-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, December 3, 2010 - 10:33 AM
Share
I never cease to be amazed at how virtually any criticism of Israel can cause Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic to go bananas and make all sorts of wild charges. This tendency is especially evident when someone writes about the Israel lobby. It is usually best to ignore him, because he seems incapable of getting the simplest facts right. But occasionally I feel the need to set the record straight.
Goldberg's forte is character assassination, and his main weapons are name-calling and misrepresenting his opponents' arguments. Instead of calling me a "Jew-baiter" (a despicable accusation for which he has no grounds), as he has in the past, his latest sally calls me a "neo-Lindberghian," again implying that I am an anti-Semite. This is a serious charge -- the political equivalent of calling someone a racist or child molester -- and you'd think a respectable journalist would go to some effort to document the label before using it. You'd think he'd supply a lengthy array of quotations from my writings and speeches to prove his point. Goldberg cannot do this, however, because no such evidence exists.
Goldberg doesn't know me; doesn't know my history, relatives, friends, students, and close associates, and has no idea what I really think about any of these questions. Judging by what he writes about my work, he doesn't even know what I've written. For example, he claims that the book that John Mearsheimer and I wrote on the Israel lobby describes a "nefarious, all-powerful Jewish lobby." and that we "love to capitalize the word 'Lobby.'" Both statements are demonstrably false, as he would know if he had bothered to examine the issue.
We portray the lobby as a legitimate interest group like many others and emphasize that its activities are a normal part of democratic politics in America (pp. 13-14, 112, 150). We explicitly reject the term "Jewish lobby" (p. 115) and we don't capitalize the word lobby anywhere in the 484-page book. Indeed, the only place we ever capitalized that word was in our original London Review article; but we openly acknowledged in our subsequent response to critics that this usage was misleading and have not done so in any of our subsequent writings.
Journalists are supposed to be concerned with truth and accuracy. But Goldberg is clearly incapable of being objective or open-minded when the subject is Israel, which is why he quickly descends to innuendo and fabrication when dealing with anyone who criticizes that country's policies, questions America's special relationship with the Jewish state, or raises doubts the activities of the Israel lobby. He invents false charges for a simple reason: It would be impossible to smear us if he had to rely on what we actually said. So he has to make things up.
Goldberg is also wrong when he says the latest WikiLeaks revelations discredit our arguments about the lobby's role in encouraging a war with Iran. We argued that if the United States were foolish enough to start a war against Iran, it would be largely due to the influence of Israel and especially the lobby. Both Israel and its hardline supporters here in the United States have been relentless in their efforts to push the United States to confront Iran, and to keep the military option at the ready. There is nothing in WikiLeaks that changes that assessment. Yes, there has also been pressure from some Arab leaders, such as the king of Saudi Arabia, to use force against Iran. There are also prominent voices in the Arab world warning that this step would be disastrous. But the key point is that these Arab leaders have much less influence on the United States than Israel does.
First, Arab leaders cannot make the case for war in public, because their publics oppose this course of action. Israel, on the other hand, is constantly making the case for war directly and overtly. Second, Israel has a powerful lobby in the United States that has been working overtime to push the United States to strike Iran. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states have no meaningful lobby in Washington, which is why their repeated requests that the United States do something to end Israel's illegal occupation and harsh treatment of the Palestinians have fallen on deaf ears for decades.
It is Israel and the lobby, not the Arabs, that are shaping the discourse on Iran, and it is disingenuous for Goldberg to suggest otherwise. Does he not know about the origins of "dual containment," as recounted in recent books by Kenneth Pollack and Trita Parsi? Is he unaware of AIPAC's successful effort to kill the CONOCO oil deal with Iran in 1995, or the lobby's role in pushing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1996, not to mention the 2010 version of unilateral U.S. sanctions? Has he forgotten his own recent writings, which warned that top Israeli leaders were contemplating war with Iran in early 2011?
Bear in mind that we still do not know if Iran is actively seeking an overt nuclear weapons capability or not. The December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which has not been superseded by a new estimate, said that Tehran was not trying to build nuclear weapons. And the evidence we have in the public record about Iran's nuclear program does not show in any conclusive way that Iran is developing a nuclear arsenal. One can hardly rule out the possibility, of course, but neither should we simply assume that Tehran is hell-bent on building an actual weapon. It is even possible that these Arab leaders are so concerned that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in part because they have been influenced by the efforts of Israel and the lobby to hype the Iran threat, just as they hyped the WMD threat from Iraq in the earlier part of this decade.
Perhaps I take Goldberg too seriously, and I should just ignore his regrettable tendency to distort the views of those with whom he disagrees. If Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly get to spout dangerous nonsense, why can't Goldberg? Yet it is important to point out what he is doing, because he is a textbook case of the lengths to which many defenders of Israel will go in order to convince Americans that they must support it no matter what. Like the Cuban-American lobby, the gun lobby, and other narrow interest groups, the Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby isn't really interested in truth or even a fair-minded discussion of the issues. They just smear their targets with made-up accusations, knowing that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.
I suspect that what really ticks Goldberg off is this: My co-author and I (and a few others) have had the temerity to write critically about the political role of "pro-Israel" forces (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in America today. This is a topic that the goyim aren't supposed to talk about openly. It's fine for Goldberg to write at length about this topic, or for former Forward editor J. J. Goldberg, to devote an entire book (which is well worth reading) to it. But when a non-Jew writes about this issue, and suggests that these groups are advocating foolish and self-defeating policies, then that person must of course be an anti-Semite. If Jews express similar doubts, they must be labeled as "self-hating" and marginalized as well.
Please. I really do understand this sort of tribalism and up to a point, I'm sympathetic to it. Given Jewish history -- and especially the dark legacy of genuine anti-Semitism -- it is unsurprising that some people are quick to assume that any gentile who criticizes the present "special relationship" must have sinister motives, even when there's no actual basis for the suspicion. But that sensitivity doesn't make the elephant in the room disappear, and given that America's Middle East policy affects all of us, the various factors that shape that policy ought to open to fair-minded discussion devoid of name-calling and character assassination.
So yes, Jeffrey, there is a powerful "Israel lobby" (though it's not "all-powerful"). Yes, many individuals in the lobby think the United States should do whatever it takes--including the use of military force -- to eliminate Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. They aren't the only people who think this, but they have been among the loudest and most persistent voices advocating this course of action. And yes, like most (all?) lobbies, some of the policies that it promotes are not in the best interests of the country as a whole. These facts are so obvious and so easy to document that it's no wonder that a zealot like Goldberg prefers to throw mud whenever somebody points them out.
is and has been an embarrassment to the Atlantic. I am amazed that a once-respected magazine continues to employ him.
Maybe you just don't like Walt?
It's clear that you are your fellow propagandists are just as obsessed with "Jewish power" and you claim Walt to be. Every time he writes about subject of Israel, along comes some lying hack cowardly hinding behind the banner of "the Jews", arrogantly prolaiing to speak on behalf of an entire religion/ethnicity.
After all, what other way could these lemmings be able to introduce their anti semitic charge?
'Walt never mentions other nations or interests that might be pushing for an attack on Iran."
Let's get some facts straight.
1. Israel and the US are the only countries that have based their policy on the threat that atacking Iran is an option.
2. The Saudi King did not call for an attack on Iran. the saudi Ambassador apprently made this statement in a covensation with a US diplomat. There is no evidence that he was instructed to do so on behalf of the Saudi leadership.
3. Nor did the King of Bahrain not the Emir of Abu Dhabi make this demand.
4. The President of Egypt argued that the attack on Iraq had handed Iraq to Iran on a plate.
5. Israel is the only country that is clackmailing the US into atatcking Iran by threatenign to atatck Iran withuot the US, which will drag the US into such a war.
6. The head fo Mossad issue a 5 step pland for implementiung regime change in Iran.
Clearly, Israel is the most vocal and active protagonist in pushing for an atatck on Iran.
''It is hard to imagine that a serious foreign policy analyst could possibly believe that the Arab nations have little influence over American policy.
Actually, it's prettyobvious. If Arab nations more than little influence over American policy, then the US would have forced Israel into allowing the creatino of a Palestinian state by now.
If Arab nations more than little influence over American policy, then the US would have forced Israel to sign the NPt and agree to declare it's nuclear weapons.
'"Does Walt remember when Reagan wanted to sell AWACs to the Saudis that the sale went through despite Israeli objections?
did you not know that only recently, the US had to get Israel's permission to sell 60 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia?
"The cables show that the King of Saudi Arabia, the King of Bahrain, and the Emir of Abu Dhabi all advocated that the United States attack Iran."
Yes, the cables show that despots and ttyrant that rely on US support to maintain their power fear Iran, while 80% of the population in the Arab world see Israel as the greatest threat to the region and only 10% of them view Iran as a threat.
There is no evidence of Sunni Arab enthusiasm for an attack on Iran. Most Sunni arabs actually support the idea of Iran becomming a nuclear power.
Interstingly, you and the rest of the Israeli propagandists ignore the cable from Jordan's ruler that insisted that the only way to curtail Iran's growing influence throughout the Middle east was to resolve the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
In spite of yours adn Goldberg's desperate attempts, the reality is that Walt-Mearsheimer thesis is actually endoresed by the Wikileaks dump.
You are too kind.
What's the old saying?...when you get in a fight with pigs all that happens it you get muddy and the pigs love it.
So I can understand your reluctance.
Goldberg incapable of being objective when subject is Israel
RE: "But Goldberg is clearly incapable of being objective or open-minded when the subject is Israel, which is why he quickly descends to innuendo and fabrication..." - Walt
SEE: "Cognitive dissonance in free market economists" ~ By Paul Rosenberg, Open Left, 10/29/10:
(excerpts)...It's quite remarkable that cognitive dissonance can so readily and clearly be demonstrated among such a large body of economists. This remarkable fact makes it all the more sensible to look for cognitive dissonance more widely at work in shaping political policy views. It also makes it more sensible to look for certain patterns of behavior. Because cognitive dissonance is linked to self-concept, it makes sense to consider the full range of ego-defense mechanisms--not just denial--as potential forms of response. I've written about these mechanisms before, at quite some length, for example, in "The Ontology of Snark: A Prelude". It's sufficient here just to note that defense mechanisms have been ranked according to a hierarchy that runs from primitive/pathological to mature, and that the two most primitive levels include the following (from Wikipedia): "Level 1 - Pathological - The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These four defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality.....Level 2 - Immature - These mechanisms are often present in adults and more commonly present in adolescents. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality..."
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://openleft.com/diary/20674/#246532
Jeff Goldberg named #26 in Top 30 'Hack Columnists' List
Even the spam postings on these comments sections are more worthwhile reading then the garbage that spews from Goldberg's mouth.
It's sad that you have to devote so much time defending yourself from these cowardly personal attacks by hacks like Goldberg. Sadly though, it is necessary.
Salon's 'Hack 30' list:
salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/22/hack_list_26/
Mr. Walt - No wonder you are so upset and enraged. These cables have completely blown apart your theory. The entire Arab world is scared to death of Iran and their rulers are begging the US to bomb Iran and somehow you think a press release from the ADL is what will push the United States to invade Iran. While you were busy blogging about The Israel Project putting out a tweet about Iran, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi was telling the United States that Iran poses an existential threat to his country and how the US must act NOW for the sake of his grandchildren! These cables show that the rhetoric inside of Israel was more reasonable and many times concentrated on sanctions and other non-military options for stopping a nuclear Iran while most Arab countries were begging for a bombing. But you two only saw fit to blame the Jews. I'm sure Abe Foxman has more influence that the King of Saudi Arabia right oh grand master of International Relations???
All this while your increasingly unhinged partner Mearsheimer is ranting about how the only good Jews are Noam Chomsky and everyone else is a new Afrikaner and how Dennis Ross is a Mossad agent.
And now instead of issuing a mea culpa or at least trying to summon a defense of your theory based on logic and reason you rise up like an angry White male goy lashing out against those tribalistic Jews.
Face it you were wrong and now you are upset that its out there for the whole world to see:
Heres a sampling of you and your crazed partner's stupidity:
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, if you look around the world, there's only one
country that is actively pushing the United States to seriously
consider military action against Iran, and that country is Israel.
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/israel_10-09.html
Page 302 of the Israel Lobby:
"In short, if Israel and the lobby were not pressing the case, there would be little serious discussion inside or outside the Beltway about attacking Iran"
Page 302 of the Israel Lobby: Let there be no doubt. If there is an American war with Iran, it was a war that was made in Israel and NO WHERE ELSE.
No Doubt huh Brilliant Prof? Are you DOUBTING NOW??
Page 299 of the Israel Lobby:
"The administration's attempt to work closely with Arab states has made little progress, in good part because of America's continuing support of Israel over the Palestinians. In March, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia not only invited Iranian President Ahmedinajad to visit Riyadh but also cancelled a visit to the White House and condemned US occupation of Iraq as 'illegal.' The director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan said that Abdullah was "telling the US they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel's side."
LOL Yes Walt and Mearsheimer - King Abdullah and Ahmedinajad allied together to confront the Isral Lobby... LOLOL = Your credibility = completely destroyed. You and your "Dennis Ross is a Mossad Agent and New Afrikaner" partner are going to go the way of your buddy "Zionists control Hollywood, Wall Street, White House, Capitol, the World" Helen Thomas. Im waiting for Mearsheimer to somehow claim wikileaks is a Zionist conspiracy like your buddy Juan Cole's poorly mistranslated Ahmedinajad Goldberg is right. You guys will be known as Lindberghian. Enjoy!!
My you propagandists are putting in some serious overtime this week trying to convence the world of your lame theories.
The entire Arab world is NOT scared of Iran. 80% of he arab world considers Israel a threat while less than 10% fear Iran. The tyranical rulers (including those who are financing Al Qaeda) do fear Iran, but like all dictators, they fear everyone.
"These cables show that the rhetoric inside of Israel was more reasonable and many times concentrated on sanctions and other non-military options for stopping a nuclear Iran
On the contrary. These cables show that Israel is balckmailing the US into atatcking Iran, by threatning to atatck Iran if the US does not and dragging the US into a major war.
These cables show that Israel is at eh forefront of pushing for regime change in Iran.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Steven Hadley have both suggested that the cables were planeted by Israel in order to move public opinion into attacking Iran. Lieutenant Colonel Larry Wilkerson has warned that these cables might well be lies, intended to deceive and manipualte policy.
The fact is thatthese cables are proof of nothing. They are not evidence of anything. They have not been vetted by US intelligence.
Meareshimer was 100% correct when he said that there is only one country that is actively pushing the United States to seriously consider military action against Iran, and that country is Israel. No onther country, otehr than the US, has a policy that includes the option of attacking Iran.
"In short, if Israel and the lobby were not pressing the case, there would be little serious discussion inside or outside the Beltway about attacking Iran"
100% correct. If the US and Israel were not pressing the case, there would cerainyl be no dicussion abotu atatcking Iran. Have we ever listened to what the Saudi's wanted on the Prine of Abu Dabi?
"If there is an American war with Iran, it was a war that was made in Israel and NO WHERE ELSE."
Exactly. Israel is blackmailing the US into a war with Iran. No other country is.
"The administration's attempt to work closely with Arab states has made little progress, in good part because of America's continuing support of Israel over the Palestinians''
You Hasbarats are desperate, and manic becasue no one is taking the bait.
"The WikiLeaks revelations will further erode the image of Arab leaders in Arab public opinion and make it more difficult for them to publicly advocate a war against Iran"
Especially after the Iranian FM just announced that "Iran will 'never' use force against Muslim neighbors"
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/iran-will-never-use-force-against-muslim-neighbors-foreign-minister-says/story-e6frfku0-1225965709982
Perhaps it is lines like this one above, "I really do understand this sort of tribalism and up to a point, I'm sympathetic to it," that upset members of the Jewish faith. First, I'm fairly certain that Jews prefer not to have their peoplehood referred to as "tribalist," especially by goyim (I can't decide whether Walt incorporates this term to show that he knows Jewish lingo or to underline an us vs. them dichotomy). Second, the use of the term "tribalism" also suggests that their reasons for support of Israel, pro-Israeli American policies, even desire to fight anti-semitism in all of its forms is based on (irrational) group dynamics as opposed to legitimate reasoning. That is frankly absurd and something that even I find offensive. It is as if Mr. Walt naturally assumes, and assumes that everybody else assumes, that if you're not Jewish and thus beholden to Jewish tribalism then obviously you know how absurd all of this Israel stuff is to begin with. If I was ever unclear on why Jews don't like Mr. Walt much, then reading the above piece was certainly clarifying. Frankly, I'll stand in solidarity on that count.
Not brainless EVERYMAN, but obvious
I'm sorry that you dont like the'terms "tribalist", but unfortunately it is entirely accurate. Tirbalism is precisely what drives Zionism and unconditional devotion to Israel. The fact that Liberal Zionists, who otherwise deonstrate a great commitment to huiam rights, are so readily prepared to support Israel's grosss human rights violations and war crimes, can only be explained through tribalism.
The fact that most Jews refuse to live in Israel undescores that the justifications for suporting Israel are imaginary. If Jewish lives were under threat of global anti Semitism, then it wodl logically folllow that all Jews would be in Isrel would they not? If the disapora was such a dangerous place for Israel, then Israel woudl not be experiening a brain drain of skilled workers leaving the country.
In any case, prof Walt has NEVR attcked Jews. The fact that you need to invent the case that he does, is yet anotehr example of blind tribalism blinding you to reality.
Please stop addressing me VIVAPALESTIN
I am not interested in your racist bile.
You're not here to represent Palestinians. I suspect you're a troll posing as one.
Please stop posing your hatred to this blog.
TOIVUS:
You write - "This is another illustration of how difficult it is for many of us goyim to engage in this discussion. We become branded as antisemites whenever we join the discussion"
When you concentrate your criticism only on Israel, and not hold the Arabs & Islamist equally responsible for the escalation of this mes. That where you will be labeled as anti-xxxxx
In regards to your Jewish wife being upset when asked "are you member of the tribe?". I don't know why she would be offended, unless she is not particularly proud of her Jewish heritage, which is her own business.
Sadly, "Anti-Semite" no longer
"When you concentrate your criticism only on Israel, and not hold the Arabs & Islamist equally responsible for the escalation of this mes. That where you will be labeled as anti-xxxxx"
That's pure hypocrisy and a blanket attack to deflect criticism of Israel.
Such arbitrary standard never apply to the neocons and hawks who are endlessly and obsessively call for attacks on Iran, and scrutiny of Iran's nuclear program, while refusing to even discuss Israel's nuclear arsenal.
One can criticize China and no other country and not be labeled a racist.
"In regards to your Jewish wife being upset when asked "are you member of the tribe?". I don't know why she would be offended, unless she is not particularly proud of her Jewish heritage, which is her own business."
Tribal allegiances are primitive and normally devoid of rationale, objectivity or logic. She was probably offended at having her intelligence insulted.
anti-Semite, that's probably something of a scurrilous charge - but you do definitely hate that part of a 'robust' Israeli foreign/military policy that reminds you of everything you hate about a robust American foreign/military policy - and that irrational left wing animus against what you no doubt would think of as militarism can come off sounding both anti-Semitic and anti-American. This ideological bent of yours was revealed to me when Wikileaks released that Apache gun camera video and you immediately come out and essentially declared that this proved how evil the American military and the foreign policy it serves are - you essentially said every American should be forced to watch the video so that they could feel appropriately shamed - and of course when it was eventually revealed how the video had been doctored to paint American troops in as poor a light as possible there was no apology or retraction coming from you. Again, what you say about Iran in this post reiterates this irrational ideology of yours - yes, military action against Iran could be disastrous; not interceding could also prove disastrous - there are no good options when it comes to Iran, there's only the problem of picking which is the least bad - but of course you lefties, who think of military options as so last century, ignore that reality - and it's this discomfort with things martial that gets you into trouble viz Israel - given the nature of Israel's situation it is forced to adopt a very strong military ethos and you can't stand that.
So, by the letter of the law are you an anti-Semite? I doubt that. Spirit of the law though? A lot of what you write comes across that way.
Whether a person is an anti-Semite (which Prof. Walt is clearly not) has nothing to do with assessing the wisdom of Israeli foreign policy. If neo-Nazis criticized Israel for violating numerous UN resolutions and international legal rulings for their occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, would the Nazis be wrong merely because they had a pathological hatred of Jews? The oft-used anti-Semitism charge (which Goldberg unmistakably makes here) is merely an ad hominem attack to prevent discussion of the issues which Israel does not want to be honestly debated. Why? Because the Israeli position on most of the issues is patently indefensible.
Do you pay attention to rhetoric? Look around. There is little mistake there there is anti-Semitism adrift, even here in this comment section. You know what else is kinda weird? If a black person told you something you said was racist, would you believe him? If he felt like he was help up to a double standard, as Israel is undoubtedly, by many parties (I am anti-settlements btw)? No one is trying to curb any discussions. The Israelis know better than all the armchair activists here the situation on the ground anyway, as they live it every day.
I do agree with your Nazi analogy. But I don't agree with your "patently indefensible" comment.
Here's why: my own beliefs.
I don't believe Israel should have settlements in the West Bank, nor should they occupy it. I want a Palestinian state, with whatever it want to be happy, next to Israel. In fact I'd rather the Israelis were miserable for a while, if that's what it took to appease the Palestinians. I think this stupid conflict should end.
But Israel has a right to defend itself from senseless attacks of violence nonetheless, can we agree there? It doesn't have a right to respond with disproportionate force, but you must understand, in all fairness, that their forces are simply not equal. One has a geurilla tactic and one relies on covert surgical striking. When the geurillas are so willing to rack up civillian casualties as to place their munitions in dubious places (Goldstone condemned them for it, ok??) for PR purposes... Israel hardly handles it well, but the point is that it nonetheless has the right to protect its citizens. As every single government in the world has the right to protect its citizens from those who wish them life-threatening harm.
Again, I am no apologist. I condemn Israel for obstructing peace, but I condemn Palestinian action too. The People who accuse every single person who disagrees with them of being "Hasabra agents" and uses Zionist derogatively when even Steve Walt is a Zionist by the ACTUAL definition (Hebrew autonomy in 19488888 borders) - those are the people who are really trying to shut down the debate.
Please consider this.
You make some good arguments Musician
And I applaud your sentiments, but you continue to rely on myths.
We both agree about the notion of a Palestinian state, but sadly, we're beyond the point of ever being able to achieve that. Even an Israeli leaders who shares this view is never going o have the will or the political influence to make it happen.
Israel's right to defend itself only exists within it's recognized borders. Whatever violence Israel is unleashing in the occupied territories cannot be described as self defense. Nor is there any reality to the claim that Israel relies on "covert surgical strikin". There was nothing surgical about cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon or White Phosphorous in Gaza.
No Goldstein did not condemn the Palestinians for for racking up civillian casualties or for placing munitions in dubious places - your confusing Israeli claims points for what Goldstein reported.
If Israel was concerned about the security of it's citizens, it would not have broken the 2008 ceasefire and risked placing it's citizens at risk, but sadly, Israel has always put territory before peace. Tzipi Livni said it in her own words when she proclaimed that "a long ceasefire is not in Israel's strategic interests".
You should be applauded for condemning violence, but one has to be honest here. Israeli violence is necessary to maintain their occupation. Palestinian violence is perpetrated in the name of resiting occupation, which they are entitled to do.
Tribalism, ethnocentrism, ethnic nationalism, etc.
The term "ethnocentrism" is more precise than "tribalism," and the term "ethnic nationalism" is more precise than "ethnocentrism." Ethnocentrism is a subtype or expression of tribalism, and ethnic nationalism is a subtype or subexpression of ethnocentrism.
In any case, when encountering Jeffrey Goldberg's writings, and the writings of many emotionally excited pro-Israel activists like him, one can't help but be struck by the extreme ethnocentrism that so obsessively drives him. And of course this should come as no surprise: Zionism is an ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist movement, and often a messianic (highly aggressive) ethnic nationalist movement, one which makes grandiose claims about its allegedly divine mission.
When I read Jeffrey Goldberg, some of the following terms come repeatedly to mind:
ethnic aggression
ethnic chauvinism
ethnic messianism
ethnic narcissism
ethnic neediness
ethnic paranoia
ethnic self-celebration
ethnic self-obsession
ethnic xenophobia
I wonder if the entire bundle of symptoms could be clinically described as "ethnic obsessive-compulsive disorder." People who suffer from the disorder simply cannot stop talking about their ethnic issues in an excited way every hour of every day of the week.
Most Americans do not suffer from this mental disorder (and too much ethnocentrism clearly is a mental disorder, strongly akin to racism). If they did, the United States of America, which is based on transcending ethnic and religious differences, would disintegrate in an instant.
Compare Goldberg's writings to those of Andrew Sullivan, who rarely refers to his ethnicity, and who never refers to his ethnic enemies. Jeffrey Goldberg lives on a different planet than most of us, and a very suffocating and depressing planet it is.
Most Jews get that too much ethnic nationalism and self-absorption is a losing and self-destructive game, which explains why so many of them are edging for the exits regarding Israel and Zionism in general. Most Jews have a much broader range of interests than Jeffrey Goldberg or Ovadia Yosef. They have a healthy and vigorous curiosity about and empathy for the cultures of many ethnic tribes, and they especially dislike being mentally boxed in by biblical fundamentalists.
You are a disturbed individual. Lose the self-delusional ignorance about Zionism to yourself, huh? Your bias is showing, and it's ugly. Not to mention your sheer and utter blindness to Muslim and Palestinian nationalism, and the effect that THAT whole phenomenon has had on the lives of Israelis and Palestinians alike. You can pretend this isn't a double sided conflict, and some idiots are probably going to eat it up (it seems like you swallowed it whole whenever it is you took a pseudo-interest in this conflict), but anyone with a brain is going to see your little monologue here for the thinly-veiled defamation that it is. Before you shove words down my throat so hard I shit them right then and there, I understand that a minority of Israelis are religious nuts who think God said they can have parts of the West Bank, and they are obviously wrong. But most Zionism is referring to is Israel itself, within pre-1967 borders. Even Steve Walt is a Zionist by the non-idiotic slander you are trying to attach to it. Zionism is the notion that Israel should exist. In 1948 borders. Chill out.
" Lose the self-delusional ignorance about Zionism to yourself, huh?"
What's the matter Musician? Don;t you liek freedom of speech?
"You can pretend this isn't a double sided conflict, and some idiots are probably going to eat it up"
I'm sure you're one of those peopel who argue that rape victims are partly to blame, because they dress provocatively.
"But most Zionism is referring to is Israel itself, within pre-1967 borders."
False. A recent poll shows that most Israelis support the building of illegal settlements outside of those borders.
"Zionism is the notion that Israel should exist. In 1948 borders."
Zionism used to be that but in practice, it is simply colonialism.
I'll ignore your outrageously distasteful ad-hominems, and ask you for a link to that recent poll. Let's see it. By the way, how do you know I am tone-def? Did I insult you? I don't think attacking me in your subject line is going to make you very believable to anyone thinking critically here.
"Let's see it."
Here's your poll dude.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-can-t-be-a-democracy-with-two-classes-of-citizens-1.328330
"By the way, how do you know I am tone-def? Did I insult you?"
It was a metaphor. Zionists are so obvlivous to their one hypocrisy, that the only way to describe it is tone deafness.
Someone I love was raped and it really fucked up their life. I don't appreciate that kind of petty and baseless accusation.
Most Israelis support east Jerusalem construction
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866367,00.html
Two-thirds of Israelis support settlement building(in the occupied West Bank): poll
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100901/wl_mideast_afp/israelpalestiniansettlements
"False. A recent poll shows that most Israelis support the building of illegal settlements outside of those borders."
I read the entire text of that article, and nowhere does it say a word about a statistic showing support of the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory.
How many lives do you think have been "really fucked up" by Israel?
I doubt they appreciate it either, especially the parents of the hundreds of children that Israel incinerated in Gaza, so spare me your righteous indignation.
try reading my second the fololwo up post
Re the settlement contructions
You snuck extra articles on me
Sneaky, anyway, I would like to again say I find your rape-insults to be juvenile and pathetic. I have no intention of conversing you with further. Enjoy comparing everyone else who disagrees with you to rape-apologists. Tactics much?
And by the way, rape is a serious matter
As I said, this issue reverberates with me personally, and your choice to further insult me, when I never did any such thing to you, I think is incredibly childish. If you are an adult, I truly feel sorry for you, and I hope that you never have to suffer from something like rape in order to stop being such an asshole about it.
You snuck extra articles on me
No I wasn't being sneaky.
It occured to me that the points I listed were not all covered by the one article.
I'm sorry you have no intention of conversing with me any further. In any case, at least you learned quote a bit today, but no need to thank me.
Rape is serios but mass murder is not?
That's what I mean by tone deafness.
You Zionists haven't got a clue.
Yes rape is an outrage and an inexcusable crime, but so is mass murder of women and children. You somehow have the capacityto empathize with a rape victim, but barely bat an eyelid over the mass murder of 300 children, including those that satrved to death because Israel had murdered their mothers are blocked the Red Cross from comming to their aid.
I'm reporting you.
"I hope you too, will never have to actually experience rape in order to stop throwing it in the faces of people who have told you it has left a negative shitstain in their lives. Fuck you."
And I hope you never have to experience the agony of being cooked to death from exposure to white phophorous or lose a limb from stepping on an undetonated luster bomb.
Neoleft.
The one one reads your comments, the more it is apparent your Joe 6-pact shallow mentality.
You keep bringing references from Israel's version of New York Times. A respected newspaper (Ha'aretz") to bolster you twisted logic of battering Israel.
Do you ever think before you click on that keyboard. Do you think that, by publishing wrong doing by government officials, Ha'aretz sole purpose is to damage the interest of its own country?. You fails to understand that, these publications in Israel own media are the bed rock, and affirmation of any country (not only Israel), to engage in critical thinking, with self criticism. A factor to which your Joe-Six-pack mentality fail to understand.
Go and find another blog which meets you low intellectual capacity. This is is way over your head.
Neoleft writes:
"How many lives do you think have been "really fucked up" by Israel? "
Not as much as it has been done by the leaders of Hamas & PLO, who put their own children in harms way. If Arabs don't want their lives fucked up, they should not provoke the Israelis to fuck it up.
Yeah, why don't you ask the same question "How many Israeli lives do you think have been "really fucked up" by Hamas?
How many Christian lives in Iraq do you think have been "really fucked up" by Muslims there ?
"Not as much as it has been done by the leaders of Hamas & PLO, who put their own children in harms way."
That's like saying that the kids who were blew up on buses in Israel by suicide bombers were put in harms way by their parents who chose to migrate to Israel.
"If Arabs don't want their lives fucked up, they should not provoke the Israelis to fuck it up."
Yeah, like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto did. If only they'd played their cards right ant not upset their abusers, everything would have been fine right Saba?
You see Sababa, the Arabs have tried many times not to provoke the Israelis to "fuck it up", but that got them nowhere. The Israelis always find a way to start a fight and then blame the victim, as they did in 2008 when they broke a 4 months ceasefire that Hamas had stuck to.
"Yeah, why don't you ask the same question "How many Israeli lives do you think have been "really fucked up" by Hamas?"
According to the stats, about 1/100th as many lives as Israel has.
"How many Christian lives in Iraq do you think have been "really fucked up" by Muslims there ?"
That would be the same Christians that were living there for centuries until the US came and liberated them right Sababa?
Saint Simon: A robust American foreign policy
A robust American foreign policy would be focused on the *American* interest, not the Israeli interest. One wonders if you understand that there are significant differences between the two interests. Many pro-Israel activists -- supposedly "American" pro-Israel activists -- have tried to define the pursuit of the American interest as "anti-Semitic" when it deviates from the Israeli interest. You seem to be veering in that direction. One notices standard neoconservative boilerplate in your post.
" the Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby isn't really interested in truth or even a fair-minded discussion of the issues"
In fact, this is exactly what they do not want. Most Americans are ignorant to what is really happening between Israel and Palestine. If they knew the truth they would demand that the US change its position towards Israel and certainly demand that they with draw their support.
This is beginning to happen slowly in the US and it is rightly scaring the hell out of Israel and her supporters. The more this happens the more wildly jerk-offs like Goldberg will spout off, knowing that their house of cards is about to collapse around them.
Kudos to you, Dr Walt, for weathering this storm and continuing to speak the truth.
It's a stretch to assume that Americans are that good of a people and will somehow become rational when given the truth. You're being an ethnocentrist.
Yep. And Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer , Robert Siegel, Terri Gross want to keep it that way. NPR, Rachel the rest did not even whisper about the Goldstone Report. Not a whisper about the UN report about the executions on the Mavi Marmara. For Rachel to report about human rights issues it either has to be a gay rights issue or protesters (against the government) in Iran. Her owners approve
Have you ever heard any of these outlets discuss or shed light on the continued expansion of illegal settlements? Do you ever hear any of these talking heads discuss the "root causes of terrorism" Do you see them bring on former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit Micheal Scheuer, Ray McGovern, Juan Cole, Stephen Walt, Flynt Leverett? Hell no
Dylan Ratigan is the only one who steps out of the off limits territory. And they keep him on at 4 est.
A most fateful trendline to watch
Pay close attention to attacks by pro-Israel activists on Americans and Europeans.
Pro-Israel activists have systematically and relentlessly destroyed much of the good will between Israel on the one hand and the United States and Europe on the other. And they seem determined to finish the job and to drive Israel into absolute international isolation as "a people who dwells apart, and will not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). The pattern of angry aggression is very much pro-active for the most part, not defensive, and it often seems to be animated by the kind of raw racism that was recently exhibited by Ovadia Yosef in his insulting remarks on non-Jews.
Examples: Jeffrey Goldberg's and WigWag's attacks on Stephen Walt. The lists of attackers and attacked are long indeed at this point. It is unlikely that Israel will be able to rely on as real friends anyone who has endured these attacks. Many pro-Israel activists have a gift for making bitter enemies, and for turning honest political disagreements into nasty and personal feuds and holy wars. Jeffrey Goldberg's violent and vicious language towards Walt and Mearsheimer gets to the heart of the problem.
More state-sponsored terrorism
Richard Silverstein exposed this in the Guardian on 8 Jan 2009, in an article entitled "Hasbara spam alert." Israel's foreign ministry is organizing volunteers to flood news websites with pro-Israeli comments. Just another form of state-sponsored terrorism.
The name "Israel" is sure bet for Walt
I invite anyone here, please go and review all Prof. Walt's postings on various subject here on FP. None of them generate the kind of comments as the subject of Israel or anything related to it.
So, when the "well runs dry" on him, where his other posts do not generate much comments (which means, not many people care much about his opinions on the particular subject), then, he pulls the rabbit out of the hat, with the magic name "Israel", Sit back and watch the lights go off like Christmas tree, or candles on the Manorrah.
Yes SABABA03, Israel is a hot topic
And Israel's amen corner flock to the site in a desperate effrot to put out the fires.
Israel draws attention to itself every day though it's policies, it's crimes and it's demands to be showered with privelage.
Israel happens to be a topic that dominates our foreign policy. Congressman and Senators and those running for office are required to declare their devotion to Israel even when campaigning in regional and local elections. The Lobby has made it madantory that anyone who wishes to run a succeful campaign do so.
Steven Walt happens to be an expert on foreign policy. He gives equal time to all maters of US foreign policy. Israel happens to be one of them.
So, here's some advice to you SABABA03 and your fellow propagandists. Build a bridge and get over it.
to respeond to yur basless allegations.
1. Israel is on the news, because Islamist like Hamas & Hizbollah make sure to provoke it with Don Quixote acts, and force Israel to respond. That how Israel is hot topic.
If the Pals would set a side their age old hatred & intolerance towards the Jews (and non-Muslims), Let by gone be by gone, willing to compromise with the Israelis. such that both sides accept the other as independent and sovereign states, we would have had peace in the region 60 years ago.
(Now, go ahead, schpill on me another one of those "Zionists" crap looking for privileges).
2. Prof. walt is expert on self promotion. The juicier the dice, the more attention he gets, the more recognition he receives. We all know, academic recognition is the life blood of every academics. Some earn it outright through their thorough research with well balanced views. Others, feel the need to sensationalize their publications to get the type of recognition to which they need.
I have no problem with anyone criticizing actions of Israeli leader. They do make their mistakes. These academics get my respect when they balance it with views from these leaders as well, explaining why Israel is forced to respond to the violence from Hamas, as it occasionally does.
As I have mentioned many times before. Israel is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. BUT, not the only solution to it..
1. Hamas & Hizbollah are on the news because they happen to be enemies of Israel. Neither poses any threat or danger to the West, and would be a none event were it not for the fact that Israel insists that it's security is the same as our own.
The Pals don't have any age old hatred & intolerance towards the Jews. Palestinians and Jews co-existed peacefully until the Zionist project was implemented to steal their land and srive Palestinian from their homes. The charter of every poiltcal party in Israel explicitly rejects an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, so no, there was never going to be peace 60 years ago.
And yes, I am familiar with the Hamas charter, but Likud and Labor are a good 40 years older than Hamas.
2. Prof. Walt is succeful and his success has bought hit noterety. He happens to be an expert in a topic that is controversial.
Recognition is the life blood of any field, including journalism, not just academia. Walt already earned his recpognitino before he and Meareshimer published their ground breaking book.
"I have no problem with anyone criticizing actions of Israeli leader.'
Yes, we hear that all the time from Israeli apologists. Every time someoen criticiszes Israel, one fo you comes along with the carnard that "'I have no problem with criticism of Israel, but this critism is anti Semtic blah blah blah"
"They do make their mistakes."
Another tired argument. We make mistakes, but we're never wrong.
"These academics get my respect when they balance it with views from these leaders as well, explaining why Israel is forced to respond to the violence from Hamas, as it occasionally does."
What academics get your respect SABABA03? Please mention them by name.
As for Isrel beign forcd to respond, there was no need to reposnd to Hamas on November 4th 2008, when Israel violated the 4 months ceasfire by attacking Gaza. No matter what vioence Isrel unleashes, you uncondtionally brand it defense and abandon any inquiry or cuiriosity. Whatever Israel tells you becomes your bible.
"As I have mentioned many times before. Israel is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. BUT, not the only solution to it."
True, but then you're the first to insist that everything is the fault of the Arabs.
Your opposition relies on moral comparisons and denial of obvious realities, such as the indoctrination of racism against Jews in the Palestinian territories via state media apparatuses. They were supposed to stop that junk after Oslo, but they didn't. The question is, who are these people here and why is their determination to obfuscate reality and repeat the same dry talking points and accusations of "Zionist" as if it's a swear word so vehement? Under critical scrutiny it is easy to see which perspective is the most grounded.
Wake up call for Musian and SABABA03
If you're gowinig to blow hot air about racism against Israeli Jews, you might want to consider this:
1. Only 17% of the public (in Israel) believes the state's self-definition as a democracy should take precedence over its self-definition as Jewish
2. An absolute majority believes that only Jews should be involved in decisions crucial to the state
3. A majority supports allocating more resources to Jews than Arabs
4. A third of Jewish citizens support putting Arab citizens in detention camps in wartime; and about two-thirds think Arabs should not become ministers.
5. At the root [of the survey's results] lies the twisted belief that democracy means the tyranny of the majority, and that equal rights for all the state's citizens is not an integral part of the democratic system.
6. Israelis are burnign churches and mosques
7. Need I remind you of the pearls that Rabbi Youseff has barfed up in the last few months?
8. Netenyahu boasted about how he sabotaged the Oslo peace process, so Musician, you might want stick that in your pipa and smoke it
9. Israel is an apartheid state. Segregation between Jes and Arabas is all but complete
10. Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver has decribed Isael as a VERY RACIST SOCIETY
11. The US State Department describes Israel as an intolerant society.
Zionism is racism, if not in theory, then certainly in practice.
I don't think even Steve Walt would want to be associated with Neoleft.
Walt Co wrote a book about this issue.
Duh. Walt did co write a book about the off limits topic. And when there are few other outlets where this critical issues is discussed what do you expect. Other outlets for this critical topic are at Mondoweiss, Informed Comment, Race for Iran, Washington Note.
Salons Glenn Greenwald is another great place.
Off limits at Crooks and Liars. Rayne and Jane Hamsher over at Firedoglake have successfully shut down the debate over there.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(143)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE