Caging Congressional Pander Bears: Why J Street in Necessary
It's been a long time since I've seen young Jews optimistic about anything related to Israel.
I'm not talking about the college activists who, shocked at the anti-Israel sentiment on campus, find themselves joining up with conservative mainstream Jewish organizations to defend Israel to their skeptical peers. Those kids have always been around. I know. I was once one of the best-known campus activists for Israel, battling late 60's and 70's anti-Israel radicals almost non-stop.
And I give those kids credit. It's hard work but utterly ineffective because you can't defend the occupation and sell Israel at the same time. The only message that works is "Israel, yes. Two-states, yes. Occupation, no." But the mainstream organizations prefer losing the battle to supporting pro-Israel, pro-peace activism. And so they are losing the campus battle big time.
But I'm talking about young opinion leaders who are turned off by the occupation and identify Israel with settlers there and neoconservatives like Feith, Perle, and Krauthammer here. They hate the paranoid style in which all dissent from the status quo is deemed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic and, generally, have no use for the mindless emotionalism and ethnic sentimentality that characterize so much of the organized pro-Israel community.
As third or fourth generation Americans, they cannot be won over with scare tactics about the Holocaust or Ahmedinejad. They are too smart. And they don't scare easily.
But suddenly this week, a pro-Israel effort, has caught their attention. The evidence can be found all over the Internet where Spencer Ackerman, Ari Berman, Max Blumenthal, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, Laura Rozen, and Matt Yglesias (just to name the most prominent bloggers) have been posting about the J Street Project. Never heard of these writers? Google them some time and you'll see literally millions of "hits" referring to them, their opinions, their analyses, their take on events. As for their pro-status quo, pro-occupation counterparts, there aren't any. The Internet generation is not into tired organizational talking points which mix facts and myths in equal measure.
The young people to whom I refer are the future of journalism, academe, and politics in this country. And, without exception, they are Jewish and disaffected from the organized community. But they are all identifying Jews (Yglesias, with his Hispanic name goes out of his way to make sure people know he's a Jew). Some are synagogue goers. Most are not. All have been to Israel. But none, not one of them, can tolerate the status quo nor the organizations that promote it. And they are appalled by the Arab and/or Palestinian-bashing that these organizations demand of Congress and use to drum up contributions.
The appeal of J Street to these people, to the best and brightest of our community, is one of the many reasons to get excited about J Street.
The J Street Project is a strange name for an organization dedicated to promoting the two-state solution and financially backing politicians willing to stop reflexively supporting the status quo. Until now, there has been no such organization. This is why the organization is called J Street. Here in Washington, every letter in the alphabet has a street named after it except the letter J. There is no J Street just as, until now, there was no organization devoted to supporting politicians who stick their necks out for Middle East peace.
My own organization, Israel Policy Forum, is a policy-advocacy group. Our goal is educating Congress and the executive branch about why both the United States and Israel need an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If it wasn't for us, the pro-Israel right would have totally won over both the U.S. government and public opinion following the Camp David collapse of 2000. By keeping the facts out there, by exploding the myth that Barak "offered them everything," we keep hope for negotiations alive.
And that is precisely why IPF was established. In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin told our founders that he needed a pro-Israel organization that would support Israel's quest for peace as it would support Israel at times of war. He said that he did not believe the lobby would do that.
So, when he decided to make peace with the Palestinians, IPF was established as a counterweight to the status quo organizations on Capitol Hill, in the community, and in the media. With our allies, we have at long last managed to get across the message that the majority of the pro-Israel community in the United States is not represented by the loudest elements of the lobby. Additionally, through publications like this one, with its huge readership worldwide, we have successfully broken the stranglehold that the right has had on the Middle East debate (i.e., no debate!) in Washington for decades.
But we do not get involved in electoral politics. As individuals, yes, but as IPF we are legally prohibited from endorsing or contributing to candidates, or affiliating with PAC's such as the J Street project.
J Street will be different. Its goal is to operate as the mirror image of the status quo lobby. It will support candidates who believe that the best way to help Israel is not by being armchair warriors but by supporting peace.
In short, supporters of J Street are going to do what the pro-Israel right has been doing for years. Put their money where their mouth is. It's about time.
Thank-You!
I sincerely appreciate you speaking truth to ignorance.
April 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please tell us which members of the House and Senate who have received donations from AIPAC members are so opposed to a two-state peace agreement that they could actually prevent the democratically elected government of Israel from concluding one if it was otherwise inclined to. Neither AIPAC, not American Jewish Committee, not American Jewish Congress, nor the AntiDefamation League has ever opposed negotiations with Palestinians who are willing to negotiate a peace treaty--not just a temporary cease fire--with Israel.
You and I both know that not one candidate who gets money from J Street will deviate from the fundamental positions of AIPAC and those other three groups, and not one of them will advocate what you and Daniel Levy really want which is to threaten Israel with a cut in aid and a withdrawal of diplomatic support of the type that James Baker so enjoyed. If that were to happen, that candidate would lose, and J Street would be shown to have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the Jewish people.
Like my friend, Morrie Amitay said, "let a thousand flowers bloom", but anyone who thinks J Street's money will produce House and Senate members who will not vote to send billions of dollars unconditionally to Israel, and who will not support Israel's right to defend its citizens against rocket attacks from a bunch of thugs--is deluded.
April 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Dr. Stupid:
Is Barry's endorsement from Hamas associated with M.J.'s jabbering word salad?
Answer: No Johnny. What ever gave you that idea?
Demand "Change I can believe in" from your cashier!
April 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also something that may be of notice. In the first 24 hours since their launch over 2,000 members joined.
I think J Street will be a similar organization to other MoveOn style mass-member groups. For example Color Of Change which was key in the Jena 6 protests and Donna Edwards victory
http://www.colorofchange.org/
I see J Street in that style but with more money backing and more direct political action.
April 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl S.,
Please contact me ASAP. I have a bridge for sale in NYC; it's a fantastic bargain. And Bear Stearns will arrange financing.
April 19, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ wrote:
"By keeping the facts out there, by exploding the myth that Barak "offered them everything," we keep hope for negotiations alive."
This a very important thing that you have done here, it has really helped counter the 'their is no one to talk to" line.
What I do not understand is why do you not blame Bill Clinton for the Camp David debacle and it's aftermath. After-all he explicitly endorsed Barak's version of events. The fact that Clinton placed Aipac agent Dennis Ross in control of these negotiations was enough right there to kill them.
April 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I think Clinton was duped by Barak but I don't blame Clinton. I think he, like lots of good folks, were misled into believing that Barak wanted peace.
Clinton regrets having trusted Barak. I also can't help but contrast Clinton to what came after.
April 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan, please explain what's bad about those policy goals except that they are shared by Hamas.
Is returning to the 67 borders the equivalent to destroying the state of Israel? Is ending the occupation or the mass detentions (check the stats on how long an Israeli citizen can be detained without charge as opposed to Gazan or West Bank Palestinians--I believe it's something like a few days to a couple hundred), equivalent to destroying the state of Israel? Is halting the continuing expansion of settlements that push Palestinian people off the land violently equivalent to destroying the state of Israel?
If your answer is yes, what does it mean that Israel depends on a neo-colonial occupation built on the violent dispossession of another people and violations of human rights? I hope if the answer is yes, that says more about your idea of Israel than Israel itself.
April 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really want to hear what M.J. Rozenber has to say about the Hamas platform. I bet his reaction will be the silence or calling me a racist.
April 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be davai. Same style of argument, similar syntax at times...
April 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
dsc writes:
Hmm, let's see: Hamas wants an unconditional rewind of the time clock back to 1967, so it and Israel can begin the discussion on rewinding the clock back to 1947 - to re-debate the UN Partition of Palestine west of the Jordan river.
If that seems reasonable and feasible to you, then why stop there? After all, there were so many "injustices" that occurred prior to 1947... I could think of, say, 1776, when it was decided that the land in continental U.S. belonged to the white settlers from Europe, and not to the Native American Indians.
Now dsc, let's see which tribe used to own the land where your family lives. What? We killed them all? Great, let's tell the Israelis. Hey, Olmert: you're not killing them fast enough! Get on with it.
April 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a personal story told to me by a friend of mine. He is a Christian who's family had a winery in the area we think of as Bethlehem for thousands of years.
The Israelis grabbed the land right up to my friend's property line, engulfing entire towns and basically running off the former inhabitants. The Israelis set up military towers, fence, etc. at the edge of my friend's land and then enforced the rule that they had the right to shoot (or capture) anyone who came within 100 yards of their boundary.
Unfortunately this meant that my friend's family could not work in the grape arbors. They had to close the winery. They could have sold their land to the Israelis but my friend's father wanted to sell it to another Christian family. The area had been Christian since the time of Jesus. Unfortunately, no Christian family dared to buy it...so it remains vacant. My friend, his siblings and his parents moved to the U.S.
Sadly, his father never recovered from the loss of the family winery. He became so depressed he was bedridden for years and finally died.
My point in telling this story is that it is not anti-semitic to not always side with the Israelis no matter what they do. Sometimes they are the agressors.
April 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people
I'm wondering how Vietnamese boat people recovered from the loss of everything. Why they didn't become depressed and were not bedridden for years? What about millions of people in US who lost their homes? Did they all become bedridden? What's about Serbs who fled Kosovo? ...
April 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMFORD:
Come on, this is the Middle East - everyone has a story, sometimes 1001 stories.
The fact is that in 1993, before Israel relinquished control of Bethlehem to the Pal. Authority (PA), the area's population was majority Christian. After 15 years under the PA, Bethlehem's Christian population is down to less than 20 percent. Take a guess: what do you think is the reason ?
Hmm, is it anti-American to not always side with the U.S. no matter what it does? Sometimes, you know, the U.S. is the aggressor. I think the French (and Cindy Sheehan) would really like to hear your answer.
April 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
Well, boo f*cking hoo! They've been to Israel. How impressive!
AFAIK, none of the above - American neocon Jews or Jewish progressives - have ever served in the Israeli Military, or have plans to emigrate and make Israel their permanent home. IOW, all of the above-mentioned fellas - Left, Right, and incl. M.J. - are no more than well-meaning Keyboard Warriors, and no one's putting anything on the line. (Well, some clearly dedicate time and energy, and may even contribute some dosh, but nothing that may personally endanger them or their loved ones.)
God, I wish that all these well-intentioned but uninvited do-gooders - Left and Right - had butted out of Israel's affairs and found themselves some other hobby. (I hear golf and Hillary-bashing are popular.)
Israel is not anyone's toy. Its citizenry sacrifices - on a daily basis, in blood and treasure, for their right to live on a tiny, resource-poor piece of land, in a very complicated and inhospitable part of the world.
They've survived for 60 years - as an unflinchingly loyal pro-Western democracy - through perpetual conflict, several defensive wars and very little loving from the rest of the West. I think there's plenty to kvell about - for Jews, and friends of the Jews, all over the world.
Let's not pretend that here, in the safety and prosperity of the good old US of A, we know better what's good for the Israelis. Let's give 'em our support, which I think they earned on merit (!), and let's hope and pray that their future is bright.
From my observations, all this political infighting between the various parts of the American Jewry matters very little to the Israelis (their local politics are lively enough), and it annoys the Hell out of the Goyim in the U.S., only reinforcing stereotypes that need not be reinforced.
Now, if anyone wants to debate the U.S. interests in the Middle East, and whether, why and how does Israel fit in the picture, then let's do it. U.S. citizens should lobby their govt. re: policy changes in the ME in general, and towards Israel in particular - on the basis of what's good for America.
Those of us who care about Israel, Jews and non-Jews, must put their energies into convincing the rest of our fellow citizens and our policy-makers that U.S.'s interests and Israel's interests in the ME coincide, or at least are not in conflict.
I wish I could say that I see IPF and J Street doing that. For now, it looks like their main objective is to exert undue political pressure on Israel - via the various branches of the U.S. govt. I can see how this will benefit Israel's enemies, however for the life of me I can't see how it may benefit the U.S. (or Israel, for that matter.)
April 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
$3.5 billion in US aid to Israel, by far the largest amount America gives to any other country gives Americans -- all Americans -- the right to a say in Israel's policies.
You may call yourself Israel Air Force (which is waaay cool and uber-macho) but, as an American taxpayer, you have the right to influence policy in Jerusalem.
That is how it works.
Hell, when our #1 ally in the world, the UK was fighting for its life against the Nazis, we wouldn't give them a dime or a gun without conditions. But then there was no UK lobby.
April 18, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
Well, if it's about money), then let us at least get the numbers straight.
Israel gets two kinds of foreign aid from the U.S.:
(1) Military aid - in the form of a LOAN: currently $1.8 to 2.4 billion/year, will rise to $3 billion. This money is strictly for the purchase of military equipment from U.S. defense contractors, i.e. most of the money is spent in the U.S., although 25 percent can be spent with Israeli defense firms, which often participate as subcontractors. IOW, this aid is basically a subsidy to the U.S. defense establishment. Btw, Israel repays these U.S. loans scrupulously, and has never ever defaulted.
(2) Economic aid - in the form of a grant: used to be $1.2 billion/year. However in 1998, the U.S. and Israel agreed on a gradual (over a 10-year period) phase-out. Hence, 2008 is the last year Israel receives such aid (only $120 million) - that's it. (Instead, the military aid will increase, mostly - to offset the rising costs of next-generation military gear.)
Now, as I had mentioned elsewhere, Israel carries the full burden of its own actual defense (military combat), i.e. not a single American GI is stationed on Israel's soil, except for the ones who guard the U.S. embassy and consulates.
Compare that to the cost of operating U.S. bases in Germany, Italy, Okinawa, South Korea, etc. or the cost of U.S. Naval patrols in the Straits of Taiwan. I bet that each one of them costs well above $2 billion (dunno what percentage is covered by the host countries), and may cost the lives of our GI's.
Ask any U.S. defense official, and he'll confirm that we have a better, more cost-effective arrangement with Israel than with most of our other allies.
Yet, Israel is the only country about whom there are vociferous calls, often emanating from American Jews, for an aggressive exercise of U.S.'s influence over that country's foreign policy. One rarely ever hears Korean-Americans demanding that the U.S. put pressure on South Korea re: anything it does with North Korea. Nor will one ever hear Japanese-Americans demanding that the U.S. influence Japan to resolve its long-standing conflict with Russia over Sakhalin, or Spanish- and Anglo-Americans asking to cajole the UK and Spain to resolve their differences over Gibraltar, etc, etc, etc.
So, with as much respect as I can muster, let me ask: what the f*ck? What makes the Israeli-Pal. conflict so damn special? If anything, IMHO the issue suffers from overexposure, an ASD (Attention Surplus Disorder) syndrome, if you will. I mean, don't we as a country have other important things to worry about?
Here's an example. Yesterday 6 am Pacific, NPR's (aka National Palestinian Radio) news: a full 60 second report - complete with a real-time broadcast from an NPR permanent correspondent stationed in Jerusalem - about a recent skirmish in Gaza that had several Hamas militants and some civilians killed. (Not a word about what instigated the attack - a Hamas incursion into the Israeli territory and an ambush that killed three Israeli soldiers.)
This breathless piece was followed by a less than 10 seconds mention of a terrorist attack on a Shiite funeral in Kirkuk, Iraq - a country under U.S. occupation costing the U.S. taxpayer $2 billion a week (!), which killed over 50 civilians. Not a word on the motive, no ID of the casualties, no local NPR correspondent, nothing.
Now, let me ask rhetorically: what's more important to the U.S., a few dead Hamasniks in Gaza where we have no skin in the game, or Kirkuk - a city in Kurdistan which produces some 40 percent of Iraq's oil, in a country where we have over 170,000 GI's and an untold number of U.S. civilian contractors on the ground?
April 19, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
Ah, but the U.S. sacrificed 183,588 of its best and brightest in the WWII European-Atlantic front, to rescue the UK and other European allies.
I'm certain the families and relatives of those who gave their lives to save the world from fascism would have gladly paid with many "dimes and guns" - without any conditions, if it could saved the lives of their loved ones.
I hope that no American blood will ever have to be spilled in order to rescue Israel.
April 19, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg must be busy getting rid of both hametz(bread) and neo-cons which explains why he has refused to answer my question. I'm not worried. There will be plenty of time to re-ask it. I expect he'll be touting J Street every month for the next year.
April 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Mr. Rosenberg, put up or shut up: give us one specific piece of evidence that Bill Clinton regards Ehud Barak as duplicitous besides your naked assertion. You are either ignorant or a liar.
April 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ is neither ignorant nor a liar but Clinton's public comments has always backed Barak on his version of what happened at Camp David. That is why Bill should be held responsible for allowing that debacle to happen in the first place. Central to this failure was trusting the Aipac agent Dennis Ross to serve as 'mediator'. I suspect MJ has access to information but since it is not publically acknowledged one should not accept it.
April 19, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love these lobby automatons. Even their "names." Aipacmember, IAF (Israeli Air Force). Such zealots.
As to Clinton. Read any of the memoirs about Camp David by the participants. There are six. Clinton's contempt for Barak (s all there. He was duped. In fact, he is quoted as saying Barak treated the President of the US as a "goddam wooden Indian."
IAF says Americans should send the money and shut
up or lose American boys in a war. Ridiculous.
America and Israel have strikingly different interests. Our ridiculous Mideast policy costs us prestige, endangers Americans in the Mideast and helps bring terrorists to our shores.
American aid for Israel is a magnificent act of generosity because it's done out of principle. We don't have to do it. But we do. And it's right. In return, America's interests should be considered by Israel. That means ending the occupation so that our connection to Israel does not continue to burden us as it does.
Your blind allegiance to the occupation policies of Israel hurt the United States but hurt Israel much more.
Rabin said he had no use for AIPAC in 1992 because he wanted to make peace with the Arabs. Look it up! His kids support IPF and J Street. That tells you something.
April 19, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whose memoirs say Clinton considers Barak duplicitous--please cite title, author and page. Otherwise, you are full of shit.
April 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have trouble reading, sir. May I suggest stronger lenses. The name is apacmember, not Aipacmember,and I am proud to be zealous in defense of America's only democratic ally in the Mideast, just like fine progressive Democrats like Dick Durbin, Barbara Mikulsky, Charlie Rangel, well, I can go on and list over two hundred, with a whole sheet here with the names of progressive Senators and Representatives who support AIPAC's positions down the line, including your good friend, Chris Van Hollen.
All of them will be at AIPAC's policy conference in D.C.to express zealous support for Israel as that democracy celebrates 60 years, along with both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. All those terrific liberals are zealous just like me in believing that it is very much in America's strategic interest that Israel be strong and secure, that, like J Street proclaims, Israel maintain its qualitative military advantage over its enemies, that Israel be supported diplomatically and at the UN in its right to protect its citizens from Hamas and Hezbollah terror, and that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power.
Every candidate J Street's PAC supports who gets elected to the House and Senate will vote just like those progressive Democratic pro-Israel zealots to provide billions of dollars military aid and diplomatic backing. Sure, they, like AIPAC, will express support for the Annapolis process to see if Abbas can make a lasting two-state agreement. None of the candidates backed by J Street, however, will advocate a cutoff of aid to Israel becuause they know because the majority of voters in virtually every district who really care about the Mideast oppose that, as do at least half the people who put J Street together.
April 19, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
How do you know that iaf's screenname is an anagram for Israel Air Force? Has iaf ever explained it this way, or is pure presumption on your part? Sorry, MJ, but from where I sit attacking commenters screennames crosses the line into ad hominem trolling, and reliable evidence that your adversaries are crafing better arguments than yours (sorta like the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" schtick, y'know what I mean?).
April 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
Yes, it would be ridiculous, if that was the argument I was making. In truth, although I didn't state it explicitly, my point was/is that blood and human lives are far more valuable than money, or guns bought with money. Hence, it's logical for the U.S. to support allies that never request, beg or plead to put American lives on the line on their behalf.
M.J., I can't believe you are that naive. I think you know which of the four questions you should be asking at tonight's Passover Seder. The simple truth is that, like virtually everything the U.S. Govt. does in the international arena, the U.S. Foreign Aid program is an instrument of the American Foreign Policy - it has absolutely nothing to do with altruism.
I believe I can convincingly argue - in a paragraph or three - that political, military and economic support of Israel is a keen national interest of the U.S, and that Israel repays America's generosity in kind. Apparently, AIPAC is capable of doing that too, which explains their success in Washington, DC. It greatly saddens me that neither you nor the groups you represent/promote seem to be able to make that case - not even to yourselves.
On the contrary, judging from this:
your POV clearly misconstrues Israel as a burden, an obstacle to whatever it is you see as U.S. interests in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, that POV remains a fringe opinion in the larger American populace, Jewish or not, which is exactly what tnathan, apacmember, Bar Kafka, FlyOnTheWall and yours truly have been trying to hammer into your stubborn Jewish Dumkopf.
Finally,
Man, don't even go there. You are not having much success getting into personal pissing matches with others, and you won't get into one with me. Instead, be a class act: use your considerable brilliance to engage me and your audience with convincing arguments. Or try to be funny - whatever works.
Happy Passover!
April 19, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
""I believe I can convincingly argue - in a paragraph or three - that political, military and economic support of Israel is a keen national interest of the U.S, and that Israel repays America's generosity in kind."
I, for one, would like to hear you expounded on this for a few paragraphs.
April 19, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Man, despite all your disgust for it, you sure have learned how to play Hillary's game. If that was what iaf said, then Barack Obama's remark in San Francisco was condescending to the people in Flyover country.
April 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 19, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, tnathan, there was a "Nazi lobby," with proponents like Charles Lindburgh, Henry Ford, Errol Flynn, and the radio and statium audiences of Fr. Coughlin.
April 19, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka writes:
Bar Kafka is right. Moreover, what was sorely missing (or MIA) in the U.S. during WWII was an aggressive, powerful (AIPAC-like !) Jewish lobby. Had there been one, then maybe, just maybe:
(a) more Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi occupied areas would have been rescued and granted emigration passes, incl. to the U.S.; and
(b) more pressure would be applied on the U.S. and Allied Forces to disrupt the murderous Final Solution machinery: train routes, concentration camps, etc.
April 19, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy Passover to whom it may apply.
MJ's voice is definitely a breath of fresh air and I am grateful to TPM for providing a forum for a frank discussion on a subject that is of such paramount importance, i.e. the US foreign policy
that actually will serve the US interests for a change.
It seems rather obvious that had it not been for right wing Likud neocon sympathizers in the US we would not be in Iraq. No matter what peace rally goers chant, oil is not the reason we are really in Iraq, if it was, we would be there to stay in 1991, when Prez Bush and James Baker (an oil-superman) called the shots. As a matter of fact keeping Saddam in power was the best way to keep both Al-Qaida and and Iran in check. We kind of blew this one for us and... for Israel.
Is potential bombing of Iran in America's interest?
No. It's in nobody's interest.
One could go on and on.
Israel is America's friend, very few people will argue with that, but strategically it is primarily a liability.
There is nothing wrong in supporting a friend, but since doing so does go against many of our strategic interests, it should be a balanced compromise to which both sides contribute a significant amount of good will.
Anyone objecting to this view should ponder the reluctance of the subsequent US administrations to commit America to Israel.
If there was anything to gain internationally i.e. strategically from it, we would be there already in 1948. And we weren't.
This heaven-made union didn't really become a full fledged marriage until the conservative Christians didn't start praying for Armageddon and became holier-than-thou Zionists (what a concept!?). How can nutcakes praying for WWIII can be anybody's friends and Israel's in particular, is beyond me.
Even the cold war didn't quite make the US and Israeli interests look as anything particularly overlapping.
This "shotgun marriage" was sealed only on 9/11, in 2001 and it was so "nicely", albeit embarrassingly expressed by the best man "Bibi" Netanyahu's admission that "9/11 was good for Israel".
Little of this "till death do us part" support for Israel would happen though without AIPAC and its "shock and awe" campaign of spin and intimidation...
For anyone to say with a straight face that most American politicians really, I mean, in private, support the right wing extremist Israeli policies, which is considered for now the only way to support Israel for any politician who wants to get re-elected is either naive or disingenuous, read: ridiculous.
Politicians, or for that matter people in the media and in the arts are scared for their lives, political, artistic or public not to cross their ways with AIPAC.
I grew up in a communist country which at some point stopped being one and it still amazes me to this day how all of a sudden when the fear was gone, everybody including the aparatchicks had a different opinion on who Poland's real friends were.
For years one could still see fading signs people didn't bother to paint over, reminding us that we were in love with our great friend the Soviet Union.
Personally, having for a father a guy who almost lost his life in Gestapo's hands for his involvement in smuggling Jews out of Vilnius Ghetto I can't imagine the world AD 2008 without Israel.
But the fear with which people in the US speak about AIPAC and
Israel reminds me very much the days when one didn't even start speaking one's mind without checking who was really listening. Honest discussions in Poland AD 1975 were reserved only for close friends and family. But one day, when as a student I was asked to sign a petition demanding that the communist regime free political prisoners, by a girl on whom I actually had a secret crush and I told her that I absolutely agreed with her, but needed a couple of days to think about it.
"But you said you already absolutely agree with it" she said,
"so, what is there really to think about" she pressed gently.
I was in panic, I knew I was going to loose my passport and my future job prospects if I sign, but the idea of appearing a wimp to her was also frustrating, not to mention that I really, absolutely agreed with what the petition stood for.
"OK" I said to her, "but, can I sign maybe illegibly?"
She looked at me with her big blue eyes and simply said:
"Are you ashamed of your name?"
I looked at her, then away from her big blue eyes at the window and then again at her, I slowly took the pen she had in her hand waiting for me for the last few minutes and without a word I signed my full name: Wiktor Szostalo.
She smiled gently at me and walked away, and at that moment
I felt so free, as I never had felt before in my 23 or so years.
I was free of fear. It was an amazing feeling.
The AIPAC's grip on the media and public discourse of our foreign policy until very recently seemed to me just as frightening as the communist censorship I remember from the communist days in my old country. What can be worse in the US than being branded an anti-Semite?
But now, thanks to MJ, Robert Mally, Josh Marshall, Jimmy Carter and a growing number of respected others respectively called anti-Semites, or more endearingly "self-hating-Jews" by so many media outlets not to mention AIPAC related blogs, I will consider it an honor to be branded whatever or even black-listed just because I publicly disagree with policies that at times are just that: apartheid.
Not to mention that I don't want the US to go into another war without an HONEST discussion why we need to.
And in the long run I believe, our principled and uncompromising support for the unglamorous compromises which will be required from everyone, including the US to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East is really the only way to earn the honor of being called a true "friends of Israel".
And if the irresponsible bullies in the meantime will call us names, well, here is Jim Baker's most famous quote on that subject: "fuck them".
Come to think about it, Jim Baker by refusing the loan guarantees to Shamir in 1991 brought his government down, which brought to power Yithzak Rabin and the rest is history. Peace was so, so close. I consider Yitzhak Rabin my personal hero.
Long live Israel, long live Palestine, long live peace.
And the most important thing I wanted to say to begin with:
Long live J Street.
April 20, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
legalalien,
You have faulty memory to compare AIPAC with KGB.
Even M.J. Rosenberg had to admit in one of his posting that your assertion is without merit.
You yourself tell us that Bush administration refused the loan guarantees to Shamir in 1991 which brought his government down, which brought to power Yithzak Rabin and the rest is history.
Let me add that Bill Clinton openly fought against Binyamin Netanyahu.
You are making the same mistake that many leftist politicians in US make. You don’t respect people’s values. Leftist politicians think that evil Karl rove makes people “cling to guns or religion“. You think that evil AIPAC makes many American Christians and Jews cling to Israel. You don’t understand that national strategic interests are not decided in US by few experts. Whatever is important to American people is a national strategic interest. Support of the Jewish state of Israel is very important for many American Christians and Jews therefore this support is in our strategic interests.
Get used to this.
April 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
legalalien (aka Wiktor Szostalo):
Welcome to America. I hope you'll have a good life here.
Let me clue you in on something that you may not have heard before. In this country, people of Polish origin have a reputation of (hmm, how shall I put it kindly?), well, of being intellectually very similar to George W. Bush. Some try to camouflage this with very long, unpronounceable last names, others resort to longwinded, pointless prose.
These two traits - G.W. Bush-like reasoning and longwinded prose, plus your inexplicable, almost phallic worship of James Baker III and Yitzhak Rabin, make a productive engagement between the two of us impossible, so let me share with you something more personal.
I'm not a religious person, but every night before I go to bed I pray to the Almighty to make stupidity a painful disease. Sad to say, much like He/She ignored the prayers of some 50 percent of my family who'd perished in the Holocaust, God pays zero attention to me, i.e. He/She lets waaay too many among us exist in a state of perpetual yet totally undeserved bliss.
However, if one bright morning you (and your "self-selected sample of Jewish friends") wake up with a terrible, pounding, mind-blowing headache that simply won't go away, you'll know whom to blame.
April 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear tnathan,
A lot has changed since 1991, I think it is quite obvious.
Jim Baker's famous quote as you must know was longer:
"...the Jews, they don't vote for us (republicans) anyway".
I, personally would be for all the diasporas to shut up and let the "locals" speak, they know it better, because they have to live with the consequences of decisions made by them, or for them. For instance, Polish-Americans voting for the president of Poland a few years ago voted predominantly for Lech Walesa, who in Poland proper received less than 1% of the vote.
I guess the Jewish vote in the US is much more balanced both, in regard to the US and Israel, but we don't hear much of the center and the left here.
Most of my Jewish friends, I grant, it may be a self-selected sample, don't want anything to do with AIPAC.
But I don't hear their voices in the MSM.
And as things "Jewish State" go, this discussion would be unnecessary if the US mainstream could read, I guess, would learn to read let's say Haaretz. Add any one of the more right wing papers of your choice to it too, for a balanced view.
And how about some middle of the road Arab voice, hah?
To heal anything, don't we need first a good, unemotional and no-ideological diagnosis?
Otherwise we will be back to blood letting and witch hunts.
And maybe beheading chicken to inform us if we should bomb Iran or not.
April 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do visit AIPAC's site once in a while and I read Haaretz Daily, daily.
To start with, I would prefer to see all the intelligence info on Iran and others confirmed by independent sources. Sorry.
Bogey intelligence on Iraq got us stuck there already for a long time.
April 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe I can convincingly argue - in a paragraph or three - that political, military and economic support of Israel is a keen national interest of the U.S, and that Israel repays America's generosity in kind."
Go right ahead. As concerns American interests, it is more sensible for the US to ally with Saudia Arabia.
The American relationship to Israel is that of a parent to a basically spoiled and usually nasty child full of problems that has to be bailed out of jail every so often and can't get a real job.
April 20, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
SanPasqualCA writes:
That's short-sighted thinking. First, our alliance with the Saudis goes as far as their extended Royal family (about 7000 people) - the average Saudi citizen (25 million or so) hates our guts. Second, our primary interest in Saudi Arabia is oil, which in 20-25 years will run out. (If there's anything else you believe we may want from them once the oil is gone, please advise.)
Lastly, 9/11 was not about Israel - ObL himself said so; of the twenty intended hijackers on 9/11, sixteen were Saudi nationals; and about 2/3 to 3/4 of senior Al Qaeda personnel worldwide are Saudis. So, you're right -- it makes them a perfect ally: inshallah!
Well, you are completely and utterly wrong here.
However, let us play with this a bit, i.e. let's assume for a moment, a very brief moment, that your above analogy is somewhat correct. Then, answer for me this: How many of your own children have you abandoned because their behavior or actions didn't meet your exacting standards or expectations?
You see my point, SanPasqualCA? Playing with analogies is a two-way street.
April 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote:
And by "our guts" I meant: our boozing, gender-equality loving, multi-culturalist, bikini-clad floozies obsessed, gay permissive, porn-watching Western infidel guts.
April 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J.: Spencer Ackerman, Ari Berman, Max Blumenthal, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, Laura Rozen, and Matt Yglesias (just to name the most prominent bloggers) have been posting about the J Street Project. Never heard of these writers? Google them some time and you'll see literally millions of "hits" referring to them, their opinions, their analyses, their take on events.
Is this post going to be republished somewhere else, or a reposting of something originally posted elsewhere?
Because it's pretty odd to consider these names are unfamiliar to readers of TPM -- Josh Marshall's own site.
April 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total Military Victory over the Palestinian slimebuckets and genocidal murderers.
Nothing else will do.
Now go and get your towel, MJ and start bawling.
April 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should be a comedian, MJ.
Barak responsible for the collapse of Camp David? What Hashish do you smoke, bozo? Barak abandoned the ONE REAL ALLY Israel had left in the Arab world, the South Lebanese Army only a month before Camp David. The lessons of Hizbullah's victory were not lost on Arafat. He knew he was dealing with a weak coward, and he uped the ante.
So did Barak. He offered not just 70 or 85% of Judea-Samaria to Arafat, but 97% including almost of all of Old Jerusalem, except for the Temple Wall. That shocked even Shlomo Ben Ami, your Pieces Now bud. But Barak was serious - Arafat was serious too. Why not 100% if I go to war just as Hizbullah did. So he turned it all down.
So who does little MJ blame - Israel, of course. He and his friends Rob Malley, the Arafat stooge and Clayton Swisher, the Islamist. They blame Israel for Arafat unleashing the storm of violence known as the New Intifada, which incidentally he had been planning for awhile. But don't tell MJ that - he might report you to the FBI for disagreeing with him - even if you have the facts, and he's proven time and time again to be such a disingenuous clown.
April 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, tnathan,
If anything, M.J. is the exact opposite of "disingenuous": earnest to a fault.
It's like his parents forgot to put a pinch of "Yiddishkeit" in the turkey baster.
(See, M.J.? I do like you. ;-) )
April 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alanroc writes:
Huh? M.J. a comedian? Alanroc, I hope your day job is not career councilor.
Well, what did you expect? The man (Barak) lacks any business sense: he was born in a kibbutz and spent his entire life in the military. Heck, he's not qualified to run a hot dog stand on the Lower East Side.
Compare that to the Queen_tessential Arafat, who for 25 years squeezed the "coconuts" of most Arab leaders and of countless international airline executives - to the tune of 2.5 billion US dollars, which ended up in his personal Swiss bank accounts.
It's no contest.
April 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf writes:
""I believe I can convincingly argue - in a paragraph or three - that political, military and economic support of Israel is a keen national interest of the U.S, and that Israel repays America's generosity in kind."
I, for one, would like to hear you expounded on this for a few paragraphs.
April 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
petermschwartz52:
Thanks for your confidence. I'd love to do this - properly, but it may take a few days, since:
(a) I'm not a paid contributor here; and
(b) This must have been done already, more than once, and by people much smarter than yours truly. (Anyone has a reference handy?)
As "Ahhhnold" the Governator says: I'll be baack.
April 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, tnathan, but I wholeheartedly disagree.
What is the best for Israel? To be truncated, to be sliced and diced. For its citizens who are now undergoing the trauma of 15 years of Oslo "Peace" to endure much worse until Ahmedinejedad drops the nukes?
That is what MJ Rosenberg wants. He is no friend of Israel, nor is he a Good Jew. A Kapo, yes, a good Jew, No way. This is a putz who defends the Malleys and Swishers of the world.
And by the way, one Neo-Con, as despised as he or she may be, is a better friend of Israel than 1000 MJ's or Aaron David Millers.
But here's a test for you and for MJ. If the Palestinians truly want peace, let them - yes, them, not the Israelis who constantly make concessions and get worse - disarm totally down to police forces. Let them release the kidnapped boys. Let them rebuild the green houses they destroyed. Let them show good faith.
If they do, then yeah, let's then talk about Israel reciprocating as if it hasn't done so already. But that means Saeb Erekat needs to shut his friggin' trap about demanding more from Israel until the entire Paly society is demobilized.
If they refuse, then it is all out war - and a Jewish MILITARY victory. The Palys can then live in Jordan which is their real state or rot in the Sinai for all I care.
What is it going to be Nathan? Instead of listening to the New Judenrat, i.e., Rosenberg, Miller, Kurtzer, et. al., let them get their friends to lay down their weapons. If they don't, then not only do they NOT deserve a country, but they deserve to be DESTROYED!
I welcome your thoughts, and yes, those too of the lying, disingenuous coward MJ.
April 21, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're still a damn liar and a coward, MJ.
Oh, please say hello to your paranoid webmaster for me. I'm sure he is shaking with fear that a Sayeret Makaral tean is about to descend on your roof.
But if you love peace so much, then get YOUR DAMN ARABS to make the concessions. We Jews have had enough of their genocidal bombings, their kidnappings, their bombardment of Sderot even as Olmert still releases terrorists and ships Abbas the Holocaust denier armored vehicles. Get them to make peace if that is what you want.
If they don't then it is our right of survival to vanquish them militarily, whether you and the crypto-fascists of the Left, especially your fellow Obamists like it or not.
April 21, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink