Home
Candid, constructive commentary on Israel, the Arab-Israeli conflict, America’s Middle East policies and their domestic political context.
Announcing the “Fleshies”: awards for the best responses to anti-Semitism on the Web
It is hard to convey the amount of bile and reductionist, blame-the-Jews-for-every-sin rhetoric that has taken over much of the blogosphere. Phil Weiss’s blog generally attracts some of the most articulate Jew-bashers, so I tune into the comments from time to time in order to gauge the level of hatred.
I just noticed some great comments by “Teddy,” one of our most valued contributors whose only fault is that he is smarter and generally more articulate than I am. I hereby award him the first “Fleshie,” which will be bestowed periodically on the best response to anti-Semitism or ignorant anti-Israelism on the Web. He veers farther to the left than I would, but this is the kind of respondent who has a chance to get the attention of the people who are reading these blogs and still trying to make up their minds about whether to hold the Jews responsible for the world’s problems…Stay with this. It is a bit scary in places. And Teddy’s initial response refers to an earlier comment and requires some patience. But, in the end, he richly deserves his Fleshie:
1-{The original provocation by “Cogit 8}”Phil, after observing how ‘your people’ operate for lo a half century, I rather doubt that anything close to a candid discussion about The Jews (or their lobby) will ever occur. The Russerts and Wolf Blitzers are drooling in wait for Obama, who hasn’t inspired much hope to the majority of Americans who want us out of Iraq.
What will happen instead is that Hillary will demagogue the issue into one of “Do you support our little ally Israel, or don’t you? Pulling out of Iraq will leave poor little Israel all alone, etc etc etc.”
If you want a foretaste of the sophistry to come, merely observe how the recent killing of 120 Palestinians by a sophisticated war-machine has not produced even a ripple of empathy in America, whereas the death of one Jew by a crudely made rocket is trumpeted about the mother-land. Proof indeed of The Jewing of America - because most of ‘your people’ really don’t give a rip about other human life.”
2-{Teddy’s response}: “most of ‘your people’ really don’t give a rip about other human life.”
What follows is an excerpt from a comment that closed off a thread a few days ago. I wrote it in response to a predictable claim from MM that Zionism was NOTHING except colonialism and racism, nothing else. I include the first part so you will understand the context of my concluding comment. Some of you are unwittingly doing a wonderful job of promoting Zionism and confirming the suspicions of the most paranoid Jews:
————————
MM,And there was nothing else to Zionism? No other reason for it? Just colonialism and imperialism? No pogroms and raw discrimination that made Eastern and Central European Jew believe assimilation was impossible? No desparation in the 1930s and ’40s because the gates of the world were closed (and don’t give me the infernal, conspiratorial line that somehow the Zionists caused the Holocaust or were glad that it happened, which I used to read all the time on Phil’s blog)?…
That said, many of the Zionist pioneers were racist, and orientalist, and the entire saga does not resemble the golden myths American Jews learned in their childhood about the founding of Israel. But let me tell ya, MM and all your compadres, much of the bile on this blog is reminiscent of the attitudes that convinced Jews in the late 19th century that Zionism was the only solution available to them.
So keep it up, as someone else wrote awhile ago. You’re doing AIPAC’s work for it!
Posted by: Teddy | March 06, 2008 at 12:19 PM
3-{Another county heard from}: Even if one accepts everything Teddy says about the pogroms Jews faced in Europe — what does that have to do with the U.S.?
Like the Palestinians, Americans wonder why we have to pay and pay and pay for sins committed by Europeans decades ago. We even have to pay $35 million a year for the Holocaust Museum, to explain what one group of Europeans did to another group of Europeans. Why?
Now there IS a zionist state, which enjoys a southern European standard of living. So WHY, again, is the U.S. obliged to spend billions a year, and distort its entire foreign policy — in perpetuity — to help this exclusively Jewish project along?
Is this like Catholic indulgences or carbon credits, where paying $5 billion a year will earn us “philosemitic credits” and expiate our eternal liberal guilt? It takes a lot of chutzpah to think that the Shoah can continue to milked for this purpose, in the seventh decade after it happened.
Give it a rest, man! Find a new hustle that actually adds some value to peoples’ lives, rather than just shaking them down and denouncing them as antisemites if they dare to object to having their pockets picked. Some of us are getting rather tired of being abused, after generously contributing all our lives via income tax. Some gratitude, huh!
Posted by: Jim Haygood | March 06, 2008 at 12:46 PM
4- {Teddy’s response}You don’t seem to get it, Jim. I wasn’t defending all that the Zionists did or justifying blind U.S. support for Israel. I was pointing out that the rhetoric on this site, or some of it, blames THE JOOS as a people for all sorts of nefarious crimes, and refuses to make a distinction between right wing Zionists and everyone else who calls himself or herself a Jew. Anti-Zionism and blunt, angry criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism. “Most of ‘your people’ don’t really give a rip about human life’ is anti-Semitic according to any reasonable definition of the word. If you and yours would denounce grotesque generalizations about the Jewish people and focus on AIPAC, the ZOA and the groups that I, as Jew, also despise, you might attract reasonable people to your arguments
Posted by: Teddy | March 06, 2008 at 01:08 PM
5-{A second provocation by “Cogit8″} Teddy, I regret that you limited your critique to just a few of my words, because I’m talking about a much larger issue (its the same issue that Phil is pondering also, and that is the question of Jewish culpability in the disaster which is Iraq).
If the Dreyfus Affair can be called “one of the greatest iniquities of the last century” and it only concerned one individual, pray tell what will Iraq and Lebanon be called some day? In addition, what will the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Palestinians be called?
So yes, “J’Accuse!” is where I’m coming from, and I accuse “most of ‘your people’” of having committed or supported major war-crimes against humanity.
Posted by: cogit8 | March 06, 2008 at 10:43 PM
6 {Teddy’s award- winning response} The Dreyfus Affair was your entry in the compare-whose-pain-is-greater debate, not mine.
You have a Star Wars, black and white vision of the conflict and, apparently, the universe. I learned a long time ago that it is useless to try to explain the complexities and nuances of the ongoing tragedy to people like you. But just a few notes and then I need to return to the world where people understand there are two sides to most stories and neither has a monopoly on truth or goodness.
I don’t believe Israel and its lobbyists were a decisive factor in the Bushies decision to get us into Iraq. But even if they were, what about the high percentage of American Jews who opposed the invasion and the higher percentage that turned agains the war? Are they part of the “people” who should be blamed for Iraq? Weren’t American Jews prominent leaders of the anti-war movement (e.g., Leslie Cagan)?
I don’t believe what happened in 1948 (or the 30s) can be reduced to the single, fashionable phrase of “ethnic cleansing,” unless that phrase is applied to both sides of the conflict. There was a war between two national movements and atrocities were commmited by both sides. What do you think were the intentions of the Arab armies that invaded in ‘48? The entire area would have been Judenrein if they had gotten their way. But even if your Star Wars vision is correct, an entire “people” did not “support” ethnic cleansing. Most Jews who followed the conflict believed in the propaganda they were fed about why the Palestinians left. Only in the last few decades have the revisionist historians showed that there was another side of the story. You can’t blame an entire “people” for supporting ethnic cleansing if they did not believe that is what happened.
For that matter, even if you think the Zionists were the scum of the earth from the very start, realize that they were a minority movement among Jews around the world even in the early 1930s. An entire “people” did not support them. For most Jews. the need for the Jewish homeland only sunk during the Second World and its immediate aftermath.
As for Lebanon and Gaza, I am outraged at the passivity of most American Jewish organizations in the face of Israel’s disproportionate response. But one of the reasons for the passivity among moderate Jews who are horrified by the deaths of Palestinian children is utter despair and hopelessness; they don’t have a practical answer that will help both sides escape from this nightmare. So, as usual, those with the easy, extreme answers –targeted assasinations—win the day. That’s no excuse. I share your anger at what is happening and so do the organizations I support, like Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. So, where does that put me in your cartography of the Jewish people?
Posted by: Teddy | March 07, 2008 at 05:24 AM
Again, Teddy’s answer won’t make the mainstream Jewish establishment happy, because he feels no compulsion to defend what he believes to be indefensible. Some of what he says make me uncomfortable and is too harsh on the Zionists. But standard “hasbara” has no chance to succeed in that digital world. It gets rejected immediately. Teddy and his ilk do have a chance. Please send other nominations to dfleshler@yahoo.com.
Topics: Israel lobby, Palestinians, Israel, Zionism, American Jews, Far left, Anti-Semitism | 43 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | March 7, 2008
Will Obama, Clinton or McCain make Israel-Palestine a priority on Day 1?
To gauge what the presidential candidates might do about the ongoing Arab-Israeli nightmare, one has to make inferences based on inflections, hints, nuances and tea leaves. What they or their campaign staffers say now is at least as important as the identity of 4 or 5 of the many “foreign policy advisors” who have communicated with them.
One of the measures I am using to judge candidates is not only who is most likely to have a robust, creative and at least occasionally evenhanded Middle East policy, but also who is most likely to treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a high priority from their first day in office.
In “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace –American Leadership in the Middle East” published by the U.S. Institute of Peace, Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky have offered a host of concrete, practical suggestions to the next administration, based on interviews with dozens of diplomats and others who know what they are talking about. Several of their recommendations require a commitment to putting the issue on the front burner and keeping it there:
1) The president needs to adopt a hands-on policy from the beginning of his/her term. The Arab-Israeli question ought to figure prominently in an early presidential speech, sending a loud and clear signal that the issue is high on the agenda.
2) From the first day in office, the president ought to charge those responsible for Middle East policy with developing…a comprehensive and durable strategy not just to manage the conflict, but to end it. Such a strategy must include concrete proposals for monitoring and judging compliance by all sides.
3) The United States should lock in the gains of earlier negotiations, especially before public support in the region erodes or events on the ground further undermine prospects for a peaceful settlement.
Interestingly, Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, appears to agree with Kurtzer/Lasensky, based on an interview with Roger Cohen in the NY Times last month (”No Manchurian Candidate,” 2/11/2008):
Foreign policy will roar back once this is a straight Republican-Democrat fight. A Democrat who’s going to win has be strong on core American defense principles, which include Israel’s security.
Obama feels Israel in his kishkas, all right. Equally, he feels dialogue, which has been his way of getting things done since he became a Chicago community organizer in the 1980s. There would be no six-year time-outs on Israel-Palestine under an Obama presidency. “He’d be actively involved from day one,” said Axelrod.
That does not mean that Hillary or McCain disagree. We just haven’t heard from their campaigns about the extent to which the conflict will be an early, and high, priority. But we do know that Hillary’s foreign policy advisors who are actively campaigning for her include the estimable Mara Rudman, former NSC Chief of Staff and Deputy National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration. She is clearly an advocate of vigorous American engagement in the region (and on the board of Americans for Peace Now)…
Anyone else have tea leaf readings, inflections, dreams or visions that are worth sharing?
Topics: American foreign policy, Palestinians, Middle East peace process, Israel, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton | 22 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | March 5, 2008
Where are all of Clinton’s “dovish” Jewish supporters?
Newsweek now tells us that it is not only right wing, so-called “pro-Israel” agitators and Republicans who are hopping on the “Obama- is-bad-for-the Jews” bandwagon, it is also Swiftboaters in the Clinton campaign:
“Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK. In addition to Brzezinski, the e-mails attack Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a former Clinton negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view…
…In one case, Daphna Ziman, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton’s who has co-chaired several events for her, forwarded an e-mail from the Republican Jewish Coalition, a grass-roots GOP group, criticizing Obama for proposing a Muslim summit. In a Jan. 31 interview with Paris Match, Obama said he wanted “an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between Muslims and the West.” Ziman, in her Feb. 2 e-mail, responded, “I am horrified at Mr. Obama’s point of view.” Her e-mail, sent to a group including Mike Medavoy, a Hollywood producer who supports Obama, contained a press release from RJC executive director Matt Brooks. “Nowhere in the Paris Match article does Senator Obama affirm Israel’s right to exist,” Brooks wrote. (Ziman says “the campaign had nothing to do with” her e-mail.)
In an e-mail sent Feb. 4—a day before Super Tuesday—Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: “Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barak Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries.” (She didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
Richard Silverstein in Tikun Olam ably expresses the rage I felt upon learning this news. Check out his call for the Clinton campaign “to renounce this ugly feature of their campaign. I note with most severe censure that when the Newsweek journalists gave Howard Wolfson an opportunity to comment for the article he declined.”
But what has gone unnoticed in this fracas is that at least some of Hillary’s Jewish supporters, including reasonably well-connected fundraisers and volunteers, AGREE WITH ROB MALLEY! They share his take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and don’t want that conflict to be a zero sum game. They want American policy in the Middle East to be evenhanded. They also agree with Obama that the U.S. should not shirk from talking to Syria and Iran. I won’t name names, but trust me on this one. I know a few of them and I am sure there are many more I’ve never met They are supporters of Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum. They agree with most of the op-eds they read in Haaretz. Some were Friends of Bill and continue to be Friends of Hillary.
It isn’t clear whether they have weighed in and told the people running the campaign that borrowing from the rhetoric of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and using the most dumbed-down, far right definitions of what it means to be “pro-Israel,” are beyond the pale. I confess that I have been afraid to ask the ones I know because I don’t want to put them in the uncomfortable position of saying all is fair in politics, Hillary needs to pull out every conceivable stop to come from behind, and so they have kept quiet, they have let the attack dogs run wild. Perhaps that is not true. Perhaps they have raised objections. Perhaps there has been a furious internal debate in the campaign and these tactics will end. Or perhaps they are not influential enough, when all is said and done, to spark such a debate.
Regardless, the question remains, if Obama wins the nomination, will they come out of the shadows and defend him from the attacks that are sure to come from Republicans? Will they defend Rob Malley and Susan Rice, or at least the positions the two of them espouse? Will they urge Obama to do everything possible to wade into the region and mediate and arbitrate, and, if necessary, employ both sticks and carrots when dealing with Israel as well as its neighbors? Will they defend Rashid Khalidi, the relatively moderate scholar who is the latest object of gibes from Obama bashers because he has dared to be a Palestinian nationalist, as Tikun Olam also reports ? Will they try to wrest control of the rules of the public debate on Middle East policy from the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd?
I am crossing my pro-American, pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian fingers.
Topics: Middle East peace process, Israel, Democratic party, Barack Obama, Rob Malley, Hillary Clinton | 17 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 28, 2008
So just who are Obama’s Middle East advisors? Finally, some clarifications…
Clarifications –i.e., light, as opposed to heat– about Obama’s Middle East advisors are provided by Jack Levin, an Obama friend and campaign insider quoted in Gidon Remba’s Tough Dove Israel. Almost the exact same language can be found on a blog called The Sunny Side, which quotes Eric Lynn, who is on Obama’s staff.
Here is an excerpt from Levin:
(1) The first allegation on almost every list is that Zbigniew Brzezinski is anti-Israel and is Barack’s chief foreign policy advisor.
The fact is that Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to a former president, called Barack and volunteered his endorsement of Barack’s campaign because Brzezinski agrees with Barack’s Iraq policy. While Barack briefly discussed Iraq with Brzezinski, Barack has never discussed, and will not discuss, Israel or Palestinian issues with Brzezinski. Indeed, Barack has no plans to talk further with Brzezinski about anything.
So to call Brzezinski a Barack foreign policy advisor of any kind is incorrect. And to call him Barack’s chief foreign policy advisor is a ludicrous misstatement.
(2) The second allegation on most every list is that Robert Malley is anti-Israel and is a Barack foreign policy advisor.
The fact is that Malley, who served on former President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy staff, emailed some of his writings and views to Barack’s staff as well as (we believe) to all (or most) of the other presidential candidates’ staffs. Barack has had, and plans to have, no conversations with Malley.
So Malley is not an advisor to Barack. Indeed, Martin Peretz (in a Jerusalem Post article entitled “Trust Obama on Israel”) unequivocally stated “Malley is not and has never been Middle East advisor to Barack Obama.”
(3) The third allegation on many lists is that Tony Lake is anti-Israel and is a Barack advisor. At last we have an allegation that is half correct: Tony Lake is a Barack advisor, but Tony Lake is not anti-Israel.
Tony was National Security Advisor to former President Bill Clinton (whose administration is clearly viewed as pro-Israel). Tony’s wife is Jewish and Tony himself converted to Judaism. Tony is pro-Israel and openly so, e.g., he is very well received when he speaks on U.S. foreign policy at synagogues and Jewish gatherings.
(Are you beginning to get the drift that you cannot believe everything you read on the Internet? Read on, please.)
(4) The fourth allegation on many lists is that Susan Rice is anti-Israel and is advising Barack.
Susan was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under President Bill Clinton and Secretary Madeline Albright (again an administration clearly viewed as pro-Israel). She is not in any way anti-Israel. But in any event, her only involvement with Barack is on African affairs and she is not advising Barack on Israel or the Middle East at all.
(5) Another frequently mentioned character is George Soros. Whatever George’s views, he is merely a contributor (one out of 500,000 contributors so far and growing) to Barack’s excellent campaign. George is not an Obama advisor in any way.
(6) So finally we come to the key question: Who are Barack’s Israel advisors? Here the answers are all true and all good.
Dennis Ross, former President Bill Clinton’s chief Middle East advisor for 8 years, the world’s top recognized expert on the Middle East, a noted author of numerous books and countless articles, all of which are realistic and fair-minded, and himself a Jew.
While Dennis has not endorsed Barack, Dennis frequently confers with Barack and his team, and we all hope that whoever is elected president will call on Dennis to play a lead, crucial and fair-minded role on future Middle East policy.
Former President Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor Tony Lake, discussed in (3) above.
Representative Robert Wexler (D – FL), one of our country’s most outspoken advocates for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
Dennis McDonough, foreign policy advisor to former Senator Tom Daschle (D – SD), who consistently advocates a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
Dan Shapiro, a member of former President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and a former aide to Senator Bill Nelson (D – FL), another consistent advocate of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
Eric Lynn, former foreign policy advisor to Rep. Peter Deutsch (D – FL), one of the House’s strongest supporters of Israel.
(The latter 3 – McDonough, Shapiro, and Lynn – currently serve as full-time Barack staff people.)
I am disturbed that Obama’s people rely entirely on obsolete, narrow definitions of what it means to be pro-Israel and that they don’t defend Malley. Read a little more of Levin’s comments and you will see what I mean. But that’s the game they are forced to play, alas, given the dumbed-down version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that must be presented on the campaign trail, so I don’t blame them.
Topics: American foreign policy, Israel, American Jews, Barack Obama, Rob Malley | 31 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 20, 2008
The smears against Rob Malley continue, but former U.S. officials rise to his defense
James Besser has a balanced and informative piece on the ongoing Rob Malley fracas in New York Jewish Week. Among other things, we learn that the offensive smear campaign against Malley and, by extension, Obama has not abated: “In the days leading up to this week’s Democratic primary in Maryland, Jewish voters in Baltimore and the Maryland suburbs of Washington began getting e-mails warning that Sen. Barack Obama is being influenced by “anti-Israel” advisers, and pointing to one in particular: former Clinton administration official Robert Malley.”
Some of Malley’s former government colleagues have decided they are going to weigh in and defend Malley in the public arena. I’ve been forwarded a copy of a statement they have signed. If there are people you know who might be susceptible to the smear campaign, please let them know what Berger, Indyk, Kurtzer, Miller and Ross have to say:
Over the past several weeks, a series of vicious, personal attacks have been launched against one of our colleagues, Robert Malley, who served as President Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs. They claim that he harbours an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought to undermine Israel’s security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and US national interests. They must stop.
We have real differences among us about how best to conduct US policy toward the Middle East and what is the right way to build a lasting two-state solution that protects Israel’s security. But whatever differences do exist, there is no disagreement among us on one core issue that transcends partisan or other divides: that the US should not and will not do anything to undermine Israel’s safety or the special relationship between our two nations. We have worked with Rob closely over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted
consistent with it.We face a critical period in the Middle East that demands sustained, determined and far-sighted engagement by the United States. It is not a time for scurrilous attacks against someone who deserves our respect.
Sincerely,
Samuel (Sandy) Berger
Former National Security Advisor
Amb. Martin Indyk
Former Ambassador to Israel
Amb. Daniel C. Kurtzer
Former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt
and Assistant Secretary of
State for Near East Affairs
Aaron David Miller
Former Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations,
Department of State
Amb. Dennis Ross
Former Special Envoy of the President
to the Middle East
Topics: American foreign policy, Middle East peace process, Israel, Democratic party, American Jewish voters, Rob Malley, Obama | 22 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 14, 2008
One man’s fantasies about “unruly Palestinians”
Epraim Inbar of Bar-Ilan University has published a piece that disproves the notion that everything that can be said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has already said. He harbors the fantasy that somehow the chaos in Gaza and the disarray in the West Bank will turn out well for Israel because….eventually Egypt and Jordan will share the “burden of ruling over the unruly Palestinians.” This notion comes from the same kind of wishful thinking that once prompted Israel to ignore the PLO and negotiate with Arab village leagues in the territories. It is akin to the “Jordan-is-Palestine” concept that still persists among some people on the Israeli right.
We always hear that left-wing Israelis and American Jews are unrealistic, live in a dream world, are unwilling to learn the hard lessons of the past. Compared to this guy, the Women in Black (or the meditators who think that more TM will bring peace and enlightenment to the region) are hard-nosed pragmatists:
…The emergence of Hamastan in Gaza may propel Egypt into a “partner” role, which it played willingly in the 1948-67 period. It is very understandable that Egypt does not want to again rule over Gaza. Nevertheless, Hamas’ success in opening the Egypt-Gaza border places Egypt on the horns of a dilemma.
Thus far, Egypt enjoyed the bleeding of Israel, a regional rival, by Hamas - with little cost to itself. But Hamas has grown more powerful and its free access to Sinai has become dangerous….
…On the one hand, Egypt must show solidarity with the Palestinians and sensitivity to their suffering. Therefore, it allowed Gazans to enter its territory. On the other hand, Egypt is a proud sovereign country that wants full control over its borders. It is particularly fearful of the influence of Hamas at home. The rule of Hamas in Gaza is an encouraging development for all Muslim radicals throughout the world. Egypt, like most established Arab states, does not want Hamas to flourish. Nevertheless, Egypt was already manipulated several weeks ago by Hamas when it allowed Gazans returning from pilgrimage to Mecca to enter the Gaza Strip in violation of an agreement with Israel. Hamas again took advantage of Egyptian sensibilities to blast holes in the Rafah wall.
It is not yet clear how the Egyptian dilemma will play out. One distinct possibility is a greater Egyptian role in Gaza to limit the Islamist influence. This is advantageous for Israel, even if some terror may still originate in Gaza. Actually, such a scenario could evolve only after a large-scale Israeli military operation that would extract a heavy price from Gaza, seriously weakening Hamas, particularly its military wing. Then, Gazans may become more susceptible to an enhanced Egyptian presence (which may or may not be formal).
Informal agreements for Arab influence and unofficial control in the Palestinian areas may prove to be quite conducive to the achievement of basic stability in the region. Eventually, Egyptian informal rule over Gaza might be emulated by Jordan in the West Bank. A large number of Palestinians are fed up with their national movement; it has brought only suffering to the Palestinian people. Thus, the new situation in Gaza could beget an opportunity for the emergence of a new paradigm in which Arab states share the burden of ruling over the unruly Palestinians.
Topics: Palestinians, Israel, Hamas, Israeli occupation, Gaza Strip | 6 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 13, 2008
Sorry to disappoint you, conspiracy theorists: few Jewish voters are obsessed with Israel
A commentator with a brilliant nickname, “Agog,” was disturbed by the previous thread’s discussion of candidates’ positions on Israel. Agog asked: “Is that how you judge the merits of the respective candidates: who is best for Israel? Shouldn’t the criterion be who is best for the US? The two countries’ interests are not one and the same.”
The premise that Israel is the most important priority for American Jewish voters has been endlessly recycled in this campaign season. It was stongly implied in pre-Super Tuesday primary coverage that focused obessively on the positions of Obama/Clinton/McCain on Israel. It was assumed by the ignorant creeps who came up with the smear campaign against Rob Malley; they seemed to believe that if a whiff of even-handedness could be detected in Obama’s advisor, it would automatically swing Jewish votes away from the candidate.
All of this chatter feeds the suspicions of people like Agog, who choose to believe that when American Jews discuss politicians’ views on Israel, it is evidence that we don’t care enough about our own country.
But while Israel’s fate is certainly a concern for most American Jews, an American Jewish Committee poll in November, 2007 revealed that it an obsession for a tiny minority of Jewish voters:
When asked to pick their most important campaign issue from a list of options, 23% of those surveyed named the economy and jobs, followed by health care (19%), the war in Iraq (16%), terrorism and national security (14%), support for Israel (6%), immigration (6%) and the energy crisis (6%).
It is impossible to discern how many of the respondents who ranked the economy or health care as their highest priorities also looked closely at candidates’ stances on Israel. I suspect the percentage is high. Hillary might have had increased appeal to Jewish voters in, for example, New York, because of the perception that she was “good on Israel.” But that doesn’t mean Israel’s plight or future was anything close to the most important reason why they voted for her.
For me, the most important priorities when I entered the voting booth were fixing our unconscionable health care system, preventing the economy from collapsing, getting us out of Iraq and making college education more affordable for my daughter, who is in high school. But of course I also factored in the candidates’ stances on Israel and the Middle East, as well as their ability to restore America’s shattered international credibility, when making my choice.
The truth about Jewish voters’ priorities won’t matter to the conspiracy theorists who search for ways to prove that we are a bunch of disloyal fifth columnists intent upon subverting the Republic. Logic and facts don’t do anything to dissuade them and it is no use trying. But their close cousins, who believe there is something incompatible about American citizenship and concern for Israel’s survival and safety, are often more lucid. They include the likes of Philip Weiss, who insists American Jews’ commitment to Israel means they are less loyal to America than they should be, and that we need a public conversation about this “problem.”
They should look at the AJC poll results and try to understand something that should not be hard to understand: Israel is one of the things Americans Jews care about and worry about, but when it is time to exercise our civic responsibilities, what happens here at home is what matters most to us.
Topics: Israel, American Jews, Anti-Semitism, Jewish identity, Dual loyalty, Barack Obama, American Jewish voters | 7 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 9, 2008
Correction on Malley’s role, and a cyber-dilemma
I was so mortified by the bile that prompted the previous post that I somehow missed a clarification in Politico. This is why they invented newpaper editors and why the blogosphere is out of control:
An Obama spokesman, Tommy Vietor, says, “Rob Malley has no day-to-day advisory role in the Obama campaign. He is among many people who has given his advice to the campaign. The actual day-to-day Middle East advisor is Dan Shapiro.”
Marty Peretz — in his defense of Obama on Israel — accepts the Obama explanation. Per Peretz:
“There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley is one of Obama’s advisers, specifically his Middle East adviser. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the web, like the ads for Viagra. Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in The New York Review of Books, is a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama’s Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro. Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.”
So now we have an interesting dilemma, the kind they probably don’t teach in journalism school yet. Should I just delete the entire previous post? The arguments are still valid, and the attacks on Malley, including the latest from Peretz, are still very creepy. But in its own small way, does the previous post call attention to accusations that otherwise will not be noticed? Does it keep alive a controversy about the Obama campaign that should be left for dead? Does this post make matters worse?
Or should both posts remain on “Realistic Dove” because false charges and unfair characterizations don’t vanish from the digital world, they are perpetually reified by the search engines and forwarded emails, and at least a few people need to answer them so that inquiring minds can find alternative perspectives?
If you have some thoughts but don’t want to comment publicly, please send advice to dfleshler@yahoo.com.
Topics: Middle East peace process, Israel, Barack Obama | 14 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 2, 2008
Rob Malley: the Willy Horton of right wing Jewish nut jobs
Unable to find anything in his past to prove that Barack Obama will sell Israel down the river, right wing bloggers in my community are now focusing on one of his Middle East advisors, Robert Malley. Malley served various roles in the Clinton Administration and was President Clinton’s special assistant during the Camp David talks.
Ed Lasky’s character assassination of Malley in American Thinker spews accusations that are being echoed all over the right wing Zionist blogosphere. Normally, I don’t worry about what Lasky and other contributors to American Thinker have to say. Some of them make Bill Krystal seem like a member of the War Resisters League, or a Deadhead. But someone needs to address the current, vile frenzy to use Malley as the Willy Horton of Likud sympathizers and those much further to the right.
Normally, it is best not to call attention to the irrational bile that often passes for analysis when Israel is discussed in the digital world. But Lasky’s article is extensively quoted by the Greater-Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. One can find posts entitled “OBAMA IS FUNDING TERRORIST…..this MUST STOP” and “Obama’s Pro-Terrorist Foreign Policy Advisor,” which opens with “Robert O’Malley [sic] goes past appeasement, directly to alliance with terrorists out to destroy Israel.”
As far as I can tell, nobody attacked Willy Horton’s father, but Lasky can’t forgive Malley for being the son of a well-known, leftwing francophone journalist, Simon Malley, who was born to a Syrian family in Cairo. That ancestry presumably makes his son immediately suspect and someone who should be carefully screened at American airports. So does the fact that Simon Malley, like much of the post- World War II intelligentsia, lauded liberation movements in Africa and also supported the Palestinian cause. Lasky asserts:
Malley has seemingly followed in his father’s footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias…Robert Malley’s writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.
The column did no such thing, of course. Read it youself. Malley overturned conventional wisdom by blaming everyone, including the Palestinians, for missing a historic opportunity.
Lasky’s piece is quite instructive, because each and every article by Malley that he deems to be anti-Israel propaganda is precisely the kind of article Israel needs. His writing is balanced, evenhanded, refusing to rely on received wisdom when dealing with a conflict that both sides must take responsiblity for inflaming. He comes across as very…reasonable. We have reached the point where anyone who tries to be cool and level-headed about the conflict is absolutely terrifying to those who think of it as a zero sum, Manichean game.
I don’t know Malley well but I do know that in the Clinton Administration, his “agenda” was to promote and protect America’s best interests. Those interests –and indeed, Israel’s interests–will be well-served if the next president uses America’s leverage with both sides, rather than just one side, to help them solve a conflict they cannot possibly solve by themselves.
There is no way to stop anyone from saying anything they want about Rob Malley in the lawless, rhetorical wild wild west of the blogosphere. But I hope Obama’s campaign does not take the bait and disassociate itself from Malley. And if this smear campaign continues, I hope the mainstream American Jewish community will rise to Malley’s defense, just as they did for Obama.
Topics: American foreign policy, Palestinians, Middle East peace process, Israel, American Jews, Hamas, Barack Obama | 21 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | February 1, 2008
What to do about the Gaza Strip emergency…
In the last thread, Richard Witty asked what I thought of Israel’s behavior in the Gaza Strip and what I would do about the situation. My response was, “I haven’t the faintest idea.” But Americans for Peace Now just released a statement that makes a lot of sense. You will also find an “Action Alert” on their website.
One praiseworthy aspect of the APN statement is that it doesn’t just deal with diplomatic and military issues. It also says the collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza is just plain wrong. The writers even dare to use a variant of the “M-word” (morality): “This tragedy must be reversed, not as a concession to Hamas, but because it is the right thing to do, both morally and strategically.”
We need more public, clear-cut objections from the pro-Israel left when either side –Israelis or Palestinians –deliberately makes innocent people suffer for the sake of murky diplomatic goals, especially if the perpetrator of the suffering knows full well its actions probably won’t help to achieve those goals. Who is the “we” that needs such objections? The Jewish people, first and foremost.
The statement also has no patience for the rejectionists who are hurling rockets into southern Israel or the kidnappers of Gilad Shalit. That is noteworthy only because a quick scan of the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist blogosphere reveals no compassion for the people of Sderot or the parents of Gilad Shalit and places all blame for the situation in Gaza at Israel’s feet. That is, of course, as offensive as ignoring Palestinian suffering.
And what about APN’s diplomatic proposal? All I can say is that I haven’t heard any better ideas:
“In recent days, the world has seen images of Gazans struggling to cope with a lack of fuel and electricity and an acute shortage of other supplies. This week, the world media is flooded with images of huge numbers of Gazans crossing the Egyptian border to purchase basic goods and necessities. Clearly, Israeli efforts to pressure Hamas by clamping down on Gaza, efforts condoned by the U.S., have resulted in increased desperation and misery for the people of Gaza. Wednesday’s breach of the Egypt-Gaza border is a tangible consequence of this desperation and a disastrous development for Israel in terms of both security and its image in the world.“The firing of rockets and mortar rounds from Gaza into Israel must end. APN and its Israeli sister organization, Peace Now, have repeatedly expressed solidarity with the residents of Israeli communities near Gaza who are suffering from such attacks. The government of Israel has the right – indeed, the obligation – to take measures to bring these attacks to a halt, as well as to seek to free its captured soldier Gilad Shalit.
“APN has also consistently held that Israel should avoid actions that constitute collective punishment or cause disproportionate suffering or casualties among civilians. Such actions are fundamentally wrong and ultimately counterproductive. It is equally wrong and counterproductive for the U.S. to condone such actions. The dramatic deterioration in the health and welfare of civilians in Gaza over the past year represents an entirely man-made, and entirely avoidable, humanitarian tragedy. This tragedy must be reversed, not as a concession to Hamas, but because it is the right thing to do, both morally and strategically.
“By now it should be clear that the policy of placing Gaza under siege is succeeding neither in stopping Qassam fire, nor in ousting Hamas. Tactics of this nature have been tried and have failed, repeatedly. Rather than continue down this disastrous path, Israel, with the support and urging of the U.S., should forge a more responsible, constructive, and far-sighted way forward in terms of both its tactics and strategy for Gaza.
“This new way forward should include ending the blockade of Gaza. It should also include urgent diplomatic efforts to address the security challenges associated with Gaza. In particular, Israel should explore the possibility of achieving understandings with Hamas to end the violence, including a ceasefire or a “hudna,” either through direct contacts or via third parties, including President Abbas. Such an option has been embraced to various degrees by key Israeli military and security figures, including former national security advisor (to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) Giora Eiland, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, and former defense minister Shaul Mofaz.
“A ceasefire or hudna cannot be an end unto itself. A ceasefire or hudna is desirable as a means to halt violence and chaos in the immediate term, creating the space to facilitate improvements in the humanitarian situation and the establishment of a political process. In this way, it can allow the sides to avoid the re-emergence of violence in the longer term. Such a process could involve, as appropriate, the major relevant players: Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Egypt. Absent improvements in the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the establishment of a political process, any ceasefire or hudna risks becoming merely an intermission to allow those attacking Israel to re-arm, re-trench, and enhance their military capability for future attacks.
“Similarly, it is vital that order and security be restored along the Egypt-Gaza border. This will require cooperation and coordination, including between Egypt and Israel, whose Camp David treaty governs military operations and deployments in the border area. Absent such coordination and cooperation, or absent accompanying improvements in the humanitarian situation inside Gaza, efforts to address the border situation will likely fail, with predictable results.”
What y’all think?
Topics: American foreign policy, Palestinians, Israel, Hamas, Gaza Strip, Americans for Peace Now, Ehud Olmert | 56 Comments »
By Dan Fleshler | January 25, 2008
« Previous Entries Next Entries »