Yesterday the Jewish Telegraphic Agency picked up on a post by Max Blumenthal here the other day, blasting Alan Grayson, the populist hero congressman from Florida, for being neanderthal on the Israel/Palestine issue– bragging about his Jewishness as he makes himself at home in AIPAC’s pocket. "[N]ow some liberal pundits are criticizing Grayson because they say he’s too supportive of Israeli policies," JTA’s Eric Fingerhut observed– noting that MJ Rosenberg at TPM had echoed Blumenthal on Grayson:
He seems fearless.
But not when it comes to Israel where he is pure AIPAC. 100% path of least resistance. And proud of it.
As the JTA is also aware, this is an important moment. It is another sign that conventional liberal/left politics can no longer make an exception for Israel/Palestine. The contradiction we witnessed in Brooklyn when Anthony Weiner was a firebreather on healthcare and a religious nationalist on Israel will become more and more obviously hypocritical.
MJ Rosenberg made the point with typical punch in an interview that I did with him for the Nation earlier this year.
We have got to make it so that [Manhattan congressman] Jerrold Nadler’s constituents know that he’s a hardliner on the Middle East. They know he’s terrific on health care, the environment, marriage equality, but most of these people don’t know he’s very hard line on Israel. Because no one questions him about it. He never gets questioned about the rights of Palestinian families to be reunited. That is going to change. That is going to change.
It’s not the conservatives and Republicans who are the main problem, it’s Democrats, liberal Democrats like Barbara Boxer , who is great on everything else but no different here than if she were a Republican. And she isn’t challenged on it. There’s no price to be paid, not even a hostile question in a town hall.
Exactly. It’s ironic that the Democrats, the party that gets most progressive votes, is so closed to progressive views on this issue. Schakowsky is another who goes under the guise of a progressive but is 100% AIPAC, all the way. She rushed to co-sponsor the shameful anti-Goldstone resolution.
Gee, since the best, most straightforward populists Jewish Americans seem to care about how our government is doing for ALL Americans in every aspect of our domestic and foreign policy, yet they all tow the AIPAC line, what should we non-Jewish Americans make of this singular exception where the prime interest is Israel right or wrong (for both the USA and Israel, long term)? What if JFK had been a papal pawn? My only point is that he was expressly not. But Jewish American status quo leaders are not subject to the same litmus test. Imagine JFK with the public POV of Senator Lieberman?
Citizen, please don’t start comments with “Gee” or “Gosh”. That’s what I do. You wanna end up like me? ‘Nuff said.
The Israel exception was also a major factor in the neoconservative-paleoconservative split. Generally the neoconservatives were strong separation of church and state advocates and pluralist/muliticulturalists for the US (favoring high rates of immigration for instance, unconcerned about potential negative consequences). They pressed these points vigorously, often tarring erstwhile Cold War allies with accusations of bigotry, nativism, attitudes redolent of pro-Nazi bigotry, etc. Eventually the paleocons noticed that these folks were espousing exactly the opposite set of values where Israel was concerned.
Rosenberg’s point is spot on with these Democrats. Jewish Democrats in Congress, turn away from a cohesive moral stand with Israel.
There’s enough Jewish Democrats [14] in the Senate, without mentioning the other lackeys, to block any bills that the president wishes to push forward. But if he doesn’t vote on Israel accordingly, I am sure his can see his domestic agenda go nowhere. Senator’s like Boxer, Feinstein and most favorite Chuck Schumer. But, it’s good to see and I would like to thank Joe Lieberman for showing the country how far he is willing to go to betray everything and anyone. Give that man a beer for all his hard work.
The Congressional Jewish vote on the Goldstone Report.
November 3, 2009
link: link to clerk.house.gov
31 members (1 republican,30 democrat)
-29 democrats voted to condemn report
-1 democrat voted against (Bob Filner, CA)
-1 democrat not voting (Gary Ackerman, NY)
Boxer is absolutely rabid when it comes to Israel. She deeply insulted the chairman of CAIR for N California a couple years back implying that he belonged to a terrorist organization (as the result of complaints made by one of the zionist groups). Feinstein is definitely more reasonable (by US senate standards) and is even one of the endorsers of the J Street convention last month.
It sad that J Street is not going to change anything. If it’s possible to get a few of these reps to not always vote pro-Israel, it might change the greater vote tally in the house. If Bob Filner can make a stand, there have to be others that could use a little pressure to vote against resolutions like this.
Re: Bob Filner
“In fact, he added in a telephone interview on Friday, many of the Jewish Congress members who voted in favor of the resolution privately congratulated him for “having the guts” to stand up for his beliefs. He said there is so much misinformation about what the Goldstone report actually says that other Jewish members of Congress feared to vote against the condemnation resolution.”
link to sdjewishworld.wordpress.com