-
-
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 0
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 9
- And we live on… 1
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 130
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 113
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Slater on Beinart (9)
- radii: the train has left the station and a few like Beinart have noticed but think they can still run and catch it...
- Citizen: This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because Congress just gave Israel $4 Billion dollars for...
- Krauss: Have you all noticed how the real liberal Zionists, even with warts and all, keep getting more and more...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- And we live on… (1)
- Talkback: They should make Gaza the most beautiful place just to p*** compulsory expellers off. Enviromental...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Slater on Beinart (9)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Adam Horowitz
- Paul Mutter
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
I love the "us" that Steiner uses in reference to Israel, as in "they gotta give the $2 billion to us." (in the marvelous transcript). And then squawk to high heaven about the "dual loyalty canard." And of course "Israel-firster" is an anti-Semitic term.
Annie, I think you're partly right and mostly wrong. But raising an interesting and important point. Frustrated that your footnote is to a movie about Edward Bernays, in that the thought footnoted deserves a more comprehensive footnote, or should be presented more comprehensively.
I think there is a pattern of gentile deference towards Jews, a sense that Jews lived more thoroughly in the century (defined by communism and fascism/Nazism) combined with a sense that people who grew up with a sunny nativist American sensibility had it too easy, by comparison. So a readiness to defer to what was perceived as deeper historical experience , (unwarranted, at least to the degree it occurred) is not the same as a fear of anti-semitism, though the results might be similar.
It really is an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation, in that your point seems to me hardly even debatable. And yet I can understand the fear of "stirring up" antisemitism which accounts for the reluctance to face facts. Which is why it's so important to be laser-like precise in identifying the problem, and what the problem is not.
On this topic, amused by this piece in the Forward, a conference on Jews and the Left, where a big complaint was the New Left's "anti-Zionism" :
A line running through the conference, from the papers of Cohen and Postone to Michael Walzer’s keynote lecture and Mendelsohn’s closing reminiscences, was the argument that future Jewish involvement in leftist politics would hinge on building another New Left, one more open to religion and spirituality, more defined by advocacy for social justice than by opposition to Zionism.
Read more: link to forward.com
Tomorrow night in front of the White House. I will wear black.
Great post, Phil Harris. I'm surprised an Israeli consul had enough self awareness for that thought experiment, at least in public. On my first read, I thought it was your rabbi. It means that (some in official) Israel knows they're doomed if they don't change something. Maybe they will, though the people in power now show little indication of it.
There are so many distinctions. Rape is a very serious crime. What of the gay prep school teacher who liked to try to tickle boys when they had lights out at 10:30? We used to make fun of him, kind of gently. It didn't seem that serious. He was a good English teacher, actually.
link to news.xinhuanet.com
Above the link to the story by the Chinese news service on the break in. I'm curious as to how much coverage this will get in the MSM. Even more so than evicting Palestinians from their homes or breaking up peaceful demonstrations, this strikes me as a nakedly fascist action, impossible to justify even by normal Israeli standards. And impossible to imagine that the PA could just let it slide, as if nothing happened. Obama is supposedly against settlements. Will he say anything?
Thanks for the tidbit about Bridget Loves Bernie, with the wry ending. Where did the "hate mail" come from. I believe I read recently that it was establishment Jewish pressure (and probably "disapproval" mail, not hate mail. But maybe hate mail also. It's kind of surprising, I think "mixed" relationships were pretty commonplace in the 60's--I had one for a year, and I don't think the subject ever came up. I would guess that my parents and the girls' parents may have talked about it among themselves (within their respective marriages) but it was a complete non-subject as far as Debbie from Phillie and I were concerned. It only seems somewhat interesting after the fact.
Rudoren's piece was spectacular for the Times; I don't remember anything there before which actually tried to let the reader understand what it might feel like to be Palestinian--though there was often some pro forma reporting or acknowledgment of the Palestinian "perspective." But wow, what a concept, two peoples here, struggling for justice and self-determination, not just one. Bravo Jodi.
They're claiming the Palestinian Christian population hasn't decreased?
My quick reaction is 1) it's not as if the votes had gone differently, it would have ended the occupation; it's all part of a long process. and 2) no one has paid so much attention to a mainline Protestant denomination in decades, and 3) everyone knows where the energy and spirit it is, and which way the wind is blowing.
How close were the votes? The one I saw earlier, about whether to support a minority (pro divest, as I understood it) resolution, failed by a kind of 50-47 score, very close. The subsequent ones?
I don't know how severe a defeat this is, or the extent to which the SQL's won a pyrrhic and not meaningful victory, or what it says about the Presbyterian vote later this summer (a smaller denomination than the Methodists, in any case).
