David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, has repeatedly criticized the occupation in interviews in recent months; now he puts his foot down in his magazine, saying that the occupation violates "Jewish values" and has isolated Israel internationally, and it is a "delusion" to wait on Netanyahu with his "proto-fascistic" coalition to produce a viable Palestinian state.
"Jewish values" is a frank appeal to the New Yorker's base, the liberal American Jewish establishment; and this is a Jewish power-conversation. Remnick consolidates the new liberal Zionist position, the one staked out by J Street at its recent conference, by Peter Beinart in his speeches, and by Bernard Avishai in the New York Times. This position is that after 44 years of occupation it is now an emergency to give Palestinians a state, the Egyptian revolution has only upped the ante, and Obama can bring about the two-state solution, but he must defy Netanyahu and the Israel lobby-- and, Remnick says, he must defy his own aide, Dennis Ross, too.
Some excerpts:
Now in his second term and ruling in a coalition government that includes anti-democratic, even proto-fascistic ministers, such as Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu has stubbornly refused the appeals of Washington and of the Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, who have shown themselves willing to make the concessions needed for a peace deal. In the midst of a revolution in the Arab world, Netanyahu seems lost, defensive, and unable or unwilling to recognize the changing circumstances in which he finds himself.
The occupation—illegal, inhumane, and inconsistent with Jewish values—has lasted forty-four years. Netanyahu thinks that he can keep on going, secure behind a wall....
Netanyahu told [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel that he intends to give a speech in the next few weeks supporting an interim Palestinian state on about half the territory of the West Bank. If that is his plan, it will be unacceptable to the Palestinians, and he knows it. Smug and lacking in diplomatic creativity, Netanyahu has alienated and undermined the forces of progressivism in the West Bank and is, step by ugly step, deepening Israel’s isolation.
It is time for President Obama to speak clearly and firmly....
For decades, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and other such right-leaning groups have played an outsized role in American politics, pressuring members of Congress and Presidents with their capacity to raise money and swing elections. But Democratic Presidents in particular should recognize that these groups are hardly representative and should be met head on. Obama won seventy-eight per cent of the Jewish vote; he is more likely to lose some of that vote if he reverses his position on, say, abortion than if he tries to organize international opinion on the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, some senior members of the Administration have internalized the political restraints that they believe they are under, and cannot think beyond them. Some, like Dennis Ross, who has served five Presidents, can think only in incremental terms.
...[In Chicago, Obama] came to know liberal Zionists and Palestinian academics, and to understand both the necessity of a Jewish state after the Second World War and the tragedy and the depths of Palestinian suffering....
it is important as a way for the United States to assert that it stands not with the supporters of Greater Israel but with what the writer Bernard Avishai calls “Global Israel,” the constituencies that accept the moral necessity of a Palestinian state and understand the dire cost of Israeli isolation. Even as Obama continues to stress his commitment to Israeli security, he has to emphasize the truth that, without serious progress toward an agreement, matters will likely deteriorate, perhaps to the point, yet again, of violence...
[R]ecords of the first [Israeli] cabinet meeting after the [1967] war show that the Justice Minister, Yaakov Shimshon Shapira, said, “In a time of decolonization in the whole world can we consider an area in which mainly Arabs live, and we control defense and foreign policy? . . . Who’s going to accept that?”
Ultimately, no one.
A couple of comments. The belief of many Palestinians and American realists and leftwing Jews that the two-state solution has expired is nowhere reflected here, except in the concern about Israel's isolation. I question Remnick's sense of reality. Can a viable Palestinian state emerge under the Avishai plan, which allows a ring of Jewish colonies in East Jerusalem and calls for a 25-mile tunnel under the desert to connect Gaza and the West Bank-- something Jews would never accept in their state?
Still, Remnick's piece is remarkable for two developments: first, the admission, five years after he trashed Walt and Mearsheimer in his magazine, that the Israel lobby has humiliated Obama. Notice his lines about senior members of the Obama administration who "internalized" the fears that the Israel lobby cost politicians elections. As if this is a chimera. Remnick presses Obama to put aside these fears and ignore Dennis Ross, who has served in five administrations. But there is a reason that Ross hangs on forever: he is known to be "Israel's advocate" and therefore his appointment appeases a powerful faction in Washington life. And as for the overblown fears of that lobby-- well, the last two one-term presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both crossed the lobby and didn't get another four years. Chimera or not, George W. Bush learned the lesson well; and now Obama is learning it. And when Barney Frank is quoted saying that he privately opposes settlements but won't come out against them publicly, in one of the most liberal districts in the country, because it'll cost him-- again, this is no chimera, but the concerted attitude of the Jewish organizational community, which to his credit Remnick is taking on.
The other thing I find interesting about the piece is its bumptious Diaspora tone: Liberal American Jewry ain't taking the fascists in Israel lying down any more! We have our own values to assert. A few weeks back Remnick served notice when he said that Israel treated the American Jewish community as "a nice breakfast at the Regency," and now he's taking his power. That's great; it portends the open battle inside the Jewish family that I have long sought.
Note the statement that a Jewish state seemed like a good idea after World War II-- a hidden acknowledgment that young Jews don't see it as necessary today. Also note the last quote about colonies being a bad idea 44 years ago. Right. This was obvious to thinking people 44 years ago. And where has the American Jewish community been all those years? Supporting the colonies, denying the Palestinians self-determination. What a great thing the Arab revolutions are, if they are actually waking up powerful American Jews to the idea of human dignity.
About Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
“A couple of comments. The belief of many Palestinians and American realists and leftwing Jews that the two-state solution has expired is nowhere reflected here, except in the concern about Israel’s isolation. I question Remnick’s sense of reality. Can a viable Palestinian state emerge under the Avishai plan, which allows a ring of Jewish colonies in East Jerusalem and calls for a 25-mile tunnel under the desert to connect Gaza and the West Bank– something Jews would never accept in their state?”
The N’Yorker article suggested boundaries for the new Palestine but they were not the boundaries of 1967. What is it that motivates a guy to go THIS FAR toward justice (and out on a limb, maybe) and yet to refrain for calling for the removal of all settlers and drawing the boundary at the 1967 lines? Maybe next week?
What is it that motivates a guy to go THIS FAR toward justice (and out on a limb, maybe) and yet to refrain for calling for the removal of all settlers and drawing the boundary at the 1967 lines?
i don’t agree. he called for a two-state solution like those established at Taba. i don’t think the point of the article was to hash out specifics but to directly appeal to his audience to face reality and make progress instead of thwarting it.
The Palestinian question is not an internal matter for Israel; it is an international matter.
i thought this was one of the most important statements in the article.
i see this as article as a momentous step for several reasons the first being the timing. some may consider it to late (by decades) but i think it’s early in this election season. elections come and go and something we all know too well goes unspoken election after election and that is the power of the lobby on american politics. it needs to be center focus in the mainstream press and americans need to know about it and talk about it openly not whisper about it in the background.
i have other comments on the article but will address them in a separate post.
thanks annie, i missed that line, thanks.
tell me more.
i do think that there are whiffs in this piece of… Democracy is coming… to the USA and Israel…
phil
yeah, i think it was a very important article phil. he opened with an example of the glaring reality of the radical extreme of netanyahu’s father. ever wonder how many people have pondered how things might be different once he’s dead? or how many times those same people have considered that? i’ve wondered it many times. that thought has probably circulated millions of times so it’s a wise calculated opening for the article even tho he doesn’t frame it (“This waiting game is a delusion.”) as waiting for dad to die. it’s a tribal calling.
so he plunges from the established past to the present and speaks truthfully to the immediate future. the most complicated segment couched in the middle of his advise to obama, the part we (all americans) really need to discuss is this:
a few points here. the jewish vote at the ballot box is always given too much weight, after all it’s irrelevant in comparison to other ethnicities. it’s the power of that right wing segment. the power over the purse and the media and that is what needs to be met head on NOT the fact these groups are hardly representative. for you can recognize that until you’re blue in the face and it won’t stop the onslaught of funds being pumped into the election cycle.
so he misses the mark somewhat in this segment especially when he says “political restraints that they believe they are under“. make no mistake, they are very much under those political restraints.
unless there’s election reform (and it certainly isn’t coming any time soon) there needs to be a opposing force AS GREAT ( equal to if not more) as that which can be bought and paid for. which mean the voice of the people against israel policies needs to be so loud it permeates the discourse. there’s just no other way. the messaging from the right is going to be very extreme so watch for more radical islamophobic messaging..like arabs slaughter and stuff like that.(this recent family murder being the pizza parlour of coming decade. seriously, that pr is worth a billion)
we’re in for a big national fight with israel in the middle of it.
The fact that he even mentioned those constraints is huge. And in the New Yorker, which was cheerleading for the Iraq War with its pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg back in the early 00′s.
Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer get the credit for breaking the taboo on this. I remember myself how constrained I felt (and sometimes still feel) talking about this–for instance, when a friend of mine once told me with shock at the supposed anti-semitism that his brother-in-law thought we supported Israel because of the lobby (I think he actually said “American Jews”). My friend said “I think it’s because we’re both democracies.” I felt like I was walking on eggshells when I oh so gently suggested that maybe there are such things as lobbies, and maybe Israel doesn’t get support solely because the US and Israel are both wonderful examples of democracy, dispensing love and happiness and freedom with every dollar we shovel their way.
Thanks, annie. But, with all respect, I’m too used to hearing “peace” formulas which say something like “based on the 1967 lines” or “based on 242″ all of which are reminders that the acquisition of territory by use or threat of force is illegitimate (sorry, “inadmissible”) (“inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” : 242) to be well disposed to people saying, “let’s get this right” and then proposing to get it wrong. Perhaps, from his viewpoint, though, this change of politics is a gradual thing, for him and for his readers.
remnick is a little late to the party imo.
i also resent how he has made the nyorker a jewish magazine.
the week before the slaughter of the family there were several murmurings throughout the mainstream press echoing a theme netenyahu was facing a precipice. someone (i forget who) stated he wasn’t going to be able to wait til the aipac conference in may and he should come here and ‘make things right’ or something to that effect.
several voices were all echoing this same theme but it seems to have been washed away by events of the past week and now netanyahu has overcompensated in the other direction firmly committing to even more expansion. coupled w/this theme just the week before there was a flurry of internal conflict splashed across the front pages of israelis papers and completely absent from any coverage here whatsoever.
the settlers were getting extremely restless and angry, influential rabbis basically threatening insurrection and openly calling for violent action against netanyahu’s governemnt (pressure from the settlers). peace now calling on the attorney general for investigations of the same rabbi for incitement (pressure from the left). pressure from the diaspora and internationals (merkel ect) and anticipation of some speech or some ‘creative’ new ‘peace plan’ and then all of that seemingly washes away in one fell swoop within a few hrs after the murder w/netanyahu and cabinet approving further expansion.
so, in that regard i’m grateful for the article which reads like it was written the week before. it picks up the pace exactly where it was and places the pressure exactly where it should be. after all we cannot let one now famous horrendous murder of a family frame the future no matter how much it is being used to excuse and support expansion.
i don’t know is remick wrote the article the week before but it doesn’t matter. netanyahu is still on the precipice, no more buying time.
“That’s great; it portends the open battle inside the Jewish family that I have long sought.”
Now, there’s an unfortunate sentence.
why, ‘ser?
It’s just that when I think of the knock-down, no-holds-barred, bare-knuckled battles which are taking place at the Weiss household, I get nervous. Go easy on ‘em, okay?
“Note the statement that a Jewish state seemed like a good idea after World War II– a hidden acknowledgment that young Jews don’t see it as necessary today. Also note the last quote about colonies being a bad idea 44 years ago. Right. This was obvious to thinking people 44 years ago. ”
I agree with Mooser there.
My “thinking” father, my “thinking” aunt, probably your “thinking” mother and father, didn’t agree with your generalization.
Are you really going to accuse your parents, brothers, friends on the basis of a historical revisionism?
Everyone that was “thinking” identified tensions. But, how many tensions, how many inherent contradictions, have we lived through in the states in our 55-6 years?
The original article was wonderful.
give me credit. shapira the justice minister figured it out. if i had been sentient then i woulda figured it out. in 75 i heard jews worrying that israel was expansionist
“in 75 i heard jews worrying that israel was expansionist”
That is the tension, not the evil. The effort for reform is critical. When you speak of the need to reinforce the Judaism of compassion, I applaud. When you dismiss and disrespect the transition from slave/refugee to free and vibrant, I cringe.
You’d applaud anything that does not include punitive measure and justice against Iseael.
Including the tough jews that commit massacres, ethnically cleanse, loot and steal – something Richard is himself too compassionate to do, but not compassionate enough to stop or even condemn (if the victim is Palestinian):
If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
I don’t see why we should accuse them of having thought about it when clearly they didn’t. any rational person who thought through the idea of a jewish state would have had to come to terms with the fact it was a really bad idea.
Give him credit for a step in the right direction, if only a step. Ethnic cleansing and occupation are crimes against humanity. When will Remnick, let alone the rabbis, ask if they aren’t also crimes against Judaism.
RE: “Obama can bring about the two-state solution, but he must defy Netanyahu and the Israel lobby– and, Remnick says, he must defy his own aide, Dennis Ross, too.” – Remick
MY SNARK: If only pigs could fly (on their own)! Obama defying the Israel lobby is far less likely (especially between now and the 2012 election*) than pigs flying on their own.
* SEE: Barack Obama reelection starts cash chase, by Glenn Thrush, Politico, 03/04/11
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to politico.com