-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, November 2, 2009 - 3:46 PM
Share
Back in 2007, we wrote that AIPAC has an "almost unchallenged hold on Congress." Little has happened since then to alter that conclusion, and we will probably get another demonstration of Congressional spinelessness this week. On Tuesday, the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 867, an AIPAC-sponsored resolution denouncing the recent Goldstone Report on possible war crimes by Hamas and Israel during the Gaza War last year. You can read the resolution here. You should then read Judge Goldstone's response here, which points out the errors in the House resolution. And then read historian Tony Judt's eloquent statement here. If you're convinced that the resolution makes a mockery of America's professed commitment to justice and human rights, then you might express that sentiment here or here. Or just call your Congressman's office and tell him/her to grow a backbone and vote against it.
Meanwhile, over in Israel itself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is completing the Obama administration's humiliating retreat from the principles set forth in the president's Cairo speech of less than five months ago. In a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton did not criticize continued Israeli home demolitions in East Jerusalem (a practice she had previously denounced), and praised Netanyahu for making "unprecedented concessions" on settlement expansion. Huh? This is Clintonian double-talk worthy of her husband. Netanyahu's "concession" was to insist that Israel would keep building whatever and wherever it wished in East Jerusalem, and would also continue the "natural growth" of settlements in the West Bank, but would not start any completely new settlements for awhile. Bear in mind that virtually every country in the world regards all of the settlements -- both the unauthorized outposts and the vast neighborhoods built by the Israeli government -- as illegal under international law, and the United States used to say this too. And for this "concession" the Palestinians are supposed to enter into another meaningless round of discussions, while the bulldozers and construction crews continue to eat away at the land on which they hope to establish a state of their own. To praise Netanyahu's position as an "unprecedented concession" is like discovering someone is robbing your house, and then expressing gratitude when they offer to do it a bit more slowly.
The two-state solution was on life-support when Obama took office, and at first it appeared he might make a serious effort to nurse it back to health and make it a reality. At least, that's what he said he was going to do. Instead, he and his Secretary of State are in the process of pulling out the plug. But what will they do when "two states for two peoples" isn't an option and everybody finally admits it, and the Palestinians begin to demand equal rights in "greater Israel?" Will the United States support their claims for equality, democracy, and individual rights, or will it continue to defend and subsidize what will then be an apartheid state? Well, if it's up to our courageous reps in Congress, you know what the answer will be.
Avi Ohayon/GPO via Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, HILLARY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
1. You discredit yourself by quoting Tony Judt, a notorious anti-Israel writer who has been refuted many times.
2. "Greater Israel" is a propaganda phrase right out of the anti-semitic playbook. No Israeli government has any such designs. Security accommodations are, however, necessary when some of the inhabitants including the de facto "Palestinian" administration cannot control their own international gangsters and murderers, and when most Arab states are still in a state of war with Israel, and even those two who have signed peace treaties contain huge hostile populations and very many hostile opinion leaders. In fact the Palestinians have never kept even their most basic commitments, such as removing the goal of the destruction of Israel from their charter and ending incitement.
There is Israel. There is Gaza. There is the West Bank. The first is a State where the rule of law applies and freedom of conscience and worship prevails. The third is a disputed territory whose division is yet to be determined. It contains both Jews and Arabs; it was never under Arab sovereignty, the residents are both Israeli and non-Israeli.
The second is an irredentist terrorist area which will probably need to be quarantined for many years. These are the same folks who tried to violently overthrow every host Arab government, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, and had to be kicked out by their national armies in each case. Nothing to do with Israel; they are sociopaths. They are international pariahs and need to be treated as such. The US has no interest in them, strategic, tactical, or diplomatic. At best they are a humanitarian refugee case long overdue for resettlement in the Arab world. And the actual number of refugees is minuscule; most are elderly or long gone. Their descendants are not refugees, except by an Arab confidence trick at the UN. No other people have had their descendants given "refugee" status.
In other words, the old "two state solution" IS dead. In its place what is possible is a new two state solution plus a de facto refugee camp which needs to be very widely resettled in a way that would prevent the violent among them from threatening their new homes. As to the eventual State in the West Bank, its boundaries and security arrangements need to be settled by negotiation among the parties. Let's not forget the Arabs repeatedly made war against Israel and repeatedly lost. Like the man who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court on grounds he was an orphan, they are not in a position to make "demands" but instead are lucky they are facing a humanitarian Israeli interlocutor rather than one of their "brother Arab" states who, in their tender mercy, have kept the Palestinians in refugee camps all these years.
