What kind of idiotic answer is that? One would think that you're simply being flip and not interested in "advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues" like you say in your mission statement.
You were the one who said that the AIPAC was the most powerful lobby. Did you just pull that idea out of your sleeve because it fits into your prejudices?
Let me rephrase that: "there is asolutely nothing in the article you link to that refutes my claim that M&W propose an updated Elders-style conspiracy theory in their book, The Israel Lobby. OK?
W&M, Freeman, and people who think like them, accuse the Israel Lobby of torpedoing Freeman´s appointment. This is false. Another peice of evidence for that from today's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301856_pf.html. According to this, Freeman's attitude towards China and Tibet determined the opposition to his appointment. The Israel Lobby was not instrumental in this. Freeman and many others, like James, believe that the Israel Lobby has undue influence on the policy process. This is also false. Accusations of such things usually take the form of lists of Jewish names as "proof." Your logician's mind should be able to see the fallaciousness of this approach.
I say all this W&M theory is an updated version of the Elders conspiracy theory because it blames Jews for a variety of evils without proof or even logic. Naturally, the theory is much more nuanced today than it was at the end of the 19th century. That's the whole point of it's being updated. People can say that they don't believe that there's a Jewish conspiracy to control the world and instead there's "a loose coalition," etc etc. People can accuse this Israel Lobby of "silencing" them when it's only about criticism and even when they have prominent positions in academia or the government, like W&M themselves. These are hallmarks of the Elders-style conspiracy theory and therefore they are hallmarks of anti Semitism.
Besides, it’s really your responsibility to show that they are proposing anything of the kind, not theirs to demonstrate that they’re not.
Your article quotes M&W explaining that they do not propose a world wide Jewish conspiracy.
we described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behaviour.”
“Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.”
This is as good an example of "updating" the Elders conspiracy theory as you're likely to find.
Of course there's a difference. What have I said that could give you the idea that I felt otherwise? I honestly can't find anything, but let this stand here as a repudiation of anything I've said to the contrary. It was gratifying for me that James found a quote by Nick Cohen that supports my point of view.
I've said many times that there are parallels between the Elders and M&W's The Israel Lobby. "Parallels" does not mean that the two are identical. I've said many times that the Elders theory has been updated. "Updating" means changing, evolving. Therefore they are different.
I won't accuse you of bad faith, but Freeman did not say, "there is a powerful pro-Israel lobbying interest in the United States which undertakes unprincipled tactics to silence critics of Israel.”
He said, "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."
Even though these two ideas are quite different, neither is equivalent to "there is a Jewish conspiracy that controls the world." I never accused anyone of believing in the latter. In fact, I've gone out of my way to show that such beliefs are dead (except for the Arab/Islamic world).
Either way--if Freeman believes that the Israel Lobby silences critics (as in your rendering), or if he believes that it aims to control the policy process (as in his own words), this is a manifest absurdity. There are critics of Israel all over the map, foremost amongst them is Freeman himself today. Far from being silenced, his view have been trumpeted across the country and he's made a very good living out of having such views, as have so many others.
Then, of course, Freeman's appointment was not torpedoed by the Israel Lobby at all, as evidenced by the article from the Hill I linked to above.
None of the above will matter a bit to people who believe in the nefarious power of the Israel Lobby to "control the policy process" in detriment to our "true interests." It doesn't matter that 1-Critics of Israel are not silenced or 2-that the Israel lobby had nothing to do with the rejection of Freeman.
This quote from the page you link to by Nick Cohen says it all:
“Lévy finds it significant that when the American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer disinterred conspiracy theories about powerful Jews to explain away the Iraq War, they were not embraced by right-wing European journals, as anti-Semitism was in the early twentieth century, but by their left-wing rivals.
I speak from experience when I say that among English academics, the duo’s notion that a Jewish cabal organised the second Iraq War is ubiquitous, and those who hold it think that their regurgitation of the oldest fantasy of the far right is proof positive of their liberalism. Denunciations of ‘Jewish warmongering’ came from Charles Lindbergh and ‘America Firsters’ in the thirties and forties, Lévy says.”
Cohen's observation applies to you as well.
Otherwise there is asolutely nothing in the article you link to that shows that M&W do not propose an updated Elders-style conspiracy theory in their book, The Israel Lobby
Chris,
I don't know if I was unclear for you or you are deliberately misreading me. Whatever. I never said that anyone "bought into" the Elders theory. I specifically said that this was not the case since the Nazi defeat meant the defeat of Nazi-style anti Semitism as well. I said that the Elders theory has been updated. Today, instead of the "International Jewry" that was the Nazi bugbear, we have "international Zionism," and so on. In WWII, the Nazis said that "International Jewry" was pulling the strings on Roosevelt's and Churchill's governments so that they joined the anti-Axis alliance. Therefore, in the Nazi view, "International Jewry" was responsible for the war, not Nazi expansionism, etc. Nazis believed that the "true interests" of both GB and the US were in line with Nazism and therefore, "International Jewry" was manipulating the US and GB to act against their own "true interests."
The parallels between Freeman's screed and Nazi-style anti Semitic "theory" are too obvious to ignore.
Freeman, and those who support and agree with him, believes in a conspiracy theory that makes the Jews, Zionists, etc etc responsible for nefarious deeds against the "true interests" of the US, like for example, opposing the appointment of Chas Freeman himself.
I know it's useless to argue with any true believer in any conspiracy theory but just to show that I'm trying, the Hill (http://thehill.com/images/M_images/printButton.png) quotes congressmen and senators as saying that the Israel Lobby had nothing to do with their opposition to his appointment:
Hastings said he was not contacted by any lobbyists prior to that scheduled meeting, which was then canceled.
“I’m close to AIPAC. If they did come out against Freeman, I was not in the loop because no one called me to say a word about Charles Freeman,” said Hastings.
Just as one can explain the fact that Jews were leading Capitalists and leading Communists before WWII etc etc without having to refer to any conspiracy theory whatsoever, one can explain the opposition to Freeman. You'll see in the article I linked to that he simply wasn't qualified for the job, which is aside from the fact of his business links with Saudi Arabia and China, which would make anyone doubt his fitness for the post he wanted.
I can't comment on the Klein article you link to. Of course I don't believe that he's anti Semitic. He doesn't show that he believes in the Israel Lobby conspiracy theory either, let alone the Elders. I don't see the point of your linking to him or the question you pose. Nothing in your comments or in Klein's peice can refute anything I've said here so far.
Why do we realize that their economic vision is a failed one, their politics is flawed, and yet are so scared of these guys? I just don’t get it. Let them dig their own graves and fall into them.
The fact that Islamists can't govern without imposing a police state or that they can't organize an economic system without simply selling off primary resources doesn't mean that their world view is not dangerous. You should consider the power of ignorance guided by blind faith. The Muslim/Arab world is the most ignorant in the world, according to the UNDP. They willing to use extreme violence to achieve their ends. Since they're attacking us, there's no way we can simply ignore them.
There's an added danger since the anti Capitalist, anti American, and anti Semitic aspects of the Islamicist world view attracts leftists in the West.
James-Seriously, until there's peace, we have no hope of removing the settlements. Virulent Jew-haters like Hamas would have a launch pad within range of Tel Aviv otherwise. Isn't that fairly obvious?
The following is the text of Freeman's email declining his appointment. I take it as evidence of anti Semitism in that it depends on the Elders-like theory of the diabolical cabal manipulating events from behind the scenes in their own interests.:
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
You see, it's not a question of criticizing Israel or even of opposing Israel that leaves people open to charges of anti Semitism. Even if you advocated policies that would lead to Israel's destruction, like the right of return or unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you would not be anti Semitic. But if you're going to engage in conspiracy theories like Freeman does, then it doesn't matter to me what you think of Israel. You'd be an anti Semite, even if some of your best friends are Jews.
A very enlightening book on this topic is by Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience
Max,
It looks like you're speaking for ED Kain now, so I'm glad to respond. Too bad he thinks that because we disagree, we can't debate anything.
Exactly why do you believe that, unlike all other militant-political movements in the world, it’s the Arab ones that are utterly in thrall to principle?
I never said or even implied such a thing as the above. I don't like having words put in my mouth. And I was quite clear that it's not a matter of "being in thrall to principle" --we all are in thrall to principle to some extent. It's a matter of world-view, which is a very different thing.
I don't even say that all Arab militant groups are Islamicist. I mentioned the Sunni tribes of Iraq as an example of a militant insurgent Arab/Muslim group that is not Islamicist. I say that these militant groups are Islamic fundamentalists. I say that these groups have an opposing world view to ours, which makes negotiation useless, along with the other reasons I mentioned above. I say Hamas and Hezbollah are militant Islamicist groups. I can say this because that's how they describe themselves and that's what they proclaim in their charters, etc. The "Islamic" part makes them opposed to our world view, which means that negotiations are useless.
Where do you get the idea that they can be reduced to militant resistence groups?
I say that it's a big mistake to reduce Islamic groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to simple resistence groups, which does nobody any favors. It shouldn't take you long to see that when you simply proclaim this, you're engaging in the idle an uninformed speculation that you accuse me of doing.
We need only consider Hizbollah during the Gaza war to see the manifest falsity in your notion of an apolitical extremist group.
Where did you get the idea that I believe that Hizbollah is "apolitical?" I said I doubt the sincerity of the so-called political wing, which is nowhere near saying that they're "apolitical." Being "political" means that they are engaged in the political process, which means that they are not violent. An armed, violent group with political ends--i.e., that wants power--is not the same thing as a political group. If you have an armed group that uses violence to get power, you by definition have a group that's outside the political process. In the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, the political wings do not renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by agreements between Israel and the PA. Therefore, they cannot fairly be termed "political groups." They're simply one more aspect of the violent and armed groups themselves.
By saying that they are Islamicist and have an opposing world view to ours, I do not imply "all war all the time." It's yet another instance of your putting words in my mouth. They are capable of making political and military calculations, as anyone else can. If they're in a position of weakness, like they are now, nothing in their belief system obliges them to blindly keep on fighting. They can declare a truce, which is for the purpose of rearming and reorganizing for the next attack. Ten years happens to be the limit placed on truces by Islamic law. Nothing you've said contradicts this. As for why Hezbolah didn't intervene in the recent Gaza operation, I'm sure that they did make a political and military calculation, as well as receive instructions from Iran, and so forth. I really don't know the answer but I never said that I thought they were "apolitical" and incapable of political calulations.
Hamas doesn’t believe that if they fire enough rockets, Israel will disintegrate. They fire rockets precisely because of people like you, who incoherently condemn their violence on the one hand, and advocate ignoring them and cutting them out of the political process on the other.
So now it's "people like me" who are the cause of Hamas militancy? Are you serious? I say they fire rockets because they want to kill Jews; I do condemn this; I do not advocate ignoring them; I advocate defeating them; I do advocate leaving them out of the political process until they meet the demands of the Quartet. Such demands only represent the minimum conditions any group needs so as to become "political" and not a violent insurgency. I can't see why this is such a far-out position to take. Can you help?
I'd like to explain some history for you and your readers, just in case they or you are unaware. I apologize in advance if you already know this.
European anti Semitism has a long history. In the Middle Ages, it was based on the Bible, which says that they were Christ-killers and they would carry the blood-guilt of this heinous crime forever.
Jews were subject to apartheid-like laws in the Middle Ages (which really wasn't so bad, considering that everyone else--besides the clergy and the nobility--was as well) and worse: periodic pogroms, or massacres, based on "well-poisoning" and other "blood libels" (they kidnapped and muredered babies for their satanic rituals, etc.).
The French Revolution eliminated this feudal order from one day to the next. With respect to the Jews, the slogan was, "for the Jews--nothing! for the citizens--everything!" In other words, Jews would become citizens of the republic and have the same rights as everyone else, as citizens. This would solve the "Jewish question" because Jews would simply stop being Jews and become citizens.
Jews took advantage of their freedom to excel in business, the arts, the professions and in academia. In Vienna--where 20th-century anti Semitism got its start--Jews were actually the majority in the above, while being a very small minority of the population in general.
Thus the emergence of the Elders. How to explain the success of such a despised group without assuming that they simply know how to compete? Jews, for example, have a culture that values books and reading, which would give them a head-start on anyone who doesn't. As a teacher in Mexico, I'm confronted with this fact every day: kids who don't come from families with university educations have a much harder time in school than ones that don't, regardless of their social classes.
By the end of the century, anti Semitism was on the rise. The Dreyfuss affair, in France, is usually cited as an emblem of this. I think that the legend is that Theodore Hertzl was in France as a journalist covering the Dreyfuss trial and witnessed increasing virulent anti Semitic outbursts in public etc etc, which led to his founding the World Zionist Congress in 1897.
The Elders was written by Tsarist secret police as part of the Russian government's wave of pograms agains the Jews that was unleased after the assasination of Tsar Alexander I in the 1880s. It was translated into French and became part of the anti Semitic atmosphere in that country during the Dreyfuss affair. Later, it was brought to Hitler's attention by Alfred Rosenberg, a Lithuanian Russian subject who became Hitler's main ideologue.
Therefore 20th-century anti Semitism is an amalgam of the Middle Ages blood libels and the Elders conspiracy theory.
This ideology was defeated in WWII. One would not expect it to reappear as such again for this reason alone.
On the other hand, anti Semites certainly have not disappeared. Therefore one would expect some new variation of the above theory, adapted for today's circumstances.
So, up to now, give me an honest answer: if you were a Jew, and you were aware of this history, wouldn't you be a bit "sensitive" about it? Wouldn't you tend to see "updated" versions of the blood libel and the Elders theory?
The above is why I think your characterizations of Peretz, Goldberg, et al, are incredibly insensitive and ignorant.
As for the more substantive points about AIPAC, I can't see why this would be such an issue were it not for anti Semitism and the Elders-like interpretation Walt/Meersheimer put on it. After all, if the Jews have a lobby, so do the Arabs--and Chas Freeman is part of it. This consists of the oil industry and academia, because of immense Saudi funding of Arabist/Islamist studies. It carries over into the State department and the CIA since academia is the recruiting ground for bureaucrats. Aside from the Israel and Arab lobbies, lobbying is just part of our system of government, guaranteed by the First Amendement (right to petition for redress of greivances). Why single out the Israel lobby for special opprobrium?
It should be easy for you by now to see how the charge of "coordination" pushes the Elders button for Goldberg and others. Nobody is accusing anyone of hating Jews in the vulgar Islamic "apes and pigs" style. But, given the implications of conspiracy charges contained in Freeman's final statement (for example), the Elders reference is fully justified. Just as one can explain the fact that Jews were leading Socialists and leading Capitalists in the 19th century without assuming the Elders theory (like the Nazis and others did), one can explain the widespread opposition to Freeman's appointment without assuming the diabolic influence of the Israel lobby. The fact that Chinese dissidents, and congressmen who support Chinese dissidents, makes the "Jewish lobby" charge absurd and would say to people like Goldberg (and any Jew, really) that the Elders theory is being invoked, even if unknowingly. The fact that Freeman has been on the payroll of the Saudis and the Chinese and has made statements contradicting long-standing US policy in the Middle East and China and supporting Saudi and Chinese policies makes accusations like Goldberg's even more likely.
After all, if his research had been financed by the Israel Lobby or by Israel itself, his unfitness for the job would be manifest. Indeed, he never even would have been nominated.
It's amusing that ED Kain refuses to respond to the objections I raise to his specious arguments. I wonder how he can justify this to himself, given the high-minded mission statement he puts up for his blog. Am I spewing vitriol, or something, again? Or is it only that he can't argue with people who he thinks are wrong? It's very childish in any case.
Max, I did read that link. I just don't agree that there is a "political wing" in reality. I'm saying that such a thing is part of the strategy of such Islamist groups to take and hold power. Their goals are to establish their god's law in the universe (or whatever). Whether they're in parliament or run for elections doesn't change that. Therefore, negotiations are impossible because in the end we're not talking about any rational demands that can be met or countered with other demands in the normal give-and-take of negotations. We're talking about a world-view that opposes ours. Nobody can or will negotiate their world-view. This has nothing to do with bestowing legitimacy on anyone.
The above goes double for "moderates." Both Hezbollah and Hamas are militant. If there are Hezbollah or Hamas members who don't want to fight any more, great. But it would be pointless to negotiate with them for the simple reason that they already quit fighting.
People like ED Kain and James haven't realized--or won't--that Islamists are insurgents. They're opposed to the Western world order, which means that the very principles that underlie this world order are anathema to them since they do not derive from god's law.
Applied to war and peace, this means that truces, like the one James says he proposes, are meaningless. From our point of view, the Islamic way of war is based on deceit. They are not obliged to fulfill their agreements with the enemy if circumstances change and suddenly they have the advantage. This is well-known. If I were Israeli, I certainly would not support a government that exchanged land for promises, or even less, for recognition of my right to exist. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to do so.
If James disagrees, then I've got a deal for him: he gives me his bank PIN number for safe-keeping and I'll promise never to use it. As an extra, I'll recognize his right to exist at no extra cost to him! He should be able to take the risk since it's only money and he's willing to risk the physical security of millions of Israelis for the promise of a ten-year truce. He's a real problem-solver. Sign him up for NSC director! Ten year truce...that should do it...problem solved...next problem! In three weeks we'll have peace on earth and good will towards men!
I've already shown James and ED Kain that the settlement issue is not the central problem. It's not reasonable to demand that Israel dismantle the settlements outside of a final peace treaty. One would think that the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza would have closed this kind of argument off forever. Israel withdrew 100% from Gaza and got rocket attacks in return. The 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon got them the same results. After these experiences, how can you blame them for not giving up the settlements in return for promises that have proven to be empty ones.
This post must be an example of the "smart" conservatism that you're flogging in the previous one. You use the word and its synonyms enough to transmit that message.
So, if you're so smart, tell me what we are going to negotiate with Hamas and with Hezbollah. What demands of theirs can we possibly meet? What are their demands besides the extermination of the state of Israel and the rule of god's law in Palestine?
Your post is chock-full of fallacies. For example not every insurgent group in the Middle East can be fairly called "terrorist." The Sunni tribes you dismiss with a wave of your "smart power" are a good example of that.
But enough carping about details. Here are the main problems with your post:
There is no "political wing" of Hezbollah. Haven't your heard that Muslim fanatics, and even Islam in general, do not distinguish between religion and politics? Monotheism means what it says to these folks. There may be Hizbollah members of parliament and Hamas may have participated in elections, but it's all a shadow dance to fool "smart" people" like you.
Second fallacy: there are no moderates in Hezbollah or Hamas. Who are the moderates? Are they the ones not fighting? Then why talk to them? They have no power to negotiate anything.
Why don't you write about lit-crit? It's something you know and you'd probably be a lot better at it.
My lucky cup is overflowing now that you have bothered with me twice now and on top of it you're giving me some leeway—as an historian by occupation, no less—about citing an authoritative piece of research on the Palestinian refugee problem by an author of many other widely-cited books on Israeli history. How is it possible that an historian by occupation finds debate about history to be a distraction?
Now you say my responses to your direct challenges to me are a distraction and you open up another topic: the unconscionable deaths of 400 children. Is this what you want to discuss? Why didn't you say so before, when you were going on about the colonists on the West Bank, the Israeli "land grab," etc etc? Then maybe I wouldn't have been so distracted by your own challenges to me.
How about the root of the problem? Is that a distraction as well? You brought it up twice when you said that the settlements were the root and then shifted to naming the land grab when I showed you that they weren't. Then when I debunked the land grab theory, you claim that the whole thing's a distraction. None of this depends in the least on anyone's reading any specific book, or not. It's just common sense to anyone with a minimum knowledge of the history of the conflict that the situation isn't as simple as blaming anyone for a "land grab" or for the deaths of 400 children, for that matter. After all, children have been murdered by both sides. Why single out Israel for your opprobrium and not the Arabs?
Let me refer you to the following: there are some 18 Arab nations currently boycotting Israel and who refuse to allow anyone with an Israeli passport or who has an Israeli stamp on their passport to enter their countries. Twenty out of 22 Arab league members refuse to recognize the state of Israel. The state-run media of most of these countries generate the most vile and despicable anti Semitic propaganda one could imagine on a daily basis and state education systems indoctrinate children with hatred for Israel and Jews. Is this what you call "being at peace with Israel for decades?"
I know I'm lucky you bothered with me. I attribute ED Kain's silence to his lack of knowledge on this issue, which he insists on writing about anyway. How in the world can his argument be called in any way consistent? He wants the Senate to reflect the latest public opinion polls and to include the idea the the Gaza operation was "pointless" and not "noble." But then, opinion polls show overwhelming public support for the justice of Israel's Gaza operation... and so forth. Does he want us to believe that the vote should have been 60 "yes," 18 "no," and the rest "abstain" or something like that, in accordance with the latest Pew survey? What a joke!
I agree that Israel must dismantle the settlements and withdraw from the West Bank. I believe that they will, or would, in the case of a peace settlement. But it's just unreasonable to demand such a thing without any negotiations with the PA—especially in the face of how the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals ended up. With this kind of history, how on earth do you get the nerve to demand further unilateral withdrawals? It would mean a possibly catastrophic attack since the West Bank is in easy striking distance by rockets of densly populated Israeli territory. Resolution 242, after all, expresses the formula, "land for peace." It has two parts, not just a demand that Israel GTFO.
So now we get to the bottom of this, which is why I'm so lucky you bothered with me:
Well yes, the root of the problem was the land-grab that was Israel’s birth.
