On Trial For Espionage, Steve Rosen Attacks Gen. Jones as NSC Adviser While Martin Peretz Attacks Obama for Talking To Shimon Peres
Only in America.
Steve Rosen, the AIPAC official who was dismissed by the organization after being indicted for espionage, is leading the charge against the appointment of General James L. Jones as President Obama's National Security Adviser. Rosen says that Jones is too strenuous in opposition to the occupation of the West Bank (Jones has said that he would consider replacing IDF occupation forces with NATO troops as an interim step to separate Israelis and Palestinians). And Rosen has been calling reporters all over town to badmouth Jones.
Huh? Why would Rosen think that anyone cares what a guy charged with espionage against the United States thinks of an American general? Jones served as Secretary Rice's security coordinator in the West Bank and did an outstanding job. He was fair and honest and trusted by both sides. He served his country well, as he has since Vietnam.
But Rosen doesn't trust him.
What is wrong with this picture? Call me naive but I would think that anyone on trial for espionage, would keep his mouth shut about security issues and personnel relating to the country he is charged with betraying. Nor would I expect him to attack a decorated American marine for insufficient devotion to Israel or any country other than this one.
But Rosen is undaunted. Talk about chutzpah!
One more point, Rosen is now an employee of Daniel Pipes, the anti-Muslim agitator. In the same Pipes' publication in which Rosen attacks Jones, Pipes goes after Obama....for being associated with RFK's assassin Sirhan Sirhan.
Are these people crazy? Yes. But I'm beginning to think that they are rapidly becoming crazy/irrelevant rather than crazy/dangerous. It's about time.
Other signs that the Jewish right has become unhinged by Obama's election. Marrtin Peretz, former owner of the New Republic (his wife purchased it for him as a Christmas present back in the 70's and he ran it into the ground) has lost his sh*t over reports that Obama endorsed the Saudi peace initiative in a conversation with the President of Israel, Shimon Peres.
I don't know what Obama told Peres but President Peres says that Obama told him that Israel would be crazy to reject the initiative (which is true, very true).
So what does Peretz have to say. He calls Peres a "liar, actually a mythomaniac." "Duplicity and sanctimony" are his "essence." He wishes he could "contain my disrespect" for Peres.
And why this disrespect, this hatred for Peres and Rabin? Because they negotiated the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians, which came closer to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than anything before or since. Because they treated Arafat with respect, as the leader of the Palestinian people. Because they learned to stop hating Arabs while while Peretz is consumed by his hatred of them. Because they escaped the ghetto while Peretz embraces it.
Peres drives Peretz crazy. And so will the policies of the Obama administration. Peretz supported Obama's candidacy but for only one reason. He hates Hillary Clinton (he thinks she is a ferocious enemy of Israel because she once kissed Arafat's wife). So he backed Obama.
But now Obama is going to do what he can to end the conflict Peretz cherishes. and he's going to do it with Hillary at his side (and General James Jones, too).
This is Marty's worst nightmare. (He can hardly sleep at night, agonizing over why he didn't listen to his to his buddy Podhoretz and back Rudy and then McCain. Why did he go with the party of McGovern, of Carter, of the Clintons?)
Poor Peretz. Actually, rich Peretz. He'll always have the money. It's all he has ever had and all he's ever needed.
I'm jealous. If only my wife could have bought me a magazine. Oh well. Another reason I'm so grateful to the web. You don't have to be rich to shoot your mouth off and be heard.
...unless Rosen "knows" he's not going to be convicted. Then he might choose to open his mouth with impunity.
But in general, I agree with you. Chutzpah is too weak a word here.
November 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, come to think of it, we...America...Jews...Israel NEED for Rosen to get convicted and serve maximum time. Might be the only way to wake folks up.
November 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Thanks for your most recent series of posts. As you know, I am very pro-Palestinian (my wife comes from a Palestinian Christian family), but I firmly believe that secular, moderate Jews are absolutely necessary to achieve peace. Your posts on J Street, General Jones, and Obama's possible positive reception to the Saudi Plan, give me some hope that a just peace is achievable. You may be the only Zionist in America who uses the phrase "security" for the Palestinians, not just against them.