A wet kiss for Sheldon
Agree with Pamela. People who move on this issue are all on different timetables. A decade ago, Palestine wasn't even on the radar of the rock and roll elite. I think it was about five years ago that Roger Waters first said something negative about the wall--while playing T-A. Now he's far more advanced.
It's really a Selma bridge moment. Cameras are important.
I cannot imagine it being published in the New York Times. A sad reflection on our discourse.
Or even on Peter Beinart's blog.
Annie, Watching the clip I had the feeling the newscaster was just ignorant. White power groups purposefully use civil rights style rhetoric to try to get a footing in the culture, and this woman just took it at face value. And why would any average American college grad know that National Socialist=Nazi? Would Sarah Palin? My bet it's dumb mistake, more than sinister Fox--not that they aren't sinister.
Meanwhile, Weir and friends at the “Council for the National Interest” joined with the John Birch Society (which has as its top legislative priority the disenfranchisement of millions of people of color in the US) to promote their organization.
I don't want to get deep in the weeds on this subject or defend the often kooky Birchers, but this is just false. A Bircher lady was Pat Buchanan's Reform Party veep choice in 2000. Ezola Foster. Look her up in google images.
I think Bob Simon did one or two quite good segments in the past year or so.
For example: link to newsbusters.org
As for attacking the editors of the publication that runs your stuff-- wow, that's a CLM (career-limiting move; Jim Cramer taught me that great line when he was at Goldman, Sachs; some guy was wearing loud ties)
Maybe he thinks he's Dwight Howard.
link to video.cinesport.com
Good catch. Phil’s on an ethnocentric streak today. First his smearing of the goys as golddiggers and now these sly comments.
I read that marriage money comment differently, as wrongfully dismissing the other qualities of marriageable Jewish men and women. It's been so long since I dated Jewish girls, I can't trust completely my memories, but I kind of think he's wrong. . . .
Hophmi,
Speaking for myself, but with a view I think shared by many others--I don't think that many people would be contemplating a non-Zionist or one state solution if there was a two-state solution. It's the failure of Israel to allow the second that opens the discourse to the possibility of the first. If Israel made an effort to end Palestinian statelessness--instead of the absurd denial that 1) its own actions had anything to do with creating it, and 2) denying the Palestinians are a people--I'd be happy to think about something else.
Gilad, I like Bill's comment above. Perhaps irony is the best response. But. . .
I was going to ask you, sincerely, do you really believe what you write? A couple of days ago I read in the Times a story about some Jewish from Milwaukee settlement woman, in Migron. She spouted all the Bible torah bs. But do you really believe she has "no other place to go?" She could come back to Milwaukee. She would probably have to be deprogrammed, but we would take her. She would do less damage to us here than there.
This is smart comment. One one of its side points, I was curious and went and looked up what Beinart said using W&M as a punching bag while defending himself from Bret Stephens. What he said I thought was not that terrible, under the circumstances, and given his audience : he denied using them as a source for one of his quotes, mentioned that he had publicly criticized them before (I'm not sure where) and mentioned that their book is widely loathed among Jews (regrettably true, a success of the Lobby's review tactics but not so in the broader intellectual culture).
Actually Beinart and W&M's perspective on the I/P problem strike me as more or less identical . . . I'm sure anyone reading the two books would conclude that, and I'm quite certain Beinart realizes it. Of course the two profs were directing their argument to Americans in general, and Beinart to American Jews and Zionists, but their take in the situation is the same. What Beinart said is quite not like Jeremy Ben Ami, who really did slur the two great ground-breaking professors.
Good piece. In Beinart's book, he quotes an anonymous US diplomat as saying "Sometimes I thought I was representing Israel."
Do you think there was "projection" involved when the hasbara crew used to complain that a small Palestinian state was only a "first stage" in a plan to destroy Israel?
you've got to learn to embrace it the way other out groups have learned to use the language in an ironic way, i.e "queer"
Americans will have to develop a samizdat discourse, or learn irony and indirection and sarcasm, like Eastern Europeans before the fall of the Berlin wall.
This is the question, isn't it Annie. Are liberalism and Zionism incompatible? I'm not sure it's so cut and dried. In his book Beinart has a few paragraphs on how different ideologies can be in tension with one another, without one or the other being wrong. Most Western democracies are a little bit nationalistic in an ethnocentric sense, and a little bit liberal. The US, at the time of WASP hegemony, was too. (Now I'm not sure how to characterize it). Beinart notes that Israel, during the early Oslo period, did take measures towards improving the lives of Israeli citizen Palestinians--increased educational, political, integration possibilities. All this has now stopped of course, but am reluctant to argue that liberalism and Zionism are irremediably incompatible.
Evidently Israelis are concerned enough to have passed a law that would prosecute Beinart and the Times for advocating a (partial) boycott.
Madrid, I like this series of posts. And yes, I fear the hate crimes laws will be used like that.
Pathetic indeed. But it's important to recognize that Obama's powers are limited, his understanding of them not all that profound. Palestine was an item on his agenda, and his speeches at Cairo and elsewhere were I believe sincere. He was simply outmaneuvered by Netanyahu, who demonstrated that on this issue, the Israel Lobby can trump the president. That probably wasn't clear to the White Hose before the contest. (Obama famously said he refused to read The Israel Lobby during the campaign, though he said he knew its arguments were wrong.) Any way, the battle might even have been close, had Obama's poll ratings been higher, was he less needful of congressional votes for Obamacare, etc. Beinart's forthcoming book has the best account I've seen of the political battle. One could say Wait till next year, but of course with each passing year the possibility of a 2SS recedes, and may now be gone.
Let me add, I like his "Israel has a right to exist as a democratic state." Which is something other than the status quo.
I thought the Cameron visit was pretty great, coming right after AIPAC and Netanyahu and what a contrast. They spent a lot of time together, the dinner and the basketball game on Tuesday. What do you think they say about Bibi to one another? Cheered also that Andrew Sullivan was at the state dinner, and Obama seems to have told him he's a regular reader of his blog. Andrew is excellent, I think, on all these issues. I interpret the thing Phil posted yesterday about Obama's "tacit approval" according to Haaretz as false and an Israeli attempt at damage control.
Mayor Bloomberg is not much like Netanyahu. I'd give him serious props for his stand on the"Ground Zero" mosque last summer, easily the most prominent American politician to defend the mosque.
Not sure about Kelly, but as a former New Yorker who has had some dealings with NY cops, I'd advise against any automatic assumption that the NYPD are a locked in bigoted enemy. I'd play it out. The NYPD is an old institution, which has dealt with more kinds of multiculturalism, probably more successfully, than just about any institution in the Western world. The Catholic Church (yes, there's some overlap) may be its main competitor. I can see why Debbie Altmontaser refused a meeting on short notice, but if I were her, I'd meet again. Kelly will come with aides, he's probably not a dunce, he probably knows people who have run guns for the IRA or been accused of it; make your case reasonably and calmly. American history is on your side.
He changed his views. He writes about it a bit in the new book, though what prompts such changes is always something of a mystery. People who change their views are disproportionately important, for better or worse. (I.e, first generation neocons). I doubt it was opportunism, though would be pleased enough if that were indeed the case. (Selling out to the anti-Zionists, amusing).
I think his evolution is substantial, most of all in that he seems to have clear sense of fairness--often absent in other two state advocates. Not sure he will go the extra step on ROR-- I'm not sure I would either, if I were emotionally any kind of Zionist. But if a two state solution is achievable--a big if, of course, but still more achievable than any other kind of solution--it would be such a quantum leap forward in justice for all Palestinians. Of course the two state horse may be out of the barn-- and if that becomes obvious, not sure what happens to Beinart.
But his passion and polemical skill are a huge net plus I think for most of us.
There must have been some discussion, no? The Forward piece doesn't mention any, except that the bill was written over "hours, not months." Also the SC sponsor a Mormon, hope that's not an omen of Mormon=Christian Zionist-ness.
Really strong piece, and always a good thing to read something powerful on this subject by a new (or at least new to me) voice.
Annie, where? On his blog? Not in my edition. Agree that would be bold for the careful-with-words Andrew.
Never mind, I see it now. earlier today, in the Beinart post.
TetaMM,
Would you assign any role to the "Scofield Bible" in this? At the conference a couple of weeks ago, I met people who think it was key, (because of the extensive footnotes) and also that Scofield was an aging huckster who was probably incapable of writing the footnotes, and also that he had debts and business dealings, etc. etc.
I bought their CD, haven't looked at it yet.
Yes, my feeling exactly. Those photos should be world famous. Maybe they will be.
I'm with you Phil, both aboriginal and not wanting to fight about it. But last night my wife asked me--with reference to link to thefulcrum.ca
various news story about frogs losing their their gender specificity because of chemical poisons--whether I thought a version of that was happening with humans.
This is so incredibly pathetic. Even a self-respecting neocon would acknowledge that Great Britain has shed blood with US troops as a real ally in real wars. Israel, what?--well they tried to kill some American diplomats in the Lavon affair, and they they tried to sink the USS Liberty. And they tried to sell some advanced US weapons to China. But, where is the ally part? The "most trusted ally." These people make me want to puke.
Actually Blankfort said the Israel lobby is a shadow government, not AIPAC. My mistake. Certainly a defensible polemic, though, of course, somewhat of an exaggeration.
Persecution of Jews were always greatest historically in Catholic countries and lowest in Protestant nations(even if both instances occured).
Yes, more philosemitism in Protestant Europe. But it's a mixed bag, and Nazism progressed far more rapidly in Protestant parts of Germany than Catholic, I'm pretty sure.
Krauss, I've read Beinart's book in galleys, and I'm pretty confident his liberal instincts will prevail. There is too much polemical verve in the book against the Likud, the Hoenlein types, etc. Goldberg or someone like Wieseltier sometimes do this in a pro forma way, but you can tell where the passion is. My bet is that Goldberg and Beinart won't be "covering" for one another two years from now. Of course, one never knows.
Yes, I noted that "Culturally it's a fascinating question--and too depressing for words" line. Many ways to read that. I read it as depressing that no one is willing to push back against the Israel lobby, which I think is Beinart's take too, though he would find it more than I a problem internal to modern American Judaism.
Where is Dersh? He must be having an angina attack. Could mondoweiss call him and ask for comment?
Re Rubin's Enlightenment comment, I would recommend people seeing the Iranian film "A Separation" on this subject. It's great cinema, an interesting view of contemporary Teheran, and a direct look at "negotiation" Iranian-style.
Or perhaps the director did it as agit-prop, to counter racist slander like Rubin's.
TMM asks "Do Israelis have to do anything to become US citizens?"
It's not automatic. The main routes to citizenship are sponsoring relatives or job offers linked to special skills. High echelon people with connections can usually find a way, though it takes some lawyering. But if your brother is a citizen, he can sponsor you. My knowledge of the law is based on research done years ago, so perhaps it's dated.
Yeah, the book fulfills its promise. I have a galley, am writing a review.
I'm for seeing how she does in her job. The Times can send who it wants to cover I-P, probably more than half of their good reporters are Jewish, if someone doesn't like that, build a better newspaper. It ain't 1996 anymore--the number of Jews who engaged in a constructive, humanistic, pro-Palestinian rights way has probably expanded 10 fold; this site is one great example among many. She might be good. If not, then slam her.
I think I tried to post this earlier, but can't find it. BIoC reminds me so much of Progressive Labor types in the 60's, who were ultra-left and single-minded (about the "worker-student alliance") and kind of robotic. SDS would probably have destroyed itself anyway, but PL sure played a role. I was a bit young to really participate then, but followed what was going on.
though a 2SS seems hard to get to, and would require a sea change in the global community posturing, the benefit is that there is no *chaos* phase, which could prove disastrous for the palestinians.
This is smart.
As agitprop, it's very ineffective because it doesn't merely seek to denigrate Pappe, but it shows and quotes him-- and he seems like a reasonable, ideological, smart, Hebrew accented guy-- hardly the kind of match to match their scarifying depicition. He might as well be Howard Zinn (and as a conservative, I'm not a huge fan, but have learned to recognize his value to the large spectrum of America.)
Though perhaps there is undiscovered talent in that realm, there. (I went to the Wizards-Knicks game, Game Three of the NEW ERA. Two (white) guys had a big banner saying "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Point Guard".
Have to agree with Annie here. A high percentage of Time's reporters are Jewish--probably more who have a strong interest in covering I/P. If one finds that unfortunate, one can always start publishing one's own newspaper. And probably (if one assumes that perhaps the Times wants to step away from Likud stenography) a Jew will be better able to withstand the inevitable brickbats from Camera and the rest of them.
She actually sounds pretty awesome-- deflecting the attacks in a cool, judo like way rather than (as I surely would) countering belligerence with belligerence. You go, lady.
Fascinating, about Grace Halsell. Had been vaguely familiar with her name, and knew she had written about the C-Z's. But nothing of her quite unique history. Can't wait to read the book.
It's worse than previous years. Think I read somewhere that David Keene's move from head of the sponsoring group to head the NRA has changed the dynamic. On foreign policy, Keene is a rational person.
There will be dozens of speakers at CPAC, the islamophobes aren't representative. I think the right may be pretty much in play-- under thirty, more Ron Paul supporters than anyone else. The American Conservative folks will be there, passing out copies of the latest issue which include a Ron Paul cover piece; there is a contingent from the Committee for the Republic, rumored to hand out "I like Ike" pins. The only Palestinian-American member of congress is a Republican. So I'm not sure what you're recommending --that Romney shouldn't go to CPAC because Islamophobic crazies will be there? That people with reasonable views on the Mid east should stay out Republican politics? For me, I think neocon (and loonier) ideas may be in retreat among young self-identified conservatives, and in any case it's an important field to play on.
I've been wondering if China had a strategic reason for making Sheldon Adelson one of the richest men in the world, or it's merely random. Could they be perceptive enough to think, the crazier the US is, the better in the long run for us? I guess no one could have foreseen the Citizens United ruling though.
"Notice the ‘liberal’ democrat from New York. She was shifting very comfortably when the discussion about Israel came up, she knows who her donors are. As fast as she got the word, she tried to shift the debate towards generalist ‘campaign reform’ and blabbing on about judicial proceeds instead of the main issue being discussion; "
Good catch, Krauss. She used to be my Congresswoman. I don't like vulgarity, but the word whose syllables begin with "Z" and "w" would fit nicely.
Agree with anoymous and D Samel.
Curious, re Coffin, whether he ever said boo about Israel. I really don't know.
He was intermarried, which can sometimes be an impediment, (eg H. Stuart Hughes) --but I really don't know in Coffin's case.
I don't spend all that much time perusing comments, but I've seen several by Krauss that have impressed me-- so a bit disturbing and uncollegial to see him attacked like this.
i wish i could talk to her thru skype. i should probably get a little more techie. i hear it isn’t that difficult.
We've had three au pair girls who use it all the time, and while they're all smart, I think you might be able to manage. Not that I've tried myself.
I think he's sorry it became a national story-- and is probably accustomed to being able to speak like that (or more directly) in like-minded circles without anyone objecting. He probably thought that if he didn't actually call for the assassination himself, he would be held blameless.
Richard, My answer you want. Lay out a public vision of a two state solution on '67 borders, shared Jerusalem, perhaps land swaps with Nato security guarantees for both countries. Talk about it publicly, educate the American people about why this is a moral and strategic interest. Israel will either elect a leadership which goes along (likely, I think) or resist. If/when they resist, begin slowly cutting aid, not wielding the UN veto. Then wait for the Israelis to elect a new leadership. If they don't, begin to organize BDS on a global scale.
I'm still on the first segment, hearing that it's "very dangerous" that Paul is being supported by "young white men." It reminds of the 70's, of what prompted my voting shift from McGovern to Carter to Reagan.
It would be interesting for someone to peruse the back copies of this Atlanta paper to see the nature of what else this Adler guy has written or printed.
Jamie Kirchick is getting right on it.
sorry, meant Alfred Lilenthal
Albert Lilenthal quotes the Jewish Agency's official statement:
"Once there is a (Jewish) State, clashes inevitably arise with the needs and demands of other countries to which Jews owe loyalities. The problem of double loyalty cannot lightly be dismissed merely by saying it does not exist. . . It will become more difficult to fight in behalf of Israel's political demands when these demands do not conform to the policy of the State in which the Jews are citizen."
Krauss, striking link to that Guardian piece. We're in the midst of a bad feedback loop here, anti-semitism->Zionism->antisemitism-> worse Zionism, etc. I'm not sure really how to crack it. My surmise is that the mostly foreign (and third world?) students at the LSE Party with the Nazi drinking game feel justified in some sense by Israel's flouting of UN resolutions, bombing the defenseless, etc. But anyone can see what effect that would have on liberal/progressive Jews, they batten down the hatches. It's not leading towards a solution, but a bloodbath, or several of them.
Any way out?
I've read the Kirsch piece, and the Kaplan piece. Re the Kirsch, especially. Adam Kirsch is a smart guy, an opinion I've come to from reading many of his essays. But when he says that no one was persuaded by TIL, because it got bad reviews-- does he actually believe that, or is it just an hasbara line? Because he is smart enough to see that most of the reviewers were Zionist, and to understand that most of the publications which reviewed it were not about to diverge from the Israel line. And to know that the reviews were much better abroad-- including Israel, but also England--where the lobby has considerably less power to punish and censure. Kirsch knows that, doesn't he? And he's just putting out a sort of party line, which he knows is BS, but still kind of works. Or is he actually deceiving himself? I feel like I know this milieu very well, but this core question still puzzles me.
BTW, Kirsch also criticized the TIL cover, claiming classic anti-semetic tropes, blah blah. Those cliched images are hard to avoid, the cover art for this article link to theamericanconservative.com
does a pretty good job.
love love love love it
Much as I like the comments, and am capable of absorbing without offense the borderline ones, they aren't especially important to the site. The other blog I spend a lot of time with is Andrew Sullivan's. He has no comments at all, though he occasionally quotes interesting and on point comments from readers. Phil Adam and co, could do that, and mondoweiss would still be an critically important, perhaps even history making, blog.
gets to host the BDS conference next month though. . .
This Ms. Harrington is a shiksa, right? I've seen the type. Very good at marrying very rich very old Jewish guys, who eat this stuff up.
My question is does Isikoff know that he's lying when he talks about Adelson's anti-union motivations. Does he go back to his pro-Likud friends and say "Do you think I succeeded in throwing them off the scent, there?" (or something no doubt pithier). Or has he deceived himself too?
I think Adelson's on an ego trip, and is doing something that a lot of people in the lobby would rightly condemn as drawing excessive attention to yourself at the expense of collective Israeli goals.
Yes, that's what the post suggests. What do we know about Mormon tendencies on this issue? Mitt has staffed his campaign with neocons (though out of conviction or politics, not certain.) Brent Scowcroft, clearly not in the lobby's poche. Orin Hatch, seems to be. Other meaningful data points?
Actually, the bloggings heads dialogue contains some pointed criticism of Paul's domestic policies, and is interesting precisely to see these two grapple between somewhat interesting to them FP ideas and the domestic ones they dislike. They don't go into the "racist, sexist, homophobic, wife-beating" thing though.
Oh, you didn't accuse him of wifebeating.
Well, the war could be very limited. Zbig Brzezinski raised the possibility of a "Liberty in reverse"--shooting down some Israeli planes that were on their way to bomb somewhere. It would send a huge message at the cost of very few lives. I don't see this as at all likely, but not completely beyond the realm of possibility in a decade or so, if current trends continue.
link to youtube.com
Rand Paul, auditioning for the role. Not exactly Fulbrightean, but compared to his GOP peers he could be Socrates.
Rand Paul is one natural candidate-- it's not clear to me he's up to it, but he might be.
Great catch, Allison. I wonder if the cultural thievery is conscious and intentional or merely lazy.
Jerry and Dr. Paul served during roughly the same time.
Kalithea, I think it's not as bad as you think. Ron Paul and his ideas will be around for the next few months, and I'm guessing they will get as much exposure over that period as if he'd won in Iowa. Winning Iowa wouldn't have been as "good" as you think; being on the stage, with some resources, with Romney and Santorum through the spring, won't be as meaningless as you fear. If Kirchik and Jen Rubin had driven him down to fifth place, (with an assist from politically correct progressives!) that would be another matter. But it's a long semester, and the first week pop quiz won't bear that much on the final grade.
I understand the wariness about associations-- it's always a dilemma in politics. But does Ms. Ratner not feel some queasiness about joining David Frum and all the other warmongers in the "let's smash Ron Paul lest his views get any kind of hearing during the election season" campaign? Of course she finds his foreign policy views "thrilling" --but still does her best to ensure they remain unheard.
Well, the words may be well put together, but in a few areas they are not accurate. To mention one, Paul is considered pretty weak by immigration restrictionists, (compared to others in the field) who regret being able to find nary a breath of nativism in his campaign.
Like me, antiwar leftwinger Robert Scheer at truthdig has embraced a lot of the Paul agenda in a post titled, Marginalizing Ron Paul:
Bravo Bob Scheer! I thought he was a great writer forty years ago when I was a teenage new lefty, and still going really strong.
Wow. One natural comparison is to the Ron Paul newsletters of a generation ago, which are actually less virulent. But this of course is up to the minute contemporary, and right in the middle of the GOP/neocon/Likudnik establishement world view. And of course, this is designed to start or justify a war, which the Paul newsletters were not.
Thanks for posting this, it's interesting and impressive. My background is very different, but I did have a "progressive" stepfather in the Bay Area in the sixties, and it brings back some of that feeling. The recalling of seeing for yourself-- in Lebanon in '69 or '70 is pretty amazing.
It's a very peculiar kind of "life-long" anti-semite that makes a totem out of a Jewish economist (von Mises).
Oh, and one more thing. There is absolutely zero evidence of Ron Paul's "life-long anti-semitism." The paleo-libertarian faction which sustained him in the early nineties was, in considerable part, Jewish. . . (like so many interesting political small factions) _ and actually far more interesting than widely excerpted race baiting snippets would make it appear.
Jerry,
I think the oft expressed contempt for liberal Zionism is really for its failure, not for its essence. I'm only speaking for myself, but I suspect I share the view of many others on this site. '48 would not have become an issue for so many if Israel was not continuing to expand, continually threatening its neighbors, ignoring peace initiatives, etc. I can see wyt many would hate liberal Zionism, despite its reservoir of scientific, technological, and even socio-political accomplishments. But I would not be one of them--certainly not if liberal Zionism made an effort to reasonably accomodate Palestinian national aspirations, grasped the opportunities offered to make a peaceful place for Israel in the ME, etc. But if failed to do that, failed seriously even to try (Avi Shlaim's work is revelatory in this regard) and thus appears as possibly sort of a sham, a kind of hasbara for an American audience. This is clearly not the case with committed liberal Zionists (the great Uri Avnery, for ex.) but it is for the Labor Party and its cohorts.
I believe it is Jerome Slater and he was being sarcastic. If not, it's mystery to be explored.
pretty amusing. someone at the RPR was reading widely and well.
“Racism” comes in many forms, and the term has grown to encompass discrimination or bigotry against any people because of characteristics of birth. One of the more important variables is the destructive potential of the racist. A teenager in an Idaho basement who harbors homicidal or even genocidal thoughts against Blacks or Jews poses a problem, but probably not one that will harm any of his intended victims. On the other hand, a POTUS’s casual disregard, but not overt hatred or even dislike, of people who live in certain foreign countries, can result in the deaths of many thousands or a lot more.
This is very smart, an order of magnitude better than anything one can read in an American newspaper column.
I want to say more, and be not dismissive of Lizzy Ratner's concerns. Politicians, like political intellectuals, move and shift their positions. Sometimes the shifts are dramatic--Whittaker Chambers and countless ex-communists, David Horowitz; sometimes less so--Christopher Hitchens, Ehud Barak -- subtle enough that the personage doesn't need to disavow the person he once was, what he once believed or allowed himself to be associated with. Still the most important thing is where the politician or writer is now, where he seems to be heading. Vis a vis Paul, I would urge the same standard as judgement as one might give to Hitchens, and the shifts in perspective are comparably dramatic (and not)--for in neither case has the shift been total, or required a disavowal of the past.
Ron Paul is not going to be president. He is not going to be the nominee. If he were, I would probably vote for Obama. But there is zero chance of his being the nominee.
The relevant question is, whether he will serve as an effective tribune for words that need to be said to an American mass audience about foreign affairs over the next few months, and whether in his campaign's wake, he will leave behind a movement capable of shifting the GOP away from its knee jerk neoconservatism on foreign policy issues in the future. The chance of that ocurring seems to me considerable, if Paul does well, as the neocon ideas are so crazy that average Republicans do not support them. If the Paul campaign can manage that, it would be an historic accomplishment, well worth supporting. And well worth putting somewhat lower on the moral judgment registry his casual and opportunistic support for race-baiting that occured a political generation ago.
For a politician to get himself caught in a photo with an extremist means nothing, (fringe types work very hard to set up those photos, and can usually succeed). I know Lizzy's argument isn't based on that, but putting it in the headline gives a mistaken impression of the degree of Paul's right-wing racialism. It's kind of a smear. Would you be able to control every photo that might be taken in a bookstore selling the Goldstone book?
It's pretty clear that more than twenty years ago, Paul bought into the Rockwell-Rothbard "outreach to the paleocons" strategy, and let them pursue it for five years. I think it should be pointed out it was a different time--and everyone on the right, neocon and other, was more obsessed with racial issues. It was the period of the LA riots, soaring crime rates, crack, Farrakhan, black law professors trying to encourage jury nullification for street crime, etc. The Rothbard/Rockwell people never took things as far as David Duke, but they were responding to conditions, the same way American Stalinists (avid supporters of the 20th century's biggest mass murderer, btw) were responding to the perception that capitalism was doomed.
As others on this thread have pointed out, the relevant question is where Paul is on the racism scale now--relative to the other candidates. That includes especially comparison to the rabid anti-Muslim sentiments floating everywhere else in the GOP. The important thing in politics is which way a politician is trending, where is the vector leading. Paul has clearly moved away from this stuff for the past fifteen years--a long time in politics. Clearly his judgment 1989-2005 was bad, but I think it's less horrid in it historical context than it now appears, and shouldn't define his current campaign, or its meaning. Though obviously much more dangerous (and infinitely more powerful) racists--the neocons-- are working hard to ensure that it does.
To me, there's a vast gap between opposing, even retrospectively, the 1964 Act and the race-baiting of the newsletters. But I see no harm for progressives or anyone else in a debate--between Obama and Ron Paul--on the issue. Obama would win, and rightly so. But that certainly doesn't rule out supporting Paul for the GOP nomination, or welcoming the foreign policy debate he has brought into the contest.
David Samel,
I agree completely. I contributed to the campaign yesterday--ignoring the things I don't like or agree with. I don't expect him to get the nomination, but he can help break the war mindset in the GOP, and encourage Dems who feel likewise. It's the most important thing.
I don't think that's the reason for the newsletters. I think it's described here by Michael Dougherty link to businessinsider.com
-- the low rent Kevin Phillipsian scheme by some libertarian intellectuals to "reach out" to rednecks to make inroads for their brand of libertariananism. Murray Rothbard (smart if quirky guy, NY Jewish I believe) was one of the planners.
Ditto, re the friedersdorf, a thoughtful well documented piece.
It's remarkable how much less racial tension there is in the US now than a generation ago. Al Sharpton might well support Ron Paul, at least among Republicans, and I'm sure they would get along. But both were (equally I would submit) engaged in race-baiting twenty or so years ago. The edge was taken off race by the Clinton administration, a full employment economy, a peaking and leveling off of out of wedlock births, welfare reform, and perhaps most of all, a drop in crime--crime being as bad as white racism for poisoning relations between the races. It's stunning that what seemed a major issue--(from wherever you stood, and I was a neocon then) twenty years ago, is minor today. Paul should apologize (and so should Sharpton, and others). I might vote for either one, today.
Annie, Thanks. Larissa Sansour's website is a real treat.
link to larissasansour.com
I enjoyed the above link, and sent it to my wife and kids.
It's worth noting too that George Packer's The Assassin's Gate makes the point very eloquently and even empathatically.
I want this book for Christmas. I hope he's not saying that Feith et al. were only partially driven by concern for greater Israel, because that would be a severe understatement.
Peter did oppose the Iraq war, eloquently. He is a Christian, and pro-Zionist, but I wouldn't call him a Christian Zionist, as his position seems based on more defense of Israel as part of the West--not Bible rights. He has written on both issues for The American Conservative, and you can find his positions on the website.
Suppose that a man leaps out of a burning building--as my dear friend and colleague Jeffrey Goldberg sat and said to my face over a table at La Tomate in Washington not two years ago--and lands on a bystander in the street below. Now make the burning building be Europe, and the luckless man underneath the Palestinian Arabs. Is this historical injustice? Has the man bellow been made a victim, with infinite cause of complaint and indefinite justification for violent retaliation? My own reply would be a provisional "no" but only on these condiditions. The man leaping from the burning building must still make restitution as he can to the man who broke his fall, and must not pretend he never he landed on him. And he must base his case on the singularity and uniqueness of the original leap. It can't in other words, be "leap, leap, leap" for four generations or more. The people underneath cannot be expected to tolerate leaping on this scale and of this duration, if you catch my drift. In Palestine tread softly, for you tread on their dreams. And do not tell the Paslestinian they were never fallen upon and bruised in the first place. Do not shame yourself with the cheap lie that they were told by their leaders to run away. Also, stop saying that no one knew how to cultivate oranges in Jaffa till the Jews showed them how. "Making the desert bloom"--one of Yvonne's stock phrases--makes desert dwellers out of people who were the agricultural superiorus of the Crusaders.
From Hitch 22, published in 2010.
That Finkelstein clip is interesting, but I think he doesn't understand the way in which neoconservative ideas colonized the mentalities of realists like Cheney and Rumsfeld. The principle neoconservative accoomplishment is to create a vocabulary in which American nationalist thought becomes as one with the promotion of Israeli interests; this requires the marginalizing of other, competing, streams of foreign policy thought and those who espouse them. Which the neocons have done. If you are a pro-neocon gentile, you don't think you are serving "Israeli interests" but American ones, but you have absorbed and internalized a world view where the two are identical.
The passage in his memoir-- basically supportive of a fair two state solution, and critical of Israel for never making that possible-- is eloquent and reasonable. But he was gyrating so wildly towards neocon positions during that time, I don't know if it was the last word.
What a great post! I suspect the split with children might be very important in causing the establishment to question themselves--certainly it was so in the sixties, where major liberal hawks (WASPs this time) couldn't bear the contempt of their sons and daughters. I've seen nothing written on this, except here.
It is kind of great. I propose that J Street use some of its considerable means to hire a publicist and get Morrison on as much media as it can. He speaks of the kind of very specific ethnic cleansing which is very effective in educating people about the conflict.
Ironically, it was my friend and ride Pat Carmeli, once a Catholic girl from Long Island, who had married an Israeli, raised a family in Israel, and is now a devoted and tireless local Syracuse area advocate for Palestinian rights,
Can someone get her to write a memoir?
They should hire some evangelical Christians, who would serve Israelis for free.
I'll give anyone 5-1 odds that Gutman will NOT be removed from his post. I think there are clear limits to the administration's cravenness and this would surpass them.
Great catch, Allison.
What does "PTB" mean?
You're probably right about Blitzer-- some combination of veteran journalist and liberal Zionist sensibilities makes him pretty reasonable on this. Contrasting him to Schieffer and Matthews makes me think that Jews have a lot more freedom in the top spots in the highly visible TV media-- not nearly as vulnerable to CAMERA inspired whispering campaigns
and insinuating letters to their employers about the "age-old source" of their "anti-Israel bias."
Yes, like Annie says, they're a big part of what makes the site special.