Commentator,
I got a chuckle out of this:
"You discredit yourself by quoting Tony Judt..."
In the list of the ways Walt has discredited himself by his commentary on this topic, this would probably crack the top 500, but it would be close. :-)
Actually, Commentor discredited himself when he claimed that the ideological meme of "Greater Israel" is a fabrication of antisemites. In fact, the ethno-religious myth (and policy objective) of Eretz Yisrael looms large in the thinking of important political factions in Israel, and especially those associated with Likud and religious Zionists. It is an influential component of Israeli political culture. Commentor can be safely dismissed as a reliable guide to interpreting Israeli politics.
Commentor = Commentator. Also, could Commentator provide some elucidation on precisely which points Tony Judt has been effectively rebutted?
What part of "No Israeli government has any such designs." don't you understand?
Commentator: there is an abundance of scholarly material out there discussing the role of "Eretz Yisrael" in influencing the policies of the Israeli government and Israeli political culture. Here is one item you might take the trouble to read: Shindler, Colin (2002) 'Likud and the Search for Eretz Israel: From the Bible to the Twenty First Century.' In: Karsh, E, (ed.), Israel: The First Hundred Years Vol III Israeli Politics and Society Since 1948 Problems of Collective Identity. Frank Cass, pp. 91-117. Ehud Sprinzak, Ian Lustick and Robert I. Friedman have also produced useful analysis on the subject. Your airy proclamations carry no weight.
Like most conspiracy theorists who throw around terms they don't understand, "Eretz Yisroel" means "the land of Israel". Today it is used by most israelis to mean the present State. In Biblical times it had a different meaning. Before 1947 it meant "Palestine" as that was the site of the Jewish heritage.
Certainly there is a small minority who believe in the biblical boundaries, just as there are some Chicanos in the US who believe in the Reconquista and Azatlan. It is a far cry, however, to attempt to associate these views with a) the present Israeli government or b) in the latter case, the present Mexican government, just as it is irrational to associate the views of a few US white supremacists or black extremists with those of the present US administration.
Eretz Yisrael and the Israeli Government
Eretz Yisrael in the minds of many contemporary Israelis includes "Judea and Samaria" (the occupied terrorities, as adjudged by the international community, including the United States) and in many cases territories beyond. The cutting edge of the settler movement believes in this ideology with a literally religious fundamentalist passion, and many of these zealots will fight to the death rather than abandon these territories. The Israeli government, under both Labor and Likud regimes, has supported the settler movement (with Labor being even more aggressive than Likud in promoting new settlements). And the Israel lobby howled to the heavens when Obama demanded that Israel stop all settlement activity immediately -- thus Obama's weak backing away from the policy he enunciated just a few months ago. Notice that you just completely reversed yourself on your claim that "Greater Israel" is a fabrication of antisemites -- a sign of intellectual dishonesty often associated with hasbara artists.
What is it about proof that you don't undertsand?
Simply asserting that "No Israeli government has any such designs", doesn't prove anything. You woudl be just as convincing if you said there were pink elephants in the room.
good call. to claim that ambitions of a "greater israel" or "eretz yisrael" are nonexistent is to deny reality. Some of Israel's "greatest" (in their popular imagination, at least) leaders have been staunch supporters of such a vision: Begin, Jabotinsky, etc. It is a strain that continues right up to the current PM. Why do you think settlements exist? Are they not at least a partial fulfillment of this vision? There has been a sustained colonization effort. If settlements were a fringe issue, they wouldn't have the full backing of the state. Israel suffers diplomatic isolation over settlements. With most of the world declaring them illegal, Israel wouldn't abide them unless a major part of the establishment hadn't contributed to their existence in the first place. It's far from a non-issue in politics, either--it is THE most contentious issue in their politics.
Israel is an apartheid, ethnocentric state that was founded on terrorism. it stands in direct violation of international law and countless UN resolutions.
The concept of a religious state is complete anathema to democracy.
Suggesting that Gaza be quarantined is the language of extremists and has not been heard since the 1940's. The very same ideas were promulgated by the Nazis.
Jews were once regarded as pariahs and need to be treated as such. It seems now it is the Palestinians' turn. Who ever said never again?
Israel created close to a million refugees in the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine. They remain Israel's responsibility, though Israeli propagandists woudl have you believe they either don;t exist, or are the responsibility of the surrounding Arab States.
The old "two state solution" has always been dead becasue Israel were never serious about it anyway. Israel has always had a policy of changing he facts on the ground to ensure that a Palestinian State was never viable. The onyl Israeli leader who tried was assassinated by an Israeli. Since the, the Israeli leadership has not dared take on the extremists settler movement, who are even losing favor in Israel. It's little wonder then that skilled workers are deserting Israel in droves.
As recently as past November, they voted against granting Palestinians self determination at the UN.
With the exception of the 1973 war (which was an extension of the 1967 war) Israel has started or initiated every war it has been involved in since 1948. War has become Israel's raison d'etre.
Arguing that the Palestinians have no rights or are ion no position to make "demands" is like arguing that a rape victim has no right to fight back or seek justice. What we have in Palestine is the primitive logic that might makes right. My that standard, the Holocaust woudl have been legitimate had the Nazi's won the war.
There is Israel. There is Gaza. There is the West Bank. The first is a State where the rule of law applies and freedom of conscience and worship prevails. The third is a disputed territory whose division is yet to be determined. It contains both Jews and Arabs; it was never under Arab sovereignty, the residents are both Israeli and non-Israeli.
You mean aside from those pesky Jordanians who annexed it in 1949 and held it until Israel conquered it in 1967? Don't make me laugh.
At best they are a humanitarian refugee case long overdue for resettlement in the Arab world. And the actual number of refugees is minuscule; most are elderly or long gone. Their descendants are not refugees, except by an Arab confidence trick at the UN. No other people have had their descendants given "refugee" status.
I agree with the latter part, but the former part, well, there's four million of them. Perhaps that doesn't seem like a lot to you, but it is for most of the states in the surrounding areas, only a few of whom are rich.
As to the eventual State in the West Bank, its boundaries and security arrangements need to be settled by negotiation among the parties.
Such an agreement would be a joke if it happened with an on-going invasion process (that's what the so-called "settlers" are, since the area in question has never been annexed for the most part and they are often developing on private land that was seized - invaders) resulting in colonization and "facts on the ground".
Let's not forget the Arabs repeatedly made war against Israel and repeatedly lost.
"The Arabs" are not a homogenous mass, no more than "The Jews" are.
According to Topsy, this is currently the most influential tweeted article on Greater Israel at the moment:
The quest for a greater Israel The Guardian, Ian Black, August 25, 2009
The idea of "Greater Israel" (more accurately the "whole land of Israel") appealed to both religious and secular rightwing nationalists who sought to fulfill divine commandments about the "beginning of redemption", as well as create "facts on the ground" to enhance Israel's security.
Settler ideology made the sanctity of the land a central tenet and effectively turned the Palestinians into aliens on their own soil.
Goldstone didn't adequately address one of the most serious charges in the resolution:
"Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;"
Goldstone's response:
"6. Paragraph 9:
The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers “in the fog of battle”. This was a decision made in favor and not against the interests of Israel.
I do not consider that it is fair or just to label the findings as “sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations”."
His response is basically that he doesn't think the charge is fair. Not all that convincing.
As for this:
And for this "concession" the Palestinians are supposed to enter into another meaningless round of discussions, while the bulldozers and construction crews continue to eat away at the land on which they hope to establish a state of their own.
The footprint of the settlements isn't increasing, so the characterization of "...continues to eat away at the land on which they hope..." isn't as compelling as it might be if Israel was actually eating away at the land on which the Palestinians hope to create a state of their own.
If the Palestinians want the fact and general borders of a future Palestine conceded to them before negotiations start, let them match it with a concession of their own. Let them renounce their claim that Palestinians should be able to return to Israel (without conceding the compensation which ALL refugees should receive at the end of the process).
"If the Palestinians want the fact and general borders of a future Palestine conceded to them before negotiations start, let them match it with a concession of their own."
When someone steals a car and is asked to return it, the owner of the car is not required to make concessions to the victim.
The Palestinians have been making concessions for 60 years. They've allowed the Israelis to occupy their land, free of charge.
If the State Department, one of these days, ask you to become Ms Clinton´s advisor on the Israel-Palestina affair, would you accept? Would you like that to occur, to have direct influence on it? I know that is not likely to happen (AIPAC would go bananas!!!) but let´s suppose. Furthermore, what is the first step you will take to tackle the influence of AIPAC hawks and find a solution.
I am asking this having in mind Cordell Hull in 1934. From his experience on the Congress, he knew that instead of trying to fight the protectionist lobby with racional arguments, he had to play by their rules, using pressure politics in his favour, calling the interest of "export oriented lobby". Have you think of any such solution for this problem. I mean you know better than anyone that the beggining and the end of the problem is at the Congress.
We voted for change, where is it?
It is sad indeed that the first African-American president of the United States defends in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry, apartheid oppression, and racism in Israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible.
The dual system of law that prevails in the occupied West Bank and favors Jewish settlers to the detriment of Palestinians is unacceptable in the 21st century.
The settlement freeze is not a 'precondition' as Israel and AIPAC are now campaigning for, but an obligation Israel undertook when it signed on to the 2003 international roadmap for peace plan.
Don't forget, for decades there were three Israeli – U.S. “good conduct” preconditions that 'qualified' Palestinians to be 'partners' to peace negotiations as well as to evade military siege, economic blockade and diplomatic isolation.
-namely to unilaterally renounce violence without any guarantees of Israeli reciprocity
-recognize the existence of the state of Israel without any Israeli reciprocal recognition of the state of Palestine
-commitment to the accords signed by the PLO with Israel regardless of Israeli reciprocal actions.
Palestinians must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements? Try to find a mention, ANYWHERE, of the fact that Israel rejects all three of those.
They don't recognize a Palestinian state, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it,in fact they insist on it,and they don't accept past agreements,including the road map.
Israel rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace over the last 40 years.
Settlement expansion is made possible by some $3 billion in military aid the U.S. gives to Israel each year, and additional millions in subsidies provided by U.S.-based Jewish and fundamentalist Christian nonprofits.
Israel's settlers must decide if they will abide by international law and leave the occupied territories or stay on -- as offered by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad -- provided they live under Palestinian law
The '67 borders should be returned to, and any settlement can stay in the new Palestinian State, with the provision that the settlers are subject to any and all Palestinian law, up to and including dispossession.
Arab towns and villages in Israel have existed for centuries and longer than all those illegal Jewish settlements currently in Palestine.
It is a measure of Obama's grandiosity or naiveté that he felt confident he was going to get Tel Aviv to do what he wanted. Obama hugely miscalculated the presumed power of the White House to dent the iron wall of the Tel Aviv-U.S. Israel Lobby axis. This assumes one could take Obama the man and Obama the phenomenon seriously to begin with. Alas, many have. Yet, for all of Obama's presumption, the colossal effrontery of Israel and of its propagandists in this country is far more remarkable. Just look at some of their comments here.
Obama was going to work his magic on the Likudites in Tel Aviv, was he? How was that suppose to work? After promising them the moon in Washington at the AIPAC convention prior to his election, and pandering for American votes while in Israel proper, Obama was then going to direct Tel Aviv to reverse a Jewish colonization policy which Washington had winked at in public and funded in private for years? And why was this going to happen exactly? Because B.H. Obama said so? What leverage did Obama think he had, anyway? The fact of being POTUS 44? Netanyahu sat on his hands, and that was that. He knew that Capitol Hill was deep in his pocket and that Obama was irrelevant, just like his predecessors.
The case of Hillary Clinton is more curious. She was Tel Aviv's first choice for POTUS, for all the obvious reasons. Yet, as Secretary of State, Hillary sounded for awhile like she had jumped ship. For the good of her own career, she has scampered back on board, having recognized her mistake. Now she is playing kissy-face with Bibbi and Avigdor. How the gentlemen in Tel Aviv must be laughing. Washington is a laughingstock. As for Palestinian "President" Mahmoud Abbas and his chief "negotiator" Saeb Erakat, they deserve whatever is coming to them for trusting Obama and Hillary. At least Obama is back down to earth, where he belongs. He's a blank and Hillary is a zero. Hopefully, George Mitchell will have the good sense to resign and go back to playing tennis, which he is good at. This marks the end of the Washington-Tel Aviv orchestrated charade begun with the Oslo "peace process". Professor Edward Said was right all along. Let's give him some posthumous credit.
Germanicus
Thank you Stephen Walt for the clarity of your comments and the clarity and relevance of the links to support them. Too bad your site is now targeted for a concerted hasbara campaign, but thinking readers see through that.
I believe your contention that Israel agreed to a complete settlement freeze in the past, or any freeze at all in Jerusalem, is false. Historical documents between the US and Israel have refuted that claim. Just this weekend Secretary Clinton said there never was an agreement by Israel for a complete "settlement" freeze with any US administration.
If you can support your contention with an official reference from a signed agreement (not somebody's opinion) I am sure readers would welcome it.
As to "recognizing" a Palestinian State, there is no such State to recognize. Its creation is a matter for negotiation between the parties. Otherwise the Palestinians would have unilaterally declared one and hoped for recognition from those members of the international community which count (especially those who fund them significantly--the US and Western Europe).
The Palestinians know that to unilaterally declare a State on disputed land occupied by Jews would be a casus belli that the Israelis would respond to, to the considerable economic, social, and political disadvantage of such a state. Further, as a unilaterally declared foreign state, there would be no ethical obligation on Israel's part to provide jobs, social services, or economic support as they do currently.
History is quite instructive. Even before the Jordanian peace treaty, the Palestinians kept quiet, the Israelis paid the salaries of their school teachers, and a Jordanian bag man came over monthly with Jordanian salaries for the same teachers. As long as the Palestinians didn't force the Israeli's hand, they were doing well economically under conditions of peacefulness, and helped keep things cool.
As to international law, there is NO international law holding that the Palestinians are sovereign and the Israelis occupiers. Many distinguished international law professors have written on this topic. The chain of custody was (in modern times) Turkey to Britain to the UN to the partition which Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected. This made Israel a legitimate sovereign state, and the remaining territory no-man's land. Had the Arabs accepted partition, or even sat still without making war on Israel, they might have had a case, but as history evolved, they have none, except perhaps for humanitarian support for non-belligerents. Even there, the "refugee camps" were a consequence of Arab refusal to resettle the displaced persons and thus they bear a heavy, if not the bulk of the humanitarian responsibility. Despite this, they have consistently failed fully to honor even their limited promises of financial support
Finally, I speak only for myself. I am a former senior US Government policy executive, and belong to no organizations such as AIPAC or others in the so-called "Israeli lobby". As a professional policy analyst I call things as I see them.
A former US gov policy wonk? Really? So? Israel has not met its road map obligations and continues to argue over the terms of the agreement - as if it never adopted it.
Regardless of whether Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza out of imperial aggression or self-defense, acquisition of land through war is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and a direct violation of international law.
Israel is endangering itself and the US by allowing the settlements to exist and expand. They are morally indefensible, deemed illegal by the US state department and the geneva convention and condemned by virtually every single other nation in the world.
Under international law, neither East nor West Jerusalem is considered Israel's capital. Tel Aviv is recognised as Israel's capital, pending a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions.
In these resolutions, the United Nations Security Council has also called for no measures to be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached between the sides.
Declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital is an attempt to change this status, and is thus a violation of these Security Council resolutions and against international law.
Immediately after Israel invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in June 1967, the Palestinians offered to establish a demilitarized state if Israel would withdraw. Israel refused and went on to colonize all occupied Arab lands, including to this day, Syria's Golan Heights, as well as continued occupation of Lebanon's Shebaa Farms.
The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel.
Israel's rejection of the Arab League land-for-peace formula put forward in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace.
More clearly, Israel has defied Resolutions 267, 271 and 298, which demand that it rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as dozens of other resolutions insisting that Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolition of homes, collective punishment and seizure of private property.
UN Security Council resolutions are well grounded in international law. Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 and 465 require that Israel evacuate all its illegal settlements on occupied Arab lands.
Why? it's all against international law. But then you knew that didn't you?
AIPAC's Control of the Democratic Party
When one takes into account the overwhelming influence of AIPAC in the Democratic Party (as well as in the Republican Party and in the mainstream media), why did anyone ever believe that Obama would be able to challenge the Israeli government on any policy? Some AIPAC ops in the Democratic Party: Ann Lewis, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, David Axelrod, Dennis Ross, Eliot Engel, Haim Saban, Harry Reid, Howard Berman, Howard Wolfson, Jacob Lew, James Steinberg, Jane Harman, Joseph Lieberman, Lawrence Summers, Mark Penn, Martin Indyk, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Richard Holbrooke, Steny Hoyer, Steve Grossman and Susan Estrich. Netanyahu, the leader of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history, has managed to treat an American president with utter contempt, and easily gotten away with it. Obama now looks weak and faintly ridiculous.
Your list is blatantly antisemitic. It appears that you have tried to single out Jews. Many on the list advocate policies at odds with those of AIPAC and the Israeli government.
You also don't know what you are talking about with respect to Israeli history. Menachem Begin was well to the right of Netanyahu.
AIPAC, the Democratic Party and Avigdor Lieberman
Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid are Jews? Once again, we see how the Israel lobby abuses the antisemitism smear to evade rational discussion about Israeli and Mideast politics. Many AIPAC members and leading supporters are indeed Jews -- would you expect them not to be? But most Jews do not support AIPAC. With regard to right-wing Israeli administrations: Avigdor Lieberman, the current Israeli foreign minister, has a track record of making racist statements that exceed in extremism anything uttered by Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir. If an extremist with Lieberman's profile rose to power in Europe, Israelis wouldn't hesitate to characterize him as a neo-Nazi.
The list is mostly Jews, including some who differ with AIPAC and the Israeli government on many policy issues. Thus your claim that they are part of the so-called Israel lobby controlling the Democratic party is false on its face. I would be happy to accept an explanation of ignorance rather than antisemitism.
It is also false that "most Jews do not support AIPAC" unless you mean by "support" that Jews don't monolithically contribute funds to it. So what; most Americans don't contribute to the Humane Society, but support most if not all of its policies.
Finally, Lieberman does not make "racist" statements. That is a false calumny. If you read his statements they aren't "racist" but rather suggestive that people who take certain kinds of actions need to bear the consequences. Nothing racist there. Lieberman is simply tired of polite lies about those who seek to destroy israel.
AIPAC's Control of the Democratic Party
Commentator -- on what reasonable grounds do you make the assumption that most leading members and supporters of AIPAC *shouldn't* be Jews? Are most members of the Irish, Arab, China or Roman Catholic lobbies not Irish, Arab, Chinese or Roman Catholic respectively? What does your list of leading AIPAC members and supporters in the Democratic Party look like? And which names on my list have strongly challenged AIPAC on any key issues? Do you have any specific examples?
On Avigdor Lieberman's Political Profile
From Wikipedia:
Many commentators, including Arab Israeli groups, have accused Lieberman of anti-Arab racism. Christoph Schult in Der Spiegel has accused Lieberman of having a reputation as a "virulent racist." M.J. Rosenberg in the LA Times characterized Lieberman's election campaign as "frankly anti-Arab". Daphna Baram in The Guardian called him an "arch racist." Richard Cohen in the Washington Post noted that while Lieberman a "nationalist" he was also an "anti-Arab demagogue." Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism called Lieberman's campaign ""an outrageous, abominable, hate-filled campaign, brimming with incitement." Martin Peretz editor-in-chief of The New Republic called Lieberman "neo-fascist … a certified gangster … the Israeli equivalent of Jörg Haider." During the 2009 campaign, Meretz released an internal memo comparing Lieberman to "Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Haider in Austria, and Zhirinovsky in Russia.".
Perhaps Commentator will try to smear Richard Cohen, Eric Yoffi and Martin Peretz as "antisemites." Good luck with that.
There are those leftist and extremely "liberal" American Jews who disagree with Lieberman's policies and are terrified that someone they disagree with so strongly is Foreign Secretary. Thus they "accuse" without evidence, and "interpret" to their advazntage in an attempt to demonize and marginalize him. We have seen the same thing from the Reform movement on other Israeli policies that have nothing to do with Lieberman over the years.
No sale. And no sale on your charges of "smear". It is in fact false that I said those on your list were anti-semites; I suggested that the conflict between your claims of AIPAC support and the actual policy position of some on your list suggested YOU were an anti-semite. However, I'm willing to accept your ignorance (of the policy positions of those you so blatantly accused of AIPAC control of the Democratic Party) as the explanation. In either case your assertions don't withstand scrutiny and suggest bias. Before throwing names around, perhaps you should know more about people's policy positions.
Avigdor Lieberman's Political Views
Commentator: does Avigdor Lieberman's party, Yisrael Beytnu, in fact advocate the separation of Jewish and Arab populations?
Lieberman’s views are notoriously racist, and his rhetoric is invariably violent. He called for the execution of Israeli Arab members of the Knesset who met with Hamas or didn’t celebrate Israel’s Independence Day. His party, Yisrael Beytenu (”Israel is our Home”), accuses Israeli Arabs of “dual loyalty” on account of their ethnicity, and advocates the complete separation of the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine – in effect, forced transfer. Lieberman and his followers vehemently oppose the peace process, support the militant settlement movement, and are proud partisans of ethnic cleansing.
If this guy is such a virulent racist, and the opinions of others you cull from Wikipedia suggest he is a complete monster, he must have said some pretty awful stuff.
All you are reproducing is other people's opinions and other people's characterizations of his positions.
I can find just as many quotes and misrepresentations of his work that say Walt is an anti-Semite. It doesn't make it so and I don't believe it is.
What does Lieberman himself say?
Lieberman was a member of Kach
Lieberman is an ex-member of Meir Kahane's party, Kach, which was outlawed due to its blatantly racist platform. Moreover, his views towards Arabs do not appear to have changed over the years. In 2003, when reacting to a commitment made by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to give amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners, Lieberman declared that, as minister of transport, he would be more than happy to provide buses to take the prisoners to the sea and drown them there."
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Shame And David in DC is an apologist for Avigdor Lieberman.
Two things:
1) Addressing the substance of your charges:
Re: Kach
On the eve of the 2009 elections, Haaretz wrote that Lieberman was briefly involved with the Kach party of Rabbi Meir Kahane shortly after his immigration to Israel in 1979. The membership claims were based on the testimony of two activists in the movement, Avigdor Eskin and Yosef Dayan, who said that Lieberman was a member of the party for a short-term period. Lieberman rejected the story[5] and called the publication an "orchestrated provocation". (Wikipedia)
Re: drowning prisoners
Certainly a controversial and heinous statement, but hardly proof of racism.
2) When you make the very serious charge of racism against someone, some people will want to evaluate what that person has said rather than simply take it on your say-so. That doesn't make them an apologist for the person. I'm starting to get the feeling that the people who did not take you at your word were right.
It is surprising that you are having such a difficult time producing anything that Lieberman has said that could be taken as racist, given that he was painted as such a monster.
You came up with unproven allegations, which surfaced on the eve of elections(!), that 30 years ago he was a member in a racist political party for a brief time, charges which he denied when they came out. Are you serious? Is this the best you can do?
Avigdor Lieberman, Kach, Kahanism and Racism
Eskin and Dayan are more believable on Lieberman's relations to Kach than Lieberman. He has every reason to lie; they don't. And many of Lieberman's statements have a Kahanist flavor. David in DC: which political parties and political leaders in Israel do you most support? It's interesting that you expend so much energy defending Avigdor Lieberman.
"It's interesting that you expend so much energy defending Avigdor Lieberman."
Do you really believe I am defending the guy just because I ask you to prove what you say?
I was following the conversation and wanted to judge for myself. When all you could show for evidence was things other people have said, I became more intrigued.
Why is it so difficult to produce something racist this guy has said?
It also doesn't strike me that "he has every reason to lie". My initial sense is that he is quite unabashed about his views.
Who would found Germany Is Our Home?
David in DC: If ethnic Germans founded a political party, "Germany is Our Home," where "Our" refers to ethnic Germans, would you conclude this is a racist organization, founded by racists, or would you defend the party from charges of racism? Avigdor Lieberman founded Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Is Our Home). To whom does "Our" refer in the party name?
If ethnic Germans founded a political party, "Germany is Our Home," where "Our" refers to ethnic Germans, would you conclude this is a racist organization, founded by racists
Of course not. I wouldn't leap to a conclusion like that.
or would you defend the party from charges of racism?
I wouldn't do that either.
If someone charged that they were racist, I would ask them to back it up. Hopefully they would be civil and intellectually honest enough not to try to smear me with the racist brush just because I asked. ;-)
David in DC: Your reply nicely skipped over the main point: Avigdor Lieberman *has* founded a political party called Israel Is Our Home. To whom does "Our" refer? Arabs, Muslims and Christians on an equal footing with Jews?
A political party that has an Arab member in the Knesset:
"Hamad Amar (Hebrew: ??? ?????, born 5 November 1964) is a Israeli Druze politician and currently serves as a member of the Knesset for Yisrael Beiteinu." (Wikipedia)
What is the answer to your question?
Since when have the Druze been associated in any way with the Palestinians? Druze have never been known for having a soft spot for Palestinians.
In fact, the IDF has many Druze members. A few years ago, a Druze IDF soldier got trigger happy at a check point and emptied 2 clips of bullets into a 13 year old Palestinian girl. The second clip was to "confirm the kill". He was found innocent of any wrongdoing by the Israeli courts.
Lieberman's militant ethnic nationalism
David in DC: Is there anything more grungy, demeaning and debasing than political movements and ideologies that are organized predominantly around conflict with and hostility towards outsider ethnic or religious groups? Avigdor Lieberman is one of world's preeminent militant ethnic nationalists and xenophobes. One rarely encounters a militant ethnic nationalist and xenophobe who isn't also a racist. These terms are near synonyms.
You are describing every Palestinian political party and a fair number of Arab governments. I would hardly call them all racist.
Also, why jump through these hoops of illogic? Now you are making the assertion that Lieberman is A, and most people who are A have characteristic X, so therefore Lieberman has characteristic X. It is a logical fallacy.
Apologists for Avigdor Lieberman
David in DC: which Israeli political parties and leaders do you most strongly support?
"Apologists for Avigdor Lieberman"
So, after smearing Lieberman as a racist, you try to smear me as an apologist for a racist because I ask you to show us something that Lieberman has said that is racist. And now you want to know what Israel political parties and leaders I support (none, I am American, although I would be Left or Kadima if I lived there). Are you getting personal because you want to try to smear me some more?
Enough with the personal stuff already, can you find something that Lieberman has said that is racist?
David in DC: Lieberman's entire tone reeks of racism, which is why so many reputable political observers around the world (including many Jews) have come to the conclusion that he is a blatant and virulent racist. You must be exceedingly tone deaf. Would you have a problem if American and European politicians discussed Jews in the same tone that Lieberman discusses Arabs, or would you be cool with that behavior and quick to make cheesy sophistical excuses? Where is your sense of basic human empathy and decency?
"Lieberman's entire tone reeks of racism..."
Great, then it shouldn't be hard to find something he has said to prove it.
{tap, tap, tap...}
You really can't find anything he has said. I'm sure there are thousands of websites out there smearing Lieberman as racist, and nobody can come up with anything specific he has said?
Apologists for Avigdor Lieberman's Racism
David in DC: which political parties and leaders do you favor in Israel that are to the left of Kadima? Can you be specific? And which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than Zionism?
Still with the personal stuff.
"which political parties and leaders do you favor in Israel that are to the left of Kadima? Can you be specific?"
No. I know how I feel about the issues and generally know where the major parties in Israel stand. Other than that, I don't know enough to answer your question more specifically.
"And which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than Zionism?"
Palestinianism for one. Others are Japanism, Armenism, Bulgariaism, Finlandism, Germanism, and Greekism. I support all of these peoples having a national homeland and self-determination.
On Defending Avigdor Lieberman's Racism
David in DC: If you don't know enough about Israeli politics to specify which Israeli political parties and leaders you support, I am baffled as to why you are commenting on this blog at all, and expending so much energy defending Avigdor Lieberman. You really don't add up. And now you declare that you are a supporter of "Germanism" -- German ethnic nationalism -- which is synonymous with Nazism. Contemporary Germany is a modern Western democracy, the state of its citizens from all ethnic and religious groups, not a German ethnic nationalist state, and certainly not a messianic ethno-religious nationalist state like Israel. Any German equivalent of Avigdor Lieberman would be a racist, a neo-Nazi, and feel about Jews the same way that Lieberman feels about Arabs.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(126)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE