Saving Annapolis, Saving Israel
Something terribly ugly is happening in Israel. It started during Yitzhak Rabin's term as prime minister when right-wing extremists and religious fanatics joined in calling for his death and it would seem to have culminated with his assassination.
But the ugliness continues. Yigal Amir, Rabin's assassin, turned out to have been no "lone lunatic," no Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan who acted for reasons that were perhaps psychological and not political.
Not Amir. Yigal Amir was inspired to kill the prime minister by a community which believed that taking Rabin's life was a necessity ordained by God. Rabin was preparing to give up land promised to the Jews, and so it was necessary to kill him. Amir has always been proud of what he accomplished. In his mind, he did it for Israel. A joyous, triumphant smirk can be seen on Amir's face in every photograph for twelve years.
The ugly thing to which I refer is not just the assassination itself. The killing of Rabin was the worst disaster in the history of the Jewish State. Its repercussions are felt every day. I believe that had Rabin lived, Oslo would have ended with an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty and a resolution of the conflict. (By the last years of Oslo, there was virtually no terrorism in Israel thanks to IDF-PLO security cooperation.) The assassin and his friends also believed that Rabin would achieve peace which is why they wanted him dead.
But even uglier than the assassination is the nauseating fact that Yigal Amir is today a hero to a portion of the Israeli public, especially the ideological settlers. He has been treated with kid gloves by the Israeli judicial and prison system, which not only allowed him to marry while in jail but also allowed him to father a child. This week the assassin’s son was circumcised in prison so that the proud father could attend.
This is crazy stuff. Can you imagine if Oswald had lived, and been found guilty, that Americans would tolerate for a minute the idea that he would either be allowed to father a child from prison or attend that child's christening?
Of course not. But then there was no public lionizing of Oswald, or Sirhan, or James Earl Ray. Yes, there were people who hated their victims and no doubt some wanted them dead, but those who celebrated the murder of Kennedys and King did so very very quietly.
Not so in Israel.
Last week in Haifa during a major league soccer game between Beitar Jerusalem and Maccabi Haifa, a moment of silence to commemorate the Rabin assassination was interrupted when half the stadium hissed and booed Rabin's name and sang songs extolling the virtues of his assassin.
Most Israelis were appalled. Many commentators said that these fans were a small minority of soccer hooligans. But many observers disagreed, including Prime Minister Olmert who said that the assassination cheerleaders were “not a small group, as some would like to minimize it, but a large, loud, influential and raging group. . .”
By no means are these people a majority of Israelis or even a substantial number. But they are a loud and vocal minority, and most Israelis--who despise Amir and venerate the memory of Rabin--seem too weary to stand up to them.
Olmert linked the obnoxious fans with the people who virulently oppose any agreement with the Palestinians. This is not to say that all peace opponents admire Rabin’s assassin but rather that the Amir admirers (and those who attack random Palestinians or prayed publicly for the death of Sharon for giving up Gaza) come from the extreme right. That is a fact.
To be fair, these extremists have their counterparts here too. Just as Rabin's murderer is a hero in certain parts of Israel, he is also a hero in parts of the New York metro area and Los Angeles. There are people among us who believe that all is fair in the effort to preserve the settlements and keep the Palestinians under occupation -- even murder.
In a sense, it is not surprising that occupation produces this kind of ugliness. By definition, occupation coarsens the occupier.
Furthermore, an occupation that started as the retention of lands won in a defensive war evolved, once the settlement movement began, into a fierce religious nationalist movement that is less about love of Israel than hating those perceived as Israel’s enemies, especially fellow Israelis and Jews.
These new nationalists, for the most part, have little use for the State of Israel and its leaders. Their attachment is to the Land of Israel, a place located in the Bible, in their hearts and in the West Bank settlements. They have as little use for Tel Aviv and Haifa as they do for Cairo and Damascus.
These are the Israeli counterparts of the ballyhooed Islamo-Fascists--although the people so up-in-arms about Muslim lunatics tend not to see the similarities with their Jewish brethren, and vice versa. That is one of the remarkable things about extremists. They never recognize their mirror image in the people they hate most.
One of the many things these fanatics have in common is that their biggest fear is Arab-Israeli reconciliation. That is nothing new. Following Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995, the far right in Israel organized to defeat Prime Minister Shimon Peres in order to ensure that the Oslo process had died with Rabin. At the same time, Hamas terrorists began a campaign of suicide bombing to achieve the same goal. Hamas succeeded when Peres lost the election.
Now the crazies on both sides are determined to see Annapolis fail. Israel’s security agencies are on alert, with Olmert under even more protection than usual. Palestinians in Israel and the territories also need extra protection. Hopefully, the same precautions are being taken by the Palestinian Authority which needs to guard against both attacks on the Fatah leadership and an increase in attacks on Israeli targets.
All this adds urgency to Annapolis.
Without movement toward peace and an end to occupation, the lunatics on both sides are going to triumph in both Israel and Palestine. Yitzhak Rabin’s son, Yuval, predicts that, at the rate things are going in Israel, the murderer Amir will be freed and his children will be treated as princes of the state. Many Palestinians, for their part, worship suicide bombers and other vicious killers (note the insistence by some Palestinians on the release from prison of Samir Kuntar, the monster whose claim to fame is that he murdered a young family in Nahariyah, Israel.)
The bottom line is that the status quo is a disease that is destroying two societies. If you support Israel, you have no choice but to support what Olmert, Abbas and Rice are trying to do. The alternative is supporting continuation of the occupation and the death of the Zionist dream.
Can't wait for davai's ever positive attitude to pop up here.
MJR, you were too polite to mention what my NPR station told me. His son was circumcised on the anniversary of Rabin's assassination.
Those idiots -- and there seem to be plenty of them -- that support murder as political action, racism and prejudice as a foundation to political debate, undermine the countries they claim allegiance to.
Sadly, that would go for the US as much as Israel.
I don't see any of these reactionaries as any more a useful part of society than the skinheads in 70s UK.
Destructive, to say the least.
November 9, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to be a universal characteristic of the "deeply devout" religious. If you're doing God's work, then you can do no wrong. No matter how horrific your actions and behavior, it's divine. God's will selectively determined.
I wonder if this is related to the supposedly highest form of religion. The one God religions. With only one God there's only one view to consider. Only one righteous path to follow or create. If there was more than one God than by that very nature there would be more than one viewpoint to consider. More than one perspective. More than one pair of shoes to walk in.
November 9, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You struck me as a hopeless optimist in some of your earlier posts. But this one outlines many of the facts that led me to conclude that there is very little the US can do to promote an acceptable peace between the Israelis and Palestinians; it seems to me that internal Israeli politics have moved to the point where an acceptable agreement is no longer possible. I hope you are right and I am wrong. In any case, it is why I have argued that the US should simply disengage from the ME and let the natives sort out the mess themselves -- war, negotiations, ethnic cleansings, whatever, it is not our fight. The US has its own national interests that are not necessarily those of Israel and we should pursue our interests.
November 9, 2007 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
People still believe the Lone Gunman Theory?
November 9, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US does have considerable leverage in Israel. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US has given Israel nearly $100 billion in the last fifty years, $2.46 billion this year.
Israel imports nearly all its oil supplies, and they must come from afar because Israel doesn't have relations with the main ME suppliers. Guess what--there is a Mosul (Iraq)-Haifa(Israel) pipeline that was in use prior to 1948 There are plans to re-open it, as well as a Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline. Who would imagine that there was an oil benefit to Israel in the liberation of Iraq?
