Israeli leader turns on US Jewish journalists Friedman, Wieseltier, Remnick and Silvers for disloyalty and anti-semitism!

US Politics
on 82 Comments

The wheels are really coming off the cart. The latest report from former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren’s forthcoming book is that he says Jewish journalists have a disproportionate role in American media (Surprise!) but they verge on anti-Semitism in their criticisms of Israel and its rightwing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

You didn’t see this in the New York Times. No: Chemi Shalev has the story in Haaretz.

Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, claims that Jewish journalists are largely responsible for American media’s anti-Israel coverage and the “double standard” it applies in its coverage of the Jewish state. Oren also writes that the antagonism towards Netanyahu shown by Jewish journalists such as Thomas Friedman and Leon Wieseltier resembles historic hatred of Jews…

Oren dismisses the claim that “Jews control the media” as an anti-Semitic canard, but then proceeds to lend it credence by writing that it “reflects the disproportionate number – relative to their share of the U.S. population – of Jewish journalists.” He goes on to say that “the presence of so many Jews in print and on screen rarely translates into support for Israel. The opposite is often the case, as some American Jewish journalists flag their Jewishness as a credential for criticizing Israel. ‘I’m Jewish,’ some even seem to say, ‘but I’m not one of those Jews – the settlers, the rabbis, Israeli leaders, or the soldiers of the IDF.’”

Right. That’s exactly what we do. Because Israel claims to speak in our name, as the Jewish state. Oren gets vicious:

Pondering what could drive Jews to “nitpick” at what he describes as their own “nation-state”, Oren claims that some “saw assailing Israel as a career enhancer – the equivalent of Jewish man bites Jewish dog – that saved several struggling pundits from obscurity….

Our own nation-state. This is of course why Oren moved there from the United States– and now is a member of the Israeli parliament–  he believed it was his country. And he expects us to hold the fort in the U.S. for our own little piece of heaven in the Middle East, and keep the checks coming, but keep our mouths shut when Israel adopts the same kind of Jim Crow and slave-state policies that we fought in the U.S.

David Remnick

David Remnick

Oren names only Wieseltier and Friedman in the account that Shalev produces. Though he also identifies David Remnick and Robert Silvers.

He singles out the “malicious” op-ed page of the New York Times “once revered as an interface of ideas, now sadly reduced to a sounding board for only one, which often excluded Israel’s legitimacy”, but says the paper is not alone. “The New Yorker and the New York Review of Books, both Jewish-edited, rarely ran nonincriminating reports on Israeli affairs.”

But then Oren is talking about Roger Cohen, Ken Silverstein and Max Blumenthal, too, by implication:

Oren says that he was particularly pained by articles critical of Israel in which “the bylines were Jewish”.

And there’s this bit about Wieseltier.

He recounts a conversation in which he accused Wieseltier of harboring “pathological hatred” towards Netanyahu – and Wieseltier agreeing with him. “The antagonism sparked by Netanyahu,” he continues, “resembled that traditionally triggered by Jews. We were always the ultimate Other – communists in the view of capitalists and capitalists in communist eyes, nationalists for the cosmopolitans and, for jingoists, the International Jew.

This is really crazy. Wieseltier appears at AIPAC, the leading Israel lobby group! He is the reverent son of a Revisionist Zionist who held the line against criticisms of Israel at the New Republic for 25 years as its literary editor, who barked Jeffrey Goldberg’s shins when he was too critical of settlers, who dismissed Walt and Mearsheimer’s landmark description of the Israel lobby as anti-Semitic.

Now we find out that Wieseltier is a self-hating assimilating Jew, per Oren. This just shows how meretricious the use of the “anti-Semite” label is, and ought to offer even more encouragement to all you non-Jewish critics of Israel who are afraid to say anything lest you be tarred.

Over at the New York Review of Books, Robert Silvers has maintained liberal Zionist principles of a generational character. He has run Michael Walzer and Moshe Halbertal defending Israel from war crimes charges in Gaza, alongside David Shulman reporting from the occupation, but he has endeavored to dismiss the one-state discussion ever since the late Tony Judt blurted it out in the magazine 12 years ago. At The New Yorker, David Remnick has been more critical: he has complained about the Israel lobby and published Yousef Munayyer’s reckoning of a Gaza slaughter and argument for a single state; but he has also held the liberal Zionist line, promoting Bernard Avishai and Ari Shavit’s ideas of how to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

I’m thrilled by Michael Oren’s shot, as a sign of what is coming: open warfare between the American Jewish community and the Israeli one that will break out in the U.S. press. Haaretz won’t be the only publication to cover it. Even Abraham Foxman is criticizing Israel these days, and any college freshman can tell you the country violates American democratic values. So the pro-Israel crowd is going to respond by invoking our supposed “loyalty” to Israel– or as the Times phrased it not long ago, “[Jewish politicians] will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state”– and almost all American Jews will stand by the country they live in.

Then the Obama administration will refuse to veto a Palestinian state resolution in the Security Council, the issue will break fully inside US politics, and you will see young mainstream Jewish journalists declaring, I’m an anti-Zionist, and politicians running against the Israel lobby in 2016.

An important polarization will take place. Zionism will be seen by everyone to be what it has worked out to be, a segregationist ideology, and important liberal Zionists led by Peter Beinart will with sadness and sagacity renounce it.

P.S. Here’s Josh Marshall, himself an Israel supporter, on the Oren mess:

So Jews don’t like Netanyahu for all the hideous and dark reasons gentiles have historically not liked Jews.

The whole thing descends to a parodic, almost Dolezalesque level of gobsmacking when Oren puts forward Leon Wieseltier as the exemplar of these self-hating, anti-Israel Jews

(By the way, Marshall says of the lobby: “American Jews, who despite not holding a candle to the numbers of Israel’s evangelical supporters, are still a not insignificant foothold of the alliance…” That’s irresponsible. We are the straw that stirs the drink. How many of Israel’s evangelical supporters was Obama afraid of alienating when he vetoed the settlement resolution or installed the platform plank on Jerusalem? Zero.)

Thanks to Annie Robbins.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. CigarGod
    June 17, 2015, 10:44 am

    Very good.
    I admit before my first visit to Israel, at age 16, I sort of felt like it was homeland. But it wasnt a very conscious thing. In that first hour, though…I didnt want to be associated with what I saw. I like the hope in the statement by some wise person, thats says: we evolve/change…one funeral at a time. Young people are so much freer from the kind of divisive programing, that the new birthright program is trying to keep alive. Young people see the inequality, and reject it. They view it like we do: we recoil at the look and the smell that is coming off the body of Israeli practices. Hope is a very potent concept. It is like holding a zucchini seed in your hand, and knowing with proper care, it will quickly burst into a huge plant, bearing more fruit that one person can handle.

    • ckg
      June 17, 2015, 2:37 pm

      Great comment, CG. The new birthright program may open as many eyes to the injustice as it shuts. Your experience in Israel at 16 reminds me of my trip at 15 to the Grand Canyon with a conservative evangelical church group. The church tour leader described how the canyon was carved out by the receding waters of the great flood of Noah. I did not return to that church or that mode of thinking. It was a transformative experience, but not in the way that the tour leader would have wanted. Many Jewish kids have had their eyes opened to the injustice during Taglit tours, now its time for the evangelical kids.

      • CigarGod
        June 17, 2015, 3:04 pm

        Thank God, for a few good teachers in our youth, eh?

      • Giles
        June 19, 2015, 8:36 am

        “The new birthright program may open as many eyes to the injustice as it shuts.”

        I kind of doubt that if we are to base our opinions based on the experience of the past several decades

      • ckg
        June 20, 2015, 8:32 pm

        I know, Giles. I think I should leave the overly optimistic posts to Phil, whom I nevertheless love reading.,

  2. Annie Robbins
    June 17, 2015, 11:07 am

    Remnick promoting Avishai and Shavit’s ” ideas of how to get the toothpaste back in the tube. ”

    too funny!

    and your killer last line phil:

    We are the straw that stirs the drink.

    i’m beginning to think “historic hatred of jews” is the catch all ziocaine phraseology. it explains everything — for people like oren.

    • Blownaway
      June 17, 2015, 11:38 am

      Oren is a smart man. This could very well be a tactic to put Jews critical of Israel on the defensive, as well as Obama. Instead of a backlash against the chutzpah of suggesting that the President of the United States should be running his speeches by Netanyahu or that prominent Jews mildly criticizing Israel , they will now be on the defensive trying to prove how much they love Israel. In fact it has already started with Shapiro trying to prove how much Obama loves Israel

      • CigarGod
        June 17, 2015, 11:51 am

        He is dedicated to political zionism, thats for sure. He has spent his life at it. One never knows what he is doing. I recall he was active in destabilizing Ukraine, long ago.

      • Donald
        June 17, 2015, 12:08 pm

        I think that’s correct–it’s all about framing. I don’t know if it will work–attacking Wieseltier as an anti-Semite is just so over-the-top it might backfire, but the general idea is probably just what you say it is. The liberal Zionists will feel pressured to demonstrate their love for Israel and people who aren’t Zionists at all are tacitly assumed to be the equivalent of Nazis.

    • Philip Weiss
      June 17, 2015, 12:11 pm

      Annie that is Reggie Jackson’s line, the former Baltimore Orioles slugger. He was saying he was the leader of the team — another team that he played for.

      • ckg
        June 17, 2015, 2:58 pm

        Incidently, Reggie Jackson was a high school classmate of Yonatan Netanyahu, the younger brother of Benjamin who graduated three years earlier. Yonatan was the only Israeli soldier killed in Operation Entebbe in Uganda.

    • imagine65
      June 25, 2015, 12:56 am

      That’s right Annie. There is very little in the way of real criticism of Israel in the mainstream media. I learned a lot from website and Max’s book “Goliath”. If you were to mention the reality of the African refugees, most people would look at you as if you were from Neptune. Frankly, the people who reside on another planet are Israel’s defenders!!

  3. Whizdom
    June 17, 2015, 11:38 am

    First they came for the Finkelsteins, then they came for Max Blumenthal and Peter Beinart and Dianne Rehm, then they came for Wieselter? Who is left?

  4. Edward Q
    June 17, 2015, 12:14 pm

    Oren has upped the ante on what constitutes anti-semitism. Israel’s defenders used to conflate this with criticism of Israel, but apparently now it means criticizing Bibi Netanyahu.

    • mijj
      June 17, 2015, 3:01 pm

      .. to be fair tho, Bibi *is* the King of the Jews.

    • RoHa
      June 17, 2015, 7:02 pm

      I worked it out long ago. It’s quite simple.

      Everything is anti-Semitic, by default.
      It only stops being anti-Semitic when endorsed by an accredited Zionist.

      • Bornajoo
        June 18, 2015, 3:53 am

        “I worked it out long ago. It’s quite simple.

        Everything is anti-Semitic, by default.
        It only stops being anti-Semitic when endorsed by an accredited Zionist”

        I think you nailed it RoHa!

  5. David Doppler
    June 17, 2015, 12:18 pm

    Perpetual doubling down is how gambler’s lose it all.

    Why is the debate: either you’re gambling with us, or you’re an Anti-Semite, OR

    Zionism must die. ????

    How about exporting American values to Israel? Zionism can become Americanized, 21st centuryized. Israel can be redeemed, but not when the debate is my existential threat versus yours. Who’s fear is more palpable?

    How about who’s vision for the future is more realistic, most in keeping with universal values that respects all individuals?

    • Mooser
      June 19, 2015, 6:23 pm

      “How about exporting American values to Israel? Zionism can become Americanized, 21st centuryized.”

      You mean Palestinians will have full access to fair courts, and can sue for restitution and reparations per the agreements Israel is founded on? That will be very interesting. Will there be an amnesty for criminal acts committed by Israelis against Palestinians, or will these things be pursued under the new “Americanized, 21st centuryized” Israel? We don’t want to get too close to the 21st century.

  6. Shmuel
    June 17, 2015, 12:23 pm

    “The antagonism sparked by Netanyahu,” he continues, “resembled that traditionally triggered by Jews. We were always the ultimate Other – communists in the view of capitalists and capitalists in communist eyes, nationalists for the cosmopolitans and, for jingoists, the International Jew.

    So Netanyahu regularly gets criticised for being a communist and a rootless cosmopolitan? I must have missed those op-eds in the NYT.

    Oh, I get it now. It was just an analogy. What Oren really meant is that Netanyahu gets criticised no matter what he does: whether he builds illegal settlements and bombs innocent civilians, or conducts peace negotiations in good faith and cracks down on human rights violations in the Occupied Territories. No, wait …

  7. ckg
    June 17, 2015, 12:32 pm

    Somewhat O/T but still on the subject of journalists’ attitude toward Israel, Salon is reporting today that Roger AIles and Fox News will not in fact continue reporting to Rupert Murdock but instead to Murdoch’s sons. Ailes fabricated the initial report that he would continue reporting to Roger, and now 21 Century Fox has publicly rebuked Ailes for that false claim. This is important because the sons are said to detest Fox News and have much more progressive views on I/P.
    James Murdoch once launched into a tirade with Tony Blair on the subject of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians.

    • CigarGod
      June 17, 2015, 12:36 pm

      You can interrupt regularly scheduled programing with those special news bulletins, any time.

    • marc b.
      June 17, 2015, 5:06 pm

      yes, he was on the ropes for a bit during the phone hacking scandal for his outspoken sympathy for the Palestinians. TB are the initials for Tony Blair, not tuberculosis, although you could mistake one for the other.

      His growing confidence could startle. In 2002, Campbell records in his diaries, Rupert Murdoch, James and Lachlan came to dinner at Downing Street. The conversation turned to the Middle East: “[Rupert] Murdoch said he didn’t see what the Palestinians’ problem was and James said it was that they were kicked out of their fucking homes and had nowhere to fucking live. Murdoch . . . finally said to James that he didn’t think he should talk like that in the prime minister’s house . . . TB said afterwards he was quite impressed with the way Murdoch let his sons do so much of the talking.”

      • ckg
        June 17, 2015, 7:16 pm

        Thanks, marc . The new reporting relationship will begin July 1. This should be fun to watch.

  8. Marshall
    June 17, 2015, 12:36 pm

    Haha, it’s chickens-coming-home-to-roost week! First we have this (and God I hope every Jewish journalist and his brother has a request for comment in to Wieseltier), and then tomorrow it’s Cafeteria Catholic day when every wingnut welfare Catholic decides there really are some church doctrines that you can pass up if they go against David Koch’s deeply held beliefs.

  9. oldgeezer
    June 17, 2015, 2:05 pm

    Wow…. Reading this and several Israeli dailies this is turning into a full court verbal attack on the US. Israel seems to be coming apart at the seams. The equivalent of a nervous breakdown or even a psychotic moment.

    • lysias
      June 17, 2015, 2:35 pm

      That’s what happened to the pieds noirs as they saw French opinion turning against them.

      • Whizdom
        June 17, 2015, 7:13 pm

        Exactly.

  10. a blah chick
    June 17, 2015, 2:37 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this is more fallout from the Gaza war. Israel saw how their die hard supporters gave them a free pass and now they are upping the crazy. Why shouldn’t they? Dead babies in ice cream coolers didn’t cause much of a reaction from (official) Jewish leadership. All they’re doing now is picking on a bunch of rich white guys.

    • Don
      June 17, 2015, 7:51 pm

      ” upping the crazy”…too funny.

      You have a way with words, no doubt about it.

  11. hophmi
    June 17, 2015, 2:39 pm

    “An important polarization will take place. Zionism will be seen by everyone to be what it has worked out to be, a segregationist ideology, and important liberal Zionists led by Peter Beinart will with sadness and sagacity renounce it.”

    Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys. There is zero social science data to support this prognostication. Overwhelming majorities of Americans, including American Jews, support Israel’s right to exist and have little sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

    • Philip Weiss
      June 17, 2015, 2:46 pm

      We have a bet, Hophmi. I give him 3 years.

