Yesterday I picked up UCLA professor Mark Kleiman’s appeal to Jews and people with Jewish-sounding names to write to their Senators as Jews in opposition to the Iran sanctions being pushed by the warmongering Israel lobby. I wrote that Kleiman and I agree that Jews have outsized influence on Middle East policy. Kleiman wrote to me:
I see your post says that you and I agree. That is false. We could not disagree more. And I thought my previous email made that clear, since it started with “Not at all.”
I do not believe that “Jews” have too much influence. I despise the practice of “counting Jews,” whether you’re doing it or whether Fred Malek does it for Richard Nixon. I think that farmers who dislike farm subsidies should label themselves as farmers when they write in opposition to farm subsidies. In this case, support for Obama and opposition to war with Iran is almost certainly more prevalent among Jews than among non-Jews. That was the whole point of my post: the position of the self-appointed moneyed spokespeople for the American Jewish community do not in fact reflect the majority views in that community.
If you and Jonah Goldberg and that creep at the Free Beacon want to brawl, be my guest. But I have no interest in taking sides. I’m a proud liberal, a proud Jew (despite Adelson and Bibi) and a proud American (despite Cheney), and a proponent of both Jewish influence in American politics and American power in the world, both of which, on average, are exerted in a liberal direction.
Since your projection of your views onto me is incorrect, and since you claim the title of “journalist,” I request that you publish a full retraction.
I’m happy to publish Kleiman’s note but no retraction. I’ll say it again: Kleiman and I agree that Jews have outsize influence on Middle East policy. He thinks it’s a good thing; I think it’s problematic, given the politics of the Israel lobby and Zionism inside Jewish life. His claim here that Jews are just another constituency but one that opposes the sanctions legislation, and that’s why he’s trying to animate it is disingenuous. He’s not issuing his appeal to Iranian-Americans — who oppose the hateful sanctions legislation in greater measure than Jews, I’m sure — because he knows Iranian-Americans are chopped liver on this issue. He knows that politicians respond to Jews on this question, and those “self-appointed moneyed spokespeople for the American Jewish community” have incredible access to Obama and the Senate too. (And though I agree with him that those spokespeople are out of step with liberal Jewish life, that does not account for the Union for Reform Judaism supporting the Iraq war, or Americans for Peace Now refusing to quit the rightwing Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.)
Kleiman does some name-calling, lumping me with a famous act of anti-Semitism: Fred Malek counting Jews under Nixon. That’s foolish. As Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal said lately, We live “at a time of unparalleled Jewish power and wealth, and it makes us so uneasy, we prefer to talk about everything but.” Kleiman seems nostalgic for the 70s and the era of Jewish outsiderness. It’s over.
Kleiman says ‘I do not believe that “Jews” have too much influence.’ This is irrational thinking at best. It is clear that many Jews control a lot of money and wish to support AIPAC or Israeli goals. Because they control so much money and are concerned about Israel they tend to have a disproportionate access to and influence over politicians in many cases related to foreign policy. The recent Iran sanctions bill is a dramatic example of this, according to our mainstream media and even the Israeli media. Given that the majority of Americans are opposed to this bill, it is a logical step for the average American to propose that Jews have too much influence and therefore may distort the desires of the American majority.
MARK KLEIMAN- “I’m a proud liberal, a proud Jew (despite Adelson and Bibi) and a proud American (despite Cheney), and a proponent of both Jewish influence in American politics and American power in the world, both of which, on average, are exerted in a liberal direction.”
Ah, a liberal imperialist and Jewish chauvinist. Kind of go together, don’t they? Phil, perhaps you are embracing this guy a little too closely? Maybe not.
Kleiman: “I despise the practice of “counting Jews,”….”
I suspect that what Kleiman really means is that he hates highlighting Jewish power in front of Gentiles. I also suspect that Kleiman himself “counts Jews.” How else to measure “Jewish influence in American politics?” Did he oppose counting the lack of Jews back when Jews were assaulting the citadels of power? Besides, in a multicultural society how else to detect power imbalances among the various groups? Isn’t that what affirmative action was all about? And didn’t Jews support that when it benefited them? And now oppose “reverse discrimination” when it threatens? Having power and remaining invisible, hence unaccountable, is having your cake and eating it too. It’s all about power.
While I agreed with Kleiman that in the Iran situtation Jews opposing Iran should make it clear to the politicians they are Jews ….its too bad he was making that appeal as a “proud’ proponent of Jewish influence…instead of the political realities in the Iran issue .
“I’m a proud liberal, a proud Jew (despite Adelson and Bibi) and a proud American (despite Cheney), and a proponent of both Jewish influence in American politics and American power in the world, both of which, on average, are exerted in a liberal direction.”
And he may be a proud Jew but he’s definitely not American in the sense most other Americans are—-this country and the use of its power was not meant to be influenced by ethnics any more than it was to be by religious influence.
He’s thinks he’s not like Adelson and Bibi?…lol.
All the ways the ‘ethnic proud-ist” delude themselves about what they are is amazing…as if there’s a difference in a liberal supremist and a conserative supremist.
There isnt.
political influence isn’t the biggest issue, in my opinion. Rich people have it, white people have it, males have it…
Kleiman’s comment about farmers weighing in on farm bills is more to the point. Zionist influence on US war/spending for zionist interests benefits ONE segment of the US population ONLY – the ones who are allowed to claim the land taken from the Palestinians with financial/military/political support of the entire US. It is a conflict of interest, and I see his point, though he stops a little short of it.
His answer to you, Phil, was “I don’t think a Jewish name would have extra weight on a question about heath care or crime control or global warming or Burma. It’s only on questions where “Jews” generically are perceived to have one opinion that a Jew expressing a contrary opinion is man-bites-dog.”
So here, on this issue people are considered having one view, and to step outside that would be an exception to the alleged fact that they don’t have extra weight- which is not the case on normal issues. But in this case it is an exception because they are seen to have one view, and being an exception “the name” does carry extra weight, and thus results in such a strong impact to be like man bites dog.
In any case, Washington works by lobby and interest groups. So you can just ask what are the lobbies, interest groups, and constituencies that want aggression in the Middle East, and you got your answer.
In the runup to the Iraq war, I would assume good journalists would take on all the interest groups pushing for war- from the oil companies to contractors, the Iraqi oppositionists, etc. And a person who really does not want war would express their concerns about all these, and lay it all out in order to prevent the war, which was wrong.