Last night I went to hear Rashid Khalidi speak at the Brooklyn Reform synagogue, Beth Elohim. A gorgeous temple, and before giving Khalidi the microphone at the altar, Rabbi Andy Bachman went down the list of groups that had sponsored the talk. Brit Tzedek, Peace Now, J Street, the Dialogue Project, Meretz, the Institute for Living Judaism, Kolot Chayeinu. I kept waiting for the list to stop. It was like a cordon of bodyguards, but guarding one another, lest anyone was going to blame any one of them for treachery. Rabbi Ellen Lippmann of Kolot Chayeinu was there, proudly-- but I can't find the event at the Institute for Living Judaism's website, or J Street's either. (Though J Street promoted the event in a large email.)
That the Palestinian-American scholar was even speaking is astounding and good. He is, or so I'm told, a polarizing figure. Look what happened to him during the presidential race last fall when he was linked to Obama. McCain smeared Khalidi as "a friend of terrorists," a smear revived by the New York Times recently, when it said he blames everything on Israel; and Obama did nothing to back up his old friend. Of course, Khalidi has had harsh things to say against Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. But what sentient being hasn't? And Khalidi has relatives in Gaza.
Still: he is off limits.
With that cordon, you would expect a firebrand. An unsettling speaker. Nothing could be further from the case.
As anyone who knows Khalidi can tell you, he is a courtly man of considerable reserve. He is a historian and prefers historical subjects. He doesn’t like to speak in anger but about historical processes. Even at Harvard right after Gaza, his description of the complete denial of all rights to Palestinians had a scholarly character: he said that Palestinians lead lives like the "helots" of Israel. As my friend James North, who along with Jack Ross accompanied me to Beth Elohim, said, Khalidi is the embodiment of the academic, someone who wants to step back dispassionately from the tumult of events.
The lecture was about superpower rivalries and the Middle East. He stayed away from Israel/Palestine as much as possible but said that the local struggle has been subsumed in and inflamed by a struggle between the US and Iran that has carried over from the Cold War, when American and Soviet conflict continually distorted the local politics. Iran has powerful proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These are “strong horses.” American horses are weak. We rely on Arab dictatorships and on weak Fatah.
We will gain nothing by bombing Iranian nuclear capabilities. Look at Iran's situation. It wants nukes not only because Israel has nukes, but so does Pakistan, where radical Sunnis regard the Iranian Shi’a as heretics. And also because of the U.S. presence on all sides: Iraq, the Emirates, Afghanistan, the Gulf, etc. Bomb Iran and they will still get nukes, only then they will be enraged. And so will their Islamic horses. A clear and helpful analysis.
From my standpoint, the speech was too polite. Khalidi did not say an anguished word about Gaza. He did not mention the Israel lobby until the question and answer period. He treated the American support for Israel as growing out of American perceptions of its superpower interest, in which the cold war was replaced by the war on Islamic terror. Yes but why did we get the war on Islamic terror? And why does it hang on into a progressive administration? I know Khalidi doesn’t accept the Israel lobby theory to the degree I do, but he obviously believes it somewhat. When he said that Obama would be at pains to reverse policy in Afghanistan and Iran because of a kind of bureaucratic inertia, and briefly mentioned the neoconservatives, he was saying what I say, that a religious ideology in this country as powerful in its way as the fervid ideologies of Asia is distorting our policy. And by the way, I think Khalidi’s wrong about the power of the lobby. How does he explain the ravages of the Columbia University Middle East studies program by the David Project a few years ago—with the overwhelming support of the Jewish community, which is so essential to Columbia’s funding? I would say that he is being willfully/publicly naïve about these forces in our lives with the usual leftwing political correctness, by saying Cheney craved oil. Well yes, of course, he craved oil. But what about all the Judea and Samaria ideologues he hired?
Later, leaving the lecture I realized I was not cutting Khalidi a break. Put yourself in his shoes. After being demonized and smeared in the national campaign--and Wikipedia's page on him is locked to editing due to disputes--he is invited to... a synagogue. He was welcomed there by about 200 to 250 people, obviously mostly Jews. The rabbi introduced him by celebrating the idea of dialogue on this most vexing of issues, and much as I devote this site to a self-interrogation of my Jewishness and the ways in which Jewish identity has interfered with American statecraft in a multicultural age, Khalidi also was performing a self-interrogation here. Whenever he visited the condition of the Palestinians, he heaped blame on the Palestinians themselves, and on the Arab governments. He said that the Egyptians were terrified of a democratic state in Palestine with Hamas at the helm; it would empower the Muslim brotherhood. He said the Palestinian leadership was corrupt and lacking in vision. He was blaming his own people. It was a beautiful thing to watch.
And let us be clear, along the way, Khalidi attacked the occupation, and described the exorcism of Chas Freeman by the necons, and talked about the hateful settlements, which have multiplied through the peace process. He did not hold back. He used to think a Palestinian state is inevitable. Now he thinks the likelihood is bleak; and the alternative is apartheid. Though he did not use that word. His words were respectful. At one time he described the gathering as a “congregation"; and frankly, it was his.
Walking back up 8th Avenue in Brooklyn, Jack Ross and James North-- who are both the type whose apartment is lined with books and so he tends to avoid public speaking events because he could be learning much more at home--praised the lecture as splendid. Ross said that his takeaway was that Rabbi Andy Bachman is both ambitious and well-known (I know him as a Darfur rabbi, talking about human rights in Darfur all the time) and so it is a very good sign that he embraced Khalidi, for it shows that he sees which way the wind is blowing, and he wants to be on the right side of history.
Here are my two takeaways, the morning after.
One: Islamic governments seem to be the way of history in the Middle East right now. They are more democratic than the non-Islamic governments, they express the will of the people. And Hezbollah may win in the Lebanon elections in two months, Khalidi said. It gave me the feeling that if the US wants to see the end of Islamic government, and I do, then the best thing we can do is to stop warring against this process and respect the degree to which people are choosing Islamic government.
Khalidi pointed out that the whole region had been proceeding somewhat toward constitutional democracy when we and the Brits ousted Mossadegh in '53.
The other impression is either pathetic (James North’s word) or tragic (mine). Khalidi is a brilliant man. He is far less outspoken than even Chas Freeman, and indeed the fact
that Obama even nominated Freeman to the National Intelligence Council
"astonished me, it flabbergasted me," he said. And remember, Freeman and Khalidi
cannot be in government; and that speaks to the power of the lobby.
But the pathetic and tragic impression I have today is not about foreign-policy-making but about Jewish life. Khalidi is a person of the book. He is a gifted and accomplished scholar. And this was a radical event: to have a courtly man speak so intelligently for an hour and a half before a leftleaning audience? Yes. It is a radical act inside the house of American Jewry. We used to be the smartest people in the world. Zionism is destroying our capacity to think.
I have not seen Khalidi speak. If he were to be invited to a shul near my area (a possibility, as most are liberal), I would certainly attend.
I have seen you-tube extended presentations by him (after Gaza) that were MUCH more aggressive than you describe of this lecture.
I think you are WRONG that others must share your obsessions. The Israel Lobby orientation is a side-show for example (a show, but NOT of over-arching significance. Its like a large planet causing the sun to wobble.)
In being courtly, intelligent, considerate, he DEMONSTRATES to the west, that there are leaders that can be simultaneously assertive and respectful, capable of democracy.
Did he comment on the significance of the Netanyahu government? You mentioned his comment about the likelihood of Hezbollah electoral success.
I hope you understand that that results in likely renunciation of the Lebanon's participation in the Arab League proposal. Nasrallah recently declared that even if Israel were to abandon the occupation of the West Bank, and abandoned the two remaining territorial conflicts between Israel and Lebanon, that Hezbollah would still NEVER recognize Israel, and would regard itself in a long-term struggle to remove Israel from the map.
Without question, it is Obama's determination that is likely to change politics. It nearly certainly has already moderated Netanyahu's. It is NOT the left's determination, nor the realists, that even nuanced that.
I just read Khalidi's new book Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East. It is an extremely rational, rather dispassionate book.
@ Witty
"The Israel Lobby orientation is a side-show for example (a show, but NOT of over-arching significance. Its like a large planet causing the sun to wobble.)"
Ask any American who has contacted via letter, phone, or email their government representatives and made known their issues with
standard AIPAC-speak regarding the I-P situation and Uncle Sam's enabling thereof, if they deduce
the Israel Lobby is a "side-show." The "sun" is the light in the representatives' rote responses.
It's actually the moon merely reflecting the Lobby. The Lobby is a flower that grows best in the dark.
How often do you see the moon during the day?
We need more sunshine.
We will get there. Eventually the wizard of OZ was exposed behind the curtain.
Khalidi has gaps in his understanding of E. European Jewish politics and history.
Here are two blog entries discussing an earlier attempt by Palestinians to dialog with NY Jews:
Ghada Karmi's Boston College Talk — look for Tannous,
Second Great Zionist Fraud — points to Medoff's report on the Arab offer.
Witty's attempt at downplaying the Lobby's influence is reflexive but nothing more: the Lobby's influence on US policy making toward Israel cannot be underestimated, at least not until very recently. But they may be down but not out!
Only in defeat will we learn the exact magnitude of their influence, when the rats are leaving the ship and will need to sell their stories as a form of gainful employment.
I ran across Andy Bachman some years ago. He recently went through formal conversion. That story on his blog was quite touching. He's a good man.
Khalidi also came off as rather cool and dispassionate in his talk (paired with a pro-Israel academic from Brandeis) at the Harvard Kennedy School a month or so ago, in the aftermath of the Gaza attack. He did liven up some (and loosen up) in response to some of the questions, when he actually spoke about the Occupation and the war crimes in Gaza. I got the impression he was so used to speaking in measured terms in a hostile environment that his "default" was rather dry and academic. Still, something of a breakthrough in being asked to speak at a synagogue.
Contrast the hysterical treatment of the Israeli anti-Occupation activist Jeff Halper by the Jewish community in Australia and his excellent response, ending with this paragraph:
What befell me in Australia is just a tiny piece of a sad story of mutual exploitation: you using Israel to keep your community together, Israel using you to defend its indefensible policies. Perhaps something good can emerge from all this: robust discussion on the nature of Israeli-Diaspora relations. I’m going home to Jerusalem. You have to let Israel go and get a [Jewish] life.
Well worth reading the whole thing at
http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2009/03/31/an-unhelpful-discourse-on-israel/
Everybody from an armchair distance misses the reality and significance of actions.
The caricatured Israel Lobby does, and the caricatured solidarity does.
Everybody with an agenda or a reaction, exagerates.
The reality of US politics is that the Israel Lobby is a blip, a moderate power that can be argued against if the argument is actually substantive, and people are actually determined to convince (rather than browbeat).
The reality of Israeli/Palestinian politics is that criticism is valid, contempt is contempt.
It doesn't matter who says these two truths. They are still truths.
Again, if you think the Israel Lobby is a blip, I'd respond, forty plus years (if not 60 plus years) is no blip. At least for average humans who don't wake up in the morning thinking of Joshua's rape of Jericho. Contempt for Carter & W & M is contempt for those speaking truth, chips fall where they may.
The armchair distance came home to roost with 9/11. Americans (USA version) need to accept
responsibility and act from there. Hence this blog.
Witty acts as if Truman wasn't a whore when the rubber hit the road in 1948–Balfour too, way back then. We are paying the price, next up war with Iran, then WW3.
***NEWS ON ARMS SHIPMENTS TO ISRAEL***
From: Amnesty International USA (alerts@takeaction.amnestyusa.org)
Sent: Fri 4/03/09 4:20 PM
New information obtained by Amnesty researchers this week confirmed a massive shipment of U.S. weapons was delivered to Israel on March 22nd.
The administration allowed the delivery, despite clear evidence of Israeli human rights violations, some amounting to war crimes, including the controversial use of U.S. made white phosphorous munitions over densely populated areas. That's the white phosphorous that sticks to flesh and sears it until completely deprived of oxygen.
You and I need the State Department to know that they can't just plop tons of weapons into the hands of a known serious human rights violator without getting grilled.
Please ask State Department officials why the U.S. would deliver these arms to Israel.
*** TO SEND A PREPARED E-MAIL – link to takeaction.amnestyusa.org
Witty comprehends that American support for Israel is wide but not deep, and takes from this that the Israel lobby can never have too much power, because it is perpetually skating on thin ice. The problem with this perspective is that even if, say, Zionism-motivated Big Brother thugs like Rahm Emanuel start terrorizing Americans opposed to Zionism, or sending out government troops to arrest and imprison anti-Zionists and anti-war activists, Witty would still believe that the lobby didn’t have too much power.
It is the authoritarian Zionist-types who can never have enough power that back patriots, authentic liberals and conservatives, liberty-lovers, and Free Will Christians so deep into corners that tragedy inevitably ensues for all involved.
Witty why do you constantly reiterate the obvious?
And why do you constantly equate the conflict?
The Israel Lobby and the power of the Jewish Establishment in the West (primarily the US) TROUNCES the 'solidarity' camp.
Not only that, but – and I agree with you here – American foreign policy colludes to an extent with the interests of the Jewish Establishment.
So not only do the Palestinians have a legion of Hasbaraniks (in the form of the MSM/most public intellectuals/and the entertainment industry: see any study of Arab stereotypes in our country versus Jewish stereotypes) to deal with, but they have to deal with the realpolitik of the world's most powerful country.
The Israel Lobby's power is exemplified by theatrical idiots like Dershowitz and the various representatives from the mainstream Jewish community.
Throughout our history we've pumped out plenty of propaganda and hate towards the 'enemy of the State' and whereas it was Commies and Koreans and Vietnamese and Germans and Native Americans before, it's not Muslims.
Which is why you have fucking retards talking about how Muslims are going to take over the world.
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the Arab world can dispel this douchebaggery.
So there are just too many social pressures and political pressures that are working against the Palestinians.
There is collusion – sure. But there is also a profound psychological impact on the part of Jews in our country who pump out the most dishonest and insincere intellectualism on this conflict.
Given the fear of people to be un-PC and of accusations of racism – it only enables this dishonesty.
We give Zionism a free pass for so many reasons.
So literally, the weight of the Western world is against Palestine.
For all the wrong and EVIL reasons.
Nothing to do with virtue. Only power.
And you Witty, contribute to that in your own way by being as dishonest and superficial as a Dershowitz or Glick of Phillips or Kershner or Bronner or Friedmann.
Damn, you guys got Witty's number!