    • a blah chick
      June 17, 2015, 2:52 pm

      “Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys.”

      Who’s this “everyone else”? I don’t see Palestinian Arabs “enjoying” it.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        June 17, 2015, 3:47 pm

        “Everyone else” means “everyone else who counts.”

    • CigarGod
      June 17, 2015, 3:06 pm

      Blood is thicker than Logic, eh, Hophmi?

    • Mooser
      June 17, 2015, 3:17 pm

      “Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys.”

      And besides, Beinart is a “gentleman”!

      “There is zero social science data to support this prognostication.”

      On the other hand, the disabling effects of Jewish self hatred on the editors and staff of Mondoweiss is a matter of “easily accessed sociological data”!

    • Shmuel
      June 17, 2015, 4:03 pm

      Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys

      First of all, thanks for the compliment, hophmi.

      Zionism is just nationalism. Not everyone is a nationalist, and not everyone who is not a nationalist is a self-hating, bigot, traitor, pinko, public enemy, “knife in the nation’s back”, etc.

      Beinart has come to the conclusion that his people’s nationalism has some very big ethical (and practical) problems. For the moment, he thinks a reasonable compromise between these conflicting values can be achieved. He can go 3 basic ways from here:
      1) Continue to believe he (and his people) can hold on to both.
      2) Decide that the two cannot be reconciled and, with or without a heavy heart, renounce nationalism.
      3) Decide that the two cannot be reconciled and, with or without a heavy heart, decide to renounce (at least where Israel is concerned) values such as equality and democracy.

      I’ve been there and chosen my path. Beinart will choose his. I’ve seen all three. It’s hard to predict. Even you may become an anti-Zionist some day. As the Rabbis said: “Don’t be sure of yourself until your dying day and don’t judge your fellow until you are in his place.”

      • bintbiba
        June 17, 2015, 6:57 pm

        Shmuel,

        Thank you for being such a magnificent voice of calm ethical and moral Reason..
        You renew my ever faltering faith in Humanity..

        I can’t express enough my appreciation to your presence with us on MondoWeiss.

      • Don
        June 17, 2015, 7:57 pm

        Second that, bintbiba.

      • eljay
        June 17, 2015, 9:34 pm

        And I’ll third it, Don.

      • James North
        June 17, 2015, 11:31 pm

        Fourth it.

      • Shmuel
        June 18, 2015, 5:49 am

        Bintbiba,

        I speak from a position of privilege. I have never lost my home, been a refugee or suffered the consequences of war. It is Palestinian voices like yours that are a beacon of humanity.

      • Bornajoo
        June 18, 2015, 5:52 am

        “Bintbiba,

        I speak from a position of privilege. I have never lost my home, been a refugee or suffered the consequences of war. It is Palestinian voices like yours that are a beacon of humanity.”

        Fully agree Shmuel. +1!

      • eljay
        June 18, 2015, 8:14 am

        || Shmuel: Bintbiba, I speak from a position of privilege. I have never lost my home, been a refugee or suffered the consequences of war. It is Palestinian voices like yours that are a beacon of humanity. ||

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You are truly a class act, Shmuel.

      • ritzl
        June 18, 2015, 11:34 am

        Truly, eljay.

    • Hostage
      June 17, 2015, 4:17 pm

      Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys.

      A typical Hophmi ad homenim diatribe based upon nothing but pure unadulterated Zionist propaganda. Wonder where he gets his inspiration?

      “Throughout the 1930s, Hitler portrayed Germany as a victimized nation, held in bondage by the chains of the post-World War I Versailles Treaty and denied the right of national self-determination.” — Deceiving the Public, Holocaust Encyclopedia, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007822

      In the 1940s, Hitler outlawed the distribution of maps of “Greater Germany” he had commissioned and employed to justify the conquest of other nations in Europe, when Germany overran and occupied much more territory than even those grandiose fabrications would have permitted him to claim. When he renounced German claims to South Tyrol and ordered it to be depicted as Italian territory, the leaders of the Volkish Nationalist settler movement, like Friedrich Metz, denounced him as “a traitor to the German people”. See Guntram Henrik Herb, “Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda 1918 – 1945,” Routledge, 2002, page 182

    • RoHa
      June 17, 2015, 8:04 pm

      “Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys. ”

      I presume you mean he won’t deny Americans a decent National Health Service.

      But what has that got to do with Zionism?

    • eljay
      June 17, 2015, 9:32 pm

      || hophmi: Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot … ||

      You’re right. He – like you – is just a bigot. And he – like you – will not renounce Zionism as long as he continues to value Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State” more than justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied.

    • Giles
      June 18, 2015, 8:48 am

      “Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys. ”

      Interesting comment. So Beinart’s not an American, he is an Israeli per hophmi.

      You know hophmi, the person who will call you and anti-Semite if you use the terms dual loyalty or Israeli Firster.

      • ckg
        June 18, 2015, 11:07 am

        So Beinart’s not an American, he is an Israeli per hophmi.

        And let’s not forget this person wrote, “Diane Rehm should be fired immediately” for her “antisemitic nonsense”.

    • Froggy
      June 18, 2015, 3:30 pm

      hophmi : “Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys.”

      Beinart is American. ‘His people’ are his fellow Americans.

      • catalan
        June 18, 2015, 3:46 pm

        “Beinart is American. ‘His people’ are his fellow Americans. – ”
        But talknic says that Israel is the state of every Jewish person because they allow easy immigration for Jews.
        Whom should I believe?

      • talknic
        June 18, 2015, 4:38 pm

        catalan demonstrates his stupidity

        //“Beinart is American. ‘His people’ are his fellow Americans. – ”//

        “But talknic says that Israel is the state of every Jewish person because they allow easy immigration for Jews.”

        A) Benart is an American citizen

        B) Despite the fact that Israel opens the gates “of the homeland wide to every Jew” not all Jews have bothered to become Israeli citizens

        “Whom should I believe?”

        Why don’t you ask your mommy to explain it to you kiddo

      • catalan
        June 18, 2015, 5:41 pm

        Talknic, you have stated:
        “We were given, completely gratis, the territory for our Jewish state. -”
        You, an Australian citizen, refer to Israel in this quote as “our Jewish state”. I am very confused. Is Israel Beinart’s state , or is the United States?

  12. Nevada Ned
    June 17, 2015, 3:29 pm

    Robert Silvers, editor of the New York Review of Books, has kept the pages of NYRB closed to Noam Chomsky since the 1970s, even though by some surveys Chomsky is the most influential public intellectual alive in the world today.

    I’m old enough to remember the 1960’s, when Chomsky’s articles in the NYRB (about the US attack on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) were an important factor in the rise (and good reputation among intellectuals) of NYRB. But starting some time in the 1970’s (4 decades ago) Chomsky has been blacklisted by NYRB.

    And Oren accuses Silvers of insufficient enthusiasm for the Israeli cause!!

    OT, but I’ll quote a joke about NYRB attributed to Gore Vidal:

    The New York Review of Books is written by intellectuals who are so highbrow that they never actually read books, only books ABOUT books.

  13. surewin
    June 17, 2015, 3:39 pm

    Oren has psychological problems relating to tribal identity and so on, but he is intelligent and is in a position to know a lot about what’s going on. I think this story is closely connected to the one from yesterday on Mondoweiss about Israel’s demographic, economic, and financial prognosis, which is very poor. The committed Zionists view Israel in the way that leaders of countries, companies, government bureaucracies, and other organizations always do: the organization must continue to grow, to get bigger and stronger. If it’s not doing that, it’s shriveling and shrinking, moving in the wrong direction, toward extinction. Stagnation or, worse, shrinkage, is just not tolerable.

    It has become clear recently that the grandiose plans for Israel are most unlikely to be realized. The globalist network of London and New York, which is diverse but has very substantial Jewish participation, has obviously decided that Israel has evolved into a problem for them. The policies of the Obama administration since the 2012 election are not indicative of hostility toward Jews; those policies have been dictated to Obama by the globalist community. Since the 2012 election, there is indeed a raging power struggle underway which is substantially an internecine power struggle between Jewish factions. Ultimately the globalists have the tools and the power to prevail. The Natanyahus, Orens, and Kristols do not.

    The international community, with globalist diaspora Jews playing a central role, will whittle Israel down to a manageable, limited enterprise, which has Netanyahu, Oren, and Kristol in a state of panic.

  14. JLewisDickerson
    June 17, 2015, 4:13 pm

    RE: How many of Israel’s evangelical supporters was Obama afraid of alienating when he vetoed the settlement resolution or installed the platform plank on Jerusalem? Zero.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: That’s a valid point, but Obama might nonetheless be wary of providing fodder for Republicans in congress to use in demagoguing evangelical (i.e. Christian Zionist) constituents.

    MY FUNDIE CONGRESSMAN PER WIKIPEDIA (Barry Loudermilk):

    [EXCERPTS] Barry Dean Loudermilk (born December 22, 1963) is an American politician from the state of Georgia. He is the U.S. Congressman from Georgia’s 11th congressional district, which covers part of Atlanta’s northern suburbs. Loudermilk won the Republican nomination for the seat in a runoff on July 22, 2014 over Bob Barr, and won the general election on November 4, 2014.[2] . . .
    . . . Loudermilk has been endorsed by evangelical Christian minister David Barton.[5]

    5. “Barry Loudermilk, House GOP Candidate, Wins Endorsement From Controversial Historian David Barton”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved January 19, 2015.

  15. Helena Cobban
    June 17, 2015, 4:53 pm

    Gore Vidal (RIP) once remarked that Weiseltier “has important hair.” I see it has now become more important than ever. What a self-important narcissist.

  16. eGuard
    June 17, 2015, 4:58 pm

    The New Yorker and the New York Review of Books, both Jewish-edited

    Jewish-edited. There is something with that word. But what was it?

  17. RoHa
    June 17, 2015, 8:09 pm

    “he says Jewish journalists have a disproportionate role in American media”

    Hold on. Isn’t that one of those tropey thingies?

    “Oren dismisses the claim that “Jews control the media” as an anti-Semitic canard,”

    Ah! It’s a canard. That could hit hard. If you want to avoid being hit by a canard, the best thing to do is duck.

    • Elisabeth
      June 18, 2015, 3:24 am

      If you want to avoid being hit by a ‘canard’, the best thing to do is ‘duck’.-

      That is too funny…

      • Mooser
        June 18, 2015, 4:31 pm

        “Elisabeth” it has long been evident to me that “RoHa”( like Capt Spaulding the African explorer,) is a very moral man.
        In fact, he said he was determined to go through life with mallards towards none.

      • Citizen
        June 19, 2015, 12:54 pm

        duck dynasty ducks–oops I mean yucks

      • Mooser
        June 19, 2015, 6:27 pm

        Citizen, you try to cross that river on a chicken, and you’ll know viaduct!

  18. Mooser
    June 17, 2015, 9:48 pm

    This is very interesting. Josh Marshall editor of Talking Points Memo, is also writing about this latest Oren imbroglio at the Zionist seraglio, and Josh marshall, discussing the “no daylight” part of the “special relationship” says:

    Goldberg goes through a litany of cases over the last half century where the US publicly disagreed with Israel or announced a policy without first getting Jerusalem’s sign off.”

    “Jerusalem’s”? “Jerusalem” is the capitol of Israel?

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/interrogating-the-phony-history-of-the-us-israel-alliance

  19. yonah fredman
    June 17, 2015, 9:55 pm

    Allow me to start with a nitpick focused on mw:

    Is Michael Oren an Israeli leader? Is every member of the house or the senate an american leader? Oren was ambassador, he is an MK, but leadership means more than this, I think. I suppose when writing a headline it’s easier to write leader rather than power holder.

    If Ari Shavit’s primary audience was David Remnick, Michael Oren’s primary audience is Sean Hannity (I don’t watch Fox, so I might have picked the wrong name to focus upon.) I find the ability of an outsider like Bibi to take over Likud so completely to be amazing and an anomaly. Oren has his eyes set on higher office, but the Bibi phenomenon is not going to be repeated with him. He has no political draw in Israel, near zero and as such I don’t consider him an Israeli leader.

    This is an attack on Obama and Obama is not very popular among Israel supporting Jews right now, slightly swelling the Fox part of the Jewish pie chart. Who has the patience to study the Iran pact that is about to be signed? For what, in order to prove to myself the virtue of the claim that it’s dangerous for Israel? But no matter, I do not have the patience to study the issue in depth and I find it just easier to assume that it will indeed put Iran in the position of a threshold state in 15 years or so and that’s okay with Obama and I understand that people who support Israel more than just nominally, might be a bit uncomfortable with the coming treaty.

    There is another Obama issue: Will he sign on to the French UNSC resolution this fall. (Assuming that Iran is behind him and this would not confuse the Iran issue in any way.) If he signs onto it, Oren’s claim is that Obama wanted this outcome of his time in office, he wanted a new resolution because the peace process was busted. Oren doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what he’s saying. And indeed if Obama signs onto the SC resolution, the right wing Zionists will argue that it was Obama’s original intent to end up with such an outcome.

    I think Obama has been a weak president and I think his policy starting with the Cairo speech showed an unrealistic bent. The Arab Spring resulted more as a ripple effect of the downturn in the economy and the havoc created as an offshoot of the collapse of Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein. It didn’t result from Obama’s Cairo speech. But as positive as those students in Cairo felt towards Obama, he did not deliver for them. A speech is but a speech and Cairo is under the boot of Sisi with Muslim Brotherhood banned and what precisely about that outcome today in 2015 sheds a complimentary light on Obama’s policy: Nothing. Obama is feckless regarding the middle east.

    The peace process was in fact busted when he came in and it wasn’t Obama who busted it. It was Bibi or maybe more precisely those who elected Bibi. The opportunity created by Ariel Sharon for a peacemaking effort to come from his wing of the Likud lasted only a few months after his collapse into a coma, as in it was able to win only one election without Sharon as its leader, as an echo of Sharon. Bibi was there to put an end to that. That’s why he was elected and even those who might have been optimistic that Bibi sees exactly what Olmert sees, it turns out not to be true or even if Bibi also sees it, he’s willing to ignore it, just to keep the status quo going a little bit longer. So I don’t blame Obama for the bust of the peace process and I really don’t blame him for the turmoil in the middle east, but i certainly consider him feckless.

    • Hostage
      June 18, 2015, 12:06 am

      Then the Obama administration will refuse to veto a Palestinian state resolution in the Security Council … …Will he sign on to the French UNSC resolution this fall.

      The United States promoted the Quartet Roadmap and it voted to adopt it under the auspices of UN Security Council resolution 1515 (2003). The US agreed to begin promoting recognition of Palestinian statehood and UN membership within provisional borders no later than December of 2003, in exchange for alterations in the Palestinian constitutional form of government (creating a new post for an “empowered Prime Minister”) and cooperation on security matters to suppress acts of terror. It has not fulfilled those obligations – or the ones found in UN GA resolution 181(II) regarding UN membership of the Arab state. So it’s time for Palestinians to take the gloves off.

      Frankly, the UN Charter, like any other treaty, has to be read and interpreted according the customary rules reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 27(2) provides that:

      Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art27

      There is nothing at all in the language of the Charter which would indicate that the routine procedure of admitting a new member state should be subject to a Security Council veto. The Charter merely grants the Council the power to make a “recommendation”, not a dispositive “decision” on membership. That power is reserved exclusively for the General Assembly in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Charter:

      The admission of any such state to membership in the Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art4

      The Foreign Relations of the United States reveals that the US government has provided other members of the UN assurances on several occasions in the past that it would no longer employ its own veto to prevent a state from joining the UN and that US policy was: that membership in the UN should be universal. Originally an 11-member body, the Security Council was subsequently enlarged to 15 members by a Charter amendment that came into effect on 31 August 1965. The references in the texts cited below to seven votes were replaced by the Charter reference to nine votes in Article 27(2). For examples of the assurances about the veto and universal membership see:
      * Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere (1949), The United Nations, page 307 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v02&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=307
      * Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The United Nations; the Western Hemisphere (1951), The United Nations, page 377 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v02&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=377
      * Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. United Nations affairs
      (1952-1954), page 152 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS195254v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=152

      It is simply NOT true, as the USA contends today, that it has been widely understood from the beginning that a recommendation on a membership application is a substantive question to which the veto should apply, and that the Security Council and the General Assembly have always proceeded on that basis. The FRUS reveals that it was privately agreed upon by the permanent members, but that on several occasions the General Assembly has challenged the status quo and asked the Security Council to reconsider and alter the practice. Members have gone so far as to introduce resolutions in the General Assembly in accordance with Article 18(2) to simply declare membership a procedural matter to which the veto does not apply. Article 18 stipulates:

      2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two- thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.

      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art18

      For example, The Ad Hoc Political Committee of the Seventh Assembly considered the membership problem from December 12 to December 19, 1952. Unlike Israel, “Jordan” (Transjordan + Arab Palestine) was still being denied admission. At the initial meeting El Salvador submitted a resolution under which the Assembly would conclude that a recommendation to admit a new member was not subject to the veto; and would decide for or against the admission of the applicants which had received seven or more votes in the Council. At the same meeting Peru introduced a similar resolution under which the Assembly would deduce that a Council recommendation on the admission of a new member was a procedural stage of the matter and was not subject to the veto. While the Permanent members argued that it was a violation of the Charter, nothing could be further from the truth. Palestine should simply introduce a similar resolution and request an Advisory Opinion on the question of the “veto” versus the reference to a “recommendation” of the Security Council on membership
      — Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. United Nations affairs
      (1952-1954), page 913 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS195254v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=913

      In paragraphs 27-28 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion in the Wall case the Court noted that initially, both the General Assembly and the Security Council interpreted and applied Article 12 differently than they do today and that the practice of the United Nations has evolved. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

      Nothing prevents the same thing from happening with regard to the use of the veto as part of the procedure used to apply for membership in the UN.

    • Boo
      June 18, 2015, 10:14 am

      “Obama is feckless”

      “Feckless” FAIL. (Any time the words “Obama” and “feckless” are linked, it’s an automatic fail.) And then you double down by ending with that word. BREEEPPP! Sorry, that’s the wrong answer — but thanks for being on our show, and we hope you enjoy this lovely parting gift.

    • amigo
      June 18, 2015, 1:07 pm

      ” I find the ability of an outsider like Bibi to take over Likud so completely to be amazing and an anomaly ” yf

      Why would you find it an anomaly for someone who tells 95% of the Israeli (Jewish ) electorate what they want to hear.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/israeli-polls-support-gaza-campaign-media

      Or someone who puts out the call to arms because “The Arabs are voting in droves”.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-arab-election

      Or someone who tells them , there will be no Palestinian state on his watch.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.647212

      Give it a rest Yonah.We have read all your hasbara tripe too many times.Find a new tune.This one has been off the charts for a long time.

      • yonah fredman
        June 18, 2015, 4:35 pm

        amigo- I’m glad you misunderstood me so that I could be reminded of your particularly brand of negativity towards me. Nonetheless you misunderstood me.

        I was not talking about the election of Netanyahu this year or even in 2013 or 2009, but rather his rise in the Likud party during the 90’s. I assume he had more Israeli-ness to his resume than Michael Oren, but still I find his rise in the Likud party to be the leader in the aftermath of Shamir to be a historical anomaly and that term “leader”, which this headline attaches to Michael Oren, would have to be someone with somewhat of a chance to rise in the party ranks in a way similar to Netanyahu’s rise in the 90’s, which I do not believe that he has. Telling me his appeal to the voters in 2015 is irrelevant to what I was discussing.

      • Mooser
        June 18, 2015, 7:02 pm

        ” Telling me his appeal to the voters in 2015 is irrelevant to what I was discussing.”

        That’s right! When Yonah is having a discussion, he doesn’t need anybody else saying anything.
        He can be discussing all by himself.

      • amigo
        June 18, 2015, 7:06 pm

        “I was not talking about the election of Netanyahu this year or even in 2013 or 2009, but rather his rise in the Likud party during the 90’s.” YF

        I did not misunderstand you Yonah , rather you seem to misunderstand the political process.

        Netanyahu made it to the top because he made the right statements/commitments from the very beginning to the the power brokers and with their blessing/money he was bound to get elected and then had to keep his promises to his handlers, which promises, to no surprise pleased the majority of Israel,s Jews for the reasons I mentioned .No Palestinian state , mow the lawn when needed and keep the Palestinians in their place while the greater Israel is created.Oren will make the same vile commitments if he decides he wants to run the apartheid regime. It,s the way the zionist political system works.

        No anomaly involved and no negativity towards you , just your support for and apologies for an apartheid regime that commits war crimes on a daily basis.

        Nothing personal , just business as they say.

    • piotr
      June 18, 2015, 8:54 pm

      It is a bit debatable if the peace process was busted or it was a zombie deprived of the simulacrum of life. Perhaps “busted” is technically good term, as opposed to “killed”. The problem with the zombie process was that however harmless to the Zionist cause, it was resented by many as a humiliating aggravation. I guess that in the case of Oren, we can see the results of mental strain induced in a major part by this process.

      The special place of Netanyahu in Israeli right is that he has some modicum of realism, plus mental fortitude to spout some nonsense about two states or stuff like that. Many view this as necessary, perhaps more than admit that. In the last elections his success was to take the votes of “fortified Lidud” parties led by Bennet and Lieberman, and before that, to secure Likud leadership even though rank and file cannot stand even a whiff of the “process” and other forms of liberalism (like letting NGOs exist without being molested). At the end of the day, they appreciate that Israel needs at the helm a face that at least at some occasions is not contorted in righteous anger.

      Mind you, Likud universe has very few such people, as can be seen from their choices to run Foreign Affairs. It became a laughing stock run be zealous idiots, with actual foreign policy run from Prime Minister office.

      By putting together various statements of Oren, one can see that he is surely literate, most probably learned and probably intelligent. However, emotions can take better of him, and venting emotions is a favorite pastime of Israeli right (not that peculiar if you compare to GOP, or Turkish AKP). So on one hand, he finds it foolish to annoy American with untimely requests etc., like Netanyahu’s trip to Congress, but on the other hand, he is infuriated that such caution is necessary, while all those rascals like Jews in the media and other prominent positions could do so much more.

      To some degree, I understand Oren. Wieseltier, for all his good works for the Zionist cause, reeks indolence, narcissism and lack of enthusiasm. I wanted to paste his faint critique of the Israeli conduct in the last war in Gaza, but I decided to spare some bytes and nerves of the readers here. Among a usual dollop of propagandistic falsification and a huge amount of empty verbiage, he rather skillfully leads the reader to the conclusions that he, Wieseltier, is the nicest and wisest man, sadly unappreciated by pro-Israeli zealots (swamping him with e-mails).

      • yonah fredman
        June 18, 2015, 9:41 pm

        piotr- On the topic of the peace process: any serious peace process has been dead since Netanyahu took office in 2009. Olmert’s efforts should not be denied. But he didn’t have enough time. This was not only due to his corruption scandal, but also because his peace process was out ahead of the Israeli public. The Israeli public wants peace, but at a good price. and it’s just not available at the price that most of the Israeli public is willing to pay. Add this to the vehemence, rhetoric and lack of doubt of the settler movement, there is just too much wishy-washy-ness about Israel’s desire for peace and the leaders: Rabin, Barak and Olmert who have made efforts in that direction were way out ahead of the public and still were a distance away.

  20. talknic
    June 17, 2015, 11:46 pm

    Zionism has no ‘too low’ when it comes to people who get in the way of the Greater Israel project or who have served their usefulness.

    Once you’ve engaged in its treachery, you’ll live in fear of it happening to you, so never ever deviate, always dig a deeper hole, continue lying, falsely accusing, making pathetic justifications, anything, absolutely anything

  21. piotr
    June 18, 2015, 4:19 am

    I have no idea how Wieseltier strayed from the straight and narrow, but Oren should be careful when he casts stones. After all, he himself erred and criticized Netanyahu, and that is not the only sin he committed:

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Michael-Oren-errs-on-Netanyahu-and-Congress-389769

    Perhaps Oren believes what he wrote, namely that criticizing Netanyahu is a carrier enhancement, and he knows a thing or two about maintaining a carrier. For all I know, it may be true, and that fact should be drummed into all American journalists and politicians.

  22. David Doppler
    June 18, 2015, 10:06 am

    This morning some 16 Settler Yeshiva students were arrested for arson at the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and fishes. http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/06/18/church-near-sea-of-galilee-damaged-in-possible-arson-attack

    Rabbis for Human Rights report 43 such attacks against churches and mosques since 2009. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4669896,00.html

    Perhaps Michael Oren can explain how reasonable people are supposed to react to such hate crimes, without criticizing the society from which they arise?

    • Boo
      June 18, 2015, 10:19 am

      And perhaps we can describe this incident in one word: Petrolnacht.

    • Kay24
      June 18, 2015, 10:52 am

      Those crimes by Jewish extremists, against non Jewish places of worship, are never mentioned nor taken into account. How many synagogues have Muslims or Christians attacked in Israel or surrounding areas? You can bet there would be outrage and claims of victimhood, had the same number of Synagogues/Temples as the Mosques and Churches been attacked, burnt, or demolished.

  23. piotr
    June 18, 2015, 2:13 pm

    I guess the interesting aspect of Oren’s rant was that included Wieseltier among the self-hating adversaries of TODITME (the only democracy in the Middle East) was particularly delusional, but otherwise it is a standard fare, for example the office of Netanyahu once put NYT on the enemy list. Dual loyalty of Jews who have other ideas and attachment besides the veneration of their “only Jewish state” is increasingly perceived as an aggraviation among the political elites of Israel and their approved friends who are free from those “non-Jewish entanglements”.

    Assume for a moment that Wieseltier was included because of a simple mistake, like when Honorable Scalia referred to his Honorable colleague Goldberg, who in actuality has name Ginsburg. We still have a group mindset that rejects the possibility that people who disagree can do it for some relatively innocent reasons, like different personal experience, different personal values (which, after all, are personal), or feeblemindedness (most people lack the sagacity and acumen of Michael Oren or our friend hophmi). Instead, those people are either duped by the Dark Forces or themselves are card carrying members of Dark Forces. In recent years, Dark Forces manifest themselves as Worldwide Leftist-Islamist Conspiracy.

  24. french_jew
    June 18, 2015, 5:32 pm

    Do American jews really have to be pledge loyalty to one murderous neocolonial state or the other?

Leave a Reply