josh block
The continuing drama of Democratic Party institutions making room for criticism of Israel....
Greg Sargent of the Washington Post reported last week that the Progressive Policy Institute and Truman National Security project would likely bounce former AIPAC aide Josh Block for smearing critics of Israel at the Dem-Party-aligned Center for American Progress as anti-Semites. Ben Smith confirms that this has happened today:
A progressive group that is working to remake the Democratic Party's approach to national security has drawn a line around the heated Israel policy debate, expelling a member who criticized the Center for American Progress for breaking with Clinton Democrats' traditional staunch support for Israel.
Truman National Security Project founder Rachel Kleinfeld emailed the critic, Josh Block, to inform him this morning, Block said.
"This has nothing to do with your policy views, and is a decision solely made on the basis of the need for this community to privilege the ability to debate difficult topics freely, without fear of mischaracterization or character attacks," she said in the email. "Your actions outside the community have caused too many to fear conversation within the community. That fear is not baseless, given your own actions. As the point of the Truman Fellowship is to help the next generation of leaders think about hard topics together, we need people to feel that they can debate with security."
Kleinfeld's concern about open debate comes after decades of heated and sometimes personal debate inside the Democratic Party on questions of the Middle East. That argument has long run in both directions, and Truman is choosing a side here.
Update: Bill Kristol has a long face. He understands the significance of this move. Expulsion, good word:
Doesn’t the expulsion of Block suggest that it is now impossible to be unapologetically pro-Israel—and publicly hostile to those who are anti-Israel—and remain a member in good standing of the liberal and Democratic foreign policy establishment?
Come on, Bill, why did your father urge Jews to leave the Democratic Party 40 years ago? :
“Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”
Note that your late father cited a Jewish interest, which I believe he said Jews should be willing to embrace publicly, but which I don't see you embracing forthrightly.
UPDATE: Earlier version of this post said that Block had been dropped by the Progressive Policy Insitute, not the Truman project. Apologies to all.
Betcha Block has a job with 24 hours–my money is on him working for Bibi directly.
You betcha’.
Also, notice the tone and tenor in the piece. Ben Smith is a reliable neocon source in the MSM. He even admitted using Block as a source in his original smear story. But his smear is careful, just like this article is. It’s essentially taking on the form of ‘she said/he said’ but he doesn’t delve into specifics. He opens up for a counter-attack, detailing the worst the other side said(in the original piece) and letting Block get off the hook.
This time, Block again gets ample of time to defend himself(notably before the email Kleinfeld even sent, so to get his version first and thus taint her email later). By the time you get to Kleinfeld’s email(which he just fragmentically quotes compared to Block’s response), your mind is already set up.
He also strategically sets up Duss’ comment on Friedman as if to show “see, even Matt Duss thinks he went too far”. Damage control.
Just take this phrase:
“expelling a member who criticized the Center for American Progress for breaking with Clinton Democrats’ traditional staunch support for Israel.”
That Block went far beyond any reasonable criticism and basically called them anti-Semites – as well as collaborating with neocons hostile to progressives he was supposed to side with, is never mentioned in Ben Smith’s piece. He makes it sound as if they are borderline anti-Semities who expelled him for no other reason than being pro-Israel. He never mentioned the smears and the secret collaboration with the neocons.
Ben Smith is a very skilled partisan lawyer, masquerading as a journalist. I often read COMMENTARY and other neocon outlets. He is often quoted in their articles.
And I can see why.
Nontheless, it’ll be interesting to see how this debate opens up. And we’ll see how many genuine progressive sources Smith will have left after exposing himself as a neocon sympathiser and a Block protector. Maybe not only the Democratic party will have this Glasnost. It’s long past time that progressive/liberal media usher away the PEP’s too(Progressive Except Palestine).
Politico might fashion itself as ‘independent/centrist’(even if Ben Smith clearly sides with neocons vis-a-vi Israel time and time again). But I remember the Daily Kos essentially smearing Mondoweiss as Stormfront. That’s a shanda. Those kind of loonies belong at the fringes on the right. Pyjamas Media and other totally unserious vulgar neocon rags. Not at the Daily Kos.
Interesting you should mention the Garish Orange Site. This topic hasn’t been touched by anyone who is anyone at dKos. If you google “Josh Block” and dailykos.com, you only come up with six or seven listings, the only one of which is from 2011 is by a nobody (that would be me) in a comment on an open thread.
A site which has always prided itself on being progressive, for more and better Democrats and against the DLC has ignored a story about a scandal at a DLC-related think tank. Why would progressives and Democrats turn elsewhere for reality-based news and analysis?
He’ll probably become a spokesman for WINEP or Kristol’s Emergency Commitee for Israel.
RE: “He’ll probably become a spokesman for WINEP or Kristol’s Emergency Commitee for Israel.” ~ Shingo
MY COMMENT: And there is also the warmongering, proto-fascist Foundation for Defense of Democracies!
SEE: Thinktank that promoted war w/ Iraq (& now Iran) was funded by Steinhardt, Saban, Bronfman, Feith and Marcus (of Home Depot) – link to mondoweiss.net
P.S. SPEAKING OF PROTO-FASCISTS, ALSO SEE: A Christmas Message From America’s Rich, by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 12/24/11
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to commondreams.org
Perhaps he’ll join Scooter and Judy at the Hudson Institute. Isn’t that why Weinstein bought it, to provide a home for fellow landsmen?
(BTW, I’d love to see the list of names who were on that “Freedom Community” listserv. Why hasn’t this been made public? I’m guessing the one common thread you’d find would not be ideological position, but just old-fashioned ethnic identity.)
About time this standard was applied across the board, and open debate on the topic was the norm. However, there are cracks in the the separation wall Israel has attempted to build around itself and threaten anybody who dares breach it. It seems they just can’t help making more enemies through their hostility and black ops.
There is always a room for making more enemies.
But the more enemies they have, the more and more they will have to watch their back , and more and more they ‘ll become paranoic.
Multos timere debet, quem multi timeut” —”He, whom many fear ,ought to fear many.”
“…a decision solely made on the basis of the need for this community to privilege the ability to debate difficult topics freely, without fear of mischaracterization or character attacks,” she said in the email. “Your actions outside the community have caused too many to fear conversation within the community. That fear is not baseless, given your own actions.
sweeeet! thanks Kleinfeld.
kristol:
kristol is playing dumbo it isn’t impossible to be unapologetically pro-Israel—and publicly hostile to those who are anti-Israel and remain in good standing w/the dems ..it is just impossible to accuse people in good standing of being racist and anti semites based on their views of israel’s policies. even if a person publicly self identifies as anti israel (which none of the people block accuses do) that still is not justification of the charge of anti semitism.
more than anything i see this as a nail in the coffin of the ‘new anti semitism’ ( anti israel equals anti semite) which has been killed off so many times and keeps coming back. we need someone to stab that concept thru the heart til it’s dead and gone, kristol still doesn’t get it.
Pro Israel will equal anti America if they continue with their usual tactics.
“we need someone to stab that concept thru the heart til it’s dead and gone.”
no we don’t, because the anti-zionist community is doing quite well at this.
and exposing the real ‘new’ antisemitism, namely, zionism – from the backlash to its ridiculous claim that its zionist entity israel speaks for all jews.
“it is now impossible to be unapologetically pro-Israel—and publicly hostile to those who are anti-Israel and remain in good standing w/the dems ….”
Bill can be as unapologetically pro-Israel as he pleases.
He can still be as publicaly hostile to Americans who are Israel critics as he wants, but he’s going to get hostility right back.
Firing Block in a way that makes an example of him was a good first step.
Next step is teaching Israel Firsters what is expected, allowed and not allowed if they want to get along in this country.
This story is changing so quickly — I think this is another big development. I have been very active inside the Democratic Party for many years. Quite frankly, I usually avoided the subject of Israel in that environment — you know party unity and all of that good stuff. Given my public identity as a Democrat I also avoided saying anything in public on the question. After 911 I erred and mentioned that this was a blowback operation based on our support for Israel — I was quickly labelled an antisemite for this discretion. That hurt.
In any case, I see this as an important change and I will perhaps stick my toes into this Israel issue some time soon if the opportunity is there. One thing that is going to make it much easier is given the current GOP primary campaigns where rabid proIsrael statements are now being associated with my fellow Democrats as attacks on Obama (yes, in these circles, Obama is very popular and I avoid mentioning disagreements with any of his specific policies though we do have a fairly active policy discussions around issues that he hasn’t committed himself to). I know many here will not like these observations since most are well to the left of the Democratic Party, but that is the world that I work in right now.
Obviously this explains the situation the writers described in the “Holiday Recipe” blogpost feel themselves in. Rather that risk their careers, they make recantations and become silent on their beliefs.
It is a question of what is more important to someone- standing up for people in some distant country their tax dollars are hurting, or their career. Forgive me if this is judgmental- I myself may put career high on the list. Plus, there is acknowledgement, that if everybody is simplistically reduced to sides, then no side is completely right in what it is doing. So part of this is looking within ourselves and what we are made of and what is important to us.
God Bless you.
ToivoS,
“After 911 I erred and mentioned that this was a blowback operation based on our support for Israel — I was quickly labelled an antisemite for this discretion. That hurt.”
Order Paul Pillar’s new book, “Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform.” Kindle is $9.89.
Some fun quibbles:
Truman National Security Project founder Rachel Kleinfeld said to Block:
“Your actions outside the community have caused too many to fear conversation within the community.”
Okay, wonderful. Truly. Still had to smile a bit at what I suspect was the unintentional implications:
I.e., “See, you would have been okay if you had caused somewhat *less* than “too many” to fear conversation, or if you had only caused fear *outside* the community….”
And then there’s Irving Kristol’s comment “Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States…”
Clearly Irving forget to say that Jews especially don’t mind big military budgets in Israel too. ‘Course, it’s antisemitic for any non-jew to say this, but then again it’d be anti-semitic to discount what a jewish guy says just because he’s jewish too, so one just doesn’t know what to do…
Anti-semitic if you do, anti-semitic if you don’t I guess. As I once heard someone say which seems particularly appropriate with this issue, sort of leaves you on the storms of a dilemma.
Anyway, non-stormy Holidays to everyone out there.
Thanks Phil. The big daddy Kristol quote speaks to why so many Zionists are angry about Ron Paul’s foreign policy proposals.
yourstruly-
“and exposing the real ‘new’ antisemitism, namely, zionism – from the backlash to its ridiculous claim that its zionist entity israel speaks for all jews.”
It seems that the tremors of a major rupture in America’s Jewish community are now being seen and felt more frequently. The shame associated with supporting Israel’s criminal agenda is starting to really take hold and that’s good for all concerned parties.