« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »

August 2007

August 30, 2007

Serious. Cold. Stunning. Walt and Mearsheimer Arrive in Hard Covers

Some time in the next few days the website israellobbybook.com will be activated--right now it's a blank--and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, will be published by FSG. This is a historic book. The authors' LRB paper last year created an intellectual sensation I've never witnessed, and notwithstanding the desire of the lobby that the book disappear, I imagine the splash this time will be mainstream. Walt and Mearsheimer will be on television. That likelihood is increased by David Remnick's flat assertion, in an advance piece on the book that generally threw water on the scholars, that they are right to say that the lobby bears responsibility for the Iraq war.

I've been reading the book this August and have three preliminary impressions: Serious, cold and stunning. The seriousness of the book is conveyed on every page. The arguments are calm and earnest, stripped of metaphor and coyness. These are mature men engaged in every sinew with a giant squid of an issue; and their 106 pages of endnotes are overwhelming, and give the lie to anyone who accuses these scholars of "shoddy scholarship."

Cold. The authors are conservative realists at heart. They see states as amoral and a little vicious, and they don't overheat their arguments. There is no joy in the book, and the fervor is hidden beneath mountains of cold logic. They are reserved, and tactical. They refuse to really take on the dual-loyalty problem (just as Tony Judt refused in his speech at NYU last year) but you sense that they believe it's a problem (as I do). They generally say that the lobby has every right to do what it does, but their underlying zeal comes out--I think, admirably--when they state that the suppression of free speech on this issue is inappropriate and undemocratic. David Remnick's anger at the authors--he accuses them of wanting Israel to disappear-- seems to me a response to that zeal, and though he misdescribes it, the reader can feel the great molten energy underneath the icy words.

As for stunning, the argument they present is towering and clear and about time. The revision of Israeli history is stirring. The ways that the lobby has diminished the suffering of the Palestinians and enabled the occupation and settlements are starkly and even emotionally described. Most stunning is the argument that Remnick accepts: the authors' description of the Iraq disaster as arising from the lobby's pressure. I study this issue, and yet I turned the pages of this chapter with my mouth open, especially the pages dealing with the manipulation of intelligence, and evidence of Israel's hand in the WMD lies. It is this section that should and must stir national debate, and now.

"How did we get here? Our first guest is Dr. John J. Mearsheimer."

My main problem with the book is the one others have raised, that the word "lobby" is imprecise. How do you define this collection of forces and devotions? It is more a culture than a concerted lobby, an aspect of Jewishness and also an element of the American meritocracy and leadership that I am part of as a media Jew, but which that leadership has been absolutely incapable of examining. For instance, when the authors describe the neocon cipher Scooter Libby as part of the lobby, they don't really have the evidence as to the workings of his mind. I am sure they are right about Libby. But they don't prove it and I can do so only by speaking poetically, about the cipher's emails to his friend Judy Miller about the shared roots of the aspens in their summer retreats. Something is going on here, but you don't know what it is...

This is where true insiders need to come forward and explain what befell us. When Thomas Friedman shows up in this book, quoted in Ha'aretz, amazingly, as saying the Iraq war originated among 25 neocons within a mile or two of his office; and when Remnick accepts Walt and Mearsheimer's argument re the neocons--well, honey, the pro-Iraq liberal camp is falling apart. And explaining the Jewish rightwing klatch's actions to the world is important journalistic work that awaits this country in the nightmare of the next few years. But J.J. Goldberg refuses to talk about Walt and Mearsheimer's findings. Put on your spurs, J.J., the country needs you.

I said there's no pleasure in the book. The one exception is the book's dedication, to the scholar Samuel P. Huntington, whom the authors have known for 25 years. "We cannot imagine a better role model. Sam has always tackled big and important questions, and he has answered these questions in ways that the rest of the world could not ignore. Although each of us has disagreed with him on numerous occasions over the years--and sometimes vehemently and publicly--he never held those disagreements against us and was never anything but gracious and supportive of our work. [my emphasis] He understands that scholarship is not a popularity contest, and that spirited but civil debate is essential both to scholarly progress and to a healthy democracy." Beautiful and deeply moving, that is the credo of an American faith. Those words should be studied more than W&M's descriptions of Israeli history.

