"J Street Should Fight the Left as Well as the Right"
Goldblog reader Howard Deutsch writes:
AIPAC types are worked up about J Street because while J Street has claimed to be "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace," they have, to an outsider's view, spent a lot of their energy arguing with Israel's American supporters on the right (AIPAC) or Israel's policies during the Kadima government (Cast Lead, where they were to the left of Meretz). Meanwhile, as Jon Chait noted, plenty of people who clearly don't consider themselves pro-Israel in any way that I would recognize somehow gladly identify with and endorse J Street.
If J Street spent similar amounts of energy countering anti-Israel forces on the left as they did countering pro-Israel forces on the right, there might not be less acrimony (we are talking about political folks here), but I would at least find them to be an organization whose core beliefs and activities matched their self-described characterization. You shouldn't, e.g., have to push hard for a grudging repudiation of Walt and Mearsheimer - J Street should be doing that as part of their mission to represent a mainstream pro-Israel position. Even if it means [gasp!] making common cause with AIPAC.
The Taboo That Won't Shut Up, Cont'd
Further proof -- as if further proof is needed -- that it is forbidden to stake out an anti-Israel position in American public life: Jon Stewart featured the other night as guests a pro-Palestinian Palestinian and a pro-Palestinian Jew. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the Zionists remove him from his job. Just like they did Megan McArdle.
In the last few years, Israelis have been asking themselves two questions with increasing urgency: Should we attack Iran if all other options fail? And can we inflict sufficient damage to justify the consequences?
As sanctions efforts faltered, most Israelis came to answer the first question affirmatively. A key moment in coalescing that resolve occurred in December 2006, when the Iranian regime sponsored an "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust," a two day meeting of Holocaust deniers. For Israelis, that event ended the debate over whether a nuclear Iran could be deterred by the threat of counter-force. A regime that assembles the world's crackpots to deny the most documented atrocity in history--at the very moment it is trying to fend off sanctions and convince the international community of its sanity--may well be immune to rational self-interest.
One can still hear this Arendtian shame about ethnicity these days. So
parochial! One can hear the echo of Arendt's fear of being judged as
"merely Jewish" in some, not all, of those Jews so eager to dissociate
themselves from the parochial concerns of other Jews for Israel. The
desire for universalist approval makes them so disdainful of any
"ethnic" fellow feeling. After all, to such unfettered spirits, it's so
banal.
Have a Frozen Chosen
Serious Eats picked this beer as its favorite American brown ale: (h/t Jay Brodsky)
He'Brew Messiah BoldNew York, 5.65% ABV
Don't be put off by the puns on the label--this could really be "the
beer you've been waiting for." This nutty-scented, deep ruby-brown beer
is everything we liked about the other brown ales without their flaws.
Deeply flavored but not heavy, smooth and mellow but not sweet: this
beer is balanced, rich, and complex. A hoppy brightness peeks out from
under the coffee, cinnamon, and walnut flavors.
Does Time Warner Understand the Role of Journalists?
Earlier this month, at the Atlantic-sponsored Washington Ideas Forum, I interviewed Jeff Bewkes, the chief of Time Warner, about the future of the magazine business, among other things. He is an obviously competent leader, perhaps even a visionary leader -- but a visionary leader of an entertainment company, not necessarily of a journalism company. The news out of our session came when he promised that Time Warner would still be in the magazine business in five years, but I thought our exchange about firing journalists, printed below, was more revealing, not only in light of the recent announcement that Time Inc. is cutting even more jobs, but because it raised a question in my mind about whether Bewkes truly understood that particular responsibilities -- not to shareholders, but to American democracy -- come with being a publisher.
Jeffrey Goldberg: Last year, Time Inc.... laid off 600 people.
At what point do you do damage to journalism, and, therefore, to democracy, and
at what point do you simply say, "This business doesn't work for us because we
can't make the money that we need to please our shareholders."
Jeff Bewkes: No, the challenge for businesses... is to figure out what
you need to redesign, including cutting operations and plants and duplicated
data centers and human beings that are working in one role that you don't need
in the new design of the product, without destroying or hurting the quality of
the journalism or the movies. Last year, we also cut 700 people at New Line whom
we valued very highly, who were making very successful films, and we had to
make more efficient our Warner and New Line film production. The result of it
is that we had a tremendous number of New Line hit films this year.
Goldberg: But the
societal consequence of laying off people, as hard as that is, from a movie
studio is not the same as the societal consequence of laying off professional
news-gatherers.
Bewkes: Not all the
people being laid off are news-gatherers. If you go out fifty years, the number of
people in jobs, in any industry -- whether it's mining, farming, news
production and dissemination, movie making -- is going to change. The production
method is going to change, the nature of who's in what job will change. We do
need to keep evolving it. The important thing is that we keep serving the role of
having healthy, independent businesses that can provide quality journalism and
quality entertainment.
Return of the Khazars
The thesis of a new book, The Invention of the Jewish People, by Tel Aviv University's Shlomo Sand, is actually quite old: That "Jewish peoplehood" is a rather big lie. Sand writes that the Jews are the descendants of converts -- specifically North African Berbers and Turkic Khazars -- not Israelites, and never inherited their homeland of Israel. We've been down this road before, with Arthur Koestler, author of the discredited "The Thirteenth Tribe." Sand acknowledged to Tablet's Evan Goldstein that his book, could provide fodder for those who are trying to delegitimize Israel:
While Sand is quick--and arguably disingenuous--to portray his personal politics as "very moderate," he doesn't flinch from describing his work on Jewish historiography and Israel as "radical" and "courageous." Verso has used adjectives like "bold" and "ambitious" to promote his book. But Hebrew University historian Israel Bartal, among others, has pointed out that Sand's politics have undermined the credibility of his scholarship. "Sand's desire for Israel to become a state 'representing all its citizens' is certainly worthy of a serious discussion," Bartal wrote in Haaretz, "but the manner in which he attempts to connect a political platform with the history of the Jewish people from its very beginnings to the present day is bizarre and incoherent."
Goldstein asked me for my thoughts on the book and here's what I told him:
"Sand is dropping
manufactured facts into a world that in many cases is ready, willing,
and happy to believe the absolute worst conspiracy theories about Jews
and to use those conspiracy theories to justify physically hurting
Jews. It is
nothing new."
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Goldblog reader Jason Snyder asks an interesting question:
Before asking J Street (or its supporters) to stop referring to it as the "pro-peace lobby," perhaps AIPAC should stop referring to itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby." After all, everyone thinks that their organization is the most "pro-Israel."
But I'd like to ask a larger question -- why does there have to be such acrimony between J Street and AIPAC? AIPAC's supporters, in particular, seem especially offended by J Street and what it stands for. Isn't there room for diversity of opinion on questions where clearly no one has the correct answer yet? I understand the concern that some of those who support J Street do so for, perhaps, less than staunchly pro-Israel reasons, but is there really no room on the spectrum of opinion for those who think the settlements are an obstacle to peace or that Likud does not have all the answers?
Judaism so treasures words one might think you could get a righteous person
out of a book. Yet beginning with the bible Judaism taught that laws come to
life in people. Role models speak louder than rules.
Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary Solomon Schechter famously
explained to the incoming student and future Chancellor Louis Finkelstein
that the purpose of coming to the seminary was not to learn a fact or law; he
could learn those elsewhere. The purpose was to study with great men.
Speaking of his years as a student my father told me far less about what he
learned than about the people with whom he learned. They were not perfect,
but they were passionate, learned, marvelously eccentric and they brought the
tradition to life.
To the extent that the Internet and the proliferation of long distance
learning deprive us of being in the presence of charismatic, kind, scholarly
people, it will be a tremendous loss. When a Hasid said that he traveled
miles just to see how his master tied his shoes, he was expressing this
beautiful idea. What we learn from a great teacher cannot be put into a book,
because it is in a look, an inflection, a quirk of personality or a tossed
off comment. The greatest human lessons are found in the power of presence.
While U.S. officials have said they believe Osama bin Laden and senior lieutenants have been hiding in the rugged terrain along the border with Afghanistan, Clinton's unusually blunt comments went further as she suggested that Pakistan's government has done too little to act against al-Qaida's top echelon.
"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to," Clinton said in an interview with Pakistani journalists in Lahore. "Maybe that's the case. Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."
The Lebanese sure showed Israel this weekend. For years, the two held the same thing sacred, while only one could hold the title. That title, of course, is who could make the largest batch of hummus.
What Does "Pro-Peace" Mean?
Goldblog reader David Marks writes:
If J Street supporters want to stop being so alienated from the rest of the Jewish community, a good first step would be to stop self-righteously calling themselves the "pro-peace" lobby. Everyone thinks that their view is the correct path to peace; and those who disagree with J Street think that J Street's view will only bring endless war. Calling yourself "pro-peace" only serves as an insult to anyone who doesn't agree with your views, who are, therefore, by default "pro war."
I spend a good part of the day in my woods,
planting trees. I'm usually far from the house, so I often relieve
myself in the privacy of nature. But if I go several times in the same
place, I notice that eventually all the vegetation in that spot dies. I
thought I was making a healthy contribution to nature, but no, I am
killing it! What's up? What's the toxic ingredient in urine?
H. I., Ogden, Quebec
Dear H. I.,
We at The Atlantic look to Henry David Thoreau, a frequent contributor to our pages
(though, really, what has he done for us lately?), for guidance on all
matters natural, metaphysical, and urinal. Thoreau, of course, spent
much useful time in the woods, and he explains in Walden that, like you, he selflessly sacrificed at least one of his bodily fluids for nature's good:
I have watered the red huckleberry, the sand cherry
and the nettle tree, the red pine and the black ash, the white grape
and the yellow violet, which might have withered else in dry seasons.
Thoreau's special friend, the French-Canadian woodcutter Alex Therien, found other uses for urine. Thoreau:
I sometimes found the name of his native parish
handsomely written in the snow by the highway, with the proper French
accent, and knew that he had passed.
Your urine helps trees grow, as long as you water each one in
moderation--urine's high nitrogen content makes it dangerous when
applied too liberally to a single plant. As a bonus, if you can write
your name in urine, you may be eligible to join the wholesome high
jinks at Bohemian Grove.
I don't think I'm the only one who found Curb Your Enthusiasm's pissing-on-Jesus sequence a little cheap and easy. Also completely offensive, but that's not what bothered me. What bothered me is the cowardice of the joke. A truly transgressive, dangerous show would have Larry David pissing on a Koran. But of course he wouldn't, because that would place him in physical jeopardy. The Christian savior can be mocked at no cost, however.
Perhaps He Could Find Another Religion
Like Michael Jackson and Tracy Jordan before him, Jon Gosselin is turning to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the Baal Shem Tov of self-promotion, for some spiritual guidance. The father of eight-turned-reality star, who has learned when not to order bacon, eggs and cheese in public, told US Weekly (why not The Atlantic?) that he's ready to embrace his "half-Jewish" roots:
I have endeavored of late to reconnect with my deeper, more spiritual,
more altruistic self with regular study sessions and counseling with
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whose morality-centered-and-values-based advice,
coupled with his profound commitment to fatherhood and family, I deeply
respect.
Gosselin will be at New York's West Side Synagogue this Sunday to issue a public apology for his recent behavior and plans to use his "unexpected fame" for good.
Between Kristol and Blumenthal
A Goldblog reader writes:
I'm writing to say that there has to be some place for people who fall somewhere in between Bill Kristol and Max Blumenthal. I'm a middle-aged Jewish woman who grew up in a very pro-Israel environment. We celebrated the victory of the Six Day War as much as we did Pesach and Chanukah. I remember crying at the grave site of Golda Meir on a synagogue trip to Israel the winter after she died.
Here is my problem now: My current position about Israel (settlements, etc.) is a lot closer to the leadership of J Street than it is to the leadership of AIPAC. My favorite Israeli authors are Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman. But I also read Daniel Gordis's dispatches
I have contributed to J Street and have "befriended" J Street on Facebook (much to the ire of some of my cousins who are Likudniks). But I'm a stay-at-home mom with two school age kids so traveling to the J Street conference was never in the cards for me. The fact that the conference participants appear to be to the left of J Street doesn't surprise me for that reason.
My fear is that if the media and the Weekly Standard crowd succeed in marginalizing J Street, pro-Israel/pro-peace Jews like me will be further alienated. That's to say nothing of the majority of my 50-something Jewish friends who don't even know what Yom Ha'atzmaut is and certainly aren't teaching their kids about it.
As an ambivalent, though occasionally avid, Twitter user -- Goldblog readers can follow me here, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do that -- I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Mohammad Dahlan, the former chief of the Palestinian Preventative Security apparatus in Gaza, is now following me. I haven't seen him in some years, and I thought this would be a great way to catch up. Then I looked at his tweets. I know I might sound overly cynical here, but I think this might not actually be the real Dahlan at all:
... My J Street button said "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace." It's not a subtle aspect of the messaging. But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as "pro-Israel" in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. I was, of course, aware that those views existed but it had seemed to me that it was clear that that wasn't what J Street is there to advocate for. Apparently, though, it wasn't clear to everyone.
Which I think is interesting. Readers will know that I'm not a big fan of nationalism and I am a big fan of trans-national projects like the European Union and the United Nations. And it's even true that I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won't be national states at all, instead we'll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we'll go. But there's clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people's claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution--an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.
I completely grasp the pull of radical cosmopolitan values, but I think people who think that the area west of the Jordan River would be a great place to try implementing them in the short-term are being a bit crazy. It's not even clear that Belgium or Canada will be able to survive as bi-national entities.
More Temple Mount Hijinks
Bradley Burston, the Ha'aretz columnist, as well as the newly-appointed vice-president for ritual affairs at my one-man island synagogue, forwarded me some dispiriting news. Apparently, a religious genius of some sort has decided that what the Jews need now more than anything is the ability to deliver prayer notes to the top of the Temple Mount, where God will presumably read them, when He's not busy making plans to destroy the Dome of the Rock. According to the website for this new service, the scheme is entirely kosher:
The prayer note carriers - observant Jews - will ascend the Mount in
strict accordance with Torah law. Prior to the ascent they will prepare
for and immerse in a kosher mikveh to remove spiritual impurities.
While on the Mount they will wear non-leather shoes and refrain from
treading on the site of the Temple.
The problem, of course, is that the Israeli police, for good reason, strictly limit Jewish activities on the Temple Mount, on account of the fact that they're trying to prevent the apocalypse. No worries, though, because our non-leather-wearing-mikvah-dunked holy men understand the challenges posed by the Jewish police:
The prayer notes will be
carried in a circle outside the periphery of the site of the Temple
along with recitation of appropriate prayers. Due to the police
enforced no-Jewish prayer policy the notes will be brought up to the
Mount discreetly and it is not possible at this time to bury the notes
on the Mount. All notes will be buried near the Temple Mount after the
encirclement is completed.
There should be no doubt that the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. There should also be no doubt that when God wants the Third Temple built, He'll build it. Until then, it's in everyone's best interest to stop this sort of messianic idiocy.
You write: "One small point worth making: Rabbis aren't in charge of Israel. Mullahs are in charge of Iran. This is a fact that probably does seem relevant to most people, though not to Hillary Mann Leverett."
The comment is interesting, but what it really brings to light is that Leverett isn't really making any point that is actually relevant. She's not talking about whether Iran is or isn't haggling/delaying. She's just characterizing that opinion as racist, without adding any real point on the merits.
Two Shot at North Hollywood Synagogue
According to the L.A. Times, the shooting occurred early this morning outside the Adat Yeshurun Sephardic synagogue. Two men, heading into the synagogue, were wounded. The police are calling it a hate crime.
My main thought coming out of the J Street conference is that J Street has a huge problem on its hands. It's trying to win political influence and compete with AIPAC to speak for the center of American Jewry on the Middle East. Meanwhile, its most enthusiastic supporters have beliefs that are totally incompatible with this goal. J Street has played a delicate political game, sending different messages to different constituencies, but something is going to have to give.
The Obama administration, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, came out strongly today against the Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to get the UN Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions barring the defamation of religion. By "religion," the OIC means "Islam."
Did J Street Develop Organically?
A number of Goldblog readers have called me naive for writing the other day that "J Street grew organically, and continues to grow organically." Their argument is that J Street is essentially a project of a few wealthy donors to the Democratic Party. I disagree. Yes, it's true that J Street is funded by wealthy people, but so is AIPAC, and I wouldn't call AIPAC an astro-turf lobby. If you've ever been to an AIPAC convention, you'd know that the organization is fueled by the genuine excitement of its grass-roots membership. The same, I think, holds true for J Street. Rich donors can't buy grass-roots enthusiasm. J Street fills an obvious gap on the spectrum of pro-Israel activism, among people who are tired of the anti-intellectual defensiveness of some of the "mainstream" pro-Israel organizations.
On the other hand -- and there's always another hand -- the group runs the risk of being hijacked by haters of Israel. I don't doubt that most people who join J Street are motivated by love for the Jewish state, as a Jewish state, and anguish over its government's decisions. But there are those who would like to use J Street to weaken the bonds between the U.S. and Israel. The challenge to Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder of J Street, over the next year, is to keep the group pro-Israel in the face of concerted efforts to move it in the direction of the hardcore anti-Zionist left.
October 28, 2009
'Israel's Self-Described Greatest Concern'
I'm telling people who are worried about the hijinks at the unofficial J Street bloggers' panel not to become overly bothered by it; it was a clownish event, and the people on the panel were marginal figures except in the rather circumscribed universe of anti-Zionists-with-Jewish parents (where they are giants).
I couldn't go to the conference, as I've explained earlier, but I have heard from many people who attended, and they describe to me an organization still finding itself. The leadership of J Street seems drawn from liberal pro-Israel circles. The average participant in the conference, they said, seemed somewhat to the left of the leadership (included in this group are the sort who often begin statements on the Middle East with "As a Jew," as in, "As a Jew, I am appalled/shocked/perturbed/ etc. etc.' These are the sort of people caught booing Rabbi Eric Yoffie for condemning the Goldstone report.)
The most problematic thing I've heard so far is the make-up of the panel meant to discuss Iran. In the program, Iran was described as "Israel's self-described greatest concern and strategic threat," which is a bit too distancing a description for me, but never mind that. The panel featured Hillary Mann Leverett, who, with her husband, Flynt Leverett, is an apologist for the Iranian regime. Goldblog Iran-Panel-Reporter-At-Large Tali Yahalom told me that the consensus on the panel, which also included Trita Parsi, who also does a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime, was that Iran doesn't think about Israel, doesn't care about Israel, and certainly doesn't want to obliterate Israel. Here are some of Hillary Mann Leverett's thoughts:
Hillary Mann Leverett: Tehran has asked for an extension of
the deadline for its response to a proposal to shed most of Iran's
low-enriched uranium out of the country. ... Many commentators here in the U.S. and Israel
have attributed this delay to political divisions in Tehran ... (or to) quote-unquote typical Iranian negotiating
behavior, that they're just merchants in the bazaar, haggling away to get the most that they
can in a very deceptive atmosphere. I believe these characterizations are fundamentally misleading.
... Too often, Iran's security concerns are dismissed in the U.S. and in Israel as
false or manufactured, reinforcing the stereotype of Iranians as chronically
duplicitous and unprepared to keep any commitment they enter into. ... Those stereotypes are simply not supported by the historical
record. ... They are fundamentally racist -- if someone were to criticize
Israeli diplomacy by referring to rabbis as lying and conspiring behind their
beards, as far too many commentators accuse Iran's mullahs of lying and conspiring
behind their beards, we would rightly -- and I'd be the first to -- denounce that as an anti-Semitic stereotype."
One small point worth making: Rabbis aren't in charge of Israel. Mullahs are in charge of Iran. This is a fact that probably does seem relevant to most people, though not to Hillary Mann Leverett.
Picking on Gore Vidal
A Goldblog reader writes:
"You're just picking on Gore Vidal because you think he's anti-Semitic. Any criticism at all of Jews by someone like Gore Vidal is too much for you, huh, Goldblog?"
Actually, I was picking on Gore Vidal because he blamed the victim in a case of proven child-rape. The main reason I find him vile, though is that he is a 9/11 "truther." Which I think is a good reason not to like someone.
A Hummus-Based Correction
Alert Goldblog reader Ronald Gordon writes, in reference to the chart below:
Nice diagram, but they totally muffed it onJews and hummus. You of all folks should know better.
How true. I should never have doubted the Jewish commitment to hummus. Michael Chabon will be upset with me for this.
Can You Be a Zionist and Oppose the Law of Return?
I had a little back-and-forth with the erudite Yaacov Lozowick on the question of the Law of Return, prompted by my little argument with Bernard Avishai. I asked Ya'acov, author of the book, "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars," if a person who wants to see the Law of Return repealed still qualifies as pro-Zionist. He had this to say about Avishai's position:
Avishai really does love Israel, I'm
sure, and he cares deeply enough to write books on how to make it better as he
defines "better". Emotionally, he is a Zionist.
This, of course, isn't enough. Ilan Pape had stronger ties
to Israel, far stronger, until he severed most of them; he was proudly
non-Zionist years before he left. So being conversant in Hebrew and living here
don't necessarily prove you're a Zionist, even though it usually does.
My impression of the Hebrew Republic thesis is that
he's talking about medinat kol exrachai'ah, the country of its citizens.
This idea was formulated and mostly promoted by folks who were not only
non-Zionist, they were anti-Zionist; it was a ploy to weaken the Jewish aspect
of Israel until eventually the Jewish state would be submerged into its Arab
environment. Yet Avishai isn't Azmi Bishara. I get the impression he's a caring
Jew who is attracted to the medinat kol exrachai'ah idea because it fits
so nicely into his broader Weltanschauung, the one that praises the European
Union as the way of the future, the goal of human history and so on. On that
level, he's non-Zionist because he's joining forces with a particular group of
enemies of Zionism, even though he and they are using the same concepts for
very different goals.
So eventually you have no choice but to look also at his
broader Weltanschauung, and here, indeed, there is at least at this moment in
time, a sharp difference between Zionism and the ideal of the EU. The ideal of
a broad political organization which supersedes nationality - and Zionism is a
form of nationality which doesn't want to be superseded. That's the reason the
Law of Return is so centrally important, as you note, and it's where Avishai really
isn't Zionist. He loves the Israel some Jews have created; he correctly
recognizes that many American Jews aren't really part of that project; and he
advocates that the Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs settle down with their
Israeli creation, and stop pretending the American Jews are part of the story.
The Zionist way is to regard all of the Jews who choose to
be part of the Jewish nation as its constituents, and as its responsibility.
The Israeli Arabs are also part of the constituency and responsibility, but in
a different way. On this level, Avishai is fundamentally not Zionist.
Finally, there's the matter of his politics. I think they're
largely wrong when it comes to Israel - but that alone would never suffice to
mark him as a non-Zionist. Some of my best friends, as the saying goes, are
equally deluded, poor dears.
Gore Vidal, Charmer
For reasons unknown to me ("above my pay grade" is the expression, I think) the Atlantic website is featuring an interview with Gore Vidal, who is as vile as ever. Here's one small proof:
In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in
Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to
prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's house in
Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working
in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater
critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what's your take on Polanski,
this many years later?
Vidal: I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every
time a young hooker feels as though she's been taken advantage of?
Next week, David Duke on the public option.
October 27, 2009
The Chief Rabbi of a One-Man Island
At a session yesterday at the J Street conference (an "unofficial" session, though it doesn't sound too unofficial in this rendering), Max Blumenthal excoriated the head of J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, for "capitulating" to me in our interview last week. Blumenthal called me the self-appointed "chief rabbi of a one-man island," which sounds great -- this might become a Goldblog motto, actually, although I'm not sure what it means -- and denounced me for vicious warmongering in Gaza (this post being a case in point, I suppose). More consequentially, Blumenthal also mocked Elie Wiesel, to widespread laughter, apparently. Here's a tip: Criticizing public figures who survived the Holocaust is permissible, of course. But mocking them is disgraceful. It's also not going to win you too many Jewish friends, though this hasn't been Blumenthal's goal, obviously. In any case, here is some of what he said, according to a transcription made by Goldblog aide-de-camp Tali Yahalom:
I was troubled by the Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Jeremy
Ben-Ami. I found a lot to be troubling with this interview conducted by Jeffrey
Goldberg, who supported zealously the war on Lebanon, who supported the war on
Gaza. I can't remember the last time Jeffrey Goldberg was right. He seems to have
an ulterior agenda, but he did, at one point, call the settlers zealots in 2004
in an article for the New Yorker. And yet, when Jeremy Ben-Ami attempts to
address the policy implications of the settlements and support the Obama administration's
agenda on the settlement freeze, Jeffrey Goldberg tried to put Jeremy in an
uncomfortable situation to say the bloggers are anti-Zionist, denounce Helena
Cobban, denounce Max Blumenthal, say Stephen Walt and Mearsheimer are Nazis,
say they're anti-Semites. Jeffrey Goldberg has appointed himself the chief
rabbi of a one-man island. Only Jeffrey Goldberg can be against the
settlements, because he's a serious man. And what happened really disappointed
me, at least on the point of Walt and Mearsheimer.
Now it's legitimate to
disagree with their analysis - I personally think they provided cover for J
Street to be able to exist to fill this void but Jeremy capitulated, he sort
of prostrated himself before the serious man, Jeffrey Goldberg, and he said
yes, it's true they wrote the modern version of the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, they're anti-Semites. And to me, when you call Stephen Walt and John
Meirsheimer anti-Semites - first of all it raises the question: if you're going to
capitulate before Jeffrey Goldberg, if you can't stand up to Jeffrey
Goldberg, how can we trust you to stand up against the settlers, how can we
trust you to stand up against the government of Netanyahu and Lieberman?
One line in this moving speech will come back to haunt J Street, I'm afraid: the idea that Walt and Mearsheimer provided cover for J Street to create itself. This is erroneous, I think. J Street came about because progressive Zionists -- and younger American Jews, generally -- had become tired of the reflexive support offered successive Israeli governments by the American Jewish establishment, and wanted to advocate for Israel in a different way. J Street grew organically, and continues to grow organically, and its spiritual fathers are people like Eric Yoffie, the leader of the Reform movement, and Shimon Peres, and the late Yitzhak Rabin, and certainly not the Jew-baiters Walt and Mearsheimer.
I'd write more on this subject, but I have to go build a synagogue on my one-man island. Actually, I'm thinking about building two synagogues.
October 26, 2009
Anatomy of a Smear
Dalia Mogahed, the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a member of President Obama's faith-based partnerships advisory council, is in a bit of a pickle these days for speaking on a British television show hosted by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group. Fox News, and others, have been after her for this appearance, in which she said, "I think the reason so many women support sharia (Islamic law) is because they have a very different understanding of sharia
than the common perception in Western media... The majority of
women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women,
with sharia compliance."
Mogahed was a phone-in guest on the show, and only after did she learn that it was affiliated with Hizb ut-Tahrir, which advocates for very ugly things. Instantly, it was assumed by some of the more reflexive critics of anything Muslim that Mogahed herself was an advocate for extremism. Well, I know Dalia Mogahed, and if she's a Muslim extremist, then I'm the King of Sweden. From everything I can see, Dalia went on the show in her role as a pollster, and, in the conversation, stuck to her polling data. I've heard her present the same findings she presented on British television on two separate occasions. I'm sure some people are freaked out by Dalia's appearance -- she covers her hair and dresses very traditionally, though she is not a "veiled woman" in the language of some of the more ridiculous posts on the subject -- but I know her as a devout, modest and sensible woman, someone who likes being American very much, and someone who even has -- shocking though it may seem -- Jews to her home at Ramadan (that would be moi, along with Mrs. Goldblog and several smaller Goldblogs). Do we agree on much? Nah, especially on Middle East politics. But so what? I don't agree with this guy on everything, and I don't think he's a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Dalia has given an informative interview about the controversy to Dan Gilgoff, which you can read here, and I asked her on Sunday to talk about her personal views on Hizb ut-Tahrir. She said, "As a Gallup analyst I cannot
inject my personal opinions into the public square. If I could, I would
have on the program. I can only report from our research. Our
research shows that unlike Hizb ut-Tahrir, the majority of Muslims admire much of
what the West holds dear, ESPECIALLY liberty and democracy. The
majority of Muslims do not have a blind hatred of Western culture. They
don't hate our freedom. They want our freedom."
One key difference between American Muslims and British Muslims -- and this is a massive over-generalization, of course -- is that American Muslims seem to like their country very much. Obviously, there are pockets of Muslim extremism in America and I'm all for watching the extremists, and arresting them if needed -- but Dalia doesn't live in one of those pockets. In fact, she is quite often criticized by Muslim radicals as a "sell-out." Most recently, she was attacked for speaking at an iftar (the Ramadan break-fast meal) at the Pentagon. She's stuck in the responsible middle, in other words. Right where many thinking people find themselves these days.
Israel's Qualitative Hummus Edge
Many of Israel's friends in Washington worry about Israel's qualitative military edge, the doctrine holding that America should sell Israel weapons that are sophisticated than the ones going to Arab countries. But there's a separate war going on in the Middle East, about a weapon more dangerous than any missile system.
Bernstein Responds to Human Rights Watch
Robert Bernstein forwarded me this letter he wrote to the Times in response to the provably-ridiculous charge, leveled at him by the current leadership of the group he founded, that he said Israel should be held to a lower human rights standard than other countries:
In their October 21st letter to the editor, Jane Olson, current chair of
Human Rights Watch and Jonathan Fanton, past chair wrote that they
"were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein
argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard
than the rest of the world." This is not what I believe or what I wrote
in my op-ed piece.
I believe that Israel should be judged by the highest possible standard
and I have never argued anything else. What is more important than what
I believe, or what Human Rights Watch believes, is that Israelis
themselves believe they should be held to the highest standard.
That is why they have 80 Human Rights organizations challenging their
government daily. Does any other country in the Middle East have
anything remotely near that? That is why they have a vibrant free
press. Does any other country in the Middle East have anything remotely
near that? That is why they have a democratically elected government.
That is why they have a judiciary that frequently rules against the
government, a politically active academia, multiple political
societies, etc etc etc.
I have argued that open societies, while far from perfect, have ways
to correct themselves and that is particularly true in the case of
Israel. Millions of Arabs, on the other hand, live in societies where
there is little respect for or protection of human rights.
The current argument is whether Human Rights Watch's facts and
judgments about the Gaza conflict are correct.That is certainly a
necessary and legitimate discussion.
I should add that over the years I have had the highest regard for
Human Rights Watch's work around the world and from what I know, with
the notable exception of the Middle East, that is still the case.
Advice for J Street
Useful ideas from David Bernstein, who makes an interesting point about the importance of J Street:
[A]s a perusal of the comments on any major liberal blog will show, and
as public opinion polls also show, Israel is quickly losing support on
the American liberal-left. It's vitally important that pro-Israel
"progressives" have a home in which they can advocate both for Israel within the left, and for peacenik policies within the general American political and pro-Israel contexts.
That said, he has thoughts, among them this one:
During the Cold War, there were anti-Communists, and what one wag
deemed "anti-anti-Communists." The anti-anti-Communists were people
who purported to be against Communism, but they spent almost all their
efforts denouncing the "right-wing" anti-Communists, and precious
little fighting Communism. Similarly, JStreet risks claiming to be
"pro-Israel," but really in practice being primarily a lobby against
pro-Israel people who are further to the right, and spending precious
little time battling truly anti-Israel folks on the Left. (Would that
make JStreet anti-anti-anti-Israel? Or just "anti-pro-Israel"?) Most
of its energy so far, from what I can tell, has been spent attacking
"right-wing" Jewish groups and individuals, and even Israeli government
policies, and precious little battling the extreme hostility to Israel
one often finds on the progressive left.
Were Rockets Fired from Gaza During Last Year's Ceasefire?
Several alert Goldblog readers have written to tell me that I allowed J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami, in our interview Friday, to get away with an inaccurate assertion about last year's cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. Ben-Ami, in arguing for the efficacy of cease-fires over armed incursions, said that during the four-and-a-half month cease-fire, "zero rockets" were fired into Israel. According to a government source, however, the Israel Defense Forces counted 360 rockets; Time Magazine said the number was 65, and the New York Times reported that "10 to 20 were fired in July, depending
on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to
30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10." Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites this report that claims that 362 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza into Israel during what the report calls the "lull" in the fighting. I think it's fair to say that, though the numbers of rocket and mortar attacks dropped off dramatically during the ceasefire, there were, indeed, attacks. I'm looking for more sources (please feel free to send in citations) and I asked Ben-Ami for clarification. He e-mailed me the following:
On the rocket issue, I looked up
the numbers. There were 12 rockets total in July, August, September and
October, according to an
Israeli Foreign Ministry (MFA) graph captured here. Here's the graph on Wikipedia combining rockets and mortars: Note that the original graph is gone from the MFA
website and there is a conspicuous end to their monthly reporting on rocket
fire in June 2008. I'd
urge your readers to read the post linked above to see how the MFA redid the graph so you
couldn't see the drop off in rocket fire during the ceasefire - and they could
make the claim it hadn't work. Fast forward to the present. There have
been I believe 250-300 rockets since the invasion which is an average of
25-30/month. I stand by the point that I made, which
is that there are two ways to accomplish the goal here, which is obviously to
stop the rockets and provide security to the residents of southern Israel. And talking/working out a ceasefire
can be a less costly and more effective way to achieve our goals.
October 23, 2009
J Street's Ben-Ami On Zionism and Military Aid to Israel
Jeremy Ben-Ami of the liberal lobbying group J Street is the man of the moment: The group's upcoming conference in Washington has become a source of great controversy for many reasons. I interviewed Ben-Ami yesterday by telephone, and here is an edited transcript of our conversation. In our talk, he showed that he learned a bit about triangulation during his years in the Clinton White House. He declared himself a Zionist; condemned the book "The Israel Lobby"; called America's military aid package to Israel untouchable; and told me he hopes his group angers the non-Zionist left by staking out mainstream Jewish positions on Israel and the peace process -- "I hope that we have a very strong left flank that attacks us."
Jeffrey Goldberg: Let's just go right to the Stephen Walt question. Why do you think Walt (the co-author of the book "The Israel Lobby") likes J Street?
Jeremy Ben-Ami: I don't know and I don't care. One of the reasons why I won't answer your call to quote-unquote renounce him is that it really smacks of witch-hunts and thought-police. It's not my business to "renounce."
JG: Witch-hunt? How is it a witch-hunt to argue that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer blame the organized American Jewish community for starting the Iraq War and even helping cause 9/11? It's a statement of fact, it's in their book. I would think that when you have an organization, like you do, one of the ways you define yourself is by saying what you do and don't stand for--
JB: May I finish? I actually respect your writing. I respect your thinking. But then there are the people like Michael Goldfarb, who is a Republican political operative who is masquerading as a (Weekly Standard) journalist. And when he goes after us, and asks people to verify their loyalty to certain principles, that's a different thing. But I'm more than happy to tell you why, on a personal basis, I don't like what Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have written in their book and in their articles. I don't agree with Stephen Walt. It's his business whether or not he chooses to say nice things about us. I have zero right to tell him, and I have zero interest in telling him, not to say what he thinks. That is his business.
JG: Tell me about the problem with his thesis.
JB: Here's where the line is. There is no question that over the last 40 to 50 years, the American Jewish community has developed a very sophisticated lobbying mechanism to promote its views and its interests, and I am in awe of that as a student of politics. I also happen to respect and value much of what has been achieved. For instance, the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the essential security guarantee that the U.S. provides, the notion that Israel should always have a qualitative military edge -- those are things that have been achieved by lobbying, by what some people would call the "Israel lobby." J Street is very happy with these achievements, and we support those ends, and we respect and admire much of what groups like AIPAC and others have done over the years.
However, when the analysis of that lobby veers over a line and essentially says that all of American foreign policy is controlled by this one lobby and this one interest group, to me, personally, this does smack of the kind of conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This notion that somehow Jews control this country, they control our foreign policy, that there is some diabolical conspiracy behind the scenes, this is when you cross that line. I believe that the analysis in the Walt and Mearsheimer book and article crossed that line, but this doesn't take away from my view that this is an incredibly effective lobby.
JG: You have a situation now in which the Obama Administration has obviously failed to achieve a settlement freeze. You believe that the American government should pressure both the Arabs and the Israelis to come to the table and reach a deal. If Israel ignores the entreaties of the American president, should continuing American military aid to Israel be up for discussion?
JB: The short answer is no, but there's actually a longer explanation for the no. The short answer is that military aid should not be on the table -- this is an absolutely essential aspect of Israel's security, and it's an essential aspect of the U.S.-Israel relationship. However, the U.S. should be able to get across that, as an ally, and as a partner in this relationship with its own interests and view of what will actually move the situation forward, its voice and its views need to be listened to, and that means some serious, behind-closed-doors conversations between the president and the prime minister.
JG: But they've already had those.
JB: I don't know what took places in those conversations.
JG: Well, they didn't work yet.
JB: It's very, very early in the process. What J Street has said is that this issue of a settlement freeze is not the place to put all your cards on the table. If this is a card game, I wouldn't go all in on the settlement freeze. I think that the settlement freeze is an important precondition, it's an important early issue, but the fundamental issue is to get to two states, let's get to a final status agreement, and it's at that point that I think the full force of the U.S. should be brought to bear on all the parties. And let me be really clear: all the parties. When we get to that point, there should be a very, very different and serious conversation. I don't think this is the point to go all in.
I'm happy to argue with Leonard Fein all day about the Law of Return and Zionism and anything else, because he's an honest person, but Bernard Avishai is dealing with me dishonestly. First, he states, based on absolutely no proof whatsoever, that I'm boycotting the J Street Conference. I'm doing no such thing, and I said so here (and Avishai could have easily called Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's chief, and asked him if I was boycotting the conference, and Jeremy would have told him no).
Should There be a Time Limit on the Law of Return?
Leonard Fein thinks that the Law of Return is outmoded. He wrote me yesterday, in reference to my little spat with Bernard Avishai:
I don't dispute that the Law of Return was, as you say, the "raison d'etre" of Zionism. It is, in my view, an instance of entirely warranted affirmative action. But I believe about it what I believe about affirmative action more generally -- i.e., that it should be time-limited. Israel has enough challenges in living with the inevitable tensions of being Jewish and democratic that it should not be burdened by laws that no longer have much of a point. (And if, chas v'chalila, Argentina turns virulently antisemitic, it will be easy enough for the Knesset to pass a special law to cover the Jews in peril.)
And what say you to the lyrics of Hatikvah? Or to the new rule regarding Arabic place names on highway road signs?
I wrote back last night:
Hatikvah I've never liked. Too depressing. Arabic place names on highway signs are fine. Arabic is the first language of 20 percent of Israel's citizens. I'm not for a time-limited Law of Return, however. I recognize that it's a victim of its own success. It has had a transformative effect on the worldwide Jewish condition, no doubt. But I also think that even a non-persecuted Jew should have the right to fulfill his Jewish destiny in his historic and spiritual homeland. In any case, Jewish history should teach us that just because things are good today doesn't mean they won't be bad tomorrow. I'm not talking about America, obviously. But there are Jews in other parts of the world who shouldn't have to wait for a Knesset vote to find out if they're welcome in their ancestral homeland.
I was, by the way, kidding (well, half-kidding) about Hatikvah. Fein responded to my response late last night, in part because I misunderstood his reference to Arabic street signs:
Re: Arabic road signs: I was referring to the new policy, thanks the the Minister of Transportation. As you know, some localities have different names in Hebrew and in Arabic -- small differences, usually. Until now, each language has been rendered according to its speakers. Now, however, the actual Arabic is to be replaced with a phonetic transliteration of the Hebrew. Bye-bye to history and even a modicum of respect for the other. It is this kind of insensitivity that makes issues like the lyrics (not the sad melody) of Hatikvah as also the Law of Return increasingly urgent. (By the way, re: the melody: I attended the very first American concert of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra -- at Constitution Hall in DC -- back in '48 or '49. And boy, was Hatikvah performed triumphantly that night! I still remember the thrill.) So when I compare the anxiety that might attend a threatened community having to wait for a Knesset vote to the daily insult experienced by Israel's Arab citizens, it isn't quite a no-brainer but it is very, very close to one.
I think we'll continue to disagree on this last point. I don't think the "daily insult" Arab citizens feel because they're alienated by road signs and a Jewish-themed national anthem is actually more serious than the physical threats certain Jewish Diaspora communities may face. And I'd be moved a bit more by his appeal for "even a modicum of respect for the other" if, for instance, Arabs would recognize that the Temple Mount is actually the holiest site in Judaism. Or that Jews are actually from the land they call Palestine.
October 22, 2009
Great Americans Read The Atlantic
If this U.S. Marine, pictured in a helicopter flying over southern Afghanistan, can subscribe to The Atlantic, so can you!
The full draft of the agreement between six world powers and Iran is still to be published, and the little we know leaves a lot of question marks. However, if the draft is confirmed and if Iran fulfills the agreement to the letter, the Islamic Republic will have scored a major achievement in the war of attrition it has been running against the international community, while still relentlessly pursuing its nuclear program.
A representative of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and a senior Iranian official met last month to discuss the chances of declaring the Middle East a nuclear-free zone, Haaretz has learned. This is the first direct meeting between official representatives of the two states since the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Could it be? Could Iran be coming to its senses? This would be quite momentous, if true. I'm a skeptic, of course, on Iranian intentions (and an opponent, for what it's worth, of an Israeli military strike on Iran) but we can only hope that Iran understands its precarious position; that the Obama Administration's diplomacy works; and that Bibi Netanyahu doesn't do something precipitious and dangerous.
Anti-Zionists and the J Street Conference
Bernard Avishai, the prominent author and an important member of J Street, is teed off at me for calling him an anti-Zionist. He writes on TPMCafe:
I am just about to board a plane for the US, so I am unable to answer this remarkably ill-informed (and, under the circumstances, vicious) shot from Jefferey (sic) Goldberg: the idea that he cannot go to the J Street conference because "some of [its] most important supporters -- Bernard Avishai comes to mind -- don't even believe in the idea of a Jewish state." I would simply ask readers to consider this post, or this, or this interview. Or just watch this lecture on You Tube. Goldberg has, alas, started to speak about "the idea of a Jewish state" a little like the way FOX News celebs talk about "America." Complexity is for sissies. Very sad. When he was at the New Yorker, his work on the settlers was the best there was.
First, I should thank him for the compliment. Thank you, Bernie. Second, I never stated that I "cannot go to the J Street conference because some its most important supporters.... don't even believe in the idea of a Jewish state." What I wrote was this, in a separate post: "I'm sorry I'm going to miss this conference." That's it. I can't imagine how Avishai came up with this fevered claim that I am boycotting J Street. In fact, Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, asked me to speak at the conference, and I told him I would if I could, but I'm supposed to be out of town on a reporting trip. I'd be very happy to go. In fact, and I'm trying to change my schedule around so that I could at least attend the meeting and see what's going on.
On the more important question of Zionism and anti-Zionism, all I think I need to say is this: Avishai, the author of a book called "The Tragedy of Zionism," believes that Israel's Law of Return should be repealed. This is the law that grants Jews anywhere in the world to claim citizenship in the newly-reconstituted Jewish state, which was meant to be a refuge for persecuted Jews. The law is the raison d'etre of Zionism, and of Israel's existence. I don't think I was being "vicious" in pointing out that Avishai's conception of what Israel should be is very different from the mainstream Zionist position. By the way, J Street's position, as officially enunciated by its head flack to me, is that the group's core mission is to preserve Israel as a "Jewish democracy." Though maybe I should ask J Street if it believes the Law of Return as currently written and implemented is undemocratic.
October 21, 2009
TSA Boarding Pass Confusion Explained
Yesterday I posted on the seeming randomness of TSA's boarding-pass demands. Then I dispatched Goldblog Homeland Security Correspondent Tali Yahalom to sniff out the actual rules governing what you need -- and what you don't need -- to traverse the most dangerous places in America, the unprotected, tightly-packed security lines at airports. She spoke with a TSA flack, Sterling Payne, who had this to say about the policy:
Because identity matters, TSA took over the travel document checking process to ensure passengers boarding pass and identification are authentic and the person is who they say they are. Earlier this year, in an attempt to streamline the security screening process and to create efficiencies, TSA gave local airports the option to no longer request to see passenger boarding passes at the walk through metal detector. While most airports have adopted this streamlined process, some airports may continue to request boarding passes be shown a second time at their discretion.
So it is true that TSA is now letting each airport make up its own rules. I'm all for empowering government bureaucrats, but this decision just breeds confusion and maybe even a little bit of contempt -- either it's important to show your boarding pass twice at security, or it's not. The confusion prompts letters like this one, from an angry Goldblog reader, that I received this morning:
I read your posting about the TSA's boarding pass issue, and I thought I would tell you about this recent event that happened when I was traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago. At LAX I kept my boarding pass out, and showed it to the guard at the X-ray machine. He looked at me like I was stupid and said, "You must not fly very much." In fact, I do, and said so. "We don't need the boarding passes anymore." A week later, I was at LAX again at the same terminal, and I kept the boarding pass in my purse. The guard at the X-ray machine said, "Boarding pass," and I said I left it in my purse. He made me go back and get it, and put my things through the machine again. It was unbelievable. Does anyone tell those guys anything?
Does AIPAC Mirror the Israeli Public?
Menachem Pritzker thinks so:
Lon Becker doesn't seem to appreciate the wide spectrum of opinions in Israeli politics. Likud's position happens to be one taken by 22% of the Israeli population, as of the last election. An additional 18% of the population voted for parties further to the right of Likud, so when AIPAC takes positions similar to Likud's, they're aligning themselves pretty close to the median of the Israeli population.
When Labor is in power (And, sorry to tell you, they are in power. Labor, under Ehud Barak, is an important member of the coalition), AIPAC still represents a position held by a large number of Israelis. Who, of the Israeli electorate, does J-Street represent? They occasionally find themselves agreeing with Meretz, representing the leftmost 3% of all Jewish voters, but who did they represent when they spoke out against Cast Lead, a defensive war that even Meretz was in favor of?
Dishonesty Watch, Cont'd
Noah Pollak points out another flaw in Human Rights Watch's rebuttal to Robert Bernstein's scathing op-ed:
Human Rights Watch is apparently incapable of dealing with criticism
on its own terms. Bernstein did not argue that HRW had no access to the
battlefield after the war was over, as HRW claims he said. What Bernstein in fact said was that HRW was not present on the battlefield during the war, therefore limiting its ability to know what happened and to make war-crimes judgments.
Blatant Dishonesty from Human Rights Watch
This letter in the Times, from two top Human Rights Watch officials, is somewhat stunning:
As present chairwoman and past chairman of the board of Human Rights Watch, we were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world.
Mr. Bernstein, as a founder of Human Rights Watch, has had ample access over the years to make his argument that we should not be reporting on Israeli conduct because Israel is a democracy. As recently as April, the full board of directors heard -- and rejected -- Mr. Bernstein's proposal that Human Rights Watch should focus our research and reporting resources on closed societies.
I read the Bernstein op-ed, and I know his opinions on a range of subjects. I don't recall him ever saying that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world. What he has said is that democracies and open societies should be treated differently by Human Rights Watch than dictatorships. It's an argument worthy of debate, but Human Rights Watch will brook no debate, not a good example for societies struggling to be free, by the way. And it's particularly sad that Human Rights Watch would distort the record of its founder.
It's Very Easy to be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad doesn't have to do a great deal of thinking, because for him every question has the same answer. The Iranian president delivered a speech last month about how the "Zionists" orchestrated the Holocaust in order to occupy "a certain land." His speech mirrors Hitler's language in Mein Kampf -- which is available for free online, by the way. He uses the same sorts of metaphors as Hitler, calling Jews "ticks" who pollute politics, culture and the economy. Here he is on the problems of the world today:
If a war breaks out in Iraq, we believe it is
due to the provocation of the Zionists. If it happens in Afghanistan,
it is because of their provocation. If Sudan is oppressed, it is due
to Zionist seduction. We consider all the arrogant, colonialist schemes
to be inspired by the Zionists.
Goldblog reader Lon Becker makes an interesting point:
Does being pro-Israel require being a lobbyist for Israel? When Labour is in power there are Jews who oppose their moves towards peace. Do those Jews cease to be pro-Israel at this point? Is there a more childish debate than whether J street is pro-Israel? The answer to each of these questions seems to be "no". What exactly is gained by pushing the line that people who disagree with one on certain issues are not just wrong, but anti-Israel?
The New York Sun on Robert Bernstein's Courage
The digitally-resurgent New York Sun praises the founder of Human Rights Watch for his critique of the group for its Middle East double-standard. And it goes after Ken Roth, the group's current leader, for some silly things he said about Judaism:
Here at the New York Sun we are familiar with this pattern of
eliciting, with criticism of Human Rights Watch, even more illuminating
responses. Our favorite example was back in 2006, when the
organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, responded to criticism
of his group's Israel coverage by sending us a letter accusing Judaism
and its Bible of being examples of "primitive" morality. Messrs. Roth,
Olson, and Fanton are posing as neutral human rights advocates, but
what they really are is just another "peace" group with a left-wing
agenda. Mr. Bernstein has done a great service - one of many in a long
and distinguished career - by helping to expose that fact and given a
real example of personal courage.
Jewish Unity
Ta-Nehisi has thoughts. It's always hysterical to see outsiders -- African-Americans, Tibetans, Kurds, Methodists, Lesbians, Hondurans -- look with envy at Jewish cohesion. The Dalai Lama extolled this alleged virtue the other day at my synagogue. Obviously, he doesn't read blogs.
Hitler's Trailer
Eli Roth, of Inglourious Basterds fame, posted some pictures from the set of the revenge fantasy. They're posted below for your entertainment, along with Roth's commentary: "Hitler's friend Goebbels came by one day and we all hung out with my parents. They're so nice."
"For everyone who's been asking, here's how to do the perfect Bear Jew costume. Happy Halloween!"
"Hey, did I ever tell you guys about the time I shared a trailer with Hitler?"
Andrew's Right
I thought that headline might catch your attention. J Street is being criticized in some quarters for taking money from Arabs. Not much money, or many Arabs, but some. Andrew calls this critique "racist tribalism" and he's on to something. The criticism assumes that a) all Arabs loathe Israel, which they don't, and that b) these donors aren't interested in advancing a two-state solution, and don't believe sincerely that J Street is helping bring about an independent state of Palestine living next to a secure and Jewish Israel. I'm not endorsing J Street, I'm simply acknowledging that many people, Jewish and otherwise, believe that its work will be helpful to Israel.
I'm not at all interested in the ethnicity of the donors. I'm more interested in what they think.
A Defense of J Street
I think I've gotten more e-mails about J Street than anything since the TSA. Not that I'm comparing the two. Here's another one, reacting to Menachem Pritzker's earlier critique:
I think Mr. Pritzker misses the point. While J-Street may have different positions that the current Israeli administration, AIPAC has often had different positions (much more right wing) than the Israeli government (unless that government happens to be run by Likud) and is more hardline than a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of the Israeli population. Does AIPAC know better than the party they're lobbying for?
What Does "Pro-Israel" Mean, Part 97
Goldblog reader Menachem Pritzker asks, in reference to J Street:
Are there any other examples of a Washington lobby that knows "better"
than the party they're lobbying for? Would it be possible, say, for a
group to lobby for raising the minimum age for buying cigarettes to 25,
and doubling tobacco taxes, and still get away with calling themselves
a "pro-tobacco lobby?" Why would they even want to?
It seems ridiculous to me that a group with positions farther to
the left than Meretz could position itself as lobbying on behalf of
us. From an Israeli perspective, this whole J-Street episode has been
insulting, upsetting, and very confusing.
I would like to take Ambien, the sleep aid, during long airplane
flights, but I'm afraid that I won't wake up in case of an emergency.
Am I right to be worried?
P. W., Seattle, Wash.
Dear P. W.,
You may be asking the wrong person. I would fly in the "brace for
impact" position from takeoff until well after landing if I could. Each
time I board a plane, I believe that I am going to die. This is why I'm
an inordinately happy person--because so far I have not died. But enough
about me. Although you may need to be woken by a flight attendant, the
adrenaline that will surge through your system should counteract the
lingering effects of an appropriate dose of Ambien. It would not be
responsible of me to recommend that, depending on the likely outcome of
the in-flight emergency, you consider swallowing several more Ambien
during this adrenalin-induced period of hyper-awareness.
Why Goldstone's Self-Defense Isn't Convincing
Andrew has read Goldstone's op-ed in The Jerusalem Post and he found it "completely convincing." I did not. I tend to think that it was a mistake on Israel's part not to cooperate with Goldstone, though it was an entirely understandable mistake: The U.N. has never conducted a fair investigation of Israel, so Israeli doubts about the process were justified. But on the merits of Goldstone's case, here's part of the reason why I'm not at all convinced. Watch the whole thing.
James Bennet's Big Award
Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows have already mentioned the Editor of the Year award bestowed upon our illustrious leader, James Bennet. I wish I could join in the celebration, but the guy owes me money. Also, he gives lousy real estate advice. And he once tried to steal my shoes. Seriously. Long story, I won't bother you with it.
Other than that, he's great, but I don't forgive so easily.
More Fun With the TSA
Reagan National, 8:30 a.m., Monday: The blue-shirt who checks IDs tells me that I can put away my boarding pass, that I won't need it until the gate. I say, "Really? Don't I have to carry it through the scanner?" She says, no, there's a new directive, issued May 13th, that TSA agents no longer have to check boarding passes as passengers walk through the scanners. Boarding passes only need to be checked at the entrance to security checkpoints (which, as I've pointed out elsewhere, are the most dangerous places in America).
Okay, fine.
LaGuardia, 5:30 p.m: I walk through the scanner without waving my boarding pass. The blue-shirt facing me says, "Boarding pass." I say: "I thought, per your May 13th directive (I actually used the word "per") that TSA agents no longer require passengers to show their boarding passes twice at the same security checkpoint.
"Where'd you get that?"
"Washington National."
"I never heard that. Maybe different states have different rules." Yes, of course, because, as we know, the TSA is not federal, but a state agency.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what the rule is, and I'll post TSA's comments when and if they come.
J Street and Stephen Walt
A Goldblog reader asks:
Why is it so important to you that J Street denounce Stephen Walt for his endorsement of their group? You can't always pick who likes you.
It's important because J Street needs to send a clear signal that it disapproves of the work of one of America's leading Jew-baiters. J Street hopes to gain mainstream support for its mission. If it won't tell Stephen Walt to shove off, then who will it tell? Stephen Walt demonizes Jews by blaming them for the Iraq War and for creating conditions that led to the attacks of 9/11. I don't think this should be a hard call for the group.
This is what the eminently reasonable David Rothkopf said about Walt and his cynical co-author, John Mearsheimer:
They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear.
Perhaps I'm seeing something that isn't there, but I inferred from the title of this post a suggestion of anti-Semitic bigotry on the part of the two county Republican chairmen.
First, I think there is a difference between stereotypes to be disparaged and stereotypes to be emulated. The chairmen were guilty of the latter. Second, I've lived 2/3 of my life in the South/Southwest and the rest in the Northeast. I've the noticed that the attitudes about Jews in either place to be remarkably different. In New York, a Jew is some jerk who is dating his sister or a weirdly dressed guy who's probably hoarding diamonds. In the S/SW and probably in most of the Midwest, a Jew is David or Solomon or Daniel or Jesus or James or Paul.
I've simply never encountered bigotry against Jews out here -- as I have toward Blacks and (once) toward Vietnamese. I'm not saying there isn't some Klansman in Vidor, TX nursing conspiracies. I'm just saying such a thing is a major aberration.
But you know the old saying: Philo-Semites are anti-Semites who like Jews.
J Street: Political Sophistry or Pro-Israel Advocacy?
Goldblog reader David Sobel writes in response to the continuing J Street brouhaha:
Amy Spitalnick's claim that "The very reason for J Street's existence is to secure Israel's future as a Jewish democracy" does not convince. What do defending Seven Jewish Children or Obama's rewarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson have to do with supporting Israeli democracy? And why can't J-Street find the time to publicly rebuke Stephen Walt's endorsement, even as its constituents repeatedly criticize AIPAC? J-Street is confusing political sophistry for pro-Israel advocacy. Until J-Street stops making excuses for not taking on Israel's defamers, statements about Israeli democracy sound like bromides to anybody on the right of Yossi Beilin. AIPAC, warts and all, is undoubtedly for Israel. Right now it seems that J Street is for J Street.
The opening shot was fired this month by the former chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress, Isi Liebler, who declared it "our obligation to confront the enemy within - renegade Jews - including Israelis who stand at the vanguard of global efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state."
"Such odious Jews can be traced back to apostates during the Middle Ages who fabricated blood libels and vile distortions of Jewish religious practice for Christian anti-Semites to incite hatred which culminated in massacres," Liebler wrote in the Jerusalem Post. "It was in response to these renegades that the herem [excommunication] was introduced."
Now it is true that there are indeed Jews in the world today who have made themselves enemies of their people; the Hezbollah advocate Norman Finkelstein comes to mind. But Liebler and others seem to think that Jewish critics of Israeli policies -- not Jewish critics of Israel's existence, mind you -- are also heretical. This debate is very much about J Street, an organization about which I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I come out of a left-Zionism tradition -- Hashomer Hatzair, for those of you keeping score at home -- and I believe in a two-state solution, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, more-or-less the whole program. So I'm comfortable in many ways with J Street's basic worldview. On the other hand, I don't think the group has put forward a well-articulated vision of what a progressive Jewish democratic Israel should look like. This might be because, in addition to having progressive Zionists as members, it also has anti-Zionists (these are the types who are happy with Stephen Walt's tragic endorsement of the group) and it's obviously very hard to put forward a positive vision of a Jewish Israel when some of your important supporters -- Bernard Avishai comes to mind -- don't even believe in the idea of a Jewish state.
But it is inaccurate and Jewishly wrong for J Street's right-leaning political adversaries to argue that the group as a whole represents some sort of manifestation of Jewish self-hatred. I have very serious doubts about the willingness of Arabs to make peace with the Jewish state, but I also know that certain Israeli policies make the cause of compromise even more difficult. It's not self-hatred to acknowledge the obvious: That the settlement movement, and its supporters, overemphasize the sanctity of land in Jewish theology, and neglect other aspects of Judaism. Land, love, social justice, an intolerance of idolatry, the law as a whole, abhorrence of cruelty -- all these things together make up Judaism. (This is why a balanced Jewish life is so hard to master.) It is unfair to call a Jew a self-hater simply because he'd rather see Hebron under Arab rule than an Israel that, in keeping Hebron under Jewish rule, betrays other Jewish values.
What Does "Pro-Israel" Mean?
From Goldblog reader Matan Shamir:
The whole issue of J-Street brings to the fore necessitates a discussion of what exactly is "pro-Israel"? J-Street is quite defensive and insecure on this issue given how often they emphasize their critique of Israel's policies is undeniably pro-Israel. Overall, I don't think the Jewish community has carefully examined the pro-Israel question without falling into a polemical argument in which each side assumes the worst of the other.
That being said, I clearly don't believe J-Street is anti-Israel but neither is it pro-Israel. Let me explain. J-Street has positioned itself as the mirror image of AIPAC. Where AIPAC provides Israel "wholesale" backing (Well, that what a lobby does. And you don't see AIPAC directly lobbying on behalf of Israeli settlements), J-Street will offer critique on Israeli policies in order to enhance prospects for peace and provide security for Israel.
I don't deny that J-Streeters care about Israel, but the way in which J-Street single-handedly focuses on criticizing Israel, while ignoring the extremism of Israel's enemies (e.g. The Right of Return), seems to place the organization outside the pro-Israel realm. As far as I've seen, J-Street has offered little or no positive words for Israel. J-Street may want to be the anti-AIPAC, but by only speaking negatively, with little or no positive words for Israel, it has placed itself outside the realm of the pro-Israel community. To me it is clear that one cannot be pro-Israel by only critiquing the country, which in turn belittles the struggle for peace and security Israel faces.
Whatever one thinks of J Street's policies, at least they give a damn. The old guard of the Jewish "leadership" is now trying to delegitimize the lobby, but it is not their business to tell others how they should support Israel. And it certainly isn't for the Israeli ambassador to bestow or withhold his approval from Jewish organizations.
It is quite possible that Oren is simply caving in to pressure from the old Jewish establishment, threatened by the new kids on the street, but his refusal to meet J Street smacks of good old Israeli arrogance. What do these limp-wristed shtetl Jews who have never held an M-16 know about running a country?
From what I know, Oren is definitely not attending the J Street conference, and I believe that his decision has more to do with Washington Jewish politics than it does with his boss's predispositions. AIPAC is the big player in pro-Israel advocacy in Washington; J Street very self-consciously established itself as the left-wing alternative to AIPAC. It's a zero-sum game, and it's understandable bureaucratically why AIPAC would object to Michael Oren's appearance at J Street, even if he went to the conference to yell at them (a possibility that is precluded by Shimon Peres's blessing of J Street's mission. Man, is this inside Jewish baseball, or what?)
In any case, in the best of all possible worlds, Michael Oren would go to J Street and say whatever's on his mind. He has, indeed, spoken to left-wing groups already, but J Street is in a different, problematic class. If, in the coming years, J Street becomes the go-to address for pro-Israel advocacy (or two-state-solution-advocacy) or if AIPAC vanishes, then I'm sure the Israeli ambassador will attend. Until then, I can imagine AIPAC putting up a hard fight each year.
UPDATE: Josh Block, the AIPAC spokesman, just called to tell me that his organization had nothing to do with Oren's decision. He said AIPAC "doesn't give the Israelis advice" on who they should speak to or not speak to.
Does Pat Buchanan Say What We Are All Thinking?
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski thinks so, according to Politico, which asked her to name her favorite television guest:
Brzezinski jumps at the chance to name Pat Buchanan "because he says what we are all thinking."
What do you mean, "we," Mika? There's no doubt Buchanan is entertaining, but I suppose Father Coughlin was entertaining, too.
How Do You Know When it's a Bad Day at Human Rights Watch?
When your own founder condemns you on the op-ed page of the New York Times for being hopelessly biased against a single country. This is what Bob Bernstein, a giant in the field of human rights, has just done:
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Bernstein's argues that the organization he started no longer knows, or cares to know, the difference between closed and open societies, and, as a result, spends far more time criticizing democratic Israel than it does the authoritarian regimes of the Muslim world. He also argues, quite powerfully, that Human Rights Watch no longer understands the difference between wars of aggression and wars of self-defense:
The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
This is an important piece, one that confirms my worst fears about Ken Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, and the Middle East division he oversees. Read the whole thing.
Penny-Pinching Jews and South Carolina Republicans
This is from a letter in a South Carolina newspaper defending Republican Sen. Jim DeMint from charges that he's not bringing home the bacon -- so to speak -- for his state. The letter was written by two county Republican chairmen:
Recently your newspaper published a letter from state Rep. Bakari
Sellers attacking U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and his opposition to
congressional earmarks.
There is a saying that the Jews who are
wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking
care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not
using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using
actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to
preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all
an opportunity to succeed.
October 19, 2009
The Best Journalism of the Year
I'm traveling again today, so blogging will be light-to-nonexistent with a chance of afternoon showers. But might I suggest you read David Rohde's astonishing account of his seven months in Taliban captivity? It is perfectly-written, and the tension is only barely bearable.
October 16, 2009
Shocked, Shocked
Judge Goldstone is perturbed because the U.N. Human Rights Council only wants Israel, and not Hamas, prosecuted for war crimes. Does the man's naivete know no bottom?
The U.N. Human Rights Council
The U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes such countries as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nigeria, has endorsed the Goldstone report, which argues that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. This is a disaster not just for Israel, but for the West. Here's a story that indirectly explains why.
Nine years ago, I was in Cairo for an emergency meeting of the Arab League, which had gathered to discuss the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada. Most everyone at the meeting was supportive of the Palestinian right, such as it is, to use suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. Even Amr Moussa, who was soon to become the secretary-general of the League, argued to me that suicide bombing represented a legitimate attempt at self-defense. When I saw Moussa in Cairo, I argued with him about this support. It seemed to me that Arab leaders would one day reap the whirlwind for their endorsement of this gruesome terror tactic, and I told him so. But he argued back, saying that the tragic and unique reality of Palestine -- the special "desperation" of the Palestinians -- meant that the tactic of sucide bombing would never spread beyond the borders of this one conflict.. He was wrong, of course, and many more Muslims have since died in attacks committed by suicide bombers than have Jews or Christians.
Tactics deployed to hurt Israel inevitably cause collateral damage. It's a good thing that the United States, and a handful of European countries, have opposed the referral of Israel to a war crimes tribunal, but they aren't doing enough (and, of course, France and Great Britain absented themselves from the vote). They would do more, I think, if they understood that Israel represented a kind of test run for a uniquely nefarious idea. Israel may find itself in the docket soon, but the U.S., and Britain, and other Western democracies that are battling Islamist terror, may soon find themselves in similiar straits. Who could seriously argue that what happened in Gaza was unique? Talibs hide behind civilians in Afghanistan, and often those civilians get killed. It's only a matter of time before David Petraeus, or Bob Gates, find themselves under attack from the same forces that want to punish Israel for trying to defend itself from a state-sponsored terror group seeking its elimination.
The New Rules About Tipping
In my latest advice column, I teach a reader how to be kind and appreciative, because I am so kind and appreciative:
Have you noticed that food stores--delis and the like--have started
subtly asking for tips for their employees? I went to a deli the other
day, ordered a sandwich at the counter, and handed over my credit card.
When the receipt came back, it had a space for a tip. I always thought
that tips were supposed to be given only to waiters at sit-down
restaurants. These new demands are creating anxiety for me. Are the
employees behind the counter now working for tips as well?
J. H., Philadelphia, Pa.
Dear J. H.,
This is indeed a disturbing trend, but not one that should cause you
anxiety. If it's anxiety you want, I will provide you with a list of
more-substantial worries (the national debt, Ebola-infected burritos,
the Washington Nationals). Food-service workers who are not waiters
must be paid at least the minimum wage, so they do not, in fact, work
for tips. (Waiters are paid a base salary less than the minimum wage,
and are expected to report their tips as income. "Expected" as in "not
expected.") If you are a kind and appreciative person, you could ask
the clerk serving you at the counter if he does, indeed, work mainly
for tips. If he answers yes, leave him a generous gratuity and report
his employer to your local tax authority.
October 15, 2009
Light Blogging
Thanks for all the letters about J Street. I'll get to them after I fly around some more.
October 14, 2009
An Answer from J Street
In response to my last post, J Street flack Amy Spitalnick wrote to say:
The very reason for J Street's existence is to secure Israel's future
as a Jewish democracy. The two-state solution is the only way to
maintain Israel's democratic values and Jewish character.
"It's not a surprise that we disagree with certain
Israeli government policies," J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said.
"Our bottom line is that we always support the State of Israel and its
future as a democracy."
Hmmm. What sort of a democracy, exactly, does J Street envision? President Obama, as I understand it, thinks Israel should be a Jewish democracy. Does J Street?
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a short piece about my Afghanistan misgivings, in which I argued that Afghanistan is not, in fact, the central front of the War on Terror, that it is ultimately marginal to the story, that our terrorism problem is mainly centered in the Arab world, and in Pakistan, but not in Afghanistan (and in any case, there's no winning in Afghanistan without a "win," whatever that might mean, in Pakistan). My friend Reuel Gerecht objected to my argument, and mailed in this response. I'll respond to his response later, but I'm at Reagan National now, waiting to have my shoes X-rayed as part of my contribution to the War on Terror:
Jeffrey,I
wanted to write you re your post of 25 September "Is Afghanistan Really
the Central Front?"Your questioning of Afghanistan's preeminence in the battle
against jihadism was thoughtful and historically searching.You are undoubtedly correct in
underscoring Afghanistan's near-irrelevance in the development of modern Muslim
thought, and the central importance of Arabs to al-Qa'ida.The Arab holy warriors who actually
fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets were radicalized long before they
arrived in Peshawar; I can't think of a single Afghan intellectual who has
shaped either Sunni or Shi'ite militancy.(Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani was Iranian by birth and a bit Islamic and a
lot Western by education.) The Arab world's dysfunctional efforts to come to
grips with modernity, as you say, created the virus that struck us on 9/11 and
has slaughtered so many Muslims--especially in Iraq.And it's a decent bet that the slow evanescence of jihadism
as a vibrant religious calling among Sunni Arabs--assuming it continues--will be
the death knell for jihadists globally.
I do have, however, a problem with your Arab-centric
intellectual ways.For al-Qa'ida
operationally, there is nothing more important now than the Taliban wars in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.Unless
al-Qa'ida is able to reignite Sunni-Shi'ite strife in Iraq, and the odds of
this happening seem pretty small,Sunni jihadism has lost the Iraq war, and with it, cross your fingers,
the Arabs.Mesopotamia really was
the "central front" in the war on terror because it was the only military
theater al-Qa'ida and its allies had in the Arab world.Drive out the Americans, unleash a
Sunni-Shi'ite bloodbath that just might bring Sunni Arab states and Iran into a
bloody cold--ideally hot--war, and Sunni Islamic militancy might just shake the
region.Decent strategists, bin
Ladin and az-Zawahiri knew what they were saying when they described Iraq as
the decisive battleground.Victory
there would have given their cause real possibilities in the Muslim heartlands.
Quentin Tarantino couldn't even come up with this scenario of Jewish revenge, from the obituary of Richard W. Sonnenfeldt, who participated in the interrogations of Nazi leaders:
His first interrogation was of Goering, who had been Hitler's designated successor. During the encounter, Mr. Sonnenfeldt said, he felt "the Jewish refugee I once had been tugging at my sleeve," he wrote in his autobiography, "Witness to Nuremberg" (2006, Arcade Publishing).
Despite his nervousness, he said, he sharply reprimanded Goering for interrupting. "When I speak, you don't interrupt me," he said to Goering, recalling his words in an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS in 2007. "You wait until I'm finished. And then when you have to say something, I will listen to you and decide whether it's necessary to translate it."
Glad We Compromised on Missile Defense
Surprisingly, unless you've read anything at all about power politics, the Russians don't seem to be going along with the move to ratchet-up sanctions on Iran.
Who is Responsible for Palestinian Suffering?
A Goldblog reader writes:
In your post about the Naqba, you suggest that Palestinians today ought to suffer because of the bad decisions of their leaders. While it is true that Arab leaders in 1948 made some bad decisions, how could you possibly blame the descendants of the Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1948 for the mistakes of their former leaders? Do you not care about them?
Of course I care about them, which is why I want them to have a country of their own. But this letter raises an interesting question: Should the sins of the fathers be visited on the sons (and grandsons)? Ideally not, but in the real world, a) we all suffer from the mistakes of our leaders, even leaders long-dead, and b) the Palestinians and their leaders today are not guilt-free, either. After all, you get the leaders you deserve, and for many years the Palestinians had as their leader a man who was incapable of delivering them a state, or even stability, and who stole billions of dollars of aid meant for them.
But to the first point: Let me provide an example from the future. One day, maybe sooner, maybe later, Israel will have to evacuate most of its West Bank settlements, in particular the far-flung settlements around Nablus. When this happens, particularly if it happens through negotiations, Israel might very well ask the United States (or Jewish donors abroad) to help pay for the massive cost of moving tens of thousands of settlers. As an American taxpayer, my inclination would be to tell the Israelis to pick up the tab for their own mess. Israeli leaders -- left and right -- endorsed, and underwrote, this self-destructive movement to settle the West Bank with religious fundamentalists. No American government endorsed it, so why should we be forced to pay? Maybe we'll have to, as the price for peace -- just as we may have to pay to resettle Palestinians, even though their brother Arabs in the Gulf could buy every single one of them a villa and a Volvo and still have plenty of money to build shopping malls. But you see the point. We're all responsible for the mistakes we've made, and sometimes we're even responsible for the mistakes made by those who came before us. Arab leaders aren't children. At a certain point, someone is going to have to assume responsibility for nearly one hundred years of self-defeating mistakes. The Arab states, and the Palestinian national movement, are responsible for a great deal of Palestinian suffering, and the lessons of the past, if properly learned, could bring an end to that suffering today.
Obama Says No to Dalai Lama, Goldblog Synagogue Says Yes
Well, it's not actually called the Goldblog synagogue, though I might bring this up. Mrs. Goldblog is deeply involved there (she chairs the religious school steering committee, if you can believe it) so maybe they'll listen to the suggested name-change. In any case, the actual name of the synagogue is Adas Israel, and yes, we did have the Dalai Lama over to our Sukkah, thanks to our rabbi, Gil Steinlauf, who, unlike the most recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, doesn't have his schedule dictated to him by Chinese Communists.
It was actually quite a touching visit -- the Dalai Lama was looking for a place to meet with Tibetan exiles in the Washington area, and our Cleveland Park shul seemed a good place (and it helped that the Dalai Lama's Washington flack is a prominent member.) The meeting coincided with the last day of Sukkot, so Rabbi Steinlauf, in the interest of interfaith harmony, invited the Dalai Lama to our Sukkah. He spoke for a short time, maybe five minutes, mainly about the survival skills Tibetans could learn from Jews. He spoke of Jewish resilience in the face of overwhelming persecution, and joked about the ubiquity of Israelis in Dharamsala.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the malignant and growing political movement that wants to deny legitimacy to the very idea of a Jewish country, and I've become more and more worried about the effectiveness of this campaign. But a visit from the Dalai Lama, who has lived most of his life without his country, is a reminder that the Jews, when compared to other small peoples today (the Kurds come to mind as well), have experienced a full-blown miracle of rebirth.
Did the "Nakba" Happen?
A reader named Jeet Heer writes to ask:
Quick question: why is Nakba in quotes in your recent post? Do you think that the Nakba didn't happen?
The war that gave Jews freedom in their ancient homeland three years after the Holocaust was not a "catastrophe," which is what "nakba" means in Arabic. Did the war result in misery and displacement for a great number of Arabs? Yes. Did it result in misery and displacement for a great number of Jews as well? Yes. Was the misery of the Arabs brought about in large part by the bad decision-making of their leaders? Yes. Arab leaders made the decision to reject the United Nations plan to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab countries, and then they attacked the reborn Jewish country, promising the annihilation of its inhabitants. And then they proceeded to lose. Many of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine suffered as a result of their leaders' failure to annihilate the Jews.
Was the misery of the Jews who were displaced from Arab countries brought about by the decision of Arab leaders? Also yes. The difference between these competing miseries is that the Arabs who professed brotherhood with their displaced cousins did nothing to help them. The Jews who professed brotherhood with their displaced cousins resettled them in Israel.
So, no, the "nakba" didn't happen. The return of a persecuted people to its ancient homeland is what happened. And a series of disastrous mistakes some made by the returned Jews, most made by the Arabs, resulted in what Arabs refer to as a catastrophe, a catastrophe which, of course, could have been mitigated at many points along the way, most recently following the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza four years ago. But, alas, not yet.
Early word has it that Mr. Obama is going to say that this is an award
for the American people and the American spirit, and for him to say
such a thing isn't entirely off the mark. But the embodiment of that
spirit that involves the greatest personal risk, the greatest personal
commitment, in our generation has been that exhibited by the men and
women of the uniformed services who are out there every day in the face
of determined and often barbaric enemies, and it would be nice to see
the Norwegians, whose own freedom was bought with American blood, give
GI Joe his due.
Rabbi Shlomo Carelbach used to say that if he met a person
who said "I'm a Catholic" he knew he was a Catholic. If he met a person
who said "I'm a Protestant" he knew he was a Protestant. If he met a
person who said "I'm a human being" he knew he was a Jew.
Jews have led some of the great universalist movements of
the world. They did so under the illusion that if all people were just
alike, the thorny problem of being different would disappear. It never
did. It never should. Being a Jew is not a problem but a blessing and a
destiny.
There is no such thing as a person in general. Each
individual grows up with a certain family, land, heritage, language and
culture. To deny it is to cast off a piece of oneself. Jewish is not
opposed to being human; rather it is an ancient and beautiful way to be
human.
In every age there are those who dream of homogenizing the
world. It is an ignoble dream. When we honor difference we honor the One
who created this diverse, multicolored pageant of a world.
Satloff: U.N. Equates the "Nakba" to the Holocaust
I read the full interview with UNRWA's John Ging and was less impressed. While it is very much welcome that UNRWA would decide to include reference to the Holocaust in a UN-sponsored human rights curriculum to explain the origins and continued relevance of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which was itself born out of the Holocaust, this shouldn't be news. Ging is an international civil servant and we should expect this modicum of decency and common sense from people in his position. It would be different if Ging's position were advanced by a Palestinian leader in Gaza, given how out of step that brave soul would be with local sensibilities, but Ging should not be judged - praised -- in comparison to that standard.
In fact, if you read Ging's interview to the very end, you will see something that is newsworthy: Ging's chilling view of what constitutes a "stain on human history." He told his interviewer that the new curriculum would also include "tangible examples" of other "blights and stains in human history" -- "We want to succeed with the active support of the civilian population who want their children to be part of the civilised world and who have no interest in challenging globally accepted facts; no more than ... they start challenging whether the earth goes round the sun, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans, or the genocide in Rwanda, or apartheid in South Africa; or, for that matter, the Nakba." Hm... really?
As your readers well know, in November 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine; partition was accepted by the Zionists and rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab states. In May 1949, the UN General Assembly determined that the new State of Israel was "a peace-loving state" and admitted Israel to the United Nations. Whatever tragedies befell Palestinians during the eighteen months that separated these two events, and no impartial observer can contest that tragedies occurred, it takes a remarkable degree of historical revisionism for a United Nations official to include the creation of Israel -- for that is what the Nakba represents --on a list of "blights and stains on human history." That is -- or at least it should be -- newsworthy.
From Carter to Obama
I can't imagine I'm the only one who sees the Nobel Peace Prize as somewhat debased. Jimmy Carter's experience is instructive in this regard. The Nobel committee famously slighted Carter after -- after -- he negotiated the Camp David accord that led to a durable peace between Israel and Egypt. Many years later, he won it for the sum of his work (and yes, I have my strong feelings about that work, mainly negative) but the Nobel Committee did not see him as deserving at the time of Camp David, even though his achievement was remarkable. Now, thirty years later, an American president receives the prize with no concrete achievements in the realm of international peacemaking (or domestic policy, for that matter) to his name. This is a decision that might come back to haunt the Nobel committee. I hope not, but it might.
Obama's Prize
Mazel Tov, but don't you have to achieve peace somewhere before you win the Nobel? Which is not to say he won't, but really. Do Scandinavians believe that this will help him with the Taliban? Or with North Korea? Or for that matter, with Bibi? Or with his American constituents?
I'm pretty sure he would like to trade this victory for the Olympics.
It's a simple story. In the absence of peace in the Middle East, deterrence prevents war. Israeli deterrence has been eroded considerably by two Lebanon wars, two intifadas and two unilateral withdrawals. Thus Israel is incessantly subjected to terror attacks.
To prevent the region's deterioration into complete chaos, Israel must exercise force once every few years. These limited demonstrations of power do not achieve a decisive military victory or a breakthrough in the peace process. Their entire purpose is to stabilize the violent relationship between Israelis and Arabs. Thus they create a temporary, strong-arm balance that subdues the conflict and ensures calm for a few years.
Andrew Sullivan on Michael Oren
I haven't commented on Michael's much-talked-about piece in The New Republic, in which he argues -- and I haven't read it closely-enough yet, so pardon any possible misinterpretation -- that the mission of the Goldstone report is to essentially deny Israel the right to self-defense -- because I'm so effing busy with actual journalism right now. But I thought this reaction from Andrew is interesting, and I'll try to write about the whole thing later. Israel, Andrew writes, should try to "get some perspective and to see, for a moment, how things might look from the outside."
I can see why they may feel encircled and alone. But they're not. Even those of us who have been made angry by their recent actions and seeming unconcern for the needs of their most powerful friend, want to help. God knows I love Israel and its people; and I understand that some of the extremism among neocons is really an excess of passion and love rather than mere belligerence and orneriness. But, seriously guys, get a grip. Help the US help you. And try to see the wider picture.
I remember once in Beirut an American diplomat complaining to me about Israel, as American diplomats will often do, especially in places like Beirut. She said, in essence, "I don't understand why Israel behaves the way it does. It has the support of the most powerful country in the world, a powerful military, an educated population, and nuclear bombs. If I had that, I wouldn't feel so lonely." What she was doing was mirror-imaging, not seeing the world through the eyes of the people she was ostensibly trying to understand. In other words, she was seeing Israel's world through the eyes of a Christian American. The point is, the past can be used to predict Israel's behavior, just as it can be used to predict most anyone's behavior, and the Jewish past was very often a bitch.
But while the world has an obligation to understand Israel and its motivations (or, at least, an abiding interest in gaining such an understanding) Israel has an interest in understanding why the world might see some of its actions as excessive. I'm not referring here to Israel's reaction to the Goldstone report, which was a pre-cooked travesty, but to more legitimate criticism about its settlements and its actions in Gaza. I'm not arguing that Israel must agree with every criticism, but I am arguing that not every single criticism of Israel is motivated by a desire to exterminate the Jewish state.
And Speaking of Sensitivity in Politics...
Here's Sheila Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, mocking the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia for having a slight stutter:
David Kessler: Corzine's Campaign is Cruel and Intolerant
I happened to speak this morning to the obesity guru David Kessler, a former F.D.A. chief and author of the best-selling "The End of Overeating," and he was highly critical of Jon Corzine, the governor of New Jersey, for mocking his opponent's weight. Christopher Christie, Corzine's Republican challenger, has become the target of snide ads and comments that highlight his girth. This is what Kessler told me:
"This ad reflects a total lack of understanding, empathy and tolerance. No one should be criticized for being overweight. We're all wired to respond to different stimuli -- sex, gambling, alcohol, illegal drugs -- and for many people it's food. I would rather have this problem than some of these other problems. Some of the world's greatest leaders, from Winston Churchill to Ted Kennedy, struggled with their weight. This struggle has nothing to do with leadership abilities. It doesn't translate into a lack of control in any other part of a person's life. In any case, voters identify with people who are honest and open about their struggles. To be cruel to someone because of this struggle is just unacceptable. It shows a lack of understanding about human nature, and about the environment in which we live."
Is Sarna Being Infantile?
A Goldblog reader writes, in reference to Jonathan Sarna's argument about the diminished love American Jews have for Israel:
Yes, enough with the hand-wringing indeed. The disillusionment of the likes of Mr. Sarna is just the flip side of the rose-colored glasses he grew up with, and both are equally infantile. And the obligatory affirmation from the obligatory Israeli acquaintances is meaningless. He and they are not the same. For them, Israel is a motherland. For him it is not. Normal people do not throw their mother to the wolves, even if they dislike her warts. That is especially true of those born and raised in Israel, who by now are the overwhelming majority in the Israeli population. Sarna's motherland is the U.S., whose sins dwarf those of Israel. So? Is that sufficient cause for him to hand her over to her enemies?
Reason Number One Why I Don't Like Helicopters
I recently found a photo I took of the helicopter that made me want to stop riding in helicopters. I almost spent a delightful eternity at the bottom of the Caspian Sea because of this devil-machine:
As Fallows says, "Airplanes are meant to stay up in the air; helicopters are meant to fall out of it."
Herta Mueller?
She sounds like an admirable person, but she's no Philip Roth. Of course, no one is.
I find these obits on the blind allegiance to Israel vapid. If it were to be subsumed into the greater Middle East, or destroyed, or abandoned, we might realize that we should have been doing less hand-wringing about keeping its image unblemished and more about its purpose as a vehicle for survival---survival for the people, the culture and the religion.
The greatest trick the Palestinians pulled was to convince the world that they were a distinct entity, a small persecuted minority, rather than another stitch in the great Arab blanket of people, politics, culture and religion that dominates and controls the Middle East, and its most important asset, oil.
We have our temple and our history and our culture (the one that produces Nobel Prizes), and little else, but succumb to the arguments and pressure of most the world and eventually the Middle East will be one homogenous swath of despotism and oppression. And yet, that is what so many, mainly on the Left these days, seem to yearn for.
Vanessa Redgrave, Zionist?
Well, not quite, but you know your anti-Israel boycott has gone too far when Redgrave lines up against you. The anti-Israel actress (except that I guess we can't call her that anymore) condemned a move at the Toronto Film Festival last month to label Israel an "apartheid regime." Arguing in defense of Tel Aviv, the showcased city at the festival, Redgrave wrote:
We oppose the current Israeli government, but it is a government. Freely elected. Not a regime. Words matter. ... These citizens of Tel Aviv and their organizations and their cultural
outlets should be applauded and encouraged. Their presence and their
continued activity is reason alone to celebrate their city.... If
attitudes are hardened on both sides, if those who are fighting within
their own communities for peace are insulted, where then is the hope?
The point finally is not to grandstand but to inch toward a two-state
solution and a world in which both nations can exist, perhaps not
lovingly, but at least in peace.
The Ending of a Love Affair
Jonathan Sarna on what seems strikingly obvious to everyone except the leaders of Israel and the establishment Jewish community:
My generation of American Jews was raised to view the Zionist project through similarly rose-colored glasses. Now, though, that dream, which had more to do with the lofty visions of American Jews than with the sordid realities of the Middle East, lies shattered beyond repair. In place of the utopia that we had hoped Israel might become, young Jews today often view Israel through the eyes of contemporary media: They fixate upon its unloveliest warts.
Israelis who question me about the waning American Jewish love affair with Israel nod comprehendingly when I offer them this explanation. After all, they have seen many of their own Zionist dreams ground down by years of war. In both countries, the ardor of young love, with all of its unrealistic hopes and passions and dreams, has given way to middle-aged realities.
Does Goldstone Delegitimize Israel?
Michael Oren writes -- provocatively -- in The New Republic:
The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust
deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but
of the right to defend themselves. If a country can be pummeled by
thousands of rockets and still not be justified in protecting its
inhabitants, then at issue is not the methods by which that country
survives but whether it can survive at all. But more insidiously, the
report does not only hamstring Israel; it portrays the Jews as the
deliberate murderers of innocents--as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only
lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed.
Mazal Tov, Mel
On finding a judge to expunge that DUI -- the one that unleashed your famous anti-Semitic and sexist rant -- from your record.
UN to Teach Holocaust Classes in Gaza
Keep hope alive. This actually sounds reasonably promising, especially this quote from John King, the UNRWA director of operations in Gaza: "No human-rights curriculum is complete without the inclusion of the facts of the Holocaust, and its lessons." If only the plans weren't facing extreme opposition.
A top Israeli security official said there has been a frustrated acknowledgement in Israeli intelligence and military circles that, as it stands, there is no obvious alternative to continued Hamas rule in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority is not strong enough to return to power there; Israel does not want to reoccupy an area it vacated in 2005; and there is concern that any collapse of Hamas rule might increase the influence of even more militant groups.
Why Are We Worried About Afghanistan, Exactly?
Sorry for saying this again, but I'm not clear about why Afghanistan is the central front in the war on Islamist terror. Afghanistan did not produce the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, nor did it have a central role in the creation of the ideology of those terrorists (the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, of course, created feelings of superiority in Islamists, but that's another story). It is an Arab-made ideology, and to a lesser though still important degree, Pakistani-made, ideology that concerns us most. And it is Arab and Pakistani terrorists who are our main concern. Obviously, the U.S. should be in the business of denying safe havens to al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, but occupying and reforming a country that has proven itself so resistant to occupation and reform, and which isn't the at the root of the ideology we claim we're fighting -- I'm not sure I get it. A more central front is Pakistan; another more central front is Yemen. Cairo, London and Paris are also central fronts. Iran is a central front of a different sort. And yes, Iraq is a central front. But Afghanistan?
And no, I'm not advocating an invasion of Pakistan or Yemen or Cairo or London. But I believe that we should at least get our categories straight. Victory in Afghanistan won't do much to change what is essentially an Arab problem.
"If You Think Iran is So Dangerous, Why Not Attack?"
A Goldblog reader writes:
"You keep posting items about how everything is a farce, that Iran wants a nuclear weapon and that's it. You understand, obviously, that Iran hates Israel, you know that Israeli military doctrine, for good reason, holds that an enemy state shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and so on. So why are you against an Israeli military strike? If you think Iran is so dangerous, why not attack?"
There are many reasons. I've outlined some before, but here we go again. I'm against a strike first because because of a short-term danger, that American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer because of an Israeli strike. A nuclear Iran is not in the long-term best interests of the United States, of course, but we have short-term interests, as well, and they conflict with what some see as Israel's interest. Second, I've moved to the belief that the Iranian government is not so much a messianic apocalyptic cult, as Netanyahu described it to me, but an oppressive military regime with a superficially Shi'a agenda. Its real agenda, it seems, is self-preservation, and people interested in staying alive, as individuals or as a collective, don't launch nuclear-armed missiles at a nuclear state with a second-strike capability. The Iranians understand that Israel could obliterate Persian civilization. There are some mystics -- Ahmadinejad, for one -- who might want to carry out a seemingly-irrational attack on Israel for their own millenarian reasons, but my impression, to date, is that other Iranian leaders would rather stay alive, and these men have a great deal of sway over the nuclear program.
As I've written before, I don't discount the long-term dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear program will help Iran achieve hegemony in the Muslim Middle East, and the gravitational pull of a such a powerful Iran will do great harm to the peace process, such as it is. And I obviously think that this is the most serious issue facing Israel, and one of the two or three most serious issues facing the U.S., today. But so far at least, no one has convinced me that an armed attack on Iran's facilities by Israel would a) work, and b) make the world a safer place and c) protect the Jewish people from a second Holocaust.
American Values, Wal-Mart Style
I recently posted on Wal-mart's indifference toward American history. Turns out that the Girl Scout cookie-stealing mega-chain doesn't want to see history change, either. In 1995, we learn now, a Miami-based store temporarily stopped selling temporarily stopped selling T-shirts that read, "Someday a woman will be president!" Here's a photo of the America-destroying shirt:
The short-lived ban makes even less sense when you consider the clothing Wal-mart was selling in 2007 until, again, someone realized what was going on: For other items ultimately banned at Wal-mart, go here.
And Now, Newer and Better Centrifuges
Iran is going to use a new generation of faster centrifuges to enrich
uranium at its formerly-secret, now-not, nuclear site near Qom. So says the Iranians themselves. When do our leaders acknowledge, as Jackson Diehl has done, that this is all a farce, that Iran is committed to having a nuclear weapons capability at almost any cost?
In Favor of Robert Downey, Jr.'s Childhood
A Goldblog reader, fed up with my Just Say No advice column, writes in to argue against marijuana moralizing:
I would hope you would evaluate marijuana use on the basis of
scientific studies more than on government policies and general
societal beliefs. Societies and governments have been wrong about
major issues in the past (slavery, alcohol prohibition in the 1920s,
lax labor laws just to name a few examples). ... Rather than supporting the puritanical position that you either
completely abstain from marijuana or you must be raising the next
Robert Downey Jr., it would be more constructive to live in the real
world and realize the best approach to this issue is to say that while
you don't encourage the use of this drug as there are some risks
inherent in marijuana use, if you are going to use this drug, you
should use moderate amounts and take reasonable safety precautions.
Now He's Jewish, Now He's Not
Okay, so we learn now that Ahmadinejad isn't Jewish. The whole debate is still immaterial, except that the campaign inside Iran to prove that Ahmadinejad is, in fact, Jewish -- which is to say, a fatally flawed person -- is dispiriting, though not altogether surprising.
When Dad Gets High in the Living Room
People often ask me, "Goldblog, are those letters in your Atlantic advice column for real?" And I say, "Please don't call me Goldblog. And yes, they're real, one hundred percent." Sometimes they're nuts, though. This one is from my October advice column:
I'm in high school and my father smokes a lot of pot. He does it
privately (in our living room), but I just found out that he buys his
pot from one of my friends. My friend is in college, and he told
everyone that he's my father's dealer. Should I tell my father to stop
smoking pot, or to just stop buying from my friends?
J. P., San Francisco, Calif.
Dear J. P.,
What your father is doing is terribly selfish. It sounds as if you
have more sense than he has. You must lay down the law: absolutely no
buying illegal drugs from your friends. You are being raised in a
catastrophically lenient household (has your father never heard the
tragic story of Robert Downey Jr.?), and you're going to have to be
unequivocal. And by the way, how did he convince you that the living
room is "private"?
Mrs. Goldblog notes this unusual use of the term "cabal" in a story from the Independent, an article about a move by Gulf Arabs to dump the dollar:
The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place - although they
have not discovered the details - are sure to fight this international cabal
which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against
the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special
envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions
between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral
quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa
Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East
over energy interests and security."
Mrs. Goldblog notes that this is the first time in her memory the term "cabal" has been used to describe a group of Arabs, rather than the usual suspects. I pointed out only that Arabs are Semites, and so perhaps there was some confusion in the writing process.
October 5, 2009
Is Ahmadinejad Jewish?
Who cares? Jewish self-hatred is an entirely predictable phenomenon. It ain't easy being Jewish, and it hasn't been easy for a while, at least since Saul became Paul, and certainly since the Jews of Arabia said no thank you when Muhammad offered them his own vision of monotheism. Some Jews, the weaker ones, adopt the culture and outlook of their oppressors. Some do it sincerely, because they have internalized the anti-Semitic calumnies hurled at them, and others do it for cynical reasons, such as career advancement. Others do it because they are scared, and so assume that associating themselves with anti-Semites will afford them some kind of protection. I have no idea if Moody's roots are Jewish, but it's immaterial in any case.
It seems that Mohamed ElBaradei, the chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, believes that Israel, and not Iran, is the "number one threat" to Middle East tranquility. Yes, of course this is true. At least down the rabbit hole in which ElBaradei lives.
Israel seeks Iran's recognition; Iran seeks Israel's destruction. So of course it is Israel that poses a threat. The Jewish desire to exist is an extreme form of temerity, no?
I recently graduated from college, and my formerly dearest friend
has stolen one of my extracurricular activities for her résumé. I just
happened to see her résumé lying around and noticed that the community
service I performed--reading to blind children--is on it. But she never
read to the blind! She's not very interested in charity, to put it
mildly. I think she saw it on my résumé and realized how excellent it
sounded. Should I let prospective employers know? How would I even know
whom to tell?
J. G., Ann Arbor, Mich.
Dear J. G.,
I turned your question over to my sister-in-law, Ellen Gordon Reeves, who is an actual expert on these things, having authored Can I Wear My Nose Ring to the Interview?,
a guide to job-finding for recent graduates. She notes that if you were
actually sniffing around for your friend's résumé, you don't have a
moral argument to make. If not, she suggests the following: "Tell her
you didn't know she'd started volunteering and that you're so glad your
activities inspired her. If she fesses up, remind her that employers
will not forgive lies on a résumé, especially when the falsehoods can
be checked."
On Archie Bunker and Jewish Lawyers
For those keeping tabs, I was right about Archie Bunker's predilection for Jewish lawyers. Bunker specifically sought a Jewish lawyer from the Jewish firm Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz and Rabinowitz after suffering a minor car accident and, in a different episode, explains why a Jew would best to sue an Arab dry cleaner: "I want a guy that's full o' hate!"
October 4, 2009
Israel Keeps Lindsey Graham Up at Night
Here's a full recap -- and video, for you masochists out there -- of my interview with Lindsey Graham at the Atlantic-sponsored Washington Ideas Forum on Thursday. Graham was candid and his call for civility in politics was well-received by an audience predisposed to receive such calls well. The South Carolina senator mentioned that he stays up at night worrying whether Israel is going to attack Iran, so I guess we have something in common.
October 1, 2009
Glenn Beck, Crying Millionaire
Apparently I asked Lindsey Graham today at the Atlantic's Washington Ideas Forum what he thought of Glenn Beck, and apparently he said something funny. It's always hard to know what's happening when you're doing the interview, but I thought Graham was, for Washington, candid.