Let's remember that the "land grab" you refer to happened during the 48-49 war, which five Arab states declared on Israel as they invaded, and even before, as Palestinian Arabs began an insurgency as soon as the November 1947 UN vote came through by attacking Jewish traffic on the roads and so on. Some seven or eight hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs were refugees by the time the war was over. Some were expelled by the IDF, some were told to leave by their leaders, some fled in fear of Jewish atrocities, others in fear of being called a traitor by other Arabs if they stayed. It's not as simple a situation as you want to imagine. For example, about an equal number of Jews were expelled from Arab/Muslim nations and into Israel at the same time. There were massacres against them as well but there is a big difference here: the Jews in Iraq, for example, posed no threat to the government at all. They were not insurgents. They had lived in Iraq since before Islam even existed. So the Arab/Muslim nations that expelled Jews engaged in a lot of "land grabbing" themselves. Nobody is the innocent victim here. Everyone is a "righteous victim," to use the title of Benny Morris's book.
I haven't read the Pappe book you link to but I have read Benny Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. He's another of Israel's "new historians." He set out to prove your "land grab" thesis and couldn't do it. He could not find evidence of any design for ethnic cleansing by Israel. The book is over six hundred pages of densely written history so it's really not fair to summarize it like I just have. It must suffice here to say that the issue is much more nuanced than you want us to believe with the inflammatory description, "land grab." For one thing, such "ethnic cleansing" was common in the aftermath of WWII—millions of Europeans were ethnically cleansed from one country or the other. Read, Tony Judt's Postwar if you don't believe me. As strange as it may sound today, such practices were thought to be somewhat humane back then, or at least more humane than leaving them where they were, which would have subjected them to violent reprisals and so forth. In Israel's case, they had to consider security as well. In the face of an invasion by five Arab states, their large Arab minority was a possible fifth column and Israel was in a war for its survival.
The point is that if Arabs had accepted the UN partition, there would have been no war and no "land grab." That's why your explanation of the root of the problem is a fallacy. It assumes the consequences of the war as the root. But obviously the consequences cannot be the root of anything. The root is the war.
So the "land grab" cannot be the root of the problem, either. Do you have any other roots up your sleeve?
So, to repeat myself, What were they fighting about in 1948-49? Why didn't they accept the UN Partition plan? They would have had twice as much territory as they could get today. Israel would have had a much larger Arab minority. We wouldn't be arguing about any Senate resolution, etc etc.
You say, with fine irony, "it looks like there are still colonists in the West Bank." Is this supposed to show that Clinton and Barak did not offer a reasonable solution to Arafat in 2000? I don't see how. There are still colonists there because Arafat said "no" and unleashed the so-called second intifada. There was no deal. This history shows, along with everything else, that the settlements are not the root of the problem. If they were, then why not take the deal they were offered? The settlers would have GTFO for sure then.
As for the polling data that Mark links to, 60% say their sympathies lie with Israel, 18% with Palestine and the rest (22%) are say they don't know or that they favor both or neither.
The Senate resolution expresses this overwhelming US support for Israel quite well. I say that if a Senator wanted his vote to reflect the sentiment in his or her state, then he or she should have voted "yes." But it just isn't true that a vote of this nature is by tradition or by law designed to reflect the vagueness of public opinion so the "disconnect" is only a product of fevered conspiracy theories.
63% percent thought that Israel was justified in taking military action and 31% thought it wasn't. That's over two to one, which is yet another reason for a senator to vote "yes."
I repeat my question for ED Kain: How would you have expressed the idea that the Gaza operation was an unjust war, like you say, above? A follow-up: if something like this had been in the resolution, then why wouldn't there be the dreaded "disconnect" between it and the American public opinion, as expressed in the polling data Mark links to?
Here's your line (actually, there are five lines):
(4)
17 believes strongly that the lives of innocent
18 civilians must be protected and all appropriate meas-
18 ures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties
19 and that all involved should continue to work to ad-
20 dress humanitarian needs in Gaza;
ED Kain: How would you have expressed the idea that the Gaza operation was an unjust war, like you say, above
But the fact that not one single Senator can call out Israel for an unjust war speaks for itself.
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Wikipedia
So, Mark and ED Kain, what "words of criticism" are missing from the resolution? That's all I'm asking and that's what you're not answering.
Marc R shows that the "unbelievable disconnect" is not accurate. But much more importantly, it's fodder for the Elders-like "theory" that ED Kain and Sullivan cite so approvingly (Walt/Meersheimer). A weird disconnect between the congress and the public to support the Zionists against the true interests of the nation, which is "explained" by the diabolical power of the "Israel lobby." How is this different from the Nazi "explanation" for WWII, in which "International Jewry" was pulling the strings of Roosevelt's and Churchill's governments so that they joined the anti Axis alliance?
I should let ED Kain speak for himself here, but I want to show him that I don't disagree with him just to disagree. Jim says,
The American/Israeli position was that Nasser’s inflammatory speeches and threats (among other Arab leader’s pronouncements) against the fledgling Jewish nation in the Middle East was enough evidence for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
Jim needs to read some history of the war. Nasser's pronouncements were not the causus beli of the '67 war (although they certainly did enter into the buildup towards war). This was Nassers closing the Red Sea to Israeli traffic in violation of signed treaties. This was based on troop mobilizations by Egypt and Syria. This was based on intercepted communication between Nasser and Syria that made it clear that an invasion was imminent. It's a classic example of the preemptive attack, which is self-defense. Otherwise, Jordan entered the war later, in response to pressure by other Arab states.
Jim thinks he has a "gotcha" moment here in that Israel should launch a preemptive attack against Iran for its inflammatory statements to be consistent. But Iran is not mobilizing and Israel has no information that an Iranian attack is imminent, so this is truly a straw man. The Arabs lost the '67 war not because Israel had US-supplied weapons—this is just part of the Arabs' pretexts—but because Israel had better intelligence and organization. After all, Nasser was well-supplied with weaponry by the USSR. It needs to be said that the USSR was entirely disgusted with Nasser for his debacle and the waste of so many millions in weaponry. But they couldn't cut him loose since his government served them in other ways since the KGB had penetrated the highest levels of his government.
So your response is something like, "I can't argue with you because you're wrong." Doesn't this contradict your mission statement somehow? I.e.,
a deep and abiding commitment to the exploration of ideas outside the foray of rhetorical and ideological cul de sacs. The entries are less posts than they are dialogues with an aim towards sustained discussion on topics and issues that lay at the foundations of our lives.
Can't you at least call out parts of the resolution that you would have dissented from? Or that you think senators should have dissented from? Or that you believe that an important percentage of the public dissents from?
Don't call it "arguing" if you don't want to. But it's just not enough to say that it's obvious that there should be dissent because it isn't obvious once you read the resolution. What is there to dissent from? Or what is omitted that would make you vote against it? That's a reasonable question and readers would expect a reasonable answer.
You say,
The West Bank deal was denied because Arafat thought he could do better. The second intifada was launched because he thought he could force a better bargain.
What evidence do you have of this? I haven't seen any myself. If anyone uses straw men, it's you, not Rusty. Why don't you bring some facts to bear on this issue and show us why he's wrong?
You assume that Arafat was just playing politics and he really didn't mean what he said. Again, this is just pure speculation designed to accord with your own world view. It is not based on anything empirical. Policy makers cannot give themselves the luxury of basing their decisions on such idle dreaming for obvious reasons.
You believe that all the Palestinians/Arabs need is a nation-state of their own and peace will come naturally afterword. Another noble speculation. But, then, why didn't they accept the state that was offered to them by the UN in 1947? Or in 2000? What's missing here in your analysis that would explain these events?
Rusty says that the PA should have taken the deal they were offered and "not launched a whole second intifada because Ariel Sharon took a walk near a holy mosque." This is not accurate. "Intifada" means something like "uprising." This was no uprising—as in the '80s—since it was planned in advance of the 2000 Camp David talks. Later it was coordinated by Arafat himself.
Rusty's point about the lack of engagement by moderate Muslims is right on.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Un-American Conservative”
What kind of idiotic answer is that? One would think that you're simply being flip and not interested in "advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues" like you say in your mission statement.
You were the one who said that the AIPAC was the most powerful lobby. Did you just pull that idea out of your sleeve because it fits into your prejudices?
"
What evidence do you have to support such a statement?
On “the anti-Semitic accusation as throw-away”
Let me rephrase that: "there is asolutely nothing in the article you link to that refutes my claim that M&W propose an updated Elders-style conspiracy theory in their book, The Israel Lobby. OK?
W&M, Freeman, and people who think like them, accuse the Israel Lobby of torpedoing Freeman´s appointment. This is false. Another peice of evidence for that from today's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301856_pf.html. According to this, Freeman's attitude towards China and Tibet determined the opposition to his appointment. The Israel Lobby was not instrumental in this. Freeman and many others, like James, believe that the Israel Lobby has undue influence on the policy process. This is also false. Accusations of such things usually take the form of lists of Jewish names as "proof." Your logician's mind should be able to see the fallaciousness of this approach.
I say all this W&M theory is an updated version of the Elders conspiracy theory because it blames Jews for a variety of evils without proof or even logic. Naturally, the theory is much more nuanced today than it was at the end of the 19th century. That's the whole point of it's being updated. People can say that they don't believe that there's a Jewish conspiracy to control the world and instead there's "a loose coalition," etc etc. People can accuse this Israel Lobby of "silencing" them when it's only about criticism and even when they have prominent positions in academia or the government, like W&M themselves. These are hallmarks of the Elders-style conspiracy theory and therefore they are hallmarks of anti Semitism.
"
Besides, it’s really your responsibility to show that they are proposing anything of the kind, not theirs to demonstrate that they’re not.
Your article quotes M&W explaining that they do not propose a world wide Jewish conspiracy.
This is as good an example of "updating" the Elders conspiracy theory as you're likely to find.
"
Freddie,
Of course there's a difference. What have I said that could give you the idea that I felt otherwise? I honestly can't find anything, but let this stand here as a repudiation of anything I've said to the contrary. It was gratifying for me that James found a quote by Nick Cohen that supports my point of view.
I've said many times that there are parallels between the Elders and M&W's The Israel Lobby. "Parallels" does not mean that the two are identical. I've said many times that the Elders theory has been updated. "Updating" means changing, evolving. Therefore they are different.
I won't accuse you of bad faith, but Freeman did not say, "there is a powerful pro-Israel lobbying interest in the United States which undertakes unprincipled tactics to silence critics of Israel.”
He said, "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."
Even though these two ideas are quite different, neither is equivalent to "there is a Jewish conspiracy that controls the world." I never accused anyone of believing in the latter. In fact, I've gone out of my way to show that such beliefs are dead (except for the Arab/Islamic world).
Either way--if Freeman believes that the Israel Lobby silences critics (as in your rendering), or if he believes that it aims to control the policy process (as in his own words), this is a manifest absurdity. There are critics of Israel all over the map, foremost amongst them is Freeman himself today. Far from being silenced, his view have been trumpeted across the country and he's made a very good living out of having such views, as have so many others.
Then, of course, Freeman's appointment was not torpedoed by the Israel Lobby at all, as evidenced by the article from the Hill I linked to above.
None of the above will matter a bit to people who believe in the nefarious power of the Israel Lobby to "control the policy process" in detriment to our "true interests." It doesn't matter that 1-Critics of Israel are not silenced or 2-that the Israel lobby had nothing to do with the rejection of Freeman.
"
James,
This quote from the page you link to by Nick Cohen says it all:
Cohen's observation applies to you as well.
Otherwise there is asolutely nothing in the article you link to that shows that M&W do not propose an updated Elders-style conspiracy theory in their book, The Israel Lobby
"
Chris,
I don't know if I was unclear for you or you are deliberately misreading me. Whatever. I never said that anyone "bought into" the Elders theory. I specifically said that this was not the case since the Nazi defeat meant the defeat of Nazi-style anti Semitism as well. I said that the Elders theory has been updated. Today, instead of the "International Jewry" that was the Nazi bugbear, we have "international Zionism," and so on. In WWII, the Nazis said that "International Jewry" was pulling the strings on Roosevelt's and Churchill's governments so that they joined the anti-Axis alliance. Therefore, in the Nazi view, "International Jewry" was responsible for the war, not Nazi expansionism, etc. Nazis believed that the "true interests" of both GB and the US were in line with Nazism and therefore, "International Jewry" was manipulating the US and GB to act against their own "true interests."
The parallels between Freeman's screed and Nazi-style anti Semitic "theory" are too obvious to ignore.
Freeman, and those who support and agree with him, believes in a conspiracy theory that makes the Jews, Zionists, etc etc responsible for nefarious deeds against the "true interests" of the US, like for example, opposing the appointment of Chas Freeman himself.
I know it's useless to argue with any true believer in any conspiracy theory but just to show that I'm trying, the Hill (http://thehill.com/images/M_images/printButton.png) quotes congressmen and senators as saying that the Israel Lobby had nothing to do with their opposition to his appointment:
Just as one can explain the fact that Jews were leading Capitalists and leading Communists before WWII etc etc without having to refer to any conspiracy theory whatsoever, one can explain the opposition to Freeman. You'll see in the article I linked to that he simply wasn't qualified for the job, which is aside from the fact of his business links with Saudi Arabia and China, which would make anyone doubt his fitness for the post he wanted.
I can't comment on the Klein article you link to. Of course I don't believe that he's anti Semitic. He doesn't show that he believes in the Israel Lobby conspiracy theory either, let alone the Elders. I don't see the point of your linking to him or the question you pose. Nothing in your comments or in Klein's peice can refute anything I've said here so far.
"
James,
Rahm Emmanuel has received money from Israel or the Israel Lobby for his research? What are you talking about?
On “Gunslingers”
James,
Tell the truth: Are you about 16 years old?
"
Israel stopped attacking until Hamas started firing rockets.
"
Chris Dierkes,
The fact that Islamists can't govern without imposing a police state or that they can't organize an economic system without simply selling off primary resources doesn't mean that their world view is not dangerous. You should consider the power of ignorance guided by blind faith. The Muslim/Arab world is the most ignorant in the world, according to the UNDP. They willing to use extreme violence to achieve their ends. Since they're attacking us, there's no way we can simply ignore them.
There's an added danger since the anti Capitalist, anti American, and anti Semitic aspects of the Islamicist world view attracts leftists in the West.
"
James-Seriously, until there's peace, we have no hope of removing the settlements. Virulent Jew-haters like Hamas would have a launch pad within range of Tel Aviv otherwise. Isn't that fairly obvious?
On “the anti-Semitic accusation as throw-away”
The following is the text of Freeman's email declining his appointment. I take it as evidence of anti Semitism in that it depends on the Elders-like theory of the diabolical cabal manipulating events from behind the scenes in their own interests.:
You see, it's not a question of criticizing Israel or even of opposing Israel that leaves people open to charges of anti Semitism. Even if you advocated policies that would lead to Israel's destruction, like the right of return or unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you would not be anti Semitic. But if you're going to engage in conspiracy theories like Freeman does, then it doesn't matter to me what you think of Israel. You'd be an anti Semite, even if some of your best friends are Jews.
A very enlightening book on this topic is by Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience
On “Gunslingers”
Max,
It looks like you're speaking for ED Kain now, so I'm glad to respond. Too bad he thinks that because we disagree, we can't debate anything.
I never said or even implied such a thing as the above. I don't like having words put in my mouth. And I was quite clear that it's not a matter of "being in thrall to principle" --we all are in thrall to principle to some extent. It's a matter of world-view, which is a very different thing.
I don't even say that all Arab militant groups are Islamicist. I mentioned the Sunni tribes of Iraq as an example of a militant insurgent Arab/Muslim group that is not Islamicist. I say that these militant groups are Islamic fundamentalists. I say that these groups have an opposing world view to ours, which makes negotiation useless, along with the other reasons I mentioned above. I say Hamas and Hezbollah are militant Islamicist groups. I can say this because that's how they describe themselves and that's what they proclaim in their charters, etc. The "Islamic" part makes them opposed to our world view, which means that negotiations are useless.
Where do you get the idea that they can be reduced to militant resistence groups?
I say that it's a big mistake to reduce Islamic groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to simple resistence groups, which does nobody any favors. It shouldn't take you long to see that when you simply proclaim this, you're engaging in the idle an uninformed speculation that you accuse me of doing.
Where did you get the idea that I believe that Hizbollah is "apolitical?" I said I doubt the sincerity of the so-called political wing, which is nowhere near saying that they're "apolitical." Being "political" means that they are engaged in the political process, which means that they are not violent. An armed, violent group with political ends--i.e., that wants power--is not the same thing as a political group. If you have an armed group that uses violence to get power, you by definition have a group that's outside the political process. In the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, the political wings do not renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by agreements between Israel and the PA. Therefore, they cannot fairly be termed "political groups." They're simply one more aspect of the violent and armed groups themselves.
By saying that they are Islamicist and have an opposing world view to ours, I do not imply "all war all the time." It's yet another instance of your putting words in my mouth. They are capable of making political and military calculations, as anyone else can. If they're in a position of weakness, like they are now, nothing in their belief system obliges them to blindly keep on fighting. They can declare a truce, which is for the purpose of rearming and reorganizing for the next attack. Ten years happens to be the limit placed on truces by Islamic law. Nothing you've said contradicts this. As for why Hezbolah didn't intervene in the recent Gaza operation, I'm sure that they did make a political and military calculation, as well as receive instructions from Iran, and so forth. I really don't know the answer but I never said that I thought they were "apolitical" and incapable of political calulations.
So now it's "people like me" who are the cause of Hamas militancy? Are you serious? I say they fire rockets because they want to kill Jews; I do condemn this; I do not advocate ignoring them; I advocate defeating them; I do advocate leaving them out of the political process until they meet the demands of the Quartet. Such demands only represent the minimum conditions any group needs so as to become "political" and not a violent insurgency. I can't see why this is such a far-out position to take. Can you help?
On “the anti-Semitic accusation as throw-away”
I'd like to explain some history for you and your readers, just in case they or you are unaware. I apologize in advance if you already know this.
European anti Semitism has a long history. In the Middle Ages, it was based on the Bible, which says that they were Christ-killers and they would carry the blood-guilt of this heinous crime forever.
Jews were subject to apartheid-like laws in the Middle Ages (which really wasn't so bad, considering that everyone else--besides the clergy and the nobility--was as well) and worse: periodic pogroms, or massacres, based on "well-poisoning" and other "blood libels" (they kidnapped and muredered babies for their satanic rituals, etc.).
The French Revolution eliminated this feudal order from one day to the next. With respect to the Jews, the slogan was, "for the Jews--nothing! for the citizens--everything!" In other words, Jews would become citizens of the republic and have the same rights as everyone else, as citizens. This would solve the "Jewish question" because Jews would simply stop being Jews and become citizens.
Jews took advantage of their freedom to excel in business, the arts, the professions and in academia. In Vienna--where 20th-century anti Semitism got its start--Jews were actually the majority in the above, while being a very small minority of the population in general.
Thus the emergence of the Elders. How to explain the success of such a despised group without assuming that they simply know how to compete? Jews, for example, have a culture that values books and reading, which would give them a head-start on anyone who doesn't. As a teacher in Mexico, I'm confronted with this fact every day: kids who don't come from families with university educations have a much harder time in school than ones that don't, regardless of their social classes.
By the end of the century, anti Semitism was on the rise. The Dreyfuss affair, in France, is usually cited as an emblem of this. I think that the legend is that Theodore Hertzl was in France as a journalist covering the Dreyfuss trial and witnessed increasing virulent anti Semitic outbursts in public etc etc, which led to his founding the World Zionist Congress in 1897.
The Elders was written by Tsarist secret police as part of the Russian government's wave of pograms agains the Jews that was unleased after the assasination of Tsar Alexander I in the 1880s. It was translated into French and became part of the anti Semitic atmosphere in that country during the Dreyfuss affair. Later, it was brought to Hitler's attention by Alfred Rosenberg, a Lithuanian Russian subject who became Hitler's main ideologue.
Therefore 20th-century anti Semitism is an amalgam of the Middle Ages blood libels and the Elders conspiracy theory.
This ideology was defeated in WWII. One would not expect it to reappear as such again for this reason alone.
On the other hand, anti Semites certainly have not disappeared. Therefore one would expect some new variation of the above theory, adapted for today's circumstances.
So, up to now, give me an honest answer: if you were a Jew, and you were aware of this history, wouldn't you be a bit "sensitive" about it? Wouldn't you tend to see "updated" versions of the blood libel and the Elders theory?
The above is why I think your characterizations of Peretz, Goldberg, et al, are incredibly insensitive and ignorant.
As for the more substantive points about AIPAC, I can't see why this would be such an issue were it not for anti Semitism and the Elders-like interpretation Walt/Meersheimer put on it. After all, if the Jews have a lobby, so do the Arabs--and Chas Freeman is part of it. This consists of the oil industry and academia, because of immense Saudi funding of Arabist/Islamist studies. It carries over into the State department and the CIA since academia is the recruiting ground for bureaucrats. Aside from the Israel and Arab lobbies, lobbying is just part of our system of government, guaranteed by the First Amendement (right to petition for redress of greivances). Why single out the Israel lobby for special opprobrium?
It should be easy for you by now to see how the charge of "coordination" pushes the Elders button for Goldberg and others. Nobody is accusing anyone of hating Jews in the vulgar Islamic "apes and pigs" style. But, given the implications of conspiracy charges contained in Freeman's final statement (for example), the Elders reference is fully justified. Just as one can explain the fact that Jews were leading Socialists and leading Capitalists in the 19th century without assuming the Elders theory (like the Nazis and others did), one can explain the widespread opposition to Freeman's appointment without assuming the diabolic influence of the Israel lobby. The fact that Chinese dissidents, and congressmen who support Chinese dissidents, makes the "Jewish lobby" charge absurd and would say to people like Goldberg (and any Jew, really) that the Elders theory is being invoked, even if unknowingly. The fact that Freeman has been on the payroll of the Saudis and the Chinese and has made statements contradicting long-standing US policy in the Middle East and China and supporting Saudi and Chinese policies makes accusations like Goldberg's even more likely.
After all, if his research had been financed by the Israel Lobby or by Israel itself, his unfitness for the job would be manifest. Indeed, he never even would have been nominated.
On “Gunslingers”
It's amusing that ED Kain refuses to respond to the objections I raise to his specious arguments. I wonder how he can justify this to himself, given the high-minded mission statement he puts up for his blog. Am I spewing vitriol, or something, again? Or is it only that he can't argue with people who he thinks are wrong? It's very childish in any case.
Max, I did read that link. I just don't agree that there is a "political wing" in reality. I'm saying that such a thing is part of the strategy of such Islamist groups to take and hold power. Their goals are to establish their god's law in the universe (or whatever). Whether they're in parliament or run for elections doesn't change that. Therefore, negotiations are impossible because in the end we're not talking about any rational demands that can be met or countered with other demands in the normal give-and-take of negotations. We're talking about a world-view that opposes ours. Nobody can or will negotiate their world-view. This has nothing to do with bestowing legitimacy on anyone.
The above goes double for "moderates." Both Hezbollah and Hamas are militant. If there are Hezbollah or Hamas members who don't want to fight any more, great. But it would be pointless to negotiate with them for the simple reason that they already quit fighting.
People like ED Kain and James haven't realized--or won't--that Islamists are insurgents. They're opposed to the Western world order, which means that the very principles that underlie this world order are anathema to them since they do not derive from god's law.
Applied to war and peace, this means that truces, like the one James says he proposes, are meaningless. From our point of view, the Islamic way of war is based on deceit. They are not obliged to fulfill their agreements with the enemy if circumstances change and suddenly they have the advantage. This is well-known. If I were Israeli, I certainly would not support a government that exchanged land for promises, or even less, for recognition of my right to exist. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to do so.
If James disagrees, then I've got a deal for him: he gives me his bank PIN number for safe-keeping and I'll promise never to use it. As an extra, I'll recognize his right to exist at no extra cost to him! He should be able to take the risk since it's only money and he's willing to risk the physical security of millions of Israelis for the promise of a ten-year truce. He's a real problem-solver. Sign him up for NSC director! Ten year truce...that should do it...problem solved...next problem! In three weeks we'll have peace on earth and good will towards men!
I've already shown James and ED Kain that the settlement issue is not the central problem. It's not reasonable to demand that Israel dismantle the settlements outside of a final peace treaty. One would think that the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza would have closed this kind of argument off forever. Israel withdrew 100% from Gaza and got rocket attacks in return. The 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon got them the same results. After these experiences, how can you blame them for not giving up the settlements in return for promises that have proven to be empty ones.
"
This post must be an example of the "smart" conservatism that you're flogging in the previous one. You use the word and its synonyms enough to transmit that message.
So, if you're so smart, tell me what we are going to negotiate with Hamas and with Hezbollah. What demands of theirs can we possibly meet? What are their demands besides the extermination of the state of Israel and the rule of god's law in Palestine?
Your post is chock-full of fallacies. For example not every insurgent group in the Middle East can be fairly called "terrorist." The Sunni tribes you dismiss with a wave of your "smart power" are a good example of that.
But enough carping about details. Here are the main problems with your post:
There is no "political wing" of Hezbollah. Haven't your heard that Muslim fanatics, and even Islam in general, do not distinguish between religion and politics? Monotheism means what it says to these folks. There may be Hizbollah members of parliament and Hamas may have participated in elections, but it's all a shadow dance to fool "smart" people" like you.
Second fallacy: there are no moderates in Hezbollah or Hamas. Who are the moderates? Are they the ones not fighting? Then why talk to them? They have no power to negotiate anything.
Why don't you write about lit-crit? It's something you know and you'd probably be a lot better at it.
On “affinity and expectations”
My lucky cup is overflowing now that you have bothered with me twice now and on top of it you're giving me some leeway—as an historian by occupation, no less—about citing an authoritative piece of research on the Palestinian refugee problem by an author of many other widely-cited books on Israeli history. How is it possible that an historian by occupation finds debate about history to be a distraction?
Now you say my responses to your direct challenges to me are a distraction and you open up another topic: the unconscionable deaths of 400 children. Is this what you want to discuss? Why didn't you say so before, when you were going on about the colonists on the West Bank, the Israeli "land grab," etc etc? Then maybe I wouldn't have been so distracted by your own challenges to me.
How about the root of the problem? Is that a distraction as well? You brought it up twice when you said that the settlements were the root and then shifted to naming the land grab when I showed you that they weren't. Then when I debunked the land grab theory, you claim that the whole thing's a distraction. None of this depends in the least on anyone's reading any specific book, or not. It's just common sense to anyone with a minimum knowledge of the history of the conflict that the situation isn't as simple as blaming anyone for a "land grab" or for the deaths of 400 children, for that matter. After all, children have been murdered by both sides. Why single out Israel for your opprobrium and not the Arabs?
Let me refer you to the following: there are some 18 Arab nations currently boycotting Israel and who refuse to allow anyone with an Israeli passport or who has an Israeli stamp on their passport to enter their countries. Twenty out of 22 Arab league members refuse to recognize the state of Israel. The state-run media of most of these countries generate the most vile and despicable anti Semitic propaganda one could imagine on a daily basis and state education systems indoctrinate children with hatred for Israel and Jews. Is this what you call "being at peace with Israel for decades?"
"
James,
I know I'm lucky you bothered with me. I attribute ED Kain's silence to his lack of knowledge on this issue, which he insists on writing about anyway. How in the world can his argument be called in any way consistent? He wants the Senate to reflect the latest public opinion polls and to include the idea the the Gaza operation was "pointless" and not "noble." But then, opinion polls show overwhelming public support for the justice of Israel's Gaza operation... and so forth. Does he want us to believe that the vote should have been 60 "yes," 18 "no," and the rest "abstain" or something like that, in accordance with the latest Pew survey? What a joke!
I agree that Israel must dismantle the settlements and withdraw from the West Bank. I believe that they will, or would, in the case of a peace settlement. But it's just unreasonable to demand such a thing without any negotiations with the PA—especially in the face of how the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals ended up. With this kind of history, how on earth do you get the nerve to demand further unilateral withdrawals? It would mean a possibly catastrophic attack since the West Bank is in easy striking distance by rockets of densly populated Israeli territory. Resolution 242, after all, expresses the formula, "land for peace." It has two parts, not just a demand that Israel GTFO.
So now we get to the bottom of this, which is why I'm so lucky you bothered with me:
Let's remember that the "land grab" you refer to happened during the 48-49 war, which five Arab states declared on Israel as they invaded, and even before, as Palestinian Arabs began an insurgency as soon as the November 1947 UN vote came through by attacking Jewish traffic on the roads and so on. Some seven or eight hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs were refugees by the time the war was over. Some were expelled by the IDF, some were told to leave by their leaders, some fled in fear of Jewish atrocities, others in fear of being called a traitor by other Arabs if they stayed. It's not as simple a situation as you want to imagine. For example, about an equal number of Jews were expelled from Arab/Muslim nations and into Israel at the same time. There were massacres against them as well but there is a big difference here: the Jews in Iraq, for example, posed no threat to the government at all. They were not insurgents. They had lived in Iraq since before Islam even existed. So the Arab/Muslim nations that expelled Jews engaged in a lot of "land grabbing" themselves. Nobody is the innocent victim here. Everyone is a "righteous victim," to use the title of Benny Morris's book.
I haven't read the Pappe book you link to but I have read Benny Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. He's another of Israel's "new historians." He set out to prove your "land grab" thesis and couldn't do it. He could not find evidence of any design for ethnic cleansing by Israel. The book is over six hundred pages of densely written history so it's really not fair to summarize it like I just have. It must suffice here to say that the issue is much more nuanced than you want us to believe with the inflammatory description, "land grab." For one thing, such "ethnic cleansing" was common in the aftermath of WWII—millions of Europeans were ethnically cleansed from one country or the other. Read, Tony Judt's Postwar if you don't believe me. As strange as it may sound today, such practices were thought to be somewhat humane back then, or at least more humane than leaving them where they were, which would have subjected them to violent reprisals and so forth. In Israel's case, they had to consider security as well. In the face of an invasion by five Arab states, their large Arab minority was a possible fifth column and Israel was in a war for its survival.
The point is that if Arabs had accepted the UN partition, there would have been no war and no "land grab." That's why your explanation of the root of the problem is a fallacy. It assumes the consequences of the war as the root. But obviously the consequences cannot be the root of anything. The root is the war.
So the "land grab" cannot be the root of the problem, either. Do you have any other roots up your sleeve?
So, to repeat myself, What were they fighting about in 1948-49? Why didn't they accept the UN Partition plan? They would have had twice as much territory as they could get today. Israel would have had a much larger Arab minority. We wouldn't be arguing about any Senate resolution, etc etc.
You say, with fine irony, "it looks like there are still colonists in the West Bank." Is this supposed to show that Clinton and Barak did not offer a reasonable solution to Arafat in 2000? I don't see how. There are still colonists there because Arafat said "no" and unleashed the so-called second intifada. There was no deal. This history shows, along with everything else, that the settlements are not the root of the problem. If they were, then why not take the deal they were offered? The settlers would have GTFO for sure then.
"
As for the polling data that Mark links to, 60% say their sympathies lie with Israel, 18% with Palestine and the rest (22%) are say they don't know or that they favor both or neither.
The Senate resolution expresses this overwhelming US support for Israel quite well. I say that if a Senator wanted his vote to reflect the sentiment in his or her state, then he or she should have voted "yes." But it just isn't true that a vote of this nature is by tradition or by law designed to reflect the vagueness of public opinion so the "disconnect" is only a product of fevered conspiracy theories.
63% percent thought that Israel was justified in taking military action and 31% thought it wasn't. That's over two to one, which is yet another reason for a senator to vote "yes."
I repeat my question for ED Kain: How would you have expressed the idea that the Gaza operation was an unjust war, like you say, above? A follow-up: if something like this had been in the resolution, then why wouldn't there be the dreaded "disconnect" between it and the American public opinion, as expressed in the polling data Mark links to?
"
Mark,
Here's your line (actually, there are five lines):
ED Kain: How would you have expressed the idea that the Gaza operation was an unjust war, like you say, above
"
Goodwin's law is not appropriate here:
"
So, Mark and ED Kain, what "words of criticism" are missing from the resolution? That's all I'm asking and that's what you're not answering.
Marc R shows that the "unbelievable disconnect" is not accurate. But much more importantly, it's fodder for the Elders-like "theory" that ED Kain and Sullivan cite so approvingly (Walt/Meersheimer). A weird disconnect between the congress and the public to support the Zionists against the true interests of the nation, which is "explained" by the diabolical power of the "Israel lobby." How is this different from the Nazi "explanation" for WWII, in which "International Jewry" was pulling the strings of Roosevelt's and Churchill's governments so that they joined the anti Axis alliance?
"
I should let ED Kain speak for himself here, but I want to show him that I don't disagree with him just to disagree. Jim says,
Jim needs to read some history of the war. Nasser's pronouncements were not the causus beli of the '67 war (although they certainly did enter into the buildup towards war). This was Nassers closing the Red Sea to Israeli traffic in violation of signed treaties. This was based on troop mobilizations by Egypt and Syria. This was based on intercepted communication between Nasser and Syria that made it clear that an invasion was imminent. It's a classic example of the preemptive attack, which is self-defense. Otherwise, Jordan entered the war later, in response to pressure by other Arab states.
Jim thinks he has a "gotcha" moment here in that Israel should launch a preemptive attack against Iran for its inflammatory statements to be consistent. But Iran is not mobilizing and Israel has no information that an Iranian attack is imminent, so this is truly a straw man. The Arabs lost the '67 war not because Israel had US-supplied weapons—this is just part of the Arabs' pretexts—but because Israel had better intelligence and organization. After all, Nasser was well-supplied with weaponry by the USSR. It needs to be said that the USSR was entirely disgusted with Nasser for his debacle and the waste of so many millions in weaponry. But they couldn't cut him loose since his government served them in other ways since the KGB had penetrated the highest levels of his government.
"
Hey ED Kain,
So your response is something like, "I can't argue with you because you're wrong." Doesn't this contradict your mission statement somehow? I.e.,
Can't you at least call out parts of the resolution that you would have dissented from? Or that you think senators should have dissented from? Or that you believe that an important percentage of the public dissents from?
Don't call it "arguing" if you don't want to. But it's just not enough to say that it's obvious that there should be dissent because it isn't obvious once you read the resolution. What is there to dissent from? Or what is omitted that would make you vote against it? That's a reasonable question and readers would expect a reasonable answer.
You say,
What evidence do you have of this? I haven't seen any myself. If anyone uses straw men, it's you, not Rusty. Why don't you bring some facts to bear on this issue and show us why he's wrong?
You assume that Arafat was just playing politics and he really didn't mean what he said. Again, this is just pure speculation designed to accord with your own world view. It is not based on anything empirical. Policy makers cannot give themselves the luxury of basing their decisions on such idle dreaming for obvious reasons.
You believe that all the Palestinians/Arabs need is a nation-state of their own and peace will come naturally afterword. Another noble speculation. But, then, why didn't they accept the state that was offered to them by the UN in 1947? Or in 2000? What's missing here in your analysis that would explain these events?
Rusty says that the PA should have taken the deal they were offered and "not launched a whole second intifada because Ariel Sharon took a walk near a holy mosque." This is not accurate. "Intifada" means something like "uprising." This was no uprising—as in the '80s—since it was planned in advance of the 2000 Camp David talks. Later it was coordinated by Arafat himself.
Rusty's point about the lack of engagement by moderate Muslims is right on.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.