Walter Russell Mead wrote this interesting passage on why the right supports Israel:
"Many of the arguments and perceptions that have weakened support for Israel on the left cut no ice with the populist right. The argument that just war theory forbids the ‘disproportionate’ use of force has absolutely no weight in much of American opinion. When somebody attacks you, especially in an underhanded terrorist way, you have a natural right to defend yourself using every weapon and every tactic that comes to hand. This is the way most Americans think about war; American public opinion on the whole does not regret the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Two-thirds of American respondents tell Pew pollsters that they favor the use of “torture” under some circumstances. Such people are not necessarily indifferent to Palestinian rights, and they may not feel that every Israeli action is well judged, but they strongly believe that as long as Palestinians engage in terrorism, Israel has an unlimited and absolute right of self defense. It can and should do anything and everything it can to stop the attacks and many Americans consider international laws against such practices as pious hopes with no binding legal or even moral force. If the terrorists shield themselves behind civilians, that only shows how evil they are — and is an extra reason why you have both the right and the duty to eliminate them no matter what it takes."
I wonder if more can be done to engage the right, rather than just focusing on the left on this matter. The right’s increasing blind support for anything Israel does is problematic and does constrain peace making moves. In describing what motivates the right’s blind support of anything Israel does, Walter Russell Mead is also describing the issues that have to be engaged on in order to weaken this support. Primarily, the Palestinians can’t turn to violence and they need to make their case for justice more directly to the American public.
There are plenty of elements on the right that could equally-well be engaged against the Israel connection. The xenophobic, populist elements. The non-Zionist Christian elements.
By the same logic, if the story of I/P wasn’t so distorted over ther, then wouldn’t Americans support disproportionate, dare I say terroristic, Palestinian retaliation against Israel’s terror that has been perpetrated against them? That lines up with the last sentence in the post.
it’s all about organization and participation: the Christo-fascist Rapturist right in America is organized and vastly overrepresented because they generate money, votes, phone calls, etc. and have a high-high percentage of participation among their constituency
… the jingoist, racist, xenophobic and generally scared-of-even-the-sun types that sprinkle the right never get their act together nor represent more that a mere fraction
“I wonder if more can be done to engage the right, rather than just focusing on the left on this matter.”
(1) The church.
(2) Since it’s a truism that if you tell people half the mystery, they’ll find or recreate the rest, tell them just a bit of what Israel is doing to Palestine.
(3) We kinda waste out time here preaching to the choir. We should be on evangelical sites. My excuse is that I would get the bends.
Rinse and repeat, I suppose.
Can more be done to engage the right?
In a word? No. I have yet to run into someone on the right wing that wasn’t racist, social Darwinist, Rapturist, greedy, or anti-intellectual and generally, it’s some combination of the above.
A lot of them still believe Saddam Hussein was building nukes, like they believe that Iran is building nukes now.
And sadly, the American left has been assaulted and undermined with such ferocity that its all we can do to hang on. I keep trying, but I no longer see that the left can do much to prevent the oncoming storm.
See, these tea parties and “end of days” churches, gun nuts and xenophobes… they’re gaining ground. The corporate and political elite are feeding them, and they assume the “rabble” can be kept on a tight leash.
They’re wrong.
And sooner or later, there’s going to be the same game of “duck, duck, goose” that gets played as it always gets played, to choose a minority to scapegoat.
Sadly… we all know who gets chosen, in Western society, for that scapegoat, nine times out of ten.
Good luck, guys. I tried to help. We here on the left tried to prevent what’s coming. We really did.
If only you weren’t exaggerating…
That’s correct about the elements of the right that Mead is talking about. (Not all of the right is like that–people like Daniel Larison, for instance.)
And in theory jan-gdyn’s approach might work–point out that it’s Israel’s terrorist actions which are causing Palestinian responses. Then this bloodthirsty “war is hell and there are no rules” mentality would elicit sympathy for Palestinian terrorism instead of Israel terrorism. In practice it won’t, because there’s an underlying racism against Arabs at work.
It’s still worth pointing out, though, because mainstream “liberals” also buy into this mentality, only they dress it up a little, (shooting and crying, as the Israelis say) by claiming that it is Palestinian terror and then Israel responds as best it can, but what can they do when the Palestinian terrorists hide among the population?
I do agree with anonymous’s final point–Palestinians shouldn’t use violence. Morality aside, it also works against them.
I think the issue is many in the United States believe the narrative that the television provides, that Israel is our staunch ally. But they have shown disrespect toward out government now, and perhaps the tide may turn.
How many times have your heard the hypnotic phrases: Israel is our staunch ally, our bonds are unbreakable, our only partner in the Mid East making the grass grow.
The message is what hypnotizes people, and furthermore the conflict is a confusing nut to crack for most people.
These are exactly the statements that need to be challenged. WHY is Israel our ally, what has it done for us lately, what are we getting for our money? Why do we have to suck up to Israel when we’re giving them so much money, shouldn’t they be sucking up to the US?
To engage the right, you have to play to their interests, and yes, to their prejudices.
The right hates foreign aid. Israel gets billions in foreign aid.
The right hates socialism and socialized medicine. Israel is still largely a socialist country and has a socialist healthcare system – subsidizing by US taxpayer dollars.
etc etc
….but they strongly believe that as long as Palestinians engage in terrorism
I’d sure love to know what every American had to say should his own private land be taken away by an invading power that has put him/her under a 43 year long occupation.
If it’s any indication, after watching Capitalism: A Love Story, it sure seems that when a person finds himself out on the street overnight because of a corrupt system (his own government, to boot) he begins to understand how some end up going on shooting sprees and then killing themselves in the process.
Does it really take a lot of mental power for those being surveyed to put themselves in other people’s shoes? Or are they simply ignorant of the reality?
At the same time ask an American what does he think about the genocide of the American Indian and the stealing of almost all of their land. Even some active readers on this site, refuse to answer. A large number of Americans will go on about how the Indians are able to own casinos now, so what’s their problem. You think I am kidding.
Americans are by-and-large willfully ignorant. They internalize a strong system of denial. It is an unhappy consequence of American Individualism.
If you put yourself in someone else’s shoes, you might realize that it could happen to you before it actually happens to you. And looking around you know there is nothing you can do about even if it does happen to you, and you won’t get any sympathy when it does, so it is best to put it out of mind, not worry, and not think about it until it actually happens. You can deal with it then.
This explains the relative weak political response to 20% un- or under-employment. Most of the 80% employed would like to go on acting as if the other 20% don’t exist – or worse – are in the condition they are due to personal shortcomings. Ask whether there should be a 5% across-the-board cut in income or a 5% increase in unemployment, which would win politically? Solidarity in the United States is very weak compared to most other societies, except among the rich.
Once you find yourself out on the street, it’s too late to develop empathy. You are already on the margin and your voice no longer matters.
Quick answer: I think it was a horrible crime against humanity and I think the United States government still has reparations to make for it.
As far as what I can do about it personally, well… the left, the impoverished and ethnic minorities have been collectively demonized so successfully that even getting an honest debate on the topic is impossible (which of course, is the real reason people bring it up to distract people from what’s being done to the Palestinians — it’s a talk stopper). As a political statement, I’ve been meaning to make a digital composite of a rendering of the Trail of Tears and put it with photos of Palestinians being expelled during the Nakba.
I do what I can personally, but hey, my relatives only came over in the early part of the 1900′s, and when they arrived they were dirt poor immigrants who didn’t speak English. So they had nothing to do with the genocide of Native Americans. And as far as what sacrifice I could make personally, I don’t own any land, at all. And probably never will, thanks to the state of the American economy.
As it happens? I also have relatives who are Native American (through an uncle who married my mother’s sister, so sadly my personal genetic heritage seems to be nothing more than white).
Funny how every time you come around for conversation, Bruce, it’s either A) a personal attack on the commentators, or B) dredging up and employing a hasbara trope. And hey, this time, it’s both!
Chaos, it’s admirable that you are passionate, but this is a war of ideas, not a war of emotions.
I didn’t personally attack anyone in my comment. The posting is about tropes. Anonymous wrote about a trope that Mead argued works with Americans. Avi asked how Americans would respond to another trope. I answered by suggesting that Americans probably wouldn’t react the way Avi was hoping or expecting, and then tried to explain why not.
Although Avi’s question was very specific, I doubt many Americans would see it as a metaphor for I-P. (I am not talking about myself.) At least that has been my experience when I’ve tried it. Has your experience been different? In fact, the casino answer was what I received several times when asking – in the context of unfair treatment of the Palestinians – “do you think the Indians were treated fairly and that the wrongs against them have been adequately redressed?”
Is it that controversial to say that settler or immigration societies may have more empathy for Israel’s birth than rooted societies? They have their own stained births.
As for your answer on your views on the treatment of the American Indian, I share your quick answer. I doubt that is part of any hasbara trope. I would have thought my language alone – genocide and land stealing – would have indicated moral disapproval. Does habara speak these words when using the fate of the American Indian to make its point? If so, quite bold I must say.
As for your longer answer, it suggests another point I’ve been trying to make that you attack me for. “They [your ancestors] had nothing to do with the genocide of Native Americans.” But the rights of Native American’s were still more restricted than your ancestors when they immediately arrived in America. Most Americans also believe they have no responsibility for slavery and thus consider the idea of reparations ridiculous. (It is admirable that you do not.) We now have a number of generations of Israelis. Rather than debating the “evils” of pre-1948 Zionism, wouldn’t it be better to discuss current conditions and the “rights of the Palestinians”? Perhaps, the proposal in the Mondoweiss comment section is to send the Israelis back to their ancestral homes. I thought only a few commenters here were suggesting that. But maybe I am wrong.
As for your answer on your views on the treatment of the American Indian, I share your quick answer. I doubt that is part of any hasbara trope.
just thought i would mention the comparison of israeli founding to that of the american treatment of native americans is used continually ad nauseum by hasbarists. never mind the age of colonialism is past, or should be. its a shitty analogy and in general american do not justify what we did to native americans.
Bruce, AFAIK only a few (maybe just one that I vaguely recall) have said that Israeli Jews of European descent should go back. It’s a stupid immoral position, amounting to ethnic cleansing.
I don’t agree with this–
“Rather than debating the “evils” of pre-1948 Zionism, wouldn’t it be better to discuss current conditions and the “rights of the Palestinians”? ”
I don’t agree because it’s impossible to separate the two. Also, one of the tropes we’ve probably all seen from Israel defenders is that settlements can’t be the real issue, because the Arabs hated Israel before 1967. And they’re right about the hatred, but they don’t acknowledge why–it’s because of what happened in 1948 and earlier. Cultural Zionism was no threat to Arabs, though I gather from what I’ve read in Tom Segev Judah Magnes met with a cold reception from Arabs, because they thought all Zionists were trying to take their land. But the Arabs were right to be suspicious of the political Zionists.
Now if someone wants to argue that the only practical solution (and one in accordance with international law) is the two state solution that’s a reasonable position to take, though at this stage it doesn’t appear much closer than the one state solution. But when arguing the rights and wrongs it’s necessary to talk about the history. Also, if the Palestinians do settle for two states, they should still have the right to use their right of return to pre-67 Israel as a huge bargaining chip and maybe extract some more concessions. The mainstream liberal position in the US seems to ask them to throw away their rights and then the haggling starts over the remaining 22 percent (or less, if the Israelis get to keep their settlement blocs).
It may be a shitty analogy, but they think it works for them or they wouldn’t use it as often as they do.
Americans may not justify any longer what was done to Native Americans – except maybe in Texas school textbooks – but they also aren’t doing much to compensate the victims. Social and economic statistics for Native Americans are devastating, even worst than for African-Americans. The US agencies responsible for Indian Affairs are still screwing them out of their property. About the only bright spot is that white American entrepreneurs found that they could use Indians treaty rights as a way to introduce gambling in states other than Nevada. The lucky Indians tribes get a cut. But in the new economic climate, legislators are looking for ways to claw back Indian cashflow.
As you say the Age of Colonialism has passed. Israel was the last settler state. Ten years later and there would have been no Israel. But this is what makes undoing 1948 even more difficult than 1967. And I speak as one who insists the International Community must undue the mess it created in 1948.
You are so right, Bruce, it wouldn’t take but a bit of thinking for most Americans to become very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.
I wonder what most Americans feel about the IRA actions against the English? Israel’s problem is the continuity of the occupation, that is moving toward apartheid or genocide. To impose a blockade on Gaza after a killing 1400 civilians by the IDF is as sick as the murders themselves.
If the media reported fairly on the conflict, things will be different with these poll numbers.
“To impose a blockade on Gaza after a killing 1400 civilians by the IDF is as sick as the murders themselves.”
Be fair, Chu. They imposed it before they killed the civilians. They maintained it afterwards.
You’re right Donald. Always need to credit the Israeli Government where credit’s due.
It would have helped if the Left had not piled on to the demonization of Buchanan back in the nineties, which was pretty much a neocon inspired campaign.
Yeah, he is a voice of reason. I am not so sure the right is completely blind either. The Ron Paul personifies a change in the party that is being taken seriously.
Ron Paul was the presidential choice of the conservative convention held last month. His views on Israel didn’t turn off those voters.
I’m sure he’ll be given the “Howard Dean” treatment soon enough. Some things work the same on both sides of the aisle.
Howard Dean treatment will come back to haunt Democrats. I know I started asking questions after the Dean Scream.
You do realize the “Dean Scream” farce is what I’m referring to, right? And what I mean is the powers that be will do (hell, have been doing) a similar smear job on Ron Paul?
Well, Paul’s already an anti-Semite, from the whisper campaigns. They’ll probably say he’s soft on terror.
I remember people in the DLC (Al From) said they didn’t trust Dean and the Neocons new what he was getting at. But low and behold we had a real war vet, with the personality of prince Valium, to lull us into having no options for our 2004 vote.
Oh, please. Riiight, it’s the Left’s fault for setting the tenor of political discourse in the US.
Bullshit. We aren’t the one’s calling this or that and this other thing “SOCIALISM!” when it isn’t. As if socialism were a dirty word.
Was Buchanan impeached by Congress for being “too conservative,” Scott?
Chaos, the left doesn’t set the tenor of discourse, but it does set part of the tenor, perhaps slightly more in the nineties than today.
Let me do this right: it does set part of the tenor, slightly more in the nineties than today.
And that’s why single payer health care is a vital and spirited part of the debate, huh, because the left sets the tenor. Right.
Oh Jesus, the left hasn’t set the tenor of a goddam thing since Reagan got elected. He brought the script (Government is the problem, except for war, and all hail the free market!) and they’ve been sucessful with it ever since.
The only tenor the left has set is the soprano screaming from the pundits who make their living by trying to associate any decent or civil impulse in an American with Stalin’s Communism.
And Americans don’t think, they improvise scripts and scenarios. Fictional dramatic presentations based on cheap melodrama and the ease with which special effects can replicate violence (and the eagerness and inexperience which allows the audience to revel in them) is the bulk and the staple of American’s intellectual diet. It’s what they spend more time absorbing than anything else, with pornographic male-centered view of sex next in line. Other than that, they’re sorta nice, of course.