Washington wisdom

by on January 21, 2011 5
1sharesFacebook
6tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

The other day Steve Clemons of the liberal New America Foundation helped organize an important letter calling on Obama to condemn the settlements in the Security Council; and loose cannon Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post promptly derided him as an "Israel-basher." Clemons is a good man, and he also knows a lot more about Washington political culture than we do. The Rubin comment unnerved him, and he has now called on The Washington Post's Don Graham and his old friend Fred Hiatt to restrain Rubin.

Clemons offers this important insight about Washington political culture:

Calling someone an Israel-basher is akin to calling them an anti-Semite or a bigot, and that can't go without response.

Clemons is showing us what the red lines are in Washington. If you're perceived as an Israel-basher, you're finished. What would George Washington say about that (read his Farewell Address and the concern about foreign influence)? Or Eisenhower? (Or South Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, who bashed France and held his seat?)

Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 5 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. mjordan says:
    January 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    While you’re at it – the WaPo editorial page supports settlements, doesn’t believe that Gaza is occupied or has a humanitarian crisis, and rejects any standard of accountability for Israeli conduct – how about pressing Fred Hiatt to hire at least one staff writer that actually reflects the international consensus on the conflict – in contrast to all the others who so wilfully misrepresent it?

    • Psychopathic god says:
      January 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      and C Span Washington Journal is more Jewish than the pope ( ;> ) when it comes to shielding Israel and maintaining the blackout on negative information about Israel.

      I’m finishing up a parallel study of Washington Journal statements and, especially, ‘news items’ read by a back room staffer, that cast Muslims, Arabs, or Iran/Iranians in a negative light, compared with actual occurrences in Israel that C Span did NOT mention. The Israel occurrences are taken from Seham’s “and other news in Palestine” posts.

      Wash Journ has a lot of explaining to do.

      I consider C Span Wash Journal the “Colin Powell” of media credibility. If Washington Journal is as totally biased toward Israel and against Iran (certainly) and Muslims/Palestine as I hypothesize it is, then C Span has yellow cake on its hands.

      nb Jennifer Rubin was a guest on Wash Journ last week. Pedro Ecchevaria did everything but lick her toes. On camera, at least. link to c-spanvideo.org

  2. James North says:
    January 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Jennifer Rubin is the Post’s own in-house Sarah Palin. All Clemons did was sign a letter pointing out the obvious; the 2-state solution is dead unless the settlements/colonies stop. For this an influential newspaper calls him “an Israel-basher,” which he points out can translate as “anti-Semite”
    in the cowardly mainstream D. C. atmosphere.
    I do suspect that Rubin, like Palin, is attracting traffic. What do the Post’s long established middle-of-the-road columnists think of this?

  3. RoHa says:
    January 21, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    “Washington wisdom”

    Irony or straighforward oxymoron?

  4. annie says:
    January 23, 2011 at 5:09 am

    washington:

    nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
    ….
    a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Leave a Reply