Huckabee's pro-settler stance part of bigger US shift
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is in Israel this week. He's making a point of touring many of Israel's (illegal) settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. (Richard Silverstein has one version of Huck's settlement-focused itinerary in this very informative blog post.)
While visiting with Jewish settlers in occupied east Jerusalem today, he said the U.S. should not "be telling Jewish people in Israel where they should and should not live."
At the same time that Huckabee is hanging out with people in the Israelis settlements, so is another figure from the US rightwing, Orly Taitz, known as the "Queen Bee of the birther movement"-- that is, the movement of those rightwing Americans who are obsessed with the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US and is therefore ineligible to be president.
Like Huckabee, Taitz has strongly criticized Pres. Obama's campaign to persuade Israel to halt its settlement-building program.
The participation of these two figures from US politics in the orbit of Israel's settler extremists is part of a deeper shift in US politics. It used to be that just about all of the US Democratic Party was staunchly pro-Israel and would line up like clockwork to defend Israel's perceived interests, including against any policies of the US administration that might seek to curb Israeli expansionism and militarism.
Back then-- oh, let's say through the end of the 1990s-- if you'd hear much open criticism of the Israeli government's policies from participants in US national politics, it would nearly always come from Republicans.
But over the years things have been slowly changing. (Though still incompletely, as for example here.)
Now, almost no-one in the Democratic Party is prepared to side with this government of Israel against Obama's extremely reasonable campaign on the settlements issue. And it is the right wing in the country-- including not only such seeming nutters as the Israeli-American Orly Taitz but also someone much nearer the GOP mainstream like Mike Huckabee-- who are at the forefront of the campaign to "defend" the Israeli government against the policies of the US president.
There are a number of reasons for this shift, which in my view is long overdue. Speaking as someone who is both an upholder of Palestinian (as well as Israeli) rights and generally on the left of the US political spectrum, I can say that for many, many years it felt pretty darn lonely in the camp of "PIPs"-- Americans who are Progressive, Including on Palestine. The camp of Americans who were PEPs-- Progressive, Except on Palestine-- always seemed so much larger. Until the past few years.
(I think this PIP/PEP nomenclature was developed by the estimable Phil Weiss, who is definitely at the forefront of today's PIPs.)
Mike Huckabee's desire for Apocalyspse, as foretold in Revelation, is fuelling his desire for more and more settlers.
That's not a healthy place from which to launch criticisms of Obama's foreign policy.
August 18, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of objecting to something Helena said, I want to express my feeling that it is not possible to fractionalize "Progressivism" in such a way. If Progressivism is a unified ideology, it does not refer to anything in particular. It refers to a way of looking at the world--whatever portion of which one is looking at at the moment. To say you are progressive but not on Palestine, is in my view incoherent or perhaps more charitably hypocritical. It's like saying that I'm pro choice but I exclude Chinese women from this view. It makes no sense.
That leads me to the conclusion that Politicians who claim to be Progressive but not when it comes to Palestine are just playing games. They reveal themselves as merely posturing and not expressing any heartfelt convictions about what is right or wrong at all. In short it brings into questions their integrity.
This hypocrisy is common and expected from the political class. It is just a fact of life that to be successful in politics you have the whore yourself out on a regular basis otherwise you get nowhere. I tried my hand at local politics and this became evident to me from the start. “What can you do for me?”(as opposed to what can we do for the people) was the operating assumption behind every politician that I met. But it is not acceptable in those who hold themselves as moral exemplars in front of us such as scholars, media types and the such.
August 18, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to express my feeling that it is not possible to fractionalize "Progressivism" in such a way.
Weiss used PEP in an ironic way. I think he was trying to illustrate a basic contradiction. And this applies to PC as well: Why are conservatives so literal minded and seem incapable of understanding irony? Over the years I have seen them call something ironic when, at most it was a paradox or just a coincidence. But when presented with irony are incapable of understanding.
August 18, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irony has to be sensed in some way since the literal meaning does not usually spell it out.
On my reading of Helena's piece, I did not "catch" the irony. There are such phrases as ‘Democrat in Name only’ of which it hard to say if they fit the "ironic" description. Take ‘Compassionate Conservative’, you think Shrub was being ironic? That's what we are talking about the intention of the phrase maker not the phrase itself. The verdict of "ironic" can be applied in both type of cases.
