Wonderful piece by Robert Wright in the New York Times, the author on religion, raised Christian I believe in Oklahoma, a man who obviously has no deep emotional investment in Israel, unlike Jeffrey Goldberg whom he skewers here as Israel’s stenographer. Wright speaks frankly of the destruction of the American interest by our special relationship with Israel.
Note too that Wright notions the end of Israel’s "Jewish identity" to make way for one state in less than tragic terms. Just imagine, one man one vote! Shocking. Why, it even shocks me (I who retain a mental reservation in favor of partition…).
This is the real business of American journalists: to have an open conversation at last, to bring our own blessed liberal experience to bear on this deeply screwed-up situation, to help those people imagine a way out, to bring our own experience to bear, to show that some outcomes that seem apocalyptic don’t have to be… to bring our own experience to bear.
h/t Voskamp and a half dozen other readers.
I saw this late last night, just before sacking out. I couldn’t believe it. I almost thought the NYT website had been hacked.
It is the only sensible piece on the whole Israel lobby situation that I have ever read in the MMM.
What’s the big deal about one state eh? Israeli Jews are already happily ignoring each other as much as they can. It would just mean there’s more people to ignore. Big deal.(now classify this comment!)
I must say the article is rather nice.
For the NYT to publish an article asserting so clearly that East Jerusalem is not in Israel is a milestone, and I can even hope it might be effective. It’s coming to the point when the AIPAC conference will be countereffective, when the annual event will serve as a focus of anti-Zionist agitation and do the Israeli case more harm than good.
It only takes a single seeed when it falls on ripe soil. A number of pundits are putting the tipping point for the healthcare vote on the Blue Cross Anthem premium hikes, coming at just the opportune moment. Israel’s tone-deaf politicians are sooner or later going to come up with another one.
Wright links to a FP article on EJ called ‘Jerusalem, settlements, and the “everybody knows” fallacy’. Netanyahu repeating and excentuating ‘everybody knows’ 3 times in a row (maybe it was 2) followed by a declaration asserting the settlements around Jerusalem would remain w/Israel in any peace deal I found to be one of the most contentious segments of his speech. I rec this FP article by Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann.
It really is an excellent article, which would have been better with a map.
RE: the “everybody knows” fallacy – annie
MY COMMENT: ‘Everybody knows’ that when you hear someone say “everybody knows”, it is almost always followed by disinformation and/or rank propaganda!
After making his assertation that “everybody knows” the Big N went on to specify that that all Americans, and all EU members knew. Pretty interesting. Most Americans I know never even thought about the issue–they never even heard of Rachel Corrie. What they know is “terrorist” equals Arabs and Muslims. And some “know” that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and “our special ally.”
If you even bring up the issue, the best they respond is some version of a pox on both Israel and the Palestinians. They never heard of AIPAC. They have no clue how disproportionately our annual foreign aid is divided up around the world.
They’re not aware of the Gaza Turkey Shoot, nor the Goldstone Report. They are unaware that the US was gulled into the current Iraq war by a couple dozen
key people. If you attempt to persue a conversation regarding the Middle East,
they’re eyes will quickly glaze over; then you know you’ve already been dismissed as an eccentric; somebody who should know better than to talk politics or religion in friendly company. Does anyone else have the same experience here? They will talk about Obamacare and the job situation though.
Otherwise, sports endlessly fascinates the guys, at least; and food, drink, new things to shop for, etc.
Ia Wright’s piece in the actual paper NYT? The heading on the web page says “exclusive online commentary from the Times,” which to me implies that it’s not in the paper. If I’m wrong and it’s in print, I’ll be much more impressed.
Also, www.nyt.com has the tab “Today’s paper” (being 24 March). There, it is not listed in Editorials, Op-Ed and Letters.
“Ia Wright’s piece in the actual paper NYT? ”
No. I have the cellulose edition and it’s not on the op ed page. This has happened before–Phil talking about an opinion piece being in the NYT and it turns out it’s not in the paper edition. I don’t know which is more important, but I think there’s a pattern where the most pro-Palestinian, Israeli-critical pieces are mostly found on the web, not in the actual paper. The NYT Sunday Book Review is an exception–they have had good pieces there, such as Cockburn’s laudatory review of Sacco’s book. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything close to that POV on the op ed page.
We were just discussing Robert Wright here a few weeks ago, where some of us noted his weakness for ‘fakery’ in discussions of ME politics. Looks like he’s improving. Maybe he reads Mondoweiss…?
link to mondoweiss.net
” (I who retain a mental reservation in favor of partition…).”
I think I’ll go practice early, and leave you to revel in your mental ghetto.
Anyway Phil, you think they will take you back? Maybe Leon will give you your old job back? Maybe it was all a bad dream?
RE: “Maybe it was all a bad dream?” – Mooser
MOOSER: For G-d’s forsakenness, please don’t get Phil started on his bizarre dreams. I can only take so many horse decapitations and subway platform sing-alongs!
Gary Bauer has posted a “response” to Wright’s op-ed in the comments section:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/against-pro-israel/?permid=170#comment170
He makes some surprising observations such as “many Muslims hate America — as they hate Israel — because we exist and insist on pluralism and tolerance” and “Arabs are free to live anywhere in Israel.”