Having said that, what do you think about Aaron David Miller's piece in the Jerusalem Post saying that peac is impossible. I've met Mr. Miller. He's a wonderful guy. That piece seems oddly disconnected to the positive developments we are seeing.
November 25, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Aaron gets pessimistic at times. Who doesn't? But he's a great guy, totally dedicated to peace, and to justice.
I hope he'll be part of the Obama team.
Thanks for your kind words.
November 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former Ambassador Dennis Ross might also stand alongside Rosen in his opposition to a NATO-led peacekeeping force in the West Bank.
I raised this possibility back in 2002 with Ross following a Washington Institute presentation featuring then IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz.
Ross laughed off the idea to me, and said, "Why would we do that? It would only REWARD Palestinian violence."
I'm writing from afar right now (Doha) but I would suspect his views may not have evolved. Perhaps someone should press him on it.
November 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is a slip: "Ross laughed off the idea to me, and said, "Why would we do that? It would only REWARD Palestinian violence."
How do you build settlements on land controlled by NATO?
My sense: We are getting serious about peace. The people who are not serious are becoming worried.
November 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a NATO force a reward for anything? It's as if the neutral position is the IDF and anything else is, what, a reward?
November 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m49045&hd=&size=1&l=e
Is it true that they are blocking humanitarian supplies like chlorine from Gaza?
I dont always belive everything on uruknet of course.
November 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The chlorine story is an old one. More than a year back they blocked chlorine importation. Wiser heads prevailed and reversed that decision. The potential outcome of withholding chlorine could have been truly catastrophic -- an unchecked cholera epidemic in a crowded area like Gaza could lead to over a few hundred thousand cases in a few weeks. Without treatment 10 to 20 percent mortality.
November 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On Trial For Espionage, Steve Rosen Attacks Gen. Jones as NSC Adviser"
The world is upside down.
November 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unbelieveable, isn't it. Chutzpah indeed. I'm now worrying if the other shoe will fall: will we hear that Bush has pardoned Rosen?
I checked out the Pipes blog. He's also, I see, trying to deny any meaningful historical connection of Muslims to Jerusalem. I can't help but think of those emails that circulated about Obama during the election when I read the titles of the other stuff he's posted on his blog. But I am happy to see that there are sane commenters on the blog who don't fall for his ugly nonsense.
November 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is frustrating to see Rosen flaunting his immunity. He knows (or believes he knows) that with the full backing of Aipac, WSJ and other neocon outlets that there will never be a trial. He senses that the lobby is simply to powerful to allow him to fall. It may be that he is failing to note that the times are changing but it is a measure of how confident Aipac has been in its ability to manipulate American government institutions.
November 25, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fare, AIPAC divested itself of him. Rumor on the street is that if there is no trial or Rosen is acquitted, he will sue AIPAC for terminating him.
Now that should be interesting.
November 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, AIPAC divested itself of him. Rumor on the street is that if there is no trial or Rosen is acquitted, he will sue AIPAC for terminating him.
Now that should be interesting.
November 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for again calling spades spades, MJ Rosenberg. Whatever the record of his presidency to come (still a vast universe of unknowns) the persona of Obama is probably one of the very best antidotes to the particular brand of deceit-based fearmongering at issue here.
November 25, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see Sibel Edmonds as National Security Advisor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjA7UUV3p14&feature=related
November 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, are you familiar with the work of Israeli Professor Jeff Halper? He is an American born anthropologist who emigrated to Israel when he was 23. He has been a tireless advocate for the Palestinians and a supporter in their struggle against the occupation. I just finished his powerful book, "An Israeli in Palestine", which I highly recommend as a most useful source for open-minded Americans who are poorly informed about these issues. He explains Israel's "matrix of control" over all of Palestine, the flaws of an Israeli "ethnocracy" masquerading as a democracy, and the long term Israeli strategy of ethnic cleansing of "Judea" and "Samaria". Prof. Halper is particularly insightful in explaining how the Israeli government frames its message to appeal to American ears. For example he dissects Israel's definition of terrorism which conveniently excludes the actions of the state of Israel that has accounted for far more innocent deaths in Palestine than Palestinian terrorists have in Israel. He sees very little hope for the viability of the state of Israel over the long term if their policies are not changed and spends much time discussing possible alternatives.
November 25, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know Halper's work. He is right and he is fearless.
November 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A taste of Halper for those who don't know him from Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org/halper05152008.html)
The Palestinian Poltergeist
Rethinking Israel After 60 Years
By JEFF HALPER
Israeli Independence Day 2008, marking the sixtieth anniversary of the rise of the Jewish State, should be cause for sober reflection and reevaluation as well as celebration. Indeed, we Israeli Jews have much to celebrate. But something, it appears, is amiss. Israel’s 60 Year gala appeared exaggerated, the joy expressed through the blaring loudspeakers somewhat artificial and forced . . .
Perhaps our loud triumphalism had to do less with celebration than with the disturbing realization that the two-state solution, which even Olmert claims is Israel‘s only hope of remaining a Jewish state, is disappearing before our eyes. Anyone familiar with Israel’s massive settlements blocs, its fragmentation of the Palestinian territories and their irreversible incorporation into Israel proper through a maze of Israeli-only highways and other “facts on the ground,” anyone who has spent an hour in the West Bank, can plainly see that this is the case. The expansion of Israel’s Matrix of Control throughout the Occupied Territories, coupled with American protection from any international pressures for meaningfully withdrawal, have rendered a viable Palestinian state, and thus a genuine two-state solution, unattainable.
The transformation of the Occupation into a permanent political fact now shifts the question of co-existence, peace and reconciliation from the West Bank and Gaza to the entire country, to an indivisible Israel/Palestine . . .
Did the Palestinians really flee or did we Israeli Jews drive them out? If almost half the inhabitants of that part of Palestine apportioned by the UN to the Jews in 1947 were Arabs, how could we have turned even that small bit of land into a “Jewish state”? Is Zionism, then, truly free of war crimes or did we in fact conduct a deliberate and cruel campaign of ethnic cleansing that went far beyond the borders of partition? In that context, was the occupation of the entire land of Palestine the result of Jordanian miscalculation or, from a perspective of forty years later, was in actually an inevitable “completion” of 1948, as Rabin and many others have said? How can we reconcile our professed desire for peace with a steady annexation of the Occupied Territories, including almost 250 settlements? . . . .
And then comes the hardest question of all: If it was we who eliminated a viable two-state solution – the creation of a truncated Palestinian prison-state on 15% of historic Palestine a la South Africa’s Bantustans will not solve the conflict – then how will we end our century-old conflict? How will we deal with the bi-national entity that is Israel/Palestine, largely our own creation?
In order to avoid these questions, we have developed a number of mechanisms, delaying forever a political solution being only one of them. It is enough for us to merely assert our support for a two-state solution in order that we be considered peace-minded and reasonable. Two-state supporters require only the notion of a Palestinian state, a never-ending process towards it, to escape confronting the reality we created. As long as a Palestinian state can be held out as a possibility, the pressure’s off. Thus many Israelis, Diaspora Jews and others – including such searching and otherwise radical figures as Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery, together with the Peace Now, Brit Tzedek, Rabbis Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow and members of Rabbis for Human Rights – cling tenaciously to the two-state solution, all refusing to admit it is no longer viable. . . .
If we want to salvage a national Jewish presence in Palestine/Israel, nothing remains but to courageously confront what we did in 1948 and the bi-national reality we have fostered since 1967 . . .
November 27, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with James Jones is that the Israelis don't "trust" him because of the report he was to write about the security situation in the WB. Not only would it be critical, but it would diverge greatly from the Israeli version so as to challenge their security demands under a settlement.
Israeli objections to Jones' report were enough to force Rice to succumb to watering the report down to memos. Whether or not they have suceeded in getting more controversial aspects of it classified, I don't know.
In that regard, Steve Rosen is still carrying on his primary function in his efforts to short-circuit the appointment of a tough critic of Israel to a position of unfettered access to Obama. He's still Israel's agent and I highly doubt if he's the only one engaged in that effort.
November 25, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The policies being pushed by Rosen, Pipes, Peretz, et al. are disastrous for Israel, for Palestinians, and for regional stability. That Peretz disrespects Shimon Peres, who arguably has done more to strengthen Israel than has anyone else (including Peretz), is irrelevant, even laughable.
I truly hope that Obama's Mideast team is reading your blog, MJ, because you're a rare voice of reason in the pro-Israel blogosphere.
November 25, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, Guy. I don't know if the Obama's folks are reading me but I do know they read me in Tel Aviv, my favorite city.
November 25, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A surprisingly civil exchange.
If the IDF were replaced by a Nato force does Jones contemplate that it would include a substantial US contingent ?
I've often suggested here that a necessary condition of a workable arrangement ( I won't call it peace)is a US military presence similar to , and for the same reason , as our Cold War presence in West Germany: a signal that any invasion of Israel would result in an overwhelming US military response.
A US contingent in that Nato force would achieve that.
Where I go tilt is on the words
or more specifically on occupation. A Nato force providing a permanent guarantee of Israel's permanence would be part of the solution.. Such a force as a substitute occupation force would be part of the problem.November 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries, Flavius. I doubt NATO soldiers will be trying to build their own houses in Palestinian olive groves. MJ knows that NATO will bring security, it just won't expand settlements--or slowly drive out the Palestinians. Thus, the NATO option is kinda like a truth serum on people's real intentions.
BTW, do you think a Palestinian state has a right to exist? If not, why do you possibly expect (and you may not) the Palestinians to recognize Israel's rights? Permanent peace will require mutual recognition.
November 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. If I didn't I wouldn't recommend the unpopular course of involving US troops, I'd leave the matter to the IDF. Because I think the Palestinian state does have a right to exist I particularly want to improve not just the security of the Israelis but their sense of security to make it easier for them to accept the presence of a Palestinian state and the consequent dangers.
November 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says about Jones:
------------------------------------------------
Jones has said that he would consider replacing IDF occupation forces with NATO troops as an interim step to separate Israelis and Palestinian
----------------------------------------------
Your TPM colleague Amitai Etzioni had a good article in Ha'aretz (at least I think it was Ha'aretz, maybe it was the Jerusalem Post, but now I can't find it) yesterday explaining why putting American, NATO, or some other foreign forces into Judea/Samaria can't work. Foreign forces can't keep two hostile sides apart. The British had a strong, "neutral" force in Palestine during the Mandate period and they couldn't control the country at the end.
November 26, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ asks:
-----------------------------------------------
And why this disrespect, this hatred for Peres and Rabin? Because they negotiated the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians, which came closer to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than anything before or since. Because they treated Arafat with respect, as the leader of the Palestinian people.
------------------------------------------------
Gee, hard to figure out why someone might not like Shimon Peres, who lost every national election he ran in (do the people of Israel know something MJ doesn't?), a total of 5 times. Is it possible that the people of Israel now realize the Oslo Agreements, which Peres arranged behind Rabin's and the government's back, was a disaster which brought on a bloody period of violence unprecedented in Israeli history (thousands of Israeli and Palestinian dead and wounded). Maybe they see how Oslo destroyed Palestinian society, dividing it into two hostile camps (FATAH and HAMAS), causing internal strife, a collapse of law and order, failure to set up a state infrastructure and massive corruption. Oslo set back the chance for peace at least a generation.
Peres knew darned well who Arafat was and his key role in igniting TWO bloody civil wars before Oslo, one in Jordan and the other in Lebanon, his propagation of virulent antisemitic propaganda, his reign of terror and murder when he had control in Jordan and Lebanon.
MJ says that Arafat should be treated with "respect" as leader of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians in Judea/Samaria/Gaza were never given a say in who their leader was, Rabin and Peres pushed Arafat on them (yes there was an "election" in which he was opposed only by an unknown woman, in order to make things look "democratic"), he instituted his reign of corruption and terror on them and they had to go along. Arafat was the Palestinian's tragedy and they will continue paying for it for a long time to come.
November 26, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD says, "Arafat was the Palestinian's tragedy and they will continue paying for it for a long time to come."
Arafat is dead. Yet settlements continue. Oh, Yasser, who knew your power even after death?
November 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your position on Israel, the Palestinians and what is needed to bring peace to the region, I don't agree with some of your statements about Rosen (even though I strongly disagree with his position vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians)
There's real concern among people who care about the need for a watchdog press (which fell down on the job during the Bush administration) that a conviction of Rosen would create a precedent for going after reporters who get information from inside sources. Think about Watergate and all the inside information Deep Throat gave to Bernstein and Woodward. Do we really want investigative reporters to be at risk of arrest and conviction because they are given information that people in power are hiding? Reporters like Sy Hersh depend on that sort of information.
While it's true that in recent years, leaks have been used for purely political purposes -- e.g., the Valerie Plame leak, and that leakers who break the law should not be immune from prosecution, it is also true that leaks can keep the government from getting away with murder.
Being given information and publicizing it (which is what Rosen did) should not be labeled and prosecuted as espionage.
November 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A return to power of the Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, now looks increasingly likely in Israel’s coming elections, next February. He, of course, is committed to a Greater Israel and will never agree to a settlement based on the 1967 borders which means Israel will remain the excuse for an escalating and dangerous, nuclear arms race in the Middle East to counter Israel’s regional dominance backed by its massive, undeclared nuclear arsenal.
Israel will obviously choose whichever government its electorate wants but it is the responsibility of the international community to discourage the US from further destabilising the region by continuing to pour arms and military hardware into this tiny scrap of land that, astonishingly, has already been built into the fifth or sixth most powerful nuclear state in the world. President-elect, Barack Obama, would enhance his already considerable stature if he were, upon taking office, to call for an immediate dismantling of Israel’s nuclear weapons facilities and a declaration of the entire Middle East as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
November 26, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colindale-
Politicians come and go. In 1999 and 2006 you had politiicans come to power in Israel who were more or less for a withdrawal to the pre-67 lines and yet there still isn't peace. Have you considered that maybe the reason there hasn't been an agreement is because the Palestinians don't want peace? In any event, Netanyahu's platform is NOT for "Greater Israel", he has made that quite clear...it is basically the same as Livni's Kadima Party.
November 26, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I understand that by that you don't mean that no Palestinian wants peace, you mean that a sufficiently large number of them don't want peace so that peace is impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you don't disagree then there's a question whether enough Israelis want peace so they are willing to adopt policies which will sufficiently increase the number of Palestinians who also do so that there will be a chance of a sufficiently peaceful Palestinian government
so that life will be reasonably acceptable for both peoples.
Of course that won't mean that there won't be Palestinians who will continue to hate Israel and the Israelis. 360 years after the battle of the Boyne the IRA continued to bomb pubs in England.
But Ireland and Britain had peaceful relations.
November 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sense, and I'm not expert here, is that the majority is blocked by the fractious, multi-party nature of Israeli politics. Small groups, who are needed for a ruling majority, can block policies they don't like. MJ, Lally, or YBD might know better.
November 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD - I would hate to call you naive but 'Netanyahu' and 'transfer' are words that are linked throughout Israel. Our Likudnik friend is very different from Livni - as different as a bacon sandwich is from fried gefilte fish. He's a reactionary mob-pleaser who knows how to work his audience both at home and with AIPAC but all he will do if elected is to convince President-elect Obama that enough is enough and in order to avoid a nuclear war in the ME the US will need to take very firm action indeed to force Likud to the 1967 borders. I have no doubt whatsoever that that is what will transpire.
November 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colindale said:
----------------------------------------------
I would hate to call you naive but 'Netanyahu' and 'transfer' are words that are linked throughout Israel
----------------------------------------------
Can you please show me anything Netanyahu has ever done or said that shows he is for "transfer"? (Actually Netanyahu did support the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif, but I assume that is not what you meant). He and the Likud have been in power in the past. What did they ever do to make you make such an assertion? I outlined in detail in a previous thread of MJ's showins why the Likud is no different than the Israeli Left, and in fact has given up far more to the Arabs than has the Labor Party. But the facts don't seem to be of interest to many of the "progressives" I encounter here.
Over and over we hear "we all know what the settler-thugs do", "we all know what 'Likudniks' are like" and yet this "progressive" conventional wisdom is simply not true. I am endeavoring in my comments here to try to correct the record and bring FACTS into play. If you have facts that counter what I am saying, fine, I am willing to listen. But over and over I simply encounter name-calling, ad-hominem attacks. I thought "progressives" always prided themselves on their "open-minds" and "intellectual awareness", yet I am seeing the opposite here.
Again, Colin, show me where Netanyahu has ever expressed support for "transfer". Please.
November 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Likud’s manifesto agenda, albeit unwritten, is and always has been to transfer all Muslims out of the West Bank to Jordan and neighbouring territories. It is never acknowledged, any more than is the massive, underground nuclear arsenal at Dimona. The term used is ‘political ambiguity’ which is intended to be terribly clever – and, amazingly, it succeeds! Those of us British Jews who are a little more awake than our co-religionists in the US, wait to see how strong is the Zionist influence within the new administration. We do not believe that President-elect Obama is prepared to allow the status quo to continue whereby Israel persists in expanding its illegal settlements and taking us ever nearer to a nuclear war in the region that will inevitably spread to Europe. This is not a matter of religion or of belief in the bible – it is an existential threat to the world that must be addressed.
November 27, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colin said:
-----------------------------------------------
Likud’s manifesto agenda, albeit unwritten, is and always has been to transfer all Muslims out of the West Bank to Jordan and neighbouring territories.
---------------------------------------------
This is a complete, total lie. This is nothing more than another bizarre conspiracy theory. I live in Israel, I know lots of Likud supporters, including a candidate for the Knesset. NONE OF THEM SUPPORT THIS FALSEHOOD.
November 27, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colindale, and others here, have you noticed how many Jewish people committed to the viability of Israel and its current policies always come prepared with well-crafted explanations and rationalizations having an element of technical truth in a narrow context to any discussion of these issues, and that they are ready to invoke at any attempt to criticise Israeli government policies or American government support of the Zionist agenda?
If you have ever attended a conference led by a peace group organization or individual that is truly interested in the truth and a just solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict you will be met with a stone wall of rebuttal and frequently anger from Jewish audience members who have
come "loaded for bear" and are prepared to dispute every and any fact presented that deviates from the Israeli "party line" and often to vilify the participants in the program.
What distresses me is how truly good and progressive people of Jewish background here in America can have this blind spot when it comes to Israel-Palestine rendering them unable to accept the truth of the tragedy being visited upon the Palestinian people, and how this ironically is steadily eroding the health of the Jewish state and the standing of Jews everywhere in the world.
The holocaust was 65 years ago. This has been convenient cover to exploit a second evil, the subjugation and methodical destruction of the viability of an innocent people upon whom the world imposed an unwanted colonization by outsiders bent on total takeover of that land that was the home of hundreds of thousands of indigenous inhabitants. And what bothers me the most is that the American government is in part responsible and could put a stop to it right now if our leaders had the political courage to do so.
If this cancer is to be subdued it must come from within. Outsiders like most Americans do not have the credibility to do this. The solution must come from within the Jewish community and they in turn must be able see beyond the sense of victimhood that is used as immunization against any criticism. And what concerns me most about all this is that the USA is the enabler and is paying the bills.
November 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What distresses me is how truly good and progressive people of Jewish background here in America can have this blind spot when it comes to Israel-Palestine rendering them unable to accept the truth of the tragedy being visited upon the Palestinian people, and how this ironically is steadily eroding the health of the Jewish state and the standing of Jews everywhere in the world."
I keep hearing this. My take on it is that the vast majority of Jews in America don't belong to "the Jewish community." Meaning, they don't belong to the JCC or a synagogue or Hadassah or B'nai Brith. So, when they speak out, they don't speak out "as Jews," except in a nominal sense. Their voices don't register as "Jewish voices," or as "the Jewish community," but as "progressive" or concerned citizens.
The other piece of it this: At the various rallies I've been to, the pro-Palestinian voices are anti-Israel, not just the occupation, but anti-Israel period, e.g., Zionism is racism; Israel is a racist state; Israeli is a Nazi state. A good number of them spin off further into what I would characterize as anti-Semitic, e.g., Zionists want to control the world.
So, personally, I find it impossible to lend my voice to this sort of movement. OTOH, I do and am happy to lend my support to J Street, Peace Now, and Lerner's group. NO group is going to match my views exactly; I'm always going to take exception to some of what they do or say, but they do offer Jews a way to raise their voice and not get lumped in with what I consider to be inaccurate, nasty, and even dangerous (to me) points of view.
November 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD - I only wish it were just a 'conspiracy theory'. Likud is a hard-line, Zionist only, political movement which, in fact, makes no secret of its intent to build a Greater Israel in accordance with the so-called biblical promise. You would need to be deaf and blind if you live in Israel and genuinely were unaware of this. The rest of the electorate certainly are and that is precisely why Likud are likely to form the next government. Israel is, unfortunately, in no mood to co-operate with the new US administration in the establishment of a Palestinian state.
RWH - Sadly, you are correct. The Jewish community in the US, and to a much lesser extent in the UK, mistakenly believe they are being true to the faith by supporting every action of the Israeli government. They consistently ignore the fact that political Zionism as practised by modern day Israel is contrary to all Jewish thought and ethics. That so many equate Zionism with Judaism is one of the greatest errors of our time. That so many otherwise sensitive people are blind to the brutality of the IDF, the killings and torture, the razing of homes, the restriction of access to medical supplies and the diversion of water etc can only be explained by a type of mass indoctrination that the world has unfortunately seen before. Let us hope that President-elect Obama will have the courage to enforce an equitable resolution to a conflict that not only endangers us all but makes us all accessories to injustice and inhumanity.
November 27, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
COLINDALE London,
Do you really believe that Likud would be anything other than "Zionist only"? Or that Meretz and Labor are not "Zionist only," as well?
November 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because they negotiated the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians, which came closer to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than anything before or since."
More Jewish civilians were murdered as a result of the Oslo agreement than at any time since the Holocaust (and yes, Rosenberg, the Holocaust DID occur).
Currently, Islamic terrorists are holding Israeli Jews hostage in Mumbai, so expect another demented column from Rosy about how the Hebrews hate the Muslims.
Being MJ Rosenberg means never having to say you're lucid.
November 27, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but...
Jews need to "own" their role in creating the conflict in the first place. This notion that one side is blameless and the other side is totally blameworthy is obviously nonsense, and it doesn't help to keep repeating it.
November 28, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because they treated Arafat with respect, as the leader of the Palestinian people."
Would that be the same Arafat who explicitly vowed to kill every Hebrew in Israel?
Rosy is the Will Rogers of anti-Semitism.
He never met a Jew hater he didn't like.
Enjoy Thanksgiving, Rosy, which in your case doubtlessly involves watching an endless loop of Palestinian terrorists murdering Israeli Olympic athletes.
November 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief, Bob.
First of all, your moniker for MJ is completely disrespectful.
Second, if I remember correctly, MJ's wife, or her parents, is a Holocaust survivor. So the suggestion that he's a Holocaust denier verges on the obscene.
Also, the notion that MJ's an anti-Semite, or an anti-Semite sympathizer is ridiculous on the face of it.
If you think he's off base, say so and explain why. That's what YBD does.
November 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
Hold the phone, Tintin. MJ already thinks YBD and myself are the same commenter. Two levels of virtual split personality are plenty enough as it is without adding anymore to the mix.
November 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
if mj wanted to create phony detractors/trolls who, by being equally offensive and stupid, only serve to make mj's arguments seem all the more reasonable and intelligent by comparison, he couldn't do better than the likes of "bob lane". thanks, bob. i'm sure mj appreciates all the help you give him. i know i do.
November 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink