There is a justifiable uproar over the fact that Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, has pledged his party's greater allegiance to Netanyahu than Obama [quotes below]. Andrew Sullivan calls it a "scandal." Jim Traub at Foreign Policy asks, "Did Bibi win the midterms?" and then picks up a statement Cantor--"the leading GOP voice on Israel"--made on talk radio:
Cantor said that "it is very controversial" to "slam our ally, Israel," adding that "most Americans understand that Israel's security is synonymous with America's security." Actually, it's extraordinary to think that any country's security can be "synonymous" with that of the United States...
Glenn Greenwald lands on the declaration, too.
I'll quote Greenwald in a moment, but I want to get to my slight irritation with the coverage. Does it matter that Cantor is Jewish? All the commenters step around this fact. (Except Laura Rozen: Cantor "is set to become the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in history.") They don't want to feed anti-Semitism; some of them are Jews, they obviously believe that you can be Jewish and American and not be biased toward Israel. And that's true, you can.
But I think his Jewishness is relevant. Whenever an article praises Cantor for his support of Israel, they like to point out that he is only Jewish GOP member of Congress. And I bet that if any one of these writers told you about Cantor's siding with Netanyahu over a drink, they'd mention his Jewishness. It would be like talking about about political opposition to stem-cell research without referring to evangelical Christians.
Are there evangelical Christians who support stem-cell research? I'm sure. But the politics of the question have a strong religious component; and journalists make generalizations, justifiably. And Zionism (whatever its imperial or Christian veneers) is a religiously-borne ideology.
I can't wait till Jewish attitudes here are diverse. They are not now. Zionism captured Jewish life 40-70 years ago; Dershowitz says that it is the sacred mission of Jews to defend Israel. This is an invocation that I and every other Jew has heard. As J Street proclaimed the other day, "a deep commitment to Israel...[is] interwoven deep in the soul of American Jewish political identity." I agree, lamentably. It's woven, and the only way we will unweave it is to acknowledge its prominent presence. And as to dual loyalty, Eric Alterman and John Judis both explained that dual loyalty is part of support for Zionism. So did the anti-Zionist Rabbi Elmer Berger 70 years ago. So did Herzl's rich English hosts 110 years ago when they told him to get lost, they were doing fine in England.
And the reason it's vital to talk about these things now is that you can't unpack the disastrous American decision to invade Iraq or the push now to go to war with Iran (or indeed the unending support for Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or the defeat of the right of return in the 40s and 50s when American presidents were demanding the return of the refugees) without talking about the lobby and the construction of Jewish identity. I submit that not acknowledging the Jewish piece of this is a kind of forcible political stupidity that inhibits genuine understanding. But here is Greenwald:
[Cantor] vowed that he and his GOP colleagues would protect and defend Israeli interests against his own Government. According to a statement proudly issued by Cantor's own office:
"Regarding the midterms, Cantor may have given Netanyahu some reason to stand firm against the American administration.
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," the readout continued. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."
Leave aside the absurdity of believing that Israel needs to be protected from the extremely deferential and devoted Obama administration. So extraordinary is Cantor's pledge that even the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Ron Kampeas -- himself a reflexive American defender of most things Israel -- was astonished, and wrote:
"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."
In the end, Judaism will be the less relevant factors in the IP issues. But we obviously disagree on that.
Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish history (Jewish theology? Do we really have one? Remember that thread on the “core values” of Judaism?)
are just distractions and camouflage for political, moral and military crimes. And crimes are committed by people, or rather, persons.
But why get caught in this maelstrom, condemning the Zionists one day, begging them to see the light the next? Ridiculous. All we have to do is schism, announce that our Judaism has no truck with violence or political minipulation or bigotry, and let God choose between the sects. Whatsamatter, afraid you will end up on the losing side?
Mooser,
All we have to do is schism, announce that our Judaism has no truck with violence or political minipulation or bigotry, and let God choose between the sects. Whatsamatter, afraid you will end up on the losing side?
Not as long as people like Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr, and Rick Sanchez lose their careers, and have their reputations publicly decimated for discussing the obvious about their respective subjects; each one went down over anti-semitism charges, with the veracity merely assumed, all good judgment abdicated. (Not one prominent Jewish MSM* pro came to their defense…zip…the decades old demand for support is a one-way street, so is the claim to exceptionalism and the purported victimhood).
Name someone anyone, other than Juan Williams, who lost his job because he blamed or discussed Muslims or Christians, or even named the religion in his or her political discussions, in the last quarter century. Nunque. Zero. No one.
Foxman correctly went after Beck for swilling Jew-baiting in with his Tea Party/Mormonish takedown of Liberal Soros, but then backed down because more powerful forces prevailed and issued the spanky-spanky.
And that is what this is about: who has the power. Religion has nothing to do with it. But the cloak of religion does, and we have to the right to rip that cloak off — and name it — when someone is trying to smother us with it, or use it to clog the gears protecting the public weal and the country. We do it with 2/3 of the Abrahamic religions. All three are fair game.
Phil’s call is dead-on.
—————
* And don’t say Keith Olbermann. He went after the rabbi, who set up Thomas, for two seconds as ‘worse person of the day’. He didn’t support Thomas, he didn’t stick his neck out for her, or the outrage of what was done to her. He concentrated on the perp; Thomas wasn’t allowed to be a victim.
“Dershowitz says that it is the sacred mission of Jews to defend Israel.”
And if there is one person in the world qualified to tell the Jews what is sacred to them, it’s Dershowitz? Who made him Head Rabbi.
Claus von Bulow.
FROM REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990)
Andrea Reynolds, Claus’ Girlfriend (speaking to Dershowitz): I made him hire you, “get the Jew,” I said…
Alan Dershowitz: Can the Jew get down to business?
SOURCE – link to imdb.com
I would agree with Phil, about Greenwald ommitting Cantor’s “jewishness”, but everyone knows that Eric Cantor is Jewish. He’s been around the rodeo for a while now.
Up here in Massachusetts, where Barney Frank poses most of the time as a “liberal lion” – we have become used to his strong statements about Israel.
I suppose people in Wisconsin could say the same about Russ Feingold.
I think the real danger, and I use the term loosely, is that “real liberals” will begin to have their own litmus test for “inclusion” and this is where it gets tricky- because we have so many Dershowitz’ and Cantors out there running around talking about the “zero daylight” between Judaism and Zionism; if that remains the conventional wisdom, liberals have to ask themselves some tough questions; chief among them, ” Do Jews support liberal democratic values?” This is a horrible question, but I think it is an important one.
And I should note that these types of questions need to be asked about most “power centers” on the left. For a long time, one could say about most democrats in congress, “he’s somewhat liberal, but his views on ___ are waaaay to the right of the party base.” Defense spending, expansionist foreign policy, privatization, school vouchers, torture, rendition, domestic spying etc. are all examples of issues where the elected Right and Left both agree. We should be able to be honest with ourselves and say, “yea this congressman from Iowa is for ethanol and low taxes because he’s……from Iowa.” We should also be able to say, “chuck schumer is a hard core pro-Israel cat, and it’s becaus he’s Jewish.” Let the Schumer’s/Cantor’s/Frank’s and Feingold’s of the world be confronted with their own tribalism- its the only way to get past it.
“we have become used to his strong statements about Israel.”
this has been the standard situation for most Jewish and non Jewish congress people who belong to either party. For quite some time some of us have been hammering in the blogosphere that so called progressives need to start dividing this line. Draw a distinction between the Peps. Progressives except for Palestine.
DAN- “Do Jews support liberal democratic values?” Do “Liberals” in general support liberal democratic values? If we ignore the rhetoric and follow the money and votes, it would appear that most liberals talk the talk and that’s it. Look at both the Clinton and Obama administrations. What did we get? Wars abroad, curtailment of liberties at home, deregulation and neoliberal globalization. Chris Hedges makes a good point that liberals only acted like liberals when there was a radical left to pressure them. The radical left is non-existent now and the liberals have gotten on the militarized neoliberal bandwagon, and things are getting real bad real fast. I do agree, however, that when it comes to Israel, many liberals don’t even bother to pretend to be liberal.
Keith,
read the rest of my comment, i talk about the very things you do:
“And I should note that these types of questions need to be asked about most “power centers” on the left. For a long time, one could say about most democrats in congress, “he’s somewhat liberal, but his views on ___ are waaaay to the right of the party base.” Defense spending, expansionist foreign policy, privatization, school vouchers, torture, rendition, domestic spying etc. are all examples of issues where the elected Right and Left both agree. We should be able to be honest with ourselves and say, “yea this congressman from Iowa is for ethanol and low taxes because he’s……from Iowa.”
“you can be Jewish and American and not be biased toward Israel. And that’s true, you can.”
the bigger question is can you be Jewish and a Congress person and not be biased toward Israel.
Can anyone give one example of a Jewish Congressperson who was not biased towards Israel? Not sure what Feingold’s voting record is on all things Israel?
“I agree, lamentably. It’s woven, and the only way we will unweave it is to acknowledge its prominent presence.”
You can assure yourself that this has been talked about in many circles of people for decades. The inability of the majority of American Jews and Jewish congress people to look at the I/P situation with honest eyes. This has been talked about for decades.
As you say that Jews have had this “deep commitment” woven into their beings. The conversation about most Jews being incapable of looking at the I/P situation even close to fairly has been woven into many many peoples conversations over the last five decades.
Someone a while back linked to an article about trips that Jewish groups provide for congress people to Israel as being exempt (special) from new legislation that makes it unlawful for our Reps to accept trips to foreign countries. What do folks know about this?
So the IDF can recruit on U.s. college campuses.
Buying Congress people trips to Israel is exempt from legislation passed to stop this type of hanky panky
And sending money to illegal settlements (Hebron Fund) is tax exempt?
WTF
The President, not the Congress, sets foreign policy. As noted elsewhere, Cantor’s pledge to Israel is a felony under US law.
link to washingtonmonthly.com
Hey Philip or Adam or whoever moderates the comments:
Is there anything wrong with implicitly calling Mr. Cantor a traitor, considering a) what he said and b) the information contained in the comment/link I’m replying to, e.g. the legal circumstances?
I put Sullivan in the “Good for Nothin’” folder when he parroted government talking points as Obama put a few U.S. citizens on an assassination hitlist.
Glenn Greenwald has exposed Sullivan on numerous occasions for the — in my opinion — fraud that Sullivan is.
Sure, Sullivan has an epiphany once or thrice a decade, but that’s about it.
Ah yes, when the English Jews told Herzl to get lost. Why? Because they feared that if they subscribed to the wrong political idea, they would be persecuted by the English. Today, because of Herzl, English Jews are free to think whatever they want without political persecution from the English.
It’s funny how you both knock the establishment for being too successful, and then celebrate the establishment for rejecting Zionism years ago.
“Today, because of Herzl, English Jews are free to think whatever they want without political persecution from the English. ”
1833 – English Jew was admitted to the Bar
1835 – English Jew appointed sheriff
1837- Moses Montefiore knighted
1841- Isaac Lyon Goldsmid made baronet
1855. Sir David Salomons becomes Lord Mayor of London
1858 Parliamentary oath changed
1858, Lionel de Rothschild in the House of Commons
But Herzl wasn’t born until 1860
Somewhere around the end of your timeline, or during Herzl’s childhood, British Jews were also the face of Britain in foreign courts. Mother’s great-aunt’s father was the consul at Elsinore.
An ex-Jew (became Anglican at the age of thirteen), the son of a Jew, rose through the ranks of British politics and became Prime Minister in 1868. That shows how influential Herzl was, even at the age of eight.
I didn’t think Hophmi would count Disreali because of the “ex” factor.
“Ah yes, when the English Jews told Herzl to get lost. Why? Because they feared that if they subscribed to the wrong political idea, they would be persecuted by the English. Today, because of Herzl, English Jews are free to think whatever they want without political persecution from the English.”
Why do you automatically assume their opposition to Herzl/Zionism was inspired by fear of ‘the English’? It is precisely Zio-fascists like you who do not grant any Jew — be they long dead or living now – the freedom to think what they want without risking defamation, without having some ignoble motives ascribed to them. Here’s a contemporary Jew speaking out against GB’s official policy towards contemporary Israel. You think he’s afraid of being persecuted by ‘the English’?
link to youtube.com
Phil’s larger point has merit, of course. But I’m not convinced Cantor’s personal Jewishness has any importance here. Ask yourself this question: would any other (non-Jewish) Republican in his place say differently?
The personal convictions that may or may not be in play here are simply insignificant next to the political imperatives on this issue, determined by the Christian right and the Jewish Israel lobby.
Cantor in his great love and loyalty for Israel couldn’t be any worse than Canada’s Prime Minister. There was a time when Canada was just about the most respected country in the world because of its neutrality but this has changed because Prime Minister Harper. Last week Canada was denied a rotating seat on the UN Security Council for the first time in 65 years, having held it for 5 terms in the past and refused landing rights for one of its planes in Dubai. Being so loyal to Israel is costing Canada plenty. Murray Dobbin wrote in Rabble:
Harper has taken the position of being Israel’s defender no matter what — in other words, this commitment comes before his duty as prime minister, before his duty to represent Canada’s interests abroad, before his role of elected representative. Harper is a defender of Israel no matter the consequences for Canada. He stated:
“[As] long as I am Prime Minister, whether it is at the United Nations, the Francophonie, or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand whatever the cost. I say this, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tell us all too well if we listen to it, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us.”
This declaration of the “new anti-Semitism” is pure hogwash and everyone stating it or using it to attack critics of Israel knows it. For one thing, thousands of North American and European Jews regularly attack Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Of course, Zionists refer to these humanitarians as “Jew-hating Jews,” a clever bit of racist spin but far from the mark.
… The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism was originally going to issue a report last March. Then it was May. It was been delayed several more times and was supposed to be released at the meetings being held this week. It still hasn’t surfaced. On the organization’s website it still says “…we will be presenting a report of its findings in the late spring of 2010.” The group seems to have been inactive for sometime.
It was expected to call on the government to formally criminalize criticism of Israel. But perhaps its authors are beginning to realize that a document calling for the criminalization of free speech might not be the brightest idea they have ever come up with. Making a speech about the “new anti-Semitism” is one thing. Having it in a report, on permanent display for the whole world to see, is another. Personally, I hope they publish it. It might just be the last thing they do.
link to rabble.ca
Things are going very bad between Canada and the UAE at the moment. It’s hard to know how much support for Israel is a factor but the UAE is not happy and has really turned up the heat recently.
For five years Etihad and Emirates have been trying to negotiate for more arrival slots at Canadian airports, with talks finally collapsing a few month ago. Since then the UAE has successfully lobbied against Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council, booted Canada out of the Al Minhab air base in the Dubai desert and just a few days ago it was announced Canadian citizens would no longer get visas-on-arrival in the UAE. This might be a storm-in-a-teacup, except the Emirates is Canada’s largest trading partner in the ME.
Another simmering issues: Canada has arrested someone related to the Al Mabhouh assassination in Dubai but is refusing to talk about it, with some speculation the silence is out of deference to Israel.
A few article in the UAE press covering the spat (the Oct 14 one goes into Canada’s failed SC bid):
Oct 11: UAE-Canada trade ties could take beating
link to gulfnews.com
Oct 14: UAE lobbies against Canada at United Nations
link to gulfnews.com
Oct 21: Canada isn’t doing favours to the UAE
link to gulfnews.com
Nov 11: Canadian actions ‘escalation’ of row: Foreign Minister
link to thenational.ae
The plane that was refused landing permission by Dubai was a military plane carrying Defence Minister MacKay and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk. As you mentioned, the hanky-panky with the arrested Mossad agent that Canada is denying happened had as much to do with it as the refusal of Canada to grant landing rights to the 2 UAE airlines.
Bringing up Harper is a good point towards demonstrating how little support of Israel has to do with ‘the Jews’ (citing mooser’s distinction between Jews and ‘the Jews’). I doubt, however, that “being so loyal to Israel is costing Canada plenty”. This is Harper’s new opportunistic line (first he denied any connection to his pro-Israel policy), and not even Canadian American neocons like David Frum fall for this one:
link to dianaswednesday.com
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/876451–10-reasons-canada-s-u-n-bid-failed
Surely, Germany and Portugal didn’t get the two seats in this particular contingent because they promote anti-Semitism, old or new, and are anti-Israel?
robin,
The (non-Jewish) Republican, if he did what Cantor did, would be charged under the Logan Act, or at least, have to endure a scandal about it. The issue is that he bragged that he ganged up with a foreign leader to defeat the US President in the interest of that foreign country. He got away with it because he’s Jewish. (He’s in a political leadership position.) That’s the importance.
Rep Cantor has definitely struck a sour note here.
Eric Cantor? LMAO. I’d expect more insight from Eddie Cantor.