The worst thing about David Brooks's twelfth visit to Israel the other day (and let me say: Brooks is probably the best writer at the Times, which makes his religious investment in the country the more problematic) was the column's message: Wow, ha, how rude and tough these Israelis are, pushing in and out of shopping lines. This is a kind of Jewish dialect humor. You hear it about Israelis all the time. But of course Brooks does not go to the Occupied Territories, or Gaza, to observe the horrifying manifestations of this toughness, in Jim-Crow practices. Southerners surely proffered similar enchanting veranda stories about slave-holding society back in the day.
Now here is the shadow side of Brooks's column: the agony that sensitive Israelis are experiencing with their new racist Foreign Minister. Brave journalist Noam Sheizaf of Maariv runs the Promised Land blog here, and reports on his successful effort to post anti-Arab statements made by politicians on Israeli newspaper websites. Why did he do so?
here that the public atmosphere in Israel is becoming more and more
racist towards Arabs. A good example of this can be found in the
comments (“talkbacks”) on all major internet sites…
What I write here is “a non-story” for most Israelis. We are used to this kind of talk. Same as the “death to all Arabs” graffiti around the country, or the army T-shirts Haartez reported about recently.
This kind of hate-talk, which used to exist for years only in the ranks
of the illegitimate extreme-right, is now well within the Israeli
mainstream. And very few people seem to care. If you understand this,
you understand how Liberman got to be our Foreign Minister. It wasn’t
despite his racist talk, but rather because of it.
Says Antony Loewenstein, who passed this along: "Such voices of moderation against Israeli racism exist, but they're far
and few between. Fear, paranoia and hatred are far easier emotions to
muster, n'est-ce pas?" And I ask: When will American Jews give these support to agonized Israelis?
we are jews, tough and unbearable. we have our roads. you cannot use. we have our schools. you cannot use. we have our history unlike any other. you are not a part. we have our water. we have your water. you cannot use. we control the air and land. you cannot use. trees are ours for the destroying except the planted fraudulent trees. the good life is our. misery and death is yours. whining is our right. you cannot complain. we give and we are fair. be satisfied. want not more than we will give.
5ds
our(s. misery and death (are
Phil and Adam are doing it; the rest of us are here. Now need to get past or influence the gate-keeper, corporate "news"media more "regard," in both senses, for humanity, tolerance, benevolence, mercy, forgiveness, peace, caring for all, .
Sorry:
influence the gatekeepers to feel not just show more "regard" in both senses–the gaze, the affection–for all peoples.
Ach, this one has to ride out. If Israelis are walking around with Fox News as their only US TV outlet, they still think they have America by the balls. They have no real sense of how Lieberman is being perceived here. The money's going to keep coming from us, they think. Hell, they pouted over O's diss of N around AIPAC time, and announced last week that they wont 'spend' $15 billion on US fighter planes….the money we gave them to buy from us.
They think this is going to fly. (no pun intended) They're going to keep the $15 billion and tell us to go fuck ourselves because they think our economy is so desperate over here that Obama will have to tow the line.
Going to be fascinating to watch. Frick and Frack over in Israel are societal anachronisms. Something out of 50s gangster movies. But they are perfect leaders for the coarseness of what Israel has become.
I can hardly wait until Jon Stewart makes them laughingstocks. Ridicule will hit more American Jews sitting on the fence than anything else. A sense of justice and morality certainly hasn't worked.
Majority in US want Israel to be penalised
James Zogby, Foreign Correspondent
April 18. 2009 7:37PM GMT
Despite claiming continued support for Israel, a majority of US residents want a change in policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A decisive plurality said US aid to Israel is “too much”, and a majority want to see Israel penalised for building new settlements on Palestinian land.
These were some of the findings of a Zogby International interactive survey of 4,320 US adults conducted in April for the Doha Debate, a BBC programme based in Qatar. Zogby International is a polling firm headed by my brother John.
Support for Israel remains high, with 71 per cent of US respondents having a favourable attitude towards Israelis and only 21 per cent holding a negative view. Attitudes towards the Palestinian people, on the other hand, are in the inverse, with a favourable rating of 25 per cent and an unfavourable mark of 66 per cent. Even Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is viewed positively by 52 per cent of US residents, while Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is seen favourably by only 19 per cent – with an unfavourable rating of 59 per cent.
Establishing this support for Israel and strong negative views of Palestinians is important and makes even more significant the other findings.
When asked whether they agreed with the proposition that “both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights”, 84 per cent of respondents agreed. And by a margin of 67 per cent to 17 per cent, they continue to support the idea that “there should be an independent Palestinian state”.
When asked to characterise the direction of the policies pursued by the Bush administration, 71 per cent said George W Bush favoured Israel, while only 15 per cent felt that the former president had a balanced policy “steering a middle course” between the sides. When asked about how Barack Obama should direct his policy – towards Israel, towards the Palestinians, or “steer a middle course favouring neither side” – 49 per cent of the public believe Mr Obama should favour neither side with 33 per cent pushing support of Israel and nine per cent saying he should favour the Palestinians.
This almost innate sense of balance and fairness comes through once again when those questioned were asked how best to solve complicated “final status” issues. A plurality, for example, agree that Palestinians should be guaranteed “the right of return”. Similarly, a plurality agree that Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land in the West Bank “should be torn down and the land returned”. And on Jerusalem, respondents are evenly divided as to whether it should be partitioned or remain under Israeli control.
Americans don’t like aid
Foreign aid has never been popular with US voters, and amid the economic meltdown it is less so. Although citizens are evenly divided on whether the US should talk to Hamas “as they would with any other democratically elected groups”, this tolerance does not translate into support for aid to the group. Sixty-seven per cent support the US decision to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas’s victory – until Hamas agrees to recognise Israel, renounce violence and commit to previously signed agreements between the PA and Israel. Yet, strong pluralities also feel US aid to Israel – amounting to US$30 billion (Dh110bn) over the next 10 years – and the $900 million in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians is “too much”.
Getting tough
The specific issue addressed by the Doha Debate in its televised session from Georgetown University was “Resolved: This House believes it’s time for the US administration to get tough on Israel.” At the debate’s conclusion, the resolution won the support of 63 per cent of the audience.
As the results of the Zogby poll show, the post-debate vote reflects a developing trend in US public opinion. When asked, “Should the US government get tough with Israel?” – a slight plurality agreed. But when asked about two issues that framed much of the debate’s discussion, US residents had sharper views. For example, asked whether “US support for Israel makes the US more or less respected in the world”, 44 per cent responded “less respected”, as opposed to only 13 per cent who said “more respected”. And when asked what the United States should do about Israel’s settlement policies, 50 per cent said “get tough with Israel and attempt to stop the expansion”, while 19 per cent said the US should “do nothing and allow the settlements to continue”; 31 per cent were unsure.
ht tp://www.thenational.ae/article/20090419/FOREIGN/643719584/1002/NEWS
Interesting poll data, Crimson Ghost. Thx.
Dear Crimson Ghost,
Talk about a misleading title! That was a majority of the audience at the Doha Debate; not a majority of the scientific sample surveyed. I'm sure that a majority of the participants in this blog (including Phil Weiss) feel that all Israelis should be sent to their rooms without any supper.
I also like all the references to "strong pluralities".
This is what I've been saying for months now. What Lieberman thinks and wants is really no different from what Netanyahu or even Livni think and want; he's just more honest and less inclined to pander to the international audience.
The statistical data provided by Crimson Ghost is analyzed further on The Bureau of Counterpropaganda, link to bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com
"and let me say: Brooks is probably the best writer at the Times, "
Possibly so, if you ignore the content of what is said.
LOL
Exactly right, Witty's anonymous critic. Imagine if one of those got in front of Witty in the cash register line… Brooks says they can't help it, it's necessary…
"and let me say: Brooks is probably the best writer at the Times, "
Ouch! This has to be the most brutal insult I've ever seen directed at the Times!
Sorry, Margaret, that post was about the J Street poll Phil and Richard discussed a few weeks ago, not the Zogby poll, although some of what I wrote there is pertinent to the article CG pasted.
The comments to Brooks' piece make me hopeful. One *never* would have read so many critical of Israel even 5 years ago.
Zogby is not where I would go for objective analysis on Israel.
I would also add that a population (the American Jew) moving toward "ecologic extinction" with an estimated 1/3 decline in the next 80 years is hardly a validation of the Jewish identity.
Lieberman asked the question about what concessions gained Israel and his answer was nothing. One might ask what terror got Arafat. The proof is in the pudding. Hamas is taking lessons from history and is using what works. Human Shields work and warring from civilian population centers works. The Israelis need to knock down their bombshelters and expose the civilian population to death by indescriminate bombing. Then the world will weep for the Jew. But with Islam in control of the great UN, I have my doubts.