When Pro-Israel Means Not Giving A Damn About Israel
I had a conversation the other day with a friend who asked me if I was really sure Obama is pro-Israel. "I mean, we know McCain is."
We do? How do we know that? Besides what does it even mean to be pro-Israel?
There is a real irony here, one which most of us who deal with this issue in Washington confront daily. It is that the politicians who are most deft at spouting memorized "pro-Israel" talking points tend to care about Israel the least. The ones who speak from the heart and the head, who study the issue, and try to come up with ways to break out of the deadly status quo are the ones who care the most.
This includes Jewish politicians, many of whom pretend that they care deeply but only discovered Israel when they decided that playing the Jewish card would help them politically. One Jewish senator I know is well-known for being a fiery uber-hawk on Israel. In fact, he has no interest in Israel at all and never has. He cares deeply about America's domestic problems, on which he's a leader, but is indifferent to Israel, Palestinians and Middle East issues in general. It is precisely because he doesn't give a damn that he can mouth the Marty Peretz/Alan Dershowitz line with such enthusiasm. It matters to him not at all but it keeps the campaign money rolling in (allowing him to keep doing the things he does care about).
He's entitled I suppose. Not everybody has to care about this issue and I'm glad he has the financial resources to keep getting re-elected. Nor do I mind that he is playing the lobby for dupes. What I resent is that this guy, indifferent to Israel, helps set the Senate standard of what is and isn't pro-Israel. But, as I said, what does he care? Other than when he is talking to AIPAC or the American Jewish Committee, he doesn't give Israel's problems a thought.
Think about it. There is no political downside to simply going with the lobby on the Middle East. It's like what Jackie Kennedy said: you can't be too rich or too thin. In American politics, you can't be "too pro-Israel." A politician knows that all they have to do is say that they are for Israel, and against the Palestinians, and they will be deemed a "staunch supporter" of Israel and the campaign money will flow their way.
In short, supporting the status quo is a wonderfully lucrative path of least resistance. That is why it is the default position for every politician. It's easy, risk-free, costs nothing but pays great returns. Of course, it also adds significantly to Israel's security problems--and America's declining strategic position in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, many, if not most, in the pro-Israel community seem not to understand this. These are the people who think that George W. Bush is the "most pro-Israel President ever" and that the last eight years have been wonderful for Israel. They could not be more wrong.
Eight years ago, as President Clinton was preparing to leave office, Israelis and Palestinians were closer to an agreement than ever before. Israel had experienced three years that were virtually terror-free, thanks to Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation. The Clinton-engineered peace treaty with Jordan had eliminated the threat from the east, especially given that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been neutralized and defanged by sanctions.
The eight years that followed were some of the bloodiest in Israel's history. A second intifada took over a thousand Israeli lives (and three times as many Palestinians). Following its conclusion, and the end of Arafat's reign, the U.S. demand for elections in the West Bank and Gaza brought Hamas to power. With the United States abandoning the role of Middle East "honest broker," Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were intermittent and fruitless. Settlements expanded. Today, in the summer of 2008, Israelis see a new frightening form of terrorism manifested by two attacks by bulldozer in the streets of Jerusalem. And then there is the utter destabilization produced by the Iraq War, which has moved Iraq into Iran's orbit, facilitating Iranian trouble-making and making it more of a threat to Israel than ever before.
This is not a status quo anyone should seek to preserve, let alone celebrate. Politicians who endorse it serve neither America's nor Israel's interests. Pro-Israel? No way. Pro-themselves? Indeed.
Michael, you should run office here in the states, or I may write you in as Obama's V.P. Wouldn't that be something.....
July 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
pol,
can I have Treasury?
July 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do it, friend. I'd be good. And think of the dozens of votes I'd add to the ticket.
July 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't underestimate your vote drawing power. You would, I'm sure, add hundreds of votes.
July 27, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got one definition for pro-Israel: People who don't want Israelis to die in pointless wars with Israel's neighbors are pro-Israel. Anyone who wants to escalate the kinds of tensions that will lead to further deaths is anti.
July 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember correctly, after the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, for which Sharon was held responsible, thousands of Jews marched in protest. I've always believed that like then there are thousands of Israeli Jews today who find the acts of their government unconscionable and say so. Why don't we hear them.
Of course, there are thousands and thousands of Americans who also find the acts of their government unconscionable. I suspect no one outside of the US hears us either.
July 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't we just let Israelis be pro-Israel and Americans be pro-American? Wouldn't that work out best for both? Each considering the needs of their own people as most important? Each recognizing that if they can't defend their own nation and define and deliver on priorities that meet the needs of their own people that they fail, on their own, due to their own mistakes? Wouldn't it be better if Americans gave up on meddling in others business and the hubris that makes us believe we are essential to solving foreign problems? Wouldn't it be better if Israel took full responsibility as an independent, sovereign, nation state for control of its own destiny?
July 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it would be better but with the attitude prevalent in DC today, it's unlikely to happen. Krauthammer, the other day in WaPo said in justification for remaining in Iraq forever, "...to provide the US with the infrastucture and freedom of action to project American power regionally."
Sounds like imperialism to me and a nation on an imperialistic binge can never have enough control over enough countries.
July 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
....carpetbag your political fortunes and move to CT or WI: ....more possible delicious news for Liberal Democrats:
MADISON, WIS. -- Wisconsin Democrats on Friday ousted a delegate to the party's national convention for saying she would vote for Republican John McCain for president in November.
The Wisconsin party's administrative committee voted 23-0 to strip Debra Bartoshevich of her status as a delegate to the Denver convention next month.
Bartoshevich, 41, was pledged to Hillary Rodham Clinton. But when the New York senator suspended her campaign in June after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama clinched a majority of delegates, Bartoshevich told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she would support Arizona Sen. McCain.
On Friday, state committee members agreed that Bartoshevich had lost her privilege to be one of the state's 92 delegates because of her comments and her affiliation with Citizens for McCain, a branch of his campaign designed to recruit independents and Democrats.
During a teleconference before the vote, Bartoshevich asked the committee to allow her to attend the convention as a Clinton delegate.
She noted that she had donated time and money to Clinton and still believed that the former first lady was the best candidate.
She said she had not decided whom to support and was open to backing Obama if he won her over. "I'd like to go to the convention and listen," she said. She said her sister was a McCain supporter who signed her up for Citizens for McCain.
"You reached right back and hugged them," committee member Dottie LeClaire said. "I have a problem with that."
July 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROLL WISCONSIN or is it ON WISCONSIN! Whatever.
Go Packers.
July 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never heard the "can't be too rich or too thin" attributed to Jackie Kennedy--it would seem too crass for her; I had heard that it was due to Wallis Simpson, but it may be more complicated:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0602b&L=ads-l&P=12170
July 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being Pro-Israel is to understand that Israeli people are stupid morons who don't know what's the best for them.
There is no question that M.J. Rosenberg is Pro-Israel.
He is one of "The ones who speak from the heart and the head, who study the issue, and try to come up with ways to break out of the deadly status quo are the ones who care the most."
Based on his studies he concluded that most of Israelis are morons and anti-Israel
July 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Israel with settlements in West Bank is an Israel running a smaller, but meaner, version of apartheid regime, with woeful implications for the national security.
Among others, IDF became a police force rather then a military machine ready for combat with armed opponents. Keeping wounds of Arab nationalisms open, it pushes Palestinians, Syrians and big portion of Lebanese into alliance with Iran. And Iran is too large and too cohesive to be stopped by some kind of bombing attack -- and the danger would exist without any nukes.
P
July 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one likes the present situation but pretending that you have the answers is either foolish or dishonest or both.
Benny Morris cares a great deal about Israel. So did Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres. And a whole host of others who actually live there and have put their lives on the line.
Doesn't make them right but their service has given them a cachet and legitimacy that you never had and never will have. You're not a chicken hawk...but you are a chicken shit.
July 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh snap! Check out that pun!
Incidentally, way to levy a personal attack without addressing any of the points. You've certainly convinced me!
July 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ethan Jennings
What points are those that I failed to address?
July 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Vlad Tepes
Well, aside from the fact that Ariel Sharon, Benny Morris and Shimon Peres aren't mentioned in Rosenberg's article, or the fact that it was directed almost exclusively at the attitudes of American politicians towards Israel-Palestine, then I must say you made your points quite well. (Unless, of course, this comment was directed at another comment and because of TPM comment weirdness was not attached to it, in which case, I cannot judge those points and my criticism thereof does not apply. Whoops.) Likewise, other than blankly asserting it, you do not give much proof for their love of Israel (not that I dispute it, mind, just that you don't support your claims), other than a comment that apparently indicates they served in the IDF. Seeing as Israel has mandatory conscription, I don't see how this sets them apart from most of the Israeli population, some of whom no doubt aren't too fond of their government.
Also:
I'm trying to understand here: Are you criticizing the basic principle of criticizing leaders' actions? I re-skimmed this piece and while I wouldn't stake my life on a relatively silly matter it seems no different than any other op-ed, wherein the author offers his/her opinion about subjects of common import. I may have missed the passage, but I don't believe Rosenberg asserted his infinite and unassailable knowledge on any subject, not least of all Israel-Palestine.
In any case, I feel you accomplish little through personal attacks (a.k.a., calling someone a chickenshit) rather than debate over the issues. You think Rosenberg's wrong? Great! I don't agree with him 100% either. But when you resort to mudslinging and name-calling, you don't convince anyone of your correctness; rather, you only display an unwillingness to reasonably contribute to public debate.
(Wait--is that my opinion, or am I pretending to have the answers? You decide, and label me chickenshit or fucktard as you see fit.)
July 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ethan Jennings
OK! An honest response deserving of an honest response. I can't promise to be complete but I'll do my best.
First. Rosenberg didn't just suddenly appear, a new virgin birth. He has a history...and he and I have a history.
Second. Rosenberg has many, many times called the leading neocons "chicken hawks". He is also on record as saying no "stupid" war is worth the lives of his family. So I think I am well within accepted norms of civility in replying in kind by calling him a "chicken shit".
Third. Rosenberg's position on Israel is well-known; he believes the United States should FORCE Israel to accept the Palestinian terms IN TOTO. Meaning the United States should FORCE Israel to withdraw ENTIRELY behind the 1967 (or 1948) armistice lines.
Fourth. Rosenberg, only a week or so ago, called Benny Morris "certifiable" (although attaching a fig leaf caveat) because Morris advocated a policy diametrically opposed to his own.
Fifth. Rosenberg, in his usual fashion, is being dishonest. He's trying to say that politicians who are the most agressive in "spouting the AIPAC line" are the least sincere and he gives you a totally bullshit example as if that's proof. He knows full well that Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, can know very few issues well but must take positions on all of them. That leaves them at the mercy of their staff of researchers, lobbyists, journalists, interested members of the public, and agressive partisan assholes.
Sixth. I don't need to give proof that Benny Morris, Ariel Sharon, and Shimon Peres love Israel. That you would even doubt it labels you as a prick...but I'll give you a pass this time. And only this time. I would also say that all those who served in the IDF - whether as conscripts or volunteers - and/or who live in Israel have far more credibility on any issue concerning Israel than does Rosenberg, who served in no army of any nation, and doesn't live there.
Sixth. I read the Kristol piece. It's fluff. Nothing more. The man doesn't like Obama. That's about all. Rosenberg, on the other hand, loves Obama and is pissed Kristol doesn't agree.
Seventh. I wonder is you're conscious of how many posters resorted to personal attacks on Kristol. I doubt it. Look Again. My opinion is virtually all of them.
July 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
over a thousand Israelis dead, but you didn't mention the Palestinians dead. Why not? Do you even know or care at all?
Do any "pro Israel" people care? anyone?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/children-and-civilian-bystanders-gaza-death-toll-20080303
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/call-investigation-killing-cameraman-and-other-civilians-20080418
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html
You "pro israel" cheerleaders are disgusting. You literally turn my stomach.
July 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sorval
But Rosenberg says
So its your own bile which is making you sick.
July 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
one minute you're excoriating MJ Rosenberg with vicious insults, the next minute you're quoting him.
heh heh heh
July 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
I never said you were smart.
July 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
heh heh heh
July 27, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh.
you are correct.
*sigh*
hrm, my apologies.
July 27, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
Peace? No chance
He was much better at predicting the future than you ever were...and he remains so.
July 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not too hard to google. You know how to whistle, don't you? Just put your lips together and blow.
July 26, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to understand why MJ praises Clinton's policy toward Israel and criticizes Bush. If the West Bank settlements are the greatest obstacle today for the two-state solution, then is should be noted that the number of settlers doubled during the Clinton years and have increased only about 20% under Bush. Further, Clinton placed the Aipac operative Ross in a critical position that resulted in the failed Camp David negotiations between Arafat and Barak. This was a serious blunder on Clinton's part to place Ross in such a critical position. Then when those negotiations failed, Clinton blamed Arafat thereby allowing Barak and then later Sharon to claim there was no one to talk to. This attitude directly fed the second intifada.
Is hard to say what was worse -- Clinton's inept activism or Bush's inaction.
July 27, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. It's in comparison with W that Clinton looks stellar. He was duped by Ehud Barak, in his own words Clinton was treated "like a wooden Indian" by the Israeli PM.
July 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
A typical example of how you twist facts. Here's a more accurate version of what happened
from Islam Online
and
from New York Review of Books
It turns our that negotiating a peace deal between two parties who hate and distrust each other, with good reason, is unbelievable difficult, so, of course, frustration, anger, and harsh words are part of the process...and the harsh words are usually distorted by partisans like you for their own purposes.
July 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lately, "progressives" like Mr Rosenberg have been trumpeting the "J-Street" lobby poll which supposedly shows that the "majority" of American Jews don't support AIPAC's positions but, rather, a much more "progressive" agenda in which the US supposedly is going to force a peace agreement on the two sides. Nothing could be farther from the truth. J-Street is a tiny fringe group that set up a "made-to-order" polls with extremely long, convoluted questions which were made to make it appear that American Jews support their positions in which America is supposed to force Israel to make conessions that damage its interests or security. Here is a link to Shmuel Rosner's column in Ha'aretz in which he gives an example of a convoluted question and why the poll is basically a fraud.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=1003097&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=4#article1003097
Mr Rosenberg and his fellow "progressives" are, of course, entitled to their opinion about what policies Israel should follow. However, these positions DO NOT represent either majority American Jewish views nor Israeli ones either. In any event, even if there were no Jews in the US, there is still a strong base of support among non-Jews for Israel, and J-Street certainly can't speak for them.
It is not enough to say one is "pro-Israel". Jimmy Carter claims he is "pro-Israel". Anyone who says he opposed throwing the Jews into the sea can claim he is "pro-Israel". The question is "what policies does a 'pro-Israel' person advocate"? Damaging Israel's security or interests in the name of a phony "tough-love" policy will be rejected by the majority of truly "pro-Israel" people.
July 27, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ YBD
The thing is Rosenberg himself is a fraud. He doesn't care whether or not the facts support his positions. He can twist the facts. It doesn't bother him that others have fought and continue to fight for the freedom he enjoys while he and his family sit safe and fat and happy, criticizing them.
July 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg himself is NOT a fraud. He doesn't need
facts to support his positions. His positions are based on the Truth and deeper knowledge than just facts.
July 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting article by Rosner.
As to this "...a much more "progressive" agenda in which the US supposedly is going to force a peace agreement on the two sides..."
The word "force" strikes me as misleading. Aren't there a range of diplomatic actions an ally can take to make it possible for another ally to make moves that entail some risk?
Short of anything one might accurately call "forcing"?
In any event, it's hard to see how the US forces another country to do anything. The US could, I suppose, cut off all aid; but, as you say, this might not hurt Israel at all.
July 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only a clown goes around making ambiguous statements about the status of Jerusalem.
Doesn't too much matter where his heart and head may be if he can't execute.
July 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
AJM is absolutely right. However, there is another way to look at it. Perhaps the the refusal to take a stand is based on recognition of the fact that the Arab/Israeli conflict is intractable and not susceptible to solution by means of a contractual peace agreement. The best that can be hoped for is a long-term reduction of violence and the eventual evolution of an UNOFFICIAL modus vivendi. However, no one has the guts to point out this obvious fact, so the leaders keep throwing out meaningless phrases like "the status of Jerusalem is subject to a negotiated agreement between the sides". Meanwhile, the current status quo of Israeli control of the entire city is the only possible way to go, given this situation.
I do find it interesting how people have Orwellianized the "unity of Jerusalem". People claim that the Arab part of the city can be put under HAMAS/FATAH rule and still call the city "united", when in fact the result of such an action would lead to anti-sniper walls going back up, maybe with barbed wire, minefields and crossing points that in the most optimistic scenario would mean Arabs who would continue to work in the Jewish part of the city would be forced to line up for hours before being checked at these crossing points. How can anyone call such a situation "united"?
July 27, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg,
Good to get your insight - I scratch my head when I hear folks like myself (eg, protestant middle Americans) get worked up about the Israel-Palestine issue. Such as a caller to a right wing talk show.
So, right winger, you would have us believe that the price of gas or the state of banking is irrelevant to your life or not worth discussion, or just something to shrug your shoulders about, but you're trying to convince us how passionate you are about pro-Israel political posturing? Huh?
I say to you people: you need a vacation! Disengage from the news cycle, from politics, for a while. Clear your head.
July 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink