Let’s play make-believe: Imagine that the candidates for the presidential nomination, Democrat and Republican, are asked for their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (So far, that hasn’t happened.) And imagine that in addition to the familiar formulas regarding Israel — America’s valuable ally, the only democracy in the Middle East, entitled to live in security, and so forth — they were to add that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank must end, that the illegal outposts must be removed, that all settlement expansion must end, that Israel should help rather than hinder the modernization of the Palestinian security apparatus, that the status quo is simply not acceptable.
Can you imagine that? If so, employment awaits you at the Fantasy Channel. As Howard Dean learned in September 2003, when he called for an “even-handed” American policy in the conflict, even so parve a phrase as “even-handed” crosses the no-no boundary. Dean’s call begat criticism from John Kerry, his principal rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, as also from Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi and Abraham Foxman.
To the consternation of Steve Grossman, co-chair of the Dean campaign and a past president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, it generated accusations of apostasy that seriously challenged the campaign. (Dean, and his enemies, didn’t help his case when, several days later, trying to recover from his original no-no, he chose to defend Israel’s targeted killings in Gaza. His defense? “There is a war going on in the Middle East and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war.” Soldiers? Howard Dean called Hamas terrorists soldiers? Aiming for redemption, he hit his foot instead.)
There are rules to America’s presidential campaign season. The Iowa caucus comes first and the New Hampshire primaries come next. The person with the most votes wins. And candidates, unless they are named Kucinich, Gravel or Paul, must stay put within the four walls of the house that Aipac built — that is, within the walls of pro-Israel orthodoxy.
Open a door to the outside of that house, and you’ll find yourself in never-never land, and not the fun kind either. Open just a window, and you will spend weeks, months, explaining, apologizing, repairing the damage. The Israeli-Arab conflict is to foreign policy what Social Security is to domestic policy — a third rail.
It is therefore of more than passing interest that all the suspect phrases listed in the first paragraph above were in fact spoken by President Bush during his trip to the region last week. And the sky did not fall in.
The firmness of the firmament may be attributable to the fact that no one was really and truly listening to what Bush was saying, or to the fact that he is rapidly approaching the end of his tenure. More likely, however, it is clear that the issues he raised and the points he made are by now beyond serious controversy, are part of the conventional wisdom.
Which raises the obvious question: If such implicitly critical remarks regarding Israel are part of the conventional wisdom, why do prospective nominees for the presidency avoid the subject as if it were avian flu?
Search the Web sites of the major candidates, and you will find that the only one who has anything at all to say about Israel is Mike Huckabee, the erstwhile Baptist minister who has visited Israel nine times. Search their speeches that touch on the subject, and you will find the candidates tumbling over one another to prove their superior devotion to Israel.
This troubles John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt greatly, as they made clear in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times earlier this month: “…the presidential candidates are no friends of Israel. They are like most U.S. politicians, who reflexively mouth pro-Israel platitudes while continuing to endorse and subsidize policies that are in fact harmful to the Jewish state. A genuine friend would tell Israel that it was acting foolishly, and would do whatever he or she could to get Israel to change its misguided behavior.”
It is not that Mearsheimer and Walt are ignorant of the consequences of the kind of “true” friendship they champion. Their piece reviews those consequences in some detail. They mention the cautionary Dean precedent, and they acknowledge that “even well-intentioned criticism of Israel’s policies may lead [pro-Israel] groups to turn against them and back their opponents instead…. Israel’s friends in the media would take aim at the candidate, and campaign contributions from pro-Israel individuals and political action committees would go elsewhere.”
So they are aware of the hazards that await the candidate who violates the accepted ritual and speaks the truth to Israel — the very same truth spoken by Bush, who is widely regarded as genuinely sympathetic to Israel, who was hailed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in terms so glowing that press reports indicate Bush was embarrassed by the praise.
They must then be aware that no candidate will accept their advice. The ritual will be honored. And they and the rest of us can relax: Whoever prevails in the 2008 presidential elections will inherit the received wisdom on the conflict, the commitment to the very things of which Bush spoke — a two-state solution, a viable and independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory, an end to settlement expansion and all the rest.
Our task — that is, the task of those of us who seek a genuine resolution to the conflict — is to see to it that the urgings of such conventional wisdom do not themselves become a new and equally empty ritual.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
Well isn't it time for a paradigm shift? The House that AIPAC built is a very bad house indeed. Yesterday, I participated in early voting for the Feb 5th IL primary and I voted for Ron Paul.
Mearsheimer and Walt in their paper "The Israel Lobby" made a very important statement. Isreal has missed many opportunities to make peace with its neighbors because of its hard stance, that is based in the blind support of an ignorant US public. Most people don't know of the many instances Isreal has bitten the hand that feeds it (to the tune of $3 Billion per year, which I hear is around $500000 per Isreali citizen over the past 50 some years. Like the spying which Jonathan Pollard and Mordecai Vununuu were convicted of and whose fate needs to be shared by Rosen/Weismann.
We have a military-industrial base to our economy that absolutely requires war and rumors of war to be going on somewhere, especially somewhere with lots of money. As long as we can sell to both sides (or give to one side and sell to the other) don't expect things to change.
Jake's right. The military industrial complex (Fascism ) is the ruling state. They just change the major player not the scenario. The interest of israel or the U.S is not paramount. Ka--ching
Kucinich, Gravel and Paul are not going to lose because of AIPAC. They are going to lose because none of them can get enough votes (and Paul now has lots of money and all the publicity any candidate can ask for) There is a correlation between support for Israel and support for a candidate-regardless of AIPAC donations and support-and Paul's constantly losing candidacy proves this.
Why does Israel have to give up territory that no other country has ever been forced to do? Why do we have to obey different rules and standards? Should the US give up Texas? Should all lands won in various wars be given back? How bout American Indians...they were the original inhabitants of America? There are enough Arab states already and one little land of Israel. Enough of this already!
Marsha, Israel is not be asked to obey different rules and standards. There's been a few changes in the world since the Alamo and the Indian wars. One rather large change was sparked by WW2 and the havoc wreaked by a certain Mr. Hitler. By common agreement, as evidenced by, for instance, the UN charter and the Geneva Accords, it is now unlawful to gain territory by waging war. Israel is a signatory to both. Everything we did in the US to Mexico and the Native Americans would be outlawed today. And thank god for that. If you don't believe that such agreements should be observed then reread your history of WW2 and ask if you would like to revisit that again.
Marsha, Israel is not be asked to obey different rules and standards. There's been a few changes in the world since the Alamo and the Indian wars. One rather large change was sparked by WW2 and the havoc wreaked by a certain Mr. Hitler. By common agreement, as evidenced by, for instance, the UN charter and the Geneva Accords, it is now unlawful to gain territory by waging war. Israel is a signatory to both. Everything we did in the US to Mexico and the Native Americans would be outlawed today. And thank god for that. If you don't believe that such agreements should be observed then reread your history of WW2 and ask if you would like to revisit that again.
Leonard Fein's words imply a zero knowledge of Jewish history and undue concern with American politics. In 1921, Winston Churchill divided the British Mandate of Palestine along the Jordan River giving more than 75% of the land (the East Bank) to the Arabs under the rule of Abdullah I of the Hashemite family. That action was approved by the League of Nations and therefore, the act became international law. Effectively, Churchill created two side by side states with Jordan now inhabited by a two-third Palestinian population including the Queen of Jordan and Israel, an 80% Jewish population. Bush's and Rice's idea of a two state solution is therefore preposterous as that already exists and any fair minded person can easily discern the Paletinian position of eradicating Israel and its five million plus Jewish inhabitants is really what this more than 100 year fight is all about. Jews do not need Bush or Rice or Olmert, all too ready through their words and actions to bring about another Jewish holocaust should the Palestinians ever aquire another state.
Marsha, Israel is not be asked to obey different rules and standards. There's been a few changes in the world since the Alamo and the Indian wars. One rather large change was sparked by WW2 and the havoc wreaked by a certain Mr. Hitler. By common agreement, as evidenced by, for instance, the UN charter and the Geneva Accords, it is now unlawful to gain territory by waging war. Israel is a signatory to both. Everything we did in the US to Mexico and the Native Americans would be outlawed today. And thank god for that. If you don't believe that such agreements should be observed then reread your history of WW2 and ask if you would like to revisit that again.
Did you ever think that American politicians support Israel because it's the right thing to do?
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, running for the GOP nomination, wants an even-handed approach to the I/P conflict, and he has plenty of freethinking, libertarian supporters who happen to be Jewish. They don't think their ancestry or faith have anything to do with the vital interests of their nation. Hell, some of them only have one nation! But then Paul is a real heretic of our regnant ideology. He thinks foreign policy should be conducted in accordance with the Founding Fathers' warning that the USA should shun "entangling alliances" and should not play favorites anywhere in the world. he also argues that the experience of the past six or seven years does not furnish a particularly strong case for playing GloboCop. So the mainstream media ignore him or call him a wacko, maverick etc. The Jews who came to this continent before the great late-19th century flood of immigration, when the first glimmerings of Zionism only were being seen, would have found no problem in agreeing with Dr Paul and the Founders and acting, speaking and thinking as unhyphenated Americans of Jewish faith. Herzl & Co wrecked all that. The Mearsheimer & Walt thesis about the potency of the Israel Lobby in enforcing silence on goy leaders is being given a good test in this campaigning cycle. So far, as Fein indicates, the thesis is standing up well. Also, lawyers for the ex-AIPAC officials accused of getting American security secrets from Larry Franklin have succeeded in having the potentially provocative trial deep-frozen, possibly until aftet the nominees are safely chosen. I sometimes think it would be great if all the American donors to and reflexive supporters of the Zionist state who equate it with the diversity of world Jewry had to give up the NY Times for a month and read Haaretz instead. They would be aghast at how much more truthful and realistic about this anachronistic Near Eastern colonial project Israelis who find themselves stuck in it can be. (There's also the little matter of it being a blasphemy against Torah, largely run by unbelievers, and of the dubious credentials of its "Christian" supporters who think they will soon see a few Jews converted and raptured, and the rest fried at Armageddon. Details, details.) But as for expecting any realism, plain speaking or even inside dope about "the region's only democracy" and "our staunchest ally" from most presidential candidates who need money.... fuhgeddaboudid. www.nkusa.org
David Nilsson, that is the most well thought out, intelligent, OBJECTIVE post I've seen in a long time. Indeed Walt & Mearsheimer are correct about the Jewish lobby in America. The current issue between a Jewish group and Ms. Magazine for the latter's refusal to accept money to place an ad in their magazine that may be misconstrued as political favoritism in Israeli politics is the perfect example. We shouldn't be meddling in the politics of a sovereign nation and OTHERS WORKING IN THE INTEREST OF A FOREIGN NATION SHOULD NOT MEDDLE IN THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The integrity of our politics has been severely impaired by the auspicious influence of groups operating to the advantage of a foreign nation to the peril of our nation's long term prosperity. I no longer believe there is hope in this nation for continued sovereignty and freedom and in large part I thank Israel's supporters for their threatening meddling in our affairs, both in politics and education. As for being the only democracy in the Middle East, when you have different rules for different sectors of your population, you are not a democracy. When you have segregated public transportation for women and men, you do not have a democracy. When you run an apartheid state YOU ARE NOT WITHIN A DEMOCRACY.
David Nilsson, that is the most well thought out, intelligent, OBJECTIVE post I've seen in a long time. Indeed Walt & Mearsheimer are correct about the Jewish lobby in America. The current issue between a Jewish group and Ms. Magazine for the latter's refusal to accept money to place an ad in their magazine that may be misconstrued as political favoritism in Israeli politics is the perfect example. We shouldn't be meddling in the politics of a sovereign nation and OTHERS WORKING IN THE INTEREST OF A FOREIGN NATION SHOULD NOT MEDDLE IN THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The integrity of our politics has been severely impaired by the auspicious influence of groups operating to the advantage of a foreign nation to the peril of our nation's long term prosperity. I no longer believe there is hope in this nation for continued sovereignty and freedom and in large part I thank Israel's supporters for their threatening meddling in our affairs, both in politics and education. As for being the only democracy in the Middle East, when you have different rules for different sectors of your population, you are not a democracy. When you have segregated public transportation for women and men, you do not have a democracy. When you run an apartheid state YOU ARE NOT WITHIN A DEMOCRACY.
After we have even handedness between the Pals and the Israelis maybe we can then help the poor mafia with its battle against the police.
Why is it that certain writers are so adamantly opposed to Jewish support for Israel. Americans whose ancestors came here from many different countries still maintain ties with their ancestral home lands, while supporting the interests of these countries. No one ever questions the Irish who love and support Ireland,or other ethnic groups which maintain ties with their ancestral homelands and lobby for them, the Greeks, the Poles, the Turks, the Arabs. Of course, no one questions the very right of those ancestral homelands to exist as sovereign states. The right of Jews to maintain their identity and communal ties has always been questioned, even though Jews have been historically viewed as "foreign" in the countries they came from. But of course, any of these writers would deny being fundamentally anti Semitic.
Alex C said it best. At my synagogue OzVeShalomites like myself, Gush Emunites like our President, and our Rabbi, a devoted Shasnik& protege of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, freely express their views on Israel, and just about everything else, each Shabbat morning at the Kiddush Table. Why can't this be a model for American Jewish life? Why do we have AIPAC shutting down dissident views, Foxman intimidating foreign consulates to cancel speakers like Tony Judt, and Dershowitz carpetbagging his way into DePaul University to get Norm Finkelstein sacked?
Is it really the Israel Lobby, or rather, the Likud Lobby? American politicians do not appear with left-wing Israelis, or use policy positions advocated by them. American politicians instead bow to the right-wing elements in Israel. How many American politicians side with Israeli groups such as Peace Now or B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization? And as Walt and Measheimer point out, the Israel Lobby does not represent the majority of American Jews. It represents the right wing of American Judaism. American Jews themselves have been silenced by the Israel Lobby, not just American politicians. PS: AIPAC should be all caps, not Aipac.
I think this is a very sad situation indeed. People are in fear of being branded as antisemites for even sensible, reasonable critiques of Israeli policy. Is it alright if I can speak as a member of the Jewish community in these United States and say enough is enough? Israel is like any other state! I understand that it is special in many ways; but that has no bearing, in my opinion, on state policies, which are the matter at hand. Wouldn't it be strange if even sensible, reasoned critiques of US policy were branded anti-American? How long before Americans like me are tarred as self-hating Americans with the same zealotry with which groups like AIPAC brand American Jews who make the fateful choice to deviate from the accepted political orthodoxies about the special relationship that the US and Israel share as self-hating Jews? This has got to stop. As an American and as a Jew, I want to see a situation in which people are free to criticize Israeli policy without the labels; and free to support without idiotic charges of dual loyalty.
As some observers here point out, the State of Israel is not a real democracy. Mixing synagogue and state is as dangerous as mixing church and state or mosque and state. It is exactly the same thing. The ultra orthodox christians/muslims/hindoos/jews all cry for the blood of the unbelievers. Israel has capitalized on mixing synagogue and state, because then its critics can easily be labelled as antisemitic. Thus anyone who disagrees with the politics and policies of the State are anti-semtiic. Lord George (he is past King status now) and his fellow criminal Cheney discovered how effective this approach can be. Anyone who disagrees with their warped policies are "unpatriotic" How can anyone then disagree with them for fear of being branded unpatriotic? In principle I see no difference between a State that is influenced by Christianist demagogues like pat robertson/rush etc., the mullahs of Iran or the orthodox Rabbis of Israel. I have great respect for Judaism but Israel's policies? How about the 60 some UN resolutions that the State of Isreal has ignored? I am often reminded of what "Roosevelt" told Ben Stiller in 'the night in the museum,' when he was having an altercation with a monkey.....
January 21, 2008 Dear Mr. Fein, I would like to comment on your weekly articles in The Forward. I have read them for years. With the amount of punditry in our country I’ve found that your words are among the most compelling. The common decency, humanity, honesty and, yes, courage of your words is inspiring. A while back, when you described how you shuddered at your first sight of “The Wall”, it made me shudder as well. You’ve reinforced the idea that we have heard for 60 years that Israel has always had a special mandate to be “a light unto the nations” yet I sense you fear, as I do, that this wonderful country is being marginalized by the world community as it continues to reign as an occupying nation. In another article you allowed critics of Israeli foreign policy such as Prof. Walt, Prof. Meerscheimer and former President Carter to air out their controversial opinions of Israeli policies. Previously, these men saw their reputations smeared without allowing the public to see any substantive narrative of what is was that they had actually written. Finally, I wish to segue into another area entirely. I would enjoy reading your views on a rather diabolical scenario that I have recently read. It goes like this: President Bush is possibly quite pleased with the present situation in Iraq for three reasons: l) American casualties have dropped considerably 2) Iraq has become less and less a front-page story and 3) The Iraqi government is beginning to reach some benchmarks. Truth be known: there never were any WMD’s, plans for democratizing Iraq, or nation-building goals. There was never an exit strategy. However, what is known is that there are TRILLIONS of dollars in OIL lying in wait under the sands of Iraq. The USA has control of the majority of the oil fields with the agreement of Premier Al Maliki and one can be sure that we have plans to remain in Iraq for many years to prevent nationalization of those fields. (Just look at the size of our embassy there.) When things calm down (perhaps just before the next general election), President Bush can announce that he was responsible for ensuring that America’s energy needs will be secure for years to come. Thus, this much vilified man will enter the history books as the “man who saved our country”. Any thoughts? With much admiration, I am Sincerely yours, Steven K. Alexander M.D. 30 Lyndon Rd Fayetteville, NY 13066 315 446-7893 LinAlex@twcny.rr.com