A central question for American Jews in the media when considering the Middle East is: How much authority do they grant Israeli Jewish voices? Do they elevate Israeli Jewish opinion about Israel/Palestine over, say, progressive American Jewish opinion or American Arab opinion, or American non-Jewish opinion? Does the tail wag the dog in terms of ideas? I think the answer is Yes. When the Washington Post attacks the settlements, it turns to an Israeli. Gershom Gorenberg is so important to the American media now that he is writing for the Weekly Standard, the New York Review of Books, and American Prospect. (They're not calling Rashid Khalidi.) This surely reflects the fact that in Jewish life (and by extension the Establishment media, which draw heavily from my culture), Israel is said to be aliyah, or high, and the Diaspora low.
This reliance becomes more of an issue as the distance between the two Jewish communites grows: American Jews voted 4 to 1 for a minority president. While Israel has turned to the right, and Israelis regularly bash Obama.
Take the case of Ari Shavit. Shavit has written for the New Yorker. Editor David Remnick took Shavit very seriously in recent years, citing his history on the left. And the other day in the Times, Shavit stood up for Netanyahu as a visionary of the two-state-solution and challenged Obama to respond with vision, too.
Then yesterday, in Haaretz, (i.e., not for the Times audience) Shavit patronized Obama with an unfortunately-laden phrase, the "blackberry president," and again attacked him for failure of vision, this time with respect to the Iranian government. Shavit went on to caricature me– Obama's progressive base–with a lot of sloganeering:
Due to a profound sense of guilt for the white man's sins, the politically correct left is incapable of properly confronting the sins of a non-white person. The result is patently immoral: It is the very people who consider themselves obligated to the third world who are turning their backs on the victims of oppression there. It is the champions of human rights who are abandoning the Middle East's residents to the mercies of despots.
Magnes Zionist, whom I would follow into the sea, most days anyway, called this a "screed" and declined to link it, saying that Shavit lacks the cultural awareness even to understand Obama. Magnes passes along this comment at Haaretz on Shavit's piece:
Ari, you simply do not have the tools, the cultural background to explain Obama. This is a revolutionary leader, proposing reforms in so many fields of American life that you simply do not understand, because you do not understand America. [Magnes talking again:] That about sums up my feeling about Shavit, and the many other anti-Obama Israelis. According to a recent poll, only 6% of Jewish Israelis think that Obama is pro-Israel.
Today I got an email from Ilene Cohen underlining the same issue about the retrograde Israeli conversation:
Unfortunately, this Obama hate fest is not limited to raging types like Shavit; Aluf Benn, in much more respectable language, does it all the time. And there's more throughout the media.
Why does this matter? It matters, I think, because there are (as yet) no voices coming from within the consensus–whether "intellectuals," journalists, folks in the grassroots, politicians–who are regrouping intellectually to make sense of the changing reality (that no one outside of Israel, other than Jewish Republicans and neocons, is buying the colonial occupation anymore–just today the G8 told Israel to freeze settlements). To make sense of it and to begin to tell Israelis the truth and to prepare them for what inevitably lies ahead–to tell them that it was fun while it lasted but that expending Israel's future on trying to continue the occupation is a dead end.
It is worrisome indeed that the consensus in Israel remains silent. It is worrisome indeed that Netanyahu's speech was so well received (Netanyahu's finest moment), worrisome for the following reasons: (1) for now, at least, they believe he has "won over" or tricked Obama (they do know that US support is all they have) and (2) he blamed the Arabs. One must always blame the Arabs. That, I'm afraid, is the Israeli Weltanschauung as of today. No change. And no signs of any epiphany coming soon.
It's time for the Diaspora Jews to take their power. To say that their social/political/historical experience is as valid as any Israeli's, more valid in a liberal age. And far more important in determining American policy.
Related posts:
- ‘Haaretz’ writer urges Israeli Jews to ’save’ the state from Arab population growth
- In NY synagogue, Israeli settler leader calls for assassination of Abbas– and tax-deductible contributions
- Yes, He’s an Intellectual (Obama Uses the Word ‘Signifier’ to Describe Bowling)
- ‘New Republic’ writer calls two-state-solution the plan of Hitler and ‘fascist’s
- Obama Is a Real Person–a Real Intellectual–and That’s What We Need
{ 17 comments }
Shavit is only a liberal in terms of late 19th century racist discourse: Shavit: Zionist Bigot, Jewish Racist.
When the Washington Post gets an Israeli to criticize the settlements, the assumption is that only Israelis can criticize other Israelis. But what about America? We are condemned around the world for tacitly supporting the settlements all these years. You would think the Washington Post would realize that an American has the right to criticize the settlements, given that we are so massively hurt around the world by them. Or maybe the Post thinks that Israel is so much more important than the US that any hurt to Israel is the real concern. America (and Americans) can go fend for themselves.
Americans are expendable–like their free dollars. What else is the USA good for, pray tell?
Just end your misery and declare Abbas your intellectual and ideaological leader already – or Nasrallah, for that matter. How tribalist and Judeo- Centric of you to need a Jewish leader.
"It's time for the Diaspora Jews to take their power. To say that their social/political/historical experience is as valid as any Israeli's, more valid in a liberal age. And far more important in determining American policy." I attended a meeting of Brit Tzedek Shalom. The speaker was emphatic: AIPAC does not speak for us, the majority of Jews in the US. Then the speaker encouraged the audience to lobby the US Congress to … do X, Y, Z… Here's my problem with that: Why doesn't Brit Tzedek "lobby" its own? Having two groups of Jews competing with each other for the ear of the US Congress sounds like two spoiled kids clamoring for Dad to smack down each the other. And from an American, non-Jewish perspective, it looks like there will just be more Jewish voices demanding that the American president pay attention to Israel and solve Israel's problems, as well as the internal conflicts between disparate groups of Jews. Don't American taxpayers have a right to demand that Jews solve their own problems? I've sadly concluded that J Street and Brit Tzedek are as much the messiah as is Mousavi. Mousavi & Ahmadinejad are, after all, not that different from each other.
It goes without saying that Israel is becoming an intellectual waste land with a few prominent exceptions. It is not possible to believe on the one hand that Israel is an enlightened, democratic nation and on the other hand engage in racist colonial expansion. Sufferers of cognitive dissonance cannot engage is free intellectual exploration. No way they can comprehend the multicultural nation that America is becoming. On the other hand very few Americans, especially American Jews seem oblivious to what is happening to the Israeli people. The ultra right nationalism and racism that grips a clear majority is something that is extremely alien to America. If we can just educate the American people on this one point we will go a long way towards solving our Israeli problem (i.e. recognize that it is NOT our problem and just get out).
grr not "On the other hand very few Americans," but On the other hand most Americans,
Sadly, but I would agree that the political left in the US in unable to cope with the sins of a non-white person, which is why the powers-that-be wisely chose Obama to be the new shining face of Empire. No matter how much Obama's policies are in continuity with Bush's and in some cases, are even worse, there are those who will still see him as a "revolutionary" (an assessment completely out of bounds with reality). There are differences in rhetoric between Obama and Bush, but little in substance. Obama is a masterful politician while Bush always wore his character on his sleeve and appeared to be exactly what he was : a snickering, smirking, sociopathic frat boy. But even if he were as crass, vulgar and incompetent as Bush, the majority of liberals are simply too bedazzled by this guy to ever see through his obvious cant. I somehow doubt that the same guy claiming to be "heartbroken" over Neda yet somehow is unable to mention any of the Nedas killed in Gaza is going to seriously take on the Israeli lobby, and the fact he has stacked his administration with Israel-first extremists like Emmanuel and Ross should be evidence enough of this to anyone. This is likewise for his stacking his administration with corporate stooges like Geithner and Summers who engineered the financial mess we are in and who are overseeing Obama's massive wealth transfers to their bankster thief allies. On every issue I see no sign that Obama is any different than Bush. If Obama is serious about confronting Israel, he must threaten to withhold US military and economic aid and support if Netanyahu does not move forthwith to reach an agreement with the legitimate elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and that is not Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. Everything else is bullshit.
By the way, anyone with some knowledge of the topic you seem so obsessed about would know that "blackberry" is not "laden" with anything in Hebrew, since you don't use the word for "black". But of course some knowledge would be too much to ask on this site.
Is the word Blackberry a reference to a digital communication device from a Canadian company? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry It is an unfortunate name for device which is a favourite of a black president.
"Due to a profound sense of guilt for the white man's sins, the politically correct left is incapable of properly confronting the sins of a non-white person." I thought this Shavit piece was silly, and agree with most of your criticism. The above quote, though, is quite perceptive.
What's so "unfortunate" about the name Blackberry? I always thought it was a great name for a handheld communications device, just as Apple is for a computer.
I don't know what "blackberry" is in Hebrew, but Phil should have thought of this. Furthermore, obsessively hunting for any possible hidden reference to race is a mind-numbing distraction from real issues. "Blackberry president" actually is a good description of Obama. He is the first President to be fluent in the use of the internet and modern modes of digital communication. I don't see how the possible Enlgish pun on his race is insulting.
The term "blackberry" is praise. Its saying that he is a MODERN president unlike say George Bush 1, who was surprised when he encountered grocery scanners.
This post (not my comment) is one reason why. People can misconstrue the use of blackberry.
It can also mean trendy and superficial.
The Israeli press has been painting Obama as a Muslim since early in 2008 and the Israelis hate Muslims, so what do we expect? After Hillary lost the primary, the Israelis switched to McCain. Cheney went over there and told them that Obama is pro-Palestinian and Netanyahu and his cabinet have done the same. I think it is absolutely accurate to say that Israel is becoming a vast intellectual waste land and it is because they have been indoctrinated and propagandized in their superiority myths and paranoia for 50 years, not to mention that they all have to do IDF service. It is a requirement in Israeli society to hate Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and non-whites. The Israelis even discriminate against their darker Jewish brethren. This is simply not the mark of an enlightened society. Israel is a sick delusional country suffering from mass psychosis. The Diaspara Jews have to step up and make sure the US is able to help orient Israel into the international community and the age of enlightenment or Israel will be doomed. The American people, whether liberal or conservative and excepting the zionists, will not put up with this for much longer. I agree that we may have been oblivious to these problems with Israel in the past, but that is changing rapidly. The percentage of Americans that say the US should support Israel dropped from 71% to 44% in the last year and I submit that it is in part the cruelty and racism and aggression and dehumanization of the "other" that is responsible for this drop, in addition to not wanting to support more wars for Israel.
Comments on this entry are closed.