At the Daily Beast, Beinart tries to get to the bottom of the Democratic Party’s rush to insert Jerusalem back into its platform in Charlotte and exposes the panic that consumes politicians who fear they’re going to be called not pro-Israel enough and be attacked from the right on the Israel question. As my friend Yakov Hirsch says, There is no better example of the power of the lobby.
Beinart captures the panic inside the White House: “Massachusetts state treasurer (and former AIPAC chair) Steve Grossman [who is a big donor] screamed at Obama campaign Jewish outreach director Ira Forman over the issue. But by that time, top campaign strategists David Axelrod and David Plouffe had already informed Obama about the controversy.”
Why does the lobby have such rightwing power over liberal Democrats? Beinart says AIPAC has polluted our political culture the same way McCarthy did:
More than any other single organization, AIPAC has helped create a climate in which being deemed insufficiently “pro-Israel” is almost as dangerous to a politicians’ career as being deemed insufficiently “anti-communist” was in the early 1950s. But this very climate gives politicians and activists an incentive to keep raising the “pro-Israel” bar higher and higher so as to gain an advantage over their political foes. As the definition of “pro-Israel” becomes more extreme, it becomes harder and harder to reconcile with a commitment to Palestinian statehood, America’s standing in the Arab and Muslim world or even the simple realities of the foreign policy-making process. The people least fettered by those concerns—those least concerned about international opinion and Palestinian dignity—thus wield power over everyone else since they can keep establishing new “pro-Israel” litmus tests that their political foes find difficult to meet. …
In the early 1950s, when Joseph McCarthy made going to war for Chiang Kai-Shek the litmus test of being anti-communist, Dwight Eisenhower wouldn’t defend George Marshall against the charge. Last week, when the Republican Jewish Coalition made breaking with more than 60 years of U.S. policy on Jerusalem the test of being pro-Israel, AIPAC wouldn’t defend the Democratic Party.
This analysis is insufficient. The lobby is certainly McCarthyite. But the McCarthy battle was a fight for public opinion. McCarthy’s anti-Communism was broadly shared by a conservative American polity; and the White House that McCarthy manipulated was a Republican one. Many Democrats opposed McCarthy– and liberal public opinion ultimately brought McCarthy down.
In this case the broad public really doesn’t care one way or another about Jerusalem, and the deals are going down in back rooms, led by a political elite, the rightwing Jewish establishment inside political life. AIPAC draws its power from Jewish community consensus: American Jews are afraid to criticize Israel publicly, and that’s why AIPAC is able to panic a Democratic White House; Obama and the Democratic Party are damned if they do anything to alienate American Jews. They know that even the center-left of that community– Haim Saban – speaks in favor of settlements when endorsing the president. J Street and Obama learned this lesson in 2009, when they couldn’t build Jewish community support to drive a political wedge against settlements. For the same reason, Beinart got little traction with his liberal Zionist manifesto earlier this year; few in the Establishment or Jewish organizations came out to support him; even Paul Krugman was afraid to raise his voice above a whisper. The bottom line is that the Jewish community is actually very conservative on Israel/Palestine, and it’s empowered, and people are afraid to take it on. Barney Frank refused to come out against settlements unless an anti-settlement activist could produce the names of 5000 Jews in his district who would support him, because Frank was afraid of bucking the Jewish community. That same community consensus is evident in my favorite tidbit in Peter Beinart’s book: liberal Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz led the cheering section for Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to Congress and got umpteen standing ovations for devouring the West Bank; she jumped to her feet and did big clap motions with her hands to get the rest of the Congress to jump to their feet.
If a mainstream politician actually sought to politicize Israel’s devouring of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and came out against the settlements as damaging to the US and Israel and Palestinians, and called Netanyahu a Joseph McCarthy, he or she would galvanize and lead public opposition to settlements. We can see that political opportunity in the Democratic convention rank and file’s uprising when the Jerusalem plank was railroaded on them, and in Ron Paul’s following. There is widespread popular opposition to the occupation that hasn’t found a voice.
But Jews against the occupation (who now include Beinart and Remnick and Klein) will waste their time if they do this work inside the Jewish community. They have to build a broad coalition against the lobby, of Jews and non-Jews. The risk, of course, is that such a coalition will actually reflect liberal public opinion of the sort that ended Jim Crow and pioneered gay rights; and that coalition will see no benefit in supporting a Jewish state, as opposed to a multicultural democracy, in Israel; that it will be a liberal coalition that will scoff at what even the leftwing component of the Jewish community, Americans for Peace Now, is compelled to profess– God gave the land to the Jews. But that’s a risk well worth taking.
Perhaps you could point me to some other country in the region or within the group of Muslim majority countries that is instructive of the multicultural democratic society of which you speak?
That might help your argument for the creation of one in Israel.
Should we look to Turkey as a model for Israel, or Myanmar, or maybe Indonesia? Iran or Pakistan? Egypt? Tunisia or Algeria?
Ok, you live in a tough neighborhood, so that justifies apartheid? Is that a light unto the nations?
That is quite the problem isnt it, Mr. Weiss.
As we can see, these problems exist outside of Israel, with the peoples that Israel is having issues with, not just in the region (in every country in that region where treatment of minority rights is clustered in the lower quartile amongst nations by the dominant religious group) but also the regions and countries where this religious group has immigrated to recently in European Christian majority nations that have adopted the multicultural value and culture neutral secular state that you cherish. What happens to these nations when this religious group becomes a majority there.
Youre focussed on changing the wrong groups behavior.
The majority population of the area is not a welcoming multicultural liberal polity who deeply respects minority “Other’s” human rights. If they were, then you would have a much better argument.
The problem being that the Right of Return in the Israeli Democracy (ie mass Arab Muslim immigration) will not produce a multicultural liberal democracy that you advocate. It will in fact produce something worse than what is currently the status quo in that territory, as we can see in the treatment of minorities in surrounding Arab Muslim majority countries.
nice divert EV but it doesn’t cut it. it’s not relevant what ‘other countries in the region are doing’. what’s relevant is we’re perpetuating massive human rights abuses by supporting israel. so it’s the most natural thing in the world for you to grab the top comment and juxtapose israel to.. Turkey , Myanmar, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia or Algeria. because it’s a diversion to the point. if it’s our money we should be comparing it to our own values..which israel doesn’t share.
the focus on the post is the american people, the ones who shut up about it and don’t do a thing.
so no wonder you want to insert Myanmar and Indonesia into the mix.
#hasbara fail. do you have anything to say about the topic?
EscapeVelocity September 15, 2012 at 5:45 pm
“The problem being that the Right of Return in the Israeli Democracy (ie mass Arab Muslim immigration) “
The problem is you believe bullsh*te peddled by the Hasbara. Mush for people who can’t be bothered checking (or thinking).
The Palestinian claim to RoR is via UNGA res 194, written 12 months before UNRWA was formed and based on this definition, which says nothing about lineal descendants.
Palestinians would be returning home, they are not immigrants. And you should have thought about that before you ethnically cleansed them out under the barrel of a gun. Not a problem, a right.
As usual, Annie, what you childishly call a hasbara fail is actually a very cogent point. You patronizingly ascribe a belief in liberal democracy to people who have shown little interest in it and little ability to accomplish it and then leave another group of people to be the subjects of your experiment.
Every time Annie calls something a hasbara fail, it’s a sign that she knows there’s truth in it.
ZscapeVelocity, Heaven forbid anyone should do to you what you do to others.
“The Palestinian claim to RoR is via UNGA res 194, written 12 months before UNRWA was formed and based on this definition, which says nothing about lineal descendants.”
Non-binding GA resolution. But please, continue to push this point of view, which no one outside the partisan pro-Palestinian community subscribes to. Your best friends are the extreme settlers, as usual.
“It will in fact produce something worse than what is currently the status quo in that territory,”
No, it will bring something much better for the Palestinians.
No doubt Greater Germany, lebenshraum was much better for the Germans.
Arab Muslims have plenty of room, in their wide swaths of territory.
“Arab Muslims have plenty of room, in their wide swaths of territory.”
Which you keep stealing and/ or destabilising.
great post phil, you know you’ve hit a nerve when the hasbrats grab top comment w/ a divert.
one thing i don’t agree with
In this case the broad public really doesn’t care one way or another about Jerusalem
i think the ney vote actually reflects a much large segment of the broad public than we realize. we wouldn’t have even known what they thought had that vote not been called or had it not been available on c span. it was an eye opener.
the other 98%, we matter. we’ve been psychologically kowtowed into silence, there’s the market. and yes, the risk well worth taking.
I care and many I know care that are not Jewish, we like both a jewish homeland and a Palestinian homeland living side by side, we also know that it is not the everyday live and let live Israeli’s at fault for the settlements and the other miriad of injustices to the Palestinians, its the far right leadership. The public just needs to be informed, they need to know that what we have been told all these years is all one sided, the public needs to see the lobby factually discredited. SPREAD WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE AT MONDOWEISS, SPREAD THE WRITINGS OF MJ ROSENBERG. PRAISE KLEIN, BRIEBERT AND THE OTHERS WHO ARE SPEAKING OUT. GIVE OUR POLITICIANS REASONS TO BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT ALONE IF THEY CONFRONT THE LOBBY AIPAC AND ALL THEIR OTHER SNEAKING PARTNERS. Sorry I yelled, but DAMN !!! YOU GUYS HAVE A BREEZE BEHIND YOU, SO TURN IT INTO A WINDSTORM.
What can the average concerned American like me do ? TELL US !!!!
What can the average concerned American like me do ? TELL US !!!!
you said it yourself, spread the word. see those widgets up there?
22Facebook
17Twitter
0StumbleUpon
1Reddit
0Google
40 people have spread the word already. if you belong to a listserve, spread it. your friends? spread it. letters to the editors? spread it. your congressperson? spread it. the bridge club..you guessed it.. spread it. golf buddies..spread it. knitting circle..spread it. mother in law..spread it. start talking about it, that’s the key. and get it on reddit!
What can the average concerned American like me do ? TELL US !!!!
Well for starters avoid all caps and excessive !!!! points. Then talk to your friends and colleagues in simply English sentences and engage them in discussion. If you want to do more there are many organizations out there who you might want to join. If you are really adventurous you might want to go to Israel and join some of the demonstrations happening on the West Bank.
“…go to Israel and join some of the demonstrations happening on the West Bank.”
The West Bank isn’t in Israel. Folk should chose words very precisely at all times.
“… and get it on reddit!”
Oh, Annie… and you were on such a roll, too! Spread it on reddit! ;-p
~~ cream cheese on a bagel..spread it! (mmmmm..nom.nom.nom.nom…)
hee hee hee! (who sez i add nothing to the conversation?!)
who sez i add nothing to the conversation?!
you add lots(!) to the conversation uzi. funny too. i have only visited reddit a couple times, in fact i had never even heard of it til the widget appeared here. not that i can recall anyway.i’ve just heard thru the grapevine…it’s ever (ever ever ever) so influential.
so is it?
“Ok, you live in a tough neighborhood, so that justifies apartheid? Is that a light unto the nations?”
Oh, that’s the stuff, Phil! Tax ‘em with the “light unto the nations” libel.
But really, are you sure you are ready for the consequences of the overwhelming Israeli guilt you will engender with that “light unto the nations stuff.
And by the way, when contrasted against what the Israelis and their American cohort are actually doing “apartheid” is a compliment, a euphemism.
EscapeVelocity: Perhaps in turn you can point to another one of immigrant rule that has been ruling over the native indigenous people and have been terrorizing them into submission for more than 6 decades denying over 80% the right of return?
Are you anti-immigrant? Are you a fan of open borders and mass immigration to Western Nations?
Palestinians arent immigrants. They are the indigenous people of the present country of Israel who were forced out by the government of Israel. Do you approve of countries expelling civilians from their homes? Did you find nothing wrong with Nazi Germany expelling its Jews? Conversely, are you a fan of mass immigration of Jews to Israel? Can’t you see where your viewpoint is hypocritical?
i’m pro immigrant and a fan of people living where they want to live. yes. that’s the way our country was built. but would i support immigrants kicking me out of my home and land? hell no.
i totally support mexicans immigrating here. the bonuses they add to our country far outweigh any negatives. the agriculture of my state is completely dependent on their labor and expertise and culturally we wouldn’t be who we are without them. and that’s just one ethnicity. SF sans chinese immigration? are you kidding me? immigrants is what makes this country beautiful to live in. we’ve also massively benefited culturally from those who came over as slaves. not that i would consider that any natural form of immigration. we wouldn’t be who we are without immigration.
EscapeVelocity: Why can’t you just answer the question? A “no” would suffice. Palestinians ARE of the land. They are not from anywhere else, they have no other nationality. Now where are you from? I mean REALLY from!
We’re you a fan if mass Jewish immigration to Palesrine ore 1948?
And speaking of open borders, you don’t seem to have a problem with the one Israel is constantly moving and violating between Israel and the West Bank.
“i totally support mexicans immigrating here. the bonuses they add to our country far outweigh any negatives. the agriculture of my state is completely dependent on their labor and expertise and culturally we wouldn’t be who we are without them.”
From what I’ve seen up here in the Northwest, agriculture is just the beginning. They will make positive contributions, big ones, in every area.
Precisely shingo.
“As Jews were immigrating into Palestine, and then later when it became Israeli, into Israel, that didn’t seem to bother anybody that there was a demographic threat being presented to the Palestinian population. All the Jews immigrating into Palestine over the last 65 or 70 years presented a serious demographic threat, but somehow that never appeared as an issue to others. So once again, this whole issue is somehow mired in double standard & MYTHOLOGY, & a serious lack of honesty.” – Miko Peled 06/21/2012
i know, that’s what i meant by referencing culture. wrt expertise, specifically i was thinking of the wine industry it’s a massive industry, nearly 90% of entire American wine production. it’s also very fashionable for rich people getting into it who have no idea what they are doing.
“Are you anti-immigrant? Are you a fan of open borders and mass immigration to Western Nations?”
I’m with you, Escape, old pal! Controlled immigration, all the way, high standards, rigorous investigation of applicants. Yes, as an American, I will protest vigorously when Israel vomits forth its population and they want to come to America. We need to make sure non of them are guilty of war crimes, breaches of human rights or theft before we let them in. Why, a look at their ideological compatibility with an egalitarian country wouldn’t be amiss, along with a peek into their political activities.
I’m glad you understand how serious the problem is.
I cant answer the question because Ive been censored. Ive posted multiple in depth responses in a reasoned tone.
But alas…they have been punted by the powers that be at this site.
lol. thanks for the comic relief EV.
“I cant answer the question because Ive been censored. Ive posted multiple in depth responses in a reasoned tone.”
I guess nobody told you punctuation counts, here at The Mondoweiss? Too bad, isn’t it, all those “multiple in depth responses in a reasoned tone” deleted for a few missing apostrophes. Oh well, try again, and don’t forget to push “Post Comment” this time.
And BTW, look up the definition of “censored”. You can’t “squat” on a blog the way you do on stolen land.
Would you like my email address EscapeVelocity? Then I could copy and paste what MW supposedly did not allow. Is EscapeVelocity “fredblogs” by any chance?
Let Israel do what it wants to do .Just start doing it the way those countries ( Myanmar,Indonesia,or Syria) do. Don’t exploit US and force war on US for Israel or steal money in so many ways Don’t distort the US laws for a filthy existence at the expenses of other.
uh, what??? you can’t be serious. are you kidding? this is a non-argument, completely empty…vapid.
>> Should we look to Turkey as a model for Israel, or Myanmar, or maybe Indonesia? Iran or Pakistan? Egypt? Tunisia or Algeria?
Funny – Israel is touted as a Western democracy but, rather than act like one, it seems to prefer to live up to its unofficial motto:
“Israel: We may not be as good as the best but, hey, at least we’re not as bad as the worst!”™
So don’t create a multicultural democratic society in Israel.
Just shut it down. I’ll take that too. In fact, I’ll take you’re just not taking our money.
Go play your evil little games on your own.
“So don’t create a multicultural democratic society…”
Gee, seems to me if you ingathered Jews from all over the world in a place, you would whether you liked it or not, have a multiculturasl society, with some slight unifomity in monotheism. Oh wait, I’m leaving out the seculars and atheist Jews, so scratch that religious uniformity.
What a whirlwind of pretenses, all based on anti-Semitic tropes, Zionism uses.
Stalinist sometimes seems to be a more appropriate descriptor than McCarthyite — compared to the Israel lobby, McCarthy was strictly small change. The complex and crushing apparatus of the Israel lobby reminds one almost of the Soviet bureaucracy in terms of authoritarian (even totalitarian) political culture and tone.
seanm
Remember, who were in charge in the SU under Stalin, who was nothing but a figurehead, as our recent presidents are?
Those people immigrated to Israel and the USA, brought their knowledge of propaganda with them, set up shop and now run these two countries, in addition to a few more, according to the old recept.
Communist = nazi = zionist, they are just different words for the same cancer in our society, they are all political criminals.
LOL, Sean. It’s a new addition for my list of pro-Palestinian hyperbole.
It’s more whining by those who can’t get others to adopt their opinions.
“It’s more whining by those who can’t get others to adopt their opinions”
Like everybody adopts your opinions? Yep, if I ever saw anybody engender a tsunami of consesnsus, it’s you Hophmi, “The Man from AIPAC”
Where is the Black Caucas on this?
Where is the Black Caucas on this?
beholden to the lobby like the rest of them.
“…liberal Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz led the cheering section for Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to Congress and got umpteen standing ovations for devouring the West Bank; she jumped to her feet and did big clap motions with her hands to get the rest of the Congress to jump to their feet…”
“liberal democrat…big hand clap motions with her hands [for Netanyahu].”
That’s actually a really pathetic image. To visualize somebody traducing their own values like that…
”American Jews are afraid to be critical of Israel, and that’s why AIPAC is able to panic a Democratic White House; Obama and the Democratic Party are damned if they do anything to alienate American Jews. They know that even the center-left of that community– Haim Saban — speaks in favor of settlements when endorsing Obama. J Street and Obama learned this lesson in 2009, when they couldn’t build Jewish community support to drive a wedge against settlements. For the same reason, Beinart got very little traction with his liberal Zionist manifesto earlier this year; very few people in the Establishment or Jewish organizations came out to support him; even Paul Krugman was afraid to raise his voice above a whisper. The bottom line is that the Jewish community is actually very conservative on Israel/Palestine, and it’s empowered, and people are afraid to take it on. ”
To move the Establishment & Jewish orgs and a majority of in between passive Jews ..and do it quickly you have to introduce something ‘scary’ to them into this battle —ANTI AMERICAN.
McCarthyite or not, this is ‘the’ flash point word for the US public and all those politicians who play the Patriot card……always has been. Politicians in particular avoid this accusation like the plague, even on their opponents, cause they know it would open up pandora’s box and start a fire storm fight over what is and isn’t Anti American and almost all of them could be accused of it.
Anti American puts the Zionist on the defense…let them try defending their actions against the accusations of being Anti- America.
American Jews on the fence must fear this slur more than they fear the zionist establishment, more than they fear being critical of Israel…iow, they must have an ‘overwhelming’ reason to go against the zionist and zionist Israel.
As the editor of Adbuster said here not long ago ..you need to go on the offense against the zios and Israel, not play defense against their Anti – semitism slurs.
A little fear in people can be a very healthy thing.
American says: “…As the editor of Adbuster said here not long ago ..you need to go on the offense against the zios and Israel, not play defense against their Anti – semitism slurs.
A little fear in people can be a very healthy thing.”
Yeah. I’ve often felt that trying to be fair-minded, seeking a compromise all can live with, etc is a mistake.
Lay out your whole demand. Let them try to be fair minded, seek a compromise, attempt to assuage your concerns, etc.
