Like almost all serious critics of Israel and of U.S. policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, my initial reaction to the Congressional fawning over Netanyahu and the apparently unanimous standing ovations awarded to Netanyahu’s latest demagogic lies was one of outrage. It’s one thing for the Republicans to participate in this charade—nothing good on almost any issue can be expected from the current Republican party—but from the Democrats, the only rational political party in America, as well?
Yet, on further cold reflection, if I had been in Congress, I might have done the same thing, on the basis of the following premises:
1. Israel today is hopeless, beyond rational or elementary moral calculation. In the current circumstances, there is no chance that it will agree to a fair two-state settlement of the conflict and a less-than-zero chance it will agree—ever--to a one-state “solution,” a binational democratic Israeli-Palestinian state.
2. The only possible change in U.S. policies that would force Israel to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians would be for the U.S. to end all of its military, economic, and diplomatic support of Israel until it agreed to such a settlement.
3. However, even if Obama would like to adopt such a policy—itself hard to imagine—there is not the slightest possibility that Congress would go along.
4. Moreover, it is by no means obvious that serious U.S. pressures on Israel would result in serious changes in Israeli policies. Given the state of mind in Israel today, it might be equally possible that Israel would spurn even the United States, retreat even further into defiant isolationism and belligerency, and tell “the goyim”—that is, the US and the rest of the world--to go to hell.
5. Indeed, strong US pressures could even prove to be dangerous. An Israel armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons cannot be trusted not to resort to the Samson option if it felt itself alone, abandoned, and increasingly militarily vulnerable. In such a state of mind, it cannot be ruled out that Israel might quickly resort to nuclear weapons in any war with its Arab neighbors—or maybe even “preemptively,” especially if Iran should develop nuclear weapons and Israel decides that it can't destroy hardened nuclear sites without using tactical nuclear weapons.
Given these premises, I am driven to the reluctant conclusion that the Democratic party stands to gain nothing but to lose a great deal if it even hints at pressuring Israel. It would lose a considerable amount of Jewish financial support and possibly enough Jewish votes to lose close elections—and not only in Congress but even in the 2012 presidential election, where Jewish defections could tip some states into the Republican column.
It is likely that Obama has reached this same conclusion, for much the same reasons. Even if his recent mild criticism of Israeli policies suggested that meaningful—or even meaningless—changes in U.S. policy might be in the offing, one of the safest bets you can make is that as the election approaches Obama and the Democratic party as a whole will flee from the suggestion—perish the thought—that it might apply even the mildest pressure on Israeli. In Obama’s shoes, I'd probably be driven--however reluctantly and with gritted teeth--to the same behavior.
This argument will not impress those who think that I am referring to mere “partisan politics.” In my view, however, what is at stake in America are liberal values and even rationality: I would go very far to avoid the risk that the next congress or president could be Republican.
In short, given the unlikelihood that any U.S. action could save Israel from itself, I would give priority to saving America from itself--which, the facts of life being what they are, means that the Obama and the Democratic party can't abandon its near-unconditional support of Israel. At least, not until after the 2012 elections.
This is a crosspost from Jerome Slater's blog.
In other words you are saying the ovation for Yahoo and congressional denunciation of Obama’s position is understandable because:
1-Support for Israel determines US elections.
2-And since zionist loyal to a foreign country own our congress US policy will never change.
3-And since Israelis are insane enough to use nukes if they don’t get their way we should continue to let them blackmail us with that threat.
4-And since dems are better than the repubs we should be glad the dems are rational enough to let Israel blackmail us so they can be relected.
5- And this is all really just for the good of America.
And then you say… ” the Democratic party can’t abandon its near-unconditional support of Israel. At least, not until after the 2012 elections”
ROTFLMAO….what about the 2016 elections? Will you be using this same slimy rational for why the US can’t do anything about Israel in 2016 also?
American, I am not sure we are reading the same post. I don’t think I understand how you reach your conclusions, based on what Prof Slater has said
Mea culpa, mea culpa…I seem to like Prof Slater, even unto referring to him formally. I don’t understand the hostile and harsh reactions he generates. And it does not seem to me he is at all saying what you call “in other words”. Why not deal with his actual words.
Well said Don.
Don (your link is not working),
We all read the same piece. You liked what Slater said; American and I did not like it. American explained why he did not like it; you did not explain why you did like it. American’s “hostile and harsh reactions,” I’m sure, were to Slater’s arguments, not to the man himself.
I thought I did.
But I would more than willing for you to correct me by showing me where he didn’t say what he said. Seriously, I am being sincere.
Leave out the disclaimers about how he abhors all this at the beginning and I read:
3. However, even if Obama would like to adopt such a policy—itself hard to imagine—there is not the slightest possibility that Congress would go along.
Translated: Congress is controlled by the lobby and/or Israel so policy won’t change no matter what Obama does.
4. Moreover, it is by no means obvious that serious U.S. pressures on Israel would result in serious changes in Israeli policies. Given the state of mind in Israel today, it might be equally possible that Israel would spurn even the United States, retreat even further into defiant isolationism and belligerency, and tell “the goyim”—that is, the US and the rest of the world–to go to hell.
5. Indeed, strong US pressures could even prove to be dangerous. An Israel armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons cannot be trusted not to resort to the Samson option if it felt itself alone, abandoned, and increasingly militarily vulnerable. In such a state of mind, it cannot be ruled out that Israel might quickly resort to nuclear weapons in any war with its Arab neighbors—or maybe even “preemptively,” especially if Iran should develop nuclear weapons and Israel decides that it can’t destroy hardened nuclear sites without using tactical nuclear weapons.
Translated 4&5: The US has no influence due to reason 3 despite the fact that without us they couldn’t survive, and Israel is crazy and would use nukes to get their way so the US has to accept this nuke blackmail or things could get worse.
“Given these premises, I am driven to the reluctant conclusion that the Democratic party stands to gain nothing but to lose a great deal if it even hints at pressuring Israel. It would lose a considerable amount of Jewish financial support and possibly enough Jewish votes to lose close elections—and not only in Congress but even in the 2012 presidential election, where Jewish defections could tip some states into the Republican column.”
Translated: Dems will lose if they even hint at not supporting whatever Israel wants more than the repubs support Israel because of Jewish money and votes.
“It is likely that Obama has reached this same conclusion, for much the same reasons. Even if his recent mild criticism of Israeli policies suggested that meaningful—or even meaningless—changes in U.S. policy might be in the offing, one of the safest bets you can make is that as the election approaches Obama and the Democratic party as a whole will flee from the suggestion—perish the thought—that it might apply even the mildest pressure on Israeli. In Obama’s shoes, I’d probably be driven–however reluctantly and with gritted teeth–to the same behavior.”
Translated: Once again, Obama and everyone should quake in the face of losing an US election if they press Israel on anything.
“This argument will not impress those who think that I am referring to mere “partisan politics.” In my view, however, what is at stake in America are liberal values and even rationality: I would go very far to avoid the risk that the next congress or president could be Republican.
Translated: If we don’t support Israel the repubs will win and destroy our liberal values by defeating the dems.
“In short, given the unlikelihood that any U.S. action could save Israel from itself, I would give priority to saving America from itself–which, the facts of life being what they are, means that the Obama and the Democratic party can’t abandon its near-unconditional support of Israel. At least, not until after the 2012 elections”
Translated: Since we can’t ‘save Israel” we have to give Israel and their looby whatever they want “as a way to save America.”
At least until 2012 elections.
Frankly I can’t see where he even makes sense. ‘Congress can’t be changed, support of Israel determines our elections because of Jewish money and votes’, –and the kicker is –we have to do this till after the 2012 election– as if the reasons he gives why we can’t do anything now about Israel are somehow not going to be present after the 2012 election for 2016 election.
Besides not including how much he abhors what he recommends we do “for the sake of America”….what did I leave out or get wrong?
I have read a thousand similar arguments for why we can’t do anything about Israel now, they are repeated every election season and will be repeated every election season. If I had a dime for every zio activist that lectures the public that the dems can’t possibily win without the jewish and zio vote and money I could pay back all Israel”s loans.
You can go back into the archeives of any site, especially DKos, and see thousands of zio activist putting forth the exaact same argument for every election….the dems can’t win without the Jews.
Try reading it after 48 hours without a Ziocaine hit Don. Apparently, you’ve mastered the art of ignoring the elephant in the room.
Most impressive.
I’m with Don, actually. (I mean the other one. I sometimes wonder if I am his sockpuppet.)
Anyway, I think Jerry Slater overstates the problem and also overstates the distinction between Democrats and Republicans, but I don’t want to get into it, in part because I’m not completely sure where I stand on the whole “lesser evil” thing that one has with the Democrats. (That is, when it is a question of a lesser evil, do you put the emphasis on the “lesser” or the “evil”?) I just want to say you have to make a distinction between a person’s analysis and what that person might prefer. Slater has been writing very harsh criticism of Israel’s policies for years, along with very harsh criticism of the coverage of the NYT and one can disagree with his analysis here without implying, as American does, that he is some sleazy “zio activist” with bad motives.
I am not calling Slater a zio activist or some agent for Israel, I am saying his is the same kind of argument the zios make about dems and Israel.
I am aware he has condemned and does not support the gross in injustice in Israel’s treatment of Palestine.
I am criticizing that lesser of evils of his suggestion–basically that we accept being blackmailed or cowed by Israel and it’s US supporters for the sake of our domestic wefare .
But I am also aware he does support Israel for the classic haven from anti semitism reason.
So I think what he has written here reflects desperation more on behalf of Israel than the US.
As Danna or someone described below….the lunatic is surrounded and the plan is to talk him down before he kills the hostages.
It’s my opinion that with Israel this approach just encourages continuing our corrupt practices regarding Israel and has never worked and to continue it will only make it worse.
Why would Israel ever change anything as long we give in to the threat that they control our elections and therefore our domestic welfare.
I would agree except for the fact that Slater has written pieces strongly suporting Israel, and yet here he is, sugegsting that the state he insists has moral legitimacy might turn to firing nukes at other states of it doesn’t get it’s way.
Don, I got the same sense from the post as American did. Perhaps your admiration for the “professor” is the problem.
The way I read it is that if Slater’s view is true, then the solution is not to coddle the Zionists, but to 1) work to get this Jewish money tied to Israeli interests out of American politics, and 2) force these supposedly liberal American Jews to decide whether they are liberal or whether they are Zionists; in this day and age when it appears that Israel is one Mussolini shy of actual Fascism, one can’t be both.
“3-And since Israelis are insane enough to use nukes if they don’t get their way we should continue to let them blackmail us with that threat.”
I don’t think that this thinking is seriously entertained by any serious US politician or military leader.
If, at one point, we truly came to the conclusion that Israel was going to use nukes, the rational military response would be to first-strike them out of existence (the nukes, that is, though of course the civilian damage will be considerable), barring some way to intercept the Israeli weapons shortly after launch. Israel’s small size is a severe disadvantage in nuclear strategy.
Then again, this is highly unrealistic. Retaliation, by non-nuclear WMDs for example, but also by possible Pakistani nukes, could practically wipe out Israel as a country. The trend in Western societies is towards a more and more fragile glass jaw – being less prepared to deal with military and civilian losses – and not the other way ’round. Israel, as a society, is not prepared for a bona fide war waged with conventional weapons, let alone one in which WMDs come into the equation.
But then who is going to save the world from Israel? How long will one psychotic nation be allowed to blackmail the entire world with its arsenal of nukes?
This, to me, is a far more serious problem than the fate of the Palestinians, thrown under the bus one more time.
Particularly ironic, given Israel’s call for Iran to be bombed because, get this, it poses a threat to the civilized world.
More irony – the Pentagon is now declaring that cyberattacks are an “act of war” for which retaliation by force is legitimate. Do they understand that this includes the Stuxnet attack on Iran? Or is it more “we get to hurt you, but you don’t get to hurt us.”
Potsherd, and ironically, Anthony Weiner was a pusher of the congressional bill geared to counter the threat of cyber attacks–the guy who just blamed twittering a photo of his penis to a college girl on hackers to his personal twitter account which is replicated by a tie-in with his government twitter account, yet did not call for an investigation of the alleged hacking.
And his fellow democrat, Obama, just signed from afar to continue the Patriot Act, hence affirming continued erosion of our basic constitutional rights on the basis of security in an endless war on terrorism. Yes, the same Obama who has basically aped the neocons in foreign affairs and policy, so much so that Dick Chaney has praised him; the same Obama who did nothing in his finance reform to prevent the next too-big-to-fail-event.
Obama may have fooled and still does an awful lot of Americans, but he has not fooled the likes of Kucinich or Ron Paul, and he certainly has not fooled the Arab Spring folks: link to jpost.com
Further, the Kennedy brothers both pushed to prevent Israel from gaining the bomb and to require AIPAC’s predecessor to register as the agen tof a foreign government, and were both coincidentally murdered during that process; and Nixon decided to send crucial military supplies to Israel at the expense of our own troops, at least in significant part, because he was afraid Israel would use the bomb. Obama is just another US president like Bush Jr before him who learned from his father’s failed attempt to make Israel accountable for its lebensraum policy via threat to cut off US loan guarantees to Israel “you don’t mess with the jews.” And the (originally) grass roots Tea Party movement has yet to tackle our one-sided, blind foreign policy regarding Israel; indeed they’ve apparently already been co-opted on this issue.
Right, Jerry, appease the annointed race: that usually works out just fine.
Yes, and it’s crucial to do so in order to save Obama’s liberal values and rationality: war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya; drones; assassinations; support for the liberal and rational Israeli occupation.
Let’s see the Jewish and democratic state try to tell the rest of the world to go to hell when it’s suffering under an embargo of goods, technology, intellectual exchange. That stiffnecked and murmuring people might discover a new flexibility.
When you think about it, this makes a very strong case for the sanity and sensibility of Iran, who’ve suffered all these and continue to demonstrate remarkable restraint.
Jerry (Prof.) Slater wrote:
“4. Moreover, it is by no means obvious that serious U.S. pressures on Israel would result in serious changes in Israeli policies. Given the state of mind in Israel today, it might be equally possible that Israel would spurn even the United States, retreat even further into defiant isolationism and belligerency, and tell “the goyim”—that is, the US and the rest of the world–to go to hell.”
The extreme Israeli over-reaction to the slightest US criticism I think suggests otherwise. They understand that if they lose American support, it’s game over.
“5. Indeed, strong US pressures could even prove to be dangerous. An Israel armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons cannot be trusted not to resort to the Samson option if it felt itself alone, abandoned, and increasingly militarily vulnerable. In such a state of mind, it cannot be ruled out that Israel might quickly resort to nuclear weapons in any war with its Arab neighbors—or maybe even “preemptively,” especially if Iran should develop nuclear weapons and Israel decides that it can’t destroy hardened nuclear sites without using tactical nuclear weapons.”
Those Israelis are quite proficient in the art of bluff and threats. This is the Dayan “mad dog” scenario. However, resorting to nuclear weapons in any conflict with their enemies would set the entire middle east on fire, unite the area against Israel and the US, and spell at least the temporary end of cheap oil and perhaps long-term disruptions of Iraqi and Saudi oil, which would bring down the economies of the US and Western Europe. (The rest of the world would not be pleased, either.) This I believe the Israelis know very well, so I don’t think it is within the realm of possibility. Israelis are neither stupid nor crazy.
As for the rest of your analysis, I tend to agree with it, although I hope Jim Holstun’s final sentence above is correct.
“Israeli are neither stupid nor crazy”
Not stupid perhaps, but near-crazy already. The scenario you painted shows exactly what the blackmail consists of. The trick is to convince the world that they are indeed crazy and would – as someone there said recently (forgot who for a moment) – bring the whole world down.
To make that threat believable they need to continue to act crazy, ie, be the mad dog Dayan once talked about.
Problem is, once you do too well at ‘acting crazy” at some point it stops being an act and blends into reality.
As a famous psychiatrist once said….. anti social patients build dream houses in their minds, the clinically crazy actually move in and live in theirs.
RE: “A (half-hearted) defense of the Congressional Democrats”
MY COMMENT: Sadly, I must agree with Mr. Slater’s analysis. “For they so loved the U.S., that they gave their only begotten self-respect, that whosoever believeth in them should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – loosely based on John 3:16
A MORE WHIMSICAL TAKE: This was actually an acute episode in what is akin to an ongoing chronic bout of “battered person syndrome”, where the battered persons (many of the Congressional Democrats) are killing their abuser (Israel) very, very slowly.
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
RE: “…’battered person syndrome’, where the battered persons (many of the Congressional Democrats) are killing their abuser (Israel)…” – me, above
FROM STEPHEN WALT, 05/25/11:
SOURCE – link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
RE: “…’battered person syndrome’, where the battered persons (many of the Congressional Democrats) are killing their abuser (Israel)…” – me, above
ALSO SEE: Israeli settlers emboldened by Netanyahu’s US reception, by Mel Frykberg, Inter Press Service, 05/30/11:
SOURCE – link to electronicintifada.net
Maybe the Israeli settlers should take a look at Austria? link to google.com
P.S. URI AVNERY’S TAKE, Bibi and the Yo-Yos, 05/26/11:
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com
Holstun:
“Annointed race?”
“Stiffnecked and murmuring people?”
That sounds awfully like anti-Semitism to me. Not a charge I ever like to make, but you are treading a very thin line here.
And a professor of English should be capable of responding to the actual arguments I made, instead of resorting to sophomoric sarcasm: did you see anything that suggests I consider the Israeli occupation to be liberal and rational?
Politically “anointed race” = politically “chosen people.” It amounts to the same thing. If people here were to make a habit of hiding behind the “antisemitism” accusation, this irreverent site would probably have to close down.
Thomas Rutherford- Guess what? Chosen people is a Jew hating phrase as well. Its constant use might have enured you to the fact, but it is.
What words should be allowed on this site? I agree, chosen people is not a phrase that should lead to banishment. Neither should pushy Jews. Smelly kikes on the other hand should lead to banishment. Christ killers- I guess that’s borderline, but probably over the line. Nonetheless the use of certain phrases are in fact Jew hating tactics and if the author of a post wishes to call the commenter out on it, that is his business.
“Chosen people is a Jew hating phrase as well. ”
That’s baloney. The fact that one can use that phrase and be an antisemite does not mean that every use of the phrase is antisemitic. The Zionist movement and Israeli (in whole or part) have specifically brought Jewish theology into the political realm.
Woody- True. Not every time the phrase is used is it a Jewhating phrase. It depends on the context. In a real analysis of the Israel Palestine conflict it can be studied and dissected in an objective fashion. But tossed off as a synonym for Jews- it’s a Jewhating phrase.
“But tossed off as a synonym for Jews- it’s a Jewhating phrase.”
That just poses the question of whether that is what is being done , or whether the expression was used as, perhaps, a reference to the concept of an “Israeli exceptionalism” with which the writer takes issue. I guess only the writer can know for sure.
I don’t really agree with that. It’s sort of a stretch.
Chosen people is a description of Jews that theythemsleves use in a religious biblical context.
That the zios transferred it to a sort of” people exceptionalism” is why it has entered the political realm and people picked it up.
It’s become shorthand in some ways for the Jewish State’s idea of itself as exceptional…as in not subject to usual rules everyone else is suppose to follow.
So when it is used I think it is in the political context..unless the user is using it while running around calling for the destruction of the chosen.
Listen, let me ask you something with all due respect.
Who do you think you are to call people anti semites?
Seriously…..who exactly do you think you are?
A remark may be insulting without being anti semitic.
And given what most people hear on a regular basis from the zios and Israeli leaders spouting about how they and the Jewish State are “exceptions” to the rest of the world and their demands and threats constantly hurled around at everyone, anointed and stiff necked isn’t that bad a description.
And you as academic should be able to defend yourself without resorting to that slur and you should know the real meaning and definition of anti semitism.
I don’t know Holstun but if I remember correctly, and I think I do, you called me an anti semite several months ago, not once but twice and semi “threatened” me for ripping into the peace game stall or the lobby or some such thing.
So for someone who doesn’t like to make that charge you seem to do it quite frequently.
I criticized your article so feel free to debate me on the value of eternal pandering to Israel for the sake of America and getting Dems elected.
Over the years I have seen hundred of writers and academics and activist like you. You have rationalized yourselves and your positions into the absurd…..”go along with Israel and Jewish donor and voter threats for the sake of saving liberal dem America” ….being a prime example. What will be your next claim, that we can’t save Medicare or SS unless we support Israel?
And no matter how reasonable or ‘concerned’ or fair you try to appear in your arguments or promotions, when you are challenged or scratched the slightest bit that vile reaction–anti semite- comes out.
Keep this nonsense up and soon a new and more potent slur will start appearing in this country–’Anti – American’.
Imagine instead of of ferreting out anti Israel and anti semites in our hallowed halls ferreting out anti Americans instead–I don’t imagine you would enjoy having Americans comb your writings for any mention of the slightest thing insulting to Americans or critical of America or the government or gentiles or having them decided whether your use of goyium’ is anti gentile and therefore anti American .
We could have a debate right here about whether or not it is Anti American to encourage, as you did, ‘continued congressional corruption’ in favor of the foregin country of Israel for the sake of one party or another being re elected. Or whether or not it is Anti American to encourage congress to abdicate US interest out of fear of a country you admit is crazy and might use nukes if they don’t get their way with America, or political fear of a US minority of rabid Lukidnicks or even fear of a non rabid minority.
I think that is Anti- American. I think it goes against the fundamentals of how our democracy is suppose to work and endorses and encourages the present corruption of all kinds that damages this country and it’s people.
Notice that unlike you I haven’t leaped to call you Anti American. I will give you an opportunity to explain yourself further on why you advocate our government capitulating to Israel instead of taking a stand now and how you think further catering to Israel and it’s minions now will change anything or free us from the same kind of US zionist or Israeli imposed threats in future elections or even prevent Israel from self destructing in a orgasm of hubris inspired by US homage to their political power in the US in the meanwhile—-before I do that.
I can probably guess in advance your rely if you make one…it will be that we must over time thru more negotiations try to coax Israel into peace and being some kind of sane country, this being the same country insane enough to use nukes in a temper fit because the ‘goyium’ as you say denied them something, could be coaxed into being rational or fair or observent of any kind of law….so if that’s to be your reply don’t bother……40 years and trillions of dollars down that hole has proven to it be a fool’s errand.
That might not be as crazy as it sounds. There was some talk, back when Obama was trying to push through his health care “reforms”, that Joe Lieberman was blackmailing Obama into taking his hands off Israel if he didn’t want Lieberman to scuttle the bill.
Mr. Slater, you still have a problem taking criticism. And despite your protestations that you don’t like to make such an accusation, you seem to make it relatively often around here, and often too quickly. I would ask you to consider if we were talking about Apartheid South Africa, with you making similar appeasement arguments and Holstun was criticizing your points, would his response have seemed out of line to you? Because if the answer is no, then you are simply special pleading that Jews must be treated differently than anyone else, which would make your own comments anti-semitic.
Jerry:
Doesn’t sound like it to to me. Stick to the arguments. If you are looking for people criticizing you incoherently, perhaps you can look at the soothsayers below who know how to define “American interests” (like those shared by Exxon and a working-class guy paying 4.20 at the pump), or who live in a dreamworld where Israel did not become an ally of America by serving a specific sub-sector of “American interests” very capably.
But please refrain from using the word “antisemitism” (not “anti-Semitism”) just ’cause someone called you out on calling the Democrats, a warmongering party of genocidaires, a “rational political party.” You and not Holstun are the one incapable of recognizing reality.
The Samson option? Is that what they named their nuclear program?
“When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, “Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them.” Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD, “Sovereign LORD, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.” Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. **Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.**”
Oh. my. God.
you didn’t know that richb? think of the absurdity of condemning suicide bombers while threatening the globe with the samson option if you piss them off. kinda nuts don’t you think? and we are supposed to respect this ‘logic’. it way over my head that’s all i can say.
Yes, the same disapora that is home to more Jews than reside in Israel.
Alan Hart recounts a conversation he had with Golda Meir, where she unashamedly admitted to this Samson Option. Ironic, considering that it was Meir who said something about there being peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews.
That pig Meir had a string of such evil statements.
Woody, pigs can be very nice, you know. It’s not their fault we keep them in the conditions we do so there’s more of them to eat. And I doubt pigs harbor any evil thoughts about the offspring of other species. They probably just wish to be treated better, as due any life form, rather than as a piece of edible flesh.
So there, now I defended pigs (and would defend dogs from the “mad dog” comparison too). Humans – especially the not so good ones- really deserve their own epithets. So maybe we can stick to to describing some of them as rabid, and/or their lying words as rancid?
PS to be fair, I did allude the prince of wale as “horsey looking” on occasion. But that did not disparage any horses…it was meant as a compliment….of sorts.
Correct me if I’m wrong Mr Slater,but this is the same Israel that you insist has a moral right and necessity to exist. Am I correct?
Israel cannot be trusted to exercise sanity, so the only option is to placate and indulge this insane state (even while it itching for wars and more ethnic cleansing) in case it goes completely crazy.
Yup, makes perfect sense. Witty could not have put it better.
Yet another example of the collective insanity that us Zionism.
Jerry, you seem to be making the case that:
1. Israel is hopelessly mired in its own collision with destiny and nothing – absolutely nothing – will stay its misguided course (so what happened to your optimism? I hope it wasn’t my fault that you seemed to be losing your faith…)
2. If Israel, the collective, is indeed insane (as in no longer capable of rationally looking after its own self-interests), and armed to the teeth, then all we can do at the moment is to keep it from going critical while we buy some time as we all try and figure out a way out of this. In other words, you seem to be saying that Obama, at least (+ advisors + a cadre of Dems) decided to treat israel as the police would a psycho who barricaded himself with hostages – which is to try and keep him calm, and keep him talking (cf negotiating) while being on the lookout for some, any, opening.
3. While all this is happening the bigger crisis for the US – and the world – is that one of the two parties in the US has fallen victim to its own version of insanity, and its leaders are no longer capable of chartering a rational sensible course for the country. Were they to come to power, it’ll certainly not make things better for the ME and will accelerate America’s demise as a superpower. And since the madness of King Israel appears to have infected the body politic of the US, all that can be done is keep things from getting worse by making sure elections are not unncessarily lost.
Under these dire circumstances, what’s a few (29 to be exact) ovations if the alternative is armageddon, right?
Assuming I got the gist of your argument (after some meandering) , the question is – and that’s probably the response your post will get from most commenters – what about the palestinians in the meantime? are they just cannon fodder in some epic battle between reason and unreason that’s tearing the world apart?
Seems to me that with all these forces arrayed against them, and faced with the fast decline of the mental acuity of the collective they face, if you are right in your speculation, then Obama et al will secretly support the palestinians on their quest for a state to the UN. And you would be joining the BDS movement because that’s all the people anywhere – here or in the ME or anywhere in the world, can do. Not that any of this would bring Israel around or cure the affliction, but it might shake things up and who knows, hold back some of the worst symptoms of the disease. I believe psychologists call this behavior modification.
So Jerome Slater is outraged at the current situation, and yet like Witty, proposes that absolutely nothing be done about it.
Witty does not ever acknowledge the problem of the power of the Israel Lobby. He’s not outraged at all. He’d like at least 30 standing ovations, you know, a nice round accountant’s number for his creative accounting?
Of course. Because he isn’t outraged, he’s “outraged.”
Here are the parts in Prof. Slater’s piece that stood out for me;
If I had been in Congress I might have done the same thing.
Yes, I imagine so. And so would almost every other Apologist for the Israel Lobby. This gratuitous declaration tells me almost everything I need to know about Jerome Slater’s politics.
Israel today is hopeless, beyond rational or elementary moral calculation…. Moreover, it is by no means obvious that serious U.S. pressures on Israel would result in serious changes in Israeli policies…. Indeed, strong US pressures could even prove to be dangerous. An Israel armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons cannot be trusted not to resort to the Samson option ….
This is one version of the familiar Tail-wags-Dog apologia, based on proposition that Dog can’t do a damn thing about it because he’s stupid and cowardly. The real basis for Tail-wags-Dog, of course, is the fact that the U.S. government has been captured by an Israel Lobby that enjoys wide support among the American Jewish community. Slater’s declaration (above) says that he is amenable to the persuasions of that Lobby.
I am driven to the reluctant conclusion that the Democratic party stands to gain nothing but to lose a great deal if it even hints at pressuring Israel. It would lose a considerable amount of Jewish financial support …. It is likely that Obama has reached this same conclusion …. as the election approaches Obama and the Democratic party as a whole will flee from the suggestion that it might apply even the mildest pressure on Israeli…. which, the facts of life being what they are, means that the Obama and the Democratic party can’t abandon its near-unconditional support of Israel.
These are the “facts of life” as seen by a “liberal” Zionist. There is no complaint to be heard about the stranglehold of the Lobby, about the grotesquely disproportionate influence that the Jewish Power Structure wields over Obama and the Democratic Party – which Slater seems to think is the answer to America’s problems even if it has sold its soul to the highest bidder. The “near-unconditional support for Israel” is apparently O.K. with Slater because America has only domestic interests; it has no vital interests in the I/P conflict, or in the Middle East, or even in the upholding of human rights abroad?
In short, given the unlikelihood that any U.S. action could save Israel from itself, I would give priority to saving America from itself ….
“Saving America from itself” will not result from the Democratic Party’s “near-unconditional support of Israel.” The opposite is true: America is going down the tubes as an influential nation because of both Parties’ insane support for Israel, right or wrong.
Note that Slater, the liberal Zionist, implies that if it were feasible to “save Israel from itself,” that’s where his priorities would lie. But since it’s not, he will give priority to saving America from itself. In the end, it’s always mostly about Israel.
I don’t want to suggest that I’m not sympathetic to Slater’s argument about the dangers presented by the Republican Party. I just don’t buy it as a defense of America’s subjugation to a foreign country.
Somewhat contrary to my above interpretation of Prof. Slater’s post, I would like to suggest a different significance for this sentence of his:
In short, given the unlikelihood that any U.S. action could save Israel from itself, I would give priority to saving America from itself ….
Yesterday, the editorial board of The Jewish Daily Forward had this to say to Israeli PM Netanyahu: “Don’t Make Us Choose!” This is an important message not only to Yahu, but to the American Jewish community. Here are excerpts from the editorial:
The Forward is a newspaper that tailors its message primarily to liberal Zionists. I take Jerome Slater to be a liberal Zionist. (Am I wrong?) The Forward suggests that Netanyahu is trying his damnest to make Jewish Americans choose between him and Obama, between Israel and America.
I think that Slater’s post here indicates that, in the crunch, he wants to choose Obama and America. Am I right? Will most liberal Zionists make that same choice?
Were Kucinich and Ron Paul, for example, making those 29 standing ovations? Did anyone notice who did not stand up when the kapos stood up to clap? I’m all ears.
Citizen, I am curious. do you know who did not bob up and down like a yo-yo? ha it pointed out anywhere? I couldn’t find…
I do know Rand Paul did not show up for the speech. Had a great excuse too – he was mad at Harry Reid over the patriot Act….
I stole this from a poster on another blog but don’t think he would mind because it describes the essence of our constant capitulation to Israel.
‘Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough .’
– Janwillem van de Wetering
I really don’t think I need to be lectured–attacked, is more like it–on the dangers of using the anti-Semitism gambit. In fact, I’ve often written exactly on this issue, in professional journals as well as for general audiences, repeatedly and forcefully rejecting the charge of anti-Semitism as leveled against most serious criticisms of Israel–for but one of many examples, though I partially disagreed with Mearsheimer and Walt, I have dismissed the charge that they are anti-Semitic.
However, on occasion some criticism of Israel does tread close to the line of anti-Semitism. So here’s my question: does anyone else here worry that the terms “annointed race” and “stiffnecked and murmering people”–raise that issue?
“I really don’t think I need to be lectured–attacked, is more like it–on the dangers of using the anti-Semitism gambit.”
The issue isn’t the “dangers” of that claim, it is the fact that a false accusation of antisemitism is no less deplorable and a barrier to communication as antisemitism, itself, is.
“However, on occasion some criticism of Israel does tread close to the line of anti-Semitism. So here’s my question: does anyone else here worry that the terms ‘annointed race’ and ‘stiffnecked and murmering people’–raise that issue?”
No. The fact of the matter is that the Zionist movement and the state of Israeli have specifically based political claims on Jewish relgious doctrine and theological concepts. They can’t then immunize those same doctrine and concepts from political use/abuse/criticism. It is no more antisemitic to use a biblical reference to make a poltiical point than it would be to use a Star of David in a political cartoon. They’ve become political and not just religious/cultural items.
Is it anitsemitic when Netanyahu refers to Israel as “David” in comparison to the Arab World’s “Goliath”? Would it be antisemitic to refer to the Palestinians as “David” in comparison to Israel’s “Goliath”?
One other thought. You would think that anyone familiar with my writing would find the charge that I am an apologist for Israel–or American Jewry–to be ludicrous. Yet, on each occasion that I depart from the most radical possible position, it is perfectly predictable that–on this site–it will be typically met (not by everyone, of course) with sophomoric sarcasm and howls of outrage, demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to accurately state the argument I’m making, and then making a counter-argument.
The problem with this sort of thing is not merely that many of you are happy to continue preaching to the choir, it’s that the choir is so tiny. It seems to me the task of critics of Israel is to try to persuade the vast majority of its defenders that they are wrong. Right now we are losing this battle, and badly. That is why I argued that, for now, the more important task was to stop the Republicans in the 2012 election, but the chances of Obama and the Democrats of doing so will diminish to the extent that the Democrats antagonize American Jewry.
My claim is that those are the facts of life in America today–not, as some of you appear to think, that I approve of those facts. If you wish–like me–to change those facts, you’d better stick to reasoned discourse.
Has it occurred to you that it is thoroughly not in the interest of 98% of the US votership to seriously consider a political party that is beholden to the special interests conducted in the name of merely 2%?
You are arguing strenuously for status quo. Status quo is unmitigated support for Zionism.
Has it occurred to you that maybe you’re the one who has it ass backwards, not us?
“However, on occasion some criticism of Israel does tread close to the line of anti-Semitism. So here’s my question: does anyone else here worry that the terms “annointed race” and “stiffnecked and murmering people”–raise that issue?”
No, it doesn’t. It’s nothing but a minor insult of the kind that could be thrown around about anyone or group. In most of cases it comes from the frustration of beating your head against what you see as a brick wall of irrationality.
I have read enough of your articles to know that your initial support of Israel was based on your belief that anti semitism is a condition of Christians and/or gentiles and they are responsible for all the misfortunes of the Jews and therefore Israel was necessary.
Based on how you use the anti semite slur I think you look for it, and often see it where there is none, because it buttresses and reinforces and some how justifies your original reason and continued support for as a haven against anti semitism.
Would you take this statement you made as anti gentile or anti christian?
“I mean those who are not merely non-antisemitic but who deplore and deeply feel that Christianity bears a heavy responsibility for historic
antisemitism–”
Because in that you could be said to be condemning and tying the blame for all the Jews misfortunes to an entire group—the same thing that would be anti semitism if it was said about the Jews.
You also said …“I really don’t think I need to be lectured–attacked, is more like it–on the dangers of using the anti-Semitism gambit.”
Well evidently you do. Since you claim to be reality based, the fact of life is that when you are too smug to see your own hypocrisy or unfairness
in attacking others, people are naturally going to call you on it.
And you also said …”it will be typically met (not by everyone, of course) with sophomoric sarcasm and howls of outrage, demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to accurately state the argument I’m making, and then making a counter-argument. ”
Which is totally untrue because many have stated their reasons why they don’t agree with you and you are the one who has not responded to a single counter argument. All you have done is make defenseive egotisical remarks about yourself.
Chaso asked you the right question, as many others here expressed in different ways…”Has it occurred to you that it is thoroughly not in the interest of 98% of the US votership to seriously consider a political party that is beholden to the special interests”
I would only add to that it is foreign interest we are talking about here.
I won’t even mention the plight of the Palestines at this critical time and the support they should be getting from the US for the same kind of nation the Jews claim a right to.
Just answer the question.
How is giving in to Israeli political blackmail for the 2012 election going to protect our American interest long term and prevent this kind of blackmail from continuing in every election and our domestic welfare from being dependent to our governments allegiance to an foreign country?
That’s the ratinoale we’ve been hearing for over a decade. Obama’s defenders orignally insisted that his apparent failures were really our imability to appreciate his 12th dimnesional chess game and that he was thinking way ahead of the rest of us, now the best they can come up with is to frighten us into imagining how bad it wou’d be with a Republican in the WH.
What the visit from Bibbi has demonstrated is that it matters not who is president, because AIPAC owns both sides of Congress. They have the game sewn up. There is no other side to run against them.
Prof. Slater’s long record of exposing the worst of Israeli crimes against Palestinians is deserving of a great deal of respect and admiration. So is his willingness to present an argument on this site that he knows will be met with derision. However, his positions can sometimes be so wrong-headed. Trying to find a silver lining in Congress’s bi-partisan worship of a man who proposes indefinite or even perpetual denial of freedom to millions of people is like trying to find a silver lining in the Joplin tornado.
Why recommend doing nothing? To whom is he speaking? To members of Congress who deserve bitter criticism? To the community of pro-Palestinian activists, telling them to lay off Democrats and Obama? There will always be a reason to do nothing. After the 2012 election, it will be the importance of the 2014 midterms. Meanwhile, life sucks for millions of people. And while I guess I would prefer to see Obama re-elected rather than a republican with a lunatic agenda, Obama has adopted so many Bush-era policies that his ability to speak in complete sentences has lost its luster. At least, when a Republican is in the White House, there is some Democratic opposition to insanity; not so now. And as Jeffrey Blankfort has shown, the only recent Prez to challenge Israel in any way was a Republican, GHW Bush.
Slater clearly cares for the Palestinian people or he would not have devoted innumerable hours to lobbying on their behalf. So why does he propose taking a collective chill pill? Congress’s reaction to Bibi’s speech might represent one of the lowest points in its history, and silence signifies acquiescence. Slater recognizes the evils of Israel’s occupation, but his conclusion that now is not the time to complain because that evil is just too too powerful is mystifying.
Exactly.
If I may put forth a theory as to why Slater wrote that which he did, it would be that he feels his comfort zone shrinking, more and more. It started with wanting to preserve a Jewish-only state and now has escalated to wanting to “save America from itself”. Yet, in both instances, Slater seems blissfully reluctant to see the proverbial writing on the wall.
And it is this position wanting to preserve a Jewish-only state that I want to see Salter square with the assumption that this state is capable of starting a nuclear war if it is ever held to account.
How can this pathological entity be a benefit to anyone, Jews and non Jews?
Even sadder is that is mirrors the position of the Israeli government that now is never the right time to agree to a political settlement. While I share you admiration for Salter, especially his capacity to empathise with the Palestinians, I can’t ignore how conventional his thinking is. He is critizes us for being a tiny choir and insist we move to the mainstream, but the mainstream is what was on grotesque display in Congress.
Metaphorically speaking, Slaters believes that we should all be standing and applauding Bibbi to gain credibility and be more persuasive.
Meanwhile Obama is positioning himself for the measured possibility that Israel will attack Iran in the Fall, when the Palestinians go to the UN–with its usual excellent timing so geared to what’s going on in the USA: link to haaretz.com
Samel wonders why I can be so wrong-headed; I wonder why Samel’s criticisms so often distort my arguments. Later I will present an overall defense of my argument. For now, in response to Samel, the following points:
1. I did not suggest a “silver lining” in the congressional behavior–I said, in effect, that even worse would be a Republican sweep in 2012. But if Samel really believes–Bush the elder not withstanding–that any of the likely Republican presidential candidates or a tea-party driven Republican Congress would be better for the true interests of Israel than Obama–because then the Democrats could criticize the Republicans–then he and I are very far apart indeed.
2. In any case, my argument includes an assessment of what is best for the U.S., not just for Israel. I care very much about what happens in Israel, but I also care at least equally about what happens in the U.S. Somehow, I suspect that Samel would not be indifferent to a Republican sweep in 2012, despite his suggestion that there would be his own, and genuine–silver lining: the Democrats could criticize them.
3. I didn’t propose a “collective chill pill,” nor that now is not the “time to complain.” My argument was not that critics of Israel should remain silent–I sure don’t intend to–it was that for DEMOCRATIC OFFICE-HOLDERS the priority must be to stop the Republicans in 2012, an absolutely critical goal that would be undercut if either the Democrats or Obama were to take a more forceful position on Israel–which in any case would fail to move Israel, and therefore would be both quixotic and harmful to the values that both Samel and I share.
I claim to be describing facts. I don’t like these facts, I hate them. But facts have consequences. Or does Samel and other critics question whether there are dangers to the Democratic party from taking critical positions on Israel?
4. What will change after 2012? For one very big thing, Obama will no longer face the need for reelection, which might free him up to be more forceful–and not only on Israel. For another, a general Democratic recovery in the 2012 elections might lessen the danger of a takeover of the American government by the worst elements of the Republican party, making the political risk of taking on Israel somewhat less. For yet another, maybe public opinion on Israel will become more critical, reducing the political risks of opposing it.
Or maybe these changes won’t occur. Either way, the Democrats can reassess the situation then.
“Samel wonders why I can be so wrong-headed; I wonder why Samel’s criticisms so often distort my arguments.”
You take all criticism too personally, it seems. You are right to be disgusted by some of the remarks made about you by “American”, but your reaction to David Samel is a bit churlish.
On the merits of the case, there never seems to be a time when it’s okay for Democrats to do something brave. The ideal time for Obama to push through leftwing positions was when he was first in office–at least he could have staked out truly leftwing positions and then moved to the right as necessary, but he threw out the public option (nevermind single payer) right at the start. Centrism seems to be in his blood–I don’t think he’s a secret progressive who really wants a mass leftwing movement forcing him to go left as people sometimes imagine. As for Israel, when is it ever the right time? Democrats will always see the next election coming up ahead and presumably Obama is supposed to care about that even if he himself isn’t running.
Anyway, if he pushes things off until after Nov 2012, dramatic things are likely to happen in the meantime. That might be a good thing–Palestinians seem to have awakened to the fact that the US isn’t and probably can’t be an honest broker. In that sense Congress probably did them an unintended favor, by reinforcing that point.
Prof. Slater, by accusing me of distorting your positions, you simply fail to consider the consequences of those positions. You didn’t suggest a “silver lining” in the congressional behavior? Yes you did. You said it was prudent of Congressional Democrats to go along with whatever outrages Netanyahu proposed, and went so far as to say that you might have done the same. That means you found their conduct to be reasonable. You didn’t use the term “silver lining” but my use of it was no distortion.
You do the same to me, by suggesting that I found a silver lining in a Republican election victory. Re-reading what I wrote, I can’t say you distorted it, though I think I may have been a bit flippant.
You did propose a “collective chill pill,” not only for Democratic office-holders but also those who would seek to pressure them. We can all whine to our heart’s content on this or any other forum, but we harbor the hope that our efforts will eventually, in some small way, result in a shift of opinion among the powerful. What good does it do to criticize Israel if we would like all of our elected officials to remain immune to our efforts?
Finally, you talk about how things will change after 2012, though I still think there immediately will be talk about 2014 and the necessity for Dems not to lose seats. But more than that, your post claims that pressure on Israel may provoke the Samson option. That certainly will not change, ever. If we (or our elected representatives) refrain from doing and saying the right thing out of fear of inciting a nuclear catastrophe, we’ll never get past that obstacle. Your message is that Israel may be evil, but it’s too powerful to rattle the cage. You give credence to the likes of Livni and others, who have argued that Israel’s responses must be irrational for that very reason.
We all know that if Israel continues to feel insufficient pressure to change how it treats Palestinians, it won’t change, at least not for the better. If we, and/or our elected representatives, and/or the rest of the world, decline to apply pressure for fear of an irrational response, the Palestinians are sentenced to eternal misery. Despite the statements of some other commenters here, I know that you find that neither desirable or even tolerable. And despite your previous accusations of my distortion of your views, I’m only taking your arguments to their logical conclusion.
I see no evidence Obama will be more forceful in a second term regarding needed root changes than he has been during his first term to date, and he’s certainly been no radical by any stretch. In terms of his campaign rhetoric and style he has been a complete failure. This has been especially noticed by the Independents. And I see equal if somewhat different danger in take over by the worst elements of either main political party. And I am certain neither the democrats or republicans will change their handling of Israel without some sort of major event, and that change, should it occur, would occur when it will be already too late for the best interests of the USA, and would be the result of both parties deep enmeshment with AIPAC/Israel.
It sound s to me like you’re hjolding on to an illusion and opposed to reality. What values are the Democracts protecting or promoting that you believe would be ransacked by the Republicans?
The argument that Obama would be liberated by the need not to be re-elected would more than likely be offset by the fact second terms are when residents are considered lame ducks anyway, and without Congressional Democrats comming on baord (no evidence of that happening), he has zero chance of getting anything done during a second term anyway.
I don’t think Dr. Slater is saying “do nothing”.
I hear him saying, “do something effective”.
We are all too familiar with the voices in your head Witty, but Slater proposed that the only effective stratergy is to do nothing.
Richard, he’s saying that Congressional Democrats might be right to cheer Netanyahu if they want to accomplish positive things for America. In other words, throw any possibility of a peace agreement under the bus (and that would include your preferred two state solution) for now, support Netanyahu’s rejectionism and the reward for this is that the Israel Lobby won’t work to boot them out of office. Then they can (supposedly) do good things for Americans at least. There’s some slight chance that maybe Obama could do something in his second term, but he has to walk softly since some of the Israelis have a tendency towards crazed nuclear armed lunacy.
I think that’s a fair summary of his argument both in the original post and down below where he gives his general response to the critics here.
Hell, there’s a lot of sense in what he says. The moral I’d draw is that Palestinians should just treat the US as the huge obstacle it is and try to work around it.
Dear Professor Slater:
You said that American must act to save its liberal values and rationality by acquiescing to the current situation. From where I sit, those American liberal and rational values are hard to see. Among the values it has worked assiduously to preserve are those of the Israeli occupation. And you are in effect defending those here.
And oh yes, the anti-semitism card—my absolute favorite! But no score this time, I’m afraid. And, a emeritus professor of Political Science who writes constantly about the Middle East should recognize the origin of those adjectives—namely, those notorious anti-semites Yahweh and Moses:
Exodus 16:1-2. “And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt. And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.”
Exodus 32:9-10: “And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.”
Try harder next time.
“Try harder next time.”
Ok, I’ll give it a shot, though I don’t have to try very hard to notice that you failed to cite a biblical reference for your term, “annointed race.”
In any case, regardless of the Biblical origins of “stiffnecked” and “murmering,” the context in those terms are used are much more important than their origin. You were applying them to the Jewish “race,” and not in a neutral manner.
I’m afraid of dying, so I plan to commit suicide. Great logic, can’t see a flaw in that plan.
Sadly, while it sounds insane, this is a condition that many in the US and Israel suffer from – suicide for fear of being murdered. Ironically, it seems to go hand in hand with having a very powerful military aparatus.
I want to write a general response to the criticisms of my post. My argument was based–as I said—on certain premises about what I take to be the crucial facts of the matter:
First, that Democratic criticism of Israeli policies—or, for example, if the Democrats in Congress had sat on their hands during Netanyahu’s speech rather than join in the ovations—would lead to Jewish defections, and the loss of Jewish political contributions and votes could cost the Democrats to lose elections, including the presidential election.
I haven’t noticed anyone challenging this assessment.
Second, that symbolic gestures or even Democratic criticisms of Israel in general and Netanyahu in particular would not bring about the desired result: a wholesale change in Israeli policies.
I haven’t noticed anyone challenging this assessment, either.
Third, that the only US actions that might—or might not—lead to the desired changes in Israeli policies would be to make all US aid conditional upon such changes, but that there was no prospect in the foreseeable future that the U.S. will so act.
This is bad news. I deplore it. However, I haven’t noticed anyone challenging this assessment, either.
I could have stopped right there, because if you don’t challenge what I claim are the relevant facts of the matter, it would seem to inexorably follow that the Democrats have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by ignoring the realities, and that what they stand to lose is a disaster, not merely for the Democrats, but for all of us.
However, I did add the issue of what Israel might do if it felt it was pushed to the wall. This is admittedly a terrible problem—do you allow yourself to be, in effect, blackmailed by potential Israeli nuclear craziness? In any case, as has been pointed out, that issue won’t go away after the 2012 elections. The dilemma is a real one—but it is, precisely, a dilemma, and dilemmas don’t disappear if you decide to ignore them.
I have no solution to this dilemma, but I can tell you for sure that I didn’t make it up–it has long troubled US policymakers and has been the subject of professional journal articles. To give one example: in the early days of the 1973 Israeli-Egyptian war, Golda Meir began preparations for the use of nuclear weapons if the initial Egyptian advance into the Sinai continued, and that led Henry Kissinger to tell Nixon that the U.S. had to start an emergency weapons airlift to Israel to avert such a catastrophe. I am not prepared to say that was a mistake.
Obviously, this is a very bad dilemma, for the other side of the coin is that it might always be dangerous to really push Israel hard, even when that’s the only thing that might work. I suppose that if I were president, I would move in the direction of real pressures on Israel, but only very gradually. In the real world of state decision making—as opposed to the blogosphere—consequences must be considered. Or, as someone famously said, “Reality is that which, when you ignore it, it doesn’t go away.”
Finally, the silliest criticism is one that purports to believe I am advocating the end of criticism of Israel—not merely by Democrats facing a crucially important election next year, but by everyone. I could scarcely believe that and write what I do, and what I will continue to do. On the contrary, the only hope to change the factual realities I describe above is precisely to tell the truth about Israel, in the hope that it will gradually shift public opinion sufficiently to lead to real changes in U.S, policies, and ones which will not result in harming America’s only rational political party.
Let me go even further–not only should we all continue justified criticism of Israel, but I support the BDS movement. However, I don’t think Obama should join us.
You mean no one’s challenged your assertion that the Democratic Party is beholden to monied Jewish interests? Just clarifying, here. Because when I make that case, people label me an anti-Semite.
i guess we do, is that what you’re saying? we simply accept the fact we can’t win without jewish votes and support? is that what you are saying? (in that case why should the rest of us bother voting we can just let the jews duke it out?) or not. so which is it? pander to netanyahu or all the wonderful things the dems offer us are out the window and we’re stuck w/the gop? and what are those wonderful things the dems have done for us lately? maybe the dems should learn a lesson, a lesson that says ‘whatever it is you are supposed to do for us isn’t worth eating this middle east kill muslims shit’. how bout that? how bout ‘hey america if were gonna oppress and slaughter arabs and muslims maybe i could care less if it’s with a dem president’. how bout ‘if we’re gonna be dirt poor we can do it w/a republican’ or if we’re not gonna have single payer health care then i don’t care if it’s a dem prez telling me that. but don’t tell me we can’t piss off the jews or else they’ll blow the world up. please don’t tell me that. blackmailed? just spit it out of you think the jews control the world because i don’t think they do.
the only reason this is an issue is the rest of us are expected to be dependable dem voters. the reality is 2% of the population is only as influential as we let them be. if a segment of the left leaves the dem party in droves maybe they might appreciate us a little more. there are probably more than 2% of us. it might only take one election for them to learn their lesson, or not.
the bottom line is we don’t have to dump billions of dollars propping up this apartheid state, and here’s some news for you..it isn’t only dems saying that. that message is going to get louder and louder. the chances the next generation and the next and the next are going to keep throwing money at the middle east while americans can’t pay for college and health care? zilch. it might as well start this election. bring it on.
That’s my thought. Clearly, voting for Democrats isn’t enough to persuade them to actually listen and vote along our interests. I can tell you right now if the number of voters going off-ticket, as it were, climbs to 20% both parties will start sweating. When it rises to 35%, Democratic and Republican elites alike will be running around with their hair on fire.
Right now, the status quo on a LOT of things (tax burden on the middle and lower class, corporate bailouts, war crimes, health care costs, hegemonic foreign policy practices) exists because Democrats and Republicans have tricked the rest of the country into thinking that their votes don’t matter if they don’t drink Coke or Pepsi, even though both brands rot your teeth and make you overweight in exactly the same way.
We live in a democracy, people. You don’t vote for someone because they have a nice ass, rich friends and tell you your opinion doesn’t matter.
and i’ve been a dem voter my entire life. this is something i wouldn’t have said before the last election but hey..what have i got to loose. that special site dedicating to getting dems elected kicked me off for linking to a thread here by jon c about…zionism, that was my massive faux pas. so i have no compelling reason for shutting my mouth. i’m pissed at obama’s veto and i’m pissed at my party. if they want to lick netayahu’s boots they can do it without my vote.
“bring it on”
Amen….I second that…and the sooner the better.
Well, as I just said above, most of your points make sense. M.J. Rosenberg said something similar about Congresspeople once, if I recall correctly. He said most of them didn’t really care that much about Israel–they cared about re-election and doing things for Americans. (I’ll assume there are some who really are idealistic to some degree.)
But the moral to draw from this is that the Palestinians and their supporters should just face the fact that the US is and will likely continue to be a huge obstacle, something they need to work around. They seem to be acting on this assessment in going to the UN despite what Obama wants.
Jerome,
I admire much of your writing, so my criticism are well intentioned.
Your first three points make sense superficially, though it’s highle debatable whether a win for the Democrats in 2012 would avert any kind of disaster (relatively speaking). Many seem to believe that we are damned no matter who is in power, and the 2 years the democrats squandered when they had power and a healthy majority support that argument.
The suggestion that criticism of Israel be withheld becasue it would be futile is rather absurd. The absence of such criticism is largely accepted to represent a ringing endoresement. After all, the refusal of the US government to publicly delcare the settlements illegal is used to assert their legitimacy.
As for the nuclear blackmail, it’s pretty obvious that the timeline reveals a pattern one bad judgement leading to another and far mroe serious consequences. Nixon would not have been faced with the tough choice in 1973 had LBJ not been such an enabler in 1967, and similarly, LBJ’s complicity would not have been required had Truman not been bought of with Jewish campaign donations. This whole mess could have been averted by one president being willing to make a stand, rather than compounding the problem.
That’s the benfit of hindsight, but the pattern is clear. Each descision to appease Israel has only made matters worse. Gradual pressure doesn’t cut it, because Israeli leaders and Zinist lobbies love gradual time frames. Gradual time frames is what allowed facts on the ground to chance, how they built all those settlements, how agreements like the Road Map are erased from the media narrative and how Israel gets to claim that the “settlement moratorium” of 2010 was an act of good faith even though Israel agreed to stop building settlements completely under Phase 1 of the Road Map in 2002.
Gradual time frames buys the time for lobbists to buy off and threatened law makers. Following Obama’s Cairo speech, there appeared to be a window of opoprtunity where the Congressional Democrats at least, were holding ranks with Obama, but little by little they were gotten to.
The only reality we know is that Israel has always had a benefactor, be it the Britain or the US, and it clearly believes it continues to need one in order to maintain it’s policies. Threatening to nuke Iran just because Congress cancelled the credit card and stopped bailing them out of prison might just as easily shock the Israelis into some sense of reality.
After all, Zbigniew Brzezinski is as much of a realist as anyone and he suggested that we shoot down Israeli jets if they tried to fly over Iraq on their way to bombing Iraq.
Slater: “… if the Democrats in Congress had sat on their hands during Netanyahu’s speech rather than join in the ovations—would lead to Jewish defections, and the loss of Jewish political contributions and votes could cost the Democrats to lose elections, including the presidential election.”
Yep. And if they had sat on their hands even Cable TV News/Entertainment shows would pick this up. All the Democrats sitting on their hands, and all the Republicans giving 30 standing ovations to a foreign leader. A symbolic act? Sure. And one that, when shown on TV and YouTube would even be a banner headline in the NYT.
Now THAT would be congressional leadership writ large, bringing the issue of US foreign policy & financial & diplomatic aid to Israel front and center–where it belongs (right along with the US economy, trade policy, health system, monetary & banking system, tax system, and illegal immigration). Finally, the issue of the special relationship with Israel would be the subject of open and honest discussion, something that has never happened since it began, no matter who was/is President or which party had/has control of congress. The fact of some Jews, especially big moneybag Jews, leaving the Democratic party would be
in the subsequent spotlight, same as those who chose to stay with the Democrats would be. Our political leaders and representatives would actually have to discuss the issues for a newly demanding US public. You know, the way theory says a democracy should operate? The point is analogous to a congress that would not stand to allow a POTUS to take us to war all by his or herself, over and over again–just as if our Constitution really was “just a piece of paper.” Influential people would no longer so dread losing their career merely by criticizing Israeli policy and US rubber-stamping of it. Such dread would suddenly be equally on
those who have rubber-stamped everything Israel no matter the ramifications for the US as a whole. Donations would become more transparent as the newly-keyed in public would demand it, and the internet would be afire with breaking information on the subject.
Would this US “change you can believe in” bring about a wholesale change in Israeli politics? I certainly would not be so glib to say no. It’s never happened. But at least the whole sale price and retail price would probably come more into line, both here and in Israel. No more glaring and sanctimonious “price gouging” as it were.
Suddenly making all US aid conditional upon Israeli changes would be a distinct prospect in the foreseeable future–our policy with Israel would likely be more at arms-length as it is with every other country–at very least, this would be a public matter of dispute, more objective poll questions would follow suit to gauge the thinking of an informed public.
And any Golda Meir–Kissinger nuke rattling would bring the question of Israel’s 200 plus war nukes out into the new open. Obama would not be able to brush off the question of whether or not Israel has nukes with a “I don’t care to speculate.” And neither would, say, Sarah Palin.
They could both argue their cause.
Slater’s self-described premises rely on never giving the American public the facts on arguably the biggest issue of our times. His premises rely on muzzling the entire Democratic party–all in the name of “bringing home the (theoretically good) bacon” to the US Democratic domestic constituency. The truth is that a very significant American public is not happy with either main political party. Why should Israel continue to be the only taboo issue for both main US parties, in the sense that to openly debate the “special relationship” cannot be done because the conventional insider political wisdom it that to do so would be to lose any American election? What practical observation could demand more that Americans need to get beyond the status quo if they want to have their own sovereign country?
No one needs to challenging your “assessments”.
We all know your assesments are accurate.
We have made the same ourselves.
What we are NOT in favor of is letting those ‘assesments’ remain ‘facts” by further capitulating to US zionist and Israeli political backmail.
And you still haven’t explained how capitulating now will change anything later.
Many of the criticisms of my position are based on the belief that there’s hardly any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, so why worry if the Democrats get defeated, maybe in part because of Jewish defections? It’s the same old Ralph Nader nonsense–both parties are tweedle-dee, tweedle dum, wouldn’t have mattered if the U.S. president was Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon, or Al Gore or George Bush–or Obama and, say, Newt Gingrich or any of the other Republican neanderthals that are likely to get their party’s nomination.
Yes, there’s not much difference between Obama and Bush on Israeli policy, and smaller differences than many of us hoped to see on foreign policy generally–but there are huge differences on US domestic policy, as well as on general intelligence and integrity. In any case, whether the differences between the parties are large or small, the election of a Republican president would make ALL policies much worse: on Israel, on foreign policy in general, and certainly on domestic politics.
And my guess is that it probably wouldn’t be the people who write on this site that would suffer the most from a Republican victory–merely the poor, the unemployed, the urban ghettos, cultural institutions, educational funding, and a lot more. It might help clarify your thoughts on such matters if you thought of them as America’s Palestinians–but “Palestinians” who could actually be helped by rational policies, not the actual Palestinians whose lives we can barely effect because they are under the thumb of the Israelis whose policies we cannot control.
Put differently, there are trade-offs and painful compromises that must be made, balances that must be struck, strategies which must be adapted to changing circumstances, and so on—modes of thought that are foreign to the more vociferous and single-minded of too many commentators on this site.
A final word. I’ve said it before, but somehow it doesn’t stick. I don’t favor an end to criticism of Israeli and U.S. policies–just that, at this moment, close to a crucial election, Obama and the Democrats have good reason to be careful. But not the rest of us.
Slater, Ralph Nader knows a lemon machine and its engine when he sees one, even when it has two sets of valves. Nader’s continuing analysis of the political situation and his recommendations are not something to dismiss outright in my opinion. And calling Republicans neanderthals is cheap too. The facts show, for example, that the housing bubble that was the straw that broke the camel’s back as to our current economic condition, was a product of the democrats and republicans, of Fanney Mae & Mac & the Community Developement Act on the left, and of Wall St’s security packagers and security rating agents on the right, symbolically, the defective product of ACORN and Wall St. The people caught in the middle and paying most through the nose for this catastrophe while being simultaneously the most innocent and sans former benefit from this loosed bipartisan sense of entitlement by both the poor and the rich–is middle America. Barnie Frank et al has hurt us as much as the Fed, the SEC, the Treasury, Goldman Sachs et al. Similarly, the illegal immigration issue
has been allowed to happen, in shorhand, because the Democracts wanted the Latino vote and the Republicans wanted cheap labor. Both parties want to blame the other, one wants to rob Peter, the other want to rob Paul, so to say. There is no free lunch, whether its a peanut butter sandwich in grade school or a lavish meal at Swank’s furnished by the tax code. Both parties claim they act in the best interest of “We the people.” I don’t see the Democrat congress folks looking to cut any more work for war or security service/product companies in their home regions than their Republican counterparts. There’s no more integrity on the side of the Democracts than on the Republicans. The income gap keeps growing, as do endless federal handouts or unfunded mandates with ever less of a tax base to support either. I don’t see either party doing anything serious about changing campaign finance reform to tackle the rule of special interests, among them the Israel Lobby. The reality is everybody really never could afford to own a home and people like Donald Trump would be nowhere without Daddy’s inheiritance, without an original giant boot strap. I note that Kucinich and Ron Paul are working together regarding aspects of domestic troubles–and not ironically, they both want to end the enmeshment with Israel. Yes, indeed, ” there are trade-offs and painful compromises that must be made, balances that must be struck, strategies which must be adapted to changing circumstances, and so on—modes of thought that are foreign to the more vociferous and single-minded of too many commentators on this site.” Unfortunately, you are one of those commentators here now. You may be OK with Florida’s new governor (aka Moonbeam), but he’s just as bad as the former governor there (“I’ll be back.”)–each in their own ideological way. When all we have to choose from is a moonbeam and a steroid doll it’s time to find a third way–making Israel an issue would be a way to begin to sort out the phonies on both sides because both sides sing the same tune there, so much so it’s like the proverbial broken record.