Today the Forward publishes an incisive piece by JJ Goldberg implicitly defending MJ Rosenberg's use of the term "Israel Firster," because Rosenberg is a firebrand but he has always been an Israel lover.
He’s doing what he’s done for 43 years, mounting the barricades for the Jewish cause of a safe, peaceful Israel and damn what others think. The ground around him has moved, but he hasn’t.
Goldberg's defense is very much in the vein of Connie Bruck's defense at the New Yorker this week as "someone who is profoundly devoted to Israel and, at the same time, abhors the Israeli occupation."
Goldberg is right when he says that the ground has moved. The Likudniks have won, here and in Israel. Both Bruck and Goldberg's pieces are efforts at political restoration, anticipating the Peter Beinart moment that is coming soon, the Jewish spring, when liberal Zionists will seek to drive a political wedge issue inside the Establishment: Are you for an attack on Iran? Are you for the settlements? Are you for Israel committing political suicide? Then go to the Republicans.
Excerpt of Goldberg's bio of MJ Rosenberg:
In February 1969, New York’s weekly Village Voice published a scorching attack by an upstate college student on “self-abnegating Jewish leftists” who defended black militants and the Viet Cong but not the cause of Israel. “Moral cowards,” he called them, “trapped by your Long Island split-level childhood,” rejecting “the one element that gave you your goddamn social consciousness: your Jewish social idealism.”
“From this point on,” he wrote, whenever Israel’s rights were threatened, “I shall always choose the Jewish cause. Not blindly, not arbitrarily, but with always full knowledge of who I am and where I must be. If the barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew. ”
The essay, “To Uncle Tom and Other Such Jews,” caused a sensation. Reprinted in the tens of thousands, passed from hand to hand on campuses nationwide, it became the manifesto of Jewish anti-war and civil rights activists left stranded after 1967, when the New Left turned against Israel. They formed groups with names like Jewish Liberation Project and Radical Zionist Caucus, protesting assimilation and Palestinian terrorism in the same breath as capitalism, the Vietnam War and the “bourgeois Jewish Establishment.” Today, a generation later, many of them lead that establishment.
The author was a junior at the State University of New York at Albany named M.J. Rosenberg.
Not that he’s changed.
When they drive this political wedge this year-- during the Romney-Obama debates, or when my nephew goes to J Street's conference later this month, or when Peter Beinart's book is on the front page of the NYT Book Review-- my mother will say to me, What's wrong with what Obama and your nephew and this Beinart are saying, isn't that a good thing? And I'll say, Yes. And I will be on these folks' side (as I expect that Jodi Rudoren of the Times will be, too) because I want the mainstream discourse to change.
But on the $64,000 historical question, as Karl Marx might say, I don't see all this activity saving the Jewish state via partition. I might endorse such a project, because I'm a moderate. But it all feels like the temporizing that occurred before the Civil War. The status quo was unsustainable then as it is now for a simple reason: Nearly half the population has no rights, on a racial basis. They have had no rights for 45 years, and they're impatient, and nonviolent, god bless them. We're Americans, this is a no-brainer. Let's figure this out without bloodshed.
“… the Jewish spring …”
Beautiful phrase.
“Nearly half the population has no rights, on a racial basis. They have had no rights for 45 years, and they’re impatient, and nonviolent, god bless them.”
Maybe someone can explain why Israel decided to occupy the remnants of Palestine back in 1967 and why they continued to do so for 2 generations. What was the point?
Well, one reason that is claimed is that it provides a better defensive position. In other words, it is easier to militarily defend Tel Aviv when the army is occupying significant swathes of land miles away, like the Golan, the Sinai, Gaza, the Jordan River, and the West Bank. To me this seems like a good justification, and would like to know what you think of it.
One counterargument I can think of is that even if it’s true that occupying so much surrounding territory is a better military position, it can actually make the military position weaker, since so many occupied peoples are living on the territory. Expulsion isn’t helpful so much, because the there are masses of expelled people on the borders.
to give an example, if you have a little town and other people’s hill next to it, it seems helpful militarily to occupy the hill too. But a big strategic problem could be all the people in between who are occupied or expelled.
While there can be some truth to that claim, if military defense was the primary consideration, then the primary solution would be to create a system whereby the potential enemies would not wish to attack you. For the Israelis that means instituting a system from 1967 on whereby the people in the occupied territories would not want to attack the occupiers.
However, that would have entailed the Israelis giving the Palestinians full human and political rights, which their ideology will not admit. So they pretend to be interested in peace, while doing nothing which suggests that their statements to that effect are true.
I believe that the Israelis firmly believe that either 1) a miracle will happen, 2) the Palestinians will one day just leave or 3) they can ride the Tiger forever. The Israelis are profoundly stupid.
Occupying Gaza is insane. It always was. Why would any country in its right mind take responsibility under no outside pressure for a massive refugee camp with zero resources ?
And even the topography argument is nuts. Why take on all that population over a period of time where population growth is greater than 2 % per year?
I’m agnostic on all these defences.
Max Blumenthal has spoken well about liberal Zionists. Sure, they do good work(I’m speaking of genuine liberal Zionists like Beinart, not Jeff Goldberg/Alan Dershowitz/Spencer Ackerman and others), but what’s the point of attacking right-wing Zionism from a ‘moderate’ Zionist perspective.
This fits into the comfortable narrative that all that’s bad with today’s Israel – that a progressive Jewish élite crowd can’t defend – is somehow Likud’s fault and their enablers in the U.S.
Sure, they’ve pushed this direction the hardest. But it pays to be diligent: Who increased settlements the most? Likud or Labor?
Where is Labor picking up votes these days? The settlers.
Under which party did the bulk of the ethnic cleansing occur? Mapai(forerunner to Labor).
And shouldn’t we talk about Ben-Gurion’s letter to his son in 1931 where he openly and calmly stated that the Arabs had to be at least partially removed/transfered to make room for Jews? Before the rise of Hitler and ergo nullifying the whole ‘Holocaust made us do it, we were psychologically vulnerable’ hasbara cover that is pulled up whenever the Nakba is coming up for discussion.
So let’s pretend.
Let’s pretend that Netanyahu is defeated and the Likudniks(both in America and in Israel) lose relative power over the next few years.
Let’s even pretend that the war that Netanyahu and his allies(both the neocons and the Israel lobby) with Iran doesn’t come to fruition.
What’s different? Did the J14 protests even touch on the Occupation? It’s poison in Israel now. And will Labor, now openly courting settlers, do anything to advance peace, considering that Labor and it’s forerunner Mapai stood for most of the settlement activity and ethnic cleansing?
Half of Kadima could easily be placed in Likud.
But the Liberal Zionists have nothing on this. They don’t want to discuss it. It breaks the bubble. So they blame Bibi and his allies. And they do it from the ‘liberal Zionist’ perspective.
But from someone who isn’t emotionally attached to Zionism, someone looking from the outside of that debate, what concrete difference will their preferred policies do given the history of liberal Zionism, often a fig-leaf for the same practices but with far softer language. Shouldn’t these people remind themselves what the current Kadima party leader said after Cast Lead, gloating that she had demanded that ‘the IDF would act like real hooligans‘.
For me, this entire debate is filled with fraud.
Because even J Street has said that it won’t even debate Palestinians on these topics, only Jews. Why? Because Palestinians can’t be argued with. Their words are too powerful and sear through any propaganda effort.
I don’t want to be too harsh, J Street and the others do good work. But ultimately, they have no answers to the larger questions. They simply don’t want to stare into the abyss and see that what is happening now has been brewing for many decades and it’s not an ‘extremist fringe’ responsible for it, it’s been mainstream policy across the political spectrum for generations.
But that would shatter the illusions and would deprive them of the moral indignation they so desperately crave, so they blame it all on Bibi and his allies.
But I ask; who are the bigger frauds here?
The old “hold up a mirror” trick…
Truly great post Krauss, great points.
Well said Krauss. It’s not about Bibi. Even though he is worse than the opposition. Kadima ran Cast lead so it’s not like they are My Little Pony either. It’s about the whole Israeli system. Including the judiciary. The army. Everything.
They bet their country on YESHA. And the check is about to be served
Yes. Well said. And by extension if the entire Israeli political spectrum (and its supporters in the US) is in on the assimilation/fraud, what does that do to their credibility in stridently advancing the 2ss as the only possible outcome? Pegged at 0.000, imo.
Past is prologue is probably a cliché, but it fits here. Assimilate and annex. Wink, wink. Assimilate some more. 2ss is just a matter of negotiations. What are you, anti-Israel or somethin’? Wink, wink, wink. Just give us 10-20 more years and $100B to make the necessary but difficult adjustments. Winks all around. Party in Ariel.
There’s probably only two things that indicate that some Israeli good faith is entering into the search for a resolution. Arab parties/Hadash included in the GoI (to the exclusion of Shas as constant member, and Israel becoming self-sufficient in water. Neither is happening or is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
As you and Krauss have said the politics are constant.
“I don’t want to be too harsh ….”
Thanks for being so honest, Krauss. That was like a breath of fresh air. You may not want to be harsh, but I do. And I shall.
I don’t want to be too harsh, J Street and the others do good work.
Huh? J-Street – the ultimate Liberal (cough) Zionist outfit? Their schizophrenic BS press releases they churn out are downright comical at times. Nobody takes them seriously. They just provide cover to the real scum that happens behind the scenes — and what’s really sickening is they know it — and there’s no way they will expose it.
MJ Rosenberg and Peter Beinart and Phil Weiss have a hard row to hoe. Hardest for those who are (in almost any sense) Zionists. Not easy to be a Zionist (of almost any current flavor of Zionism) and a humane person. One thing you’ve gotta do is tell it like it is. You must “speak truth to power” (to USA, to Israel, to American Jews, to the EU, to the world).
It’s not only the Arab folks living in the OPTs who suffer. The Arabs of Israel are losing (by the increasing hostility and fearfulness of the Jewish conquerors) whatever rights they may once have had by the “grace” of the Jewish conquerors.
The Jews of Palestine before 1948 were in many political/philosophical camps and had many opinions. Not all believed in a STATE, and not all wanted to get a state by use of bombs and bayonets — as Judah Magnes more or less wrote.
But the Statists prevailed, Jewish terrorism ensued, to eject the British, and then Jewish-initiated war ensued. How else would the majority indigenes of Palestine (then called Arabs) (now generally called Palestinians) have ceded political power after the British left?
The war (and the preceding terrorism) were unnecessary if a ONE DEMOCRATIC STATE were the goal. But they were definitely necessary if the goal of carving out a Jewish State were the goal. Be clear on it. The GOAL was not necessary! Not necessary! But, given the goal, the means were necessary.
OK, it’s today, now what? The goal has SHIFTED. Now the militants want all the territory (well, they always did, but said other things from time to time), and are not ready to return to the pre-1967-line. This unreadiness to return to pre-1967 IS NOT NECESSARY! Not Necessary! But if you adopt the goal of greater Israel — which secures to Israel the water resources of OPTs and southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights — then (given that goal) — the MEANS ARE NECESSARY: violation of international law, violation of international rules of war, constant opposition to all neighbors, constant irremediable enemies as far as the eye can see, and even farther (in Iran), in short, A SMALL COUNTRY SURROUNDED BY (self-made, unnecessary: unnecessary) ENEMIES.
No-one ever remembers that there is a difference between people who are your enemies because of your crimes and illegal aspirations and those who are your enemies without such reason, perhaps because they want what you legitimately hold.
Peace on pre-1967 now seems possible (pre-67 Israel nowadays seems legitimate in almost all eyes), even if it may not have seemed possible in 1966. Times change. But Israeli militants are hard-wired for perpetual war, a dangerous thing due to their highly effective military (thanks, Uncle Sam!).
So, good luck MJRoesnberg. Good luck Peter Beinart. Good luck Phil Weiss. To stay the course is to stay humane. And: illegitimi non carborumdum!
I remember mentioning to a very active Trotskyist in 1967 that their criticism of Israel’s seizure of the West Bank was kind of lame. They had many many Jewish members and supporters at the time.
This was a comment by the editor of the satirical magazine private Eye to an inquiry into the media in the UK
“A reasonable editor could not have thought ‘I must hack into a murdered girl’s phone’ … those things seem to me self-evidently unreasonable.”
Highly relevant to to Israel. It is self evidently unreasonable to run an apartheid system. How did the country dupe itself for so long? Why didn’t anyone in the US stop them?
RE: “Goldberg is right when he says that the ground has moved. The Likudniks have won, here and in Israel.” ~ Weiss
SEE: The Dilemmas of Israeli Power, by Roger Cohen, New York Times Op-Ed, 2/13/12
ENTIRE OP-ED – link to nytimes.com
* P.S. Bibi Netanyahu is a racist!
Bibi Netanyahu’s father is a racist!
Bibi Netanyahu’s son is a racist!
SEE: Netanyahu Family’s Racist History: Like Father, Like Son, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 7/12/11
LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com
P.S. ALSO SEE – Dear liberal American Jews: Please don’t betray Israel, by Dahlia Scheindlin, +972 Magazine,
2/14/12:
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to 972mag.com
P.P.S. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR MJ ROSENBERG!
FACEBOOK
M J Rosenberg
Public Figure
111 “likes”
TO LIKE – link to facebook.com
TWITTER
Best way to tell Dershowitz to go to hell (1) picket his classroom or (2) tell your friends to follow MJ Rosenberg on twitter.
MJ Rosenberg
@MJayRosenberg
TO FOLLOW – link to twitter.com
I think the citadel that is the New York Review has to fall before we can start talking about a Jewish spring. Just a few weeks ago they ran a piece about Hebron by arch Zionist Jonathan Freedland. That is just not kosher.
link to nybooks.com
with fear and warmaking the driving force in u.s. politics has there ever been a time when the future of our nation was so dependent upon what’s taking place in a distant land, as it is today in regards to the struggle for justice in palestine? think of it, we stay the course in the mideast, with the tail continuing to wag the dog and over the cliff we go into an iran war that could lead to wwiii en route to doomsday. alternatively, america wakes up in time to shake its collective head and say, “whoa there, what the hell are we getting into”, then severs this disasterous special relationship with the zionist entity, forcing it to sit down with palestinians for the purpose of working things out on the basis of one equals one with liberty and justice for all. meanwhile, here in the homeland, the public is asking how did we put ourselves in a position where the tail’s actually wagging the dog, what to do to make sure this never happens again and where best to go from here.
To think, Dershowitz calls this guy “absolute anti-Israel bigot” and is on a proudly announced jihad to destroy his career. Dershowitz must be about the worst person in the world.
Chris why use “jihad” to describe Dershowitz’ actions … I m sure you did not mean it as a reference to Islam/Muslims but still I find it fully inappropriate …
Because it is like a personal mission and a holy war for Dershowitz, so it just fit.
Speaking of the New Yorker, David Remnick has a pretty good piece on Israel in this week’s Talk of the Town section (it’s short).
link to newyorker.com
Very good analysis. It is not going to end well for Israel.
“Netanyahu knows that young American Jews are split, with the growing Orthodox community solidly in his corner, and the less observant and secular majority—a majority that is increasingly assimilated and uninterested in Jewish learning—losing their attachment to Israel. The Prime Minister clearly feels that the fervor of the few offers him more than the disillusion and drift of the many”