The Jewish meritocracy has always been about ambition. Worldly ambition mainly; we traded our ghettoized tradition of learning for position in the information age. Let us honor the grand intellectual leap of this book with an open discussion.

August 29, 2007

'New Yorker' Editor: Israel and Lobby Bear Responsibility for Iraq War

In a remarkably-fair piece about Walt and Mearsheimer in the latest New Yorker, the magazine's editor, David Remnick, summarizes part of the scholars' argument:

Israel and its lobby bear outsized responsibility for persuading the Bush Administration to invade Iraq and, perhaps one day soon, to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran.

And then accepts it. "They were also right about Iraq."

I find this statement staggering. Remnick's piece is hard on Walt and Mearsheimer, saying they are hysterical and have put together a "prosecutor's brief" against Israel, and are indifferent to its possible disappearance. But this statement,  that Israel and its lobby bear outsize responsibility for the invasion plans, is alive to the common sense of recent history and--as Fritz Hollings put it-- to what 'we all know." Bravo to the New Yorker, for good sense and honesty.

And again, I say: There must be a soul-searching within the Jewish community if the country is going to move past Iraq. Why were the "best and the brightest" of this disastrous war rightwing Jews? Why did DLC Jews join them in banging the drum? And why have progressive Jews given these war supporters cover, rather than exposing them? What are  Israel's regrettable policies toward the Arab world doing to our identification and citizenship?

August 27, 2007

Only the Jewish Press Calls a Spade a Spade: New Pro-Iraq-War Group Is a Jewish Group

With Walt and Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby book about to burst onto the scene, the poverty of the existing debate over the Israel interest in American politics is demonstrated by the coverage of Freedom's Watch, the new rightwing group spending millions on television to urge the Congress to keep American forces in Iraq.

Only the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has the guts to say what is obvious, that "Pro-Surge Group Is Almost All Jewish" that four out of five board members of Freedom's Watch are Jewish, and the fifth board member is married to a Jew. I take this point further. A large number of Freedom's Watch's staff or backers have stated that Israel's security is central to their view of the Iraq war.

Matthew Brooks, a board member of the group, said two years back to justify this war: 

You know, as well as I, that Saddam Hussein launched scud missiles at

Israel

...

You know that Saddam paid a bounty of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

Brooks is director of a group called the Republican Jewish Coalition, which does not even accept the idea of a Palestinian state. It speaks only of a "Palestinian political entity" under the right circumstances. I think it's in America's interest to push for a Palestinian state!

Then there's Freedom's Watch board member and spokesman Ari Fleischer. Three years ago I heard him tell a Jewish audience in Cincinnati that they should vote for Bush because he had helped make Israel safer with the Iraq war. And as for the the director of the new group, Brad Blakeman, last year at the end of Israel's botched and gruesome Lebanon war, Blakeman, an Orthodox Jew, said on MSNBC:

 

 

Israel

... could have wiped out

Lebanon

in a day if they chose to.  They chose not to.
[Israel] knows exact what it‘s doing. Israel is protecting their borders. 

Israel

is fighting with one hand tied behind their back.  They‘re fighting according to international law. 

Blakeman had worked in the Bush White House. His brother Bruce told the Forward that Bush launched the Iraq war partly out of concern for Israel.

"The president realized not only that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America, but that Saddam Hussein had designs on attacking Israel," said Blakeman, whose brother Brad is a former Bush aide. "There was a concern that an attack on Israel would turn into a regional war, with Syria and Iran joining in on Iraq's side."

Among donors to Freedom's Watch are real estate kingpin Richard Fox, who is the head of the unreconstructed neoconservative Jewish Policy Center. And casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has lately donated $60 million to Birthright, the program that seeks to indoctrinate young American Jews in a love of Israel by paying for a free trip there before they turn 26 (gentiles need not apply!).

Most of the leaders of this group live and breathe Israel, but this overarching concern is nowhere to be found in their calls on Americans to sacrifice more blood and treasure in Iraq. When they talk about threats to the region, they are talking about Israel's security. And the press lets them get away with this subterfuge, with the exception of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Washington Post, for instance, was happy to suggest that the organization is a "White House front," but said nothing about the Jewish character of the board, or those Jews' view of Israel. Politico was also silent on the issue. In a second piece, the Washington Post reported that one board member leads neocon cipher Scooter Libby's defense committee.