November 9, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how long folks like yourself will look to the U.S. (Rice, her successors) to make a difference there, when we are heading down the same road Israel has traveled -- only I suspect, being much more powerful and arrogant, we'll go even further. The dynamics of our occupation of Iraq are very similar to Israel's occupation of the West Bank: we got there via a "defensive war" that wasn't actually defensive; we keep telling everyone, including ourselves, that we really, really want to leave -- and we will leave, but the time just isn't right, and so on. The only real difference is that we haven't built civilian settlements there (At least, that we know of). And whereas the hardest of the hardest core of Israel's crazies, who talk of a "Greater Israel" that includes Jordan, are seen as crazy even there, our crazies who talk of war with Iran and Syria, and even advocate using nuclear weapons, are greeted with solemn head nodding in respect for their vision and "toughness." We're in no position to play peacemaker, there or anywhere. We won't even make peace for ourselves.
November 9, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
syanen, I don't wish to be there with you, and I hope it is a phase both nations will pass through, but it is the intransigence -- perhaps on both sides -- but the destructiveness that is not only apparent but palpable and measurable on the right, both in the US and Israel, that is so very corrosive to their societies.
Unfortunately, the left, not really being a "left" but, in fact, central to society, is not invigorated to the level to slap the right neo-facsists down.
But that is what they are. Dangerous and poisonous to democracy and an open society. Unsympathetic and antipathetic to cooperation, or inter-racial and international compromise.
When the vaste majority see themselves as part of a communal society it is hard for them to see the destructive forces concentrated from the flag-entwined right.
More particularly when, from the fringe, they are co-opted into that same negative body -- whether as a church/synagogue/mosque member or as peer group.
Amos, the "deeply devout" seem to never have had a problem with contradicting the edicts of their religion. Historically and from my own experience I would put "Christianity" at the very top of this abuse. However, there are powerful groups, too, among both Jews and Muslims (there are past Hindi, Buddhist and Shinto examples) that have the same negative and self-serving agendas.
Some god please help us all get through this present madness.
November 9, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US can effectively impose a two-state settlement on Israel, taking the side of the Israeli left and breaking the back of the settler movement's continued ability to block the two-state solution. An intelligent US president who understands the damage of the escalating stalemate in Israel/Palestine would put this tops on his or her agenda. But such a move requires a US president to make a break with AIPAC and its allies in the US that would be nearly as daring as the break Rabin made, and for lesser rewards.
What's happened with Yigal Amir resurrects the question of whether it is tactically more effective to execute such political criminals or jail them for life. If Amir were dead, he would be a martyr to the right-wingers. But a martyr is in many ways less dangerous than a living symbol.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
November 10, 2007 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Something terribly ugly is happening in AMERICA. It started during BILL CLINTON's term as PRESIDENT when right-wing extremists and religious fanatics joined in ................."
A sad state of affairs in both countries.
November 10, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I don't.
November 10, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, the doctors induced the delivery (at Mrs. Assassin's request) so that the circumcision, which must take place 8 days later, would fall on the anniversary of Rabin's murder.
November 10, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
We live in a time when there is a rebellion against the modern world. Within Western societies there are Christian and Jewish fanatics who wish a certainty that is absent in the real world. Fortunately in most of the West there has been a long tradition of liberalism and individualism. There is also a basic success in these societies. The result is that while these groups can have political influence they do not control their societies.
This is true even when you add their secular counterparts such as the many on the left who blog at sites like this and the right who preach fear of the modern, of the individual, of respect for diversity. While the right in America has some chance at political power, see Bush, the left, not liberals, have no chance at political power.
The Muslim World too much still resembles the aftermath of WWI. Nations that aren't quite nations, economic not only inegality but stagnation. Against Muslim fundamentalists there is little success in countering them outside of the various dictators that exist in virtually every Islmic, especially Arab, societies.
Those who cheer the assination of Rabin are sick people who are dangerous. If Hamas keeps firing missiles at Israel and they and Iran keep threatening to "wipe Israel of the map" they cause the middle to side with the fanatics as assualts on existence so often does.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 10, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I would say thats a case of malpractice by the doctors.
November 10, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, John W.
But, the polls in Israel show 25% of the population favor Amir's early release.
Believe me, if 25% of Americans were of similar mindsets, it would not be safe to walk the streets.
Happily, the hold religious nuts have here is nothing compared to Israel's. Even Dobson and Robertson do not advocate the fusion of church and state that the religious minority have pushed through in Israel.
Thank God for the Constitution, the First Amendment and James Madison. Israel still can get itself the first two!
November 10, 2007 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Who would imagine that there was an oil benefit to Israel in the liberation of Iraq?"
Pointed snark from auded Cafe community member Don Bacon, juxtaposed with the moving words of my teacher MJ Rosenberg. Fortunately, for now, Don Bacon and his views are irrelevant, for the good and decent people of the United States are not likely to latch on to this ugly, heinous notion that their sons and daughters died in Iraq so that Israel could have easier access to oil. This ugly notion indeed, the one with historical ties to the ugliest indictments against the Jewish people for millenia. This is what my people hear.
Don Bacon, and the ease in which he points his finger at Israel as the cause of our dead brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our neighbors and friends, in the quagmire that is Iraq, has produced Exhibit A as to why the American Jewish community has trouble hearing what people who love peace, like MJ Rosenberg, and so many other genuine and good faith critics of the State of Israel have to say. This is what my people hear.
Scoff at me. Say I stifle. It matters not. Don Bacon and his ilk sound a recurring alarm with my people--once again we are being blamed for the death of children on the battlefield. This is what my people hear.
In Vichy France, too, the story was told that the stunning, lightning victory by the Germans was the fault of the centuries-old Jewish community of France.
Vonnegut wrote. . .and so it goes. This is what my people hear.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
November 10, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We already had an intelligent US president who understood the damage of the escalating stalemate in Israel/Palestine and put this tops on his agenda. The Israeli left led Israeli goverment. However, Palestinian side refused to accept the two state solution, they insisted on "the right of return". instead of negotiations, they started killing Israeli children, They called it Second Intifada.
November 10, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comon, Daniel,
nothing would happen. Israeli people are not crazy. They survived the Second Intifada and kept their sanity , and they will not lose their sanity if If Hamas keeps firing missiles.
November 10, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai:
You are writing to someone who named his eleven-month old daughter Noa, in tribute to Prime Minister Rabin's granddaughter, whose moving words at his funeral are something both my wife and I (we didn't know each other at the time) will never, ever, ever forget. I feel nothing but contempt for those Israelis who stain his memory and laud his murderer.
I join MJ in pointing out and condemning these evil haters of Rabin in Israel davai, whatever the reverberations are at the Cafe, even reverberations in the form of good ole' fashion scapegoating, as so aptly exemplified by high fives Bacon.
Bruce
November 10, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
Why? Labor has been enjoying a resurgence in the Israeli electorate; and Olmert, as imperfect as he and his history are, was elected precisely on his promise to maintain the momentum of the Sharon government's unilateral withdrawal of troops and settlements from occupied territories.
November 10, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I understand your reaction, I think it's more accurate to say that the crazies such as Amir represent a particularly depraved subset of the "deeply devout." There are deeply religious people who would never think of twisting their religion's tenets in such a distorted manner. A selective reading of religious texts can produce a justification for just about anything. The problem isn't religion itself - this sort of person, lacking a purely religious justification would certainly find another, imho. But there are many deeply religious persons, I think, who would find Amir's actions reprehensible, as we do.
M.J. has reported elsewhere in this thread that 25% of Israelis favor releasing Amir, so in Isreal's case, the depraved subset appears to be frighteningly large.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
notthere,
I made this argument only yesterday, with a friend who considers himself a "centrist," and exploits the self-image to launch into rants against "all politicians." I argued that "the center cannot hold," and that to be a genuine centrist today requires an advance of genuinely liberal principles. It's good to know this is not a lonely argument.
November 10, 2007 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no arguing with a singularly hateful perspective like that. We can only expose and confront it in public discourse at every opportunity.
November 10, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I can't speak for Don Bacon, to claim that he's saying that plans to resurrect the Haifa pipelines means that [U.S.] "sons and daughters died in Iraq so that Israel could have easier access to oil," is a quite leap.
How do we discuss actual facts then? I have deep sympathy for the very real suffering that the Jewish people have undoubtedly undergone, but should that prevent us from discussing situations where it does appear that there is a benefit to Israel that has come about as a result of the war with Iraq? Would you have us believe that Haaretz is also antisemitic for publishing an article pointing these facts out?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you, MJ, and others here are all getting your self-righteouness out of your system I am going to give you some uncomfortable facts.
As a preface, I am, in the name of full disclosure, telling you my position. I didn't like Rabin at all, just like many of you despise Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. Just like your dislike for them doesn't mean you want someone to kill them, I also oppose murder as an instrument of protest. I believed then, as I do now, that Rabin, Peres and the rest of the gang who imposed Oslo on Israel should have been subject to a commission of inquiry revealing the illegal means in which it was passed in the Knesset, and the gross irresponsibility they showed in arming terrorist gangs and turning them loose to kill or wound THOUSANDS of Israelis.
At the time of the murder, Rabin was deeply unpopular due to the ongoing terrorist attacks, mostly suicide bombings that were unknown before they signed their cursed "peace" agreement with Arafat. Rabin and Peres were reduced to using Orwell's famous slogan form "1984"- "war is peace". They referred to the victims of terrorist attacks as "victims of peace" and they would say that "peace brings violence". In order to shore up political support, they used a SHABAK agent, named Avishai Raviv, to carry highly publicized assaults as an agent provocateur on Arabs and Leftist Jewish politicians, including HADASH's Tamar Guzhansky. He pretended to be a "right-wing religious extremist". He was never prosecuted for any of these crimes. The infamous poster of Rabin in thd SS uniform which appeared at the Likud rally against Oslo in Zion Square was shown by Raviv and given to the media by him. This was revealed in the official SHAMGAR state commission of inquiry about the assassination. The politicians on the balcony did not know about it and couldn't have possibly seen it, and certainly didn't bring it to the rally. Raviv also carried out a staged (as confirmed by SHAMGAR) swearing-in ceremony for people who swore to assault Leftist politicians at the grave of LEHI founder Avraham Stern. Israeli Televsion participated in the staged event (they knew it was staged) and broadcast it on the news, knowing it was fake, which is against the law.
Like any controversial policy carried out by a government that leads to a lot of deaths, such as the War in Vietnam, or Bush's war in Iraq, there was a LOT of anger against the gov't. Does this mean that everyone who opposed the gov't or spoke out against it are guilty of "incitement to murder"? Four days before the assassination, Rabin appeared on a news interview program. He clearly was out of control and under the influence of heavy drink. He stated that the Likud political opposition was "guilty of causing traffic accidents" because of their opposition to him. The next day at work, a colleague of mine who vote for the Labor party her whole life said "we have a madman running this country , we have to get rid of him before he destroys us all". Is she guilty of "incitement to murder". In any event, the Likud and Netanyahu and the anti-Oslo Right certainly got not benefit from the murder.
Now, I am going to pose you some uncomfortable facts and questions:
(1) Leah Rabin, in her autobiography, says that immediately after the shooting, she was bundled away by the SHABAK. She repeatedly asked the agents what happened. They repeatedly told her: "This was a planned excercise, the shots were blanks, Yitzhak is all right". She also told this to her daughter, Dalia, who confirmed it to the Ma'ariv newspaper in 1999.
(2) Why was Yigal Amir allowed to loiter for 40 minutes in the sterile zone? Policemen came to him and talked to them. This can be seen in the Kempler film, which is available on the internet. There are two possible answers, either gross incompetance by the heads of the SHABAK, or the police were told that it was permitted for him to be there.
(3) If we assume that it was "gross negligence", then please explain to me why SHABAK head Carmi Gillon (who wasn in Paris at the time of the shooting even though a major HAMAS terrorist had been liquidated a few days before and there was a general alert to increase protection of public officials) was given high profile jobs by Shimon Peres, the man who became Prime Minister as a result of the murder. Peres first appointed him as the head of the "Peres Peace Center" which was a highly paid sinecure job which left Gillon plenty of time to work out in his health club. Peres later appointed him as ambassador to Denmark. One would think that a SHABAK head who was responsible for the biggest foul-up in SHABAK history would hang his head in shame and drop out of sight. Instead he has become a big media celebrity, in addition to getting those nice jobs. Not bad for an incompetant bungler.
(3) The Official SHAMGAR Commission report found that the person closest to Yigal Amir in the months before the murder were not "extremist Rabbis" or "Likud politicians", but.........no one other than the SHABAK provocateur Avishai Raviv. Raviv repeately, in front of numerous witnesses, to kill Rabin. I would think the SHABAK would try to protect the Prime Minister, not try to find someone to kill him.
(4) Yigal Amir has been in solitary confinement and under total control of the SHABAK for 12 years now. For one month, he was not allowed to see anyone, including a lawyer. Anything he does or says is under the control of the SHABAK. The SHABAK contolled the time of the conjugal visits. It was they who decided when the baby would be born, and it certainly helped outrage Leftist Israelis and guaranteed a good turnout at the demonstration a week ago.
The fact is that Rabin's late wife and two children DO NOT accept the "official" politicized version of the murder which is what MJ outlined here (i.e. "extremist Rabbis and political incitment drove Amir crazy so he decided to kill Rabin and SHABAK "incompetance" made it possible for him to get to Rabin). Dalia Rabin-Pilosof herself revealed this in an interview to the La'Isha magazine in 1999. Yigal Amir was well known to the SHABAK long before the murder, and yet he was given access to Rabin. ( I can get a link to the interview if anyone is interested).
There is a lot more that can be said, but I decided to list only things that were stated by the Official SHAMGAR Commission report and by Rabin's family.
I suggest if you want to really understand Rabin's murder, you look into the murder of Leningrad Communist Party boss Sergei Kirov in 1934. There is a lot to be learned from that historical precedent.
November 10, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Bar Kochba for demonstrating, yet again, the horrors I describe here.
November 10, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the heck are you talking about MJ? Is it really necessary to tell untruths? It is a lot safer to walk the streets in Israel than it is in the US. Arabs walk in Jewish towns in complete safety. There is NO left-right political violence. YOU KNOW ALL THESE THINGS.
November 10, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should mention this. You have no problem believing the conspiracy theories about JFK (I presume you support Oliver Stone's theories), i.e the CIA, the FBI, and the conservative "Establishment" did it. You also accuse the Israeli gov't doing all sorts of nasty, immoral things to the Arabs. Yet you, with childlike innocence believe the SHABAK regarding Yigal Amir and Rabin's murder, along with SHABAK agent provocateur Avishai Raviv, with child-like innocence.
November 10, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most disturbing things that I have observed as I've grown older is how things that were once inconceivable in society can gradually become quite widely accepted.
The open use of torture would be a case in point for American society. There was a time when torture was always regarded as the signature act of the moral monsters of the world -- the Nazis, and the worst of the Communists. Now one's use of torture is considered by many to be a sign of real strength of character and determination.
How did that happen, in my own lifetime?
I think that what's going on in Israel is the same phenomenon writ large, with stronger forces underlying it: namely, the inherent moral compromises of occupation, visited very effectively on virtually the entire population of Israel.
There seems to be very if any effective forces that push back against this trend in Israel.
I don't see this ending well.
November 10, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please give a rebuttal to the facts I pointed out, if you can.
November 10, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is your point that the current President of Israel ordered murder of Rabin?
If so, I have to agree with MJ that Israel is a crazy country beyound any hope.
November 10, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we have two people MJ and Bar claiming that Israeli people are crazy. Both are claiming conspiracy in the murder of Rabin.
Usually, Bar is more credible.
November 10, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with MJR except on conjugal sex in prison, which should be allowed to most prisoners as routine. See my blog post.
November 10, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it wasn't sex. It was a smuggled out vial (vile)of assassin semen.
November 10, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't debate trolls. I do, happily, go back and forth with pretty much everyone at TPM except the two trolls. It must get pretty frustrating to the two of you to post at a place where you are considered nudniks.
November 10, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The general view is that the SHABAK intended to stage a provocation-i.e. a fake attempted assassination in order to strike a political deathblow at the anti-Oslo right, which, in effect worked. That is, it was not their intention to kill Rabin. However, it gets very confusing after this, and I frankly don't really understand what happened, although there are those who have investigated.
You have to understand that Israel was founded by Eastern Europeans, not Americans, so their view of citizen's rights and the power of the government are very different than those of Americans or the British. In Israel, the Left has always been careful to place political loyalists in positions of authority of the most important arms of state coercion, i.e. the police, the State Prosecutor's office, the state-controlled electronic media, the army high command, the Supreme Court, and most importantly, the SHABAK. The SHABAK has a long history of carrying out illegal political espionage and provocations, so none of this is new. There is a lot more to be said about this, but I will leave it at this.
November 10, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant point, Wordie.
November 10, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my nearly two years of posting at TPM Cafe, this has to be the most amazing (and chilling...and telling) post I have ever seen. barK, who expects the U.S. should continue to provide military and other financial and logistical support for Israel, is telling us that the Israeli intelligence forces (SHABAK, better known as Shin Bet) are responsible for the murder of an Israeli Prime Minister. If this is true, our aid to Israel should cease immediately, because it represents evidence of a failed democracy.
Tell me, barK, are you also saying that Amir should be freed because he was "just following orders"?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is MJ's belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK any different? Something like 80% of the American people believe in some conspiracy theory or other regarding JFK, i.e. they don't accept the Warren Commission findings of a lone gunman.
November 10, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for admitting that you can't rebut what I posted. Of course, you are masking it as a "matter of principle" but I think most people can see through it.
November 10, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
To tell the truth, I was concerned of a reaction like yours, but you can not blame the people of Israel for what its SHABAK may or may not have done. The facts I have stated are well known and in the public domain. Dalia Rabin-Pilosof's interview in "La-Isha" magazine has been translated into English and is available on the internet.
Every country has its dirty linen that needs to be washed out. The US sent soldiers to defend Saudi Arabia and it is a vile, corrupt dictatorship that still has slavery. I am glad people in Israel are learning the truth and I hope that someday real reforms can be carried out to prevent these type of abuses from occurring. Again, you can not blame the people of the country for the abuses of its leadership.
November 10, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not this time Wordie. I'm not with you my brother. We must agree to disagree.
But for the record, I do assume Wordie that the question you pose to me about Haaretz was rhetorical and that you know that I do not believe that the Haaretz article you cite is anti-semitic.
The other question you ask about HOW we can discuss these matters is a much different story. I would be very disappointed if the two of us ever stopped discussing stuff. But, really in this instance, and with total respect, it is material and correct that you do not speak for Don Bacon and in particular with respect to why he wrote what he wrote.
Bruce
November 10, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Wordie, So, why did you rate 0 my suggestion that you go ahead and discuss situations?
November 10, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
".....something is very, very wrong in the interaction of people who represent Israel, the United States, and those looking for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians....." JohnW1141
November 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can assure you that no matter who heads the future government(s) of Iraq will not sign any peace agreements with Israel nor will recognize Israel. As much as both the Shi'ites and Sunnis hate each other, one thing that unites them is opposition to Israel. Thus, there is no danger of Iraq selling oil to Israel, although Egypt has in the past, (I don't know if they still do).
November 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you are correct. But what should the US do if you are not?
November 10, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. thinks you're a troll. I don't - I think you're the real deal. I also think you should be allowed to continue to post here, because in one post, you managed to present more compelling evidence of why the unquestioning U.S. support of Israel is so wrongheaded than I could have done with a thousand posts. Keep 'em coming, bar.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I am putting all of it on the Beitar fans. Anyone who has ever been to Haifa will appreciate how inconceivable such obscenity would emanate from the home crowd.
November 10, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not much, The problem is not with Israeli people or the goverment they elect. Israeli people are not crazy and they are ready for peace. You probably have a different opinion because you pay too much attention to people like MJ.
November 10, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I agree.
Wordie might agree with my opinion on Anne Coulter on TV. I have no problem with her appearing on Television as some do, as a matter of fact, I support it. Coulter on TV is a constant reminder for all to see of how ugly the right wing is.
November 10, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It was all Beitar.
November 10, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista, Please:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=605487
So how big was the stadium ? In any case, when a Israeli child is blown in peaces, most of Palestinians celibrate on streets not just 2,500 . Let's keep things in perspective.
November 10, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning Howard, It was kind of boring without your 0 rating.
November 10, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so, davai. Shin Bet's abuses are ongoing. b'tselem has reported on the continuing torture of political prisoners, despite the Knesset's legal prohibition of their use (sound familiar?), and then there was the letter this year from Olmert to the head of the primarily Arab Balad Party, in which he said:
And what was the Balad Party's crime? Was it terrorism? Were they plotting violence? No. The "crime" was the publication of a position paper, "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel (excerpts here, pdf of the full paper also available at the link) that proposed peaceful democratic reforms in Israel. For this peaceful democratic activity, one can risk being labeled an enemy of the state in Israel.
(Note: please don't digress into a discussion about the merits of the paper - that's another issue. What I'm pointing out is that in a democracy, a free exchange of ideas must be permitted.)
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep their sanity perhaps but not necessarily make the best choices. In the face of constant attacks people tend to bur their differences and unite against a common enemy. No one is making a Palestinian State less likely than Hamas and their apologists.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 10, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my readers here e-mailed me to ask if I was "dismayed" that the only "support" Israel gets on this very important liberal website comes from rightwing trolls.
In fact, that isn't true. I'm an Israel supporter and so are many others who post here.
But, one thing is certain, the occupation and its defenders have made support for Israel a clear minority view among liberals.
Democratic candidates will mention Israel to Jewish crowds but know that support for Israel is no selling point among non-Jewish (and probably most Jewish) liberals.
Amazing how the situation has changed since Rabin was murdered. Just prior to his death, Rabin was ranked in poll after poll as the most respected foreign leader in the world. Not just here in the states but throughout Europe.
Israel was admired because it had made the decision to end the occupation.
Now, Israel is anything but popular.
The good news is this. The fact that Israel was so admired during Rabin's day demonstrates that it is not anti-semitism that fuels anti-Israel feeling but anti-occupationism.
After all, if young Europeans liked Israel when Rabin was PM, they obviously are not anti-Jewish or they would have disliked him as much as Begin, Bibi, and Sharon.
The bottom line is that the damage the right has done to Israel can be undone when the occupation ends, the settlers move back where they came from, and a Palestinian state is established.
Until then, Israel will remain a pariah, which is terribly sad for someone like me.
November 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
For once, a valid criticism! Here is the correct link.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Distorting or misrepresenting somebody's statements may seem like fun, but it doesn't do much to advance a discussion.
November 10, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you put it like that, I just don't see how anything ever changes.
Seriously, how and when might "the settlers move back where they came from"?
Once I thought the settlers were trying to establish "facts on the ground" so that no foreign party could ever remove them. But nowadays I see it rather differently: they are in truth trying to establish "facts on the ground" so that the larger Israeli population cannot ever remove them.
It's become increasingly obvious that it would rip apart Israeli society to force the settlers out, leading most likely to literal civil war. It's now well beyond the power of a vote to change the settlements. Really, the best way to see the assassination of Rabin and the current support of his assassin by significant segments of Israeli society is as a clear signal that nothing less than civil war will ensue if the settlers are deprived of the settlements that they truly care about (and that would seem to be the vast majority of them).
November 10, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaaron,
Tell me from whom he wants to save Israel?
November 10, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It still broken. Anyway. this has nothing to do witth whatever happened 12 years ago.
November 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice explanation but it's wrong. Let me remind you that Palestinians were offered two state solution what they refused to accept it. Settlers were not the problem unless you consider all Jews in Israel to be settlers.
November 10, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most settlers could be bought off financially
leaving on the minority of ideological settlers. I don't think the IDF would have much trouble removing them.
After all, once the army leaves, the settlers have to leave too. What can they do? Stay behind in the Palestinian state?
A few might. The rest will go back to Israel, Russia or the States.
November 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most settlers could be bought off financially
leaving on the minority of ideological settlers. I don't think the IDF would have much trouble removing them.
After all, once the army leaves, the settlers have to leave too. What can they do? Stay behind in the Palestinian state?
A few might. The rest will go back to Israel, Russia or the States.
November 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that devotion isn't the issue. But I think it is probably more accurate to say that there is a subset of humanity, secular and devout, which can be inspired to join in some particularly depraved philosophies and actions. In some contexts, religion is an inspiration, in others it's a tool cynically used for recruitment or control, and in other's it's irrelevant. The greatest danger is that this type of radicalism can be taught, and can become normalized within a subset of a society or even a society as a whole.
In terms of the Amir statistic, JTA reported the survey results as follows:
It may be fair to interpret the support levels among the religiously devout as partially inspired by sympathy for Amir, but even there you have to consider that Israel (usually) takes a very different view of criminal justice and rehabilitation than does the U.S. Many other murderers this far into their sentence would be receving "hufshas" ("vacations") - the type of release that George H.W. Bush's infamous "Willie Horton" ad attacked as "furloughs".The easiest example to find on the web, due to the notoriety of the case, is probably that of Samuel Sheinbein, who at the age of 17 committed an exceptionally brutal murder in Maryland (where he would likely have been executed, or at best sentenced to life without parole), but is instead serving a 24-year sentence in Israel where (ten years into his sentence) he has already enjoyed hufshas, and who will be eligible for parole in six years. In some senses, as opposed to Amir, Sheinbein is be the person more comparable to the Samir Kuntar mentioned above - although both were 17 at the time of their crimes, the circumstances are so appalling that my (American) instincts are that I would be reluctant to let either walk free.
Within that an Israeli cultural context, though, I can see how somebody could find it defensible to parole Amir after twenty years - Sheinbein will probably be paroled by the time he has served 20 years, and cannot be held for more than 20 years. I can see the reaction as being one of fairness - this is what is done with murderers, so why should Amir be singled out due to his politics (when he may be less dangerous after release than somebody like Sheinbein)? Due process and equal rights before the law, but in a context somewhat alien to American sensitivities. Religious motivation does not automatically translate into sympathy for the crime - I can also see how religious philosophies of mercy, forgiveness and compassion could come into play.
That is not to deny the reality of Amir's supporters - but their numbers should not be overstated. Last year, the Dahaf institute performed a survey for Yedioth Ahronoth which indicated that 5% of Israelis supported an immediate pardon for Amir, and 25% supported a pardon after another twenty-five years. That five percent figure probably better reflects the population with direct sympathy for Amir's actions, while the larger number seems more likely to be premised upon other values, both religious and secular.
November 10, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I have read, he wishes to save Israel from everybody who would do it harm.
November 10, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read him, he sees that Israeli people harm Israel.
November 10, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about if something bad happened 70 years ago? Would that mean there is a need for action today?
November 10, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a thoughtful reply, aaron1. I agree with your comments about religion.
But while it may be true that there is a general sentiment in Israel that criminals, even murderers who have committed heinous crimes, should ultimately be forgiven and allowed to go free, it would seem to me that a murder of a Prime Minister ought reasonably fall into a special category. While generally a tradition of forgiveness is laudable, it's important to remember that Amir has never expressed remorse for the murder - to this day he actually remains proud of his act. I'm sure the Israeli public must be aware of this, so yes, to a person with American sensibilites, this is highly confusing.
The potential for future harm to the state is yet another reason that any of the polling numbers showing support for the release of Amir seem quite troubling. If an unrepentant Amir was released today, wouldn't he be likely to go after Olmert?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you restate your point?
What are we arguing about?
November 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you miss the point here, bslev. While you may not believe the Haaretz article to be antisemitic, you did imply that Don Bacon's comments were by saying:
But now you say this:
While I said I didn't presume to speak for Don Bacon, you yourself clearly presumed to do exactly that when you applied your own interpretation of what he said, and then attempted to shoot that down. And while I really don't know Don Bacon well enough myself to even begin to judge his intent, I also think, based solely on what he wrote here, that you inaccurately conflated his statement with antisemitic memes.
It pains me that communication between us is so difficult, bslev.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 10, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you proposing that it's impossible that Israelis are sabotaging themselves and their long term interests?
I've seen silly tribalism, but this claim is ridiculous.
November 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what MJ seems to claim.
To exact, he thinks that crazy Russian Jews and crazy Religious Jews took over Israel and are destroying Israel and only he can save Israel but AIPAC prevents him from saving Israel.
November 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting Bruce, as someone who isn't Jewish, I read Don Bacon's comment as merely another variant on the claim that the Iraqi war was a war for oil. Certainly, we've all heard that our "sons and daughters" are dying for American oil interests. Stating that Israeli oil interests might also be behind the war didn't strike me as particularly antisemitic. And because of this, I was surprised by the passion in your post--but also enlightened by it. I read Bacon's post and react to it with the same lack of emotion as I'd react to a post blaming Halliburton for the deaths of our children in Iraq. You read Bacon's words and see a far more troublesome and sinister attack on "your people." I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong" in the way we interpret the comment. The difference in reactions just underscores how easily easily differences in background and perspective can lead to misunderstanding. I wonder sometimes if all these endless arguments about Israel are just a surrogate for a more important discussion we are avoiding about the relationship between Jews and Christians in the West. Maybe there's still a need for reconciliation after long centuries of suspicion, hatred, and fear. If Christians and Jews still so easily misunderstand and suspect each other, the threat of another disaster like the Holocaust is real, and we need to do something to bridge the divide before history repeats.
November 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general support of your position on special cases, while Israel has the death penalty on the books, it was used only for Adolf Eichmann, and, IIRC, a military officer believed to be a traitor, who was later found innocent.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 10, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's deja vu all over again.
It's not as though we would have much trouble finding multiple examples of extreme positions by a minority lead a nation into dark and abhorent places, just in the living memory of some people here. 25% think it was just peachy to assassinate Rabin? If that were the percentage of the population infected with typhoid, we'd be hearing about a massive health emergency being declared.
Are memories really that short, and so vulnerable to the same nonsense, over and over and over again?
The 20th century is replete with totalitarian, extremist regimes which came to power loudly trumpeting their only goal being to save their beloved Fatherlands. Franco's Spain? Germany and the National Socialists? Soviet Russia? Hell, just a bit earlier in history, there was Napoleonic France, which started in revolution against injustice as an idealistic movement and ended up drenched in blood and tyranny.
The Middle East is full of authoritarian regimes now, and in truth, it's remarkable to me that Israel has managed to preserve itself even in the midst of such constant threat. But to claim that Israel does not have in it the same dark and malevolent and fanatical spirits that, in other lands, lead to the Holocaust and finally to it's own very creation is a sad thing. These spirits and believe exist in all societies, at all times, past and present.
There are always those who claim that any extreme measure is justified by the threats they see aligned against "us" (real and imagined/exaggerated) the group faces.
The fight is always between those who would strip away all vestiges of rational self interest in favor of authoritarian/totalitarian practices, and those who manage to find a voice to oppose inhumanity and evil without sacrificing one's own humanity in the process. The former always make the arguments the settlers in Israel make, it seems to me, in the process dehumanizing the Palestinians.
Who, by the way, have completely neutralized their own moral position by embracing a nihilistic worship of bloodshed and murder just as foul as anything I've ever seen.
But I agree with the poster above that the next US president will have on his/her plate the same quandry, and that the only way forward will be to side with the Israeli left and break the stranglehold of the anti-peace elements in Israel -- my guess, about 25% of the population -- and the US on our policies. Oh, and they won't be happy about it, so expect they're gonna come after us, too.
November 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that makes it ok, then? Yes, let's keep things in perspective.
It would be refreshing to hear both condemned, even if one is booing and the other actual death. In the Middle East, one isn't all that different, though.
November 10, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In Vichy France, too, the story was told that the stunning, lightning victory by the Germans was the fault of the centuries-old Jewish community of France"
Bruce, I can testify as to the accuracy of this statement since it was my Grandfather who was driven out of Aix en Provence not by the Germans as much as by his friends and neighbors.
I agree with you that Don was over the top in blaming the Israel's oil pipeline dreams for the war in Iraq. However, there is enough germs of truth to the oil pipeline idea to cause the ill-informed to jump to incorrect conclusions. Since the mid-1990's, Israel has been a presence in and friendly with Kurdistan. When I have been in Israel during the last 10 years, there has been plenty of talk about rebuilding the Kirkuk/Haifa pipeline when Saddam was gone.
Personally, I have always thought this to be a "pipedream". The reality of crossing hundreds of miles of less than friendly arab territory makes this kind of capital investment ludicrous for probably two generations.
You are correct to jump on the "blame the Jews" meme that has been bubbling below the surface of the Iraq war for a long time. The whole neo-con association with Jews is deeply troubling. I just wish more prominent Jews would publicly call out Kristol, Krauthammer, etc etc etc that their aggressive offensive war strategy is incompatible with our faith.
November 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 10, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn’t that like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence? The White Christian and democratic United States of America doesn’t sound right, somehow.
November 10, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The further you carry this argument, the greater the diversion between anything Mr. Rosenberg has actually stated and the caricature you present. If we keep this going, I can only wonder if I will soon be reading how it "seems like" Mr. Rosenberg is claiming to wear a cape and tights, and have superpowers.
November 10, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget about MJ,
Do YOU agree that the following makes no sense:
crazy Russian Jews and crazy Religious Jews took over Israel and are destroying Israel and only way to save Israel is for American President to implement MJ I/P plan but AIPAC prevents saving Israel using it's lobby power and intimidation.
I don't think that what I wrote is caricature of MJ thinking, this is what MJ writes over and over again. This is what most people here write over and over again.
November 10, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One might also argue that the circumstances of Sheinbein's murder case - the coldly premeditated murder, burning and dismemberment of a long-term acquaintance as 'practice' for a planned second murder (he was preparing to kill the boyfriend of an unrequited love interest) - are such that he should fall into a special category. I doubt that Sheinbein is even capable of feeling remorse. Of the two, if only one could spend life behind bars, I would vote for it to be Sheinbein. That's not sympathy for Amir - it's self-interest.
If Amir is indeed such an acute danger to prime ministers that his release puts them in immediate jeopardy, his supporters must be a lot less rabid than he. It is no doubt easier to cheer on a murderer than it is to commit murder, but I doubt that he is that unique. As for the rhetoric of the religious extremists who are likely among those who support him? Not so unique. The most unique person in all of this, unfortunately, appears to have been Rabin.
The principal point I was trying to make is that the 25% figure is not sufficient to establish that 25% of the Israeli population in fact sympathizes with Amir, and a prior survey suggests a significantly lower (albeit still significant) level of popular sympathy for his act of murder.
November 10, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Del
November 10, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck to you in trying to prove this audience that huge majority of Israeli Jews are not crazy.
November 10, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jdledell, you must be kidding."
davai - one liners are the province of comedians. Now at last we know your role here at TPM.
November 11, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"da Jews did it!"
Jewish people don't need me to take up their cause, but after living my long life hearing about "da Jews" I sometimes wonder why there is never any debate on how much good "deese Jews " do in the world; Humanitarianism, Science, Entertainment, etc.
I guess the argument would be "Yeah but, 'da Jews do OK but dey don't do enough.'"
By the way, I'm a German/Irish non practicing Catholic.
November 11, 2007 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
The phrase will make no sense to you as long as you arbitrarily impose a limit on Jewish identity based only upon its religious component.
November 11, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should I cry when I read that you suggest that "good" Jews have a responsibility to denounce "bad" Jews so that goims don't blame "good" Jews for the actions of "bad" Jews? Brilliant and original idea.
November 11, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blaming the Jews for the Iraq war is very unfair given that American Jews were much less likely to support the war than the American populace at large. I also don't think it's fair to say that the so-called pro-Israeli lobby is solely responsible for the war--though I do think a case can be made that certain hawkish elements of the pro-Israeli lobby were strongly behind the war and that certain of these hawkish advocates for Israel (especially Richard Perle) were extremely influential in getting the war to the top of the administration's list of priorities. While pro-Israel hawks like Perle and Kristol were not the only advocates for the war and could not have led us to war without other supporters, I do wonder whether the war would have happened without their energetic advocacy. Because of this, it is, I believe, legitimate--and even necessary--to question whether the concern of these hawks for Israeli security overly influenced the advice they gave on US policy and maybe even resulted in them giving bad advice to the US. In exploring the connection between pro-Israeli hawks and the Iraq war two courses of action are irresponsible: (1) veering into antisemitism by questioning the motives and loyalty of all American Jews and (2) not asking the questions because one fears the inevitable charges of antisemitism.
November 11, 2007 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
we are not bigots.
November 11, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is what's the best way to explore the connection between pro-Israeli hawks and the Iraq war. I suggest that congress should set new McCarthy like committee. McCarthy went mostly against Liberal Jews. We, real progressive/Liberals should get even with conservatives, let's go against conservative Jews.
November 11, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is what's the best way to explore the connection between pro-Israeli hawks and the Iraq war. I suggest that congress should set new McCarthy like committee. McCarthy went mostly against Liberal Jews. We, real progressive/Liberals should get even with conservatives, let's go against conservative Jews.
November 11, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admit that I don't know when "Jewish" is strictly ethnic or not. My understanding is that the original Zionist movement was religiously based, and the hardliners like the settlers are very religious. I think the group that Amir came out of and still supports him are religious. But I wasn't even thinking about that. I just added Christian to White to cover all bases. "The White and democratic U.S." sounds even worse.
November 11, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Purple. I submit that the pro-Israeli group and the neocons have been all but inseparable (witness the AIPAC, AEI, PNAC, AJA, etc. connections). Perle and Feith wrote the original paper for Netanyahu that became the PNAC position paper and initiative behind the invasion.
Of course, if Iraq wasn’t an oil rich country, it would never be of strategic interest in the first place. And I do believe that on some cynically pragmatic level, Bush and Cheney wanted to maintain the “war president” footing and expand the GWOT even though other neocons and Israeli supporters did as well. 9/11 has been very useful for the right wing hawks, here and there. However, contentions that asserting Israel influence for the invasion is anti-Semitic may be heartfelt and sincere but that doesn’t make them any more valid. I have not seen anyone saying the Jews (as opposed to Israel or its supporters) led us into Iraq except from those claiming it is anti-Semitic.
I don’t think we will know the full story of the tragedy called the Bush Administration for decades because like true dictators everything is a state secret. Still all one has to do is watch the march to war with Iran to see clearly how Israel and its supporters in powerful positions here influence these guys to attack a country that is absolutely no threat to the U.S. Of course the degree of influence can and should be debated but to deny it exists is plain denial. Perhaps some cannot see this or admit it because it conflicts with or upsets their POV, which is fine, but don’t insinuate that those who do are anti-Semitic. Don’t shoot the messenger.
November 11, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai,our own Jackie Mason, is now using his Secret Weapon sock puppet to rate himself highly because no one else will!!!! Ha!!!
November 11, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have two questions:
1. How we get here from Yigal Amir.
2. Did MJ intend to get here?
November 11, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sean,
We are having a very important discussion, what's the best way to investigate whether the concern of these hawks for Israeli security overly influenced the advice they gave on US policy and maybe even resulted in them giving bad advice to the US.
Can you provide some positive contribution to this discussion? What's your opinion? What's the best way for such investigation?
Regards,
- Davai.
November 11, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it was a crooked path to get here, but it goes to the question of Amir getting 25% support, then the general rightward move in Israel, then the right wing stranglehold on much of the pro-Israel lobby here, etc. Now, Davai, you of all people are not going to protest straying off-topic, are you? Your questions wouldn't be fish of a crimson color, would they?
November 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai asks how he can best contribute to an intelligent debate here.
Easy. He can stop posting here and debasing every discussion by his reductio ad absurdum approach to every issue.
EG
MJR: "The sky is blue."
Davai: "Why blue is the sky. Why blame the Jewish."
Davai: "Why not to try put Israel under bomb atomic as most TPM would like."
Davai: "What is the sky."
Davai: "Why Jew not blue."
Davai: "Is antisemite to say blue sky"
Davai: "I hate MJ so much. He make me crying all time."
Davai: "Goodbye Howard. I hate you."
November 11, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course no one called for any commissions of inquiry--and we don't need any. What we need is an open debate so Americans are informed and can judge for themselves whether policies advocated by people like Perle and Kristol are designed as much to protect the security of Israel as for other reasons and, if so, whether those policies should be supported by Americans and adopted by our government.
November 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You missed a few in an otherwise excellent list:
Davai: "Why did you give me a zero for saying that M.J. is antisemitic for saying the sky is blue. You're illogical."
Davai (completely missing the flow of the conversation, in which X has already been discussed): "Please discuss X."
Davai (responding to a post about the Annapolis meeting): "What is the price of tea in China?"
Davai (responding to a reply to the above post that pointed out that the Annapolis meeting has nothing to do with the price of tea in China):Your unwillingness to discuss the price of tea in China proves that you're hiding something and I am right.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 11, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second, didn't we already have open debate?
Didn't American people already hear argument that policies advocated by people like Perle and Kristol were designed as much to protect the security of Israel as for other reasons.
Is there anything new you or anyboddy else have to add to this debate?
If so, go ahead, continue open debate.
November 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for not "debasing every discussion by his reductio ad absurdum approach to every issue."
November 11, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai, constantly playing a very worn antisemitism card, is either oblivious or consciously chooses to ignore the role of PNAC in pushing for American invasions (plural) in the Middle East.
Until Davai mentioned that the cofounder of PNAC was Jewish, I had not been aware of it. That he made an issue of it is an example how policy and behavior questions are diverted with the old, tired antisemitism card. Mostly because of whining complaints of antisemitism, I've learned that a number of key PNAC ideologues are Jewish. A number are not.
There is incomplete overlap between PNAC and AIPAC activists. To the best of my knowledge, no prosecutions for espionage are being directed at PNAC activists, but, given the attitudes of this Administration, that AIPAC staffers have been charged does suggest smoke, if not fire.
For all I care, Bill Kristol could be a charismatic Catholic, a State Shintoist, an Orthodox Jew, or a Transcendental Masturbator, and it would make no difference in my belief that he and his cohorts made a major impact on getting the US into Iraq, and potentially into Iran.
To the extent that AIPAC supports these extreme positions, it is complicit in activities that do not help the national security of the United States, and, in many cases, Israel.
Actions and ideology, not religion, dictates what I consider incredibly bad policy influencing. I really can't speak to whether crazy Russian Jews are influencing Israeli policy, as I am far more concerned with American than Israeli policies. Insofar as Davai seems to claim both Russian and Jewish heritage, however, I am willing to agree that at least one hard-line Russian Jew is crazy.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 11, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we must bring in herring, I suggest that silver (wine) or white (sour cream) are far preferable to red (tomato sauce). Even yellow (mustard) are better than red.
Mind you, I did enjoy my exploration of the apparently infinite number of herring preparations in Scandinavian hotel breakfast bars. May Sweden or Denmark buy out McDonalds!
Ol!
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 11, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its good to inject humor now and then.
November 11, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Howard,
Thank you very much in participating in an open debate whether policies advocated by people like Perle and Kristol are designed as much to protect the security of Israel as for other reasons. You input is very valuable. Keep up good work.
Regards,
- Davai.
November 11, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a weird way, I agree. reductio ad absurdum requires reducing to absurdity, while you are already there.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"When the going gets tough, the tough get weird".
November 11, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
jd: I have tremendous respect for your opinions, and so, reading what you wrote, I went back and re-read Don's statement several times:
I just don't see anything here that says that Israel was to "blame" for the Iraq War, much less the death of American kids. To say that there was a benefit to Israel as a result of the war just doesn't imply the sort of Israel-was-the-cause-and-war-was-the-effect relationship that you and bslev seem to see in what Don wrote. If you have other thoughts I'd really like to hear them. Perhaps we can make some progress toward communicating effectively with one another about these difficult issues...
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. JungNovember 11, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, it doesn't imply anything, on another hand
what was the point Don was trying to make in the discussion about Rabin's killer? Why he din't bring up the benefits of eating fresh fruits?
November 11, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
November 11, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Who is "we", what kind of problems do "we" have and what they have to do with Yigal Amir or bananas?
November 11, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using Latin sayings here is absurd.
November 11, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
November 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie - I see your point. I was responding more to Bruce's contentions than to Don's post. I should have read it more carefully.
November 11, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
It has been busy here. Let me try to address your concerns. You write:
"While I said I didn't presume to speak for Don Bacon, you yourself clearly presumed to do exactly that when you applied your own interpretation of what he said, and then attempted to shoot that down. And while I really don't know Don Bacon well enough myself to even begin to judge his intent, I also think, based solely on what he wrote here, that you inaccurately conflated his statement with antisemitic memes."
Here's what I said Wordie at the threshold; I said that snarky suggestions about the purported benefits to Israel resulting from the mess in Iraq are necessarily viewed through an historical prism in which such charges have been levied against the Jewish people, and levied repeatedly. And that was why I kept saying that "that is what my people hear [not Wordie et al by the way respectfully, I wasn't taking about you].
And in this particular case, I found it, at best, deeply offensive and insenstitive for someone to raise this historical charge with respect to Iraq in the manner in which it was. It hits home and it hits hard.
Now, perhaps you are concerned that sensitivity to what Jews have been charged with over the millinea will prevent an honest discussion about the role that Israel and/or its supporters had in sending American boys and girls off to die in Iraq. I understand your concern. If you think you can have an honest discussion with someone who leads with a cynical suggestion that Israel's thirst for oil is the reason that we are in Iraq, then I respectfully disagree.
Now if you think this is all about whether or not a ceratin statement by a certain poster is anti-semitic, well I'm not going to do that dance, and I told you that you do not speak for the particular poster for a specific reason. If you think that my argument touched the third rail of calling what someone said to be anti-semitic, and you want to reduce this to a game of gotcha (and I don't think you do) I understand why you might reach that conclusion, and I accepted such potential consequences in my initial piece.
You want to have a decent discussion Wordie? It will never happen if you think that the issue of whether Israel and/or its supporters pushed this country to war with Iraq can be divorced from the history of the Jewish people. Forget it. And that was what I wrote about at the threshold.
And it pains me to have this discussion with you Wordie, because I do respect you.
Bruce
November 11, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole thing is absurd.
Asking this particular audience to save Israel is absurd.
November 11, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Got it.
November 11, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State:
Thank you for trying so hard to understand where I am coming from, even when you confess to not seeing what I see. I am humbled by your presumption that I was writing in good faith and from the heart.
Bruce
November 11, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jdledell:
I was unaware of your "French connection". My older girls, through their mom, have a cousin in Paris still, and they have both spent quite a bit of time with her over the past year while studying there. She is 85 and going strong, and she apparently had to hide out during the war as both a Jew and a communist. She is one proud and independent lady and she remains French through and through. The girls just adore her.
All the best.
Bruce
P.S. Hell, I wish the right-wing pundits would change their tune too, but I wish even more that someone could get Bush and Cheney to see the light.
November 11, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
You may be mulling over something I already posted, but I want to reinforce it in light of this response. There are quite a number of actors (both in the dramatic and international relations sense) in this:
You will note that I did not list the peoples of the US or Israel in this, nor do I make any references to Jews. The only all-Jewish actor I see are the right-wing Israeli activists, whom I assume have no Israeli Arabs, Druze, etc.
Other than the quasi-Zionists, all of the groups contain people who are Jewish, and who are not Jewish. Many of the leading Administration figures who happened to be Jewish (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle) are no longer there, but I don't keep track of religion so I don't know who is in the Executive and is Jewish. If Yiddish speaking counts, Powell isn't there any more.
I see PNAC ideology at the center of this mess. Some might throw in oilmen and industry, but this is complicated enough. As I understand, one of the founders of PNAC is Jewish (Kristol), and I don't know -- and frankly don't want to know -- if Kagan is Jewish. From my perspective, PNAC is basically about a Pax Americana, with Israel's security as secondary at best.
AIPAC, of course, has different priorities, which, and correct me if I am wrong, largely line up with the right-wing activists in Israel, not even the coalition government.
I'm lost by this. If you are suggesting that Zionism and the memory of the Holocaust somehow led to the invasion of Iraq, I am baffled--and you've lost me as far as having a decent discussion. I do not feel that the invasion of Iraq, in any way, contributed to the security of Israel.
I really don't understand what relationship the history of the Jewish people has to do with US policy toward the Middle East. As you know, I no longer consider Israel to be as valuable an ally of the United States as it was during the Cold War. I don't consider it an enemy, but, especially after Lebanon, I'm increasingly concerned that the perception of Israel as a US client is dangerous to the US.
Whoever is drumming the drums of war against Iran is also a threat to US interests, and, from every strategic correlation of forces I can put together, a threat to Israel's long term interests as well.
Please help me with my confusion. I'm off to a brief dinner.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 11, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard:
"I'm lost by this. If you are suggesting that Zionism and the memory of the Holocaust somehow led to the invasion of Iraq, I am baffled--and you've lost me as far as having a decent discussion. I do not feel that the invasion of Iraq, in any way, contributed to the security of Israel."
The history of the Jewish people is inextricably intertwined with charges that Jews cause wars. I spoke of Vichy France, and consider Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and Lucky Lindy in this country. And I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq has not helped Israel's security, and that is another practical reason why I think people should be even more careful to suggest that, but for Israel and some of its supporters, the U.S. would not be in Iraq.
Now, that doesn't mean that there are Jewish people in PNAC and elsewhere that didn't have sway with the Bush Administration. But this war is Bush's war, and it's Cheney's war, and there is a coalition behind them that includes some supporters of Israel. But the notion that, but for those supporters of Israel, we would not have been in Iraq, I think is absurd and, for the historical reasons I have described, insensitive at best. And, although I might be misjudging Jewish people in the aggregate, my thesis was and remains that what they hear with respect to Iraq is deja vu all over again.
Bruce
November 11, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually think that much of what you write is well-documented and sound, even if I don't always draw the same conclusions you do. But here you are going deep into tinfoil-hat territory. You've taken a series of minor "things that make you go 'hmmm'" and are implying a conspiracy when there is absolutely no evidence of one.
Let's suppose Amir was known to the Shabak and that your contention that Shabak was stirring up the right in order to gain sympathy for Rabin is correct. Even if both of those were true it still does nothing to either prove or disprove ANYTHING about Rabin's murder or the fact that a lot of right-wing nutcases were baying for Rabin's blood. The fact is that regardless of any agent provocateur or any dirty tricks that Shabak might have been up to, hatred of Rabin on the far-right was just a fact. Just like there are people who venerate the murderer Baruch Goldstein, there are now people who venerate Yigal Amir. These are sick fanatics who represent a tiny minority of Israelis.
I chalk up your post to the same thinking that has animated millions of people to believe in conspiracies. That is, for many it is just inconceivable to think that events of such earth-shaking consequence could be the result of the actions of one lunatic. Just like a majority of people cannot accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and that the death of John F. Kennedy - probably the most consequential political assassination in the last 50 years - was essentially an unlucky, random event, there will be those who cannot accept a simple explanation for the death of Rabin.
Remember the philosophy of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
You do make one important point that is worth repeating again and again. That is that at the time of his death, Rabin was quite unpopular and there was a better than even chance that even if he had not been killed, he would have been defeated at the polls. the idea that if Rabin had lived there would have been peace is pure fantasy. Even if were not defeated at the polls, the chances that Rabin would have reached an agreement with that vile worm Arafat were slim to none. And even if he did reach agreement, the chances that Rabin could get an agreement through the Knesset were small. And even if that happened, the chances that it would have led to an actual peace is the slimmest of all. Again the parallels with the Kennedy assassination are striking. In both cases the very real flaws of the person in question are often brushed aside and the thinking is that they would have avoided the disaster that followed. Kennedy would have kept us out of Vietnam, don't you know. And Rabin would have signed a peace deal with the Palestinians and there would be peace now. It would be hard to exaggerate just how ludicrous this is.
November 11, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink