Jonathan Chait writes in the New Republic:
Israel's supporters do have a distressing tendency to define their position in maximalist terms. Witness the absurd controversy that surrounded Barack Obama's banal observation last year that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinians."
My question is, Where was Chait or the New Republic when this absurd controversy was unfolding? On the wrong side, that's where. Which is to say: this was not an absurd controversy. It was a deadly serious controversy over Obama's position on the Middle East that everyone in my community watched with horror. Obama made the comment to a movement person, Sue Dravis of Iowa, and was then forced to swallow his words. Obama would not have been forced to swallow his words if more liberal Jews had behaved like M.J. Rosenberg, Michael Ratner, David Bromwich, and Dan Fleshler, men who have repeatedly injected notes of pro-Palestinian conscience into the Democratic community. But no, most liberal Jews are upset by this sort of statement, and lo, Obama's people quickly issued a retraction of what Chait calls a banal observation.
Such was the deadly serious business of constituency politics as Obama competed with Clinton for the Democratic base.
Chait is right to criticize the Israel lobby for its "maximalist" position. But who's he talking about? His own shop. If the New Republic had said one word to give Obama cover on this position, it would have been huge. They didn't. The fact that Chait is now poohpoohing the controversy as absurd and Obama's statement as ho-hum is a reflection of 1, how much the discourse has changed (hosanna) so that Palestinian suffering can at last be somewhat addressed in our politics, even for the readers of the New Republic; 2, the fact that in the wake of Gaza, Chait has no idea where to stand personally here, so he's covering all the angles. The political word for that behavior is weaseling.
(N.B. I haven't read all of Chait's ouevre. Who has time. If I've missed something, any crumbs thrown in the Palestinians' direction before Gaza dropped the scales from Americans' eyes, please inform. I doubt it; but I will happily amend. --Phil Weiss)
What is the difference between Blago and Chait?
Answer: Blago does not write or talk about Kosovo based on what he learned at the North Chicago Serbian Orthodox Church. Nor does he attack foreign policy experts who challenge the church's views on Greater Serbia.
In other words, Blago, for all his faults, understands that he knows NOTHING about Serbia other than "what he was taught" at church. Chait lacks that understanding.
I have to run. I'm writing an article attacking the surgeons at the NIH for their views on cranial surgery.
Kudos to Stephen Walt and Phil.
Jonathan Chait on TNR
The Big Con: Crackpot Economics and the Fleecing of America
Review
"Should be read by anyone looking to understand the big forces at work in Washington. Prepare to be shocked." (Michael Lewis, author of the Blindside )
"A must-read for anyone interested in becoming a well-informed citizen…If you want a front-row seat in this current election cycle shindig, snag 'The Big Con.'" (Chicago Sun-Times )
Product Description
American politics has been hijacked. Over the past three decades, a fringe group of economic hucksters has corrupted and perverted our nation’s policies. With dark, engaging wit, Jonathan Chait reveals how these canny zealots first took over the Republican Party and then gamed the political system and the media so that once unthinkable policies—without a shred of academic, expert, or even popular support—now drive the political agenda, regardless of which party is in power.
Why have these ideas succeeded in Washington? How did a clique of extremists gain control of American economic policy and sell short the country’s future? And why do their outlandish ideas still determine policy despite repeated electoral setbacks? Chait tells the outrageous and eye-opening story, expertly explaining just how politics and economics work in Washington. He has produced a riveting drama of greed and deceit that should be read by every concerned citizen, especially in an election year.
via Google Books
review: Who's the boss? Forget neocons and theocons. It's the money-cons who really run Bush's Republican Party, Kevin Drum
review: So great a conspiracy?, Kevin A. Hassett
Off topic: just in case you haven't seen it yet … and this.
Another great analysis by Norman Finkelstein
Finkelstein lays out the conscious sabotage and destruction of Palestinian overtures for peace, as well as Tom Friedman's defense of war crimes.
Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza: Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive"
"….The justification put forth by Friedman in the pages of the Times for targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure amounted to apologetics for state terrorism. It might be recalled that although Hitler had stripped Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher of all his political power by 1940, and his newspaper Der St?rmer had a circulation of only some 15,000 during the war, the International Tribunal at Nuremberg nonetheless sentenced him to death for his murderous incitement.
Beyond restoring its deterrence capacity, Israel’s main goal in the Gaza slaughter was to fend off the latest threat posed by Palestinian moderation. For the past three decades the international community has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its June 1967 border, and a “just resolution” of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. The vote on the annual U.N. General Assembly resolution, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine,” supporting these terms for resolving the conflict in 2008 was 164 in favor, 7 against (Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau), and 3 abstentions. At the regional level the Arab League in March 2002 unanimously put forth a peace initiative on this basis, which it has subsequently reaffirmed. In recent times Hamas has repeatedly signaled its own acceptance of such a settlement. For example, in March 2008 Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, stated in an interview:
There is an opportunity to deal with this conflict in a manner different than Israel and, behind it, the U.S. is dealing with it today. There is an opportunity to achieve a Palestinian national consensus on a political program based on the 1967 borders, and this is an exceptional circumstance, in which most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders….There is also an Arab consensus on this demand, and this is a historic situation. But no one is taking advantage of this opportunity. No one is moving to cooperate with this opportunity. Even this minimum that has been accepted by the Palestinians and the Arabs has been rejected by Israel and by the U.S.
Israel is fully cognizant that the Hamas Charter is not an insurmountable obstacle to a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. “[T]he Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future,” a former Mossad head recently observed. “[T]hey are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967….They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.”
In addition, Hamas was “careful to maintain the ceasefire” it entered into with Israel in June 2008, according to an official Israeli publication, despite Israel’s reneging on the crucial component of the truce that it ease the economic siege of Gaza. “The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations,” the source continues. “At the same time, the [Hamas] movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it.” Moreover, Hamas was “interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel” (Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin).
The Islamic movement could thus be trusted to stand by its word, making it a credible negotiating partner, while its apparent ability to extract concessions from Israel, unlike the hapless Palestinian Authority doing Israel’s bidding but getting no returns, enhanced Hamas’s stature among Palestinians. For Israel these developments constituted a veritable disaster. It could no longer justify shunning Hamas, and it would be only a matter of time before international pressure in particular from the Europeans would be exerted on it to negotiate. The prospect of an incoming U.S. administration negotiating with Iran and Hamas, and moving closer to the international consensus for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, which some U.S. policymakers now advocate, would have further highlighted Israel’s intransigence. In an alternative scenario, speculated on by Nasrallah, the incoming American administration plans to convene an international peace conference of “Americans, Israelis, Europeans and so-called Arab moderates” to impose a settlement. The one obstacle is “Palestinian resistance and the Hamas government in Gaza,” and “getting rid of this stumbling block is…the true goal of the war.”
In either case, Israel needed to provoke Hamas into breaking the truce, and then radicalize or destroy it, thereby eliminating it as a legitimate negotiating partner. It is not the first time Israel confronted such a diabolical threat—an Arab League peace initiative, Palestinian support for a two-state settlement and a Palestinian ceasefire—and not the first time it embarked on provocation and war to overcome it.
In the mid-1970s the PLO mainstream began supporting a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. In addition, the PLO, headquartered in Lebanon, was strictly adhering to a truce with Israel that had been negotiated in July 1981. In August 1981 Saudi Arabia unveiled, and the Arab League subsequently approved, a peace plan based on the two-state settlement. Israel reacted in September 1981 by stepping up preparations to destroy the PLO. In his analysis of the buildup to the 1982 Lebanon war, Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv reported that Yasser Arafat was contemplating a historic compromise with the “Zionist state,” whereas “all Israeli cabinets since 1967” as well as “leading mainstream doves” opposed a Palestinian state. Fearing diplomatic pressures, Israel maneuvered to sabotage the two-state settlement. It conducted punitive military raids “deliberately out of proportion” against “Palestinian and Lebanese civilians” in order to weaken “PLO moderates,” strengthen the hand of Arafat’s “radical rivals,” and guarantee the PLO’s “inflexibility.” However, Israel eventually had to choose between a pair of stark options: “a political move leading to a historic compromise with the PLO, or preemptive military action against it.”
To fend off Arafat’s “peace offensive”—Yaniv’s telling phrase—Israel embarked on military action in June 1982. The Israeli invasion “had been preceded by more than a year of effective ceasefire with the PLO,” but after murderous Israeli provocations, the last of which left as many as 200 civilians dead (including 60 occupants of a Palestinian children’s hospital), the PLO finally retaliated, causing a single Israeli casualty. Although Israel used the PLO’s resumption of attacks as the pretext for its invasion, Yaniv concluded that the “raison d’être of the entire operation” was “destroying the PLO as a political force capable of claiming a Palestinian state on the West Bank.” It deserves passing notice that in his new history of the “peace process,” Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, provides this capsule summary of the sequence of events just narrated: “In 1982, Arafat’s terrorist activities eventually provoked the Israeli government of Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon into a full-scale invasion of Lebanon.”
Fast forward to 2008. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce “harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.” Translation: a protracted ceasefire that enhanced Hamas’s credibility would have undermined Israel’s strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank. As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because “the Israeli army needed time to prepare.” Once all the pieces were in place, Israel only lacked a pretext. On 4 November, while the American media were riveted on election day, Israel broke the ceasefire by killing seven Palestinian militants, on the flimsy excuse that Hamas was digging a tunnel to abduct Israeli soldiers, and knowing full well that its operation would provoke Hamas into hitting back. “Last week’s ‘ticking tunnel,’ dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers,” Haaretz reported in mid-November
was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm’s way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of “controlled entry” into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy—not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.
After Hamas predictably resumed its rocket attacks “[i]n retaliation” (Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center), Israel could embark on yet another murderous invasion in order to foil yet another Palestinian peace offensive."
See the rest at:
Chait's views on I/P are consistent with his economics: liberal posturing. His econ book apparently blames Republicans and ignores Clinton. This is consistent with liberal "moderation" on I/P (of the non-Peretz variety).
Thanks to ptw for the link, not off topic because the Chait issue is about Jewish dissent as well.
Nevertheless, there is liberal posturing in the JStreet approach, as well as the identification with M/W, with its "realist" implications. A specifically Jewish presence in the Palestinian rights movement is pragmatic because it draws on a certain tradition and solidarity. I find the religious/cultural aspects unintersing and irrelevant, but of course folks are entitled to their own process. Jews need to finally ask what they can do for the Palestinians, and thus need to ask the Palestinians.
If th ere isso much emphasis on the Lobby, then the solution is to get a Lobby of their own. I prefer a movement with a Lobby, not a lobby with a movement, such a movement should be an explicitly global one at that, implying a BDS approach. It needs to see I/P as inseparable from the ME and beyond.
Once Jews get over being impressed or gratified that Jewish dissent has been normalized, then the work begins. A benchmark might be that Jewish issues are no longer relevant in the broader movement.
Weiss: "most liberal Jews are upset by this sort of statement, and lo, Obama's people quickly issued a retraction of what Chait calls a banal observation."
Exactly. “Liberal” Jewish Zionists jump all over the most innocuous efforts to humanize the Palestinians in order to strange their cause for justice in it’s cradle. They don’t want the Palestinians humanized, they want them perpetually demonized on behalf of their own religious cause and on behalf of shaping US policy toward it, and they use their prominence in the media to attain this end. Yet they are also the first in America to scream and yell about Christian encroachment into Church/State separation every time a crèche goes up around Christmas, and declare it a civil rights violation.
Note to David Green: nearly all contemporary left-liberals are “liberal poseurs,” because just like organized Zionist Jewry, they go running to the Big Government State to enforce their own corrupt enterprises at every opportunity. Perpetuating and growing a corrupt, bullying central authority in order that it can enforce a particularist agenda is hardly a “liberal” enterprise.
Perpetuating and growing a corrupt, bullying central authority in order that it can enforce a particularist agenda is hardly a “liberal” enterprise.
oh, yes, it is. outside of your utopian-capitalist fantasies, in the real world, rigging the game is the only possible way to maintain the illusion of 'free competition'.
"The analogy of a spectator sporting event as a means in explaining the rules by which taxpayers are required to pick up the cost of bailing out the banks when their loans go soar." –Preface to Chapter Two. The Creature from Jekyll Island, by E Edward Griffin,
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, Fourth Edition.
American goys have been dupes a long time. Now they are double time. Foreign policy and economic policy.
No problem. So long as the USA fourth estate is Israel First both domestically and abroad, there will be no change.
World wide jewry can count on dumb goyische kopfs–especially since those goys get no objective data. They would have to actually take as a prime directive that nobody but they take universal humanity seriously. Yes, its the whites. The only question is how long before white goys decide everybody else has taken advantage of their non-group philosophy too much. Perhaps in another 10 to 20 years, when they are a minority in every USA state?
soar=-sour
sorry for the misspelling.
White goys? Are you really portraying yourself correctly?