J Street And World Order
J Street calls itself "pro-Israel, pro-peace"; the "therefore" is implied. And the priority given to "pro-Israel" in the branding suggests, what most commentators reasonably assume, that J Street aims to give a home to American Jews who, comfortable with identity politics, suppose their anxiety about Israel constitutes a kind of secular Jewish identity; but Jews who also think that successive Israeli governments have hurt Israelis (and, by association, Jews everywhere) with settlements and a repressive occupation--you know, Jews who poll as "progressives" and have felt that Jewish leaders in Washington do not speak for them. (I have assumed something like this case myself.)
Though he downplays this gracefully in various public appearances, J Street's extraordinary Jeremy Ben-Ami obviously means "pro-Israel, pro-peace" to compare favorably with the stance of AIPAC supporters: increasingly rightist American Jews who will favor attacks on Iran if necessary, continued occupation if necessary, and who look to the Israeli government to say what's necessary. These AIPAC Jews, Ben-Ami reminds us, are only a quarter of American Jews; but they've captured the high ground on Capitol Hill for a generation.
Yet putting things this way--"pro-Israel, (therefore) pro-peace"--may be underestimating both AIPAC's achievement and J Street's opportunity.
For AIPAC actually became influential in Washington because it defined itself at a critical time not as "pro-Israel, pro-(well,) toughness" but as "pro-freedom, (therefore) pro-Israel." AIPAC's claim may have been wrong but the sequence in the rhetoric mattered.
And, increasingly, it will matter for J Street as well. If the upcoming J Street conference succeeds--as it almost certainly will--it will launch J Street into an orbit that does not simply revolve around how various Jewish demographics fight out their differences over Jewish "interests." It will put J Street squarely in a debate about America in the world.
IT MAY BE hard to remember this now, but the post-war American State Department, from George Marshall to George Kennan, was institutionally opposed to Truman's decision to recognize Israel or support it thereafter. State remained wrapped-up in the need to secure America's oil interests in the Gulf, and through the Kennedy administration was mainly concerned about preventing Israel from developing nuclear weaopons. (I go into this at length in this recent Nation article.)
For its part, AIPAC was founded in 1953 to advance support for the infant Israel in the Congress; and AIPAC remained puny through most of the 50s and 60s. Yes, Israel's prestige rose immeasurably after it beat back threats from its neighbors in 1967, defeating Soviet clients. But then, Israel's assumed military superiority, buttressed by American jets, made lobbying in its behalf seem more or less superfluous. Lyndon Johnson was (like Truman) influenced by Jewish liberal friends like Abe Fortas. When Nixon came into office Israeli diplomats like Ambassador Yitzchak Rabin were all that was needed; Henry Kissinger was so sure that Israel would make short-shrift of any Arab attack that he asked the IAF to intervene in Jordan's behalf during Black September 1970, and even rebuffed Soviet efforts to start a peace process in the summer of 1973.
AIPAC became prominent only during the aftermath of the 1973 War; a bloody war that shocked American Jews of all kinds into action; a war in which Kissinger had to mount a huge airlift and a nuclear alert to save Israel from a stalemate, arguing (plausibly, after the Jordan intervention in 1970) that Israel was, after all, America's key strategic asset in a fight against Soviet Empire. AIPAC embraced this formulation and extended it, supported by budding neoconservative circles, and influential senators like "Scoop" Jackson. Eventually, AIPAC even used it against Kissinger when he tried to pursue detente or pressure Israel to surrender territory in the Sinai in 1975.
In other words, the key to AIPAC's emergence was a Manichean view from America; the fight against the Evil Empire, or since 9/11, the clash of civilizations. In this drama, Israel became cast as America's biggest regional aircraft carrier. AIPAC has succeeded by staying close to American hardliners, arguing against pressuring Israel (to give up territory, to stop settlements, etc.) for the same reason a basketball coach will not foolishly demoralize his slightly brazen power-forward. At the center of the argument was a way of thinking about American hegemony in a dangerous world.
YOU CAN SAY that AIPAC was misguided, that it's even become a pernicious force, but you can't deny that it got its strategic premises ordered properly. One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want. One has to start with America's foreign policy strategy and then apply its logic to the Middle East. Crucially, this means building coalitions with non-Jews as well, as any watcher of FOX News can see.
Indeed, what J Street really represents--what progressives argue for--is not just support for Israel as such, but for a globalist strategy in which Middle East peace is a key pillar; a strategy of collective security agreements, regional alliances, and international peace-keeping; of patient engagement over the unilateral use of force; of recognition that offering access to economic development and cultural freedom over time is hard power (I hate the term "soft power"); indeed, of the power to attract, not only the power to deter. It means diplomatic containment, not foreign invasion and counter-insurgency. It means what, say, Chuck Hagel calls "realism."
It is within this logic that America's urgent search for regional Middle East peace is "pro-Israel"--but also pro-Palestinian, pro-Jordanian. Which means that J Street will become a focus for a coalition supporting goals that would make President Obama's worthy of his Nobel: deescalation in Afganistan, containment of (not an attack on) Iran, building cooperation with the EU.
This larger coalition is only beginning to get mobilized. General Jones's agreement to come to the conference suggests the administration will be counting on it. Once a healthcare bill is enacted, and the fear of dissipating the solidarity of its Congressional supporters passes (does Obama really want to pick a fight with Joe Lieberman now?), expect the will of this administration--and this coalition--to be felt powerfully in Jerusalem and Ramallah.
Thank you for this thoughtful and almost-comprehensive analysis. I must add the almost qualifier because there are some rather large omissions relating to the history of the past decade of politics in America and the Mideast, including: George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Yasir Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Peace Now, and the majority of Congressional Democrats who voted in 2002 to issue a huge blank check to what many already considered the "worst president in US history" in order to commit the "worst U.S foreign policy decision ever taken" (the failed "cakewalk" to rid Iraq of its non-existent weapons of mass destruction and nation-build it at no cost into the first Westernized domino of democracy against an "axis of evil").
The "tough love" for Israel and "pro-Israel" aspect of J Street is understandable, and I believe necessary, in order establish it as a fully credible alternative to AIPAC in the minds of Jewish Americans. But there is a big risk in over-relying on this dimension. When -and I am afraid it is when, not if- Islamic extremist groups commit new acts of terrorism against the U.S. and/or against Israel, the rapidity with which the wagons will be circled, any criticism of government policy deemed terrorism-appeasement or worse, and popular opinion returned to the kind of mass stupidity against which Susan Sontag's widely ignored warning of Sept 2001 was directed, is not to be underestimated.
If J Street is not prepared -with solidity of purpose, clarity of message, and nerves of steel- for the next big terrorist attack in Israel, and if it therefore falls into deep insignificance ala Peace Now when such an attack comes, then AIPAC, the Israeli settler movement and their unscrupulous US neo-con trickster allies could well gain more support and become more entrenched than if J Street had never existed.
October 19, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this comment. In a way, you stated what was in the back of my mind when I wrote this. We are all going to need a spine strengthened by strategic clarity moving forward.
October 19, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter PTroub: We need to be ready for the time when events inevitably show us to be completely wrong!
Snark aside, no amount of "solidity of purpose, clarity of message and nerves of steel" on the part of J Street or the so-called peace lobby will be able to compensate for the fact that a major terrorist act will consign J Street to the dustbin of history.
The reason is simple: peace lobby's argument rests on the notion that Israel's (and by extension, the West's) security will be enhanced by Israeli concessions in territory and other things. Israel needs to give up tangible assets and put itself through a wrenching internal battle to remove settlers - all for the hope that it will bring something that resembles peace.
Now imagine trying to make that argument to politicians representing an electorate that has just been traumatized by a major heinous terror act. You wouldn't be given the time of day.
But the political ramifications of a major terrorist attack don't need to include stupid decisions like the Iraq War and that should not be held up as the only alternative to what the "peace" camp wants. The decision to invade Iraq after the 9/11 attacks were the result of a particular set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated, even if there is another 9/11 or worse. However, the political imperative WILL be to show resolve, not necessarily belligerence. Suggesting that the proper response should be concessions is tantamount to political suicide. That's why the Israeli peace camp withered after 9/11 and, more importantly, the Palestinian terror campaign of 2002-2003, and it is why the same thing will happen to the peace camp the next time there is a major terror event.
October 19, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The inescapable and powerfully pro-American features of a peacefully-negotiated two state solution for Israel and Palestine depend in NO WAY on what terrorists, Israeli, Arab or other, may pull by way of deliberate disruption and sabotage. Getting that message firmly and consistently and unceasingly across to the general public in America will, however, depend on how steadfast and clear-headed J-Street and its allies can remain against the almost inevitable slew of deceit, fearmongering, and clever dirty tricks that will be leveled against it once it gets off the ground. Such steadfastness and perseverance can be considerably bolstered, however, by alliances and coalition building of the kind suggested by Bernard and Jaango here, and it should not be forgotten that many millions of people outside of both the Mideast and North America, Jews and non-Jews, are sure to support J Street if gets off to a solid start and can show some progress in liberating its core Jewish constituency in the U.S. from decades of AIPAC and Likudnik propaganda and intimidation. By the way, Bernard and MJ, I think the name of the group was well-chosen. Best of luck to you both and thanks for your hard work for a good cause.
October 19, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may or may not be true substantively, but politically it is complete nonsense. All you have to do is look at the history of the Oslo process.
In the early years, say 1993-95, there was significant progress as the "peace" arguments began to take hold and there was optimism overall. The idea of talking to the PLO was new enough, and exciting enough to overcome the strong suspicion that the fundamental changes in attitude were less than what met the eye. Then, after the assassination of Rabin at the end of 1995 and, more importantly, the wave of bombings just before the Israeli elections of 1996, the political constituency for the Oslo process began to shrink dramatically. There was enough international pressure to keep it limping along through the first Netanyahu government, but the blowup after the failure of Camp David in 2000 put the final kibosh on the political viability of the whole thing.
It is hard to argue that this political collapse was the result of insufficient nerve on the part of the peaceniks. Indeed, Yossi Beilin started negotiating the Geneva Accord right at the height of the wave of Palestinian bombings. If that's not nerve, I don't know what is.
Now consider that we are starting from a place that is MUCH more skeptical of Arab intentions than what existed in 1995, or even 1996 (recall that the election of 1996 was very close, and perhaps would have been won by Labor, had Rabin and not Peres been the leader). Are you honestly going to argue that in the current environment Israel and the US are going to embrace essentially the same positions that Yossi Beilin was arguing for before and that such a position can retain its political viability after a major terror attack?
The issue here is not substance i.e. what will REALLY be best for the security of Israel and the West. That's a subject of endless debate and those that argue for a strategy of pushing hard for a settlement have many good points to make. But as a matter of political reality, I just don't see how this can happen even now, when things are relatively calm. And after a terror attack? Absurd.
October 19, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel giving up the West Bank in some variant of the 2003 Geneva deal is plain common sense for everyone except Palestinian terrorists and hardliners, and a small minority of Israelis linked to the settlers who are dominated by fanatics. The settlements in reality make no sense at all except as a counterpart to Palestinian terrorism, both being torpedoes targeted specifically at any peace process. And "political realities," especially ones heavily (though not exclusively of course) based on nonsense, fearmongering, trickery, and deceit, are malleable and alterable and that is what is (finally) starting to happen here. And you can remain part of the problem or become part of the solution instead.
October 19, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness you are naive.
If you look at them in isolation Israel's settlements do not make sense except to hardliners and fanatics. Most of Israel doesn't give two shits about the settlers and the settlements and would support their removal.
But Israelis don't look at them in isolation. They look at them in the context of the overall strategy the country needs to have to survive and prosper in the world's most dangerous neighborhood. Remember, the question is not whether or not Israelis support the settlements. It's whether they support their forcible removal. That is not the same question.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Unless Israelis see the possibility of real, true and comprehensive peace - peace whose only remaining significant obstacle is the stubbornness of the settlers, then they will not put the country through the wrenching battle that confronting the settlers will entail. There is simply no incentive to do that now. And that's true even if most Israelis personally don't care about the settlements. The question is what is the incentive to make the concession.
October 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your well-polished AIPAC illogic does not impress, no matter how insistently and incessantly it is mindlessly repeated, and there is nothing “naïve” about rejecting it. Apart from water access and appeasing fanatics, the settlements contribute nothing to Israel's "survival" (as if that were any kind of issue nowadays except to the paranoid) or "prosperity", nor is there any great concession nor “wrenching” involved in rounding up and forcibly removing extremists and criminals (except to the extremists and criminals). America did it in Waco, and Sharon did it with much less fuss and bloodshed in Gaza. No one reasonably expects this to happen immediately across all the occupied territories or without parallel actions on the Palestinian side, but it defies all reason to pretend that the Palestinians must make all the concessions first before Israel can lift a finger against its own maniacs. For all his brutality, Sharon was not that pigheaded or “naïve.” And it is absolutely contrary to the interests of America to insist on IT following such illogic out of some ridiculous fear that Israel will vanish unless it expands, in perpetuity, settlements on stolen Palestinian land for its lunatic fringe. But that is what APAIC insists on, on pain of a massive character assassination of any Congressperson who refuses to bow and cringe before it. That must end, and J Street, if it is to accomplish anything lasting, will help to eventually end it. And if you are pro-America, the least you should do is get out of the way of progress, basic fairness and sanity.
October 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever notice how BTD always argues that the settlements are "irrelevant" to peace? Amazing how the Israelis fight so hard for them anyway.
October 19, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how this never seems to come up in your tiresome rants. But it's good that you admit this is not all one-sided.
And if you think that Israel can forcibly remove Jews from their homes in the West Bank easily, regardless of whatever legal status you may think they have and regardless of whether they are supported by most Israelis, then you simply don't have the first clue about Israel. Israel is a democracy and any move to evacuate settlements will require a democratic decision of the government. And I'm telling you it won't happen. Not unless there is the prospect of real peace. Bank on it.
October 19, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the US Congress stops acting as the settlers doormat, and thus the whole world is against it, the Israeli dog will quickly see that it is not worth continuing to let the settler-tail wag it. As soon as U.S. Congress is disabused of the silly notion that Jewish voters care more about the settlers than what is good for America, U.S. Congresspeople will have no incentive to continue to act against America's interest by being AIPAC's and the settlers' door mat. If enough fools and tools like you finally cease your endless BS about Israel's survival being threatened if the settlers butts aren't eternally kissed, Congress WILL be thusly disabused. A basic sense of shame can be a powerful thing. I think most Jewish Americans have it, and felt it when they saw what happened to Gaza's children, even if you, AIPAC, and the settlers don't have it.
October 19, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think most Americans have it, and didn't feel it when they saw what happened to Afghanistan and Iraqi's children
October 19, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to defend America's "war" in Iraq, a total bungled idiocy from day 1 (coincidentally thanks in part to chickenhawk Likudniks whom the incompetent GW Bush listened tool closely too) or even the much more sensible, but still badly bungled Afghan operation, but America is leaving Iraq and will some day leave Afghanistan. These places are not our promised land. We are not relocating moronic Jesus freaks into bunker "settlements" there, and corrupting the Congress of Mars to get them to cover us for such amoral land-grabbing. We ARE ashamed or should be of what happened to the native Americans, but Wounded Knee did not take place last January on live video, and interplanetary aid from Mars did not subsidize the massacre.
October 19, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Therefore, it's OK for US to murder kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
October 19, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO, therefore your two-wrongs-make-a-right attempt to rationalize the Gaza slaughter by far-flung analogy to America in Iraq and Afghanistan is a flaky dodge.
October 20, 2009 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, the problem with your assumption is that you assume Israelis see things the same way you do - that if only the damned settlers would get out of the way, then there would be peace.
Trust me. They don't.
A solid majority of Israelis see the settlers as ONE obstacle to a settlement. Not THE obstacle. Not even the most important obstacle. Israelis remember that the Arab world has been unceasing in its hatred for twice as long as there have been West Bank settlers. They also remember that Ehud Barak put the entire settler enterprise up for discussion and got an unprecedented wave of terrorism in return.
You just don't seem to get it. Being hostile to the settlers is not the same thing as saying that forcible removal is the right policy right now. It's not the same thing as saying that the settlers are the key to peace. One can have, as I do, almost complete contempt for these fanatics (at least the messianic religious ones, who make up a good chunk of the hard core) but still believe, as I also do, that Israel shouldn't put itself through the trauma of trying to remove them with no confidence that anything will change fundamentally.
October 19, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great piece. If J Street does not succeed, there will be no pro-Israel lobby.
Younger people may possibly relate to "pro-Israel, Anti-Occupation" (I say MAY because most, including Jews, are indifferent to Israel. Period) but few except generational outliers will ever identify with a pro-occupation lobby.
I am not saying AIPAC will disappear. It will stick around, rolling in dough left to them in peoples' wills, etc) but with as much clout as the American Jewish Committee (great building, no clout).
October 19, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there's a major terrorist attack in the United States perpetrated by Muslims you can bet American Jews will join the majority (or be labeled traitors) in seeking revenge.
What form that revenge will take will depend on the nature of the attack and who's in power. If the attack is worse than 911 the response won't be pretty. If its much worse - nuclear, for example - it will be ugly indeed.
I'm not a big fan of negotiated settlements of major disputes between countries. Historically, they have a terrible track record. Advances in weaponry would seem, reasonably, to force a major change in behavior...but I've seen no real evidence of such a change.
We've held the lid on nuclear conflicts, barely, for half a century, but proliferation continues, and, as soon as such weapons fall into the hands of non-state actors we'll lose it.
What would be the proper response to a nuclear attack by such people? I don't know but the odds are overwhelming that the actual response will be anything but peaceful...or humane.
October 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "I'm not a big fan of negotiated settlements of major disputes between countries."
(Chuckling.......)
You're a "blood and iron" man, right?
October 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
" The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power ... Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favourable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood. "
....Bismark
I hadn't thought about it but Bismark was absolutely right for his time. Good call.
October 19, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome. I called you a long time ago.
October 20, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I called you a long time ago. But this is not supposed to be about you and me, remember?
I didn't miss your snotty sarcasm. I ignored it because the Bismark quote made my point - I find it representative of the historical record, of how nations REALLY deal with each other when the chips are down.
October 20, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, thanks, and I think you are right. You just have to visit campuses to see how the tide has turned, though it is always one simplification replacing another (now it is the one-state solution). I can't believe Michael Oren does not see this; that he cannot stay aloof from the one group in the country that resonates with what American foreign policy will become over the next generation.
October 19, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard,
I think you're making a big mistake if you're taking your cue from the sort of thing you hear on college campuses. The idea that because college students say something, that will be the norm 15-20 years hence is something that has been disproven many times.
October 19, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1933 (I believe), Churchill visited a university attended by his son and was horrified to discover that pacifist sentiment was overwhelming.
Britain paid a terrible price for that sentiment. It was stupid then and its stupid now. Pacifism only works if your enemies are also pacifist. If they aren't then you are labeled a coward and a fool. Rightly so.
October 19, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Godwin's Law. That didn't take long.
October 19, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a college student in the '50s and '60s. America was pro-Israel but the overwhelming majority of students - Jew or gentile - didn't give a damn about that country. They were interested in personal advancement, in getting laid, and, in the latter part of the decade, avoiding the draft. Except among the rabid politicos, I imagine things are the same today.
You also exclude the opinions of those not in college (a typical lefty omission) and completely overlook those young Jews who actually visit, or settle in, Israel.
October 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "They were interested in personal advancement, in getting laid....."
I think we know who didn't.
October 19, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Why does the American Jewish Committee allegedly have no clout?
The two people I've met from the AJC seemed nice enough.
October 19, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
but few except generational outliers will ever identify with a pro-Hamas, Israel is Nazi Germany, Gaza is Warsaw ghetto lobby like J street:
Last week we noted the appearance of "poet" Josh Healey on the list of speakers for J Street's conference next week. We also posted the video of Healey performing his poem "Queer Intifada," which declares that "Guantanamo is Auschwitz" and "Anne Frank is Matthew Shepard." Healey authored another poem in which he said that Jews were "chosen to recreate our own history," but now "we're the ones writing numbers on the wrists of babies born in the ghetto called Gaza."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/j_street_cans_antiisrael_poetr.asp
October 19, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Managers:
I will post this in the fond hope that it will be received onto the board for further consideration by all the readers.
As such, of my last five posts, two have 'disappeared" permanently. Two were subject to review and one made it to the board. And one post made it immediately to the board.
Now, my overall argument is two-fold from my perspective for being a Chicano and from here in the Sonoran Desert.
First, is J-Street truly a progressive organization, or is it calmly situated within the center-right complex?
Secondly, for the long term, the Spanish-speaking voter is going to overwhelm the American Jewish Community with respect to the Israelis and Palestinians, and thusly, AIPAC will be given shortshrift or even cease to exist for all intent and purposes. Consequently, my 'advice' to J-Street was that in order to walk, one must learn to crawl. As such, I advocated that J-Street should have had its Conference co-sponsored by the "backbone" of the Democratic Party. Therefore, J-Street has opened the door even wider for a heavy duty "critique" and by and other likeminded in the Spanish-speaking community.
Jaango
October 19, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
readers will dismiss what i'm about to say. the military-rabbi-settler-likud-aipac-USAcongress-USAmedia complex has won. get used to it.
October 19, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not if several million Americans including many Jewish Americans stand up and say that that emperor has no clothes. Congress will go where the wind blows.
October 19, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That ain't going to happen. When it comes to the ME, America will only do the right thing after we've done every other wrong thing.
October 19, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ergo, a J street is needed to rub America's nose in some of those wrong things. Starting with really asinine shooting itself in the foot, like Congress people saying that Israel is threatened if Obama asks it stop building MORE settlements for the West Bank kooks. Every time this happens the world comes to two conclusions: Americans are idiots, Jewish Americans are paranoid idiots.
October 19, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 19, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could confiscate the expresso machines that the NVT claims exemplify the Fayyad Economic Miracle.
October 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA,
I take your question seriously, though I am not sure it was meant this way. The US can give people in Ramallah a political horizon, a provisional border, and the promise to gradually get the IDF out of the way of their businesses. I lay the latter issues out in the October "Harper's," if you haven't seen this.
October 20, 2009 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to PTroub.
Coaltion-building is not generic, but critical.
Consequently, "new" ideas are what will power our political future. Take, for example, immigration here in the USA, as well as between the Israelis and Palestinians, and which will have to be addressed successfully.
Now, imagine a million or two of Hispanics demonstrating among the major cities here in the USA on 'immigration'? Or imagine these same demonstrators out on the streets for Card Check? And why Card Check. Card Check is "that" international labor standard for NAFTA. Keep in mind that most governments "own" the instrumentalities of Organized Labor including the visible appendages, and which is the part and parcel to the premise for establishing and maintaining the Middle Class.
Just a Thought in Passing.
Jaango
October 19, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaango, I would not want to tango with you but I admire your spirit. Good luck with your organizing. Just two suggestions: 1. Try to leave the PLO flags out of your million person marches. Nothing personal there, but it confuses the message, and Americans should not be waving flags from Eurasia. Of course they have every First Amendment right to do so, but it confuses the salsa out of poor Joe Gringo Sixpack and he starts thinking Osama bin Laden is dictator of Iraq, Al Gore invented global warming, Sarah Palin has a brain, and Palestine is part of Chiapas, etc. 2. Speaking of wasting, lose no time on Mr. "Anna" the male Russian immigrant hiding in a woman's skirt 'cause he never grew up. He marches to a different drummer and neo-con puppets have ears for neo-cons only.
October 19, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna,
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among the Israelis and the Palestinians?
I suppose you can't envision such behavior by the Coalition of the Center-Left in America.
If such were to occur, the Right would be ripped asunder and AIPAC and assorted organizations would have not have an adequate response, since Jeruselem and Ramallah would not have anything available by way of the usual or a bargaining chip(s). To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Consequently, no one will be paying much, if any, attention to the Right here in the USA, or in Israel or among Palestinians. In short, our generation allowed the sharks to enjoy their feeding frenzy and thus, prosper, and the Youngsters will have to clean up the Crappola of this SuperMess. Sadly, your views will be tossed in the receptacle for the round file.
Jaango
October 19, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaango,
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among the Afghans?
To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among the Sudanese?
To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among India and Pakistan?
To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among Iranians.
To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Imagine a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among Republicans and Democrats.
To wit, the Youngsters would be 'driving' the agenda, and the Oldsters would be relegated to the sidelines.
Imagine, that you are not naive fool...
October 19, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the sequence of events: on Friday J Street announces Jones will speak at the conference, an hour later THE WEEKLY STANDARD posts the video of Healey performing Queer Intifada, and by Sunday they'd canceled the event. Or maybe it wasn't Healey but his fellow panelist, Kevin Coval, seen here calling Israel a "whore," that someone was worried about. The "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby might have been even more worried about the following video in which Coval, just a few seconds into the interview and out of nowhere, says he wants to "kick Joe Lieberman in the face." I doubt we'd ever find a video of a J Street conference speaker saying he wanted to do violence to the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah, but Lieberman -- even "pro-peace" has its limits.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
October 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna,
Your Neo-Con crap is wasted on me.
The "next generation" will soon be trashing this Neo-Con Crappola, just as the Confused Conservatives turned themselves into the Teabaggers, and all done in the belief that the "the base" must have its political vittles, and thus, the current feeding frenzy among themselves. And since Bush is no longer around, the Neo-Cons do not like the illumination being tossed in their direction. Of course, they deserve it, and more.
Aw hell, being called a "naive fool" is the least of my concerns, after being hammered by the criminally stupid with such ephithets as Un-American, and other perjoratives. And yet, I was correct for all these past 8 years. And since you don't know me in the least, I have a standing offer made to America's bigots and racists, that I will join them in the political gutter. And knowing that I own stock in both a water and soap company, I can easily afford to take a shower in order to wash off the stink and filth. As you can see, I like my politics "personal".
And just as important for your ease of understanding, my late father was Yaqui and my mother is an Apache, and yet, I prefer to consider myself a Chicano since I am language proficient and culturally assimilated. Thus, English is my fourth language behind Yaqui, Apache, and Spanish. Additionally, I have spent over 10 years in the Latin America Region, and consequently, I am familiar with Peron's Naval Obervatory and Pinochet's Villa Grimaldi.
Now, need more be said on my part on your "old ideas"?
Jaango
October 19, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, how are you going to challenge the Status Quo among India and Pakistan?
October 19, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Step 1: Stop cut-and-pasting from the Weekly Standard.
Step 2: Stop reading Caroline Glick's columns in the Jersusalem Post.
Step 3: Stop learning about Christianity from John Hagee.
Step 4: Remove troops from Afghanistan. Tell Chevron they ain't getting a pipeline.
October 19, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we can expect a multi-million person march in the major cities of the United States, that is challenging the Status Quo among India and Pakistan?
October 19, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is an idea significant merely because it enters your head?
Solipsism.
October 20, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't sound to me like you're giving up tribal thinking. Never thought you would. The
Right may be your enemy but the Left are hopeless fools, or useful idiots in the argot of the older generation.
October 19, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to mythbuster, and he will lead you, hand in hand if necessary, to the Light of Progress.
I am reminded that the Neo-Con buds that surrounded Ronald Reagan, and to wit, the meme of serving in the Latin America Region while in the Foreign Service, was defined as the "cockroach circuit". Along came Bill Clinton, and he did nothing to change or destroy this meme, and it continues to this day.
Perhaps, President Obama will find a good cabal of Hispanics within the State Department and ship them off to Pakistan and India, as well as throughout the Middle East and to include Israel.
And is a little of America's "indigenous" flavor fretful and fearful to the Neo-Cons? I would imagine so!
Jaango
October 19, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not send them to South America first?
October 19, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the advice,PTroub, and henceforth with follow it. Said sadly on my part, "ms." Anna is just to easy.
Jaango
October 19, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opps, my apology for my lack of editing. Thus, my above post should say:
Thanks for the advice, PTroub, and henceforth, I will follow it. Said sadly on my part, "ms" Anna is just too easy.
Jaango
October 19, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the clarification.
October 19, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Jaango. Harking back to my New York City days in a bygone era, watch your step when leaving the sidewalk, especially when the nearest sign says "curb, gutter, and clean-up after your dog" because New Yorkers are always in a hurry and two out of three ain't bad.
October 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i say that the military-likud-settlers-aipac complex has won but what have they won? they have won an apartheid state which will eventually collapse.
it's like they have won a painting with a shiny, glittering frame studded with rubies and diamonds that catch and distract the eye from a distance. critics admire the frame, exalt it, and praise the beauty of the rubies and diamonds. but a closer look at the frame shows that the rubies are nothing but dripping blood and the diamonds are nothing but tears. the painting itself is nothing but a picture of people gnashing their teeth and wailing in suffering in the darkness of their own heart while they smile on the outside and enjoy the empty pleasures and luxuries of life.
yet, i'm very optimistic that there will eventually be a good ending for all, both for the so-called "palestinians" and "jews".
October 19, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Afghanis, Sudanese North Koreans, Syrians and many others? Are you optimistic that there will eventually be a good ending for all? What it will be and when?
October 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point in your cover story about the decline of liberal appeals to human rights in foreign policy. But isn't that just because the nature of our enemies have changed? Back in the 1970's and 80's the Left was always outraged about some human rights abuse or another, but always in some country that was a strategic ally of the United States, and usually in cases where the main opposition was aligned with the Soviets. Back then our conflict with the Soviets was global and struggles for territory was largely waged by proxy. So places like El Salvador, Chile, South Africa, or the Philippines were key battlegrounds in the struggle against communism, and the left was constantly harping on civil rights abuses in those countries. But little or no effort was expended protesting far worse atrocities by pretty much any government that was pro-Soviet. Even genocidal mass-murders in places like Cambodia, Uganda, or Ethiopia were treated strictly as humanitarian tragedies with little attention to the deliberate actions by the anti-American governments. So the left's moral preening always urged either the undermining of an American ally or foreign aid that would inevitably end up in the hands of some Communist dictator.
Today's conflict is different. Where communism was an ideology without real roots in any specific culture, Islamism is rooted in the larger Islamic community. On the one hand this means that pro-American governments in non-Islamic regions are of minor importance to the war on terror and therefore of little use for bashing American policy (though note the Left's opposition to the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia). On the other hand, the lines in Islamic areas are far more blurred than the sides usually were in the Cold War. Pointing out the very real atrocities committed by American allies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt could perhaps be used to embarass the United States, but the more obvious conclusion would be that such problems are endemic to the culture and values that they share with our enemies.
Also, there has been tremendous progress towards human rights and free elections among countries that are friendly to the United States. Outside the Middle East and probably Africa, I can't really think of any pro-American dictator who is still in power.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJmYjA4MzljZDdjNzA1YWI4MTUxMmU2NmJmNTBiOWQ=
October 19, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I welcome the concept of J-Street.
Plainly, there is a significant number of progressives who disdain the settler-movement, who would encourage Israel to make concessions in furtherance of a peace agreement, and who question the necessity and sometimes even the morality of its recent military actions, but still identify strongly with Israel. They do not identify with the reflexively "pro"-Israel and in recent years increasingly conservative positions of AIPAC, the ADL and other groups out there. J-Street would seem to provide a new voice for those left out of the current configuration.
But the emergence of a pro-Israel, pro-peace lobbying group (along with a slew of commentators claiming the same label) raises the question of what that expression means. (Interesting, isn't it that we even feel the need to distinguish an organization as "pro"-Israel - implicitly recognizing that there is a huge constituency out there that is anti Israel, making the Jewish state fairly unique in that respect; after all, would anyone see the need for a "pro"-French lobbying group?).
While knee-jerk support for all of Israel's actions and policies is obviously unhealthy, at what point does the enemy of my enemy become my friend? Many of those who criticize Israel (including many here at the Cafe) do so not out of a desire to improve the country but out of hatred for the Jewish state. I noticed that the linked article was written by avowed anti Zionists Weiss and Horowitz, whose putrid anti-Israel propaganda was thankfully removed from this site. Is this to be the face of the new "pro-Israel, pro peace" movement?
Or, as I wrote of MJ the other day (and I reiterate my challenge for someone to point me to a single "pro" Israel post by MJ here at TPM):
With friends like these...
A true pro-Israel pro-peace position takes into account that there is some claim to right on both sides of the I/P conflict. It does not reflexively endorse Israeli policies, but neither would it automatically side with Israel's enemies. It recognizes that Israel needs to strive harder for a peaceful resolution, but understands that Israel's actions - even those we disagree with - take place in the context of a 60-year war for its legitimacy.
As for which direction J-Street is headed, the jury is out.
October 19, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point: "It recognizes that Israel needs to strive harder for a peaceful resolution, but understands that Israel's actions - even those we disagree with - take place in the context of a 60-year war for its legitimacy."
And I can't think of anyone better than the Palestinians who have the right to question Isarel's "legitimacy."
Maybe Israel wouldn't have such a legitimacy problem if they worked toward the two-state solution in good faith since 1967. They haven't.
We would then be praising Zion for achieving peace when they had the power to bestow it. We would talk about how extraordinary the Zionists were to offer justice, when they had the power to retain. Imagine how they would shamed the other ME countries by their example?
But instead they thought that if only they killed enough Palestinian children, the Palestinians would stop loving Palestine. Never going to happen.
The sell-by date for the two-state solution is 2012. The rate of Zionist Colonization of Palestine is closing the window for Israel to ever gain legitimacy.
October 20, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No pro-peace, pro-Israel solution is possible if you believe the two sides are implacable foes not interested in compromise.
That was Jabotinsky's position. That's Benny Morris' position today...and the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree with him, which is why the Israeli Left is moribund.
Traditionally, each side publicly seeks to blame the other for unreasonable intransigence. But the early Zionists were more honest - there was an unbridgeable gulf between the two cultures and an unsolvable dispute over ownership and control of a small piece of land.
Rosenberg is a mental case. Possibly, he's a self-satisfied dope who's found a way to make a decent level peddling crap and sees no reason to change. Perhaps, he's a coward who's willing to see Israel destroyed rather than face fallout at home as it becomes ever more unpopular among the dark-skinned everywhere. Or, he simply has a grudge against AIPAC and is consumed by it. Maybe his supervisor told him he was a shmuck when he was working for them. I find him impossible to take at face value.
October 20, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Early Zionists were more than honest, they were successful, because their goals were realistic, laudable and inspirational. They got their small piece of land, and doubled it several times over, built the top military in the region, and a thriving economy and society, and by the 1990s had got all their neighboring countries to accept them. Latter-day Israelis are all too often a disgrace to their forbears. They have a surprising capacity to be simultaneously brutal and squeamish, are surprisingly unsuccessful given their resources and talents, and increasingly looked down upon by the world. They rely to a shameful extent on the most deceitful and obsessed of tools and dupes to continually intimidate and con US authorities into betraying their constituency by granting carte blanche to unworthy foreigners. They have hitched their fate to their lunatic fringe that wants to refight a coward's version of the Warsaw Ghetto Last Stand in Judea and Samaria unto eternity and is happy to pervert and destroy anything and anyone else along the way.
October 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's an interesting post. Too bad you and I can't converse at this level consistently.
I agree the early Zionists were a different class of people entirely. They were part of the intelligentsia of old Europe, of Europe prior to WWI, prior to the destruction of much of civilized behavior and unlimited optimism (but I think you don't really see them clearly).
I agree that refugees from the concentration camps and the Muslim world were much cruder (How could they not be given their experiences?).
I agree that the current generation takes credit for the wealth accumulated by its ancestors rather than its own efforts and is racist and cruel to an extent that would have shocked the founders.
But I have to say 100 years of warfare have coarsened the Arabs as well as the Jews and made a very bad situation terrible (that's being generous since the Arabs were already pretty coarse). And you go too far and are too one-sided in your denigrations.
And you mischaracterize the situation; there has never been a time when a compromise solution was possible - not in Ottoman times, not under British rule, not after any of the wars, not in the 1990's, and not today.
I hope you see this post. Possibly it will lead to a fruitful discussion of our differences.
October 21, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink