David Brooks has a Times column today saying that Obama has wrongly chosen to be a "fighter" on economic issues. In the middle of the column, whoosh, here comes a stray Israeli bullet:
Obama faced a choice. Double down on conciliator mode or become a fighter. Think of the latter as the Bibi Netanyahu strategy: since I have no negotiating partner I’m going to come out swinging in a way that pleases my base.
Brooks has been to Israel a dozen times and says that love of Israel is a core element of my identity, and Noam Chomsky's, and Alan Dershowitz's, too: "As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel…" He is a lobbyist for Israel; he puts in propaganda points for Israel wherever he can. As if the Palestinians are responsible for the fact that Israel has gobbled almost all the land that the world assigned for the Palestinians under partition.
“He is a lobbyist for Israel; he puts in propaganda points for Israel wherever he can.”
Examples?
This looks like a criticism of Netanyahu as much as a criticism of Obama.
Examples?
How about this link to nytimes.com (April 16, 2009)
“This is a tough, scrappy country, perpetually fighting for survival.”
Today, Israel is stuck in a period of frustrating stasis. Iran poses an existential threat that is too big for Israel to deal with alone. Hamas and Hezbollah will frustrate peace plans, even if the Israelis magically do everything right.“
How about this link to nytimes.com (January 5, 2009)
“The extremists’ goal is to kill as many Jews as possible and wait for God (or Iran) to kill the rest. Israel’s goal is to restrain the brazenness of the extremists until their movement somehow burns itself out or is destroyed from within Arab society.”
“On several occasions, Israelis have managed to temporarily suppress violence. The assassinations of Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Ahmed Yassin in 2004 temporarily suppressed Hamas suicide bombings. The destruction of Hezbollah’s command and control structure in Beirut’s Dahiya district in 2006 seems to have shocked the leadership and reduced terror activity in the north. In this game, violence doesn’t necessarily beget violence. It sometimes prevents it. The difference between successful Israeli actions and unsuccessful ones is not in the amount of destruction they achieve, but in the psychological messages they send.”
“Over the past several weeks, Israeli leaders seem to have adjusted to the new game with new rules. The initial incursion into Gaza was an effective display of prowess. According to The Jerusalem Report, in the first wave, 80 Israeli planes hit more than 100 targets and nearly all of the Hamas military compounds within 3 minutes 40 seconds. The I.D.F. has clearly addressed many of the weaknesses exposed by the Winograd Commission, showing the recuperative powers a democracy is capable of.”
The timing on this op-ed is particularly nauseating, Hophmi. Published on Jan. 5, 2009, during the height of Israel’s inhumane assault on the whole of Gaza, an operation that resulted in the deaths of 1300 Palestinians in a matter of weeks, over half of whom were civilians, here is David Brooks sounding off about how restrained Israel is, and how violence sometimes prevents further violence, it’s only psychology, you know, people aren’t dying or anything! David Brooks’ writing in this piece is a clear case of propaganda, whitewashing Israel’s then-current war crimes operations and selling it as something benign to the American public. Sickening.
That’s nice.
The claim was that Brooks “puts in propaganda points for Israel wherever he can.”
You’ve produced examples from two columns he wrote on Israel. The first you’ve quoted out of context. Here is the full quote:
“We can all think of reasons that Israeli culture should have evolved into a reticence-free zone, and that the average behavior should be different here. This is a tough, scrappy country, perpetually fighting for survival. The most emotionally intense experiences are national ones, so the public-private distinction was bound to erode. Moreover, the status system doesn’t really revolve around money. It consists of trying to prove you are savvier than everybody else, that above all you are nobody’s patsy.
As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel, but I have to confess, I find the place by turns exhausting, admirable, annoying, impressive and foreign. Israel’s enemies claim the country is an outpost of Western colonialism. That’s not true. Israel is, in large measure, a Middle Eastern country, and the Israeli-Arab dispute is in part an intra-Mideast conflict. ”
Apparently calling Israelis exhausting and annoying is an example of propaganda.
The other is an excerpt from a column written in the middle of Gaza War that references the physical and human toll of the Lebanon conflict, and argues that quantity of destruction is not the same as quality of attack, certainly not a novel analysis.
Either way, citing two columns on Israel from eight years of columns by David Brooks does not begin to make the case that Brooks is someone who is a “lobbyist” who “puts in propaganda points for Israel wherever he can.”
oh please master, how many examples do you require?
you got a response and you pan it off as if exhausting and annoying are big insults. they aren’t. not when held up to fighting for survival, doesn’t revolve around money, nobody’s patsy, savy, admirable, impressive, young, hip-looking, graciously, kindly, treat strangers as if they were their brothers-in-law , special vividness, vibrant, genuine, most diverse small country imaginable, sense of responsibility and on and on and on…
it’s a propaganda piece for sure.
Brooks was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel and it really doesn’t show!
“exhausting” “annoying” “foreign”!
Wow, such biting commentary.
Excuse me. The claim was that Brooks is “a lobbyist for Israel; he puts in propaganda points for Israel wherever he can.”
Producing two articles out of eight years of columns does not remotely make that case.
maybe people have better things to do than your homework assignments. if you are so interested in debunking this allegation please provide some brooks articles discussing israel that don’t pass the lobby smell test. then we’ll talk. until then i’m calling this a thread jack. see ya round.
Maybe there’d be no need for homework assignments if certain bloggers did not go over the top and tar columnists who mention Israel too much as lobbyists and propagandists for the sin of working for the NY Times and being Jewish at the same time.
“the sin of working for the NY Times and being Jewish at the same time.”
Brooks isn’t being criticized for that–he’s being criticized for writing inaccurate pro-Israel talking points. There is a partner for peace if Netanyahu wanted a two state solution. Brooks doesn’t talk about the I/P conflict that much, but when he does he generally blames the Arab side or Arab culture for the conflict. I’ve heard him do this on the PBS Newshour. I don’t know if I could find an online transcript or not. It’s consistent with what he writes in his column, though again, this isn’t a subject he writes about that often.
Brooks is a sort of classic Very Serious Person as Krugman would call them. I think he’s one of those types who worships the political center, because they think there’s something intrinsically virtuous about the center. He leans a little right, but not super far to the right (by Republican standards, that is.) He’d probably take the position he takes on Israel whether he was Jewish or not because it’s the path of least resistance in American political circles. Someone like Brooks is hardly the type to stick up for the human rights of Palestinians–that’s for crazy fringey people. He reminds me of a friend of mine who I don’t see that often anymore, who invariably gravitated towards the political center not because of the strength of the arguments, but because he instinctively seemed to think that’s where serious people should be.
hophmi, typical Zionist response. No number of examples would have appeased you. You have to have the final say and support your lie using rhetorical questions and tricks.
Why don’t you look at what he is saying instead of how often he apparently HAS to say it.
In fact, you’re coming up with an imaginary number that is wholly irrelevant.
The content of his articles is sufficient and the only counterargument is to juxtapose the vomit-inducing pro-Israel gibberish to something resembling criticism.
And we already know that the guy thinks descriptors like ‘foreign’ ‘annoying’ and ‘exhausting’ are examples of tough-talk.
I think it was rather clear -even from just those two articles I linked to- where Brooks’ opinions on the matter lie. The point isn’t even necessarily quantity of his propaganda, but rather the quality that shows how far removed from reality he is. Claiming that Israel’s goal is to rebuff extremism, that Israel is fighting for its very survival, and that even if Israel did everything “magically” right (as if magic is the prerequisite to behave in a morally consistent manner) Hamas and Hezbollah would still obstruct peace, these are all propaganda points that uttered even one time demonstrate the particular breed of corrupted intellectualism at play here. Make no mistake, Hophmi, I’m a radical. Even the most tepid support of the state of Israel makes you public enemy #1 in my book. Time to turn the tables, I want supporters of Israel to be the disenfranchised voice in politics, I want them to understand utter frustration and hopelessness, I want them shouted down and silenced, ostracized and ignored. When they begin to feel subhuman, they will then have an opportunity to relate ever so slightly with the pain and suffering their decades of unflinching support for Zionism have caused millions of people the world-over. I’m not prepared to take prisoners. No mercy for Zionists.
Um, he said no partner for peace.
In the words of a great American poet, “English mother;)$:&38393 can you speak it?”
“This looks like a criticism of Netanyahu as much as a criticism of Obama.”
Yes, Hophmi, anybody who does not unstintingly, blindly (and with lots schmaltz) praise Israel and Netanyahoo doesn’t merit your approval. We know that already.
BTW, when you makin’ Aliyah, tough guy?
“Yes, Hophmi, anybody who does not unstintingly, blindly (and with lots schmaltz) praise Israel and Netanyahoo doesn’t merit your approval. We know that already.”
Stupid people who can’t read interpret anything I write as supportive of any Israeli government figure.
Hey, Mooser, get a life! Nowhere did I say I support Netanyahu, and nowhere did David Brooks say he does either. It is clear that Brooks is criticizing Obama for playing to his base rather than playing to middle. He is illustrating this criticism by comparing it to Netanyahu, who is doing the same thing in Israel. His criticism is that politicians should not do this. He’s offered no evaluation of the Netanyahu strategy, but it’s not unlikely that he would say that Netanyahu should do what he can to conciliate with those in the PA who are amenable to talking.
[Mooser please dont get a life; we need you too much in these parts]
“Hey, Mooser, get a life!”
I thought in Israel the greeting was “Hey, Hophmi take a life!”
“[Mooser please dont get a life; we need you too much in these parts]“
Oh, you’re being much too modest. I have often navigated away from Mondoweiss for as much as an hour, and it seems to do fine.
When Israel ups the aliya incentives to $10,000 in cash. The current rates, no taxes, free this and free that are just not lucrative enough.
I suppose you’re better off working as a hitman for a Mexican drug cartel. The pay is better and they usually only have you target just adults, compared to what Israel wants.
Hopmi, you wrote in a comment about the Rachel Abrams affair: :
I simply have a hard time understanding why you seem to think that attacking neo-cons is a new thing. It has been going on for a long time now, pretty much since the Iraq War turned into a quagmire. That was the event that discredited the neo-cons in the foreign policy world, and it happened in 2006.
And you don’t ask yourself why Brooks uses a poll from 2006, plus is squeezing “fighter” Netanyahu into it in a rather peculiar way? poll 2010 Distrust – discontent – anger – partisan rancor. He could have easily choosen a later one like this, Pew hasn’t stopped doing polls meanwhile. And why do you think Republican are much less satisfied with their governments in 2010? Well in 2006 the government was Republican, wasn’t it?
What about one underlying issues he avoids, while using Nethanyahu?
The haves and the have-nots.
The percentage of Americans who see society as divided between haves and have-nots declined shortly after Barack Obama took office, but has rebounded since. In April 2009, just 35% said the nation was divided economically, down from 44% in October 2008. The number saying the nation is economically divided increased to 42% a year later and has changed little since then (45% currently).
Republican 27
Democrats 59
Independents 47
But that’s no issue for discontent with the government for him? I have heard many American voices in this respect since I am watching it closer post 911.
“And you don’t ask yourself why Brooks uses a poll from 2006, plus is squeezing “fighter” Netanyahu into it in a rather peculiar way? poll 2010 Distrust – discontent – anger – partisan rancor. He could have easily choosen a later one like this, Pew hasn’t stopped doing polls meanwhile. And why do you think Republican are much less satisfied with their governments in 2010? Well in 2006 the government was Republican, wasn’t it?”
Huh? Brooks used the 2006 poll to show how much public trust in government has fallen just since 2006. It’s a reference point. Right after, he cites a recent poll to show that it’s down to 15% from 25% in 2006.
It’s simply a comparison to show how much has changed in the last 5 years.
Huh? Brooks used the 2006 poll to show how much public trust in government has fallen just since 2006
You are right, but only partly. the trust in governments has declined from the 70s on:
Yes, Brooks masterfully juggles poll data from a much longer survey, to support for the GOP among independent neo-liberals voters now, back to the loyal GOP voters, offering neoliberalism disguised as localism on the way, both Blair & the Anglo-American angle remind me of the Euston-Manifesto WWIII/IV warriors.
“If Obama were a Republican”? I’ll have you know it took all the energy I could muster to stop laughing and get up off the floor and type this? Tell me that there’s not more to this routine!
Very interesting :
An Open Letter to America’s Christian Zionists
From David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen
link to newevangelicalpartnership.org
“Not to put too fine a point on it, we wish to claim here that the prevailing version of American Christian Zionism—that is, your belief system—underwrites theft of Palestinian land and oppression of Palestinian people, helps create the conditions for an explosion of violence, and pushes US policy in a destructive direction that violates our nation’s commitment to universal human rights. In all of these, American Christian Zionism as it currently stands is sinful and produces sin. We write as evangelical Christians committed lifelong to Israel’s security, and we are seriously worried about your support for policies that violate biblical warnings about injustice and may lead to the outcome you most fear—serious harm to or even destruction of Israel.
We write as evangelicals to you, our fellow evangelicals. On the shared basis of biblical authority, we ask you to reconsider your interpretation of Scripture, for the sake of God, humanity, the United States, and, yes, Israel itself, the Land and People we both love. ..”
Zionist worked hard to get the Evangelical base. That is now falling away as lights are going off.
The above link is a worthy read.
And here is the settler view
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
Jerusalem, Israel
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
The Provisional Executive Committee of the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel wishes to bring once again to your attention the exclusive, irrevocable and inalienable rights of the Jewish People to the entire Land of Israel, recognized by the entire international community between 1917 and 1924 in the following documents of international law: (1) the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920; (2) the Mandate for Palestine confirmed unanimously by the Council of the League of Nations on July 22, 1922 and re-affirmed by the United States of America in (3) the Anglo-American Convention respecting the Mandate for Palestine, signed in December 1924. These rights were then recognized and protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter formulated and signed in 1945, thus acquiring the status of an international treaty valid to this very day.
The Provisional Executive Committee wishes, moreover, to stress that the State of Israel inherited from the Jewish Agency for Palestine the status of representative of the Jewish People to implement the rights thus acquired by the Jewish People; the State of Israel has no legal or moral right to give up those rights or any part of them to any political or ethnic grouping that is not the Jewish People. The policy of the Government of the State of Israel at the head of which you stand, the policy of “two states for two peoples” in the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River, thus lacks legality or moral status of any sort whatever.
The Provisional Executive Committee of the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel calls on you, as Prime Minister of the State of Israel, to act in accordance with the principles set out in this letter and to inform the members of the “Quartet” of this decision of yours at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, the Provisional Executive Committee expresses herewith its intention to exercise the internationally-recognized sovereignty of the Jewish People over any areas of the Land of Israel the Government of Israel may unwisely, illegally and immorally decide to abandon.
Very respectfully,
Professor Hillel Weiss
The Provisional Executive Committee, Vice-Chairman
The Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel
NormanF said…
Rights are not cancellable or revocable.
No Jewish leader or authority has the right to withdraw or retract any Jewish right under any circumstances. No one may bind future generations.
This is all the moreso true today and no Israeli negotiator has the right to withdraw any previous rights Jews have. Politics maybe about the art of the expediency but rights serve to temper that expedience with the accumulated wisdom of the ages, obtained through much suffering.
Israel must insist on maintaining without qualification or reservation, the right of every Jew alive today and those still waiting to be born in the future.
“We will leave it to God to sort out with the Jewish people of the modern state of Israel the very complex terms of his covenant with them. But we cannot remain silent about the vast array of American Christians who support the most repressive and unjust Israeli policies in the name of Holy Land and a Holy God. We charge that you bear grave responsibility for aiding and abetting obvious sin, and if Israel once again sees war, we suggest that you will bear part of the responsibility. Christians are called to be peacemakers (Mt 5:9), but by offering uncritical support of current Israeli policies you are actively inflaming the Middle East toward war—in the name of God. This is appalling; it is intolerable; it must stop!
We plead with you, our brothers and sisters, to find a better way, a more biblical way, to love Israel. Love Israel enough to oppose rather than support actions that violate God’s clearly revealed moral will. And while you are at it, it might be good to work on loving the Palestinians, some of whom are also our Christian sisters and brothers. When you visit Israel, we urge you to visit with Palestinian Christians and ask them what they want us, their fellow Christians, to support. For they surely need our love. And we are surely commanded to love them, too.
In the name of Christ,
David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University
Glen H. Stassen, Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary”
Right on the money, Seafoid…extremely interesting.
I think it will boil down to the moral/natural law /”Christian”/Reform Judaism/Sunni Al Azhar / any tribal values system approach versus
Masada/YESHA/Israel/Jihadi/ Wall St style
and in the end the settlers and Israel will lose
Because in the final analysis they are too rabid for domestic consumption . With only deeply bigoted readings of religious texts to support them.
“”As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel…”
Brooks takes shots often. Have often notice this about Brooks. His logical mind goes gooey when it comes to Israel. Logic departs goo appears
His logical mind goes gooey on all sorts of things. He’s a courtier, someone who has a career flattering the powerful. A lot of pundits are like that.
I just conversed with a local financial advisor. The question came up of why hundreds of billions of dollars is not being invested in productive activity, but is sitting as cash in the hands of a few very very large corporations and private funds.
We agreed that there is not much entrepreneurial activity happening in traditional business (housing, energy, transportation, farming, retail, etc.), and also that the uncertainty of what tax and other regulatory law will look like over the life of investments in plant and enterprises, adds an unnecessary layer of risk to business decisions.
Obama is a mediator, not a fighter, not an advocate advocate.
But, there isn’t much to mediate. There are only fighters around, and fighting so much that they are unwilling to participate in mediation process.
Wow, where else can you get such a potent mixture of psuedo-intellectual presumption and sheer stupidity?
But BTW, if nothing else, the comment supports my contention that if Phil put Witty on the Mondowiess staff, he would be an anti-Zionist in a week.
One chat with a ” local financial advisor” and look, the former “radical kid’ has become a Tea Party Republican. Oh well, Witty, if it makes you feel like you have money, go for it.
Translator required. Advocate advocate? I believe Richard is trying to say that Obama is tragically unwilling to take the infinitely wise Witty’s insights on board. Or something. Perhaps he takes his inspiration from Dubya.
Obama is a mediator, not a fighter, not an advocate advocate.
Well, the fighter won!
It sure would be interesting to read Obama’s mind waves on this.
RICHARDWITTY- “The question came up of why hundreds of billions of dollars is not being invested in productive activity, but is sitting as cash in the hands of a few very very large corporations and private funds.”
To a large degree it is because it is well understood that Wall Street is engaged in a controlled demolition of the real economy in order to implement neoliberal structural adjustment in the US. We are entering an engineered global depression which will likely spiral out of control. They hope to acquire real assets at fire sale prices. Who is going to invest in the real economy during intentional deflation? Obama’s recent economic proposals are political theater, made only after the Republicans were in a position to successfully block them. Brooks’ characterization of Obama as a fighter is a fraudulent misrepresentation of Wall Street’s lawyer in the White House.
What?
Was this your roundabout way of trying to decouple our foreign policy from our fiscal policy? I’m pretty sure you’re incapable of that level of sophistication or satire, but it’s quite literally the only hypothesis I have for what you were trying to say.
“I just conversed with a local financial advisor.”
And all Wall Street is a-twitter! Where will the Witty millions be invested? Which industry will be the benficiary of his well-proven strategies for financial sucess? All trading has stopped until this is determined.
Did you read the Brooks article?
It was about the economy, only very very incidentally about Israel at all.
Obama was accused of being an ideologue, and by virtue exposed to insult, for political weakness.
I started writing that he inherited a perfect storm, comprised of 8 years of neglect of governance, that in contrast, even the limited efforts that has completed would seem like “big government”.
The health insurance bill for example was almost identical to the corporate crafted Massachusetts law, that the tea party resented (for its mandatory insurance element).
Economy, not foreign policy. Netanyahu was cited ONLY as an example of a relentless negative spinner, a sower of doubt.
That’s okay Witty, and I hope the regulators and those awful tax men don’t take all your money away before you create jobs for everyone.
And as always, you have my humble gratitude for coming in from the financial stratosphere and hob-nobbing with us, the oy-polloi.
“Did you read the Brooks article?”
Me? Read a David Brooks article? Look, Witty, if you want to trade insults, we can, but I prefer to take the high road. Have I asked you if you’ve seen the latest porn films? Well, I have, and they’re not up to snuff.
Promise you’ll never leave this blog, Mooser. Pretty please? :)
“Promise you’ll never leave this blog, Mooser. Pretty please? :)”
Like the fellow who could not get enough of that funky stuff, “I’ve tried, I’ve tried” but I always seem to end up back here.
I couldn’t help meditating on: entrepreneurial activity happening in traditional business (housing, energy, transportation, farming,–farming, then on housing …
and concerning the first, speculation with food was on my mind among a whole series of other things. That’s were I would “big money” to be involved… But yes, I am slightly partisan, and have no danger of sympathizing with the Tea Party, not even Paul, I have to admit. … populist? …
Oh, and more privately, is there a connection between bronchia and nose?
LeaNder, just remember, many people say the nose is the gateway to the mind!
I have for some time been trying to remember David Brook’s real name. It’s really been annoying me. Can anybody help here? No, it’s not Lady Gaga, something else?
Hej!
I’m pretty sure David Brooks would in no way do justice to a pyrotechnics bra.
Compared to Hophni, Witty is just a minor irritant; the village idiot.
Brookes attacked Obama before he got the ADL memo on “The Pledge”.
link to adl.org
Foxman send the pledge around to be signed.
Seems he doesn’t want Israel to be a issue, in public that is, in the election.
US Jewish groups split over pledge for unity on Israel
By JORDANA HORN, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
10/26/2011 01:20
Pledge, which says “US-Israel friendship should never be used as political wedge issue,” comes just before one-year countdown to elections.
NEW YORK – A National Pledge for Unity on Israel issued jointly on Monday by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee has created a backlash, with some Jewish organizations refusing to sign it.
The pledge, meant “to encourage other national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rally around bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish state from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season,” notes that Israel often comes up as a vote-splitter of an issue.
“The Jewish community has had a strong interest in ensuring that American support for Israel is one of the critical strategic issues that unites rather than divides parties and officials,” the pledge reads. “US-Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue.”
The pledge comes just before the beginning of the one-year countdown to the 2012 presidential election. Both the Emergency Committee for Israel and the Republican Jewish Committee have issued statements saying they refuse to sign the pledge.
“This effort to stifle debate on US policy toward Israel” contravenes American traditions of open and vigorous debate, said Republican Jewish Committee Executive Director Matt Brooks. The Republican Jewish Committee “will not be silenced on this or any issue,” he said.
Emergency Committee for Israel chairman William Kristol issued a statement saying “Here’s the Emergency Committee for Israel’s answer to Directors Abe Foxman and David Harris: You must be kidding.
“Indeed, this attempt to silence those of us who have ‘questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel’ will re-energize us,” Kristol continued. “Nor, incidentally, should those who support the administration’s approach to Israel be bashful about making their case. Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel.”
Marc Tracy of Tablet Magazine surmised in a piece Tuesday that the ADL-AJC pledge “could reflect a genuine backlash at the recent hyper-politicization of the Israel issue at the hands of groups like ECI that surrounded events such as the UN General Assembly and the special election in New York.”
During the UN General Assembly session in September, the Emergency Committee for Israel put billboards around New York accusing US President Barack Obama of being insufficiently supportive of Israel in dealings with the Palestinians.
Additionally, Israel became a key issue in the recent special congressional election in New York’s 9th district, formerly represented by disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner. Bob Turner was elected as the first Republican congressman from the district since 1920. Many said it was due to the election being framed as a referendum on Obama’s Israel policies
The Tablet article ….
Is Israel an Appropriate Political Issue?
Brouhaha over ADL pledge sets stage for heated election year
There are two bits of internecine warfare currently joined in the insular American Jewish political community. One is small bore and involves incendiary comments made by an Emergency Committee for Israel board member, which J Street said were basically genocidal, and it’s become a Thing; here is the reporting you need and, perhaps, desire.
The other strikes me as a bigger deal, especially as we enter an election year early next month. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee jointly issued a “National Pledge for Unity on Israel” in order “to encourage other national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rally around bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season.” The Republican Jewish Coalition responded to the statement with a strong rejection. “Allowing the American people to see where candidates stand, pro and con on critical issues, is the hallmark of our free and democratic political system,” said head Matthew Brooks. “For this reason, the RJC will not be a signer to this pledge. This effort to stifle debate on U.S. policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition.” Yikes!
Given President Obama’s political missteps when it comes to Israel, it seems undeniable that a call to prevent Israel “from becoming a wedge issue” is pro-Democratic in effect, and so likely in intent. The last time somebody prominently played the “Israel should be nonpartisan” card, it was Democrats bickering with Republicans in front of Prime Minister Netanyahu in May.
For pro-Israel Americans of a right-wing, Republican bent, the conundrum is this: You don’t want to so successfully cast President Obama as Israel’s foe and then have him win re-election. Because then the American people will have elected an anti-Israel candidate; in that scenario, the president owes you nothing; worse, he would have been elected despite being who you say he is, and therefore his mandate, if anything, would be to do all the things the right says he secretly wants to do, like divide Jerusalem, support the terrorists, etc.
I sense the pledge is a warning shot: At some point, it says, politicization of Israel could cross the appropriate line. At the same time, the RJC’s easy dismissal of the pledge proves that we haven’t even approached that point yet. If and when it’s AIPAC pushing the “water’s edge” line, that’s when you’ll see GOP backtracking.”
Politico…Ben Smith says the danger in the fight over Israel that if the Repubs don’t back off the Dems might see no down side to taking the opposite side, not so pro Israel.
bring. it. on.
this is front page material.
Front page it on Mondo annie…you can probably find more political scoop to add to it.
american, for sure i’ve already alerted/exchanged w/ phil. he’ll do way better justice to this phenomena than i could.thnx btw. massive catch.
“The Tablet article ….”
Ah, so that’s where Newclench got his ideas about how inappropriate it is for OWS to mention Palestine. Cause, gee, what do you know, they are exactly the same.
Gilad Shalit has been brought home to an Israel that has no plan for peace
Binyamin Netanyahu’s words ring hollow with Palestinians, whose outward-facing strategy has problems of its own
The posters are still up, showing the face of Gilad Shalit, the boy soldier freed last week after five years hidden in the dark. “How good it is to have you back home,” runs the slogan, appearing on the side of shopping malls in Tel Aviv and on lampposts in Jerusalem. Shalit’s return has enabled Israelis to walk with an unaccustomed spring in their step, despite their fear that the price was dreadfully high.
It should go without saying that Israelis would have preferred a one-to-one exchange, releasing a single Palestinian prisoner, rather than more than a thousand – many of them guilty of horrendous acts of violence – in return for Shalit. But, contrary to what some have suggested, it was Hamas, not Israel, that set that 1:1000 exchange rate; it was Hamas, not Israel, who decided that the freedom of a single Israeli was worth the freedom of a thousand Palestinians.
Yet the boost at Shalit’s return is unlikely to last long. Just as the sight of his emaciated face and sunken eyes on every front page confirms that the damage of his captivity will haunt him for years, so Israelis who yearn for the security that can only come with an accommodation with their neighbours know there is no remedy imminent for them either. Except now the familiar pessimism comes with a twist.
While their own government has next to no strategy to resolve the conflict, it is now the Palestinians, so often buffeted by events, who have a plan and are pursuing it. The problem is that both strategies, old and new, are insufficient.
link to guardian.co.uk
‘Brooks … says that love of Israel is a core element of my identity, and Noam Chomsky’s, and Alan Dershowitz’s, too: “As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel…”‘
Pathetic! He was brought up to go gooey-eyed, and so he does. “I was brought up to …” is the most feeble excuse. It is a refusal to take responsibility for yourself.
Grow up, Brooks! “Identity” isn’t sacred, and it isn’t immutable. You don’t have to be Clark Kent just because mummy wanted you to. There’s a phone booth over there. Go in and change your identity.