Just caught Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press." She's good. I don't hold her Jewishness against her. Because she isn't a fount of molten Zionism. (Unlike Jeffrey Goldberg, who was talking all about Hamas and holy war as usual, with conviction, as if the God-types are only on one side). And what Mitchell said, in the brief moment I heard her before peeling a banana and returning to the galley oar, is: Washington is wondering what the heck Israel is up to? What's its "endgame"? And of course, by implication, Washington lacks the political power to do anything about it.
The importance of Mitchell's comment was this: The Establishment doesn't know how to deal with Gaza and hint-hint, Israel's insane. The American Establishment doesn't want to repeat its mistakes of Iraq and Lebanon. It knows that Bush is wrong to support Israel without question, for he was the decider of the Iraq disaster. It knows that Obama brings a new era, and that the world is against Israel's slaughter. But the Establishment is afraid to say anything critical. For the usual reasons.
Further evidence. A friend writes, "The NYT had nothing on the Gaza operation on its editorial or op-ed pages today. That means in the eight days since the war began on December 27, they have had one editorial (Dec. 30) and two op-eds Dec 30 and 31) -- both by Israelis!!! Nothing else. This is amazing. The NYT readership is heavily Jewish and cares greatly about Israel. What is going on here"
Excellent questions. And the answer is, in a word: J Street has blown the bridge. There is now a growing chasm between Realist Jewish opinion (Dan Fleshler) and Liberal Hawk/Neocon opinion (Goldberg). Andrea Mitchell sees where this one is going and is hinting. Inside the Times editorial board there is surely deep division. They can't run more red-meat Invasion op-eds. And they can't run MJ Rosenberg or Steve Walt either. And the result: Paralysis.
You attribute far too much power to your zionist lite friends, Phil.
By the way "St.- Sgt. Dvir Emanuelof, 22, from Givat Ze'ev, one of two IDF soldiers critically wounded in a mortar shell attack near Jabalya in the Gaza Strip, died of his wounds on Sunday."
actually they both died yesterday, but, you know, the military censors…
You are in error on the depth of difference in Jewish opinion.
ALL credible Jewish Zionist commentators (liberal and conservative) regard Hamas as largely contributing to if not causing the current status.
ALL credible Jewish Zionist commentators strongly prefer non-violent means to accomplish desired ends, and ALL identify varying degrees of risk associated with BOTH non-violent and violent means.
They weigh those risks differently, within a moderate scale.
The scale of resistance however, and the few non-credible Zionist thinkers variably SUPPORT violence as a preferred means.
Your litmus testing is of emotion, NOT of substance. I guess that has some substance, but because it is primarily negative, critical rather than variably appreciative and coherent, it ultimately FAILS to accomplish much.
Dan's emotional sensibilities are prospectively effective BECAUSE they have a strategy of political reform, and more importantly a strategy of social reconciliation underlying them.
They are MORE COMPREHENSIVE than the solely "critical analysis".
Compare HuffPo's recent abominations with "Counterpunch," which published the essay by the always brilliant Lowenstein:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sandronsky01022009.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01022009.html
****
HuffPo is betraying liberals by offering junk like this:
Stop This Vicious Slaughter! England Must Stop Waging War On The Nazis!
link to huffingtonpost.com
Hamas Is Largely to Blame for Israel's Gaza Offensive
link to huffingtonpost.com
/>
****
But, just checked again: HuffPo just added a link to the brilliant Greg Mitchell:
'NYT,' Most Others in U.S. Media, Silent as Israel Invades
link to editorandpublisher.com
HuffPo at least uses this title:
Analysis: US Media Coverage Of Gaza Invasion Largely Biased Towards Israel
But they've taken their BLOODY time!
The NYT op-ed page cartoon, showing an Israeli reading of world opinion demanding a "proportionate" response, and then sending off a rocket randomly targeting civilians, is an insult to humanity, and speaks of incorrigibility.
There are no 'credible jewish commentators', Richard, whether zionist or other. Except maybe Blankfort and Pappe.
Will you please look for an alternative term for you constantly repeated: litmus testing. It gets tiresome after a while.
Wittyism: ALL credible Jewish Zionist commentators strongly prefer non-violent means to accomplish desired ends, and ALL identify varying degrees of risk associated with BOTH non-violent and violent means.
Witty's reading minds again. He looks in his crystal ball and–finds
credibility flourishing. Meanwhile, on all the TV news stations, which is where most Americans get their news hits when not looking for a job or praying to hold on to one they have, the spiel is the same: Israel must do what it must do to protect itself; nobody has a right
to call Israel to account. Full stop.
Thanks for the explanation of silence at the NYT! I've been wondering what the hell is going on over there.
BTW, your blog is my best new find. Many thanks!
I'm thankful that Obama has an excuse to remain silent. As Philip (or was it MJ? Sorry!) pointed out, it puts supporters on the hotseat to keep justifying.
In the face of silence from the other side, they have to fill it up with their own justifications, which seem increasingly stretched and at odds with the facts on the ground.
I hope Obama's first comments on the matter are: "I'm looking forward to speaking with Israel and getting an understanding of what the end game is here. At this point, their aims aren't completely clear to me, so I look forward to having Israel explain them to me."
Again it puts the onus back on them. Why should we have to provide cover for them? Why don't they tell the world what their up to and what it will achieve? I have basically zero hope that Obama would actually follow this course, but oh well.
Let's stop the pretense that the U.S. govt. does not support Israeli atrocities, is somehow out of the loop and helpless. There is no difference between a green and yellow light when it comes to barreling through. The U.S. isn't/never was/never will be and honest broker. The USG supports Israel. It likes demonstration wars, wars against the threat of a good example, wars against peace. The Lobby doesn't dictate this, the neolib/neocon permanent govt. does. Obama can do anything he wants, and the Lobby knows it will endure a backlash if they go after His Holiness. His Holiness chooses to throw in his lot with might makes right. He's now the permanent government.
As Phil and others here have commented, there is an all-out confusion and fretfulness in the jewish community about this latest disastrous attack by israel. The latest example I just read is typical – this from Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun – usually a stalwart champion for peace. As the quotation below shows – equivocation rules:
From Lerner:
"Israel's attempt to wipe out Hamas is understandable, but dumb. No country in the world is going to ignore the provocation of rockets being launched from neighboring territory day after day. If Mexico had a group of anti-imperialist South Americans bombing Texas, imagine how long it would take for the U.S. to mobilize a counter-attack. Israel has every right to respond. But the kind of response matters. Massive bombings of the sort that killed 250 Palestinians and wounded 1,000 other civilians is a classic example of a disproportionate response. "
This is typical of the 'peace groups" response:
First hold hamas to account – no matter the reality or the truth
Second, draw far-fetched parallels to some other place in the world, eg, texas, to drive the point home as to how "Israel has every right to defend itself" (sometimes a disclaimer is added here regarding the intolerable siege imposed by israel. Sometimes not. Surely an oversight by the good rabbi (who in truth had many times condemned the siege as inhumane collective punishment)
Third – and here's the punchline – call Israel's actions a "disproportinate response", which then sets the stage for the rest of the case against israel (Ie, now that the beast has been fed its essential vitamins).
Isn't this how J street, MJ Rosenberg and the other dovish groups start as well? with kind of a necessary set of platitudes to establish "love of israel" and/or tribal credentials? when it comes to the different leftish jewish groups, the subsequent arguments may differ, but the preamble somehow stays the same. Like a formula that sets the boundary conditions.
To be fair to Lerner's, he too goes on to provide a fine analysis. To wit:
"Before Israel's massive bombing, the Hamas bombings that began when the previous cease fire ran out had not (thank God) killed any one. The reason is obvious: Hamas has no airplanes, no tanks, nothing more than the weapons of the powerless-mortars that fire to limited range and with limited accuracy. Hamas can harass, but it cannot pose any threat to the existence of Israel."
And just as Hamas' indiscriminate bombing of population centers is a crime against humanity, so is Israel's massive attack against civilians (at least 250 killed so far in Gaza, not to mention
the thousands killed by Israel in the years of the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza)."
Note again the reference to Hamas' "crimes against humanity", establishing somehow a [false] equivalence between Hamas and israel's dastardly actions. Kind of like – "one crime begets another"? such sprinkling of anti-Hamas rhetoric is another essential ingredient in the 'peaceniks" commentary goulash (a little paprika, if you like…).
Couldn't find BTW the link to Lerner's commentary just now – I'm assuming most people know who he is and have seen this piece. Will try and provide later , time permitting.
Tikkun Olam will never be the basis for a proper analysis. Identity politics, spiritual or otherwise, is a dead end. Lerner will cling to his precious Jewish vision in the face of political evil. That's to avoid the conclusion that religion, in a pinch, will always give way to tribalism.
Those fn jews just insist on being thoughtful about the matter. Can't they just assume a hysterical all or nothing reactionary position like Phil and his minions? When do we get to start legally getting to discriminate against them?
Who is in charge here?
.
Cummings: "Those fn jews just insist on being thoughtful about the matter."
Ah, so there's nothing to see here because they're being so "thoughtful about the matter."
Israel and its supporters use this tactic as a crutch. Write an opinion piece that purports to be agonizing over it all, and walk through the deep-seated Judaic logic you used to reason out the rights and wrongs. Then, 100% of the time, conveniently arrive at the conclusion that Israel is in the right. Rinse and repeat.
Seems to me a lot of these thoughtful Jews have some pretty harsh critiques of Israel. That they don't want Hamas to rein bombs on Israeli elementary schools just shows you what Nazis they really are, huh Dealio?
Common tactic of bigots is to make the other wrong no matter what they do.