The ‘New York Review of Books’ failure on Gaza

by on January 22, 2009 9

My New York Review of Books arrived in my mailbox yesterday, and it has one piece on Gaza by Roger Cohen that's very good but not great. I wrote about it a few days ago; it seems to me to refuse the black revelation of Gaza that Israel has destroyed the idea of the Jewish state in the eyes of the world. Fine; Cohen does not believe that. But it is amazing how many people on the left now hold that view, and disturbing that the Review cannot represent them. I believe this reflects the fact that the New York Review, though left, is enmeshed in generational/Jewish/Zionist and even neoconservative narratives about Israel. The American Conservative understands the ghastly importance of this moment and runs pieces by John Mearsheimer, Daniel Levy, Avi Shlaim, and Glenn Greenwald. Levy and Greenwald are the next generation. The London Review of Books runs a battery, too, which includes the next generation, David Bromwich, as well as non-Zionist Jacqueline Rose, realist Mearsheimer, Arab Rashid Khalidi, and the wonderful Yonatan Mendel of Israel. Anti-Zionist Ilan Pappe. The American Conservative and LRB are trying to help their readers think by offering far more pessimistic responses to the slaughter. My feeling about the NYRB is that it is trying to comfort its readers and not challenge them particularly. Maybe I said this before, but the NYRB was born of an industrial freak: the newspaper strike of 1963. And I think it is losing its authority because of the industrial effect of the internet/Gaza. This discussion is simply too important, and the debate too diverse, to limit your contribution on Gaza to the writing of a Jew who is sorrowful about Israel and not include other voices. Cohen himself has said that Obama's Middle East team should not be all Jewish. And Joe Klein has echoed that. Let 100 flowers bloom. Some of them will be angry Arab flowers. Some will be anti-Zionist Jews. Let them bloom.                                                         –Phil Weiss

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Gaza, Israel/Palestine, Neocons, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 9 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Colin Murray says:
    January 22, 2009 at 10:09 am

    "Let them bloom."

    It will be interesting to observe the Lobby attempt to reestablish media orthodoxy.

  2. Richard Witty says:
    January 22, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Some will be newly pro-Zionist voices. Some even pro-expansionistic (sadly).

    The quandry is relative to Hamas as a militia. Israel cannot in good faith negotiate with Hamas as a militia without severely harming and betraying Fatah and the PA.

    Leftists can ignore treaties and contracts, but businesses and states can't.

    So, given that rock in the road, the BEST that can happen is for Hamas to reconcile with Fatah, and pursue a real agreement with Israel, likely based on the Arab League proposal.

  3. jim byers says:
    January 22, 2009 at 11:13 am

    Dear Witty, Fatah is toast, Israel has seen to that. They have gotten exactly nothing for collaborating with the occupiers. Israel has never truly sought peace. It has signed treaties and then completely ignore the terms and conditions they have just agreed to. I suppose it was all a tactic for having more time to create "facts on the ground". The mess that Israel faces today is totally of it's own making. Now they will reinstall Bibi. I don't hold out any hope that the leopard can or will change it's spots.

  4. sarah says:
    January 22, 2009 at 11:27 am

    How is the quandry more relative to HAMAS as a militia than to Israel
    as a regional super state backed by the only international super state, the one who funds it and blocks all UN interference, the UN being the entity that validated Israel in the first place. HAMAS cannot in good faith negotiate with such a rogue state without severely harming and betraying its dispossessed people, a people
    who will resist any colonial puppet government.

    Given that rock in the road, the BEST that can happen is for Israel
    to give up all its settlements and occupation rather than play divide and conquer as between HAMAS (originally co-created by Israel) and Fatah/PA.

  5. Colin Murray says:
    January 22, 2009 at 11:54 am

    "Israel cannot in good faith negotiate with Hamas as a militia without severely harming and betraying Fatah and the PA."

    Fatah, or at least the elements of it (it is not a homogeneous organization) that control the current incarnation of the PA, is a collaborator organization that has betrayed the Palestinian people, and are selling them out by engaging in endless negotiating while Israeli colonial building continues apace. They receive handsome stacks of cash from the quartet for doing so, and the influx of said booty is largely responsible for their corruption. Israel not wanting to 'severely harm or betray Fatah and the PA' is merely a desire to maintain a useful tool to avoid real, i.e good faith, negotiations with Palestinians.

    "Leftists can ignore treaties and contracts, but businesses and states can't."

    Leftists have no monopoly on breaching contracts and violating treaties. Businesses often ignore contracts when state authority is not used to compel them to obey the law. Your claim that states cannot ignore treaties and contracts betrays either stunning naivete or rancid cynicism. I invite you to name a single instance when Israel has adhered to even a single agreement one second longer than convenient. I could certainly be mistaken, but I am challenging YOU Richard. Step up to the plate. If you do find one, I'll bother to compile a list of some of the scores of agreements that Israel has broken.

    Readers, the litmus test that Israel uses to establish whether a Palestinian political party is 'legitimate' is whether it is willing to abide by previous treaties with … Israel. Treaties always include, even if only implicit, mechanisms for abrogation. Treaties come and go all the time as interests change. Israel wants 'legitimate' Palestinian political parties to abide 'forever' by unequal treaties which facilitate further ethnic cleansing and colonization. Israeli leaders recognize that everyone else in the world has a right to re-negotiate or abrogate treaties … except for Palestinians. We should label this attitude for what it is: rank and vile racism of the highest order. Hamas, as the legitimately elected majority political party with the legal right to appoint the Prime Minister, has every right to re-negotiate or, within the constraints of the original agreement and the PA's parliamentary procedures, abrogate any treaty a previous administration has signed, just as Israel has.

    "The BEST that can happen …"

    Readers, he is actually saying "the best that can happen for Israel … to maintain its campaign of ethnic cleansing and colonization".

    "… is for Hamas to reconcile with Fatah …"

    Hamas has tried several times to do exactly this. The problem is that Hamas is the duly elected majority party with the legal right to appoint the Prime Minister and run the government. Fatah has not been willing to do this because they already run the government, and have no interest in giving up their power. The term of 'President' Abbas' term expired on January 9th. He is still pretending to be in office. What does this tell you about Fatah? Read the "The Gaza Bombshell".

    "… and pursue a real agreement with Israel …"

    A 'real' agreement to Israel is one where Palestinians agree to be ethnically cleansed and colonized.

    "… likely based on the Arab League proposal."

    The Arab League proposal is actually not bad. However, note the inclusion of the words "likely based". This means that Israel will keep all of its colonies, which are on land stolen at gunpoint from Palestinians, and keep control of water resources, borders customs, etc, etc for the bantustans that Palestinians are allowed to keep.

    Standard Disclaimer: The devil is in the details. Readers, pay close attention to choice of words, and take no one's information or analysis at face value, including my own. If you care enough about this issue, and for Americans, this means if you care about American national security, then spend some time to examine these issues on your own. If Americans Knew is a good place to start.

  6. Peter H says:
    January 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    "The quandry is relative to Hamas as a militia. Israel cannot in good faith negotiate with Hamas as a militia without severely harming and betraying Fatah and the PA."

    Richard, that Hamas is ruling Gaza, legitimately or not, is not for Israel to decide. However reasonable you think you're being, your insistence that Israel can't deal with Hamas is a surefire guaruntee of endless conflict.

  7. Peter H says:
    January 22, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Also, Richard, there are no "treaties and contracts" that prevent Israel from dealing with Hamas.

  8. sarah says:
    January 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    Witty is a NAZI. Every rational he uses for his stance has already been done, and better–by the Germans. But Israel has lasted longer.
    I attribute this to white guilt. An old jewish saying is nobody if more instilled with guilt that jews-usually by their jewish mother. The only usual competition is Catholic guilt. So, who has more practical power Israel or the Vatican? The German NAZIs answered that one.

    The test of virtue is power.

    Universal jewry, and its state, Israel, and what Israel has done since 1947, should clarify your view. Like it?

  9. Eva Smagacz says:
    January 22, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    People!!!

    What were you thinking?

    Quoting Richard:

    "The quandry is relative to Hamas as a militia. Israel cannot in good faith negotiate with Hamas as a militia without severely harming and betraying Fatah and the PA".

    That Israel would even (or even ever) consider doing something as dishonorable as betraying Fatah?

    Good faith of Israel is part of what Israel is, it is internal to its being: an honourable country, run by honourable men in service to honourable men end women who form it's electorate.

    And God forbid that Israel would do ANYTHING that would harm Fatah, which of course is a political party of Palestinian people. Surely Israel hurting Palestinian people is unthinkable and a libel to boot.

    I am not surprised that even the IDEA of proposing that Israel would do anything remotely similar is a slander extremely likely to cause upset.

Leave a Reply