, "there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them" and those who take policy formation seriously and closely examine their own political beliefs in this country all know it.
It saddens me that a liberal progressive publication like the Forward readily concedes that Jews do in fact harbor dual loyalties, that in fact Jews are more loyal to Israel than their native country and that it thinks of democracy as process that invites corruption and fails to properly constrain voters’ choices.
here's the link to agog's FT interview:
link to us.ft.com
/>
Is Klein jumping on the bandwagon Witty does not see? Or does Klein have integrity? If the latter, its a small step for mankind on the Zionist moon.