It is now commonplace for people to predict what John Mearsheimer said six months ago: that if there aren't two states, and fast, Israel is headed for apartheid-struggle in the eyes of the world, with American Jews supporting it; and the 2 state solution doesn't look very likely. But after Obama's victory and the Rahm Emanuel pick, Mearsheimer said to me, The cat is out of the bag! Meaning the discussion had changed. I asked him if this changed the odds on his grim scenario.
Mearsheimer:
My sense is that it is becoming increasingly apparent to all sorts of people, but especially to American Jews, that Israel is headed for big trouble, mainly because it continues to create a Greater Israel and deny the Palestinians a state of their own.
There will be two reactions. Lots of supporters will start thinking of ways to get Israel to accept a two-state solution. This is what J Street is all about. Lots of others will redouble their efforts to defend Israel, in large part because they favor a Greater Israel and believe they can dominate the discourse here as they have in the past, thus insulating Israel from criticism.
Which side wins?
I used to think the bad guys would win for as far into the future as I could see. But I am not so sure any more. The internet changes things so much, because it makes it possible for the Phil Weiss's of the world to reach a huge number of people. The lobby simply cannot dominate the discourse the way it used to. For example, I have been amazed by how much coverage the Rahm Emanuel-Israel connection has gotten on the internet, and it is now beginning to seep into the mainstream media. And if you are a Gramscian and believe that ideas matter, this change in the discourse could be quite profound. Simply put, it is getting very hard to defend Israel's behavior these days and it looks like it will get increasingly difficult with time.
All of this is to say I am not sure where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is headed, but there are some positive signs.
Related posts:
- A dozen or more signs that the Israel lobby has been exposed to kryptonite
- Re Emanuel, the Left Continues to Be Claimed by the Israel Lobby
- Mearsheimer: the lobby can’t hide the fact it is siding with Israel against the US president
- Norah O’Donnell Sees Israel Lobby Behind Carter Row
- Press Differs on Whether Emanuel Will Serve Israel
{ 24 comments }
Phil,
It is huge that you got this exclusive from Mearsheimer, whose voice has been muffled by the whatever it is. You are the new media. You should actively seek out the voices of other such criers in the wilderness. Walt. Finklestein. Talk to Stephen Bloom at Iowa. You know the list better than anyone. And not just in America, but in Israel and Europe. Your becoming required reading.
If you are a Gramscian, Phil, then you absolutely have to read (dense tho it is) Ian Lustick's "Unsettled States, Disputed Lands" (Cornell 1993, 450pp + 114n)
I strongly agree that the water has changed as far as attitude.
For the actual change to occur, objective changes in both Israeli, Palestinian and Arab behavior need to occur.
Hezbollah announcing that they will not accept Israel at 67 borders. Hamas returning to shelling. Both are NOT the paths to any peace or "justice".
The consequence of Obama's presidency will be a marginalization of all fanatics (left, right, nationalist, religious).
The marginalization will be real, but will also sleep. Fanatics will lie low, teaching, some arming.
You needed Saint Mearsheimer to describe that simple prediction to you?
Still really annoyed that Mearsheimer broke the kosher seal of approval on enlightening free speech, eh Witty?
Mearsheimer: "Lots of others will redouble their efforts to defend Israel, in large part because they favor a Greater Israel and believe they can dominate the discourse here as they have in the past"
—-
This is significant, because Mearsheimer, and expert on the subject, is acknowledging that a large percentage of the Jewish Zionists in this country have a Greater Israel agenda–an expansionist Israel agenda.
“How can this ever work?” cry the skeptics. “Why would the Jews want to govern large swaths of Arabs across the Mideast?” They don’t want to govern them; they want American troops to govern them–to “break” them–in order that Israel can cherry pick the currently occupied areas of the West Bank that it wants (with an eye on eventually taking the entirety of the “Promised Land,”) and to make it safe for Jewish Israelis and diaspora Jewish Zionists to financially exploit the surrounding areas.
This is a long term, hundred year plan, and always has been. The Jewish Neocons who lied America into war were planning decades down the road. The US military is just hired help used by them to attain Zionist Empire goals, paid for by pittance campaign donations to corrupt Democrats and Republicans. Future historians will recognize it as the greatest swindle in history, and shake their heads at the venality of this morally weak and corrupt generation of Americans that sold out their entire country and its future for the sake of political correctness and a pittance of filthy lucre.
Interesting that he mentions Gramski. Maybe even more that he agrees with Phil's basic optimism. Is that the Obama effect on the theoretician?
Meanwhile a traditionally persecuted religious group is one more time singled out by an infamous hate site displaying age-old stereotypes of its alleged ties to money and power:
" the extraordinary role this group played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers."
Yeah, Bantam, I read that NYT piece on the Mormons OUT LOUD and substituted the word Jew for Mormon and marveled that we would never see the same without howls of anti-semitism, even if the info were true.
"Still really annoyed that Mearsheimer broke the kosher seal of approval on enlightening free speech, eh Witty?"
No, annoyed that Saint Mearsheimer would be given such laudatory praise for comments that are so evident, that Phil's "opponents" (J Street, liberal Zionists) routinely express.
