Ross replies:Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. Imagine that the victorious Arab states had eventually decided to permit the Palestinians to establish a state of their own on the territory of the former Jewish state. (That's unlikely, of course, but this is a thought experiment). Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip. Then imagine that a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties.
Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
The odd thing is that by Walt's own account, the answer would seem to be "Yes," since presumably the rump Orthodox Gaza - run, perhaps, by Verbover Jews - wouldn't have an all-powerful lobby shaping U.S. policy and public opinion to its specifications. Or am I missing something?
If the implication is that minus the current state of Israel, there would be no "Israel lobby", then yes, I think Ross is missing quite a lot. There managed to be an "Irish lobby" for decades in this country which survived not on the support of the Republic of Ireland, but on the support of Irish politicians, and Irish voters in heavily populated areas. The lobby existed independent of the state itself, and indeed kept right on going on Northern Irish issues even though the territory was part of Great Britain. As long as there is a largish population with a strong desire for a state, and an interest in the fate of that state's nationals, there will be a lobby for it.
I share the discomfort with noting the obvious fact that Jewish Americans, like every other hyphenated-american, actively seek the benefit of their ethnic compatriots by influencing US policy. Other hyphenated Americans don't have the same history of accusations that they are engaged in a virulent conspiracy to run the world for their benefit, and thus we have no need to pretend that all the Turks just happen to take a different position on the Armenian genocide than all the Armenians do--nay, not even the Turks and Armenians themselves bother to claim this. For that matter, I've spent a fair amount of time around members of organizations like the ADC, and I've never encountered any particular hostility when pointing out the obvious fact that their members identify with the Palestinians in part because the Palestinians are Arabs.
But though I understand why statements like this have to be made very carefully, if at all, the strenuous efforts to avoid making them have become cancerous. The reluctance to state the obvious allows Israel's partisans to duck the undeniable fact that AIPAC and so forth do actively attempt to influence American policy, and frequently succeed. Questions about whether this is really best for America, or the world, can be countered with more-or-less sly insinuations of anti-semitism. In part because almost the only people who will state the obvious are looney-tunes anti-semites who think that there's a Jewish conspiracy, rather than . . . Jews acting boringly just like every other ethnic group to ever hit our shores. Or Arabs with tin ears who come off as mostly mad because they're way behind in the ethnic lobbying sweepstakes.
It will not do my career much good to say it, but here goes. America has an influential Israel lobby in large part because of ethnic affinity. Not just Jewish ethnic affinity, I hasten to point out. Yes, we have a large number of Jewish people--many more than we have Arabs. And those Jewish people mostly strongly identify with Israel in the conflict. Europe, which has more Arabs, and decimated its Jewish population 60 years ago, has more natural sympathizers with the Palestinians, and this probably influences their political and media coverage quite a lot.
But America also has an influential Israel lobby because it has a much larger group of people who identify, quasi-ethnically, with Israel: evangelical Christians who think of themselves as in some way descended from the ten tribes of Israel. (Not to mention the lunatic fringe who hopes that the Israelis can in some way hasten the End Times. As if God could be influenced by a sufficiently robust foreign policy.)
And then most of the rest of us, because almost all Americans see Israelis as sharing a common European cultural heritage that the Palestinians do not. (I believe Al-Qaeda agrees.)
Such identifications are, I'd wager, rooted deeply in our genes--our selfish alleles want to advance alleles more similar to them, which is why we tend to side with our family against our nation, our nation against foreigners, and foreigners against sabre-toothed tigers. Those ties are not all-powerful, of course, which is why mothers don't let their children kill all the other children on the block. But they are often decisive in complicated situations like the one in Gaza.
So we are the Israel lobby, to a greater or a lesser extent--all Americans who think of themselves as more like the Israelis than the Palestinians. If the state of Israel were to vanish tomorrow, the lobby would remain. It might not be as vigorous as it is now--the peace accords in Northern Ireland (and the Republic's prosperity) have left the Irish groups with a lot less to do. But where issues concerning that territory, and those people, came up, that lobby would still spring into action.
I think there is nothing wrong with having an Israel lobby. In a multiethnic society, there needs to be a great deal of tolerance for the fact that various ethnicities will still care about what happens in the Old Country. And even if I did think ethnic lobbies were evil, I'd be out of luck, because they're inevitable. If your relatives are in a country, you are going to care what happens to that country. Until we allow unlimited robot immigration, we're stuck.
What's wrong isn't the Israel lobby, but the attempt to pretend that there isn't an Israel lobby, or that it consists of the nice folks at the Israeli embassy.
One of the great strengths of conservatism is the recognition that all politics is interest-group politics, and all interest groups have more or less explicit ulterior motives. It's not an insult to farmers to note that there is a powerful farm lobby--and we're not going to get good farm policy if we deny this obvious fact, much less demand that anyone who points it out prove that they don't hate farmers.
"Or Arabs with tin ears who come off as mostly mad because they're way behind in the ethnic lobbying sweepstakes."
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example, don't have any influence with the U.S. Government? Prince Bandar?
Nothing to do with Desert Storm?
Big oil doesn't represent Arab interests?
It's tangential to your point, but the figures I've seen suggest there are about 4 million Jewish-Americans and about 3 million Arab-Americans. That's not what I'd call "a large number of Jewish people," not in a country of 300 million, nor is it "many more than we have Arabs."
meagan, did you read the israel lobby? i am guessing not, as you would otherwise understand quite well both ross's dismay with walt's imbecilic hypothetical and his reticence to give it a serious response.
Notice that she said "ethnic" lobbying. If Exxon supports Gulf Arab interests as you claim, it isn't because of their executives' kinship with the Houses of Saud and Al-Sabah.
the ten tribes of Israel.
Twelve.
>>It's tangential to your point, but the figures I've seen suggest there are about 4 million Jewish-Americans and about 3 million Arab-Americans.
Yes, but 80% of A-As are Levantine Christians. You don't expect, for example John Sununu, to support Hamas.
Also, the figures on Arab Americans are very bad, and probably very inflated for the purposes of enhancing the lobby's power. Not that this has worked too well.
I would suggest that Arab lobbies--from the oil producing states--command enormous influence with the U.S. government.
That's why we built extensive U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, which is what provoked Bin Laden.
The oil producing states simply do not choose to exercise their influence on behalf of the Palestinians, except with the faintest lip service as a sop to a restive citizenry.
The vast majority of UN aid to the Palestinians comes from the U.S. and Europe.
And the evangelicals in my neck of the woods don't think of themselves as crypto-Jews; they support the Jews at least in part because the Jews had a covenant with God first and are His Chosen People. (The fact that they failed to recognize the True Savior may make them damned, or not, depending on whose theology you listen to, but they *were* chosen.)
I have to wonder who immigrates to Israel? You'd think the kind of people with money to move internationally would pick someplace that isn't a war zone. I would also think people who grow up in Israel would seriously consider leaving, so they don't have to put up with the troubles of that region. I know some people really want to express their Jewish identity, but can't you do that in New York City?
So are the people who stay despite the wars, or who actively choose to live in Israel different? Do you think that Israel is selecting for extremists? Does (relatively) easy immigration tend to polarize conflict areas, by driving out the sensible ones?
I would think similar pressure would be on sensible Palestinians to leave, although with less money and fewer options, it would be harder for them to do so. I don't think Gaza gets many immigrants, other than foreign resistance fighters of one kind or another.
A very well-written and thought-out post. I have to disagree though in that ethnic lobbies are unabashedly a bad thing much like racial discrimination is a bad thing. They’re basically a form of barnyard collectivism (to borrow a phrase from your old namesake) and while a lot of people may engage in it, it doesn’t make it right. If anything I think it runs contrary to the ideal of one nation for people to have a dual loyalty to their race, ethnicity or some other country although I agree that much like racial discrimination it has been an unfortunate part of our country’s history. My preference would be to actively delegitimize both.
The ten are the lost tribes . . . that probably wasn't a good metaphor, though.
I don't think that this is fair to Jewish history. If there was a Jewish state in Gaza it would most likely pursue a much more peaceful policy. The ascendancy of Hamas is similar to Arab radicalism world-wide. There really isn't a comparable Christian or Jewish issue (today).
I don't think that if you had a comparable Jewish movement to Hamas or the PLO that you would see much, if any, public sympathy, and you would see no viable lobby.
I hope this doesn't hurt Megan's career, the way it did with Stephen Walt, and his new Foreign Policy blogging gig.
I've never much bothered with The ISrael Lobby, not because I thik it's wrong so much as its conclusions are obvious. Every issue has a lobby, most countries have a lobby of some sort or another, so why would/should Israel be any different?
As to why thy have disproportionate influence I think the answer is pretty simple; crass electoral considerations. Republicans are afraid of angering evangelicals, and Democrats are afraid of losing marginal support amongst Jews, especially in Florida and New Jersey. That's not a very insightful analysis I know, but Occum's Razor tends to prove especially true in politics, frustrating as that may be to writers who need to develop an interesting, complex, story as to why things are the way they are. But more often than not politics always comes down to one simple thing, votes, and I don't really see this as being any different.
C'mon, Megan. You are normally the most thoughtful and reasonable writer on the web! Are you saying that people's foreign policy views are shaped primarily by their "ethnic affiliations?" Talk about adopting the language of the xenophobes.
I am of part Lebanese-Arab ancestry. I am agnostic and do not attend any church, let alone some evangelical one. I have also traveled in Israel and the West Bank (though not Gaza). I am not uncritical of Israel, but neither do I think that the situation is so morally balanced that there are no legitimate and objective ways to judge the conflict!
The way I see it, on the one hand there is a society held hostage by a combination of 60 years of UN-nannying, the "soft bigotry" of diminished moral expectations by the world elite who do not hold Palestinians responsible for their own actions, Arab states that find it useful to perpetuate the conflict and demogogue it rather than help end it (say, by letting Palestinians immigrate), and an idiotic death-cult funded by Iran.
On the other, there is a liberal democracy that allows Arabs more freedoms than any Arab state (save maybe a future Iraq), never attacks first and calls ahead to warn civilian of its retaliations, allows sexual and reproductive freedom, accepts women and (generally) homosexuals as full citizens, and regularly produces Nobel Prize scientists rather than death-cults promoting suicide.
Hmm... Obviously, my support for Israel must be based on my "ethnic" affiliation with Jews.
The ten are the lost tribes
Oh, got it.
Your parents didn't let you kill all the other kids on the block?
What a deprived childhood you led. Friendo.
Europe, which has more Arabs, and decimated its Jewish population 60 years ago
Damn those genocidal eurocrats!
I have to disagree though in that ethnic lobbies are unabashedly a bad thing much like racial discrimination is a bad thing.
What is an ethnic lobby, if not an attempt to make things favour their own ethnic group? Should the KKK have said that it supported "ethnic" discrimination?
I am wondering if Ms. McArdle actually knows any evangelical Christians? Because we don't think of ourselves as the ten lost tribes. (I believe that there have been occasional strange sects in history that thought themselves descendants of the ten lost tribes, but they aren't part of American evangelicalism.) If that reference is a metaphor, I don't understand what it's a metaphor for.
Incidentally, am I the only person who, thinking about Walt's hypothetical, guesses that under his facts, the Gaza strip inhabited by Jews would probably be a commercially vibrant place with beachfront hotels and thriving maquiladora-type factories importing from and exporting to Europe, while the country around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv inhabited by Palestinians would be a sleepy, dirty backwater?
Megan, you've been misled by the Mearsheimer/Walt arguments.
Nobody denies that there is an Israel lobby. What we deny is that there is an Israel Lobby, cap-I, cap-L, which is some organization that speaks in one tongue for all of the disparate Jewish groups in America.
What we deny is that the so-called Israel Lobby calls the shots in American government.
And then there is the problem that you touch upon when you say you "share the discomfort with noting the obvious fact that Jewish Americans, like every other hyphenated-american, actively seek the benefit of their ethnic compatriots by influencing US policy."
That's the problem right there. No one seems to notice or much care that the Saudi royal family has instantaneous access to the President of the United States, and has had that for eight years---but let AIPAC have Obama and Hillary speak at a convention, and the Jewish Lobby cry goes up all across the land.
How many millions of dollars have the Saudis contributed to presidents since Carter? Why is that not noticed and discussed as much as AIPAC's influence on Congress?
It's a disparity worth noting, particularly in light of 9/11.
Please note that I am in no way accusing you, Megan, of any kind of problem with Jews. But most of the people who find so much fault with the Israel Lobby (which they generally use interchangeably with "Jewish Lobby") DO have a problem with Jews.
That's what you're missing in your attempt to make sense of Walt's blather.
You're smarter than that. Don't fall for his innocent "I'm just reporting the facts, Ma'am" routine. He most decidedly is not.
One of the better articles/posts I've read on this topic in a long time.
I'm not especially supportive of Israel. Other day I was on hold waiting my turn to speak on a radio talk show, intending to criticize recent Israeli actions. Then a Holocaust denier got on and I hung up. It's a dilemma, as Meghan points out, who wants to be on the same side as that group? Because for every odious asshole like Marty Peretz and his "don't fuck with the Jews" legitimization of anything Israel does, the other side has apologists for Palestinian calls to basically exterminate the Israelis. Which makes it a real shame than non-crazy critics like Walt and Mearshimer get accused of race hatred and anti-Semitism.
You might want to read a little closer:
Although Megan misstated the reasons why most evangelical Christians support Israel, she’s quite correct that there is at least a perceived common cultural heritage between Israel, Europe and the United States insofar as people in those societies generally have a widespread support things like democratic governments, respect for individual rights, etc. and that those cultural values don’t appear to be as widespread among the Palestinians and many of Israel’s neighbors.
Even though I disagree with Megan on the Israel-Palestinian conflict (I'm much more pro-Israel than she is), this is one of the best posts I've read on the topic.
Like other posters have said, however, the issue with the Walt/Mearsheimer paper isn't that there are Jews and others in this country who try to promote the interests of Israel in the US government, but that the best way to explain American foreign policy is through this lens, that the US government would never engage in these policies if the powerful Israeli lobby didn't have a singularly powerful stranglehold on American foreign policy. I think that's what gets people a bit nervous. Everyone knows that AIPAC exists and no one really denies what their motives are. Or that they have a lot of power. But so do a host of other ethnic lobbying groups and pointing out AIPAC without discussing the others, to show that the US government is really doing only their bidding when designing foreign policy makes some people a bit nervous that the whole "Jews run the world" meme has reared its ugly head once more.
Great post.
MichaelG-
I live in New York and have traveled in Israel several times. I absolutely love my home city and wouldn't live anywhere else.
That said, I feel much much much safer in Israel than in New York. Israel may look like one big war zone on the news, but it's really not.
Megan writes: "America has an influential Israel lobby in large part because of ethnic affinity."
... and the sky is blue! Stop the presses!
The fact that this is even considered a controversial statement shows just how stupid we've collectively become.
The Israel lobby has some extra cachet from 2 other factors. The first is the (fairly accurate) protrayal over the last 40 years as the palestinian involvement in terrorism, and the second is the support of evangelicals for Israel.
The dominant meme in America has been that palestinians are involved in terrorism (from the PLO, Munich, Arafat with his pistol, and suicide bombers on busses). Sure, the vast majority of Palestinians don't commit terrorism, are stateless, have no effective deomcratic representation, and suffer numerous indignities on movement, employment etc. on a daily basis. But there is the past terrorism. And with the whole "with us or against us" mentality, politically, if you criticize Israel you are accused of supporting the palestinians and hence terrorism. The echos of 9-11 skew this response even further, especially when compared to the more placid and engaged 90s (at least before the 2nd intifada).
The next is the odd confluence of American protestants identifying with zionist jews for rapture reasons. That boosts standard ethnic lobbying of the 4 million or so jewish-americans to more like 50-60 million americans. This outstrips pretty much any ethnic group's clout, especially palestinian americans (a very small group to begin with).
There is also the comparative effect invoked by Captain (@ 1:39). He decides which one is "worse" and supports the other (taking sides/ with us or against us instead of comparing both sides to a benchmark of universial conduct). Supporters like him claim that since Israel is more like us since they are a "liberal democracy" (ommitting the fact that a large minority, all palestinians in Israeli controlled lands, have been denied Israeli voting rights since '67 and Israel just banned Arab parties on the basis of race alone), we should support them, especially since Arabs are hypocritical autocrats. This ignores the truth that all sides are guility, and all fail to meet standards of justice.
Imagine what would have happened if, after '67, Israel nipped the idea of a "greater Israel" in the bud and instead worked to set up indepedent, palestinian governments in the West Bank and in Gaza, with only military/defense and customs left in Israeli hands (for defensive reasons against hostile neighbors). No colonies, no settlements, and a direct contrast with the neighboring autocrats. But Israel choose settlements, colonies, and an essential apartheid-like system. This choice is almost like the original sin of Israel, which it is paying for to this day.
JoshK wrote: "I don't think that this is fair to Jewish history. If there was a Jewish state in Gaza it would most likely pursue a much more peaceful policy. The ascendancy of Hamas is similar to Arab radicalism world-wide. There really isn't a comparable Christian or Jewish issue (today)."
So the problem with Palestinians is that they are Arabs. If Jews were in Gaza they certainly wouldn't violently resist their occupying power, right?
Hey, did you read this NY Times report on how Israel's Olmert claims that he called Bush to force Condi Rice and the US to abstain at the UN?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=olmert%20rice&st=cse
FTR: I’m nominally “pro-Israel” in the sense that they’re an ally of the United States and the same people who hate them also hate the United States and I see it as generally being in our nation’s interest to support countries that share our values (e.g. democratic, equality for women, respect for individual rights, etc.) against those with values hostile to ours. That being said, I don’t have any strong personal feelings about Israel being neither Jewish, Arab, Muslim, nor an evangelical and I recognize that countries don’t have friends, only interests.
Thorley,
That "respect for individual rights" that Israel trumpets and shares with the US...Why does the US favor Israel when they violate individual rights? if that was what bound us together, wouldn't abandoning that respect separate us?
To agorabum,
While much can be said about Isreali settlements, one thing to keep in mind is that before 1967, what we call the West Bank was part Jordan. Before 1967, Gaza was administered by Egypt.
In 1967, Israel thought it would be negotiating with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries that started the 1967 war about what to do with the West Bank and Gaza. The only problem was that after they got crushed in the 1967 war, the Arab countries responded with their "no's". I forgot how many "no's" there were, but I think it was something like 'no negotiations', 'no recognition' and 'no peace'. Back then, there really wasn't much of a concept of "Palestinians" to set up a government with. The Israelis, like the Arabs, pretty much thought they should be talking with the Arab countries that attacked them. The problem is that the Israeli requests for negotiations were met with silence.
Also, Israel's settlement policies really didn't start into well into the seventies and maybe even late seventies.
So, it is not fair and ignores what actually happened to say that after 1967, the Israelis should have just magically set up something akin to "Palestine" since no one back then except for maybe a small number of Arabs thought that what we today think of as Palestinians were someone that should be consulted (keep in mind that the PLO then was controlled by I think Egypt--it was not until after the 1967 War that the PLO became a truly separate organization).
Having said all this, Megan's original post is nicely done. Most of the hyperventilating I see about the "Israel Lobby" is anti-semetic.
I was speaking in general terms and in some respects relative to the most likely alternative (e.g. the other Middle Eastern nations). I don’t think that either Israel or Europe is as pro-individual rights as I would like and neither is the United States (but far better than any other country). Generally though I think that I would rather live in Israel (even as an Arab) and would enjoy far more individual freedom and be treated far more decently by the authorities than I probably would in any of the other Middle Eastern nations.
Jeff: good point on the handling of palestine after '67. But Israel could have created a democratic framework in the conquered territories instead of ceding political authority to Egypt (which never really related well with Gaza) or Jordan (who feared the palestinian majority, although did want the prestige that came with control of the Dome of the Rock).
But Israel did accept the Greater Isreal idea and began bulding settlements. Even worse is the dramatic expansion of settlements since '91, when a deal was made to cease all settlement expansions. The Israelis have been telling the Palestinians that they are going to withdraw to something akin to the '67 borders, but keep on appropriating the best land. Then only the Palestinians are accused of working on a peace deal in bad faith (in the US, anyway).
If Isreal wants to be the moral one, it needs to dismantle its (admittedly) illegal settlements and start drawing down some of the others. Good faith begets good faith. And the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia, have begun to propose peace plans that mostly have a chance (aside from the whole right of return). Israel is the liberal democracy. We should expect it to take the higher road. Instead, they just claim to not be as bad as the other side due to "intentions" (we didn't intend to blow up that school, they did intend to blow up that bus, etc.), but actually kill far more civilians. Intentions are cold comfort for the dead. It's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
So we are the Israel lobby, to a greater or a lesser extent--all Americans who think of themselves as more like the Israelis than the Palestinians.
Doesn't that reduce the term "Israel lobby" to meaninglessness, though? When one talks about a "lobby," one usually means something like, well, the farm lobby, which pushes for this policy or that policy, with a narrow focus on the interests of its constituents. The way you've defined "Israel lobby," it probably includes a solid majority of the American public. Or at least a solid plurality. That's not policy driven by a lobby, that's common-or-garden majoritarian governance.
AIPAC would qualify as a lobby, sure. I mean, kind of hard to pretend it's not. I look at their website, and hey, they call themselves a lobby. But that's not the "Israel Lobby" argument, as it comes out all that time -- the argument is not just that Israelis or Jews advocate on behalf of Israel, but that they also hoodwink the rest of that majority or plurality that you've described as the "Israel Lobby" into supporting Israel even though it's against their interests. And that's a very different charge, one that has less in common with "Irish-Americans support savage Irish terrorists" than with European Judenhass.
Jeff--
You have an amazing talent for packing a whole bunch of horseshit into one comment.
"In 1967, Israel thought it would be negotiating with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries that started the 1967 war about what to do with the West Bank and Gaza."
Israel started the '67 war.
"Back then, there really wasn't much of a concept of "Palestinians" to set up a government with. "
This, also horseshit. Palestinian Identity goes back to the beginning of the 20th century.
The European perspective has the benefit of media that does thoughtful analysis of affairs in the middle east. There is also a better understanding of different cultures as, well, it is Europe. From London, it is near impossible to understand the U.S. support of Israel especially with regard to the current situation. From here, it looks a bit like imperialist tendencies -- keeping Israel as a faithful ally in the region so that it in effect it has its own military presence through the cooperation of Israel.
I am wondering if Ms. McArdle actually knows any evangelical Christians? Because we don't think of ourselves as the ten lost tribes. (I believe that there have been occasional strange sects in history that thought themselves descendants of the ten lost tribes, but they aren't part of American evangelicalism.) If that reference is a metaphor, I don't understand what it's a metaphor for.
Replacement theology, maybe, if you replace the 10 lost tribes with the 2 non-lost ones. But replacement theology doesn't tend to imply a pro-Israel stance, for obvious reasons.
My sense is that evangelicals tend to be pro-Israel for a number of reasons, most notably:
1. God promised the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants.
2. The Jews are the Chosen people (whether saved or not) and should be aided as a group.
3. The establishment (and, presumably, continuation) of the state of Israel is a sign that surely the Second Coming is at hand.
Among other things, Jews were instructed to leave Egypt, and there has been no intervening instruction that return is permitted, so Jews ought not live in Egypt. Now, what the borders were of ancient Egypt, I do not know.
The Prophets were full of instructions about how ancient Jews were to relate to Persia and Assyria, too.
If Isreal wants to be the moral one, it needs to dismantle its (admittedly) illegal settlements and start drawing down some of the others. Good faith begets good faith. And the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia, have begun to propose peace plans that mostly have a chance (aside from the whole right of return). Israel is the liberal democracy. We should expect it to take the higher road. Instead, they just claim to not be as bad as the other side due to "intentions" (we didn't intend to blow up that school, they did intend to blow up that bus, etc.), but actually kill far more civilians. Intentions are cold comfort for the dead. It's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Riiiight. Agorabum, have you watched the news in the past 3-5 years? Because Israel followed your policy prescription. They left Gaza. They bulldozed the houses of the Settlers unwilling to leave.
What happened? Well, as the facts show, Good faith didn't beget good faith. Rockets now rain on Israel.
Glorious729
You forgot to mention how they blockaded Gaza which starved people inside.
You forgot to mention how they blockaded Gaza which starved people inside.
So the Israelis just hate the Palestinians in Gaza, but not the Palestinians in the West Bank?
Or maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with how rockets get fired from inside Gaza on a regular basis?
Because the blockade didn't start until after the rockets. No rockets = No blockade. Just look at the West Bank.
I’m not so sure about that. In her previous post where Megan was invited to speak to the BBC on Obama’s proposed spending bill, I had a chance to listen to the BBC’s coverage of the events in Gaza. I’m not exactly a raging Zionist but the reporter definitely had an anti-Israel slant to his questions and the coverage in general put the blame for the events on Israel while there was almost no exploration into the responsibility of the Palestinians and their elected leaders for supporting or allowing the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Perhaps there was another segment where the same reporter went among the Palestinians and asked these questions but the segment I heard didn’t strike me as “thoughtful analysis” more like someone with a definite political axe to grind.
You forgot to mention how they blockaded Gaza which starved people inside.
When Gaza sends them terrorists, what else are they supposed to do? It's not like Gaza didn't have another perfectly functional border not controlled by Israel: the Egyptian border. But the Egyptians don't want to have to deal with psychotic Gazan terrorists either, so they built a wall too. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Glorious729: I've been keeping up on the facts. When the ceasfire was implemented:
"Hamas's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said the truce would "bring stability to Israel if they commit themselves to it"....
Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007, driving out forces loyal to Fatah, the political faction led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Israel then tightened its blockade on Gaza, allowing through only humanitarian supplies.
Under the terms of the new agreement, Israel will ease restrictions on the trade of certain goods between Gaza and Israel on Friday morning, and open up the crossings for all commercial goods next week."
They never opened up the crossings for all commercial goods. From Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869807,00.html?imw=Y).
"A cease-fire that ends rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel won't necessarily be a setback for Hamas; the organization has, in fact, demanded such a truce all along, on the condition that Israel and Egypt open the border crossings that would allow a resumption of normal economic life in Gaza. (The crossings have long been closed, as Israel hoped that economic pressure might topple the Hamas regime there.)"
So Israel never lived up to its side of the truce (and I'm sure Hamas didn't either). But Israel is not some doe-eyed innocent party taken advantage of by those crafty and deceitful Palestinians. Both sides are guilty, and since Israel is more poweful, it results in greater harm to innocent (and non-innocent) residents of the Gaza Strip.
And even with leaving Gaza, there are still illegal settlement expansions in the West Bank. Nobody is living up to their side of the deal, and this directly hurts the palestinians the most (although also does long-term damage to the soft power of the Israeli state). A true friend of Israel would not want that to happen (unless he is totally in the hock for Likud, but then I don't consider them true friends of Israel since their political goals are counterproductive).
"Because the blockade didn't start until after the rockets."
Not true. Go look at the timeline. The blockade violated the ceasefire.
"But the Egyptians don't want to have to deal with psychotic Gazan terrorists either, so they built a wall too."
Actually, Egypt is helping blockade Gaza because the US sends millions of dollars in to Egypt so that they will carry out the US and Israel's bidding.
You trolls are too easy!
Walt's hypo is ridiculous for the obvious reason: the Palestinian Arabs' cause is unjust and their continued waging of war, despite the Israeli's desire for peace, is unjust. In the hypothetical Walt poses, the Jews have been driven, once again, from their land and have no place to go; the Arabs have said (as indeed they did say) to hell with the UN's partition of the land between the Jordan and the Sea into Jewish and Arab areas, nothwithstanding that the Arabs have another 22 countries of their own; in his hypo, the Jews get nothing as a result of Arab force.
That said, if Walt's hypo of Arab military victory came true, as he no doubt fantasizes, it's highly unlikely that the Jews would retreat into revanchist, death cult fantasies as have the Palestinian Arabs. They would, instead, turn Gaza into a garden filled with farms, greenhouses, and high tech industries, just as they did with the Galilee and the Negev, which were for the most part wastelands when the State of Israel came into being.
Why waste your time Thorley?
"There is also a better understanding of different cultures as, well, it is Europe."
Right, Europeans are unquestionably and obviously far more sophisticated and culturally-sensitive than the barbarians who live in the States. Please.
Furthermore, his explanation is complete nonsense. We get nothing resembling a "military presence" or military anything from the Israelis. They're so politically compromised that they're useless in any such capacity. Actually, they're worse than useless. They're harmful. Israel's policies and its very existance has threatened our real military presence in the area more than once. Our support for Israel is contentious issue in all the Middle Eastern countries we DO have bases in (we have none in Israel) and in the Gulf War we had to beg, plead and even lie to them to prevent them from retaliating against Saddam's strikes.
If this is the "superior" analysis promulgated by European Media, no wonder everyone in London is so befuddled by the US. They've being "informed" by absolute idiots.
This comment has been deleted for calling another commenter names
"Israel started the '67 war."
That sentence deserves some context, no? The first act of war in '67 was committed by Egypt, which blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off Israel's economic lifeline to the east. Israel's first response was to pursue a remedy through the UN, which was of no help. Egypt then went on to mobilize its armed forces, ask the UN to remove its observer troops from the Sinai (which the UN did), and mass its own troops in the Sinai in preparation for an invasion. Then it broadcast threats that, together with its ally Syria, it would destroy Israel imminently. Seeing that an attack was inevitable, Israel then launched the first major air strikes of the war, wiping out the Syrian and Egyptian air forces on the ground.
It's crucial to point out that, at this point, Jordan was not part of this war, and Israel made no attempt to enter the West Bank and in fact asked Jordan to stay out of the conflict. Jordan joined in anyway a few days later, at Egypt's request, and only then did Israel respond by forcing Jordan out of the West Bank.
"This, also horseshit. Palestinian Identity goes back to the beginning of the 20th century."
This isn't as clear cut as you claim, and is wrong with respect to the point that the previous commenter made, which is that, as late 1967, the Palestinian Liberation Organization -- which had actually been created by Nasser in 1964, as a political weapon to use against Israel (Arafat was an Egyptian) -- subsumed its identity into a pan-Arab identity. This is clear from the PLO's charter and also from its decision not to agitate for its own state on the West Bank and Gaza when its fellow Arabs controlled those areas pre-1967. The PLO was created not with the goal of creating a Palestinian state, but with the goal of destroying the Jewish state.
To the extent that Palestinians had a national identity going back to the beginning of the 20th Century, it was similarly only in opposition to Jewish immigration; in fact, the Arabs of the Holy Land back then considered the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" to be insults, and reserved that term for Jewish organizations in the Holy Land (e.g., the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestine Post).
Actually, Egypt is helping blockade Gaza because the US sends millions of dollars in to Egypt so that they will carry out the US and Israel's bidding
The number you're looking for is "billions." But I have often wondered why they don't send at least food aid in; Google Earth shows a railroad line right up to the border. Is it really true that something could not be arranged?
The real question I've never been able to answer: why do the Palestinians have such a tough time getting their s**t together?
Do they not realize that a nation's right to exist extends only as far as it (or its allies) has the ability to control and defend its territory? If you - or your powerful friends - can't defend your land you have no right to that land. There is no world government to enforce your tenious property claims.
Glorious729: I've been keeping up on the facts. When the ceasfire was implemented:
To agorabum:
You are referring to a "cease-fire" that was proposed in June 2008. Are you literally going to sit here and tell me rockets weren't being fired at Israel prior to June 2008?
I also dispute your summation of events. Rockets were fired rockets at Israel six days after the "cease-fire." The "cease-fire" was meant to lead to an eventual end to the blockade and the opening of all border crossing. No, that didn't actually happen.
You seem to be arguing that "cease-fire" is a misnomer, and it actually meant that Israel was to end all sanctions and open all borders at once. That's not what a cease-fire means and that's not what Israel agreed to. Israel agreed to stop fighting in Gaza, which they did. They lessened some of the sanctions as a sweetener, but that's a requirement of a cease-fire.
If you disagree, find a source that says otherwise. I have this BBC report that states the following:
"Israel says it may now re-impose economic sanctions against Gaza. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7470530.stm
This seems to contradict your uncited belief that Israel never lifted these
Not true. Go look at the timeline. The blockade violated the ceasefire.
To Rick:
Good lord, do both you clowns really think this started in June 2008? Or even an earlier "cease-fire" in April 2007?
"They lessened some of the sanctions as a sweetener, but that's a requirement of a cease-fire."
This should read:
"...but that's NOT a requirement of a cease-fire."
Glorious: nice strawmen arguments.
Both sides don't live up to their peace agreements and truces. Israel has been blockading Gaza for some time now, which you don't argue. Israel has been collectively punishing the residents of Gaza for Hamas terrorism, and both are wrong (collective punishment and terrorism). Instead of fanitically defending anything Israel does, you should try to encourage Israel to do better (same thing goes for America).
The difference is that Judaism is not a billion people containing (or led by) a movement for world domination by force. There are no Jewish Jihadis, in either this or that alternative universe.
Jews have been living peaceably in the cities of Europe, Asia and the US for many centuries. Moslems are at war in the Philippines, Maylasia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Sudan, the former Yugoslavia (until recently), Israel/Palestine, and Algeria, at least.
To assume that they are equivalent in terrorism is to be willfully stupid. When Jews start burning cars every night in Malmo and Paris, and Jews start ramming airliners into buildings, and Jews throw crippled men into the ocean, and Jews kill some Olympic team, then we can talk equivalence. Until then, it's just obscene.
Glorious: nice strawmen arguments.
Err, what? Care to explain how?
My point is simple: No rockets = No blockade.
This is clearly evidenced by the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. They are relatively saner and led by less destructive leaders and thus they live in relative peace.
Gaza, however, is trying to fight a war and you're complaining that this has war-like consequences. Well, yeah. I'm not sure what you're expecting.
Furthermore, you claim that "both sides" bare responsibility and then list several complaints against Israel only. Don't be silly.
I stated several basic things about the blockade. I said that it doesn't predate the rockets. You and rick responded by mentioning what's effectively a non sequitor: the attempted June 2008 "cease-fire." Since both the rocket attacks and the blockade predate it, what relevance does it have to anything?
And, as I said, it was a cease-fire. That just means that both sides agree to stop firing. I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim that Israel agreed to end the blockade as quid pro quo for an end to the rocket attacks. This is above and beyond the usual meaning of the term "cease-fire" and you haven't posted any real evidence in support of the notion.
All you're doing now is the boring "Both sides are guilty. But the other side is really, really guilty." That's just silly, as I've said.
Most Israelis Jews are people who came from Arab areas (Iran, Iraq, North Africa) and wanted to no longer be second class citizens under Muslim rule, and those who fled the Holocaust. Or their descendants.
There is also a good smattering of Jews who emigrated from the US and various other places for religious reasons, as the Bible instructs Jews to live in Israel.
More recently, there has been an influx from France as antisemitism rose there. And there are those from South Africa, where violence has been on the increase, Jews from Ethiopia, and, of course, from Russia.
Further back, some Jews came from Persia, and before that, Egypt.
Oh my there is so much horse manure piled up in this thread, it's enough for 5 stables.
To rick:
"You have an amazing talent for packing a whole bunch of horseshit into one comment."
When you start your argument with this, you lose your credibility.
"Israel started the '67 war."
Categorically false. If you mean, who fired the first bullet, you might be right. But Egypt started the war when they kicked the UN out of the Sinai and blockaded Israel shipping. This is called a declaration of war. No one, except for the looniest of lunatics, think Israel started the '67 war. By saying so, you lose all credbility.
"This, also horseshit. Palestinian Identity goes back to the beginning of the 20th century."
Even if true, it is not relevant to my point. The parties to the '67 war were the Egyptians, the Jordanians and the other Arab countries. Which palestinians do you think the Israelis were supposed to talk to? The fact is that everyone including all the Arabs thought the Israelis were supposed to talk/negotiate/capitulate/lose to the Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. Israel's attempts to talk were met with all the "no's" I referred to in my prior post. Moreover, no one can name a single person with "Palestinian Identity" in 1967 that Israel should have spoken with.
agorabum,
I don't disagree that the settlement policies are a problem. However, I don't think the settlements are "the" problem as so many make them out to be. I personally believe that Arab rejectionism has been a far bigger stumbling block than settlements. The settlements have been a gift to the Arabs who want the dispute to fester forever, as they given them something to complain about that has legitimacy without having to confront the bigger issue, which is the fact that Israel is there, even the Israel in 67 borders, and is not going anywhere short of a catastrophe for everyone living in the region (i.e., a nuclear war).
The number you're looking for is "billions." But I have often wondered why they don't send at least food aid in; Google Earth shows a railroad line right up to the border. Is it really true that something could not be arranged?
My understanding is that they do give food aid from time to time, when they feel like it. But mostly they don't. There have also been a few rare instances where Egypt relaxed the border controls and let Palestinians leave Gaza to buy supplies at Egyptian towns. All told, though, I think UN aid (coming in across the border with Israel) is basically the food supply in Gaza.
Collective Punishment
Not everything that's damaging is "Collective Punishment". The various strategic bombing campaigns on Coventry, London, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo and of course Hiroshima have been called many things, but "Collective Punishment" just isn't one of them. Was the recent gas cutoff to Europe really "Collective Punishment"?
Collective Punishment is something quite particular, and defined by treaty. Look it up.
can someone tell me how many congressman/woman we have who are jewish? Can someone tell me if you can say anything negative about Israel without any consequences. Do we really have free press when it comes to Israel?
what is the cost of supporting Israel?
Israely lobby supports Turkey to suppress the Armenian genocide issue, why because Israel needs Turkey to sell "stuff"
Jeff: since this whole thing started out as a post on Israeli influence, I kind of kept my focus on them (since they are supposed to be the US, democratic ally). But there is very little the Palistinians or Arabs did right, either.
I certianly don't blame Israel for firing the first shot in '67; if Nasser hadn't kicked out the UN observers from the Siani and started massing his troops it wouldn't have ever happened. And if Jordan had just sat that one out, then the whole region could have been calmned with the Camp David Accords in 79. And if Palestine had a leader like Ghandi or King, focusing on non-violent resistance, I'm sure they would have a state by now.
But people throughout history typically chose the stupid, shortsighted, and violent choice. And this prediliction continues today. I think the next US administration will try to actively step in and disourage those types of choices (instead of the current carte blanche/disengagement). Everyone in the region seems so exhausted (Arab, Israeli, most palestinians...even hezbollah has not been raising a ruckus lately) that there is a chance for some real progress. It's funny; everyone seems to understand what peace will look like but no one is willing to really make it happen or take that first step.
But people throughout history typically chose the stupid, shortsighted, and violent choice.
Yes. Rockets keep coming from Gaza despite the fact that Israel handed it back to Palestinians and displaced all the Israelis settlers living there. That's stupid, short-sighted and violent.
I think the next US administration will try to actively step in and disourage those types of choices (instead of the current carte blanche/disengagement).
What is the next Administration going to do? Seriously, let's hear some proposals. How is Obama going to stop Hamas from firing rockets? What "engagement" can exist while Hamas continues to fire them?
Do you seriously expect Israel to sit down and pretend everything is ok and that there will be peace in our time while rockets continue to hit targets deeper and deeper in Israel?
Or is Obama going to wave a magic wand and make Hamas stop? Why would they? The Israelis are bombing the hell out of them and they won't quit.
It's funny; everyone seems to understand what peace will look like but no one is willing to really make it happen or take that first step.
Israel did take steps. Since 2000 they've taken multiple steps. They withdrew from southern Lebanon. They withdrew from Gaza. Those are all serious and meaningful concessions. They are, in fact, what a lot of Palestinians apologists were demanding in the late 90s, at least to my memory. What else can Israel concede? Do you expect them to withdraw from West Bank and ignore the current disaster in Gaza that resulted from the same policy?
Do you expect them to continue doing the same thing while hoping for different results? What will offer them if the West Bank's new government decides to wage war on Israel?
We're getting to the point where the only concessions Israel has left to is to indefinitely suffer rocket attacks and pretend there is "peace" or to just give up on the whole "we're a nation" thing.
Glorious: after repeatedly crushing their neighbors, does Israel really fear a war from some rump palestinian government on the west bank? All your arguments are: Israel is always right. But it's not. It's flawed, just like all people and all governments.
Do you think there will never be another rocket attack on Israel once the ground-war phase of ths operation ends?
Just to catch everyone up, it's really not very controversial anymore to claim Israel started the 67 war. A lot has been declassified since then, and in retrospect, it's pretty clear that Israel made a pre-meditated land-grab on the Sinai.(Since Israel, rightly, feared that without the Sinai, a blockade could starve their economy of oil).
It is also rather clear that not only was Egypt not planning an invasion(For example, a huge chunk of their soldiers and best officers were involved in a civil war in Yemen), but that the Israeli government knew it at the time.
That's rather plausible, since the consensus has been for decades that Israel did the exact same thing with Britain and France in 1956.
I'd suggest interested parties look at the references in "The Lemon Tree".
But every action in the Middle East had a provocation.
Shortly before Egypt blocked off the straits of Titan, Israel shot down a bunch of Syrian jets over Syrian airspace(Which was under a political union with Egypt at the time). This surely, was an act of war as well.
They even wrote a popular jingle celebrating the deaths of the Syrian aircrew, that my mom learnt in elementary school as an Israeli student.
But that doesn't absolve the Arabs. Israel was responding to sniper attacks on an Israeli Kibbutz from the Golan Heights, which was itself retaliation for Israeli raids in Gaza....This could go on for quite some time.
Which is to raise the banal but forgotten point that both sides have a lot of blood on their hand.
Regardless, I think it's Israel's responsibility to act here.
Why?
Because Israel is subject to far fewer political constraints.
It would take 7 people in Israel(A majority of the cabinet), to make concievably *any* short-term decision on the part of Israelis.
But due to the decentralized structure of terror organisations(A nessisary feature that ensures robustness against assinations), it would concievably take the simeltanious agreement of hundreds, or even thousands, of Palestinians to do the same.
I guess that explains why I, as a Hindu, don't give a flying f*ck about anyone or anything in that part of the world.
So, can I have that fraction of my considerable tax payments back?
Before people post on this subject, it would be great if they could be required to state which side they are on and a one line reason (like: Israel: to defend against terrorists or
Gaza: to protect innocent lives). Because people seem to like to take sides and try to play a game to show who is the worst.
"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.... Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, ... assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - Orwell (h/t to Sully and TPM, who've both posted this lately)
"I don't think that if you had a comparable Jewish movement to Hamas or the PLO that you would see much, if any, public sympathy, and you would see no viable lobby."
Ever heard of the Irgun or the Stern Gang? They and the IRA virtually invented modern terrorism.
Megan:
Now, why is that? Because this is a majority-Christian nation? Because the Israelis are "white" and the Palestinians are not? Then why the silence from Sweden?
Or is it because we're a practicing Christian nation, unlike those effete Europeans? Then how come no support from Latin American countries or Australia?
I can understand why evangelicals think that Israel is the Promised Land, now that California turns out to have brown people, but what of you moderates?
I think Megan's got it more or less right. The problem, however is not the Israel lobby - which does exist and wields considerable influence. The problem is our politicians are cheap whores who'll take a few bucks and contort policy accordingly. Israel (and Saudi Arabia - another powerful lobby) would be suckers not to play this game. For a measly hundred grand here or there, you can buy the senate, the house, the white house - hell read that article about Bush getting off the stage in Philly to take Olmert's call - cheap whore that he is. Clearly, our politicians are spineless and worst of all, cheap. I mean goddamnit! - at least charge a little more. If you're going to sell out your office, it should be worth more than a few hundred thousand dollars in campaign cash at best. It should be 8 or 9 figures for all of the free money Israel gets from the US, to say nothing about how our president is on Olmert's leash.
If the Jewish refugees in Gaza wanted to wipe out all Arabs, used suicide bombers against schools, cafe, bus stops, etc., and then finally when caged in, started using unguided rockets, I think they would have less friends than you would imagine.
In fact, the Jewish illegal settlers are not universally loved by friend of Israel, you know.
and let's state the obvious that the Fatah people in the West Bank should be getting some brownie points here for acting like adults. Gaza does not represent all of Palestine.
Leaving aside the politics entirely, I want to praise your syntax: I note that you say "independent of the state itself" rather than "independently of. . . ." This is exactly correct, because "independent of" is acting as a preposition, and the larger prepositional phrase that it introduces has adverbial force *as a whole* because it is modifying the verb "to exist"; the word "independent" does not need separate marking as an adverb by the -ly ending. You would be astonished how many authors of scholarly articles get that one wrong. I'm delighted to find that your sense for English sentence structure is so accurate.
I would have more faith in William H Stoddard's sense for English sentence structure had he not used "because" twice in the first half of a sentence.
Why is the US and Europe, through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), funding the continual population explosion in Gaza (and in the West bank and in Lebanon)? Why is this particular agency, compared to the other UN relief agencies NOT trying to find other places to settle the palestinians, especially considering how quickly their population is growing? Is there ANY chance that all of these young men can find gainful employment, outside of Hamas or Fatah?
Good post, and well considered. But here's what I always fail to understand. W&M themselves, and virtually everyone who's written about their book, pro or con, use the language of "interest-" or "pressure" groups and "ethnic identification" -- or now, in Megan's case, "quasi-ethnic identification." Why does no one speak -- as we do with virtually almost every other high-profile policy -- of popular sentiment, or morality? If a democracy, through its democratic branches, pursues one policy over time, it seems fair to say the electorate supports it. W&M point to no data that suggests popular sentiment on Israel is out of line with US policy, or that US policy toward Israel is in any other way anti-democratic. They occasionally hint, half-heartedly, that the US electorate has been deceived about its own interests (brainwashed, presumably, by the Israel Lobby) -- but the argument from false consciousness -- that people don't know their own interests -- concedes the democratic legitimacy of US popular support for Israel, which is why they don't make that argument directly.
So "we're all the Israel lobby," as Megan says. But why, then, does she assume that Americans support Israel for "ethnic" or even "quasi-ethnic" (whatever that means) reasons?
My family fought for Black civil rights in America. Here was a movement, one could say, that was not in America's "national interest." For one thing, it involved a huge wealth-transfer to a small ethnic minority; for another, it arguably diverted national attention from more pressing matters domestically and in the world at large; and (someone could argue) the televised images of public unrest weakened US influence and power.
So: Did the civil rights movement arise and triumph because of the undue influence of blacks -- because of a "Black Lobby"? Of course not! It's preposterous to even suggest it did. But it's only slightly less absurd to insist that it succeeded because of non-Blacks' ethnic or "quasi-ethnic" identification with Blacks. My (white) family fought for black civil rights because it thought this was the right and the just thing to do. That's what they say and that's what they believe. This is also the reason given by most people -- Jewish and gentile -- who support Israel. It's also the way most people talk about their support for the Palestinian cause, or for gay-marriage rights, or virtually every other policy that doesn't benefit them directly.
This pointed avoidance of moral reasons in discussions of Israel -- W&M talk about pressure groups and Megan (far less disgustingly) talks of "alleles" -- is bizarre. Why is a special account demanded only in the case of popular support for Israel?
Megan, if you imagine that a bunch of Orthodox terrorists living in Gaza would have anything like the same Jewish support as Israel does today, you are quite mistaken. Loads of us support Israel not (only) because we are Jews and so are they, but because we love what Jews represent. We mourned when a Jewish terrorist killed Muslims. We hate terrorism. And I'm Orthodox, but the vast majority of American Jews are not, and would never support "Orthodox fanatics"; they don't support them today. There would be some support, but it would be a tiny shadow of what there is today.
Recently a group of Palestinian students made an popular and graphic exhibit to celebrate all the dead Jews killed in a suicide bombing at an Israeli pizza place. If Prof. Walt thinks that there's a equivalence here, there's something wrong with him.
Finally, a brilliantly well articulated statement of the blindingly obvious (see the quote from George Orwell that Andrew Sullivan uses on his blog).
It also helps explain the mystery of Joe the Plumber - why he is merely considered a joke (i can imagine the treatment an Arab or Persian or Pakistani version of Joe the Plumber would get), and not a threat, even though he is a more visible symbol of American foreign policy in the middle east than Ms. Rice or Mrs. Clinton, not to speak of being a serious threat to serious journalism.
It also explains why hamas are "genocidal fanatics" while Israel is merely "acting in self defense". Its always striking how the USA acts in self-defense halfway across the world on other people's territory (and calls it "offense"), and thus respects the right of its friends (Israel) to do the same.
The thought experiment is revealing - if I was driven out of my home by a foreign group based on the premise that my home was promised to someone else based on a 2000 year old legend, i would be really mad too.
And its not just me..... Another individual made a similar claim to the one the Israelites made after helping America in the 1980's with its interest in removing the Soviets from Afghanistan - among his claims for a muslim claim on Spain, and he turned overnight from being a mujaheddin to being a terrorist.
Double standards? Thats Ms. McArdle's point isn't it?
Maybe it will serve America to listen to what Gov. Mike Huckabee (!!) said about the comments made by Jeremiah Wright - he said "cut them some slack"..... maybe America should cut Hamas and Hezbollah some slack - it might actually weaken their hardened, currently unreasonable position and make things better in Palestine for both Palestinians and Israelis right now.
ndm: And what's wrong with that? The first use of "because" introduces an adverbial clause that modifies the main clause of the sentence and explains the point it asserts; the second use introduces an adverbial clause that modifies one of the statements contain in that first adverbial clause and explains the point that it asserts. Each occurrence is syntactically correct, and the two occurrences are both required; they are not redundant.
At most, you might be entitled to complain about my sense of prose style, which is not the same issue as my syntax, and does not disqualify me to judge someone else's syntax. But even that, I think, is a matter of taste. I'm of the school that abhors writers who struggle to avoid repetition, whether by cutting perfectly legitimate words or by substituting synonyms for them needlessly (as when dialogue is introduced with "uttered" and "pronounced" and "snickered" because the writer dreads using "said" twice on the same page). If you dislike the repetition of a harmless necessary subordinating conjunction just because it's a repetition, our tastes differ.
"The thought experiment is revealing - if I was driven out of my home by a foreign group based on the premise that my home was promised to someone else based on a 2000 year old legend, i would be really mad too."
"Really mad" - D, would you bomb children? Would you put ball bearings in the bombs in order to maim as many of them as you couldn't kill? Would you train your children to do it, and set the goal of their lives as murdering as many of the enemy as possible?
If you would, then you're evil. If, instead, you would say (as we Jews have said for two thousand years, and as the American Indians say today), "It's really my land there. But in the meantime I have to live my life and be a decent person, not a evil murderer." - then you're decent. But you're a little confused. Decent people have to denounce evil terrorists, not apologize for them.
MikeR -
Thats a bad argument you are making. Who decides what is evil? Based on what you said, Israel itself would be classed as "evil" for they have participated in the killing of nearly 300 women and children in the last 2 weeks (something which has been the subject of plenty of very sanitized debate)
I think your point is particularly callous because being driven out precludes the possibility of living a "decent life" in most cases. I mean - lets be honest here, America has waged war on the other side of the earth in this century and called it a war of "self-defense" - couldn't the same point be made about America? That they should live "a decent life" and not engage in warfare on false pretenses of wmds, and used depleted uranium shells of their own (which make the land where they are used unlivable).
So thats a very slippery argument my friend. Neither is it a particularly productive one, because ... where does it leave us?
Yes D. You are right. We should have known not to question your definition of evil. Pizzeria bombings intended to maim and kill are not evil...
D, my argument does not preclude a nation acting in self-defense, and I'm surprised that you think I said it would. I was opposing people trying to "re-legislate" old claims by terrorism. Whether I lost my land because of what your grandfather did, or gained my land because of what my grandfather did to yours, it is wrong for you to blow me up to right the wrong, or vice versa.
And "Who decides what is evil?" Sorry, but that's perverse. We had better all decide what is evil, or we'll never be able to oppose it. Evil people cause a tremendous amount of suffering in the world. People who refuse to oppose evil cause a lot, too. I will not back away from my obligation to support good and oppose evil, just because it is not always easy to find saints out there. There sure are many really cruel and rotten people, and part of my job in this world is to oppose them.
Apartheid regimes are bound to fail. Israel is an apartheid regime. All the brutality, massacre, and genocide that it subjugates to its non Jewish inhabitants are doomed to hasten its demise.
As United States citizens, it is our fault, that we are letting our country to become the dictatorship of profiteers, thus our government supports dictators, tyrants, and religious or ideological extremist regimes who are well versed in the art of appearing to be democratic.
MikeR,
I absolutely agree that its a bad idea to blow people up. I also think its a bad idea to take away other people's land based on a 2000 year old story (however inspiring and great that story may be, and Im Hindu i know how powerful ancient histories and myths are).
But is it seriously youre point that you are supporting Israel's actions (or at least defending them) while at the same time telling everyone else that to "re-legislate old claims by terrorism" is a bad idea? Really? A land taken over by Israel based on a 2000 year old story, by force of arms? Don't you see the glaring irony here?
I just want to question the basic core accepted premise here that Israel is the good guy here and Hamas is the bad guy. A better way to look at it would be to say that both are victims.
Im not for a moment saying that Hamas is not bad. All im saying is, that if youre going to designate one as evil and and the other as not - Israel's killing of 1105 Palestinians (including Women and Children members of Hamas, assuming that every single person killed by Israel was absolutely and without doubt a member of Hamas - a generous assumption) in three weeks can in no way be classed as anything but evil by any civilized individual.
Im also saying that to designate anybody "evil" is basically useless. What are you going to do about it? Do you really think that any serious problems in human affairs are ever solved by sophomoric breast-beating about "destroying evil"?
Who are you really opposing? The citizens of Gaza? For the crime of having elected a group to their (nomimal) authority because they thought they would run things well? For wanting some measure of justice for having lost their lands? (The jewish "settlers" in the West Bank, followed by a wall - its the closest thing to apartheid in todays world)?
Violent political activism is a bad idea. I think Hamas's terrorism is counterproductive and eating away at the Palestinians themselves. But there is a certitude in calling it "evil" which is not helpful, and worse, justifies any actions on ones own part in response to it (which if you really think about it, is Hamas's own position about Israel, because they consider Israel to be "evil").
Dear Megan,
Thanks for an interesting column. I think that Walt and Mearsheimer are clearly correct. There is an "Israel Lobby", it is disproportionately powerful, and its influence is, ultimately, extremely harmful to both the US and Israel. I don't think that any American politician at the national level would seriously dispute the existence of this lobby or its power/influence. The bizarrely one-sided discussion in the US of what is, without a doubt, a two-sided issue is a problem that the US will need to deal with, the sooner the better. The US is causing itself terrible damage the world over by not being capable of taking a balanced and just approach to this issue.
Megan, if this means anything: I'm a liberal who sometimes identifies as left-libertarian, and often disagree with your economic policy commentary. I do, however, think that you're being courageous here, and will make a greater effort to read your blog. Also, thanks for having a comments section, unlike some of your insecure colleagues (cough Douthat cough Goldberg).
To: Meryl Yourish
What kind of alternative reality have you been living in??? Everyone across the political spectrum condemns the (exaggerated) Saudi connection, from Michael Moore on the left to Hannity on the right. NOBODY in the US stands up for the Saudis, partly because they have no ethnic lobby (Arab Americans don't care much for Saudis), but mostly because it's hard to like an ostentatiously rich political group. While not Saudi, the Dubai Port Company had to accept the brunt of this distaste.
AIPAC, on the other hand, is often ranked as the most or second-most powerful lobby in DC, by neutral analysts (NRA and AARP are other contenders for this rank). There is NOBODY in Congress, save for a few brave souls, who dare taken them on. As for people complaining about their outsized influence, PLEASE, is there any other lobby that can get Barack Obama to address them the day after Hilary conceded? You'd have to go to the furthest left blogs to see any criticism of this, although I'm sure they're the kind you frequent, just so you can entertain thoughts of an "unholy alliance" between the left and ay-rabs.
"But is it seriously youre point that you are supporting Israel's actions (or at least defending them) while at the same time telling everyone else that to "re-legislate old claims by terrorism" is a bad idea? Really? A land taken over by Israel based on a 2000 year old story, by force of arms? Don't you see the glaring irony here?"
D, sorry, but it seems to me you're living in an alternative reality. You're not making sense here. I am against terrorism based on the past. I would be against terrorism based on a 2000 year old claim, or on a fifty year old claim. I am against terrorism. I am against people who think that other people should be killed because of what these grandparents did to those grandparents. I am in favor of people being able to live at peace in the house they grew up in. I am being perfectly consistent.
"Im also saying that to designate anybody "evil" is basically useless. What are you going to do about it? Do you really think that any serious problems in human affairs are ever solved by sophomoric breast-beating about "destroying evil"? Who are you really opposing? The citizens of Gaza? For the crime of having elected a group to their (nomimal) authority because they thought they would run things well? For wanting some measure of justice for having lost their lands?"
No, D, I am really opposing terrorists. Terrorists are evil. People living in their homes are not evil. I'm sorry you don't understand what evil is or think it's sophomoric, but that doesn't change my opinion. There is no moral difference between terrorists trying to destroy someone else's country and a mugger trying to murder someone and rob him. Probably you would agree in the latter case that a policeman ought to stop him.
The "crime" of the people of Gaza is that they are trying to take someone else's land through terrorism, and voted for a group that supports it (and they support it, by a large margin). As long as they are allied with terrorists, they are unfortunately legitimate collateral targets, like the citizens of any country that is at war with another.
If you are willing to tell me that the destruction of vast numbers of German civilians killed during WWII was also "classed as evil by any civilized individual", then you are being consistent. You would also be, pardon me, a moral idiot.
Otherwise, you're not making any sense. All civilized individuals recognize the right of sovereign nations to defend themselves, and can understand the moral distinction between nations defending themselves and ones with a grievance who want to take what someone else currently has.
"The jewish "settlers" in the West Bank, followed by a wall - its the closest thing to apartheid in todays world"
Is that right? What about the (imitating you) "total lack of Jewish settlers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Gaza", where those places have insisted that every single Jew be excluded? What happened to Jewish historical rights in Morocco, Egypt, and other Arab countries, from which hundreds of thousands of Jews had to flee after 1948? How about the Christians who have fled Lebanon? Would you be happier if Israel would imitate these countries, since you see Israel as being the "closest thing to apartheid"? Perhaps they should alleviate their problems by just shipping every non-Jew from the West Bank and Gaza across the bridge to Jordan and blocking the bridge? But Israel would not be able to do that; Israelis wouldn't let them. They're not saints, but they overwhelmingly wouldn't do that.
The Palestinians of Gaza wouldn't have any such problem; they insisted on exactly that when they took over the place - every last Jew out. I'm talking about the moderates like Fatah.
"For wanting some measure of justice for having lost their lands?"
Please. Don't talk about "justice" here - if there were a decent World Court, and there were justice, one might well rule in favor of the Jews, since they were after all there first, and they were pushed off their lands - and they are there now. I don't hear the logic of someone saying that they should win because they were there in between!
But as I've said, all this is irrelevant. There is no real World Court, and decent nations (not evil) resettle people where they can. Look at how many people India and Pakistan had to resettle after the partition. There may have been 25 million. No sane or decent person thinks that they have a right to demand their lands back by force of arms.
"Having said all this, Megan's original post is nicely done. Most of the hyperventilating I see about the "Israel Lobby" is anti-semetic."
Actually, most of the screeching is calling someone, in this case the authors, "anti-semites." Just thought I'd fix that for you.
Amazing how pointing out the blatantly obvious causes such rage.
Someone asked that we declare "which side" we're on at the beginning of our post. I'm on the side of the United States of America.
First, get over it. Things stink in the Middle East. How does that impact the US? Does it warrant billions of dollars of aid and our military involvement? That is what we are talking about.
What about the report's argument that the United States' negative posture with the Arab world is directly related to our unyielding support of Israel and everything she does?
The question isn't if the Palestinians or Egyptians or Jordanians or Iranians or the Jews are right or wrong. How does this impact the United States? Why is this such a prominent part of the foreign policy of the United States. What importance does this tit-for-tat daily murdering have on the United States?
What part is Iran playing in this most recent "war"? Are the Palestinians just pawns in a terrorist game being played between Iran and the US? If the Palestinians are pawns, who is queen on the US side of the board and why?
Who cares who threw the first punch...12,000 miles away? Is it worth one American life and why?
And see if you can respond without saying naive, stupid, or anti-Semitic?
MikeR
"D, sorry, but it seems to me you're living in an alternative reality. You're not making sense here. I am against terrorism based on the past. I would be against terrorism based on a 2000 year old claim, or on a fifty year old claim. I am against terrorism. I am against people who think that other people should be killed because of what these grandparents did to those grandparents. I am in favor of people being able to live at peace in the house they grew up in. I am being perfectly consistent."
Yes.... by that count you should be against theexistence of the state of Israel, because to take over someone else's land is the very definition of terrorism at its core. To wage war on other peoples territory on the pretext of self-defense, is terrorism at its very core.
Think for a moment about everything you wrote about the citizens of Gaza in your comment, such as
"The "crime" of the people of Gaza is that they are trying to take someone else's land through terrorism, and voted for a group that supports it (and they support it, by a large margin). As long as they are allied with terrorists, they are unfortunately legitimate collateral targets, like the citizens of any country that is at war with another."
the same... the exact same can be said about the citizens of Israel and is proved by the very fact of Israel's existence - because it came about by usurping other people's land.
So this Bushian-righteousness about "Terrorism" and "good" and "evil" - there is plenty of good in Hamas and there's plenty of evil in Israel - Hamas provided public services to their people and that was one of the big reasons why they got elected over Fatah. Israel has murdered nearly 400 women and children in 3 weeks.
If you make the argument that this is "collateral damage", don't you realize that Hamas could make the exact same argument about the innocent Israeli's who's lives are threatened by their rockets, and have an equally solid argument? I think both arguments are hopelessly wrongheaded.
Why are innocent Gazans who die "collateral damage", but innocent Israelis who die victims of "terrorism"?
MikeR and others....
Do take the time to watch this interview
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9976
The key point made here is that the Palestinians have been essentially been dehumanized... specifically through
1. settlements
2. blockades
3. the demonization of Hamas which has led to a completely uncritical take on Hamas, which has hampered the way people deal with them.
I hope commenters here realize the magnitude of what Israel has done - The UN has reported that 300 children have been killed at Gaza.
The author has completely left out the most obvious reason the Israel Lobby is bad. It's funded by our tax dollars laundered through Israel via Jewish organizations. There isn't any other lobby that gets to use US tax money.
Furthermore, Northern Ireland never committed genocide against the Native population and they certainly did not practice extortion against the US taxpayer to buy weapons to "defend themselves."
Also, Irish people are actually from Ireland originally. Israelis are racist Europeans that STOLE the land that belongs to Palestinians. Israel's existence is based on Zionism, which is a CRIMINAL IDEOLOGY that advocates mass murder, ethnic cleansing and property theft of non-Jews.
There are many many things this author left out.
Kartikeya, others, I don't know why you are not reading what I wrote. In your own quotes of me are the answers to your questions. To repeat: "past", "future". Every place in this world is built on events in the past that may have been immoral. Americans against the Indians, Normon and Saxons, Vikings, Mongols and Chinese - every single place in the world. That's what we call "past".
"Future" - none of this justifies acting now to dispossess people based on what their grandparents may have done.
Israelis are currently trying to live their lives, where they are. Palestinians are unwilling to do that. They are trying to take away what someone else has. I do not care any more what the Zionists did 60 years ago, any more than I care what the Mamelukes did to reclaim the land from the Crusaders before that.
I said all this before.