Warm-n-fuzzy ‘Times’ profiles of rightwingers served the lobby (advertently)
by Philip Weiss on July 16, 2009 · 5 comments
This is interesting. Take a breath, and connect the dots in this post.
Yesterday we ran a post on Rush Limbaugh, by the assidulous FE Felson, who had dug up a 2007 speech where Rush said that he had gone to Israel in 1994 at the behest of Israel lobbyist Malcolm Hoenlein.
The post prompted the following note from another friend:
"Excellent and revealing
item on Limbaugh. It sheds light on the peculiarly soft profile of Limbaugh that was
published by the New York Times Magazine on July 6, 2008, by Zev Chafets, former director of the government press office under Menachem Begin and
an extreme Israel chauvinist.
"The Times did not do that unknowingly. Already in
the weeks before they had triangulated against Obama by endorsing Hillary
Clinton and John McCain: the only time the paper ever endorsed a candidate in
both major parties. Think what it meant to assign the Limbaugh profile to this
man, and look at what he made of it–the closest Rush Limbaugh has ever come to
legitimation by the mainstream media. Chafets would likely have known about the
Hoenlein-Limbaugh connection and the Israel trip.
"The Times was kind to Rush for a reason."
I showed this note to Felson, who agreed with the analysis, and noted that Chafets wrote another kind piece about a rightwinger, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in the New York Times Magazine in 2007. Felson added:
In early 2007, Chafets published A Match Made In Heaven, in which he called for a partnership between American Jews and the Christian right so as to serve Israel's political ends in the U.S. And within a year or so, Chafets lands two NYT mag cover stories, each a warm and fuzzy profile of a right-wing leader.
It's classic: The stories say virtually nothing about Israel, but in a way, they're all about Israel.
Chafets also had a chat with Haaretz, in which he urged Jews to be nicer to the religious right.
Here's the money quote:
"Zionist Christians want an alliance with the Jews, but alliances work in two directions. If the American Jewish leadership wants to make enemies out of 70 million fellow citizens, attacking them publicly on every issue is a good way to start. And who, then, will then replace these allies?"
Also, try this one:
"Israel cares about conservative Evangelicals because Israel's only reliable friend is the United States; that friendship depends on a bi-partisan coalition; and tens of millions of Republican Christians provide the right wing of that coalition. Conservative Christians are great allies. Like Jews, they love Israel. Unlike Jews, they are not vulnerable to charges of "neo-con" dual loyalty, they don't give a damn about sophisticated European opinion and they are not afflicted with the need to seem balanced.Evangelical tourism is big factor in the Israeli economy (and Evangelicals came during the intifada, when others stayed home)."
and this:
Jews are a major stakeholder (perhaps THE major stakeholder) in the Democratic Party; evangelicals are a major stakeholder (perhaps THE major stakeholder) in the Republican Party. And many Jews still see evangelicals as dumb southern rednecks. There is a fair amount of snobbery and even (dare I say it) bigotry, in this stereotype. Jews have real enemies. The Jihad is aimed primarily at us. So is the intifada. And the Iranian nuclear program. And the Hamas Charter. Under the circumstances, it is irresponsible and even crazy to pick a fight over domestic issues with our most reliable friend. Obviously there can be differences over domestic issues. American Jews don't need to convert to Christianity or even (God forbid) Republicanism. But they do need to put first things first. If they don't, they may spend the next generation–as they spent the last – building museums to commemorate the consequences of confused priorities in a time of war.
One last point: In Irreconcilable Differences, the superb book on American Jewish attachment to Israel by sociologist Steven Rosenthal, Hoenlein's group, the Conference of Presidents, is said to have been formed 50 years ago for "coordination of lobbying and propaganda."
Related posts:
- Rush Limbaugh seems to be doing the lobby’s work
- Warm n fuzzy Netanyahu hugs Obama and peace, but nuthin about a Palestinian state
- How they do it: Hoenlein brought Limbaugh to Israel and Mossad, many years ago
- In Kenya, the Times Bumps Into the Israel Lobby
- Journalism’s Old-Boy-Network and Zionism
{ 5 comments }
I have to say, the interviewee makes a lot of good points. I don't like the attitude myself and don't share it, but his logic is spot-on.
"Conservative Christians are great allies. Like Jews, they love Israel. Unlike Jews, they are not vulnerable to charges of "neo-con" dual loyalty, they don't give a damn about sophisticated European opinion and they are not afflicted with the need to seem balanced.Evangelical tourism is big factor in the Israeli economy (and Evangelicals came during the intifada, when others stayed home)." In other words, Conservative Christians are . . . useful idiots in ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Way to go, John Hagee!
By the way, Hoenlein's blood must have been boiling when Obama — at his meeting of Jewish leaders at the White House — insisted on an open dialogue concerning the I/P situation (not behind closed doors), and that he refused to change tack. But he must've had a near heart attack when J Street and Peace Now walked through the door. This is not the Dubbya administration, not by a long shot.
I agree, Un-Natural Growth: I would like to have been a fly on the wall. Indeed, this does not appear to be the Dubbya admin, so I'm getting very curious about what Obama will do when he's had enough of Bibi stalling and footdragging on the settlement issue. You can bet that construction has sped up by a factor of 3 or 4 since Obama made his first "request" for the freeze. If Bibi can keep stalling, maybe they'll get their 2500 more units up before Obama loses patience.
Backgrounder on Christian Zionism (4 yrs old but still relevant) – now six years but still relevant
Comments on this entry are closed.