I think Britain's creating Jordan out of Trans Jordan and making it independent of their Mandate was "void ab initio" under international law. Consequently, Jordan is actually part of Israel! Thusly, I have spoken!
PS. Witty's "word is void"!!!!!!!!
PS.Too bad "Hashemite Kingdom"!!!!! You might want to consider Uganda (a land without people for a people without a land)!!!!!!!
PS. Russ Feingold for Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (replacing Biden)
?
WITTY POSTED: "The consequence of Obama's presidency will be a marginalization of all fanatics (left, right, nationalist, religious).
The marginalization will be real, but will also sleep. Fanatics will lie low, teaching, some arming."
MOST OF THEM GOING ONTO THE PAYROLL AT THE (UN)AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE!!!!
?
The fanatics include the far left (which will likely not have much of Obama's ear), the left/right (which will likely have less of Obama's ear).
Pragmatists with a motive towards MUTUAL peace, likely will have his ear, on Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, economy, and all issues of governance.
My sense is that he is trying to ACCOMPLISH good, more than sound good to himself.
My sense is that he is trying to ACCOMPLISH good, more than sound good to himself.
So he is somehow similar to Mearsheimer? Saint Obama? Of course only if Saint Mearsheimer is not cynical?
Some evidence is found that cynicism is less a deep rooted attitude towards politics than an easy consensus in discussions about politics and a way out of the stress of having exaggerated ideals of politics and political involvement
Irony alert!
The satire of the term "Saint Mearsheimer" is more a comment on his followers, than on him.
I assume that Mearsheimer's words are what he means, that he is honest.
In that, I'm thankful that he is advocating for a two-state solution, and in terms that are functional and fair to all responsible parties.
RE: "Still really annoyed that Mearsheimer broke the kosher seal of approval on enlightening free speech, eh Witty?"
No, annoyed that Saint Mearsheimer would be given such laudatory praise for comments that are so evident, that Phil's "opponents" (J Street, liberal Zionists) routinely express. (Witty)
______________________________________________________________
Evident to whom, and when? What's the criteria for being a "liberal
Zionist? Mearsheimer deserves great credit for his courage in bringing the hot potato to the attention of mainstream America,
along with Carter. Their credentials and past history allowed J Street's formation.
J Street was founded in April, 2008.
The Atlantic Monthly W & M article on the Israel lobby was commissioned in the Fall of 2002. The final version was then rejected by the AM January 2005. The article finally found a publisher outside the USA–The LRB published it in March 2006.
The book The Israel Lobby by W & M was published in 2007.
excellent observation, anon.
The satire of the term "Saint Mearsheimer" is more a comment on his followers, than on him.
I think, Richard, you don't understand or don't try to understand Phil's position. The subject had been around for quite some time. My initial reaction was pretty much like yours, but on second thought I found it both brave and healthy that W/M brought it into public discourse.
I found the rapturousness about US unilateralism, the exhibited eagerness to nuke the Arabs into surrender unaesthetic to look at.
The real world is so frightening that I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton will be foolish enough to accept the job of secretary of state; anyone who takes that job is almost certain to fail. How can anyone believe that he or she has a good chance of dealing with:
–the expanding anti-American alliance, now including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, China, North Korea and Syria (remember that the “Axis of Evil” had only three charter members);
I'm a bit amused by Mearsheimer's alleged enthusiasm for the organization J Street.
In the latest election, J Street formed a PAC and endorsed 13 Congressional candidates “from all corners of the country, Republicans and Democrats, Arab-Americans and Jews, incumbents and newly minted challengers—all who share JStreetPAC’s belief in the strategic value of tough, smart diplomacy to help resolve conflicts in the Middle East.” Among those candidates was Democrat Tom Perriello. According to J Street: “He co-founded Avaaz.org, an Internet advocacy group with a truly global reach, spent years waging peace in West Africa, and is a signatory to the ‘Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.’ Tom’s expertise in transnational justice also took him to Darfur where he met with rebel and civilian leaders to advance a new round of peace negotiations in 2005. He believes that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ‘key’ and that Congress should not tie the parties’ hands as they attempt to reach this goal.”
However J Street’s endorsements were reported in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, under the article title: “Pro-Israel PACs: Disguises and Permutations.” The magazine recorded JStreetPAC’s financial contributions to these candidates and concluded: “We took the opportunity of attending a Capitol Hill hearing at which Dr. John Mearsheimer was a panelist to ask him if, as a researcher, he would find it misleading if JStreetPAC were included among the other pro-Israel PACs. ‘Not at all!’ replied the co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy—and that’s good enough for us.”
Apparently, in Mearsheimer’s view, an organization that advocates a two-state solution, opposes war with Iran, and describes Israeli settlements as “an obstacle to peace” is still, in the end, part of the nefarious “Israel Lobby.”
I don't see anything self-contradictory about that at all, david.
Well, anyway you look at it, there is at least an agreement that
Israel's policy of establishing "facts on the ground" is being seen
as an obstacle to peace, rather than leverage for a peace involving continued blood and soil lebensraum.
Comments on this entry are closed.