Shame on Schumer and Gillibrand
Ben Smith of Politico reports that New York's Senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, have withdrawn their names from the host committee for J Street's upcoming first-ever conference. Schumer departed first, before the Congressional sponsor list was published; Gillibrand was listed, then followed Schumer out the door.*
This disgraceful bow-out is undoubtedly a cave-in to pressure from the usual suspects--organizational Jews who cohabited comfortably with Bush's 8-year stonewall in the Middle East; who have the gall to claim that being "pro-Israel" means slavishly following the Right; who do not represent (who precisely counter-represent) the 78 percent of American Jews who voted for Obama.
For the first time in living memory, a respectable pro-peace, pro-two-state Jewish organization is pulling itself together; and New York's liberal lights have gone dark.
The Jewish organizational establishment these days bemoans the fact that young Jews are drifting away. By advertising their belligerent pettiness, these groups are only guaranteeing that the young will stay largely turned off. The days of enforced uniformity are over. Schumer and Gillibrand have their eyes fixed firmly on the rear-view mirror.
* Update: Smith has revised his piece to say that Gillibrand "was 'unaware' she had been included on the group's list of supporters," according to her spokesman, Matt Canter.
Neither one give two minutes a years thought to Israel so they just go with the flow (AIPAC).
Hard to argue with people who aren't interested in the issue at all.
Rosenberg's axion:
with the exception of true believing Likudniks like Nadler, the progressives who are rightwing on Israel don't care about Israel at all.
I think that is how I'd be in Congress on matters relating to, say, issues relating to horse racing regulation.
Since I don't care, I'll go with the donors.
October 16, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, how does it happen that 2 senators from New York of all places don't think about these issues? I live hear and have heard rumors that there are Jews in the city. And even people from Israel! Something's gone terribly wrong if two senators from here can exhibit such shallow understanding of the issues.
October 16, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have that exactly right MJ
October 16, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never heard Schumer talk about the Mideast other than passionless boilerplate. He's a domestic guy. So he fakes it.
If, in the end, you don't much care about the Middle East, you can advocate bad policies without compunction. Schumer, to his credit, does not do that on domestic issues where he is often wrong but believes his jive.
Not so on Israel.
Feingold cares so he's dovish. Boxer doesnt so she's a hawk. Feinstein cares so she's dovish.
You can go right down the line.
The AIPAC 100%ers don't give a damn.
October 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The righteous indignation here is understandable, and even quite welcome, but a broader perspective is also appropriate. I don't know Gillibrand, who is the new kid on the block probably following the senior senator's lead on this, but Schumer is an old-timer. I think it can be assumed that shrewd calculation, not "shallow understanding," is involved in his decisions, and that given enough time he will eventually do the right thing (after exhausting expedient alternatives). And it is doubtful whether Senator Hillary would have taken a fundamentally different stance. Speaking of eventually doing the right thing, where was J Street in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 when unending idiocies and atrocities were occurring under Sharon with GW Bush kissing his behind every step of the way? How is someone like Schumer supposed to be assured that J Street won’t suddenly vanish, like “Peace Now” at the first resurgence of Arab terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians?
October 16, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
J Street was not in existence until April of 2008. They are the newest pro-Israel lobby in Washington and they are beginning to influence the political dialogue around Israel and Middle East policy.
October 17, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly my point. Why did they, or something like them NOT exist during the many long years of incredible outrages in 2002-07 (perpetrated in the name of Israel and of Jewish interests but actually primarily serving the radical settler maniacs and their ilk and backed 99+% by the anti-American doormat Bush-Cheney administration)? The answer at least in part, of course, is that organizing such efforts takes time, and furthermore it will also take years of prodding, cajoling, and probably fiercely kicking, Schumer's disgraceful backside until he finally does what is right for America on this issue.
If J Street is to succeed it needs to be in this fight to liberate America's Mideast policy for the long haul, and not throw its hands up in anguish the first time things don't go its way.
Rosenberg and Gitlin are NOT in anguish, they are full of energy, and that is a mighty positive aspect here; I'd just like to see more of a long term perspective. The settlers, the diehard AIPACers, and for that matter their defacto allies Hamas and Islamic Jihad too, are for damn sure not committed to merely a short term flurry of activity for their respective UNworthy causes.
October 17, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "righteous indignation" seems to be mostly Rosenberg's, ---were there three separate comments out of five? -- although the "shame" belongs to Gitlin who has added that, presumably because he disagrees with the Senators, and for no other reasons. Between the two, the obnoxious and false claim that 78 percent of the Jewish community back President Obama's approach (whatever that happens to be at the moment) is ludicrous, even though Rosenberg continues to spread such nonsense on whatever Web sites will have him.
(I am one of the 78 percent of Obama voters, but have no use for the J streeters who adopt Israeli style nameS and who claim a love of israel and to know more about what is good for Israel than those who live there and have laid their security and the security of their loved ones on the security of that state. Let the Rosenberg's and the Gitlins and the Ben Ami's who, as do I, have chosen to live in the relative safety of the United States put their money where their respective mouths are.)
The difference between us is that I don't tell Israelis what is best for them.
Let Rosenberg cast his lot with the Israelis and depend on that mostly democratic and pluralistic society for his safety and I'll examine what he is saying. In the mean time, why doesn't he jusr shut up rather than tossing shame on Senators who, while I don't live in New York, represent me a lot better than Gitlin and Rosenberg and Ben Ami could, and, whether right or wrong, there is no shame in their viewpoint.
October 16, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, bbayer, that you don't tell Israelis what is best for them. Now if we could just get Israeli-WestBank-settler-stooges to stop intimidating our American Congress, and pretending to tell Americans what is best for us, then maybe each country could devote more time to usefully minding its own business. When 80% of the Knesset is effectively doing the bidding of Israeli tools of the NRA, then Americans such as I will likely be much sympathetic to your otherwise odd (for an American) degree of concern for the supposed bravery and independence of Israelis.
October 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
CORRECTION to the final sentence of my prior comment:
IF 80% of the Knesset WERE
I would not want it misunderstood that I am in favor of that kind of international interference by domestic extremists, in any geographic direction.
October 16, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say most of what you claim to imagine that I did, so i won't bother to deal with it. I am curious why you think that concern for bravery and independence of citizens of any country is "odd for an American". I would have thought that such concern is a part of what being an American is all about. What is odd for Americans to support criminals and tyrants and people who make war on other countries without cause.
October 16, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
BB, You apparently place a higher priority on reducing American interference with Israel than on reducing Israeli interference with America. I agree that ideally both goals are desirable, but find it odd to be to more concerned about someone else's government than about your own. If you are an Israeli of course then your position is more understandable, but as an American I still disagree with it. American has mainly been involved with Israel to help support and defend it, not to corrupt its legislature.
This remark, however: "I didn't say most of what you claim to imagine that I did," makes even less sense.
I attributed exactly two statements to you:
1. "Nice, bbayer, that you don't tell Israelis what is best for them."
2. "your otherwise odd (for an American) degree of concern for the supposed bravery and independence of Israelis."
Both are directly sourced from your original post:
1. "I don't tell Israelis what is best for them."
2. "...those who live there [Israel] and have laid their security and the security of their loved ones on the security of that state."
October 16, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer is an apologist and staunch advocate of the far right policies of Israel's Likud and Kadima Parties. He publicly boasted about his role in furthering a smear campaign against Dr. Charles Freeman by speaking directly to the Obama Admin. He joined Rep. Mark Kirk in the House in propelling the campaign that led Dr. Charles Freeman to withdraw his name from consideration for the post of Chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Steve Rosen, the long-time AIPAC official started the anti-Freeman campaign as a power play with the newly elected President.
Schumer was a strong defender of Israel during the Gaza massacre.
Gillibrand is a Senate protege' of Schumer. In Sept. Gillibrand circulated a letter drafted by AIPAC aimed at undermining the Goldstone report and urging the W.H. to block the report from going forward at the U.N.
This is not surprising.
October 17, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., hang in there, since in the years ahead, help is on the way! :-)
As a Chicano from here in the Sonoran Desert, J-Street should be asking me for some serious advice on how to Democrats "use the race card"? Unfortunately, for my political survival, I have had to become an "expert". Take, for example, the Right is always in "opposition to the opposition to racism" and thusly, when I get into my car and travel of the CommonWeal, I am subject to being stopped and racially profiled. Of course, the Rule of Law has been devolved from "probable" to "reasonable" cause due to FISA and the Patriot Act. And which opens the door for our local and infamous Sheriff of the Pink Skivvies. This week, our Republican Sheriff was quoting a non-existent federal law with the attendant legal opinion issued by a well-recognized extremist group that operates out of our nation's capitol and specializes on anti-immigration hobgobblins. And if it wasn't for their considerable distaste for Brown People, they would fail in their usual fundraising efforts.
Consequently, I don't find nothing unusual in their respective behavior that two Senators from the Great State of New York, would 'distance' themselves from J-Street's conference. Perhaps, these two recognize that in a few years, Nevada, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Mississippi and New York, will be joining DC, Texas, New Mexico, Hawaii, and California, as Brown States or more appropriate and politically correct,"majority-minority" Democratic Party affiliated states. And with the onrushing demographics, my esteemed friends and political allies, will have to relinquish the self-established 'fencing' when it comes to participation in the dialogue on Israel and Palestine? Being Zionist, anti-Semetic, or Semetic, these terms will quickly fall by the wayside, and be replaced with the overall term of "Gente Fina"?
Regardless, we here in the Spanish-speaking Southwest have yet to craft a 'generic' position on Israel and Palestine, that is beyond the Camp David Peace Accords. And when we do, one aspect will include understanding the notional for "pro-Israel", "pro-peace" and "non-pro-Israel" and "non-pro-peace" since many among us have this notional that both the Palestinians and Israelis are intellectually lazy and stupid for not having reached via their self-interest, their political accommodation with each other.
And if our American Jewish friends and allies aren't speaking to us, from beyond their traditional political perspective, their insightfulness will be lost on us. Sadly, we are familiar with the cavalier dismissal, neglect, and the readily rejected--all constructs that prevail in our America, and this can be seen in J-Street's Conference. All Hispanic member of Congress should have had their arms twisted, or pulled out of their shoulders for not being part and parcel to the 'host committee' for this conference.
Jaango
October 17, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
ptroub....it was the other things you said that bothered me. I can't figure out why it is necessary to call people names and attribute ulterior motives to people when discussing Israel. Sobeit.
I said those things. I didn't say that in 1968 and subsequently, when Israelis came and encouraged American Jews to vote for Richard nixon, and subsequently, I told them where they could stuffit.
Rosenberg, who obviously left AIPAC under unpleasant circumstances and because of that hates everything AIPAC (I could be wrong on that...I've been wrong before although not that he hates AIPAC) loves J Street who is attempting to use raw political power, when AIPAC attempts to use raw political power of its own, and j street is apparently losing. This has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians except as an intramural dispute for the hearts and minds of American Jews. And mostly the American Jews, including the Obama voters in the group (ie, me) just aren't buying it. So Rosenberg and his ilk continue with their AIPAC slanders with a very unJewish LaShon HaRah.
As to Jaango, I am distressed that you have the views about Israel that you do. One of the problems of the commenting system here is there is no way to exchange private messages, or a phone number or email address. You might a lot in common between your climate and environment of the American Southwest, and Beer Sheva, and communities further south down to Eilat. It is stupid that the Israelis and the Arabs are still fighting, but it is difficult to make peace when only one side wishes it. (I have my own ideas as to which side is which, here, of course, but this isn't the forum for that discussion. This thread is the subject of which group of american jews have the upper hand, and has little to do with Israel or the Arabs.
October 17, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"J Street who [sic] is attempting to use raw political power, when AIPAC attempts to use raw political power of its own, and j street is apparently losing. And mostly the American Jews, including the Obama voters in the group (ie, me) just aren't buying it."
There is no basis for any such statements, BB. J Street is only beginning. Their first big conference is yet to take place. I can readily believe that most Jews in America will wait and see on this, indeed I would not expect otherwise. As an informed non-Jewish American, I have rarely seen an issue where right and wrong is more powerfully distinguishable, but there are complexities that most Americans, including most American Jews, would probably rather not think about. But, even sleepwalkers wake up eventually.
October 17, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
bbayer.
You might a lot in common between your climate and environment of the American Southwest, and Beer Sheva, and communities further south down to Eilat.
I have no idea why you tried to conflate the situation in the OT with the American Southwest but I'm going to offer you a little history lesson here.
The Pueblo peoples of the region conducted an intifada against the Spanish in 1680 and drove them out of the territories for eleven years. Upon their return, they stopped harrassing the Pueblos religious leaders and the King of Spain granted them rights to their ancestral lands that hold today. Unlike our own disgraceful history of making and breaking treaties with the wogs, the Spanish had honor and kept their word.
If you like, you can more accurately make a comparison between the Mormon "settlement" of Utah and the OT.
October 18, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Long before there were settlements, there was no peace.
In Gaza where there are now no settlements because Israel withdrew them, there is no peace, only thousands of rockets that, before the incursion, were aimed at civilian populations in Israel.
The two state solution is widely accepted all across the spectrum of opinion, starting with the acceptance by Israel of the UN Partition plan in 1947. Think of how different life would be if the Arabs had accepted Israel at that time. Think of how different life would be if King Hussein had heeded the calls for him not to join the other Arab countries in attacking Israel in 1967. Jordan would have retained control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. But he did not.
Until the Arabs recognize Israel there can be no peace. That is where the focus of the US efforts should be, whether from the Congress, AIPAC, JStreet or any other group. This is not a left wing or a right wing issue. It is also not an issue of "evenhandedness". It is an issue of the need and desire for peace and security.
Had Arafat accepted Barak's offer at Camp David, we would today have peace and prosperity in the Middle East. We had a taste of what might be possible in the years after Oslo when regional cooperation looked as if it might happen.
Many of us believe that the settlements have been bad for Israel because they have siphoned off resources which could have been used to develop Israel proper.
And the longer there has been no recognition, the more the settlements have developed. It would be in everyone's interest for the Arabs to recognize Israel, borders to be determined, and for all to get on with the business of developing civil societies which promote peace, cooperation and prosperity.
Gillibrand and Schumer are correct, in my pov, to skip the JStreet meetings until it is clearer what the JStreet agenda is with regard to the priority of the recognition of Israel by the Arabs.
October 17, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "It would be in everyone's interest for the Arabs to recognize Israel, borders to be determined..."
MY COMMENT: lol! Stated like a true colonist!
October 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great pile of myths, half-truths, and recycled deceit.
"Long before there were settlements, there was no peace."
A misleading statement. Israel has been around for sixty years. The settlements started forty years ago.
"The two state solution is widely accepted all across the spectrum of opinion"
True, but the dissenters include a great many Israelis whose views are vastly more prominent and widely disseminated in America than are those of similarly intransigent Arabs.
"Until the Arabs recognize Israel there can be no peace."
Pure unleavened AIPAC camel dung. Most Arab countries HAVE recognized Israel for many years. Egypt did so thirty years ago, the PLO 15 years ago. It has been ISRAEL, with a few exceptions (Rabin, and Barak briefly) that has fought tooth and nail against recognizing any kind of Palestinian state. It WAS different before the 1970s, but it is a stupid deception to pretend that we are stuck in the past, either in the Warsaw Ghetto of 1942 or in Israel of 1967 with USSR-backed Nasser threatening all-out war.
"Had Arafat accepted Barak's offer at Camp David, we would today have peace and prosperity in the Middle East."
Another line straight out of the AIPAC, Weekly Standard, and WestBank Terrorist-Settler mythmaking propaganda book. Those of us who were reading newspapers over the past decade damn well remember what actually happened. We remember the impasse on BOTH sides over Jerusalem at Camp David. We remember Clinton hobbled by all Monika all the time. We remember the Palestinian terrorist attacks that followed the breakdown of negotiations AND we remember Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that was deliberately made in order to provoke those attacks. We remember the 2003 Geneva draft deal, and we remember how GW Bush did absolutely nothing for 8 years except act as an AIPAC mouthpiece like no other US president in US history, while Sharon slaughtered and trashed his way across the West Bank and Olmert bungled into Lebanon, and massacred babies in Gaza as the world asked why America so blindly supported such useless atrocities. And we remember many years of AIPAC lies, cover-ups, and Orwellian trickery about this history.
And, some of us AMERICANS are fed up with the endless lies from Israeli kooks and their US tools and dupes and with their massive corruption of our Congress. And that is why we cheer the liberating efforts of J Street even though they are at but an incipient stage.
October 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Many of us believe that the settlements have been bad for Israel because they have siphoned off resources which could have been used to develop Israel proper." - rrlieberma
SEE: "Israeli Arab Schools Get Only Half the Funding of Their Jewish Counterparts", By Catherine Rottenberg and Neve Gordon, 10/16/09
(excerpt)...Consider the way Jewish and Palestinian children are educated. Segregation in the classroom is the rule so that Jewish and Palestinian children only rarely mix. This strict segregation exists despite the fact that the Palestinians are citizens of Israel, comprising 19.5 percent of Israel's population--around 1.37 million people--and 25 percent of all school children. Unlike the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, these Palestinians vote and pay taxes like Jewish citizens.
Notwithstanding their incorporation into the citizen body, Palestinian citizens do not enjoy full equality. In comparison to their Jewish counterparts, Arab schools receive half the per capita budget. It is therefore not very surprising that Palestinian students have the highest dropout rates and lowest achievement levels in the country...
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon10162009.html
October 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALSO SEE: "At NYU, devilish Shlomo Sand predicts the Jewish past and pastes the Zionists", by Phil Weiss, 10/17/09
(excerpts)...Sand studies European history, but Israel has a separate department in every school for Jewish history, and Zionists run these departments. “I have not a right to write about Jewishness.” The Zionist history holds that the Jews have an ancient connection biblically to the land, and were exiled from the Middle East in 70 AD, in what became the Diaspora. The Jews of New York and Warsaw. Sand began to question this story when he saw archaeologists’ work about the early Christian times and also when he saw scientific data. The exile is absurd. The Romans persecuted the Jews. They didn’t exile them...
...The Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe originated in Kazaria. They were hugely successful and founded a great city, Kiev. We can claim to have founded Kiev, but not Jerusalem, he said. Because the Jews who lived in the Holy Land stayed in the Holy Land. Many of the people we now call Palestinians were originally Jews. The chance that someone who lives in Hebron today and speaks Arabic is a direct descendant of a Jew in ancient times is 1000 times greater than the possibility that I am descended from a Jew, Shlomo Sand declared...
ENTIRE POST - http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/at-nyu-devilish-shlomo-sand-predicts-the-jewish-past-and-pastes-the-zionists.html
October 17, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Response to bbayer,
My point of view starts with the Camp David Accords. Anything as to follow-on is either bluster, balther or both. Now, I am not being cynical or even overly cynical.
To wit, this discussion is all about J-Street and control of the national discussion on this issue that needs to be resolved between the Israelis and Palestinians. And my overall point is that Chicanos are not actively engaged due to my fellow Democrats not wanting to talk to me.
Moreover, as an organization that is up and coming, or perceived to be, it would or should have been incumbent on J-Street to have it's first annual conference "co-sponored".
Take, for example, there are over 10,000 Elected and Appointed Officials in the Chicano Community. There are over 5,000 Elected and Appointed Officials in the Native American Community. And in the African American Community, there are over 10,000 Elected and Appointed Officials, as well. And I am sure you will agree with me that on the liberal side of the aisle, the backbone of the Democratic Party is comprised of Women and "racial and ethnics". Consequently, the political aegis is to "play" to your strength, and in this instance, this is not occurring.
Regardless, hosting a "co-sponsored" conference with young people from all across America, would have demonstrated to America as well as to the Israelis and the Palestinians, the a 'new' voice is coming forward to be heard. And the current pushback by the Right and the enamored old folks for the "old country" is not the "unmet need" that must be addressed appropriately and done intelligently? Or perhaps, repeating the mistakes of these old folks, and expecting a miraculous cure, is expecting a tad too much by the disillusioned youngsters, given what we have had to endure for these past 8 years.
Jaango
October 17, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink