I am a giant optimist, it's one of my character flaws. Lately I was kvelling (Yiddish: chirping/gushing) to Stephen Walt that the world is changing on Middle East policy, and the lobby was loosening its grasp on the discourse, and that he and John Mearsheimer are the Harriet Beecher Stowes of this transformation, having written the big book. He responded in this way:
I agree that a lot has changed.
Walter Russell Mead has a new piece in Foreign Affairs
arguing that Obama should openly acknowledge that the Palestinians were
the victims of a historic injustice in 1948, and that a
two-state solution
is the only way to acknowledge and reconcile the wrongs done to both
Jews and Palestinians. Mead has long been a reliable weathervane to
shifting opinion, and he is beginning to figure out that
U.S. Middle East policy
has been deeply screwed up. He canât acknowledge why weâve had such a
counterproductive policy, however, so he repeats the familiar mantra
that "support for
Israel runs very deep among Americans." Of course, this claim wrongly assumes
that the broad but shallow support that many Americans have for
Israelâs existence
means that there is strong backing for the âspecial relationship" (the
policy of unconditional and uncritical support). Heâs wrong: most
Americans think our policy should be more evenhanded. Still, I see this
as progress. Similarly, Martin Indyk
of Brookingsâ Saban Center recently said that
"the era of the blank
check was over.â This is a remarkable statement: Indyk is acknowledging
that there was a blank check in the past and saying this is now
changing. (Weâll see). But wait, there's more: the new Council on
Foreign Relations/Brookings Institution book edited by Indyk and CFR
President Richard Haass has a c
hapter by Shibley Telhami and Steven Cook that advocates making the U.S.-Israeli aid package conditional on an end to
Israeli settlement expansion. Amazing. Even Jeff Goldberg has been complaining about the lobby's harmful influence.
What is happening, I hope, is a
redefinition of what it means to be âpro-Israel.â Thoughtful people are
beginning to realize that uncritical support for the Jewish state isnât
âpro-Israel,â because it has encouraged policies that threaten Israel's
long-term future. Similarly, critics of certain Israeli policies like
Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinki,
Avraham Burg,
and John and myself arenât âanti-Israelâ--they simply think that the
âspecial relationshipâ is no longer good for either country (if it ever
was), and that a normal relationship would be better for both.
A couple comments. As my father always says, Without fireworks. Adjustments of Jewish power, post-Holocaust, will happen quietly, with no announcement. In a sense, the fury directed at Walt and Mearsheimer were the only fireworks. And even as those smears were launched, the lobby quietly folded its tent, and retrenched, slightly. The Indyk admission is amazing. And it demonstrates: These guys lied about the lobby all night and all day, and got Walter Russell Mead to lend his triple barrelled minister's kid imprimatur, for a time.
About Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
if Americans knew, you think there would be a deep and abiding support, by the other non-tribalists? The 98%? Surely not.
Justice for the Palestinians, and this needs to start in the media. The NY Times is de facto guilty in the nexus of war crimes.
I don't think Americans love Israel when they understand the truth of the situation. Just talking points by the politicians, spin by the lobby, weasel words not parsed by the media.
The historic injustice is 1917, not 1948; the urge to colonise, of which the Nakba was only one consequence.
Yes, the historic justification of injustice does go back to 1917, which was a BIG cause of WW2, and the on-going war in Iraq, as well
as the 3 month clock to be given to the Persians, precondition in the
current environment for bombing Iran, the prequel for WW3. It is not insignificant that Balfour sent his msg to Rothschild. I'm still trying to figure out if historical Britain and historical Jewish politics indicate
a net plus or minus. I'd say generally, the average man affected by either, it's been a definite loss. Why should we just repeat this process endlessly? Who really represents modern man now? What is to be done (now)?
Most Americans either could care less about Israel or the Palestinians–more like, how are they gonna pay their mortgage or rent, or, very charitably, they want an even-handed approach.
This is not 1938, it's nearly 2009. "Appeasement" today must recognize the powerhouse Israel, paid for in blood and taxes by
goy masses.
The Germans, totally oh their ass, with nothing after being seduced by Wilson's idealism, did not just roll over. And neither
will the Axis Of Evil as determined by our elite crew of draft doggers, bi-partisan, and now, looking with relief as Obama
appoints his new-old crew.
Phil,
Is Walt an anti-Zionist (as you recently described yourself)?
Or, is he, like me, critical of specific policies and practises?
Phil:
Richard Witty asks whether I am an âanti-Zionist.â The answer is no, and neither is John Mearsheimer. Witty has been quite critical of our work on the Israel lobby, but his question suggests that he did not read it very carefully. In both our original article and subsequent book we made it abundantly clear that we support Israelâs existence. For example, in the Introduction of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy we write âwe are not challenging Israelâs right to exist or questioning the legitimacy of the Jewish state. There are those who maintain that Israel should not have been created, or who want to see Israel transformed from a Jewish state into a binational democracy. We do not. On the contrary, we believe the history of the Jewish people and the norm of national self-determination provide ample justification for a Jewish state. We think the United States should stand willing to come to Israelâs aid if its survival were in jeopardyâ (pp. 11-12). We repeat these sentiments at several other places in the book, noting at one point that âwe support [Israelâs] right to exist, admire its many achievements, want its citizens to enjoy secure and prosperous lives, and believe the United States should come to Israelâs aid if its survial is in danger" (pp. 113-14). The bookâs Conclusion calls for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, and suggests that treating Israel as a normal state would in fact be better for the United States and Israel alike. Needless to say, these are not sentiments that an anti-Zionist would publish.
Given what we actually wrote, I still find it remarkable that some people think we could be anti-Israel or anti-Zionist (let alone anti-Semitic). But as we all know, this is not a subject where reason and fair-minded discourse prevail. Yet.
In fact, the rather defensive "we are arguing this for Israel's benefit" wrapper on Walt&Mearsheimer is one of the books worst aspects. Of course, the authors feared being 'nuked' in the public arena, as in fact they were, and so various defensive precautions were wise, but the logic of the book is that jewish colonialism has unleashed a band of settler bigots onto the native population of Palestine and that it has activated colonialist and militarist forces in US politics, in both cases quite similar to the French colonisation of Algeria and the right-wing forces that unleashed in French politics. So it's quite possible to read W&M and draw conclusions more sceptical of supporting Israel or a 'two state solution' than the authors themselves proposed.
If a man possess the truth, let him bear witness to it.
Behold!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_nYf7qMqjo
For what shall it profit an Edomite, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own foreskin? (Golden Age Version)
Mark 8:36
It is called "the State of Israel" for a reason. A state is legally an entity of flux. Its borders are deliberately undefined, for the aim is as was given by the Lord above. If you Edomites did not fool him then, why should you believe you can fool him now? Or me? Right to exist? Chutzpah.
Take it up with your defunct god Lucifer. Your blessed end draws nigh.
Stephen Walt, you are being too kind. Witty has smeared your book for two years on this blog. You could go back and read his comments. I've read your book, and often called his smear to account on this blog, as have others. Witty's take on your book, which I don't find any evidence he ever actually read, is borrowed from the critiques of it of rabid American Zionists. His take has been that, while you toss out a few preliminary "pro-Israel" & pro-semitic sentences, such as you write above, the bulk of the book is devoted
to showing your anti=semitic thrust, even if you do use Jewish sources for nearly all or that. To please Witty, according to Witty,
you would have had to spend a decade trying to get some honest
interviews with all the AIPAC types and supporters. LOL
[...] suggests that treating Israel as a normal state would in fact be better for the United States and Israel alike. Needless to say, these are not sentiments that an anti-Zionist would publish. — Walt
Well, that's my definition of an anti-Zionist: "treating Israel as a normal state." And I call myself anti-Zionist.
Anti-Jewish people would object to theocratic nature of Israel. I dont.
And here is an example of why I am anti-Zionist. From a Politico article on Caroline Kennedy's effort to become a US senator:
A leader of a major Jewish organization with a large New York constituency who read Kennedy's full response said, "This answer from Ms. Kennedy is a good start, but not sufficient from a person who wants to be the US Senator from the state with the largest number of American Jews. [...]
2.4% of this country does not have carte blanche to dictate a catastrophic pre-emptive war with Iran that will devastate the US because they believe Zionism should trump all else, and can't read NIEs or IAEA reports (Dec 2008), nor even believe Tzipi Livni's remarks behind closed doors reported over a year ago that Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel.
To ask me to have any sympathy whatsoever for this evil and destructive, and completely immoral, line of thinking is preposterous.
Here is the correct Tzipi Livni link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html
otto wrote:
"The historic injustice is 1917, not 1948; the urge to colonise, of which the Nakba was only one consequence."
Speaking of Walt and Mearsheimer, it seems to me this also gets to the heart of the matter and maybe points out where people who are opposed to what Israel is doing now in the occupied territories are hurting themselves.
That is, it seems to me W&M very sensibly acknowledged that the imposition of the state of Israel on the Palestinians was a big wrong. But it was no more of a wrong historically than the founding of damn near every state today. So for those who are against the existence of Israel at all, the question is why they aren't then also going about demanding that all these other countries dissolve themselves too.
And by arguing essentially for the dissolution of the State of Israel the movement to get it to withdraw from the occupied territories and reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians is essentially being terribly splintered, with that splintering only helping those who want to see nothing done.
Firstly, they allow those who like the status quo to brand the entire movement with being anti-semites, anti-zionists, haters of Israel and/or jews or etc. And that's deeply and totally unfair to many of us.
But it's also simply and wildly unrealistic. Whatever else the American people believe/want/or etc. it seems to me that regardless of why almost none would sign on to the idea that America should stand by or support the destruction of the State of Israel. Nuts, even in Great Britian and Europe I think you couldn't get 5-10% of the people to endorse the idea of dissolving Israel.
So it's not only harmful but wildly unrealistic to go about arguing or etc. that Israel should essentially be dismantled. Thanks to the very brave W&M there has been some progress towards talking openly about U.S. policy subsidizing the colonization Israel is engaged in. But perhaps the greatest threat to that progress is the ability to demonize those who support same and brand them as extremists and people who want to destroy Israel.
If I were a great scholar, devoted to understanding the ways the world, I would have a look at Martillo's Judonia concept and try to understand in what sense Israel can help the virtual colonial motherland (weapons cache and expertise, presence in the political and financial international framework, escape route from judicial accountability, etc). In any case I doubt it's possible to asign to Israel any benign reason for existing which would outmatch the many evils it will cause. Understanding that, as far as I know, should be priority for a Realist scholar, moreso for a trully remarkable one.
"But it was no more of a wrong historically than the founding of damn near every state today"
That's exactly the same argument that the French colonists in Algeria and the South African whites used: we're just doing what states and conquerors have always done. But it's an appeal to naked bigotry in the Israeli case, and indeed the same bigotry that French Algeria and South Africa were committed to. And indeed anyone making those arguments to justify South Africa would ipso facto declare themselves bigots, just as they do in the case of Israel. It's like saying that most human were born through rape, and using it to justify rape now, today. Israel is just another European settler colony which has declared UDI, and their contemporary behaviour, right now, is directly derived from the way it was born, by racist colonisation against the native population. And the solution is the same as for South Africa: a one state solution, and deprivileging of the colonisers in favour of the native majority.
I haven't read W&Ms book but I have heard them speak, and I have no idea how anyone could view them as anything other than pro-Israel. They may not support everything that Israel does, but I have no impression that they wish harm to Israel. I just see no reason to read their book, since I don't view Israel as my problem in any way. Conditional support for Israel is just conditional support for the lobby.
My view may seem narrow or rigid, but I have relatives who have devastating mental and physical scars from war, and most people that I know really are financially burdened by government, and the thought of
the massive amounts of resources spent on securing Israel is maddening. Why should an average American work, pay taxes and obey the laws, when his well-being is always secondary, and the elites have different standards? It makes no sense. Israel shoudn't be my burden, and neither should an elite that pushes foreign interests-modified or not.
Walt should address the real bottom line …THIS is the core discussion the country should be having….if we want to keep the country. It applies to the US Jews and other groups alike. Are going to be America or are we going to continue to be an international shoppping bazzare for any group with 30 pieces of silver?
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. "
Geo Washington Farewell Address 1776
Walt assumes that the state of Israel is in the interest of Jews. I say it is not,and never has been. To the contrary even the alliance between zionists and the national socialists (read:nazis)of Germany in the early 30's,actually worked to break the boycott of Germany,and therefore aided Hitler in defeating opposition to his regime. This is only one example of zionist collaboration.
Now,to argue that Jews must be served at the expense of the Palestinians by a two state solution,(a gerrymandered resource-less territory)is evidence of how zionism in any form is reactionary…
Finallly, the idea that zionism expresses a right to self determination,in fact raises such a "right" to an absolute,which is absurd. And in so doing actually serves as a cover for imperial expansion..
Why should progressive people support one national movement's "right" to ethnically cleanse a people from their land?
Walt,and those that agree with him need to show with logic and facts why Jews can't survive as a people without a state of Israel.
Dear Mr Walt,
appreciate that you consider Israel a valid entity, that you are not an "anti-Zionist".
Phil recently described himself in that language, which is the reason for my comment. It frankly was more about him, than about you or Mr. Mearsheimer.
I have been critical of the article moreso than the book. I did read both. I've also been critical of some interviews and public Q & A of Mr. Mearsheimer in particular, closely following the 2006 Lebanon conflict, that kind-thinking individuals experienced very differently from one another.
Please consider the very different reactions of Amos Oz to Norman Finkelstein, in which Amos Oz insisted on Israel's right to defend its borders and civilians vigorously, but also criticized undisciplined use of power. In contrast, Norman Finkelstein criticized Israel's use of any power, any defense, and minimized the degree, timing, and significance of the 2006 Hezbollah war.
My criticism of the article revolved around the use of polemic language, some factual errors (interpretations posed as facts), and the incoherent implication that the "Israel Lobby" was a monolith, although in almost Orwellian fashion, was described overtly as not a monolith.
Further, the use of your work by others with less academic purposes, although not your original voice, is critical, and amounts to implications of "fire" in a movie theator, with the deniability of "we didn't say that".
The term "anti-Zionist" is a confusing one.
"Dissenters" use the term as a generalization to describe their opposition to some Israeli policies and practises. They do not distinguish between the right of the Jewish people to self-govern and the specific policies within political and military context.
I've attempted to distinguish my pro-Zionism as pro-Israeli right to exist, (of the Jewish people to self-govern) to defend its borders and civilians militarily, while maintaining my support for literal application of the Arab League proposal (with the exception of the Jewish sections of old Jerusalem).
(I do not accept the proposal that settlers should be forcefully removed, but should compensate to perfect title to ambiguously titled land, and either accept Palestinian jurisdiction or move to sovereign green line Israel.)
I believe that BOTH Palestine and Israel should be assertively encouraged to adopt consistent color-blind rule of law as the law of their land.
That is the case mostly on the books of Israeli law, not in practise, but it is NOT on the books of prospective Palestinian law, which does currently limit peer status and land ownership by Jews within areas of Palestinian jurisdiction.
I personally regard Israeli AND Palestinian concerns as of higher moral merit than US geo-political, as questions of mutual survival, whereas US concerns are more to secure a supply chain for oil, capital and some markets.
In response to my post noting that while the establishment of Israel was a great wrong committed at the expense of the Palestinians but that almost every state today was probably founded on some similar great wrong Otto wrote:
"But it's an appeal to naked bigotry in the Israeli case…."
No it's not Otto, or, rather, no it doesn't have to be. As I appealed (and as Walt and Mearsheimer appealed) it's an appeal to realism and pragmatism and to the limits of our ability to achieve some kind of ultimate fairness or justice. And when one insists that in at least some way Israel does compensate the Palestinians, it isn't an appeal to bigotry at all.
After all I note that while you don't dispute that similar such wrongs lie behind many if not most other states today you aren't going about calling for their dissolution. And presumably because that is a recognition of pragmatics on your part.
And while the establishment of Israel may have been terribly unfair to the Palestinians, it seems to me given all their historic persecution the jews too have some claim to fairness and justice and a haven. And the truth of the matter is that in the early days of modern jewish immigration to Palestine and thus as regards the core of modern Israel that land was honestly bought from local Palestinians by jews and by the Jewish Agency.
Again I just think all this anti-zionisim/anti-Israel stuff just plays into the hands of those who like the status quo. Israel proper isn't going anywhere I don't think, as even the arab world in the main is willing to accept it as evidenced by Israel's treaties with Egypt and Jordan and Abdullah's recent proposal which was accepted by the entire Arab League.
So by just continuing to harp on it isn't just setting oneself up for eternal frustration, it also is used to brand as extremists the rest of us who just want Israel to reach a deal with the great majority of the Palestinians to live side-by-side in peaceâwhich deal the Palestinians seem willing to live with if only Israel would offer it.
That's not to say that Israel isn't primarily responsible for calling into question its entire legitimacy now, as I think it is. And thus I understand where you are coming from. But pragmatically, realistically, I think you are letting your conception of the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sin Nombre,
I wouldn't use my name either, if I was trying to peddle bullshit like the following:
"And the truth of the matter is that in the early days of modern jewish immigration to Palestine and thus as regards the core of modern Israel that land was honestly bought from local Palestinians by jews and by the Jewish Agency."
I prefer the take of a Zionist historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister to your ambiguous words about the "core of modern Israel". Check out Ben-Ami's last few sentences in regards to your "core", and the ones preceding it about the land that was "bought from local Palestinians."
AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are â we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have â the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war.
PM
Thanks Paul for doing what I was just about to do – and what needed to be done.
Steve Walt – so you support a two state solution, do you have any recommendations as to how that should be carried out?
Paul:
I don't see the need for the vitriol. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in that event it is just an honest mistake based upon my perhaps faulty understanding.
And upon looking a bit further into it like most matters it seems to me to come down to a matter of definition and degree.
For instance, Wikipedia tells me that by 1927 the Jewish National Fund alone (set up in like 1905 or so specifically to buy land) owned some 50,000 acres there in Palestine. And by 1935 that was up to some 89,000 acres housing some 108 jewish communities.
Sounds not insignificant, together with the fact that the JNF seems to have first started way back in 1901.
It is still true however that even by 1939 only 10% of the jews living in Palestine lived on JNF land, but of course that doesn't give us any percentage of total land owned by the JNF and used for farming or whatever, and with it also being true that JNF wasn't the only way jews purchased land over there either. But I'll admit that the JNF figures start to get meaningless after 1948 because it was about then that the Israeli gov't started selling (captured lands) to the JNF.
So anyway maybe this means I'm right or wrong about my "core" statement; it seems to depend on one's definition. But I'll agree that my previous understanding does seem a bit strong now in light of what your post has got me to looking up, although I still don't see why every exchange on this blog has to be so nasty.
Sin Nombre,
I guess it all depends on your definition of "is". You're a regular Bill Clinton.
No vitriol intended.
PM
A test of whether America's notion of "pro-Israel" is changing is to get serious people talking about a sensible proposal to do something
(a) TOTALLY UNOBJECTIONABLE (EXCEPT TO ISRAELI EXPANSIONISTS),
(b) TOTALLY BENEFICIAL TO WORLD ORDER, and
(c) NON-THREATENING TO ISRAEL'S SECURITY
namely, for the US or EU or both to compel Israel to comply with international law to the extent of removing the settlers and the wall from all occupied territories.
I have proposed this at 123pab.com/oped1.htm.
I can report that major newspapers have not fallen all over themselves to publish this.
Professor Walt:
You write: "Given what we actually wrote, I still find it remarkable that some people think we could be anti-Israel or anti-Zionist (let alone anti-Semitic). But as we all know, this is not a subject where reason and fair-minded discourse prevail."
As usual, you conveniently fail to mention that your book received many negative reviews in the U.S. press–and all of those reviewers made it a point to say that your work was not anti-semitic.
One point, in particular, that reviewers found objectionable was how you singled out Israel as a rogue state, with a human rights record hardly distinguishable from that of surrounding Arab nations.
For instance, German academic Gert Krell (a frequent critic of Israeli policies) had the following to say about your book:
"I think you could come up with a similar list of sins or deficiencies about almost any country, certainly many of Americaâs allies, including other democracies, and about the United States itself. If I were a Jewish Israeli, even a leftist Israeli, I would feel singled out.
And while Israel does discriminate against its Arab minority (I am talking about Israel proper here, the situation in the West Bank is different and worse), structurally and individually, treatment of indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with their violent assimilation policies has probably been much worse at least into the 1970s. I feel this comparative perspective is important, because there has been a tendency particularly among developing and Arab countries to equate Zionism with racism. There is so much cynicism and hypocrisy in this debate that one should stay away from it as far as possible. Let me only remind you that the person who introduced the infamous UN resolution in the General Assembly was Idi Amin, one of the worldâs worst dictators and butchers."
Likewise, Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, who staunchly defended you against charges of anti-semitism, had this to say about your book:
"All these points are made by Mearsheimer and Walt — and bully for them. Where Israel is wrong, they say so. But where Israel is right, they are somehow silent. By the time you finish the book, you almost have to wonder why anyone in his right mind could find any reason to admire or like Israel. It is always doing the most dastardly things and then looking to Uncle Sam either for money or muscle. It is, no doubt about it, a brat among nations."
Professor Walt — You and John Mearsheimer try to have it both ways: You claim your support and admiration for Israel, yet your writings betray a very different sentiment.
Such intellectual duplicity hardly contributes to an environment "where reason and fair-minded discourse prevail."