I wish the Post would ask these guys what they think about Israel. Nope, they're all afraid to mention it.   

Again I note, there's nothing wrong with rightwingers expressing their views. The problem is when those views have a religious character that they're not upfront about, and that the press declines to discuss. Any one else bringing a religious worldview to American politics is described as doing just that. We constantly hear about the "evangelical" voters or the "Christian right." What about the Jewish right? Especially now, when there's a widespread apprehension in the country that the Israel-centric Jewish right pushed this disastrous war.

August 23, 2007

New Pro-Iraq-War Organization Hides Its Pro-Israel Agenda

Last night Ari Fleischer was on Hardball speaking up for Freedom's Watch, a new organization that is buying ads to support George Bush's war "plans" in Iraq. Fleischer warns that if we don't stay the course, the whole region will "explode."

According to the Washington Post, two of the three leaders of Freedom's Watch, including Fleischer, are associated with the Republican Jewish Coalition (the third is involved with the Holocaust Memorial). Its donors, per the Post, include three other members of the Rep. Jewish Coalition and Gary Erlbaum, a leader of the conservative Jewish community in Philadelphia. That's a lot of right wing Jews.

I talked to Erlbaum a year ago. Israel is front and center for him. Three years ago I heard Fleischer talking to a Jewish audience in Cincinnati, urging them to vote for George Bush in the upcoming election. Fleischer made explicit pro-Israel appeals. He said that his mother was a Democrat who opposed Bush but had softened because the Iraq war had been good for Israel's security. He said that he was proud of the fact that in all his statements on Israel/Palestine while White House press secretary, he had never used the term "cycle of violence." I.e., he masked the endless brutalization there, as if Israel is getting somewhere by bulldozing houses and performing messy assassinations that kill little children, too.

There is nothing wrong with rightwing Israel-centric Jews getting involved in American politics. Let 100 flowers bloom. But I want their agendas explicit. It's clear to me that several members of the new group care about Israel's security as a reason for American military engagement in the Middle East.  They should say so upfront. As it is, the Freedom's Watch website has imagery of the eagle wrapped in a flag; its big new ad shows an Iraq War veteran who continues to support the disastrous war because of 9/11, and no one on the site is talking about Israel. Fleischer didn't mention it last night in his analysis of the regional fallout if we left Iraq. This is dangerous dishonesty. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in A Tragic Legacy, the U.S. might well be willing to fight to defend Israel's security; but the people have a right to know that.

[I]f Americans are being induced to support wars not in American interest but in Israel's, and if American lives and treasure are being squandered in wars justified by false premises, by a hidden agenda, they will realize that at some point...When the realization begins to dawn that at least one substantial factor as to why America waged Middle Eastern war(s) is because influential individuals with an overarching devotion to Israel pushed for war against Israel's enemies, then an anti-Israeli backlash is highly likely to occur.

Last night Mike Barnicle played the Freedom's Watch ad with the soldier's appeal to stay the course; then asked Fleischer who the soldier was. Fleischer said he didn't know. But he said that when a soldier dies in Iraq, everyone in America grieves with the family. This is b.s.; there is a real difference between supporting the war from armchairs and going to Iraq. The next guest on the show, a veteran opposed to the war, said that Fleischer's lack of sincerity was exposed by the fact that he didn't know the soldier's name. I agree. And smell a rat. Fleischer's group ought to be upfront about its concerns. Rather than manipulating public opinion.

Alas, Vicious Anti-Arab Prejudice Is Not Newsworthy

Yesterday's Times had a front-page piece on a telephoned threat to N.Y. Gov. Spitzer's father, and the Republican consultant who's accused of making it.

Sadly,  no one in the mainstream press has gone after the vicious anti-Arab telephone calls and emails issued by a State Department official to Arab-Americans, including the eminent James Zogby. The best coverage here has been George Ajjan's blog. Here's what the Arab-hater, Patrick Syring, said to Zogby:

"The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese. The only good Arab is a dead Arab. Long live the IDF. Death to Lebanon and death to the Arabs."

Syring has retired from Foggy Bottom and was indicted in federal court for threats last week. The Washington Post has covered the case, somewhat. I want a real story. I want to know whether Syring is Jewish (given his feelings about the IDF), I want to know who knew about his attitudes in the State Department and why it took a year for this to come out. Anti-Arab prejudice ought to be rooted out, like other forms of prejudice. Where's the press?

August 22, 2007

Let Michael Vick Play Football Again (And Stop Criminalizing Black Youth)

Commenters on my favorite channel (ESPN) keep saying that Michael Vick may never play football again. Why? Because he committed heinous acts? It sure looks like he is going to be punished for them, and that he will apologize. I'm sick of criminalizing black youth. Once he's out, Vick should be allowed to play again. That's America. We believe in renewal, redemption, and paying your price. Also talent. Vick is a gifted athlete. Let's see him back on the field, after he does time.

And anyway: the cruelty of dogfighting is not that many steps removed from the violence of NFL football, one of my hobbyhorses, which the New York Times has done such a wonderful job of documenting in the last year. Did you notice how many concussions and injuries there were in the Giants' latest exhibition game?

Will Recognizing Armenian Genocide in '15 Open Books on Palestinian Expulsion in '48

The true fascination of the ADL's shifting line on the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago has little to do with Turkey or Armenians. It is about the Nakba, Israel's expulsion of Palestinians in 1948.

The issues surrounding Armenian genocide absolutely echo the issues surrounding the Nakba. What do historians say? And when must we in public life acknowledge the message of the historians?

The ADL fears recognizing the Armenian genocide not just because it could alienate Turkey, but because it could open the floodgates on a popular understanding in the U.S. of the suffering of the Palestinians. The Nakba has been a matter of historical record for many years now. But when will it enter public consciousness?

This is the great threat posed by Walt and Mearsheimer's book. Their paper stated that the "moral" reasons for the U.S. supporting Israel were undermined somewhat by its treatment of the Palestinians, and cited the '48 ethnic cleansing. Their book is only likely to expand upon this chapter...

P.S. Commenters nailed me for mischaracterizing the ADL's positions. I think they are right re the nuance; that the ADL should be congratulated for using the word "genocide" at last rather than its earlier language, "massacres and atrocities." Apologies to all, including Abe Foxman.

August 21, 2007

The Chicago Tribune Calls Silencing of Walt/Mearsheimer a Free-Speech Issue

Today's Chicago Tribune finally covers the censorship of Walt and Mearsheimer at the Global Affairs Council and highlights the shocking fact that Abe Foxman--the denier of Armenian genocide out of concern for the state of Israel-- was consulted by the Council before it decided to pull the plug on the distinguished authors. What an abasement of judgment.

Kudos to the Tribune for treating this scandal for what it is, a free-speech issue. A rightwing Jew attempts to justify silencing Walt and Mearsheimer in this article by calling their book "shoddy scholarship." This is a libel. Say they are wrong, say they have bad judgment. But the book's sizeable endmatter will show that they have done their homework on issues that are central to American statecraft. When will my community, the Jewish community, wake up to its own leadership's transformation into thought-police?

ADL Says Protecting Israel Justifies Not Memorializing Armenian Genocide

In an ad in the Boston Globe, the Anti-Defamation League says the controversy over its nonrecognition of the Armenian genocide in Turkey in '15-'18 has "nothing to do" with its program of fighting hatred and bigotry. Huh. It goes on to justify its refusal to support official recognition of the Armenian Genocide (in which, the Armenian community says, 1.5 million Armenians were killed) by stating that Turkey is a "staunch friend of Israel" and "the most critical country     in the world" in the battle against radical Islam.

What a pity. It's central to the business of any human-rights organization to memorialize genocides. So that civilization can move forward, so that the victims will have honor, so that the killers will suffer disgrace. It's called historical justice. The ADL's very-political position on the Armenians tends to undermine its own ceaseless efforts to memorialize the Jewish holocaust in Europe. How much of that campaign is also political: to maintain moral support for Israel? 

August 18, 2007

The Armenian Horror, Cte'd; Is Foxman Finished?

The Globe reports that the ADL fired its regional director in New England over his statements calling for an acknowledgment of Armenian genocide. And Foxman states in his letter "explaining" the decision that the security of Israel is paramount.

Ergo, we lie and cover up another people's suffering. What was I saying about free speech in the Jewish community? What was I saying about the demands the Jewish state has made on Jewish identity?