Sullivan and Goldberg Battle It Out On Settlements (Sully Is Right)
It's getting fun over at the Atlantic.
Andrew Sullivan has been getting better and better on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. After a decade or so of keeping quiet on the 42-year occupation (probably to avoid offending his Likud mentor, Martin Peretz), Sullivan is saying what he really thinks.
And Sullivan's current Atlantic colleague is taking it personally. Jeff Goldberg complains about Andrew breaking with him publicly on Israel. "This is the thanks I get," Goldberg writes, "for defending him [Sullivan] as a Zionist."
Of course, not everyone thinks being labeled a Zionist is a compliment. It seems to me that Sullivan is even-handed, as sympathetic to Palestinian aspirations for a state in West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem as he is to a Jewish state within the '67 borders.
He is also one of the most influential journalists in the world.
Goldberg, ever predictable, is discomfited by Sullivan who is anything but. The Gaza war has succeeded in opening another pair of very significant eyes.
Also, Phil Weiss on New York Times columnist Roger Cohen demolishing WSJ's Brett Stephen on Iran at a synagogue debate. Beautiful.
NOTE: MEDIA MATTERS will begin distributing my weekly column on the Mideast after Thanksgiving. If you want to received it by e-mail, write to me at mjrosenberg8@gmail.com. Write subscribe in the subject line.
Sullivan's glacial and incremental movement towards more vocal criticism of Israeli policies reassures me that it is becoming safer for establishment voices to call a spade a spade in Israel.
November 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sullivan's piece is good but doesn't go far enough. It omits listing the many Democratic members of Congress whose positions on a central component of Obama's foreign policy are carbon copies of Sarah Palin's position.
November 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It omits listing the many Democratic members of Congress whose positions on a central component of Obama's foreign policy are carbon copies of Sarah Palin's position."
He didn't list them because it's the entire Congress
whose in fear of the 'anti-semite' label - a favorite label/tool AIPAC has dragged through the gutter for monetary gains.
If you remember Israel's 34 day long war aqainst Lebanon, the only member of Congress who dared speak out publicly against Israels brutalization was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Not a peep out of the rest.
November 21, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only Andrew Sullivan could believe the most important commentator on Israel is Sarah Palin.
Will he treat us to a year of articles asking who is Netanyahu's real mother?
November 19, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly Paddy and I live down to Dr. Johnson's notion of us as "a fair people, sir, [who] never speak well of one another."
Nevertheless, that's us: we did not care for Mr. Sullivan back when he was celebratin’ the radiant dawn of George XLIII as "the adults" back in the saddle again, and we do not like him any better now that he's decided to set up as a juvenile delinquent himself.
As with any other apostate, one can always raise the question of whether this little laddie has quite finished oscillatin’.
Healthy days.
November 20, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gilo is not in urban East Jerusalem. It is one of several settlements built in a ring around Jerusalem, sanitized as "neighborhoods," beyond what was urban Jerusalem into areas that Israel has designated "Greater Jerusalem." Gilo is in the West Bank, southwest of Jerusalem, built on lands belonging to the towns of al Walajeh and Beit Jala (outside Bethlehem).
The preferential treatment of these settlement constructions over the years clearly contrast with the way that Palestinians in the towns of Al Walajeh and Beit Jala have had their homes and farms treated by the Israeli government. From a report just a few months ago:
The new construction of almost 900 houses is not even slated for infill within existing neighborhoods, but at the Southwest edge of Gilo's municipal boundary.
November 19, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, not everyone thinks being labeled a Zionist is a compliment.
How weird is that given Sully is Catholic. Frankly, I've always thought of theocracies as counter to the long term trend towards secular democracies. Israel is a Jewish democratic state but when push comes to shove, and demographic trends continue, does anyone have any doubt Israel will choose to stay Jewish and abandon democracy?
November 19, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sully - "one of the most influential journalists in the world." I agree with a lot of what MJ writes, but this statement makes me sick.
November 19, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking, let's imagine that Israel manages to steal all of remaining Palestine (except Gaza which they seem to have dumped). They're not far away, so this is not far-fetched. Let's say they steal every remaining square inch.
What happens next, do they need to take parts of Jordan and Egypt then away from "murderers" who may resist? Shouldn't the U.S. then side with this in order to be balanced and to fight "terror" What if ancient scripts can be found that show that pieces of Egypt, Jordan, whereever else really belong to Israel? Should we not then support annexations? "Natural growth" by law-abiding Israeli families across the country's borders which ancient script might show to be wrong anyway? How could we side with "terrorists" against an ally that was merely trying to secure its historic borders?
November 20, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
what makes andrew sullivan see the light in the I-P conflict is due to his background. sullivan usually takes his catholic ethics seriously (he dropped the ball on iraq) while goldberg routinely drops his jewish ethics when they conflict whith his politics of israel-first.
sullivan is a gay with HIV who has been discriminated against. he knows what it's like to be a minority that is boxed in by the majority when it comes to equality in marriage and being fearful to leave the united states for fear of not being let back in because of his HIV status. this last discrimination against HIV travelers in the US has just been overturned. as such, he can empathize with palestinians who are not allowed to leave and if they are allowed then not allowed to re-enter.
a wrong is a wrong whether it is the USA discriminating againts gays, black, or muslims or whether jewish israeli discriminate against palestinians. this is called being principled, the application of the same values irrespective of the situation. being principled is something many jews drop the ball when it comes to the I-P conflict. philip weiss coined the term PEP, progressive except for palestine, to label jews and liberals who would normally be on the side of justice and equality in all other situations but instead defend discrimination and racism when it comes to israel.
November 20, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
i bet seymour hersh would love to write about the I-P conflict but he has said that he would rather run through the street naked than write about israel.
is frank rich a PEP?
Mr. Rich was asked about our media’s reporting in the Middle East and their unwavering presentation of Israel-as-victim. How is it that Americans are so poorly informed that a large fraction believes that the Palestinians are the illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories? Mr. Rich was asked why he, as a media critic, had remained silent on this biased coverage? Mr. Rich replied, “I’m Jewish.”
His candor is refreshing but what does he mean? Is Mr. Rich suggesting that being Jewish precludes criticizing Israel? Is he suggesting that Jewish American reporters, (and more insidiously, publishers) feel compelled to defend Israel? Where is professional responsibility to the American public? [ LINK ]
kudos to andrew sullivan for speaking out! but i wonder if andrew was a jew if he would have bit his tongue.
November 20, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two great posts BluePearl.
November 20, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 20, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sullivan's cautious criticism of Israel is a nice start but I wish he were as vociferous on this subject as he is on Sarah Palin's delusions. Both are extremely dangerous but Sarah (as of yet, at least) doesn't have a nuclear arsenal at her disposal.
November 23, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink