Obama's Mideast Failure: What's Going On? ++ Shocking Gaza Video
I met the young man last week. We spent some hours together and he's an incredibly brave kid and journalist. This video is the presentation he makes about his home, Gaza, throughout the world.
George Mitchell's job as Middle East Special Envoy has got to be terribly frustrating for a man whose life story has been one success after another.
But the Israel-Palestine conflict tends to be a career destroyer. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was the most popular political figure in the United States when he went to the region to kick-start negotiations during the George W. Bush administration.
He accomplished nothing largely because Israel-firsters back in Washington (Elliot Abrams played the leading role) let the Israelis know that they did not have to pay attention to Powell. He didn't speak for the administration. Later Abrams said that he viewed his role in the administration as blocking any moves that the Israelis didn't like.
Clinton didn't do too well on Israel-Palestine either. Yes, he encouraged PLO chief Yasir Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to pursue Oslo but, when it came time to cement a deal, Clinton dropped the ball.
The list is much longer than that but there is no need to belabor the point. Everyone knows that successive administrations (with the exception of President Jimmy Carter's) have made very little progress toward ending the occupation that began in 1967.
The reason the United States continues to fail on the Israeli-Palestinian track is because of the power of the lobby in Washington. And by lobby I don't only mean just the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
I doubt Elliot Abrams needed to call any lobbyist to get his marching orders. He simply knew, from long experience, what made Israeli officialdom happy. He has his own internal AIPAC which guides him on all matters relating to Israel and the Palestinians.
Fortunately Elliot Abrams is no longer in power. But others, not neocons but holding neoconnish views on Israel, remain in policy positions.
How else to explain George Mitchell's failure? His history tells us that he is a strong and effective mediator. The diplomat who made Protestant and Catholic extremists not only agree to peace,but lay down their arms is not the kind of guy to be intimidated by the likes of Binyamin Netanyahu -- a prime minister who leads a weak government and has never demonstrated any kind of deftness as a leader.
And yet the American team - including Mitchell - flinched when Netanyahu balked at President Obama's demand for a settlement freeze. A settlement freeze is really very little. In fact, it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of good faith which would only serve the purpose of getting negotiations started.
But when Netanyahu said "no," we caved. And then Secretary Clinton made things worse by praising Netanyahu for "unprecedented" concessions. Then, as if that was not enough, we repudiated the Goldstone report on war crimes in Gaza and, as if even that wasn't enough, we demanded that the Palestinian Authority do the same. Then the roof caved in.
What's going on?
Again it's back to the lobby. Policymakers throughout the government operate as if the lobby is always looking over their shoulders.
They anticipate what the lobby's reaction to any policy will be. And, if they conclude it will be negative, act preemptively to quash the policy. No one has to tell them not to confront Israel over settlements or Goldstone. They do it on their own, not for AIPAC or for Israel but out of the mistaken notion that they are protecting their principals (most notably the President) from the political damage they believe the lobby can do.
This has all played out horribly in the Obama administration.
Right now, negotiations look dead in the water. President Abbas is resigning and a third intifada is being planned. Meanwhile, American interests throughout the entire Muslim world are being damaged as both Arabs and non-Arabs see how utterly indifferent America seems to be about the oppressive occupation (the only issue in the world about which all Muslims are in agreement).
Unless this changes, not only will we further endanger American forces in the region and our economic interests, we will also fuel the forces of terrorism which, unless checked, will again blow back on us here at home.
The occupation (and especially the settlements) do infinitely more for Al Qaeda than they do for Israel and certainly more than they do for us. Supporting the occupation is, in its effects, a favor we do for Al Qaeda and Muslim radicals everywhere. And yet we keep doing it.
One has to wonder if there are any people around the President (or Secretary of State or Mitchell) who understand a simple truth. The President is infinitely more powerful than any lobby.
Back when I worked at AIPAC, the head of the organization told me this: "You know what I think is going to happen. One day the President of the United States will get on television to announce a peace plan that will get Israel out of the occupied territories and establish a Palestinian state in exchange for ironclad security guarantees for Israel. If he did that, everyone would fall in line behind the President. Congress, the Jewish community and, in fact, AIPAC would too. What choice would we have.." he said. "We are not going to war with a President who has the backing of the American people. And he would."
The man who told me that was AIPAC's founder, IL Kenen. That was over thirty years ago. His vision for the future still hasn't happened. But it will have to. Otherwise the lobby, and all those people who instinctively follow it, will prevent peace from ever happening.
In the meantime, can we just allow Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell do what they know is right rather than being inhibited by the internal lobby of their various deputies?
Of course, powerful lobbies and interest groups dictate most of the policies of our government, not just this one. It is just that this one is a matter of life and death. What a system!
NOTE: If you want to receive my weekly newsletter (published by Media Matters) send an email to mjrosenberg8@gmail.com with "subscribe" on subject line
Crossposted on the PALESTINE NOTE which is the best blog (updated around the clock) devoted exclusively to Israel and Palestine and on Huffington Post.
M.J. Rosenberg, a voice crying -- and crying and crying and crying -- in the wilderness.
November 20, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet the American team - including Mitchell - flinched when Netanyahu balked at President Obama's demand for a settlement freeze. A settlement freeze is really very little. In fact, it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of good faith which would only serve the purpose of getting negotiations started.
Rosenberg doesn't believe that, and neither do Netanyahu, most Israelis...or most Palestinians for that matter.
About 6 months ago, Rosenberg, on this forum, said all Obama had to do was apply a little pressure to Netanyahu and he would cave. Then a little more pressure could be applied and Netanyahu would order all West Bank and East Jerusalem settlers to abandon their homes and move behind the Green Line. The overwhelming majority would do so and only a few lunatics would have to be pressured by the IDF.
I think J-Street, Rosenberg, and other like-minded progressives had the ear of the incoming Obama administration, gave the POTUS that advice, and he took it. How do you think Obama feels about those people now? If I'm correct Rosenberg et al. are crying from the toilet, the garbage dump, the toxic waste repository, and not the wilderness.
Unless this changes...we will also fuel the forces of terrorism which, unless checked, will again blow back on us here at home.
This is what Rosenberg most fears. He's made his career sucking up around the halls of power, discussing big ideas, trying to influence those in power to do what he wants, without experiencing any personal danger...and he wants, more than anything, to keep it that way. I think that he would sell out the state of Israel to do so, if his part in the sell-out could be concealed and "re-framed".
November 21, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would not be insinuating that there is something disingenuous about MJ"s incessant "crying in the wind" by any chance, would you?
If that were so you might even be suggesting that the whole thing is just a charade: a safety valve to assuage liberals’ pangs of conscience by giving them a semblance that something is being DONE ABOUT IT.
Let's call it a psychological safety valve established as a way to PUT ON RECORD (for history etc.) that there was indeed opposition to this ethnic cleansing but that alas it was to no avail because the powers that be were just too strong to stop: a tragic case of Force majeure prevailing.
If the sentiment is that "crying in the wind" is a waste of time and what is needed is concrete action, I'm with you 100%. But as your twin avatar (Blue Pearl) points out it seems that those who control the levers of power here (POTUS et al)are either unable or unwilling to take action, and none of us--including Rosenberg--who are mere scribblers--have any real power to "take action" that would make any difference.
So it has been hard for me to assess MJ's role in all of this. I was suspicious early on on his arrival. Ex AIPAC guy, sits next to Krauthammer at the prestigious synagogue in DC, etc...
But I've come to take MJ at his word.
To some extent the motives don't matter as long as the message gets out there. MJ gets the message out there quite well. The message reaches a substantial number of above-average influential people. Public opinion does make some a difference in these things (I hope). So maybe MJ's "crying in the wind" will have some concrete effect on those who can make a difference.
I have to say that so far Hillary's maximally absurdist statement--as an example-- (re. unprecedented progress, etc) seems to indicate that we are all pissing in the wind here at the Café and in the nation at large on this issue.
November 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ gets the message out there quite well. The message reaches a substantial number of above-average influential people. Public opinion does make some a difference in these things (I hope). So maybe MJ's "crying in the wind" will have some concrete effect on those who can make a difference.
He certainly reached bslev on the last thread I posted to. If that's typical I say;
"Bravo, M.J.!. You're a far better advocate for my cause then I ever was".
November 21, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of time this issue is for our president.
Suggestion : get all the people who profess to love that country ( our Dear Ally ) to agree on a game plan then call in the US president.
Will that ever happen ? Magic Eight Ball says "No".
November 20, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Withdraw all American dollars and weapons from the Middle East. From ALL of the Middle East. Do it now.
November 20, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
aipac is not to blame; congress is not to blame; mitchell is not to blame; clinton is not to blame; netanyahu is not to blame; the person responsible is the POTUS.
November 20, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have about 8 billion years before our sun explodes and goes to the red giant phase, sometime after that we might see a settlement freeze and a lasting peace agreement.
November 20, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policymakers throughout the government operate as if the lobby is always looking over their shoulders.
That's what lobbys do. That is their job and AIPAC et al are very good at their job much as the AARP and, to a lesser extent the NRA, is good at theirs. Just look at what the Pharmo lobby has done. Sigh.
November 21, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
one BIG difference: none of those lobbies have as their policy an ultimate war with iran, a war which, some say, would accelerate to WWIII and the tanking of the world economy.
November 21, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I think all of us can agree upon is that TPM ought to stop with the nauseating White House/Obama slide shows. I've looked at only one since the inauguration. Frankly, I'd rather look at one of Mr. "full-frontal" Hockey Stick. Of course the latter's appearance in Playgirl is a case of false advertising. Butt you can't get more honest than sitting buck naked to the world, no matter which way the wind blows.
November 21, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the lobby keeps shelling out the cash, there will be no stopping them. Obama's hands are tied, and he knows it. As much as I want health care reform, he should have pressed harder on the Israeli issue first. He had a lot of support, and now he has less influence (economy, health care, etc.). Bibi knows it. Obama would not withdraw Israeli funds, because he would be perceived as "turning his back" on a close ally. The Reps would have a field day with that. Could you imagine Fox News? At the end of the day, they all want to keep power. I don't see Obama rocking the boat when it comes to Israel, especially with an upcoming election.
November 21, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama is a politician and not a true leader. he knows that were he to go against the wishes of the zionist lobby and seriously start addressing the I-P conflict, money to the democratic party would be severely affected. up to 50% of the money given to the democratic party comes from big jewish donors. he would be a one-term president.
November 21, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with BluePearl. We made a demand on settlements but did not back it up with anything, apparently. The only positive I can see here, and this is a stretch, is that if a Third Intifada that is nonviolent emerges, as seems to be at least a possibility given Fatah PR, the dynamic may change. I do not believe that Israel can sustain the occupation vs an opponent using nonviolent and political means.
November 21, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg,
Kudos for your overarching view. I have been following the various threads without having to post and relative to the minor disputes among the many that are posting to your threads.
And yet, in this instance, as I sit here in the Sonoran Desert, and contemplate the various political views in the Spanish-speaking and Native American communities, I have to wonder if the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs will do the same thing when it came to Bush's War of Choice, and as such, take the easy way out?
And by having the Spanish-speaking community weigh-into this Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, could we do any worse? I think not.
Perhaps, America should start listening to the Arab League and see what they-collectively can accomplish as "partners" in America's foreign policy initiatives, given that our national "elites" have failed America, and miserably, I might add.
Now, I don't expect any "new thinking" from our structured policy elites, but I would expect them to address the IP Conflict with some seriousness of thought that is always seemingly absent, given that SOS Clinton is embarrassing herself of late. But then, I am reminded that she's a Neo-Lib and thus, her gaffes are not gaffes, in the least.
So, we, here in the Sonoran Desert, understand that we simply are the Obama "followers" to the extent he does nothing. However, we do have "some" leverage, and of course, the ballot box is available to us in 2012, and which may not serve Obama well and his associated minions of small-mindedness, as we will look back at what Obama could have done and didn't, and vote accordingly.
Jaango
November 21, 2009 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, powerful lobbies and interest groups dictate most of the policies of our government, not just this one. It is just that this one is a matter of life and death.
Of course, this issue is not a matter of life and death for most Americans. In fact, it hardly affects us at all. Israel is an obsession for many American Jews and a few crazy Christians, but the majority of Americans go through life without thinking about Israel and Palestine at all -- and certainly without facing any risk of death because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you want to talk about lobbies and their effect on life and death issues, talk about health care and the insurance lobby.
November 21, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
charlie rose had a discussion on the I-P conflict last night. stephen cohen was one of the guests. he mentioned a little bit of history. in the 50s eisenhower forced ben gurion to withdraw from the sinai. from that experience, ben gurion no longer wanted to be under the thumb of the USA so the israeli government clandestinely developed nuclear weapons.
a big part of the reason that the US can't ultimately tell israel what to do is because isael is a nuclear power. stephen cohen suggested threatening israel with removing its nuclear ambiguity as means of leverage in the I-P conflict.
in the 1950's israel was very much acting like iran is doing today. iran also does not want to be under the double thumbs of the USA and israel. it too wants to be in a position that the USA cannot dictate to it.
November 21, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., you wrote: "The reason the United States continues to fail on the Israeli-Palestinian track is because of the power of the lobby in Washington."
That seems to be an emerging theme of discussion at the cafe this week (thinking of the discussion on health care as well). The power of: organized power.
James Madison had no better solution to it than competing factions.
Do you believe J Street is capable of attaining comparable power as AIPAC? If so, within what kind of time frame?
November 21, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two things do not add up here, MJ.
1a. AIPAC's founder, IL Kenen, you tell us, had "a vision for the future" that the "President of the United States will get on television to announce a peace plan that will get Israel out of the occupied territories and establish a Palestinian state in exchange for ironclad security guarantees for Israel."
1b. And yet the reason America has "made very little progress toward ending the occupation that began in 1967" is the blocking action of AIPAC and various "internal AIPACs."
At the very least there is some crucial history missing in this column of yours.
2. A few weeks ago you were crowing about how J Street was inevitably going to replace AIPAC as a genuine voice for Jewish Americans who want to support Israel and lasting peace, not Likud, the settlers and violence everlasting. Where is the game plan for that? What is being done to take on AIPAC? Are you guys actually just a bunch of wimps as some people here have suggested?
Obama is STILL president. There is STILL a Democratic majority in Congress. A pro-peace Fatah leadership STILL has control of the West Bank Palestinians. 99% of the rest of the world is sick and tired of the settler-hypocrite-nutcases, and Israel coddling them, and the US Congress rubberstamping Israel, and it is ready to support common sense reaching America, and back a "Kenen vision."
IF EVER there was a time for action, it is now.
WHAT are you folks going to DO, not talk about, DO?!!!
Are you going to continue to let AIPAC and its fellow travellers walk all over you, trampling the name of Judaism and America into their dreck, or are you going to stand up and fight the lying traitors and shake some sense into the paranoid fools who follow them?
Your many columns here have been very welcome to such a necessary effort, but is there actually a credible overall effort? Where are the anti-AIPAC placards? Where is the boycott movement of individuals, companies, rabbis etc. that support it? Where are demonstrations outside Schumer's office? etc. etc. etc. The window of opportunity is open NOW, will you march through it with determination and perseverance?
November 21, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...ironclad security guarantees for Israel..."
The only ironclad guarantee the US could provide would be US troops permanently stationed to stop the various forms of Arab attack. When the US starts taking casualties, will the clock start ticking? Depends on who the US President is at the time.
The US has asked Israel to stop construction in the West Bank settlements and Israel has slowed it down, and will stop entirely by about June. The Arab side has responded with nothing. And this is the fault of the "Lobby?"
Construction in the settlements has nothing to do with negotiations. If a symbolic act was needed then pulling out of Gaza was it.
Negotiations are not going to be useful anyway: Abbas doesn't represent the Arab side, he has to deal with Hamas. Hamas won't negotiate, period. So what's the point of a deal with half the Arabs?
So neither Israel nor the US loses anything by losing negotiations.
November 21, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct. It's nice to see that at least some people here have some sense and some accurate knowledge of the situation. It's absolutely scandalous that the Security Council hasn't long since authorized a military force to protect the Israelis and disarm the Palestinians once and for all. The UN recognized Israel over 60 years ago. When is it going to take some actions to enforce their decision and stand up against the anti-semites? If any other country had been attacked as many times as Israel has they would certainly have done something. But not doing so they are actively aiding and abetting major war crimes, making a mockery of the UN, and degrading all of humanity. Not to mention endangering millions of people.
And when are people going to stop this idiotic nonsense about the so-called Israel lobby controlling the US, which no rational person believes, and face up to the fact that the real lobby that controls the US is the Arab oil lobby? Why is the US continuing to sell weapons and aid to Arab nations, especially Arabia, that have no human rights and that have repeatedly shown contempt for international law? It's beyond scandalous. Thank god that the Jews have at least been able to organize enough to prevent the mass slaughter of Jews that the Palestinians desire.
November 21, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/investor-relations/
November 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Israel-firsters back in Washington (Elliot Abrams played the leading role) let the Israelis know that they did not have to pay attention to Powell" - MJ
MY COMMENT: Their is an interview with Ray McGovern from a few years ago over at Antiwar Radio. ACCORDING TO MY RECOLLECTION:
In the interview McGovern says that Rice reached an agreement with the Olmert government not to proceed with a certain building project in the West Bank. Not long after she got back from Israel, the Olmert government announced the 'go ahead' for the project. She went in to ask Elliott Abrams what was going on, and he just smiled (knowingly).
RE: "Of course, powerful lobbies and interest groups dictate most of the policies of our government, not just this one." - MJ
MY COMMENT: How true. At this point, it appears to be endemic to our system.
November 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, powerful lobbies and interest groups dictate most of the policies of our government, not just this one." - MJ
If this is true, then the present "democratic" system does not serve the will of the people, but merely the will of powerful interest groups who might not even have the best interest of our nation as their concern. The system has to change.
November 21, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, you are totally right. I think we need full public funding of campaigns. That would make an immediate difference.
In the meantime, these guys don't do anything that will jeopardize campaign contributions.
November 21, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as millions of dollars spent in the last 30 days work to win elections there will always be big (non-public) money in politics.
What we need is public functioning of brain cells so voters research, examine and decide the candidates they support well in advance on facts and the records and positions of candidates, and not on last minute millions spent on TV marketing campaigns promoting lies, fear mongering and baseless propaganda.
November 21, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Mr. Rosenberg please tell us what should we realistically expect to happen if Obama does what he appears to advocate which is to send an ultimatum to the Government of Israel that if it does not freeze all settlements and all building permits in East Jersusalem, U.S. aid to Israel will be suspended. Does Mr. Rosenberg really believe that either Netanhyu will cave or that the Obama Administration will violate the 2009-10 foreign operations appropriations bill and withhold money that Congress legislated be spent?
Reality to Mr. Rosenberg: neither of those events will happen.
Bibi will not cave because he knows there is a billion dollars that Orthodox Jews will send to Israel for more and bigger settlements and more house demolitions in East Jerusalem to make up for any loss of U.S. economic aid, even if it means closing down every yeshiva in the United States;
and Bibi also knows that unlike 1992 qnd 1999, this time if an Israeli Prime Minister gets targeted by the White House for sanctions, there are more Israelis who will support the Likud than will abandon it;
and Bibi also knows that the day U.S military aid to Israel is suspended(half of which must be spent in the U.S.in contracts with U.S. defense contractors), Boeing, Lockheed and every other American defense contractor which gets contracts from Israel will be besieging Defense Secretary Gates and their Congressmen and Senators;
and finally Bibi knows that Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Kristin Gilibrand--especially Kristin Gilibrand who is worried she is going to get her ass whipped next year-- and Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Nadler and Henry Waxman and Barney Frank and Jim Himes and a hundred other liberal Democrats whom Obama desparately needs right now will make very clear that the Administration has no legal power to suspend one penny of already appropriated funds to aid Israel.
So, Mr. Rosenberg, please tell us how exactly is that kind of ultimatum supposed to work?
November 21, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
all that obama would have to do is to employ MAD, mutually assured destruction. that is, obama would no longer give diplomatic cover for israel in the security council. that would trigger a netanayahu collapse but it would also assure that obama would most likely be a one-term president. one thing obama would have going for him in this type of situation is that he would have time to rehabilitate himself before 2012.
November 22, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or he could simply authorize the nuclear destruction of Israel. You're MAD.
November 22, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
hyperbole much
November 22, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce S Levine of New York New York and MJ have had a contentious relationship for quite awhile longer than you have been here, newbie. Old news.
Carolyn Glick has a very.....er....cheering column singling out some groups of American Jews who are very naughty bad Zionists, including the ADL, the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, New York University's Hillel director Rabbi Yehuda Sarna, etc:
November 22, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is too bad. bslev is not Elliott Abrams. I nearly always agree with MJ's positions but not with his short fuze. My guess is that he is just worn down from the constant abuse but that has never seemed to me to be bslev's approach.
November 22, 2009 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg can dish it out but can't take it. Boo Hoo.
November 22, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, all this attention reminds of Al Pacino in Godfather III. Everytime I wanna get out they keep dragging me back . . .Coupla thoughts besides the fact that it's a beautiful day and I have to spend much of it putting my toddler's bed together and researching various means for pondering deadlocked union executive board disputes (real exciting stuff I can assure you).
Flavius, you write that I am no Elliot Abrams. Thank you. That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on here. :-). As to my style, let me be the first to confess that I would never be able to cast that first stone offered up by Jesus.
My principal contentions with Rosenberg have been, and continues to be twofold: (1) that fanning flames with an audience whose flames are burning quite well does nothing but fan flames and make it impossible for readers to distinguish between Elliot Abrams and anyone who questions whatever it is MJ is writing on a given day (to the extent the "point" of what he is writing can be gleaned); and (2) if one is going to fan flames, at least try to be accurate. But that is for another day.
On Berkeley, spider and lally are both correct (imagine that). It is hardly profound, as I love to remind my colleagues who studied at Berkeley, that the campus is a hotbed for all things left. And it snows in Colorado in January.
Thank heavens young people question what they perceive as "givens", including matters pertaining to Israel and Palestine. I don't know if you have kids Flavius, and I don't know if lally has kids either. I have four, two of whom have graduated from college, and one who is now a sophomore. Like their Dad when he was their age, they question lots of things, and very often disagree with their father, and often vehemently so. Thank G-d, thank G-d indeed.
One of the Cafe's most valuable assets, American Dreamer, once again asks the kind of question we should be addressing around here, to wit, how does a J Street overtake an AIPAC. Well, with due respect to Rosenberg, one thing J Street felt obliged to do when it actually presented itself to the nation at conference a few weeks ago was to detach itself from what I call the MCH wing of the Israel Lobby (MCH stands for "Mock, Chide and Hate :-)). And that's why J Street's Ben Ami (who my wife worked with on the Bill Clinton campaign back in the heady days of '92) chose a Jeffrey Goldberg (MJ's favorite target these days) and not an MJ Rosenberg for his pre-conference interview. Who was Ben-Ami trying to reach? Respectfully, it's folks like me whose Hebrew School teachers taught them to spell God with a dash.
And that's my principal point. I unequivocally reject the notion that J Street's fundamentally reasoned and important approach will resonate by, for example, purporting to defend American moslems from hateful prejudice simply by pointing a finger at Jewish haters, and mocking columnists whose principal sin is recognizing nuance and who do more than reflexively attack Israel and "some Jews". It's fine to disagree and to explain why; to constantly demonize your adversaries is ultimately a waste of time at best and counterproductive for the most part.
I often use the "circle jerk" metaphor, which I stole from my good friend Bar Kafka/Zionista, to suggest that convincing regulars at the Cafe that there is much to hate about Israel, combined with $2.25, gets you on the subway and nothing more. Who is being reached? The ambivalent? Please. The ambivalent, I submit, are by and large afraid to comment at a place like this, because they would end up being treated as a crony of Elliot Abrams. This place is as stifling as any hard-right zionist coffeehouse; it is a mirror image and it's a darn shame.
I want to move mountains, I want a sea change, I want peace in Israel and Palestine (yes spider, I am a dreamer but, hopefully, not the only one :)), and that's why, ultimately, the approach adopted by Rosenberg and much of his fan base never ceases to break my heart.
And now I have more than exercised personal privilege. Ciao.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
November 22, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bslev, if you agree with MJ that the United States is continuing "to fail on the Israeli-Palestinian track", what is your proposed remedy for achieving some degree of tangible success instead?
I understand that you regard some of MJ's tactics as ineffective or even counterproductive in this regard -and I am not sure even MJ would completely disagree with you there- so your points are taken, sort of anyway, but is there any broader purpose served by these critiques unless you have some at least potentially alternative to offer?
In 1967 the UN, with US support, called for Israeli withdrawal from land conquered in the war that year, in return for a durable peace agreement and secure borders. Later this was slightly amended to recognize the rights of Palestinians to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza, provided they also recognize Israeli sovereignty within the 1948-67 borders with minor adjustments, and with mutual compromises on water rights, refugee rights, status of Jerusalem, etc. within a general framework of two independent mutually respecting neighboring states.
All these years later, despite agreements between Israel, Egypt and Jordan, defacto mostly lasting truces with Lebanon and Syria, and a unilateral albeit messy Israeli pullback from Gaza, a lasting agreement on letting the Palestinians have a state in the West Bank territory is notably lacking.
MJ complains about this lack.
You don't much care for his complaints.
But do EITHER of you have an idea HOW America, which surely HAS the power to spearhead a solution, could or should do so?
I await with interest a reply free from ad-hominems.
November 22, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction (my bad computer keyboard): a potentially SUPERIOR alternative is what I meant to request presentation of.
November 22, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry PT, keep posting; I put myself on double secret probation the other day through the New Year, and I intend to stick to it. I am a firm believer in self-policing and it ain't the first time I've taken myself out to the woodshed to simmer down. (hee) I do care very much about what you have characterize as MJ's complaints, more than you could ever imagine (even though I might cast things differently). But seriously, what I think and $2.25 is another thing that gets you on the subway. To steal again from my sorely-missed colleague Bar Kafka/Zionista, I'm just a mook. Carry on in good faith and try to keep things focused. Good luck.
Bruce
November 22, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I have children. They don't improve with age, they still question my pronouncements and (unfairly) are still usually right. Oh well.
November 22, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want peace in Israel and Palestine (yes spider, I am a dreamer but, hopefully, not the only one :))
"Do you sleep with your eyes closed or open?" Robert Mitchum, "His Kind of Woman!" 1947
There are two articles in the current (December 2009) issue of the Atlantic well worth reading;
The first on Einstein's 1921 visit to the United States, the second a Christopher Hitchens review of a biography of Arthur Koestler.
Both are interesting in and of themselves but I was struck by how long the same arguments have been circulating, without peaceful resolution.
November 22, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tips spider.
November 23, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike you, I can read. Both bslev and another poster talked about that relationship on the thread we're referring to. But my take was that this time the disagreement was far more serious. Bslev concluded that Rosenberg cared more about the size of his fan club than the toxic ideology of too many of its members...and he was going to spread the word among his friends.
November 22, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Berkeley is ultra Left? No! What amazing news...for complete morons.
November 22, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has put Palestine into the too- tough-to- handle pile until after Health Care.Which makes sense.
November 22, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me the excuses. He should have put the I-P dispute in that pile at the beginning of his administration. That he didn't says that the advice he received from some people was very, very bad.
November 22, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we have all the leverage we need to get the process moving. We attach conditions to the aid package. It's not that hard. Just like the IMF attaches conditions when it bails out an economy or the conditions we attach to every OTHER country that receives aid.
For instance, we made Egypt use part of its aid package to destroy Gaza smuggling tunnels.
A provision that says that all US aid is contingent on (settlement freeze, ending siege of Gaza, whatever) would have a powerful effect.
November 22, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have no problem with strings attached to US aid to Israel. But I have no office on Capitol Hill.
Will Obama still be president when J Street gets the Congressional vote lined up for this?
In contrast, how many minutes would it take Netanyahu's cabinet to meet in urgent session if they learned tomorrow that Obama had instructed Susan Rice not to veto any more resolutions on Israel, and that Britain and France had prepared a joint resolution issuing an ultimatum requiring immediate cessation of all Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories?
Okay, that second scenario isn't likely to happen anytime soon either. But ONE person COULD make it happen. And it would shakes things up. Like walking boldly through an open window of opportunity. Scenario one is more like putting one knee on the window sill.
November 22, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted to check and see how my favorite pair of wet panties was doing and lo and behold he's still dripping and squirming...
"about the oppressive occupation (the only issue in the world about which all Muslims are in agreement)."
the only issue...not living in brutal dictatorships that deny all freedom...torture their people...use women as property...discriminate against every ethnic minority...including their own...suck American financial cock like it was going out of business (oh, wait, it is...)...and contribute nothing...to the world...except oil...and more people...and a long line of brilliant writers who loath where they come from with the same ferocity that Flaubert directed at his beloved catholic-monarchist France*...
fantastic...yes...it's all because of the occupation...it's all the fault of the "lobby"...not the oil cartels...not demographics...not lack of education...not lack of freedom...not a thousand years of inculcated sexism...not colonialism...not kaptialism...it's all because of the occupation...
and if the lobby were defeated...the occupation would be ended...and there would be an independent Palestinian state...with free elections...an independent judiciary...freedom of expression...freedom of religious choice...a sustainable green economy...a first rate education system...and...no religious fanaticism...no nexus between organized crime and the "government"...no drug trade...no prostitution...no slave labor...no selling of weapons and the subsequent laundering of billions by the Military Industrial Complex...or our good friends at Mirage and Fabrique National or Otto Malera...
no...if only...the lobby were defeated...the occupation would end...and everything would be good again...like it was before June of '67...
I have reached the point of pure vomit...
M.J.Rosenberg wouldn't even make a good kapo...but he sure as hell would try...
as to England and France doing anything...sure...just as soon as they figure out how to protect themselves from an Isralie response that includes exposing the flow of slave labor and drugs and weapons from their countries to the Middle East...Graham Greene Was right...outside of Greece the single most corrupt place in Western Europe is the South of France...
your naievte makes me hurl...
So it goes...
*sorry MJ, my little kapo-lite...I know the big bad literary references make you uncomfortable...Joke-Street frowns on complexity...cynicism in the face of brutal reality is sad and makes you get all wobbly-kneed...but I just cant help it...the contempt is real...to think i actually have to agree with a gangster like Bibi and think about loathsome self-hating Jews...god, the irony is thick enough to strangle a horse...
November 23, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, anyone pro-Israel has an AIPAC chip embedded in their heart and brain, according to MJ. He should provide the design plans for aluminum foil hats to protect us from the nefarious rays.
November 24, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink