Three years ago, London Review of Books editor Mary-Kay Wilmers offered a sage insight: "It seems that the American left also is claimed by the Israel lobby." I didn’t fully get it at the time. She was a leftish Jew, but she had glimpsed the extent to which American leftwing Jewish intellectual life shares the Zionist concerns of neoconservatives: as American Jews, we are guardians of the Jewish state, and it is threatened with extinction, and we must see to it that American power is deployed against Israel’s enemies.
This is the best framework in which to look at Brian Lehrer’s interview on WNYC public radio New York two days ago with Frank Gaffney, a leading neocon. Lehrer is progressive and thoughtful and has one of the best radio shows in the country. His politics are New York Jewish libleft: he would never platform a guest opposing abortion rights or opposing gay rights (without fierce opposition). But for 20 minutes or so he gave unchecked access to a neoconservative offering anti-Islamic views.
Gaffney said that by means of jihad and "stealth jihad," Islamists are trying to impose Sharia law around the world, including in the U.S. The Fort Hood massacre is a sign of this. These radical Islamists want to defeat the west, and they operate in a lot of "godforsaken" countries, including Yemen and the Sudan.
And Lehrer thanked Gaffney for these statements.
The strongest counterpoint he offered was when he quoted Jerrold Nadler, the NY congressman who is a good anti-war congressman except when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Lehrer said that Nadler might agree with your "premise" about who the enemy is, Mr. Gaffney, but he would oppose your means. Some demurral.
Lehrer pushed Gaffney to say why the U.S. needed a giant nuclear arsenal, and Gaffney said, for peacemaking, and then specifically cited Hillary’s threat during the 2008 campaign to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. So the neocons’ Israel-centrism came into the conversation, without any commentary or demurral from Lehrer.
The issue here isn’t merely Gaffney/the neocons’ incredible survival in the public space in spite of the Iraq war disaster they pushed (which is about money). It is progressives’ collusion in that survival. During the Iraq buildup, many progressives became neoliberals; and Lehrer’s acceptance of Gaffney’s nutty statements about taking on Islam everywhere demonstrates the continuing passivity of the left when it comes to these feverish ideas.
How is this evidence that the left is claimed by the Israel lobby? Because at the core of Gaffney’s ideas are the claims that Israel is a democracy and that Arab/Muslim anger toward Israel has nothing to do with its policies/occupation but with its very existence. And at the core of Lehrer’s passivity with respect to neocon nostrums is (this is surmise but as a fellow media Jew I’m confident of it): a Jewish identification with the needs of the state and a reluctance to criticize it publicly. Last year Lehrer examined American foreign policy in the Middle East as a runup to the election and had on Zev Chafets and Jerrold Nadler–both Jews, one a former spokesman for Likud, the other a Labor Zionist type. Until these assumptions are examined by mainstream liberals, we will remain at dagger points with a whole region of the world.
P.S. And yes this is a matter of corruption, engaging issues of power and identification. In today’s Haaretz, a U.S. State Department official who sits on the same floor as Hillary Clinton speaks in frankly religious nationalist terms: "It is not 1939… We have the state of Israel." Who is we? And why is our country Israel?
P.P.S. I had this post in draft mode till my wife brought up the Gaffney interview last night. She knows very little about these issues, she’s bored by my talking about them; but she had heard Gaffney on the car radio and thought, What the hell is this guy doing on my public radio station? (We are members of WNYC).
Another good example of the way Zionism corrupts progressivism.
No need for PBS to have “context” unless PBS allows a speaker on who is critical
of Israeli’s policies and the USA support of them?
What saddens me about Phil’s “analysis” of anyone he calls a neo-conservative, is that he FAILS to acknowledge truths in their argument.
To note that there are Islamic advocates that are urging the application of Sharia where they can, or do oppose western immodesty, do seek expansion of the area under Islamic norms, or to note that Iran has consistently urged and organized to remove Israel from the map as Israel, is not to say “I advocate for bombing Iran”.
The process of “everything that a neo-conservative says is a lie”, is an extreme anti-intellectualism. A knee-jerk, rather than thought.
And, as it is obvious that there are some truths in the neo-conservative observation, applying that knee-jerk analysis then gives great room for the dismissal of the arguments. In fact, it GIVES credibility to the neo-conservative conclusion by the knee-jerk.
There is difference between the neo-conservative observations, neo-conservative conclusions, and neo-conservative proposals. During the Clinton years, the neo-conservatives and others were advocating for the US to “finish the job” in Iraq. The observations were noted, but the conclusions and proposals were rejected.
That is the BEST of all worlds, to see the point, and still to have the moral backbone to choose the prudent, the considerate.
Ironically, it is most consistent with the Walt thesis of homeostasis of power and homeostasis of argument. A homeostasis is a peace constructed of balance of forces, balance of argument, NOT a peace by killing the argument. (Killing an argument, rather than weighing, rather than persuading, is a suppressive approach.)
Fake Liberal Witty defends Racist Neoconservative Touting ‘Stealth Jihad’ Propaganda:
JewsMuslims Secretly Trying to Take Over the World WithBanking SystemTerrorism!Of course he weighs in on this article but the — what, DOZENS at this point — articles on Mondoweiss discussing non-violent protestors being charged with “possession of arms” after picking up spent gas grenades that were launched at them (sometimes with great efficiency) or the articles where top Israeli officials are quoted as supporting legislation to enforce segregation against non-Jews… almost nothing.
But of course, like most racists, Witty convenient ignores any facts that prove his preconceived notions about Palestinians (and Muslims in general) wrong.
so its ok to talk about Jews and some Banking Cabal, but its racism to say the same about Muslims and terrorism?
Double Standard Chaos?
When has Chaos ever discussed the Jewish Banking Cabal Yonira? Seriously wtf?
Also, I hope you recognized the sarcasm and humor in Chaos’s post and how he is the one showcasing the double standard applied to Muslims in the Western press.
Sorry Witty but if you even actually subscribe to the belief that a bunch of rag tag, scattered, largely ineffective groups of people armed with weapons that would have been laughed at during the 2nd world war and who number in the hundreds are some kind of threat to the West…
Well then your a nut. A right wing neocon to be precise.
Muslims spreading Shariah? Really? No seriously really? Muslims cant even implement shariah in their OWN countries. Wtf makes you think they’re going to be able to pull it off in the West where the majority of the population is secular and many harbor feelings of hatred towards Islam.
Seriously think before you repeat retardation.
Witty misses the whole point of Phil’s article and his wife’s reaction when she listened to the PBS broadcast. If Witty believed in Walt’s thesis of homeostasis, he would be
on Phil’s side against the hasbara that is the glue for the status quo. Witty turns everything Phil says on its head and then preens on his accomplishment by pretending to be rational, and a person who cares about all human beings.
The US is already under sharia law. It has all the elements of pure Quranic government: inalienable rights from the creator, a federal state, freedom of religion, separation of religion and state [yessiree, first under the Islamic state, where the ulema are separate from the caliphate], the presumption of innocent unless proved guilty. And so on and so forth.
Rumor has it, the US constitution was based on Islamic jurisprudence.
link to law.upenn.edu
Your goose is cooked. :p Oh wait, its Christmas, your pudding is cooked.
When’s the next boat leaving for Israel, Witty?
In that vein, read this Sammy:
link to newdawnmagazine.com
Thanks for an interesting reference, Sammy – though I must say that I thought it gilded a few lilies. Were the ulema and caliphs really more separate than the bishops and kings of medieval Europe? I do think that this article helps to show that religions and cultures are of their nature constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted, which is a reason for hope when ideological conflicts are at their most severe.
The author does make the point that Islam was much corrupted by its early wars, whose protagonists claimed religious authority or to opposing religious error. I’m sure he’s right about that. Some of the things that neoliberals are saying are inviting us to make the same mistake. And they’re being taken seriously!
“Were the ulema and caliphs really more separate than the bishops and kings of medieval Europe?”
Yeah, because they both wanted the power and the Caliph simply had the bigger guns. But the guy who instituted it, Al Mutawwakil was intolerant, not only towards the clerics, but also to people of other religions. Still, he resolved the issue of the divinity of the Qur’an, believing reason to be more reliable than “tradition” and hence separated the religious part of Islam from the civic part; which is why today, only Iran [a Shia state] puts clerics over presidents, in all other “Muslim” countries, the civic government makes the law. The religious clergy may be an advisory group but are relatively impotent where jurisprudence is concerned.
uh oh forgot the disclaimer: I’m not an expert, just someone who reads a lot. :p
Maybe you should read up, e.g., on Saudi Arabia.
Even in Saudi Arabia, the clerics don’t have vast political power, in the end they must answer to the house of Saud.
In any case Iran is the only country today where the Ulema are the major political force. It is the only country where the Ulema call the shots, run the political parties, regulate the economy, create and enforce the laws, and basically everything else.
This is beginning to change with the Revolutionary Guard gaining more clout but the Iranian government created after the Revolution in 79 is the first time in Islamic history where the Ulema took control of a large government. It is literally unprecedented and flies in the face of virtually every school of Islamic thought including the Jaafari school (which most Iranians adhere too).
I’m glad to hear we are close to being under Sharia . . .there are so many women I’d love to see covered up.
I’ve heard Brian Lehrer–seems like a good guy but his whiny voice makes it impossible for normal people to listen.
Still, Phil, I URGE you to protest WNYC’s giving a platform to these neocon Islamophobes. What in the hell is Public radio doing? Shouldn’t they be mindlessly repeating the droning pablum of 50ish lefty lardasses from the northern suburbs?
Sorry the women covering up, strictly Byzantine, only whores and cleaning women did not cover up. Obviously, the Arabs with their scantily clad women [at the time] could not allow their gorgeous women to be seen as whores. :p
RE: ” What in the hell is Public radio doing?”
MY COMMENT: Not that long ago, I fought against cuts in federal funding for PBS/NPR. Now I think all public funding for them should be eliminated. Why not use the money to buy bulletproof vests for the security staff at the ‘Holocaust Museum’ and countless other locations where domestic terrorists are likely to strike (the FED, the Smithsonian, Treasury, the Statute of Liberty, NOAA, NASA, AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc)? Perhaps Comcast will add PBS/NPR to their burgeoning media empire. It can’t get much worse.
LOL: “I’m glad to hear we are close to being under Sharia . . .there are so many women I’d love to see covered up.”
I know the story sammy, but should women be beaten for not covering up? It’s nearly 2010 ? Islam’s answer is an unambiguous “yes.” I say no. What say you?
You’re low on the meds again, OJ. That Reply button is eluding you again. Anyway, like OJ says: he doesn’t need no stinkin’ laws to beat up women!
Seriously OJ in how many Muslim countries are women beaten up for not covering up? 1 or 2?
I’ve never met a Muslim that defended the actions of Saudi Arabia or tried to be an apologist for their cultural beliefs.
Correct, in fact, in most Arab countries the correct term for such “backward” thinking is “baddu”, which is a contraction [I believe] of bedouin and refers to the uneducated classes of people who have not embraced the niceties of civilisation. And yeah, this sentiment is extended to the clergy who advocate such, much in the same way Americans rant about the ill effects of having the Mormons and evangelicals in their midst or the occasional child that dies because of beliefs against blood transfusion in the Jehovahs witnesses.
“Islam’s answer is an unambiguous “yes.” I say no. What say you? ”
I say, get an education and read the domestic abuse reports.
I think Phil missed the even more … amusing comment by that U.S. State Department official, Hannah Rosenthal, head of the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, who lived in Israel for some time it appears:
“We need to have as many people coming together to try and put an end to this crisis [with the Palestinians,] the matzav [situation] can not continue …. I don’t want my kids or my grandchildren to have to ever come visit their homeland and to live in a bomb shelter….”
“Homeland.” The head of “monitoring and combatting anti-semitism” in the U.S. From a woman who doesn’t even consider it to *be* her homeland. From one of those famously moderate *J-Street* enthusiasts.
Nice job if you can get it: Make statements like this, fire up the “ZOG” believers, and then go and point out all their anti-semitism that needs “monitoring” and “combatting” because they have some no-doubt-soon-to-be-illegal ideas about who should be running *their* “homeland.”
What next, deputizing the Mossad to help her monitor us?
Unbelievable.
I give thanks to NPR for opening my eyes about the US media’s reporting of Israel/Palestine just a few years ago.
A Boston NPR reporter with her rich alto voice interviewed an Israeli woman forced to return to Israel from Gaza after Israel reversed its decision to extend its settlement policy to Gaza. The unctuous sympathy of the reporter toward the Israeli victim, with absolutely no reference to Palestinians, had to be heard to believe.
Hearing this summoned up the image of a cousin who was on the front lines in Germany at the end of World War II. I wondered what he would have thought, had he been able to understand German, if he had heard a German radio reporter similarly interview a Sudetenland German suffering from Czechoslovak domination before the takeover of the Sudetenland. Were the Boston NPR reporter Jewish, the circle would have been made complete before our eyes as Jews chose to transform themselves from victims into those very Germans who were once their enemy.
As consumers of news it is important to appreciate that the media the Germans had during World War II was no different than ours when it comes to the reporting done on the ethnic cleansing and occupation of the Palestinians. Brian Lehrer is as liberal as NPR.
Likewise have nominally liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow been sucked somewhat into the “fear of Islam” schtick. Credit where credit is due, she’s not buying into the “Muslims are taking over Western governments” crap but I remember she had Richard Engel on as a guest and he, while expounding on the situation in Iraq I believe, went on about how Muslims generally are far less educated than Western audiences, and that’s where a lot of the opposition to the US’ presence in Iraq was essentially stemming from. And Rachel left that uncontested.
On the other hand, while I wish Olbermann would confront the issue directly, I get the opinion that he at least sees the lay of the land in Israel Palestine, and with Muslims in general for that matter, in a way that is not submissive at all to the propaganda. Yeah, he didn’t spend very much time on Operation Cast Lead, but what time he did spend he was deliberately critical of Israel.
I think by and large, Progressives are learning that corporate news media — even palatable corporate news media like NPR or Olbermann/Maddow — still passes through a great deal of filtering that catches out too many facts that would interfere with the agenda of the powers that be. I know at this point that most people left of center that I know, either don’t bother with US news media at all any more (turning to the web, or international sources like BBC Worldwide) or they focus on independent media sources like Democracy Now! or GritTV.
And I think even Olberman and Maddow are starting to see that there isn’t even a voice for progressives among the Democratic Party. 2010 is going to be… interesting.
went on about how Muslims generally are far less educated than Western audiences, and that’s where a lot of the opposition to the US’ presence in Iraq was essentially stemming from. And Rachel left that uncontested.
Exactly! they’re to dumb to understand the great blessings we have given them!
Too dumb to appreciate the gifts US taxpayers have given them! Cluster bombs for the Lebanese, white phosphorus and dime bombs for Palestinians, and drone dropped bombs for Afghanistanis, Pakistanis, and Yemenites. Ungrateful wretches all! We should punish them by ending our gift giving, that would teach them all a lesson.
This from today’s Angry Arab. Alterman’s column has to be read to be believed. You can link to it from the AA.
link to angryarab.blogspot.com
Since I came to this country, I have always believed that the worst Zionists in the US are the liberal Zionists–because they are so bad and don’t even know it. They are bad and yet they think they are good. Right-wing Zionists in the US are blatantly racists and are bigoted toward Arabs and Muslims and make no bone about it. Not the case with liberal Zionists. Take this guy, Eric Alterman: I have mentioned him before. He is callous and insensitive toward the Palestinians but yet have a very high opinion of himself as a sensitive liberal when all his writings on the Palestinians and Arabs in general drip with racism and contempt for the natives. And I can tell you this: whenever I read in any article the use of the word “anguish” I know immediately what I will get. As in: “Israeli anguish is also front and center.” This word is used always to imply that the suffering of the oppressed and occupied matches the suffering of the murderous occupiers because when they kill (as in the movie Waltz with War Crimes) they sometimes spend sleepless nights and that you therefore should show sympathy for the killers because the killing business sometimes distress them. And then this Alterman guy argues that the lives of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank is not bad. His evidence? A reporter for the occupiers in Haaretz. What is the difference between this contention by Alterman and those white supremacist writers in the 19th century who argued that slaves are content and that they should be left in their conditions of slavery. But then again: what do you expect from somebody who seeks the moral voice in the writings of Amos Oz, who more than anybody else in contemporary Zionist writings popularized the dehumanization of the Palestinian people? Amos Oz who never met a war (including the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 and the recent war on Gaza) by Israel that he did not endorse: although he usually comes out towards the end of every war to say, that Israel has rightly killed enough Arabs and now may stop. That is considered by Alterman and by other Zionist advocates of Israeli supremacy as a moral stance.
The reference “sensitive liberal” would be more accurate as “selective liberal.”
Jews in the US can be divided into two groups, white supremacists and those who oppose white supremacists.
Non-Jewish whites in the US can be divided into two groups, white supremacists and those who oppose white supremacists.
White supremacists support the ethnic cleansing and occupation of the Palestinians.
“Since I came to this country, I have always believed that the worst Zionists in the US are the liberal Zionists–because they are so bad and don’t even know it. They are bad and yet they think they are good”
This reminds me of MLKs letter from prison:
Since I came to this country, I have always believed that the worst Zionists in the US are the liberal Zionists–because they are so bad and don’t even know it. They are bad and yet they think they are good
link to mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu
Hmm that copy paste looks very different from what I intended!
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM FROM “THE NATIONAL RADIO PROJECT”:
MAKING CONTACT – a weekly international radio program
Settlers or Meddlers? A Divided Palestine
(December 16, 2009)
Jewish settlers are forcibly expanding their territory. After initially calling for a freeze, the Obama Administration changed course, dimming the prospects for peace. Producer Reese Erlich takes us from the settlements of Hebron to the streets of Ramallah.
TO LISTEN/DOWNLOAD- link to radioproject.org
P.S.
link to associatedcontent.com
Pingback: Progressive NY attitude on gays in military should be portable to Palestine, but it isn’t