Today The Times publishes a slightly-negative review of Dennis Ross and David Makovsky's new book on the unending peace process in which reviewer Howard French employs an indirect style that leaves the impression that he wanted to denounce the authors but was afraid to come out and say so.
[The book's] greatest intellectual energy, however, is expended attacking the so-called realists, who believe, the authors say, that the United States has been “too close to Israel,” and for whom, in what sounds like another overreach, “it is largely inconceivable that Israel could have a case or that the Arabs and Palestinians might not be living up to their side of the bargain.”
The authors go on to denounce “the realist concept of external blueprints, of pressuring Israelis while offering inducements to the Palestinians,” as “strangely divorced from reality.”
The authors rely excessively for foils on John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a political scientist at Harvard, who wrote “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (2007) and who are cited frequently. But with the warnings in “Myths, Illusions, and Peace” about pressuring Israel, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Obama administration’s initial moves in the Middle East would also fall under the authors’ realist banner.
For many readers another issue that will arise is one of balance. Mr. Ross has led a distinguished career that is all the more remarkable for his staying power in Washington during both Democratic and Republican administrations — as a high-level Middle Eastern troubleshooter, envoy and policymaker. (He was recently transferred to the National Security Council.) At virtually no point in this book, however, are Israeli actions depicted as problematic or troublesome.
Translation: He's joined at the hip to the Israel lobby. This explains the staying power.
The closest the authors come to this is a passage describing mounting Palestinian disbelief in the peace process, in which they write, “They saw Israeli obligations under Oslo flouted — prisoners not released, withdrawals not taking place as scheduled, and the status of the territory constantly being changed to Israeli advantage, in effect prejudging the negotiations and their purpose.”
Elsewhere, speaking of an increase in the Israeli settler population on the West Bank from about 5,000 around the time of the Camp David accords in 1977 to over 300,000 now, the authors employ a counterfactual, saying “things could have been different if the Arabs had chosen a more pragmatic course.”
Counterfactuals and relying on foils and the expense of intellectual energy and for many readers and falling under banners… Can you speak English? Or has the lobby got your tongue?
Related Posts
- A Japanese Filmmaker’s Desolating View of Palestinian Life
- A Hot Time in the Capital Last Night (Walt and Mearsheimer at Politics and Prose)
- Further Proof that Americans Are Fed a Naive, Propagandized View of Israel/Palestine
- Has a Jewish congressman ever even mildly criticized Israel?
- ‘Politics and Prose’ Gets Back on Its Plinth
{ 37 comments }
There's no other way to put it. Dennis Ross is a lying propagandist, but then again, what does one expect from an Israeli lobbyist who is known in Washington circles as Israel's lawyer?
"English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?" – Samjack
You really have to wonder at the mental world of folks like Ross and Makovsky in terms of just what they must think of their fellow Americans. For instance here's Ross, acting in the past as an American diplomat and writing now as an American about what America's Israel policy should be, all the while earlier being a co-founder of AIPAC and then (and perhaps even currently) heading the Jerusalem-based "Jewish Peoples Policy Planning Institute." And here's Makovsky, like Ross now writing as an American about what America's Israel policy should be while earlier being the former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post. Just who the hell do they think they are fooling? And just who does the NY Times or other publications that oh-so-politely review their book without noting the extreme dubiousness of their impartiality think they they are fooling? As head of the "Jewish Peoples Planning Institute" you'd think the Ross of all people would realize that the extra marginal benefit of persuading some uninformed American towards his views is by now far far outweighed by the anger this kind of thing generates amongst Americans who know of his Israeli partisanship and the unfair suspicion it fosters about the primary loyalty of all American jews. On the other hand maybe he does. At some point in time you have to conclude that people like Ross and Makovsky actually *like* that anger and suspicion for the unease it creates in other jews who do unfairly feel the sting of same.
You also have to wonder at Phil lambasting the NY Times for years on their absence of criticism of Israel, and now that they do publish that, only criticism for not speaking in the same language that he would have preferred, as if they were a propaganda rag. Carrots and sticks work. Sticks only don't.
I think their opinion of non-Jewish Americans is that their leaders are all selfish whores and the masses are all related to the powerless, ignorant crew of the USS Liberty. Easily led. Easily muzzled. Why should they think differently? Ike was an exception; when Kennedy was becoming so, well he didn't last long, did he?
I was disappointed to see that The Economist gave it a good review a couple of weeks ago. It's also odd seeing as their articles on both Iran and I/P are fairly uncontroversial
This is in the final paragraph about Ross and Makovsky's idea of a decent timeframe for negotiations:
90 fucking days to negotiate? This from a supposed diplomat who spent months and years massaging on Israel's behalf during the 90s? Now he wants three months for Iran? Or what? War? And, oh Richard, the NYT is a propaganda rag. That's what it has become when dealing with I/P. Period.
This blog is the only place on the web that deals with the I/P issue honestly.
Well pointed out MRW. Anyone who suggests a 90 day period is spomeone who isn't serious about negotiations. It's would take many months just to get to the table, especially with all the noise there will be about Obama being a appeaser, and how we can't talk to Iran now that they suppressed a democratic vote blah blah blah. Maybe Ross and his band of wingnuts should start by presenting some evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, seeing as 16 intelligence agencies have concluded that none exists.
I think of the New York Times as informative, not authoritative. When Phil stated that Gazan society was largely cosmopolitan, it rang true because it was confirmed by Ethan Bronner's earlier comments. Two different perspectives describing similarly.
JERUSALEM – An attempt by Hamas police to detain a young woman walking with a man along the Gaza beach has raised alarms that the Islamic militant group is seeking to match its political control of the coastal territory with a strict enforcement of Islamic law. The incident was the first time Hamas has openly tried to punish a woman for behaving in a way it views as un-Islamic since seizing power two years ago. But it follows months of quiet pressure on Gaza's overwhelmingly conservative 1.4 million residents to abide by its strict religious mores. Hamas officials in Gaza have publicly urged shopkeepers to take down foreign advertisements showing the shape of women's bodies and to stash away lingerie often displayed in windows. Officials search electronic shops to check if they are selling pornography on tiny flash drives. "There's an open, public program to preserve public morals in Gaza," said local rights activist Isam Younis. "In reality that means trying to restrict freedoms."
Being part of the war team lying this nation into an immoral and illegal war is not enough evidence to nail the NYT as a "propaganda rag" drenched in Iraqi and Americans blood.
Maybe the Jewish Agency and AIPAC will make a propaganda video of Dennis Ross strutting around Diego Garcia airbase, readying the B2's, perhaps sitting in the cockpit. (Like Chalabi in a black t-shirt, mincing around the cameras as his "uprising" readied to do battle with Sadaam remnants in Iraq.). We need better propaganda.
Muzzlewatch tried but was attacked. David Corn tried but his blog was attacked quite a while back. Most blogs are shut down to discussing this critical issue. Crooks and Liars way shut down..definitely censored. Wrote about the Israeli lobby only after being hammered and then dropped the issue again. Firedoglake has opened up a bit. For a long time their moderators (definitely with agendas) would attack the messenger or claim "off topic" if one would bring this issue up. Although the site has opened up a bit since then Mondeweiss is an important addition
If you want well thought out, scholarly views about the situation in Iran. Read what ever Hillary and Flynnt Leverett have to say and report. Flynnt is over at New America Foundation. Wondering why Obama did not appoint Leverett to the post that Ross was assigned to (by the I lobby). If this is what Obama meant by change. Oy vey
This is a tepid review, probably edited 20 times to water down explicit criticism by a Zionist editor who regrets assigning the review to French in the first place. During its rah-rah, Judith-Miller-embedded, invade-Iraq heyday, I dumped my subscription to the NY Slimes and never looked back, with no regrets, not once, never. Ethan Bronner's reporting is pathetic, and real reporting from Palestine gets castrated, euthanized, lobotomized for consumption by the taxpayers who are funding this apartheid. Dennis Ross must have an FBI file two feet thick for being an unregistered foreign agent, and — as Israel's lawyer — here's hoping Obama is keeping him close only so he can appease the Lobby, and also so he can keep him under control from pushing a JPPPI-WINEP-Zionist agenda on his "host" country.
Unlikely, ILA! The neo-cons are armchair-warriors, pushing buttons on their remote controls to send other people's children to die. Yes, we're talking Texas, Alabama, the Carolinas, Georgia — the southern states. These parents lay awake at night, wondering if their children will be killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and believe me, Feith-Dershowitz-Krauthammer-Wolfowitz-Libby and all the best and brightest from The Office of Special Plans, don't care what the consequences are of a strike in Iran to our soldiers, as long as it maintains Israel's status as the sole nuclear superpower in the region. We live in a zombie nation doped up on 24/7 Michael-Jackson-is-dead news, while the neo-cons work tirelessly to pry more taxpayer dollars from our pockets to fund the greatest crime against humanity in the name of a Greater Israel. Wow.
… Ross and Makovsky in terms of just what they must think of their fellow Americans. They think we are ignorant frier, and that this status gives them the right to use us like food animals.
MRW wrote: "90 fucking days to negotiate?" Well sure, that oughta be enough to see if Iran will abandon its rights under the NPT, which, like Israel, it had no obligation to sign in the first place but which it has so signed unlike Israel, and which, further unlike Israel, it *is* abiding by according to the latest IAEA chief just the other day, not to mention the last U.S. NIE. On the other hand since 1967 Israel has been negotiating about merely *limiting* settlement activity on occupied territory when it is entirely illegal for it to have any settlements at all, which settlements have further been growing despite Israel having *agreed* to stop *after* negotiations since Bush's Roadmap, with Israel now engaged in further endless talks with Obama over what "growth" means. (With it yet to be seen that even if it *does* agree to limit growth with Obama that it will cheat on same the same way it cheated on its word under the Roadmap.) So 90 days? Sure sure Mssrs. Ross and Makovsky; more than enough. You obviously care about U.S. interests and its credibility and etc. and that it be seen as dealing fairly and even-handedly with everyone, don't you? Really remarkable. You'd think people like this would be embarrassed at their transparency but I guess that's their strength—they are *incapable* of being embarrassed.
How informative was the New York Times in the events leading up to Shrub's PNAC attack on Iraq?
They count on the manipulated ignorance of the masses. So far it has stood them in good stead. With most concerned about getting or keeping jobs and homes, 3 months is more than enough time to fulfill the charade. They know all those bailouts merely aid Wall Street, and hence, Americans will be knee-deep in the sinking economic sands after three months and worried about nothing else.
That's all peanuts compared to what Israel does to the Palestinians. Killing or maiming one from the air, land, and sea, taking one's land, starving one, preventing one from earning a living or getting medical attention, burglarizing one's home, for example, are most basic wrongs. You need life and survival items before worrying about such comparative luxury items as ismail talks about. Go back to your zionist hasbara crayon board, ismail.
Hey, its elementary, one zionist jew's fingernail is worth ten thousand non-jewish lives.
OY vey is right.
Times Panders Jewish Prejudice — just to show what a constant the misrepresentation is.
How about the crap the Boston Globe publishes?
I don't remember explicitly. Why don't you actually do the research and collect a complete record?
Of course you don't remember. Israeli mafia man. You've been on this blog for years and the evidence has been presented multiple times, complete with reliable sources. The MSM media beat the war drums, exactly different than what they did in the Vietnam era. You know it, and so does everyone reading this blog. Careful, you are sinking to the gutter likes of Thom, ismail, SOG, Jack of Jerusalem ,Chris Berel et all…
More intellectual dishonesty from Witty. There have been studies conducted by 'mainstream' (superficially credible) sources that demonstrate the bias in the NY Times. Harvard conducted one such study. Witty, plays games here by implying Phil's criticism is 'too much'. Yes, this article was something Witty. However, in the grand scheme – like when we conduct studies, and get the bigger picture – it's a raindrop in an ocean of pro-Israel stew. You ignore context and the in-house politics at the Times. If we look only on the surface and even then, narrow our parameters of time periods for such an analysis of the Times (like between last week and today, implied by you) then sure, the Times looks spectacular! However, if we examine the media like any rational person would; if we examine the media as the INSTITUTION that it is, we will observe that typical bias. Manufacturing Consent has been there and done that. Witty is so quick to congratulate the times on it's 'critical' article but this is purely political on his part – he wants to use this article for his argument and can only do so w/o providing context to the bigger analysis of the media. The broader perspective which is the only relevant perspective. We do not conduct studies on the media within the time span of a single day.
It's interesting how individual elitists never ONLY represent themselves when they're Jewish. Certainly the fvcking Croatian Defense Ministry, via its Silicon Valley and Beltway connections, was able to use retired US military personnel and MPRI to carry out ethnic cleansing in 1995, and secure the Military Frontier, but because they are good white Christian Catholics, it was a simple case of a few diplomats and a few good Americans doing what had to be done, omelette, eggs, regrettable. Whereas Ross and Makovsky sind euer Unglueck.
They count on tribal publishers.
That's all peanuts compared to what Israel does to the Palestinians. Or this repelling story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/06/261...
Eurosabra wrote: "sind euer Unglueck [sic]." Oh, Euro, if I'm reading you right that sentiment has nothing *whatsoever* to do with what I wrote, nor even can be attributed to what Colin wrote either. (Assuming you meant "sind unser ungluck" since I don't understand your meaning otherwise.) Indeed, and precisely along the lines of what I wrote, I have no doubt many jews cringe like crazy seeing a Ross or Makovsky doing their thing precisely because Ross and Makovsky *are* doing *their* thing and *their* thing only and *do* only represent themselves—and perhaps whatever organizations that they were formerly associated with that are happy not to distance themselves from the two such as AIPAC or "The Jewish Peoples Planning Institute." You are right though that of course it's grist for the mill for anti-semites, even despite organizations like that new JStreet group showing that the Rosses and Makovskys don't speak for them. On the other hand it would also sure be nice to see some other kinds of public distancing from them, from, say The American Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, or even "The Jewish Peoples Planning Institute." Not that they are under any obligation to do so, but you'd think that if your concern was real in their mind they would indeed say something at *some* remove. After all, at some point in time even after someone has merely been *perceived* as speaking for me when they don't, if I don't stand up and deny it it's not unreasonable to conclude at the very least that it doesn't bother me, right? You simply can't have it both ways: Objecting to being identified with someone, but then forever refusing to distinguish yourself from them.
Witty always operates in this way. The only time he argues for long, large, wide context is when he points to his erroneous belief that Jews are a people for 3,500 years and have that long a claim on the land taken and expanded endlessly at the expense of the native Palestinian arabs. Otherwise, he carefully selects his marker in a sort time frame, ignoring what came before, and in tandem he always ignores the very unequal balance of power.
On the day recently Israel declared its admiration for Druze IDF fighters it cut off the water in the Druze villages. I guess Israel was responding to Israeli complaints there swimming pool level wasn't high enough…
As a free citizen of a liberal republic, an American Jew should not be obligated to take a stand on ANYTHING to guarantee rights and physical safety, let alone the conduct of 501 (c) 3s with respect to a foreign state. Odd how the Irish as an ethnicity were never forced to affirm or deny the Mitchell plan, while a case might be made that FOREIGN POLICY groups of a very narrow scope like the JPPI or JINSA might. That their Jewish nationality is more important to some than their American citizenship is an indication that we will be seeing them soon Heim ins Reich, whoops, I mean BaMoledeteinu.
Eurosabra wrote: "As a free citizen of a liberal republic, an American Jew should not be obligated to take a stand on ANYTHING to guarantee rights and physical safety, let alone the conduct of 501 (c) 3s with respect to a foreign state." Not a molecule of difference between that and what I wrote before. As to the other issue you sideswipe though I'd bet you any amount of money you want that the U.S. will remain a very liberal republic long after Israel has descended full bore into something else, which it is already more than just flirting with by denying the franchise to all those arabs under its control. (Not to mention Mr. Lieberman's call for a loyalty pledge; the rejection of democracy inherent in the call for recognition as a "jewish" state; the impunity with which the Israeli military ignores what even the Israeli courts say is the law; and now I see the veto power just given to the Shin Bet over the appointment of your judges. Some "liberalism." Some "republic.") Or, to put it another way, it's a damned amusing thing to see a partisan of Israel, which is hemorrhaging jews *to* the U.S., to be suggesting how undesirable the U.S. is as a home for jews.
Comments on this entry are closed.