Not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but not a pack hound either. Like to think outside the box for the sake of breaking out of the epidemic of rote thinking. Definitely not a rote thinker. Sorry if my style irritates you, but that's just me.
August 18, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Andrew but you are really dense. You do not make much sense. You do not understand subtly.
August 19, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And similarly, progressives who traffic in anti-Semitism are not really progressives.
August 18, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
August 18, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither are conscienceless "progressives" spouting incessant propaganda for West Bank settlers who think they are chosen by God to lead the Holy Land back to 800 BC, with the eternal backing of the federal government of the USA.
August 18, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please put up or shut up. Show me one piece of "propaganda" I've "spouted" for "West Bank Settlers".
If you can't find any (you won't, since there isn't any) then be properly ashamed of your lie and don't post for a while.
August 18, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your biased propaganda regurgitation is all over TPM and has been for months. I have neither the time at the moment nor the inclination to give you an opportunity to pretend to evade this reality. If you care to try to bolster your feeble disguise, try quoting me one statement of yours on this website that has indicated that Israeli settlers might be part of the problem in the Mideast. Good luck hunting for that needle in the haystack, Regressive Conscienceless. If you don't like the tone this conversation is taking, stop the sort of juvenile web-pooping of yours that started it above.
August 19, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you know that your bizarre accusation is false, but are embarrassed to say so.
August 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Progressive conscience' is a troll, and has neither a conscience or any form of 'progressive' morality.
August 18, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely untrue.
August 18, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive Conscience, go 'arm yourself' with Rush 24/7.
August 18, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not a crook," fibbed Oliver Twist.
August 19, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huckabee is fundamentally nothing more than an entertaining clown. If Jesse Ventura can become governor of Lake Wobegon, Arnold the Terminator can preside over Alta Hasta La Vista, and Ron Raygun can personally liberate Auschwitz on his way to an Amiable Dunce Corner Oval Office, then anybody can be anything, and Huckleberry the Halfabee could wind up as Dictator of the Raptured Nitwit Universe...but only if American voters are foolish enough to take his stand-up routines seriously.
August 18, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jokes about Auschwitz are in very bad taste.
August 18, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a joke. This was actually one of Ronnie's claims.
August 18, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That indeed is precisely the reason I mentioned it Hmmm, and it does not surprise me that the AIPAC spout who lamely pretends to be "progressive" is ignorant of basic relevant history here. It is not, by a long shot, the first such occasion.
August 19, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The proper form is "AIPAC Spout." And, yes, your label for the dreary TPC will be used in all future postings. Great job.
August 19, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huckabee's statements are regrettable. Of course, Cobban is only too pleased to tar Israel by virtue of its "support" from right-wingers and loons like Huckabee and Orly Taitz.
Cobban does raise an interesting issue, however unwittingly. What does it mean to be progressive on Palestine? What is it about the Palestinian national movement, its goals and methods, that deserves the support of "progressives?" By the same token, what is it about support for the Jewish national movement - Zionism - that is antithetical to progressive goals.
The question transcends debate over the wisdom or morality of the particular policies of Israel. Rather, for self-styled progressives like Cobban, it is the Israeli state itself that is singled out for condemnation by virtue of its very existence.
Many on the left oppose the settlements, question the necessity and scope of the IDF's actions in Gaza and seek an end to the occupation and statehood for Palestinians so long as it does not endanger Israelis. At the same time, we recognize the real dangers Israel has faced and support its right to exist in secure borders and at peace with its neighbors. Does this make us somehow less than "progressive?"
Oh, and I think the proper adjective for Philip Weiss is execrable.
There are a number of reasons for this shift, which in my view is long overdue. Speaking as someone who is both an upholder of Palestinian (as well as Israeli) rights and generally on the left of the US political spectrum, I can say that for many, many years it felt pretty darn lonely in the camp of "PIPs"-- Americans who are Progressive, Including on Palestine. The camp of Americans who were PEPs-- Progressive, Except on Palestine-- always seemed so much larger. Until the past few years.
August 18, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. That last paragraph was still on my clipboard and I forgot to delete it. It's Cobban's words. Please ignore.
August 18, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG, I don't think a progressive should be expected to choose between Zionist and Palestinian narratives or national movements. A truly progressive position, in my opinion, starts with a commitment to a simple ideal: All people are equal and deserve equal treatment, status, and representation in the government that has jurisdiction over them. This is true regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc. Unfortunately, as long as Israel remains a state that prefers Jews over its Arab population (both its Arab citizens and the millions of Arabs it controls through occupation but denies citizenship), it falls far short of the progressive ideal. This doesn't, however, imply that Palestinian groups are progressive either. A true progressive can reject both the ethnocratic government of Israel and the extremely unprogressive ideology of a Hamas.
Progressives are often accused of objecting to the existence of Israel. What we object to, though, is the not the existence of Israel but the existence of Israel as an ethnocratic state that does not provide full, equal rights to all the Arabs it controls. Supporters of Israel, however, argue that Jewish ethnocracy and ethnocentrism are essential to Israel and Israel cannot exist without them. If it is true that ethnocentrism is necessary for Israel's existence and if it is also true that real progressivism is incompatible with ethnocentrism, then supporters of Israel can never be progressive and Israel can never be a progressive state or a state supported by true progressives.
Personally, I think there is a way for Israel to change itself so that it can exist as a nation for all Jews, Arabs, and other people that live within its borders or under its control. Sadly, however, I see little support for that kind of progressivism among the Jewish community in the US or in Israel. Instead I see a backward-looking attachment to ethnocratic nationalism, which embraces or at least excuses policies that place millions of Arabs in a situation that most closely resembles South African apartheid and that seem designed to disenfranchise, displace, and otherwise marginalize the Arab indigenous population. Israel seems to have adopted a position of "maximum land, minimum Arabs." That's not in any way a progressive position and not one any true progressive can ever embrace.
August 19, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, that's a very lucid depiction of the dilemma that any true progessive has with Isaeli ethnocentrism...
and an good attempt to bring this thread back to its original question. I hope it works. Thanks.
August 19, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Carey. I'm afraid though that this thread has no beginning to return to nor any end, but instead moves perpetually in a circle, spinning furiously but getting nowhere.
August 20, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
AG, for someone who claims (vainly, IMHO)to be "reasonable", you really include a lot sleazy innuendo, such as:
"Huckabee's statements are regrettable. Of course, Cobban is only too pleased to tar Israel by virtue of its "support" from right-wingers and loons like Huckabee and Orly Taitz."
Response: Yes, the fact that HC reports what is happening is an effort to "tar" Zionland.
"Cobban does raise an interesting issue, however unwittingly. What does it mean to be progressive on Palestine? What is it about the Palestinian national movement, its goals and methods, that deserves the support of "progressives?" By the same token, what is it about support for the Jewish national movement - Zionism - that is antithetical to progressive goals."
Response: Well, it's easy. It is not progressive to define a goal that requires erasing another people. For example, I doubt you would consider it "progressive" for Native Americans to reclaim Manhattan Island from White People, even if they could show a legitimate connection to their historic land.
"The question transcends debate over the wisdom or morality of the particular policies of Israel. Rather, for self-styled progressives like Cobban, it is the Israeli state itself that is singled out for condemnation by virtue of its very existence."
Response: Singled out? Who else claims they are "chosen" and appeals to American religious bigots like Huckabee for assistance in their ethnic cleansing? Really, sir, Milosovic really underperformed by failing to claim that God required him to reclaim Kosovo for the Orthodox Church. Then maybe he wouldn't have been "singled out" for criticism.
"Many on the left oppose the settlements, question the necessity and scope of the IDF's actions in Gaza and seek an end to the occupation and statehood for Palestinians so long as it does not endanger Israelis. At the same time, we recognize the real dangers Israel has faced and support its right to exist in secure borders and at peace with its neighbors. Does this make us somehow less than "progressive?""
Reponse: Secure borders? You mean, taking more land from people and claiming that act is necessary for "security."
"Oh, and I think the proper adjective for Philip Weiss is execrable."
Response: Excrable? Considering how long you've floated in the bowel, I'll defer to your expertise on that issue.
"There are a number of reasons for this shift, which in my view is long overdue. Speaking as someone who is both an upholder of Palestinian (as well as Israeli) rights and generally on the left of the US political spectrum, I can say that for many, many years it felt pretty darn lonely in the camp of "PIPs"-- Americans who are Progressive, Including on Palestine. The camp of Americans who were PEPs-- Progressive, Except on Palestine-- always seemed so much larger...."
Response: If you are "upholder of Palestinian" rights, then I am a Zionist. I love the Settlers so much I want them all to live in Tel Aviv. Satisfied? Or does that game only apply when other people are being removed?
August 19, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I know you asked for us to "ignore" the last graph of the posting, but you regurgitated similar thoughts on your own before. So I chose to ignore your instructions.
August 19, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MB, I appreciate that your response was substantive and largely (though not totally, perhaps that's too much to ask, and anyway, the snark does occasionally inspire a chuckle) devoid of snark and ad hominem. I will try to respond if I have the time (not that you're holding your breath, I'm sure).
But I do wish to point out that the last graph was not my words at all. It's a direct quote from Cobban's piece. Telling, though, that you say I have expressed the same thoughts on my own. I assume you disagreed when I said them, but approve of them coming from Cobban's lips (or laptop). Further proof that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
August 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
MB:
I stand by my "sleazy innuendo" that Cobban's agenda that includes delegitimizing Israel. Connecting Israel to Christian evangelists and right wing kooks furthers that agenda. Cobban's "reporting" when it comes to Israel is, let's say, quite selective. Just the other day, she accused Thomas Friedman of acting as a "snoop" for the IDF for meeting with Israeli military officials. Let's see, a journalist meeting with military officials, quel horreur! Of course, I doubt she'd have the same outrage if Friedman met with Arab militaries, or Hamas.
Unlike its many enemies, whose expressly stated goal is erasing another people - specifically Israeli Jews - Israel's goal is not and has never been "erasing" anyone. That's pure nonsense. Certainly, it would come as a surprise to Israel's 20% Arab minority.
Interesting that you would use the native American analogy here considering that the overwhelming majority of those whose return to their ancestral homes in Israel is essential have never set foot inside the country.
First off, I have never staked my support for Israel on any Biblical claim. More importantly, the UN Resolution partitioning Palestine was not based on any claim to be the chosen people.
Again, your analogy of Israel to Milosevic's Serbia could easily cut the other way. Why not Bosnia's muslims or Kosovar Albanians seeking self determination? Why are those movements not excoriated on the left as somehow retrogressive "racist" nationalist movements out of synch with the universal principles Israel is alleged to contravene?
So you are saying that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank you'd call it a day?
As for Cobban's quote that I mistakenly forgot to delete from my comment that you mistakenly attributed to me, your derisive response is a pretty good indicator of your mindset.
August 19, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking time from pleading out your clients, to respond. Unfortunately, your response is so long, that it would take too much space to reply to all your points. Thus, I will focus on two points:
1. I'm glad to don't base any of your support for Israel on the Iron-Age Book of Mytholody, known popularly as the "Hebrew Bible." Reasonable people should not justify their actions by invoking Zeus, Baal, or other fearful recesses of our collective subsconscious to sort out political problems. So good on ya!
2. I'm also glad you do base your support on the UN Resolution that partitioned Palestine. So, if the UN has the legitimacy to grant Israel legitimacy, it certainly has the legitimacy to point out the illegitimacy of the Settlement Project. Or do UN Resolutions only have the "force of law" when they advance Zionist expansionism?
P.S. Your sarcasm aside, I would be satisfied with Gaza and the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem. It will take the Palestinians at least 60 years to redeem their land in 22% of Historic Palestine, raise their children without the psychological damage of Gun Zionism, and repair the social and physicial damage caused by Occupation. But just as France and Poland now cooperate with Germany, the Palestinians will ulitmately forgive the sins of Zionism in order to raise their children. And as an added benefit, the Zionists will be able to heal the damage to themselves caused by 60 years of degerative, racist expansionism. Just as Portugal is a better country today without its African colonies, the Israelis will be a better people when they stop colonizing the West Bank, are able to control their lust for other people's land.
August 20, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives have always opposed imperialism and the violent taking of the property of the poor. There is nothing new here.
I don't see how any progressive anywhere can possibly feel good about the process by which Jewish inhabitants of western countries were, with the assistance of western imperial powers, chased or moved into Palestine and encouraged to create an armed national movement there aimed at clearing Arabs out of their homes and villages in the coveted land, and converting that land into a Jewish national home and Jewish state.
And obviously, no progressive anywhere can feel anything but horror at the process by which western nations hounded, oppressed, isolated and murdered the Jews in their countries for generations.
For progressives revolted by the century-long conquest and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the issue has always been what practical steps can be taken to stop it; what conquests can and should be reversed; and what conquests must be despairingly accepted.
Progressives have also tended to group human beings in economic and class-based terms, not in the ethnic, religious and national groupings favored by the right, and which were so prevalent in the reactionary 19th century crucible in which Zionism was born. Again, there is nothing new or surprising here, so it is perplexing why some profess to be so perplexed by progressive aversions to ultranationalism, Jewish or otherwise.
It always seems to escape the notice of committed Zionists that most progressive sympathy for the Palestinian victims of violent conquest and dispossession has typically had very little to do with any affection for the pan-Arab nationalism, Palestinian nationalism or Islamism that often motivates some of the dispossesed themselves.
Zionism is a nationalist movement. It is thus inherently out of step with progressive thought. That's all there is to it.
August 19, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellent exposition on what it means to be a progressive!
August 19, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main problem is the imbalance.
People that are upset about all western imperialism are prima facie Progressives.
People that are uniquely upset about Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, are prima facie anti-Semites.
August 19, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And have you conducted a survey to determine which are the people who are uniquely upset about imperialism as it pertains to Israel? I mean, progressives could be working harder to get the French out of Algeria, the Belgians out of the Congo, the British out of India and the US out of the Philippines. But as you can see, most of those other episodes from the western imperial age were already resolved during the period of decolonization. Israel is one of the only remaining cases.
Of course, American progressives have many reasons to be particularly concerned about Israel. Given the strangely intimate support relationship between Israel and the US, the offenses of Israel feel to many of us like our offenses, in a way the offenses of other countries do not.
August 19, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not conducted any surveys.
I'm saying that the hypothetical progressive who expresses negative opinions 100 times each week about a foreign country, and they're almost all about Israel, is prima facie an anti-Semite because of the imbalance.
There are certainly a whole bunch of other countries that would be upsetting to this hypothetical person if he was a true progressive, both on land-related issues and many other issues. This includes China, Russia, many of the African countries, many of the Arab countries, the US; in fact there is barely a country not on the list.
Needless to say, my comments were not directed at you.
August 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would you say about people whose posts are also almost entirely about Israel and Jewish causes, but fall instead on the advocacy side? Would you say that they are not really progressive, because they have a primary focus of concern on one particular tangle of issues, and do not distribute their commentary across the whole field of possible progressive concerns? Why are they always singling Israel out for special support, rather than devoting equal time and energy to the other worthy causes of support?
Do you think they suffer from an unspoken contempt for non-Jews?
August 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything depends on the context. If the protesting posts were made on a web site in which borderline (or beyond borderline) anti-Semitic comments were common while anti-Arab comments were very rare, it wouldn't show any bias. All progressives agree that racism, anti-Semitism, and similar biases are deeply evil and should be protested when they occur; that's one of the things that brings us together.
Personally, if I were posting on a web site on which deeply biased anti-Arab comments were being repeatedly made (generally by the same culprits), I would protest in exactly the same way, or more likely leave the site in disgust. I've never had any involvement with such a web site. The reason I haven't left TPM is because I believe there is hope for change.
August 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imbalance? When Israelis live under Palestinian Occupation, I'm sure the tone of these criticisms will change.
Forgive us, though. Many of us were unbalanced in our negative view of South African Apartheid too.
August 19, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster:
I was trying not to cite any specific examples of the prima facie anti-Semitism on this site to avoid embarrassing anyone!
August 19, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever-Progressing Nonsense: You failed. You embarrass yourself every time you hit the "submit" button.
August 21, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K Do you think they suffer from an unspoken contempt for non-Jews?
you got my number! i'm a self-hating non-jew.
August 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, almost no-one in the Democratic Party is prepared to side with this government of Israel against Obama's extremely reasonable campaign on the settlements issue.
eric cantor (R Jerusalem) and steve hoyer (D Jerusalem) are two peas in a pod when it comes to israel LINK just like mike huckabee (R Rapture).
it is naive to believe that there is a difference between the major democrats and republicans of whatever flavors when it comes to israel.
August 18, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point. What it means to be progressive on Palestine is to advocate for Palestinian rights which are being violated by Israel and which I don't need to spell out here because we are abundantly aware of them. What it means to have a Progressive attitude towards Israel is harder, I think. Some progressives want to go back to 48, others to 64, etc.
I don't think any progressive can condone what the present government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians and there is no doubt in my mind that it does NOT merit progressive support. Is that clear enough for you???
August 18, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clear as the blue sky, except for the word 'present.'
What this government of Israel does to Palestinians is following the same imperative as did all previous governments of Israel.
August 19, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Strat: I don't think any progressive can condone....
have you gotten the stamp of approval from "the progressive conscience" on your use of the term "progressive"? "the progressive conscience" poster has the final say so, the ultimate arbitrator, on all that is considered "progressive".
August 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well according to Syvanen I am "really dense. I do not make much sense. I do not understand subtly." Be that as it may.
I was not trying to get the stamp of approval from Progressive Conscience. I do agree with him that progressivism does not countenance anti Semitism when that term is defined as unjust criticism of Jews in general or Israel in particular. That is a rather innocuous criterion that we all can embrace. Who could disagree with it?
What progressive would object to Progressive Conscience stipulation that progressives not be anti-Semitic (as defined above)?
My general point which I'm afraid has escaped Syvanen is that the political class approaches ideology in this conveniently fractured way as I describe in my original post on this thread. Unfortunately many Jews seem to follow this convenient fractionalization: being totally in support of a Public Option domestically, but failing to condemn Israeli brutalization of the Palestinian people.
Syvanen seems to think that it is a simple case of irony. I tend to think it is a problem with many people who call themselves Progressive.
That does not mean that there cannot be genuine disagreements within the progressive umbrella on particular cases. The Progressive sensibility is not a clear cut mechanism for judging each and every case that comes before us. That's a fiction that people have about ideologies in general. Scientific Marxism is an example of this phenomenon.
But that is NOT the case in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Dumping white phosphorus on men women and children is not open for debate in Progressive circles. Period. So To criticize that kind of treatment of Palestinians by Israel is far from being anti-Semitic or if Progressive Conscience wants to call it a case of anti-Semitism then I'm for it and so should all true Progressives. So no I do not think that Progressive Conscience is justified in 1) calling his position Progressive and 2) calling us who condemn many of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians anti-Semitic. Is THAT clear enough?
August 19, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
can one be a progressive and want to maintain the status quo in the israel-palestinian issue?
it's like the vegetarian who eats meat on weekends.
August 19, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, I don't consider criticism of wrong things that Israel does to be at all anti-Semitic, as long as the same individual criticizes the same or similar things when done by other countries.
It is the imbalance that creates the prima-facie case of anti-Semitism. Let's say someone says he is not racist, but he rants and raves whenever a crime is committed by blacks, and says nothing when similar crimes are committed by whites. How plausible is his claim not to be racist? No progressive would accept it, even if he said that all he hates is the crime.
The unbalanced criticism of Israel is the same thing, an age-old hatred rearing its ugly head among some who claim to be progressive. Couching it as criticism of Israel rather than of Jews is merely a way of packaging or sublimating an attitude that the speaker knows is viewed with opprobrium by the general public.
We progressives know all about this phenomenon, as we've noticed the same thing about the latent racism in some conservatives' unhinged criticism of President Obama. Josh has recently called explicit attention to this; he calls it "a stalking horse" for racism. Similarly, unhinged, unbalanced criticism of the Jewish State is a stalking horse for anti-Semitism.
August 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aipac Spout, self-styled as TPC, says: "Just to be clear, I don't consider criticism of wrong things that Israel does to be at all anti-Semitic, as long as the same individual criticizes the same or similar things when done by other countries."
Nonsense. I doubt seriously that you limit your criticisms of Arabs to the same level that you apply to everyone else. Your employers at the Ministry of Absorption certainly don't limit their criticisms of Iran to the same level as Russia, China, or Burma.
Are you in pre-school? Or do you just watch a lot of the "fair and balanced" network?
August 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have something important to contribute, why call names?
August 19, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like being called names, why give yourself such a patently false one?
AIPAC propagandists and dupes have a right to free speech along with everyone else, but when they pretend to be something radically different from what they are, and constantly accuse others of exactly the form of hypocrisy THEY are the prime exhibitors of (and, to boot, do so by throwing silly insults all over comment pages where people are attempting to have intelligent conversations) others may certainly exercise free speech rights by exposing them.
August 20, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
U.S. Republican Mike Huckabee, instead of attending a formal dinner on Sunday at the contentious Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem, should instead be persuading his GOP colleagues to STOP all aid to Israel in an attempt to stave off the inevitable nuclear war that is coming to the Middle East. As soon as Israel attacks Iran - with US supplied F16 and F15 bombers, missile launchers, bunker-busting bombs and white phosphorus etc. - Iran will retaliate with long-range missiles targeted at Tel Aviv. Barak and Netanyahu will then have no option other than to strike with warheads from its secret 200-400 nuclear weapon store. The conflict will then spread rapidly to mainland Europe and Iran will activate its dissident cells in Europe and North America. It will be the beginning of the first world nuclear war. Perhaps Mike Huck should reavaluate his priorities.
August 19, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The conflict will then spread rapidly to mainland Europe and Iran will activate its dissident cells in Europe and North America. It will be the beginning of the first world nuclear war. Perhaps Mike Huck should reavaluate his priorities.
that is huckabee's priority! you don't understand the rapture crowd. nuclear war means that jesus christ is just around the corner.
if you want to know how close we are to armageddon according to the rapture crowd, you can follow the rapture index.
August 19, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole progressive 'except' or 'including' Palestine is idiotic. It almost sounds like a bunch of Republicans talking. How is this different than the abortion loonies, or the gun wackos (who also believe their issue is the most important one).
So someone who is 'progressive' on taxes, the environment, Iraq, abortion, gay rights, etc., but is not sufficiently pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, is not a bona fide or legitimate 'progressive.' Do you have similiar objections do those who are 99% liberal except on guns, abortion or immigration? (they do exist)
This sounds more like 'with us or against us' rhetoric and logic than the big tent, tolerant, diverse ideas of what I was taught progressivism means.
On a different subject, I can't find anything 'estimable' about Philip Weiss. Has he made any Jews gone wild Jerusalem spring break tapes lately? A gimmick that could be easily imitated on the young and drunk of any ethnic group (Blacks, Italians, Hispanics, etc.) You know Sacha Baron Cohen did that very thing years ago in Borat. But unlike him, Weiss is not funny, original or even insightful.
August 19, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You hate Phillip Weiss because he shows you what Zionism is really like, not the comic book version you get from Leon Uris.
August 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Channeling MJ Rosenberg...
August 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Channeling Moshe Ya'alon.............
August 19, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your weakest reply yet. I'm know you're busy, but are you really that mentally exhausted from getting all your clients to plead guilty to avoid trial?
August 19, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't honestly think a bunch of dumb, drunk & spoiled Jewish college students have anything to do with Zionism or anything else do you? They're about as representative of American Jews as Osama bin Laden is of Arabs and Muslims.
One little ungrateful kid leaves West Point to join the IDF. Does that say something about American Jews? No it tells me that either he was fed up with wearing the homely beret or that his American Jewish parents did a poor job of raising him.
Madoff tells us something about American Jews? (maybe that they have crooks among them just like every other group, nothing else)
Weiss uses the argument that I'm Jewish so I can't be an anti-Semite. Well I'm not saying he's racist, but he definitely hides behind his identity to make very tenuous, provocative and quite offensive arguments.
I like to think of myself as somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between Weiss' dystopic and distorted view and Uris' fantasyland utopia.
And yes, Exodus is one of my favorite books.
August 20, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Do you have similar objections do those who are 99% liberal except on guns, abortion or immigration? (they do exist)
We are a big tent and I did take pains to point out that progressives can disagree on issues and still be part of the big tent. Guns are an excellent example. I am in favor of responsible citizen having the right to own guns. I find nothing intrinsically objectionable about that. But I do find it morally objectionable to bulldoze Palestinian homes to make room for illegal settlements. I am a little baffled that you cannot see the difference. No Progressive can approve or wink at such injustices but where is the injustice in owning a gun?
August 19, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now apply your logic to abortion, gay rights or immigration.
Religious fanatics also find abortion "morally objectionable." I don't agree with them. I think they're a little out in left field, but I don't tell them their view is not legitimate.
I've never sounded a note in favor of settlements. And I have very little sensitivity to Israeli feelings on this issue. But can I not still to a certain degree support Israel even if not agreeing with all their policies. Sure the gray area is harder to define and easier to attack, but I'll stay there since few issues are black and white.
See below the much maligned TPC's comments. How can you be progressive while showing intolerance towards others' views?
August 20, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abortion and gay rights are wedge issues: I see a rabbit the evangelical sees a duck. It is a moral gestalt switch. I can't see how you can say that most moral issues grey like that. Stealing is wrong, Lying is wrong, Violating another's human rights is wrong. I don't see anything gray there
August 22, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any progressive measures that could be taken that would initiate a process of peace between the present inhabitants--Israeli and Palestinian--of the west bank?
Instead of expelling one group or the other, perhaps they could just...dismantle the fences and checkpoints?
a la "Mr. Bibi and Mr. Abbas, tear down these walls!
That's a safer risk than nuclear war.
August 19, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But a true progressive would care not only about the hard-working honest Palestinians that lose their livelihood and become increasingly desperate because of the fences and checkpoints. A true progressive would also care about the numerous innocent people killed by heinous terrorist acts that occurred unchecked within Israel proper before the fences and checkpoints existed, wouldn't he?
In making your progressive moral determination, what weight do you give to the second issue? Sounds like you've forgotten it altogether!
Being a progressive is not the same as being simple-minded; sometimes you need to balance a complex set of facts that don't all fit with your narrative.
August 19, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key weakness of Carey's suggestion is that it completely lacks any historical narrative, not that it has one that clashes with facts.
The problem with being not a naive progressive but a phony one too brainwashed to realize what he is doing is that pre-fab soundbites such as
"a complex set of facts that don't all fit with your narrative" are routinely spouted out when they don't apply.
August 20, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's the occupation, stupid.
stop the occupation, the stealing of land, the ethnic cleansing. give the palestinians a contiguous, sovereign state, with east jerusalem as its capital. if that happens and then the palestinians keep killing jews, then you have a moral argument and i would be in your corner. until then, you are only convincing yourself.
August 20, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aptly put, Blue. Common sense is often more simply and powerfully stated than convoluted Orwellian double-speak.
The West Bank Settler-AIPAC deception machine is based on fear, bigotry, ignorance, intimidation and money. After years of dominance, common sense is fighting back against it, fed-up Jews in America are rightly prominent in the campaign to liberate America's Mideast policy from sick adherence to foreign maniacs, and the settler-tools are flailing. This long-overdue correction is ultimately threatened mainly by the same risk that threatens the inroads civilization and human rights are making against Islamic and Arab despotism, backwardness and oppression: Terrorist attacks.
I will become optimistic when I hear people on TPM, in the New York Times, and in the Obama administration state firmly, outspokenly and with convincing supporting action (despite whatever prefacing sops to "hunt and kill the terrorists" may accompany) that no terrorist act will in any way change America's determination to pursue common sense and basic morality in the Mideast, which of course first and foremost means forcing Israel to give the Palestinians a state, as the Israelis have had for 60 years, with boundaries along roughly the 1948-67 line shown on most maps.
West Bank settlers and Palestinian terrorists are a united force against civilized rationality in the Mideast. When the yoke of the former is finally lifted from the halls of the U.S. Congress, that body and the U.S. generally will be better able to more effectively implement their never-in-doubt 100% opposition to the latter.
August 21, 2009 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink