A few months back, young Brandon Davis, writing thrillingly in the Daily Princetonian, blamed the American Jewish community en bloc for the crimes of Israel--
[J]ust as it is fair to criticize Israeli policies, it is fair to criticize its apologists — groups that claim to represent the entire American Jewish community. American Jews have traditionally been at the forefront of progressive movements. But in recent years, American Jewish institutions have trended toward the ugly side of Zionism, defending — or at least apologizing for — the Israeli hard right in its continuation of the occupation of the West Bank and repression of Palestinian identity. The undeniable injustices of the Israeli government and military warrant criticism; silence in the face of these injustices warrants criticism as well.
It is time for American Jews to stand up against oppression, violence and religious fundamentalism. The tribalism that has persuaded the Jewish people to categorically stand up for Israel for so many years is foolish and outdated. The occupation of the West Bank is wrong. The blockade of Gaza is wrong. The displacement of Palestinian villages is wrong. The continued construction of settlements is wrong. And American Jews have enabled all of it. It’s about time a Jew stood up and said so.
I wrote similar things over the years, and I want to announce now that Brandon Davis and I have won. We have helped to change the American Jewish community, and that community and its leaders are going to be distancing themselves more and more from the crimes of Israel in months to come.
A process that began very much in the margin 3 and 4 years ago, with the Progressive Anti-Zionists who were called anti-Semites by the American Jewish Committee's Alvin Rosenfeld in a historic smear that will go into history books some day-- we have won. The criticisms that we framed about Israel are entering the mainstream Jewish community. I'm not going to offer data right now, but the sense is everywhere around me.
And the bravery of Jews who said, I am finally speaking out against the atrocities-- if you remember Naomi Klein asking Palestinians to forgive her cowardice on the issue back in 09, if you remember Medea Benjamin apologizing for not getting on the issue sooner when she began her countless trips to Gaza-- well, we can look back now and see that those women were great leaders, and the mainstream Jews are going to be following down the same dusty road of broken dreams. Peter Beinart is on that road; and believe me, we are going to see franker and franker criticisms of Israel in the Jewish community.
Why? Because of what Brandon Davis saw. The plain black and white wrongness of the occupation, the atrocities of Gaza that turned Medea Benjamin, and add to all that, the awareness that these conditions were being blamed on Jews. The awareness that Israel was making Jews unsafe, the world around. I think this is implicit in General David Petraeus's and Joe Biden's comments about Israel being dangerous to America, implicit in David Remnick's angry statement about the occupation and the passivity of the Israel lobby dining in the St Regis: you bastards, you are making us hold the bag on your crap. Yesterday on Fareed Zakaria's show Remnick doubled down and said the occupation is "deeply wrong;" and you could see WSJ neocon Bret Stephens's rage at the statement. But what did Stephens offer instead? When Zakaria said the plain truth, that Israel has denied half the population rights for 43 years, Stephens said that the situation must be maintained because what could take its place would be worse. This is the old ethnocentric neoconservative rationale for doling out violence to Arabs, which Remnick himself once endorsed when he published Jeffrey Goldberg's anti-Saddam pieces, and it has now been publicly discredited. I can't say enough about Remnick's apostasy. Remnick is a very smart guy, and a careerist, and his shift means that the Jewish/mainstream world is shifting, and the argument I have long pressed for inside the Jewish community over the Iraq war, between the neoconservatives and the liberals who once harbored them, will at last begin. And isn't it interesting that the Iraq war disaster and the public accusation in 2006 that the Israel lobby had fomented it did not break the lobby. No, Remnick defended against that charge. But Walt and Mearsheimer wounded the lobby; and what has broken it is a more ethnocentric concern that Walt and Mearsheimer also outlined and Beinart has picked up: You lost Israel!
What was the tipping point? I think this is easy. It was the deal Netanyahu wrung from Obama to extend the settlement freeze 3 months, which he couldn't even sell to his own coalition. The naked exposure of Israeli power over the American political process, the ugliness of Netanyahu even as the rabbis were writing that letter saying Don't rent to Arabs-- hey, Jews may not be that smart, but we're not that stupid either.
And when the deal failed, a terrible realization began dawning on sentient American Jews: Israel is not good for the Jews. No, its militarism and racism are damaging the Jewish brand for all to see...
It's over. The deal that Israel cut with American Jews in '67-'73, that you must be the guardians of the Jewish state in New York and Washington-- it's over. It's been broken. Young Jews don't feel it, young journalists don't feel it much either. And part of the reason the lobby is broken is the ideology of anti-Zionism: the growing post-Holocaust awareness among American Jews that we don't need a Jewish homeland, and you've done a lousy job of making a state, and we're actually pretty safe in the west....
We're in the long decline now. It could take a while, I don't know where it goes. Ali Abunimah has described the four phases of shifting consciousness better than anyone. And I would add that in the struggle that we are now entering, the apartheid struggle and the civil rights struggle in the occupation, American Jews are going to be following Brandon Davis's path and not really caring if it's one state or two states, and call it what you will, but let's just end this horror show. Brandon Davis--
It is time for American Jews to stand up against oppression, violence and religious fundamentalism. The tribalism that has persuaded the Jewish people to categorically stand up for Israel for so many years is foolish and outdated.
this is a great post phil, i want to scream it from the rooftops.
Thanks, Phil (and annie). Who will tell Jon Stewart–or, rather, when will he listen and have a conscience? PEP (Progressive except Palestine), to paraphrase “The Daily Show,” is just “Hip” O’ the Crazy” Hypocrisy.
The lobby is broken? What does that mean, that they won’t be able to raise money? That they will exert less influence? Non of that is remotely visible. Many people in Israel also believe that the occupation is wrong and in fact most Israeli Jews support a two state solution. The problem is how to get there.
History shows that most Jews that don’t care about Israel do not work against it, they just detach themselves. That is also the case in the US. The lobby has nothing to worry about.
Nazi Germany was broken, and yet it was phenomenally productive and (in cold, amoral, industrial terms) successful. It was a hideous abomination, too, but you can’t argue that they were incapable of taking on the armies of multiple neighbors at once and conquering more land to expand their borders. (Sound familiar?)
Okay, so let’s say about 1% of Americans are Jews who are Zionists, and 1% of Americans are Jews who either don’t care, or who oppose Zionism. You’re not worried about the other 98% of the United States, huh?
Well, I think eee has a good point here. About half of our billionaires are Israel Firsters and our elected government is in their pocket in a nation where the income gap keeps growing like Topsy and who owns the five big news media? And who rules Entertainment? The most effective way to determine America’s cultural taboos is to watch stand-up comedians over the years. See Suzie Kneedler’s comment regarding Jon Stewart. Bill Kristol is very smug for a good reason. Bernays, take a bow.
The great Lenny Bruce, suffered endlessly at the hands of the American authorities for the right to freedom of speech and to break taboos, once did a bit that began: “Are there any n-words here tonight?” What would happen today if a comedian did a bit, “Are there any k**** here tonight?”
History shows that most Jews that don’t care about Israel do not work against it, they just detach themselves.
And your unequivocal conclusion would be based on extensive historical data pertaining to which period? The 60-odd years since Israel’s establishment? The 30-odd years since the Reform Movement became explicitly Zionist? The 20-odd years of de facto Haredi Zionism? That’s not much to work with. If only Jews were fruit flies.
Shmuel,
Could things be different in the future? Sure, but is that likely? No. Sixty years is not forever, but it is a respectable amount of time and allows extrapolation with some confidence.
You know well the Jewish community in Italy. What do you see is happening there? Are non-Zionists staying a part of the Jewish community or are they detached?
3e,
Even assuming that a little more than two generations were sufficient, and even assuming that there were actually data to support your thesis, Jewish social, political, religious and ideological trends (including attitudes to Zionism and Israel) have not been consistent over that period, and it would be virtually impossible to isolate support for Israel from so many other factors affecting Jewish societies and individual lives – many of them pre-dating Israel and even Zionism. You would be hard pressed even to establish a significant association between non-support for Israel and “detachment”.
The organised Jewish community in Italy (state-recognised and supported, heir to all pre-war Jewish institutions and properties) is almost exclusively Orthodox and exclusively Zionist. Those who wish to be a part of the Jewish community but are not considered Jewish according to Orthodox halakhah (or their spouses or their children), and those who are openly non/anti-Zionist are actively excluded. We are talking about a community of approximately 40,000 people (in a general population of over 60 million), with no more than 15,000 in each of the large communities (Rome and Milan). The communities are small and the institutions extremely centralised. Non-Zionist Judaism is not an option – although there are non-Zionist Jews who have no interest in “detaching”, and plenty of otherwise Jewishly- “detached” Zionists. Ignorance of Judaism as well as Israeli reality abounds among the “attached” as well as the “unattached” and the “detached”.
Shmuel,
Your anecdotal evidence from Italy supports my thesis. I think you would agree that if we examine Europe country by country we would also see that my thesis is supported. If that carries no weight for you, that is fine.
But forget that. Look at your case. Though you want to be a non-Zionist, for all practical purposes, because of your family in Israel you are a Zionist. You visit Israel often. You care about what happens to your family there. You understand their fears even if you may disagree with them. You won’t support a solution that you think may bring harm to them. To quote Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in….
That is why with over 50% of Jews in Israel, non-Zionism has no chance. And in 30 years, with a significant majority of Jews in Israel, non-Zionism will not even be a theoretical option.
eee – I’m gonna keep asking til you respond, FYI.
You claimed Israel apologised for shooting the Palestinian senior citizen in his bed. For the fourth time, I’m asking you, please show me this apology!!!
The third time I asked.
The second.
The first.
Your anecdotal evidence from Italy supports my thesis.
On the contrary. Your thesis was that non-Zionist Jews “detach themselves”. My “anecdotal evidence” suggests that many do not detach themselves but are rather excluded by others, and that many Zionists are no less detached from Jewish life, values, traditions or demographics. Small communities also have their own dynamics, and I know non-Zionists who just put up with it (as I did up to a point), simply because it’s the only show in town.
Though you want to be a non-Zionist, for all practical purposes, because of your family in Israel you are a Zionist.
No, I am an anti-Zionist. Contrary to what you may believe, anti-Zionism does not preclude caring about Jews or trying to understand their fears. What it does preclude is support for Jewish supremacism and the belief that our blood is somehow redder than theirs. I do not feel that I have been “pulled back”, although your comparison of Zionism to a crime family is apt.
As long as we’re making predictions, ongoing oppression is a bad long-term strategy, and the harder and uglier things get in Israel the more Israelis who are able to leave will do so, the more isolated Israel will become internationally, and the more non-Israeli Jews will distance themselves from the Zionist state. I think Phil gets a little carried away, but we are certainly beginning to see signs of such an eventuality, both inside and outside Israel.
That’s why when the number drops below 50% (which is inevitable), Zionism has no chance. In 30 years, Jews will not be a significant majority.
link to jta.org
link to guardian.co.uk
It’s nice to know that when the Israeli army sends out a squad of heavily armed soldiers to infiltrate homes and apartment buildings in order to slaughter men while they lie asleep, unarmed, completely helpless and metaphorically up to their elbows in “collateral damage” civilian targets, in total defiance of any contemporary standard of justice or article of war, Israel is at least kind enough to apologize when the man they spray with bullets turns out to be completely innocent, rather than merely suspected of crime.
Well thank you yonira, but the JTA article is pretty flimsy (it refers to a Haartez article quoting the army as saying it “regretted” the killing, which is not the same as an apology), and the Guardian article just says “regrets”.
eee’s claim was unambiguous. We’ll just wait for him to demonstrate on what basis it was made.
There has been no apology Chaos. The JTA’s use of the word “apology” isn’t supported by any statement I can find from the IDF Spokesperson or Israeli MFA.
Oh. Never mind. I guess after all, they can’t even be bothered to do that, can they?
Which will in turn, being an end to Israel, which relies on their support, especially as the number detaching themselves increases and reaches critical mass.
It ain’t over until it’s over.
Until the “president of the society of most powerful presidents” (or whatever grandiose name is really used) (and you know who I mean, and it’s not Barack Obama) will CRITICIZE ISRAEL and call for a removal of the WALL and the SETTLEMENTS, then you will know that “we” have won. Actually, if Obama will do it, you’ll know we have won.
No sooner. Keep up the good work, but don’t start counting chickens.
Well laid out, PHil, but a note of realism regarding “The Lobby”. It is, right now still powerful, holding sway over most establishment Jews and Congress. It is so because, one way or another it has become part of the Corporate State, having managed to ally itself with the “Powers-that-be”. As long as those “powers” see the benefit to themselves in keeping The Lobby within the “tent of control” it’ll remain an integral part of the “establishment”. Ramblings from within and from below notwithstanding.
The Lobby’s power over our politics and America’s foreign policy will be truly broken only when the “establishment” decides it is no longer on the plus side in the cost/benefit equation. That can happen rather abruptly should Israel attack Iran, for example, an act that may represent a net danger to the status quo, potentially shaking the entire corporate power matrix. IMO, this is something people like J. Goldberg and Friedman sense and their writings on the subject of Iran should perhaps be interpreted in this light.
An alternative scenario is another economic calamity, one in which too many Jewish grand stake holders of finance will be seen as implicated too deeply (which is something that almost happened in 2008). Unfortunately, this scenario is much scarier, potentially sweeping way too many good people to places we shouldn’t want to go to.
Phil is, of course, right that the other way to shake the lobby loose is by undermining its insidious power over the ones it is supposed to represent – American Jews. That will indeed happen in due course, possibly accelerated by increasingly visible signs of the american empire’s decline, even accelerated some with Israel’s obliging help, but it’ll take a long time. The discontent and the awakening happening person by person at a time. And unfortunately, there is not that much time left before some other, less benign scenario unfolds.
Danaa,
Agree.
Great post, Phil. It was indeed telling that Bret Stephens agreed that the occupation was wrong, but it was a lesser evil than the unknown. . . It means that even a hard-core neocon like Bret Stephens can no longer justify the occupation with a straight face on national television. The tide is shifting, and Phil has been instrumental in smashing the taboos of reasoned dialogue on the topic, but there’s miles and miles to go.
How many times are you going to cry wolf, Phil?
You assume that no one criticized Israel in the past in the American Jewish community – you were wrong.
You assume that Jews who matter will abandon Israel – there is no reason for anyone who actually spends time with these people to believe this.
You assume that Jews believe Israel is bad for the Jews – you are wrong.
You keep predicting a demise that is not going to happen.
So, you’re saying nobody, not even Dick Witty, has to worry about a pogrom right around the corner of Main St? Isn’t that a great reason to quit justifying everything despical thing Israel does because the disapora needs Israel as an insurance policy?
Totally agree. I think attitude of the French Jews to Israel is the likely trajectory of American Jewish support. The Jews that support Israel will remain supportive no matter what, and the non-Zionists will likely be assimilated and not part of the Jewish discourse at all. Hoping for a any significant non-Zionist movement inside American Judaism is not a serious strategy.
so eee does that mean that Jewishness is increasingly defined as being supportive of Israel? you got that deal in the 70s, and i tuned out and did all the other fun assimilationist stuff i did. but now i’m back and reading Isaac babel and hanging outwith other non-Z Jews and sayign, Im Jewish too. I bet a lotta young Jews feel the same way… watch out!! but you see that iceberg, and that’s why you’rre on this site.
Phil,
Jewishness has always been defined by the connection to the land of what is now Israel. Do you or do you not say each year at the end of the Seder “next year in Jerusalem”? What spin are you going to give to that? That “Jerusalem” is some liberal concept instead of a real city? As we say in Israel, haval al ha’zman. Don’t waste your time.
You claim you are the tip of the iceberg? So did the French non-Zionists but of course they were proved wrong. The facts on the ground in the US are even less in your favor.
There are many factors that explain why you are on quixotic mission:
1) The Jewish community in Israel is half of Jews worldwide and growing. Any Jewish organization will not want to risk dis-unity and thus will advocate change within the current structure and that means respecting the democratic choices of Israel’s Jews. But you are not willing to work within the current Jewish organizational structure.
2) The moss that sticks to your rolling stone is not something that the majority of Jews will ever accept. Read the comments on your site.
3) You have no positive ideology to provide future generations. You are against things. But what exactly are you for? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but my understanding is that you are for diminishing the power and uniqueness of the Jewish people. You want them to be less influential in the US, and you want them to accept being a minority in a non-Jewish state. That kind of ideology is contrary to human nature just as communism is. Perhaps a small minority will accept it, but that is it.
And I can continue.
That’s your definition, which precludes the existence of secular Jews.
Rigtht, and look at what happened to communism?
Gee, eee, you must love those stereotypical teen HS movies so chock full of who is, and who is not in the in-crowd. Maybe Phil doesn’t feel comfortable living in a constant state of arrested development.
Jewishness has always been defined by the connection to the land of what is now Israel.
One line in the seder does not define an entire religion. Jewishness has always been defined by the Law, by the Torah, which is the reason is it thrived in the Diaspora, in almost every other land in the world.
You’re mistaking the heresty of Zionism for actual Judaism.
‘What was the tipping point? I think this is easy. It was the deal Netanyahu wrung from Obama to extend the settlement freeze 3 months, which he couldn’t even sell to his own coalition.’
This assertion is a little surprising. When the history of this period is written, Obama’s feeble effort at sponsoring peace talks — widely and accurately pronounced as dead on arrival before they began — won’t loom very large.
But Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza in Dec. 2008, displaying the same heedless mass destruction as Israel’s South Lebanon campaign in 2006, was an eye-opener for many people, worldwide.
The ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ aspect of Israel’s pounding of Gaza engaged a strong chord of American sympathy for the underdog, including among Jews. Israel’s devious subsequent behavior offends the Anglo-American cultural concept of fairness, which in turn highlights the yawning cultural gap between the US and Israel. A shared religion is no longer sufficient to bridge it.
Phil’s larger point is undeniably correct:
The American Jewish declaration of independence, as it were. Write it on parchment and collect some more signatures!
i agree jim that gaza was everything. but it seems like the looming loss of the 2SS is what has finally wakened these middle of the roaders to what Mearsheimer and Olmert warned: national suicide… Gaza was an atrocity; this presents them with the possible loss of a boyhood ideal…
When you put it that way, I see your point. I’d given up on the two-state solution years ago. But you’re right, it’s becoming widely obvious now that the two-state solution has been smothered in its crib by Israel.
It’s going to happen, Hophmi. I may not be as optimistic as Phil and I don’t see the lobby at the breaking point, I’ve been at this too long, but it’s going to break and when it does it might be like a mighty dam and. if so, you and your fellow Israelophiles better be wearing life preservers.
It could happen if Obama makes a public visit to Israel, but I can assure you he won’t and we all know why (don’t we?) and why Netanyahu will not invite him. The Israelis are simply unable to guarantee that one of the JudeoNazis that now infest its military would not do a replica of what happened to Rabin or what we saw in Arizona on Saturday.
The Israelis are simply unable to guarantee that one of the JudeoNazis that now infest its military would not do a replica of what happened to Rabin or what we saw in Arizona on Saturday.
Precisely what I think.
Israel is doing everything it can these days to disgust anyone with the slightest moral sense. The problem – the task – is to disseminate the facts.
the tipping point was Sharon going onto the Al Aqsa Mosque site deliberately to provoke … Mearsheimer and Walt gave voice to what was being screamed loudly from the sidelines by anyone who cares about basic human decency and fairness, and the process of truth-telling has grown from there
As an atheist non-jew I recognized the threat that israel’s serially criminal and outrageously dispicable behavior represented for all jews everywhere a long time ago. I even wrote Abe Foxman a letter about 10 years ago and told him the conduct of israel was eventually going to put all jews in danger. Not all jews are zionists, not all jews even support the concept of israel or a nation of israel, but the conduct of the Likkudnik fascist faction that controls israel (and America through our Congress) is simply insane and they put all jews in danger.
I’m not nearly so optimistic as Phil that the tide is turning that much or that fast – israel always always does something more horrific with every perceived or manufactured threat to try to bind all jews together … for decades they have made the propaganda point that being a jew and supporting israel are one and the same the linchpin of their overall strategy … this will take real effort to untagle
RE: “The lobby has been broken because… Israel isn’t good for the Jews” – Weiss
I HOPE YOU’RE RIGHT PHIL, BUT FOR SOME STRANGE REASON I CAN’T RESIST ‘CUING UP’ A BOWIE TUNE…
P.S. RE: “Israel isn’t good for the Jews” – Weiss
NOTE: Smoking cigarettes isn’t good for people, but plenty of people smoke them nonetheless.
when the walls come tumbling down
no one better than anyone else
no special state for a special people
no special people
yes, a great post Phil.
Still chewing on all you’ve pointed to.
(haven’t gone through the thread yet)
The problem I have with this post, Phil, is that the power of the lobby has never really rested on the support of the masses of Jews. The real bases of its power are the resources – not just the raw dollars, but also the organizational networks, control over the media and think-tanks and universities, etc. – of a small elite of super-rich, ideologically committed Jews, and there’s no evidence that many of that group (or even their children) are abandoning their enthusiasm for the Zionist cause.
At least from 1967 until now their position has been buttressed by the support of the Jewish masses, so to speak. Now, as you rightly observe, they’re losing some of that support, and in some ways that will make things harder for them. But it’s a huge leap to go from that observation to saying their power is broken, since they still have most of their resources.
Just look at all those congresspeople who go down on their knees for the lobby every week. How many of them are doing it because their political fortunes depend on Jewish votes? Maybe a few from NYC, Florida, and LA. For the rest it’s not votes but contributions, media backing, etc., that they’re after – or that they fear will go to someone else if they stray too far. That whole dynamic remains even if a majority of Jews no longer cares whether they vote for those stupid AIPAC resolutions. (Besides, note that we’re nowhere near having won over a majority of U.S. Jews yet.)
To put it another way, the lobby is more like a mafia than a mass movement. They’ve enjoyed having a mass movement – the overwhelming majority of American Jews – behind them over Israel, but if they have to, they’ll soldier on with only part of the US Jewish community cheering for them.
A very sobering comment Henry, but unlike the Mafia, the Lobby does require a broad base of support to remain sustainable. What good is controlling the media if you’ve lost the audience?
The Lobby’s success has largely depended on it’s ability to suppress the discussion and set the parameters of the debate. That’s why Phil is correct when he said W&M wounded the Lobby, because to this day, W&M continue to be attacked but both academics have survived.
As we saw with Remick’s statements on Zakaria’s program, the lobby and it’s supporters are extremely vulnerable and fragile when it comes to to dissent and criticism when it from Jews. Until recently, they’ve managed to malign the few dissenters like Chomsky, Finkelstein etc., because few others spoke out; but if this gathers momentum and all those Jews who have been biting their lip for so long (for fear of alienation) start believing it is safe to speak out, the damn could well break.
So getting back to your argument about the power base. The money and power at the lobby’s disposal is only effective within existing structures. Take the military industrial complex. In spite of every conceivable resource, including the support of Christian Evangelicals, the DOD has a marketing and PR budget of 4 billion a year.
That’s an astronomical figure. Even assuming much of that is pork, it goes to show how delicately the message and has to be managed to maintain the status quo.
As you point out, Congress is beholden to the lobby because of campaign contributions (votes less so) but imagine if we reached the point where campaign contributions from the lobby became scrutinized? If money was the be all and end all, then every politician would be beholden to the Saudis or the Chinese.
Shingo, first of all, not only would it be illegal for any politician to take money from China or the Saudis, it would be political suicide for any of them to do so.
And Henry is correct. It is an illusion to think that the sentiments of the majority of Jews has any influence on the Israel Lobby as long as those sentiments that might be critical of Israel are not translated into visible forms of political action.
Despite the disquiet of many in the Jewish community, reflecting their concern is that what Israel is doing might threaten them in the long run, there is very little likelihood of a rebllion occuring in the near future given the ability of the Lobby to guilt trip the Jewish majority into silence whenever the need arises.
In Congress, which is nothing less than Israel’s largest external fortress, the Lobby’s sway is as great as ever and in the White House. it is fortunate to have a man who has shown time and again that he lacks the guts to stand up to any challenge, be it Israel, it’s Lobby, or Wall Street (all of which, it should not be forgotten, are intimately connected.)
What is important and not being reported in the Lobby dominated US media is the growing irritation among Washington’s allies with the Obama administration’s failure to put pressure on Israel while it continues to ethnically cleanse Palestinian East Jerusalem.
This, more than the recognition of Palestine by the Latin American countries, is likely to become a much bigger story, and one too big to hide, very soon.
One day, the way things are going, it will be Israel and the USA (oops, almost forgot Israeli Occupied Canada) against the entire world. At that point, a sufficient number of Americans (and Canadians) are likely to begin asking, and not timidly, “Who in the hell is responsible for this?”
Jeffrey,
I did word that badly. When I referred to politicians taking money from China or the Saudis, I was referring to “legal” channels a la AIPAC. I read a piece not long ago that investigated how Saudi wealth has failed to translate into political clout in Washington, which goes to show that money alone doesn’t explain the Lobby’s effectiveness.
I agree with both you and Henry that in the absence of political action to the contrary, the Lobby’s influence will remain intact, for a while at least, but again, the lobby still requires a large and highly organized base to maintain a lid on things. I don’t believe a rebellion is actually required. Lack of participation alone will limit the Lobby’s ability to mobilize their minions (in the form of demonstrations, complaints about unflattering news reports etc).
While Wall Street maintains a grip on Congress and the White House, it is clear that such an association has become a liability. Unlike the case with Israel, you don’t hear Congressman and Senators give speeches about their unwavering commitment to Wall Street. The resentment is building and we have yet to see that anger expressed, but it is coming.
I think you’ve summarized what I’ve been trying to say better than I ever could.
One day, the way things are going, it will be Israel and the USA (oops, almost forgot Israeli Occupied Canada) against the entire world.
Dead on the money. Dead on.
What good is controlling the media if you’ve lost the audience?
If you control the media, I would say you also control the audience.
The Lobby’s success has largely depended on it’s ability to suppress the discussion and set the parameters of the debate. That’s why Phil is correct when he said W&M wounded the Lobby, because to this day, W&M continue to be attacked but both academics have survived.
I disagree. In fact I would say that the lobby in turn wounded W&M more than the other way around, and it continues to do so as shown by the examples of Sanchez and Thomas.
When W&M’s book came out, it generated more controversy than debate, and the lobby managed to suppress both W&M and their thesis as columnist and reviewers devoted more space to establishing the Israel lobby theory as anti-Semitic, and the authors similarly racist in suggesting so. Even Chomsky decisively dismissed W&M’s book, meaning that W&M’s work was not only opposed thoroughly in the mainstream but by leftist dissenters as well. Yes, to their credit, W&M made the Israel lobby an acknowledged presence in American policy matters and the conflict, but since the lobby is as strong as ever, what was the point if cannot ever be brought up without inviting the same character assassination?
the lobby and it’s supporters are extremely vulnerable and fragile when it comes to to dissent and criticism when it from Jews.
Evidenced by what? More practical evidence suggests that dissenting Jews are excommunicated, ignored or maligned (see Siegmann or Goldstone), and that the lobby is able to suppress Jewish opposition to Israel just as much, if not as easily, as that of gentiles.
Expecting an awakening in the American Jewish conscience is similarly unrealistic. I would sooner expect Israel Jews to write of Zionism than American Jews, the enablers and backers of Israel’s worst and most atrocious policies and attacks, to do so, living in a bubble of defending Israel at the slightest provocation and viewing Zionism as an insurance policy.
Beinart and Davis are the exceptions and not the rules. It would marvelously change the conflict for the better should their perspective become the mainstream American Jewish view, but holding such an expectation is utterly unrealistic and futile.
Sherbrsi writes:
“Even Chomsky decisively dismissed W&M’s book, meaning that W&M’s work was not only opposed thoroughly in the mainstream but by leftist dissenters as well.”
That was, perhaps, the most damaging cut of all received by Mearsheimer and Walt. Ironically, the criticism on Chomsky’s part should have been no more surprising than were the venemous excoriations from Dershowitz, Foxman, and Jefferey Goldberg.
Chomsky has long been the “gatekeeper” for a substantial segment of American progressives, who allow, in practice, to let the MIT professor do their thinking for them and no less when it comes to the issue of the Israel Lobby whose power Chomsky has a long history of either minimizing or ignoring completely.
Unfortunately, Democracy Now’s otherwise estimable Amy Goodman is one of those whose opinions and decisions are guided by Chomsky, to the point that rather than interviewing either Mearsheimer and Walt about their book when it came out, she invited Chomsky to do so (or, perhaps, he invited himself).
Predictably, after giving a patronizing pat on the back to M&W, Chomsky went on to dismiss their groundbreaking book on the Israel Lobby as misguided.
Since Chomsky might be said to be the Oprah Winfrey of progressives, if had he endorsed the “The Israel Lobby,”, it might have stirred a healthy discussion within left of center circles and publications. As it was, those circles just tightened further behind Chomsky’s position.
May I be so brash as to suggest that his rejection of the book did far more to prevent a much needed healthy discussion of its premise than any of the brickbats hurled his way by the Jewish establishment?
Not always. Once the spell is broken, it’s time for new material. Re runs of MASH doesn’t being the same ratings it used to, no mater how many channels they run on.
Typically when the lobby attacks, it goes in for the kill. Israel are still trying to bring down W&M, but W&M have actually benefited from the notoriety their book gave them. Walt even has a blog at Foreign Policy.
But it only worked for a while. Neither of then have suffered. Both have their jobs intact and their profiles have been elevated as a result.
Both write prolifically for on line publications.
A very significant one. W&M have helped open the floodgates to enabling the discussion. Unlike Thomas and Sanchez, they haven’t been roped into making statements that were inflammatory or could be taken out of context. You only need to go to Walt’s blog when he writes about the I/P conflicts and every time, you will find copious comments trying to take down W&M’s thesis.
The point is that 3 years after they punished their thesis, the Lobby is still going after them, but interestingly, has largely given up trying.
Evidenced by the Zakaria show the other day, where the JP editor was floundering when Remnick denounced the occupation. Evidenced by the fact that the Goldstone report has not gone away. Evidenced by a very clear change in tone from Jeffrey Goldberg and even Marty Peretz. Or the latest article in Time Magazine (referring to the clampdown on NGOs).
These guys are the gate keepers who have any standing in the mainstream and they’re showing obvious signs of nervousness.
They can only excommunicate so many Jews before they are in the minority.
The old guard, who I suspect you are referring to, are dying off and in case you hadn’t noticed, have lost control of the narrative. Blowhards like Dershowitz are no longer appealing to moderates anymore, let alone the undecided. The comments section at the NYT and Washington post are no longer dominated by the Hasbara.
Zionism is like politics. It’s only fun when you’re on the team that’s in power and popular. The movement is in a state of decay. The lobby may appear to be all powerful, but it’s hanging on to that power by playing all it’s cards, and I dare say, overplaying it’s hand. It’s not in the same position it used to be and barring another 911 type event, their grip is continuing to erode.
The Democrats base for example, has seen what Netenyahyu has done to Obama. Even Tom Friedman was sickened by the F35 offer for a 3 month freeze. We’re talking about he majority of Jewish voters and they are not going to forget.
I would not be as sanguine as eee if I were him.
One deep rift the looms is between the Israeli right wing, currently in power and many Jews and, indeed, Jewish organizations in Europe, and eventually with more progressive (or at least less retrograde) Jews in USA. For example, Austrian Jewish organization condemned the feting of Austrian right wing leader in Israel in spite of Nazi connections of the latter.
Basically, Zionism is progressing to Stage III, if you will. Stage I: “socialist Zionism”, Stage II: “revisionist Zionism”, Stage III: secular fascism and religious extremism. So now we will have a witch hunt for “extremist leftists” for crimes like …. accepting money from European Union. If the situation will progress in this direction, it will be hard to avoid responses to questions like: is the concept of human rights inherently against Israel, which, by contrapositive, means that Israel is inherently against human rights? or: do you agree with making “European” a dirty word?
It seems that Stage III Zionism is ready to make purges in Stalinist style, with Stage II/Stage I Zionists being like Bukharin and Trotsky (Stalin, beside liquidating kulaks and removing dangerous nationalities from strategically vulnerable places also killed many “good Communists”). One can hope that it will be mostly talking and no concentration camps for the “extreme leftists”, but the spectacle will be a new test if “the Jewish communities will support Israel whatever what”.
Basically, there is a new set of ways in which Israel can turn out to be “bad for Jews”.
“One deep rift the looms is between the Israeli right wing, currently in power and many Jews and, indeed, Jewish organizations in Europe, and eventually with more progressive (or at least less retrograde) Jews in USA. For example, Austrian Jewish organization condemned the feting of Austrian right wing leader in Israel in spite of Nazi connections of the latter. ”
They’ll work it out; don’t worry. It’s less of a rift than you think, and once again, the diaspora does not agree with each and every thing Israel does.
“If the situation will progress in this direction, it will be hard to avoid responses to questions like: is the concept of human rights inherently against Israel, which, by contrapositive, means that Israel is inherently against human rights? or: do you agree with making “European” a dirty word?”
Oh, stop with your silly assumptions. There is more respect for human rights in Israel than there is anywhere else in the region. The concept of human rights is not inherently against Israel. It is inherently against states where women are forced to wear veils and don’t go to school and men go to the gulag for running against the supreme leader. It is applied to Israel in a way that is self-defeating for human rights law, not self-defeating to the concept of human rights.
“It seems that Stage III Zionism is ready to make purges in Stalinist style”
I wouldn’t bet on it. When they actually start shutting down the myriad of human rights organizations in Israel, let me know.
“More respect for humn rights in Israel than there is anywhere else in the region.”
First, it is a debatable proposition. Israel kills more protesters than most countries in the regions, for example, and deploys assassination squads that “kill wrong people” from time to time. Most importantly, even if true, it would be a meager achievement. In Europe, outside Belorus, what was the longest jail term for participation in a peaceful protest? How many nonviolent protesters lost their eyes or lives? And how many countries officially select organizations for investigation according to their political profile?
Phil- by defining the “deal” as something that existed between 67 and 73, you seem to be trying to win young Jews over to your side. For those under 38, 73 was before they were born and thus that this deal existed at that time is pre history to them. But in fact there were other times since then that were more positive- like the signing of the peace treaty with Egypt in 79 and the handshake on the White House lawn in 93.
The current government of Israel certainly does not contain much in terms of hope (because of their racist and anti democratic leanings) and no future government of Israel contains much in terms of hope (because the combination of Israeli settlements and Palestinian insistence on a right of return does not bode well in regards to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.)
But to place Jewish support for Israel so firmly in the past seems to be tweaking history in the direction of your argument rather than in the direction of fact.