Months ago I declared that Gaza had cracked the Israel lobby. It did so by causing non-affiliated Jews to at last speak out about Israel/Palestine policy. These Jews had traditionally ceded the foreign-policy turf to their pro-Israel cousins (as I did, deferring politely to Marty Peretz out of the stupid guilty feeling that he was a better Jew than I was) till they realized that their cousins were nuts.
The Israel lobby is slowly waking up to the new landscape, and blaming anyone but the real culprit: a state practicing Jim Crow with millions of Palestinians under occupation and promoting a policy of permanent war with its neighbors.
The latest evidence of the lobby's puzzlement is a highly-tendentious piece by Gary Rosenblatt in the Jewish Week about "Whispered Worries About Obama" that–while poohpoohing the settlements and feeding suspicion about Obama– states that the body of American Jewry is with Obama, even if the "mainstream supporters of Israel and Jewish causes" (i.e. Jewish chauvinists) are against him.
Leaders
of American Jewish organizations note an unease among mainstream supporters of Israel and Jewish causes… who say they voted for and admire Barack Obama and support many of his policies, but feel he is being overly critical of Israel and too soft on the Palestinians and on an Iranian regime bent on developing nuclear weapons that could end up aimed at the Jewish state…
An interview with Malcolm Hoenlein follows. The third paragraph, which I've emphasized, is the plum in the pudding:
he told me the other
day that "judging from phone calls" he has received, and other
responses, "there is an increasing unease" about a number of the Obama
administration’s recent statements and actions.
Those include… the public pressure on Israel to
halt settlements — as if they represented the key to peace rather than
the Palestinians’ consistent refusal to recognize a Jewish state in the
region — and the lack of specific demands on the Palestinians; and the
concern that the president is still determined to engage in dialogue
with Iran, despite the regime’s brutal behavior following national
elections last month.
..[I]s the gap growing between
leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations and the majority of American
Jews, more than three-quarters of whom voted for Obama, support a
two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis and may well agree
that settlements are a hindrance to peace?
More evidence of the same trend. Here's Jennifer Rubin fulminating at Commentary, and calling on the "sliver" of American Jewry that agrees with her:
Where is the outrage in the U.S. — especially among the 78% of Jews
who voted for Obama? Where are the major Jewish institutions that in
the past offered rhetorical and political support for a vibrant
pro-Israel policy? Yes, Marty Peretz is pretty peeved these days, but
an irate column or two from a previously enthusiastic Obama defender
are less than what one would expect when Washington decides to launch
this sort of policy. One wonders what those offering themselves as
official representatives of the American Jewish community and friends
of Israel think they are accomplishing by their relative silence.
The sliver of American Jewry originally wary of Obama who had warned
of just this result is outraged, but not surprised.
Actually, to his audience, he is writing the oppossite of what you ascribe. He is writing that the question is unanswered, that the settlements are NOT possibly the basis of whether Obama supports and is committed to Israel's defense or not.
So you rubber-stamp an outright liar. Good for you Witty.
Actually what they believe is in AIPAC power. They're not stupid.
Yeah, the USA campaign finance system controls who the ignorant voters get to vote for and/or who they even know about as a candidate choice. Money talks, all else walks. Could it get any better for Jews?
The above discourse shows that nothing has changed on Mondolies — it's still attracts anti Semites and other hateful racist like flies to shit…lol
More Israeli attacks on Gazans in their own and international waters … Finding Fish, But Israelis Too http://original.antiwar.com/bartlett/2009/07/01/f...
If you're going to make claims that this blog is full of lies, at least try to back them up. This website also attracts Islamopohobes and Arab-haters – at least it's not a one-way discourse
they are guilty of mass murder, what are you talking about??
The Milken Institute just paid for some of the crew at Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy to tour Israel and the settlements and report on the gay pride parade but not, of course, to go to Gaza. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/26/rama... At this point, I would like to know who is not taking money from the Lobby.
Phillip/all have you seen this today on Democracy Now Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire Speaks from Israeli Jail Cell After Arrest on Boat Delivering Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Irish Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire speaks to us from her jail cell in Israel. She was taken into custody along with twenty others, including former US Congress member Cynthia McKinney, when the Israeli military boarded their ship in international waters as it tried to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. [includes rush transcript] http://www.vivapalestina-us.org/ —————————————————– Will you guys be following this or doing a blog on George Galloway and Viva Palestinia. or is this convoy to hot to cover on your blog? Wonder what the Israeli government will do to stop this convoy? http://www.vivapalestina-us.org/ http://www.vivapalestina-us.org/ A RELIEF MISSION TO GAZA! July 4 – July 17, 2009 Donate to the humanitarian mission! Have your organization endorse the Convoy! Fresh from the success of the Viva Palestina: Lifeline from Britain to Gaza aid convoy – which took over 100 vehicles to Gaza from the UK, Member of Parliament, George Galloway has linked up on his US tour with the Vietnam veteran and peace campaigner, Ron Kovic, to launch a similar, but even larger venture from the States. Galloway announced the initiative at a 1000-strong meeting in Anaheim, California, rounding off a packed-out, coast to coast speaking tour highlighting the Palestinian cause. “There’s a new atmosphere in the US over Palestine,” says Galloway, “the phenomenal response to this tour demonstrates that.” Ron Kovic, whose story was immortalized in Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July, will be the co-leader of the convoy, which will travel from New York City to Egypt before making its way across the Rafah border into Gaza. Viva Palestina USA is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, but individuals and groups from across the nation are organizing locally to generate support for the convoy, which aims to raise $10 million for humanitarian aid and 500 vehicles with which to deliver the aid into Gaza. “And what better day to head off,” says Galloway, “Than July 4 – Independence Day!”
I think your theory is way too conspiratorial, Ed. After all to accept it you have to assume that, well, as you say, the "liberal 'social justice'" orientation of Diaspora jews has indeed been a "guise," and that all along they were simply planning on gaining governmental power so as to help Israel. Of course however Israel didn't even exist nor seem possible when Russian and Eastern European jews seem, in general, to have gravitated towards the Left/Liberal end of the spectrum, and otherwise to the extent that they stayed there—even after immigrating to Western Europe and the U.S.—that orientation just seems a continuation and of a piece with that historic position. Plus it seems to me that on the modern American Left and in the modern American liberal ranks you never really saw anywhere near the huge obsession with Israel that you did until some turned right and became Neocons and even then their obsession can seem only a couple of decades old at best. In short I don't think you can ascribe the (generalized) affection for Leftism/Liberalism/social justice amongst the Western jewish population to any kind of zionism or secret intent to use power to aid only the jews. Instead I think it was a genuine thing; the natural product of being on the receiving end of nativist governments essentially, with Leftism and liberalism being the real internationalist alternative. Indeed, it's interesting that you did see the turn amongst so many ex-Lefties and liberals towards neo-conservatism just about when conservatism started turning less and less nationalistic and more and more international in pretensions. And perhaps the best illustration of this is that while there were portents before (with Podhoretz or Kristol Sr. I think kind of breaking with the Left during Vietnam), nevertheless clearly the neo-cons got their legs under them after Reagan got into office, right? And look at Reagan's kind of "conservatism": far more internationalist in scope, talking yes about American being a shining city on a hill, but also saying that our system *ought* to be the model for everyone else and that we *ought* to proselytize our conceptions of freedom and free-markets abroad because their successes *were* indeed transferable to others and etc. Just my idle thoughts on the issue, but they seem to accord with the history that I see at least….
I have never read (much less, posted) a single message on Mondo Weiss that was anti-Jewish. Not ONE. Israel is not "the jews" Israel is a racist shithole full of scum. Israel is a disgrace to ALL Jews.
No rape victim as in the attacker (in this case Israel) doesn't get to claim self defense when the rape victim (ie. the Palestinians) fight back.
What are you talking about?
I believe that the liberal “social justice” orientation of *political Judaism* has indeed always been a guise, and that all along it was working to gain governmental power so as to serve the interests of *political Judaism.* (Individual Jews less so.) Just look at the pattern from the Jewish Bolsheviks to the Zionists to contemporary Diaspora political Judaism in America, which used its influence to propagate the Iraq war, among other crimes. It’s possible political Judaism’s grab for government power is “the natural product of being on the receiving end of nativist governments,” as you say; but I don’t discount the evidence that political Judaism was on the “receiving end” in large part due to its own atrocious behavior. After all, haven’t Zionists always claimed that their behavior is entirely defensive, and don’t we now know that to be a lie? Evidence suggests political Judaism’s pre-Soviet behavior was atrocious as well; when it gained power in the Soviet Union, its behavior grew even worse.
ed you're aggressively insane. ALL the groups fighting today for Palestinian rights, Palestinian autonomy, an end to Judeo-Nazism, an end to the siege of Gaza, war crimes trials for the guilty parties in israel, divestment, boycott, etc etc etc are LEFT LIBERAL individuals and LEFT LIBERAL organizations. There are NO rightwing organizations in this struggle. There are NO anticommunist goons involved in this struggle.
i think ed is talking about the fake left liberal journos etc who give political cover to zionism. pep, progressive except palestine…
You are right about one thing–God IS Great.
Yeah? So was Israe's ILLEGITIMATE terrorist "army" whose leaders later became PMs and presidents.
I don't think Witty actually realized what you are talking about. In his moral universe all lies are truth and truth are lies.
All the conservatives who criticised Israel were screamed down as "anti-semites" and fired from their media positions or blacklisted. I don't recall anyone on the left supporting Pat Buchanan in his criticism of our involvement in Israel, which is documented in reverent detail on the ADL website. Pat In 1991: "Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line." William Buckley purged the traditional right fom the National Review in the 80's, and the neocons took on the role of "conservatives." Pat Buchanan is the only figure in the non-neocon right with any continuing media visibility.
"All the conservatives who criticised Israel were screamed down as "anti-semites" and…." Yes but that doesn't necessarily go to Ed's thesis that *jewish* Left/liberals are merely using the "guise" of Left/liberalism to advance "political Judaism," whatever that is. (With Ed saying that there's a difference between trying to advance the interest of individual jews with that "political Judaism.") And look at the fact that of those "conservatives" who are identified as "anti-Israel" or etc.—like Buchanan—unlike those on the Left the central thrust of their critique isn't so much at what Israel does or doesn't do it's at the fact that the *U.S.* has gotten itself involved in Israel's situation so deeply. That is, for all of Ed's thesis saying jews got behind Left/liberalism to advance that "political Judaism," it is the very *tenets* of Left/liberalism (and adherents thereof) that are being used to provide the *most* fundamental criticisms of Israel, including not only its "racism" towards arabs, but even it's very right to exist. Indeed one need look no further than this website for support of this idea: Hard to find anyone as focused on Israel's mis-steps than Phil, right? And yet where do his criticisms come from mainly? His "Progressivism." His long-standing belief in all the usual concerns of the Left and liberals like multi-culturalism, pluralism, non-violence and etc. and so forth. Same with most if not all of the main people/groups out there that I can think of that are most prominently criticizing Israel now: They all seem of the Left or to be basically liberal in nature, true? So, to get back to Ed's thesis, why would jews have so historically and assiduously piled into Leftism and liberalism for self-interested reasons given that the it is the very tenets of Leftism/liberalism—indeed perhaps their most fundamental tenets—that can seem to pose the most fundamental challenges not simply to Israel's way of doing things but to Israel's very right to exist?
I don't doubt that many Jews are drawn to leftist politics out of sincere belief. But it only makes sense to question those beliefs when many of the same people who talk of their personal or group's role in the civil rights movement supported Israel's actions before, during and after the civil rights era. I don't believe these same people didn't understand that making war on Palestinians could not be done nicely, or that it was far more brutal and illegal than anything done under Jim Crow. Could any of this be considered Jewish tribal politics instead of merely leftist politics? I
I agree with sin nombre. That said, i would agree with ed (if this is indeed his point) that left liberal progressives (jewish and non jewish alike) have often been pretty cowardly about criticizing israel (maddow, olberman, etc etc). Of course, at least a few left liberal Jews like Norman F have spoken about this, courageously—for example, his scathing indictments of The Progressive magazine and Roth—head of HRW for his deplorable cowardice in the face of Israeli war crimes. (HRW claimed in one pitiful report, that Palestinian protesters gathered to prevent the bombing of sites by Israel were human shields and acted illegally!)
todd. absolutely. Jewish tribalism is to me the ONLY reasonable explanation for Jews allowing fealty to israel to trump fundamental liberal attitudes regarding justice and human rights. Jewish tribalism is a mental illness. One day it will be formally categorized as a mental illness.
"I don't doubt that many Jews are drawn to leftist politics out of sincere belief. But it only makes sense to question those beliefs when many of the same people…." Well that's certainly a reasonable reaction, although it seems to me for many if not most they still *are* indeed sincere, but their reasoning (what others certainly will call "rationalization" of course) is that Israel and judaism present somewhat of a "special case" due to the historic oppression of the jews and then the Holocaust too obviously. In short, that Israel deserves somewhat of a pass on many things. Not to carry water for this argument, especially since I disagree with it, but it does have some logic to it given that what it essentially says is that "context matters," which it does. For instance, it would be a little blind to not view the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as above-all being passed to prevent government from discriminating against African-Americans, right? And indeed maybe the same logic is used by those who seek to explain ("excuse"?) the Palestinians from, say, not getting their act together in Gaza or elsewise and running a decent, non-corrupt government, right? That is … that context matters and that their society has been so shattered and oppressed that you can understand if still not approve of their dysfunctionalism, their toleration of corruption and terrorism and love of Saddam Hussein and etc. and so forth. I guess my view is that while context ought to matter in terms of our *understanding* of motivations, that ought not mean we tolerate the dual standards that those motivations would result in. And here especially while one can sympathize with the historical jewish experience it certainly wasn't the poor *Palestinians* who inflicted their historical torments upon them. Nevertheless for people coming out of the Holocaust I think we can have a little understanding of a bunker mentality; a feeling that "the world didn't give a shit about us then and wouldn't give any more about us in the future if we did give back Palestinian land and it was just used to attack us all over again," and etc., etc. And, as I've said before, in a way that's what the world is asking Israel to do, isn't it? Give back that land and then *trust* that the Palestinian people are not going to tolerate extremists amongst them to simply use it to attack Israel all over again. *And* trust that the Palestinian people are going to be able actually *prevent* that. That's why I think the US ought to stay out of this. I don't want to be telling either party what's in their own best interest.
@ Sin Nombre, 1) Every ethnic, racial and religious group has legitimate victim claims. Christians, for example could point to their mass murder in the Soviet Union and declare this entitles them to special sensitivities, treatment and rampages. 2) Diaspora political Judaism has always thrived most on the Left. And because its success in the US left-liberal establishment is what has for years been the primary facilitator of Zionist abuses, American left-liberalism has a special obligation to clean up the messes it has enabled by its ushering of political Judaism into the halls of American power and obsequiously pandering to its demands. This pandering was calculated to co-opt the resources of political Judaism on behalf of left-liberal power in America. In return, the Democrats let the Zionists rampage time and again.
Pearle is a left liberal? Wolfowitz is a left liberal? Feith is a left liberal? Eliot Abrahms is a left liberal? Daniel Pipes is a left liberal? Cynthia "Ratface" Ozick is a left liberal?? Henry Fucking Kissinger is a left-liberal??!?
Well, in the first place as I said in general I don't think you ought to *grant* any special pass or double standard to any particular group due to their past legitimate claims. (With one huge problem being that just because I am a Slav doesn't mean that the Hitler's war on the Slavs hurt me at all and etc.) But I did say that it's only common sense to try to understand where a group is coming from to consider their past. And as to every group having some crime committed against it in the past, well I guess I'd say that degree matters as common sense dictates. For instance I'm sure that in *some* regions of the U.S. at *some* time WASPS were discriminated against (in the Deep South for instance). Don't make me weep for 'em. But look at the Native Americans, and then, comparatively speaking, the very recent decimation of the jews, in such numbers and proportions. Like I say, doesn't mean you agree to any double standard, but it does help one understand I think. As to American Left/liberalism having a special obligation to "clean up" the ME messes I guess I'd say I dunno. Seems to me a beyond fair chance that by trying they'd be doing more damage than has already been done. And it was after all Mr. Bush and his far-from Lefty/liberal friends who kinda threw the match into this present ME powder-keg, right? And it was Nixon who inaugurated the great shift in U.S. policy towards Israel from one of mere fair warmth to something much greater when he sent those C5-A's loaded with weapons to Israel and saved its bacon during the '73 war, and ramped up our DEFCON status to let the Russkies know we weren't going to let them backstop the arabs from failing, right? And from there I think most people would say that of the following Presidents the greatest friends Israel has had have been the *Republican* ones, not so much Carter and Clinton. (Especially when you consider Bush II.) Thus and again, I think our wisest course would be to just get out of it. Send humanitarian aid; offer our good offices if both parties want it to be an actual fair go-between. But beyond that have some humility that we don't know exactly where the finger of cosmic justice points, nor that whatever we do is really going to be in the best interest of whomever we think we are trying to help. Just like we believe in democracy because of its idea that the people know best what they want, where do we get off telling the Iraqis, or the Palestinians, or the Israelis or *anyone* what's best for them? Hell, we don't even know what's best for *us*, do we?
You have a problem with history. You also seem to have a problem with expressing yourself in words. Get help for your problems.
Ha! You forget Entebbe, Osirak, and many, many more… Or perhaps you never knew? Do you learn everything here at MondoLies? That would explain a few things…
Hezbullah is a terrorist group BY LEBANESE LAW. It is ILLEGAL in Lebanon. That the Lebanese govt has been unable to enforce the law in it's own territory is a tribute to Iran and Syria trying to displace Lebanese national sovereignty. Armed Terrorist groups are similartly illegal in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, USA, Britain, etc. You have a problem with that, al Shafiq?
It is interetsting that you ignored the Palestinean girl who tried to commit suicide by attacking Israeli soldiers a few days ago. She was only injured by the IDF soldiers. After treatment in an Israeli hospital, she explaindd that she watnted to die a Shahid to regain her Muslim Honor after being molested repeatedely over a long period by family members. You ignore the position of rape in Islamic society. Rape is an honorable thing in Arabic/Islamic society; being raped is shameful. Many Sheiks have made these pronouncements in many countries… YOu dont' like the facts, do you?
Are you really that stupid? If hisbollah is illegal under lebanese law, then why is it allowed to take part in elections? And why does it hold contacts with various arab and european governments including the UK
Are you really that stupid? If hisbollah is illegal under lebanese law, then why is it allowed to take part in elections? And why does it hold contacts with various arab and european governments including the UK