Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 21 (since 2009-08-08 19:30:02)

mark

Showing comments 21 - 1
Page:

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
  • In 'The American Interest,' minister's kid Mead says God favors and protects Israel like he protects the U.S.
    • mark May 27, 2011 at 9:26 am with 1 replies

      Thomson Rutherford, yes, more amusement from Mead, but with a cynical, nasty edge this time. Consider his claim:

      a surprising number of Americans who ought to know better carry a delusional and ultimately anti-Semitic stereotype around in their heads: that American Jews as a bloc are hard line pro-Likud Zionists; that those Jews ruthlessly and relentlessly use their vast and hidden media power to shape US opinion on the Middle East; and that the irresistible financial might of the united Jewish Israel lobby buys Congressional acceptance of their evil designs.

      OK, tell me the number or provide me some approximate percentage and I'll tell you how surprised I am. But then again, maybe there are other Americans who have a rather more nuanced understanding of The Israel Lobby. How about something along these lines:

      only a minority of American Jews are hard line pro-Likud Zionists; but Jews as a group are strongly supportive of Israel and use their disproportionate influence in the media to shape US opinion on the Middle East; and the vastly disproportionate financial Jewish contributions to the US electoral process through organized lobbying groups such as AIPAC buys Congressional acceptance of their agenda--as witness the wildly enthusiastic reception accorded to the loathsome, hard line Likudnik Netanyahu by the Legislative Branch of the US Government this week.

      Which sounds more like the America you're familiar with?

    • mark May 26, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      Madrid, I agree with you entirely regarding official Catholic theology. In addition, I believe that that theology has influenced the formulation of Vatican foreign policy in its concern for the rights of Palestinians. What I'm saying is that, in my experience, a fair number of individual "traditionally" oriented Catholics--often influenced by participation in Evangelical run or Evangelical influenced Bible Study groups--end up being receptive to Zionist ideas. I can tell you from my own experience that I've met with that attitude repeatedly. If you haven't encountered that, that's all to the good.

      MHughes976, my understanding is that Wright's position is actually rather close to the Catholic position, as it has been enunciated several times by Benedict XVI. That position is simply that the Church is the continuation of Israel--children of Abraham are those, whether Jew or Greek, who put their faith in Jesus. Benedict has been very careful to avoid invidious anti-Semitic interpretations of Paul (as has Wright), but each has refused to buy into political interpretations that link Israel to specific Middle Eastern real estate.

      That, by the way, was Spengler/Goldman's personal crusade for quite a while--to try to convince Catholics that Zionism is somehow hardwired into Catholic theology.

    • mark May 26, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      Neocon James Taranto at Best of the Web (WSJ) has an amusing take on Mead's article (which he likes very much from a Neocon perspective). He's got us Americans neatly sorted out into three categories:

      "To be sure, not all Americans feel this kindredness with Israel. 1) Some see it as just another country, the way Obama seems to; 2) others, like Helen Thomas, seethe with a hatred for the Jewish state that boils over into outright anti-Semitism. 3) In between are people who, while not anti-Semitic and perhaps not quite antipathetic to Israel per se, are jealous of it for its claim on American affection. That is the emotion behind the oft-heard claim of "dual loyalty"--a charge that is absurd in light of Mead's insight "that Israel is an American value."" [my numbering]

      Imagine the un-Americanness of seeing Israel as "just another country!" And the pathetic jealousy of others, based on the "absurd" inability to see "that Israel is an American value!" And then there's the middle group, of course--blinded by Jew hatred. Taranto is unable to concede even the possibility that Palestinians could even have the shadow of a grievance or a claim on anyone's sense of justice.

      Taranto sees nothing to discuss here. It's just a question of American values--and some Americans who don't have any. Easy.

    • mark May 26, 2011 at 5:51 pm with 4 replies

      Madrid, yes, Voegelin quotes Richard Hooker's critique of the Puritans extensively--Hooker, of course, being a famous Anglican divine back then.

      MHughes976, I agree re the diversity of Protestantism and I agree that Protestantism has promoted critical study of the Bible--as you can probably tell from my citing Wright (to whom I could add others). Catholics have been somewhat slow in recognizing the benefits of those critical studies, which is part of what the Synod was about. As a result of the Catholic Church's backwardness in that regard, "traditional" minded Catholics these days are often uncritically accepting of fundamentalist tinged interpretations of the Bible, along with the Zionism that often goes with it.

    • mark May 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm

      seafoid, with regard to your observations, it may interest you that the well known Neocon "Spengler" (David Goldman) has consistently maintained that Protestantism is "a Judaizing heresy" of Christianity. Obviously there is more that could be said, but that characterization does fit in with your comments.

      Also, Eric Voegelin, in his The New Science of Politics (written c. 1950), uses what he calls the "symbol" Koran to describe the use made of the Bible by what could be termed right wing Protestants of the 17th century. IOW, Voegelin is saying that their use of or approach to the Bible is, in principle, essentially no different than that of Muslims to the Koran/Quran--a more controversial view, perhaps, in 1950 than now. The same could be said with regard to fundamentalist Jewish interpretations of the Israelite scriptures as well as those of modern Christian fundamentalists.

    • mark May 26, 2011 at 3:06 pm with 1 replies

      Thanks for the thought provoking comments.

      I think we all recognize that the sentiments and ideas that Mead is attributing to "Americans" may not represent a majority view, but that they are the views (held with varying degrees of fervor) by some significant portion of Americans. The political importance of that segment of Americans is pointed out by Mead when he notes Pelosi's willingness to throw Obama under the bus rather than cross them. That was, of course, an utterly cynical move on her part, as also on the part of the vast majority of Senators and Representatives, both Democrat as well as Republican. It's not as if many of them (perhaps not even Netanyahu himself) actually believe the Biblical Fundamentalism that Netanyahu was offering up.

      Jim Haygood touches on an important issue. Speaking as a Catholic, I see the problem--that of the misuse of "scripture"--as one that is caused by the absence of what I would call a coherent theory of revelation. A coherent theory of revelation would need to address such issues as, just what is being revealed, how is it being revealed, and what is the relation between the Israelite scriptures and the early Christian writings that Christians regard as authoritative. A good starting point for such considerations (for Christians) would be an examination of what use Jesus makes of the Israelite scriptures in his own words--as opposed to the theological use of those scriptures by the authors of the various gospels. My view is that such an examination would undercut Biblical Fundamentalism generally and Christian support for Zionism as a particular example.

      It is a fact that Christian theologians are attempting to come to grips with these issues. At its recent Synod on Scripture, a prominent cardinal of the Catholic Church explicitly stated that Catholics are not "people of the book" in the sense that Jews, Muslims or many Protestants are. The well known CofE theologian N. T. Wright (who was a guest speaker at the Synod) has written on both the issue of the authority of Scripture generally as well as on the issue of Zionism, so the political ramifications of these theological issues is not lost on serious people. However, politicians will inevitably be behind that curve.

      One last thought. I suspect that these issues are coming more to the fore as a result of the higher level of education among modern believers. Reflective believers are being forced to consider what their beliefs mean with regard to concrete issues of justice, such as we see in Palestine.

  • Nozette alleged to have given secrets before
    • mark November 2, 2009 at 10:31 am

      Here's an article--actually, an interview--that is quite long but deals with some of these issues from a different angle, that is, mostly not from a legal angle. Be patient reading it, because you'll be rewarded with useful perspectives:

      FBI Whistleblower Names Names: Scott Horton interviews Sibel Edmonds and John M. Cole, November 02, 2009

    • mark November 2, 2009 at 9:39 am

      American First, one last note: as you can see, these are ultimately not law enforcement or intelligence issues but political issues. That is, they can only be satisfactorily resolved by political action, by the will or politicians to enforce the laws of the land. It shouldn't be news that politicians can prevent what appear to be clear provisions of laws from being applied to organizations that they have reason to protect or favor. And the reasons for that usually come down to money or votes, or a combination of the two. Public opinion is usually a threat against those two: potential loss of contributions or political support in the form of votes or campaign workers. Hey--this is America!

    • mark November 2, 2009 at 9:32 am with 1 replies

      America First, IMO, the key to understanding the AIPAC case is that AIPAC has been able to avoid being classed as an agent of a foreign power, under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), despite general agreement in US Government circles that AIPAC is precisely that. Look up the provisions of FARA if you want a clear understanding of the issues. Being an agent of a foreign power is not necessarily a nefarious thing, per se, but classification as such does put the world on notice that the agent's actions are undertaken for the benefit of a foreign power, not for the benefit of the US. And in fairness to Israel and the Israeli lobby, there are other organizations that act in the interests of other foreign powers than Israel which have managed to evade classification under FARA through political clout. However, AIPAC has unquestionably served as a template for foreign governments wishing to influence US policy through their emigre populations in the US.

      As it is, AIPAC is able to operate just like any other lobbying organization, and no politician or government employee can be said to be on notice that when they deal with AIPAC representatives they are dealing with the agent of a foreign power. That means, as a practical matter, that prosecutors have a much harder time proving a case because they run up against, in essence, a first amendment defense: AIPAC and those who deal with AIPAC are said to be just American citizens sharing information, just as government officials and politicians share and leak with newspapers. If prosecutors try to claim that AIPAC is, in fact, an agent of a foreign power, the ready riposte is: then why didn't you require AIPAC to register under FARA? By failing in your responsibilities to enforce the law you allowed these innocents like Larry Franklin to blunder into a relationship with AIPAC all unawares that they were dealing with an agent of a foreign power! Are the prosecutors supposed to say: we couldn't because the Israeli Lobby is too strong for us, the US Government? They'd be laughed out of court, and the fact that the US Government had failed to act would be accepted as conclusive that AIPAC is not an agent of a foreign power. The result is that the facts become very murky, indeed, at least for purposes of proving a criminal violation beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's all a defense lawyer wants to do--raise a doubt that seems reasonable to at least one member of a jury, or better yet, intimidate prosecutors from even bringing such a case because of the likely prospect of putting in a lot of work, taking a lot of abuse, and losing. Prosecutors are human, too, and aren't eager to be sent on what looks like a fools errand.

      So, from this, you can see the attractiveness of using as agents the members of an organization that is under political protection, in a setting in which the legal background hampers successful prosecution.

    • mark November 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm with 1 replies

      Let me expand slightly.

      It's common practice for intelligence services to have their operatives stationed abroad at diplomatic establishments (embassies, consulates) under "diplomatic cover," i.e., occupying an official diplomatic position but carrying out intelligence functions. The benefit is that such officials operate under diplomatic immunity--if caught in activities incompatible with their diplomatic position (like espionage), they are usually expelled as persona non grata, persons who are no longer welcome in the host country, but they are not prosecuted. Their agents, of course, are prosecuted. Importantly, however, the most senior diplomatic positions are usually, repeat, usually reserved for actual career diplomats. Of course these career diplomats know that some of their officials may be undercover intelligence operatives, and may have a pretty shrewd idea of their identities, but they would not normally know the details of their operations, and certainly not the identities of any agents they might be running. The ambassador can therefore quite truthfully deny any knowledge of the operation and will only repeat what his government instructs him to say. For an ambassador to be implicated in espionage and declared persona non grata would be an extremely serious matter for relations between the two governments, and I'm sure Israel, like all other governments, takes measures to insulate its ambassadors from such a possibility.

      On the other hand, intelligence officials stationed at a government owned business abroad (such as the Israeli owned aerospace company that Nozette consulted for) would not have diplomatic cover and therefore would not have diplomatic immunity. If caught they are subject to arrest and prosecution under the laws of the host country, along with their agents. While this scenario is riskier for the intelligence operatives, the benefit is that, if their country has set up a variety of such companies, it may be far more difficult for the host country's counterintelligence service to monitor their activities, in comparison with a setup in which all intelligence activity is conducted out of the embassy.

      Nozette's taped statements to the FBI indicate that he thought he was involved in just such a situation as this--he believed the company he was consulting for was a "front" for Israeli intelligence. However, the FBI doesn't appear at this point to have hard evidence that Nozette's impression was in fact the case. Alternatively, they may have such evidence but, for various reasons, may be unwilling to publicly reveal the extent of their knowledge, as they would have to do at a trial. If that is the case, the charges against Nozette may be tailored to prevent sensitive techniques or intelligence information from being revealed.

      In such a scenario, for the intelligence operatives at a commercial enterprise to be in regular contact with the embassy without a clear reason might well be considered a red flag by the host country's counterintelligence service, drawing unwelcome attention to the operatives, since logically they should be involved full time with business activities, not chatting up diplomats of any country. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Israeli embassy would have had little to no actual knowledge of intelligence activities being conducted by the aerospace company.

    • mark November 1, 2009 at 9:29 am

      Nolan, I understand what's standard practice for diplomats, and I also understand what's standard practice for intelligence services. "Need to know" is the operative principle for all intelligence services, and that rarely includes briefing even ambassadors on the details of intelligence operations. While there have been exceptions, they have been few: normally, the diplomatic service is eager to maintain deniability. The point is, beyond the Israeli Embassy's pro forma denial--after all, if a diplomat admits knowledge of this kind of thing or he'll be identifying himself as complicit in espionage--there's ample reason to believe that Israeli intelligence would never have considered briefing the diplomats anyway, for sound operational reasons.

  • Accused Israeli spy told FBI both his parents were Jewish
    • mark October 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm

      Dickerson3870, if Hersh's claim is factual I would certainly agree that Pollard was probably not acting alone.

      "Mega." I like that: Mr. Big.

    • mark October 21, 2009 at 8:47 am with 1 replies

      Thanks for clarifying, D..

      That statement, “I thought I was working for you already. I mean that’s what I always thought, [the foreign company] was just a front,” would appear to refer to his activity with the Israeli company--answering questions they posed to him. As I suggested, it's conceivable that an Israeli intelligence officer may have been working for the company and directing contacts with Nozette, while not acknowledging his true function. We may never know the truth of that--it will depend on what the Government needs to prove at a trial, and the Government will doubtless attempt to reveal the bare minimum necessary. And of course there may be a plea deal.

    • mark October 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm with 4 replies

      MRW, you don't really think that the FBI is about to publish to the world how they got onto Nozette? So hostile intelligence services can revamp their operations to defend against whatever allowed the FBI to figure this guy out?

    • mark October 20, 2009 at 6:30 pm with 2 replies

      syvanen, that's an interesting article. From the affidavit it seems apparent that Nozette's motivation was money, so one would suppose that Indian money would be just as attractive to him as Israeli money. The point that he believed this was the first Mossad approach to him is important. On the other hand, it's also possible that Israeli intelligence operatives would not identify themselves as such to maintain deniability. Another interesting point, not touched on, I think, is that Israel and India have cooperated closely in various security related fields. The neocon Spengler's latest column, FWIW, speculates that Israel/India/Russia might form a consortium to develop a fighter jet in competition with the US F-35.

    • mark October 20, 2009 at 6:23 pm

      Interestingly, NOzette told the FBI agents that he assumed the company he consulted for, which is owned by the Israeli government, is a "front" for Israeli intelligence operations. It appears that people at that company were submitting questions to Nozette, which he was answering, before the FBI got involved.

  • Does American Jewish political engagement reflect a shtetl outlook?
    • mark August 12, 2009 at 6:27 pm

      v...

      I think I understand what you're saying about "chose," but I also think that people like Lindemann and Hoffman are making a somewhat different point. What they're reacting to--and they're far from alone in this these days--is the notion that Jews were powerless. They're maintain that Jews were not powerless, but they're focus is not on that simple fact but rather on the use to which they put their power/influence in European society. In Poland, at least, they argue, a lot of their community resources (to coin a buzz word if I may) went into maintenance of separation from the Gentile world around them. Obviously, this is a generalization. Hoffman, at least, then goes on to suggest that when push came to shove and every member of Polish society (except for the Volksdeutsch) were under the gun, everyone looked to help those who were part of their own group. Since Jews had, as a group but with exceptions, separated themselves from Poles, it was fairly understandable that Poles should view Jews as "not our own," and extremely commendable on the part of Poles who crossed those lines to help Jews. There were more than a few of those. Now, some might also say, it's a shame that it took that sort of crisis to bring out the good in people, but this is the type of study that Hoffman seems to excel at. Nechama Tec studied the type of persons who came to the aid of Jews and came to the conclusion that they were, by and large, very ordinary people. Serious about their religion but not ostentatiously pious, people who simply decided that they would make a stand for common humanity.

      Citizen,

      Your remark regarding the current health care debate is one of the things I had in mind. Reading Mickey Kaus today, he refers to Dr. Zeke Emanuel's "communitarian worldview," and links to a Marc Ambinder blog re Emanuel, who is Rahm's brother and who is a bit of a disciple of the communitarian Michael Sandler. I'm not suggesting anything so daft as that there's something like a one to one correspondence between the "shtetl outlook" and the communitarian worldview of significant Jewish players in what Phil likes to call the American "elite," but I am suggesting that the "shtetl outlook" may serve (perhaps unconsciously) in several ways as an ideal, an inspiration, for the participation of at least some significant portion of Jews in American public life.

      All of which is to say that I agree with Phil's repeated contention that, since Jews are now significant players in the power elite (C. Wright Mills, right?), America needs to pay attention to "where they're coming from." We can debate and dissect WASP values, etc., and we should be able to debate and dissect the values that Jews bring to the public square as well. Again, with Phil, I believe this is healthier for all of us.

    • mark August 12, 2009 at 3:00 pm

      America First--thanks.

      taranaki--your historical point is, imo, well taken although it does point at one the contributing factors to resentment against the Jews. As most scholars have noted, the Jews were positioned socially between the privileged nobility (for whom they often worked as administrators) and a brutalized peasantry. Weakness at the top--and this was true in many other countries as well--placed the Jews in jeopardy. Your application of this fact to Israel is worth pondering. Israel was an understandable idea, but was it a good idea. And, of course, there is Hoffman's concern that "the other" be taken into account.

      Lizzy,

      Rest assured, I didn't misunderstand you, nor do I believe that others did. Your words triggered a train of thought that led me to connect those words to Hoffman's theme of nostalgia and romanticism, but that was based on my own personal experience and wasn't intended to reflect on you personally. I should have included a caveat to that effect. That romantic fantasy, of course, is not peculiar to Jewish liberals, but in the context I did want to emphasize that aspect. In my generation I believe it remains quite common.

      By the way, I'm glad you'll be looking into Contested Memories. Hoffman also has some full length books that may interest you--I find her insightful regarding human nature. Here's an excerpt from a profile of her:

      Everything is strange to the eye of a stranger. What makes her extraordinary as a writer is that she can recapture the sense that life must be constantly made understandable, yet will never become familiar. This trick is most subtle when she writes about things we already think we understand: Polish anti-semitism in Shtetl, her history of a settlement on the borders of Poland and Belarus; and in Exit into History, the aftermath of the Velvet Revolutions. In both cases, she looks at the fine detail of people's lives and waits until they appear before the reader, as serious, knotty and untranslateable as we appear to ourselves.

      Roy Foster, professor of modern history at Oxford, says: "She writes about ethnic or racial relations, which are sometimes treated in a very simplistic way, and she makes it clear how complicated they are."

      She understands that everyone is on someone else's periphery: when, in Shtetl, she visits the market in a small town in eastern Poland, where the Jews were exterminated, she sees: "Ruddy-faced farmers in sheepskin coats with high leather boots . . . stomping their feet in the snow for warmth. I observe them with a double vision. They are rough-and-ready looking men, huddling in small groups, exchanging idle remarks. That is all. But in post-Holocaust ethnography, they have come to be seen as allegories of anti-semitism. In their faces, if you look at them a certain way, nothing but this essential hatred can be discerned."

      But she flips the mirror so that she shares their intolerance. "The way, undoubtedly, that to some of them a Jew was a pure type, of greed, cleverness and manipulativeness. I know that there may be some truth to the Polish stereotype: that in some of their hearts, anti-semitism sprouts. But I also know that, on both sides, these are reductions, pure, simple and sometimes very dangerous."

      Her picture of the complexities of the Holocaust grows out of family experience. Her parents were betrayed several times by Gentile peasants to the Germans who would have killed them, as all their relatives were killed. But they also survived because of the bravery and self-sacrifice of other peasants - who would themselves have been killed had the Wydras been discovered. And Hoffman's aunt and niece were betrayed to their deaths by other Jews. This is why she is able to say: "An injunction to remember can become an injunction not to think, not to grapple with the past: such an injunction seems to me to verge on bad faith." In other words, a facile and distorted memory is almost a greater insult than simply forgetting. No wonder Foster sees in her an example to be followed by everyone who writes Irish history.

      I like that attitude--refusing to ignore complexity.

  • In the beloved Old Country, a Jew has visions of her homeland
    • mark August 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm with 1 replies

      Leander wrote:

      My main point is. If you don’t know the basics, in our specific case, at what time Poland granted Jewish Poles emancipation or equal citizen rights, you can’t blame them for keeping themselves apart, or creating their own structures.

      The movement for Jewish emancipation gained traction in the 19th century. However, Poland didn't exist during the 19th century, having been partitioned among Russia, Prussia and Austria, so asking when Poland "granted Jewish Poles emancipation or equal citizen rights" is somewhat pointless--Poles themselves were oppressed in their own country. It is also true that throughout the history of Poland Jews did also have various privileges, due to their role in commerce, etc.

Showing comments 21 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.