“let them try…”
Totally agree, personally. But the other day, on twitter (sorry, I’m new to its protocol and possibilities) I responded to an Arab girl/woman (that I didn’t know) who said that people were trying to humiliate her by questioning her “commitment” to non-violence. My take/response was that she shouldn’t let others define her and that she should be aggressive in response.
She said, surprisingly to me, that aggression was not an option as a woman of color, and that “only” [we] white males can get away with the aggressive pushback option. I countered that people treat you as you let them treat you. She favorited.
It was a profoundly enlightening exchange. Here was a woman who had a deep interest in justice, saying that her situation/upbringing made it difficult to pursue that justice aggressively.
Point being, anecdotally, and this is new to me, even anecdotally, that aggressive pushback may be problematic and not always possible.
ritzl says: “…Point being, anecdotally, and this is new to me, even anecdotally, that aggressive pushback may be problematic and not always possible.”
The Zionists have created a lovely little trap by demanding that the Palestinians restrict themselves to non-violence. The truth of the matter is that no liberation movement has ever succeeded without violence.
There’s nothing funnier, in a sick way, than Americans and Israelis, the political heirs of Washington and Ben-Gurion, grilling Palestinians over whether their national liberation movement is sufficiently non-violent.
Great comment William!
who can forget the great Rabbi Michael Lerner opining that Palestinians were “not non-violent enough” a stone against a tank is after all violence, how more so when deployed against infantry,
(Sorry Ms Robbins i commented on thread when in Zurich that now i am in Singapore i cant find, its been a long week, i offended Annie unintentionally, but still reserve the right to find her comment very funny, in the most innocent of ways, it cheered me up quite a bit, didn’t mean to cast any aspersions, but really enjoyed the passing mentions of Linguistics)
i am part of a slow bleeding of resources out to the far east, which presages not the end of euro/american power but what will become its very very violent contestation, you know what they are like those euro/ams with all their sidewiders, hellfires, and f∞ aircraft, incorrigibly violent but great adherents of ahimsa for those others, look at the respect shown to to the likes of Rachel Corrie or Muhammad Awad, should be working but i link to a thesis by Nathaniel D George. utilizing newly declassified material, i have no idea how to shorten urls, ah sussed it very cool never done html before, if that what this is, about Americas pivotal role in the Lebanese crisis of ’73, its good and interesting piece of work.
American imperialism and the Lebanon crisis of 1973
In case you haven’t figured it yet, try http://www.tinyurl.com and you can shorten any url you like, gamal.
On Fire! In a very good way…
@American,
Derision works just as well too.
“MRW says:
@American,
Derision works just as well too”>>>>>>>>
Yea, once upon time I though reason, truth and common sense appeals would work. Then I though ridicule and derision would work.
But face it…..when we ridicule the smug retard zios all we get back is more smug retarded hasbara.
They want to play the anti semite card game for Israel?
Fine.. I have the ultimate trump card….Anti American.
Yeah, and when they are “self-hating”, which hyphenated half do the Hebrews hate? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist :)
“…If a mainstream politician actually sought to politicize Israel’s devouring of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and came out against the settlements as damaging to the US and Israel and Palestinians…”
Most Americans don’t actually give a damn about the Palestinians. Moreover, the ‘Indian argument,’ the Biblical mandate, etc., while ultimately invalid, offer a line of defense sufficient to make many Americans shrug and wander off.
On the other hand, most Americans do care about getting dragged into another war. I think a more fruitful line of attack is to emphasize how Israel has been seeking to embroil us in war with Iran.
We might or might not continue to support Israel if it is seen as immoral. We definitely won’t continue to support it if it is seen as seeking to involve us in war. Push how Israel misrepresented its agents as Americans when it was soliciting assassinations inside Iran, etc.
On the other hand, Jerusalem may have been Obama at his finest (such as it is).
Putting Jerusalem back in the platform doesn’t actually mean anything: it just takes us back to where we were — where the President never actually makes the change. So Obama gets pro-Israel credit for doing it: he’s that much more protected against charges that he doesn’t really love Israel.
Then, he can announce ‘we’re not imposing any red lines on Iran at all’ in relative safety — and that is something that makes a substantial difference.
Think if he had both resisted putting Jerusalem back in the platform and refused to impose a ‘red line.’ He’d have created a credible line of attack for the Republicans. As it is, they’re stuck with ‘he doesn’t want to have a war.’ Well, neither do most Americans. Good luck with that one.
Add that everybody saw the reaction on the floor when that amendment was ramrodded through. A meaningless piece of rhetoric may have been stuck back in the platform — but the credibility of the Israel lobby took a huge hit. As a declared non-Israel lover, I’m pretty happy with it all.
Really, we need to look ahead. Given the general trends, there’s a pretty good chance that in 2016, Obama is going to get replaced by a social conservative populist along the lines of Mike Huckabee — who is a big Israel lover. The Democrats are going to win this one, get stuck with the bag for our continuing decline over the next four years, and lose big in 2016.
The goal shouldn’t be to undermine our support for Israel so much as to undermine the basis for that support — to so discredit Israel and the Israel lobby as to make it as indefensible a cause as possible by 2016.
Yeah, you have to be at least aware of that as a possibility. That meaning this was a way (artificial opening) to enable Obama to re-assert/reclaim the “high ground.” But then the voice vote debacle showed how contrived that effort was. As American said above, “Un-American.” Big loser as a vote-getter/ploy.
ritzl says: “…But then the voice vote debacle showed how contrived that effort was. As American said above, “Un-American.” Big loser as a vote-getter/ploy…”
Not really. What are those who were upset at the display of AIPAC’s power going to do? Vote for Romney?
On the other hand, it definitely served to inoculate Obama from any charge that he doesn’t love Israel the bestest. See what he did? He went the extra mile.
For something that doesn’t mean anything…and got room to maneuver to lay down (or more precisely, to refuse to lay down) the law where it does mean something. Yes we will repeat our fluff about Jerusalem being the capitol. No, we won’t go to war with bloody Iran for you.
Then that would mean the 100 million Millennial voters in 2016 would be voting Republican. I doubt it.
On the other hand, Jerusalem may have been Obama at his finest (such as it is).
Putting Jerusalem back in the platform doesn’t actually mean anything: it just takes us back to where we were — where the President never actually makes the change. So Obama gets pro-Israel credit for doing it: he’s that much more protected against charges that he doesn’t really love Israel.
Then, he can announce ‘we’re not imposing any red lines on Iran at all’ in relative safety — and that is something that makes a substantial difference.
Think if he had both resisted putting Jerusalem back in the platform and refused to impose a ‘red line.’ He’d have created a credible line of attack for the Republicans. As it is, they’re stuck with ‘he doesn’t want to have a war.’ Well, neither do most Americans. Good luck with that one.
This was as beautiful an analysis as I’ve seen or read on this issue in a long time.
You play out all the cards in a perfect manner, one by one, and demolish the well-meaning but ultimately inaccurate ramblings of Beinart.
No, this isn’t McCarthyism for the reasons you laid out. It’s a far more complicated issue, it’s psychological, it’s inherently a Jewish issue(no matter how you try to go around that fact, anyone who is brutually honest realizes this) and it’s based on fear.
Fear is the ultimate arbiter of this, which is why it’s so powerful. It isn’t merely a paranoid fear, like the anti-communist craze of the 1950s.
It’s an existential fear. Whether that fear should be so remains up for discussion, but it remains to this day existential.
This is, by the way, also why I scoff at the notion of the supposed influence of the Christian Evangelicals. If they were so powerful, how come the Democratic party doens’t even blink when it comes to issues like abortion? Abortion is a bigger issue for these people than Israel is.
No, the Christians are the fig leaf deployed to avoid the harder questions; those that you go straight at in this article.
Bravo!
This isn’t limited to Sheldon Adelson. He has tons of enablers inside the Jewish community. Saban is just one out of many.
And then there’s the issue of ethnic loyalty – as well as fear(often overlooked) – in this entire issue. We all know what happend to Goldstone. They even went after his son’s bar mitzvah.
We all know what happened to Beinart himself, who voiced more mild criticisms than you did – or for that matter Walt/Mearsheimer.
He got butchered.
The internal discipline of dissident Jews is actually far harsher than that for outside critics. After all, Mearsheimer/Walt got famous, Beinart was portrated as a tragic, sad self-hating Jew who was cast aside, damned by an entire community and banished into exile, as a warning example of others to follow.
Again: fear is the driving force, above all others.
Visceral fear of independent thinkers and critics.
Deep down, these people live in a shadow all their lives.
They don’t really trust anyone.
Paranoia is what they accuse everyone else of.
Yet it is their own most defining feature.
Krauss says: “…This is, by the way, also why I scoff at the notion of the supposed influence of the Christian Evangelicals. If they were so powerful, how come the Democratic party doens’t even blink when it comes to issues like abortion? Abortion is a bigger issue for these people than Israel is…”
Yeah but abortion is an issue where a whole lot of people feel just as strongly the other way.
Israel’s not like that. The group of people who both oppose her and feel strongly about it is quite small — so if thirty million Evangelicals are going to jump up and down about it, they’ll get their way.
You want to appease the Evangelicals about abortion — well, you just lost a whole lot of non-Evangelical votes. You want to appease them about Israel — most non-Evangelicals won’t even notice what you said.
In defense of this, notice what a fiasco Israel’s push for war is turning into. Most Americans will go along with just about anything having to do with Israel, but we’re not going to fight a frigging war for her — particularly not after the last ten rather frustrating years.
The Israel lobby got too big for its britches. Up to now, they’ve been able to get what they want only because the rest of the electorate doesn’t care. In pushing for war, they ran into the same wall those who would ban abortion do — they’re actually stepping on everyone else’s toes.
RE: “. . . liberal Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz led the cheering section for Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to Congress and got umpteen standing ovations for devouring the West Bank; she jumped to her feet and did big clap motions with her hands to get the rest of the Congress to jump to their feet.” ~ Weiss
ONE OF MY FAVORITE COMMENTARIES BY URI AVNERY (OR ANYONE ELSE): “Bibi and the Yo-Yos”, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 05/26/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com
* THE SHORT ANSWER: NO! ! !
Hence the old “joke” about Washington: “The only thing that separates Washington from Hell is a screen door.”
P.S. RE: “The only thing that separates Washington from Hell is a screen door.” ~ old “joke”
QUOTATION:“You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!” ~ From The Education of Henry Adams, By Henry Brooks Adams (American journalist, historian, academic and novelist, 1838-1918)
P.P.S. Henry Brooks Adams’ paternal grandfather was Pres. John Quincy Adams, and his great grandfather was Pres. John Adams.
P.P.P.S ALSO SEE: “Money and Politics: Illuminating the Connection”, Maplight.org – link to maplight.org
P.P.P.P.S.
• HENRY [BROOKS] ADAMS – link to en.wikipedia.org
• The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography (Google eBook) – link to books.google.com
When I read Beinart claim that the “Jerusalem plank” passed, it was hard to take his POV seriously. He’s glossing over so much to get to an intra-Jewish narrative/explanation. He missed the major point by a wide margin, to expand upon a minor one. Who cares if AIPAC perused the plank wording, it didn’t pass. Period. Begin explanation there.
Maybe that’s what it takes to create a broad front on is issue, but his article was pretty casually ignorant of pretty important and relevant stuff.
The other thing I was struck by is that the FP platform drafting process was managed/controlled entirely by Jews (Kornbluh, Grossman, Kahl, Harf?). Beinart used that to underscore in part his central supporting contention of “How bad could the language actually have been [for Israel]?” in order to get to his AIPAC and Dem political over-reaction theme.
No Arabs involved, certainly at the principal level.
I won’t, and never will, think or go to the “Jewish monolith,” view, but geez aren’t there other inputs out there? Imminently constructive ones. Given Rosenberg’s piece yesterday, and the narrowed-through-enforcement funnel of Jewish (at-large for that matter, but particularly Jewish) policy thought on Israel and our increasing isolation in a region of such declared profound national interest, isn’t it reasonable to expect some broader views would be used to shape our way out of our myopic ME mess?
The last thing about Beinart’s article is just how blinkered he seems to be to what the rest of us think about this. We’re not even in the room, as the voice vote and subsequent override, and Beinart’s analysis of the platform plank showed. The discussion has to, and is going to, shift to a more balanced (in the good sense) view.
Which brings me to the thank you. Thanks for this site and for enabling alternative voices on all the above. You all are doing great work and service here.
Israel’s let’s-control-America-more program is a bit like a child trying to get a later and later bedtime from parents who fear a tantrum; and a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
The 4-year old knows how to get what she wants but — one hopes — she grows up, and so do her parents, so it all works out. Usually.
But Israel doesn’t know where it stands unless it keeps “winning” (controlling) and so it keeps up the pressure, afraid to enter the information-void of the silence that would follow stopping-trying-to-control. And the more it “wins”, the more outrageous the whole thing becomes, what with the Arabs and Muslims unlikely to forget (or forgive, come to that) Israel’s abominable treatment of the Palestinians. And part of Israel’s “winning” is the vast settlement program and the concomitant trashing of international law. So — in principle — every decent government is outraged at Israel and waiting for the “market sell signal”. (So am I!)
Ponzi schemes usually turn out badly for the “Mr. P.” (here, Israel) and also for the deluded investors (here, EU, USA, etc.)
good comment pabelmont.
i.e., here in america, we are occupied by izrael. lovely. so what else is new…
” American Jews are afraid to criticize Israel publicly” Huge generalization that I think is totally inaccurate. Most people I have talked with either have no idea what is really going on and in many ways don’t care. Stand by Israel coming or going.
“Haim Saban” center left. Haim Saban is about as right wing as one could get on Israel. What did you eat today Phil? Seems disoriented. Or trying to provide cover
” American Jews are afraid to criticize Israel publicly”
percentage wise, non jews are the ones who are afraid/programmed. and lots of brainwashing has been invested in this (‘anti semite!’)
Have been involved with this issue close to 30 years and counting. Was very involved with a Jewish community in New York for years and have many Jewish friends in Ohio. Far far more non Jews involved with the lobbying, educating, creating petitions, protesting against Israel’g ongoing expansion of illegal settlements, bulldozing of Palestinian homes etc for decades. Annie there is just no way around this. If you were to contact Reps who have been in office for decades and ask who has contacted them, lobbied, petitioned their Reps for decades demanding that they deal with this issue based on facts you would find that the majority of these individuals have been non Jews. While many celebrate Jewish individuals getting involved with this critical issues the last 5-10 years (Annie you your self, Phil, Medea Benjaman have all admitted that this issue is not something you have been involved with up until recently and very effectively). But let’s be real Annie Jews in general have not been involved with protesting,lobbying, petitioning against the serious abuses of the Israeli government. In fact the majority of Jews who have been lobbying our Reps for decades to support Israel no matter what. That is a fact. Thousands of non Jews have been involved with petitioning our government to deal with this conflict more fairly for decades. Have they gotten MSM coverage. Hell no.
Again as I have said over and over again…the better late than never crowd is in many ways being very effective and pushing this issue to a tipping point where there is no return along with those who have been involved for decades. Annie no matter how hard you try to spin this lack of involvement by Jews there is no way around the facts on the ground. Now non Jews and Jews (who have become involved in the last 10 years) alike are pushing together. A good thing
Up with Chris Hayes (Sat) covered the Iran/U.S. issue in depth as well as the Romney foreign policy team. Eli Lake was actually much more reasonable than ever before. Although he did throw the “you don’t like Israel” out to Phyllis Bennis. Standard response.
Daniel Levy was on. He rocked the topic. Although he did say a few things that I questioned. He said the Israeli public does not support an attack on Iran. I have read in polls that the majority of the Israeli public supports an attack on Iran if the U.S. is involved.
On the MSNBC Ed Show they have Hillary Mann Leverett on with Spencer Ackerman. Concerning that Ezra Klein (in for Ed) said that he contacts Spencer Ackerman “one of the very first persons I turn to” on middle east issues.
“If you were to contact Reps who have been in office for decades and ask who has contacted them, lobbied, petitioned their Reps for decades demanding that they deal with this issue based on facts you would find that the majority of these individuals have been non Jews.”
Ah, so there’s the explanation for the lack of movement on the issue. Well, you just wait until some really effective people get involved!
“What did you eat today Phil? Seems disoriented. Or trying to provide cover”
Kathleen, it’s the same old thing. Phil just can’t believe there’s not a way we can come out of this smelling like a rose, if we all put our minds and good will toward a solution. And are sincere, there’s no “sin” in “sincere”! And God, or G-d or even G_D bless him for it.
The rush to re insert Jerusalem back into the language of the platform was so fascinating and so terribly awkward. One would almost think someone wanted the power of the lobby to be on stage. The chairs stumbling and the claps that were audibly equal or very close…so telling. Then the 2/3rds up on the screen. Who put that up there for the chair to read off?
Kathleen says: “…Then the 2/3rds up on the screen. Who put that up there for the chair to read off?”
The 2/3′s is what was scripted to happen.
The delegates just didn’t follow the script. For a minute there, the emperor had no clothes.
It was a lovely moment.
a beautiful moment..the spirit of the holy city ringing throughout the stadium.
“the spirit of the holy city ringing throughout the stadium.”
“Twelve gates to the City, Hallelujah!”
If that 2/3rds was up there why would he have had them vote was it two or three times? I think that 2/3rds vote went up during those few uncomfortable minutes
My thoughts also Kathleen. The hoopla to have Jerusalem re-inserted was predictable, and as well as showing the power of the lobby it demonstrated very publicly that zionism and Israel doesn’t have the solid support base that Netantahu and co might think they have.
The re-insertion doesn’t acknowledge Israeli Sovereignty over any part Jerusalem, nor can it until the territories Israel has acquired by war and by creating illegal facts on the ground have actually been legally annexed to Israel. This will require either an agreement with the PA or a referendum of the actual legal and legitimate citizens of those territories (sans Israeli citizens).
So the statement leaves open the possibility that Israel and Palestinians will have their capitals in Jerusalem. Only thus might the city remain ‘undivided’ (corpus separatum + capitals).
The US stance has always been ambiguous because the US legally recognized Israel thus “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 ………. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time. ” So too the other states affording Israel recognition.
Israel was not established by the 1948/49 war, but by declaration and subsequent recognition and Israel was a UN Member State before ever claiming any extra territories, after the 1949 armistice agreements were signed.
The pundits miss the glaring obvious
The US keeps the issue on the table via the veto vote in the UNSC, protecting Israel from the consequences of facing the law because: Faced with the consequences of the laws Israel agreed to uphold, it would be thrown into complete turmoil as it tried to re-locate a million or so Israeli citizens who’ve been living outside of Israel for 64 years and facing bankruptcy as it tried to compensate the Palestinians.
If civil war breaks out between the State of Israel and Israeli citizens in territories legally outside the State of Israel, the other Regional Powers will have the right and a duty under the UN Charter, to intervene as they did in 1948. Obviously no one wants a repeat performance.
Negotiations are Israel’s only way out of the ghastly sh*te hole it has dug for everyone. However as Israel has refused every reasonable and generous offer put to it, it’s rather obvious that it wants ALL the territory and will do ANYTHING to get it.
Not having gotten it’s way in the past Israel has ignored the sovereign integrity of the neighbouring states, the law, the UN Charter and kicked the sh*te out of the hen house, just as it said it would 31 August 1949
Until there is an independent Palestinian State Deuteronomy 20:15 rules, at any cost.
BTW, Im not a secret Israel Jewish propagandist…..just an American Classically Liberal Christian Conservative of European descent.
EscapeVelocity September 16, 2012 at 1:31 am
“BTW, Im not a secret Israel Jewish propagandist…..just an American Classically Liberal Christian Conservative of European descent… .. who has fallen for the Hasbara crapolla
“BTW, Im not a secret Israel Jewish propagandist…..just an American Classically Liberal Christian Conservative of European descent”
Wow! Cool! Did you know that I am a 1500lb. ungulate, the largest member of the North American deer Family, with palmate antlers (in season) spreading up to six feet?
In other words, “I’m not being paid to post here — I’m happy to spew my Islamophobia for free!”
Pity… I’m sure Avigdor Lieberman’s office would pay a heap of shekels for someone of your obvious “talents.”
beinart:
silly? ridiculous? tell us more. sounds kinda par for the course to me.
The Israeli Lobby is but one facet of a larger multinational lobbying effort whose political economy flows from a unification of interests clustered about the sale of petroleum, weapons, and usury. Neither the larger lobby, or its Israeli subset, would function in a true democracy; they flourish because money buys power part of which is expressed through financial and physical threats namely extortion.
American Jews are perhaps even more threatened by the extortion tactics employed because they often work and socialize in networks where exclusion would be devastating. Because of their susceptibility to these pressures, its unfair for all of us to insist they lead the break with the Lobby(s).
Perhaps the answer is to embed Palistinian rights into an argument for western citizen rights as both are occupied by an oil-military industrial complex hell bent on high prices of oil, geo-economic domination of centra and east asia, and further corruption and de-industrialization, de-democratization of the NATO members peoples.
Because even if we acheived a multicultural ‘democracy’ in an Israel-Palestine, under current conditions, it would most certainly follow South Africa ;s post apartheid reforms. Concentration of wealth and the political power of wealth are unreformed, both there, and here.
.
bilal a says….
“American Jews are perhaps even more threatened by the extortion tactics employed because they often work and socialize in networks where exclusion would be devastating. Because of their susceptibility to these pressures, its unfair for all of us to insist they lead the break with the Lobby(s).”….
I am sure they have pressures but don’t agree it’s unfair to ask any Pro Israel Jews to lead or break with the Lobby….or cease insisting or expecting the US to continue to support Israel.
I see it as unfair to ask all other Americans who have no attachment to Israel to continue to support it solely for them when it’s detrimental to our own real interest.
I don’t object to non Jews leading the fight against the lobby, many already are, but without some Jews involved then the community can be even more propagandized that it’s strictly an anti semitic movement against the Jewish state.
I think we all see what has happened with Israel and the Jews. Zionism has morphed Israel from the original safe haven theory and even morphed Judaism for many Jews, into ”Jewish Nationalism” whereby all Jews everywhere are members of this Jewish Nation and must act in it’s- Israel’s- their real nation’s, National interest. This so smacks of the old canard of Jews being a nation within a nation or aliens to the nations they live in, that it is bizarre beyond belief that Jews would accept zionism putting them into this position, I can’t understand or explain it.
This is now the zionist appeal and the rallying cry for Israel….it demands of Jews their Jewish Nationality peoplehood membership supersede any other nationality or national interest they might have.
Yes, zionism has seduced Jews into this, the fact remains though this brings and will bring them into conflict of interest with the other citizens of the nations they live in.
But for Jews who took on the Jewish Nationality Identity, no one can get them out of this conflict of Israel interest vr US interest but themselves. It’s a choice they have to make, as many are now having to deal with on Israel-Iran-US issue which illustrates that US and Israel interest are not the same regardless of what they have been told or lulled themselves into believing.
“This so smacks of the old canard of Jews being a nation within a nation or aliens to the nations they live in, that it is bizarre beyond belief that Jews would accept zionism putting them into this position, I can’t understand or explain it.”
It seemed sort of obvious to me, once I understood it. A healthy, profitable business doesn’t get entangled with mobsters, if it can possibly avoid it. Same for a religion. By the 20th Century, Judaism was in a terrible state, between its own divisions and the persecution and segregation the Jews were subject to. And then the Holocaust, too. Rather than do what’s necessary for a religion in those conditions, they took a big chance, that the rewards of Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) would make up, in both tangible and spiritual benefits for the deficit. And they turned the place over to those who convinced them they could effect this program. And made themselves over in its image.
Now it’s going bad, and nobody wants to pay the price. Especially those who feel they aren’t responsible for the decision. And I can’t say I blame them, but that won’t make any difference.
We’re still gonna have to pay it. That’s my purely subjective, personal view. And as far as the idea of the us Jews fixing it, we’re in too deep. We can either wait for the knock on the door, or try and turn state’s evidence and put our faith in the witless protection program.
“We can either wait for the knock on the door, or try and turn state’s evidence and put our faith in the witless protection program.”..Mooser
LOL…I don’t think Jews are gonna be in that much trouble.
I imagine though that when zionism bites the dust or explodes or whatever happens to it, there is going to be some turmoil within the Jewish community itself.
Hopefully enough of them will have the good sense to drive a wooden stake the heart of the uber zios so they can’t ever rise again.
American says: “…Hopefully enough of them will have the good sense to drive a wooden stake the heart of the uber zios so they can’t ever rise again…”
It’s difficult to see how it could happen again. After all, it only happened once because (a) the power ruling Palestine felt obliged to allow Jewish immigration against the wishes of the resident population, (b) the Holocaust meant a lot of Jews had to go to Palestine, and (c) the greatest power in the world found it politically expedient to back the project.
…and all these things had to happen more or less consecutively, in short order. It’d be like spending the rest of your life trying to fill that inside straight again. Not gonna happen.
Never underestimate the power of a myth, American, and Zionism is a myth, propagated in much the same way as any other European colonial expansionist venture.
Still, I appreciate Aleksandr Dugin’s eternal Rome vs eternal Carthago debate more, but, that’s me.
Over and over again I find myself agreeing with Dugin, the debates about Blood vs Soil (race/nation vs geography) since the mystical connection with Land, a Magic of Place, defines us just as much as our connection with Ideas. To me, our placement within the Genome pool is not as important.
In the end, I continue to believe in a terroir, a blend if you will, of nature and nurture.
I nod my head to his description of the occult underpinnings of society, and the constant conflicts between them.
Dugin also reinforces why I believe the focus on ‘Jews’, ‘Race’, and ‘Masonic’ reptilian conspiracies misses the broader picture, but again, that’s just me.
And I refer to Blood and Soil as a 19th century ideal espoused by Oswald Spengler, who decried Nazi notions of racial superiority. A lesson missed by Zionism, I think.
Saturday’s Up with Chris Hayes amazing. Protest, Iran, Israel, Palestine, nuclear weapons who has and does not have. Great show. Daniel Levy now with New America Foundation, Eli Lake (far more reasonable this time) What he had to say about the Romney foreign policy team and the Republican party in regard to foreign policy…very interesting
Being aroused by evidence of foreign influence over Democtratic party decision making is not the same as giving a damn about the status of Jerusalem or the Palestinians. The issues are quite separate although looked at from a particular angle they may coincide like the sun and moon in an eclipse. The risk Phil identifies in his last paragraph should not, perhaps, be too readily viewed as ‘worth taking’. Frankly, I don’t care one way or another whether Israel behind internationally accepted borders is a Jewish or a multicultural state. Nor do I care that US decision makers are influenced by lobbies. Both these are open to progressive change. What does bother me is that in justifying its disgusting activities in Palestine Israel has insisted on taking all the Jewish people out on the same limb, exposing them to a potential backlash of anti-Semitism by association.
Better perhaps a broader approach to control Israel’s activities. For instance, Netanyahu’s incessant demands that Obama provide a ‘red line’ for Iran’s nuclear program could be neatly finessed by the US joining with Russia and China in a UN defined red line for all non-nuclear nations with a set of devastating globally enforced sanctions for any confirmed infringement. A global response could bring any nation to its knees in hours. The present system simply doesn’t work since the domestic hardship sanctions have imposed on Iranians over so many years are actually inhibiting political evolution and, aside from the fact that many nations ignore them, multiple sanction exceptions have to granted (1). Meanwhile demand for Iranian oil has actually increased (2). Similarly, AIPAC and others might better be included in broader efforts to revisit all financial interference in elections; scarcely any of the 99% can approve the grotesque sums expended by interest groups regardless of religious or ideological agendas. Far better than seeking to build a coalition of Jews and non-Jews might be to promote broader reform programs simply as concerned Americans.
link to turkishweekly.net
link to turkishweekly.net
“What does bother me is that in justifying its disgusting activities in Palestine Israel has insisted on taking all the Jewish people out on the same limb, exposing them to a potential backlash of anti-Semitism by association.”
Any congregation or individual Jew could have declared themselves non, or even anti-Zionist at any time. But then what if Israel succeeded? No Israel vacation homes for you, apostates, heretics. When you take a gamble and lose, there’s no use complaining, you gotta pay up. You can’t just up and declare you don’t like the game.
Why would Frank want ‘a list of 5000 Jews who would support him’ (if he came out against the settlements?) Surely the equation must be ‘How many voters would support him?
This is just one example of why it might be counterproductive to ever elect a Jewish politician, no matter how ‘liberal’ they might otherwise be.
his district is largely jewish, it isnt about him being jewish. and yes your comment is antisemitic. we would trash it, but the point about voters is significant
“his district is largely jewish, it isnt about him being jewish. and yes your comment is antisemitic. we would trash it, but the point about voters is significant”
That has got to be, yes, it is, without a doubt, the biggest ROTFLMSJAO!! (“laughing my skinny Jewish ass off”) I have ever seen on Mondoweiss, and I think it’ll be a while until anybody tops it. My eyeballs spun and started from their sockets, like the knotted and combined quills of the fretful porpentine. Which is, IINM, what we call a “porcupine”.
It’s anti-Semitic, but it’s significant. Ho-kay! Or is it actually true, but anti-Semitic? Damned if I know. As far as I can see, Zionism has pretty much invalidated the concept of anti-semitism, and made it not just possible, but necessary to generalise about Jews in ways which are indeed, anti-Semitic, or would be if it was Judaism was just a religion and social and cultural affiliation which accurately and honestly portrays the relationship of Jews to themselves and each other. That was the deal we made, and now payment’s due.
Anyway, if “significant” but “anti-Semitic” is a possible category for comments, the moderating around here is gonna get pretty rough. Perhaps a disclaimer modeled on Phil’s response should be appended to such comments, to avoid misunderstandings.
I sure would love to know what “manfrommatlan’ thinks of the categorization of his comment. I’m sure the Moderators deleted another copy of it, just to show him he can’t get away with stuff like that.
mooser, i assumed the anti semitic reference was to the conclusion, not the point about the voters.
counterproductive to ever elect a Jewish politician.
Mooser wrote:
I have been arguing for quite some time that Zionism may well trigger the biggest explosion of antisemitism in world history — and all around the world all at once. And the kicker is that this antisemitism will be impossible to counter on reasonable grounds — in other words, Zionism may succeed in legitimizing and mainstreaming antisemitism. This social process is occurring as we speak, in the United States, Europe and — everywhere.
So: what is the worldwide Jewish establishment going to do about it? Pretend this isn’t happening? Hunker down in preparation for coming of Moshiach? Pull the trigger on the Samson Option?
“mooser, i assumed the anti semitic reference was to the conclusion, not the point about the voters.”
Look, Annie, the guy won’t even put an upper-case “J” on “Jewish” and I’m supposed to put a favorable interpretation on his comments? Yeah, that’ll be the day.
Mooser, I have raised my tiny hand on this several times but it hasn’t registered. Let me try it as a question. If some Israeli action, or even the bursting point of cumulative irritation, were to unleash a situation similar to that which besets the US today following that infamous trailer, does anyone imagine it would, or even could, be restricted to Israeli embassies and not extend to synagogues, Jewish emporia and other establishments, even to individuals and their offices and homes?
“I have been arguing for quite some time that Zionism may well trigger the biggest explosion of antisemitism in world history — and all around the world all at once.”
But you don’t understand! If Israel had succeeded, the Jews, every one of us could have the bragging rights to having established a small crappy country, and ridding the world of the evil Palestinians. Wasn’t that worth risking everything for? How could we not?
Mooser, Surely the point is that the things Israel does are wrong anyway and it’s not necessary to wear a Jewish hat (pardon the expression) to be actively opposed to them. If there were a UN resolution defining a red line for any country’s nuclear activity the whole Iranian fear mongering nonsense would disappear. Equally, if better controls were in place to deal with political funding of any kind the influence of AIPAC would wane. I may be mistaken, but I don’t see that Zionist lobbying would get that far if it didn’t run on $s. Some Jews may consider themselves superior to the rest of the world, but to the rest of the world they are just people.
“even could, be restricted to Israeli embassies and not extend to synagogues, Jewish emporia and other establishments, even to individuals and their offices and homes?”
Let ‘em try and get past Dora! I’ve got her convinced (dumb dog) we’re both Methodists. She’ll lick those anti-Semitic mobs, but good. And as far as “their offices” goes if they want to smash my old phone message machine in the boiler room, they can have at it. I hear the new ones don’t even use tapes!
Well, my comment referencing Aleksandr Dugin is still awaiting moderator approval, Mooser, so I think that might have been the straw too far.
Phil,
Are Jewish politicians like Barney Frank in fact highly vulnerable to financial, psychological and social pressure from “the Jewish community” and the Jewish establishment regarding their policies and public statements on Israel?
“Are Jewish politicians like Barney Frank in fact highly vulnerable to financial, psychological and social pressure from “the Jewish community” and the Jewish establishment regarding their policies and public statements on Israel?”
It seems to me that a man like Barney Frank (politician, elected official) would have to take pains and give a lot of thought to not being under that pressure if he wanted to avoid it. He would have to strenuously resist it, as they would make big efforts to drag him in.
So I’ll respond, if I may. Barney Frank may hedge his actions based on ‘how many Jews’, not voters, will support him, but any fallout, that voters might wonder whether supporting a Jewish politician might be counterproductive is anti-semitic?
This right after Judge Goldstone recanted his war crimes report on Israel’s Cast Lead offensive because someone dissed him at his grandson’s bar mitzvah?
It’s bad enough that our politicians must always hedge their views because of lobby fallout, but it seems that Jewish politicians are doubly vulnerable, to social as well as political pressure.
All this seems to assume Barney Frank would be some kind of moral giant, if only he could…
This is the same guy who was leading the demand that Fannie Mae ease up still further on loan guarantees during our ‘happy time’ — then led the wolfpack crying for blood after the crash.
He’s a politician in the worst sense of the word. If he thought it would get him votes, he’d advocate eating delicious welfare babies as a way to offset the prospective rise in meat prices.
What offended me the most was him watering down Ron Paul’s bank reform and Fed Audit proposal.
The great compromiser, I called him. And yes, his red line was and always will be, Israel.
This place is a cesspit.
“This place is a cesspit”
” just in the region (in every country in that region where treatment of minority rights is clustered in the lower quartile amongst nations by the dominant religious group) but also the regions and countries where this religious group has immigrated to recently in European Christian majority nations that have adopted the multicultural value and culture neutral secular state that you cherish. What happens to these nations when this religious group becomes a majority there.”
You might be one source of sewer gas.
If you were a genuine advocate of classically liberal values you could point out the non-liberal behavior and intolerance in Muslim countries and also acknowledge the contradiction involved in defending Israel from a liberal standpoint given the fact that it exists as a Jewish state because 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled and not allowed to return to their homes. That’s not liberal. Try acknowledging that first and then you can make a case for, say, a 2ss on the grounds that you don’t think that either side is able (at present) to live together under conditions of mutual respect and equality.
You might also acknowledge that it is only in very recent times that some European nations have espoused secular liberal tolerant traditions and tried to live by them. (Incidentally, you seem to be skeptical of the experiment.) Maybe Muslim nations deserve a little more understanding from a portion of the world that trampled much of the rest of the world under its boots for centuries, before (as Hannah Arendt pointed out in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”) it brought the behavior it practiced in its colonies back home, with the results that we saw in Franco’s Spain and later on a larger scale in the rest of Europe.
Or just pretend that you’re a “classical liberal” and continue to be a bigot. It’s a popular stance.
Donald says “…the fact that it exists as a Jewish state because 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled and not allowed to return to their homes. That’s not liberal. Try acknowledging that first and then you can make a case for, say, a 2ss on the grounds…”
It seems to me that you’ve just made a case for dissolving Israel completely. No one tried to argue that German settlers in Western Poland should be given a separate state on the grounds that they and the Poles wouldn’t be able to live together.
It is, anyway, a moot point. Establish an egalitarian, secular state in Palestine and it will swiftly come to be populated almost entirely by Palestinians since Zionists will refuse to stay in Palestine unless they can do so as masters.
“Establish an egalitarian, secular state in Palestine and it will swiftly come to be populated almost entirely by Palestinians since Zionists will refuse to stay in Palestine unless they can do so as masters.”
Many “liberal Zionists” (a guy named Richard Witty foremost among them) kep telling us that “an egalitarian, secular state in Palestine” would simply enable Zionist Jews to persecute the Palestinians. After all, even if the state was egalitarian and secular, the fight against the Palestinians could still be carried on by private organisations and religious institutions.
And if I am not mistaken, commenter Hostage made it clear that once something called “an egalitarian secular state” is established in Palestine, how it deals with its “internal security” whether or not the government feels it necessary to enforce laws, make laws, or prosecute alleged crimes is entirely its own business. And any intereference would be an invasion, more or less.
The situation would be analogous to the one under which slavery was almost re-established in the US between the Civil War and the 1940s-1950s
The only process which could possibly start to change Israel into an egalitarian secular state would probably look a lot like the American Occupation and de-Nazification of Western Germany after WW2. You know anybody who is up for that little task?
Glad you feel at home.
LOL. Given the bile you presenting, it’s a breath of fresh air by comparison. Maybe you came her for a hiatus before crawling back under the rock you came from.
@ everyone
I think we get away from the bottom line many times in discussing the Jewish activity/community on I/P-Israel.
Let’s ask the only important question…”If” the majority of Jews opposed Israel on I/P, would that change US policy toward Israel?
Imo, not unless it was so loud and so intense it totally kicked out from under the zionist their claim of US Jewish ‘voters’- supporters for Israel and made Israel a not worth pandering to political issue in elections or in policy/congress.
In reality I do not see that happening any time soon, if ever, for the reasons Phil put forth.
And even before we get to that remote possibility we have to consider what would motivate the Jewish community on this because there are varying degrees of Israel support, strongly active, some passive, some completely indifferent. So as I said above you have to give all these various degrees of support a really overwhelming reason to either change their minds and for the passive or indifferent among them to get involved in curtailing Israel on I/P and also on US political interference.
The Jewish community will not get overwhelmingly good reasons to do that from organized Jewish groups for Israel, even dovish, or the Bienarts because their bottom line is continuing support Israel regardless.
Because of Phil’s main concern about the Jews saving themsleves by rejecting the zionist and his presenting mainly Jewish spokespeople against zionism we tend to talk about mostly what the Jews are doing on this…and it is true as kathleen said ,in most of the Jewish community non Jewish views on this are generally not acknowledged or admitted…the issue is kept ‘ in-house’. But Jews alone cannot or will not solve the Israel problem the way Bienart and others are going at it.
The Jews have to join the wider non Jewish public…as in the way I noticed in the NYT comments where Jews where adamantly opposing Netanyahu and Israeli influence on ”their American’ business and election. That ideally is where Jews and non Jews should meet in opposing the US-Isr zionist influence entanglement. “Their” American business also ‘implies’ the overwhelming reason for Jews to align with us…preserving their American slot, interest and status by not aligning with ‘foreign influence’ that conflicts with other Americans even if it is the Jewish state.
I just read a bit of the linked article by Haim Saban. He writes in the last paragraph: “When I enter the voting booth, I’m going to ask myself, what do I prefer for Israel and its relationship with the United States: meaningful action or empty rhetoric?” Totally sounds like an Israel Firster.
““When I enter the voting booth, I’m going to ask myself, what do I prefer for Israel and its relationship with the United States: meaningful action or empty rhetoric?” ‘
That’s a no-brainer. Empty rhetoric!
Say anything you like. Just don’t give Israel a dime, a cluster bomb, or a Security Council veto. I’ll take it…
It would help if AIPAC were registered as the agent of a foreign power, as the Justice Department threatened to do to their predecessor in 1960.
It still is one.
These kinds of articles that paint the Jewish lobby as almighty are irresponsible. They form an image of Jews that is remarkably similar to the age-old notion that Jews conspiratorially control the world. The Jewish lobby does no such thing. The power that the lobby does have stems from the broad support for Israel that comes from the American elite, not specifically Jews. This broad support comes from typical American racist notions regarding Arabs. They also create an illusion of power because Israeli policies closely parallel American policies, and so it appears that what the lobby advocates usually follows. Israel long ago chose to accept being part of the US-dominated system. Israeli policies tend to further American goals. Therefore, supporting Israel is in the interests of the US elite. The US likewise supported white South Africa long after there was any public support for it.
You paint an image where the US is the lap dog of Israel. In another article, you said that “Obama defied Netenyahu,” as if Neteneyahu is the head of the world’s hegemonic power. However, it is the US which is in control, the US which sets the boundaries within which Israel may act. It is a ridiculous notion to suggest that Israel controls the US. The US is the grand imperial power, Israel is an allied country within that US-dominated system.
You also paint an image where the US would be benevolent if it weren’t for Israel forcing its hand. But that’s absurd. We know very well that the US thoughtlessly supports and itself commits other crimes of similar magnitude to that being committed against the Palestinians.
Here is a good article that explains the actual power of the Israel lobby:
link to motherjones.com
And finally, I’d like to quote something Chomsky said on the matter, something this site has quoted him on as well: “As I’ve mentioned several times, if the thesis about lobby power were correct, it would be a great relief to me and others who have been actively engaged for years in trying organize popular pressure to lead to abandonment of US rejectionism. We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep. That in fact is the sole activist-related conclusion that follows from the thesis. But none of the believers do it. Why?”
rshalev wrote:
1. When Barack Obama and Joe Biden tried to challenge Benjamin Netanyahu on Israeli settlements, they came under heavy attack from Jewish Zionists within their own political party and were forced to back down.
2. Multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, whose wealth exceeds that of Mitt Romney by 100 times, has promised to spend as much $100 million to try to defeat Obama.
3. As much as 50% or more of Democratic Party contributions consist of pro-Israel money. Multi-billionaire Haim Saban — an Israeli — is probably the biggest single contributor to the Democratic Party.
4. The Israel lobby just rammed a policy statement down the throat of the Democrats against their loudly expressed will.
5. The mainstream media steadfastly refuse to look into any of the above issues in depth. Why? Could it be that many owners and upper level managers of the mainstream media have “warm” feelings towards Israel which override their obligation to perform objective journalism of relevance to Americans and the American interest?
Agreed that defense corporations benefit disproportionately from this state of affairs, and, as MJ Rosenberg reminds us, not all neo-cons are Jews.
This isn’t even a debate about whether the tail wags the dog, or the dog wags the tail.
But there was a point in human history where the ‘court Jew’ became something more, and it is a worthwhile subject of study.
I admire Chomsky with all my heart, but in this he is simply wrong. Ordinary people of all stripes, and I include Jews in this, are powerless to challenge the interlocking web of interests that make up the financial, corporate, and military industrial complexes.
But voters need to ask themselves this: have the political interests of the western world been suborned to benefit one country, not their own? Who’s been trying to get us to drag us into another war with Iran after we were dragged into the war with Iraq? It is not anti-Semitic to answer those questions, and it is in fact not even in the best interests of American Jews to conflate their needs with the needs of Israel. Heck, even Israel would benefit if they withdrew behind the 1967 green line.
“You also paint an image where the US would be benevolent if it weren’t for Israel forcing its hand. But that’s absurd. We know very well that the US thoughtlessly supports and itself commits other crimes of similar magnitude to that being committed against the Palestinians.”
That leads me to think that if the picture is as you paint it, the only thing anti-Zionists or ‘today’s Israel critical’ activists can expect, if they are sucessful in changing Israel so it is no longer an effective partner in US elite plans and policies for the ME, is to be blamed by both sides, unless, of course, the US elites choose to make all Jews scapegoats for the Zionist-US failure.
So I’m sure you can see how essential the myth of a “better US” which will appreciate the efforts of those who would reform Israel is for us. Or are we claiming that we can make Israel a ‘better’ partner for the US in the ME?
The article I linked didn’t link fully so here it is: link to motherjones.com
Seanmcbride:
The fact that Obama didn’t manage to pressure Israel on Settlements and the Democratic party elite overruled the majority of its party on Jerusalem do not in itself prove that it is the Jewish lobby that is responsible. I am not saying that supporting Israel is not viewed as an imperative. But I think that it is viewed as such because the American elite in general, not just Jews, generally view Israel as important to American interests.
As for your claim about how much of the Democratic party’s money is attributable to its support for Israel, I’d like to see proof for that. But still, neither that, nor Sheldon Adelson are proof of much. You’re assuming that had they not contributed this money, US politicians would have had a very different policy towards Israel, yet there is no proof of that. In fact, there is proof of the opposite being true I believe. The Republicans have generally not been the recipients of money from Jews, yet Republican and Democratic administrations and other lawmakers’ policies towards Israel have been remarkably similar.
As for the media, what you point out is nothing special. The media does not cover a lot of things that we would think is relevant to Americans. The media did not report much about Baharain, it consistently fails to report about protests against the power structure, it failed to report very relevant information before the Iraq war, etc. The media does not report many relevant stories because they go too far outside the scope of acceptable mainstream elite politics. American journalism is far from objective, and it doesn’t serve what you seem to think American interests are (the American public’s interests), it serves the interests of the elite. And so it is entirely consistent with my view that the US contorls Israel, and not vice versa.
Manfromatlan:
You make good points, yet I don’t see how your conclusion follows form them. Corporations benefit from the current state of affairs. Why then do you think that American policy has been subordinated to serve the interests of Israel? Could it be that it has been subordinated to serve the interests of those corporations that benefit? You’re correct to point out that Israelis would benefit from peace, but that’s not the goal of the Israeli government, nor do they care what benefits Israelis as a whole. Like the American government, the Israeli government serves the interests if the Israeli elite, which benefits from the Occupation.
Mooser:
Short of changing American policies, what anti-Zionist activists can hope for, I think, is to make Israel a ‘better’ (more humane) partner for the US. You can do so by waking up the American people to what its government is supporting. It was done with South Africa, East Timor, etc. The Americna public can either through the political process, or through its economic might (BDS) force the American government to reign Israel in. Israeli activists can go further by making their state actually humane, but American activists can only go so far.
The myth of a ‘better’ US is useful for the American liberal conscience, but it is harmful to the activism since it is unrealistic and misplaces blame. And this goes back to what manfromatlan said: it is anti-semitic to scapegoat Jews in this way. And I don’t mean to call anyone here an anti-semite, that’s not my point. I don’t think anyone has malicious intent. But this thinking about Jews has so permeated our thinking and culture that even Jews perpetuate this notion of limitless Jewish power. What the ‘Jewish lobby’ argument does is scapegoat these powerful Jews for what is essentially a problem with American politics (our imperialist government). Jews who support Israel are definitely to blame, but they are no more to blame than the rest of the American elite that supports Israel. Its scapegoating because it makes us feel better about our country, that our country isn’t that bad, except that it’s being forced into these terrible policies. It also smacks of anti-semitic tales about the power of Jewish conspirators. It is not Jewish conspirators who are responsible for American policies in the Middle East. It is the material interests of the American elite.
rshalev,
But it was in fact leading members of the Jewish lobby, like billionaire Ronald Lauder, who led the charge to bully Obama and Biden into silence about the settlements. They lined up with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government against the leader of their own political party and nation.
Most non-Jewish Americans — certainly those in the Democratic Party — are not supporters of Israeli settlements, Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud.
The facts on this issue have been presented many times here on this blog and in many other publications, including mainstream publications. Google it. If you can’t turn up the facts, I will turn them up for you.
Without a vast flow of pro-Israel money into the American political system, Americans would be paying little attention to Israel at all — certainly they would be making no significant sacrifices for it.
Regarding the American mainstream media: they are largely owned and controlled by Israel-centric neoconservatives and neoliberals who feel a strong emotional attachment to Zionism. And that is why the mainstream media (like the US Congress) are increasingly out of step (radically so) with the American people. We’ve got a volatile situation developing here which may well explode.
Where are you coming from on Mideast politics? Ethnicity? Religious background? Nation of citizenship? Political orientation and affiliations? Cultural biases?
“But it was in fact leading members of the Jewish lobby, like billionaire Ronald Lauder, who led the charge to bully Obama and Biden into silence about the settlements. They lined up with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government against the leader of their own political party and nation.”
Led the charge? There was a large percentage of the country who didn’t think it was a good idea for Obama to browbeat the Israelis into a settlement freeze. Veteran peacemakers like Aaron David Miller thought it was a bad idea too.
You seem to forget that Netanyahu did actually freeze building for nine months. It didn’t work.
Obama didn’t get “bullied” into being silent on the settlements. He simply began taking the advice of those who told him it was not likely to be a fruitful tactic to talk about freezing settlements publicly.
“Most non-Jewish Americans — certainly those in the Democratic Party — are not supporters of Israeli settlements, Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud.”
I think that’s misleading, again. Most Americans don’t care either way; many Republican voters seem to favor settlements. I’m not sure your assertion about the Democratic Party is correct either. I haven’t seen a poll on American favorability poll on Netanyahu, but I bet it would be pretty high.
“Without a vast flow of pro-Israel money into the American political system, Americans would be paying little attention to Israel at all — certainly they would be making no significant sacrifices for it.”
Perhaps you are correct. Israel is an interest group issue, albeit one with widespread bipartisan support. As far as sacrifices, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. But that’s the way American politics works. People with an interest in promoting a policy support that issue by giving money to candidates who support the same policy. If that policy means supporting an ally which reflects American values in a region where few regimes do, it is easier to find elected representatives to support it. If you’d like to change the policy, stop whining, and get together some money to support the opposite position.
“Regarding the American mainstream media: they are largely owned and controlled by Israel-centric neoconservatives and neoliberals who feel a strong emotional attachment to Zionism.”
Ah, I see you’ve chose whining. You can say the Jews own the media, Sean. That’s clearly what you’re getting at.
“And that is why the mainstream media (like the US Congress) are increasingly out of step (radically so) with the American people. ”
There you’re incorrect.
“We’ve got a volatile situation developing here which may well explode.”
I put my money on no explosion. Polling shows Americans support the Jewish state.
“Where are you coming from on Mideast politics? Ethnicity? Religious background? Nation of citizenship? Political orientation and affiliations? Cultural biases?”
How about you first?
Polling shows Americans support the Jewish state.
Ah, but most other countries do not, hophmi. link to jpost.com
“BBC survey measures public opinion on 22 countries, places Israel in company of North Korea, ahead of only Iran, Pakistan.”
hophmi,
“Jewish Leaders Disturbed by Obama’s Israel Policy”
How the Israel lobby (including many Democrats) sided with Benjamin Netanyahu against Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the controversy over Israeli settlements in April 2010:
BEGIN ARTICLE
TITLE Jewish Leaders Disturbed by Obama’s Israel Policy
PUBLICATION Newsmax
AUTHOR Ken Timmerman
DATE April 20, 2010
URL link to newsmax.com
BEGIN QUOTE
The president of the World Jewish Congress has written a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to end friction with Israel and to take action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
He joins a cadre of Jewish leaders including Elie Wiesel who are raising their voices over Obama’s Israel policy.
The letter, written by WJC President Ronald S. Lauder on April 15, urges Obama “to confront the real challenges that we face together . . . ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.”
The letter displayed anxiety over the change Obama has imposed on U.S. foreign policy.
“Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions,” Lauder wrote. Among the issues was the administration’s inclination to blame Israel for stalled Middle East peace talks, when “it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate,” he wrote.
END QUOTE
END ARTICLE
A great deal more information on this issue can be retrieved with these Google searches:
1. obama israel april 2010
2. obama israel lauder april 2010
3. obama israel schumer april 2010
4. obama israel koch april 2010
5. obama israel jewish april 2010
For instance:
“Koch Outraged By Obama’s Treatment of Israel Over Housing Construction”
link to foxnews.com
“Sen. Chuck Schumer Slams Obama’s Policy toward Israel”
link to youtube.com
“Prominent Jews Express Obama Outrage”
link to newsmax.com
Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg….
By the way, Aaron David Miller is a leading member of the Israel lobby who, like Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, gives the impression that he has been a Likud mole inside the Democratic Party from the get-go.
Do you really believe that most Democrats and most Americans were emotionally excited about this issue? They weren’t. They didn’t pressure Obama and Biden to back off in their confrontation with Netanyahu and the Israeli government.
hophmi,
What Americans really think about Israel:
BEGIN ARTICLE
TITLE If Israel attacks Iran and Iran retaliates, most Americans oppose U.S. military support for Israel
AUTHOR Paul Woodward
PUBLICATION War in Context
DATE September 19, 2012
URL link to warincontext.org
BEGIN BODY
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs recently released the results of a survey on American public opinion about US foreign policy. Their report includes this finding:
An even larger majority — 70% — oppose a unilateral U.S. strike on Iran.
In the same survey 65% of respondents said that the U.S. should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
END BODY
END ARTICLE
To dig deeper into the dispute between the Obama administration and the Israeli government which erupted in March 2010 over Israeli settlements, Google [biden israel march 2010]:
link to google.com
This situation has continued to rankle and simmer beneath the surface until the present day — suppressed only temporarily.
@ hophmi:
If that policy means supporting an ally which reflects American values in a region where few regimes do, it is easier to find elected representatives to support it.
What values does Israel have in common with the USA? Starting wars and killing innocent Muslims? That’s certainly true.
Yeah, and 49% support US intervention if Israel is attacked at all. Go figure. 56% favor maintain aid at current levels or raising it.
As far as an attack on Iran, the polling seems to be based on the way the question is asked.
Most Americans do not support, as a blanket policy, US intervention in the event Israel attacks Iran. However, other polling shows that when you unpack this question, the answers vary based on how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken this year, most Americans (56%) support a US attack on Iran if there is evidence that the Iranians have a program to develop nuclear weapons.
An even larger majority (62%) supports Israel taking action under the same circumstances.
link to reuters.com
“What values does Israel have in common with the USA? Starting wars and killing innocent Muslims? That’s certainly true.”
Democracy. Free press. Freedom of speech. Technological innovation. Vibrant arts and culture scene. I could go on and on.
@ hophmi:
Democracy.
Very funny. A country that practises ethnic cleansing to manipulate its demographics cannot be labelled a democracy, even if technically every citizen has a vote.
Free press. Freedom of speech.
False again.
“The Anti-Boycott Law, passed on 11 July 2011, prohibits the public promotion of boycott by Israeli citizens and organizations against Israeli institutions or illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It enables the filing of civil lawsuits against anyone who calls for boycott; it creates a new ‘civil wrong’ or tort. The law also provides for the revocation of tax exemptions and other legal rights and benefits from Israeli associations, as well as academic, cultural and scientific institutions which receive state support, if they call for or engage in boycott. The court may also award compensation, including punitive damages, even if no actual damage is proved. Furthermore, the law provides that Israeli businesses, which publicly declare that they would not buy supplies or goods manufactured in the OPT could have their state-sponsored benefits revoked. As such, the law severely restricts freedom of expression and targets non-violent political opposition to the Occupation.
The Nakba Law, enacted on 22 March 2011, authorizes the Finance Minister to reduce state funding or support to an institution if it holds an activity that rejects the existence of Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ or commemorates ‘Israel’s Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning.’ Palestinians traditionally mark Israel’s official Independence Day (15 May) as a national day of mourning and organize commemorative events. The law also violates the principle of equality and the rights of Arab citizens to freedom to express their opinion and to preserve their history and culture.”
Source: link to adalah.org
Technological innovation. Vibrant arts and culture scene.
These are not values.
rshalev, thank you for your response. I’d say that the American elite works for their interests, and could care less for the people, and that Israeli elites also exploit and benefit from the current state of affairs. I also suggest that both elites conspire, just in the same way corporations do to game the market place, and that Americans like the Evangelicals who cooperate and support this are just as culpable as those Jews who support Israeli policies.
So to answer your question why I say American interests are subordinated to Israeli interests, we come back to financial control and influence on American politics. There also is the mistaken belief that allowing Israel to act as the policeman of the M.E. will help America control the world’s major oil and gas nexus in Central Asia.
An objective that can better be attained by peaceful means, but the militarized option works better to ensure Israeli hegemony imo.
I can see why you say it appears that way, but I don’t think the evidence points towards a subordination of American interests. Whether or not their imperialist objectives can be achieved by peaceful means may or may not be true. But I think that the political elite have determined that they would rather ensure Israeli regional hegemony to promote their interests. The US pursues less-than-peaceful means quite often.
Israel is not very different from South Africa, in fact. The US supported South African hegemony in southern Africa for its own purposes. South Africa was used, in the same way Israel has been, to carry out military operations in the region that promoted US elite interests.
Also, Israel serves as a testing ground for counterinsurgency tactics for the US, which are in turn used on Americans here at home. Israel serves a number of purposes for the US.
Do you think that if the American political and economic elite thought that their interests were being subordinated to Israeli interests they would not put a stop to it? Is the influence of all these interest groups less than the influence of the Jewish lobby? This point goes back to what Chomsky said, “We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business.”
rshalev, the answer to that might lie in the question what other lobby has such a predominance in politics, finance, law, media and academia? But never mind, that debate became stale a decade ago and it’s only the general public that’s finally waking up to that.
But regarding, South Africa, the elites were forced to withdraw their support when it no longer was feasible; I doubt they’d ever throw Israel under the bus, and the question is, why?
Sorry it took me so long to respond. That I don’t think the lobby, if given a strict definition, has such predominance, is precisely my point. “Supporters of Israel” as a broad category do have such a predominance. But so do “supporters of Columbia” (of the government we prop up), “supporters of Egypt” (before the recent uprising), or “opponents of Russia,” “opponents of Venezuela,” etc. Which countries are “good” or “bad,” which governments we ought to support and which to work to overturn is generally agreed upon among the American elite.
And again, my point is precisely the opposite of what you take as a given to be true; that in the same manner that the elites withdrew support from South Africa once it was no longer beneficial to them, they will withdraw support from Israel if it is no longer beneficial to them.
And I see no evidence that Israel is special in this way, that elites will support Israel no matter what, even against their own interests. And that is why I think that there is something else behind this presupposition. So, when I suggest that this argument has anti-semitic undertones, I don’t mean to silence anyone with this claim. Anti-semitism is too often used to silence critics of Israel. But racisms of all sorts do permeate our culture, and color our understanding of the world, even of leftists who recognize such racism. Ridding ourselves of racism is a struggle, not a given.
So, I think we need to rethink why we hold this incredible view that a group that happens to be Jewish has some kind of unprecedented hold over decision making. In fact, such a mysteriously powerful hold on decision making has precedents only in anti-semitic ideas that Jews conspiratorially control the world. Maybe these ideas have permeated our understanding of Middle Eastern politics.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken this year, most Americans (56%) support a US attack on Iran if there is evidence that the Iranians have a program to develop nuclear weapons.
An even larger majority (62%) supports Israel taking action under the same circumstances.
More reason to lie then about the existence of such a program.
When was that poll taken? The last one I saw showed only 27% of Americans supporting a US attack on Iran — and 70% opposed.
I believe the poll is from this past March. It is consistent with other polls.