The Israeli Lobby - The Debate Opens

[Brian Rucker]

A Washington Post editorial by a leading neocon and PNAC member accusing critics of the muscular Israeli lobby of being anti-semitic reminded me very strongly of General Zinni's resentment of folks going after his critiques of neocon foreign policy in the same fashion.

So, for your entertainment, let the games begin.

Here are our contestants:

Editorialist: Eliot A. Cohen (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1100)

And the author of the paper: John Mearsheimer (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=508)

Mearshiemer's The Israeli Lobby (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html)

Cohen's Yes, It's Anti-Semitic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html)

Questions: Is Mearsheimer anti-semitic? Does Cohen even try to factually rebut the man's arguments? Mostly I'm curious to see whether folks agree that it's primarily domestic politics, rather than our genuine national security interests, that drives our mideast foreign policy?

[BennyProfane]

Bad writing on both sides, imo.

Mearsheimer's essay contains a lot of basic factual material, some small amount of which may indeed be slanted to his ends--mostly a matter of "lies, damned lies, and statistics" arguing. But it does devolve toward the middle into language that smacks of conspiracy theory. Whether that constitutes anti-Semitism, however....I wouldn't have reached that conclusion from what I read.

Cohen, on the other hand, just sets up a series of straw men and attacks them--I'm sorry, but how effective the Anti-Castro lobby is in the US is irrelevant to how effective the Pro-Israel lobby is--then thumps his chest a bit about being proudly Jewish. How that translates into being pro-Israeli is obscure: I've never understood the concept of "nationalism by proxy." I have no more grounds to be "proud of my Cherokee heritage" than he has in assuming he should support Israel just because he's Jewish. I never walked the Trail of Tears, and I doubt seriously that Mr. Cohen was there when Israel was established after WWII, or was there in 1967 defending the land either.

All I really see here is someone's ox being gored, and instead of really addressing the issues involved, the aggrieved party responds with ad hominem attack.

[MikeSofaer]

Cohen's piece is much better written. The other was too long, and didn't really contain anything I found terribly impressive.

Basically he spends a couple pages pointing out that it's obvious we should not be allied with Israel, then he spends dozens speculating on why we are.

He argues that Islamic terrorists hate Israel a lot and we should not be antagonizing terrorists who are trying to kill other poeple. I don't think we should base our policies around avoiding terrorist ire.

He argues that Israel has no moral high ground, regardless of what Alan Dershowitz says. Personally I found A.D's "The Case for Israel" a conving apology, but I'm a Jew, so that doesn't count.

One of the reasons given by supporters for supporting Israel is that they are a democracy. He says that reason doesn't count because Israel treats Arabs in ways that are antithetical to our image of democracy. I say it does so count. For one thing, Israeli Arabs have most rights that Jews have, the notable exception being that they may not serve in the IDF. That Israel seems determined to keep control over a non-citizen population is reprehensible, but doesn't make it not a democracy. The important thing about Israel's government structure is that it is responsive to its citizens, transparent, and rational. These are nearly unique attributes in that region and make Israel very valuable as an ally. Their building settlements doesn't change that, no matter how many pages one goes on for.

Is he anti-Semitic? Maybe. He certainly is frustrated that the US government doesn't agree with him on Israel and is looking to blame someone. In this case, however, blaming the Jews is not an irrational response.

Cohen does actually rebut some arguments. The comparison to the anti-Castro lobby isn't meant to argue that AIPAC is innefective, but rather that it is not uniquely effective, as M. somewhat paranoidly argues. He points out that the best reason to ally with Israel, that they are the strongest and most reliable nation in the region, is ignored. I think his claims of obvious bigotry are forced, though. I doubt he even believes them himself.

I think our foreign policy is rational, and not driven mainly by domestic desires to appease the Jews, but I am happy to discuss the relative merits of changing our alliances. M. doesn't do that, other than some vague claim about Arab states liking us more.

[Glenn]

Those fucking jews, always throwing around charges of anti-Semitism.

[Glenn]

Is he anti-Semitic? Maybe.
Joking aside, I'm actually somewhat bothered by causal charges of anti-Semitism. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone today of even moderate intelligence with any actual bias against jews, and its a rather irritating distraction when trying to rationally discuss Israel. American jews are possibly the most privileged group in the world today, Isreal exists solely on money flowing in from the US in an effort to appease them, to turn around and cry racism is asinine.

But back to the topic of Israel: They are a bad ally because they are a brutal police state, teetering on the edge of becoming another South Africa. I have no sympathy for terrorists, but it's time to acknowledge that Israel's actions towards it's Arab neighbors have been roughly akin to a kid poking at a beehive.

[Marcus]

Israel's actions towards it's Arab neighbors have been roughly akin to a kid poking at a beehive.

lollerskates to that good sir. Fucking lollerskates.

[MikeSofaer]

Joking asideNever.
You'd be hardpressed to find anyone today of even moderate intelligence with any actual bias against jewsI agree, since anyone biased against the Jews is prima facie an idiot.
American jews are possibly the most privileged group in the world todayHouse of Saud has us beat, the bastards.
Israel exists solely on money flowing in from the US in an effort to appease themAlso we have divine favor.
to turn around and cry racism is asinine.Can't we have any fun at all?

They are a bad ally because they are a brutal police state, teetering on the edge of becoming another South Africa.No, actually, America's takeover of Iraq is turning it into another Israel, with a remotely-ruled territory kept under control for reasons of security.
It's time to acknowledge that Israel's actions towards it's Arab neighbors have been roughly akin to a kid poking at a beehive.Toward the Palestinians, it's been more like a kid stepping on an anthill.

[fire]

He argues that Israel has no moral high ground, regardless of what Alan Dershowitz says. Personally I found A.D's "The Case for Israel" a conving apology, but I'm a Jew, so that doesn't count.

Did you mean... conniving? convincing?
http://www.aaanimations.com/windowsxppapperclipdp.gif

[Gav]

Although I'm more sympathetic to Peace Now than the hardliners, I wasn't impressed by Mearschaum's essay.

He says early on that "there is no question" that Al-Quaeda leaders, including OBL, are upset at the US on behalf of the Palestinians. Yet every serious analysis I've ever read has said the opposite--the OBL is motivated by the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

He says that in Israel, "citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship." Um, yeah. True in most countries (try to become a Swiss citizen, for example, if you don't have Swiss ancestry). And, he mentions the 1.3 million Arabs, eliding over the fact that they're full citizens, with voting rights. (Granted, they're treated very badly, but if you're making the argument from human rights that the US shouldn't support Israel because it treats its Arab citizens so badly, then by that same argument Israel deserves US support more than any other nation in the region, since they treat their Arab citizens worse.)

He also argues that the US went to war in Iraq because Israel wanted it, which is just bizarre. Sure, Israel's not going to be upset if Iraq is rendered impotent, but if Israelis really pulled the strings in the White House, Syria would've been first (or maybe Iran, depending on whom you ask).

The funny thing is, I agree with the basic premise that the US is too hawkish in the Middle East. I just think that you can trace it to much more self-interested in motives than the eeeeevil Jewish lobby.

Gav

[Brian Rucker]

Although I'm more sympathetic to Peace Now than the hardliners, I wasn't impressed by Mearschaum's essay.

He says early on that "there is no question" that Al-Quaeda leaders, including OBL, are upset at the US on behalf of the Palestinians. Yet every serious analysis I've ever read has said the opposite--the OBL is motivated by the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

How is that the opposite? Wouldn't that be more along the lines of 'in addition to'? Every government and movement in the Arab world points the finger of blame at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for its own rhetorical purposes, whether cynical or not. Bin Ladin is surely primarily interested in the disposition of the holy cities in Saudi Arabia and what he sees as a corrupt Saudi royal family beholden to infidels. But Israel does crop up all the time in his rantings. And it's one way he attracts recruits. Did it motivate 9/11? Likely not. However if the U.S. policy continues to be just rolling over for the Israeli lobby and giving the finger to the Palestinians then OBL, and others like him, will keep having hay to make.

He says that in Israel, "citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship." Um, yeah. True in most countries (try to become a Swiss citizen, for example, if you don't have Swiss ancestry). And, he mentions the 1.3 million Arabs, eliding over the fact that they're full citizens, with voting rights. (Granted, they're treated very badly, but if you're making the argument from human rights that the US shouldn't support Israel because it treats its Arab citizens so badly, then by that same argument Israel deserves US support more than any other nation in the region, since they treat their Arab citizens worse.)
I hear this a great deal but it doesn't seem that many Arabs believe this. And I've been given to understand that Israeli Arabs have a lower form of citizenship? If I'm wrong here let me know.

He also argues that the US went to war in Iraq because Israel wanted it, which is just bizarre. Sure, Israel's not going to be upset if Iraq is rendered impotent, but if Israelis really pulled the strings in the White House, Syria would've been first (or maybe Iran, depending on whom you ask).
I think he's actually saying that we went to war because the neoconservatives wanted it on Israel's behalf. And that's got a helluva lot of documentation behind it. Where things do get fuzzy is when you're trying to figure out who in Israeli politics really is working with these guys. The answer seems to be Likud but there's hardly a universal sentiment, as I understand it, that the neocons are really doing Israel any favors outside that narrow group. But the facts are there that the these guys did do work for Israel, were outspokenly pro-Israeli, had written that Israel's first order of business should be knocking out Hussein and that they fell in love with Chalabi because he lobbied The Lobby and promised wonderful things about an Israeli allied Iraq one day.

Is this the only reason we went? No. There was a perfect storm of concurrent motives and this is only one part of it. Business wanted in to rebuild the oil industry and to privatize the oil reserves. Prodigal Bush I hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld couldn't get over the fact that we hadn't "finished the job" and simply weren't going to let it go. Bush II himself likely wanted to show up the old man. Rove saw the "war leader" as a good marketing position for his prodigy and we have documentation to prove how much he loved the idea.

And some people sincerely thought we could spread democracy by force in Iraq whether they wanted it or not. Many people were scared as hell because they "knew" Saddam was behind 9/11 and he was working on nukes for Al Qaida. Mushroom clouds and smoking guns. Aluminum tubes.

But there is no denying that the intellectual and propagandistic impetus behind the Iraqi invasion came right from the neoconservative movement and it's in cheek-by-jowl with both the religious right and AIPAC.

The funny thing is, I agree with the basic premise that the US is too hawkish in the Middle East. I just think that you can trace it to much more self-interested in motives than the eeeeevil Jewish lobby.

Gav

The background really is oil. Whether or not you believe Iraq's reserves have anything to do with it the stability of the supply out of the region overall dictates our policy. And back during the Cold War it made sense to give Israel anything it needed in order to keep pro-Soviet (though they really played both sides against the middle) Pan Arabist regimes in check.

Now? Nobody in that article is saying we shouldn't support Israel and keep it secure. Nobody is saying there's an evil Jewish lobby. In fact the author seems to go to great pains to say that what these folks are up to, and how they do it, isn't anything more sinister than any other lobby does in Washington. What's shocking is how effective the pro-Israeli lobby is. Any form of discussion about the issue is shut down. And it's not just Republicans. Democrats do it too.

And history does seem to suggest the inability to touch the taboo subject of what form our support for Israel should take (as opposed to just about everything and the kitchen sink) may well have created a political blind spot the neocons could just drive a truck through.

Again, just to be clear, when I say "Israel" I'm talking primarily about the hawkish factions that are in bed with the neocons not Israel as whole. And the author makes it quite clear that it's hardly a majority of American Jews who are on board with that agenda themselves. So to me this essay doesn't sound so much like anti-Semitism as it does a largely clearheaded and factual recitation of what's going on.

[Gav]

How is that the opposite? Wouldn't that be more along the lines of 'in addition to'? Every government and movement in the Arab world points the finger of blame at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for its own rhetorical purposes, whether cynical or not. Bin Ladin is surely primarily interested in the disposition of the holy cities in Saudi Arabia and what he sees as a corrupt Saudi royal family beholden to infidels. But Israel does crop up all the time in his rantings. And it's one way he attracts recruits. Did it motivate 9/11? Likely not. However if the U.S. policy continues to be just rolling over for the Israeli lobby and giving the finger to the Palestinians then OBL, and others like him, will keep having hay to make.

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. You say that 9/11 wasn't motivated by Israel. Essentially, the largest successful terrorist attack on US soil had nothing to do with Israel (and one of very few successful attacks at all)--so how would things have been different if the US did not support Israel?


I hear this a great deal but it doesn't seem that many Arabs believe this. And I've been given to understand that Israeli Arabs have a lower form of citizenship? If I'm wrong here let me know.


You're wrong. But Mearshaum invites the mistake, which I think is disingenuous at best. The only legal difference that I can think of is that Arabs don't have to join the army (although some do). They're 2nd-class citizens in the sense that Arab villages have historically had less money directed at them, which I agree is deplorable.


I think he's actually saying that we went to war because the neoconservatives wanted it on Israel's behalf. And that's got a helluva lot of documentation behind it.

I don't even begin to accept this. Again, I'm not saying that Israeli hawks weren't happy to see Hussein go. But if you'd actually gone to them and said, "We're planning to have a war in the Middle East; who should we attack?" there's no way Iraq would've been top of the list. If the war had really been on behalf of Israel, the US would have attacked Syria or Iran.

Mearshaum's documentation amounts to cheerleading from Israel, plus a bit of begging the question (he says that the neocons are a branch of the Israel lobby, then proves it by adding them into the list of groups that were pro-Iraq war; then he says that neo-cons' being pro-war proves that they're a branch of the Israel lobby)

But there is no denying that the intellectual and propagandistic impetus behind the Iraqi invasion came right from the neoconservative movement and it's in cheek-by-jowl with both the religious right and AIPAC.

See above.


The background really is oil. Whether or not you believe Iraq's reserves have anything to do with it the stability of the supply out of the region overall dictates our policy. And back during the Cold War it made sense to give Israel anything it needed in order to keep pro-Soviet (though they really played both sides against the middle) Pan Arabist regimes in check.

Now? Nobody in that article is saying we shouldn't support Israel and keep it secure. Nobody is saying there's an evil Jewish lobby. In fact the author seems to go to great pains to say that what these folks are up to, and how they do it, isn't anything more sinister than any other lobby does in Washington. What's shocking is how effective the pro-Israeli lobby is. Any form of discussion about the issue is shut down. And it's not just Republicans. Democrats do it too.

I disagree here. Mearshaum's being disingenuous when he says he's not out to show that the lobby is evil, because that's exactly what he does. (They control US foreign policy! They're not interested in US security! They'll stab our backs at a moment's notice! They'll send young American kids to die in Iraq while their Israeli overlords chortle and rub their hands together!)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the article is anti-semitic, but he's treading awfully close to the sorts of stereotypes that anti-semites also use.

And history does seem to suggest the inability to touch the taboo subject of what form our support for Israel should take (as opposed to just about everything and the kitchen sink) may well have created a political blind spot the neocons could just drive a truck through.

I don't think there's a blind spot. Foreign policy is just frankly boring to the American people. There are very few foreign policy questions that break over the radar.

Again, just to be clear, when I say "Israel" I'm talking primarily about the hawkish factions that are in bed with the neocons not Israel as whole. And the author makes it quite clear that it's hardly a majority of American Jews who are on board with that agenda themselves. So to me this essay doesn't sound so much like anti-Semitism as it does a largely clearheaded and factual recitation of what's going on.
Not anti-semitic, probably, but clearheaded and factual? Granted, I'm Jewish, but I found the article unimpressive at best.

Gav

[Brian Rucker]

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. You say that 9/11 wasn't motivated by Israel. Essentially, the largest successful terrorist attack on US soil had nothing to do with Israel (and one of very few successful attacks at all)--so how would things have been different if the US did not support Israel?

Because our support, or to be more precise - our unquestioning and unconditional and utterly biased support, for Israel has helped to create the climate in which the United States can be seen as a colonial force in the middle east.

There are two kinds of meddling we're involved in (three if you go back to the 50's and our overthrow of Iran's democratic government) over there. One is supporting corrupt and authoritarian Arab regimes in order to maintain regional stability and our oil supply. And to the neoconservatives' credit they recognised that the center wouldn't hold here for long. Younger, angrier and underemployed Arab populations increasingly turned to extremist fundamentalism for an outlet. Reasonably the neocons made the argument that promoting democracy, and captialism, would force these groups into worrying more about providing services and making money that formenting jihads. Freedom of speech would drain the swamp of hostility and mindless ranting that held sway in lieu of real debate.

Where your neoconservative and I part ways is that I believe you need to use diplomatic, political and economic tools to encourage the spread of democratic ideas. You can't force it on someone who doesn't trust, well, you in the first place. And you should damn well know who your allies are. Big business isn't going in there out of civic pride. This isn't WWII. They're going in there to make as many bucks as they can. And screw the locals. The Religious Right's there because they want to prove their God can kick Allah's ass all over the sandbox. And then they want to build their megachurches in the new "Freedom of Religion" model.

Surprise, surprise. Absolutely nothing went according to plan. You can blame Rumsfeld, and I do, for being too hopped up on his idea of a lean mean military machine and iching to prove it in battle. But you also must blame the neocons because, as you pointed out indirectly, this whole campaign wasn't supposed to stop in Iraq. Iraq was supposed to be the weak, and easily subdued, link we'd occupy as a staging area for future actions against Syria and Iran.

And for that we couldn't afford to overcommit troops. We needed reserves to be ready for the next campaigns. It was an ideological choice not a militarily sound one on both levels.

On of my addictions is chatting with and reading the chats of the Washington Post reporters. A couple of times Dana Priest, the chief national security reporter, replied to my questions. I wondered what was going to become of the our operations in the middle east. PNAC's (Project For A New American Century) plans clearly called for Iraq only as the first step in the broader campaign. She told me that Iraq was such a mess it was unlikely they'd be able to proceed but if it was going to happen keep an eye peeled on Syria. That's where it would start.

The neocons didn't neglect Syria, it was something to be gobbled up down the road. Iraq was supposedly low hanging fruit. The beachhead.

At any rate, the other way we're seen as meddlers is by backing Israel all the time no matter what the issue. I mean, for God's sakes, ignoring Israel's nuclear arsenal? That's just scratching the surface and there's a monsterous elephant in the room. If Israel has nukes, and everything I've read indicates they do, then no frigging wonder every tinpot dictator in the middle east wants their own WMD. It's positively de rigour. Different countries might have different ends in mind, Saddam was clearly more worried about Iran than Israel (except as a rhetorical device) but the ground rules have been set.

Now don't get me wrong, again, I think we've a moral commitment to the nation of Israel that goes beyond purely pragmatic real politik. But at the same time we're just shooting ourselves in the foot at this point if we don't even try to be seen as impartial or fair by the equally important Arab groups in the middle east. Who the fuck are we to be talking about democracy when they can see with their own eyes what goes in the occupied territories and they know damned well their own corrupt rulers are backed by U.S. interests too.

The U.S. walking in with a gun and saying, "Okay, now you can have real democracy" is just as plausible to these folks as Wile E. Coyote showing Roadrunner new train tunnel on the side of a cliff - the paint still dripping and wet.

Should it be any surprise at all that the most repressed, hostile and organized factions immediately dominate elections? This isn't a referendum on democracy in Palestine or Iraq. It's a chance to grab some power and legitimacy before everything falls apart again. Because that's the most likely scenario to them.

I've got an Egyptian friend who thinks we're insane. "You know, you have free elections in Egypt and who wins? The Muslim Brotherhood. And that will be the last election ever." And given the shitty groundwork we've put into instilling democratic ideals into the region he's absolutely right. You can't go about things like this. But how exciting is the slow process of building consensus and doing cultural exchanges? Is that going to get anyone's domestic base fired up here in the U.S.? If not, why would it ever happen.

You're wrong. But Mearshaum invites the mistake, which I think is disingenuous at best. The only legal difference that I can think of is that Arabs don't have to join the army (although some do). They're 2nd-class citizens in the sense that Arab villages have historically had less money directed at them, which I agree is deplorable.

Until I hear otherwise I'll go ahead and consider myself enlightened though it would be interesting to talk to an Israeli Arab, perhaps one that's politically active, and see what they have to say about things.

I don't even begin to accept this. Again, I'm not saying that Israeli hawks weren't happy to see Hussein go. But if you'd actually gone to them and said, "We're planning to have a war in the Middle East; who should we attack?" there's no way Iraq would've been top of the list. If the war had really been on behalf of Israel, the US would have attacked Syria or Iran.

Mearshaum's documentation amounts to cheerleading from Israel, plus a bit of begging the question (he says that the neocons are a branch of the Israel lobby, then proves it by adding them into the list of groups that were pro-Iraq war; then he says that neo-cons' being pro-war proves that they're a branch of the Israel lobby)

See the above. Seriously though, if you want to understand my perspective on this you really need to understand Project For A New American Century. Look at who was involved. What they were also involved in. Run back over the history of the neoconservative movement and see how it morphed from a hawkish liberal (even Trotskyite in the earliest years) intellectual group into a Reaganite conservative one.

The importance of Israel to the neoconservative movement has been central. Many neocons are Jewish hawks. During their liberal years it was support for Israel to offset the Soviet Union in the middle east. When Reagan came in and they morphed into conservatives they found kindred political spirits in the Religious Right who believe Israel had to be expanded to it's biblical size for The End Times to begin. This is all covered decently if not thoroughly in the article. Now Israel was even more important because it was a touchstone for this very potent alliance between traditional, historical, enemies. Fundamentalist evangelicals and Jewish folk don't always have a great history of getting along. Then again, fundamentalist evangelicals have trouble working and playing with almost anyone. Which is why the Republicans try to shut them up when elections roll around.

I disagree here. Mearshaum's being disingenuous when he says he's not out to show that the lobby is evil, because that's exactly what he does. (They control US foreign policy! They're not interested in US security! They'll stab our backs at a moment's notice! They'll send young American kids to die in Iraq while their Israeli overlords chortle and rub their hands together!)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the article is anti-semitic, but he's treading awfully close to the sorts of stereotypes that anti-semites also use.

You don't think you're the one generalizing and exaggerating here?

I don't think there's a blind spot. Foreign policy is just frankly boring to the American people. There are very few foreign policy questions that break over the radar.

Not anti-semitic, probably, but clearheaded and factual? Granted, I'm Jewish, but I found the article unimpressive at best.

Gav

I'll agree I'm not very impressed with the sophistication of my fellow citizens these days or years but I do think that simply disallowing any discussion of Israel's role, of the role of factions within Israel's body politic - to be more narrow, in working with the neoconservatives in the VP's Office and the Defense Department via AIPAIC is something we shouldn't be shy about examining. And the skittishness of looking at anything that might imply something less than total support for Israel is crippling in understanding what went down.

Ahmad Chalabi, Lawrence Anthony Franklin, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Defending The Realm", Project for a New American Century.

Do your own googling. If this didn't play a role in our decision to invade Iraq, then why didn't it?

[Gav]

Because our support, or to be more precise - our unquestioning and unconditional and utterly biased support, for Israel has helped to create the climate in which the United States can be seen as a colonial force in the middle east.

I would argue that, to some extent, the US is an imperialist force in the ME, Israel or no Israel. So it's not a perception that would disappear in the Arab world, even if the US renounced Israel tomorrow.

The neocons didn't neglect Syria, it was something to be gobbled up down the road. Iraq was supposedly low hanging fruit. The beachhead.

I'll buy that, but I'd still say that if Israeli leaders had actually had a say, Iraq wouldn't have been first on the list. Of course they weren't opposed to it--Iraq is an enemy of Israel. But it's a huge stretch to go from "Israel would happy if Saddam were taken out" to "the US did Israel's bidding in starting the Iraq war," which is where the Mearshaum's paper is going.

Until I hear otherwise I'll go ahead and consider myself enlightened though it would be interesting to talk to an Israeli Arab, perhaps one that's politically active, and see what they have to say about things.

It's surprising easy--there are 4 Arab MPs in the current knesset (I think); just google on their names. Ahmed Tibi is particularly outspoken. (BTW, what he has to say about Israel is not remotely flattering--but that he can say it at all, and be an MP puts him in a better position than if he tried to do the same thing in just about any other country in the ME)

There'd actually be more Arab MPs if more Arabs voted (MPs are assigned on a proportional basis), but historically they don't.

See the above. Seriously though, if you want to understand my perspective on this you really need to understand Project For A New American Century. Look at who was involved. What they were also involved in. Run back over the history of the neoconservative movement and see how it morphed from a hawkish liberal (even Trotskyite in the earliest years) intellectual group into a Reaganite conservative one.

To me, the PNAC looks like a real mixed bag. For example, Israel is pretty important to a guy like Kristol. OTOH, I'd argue that Cheney doesn't give a damn about Israel--he's mostly concerned about having bases in the ME to control the oil flow.


They control US foreign policy! They're not interested in US security! They'll stab our backs at a moment's notice! They'll send young American kids to die in Iraq while their Israeli overlords chortle and rub their hands together!

You don't think you're the one generalizing and exaggerating here?

Obviously, it's an exaggeration for comic effect, but it's pretty much what Mearshaum's article boils down to. He's arguing that the Israel lobby got the US into a disastrous war, against US interests, even though Israel is the one of the most traitorous allies the US has.

I'll agree I'm not very impressed with the sophistication of my fellow citizens these days or years but I do think that simply disallowing any discussion of Israel's role, of the role of factions within Israel's body politic - to be more narrow, in working with the neoconservatives in the VP's Office and the Defense Department via AIPAIC is something we shouldn't be shy about examining. And the skittishness of looking at anything that might imply something less than total support for Israel is crippling in understanding what went down.

I don't think there's a "skittishness" at all. You might as well allege a "skittishness" over Darfur, or over eliminating polio, or over dealing with the national debt, or over any of the other hundreds of topics which Americans by and large aren't very interested in discussing.

Gav

[Brian Rucker]

You don't think the author documents the powerful influence of groups like AIPAC in containing debate? Obviously, they can't do it on their own but many politicians do have constituencies that are completely in knee-jerk support of what they're told (by their political leaders who in turn are informed by AIPAC and similar groups) is in Israel's best interest.

It's in keeping with a theme I see repeated throughout the investigation of the root causes of the Iraq war. In my very first post I referred to General Zinni who himself was lambasted as anti-semitic for pointing out that neocon motives were also deeply entangled with what they saw as best for Israel. He called it the worst kept secret in DC.

And he's a guy who has heaps of credibility in my eyes.

As for Cheney, he's not what you'd call a true believer. He came on board after Bush I when he got involved with the American Enterprise Institute, another neocon thinktank. While his motives do revolve around the real politik of maintaining stable oil supplies (and getting his buddies a good cut of the plunder) he's also motivated by frustration in not getting to finish off Saddam the first time around. And in the neoconservatives he found kindred spirits. It's through his auspices they ended up where they did. He was in charge of the transition team in 2000 but Rove wanted Powell in State to give the administration added heft and respectability.

To offset Powell, whose foreign policy ideas Cheney didn't fancy, he dipped into his old buddies at PNAC and AEI. Sprinkled them throughout The Pentagon, staffed his office with them, and even tossed a few into State to balance Powell.

But they never had enough traction to do much more than make plans for an eventual invasion of Iraq. Not until 9/11 gave them the perfect "Pearl Harbor" moment they'd actually speculated about in their papers. Here was the excuse. And you see them, primarily Wolfowitz, pressing from hours after the attacks for a move against Saddam. It took Tony Blair's intervention to get them to pause for a second and focus on Afghanistan first. But soon as they could, it was back on track to Baghdad.

This network is where most of the bad intel and Chalabisms came from. Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon and The Office of the VP. Cheney had 22 in-house advisers practially running his own intelligence shop. He leaned on the CIA and other groups as much as he could to come up with choice bits to justify an invasion of Iraq.

I think there's no political will to deal with Darfur because most Americans don't really care. And here I will give credit to both secular human rights groups and Evangelicals alike who keep on pressing for something to be done.

However, what American doesn't care how we got ourselves into Iraq? If they aren't upset and curious it's only because they don't know to be. And I believe there is a lack of political will to look at the question too closely. Nobody, New York Democrat or South Carolina Republican, wants to end up in a primary with a challenger accusing him of smearing Israel. Because you poke the neocons and that's precisely what they'll say about you.

This very thread was started by just such a very public poke.

[MikeSofaer]

So to me this essay doesn't sound so much like anti-Semitism as it does a largely clearheaded and factual recitation of what's going on.
I wouldn't even begin to call that article clearheaded. And while it may contain facts it presents them with only one possible interpretation.

He presents a Golda Meir quote about the Palestinians not existing as a people as evidence that Israel opposed Palestinian nationhood. What Meir was saying was that the people we now call Palestinian did not think of themselves as distinct from Jordanians before 1948, and the whole category is a recent creation.

The essay was rambling and barely coherent. It uses as a premise the contention that US policy makers know that our alliance with Israel is not in our interest, and then imagines possible reasons why they might implement such a policy anyway. The idea that they might think an alliance with Israel really is in our interest is not even considered long enough to be dismissed out of hand.

A debate on where our interests lie wrt Israel makes sense, but that essay isn't part of one.

As far as looking the other way on nukes, first of all, Israel has not signed the NPT and the Arab nations largely have. Secondly, Israel is the only nation in the region with a stable government, the only nation that does not have significant elements opposed to Western values, and the nation we can most rely on to act in a rational manner. They are the only ones we can really trust with nukes.

[Brian Rucker]

Doesn't the fact they haven't signed the NPT put them in a very special category? Whether Israel has a stable government or alignment of interests with us, which does seem to be increasingly debateable if AIPAC and the neocons are really the manifestation of that, is beside the point if we're trying to represent ourselves as impartial brokers in the region.

And if we're not, why should anyone trust us?

Also consider that this is only one of many, many, ways in which we publically show our favoritism. And to some extent that's even desireable. However enough is really enough. Things have gotten too serious for us to just handwave and let things go on as they are.

The extent to which Israeli interests (of certain factions) did influence our policy in regards to Iraq needs to be examined and clarified so both the U.S. and Israel can take a cold hard look at what happened and who is culpable.

[MikeSofaer]

Doesn't the fact they haven't signed the NPT put them in a very special category?
Yes, a category of nations that have not given up their nuclear rights.

Whether Israel has a stable government or alignment of interests with us, which does seem to be increasingly debateable if AIPAC and the neocons are really the manifestation of that
AIPAC and the neocons aren't a manifestation of common interests, they are groups of people. Common interests are things like keeping close tabs on unstable ME states.
is beside the point if we're trying to represent ourselves as impartial brokers in the region. And if we're not, why should anyone trust us?
Well, I think that we are not. Israel is a strategic ally, that's not exactly a secret. We aren't impartial, and why should we be? We're not the region's mommy.

The extent to which Israeli interests (of certain factions) did influence our policy in regards to Iraq needs to be examined and clarified so both the U.S. and Israel can take a cold hard look at what happened and who is culpable.
Transparency is a good thing, so go ahead and examine. But there is this implication that the people who set US policy chose to invade Iraq in Israel's interest and disregarded the US's interests. I think that's extremely unlikely. They were arrogant and wrong about what they could achieve, but I don't think they did it for Israel, knowing it would be bad for the US>

[Brian Rucker]

I'd agree with that. I haven't seen anyone, at least anyone knowledgable, say the neocons didn't think this was in the U.S.'s best interests. Where the problem is is their natural tendancy to conflate the interests of the U.S. and Israel (as they see them).

And, hell yes, we're the region's mommy. Bush is haranguing the whole damn area about tracking mud into the house and which friends they shouldn't be hanging out with and how they should wash their hands before dinner. Because it's good for them.

Maybe we shouldn't be. But until Israel develops its oil fields I'm getting increasingly hard pressed to figure out precisely what strategic interests it is helping us advance. All our support seems to be doing is serving as a debating point for those who are our enemies in the region. What's Israel done for us lately?

Is that a bad question to ask?

Maybe the answer would reassure me.

[MikeSofaer]

What's Israel done for us lately?

Is that a bad question to ask?
Well, that's a harsh way to phrase it, but that's the essential question to ask. To my mind the key answer is that Israel is stable and can be trusted to act rationally in its own national self-interest. As long as we stay on their side, they will stay on our side. I don't think any other nation in the ME meets that standard. The other states in the region are, to varying degrees, unstable and autocratic. Should there be a serious war in the region we can count on Israel for help in a way we could never count on any other regime in the area.

[Enidigm]

I guess the element about the Israeli/US relationship, how it has evolved both politically and culturally, that annoys me most personally is that i'm a "net-exporter" being non-Jewish. I don't have a house on the front lines of the settlements waiting for me with open arms should i choose to go down that path. No citizenship, no cultural ties. In fact i don't have anything there. Fundamentalist Christians have a certain moral superority to me by merging their desire to end the world with the historical sufferings of the Jewish people and their justification in building Israel, ect. But i'll just let them have that.

There's been a great deal of blurring within the Jewish-American community regarding dual identity with Israel and America. Even Spielburg said publically (during the Munich controversy) that he would "die for Israel". I think this has lead (almost without question, arguable in extent) certain Jewish policy makers conflate American policies with Israeli interests.

For me it's not really a question of whether Israel is "good"; it's whether you're supporting one country at the cost of another, or acting as a fifth column. If a Chinese American were manipulating American policy for the interests of China you'd call it treason. And probably the same for a French-American (if there are any, though i do know one). If we net out what America has actually gained by it's unilateral support over the decades, i think it would be a balance in the red; if not during the Cold War going negative almost immediately afterword.

It's important for the Pro-Israeli "forces" to frame this support in terms that can garner emotional support in the absense of any immediate strategic interest - which is what has happened. It's almost impossible to talk about Israel rationally to anyone without the argument immediately devolving into a summary catagorization of the many barbaric actions of the Palastinians.

People stating that Israel gives us a strategic "bridgehead" to the oilfields of the Middle East forget that while true, doesn't merit the scale of the support we provide. Nothing comparable to Turkey or the UAE, from which we also have such 'footholds'. Having access to Israels vast and effective counter-terrorism resources wouldn't be as important if we weren't threatend by terrorism because of our support. Ect.

[Enidigm]

Well, that's a harsh way to phrase it, but that's the essential question to ask. To my mind the key answer is that Israel is stable and can be trusted to act rationally in its own national self-interest. As long as we stay on their side, they will stay on our side. I don't think any other nation in the ME meets that standard. The other states in the region are, to varying degrees, unstable and autocratic. Should there be a serious war in the region we can count on Israel for help in a way we could never count on any other regime in the area.

See this is my fundamental point. If the existence of Israel were truly threatened today by war, they'd expect American aid. Americans would die for Israel. But if the reverse situation were true (like, Red Alert 2, Yuri style commie invasion), i have serious doubts that Israelis would die to defend America.

[Brian Rucker]

The Cold War is over.

What "serious" war do you envision in which Israel actively getting involved wouldn't make things worse? Any regional power on the sidelines would feel compelled to jump in. Which is one of the points made in the essay with historical examples from both The Gulf War and the war in Iraq.

On a sidenote, some neocon thinkers actually have the goal of creating a regional war so we'll have an excuse to step in and militarily secure Saudi oil fields. These guys aren't the mainstream but they're part of the mix too. The only scenario I can imagine in which having Israel's military openly fighting alongside us will be the day we just drop all pretenses and snag the resources.

But is that a war we as a country really ever want to get involved in? Or is it a simply just an excuse for continuing back Israel, in a favored manner, while the real reason is domestic politics?

[Jasper]

What's Israel done for us lately?

Is that a bad question to ask?
Not at all. I'd rephrase it instead: what has Israel ever done for us? What benefit do we get out of propping up their apartheid system?

I don't buy the stability arguement, because there are other (relatively) stable governments in the region, and those that are unstable are so because of our direct action.

[MikeSofaer]

See this is my fundamental point. If the existence of Israel were truly threatened today by war, they'd expect American aid. Americans would die for Israel. But if the reverse situation were true (like, Red Alert 2, Yuri style commie invasion), i have serious doubts that Israelis would die to defend America.
I don't. If you posit a scenario in which Israel could take significant action against a major threat to America, something like nuke silos in Jordan that are going to launch tomorrow, I think Israel would do what it could.

[MikeSofaer]

What "serious" war do you envision in which Israel actively getting involved wouldn't make things worse? Any regional power on the sidelines would feel compelled to jump in.
If we decide to go ahead and take out Iran's nuclear program that could start a serious war. Syria might decide to jump rather than let us pick off autocracies one by one. In that case Israel coming in couldn't really make things worse.

[MikeSofaer]

I'd rephrase it instead: what has Israel ever done for us? What benefit do we get out of propping up their apartheid system?

I don't buy the stability arguement, because there are other (relatively) stable governments in the region, and those that are unstable are so because of our direct action.
There is no other comparably stable government. Israel is as stable as a European government, with similar levels of popular support for their governmental system. the Arab states don't even come close, and it has nothing to do with our actions and a lot to do with their autocratic structures.

Further, you are arguing that there IS an existential threat to Israel in our absence with your talk of propping up, and the right of Israel to exist is much harder to argue against than their right to support if they'd be fine without it. Even the linked article goes out of its way to argue that there is no existential threat, and that if there were we should prop Israel up.

And the comparison to South Africa is ridiculous. The Arabs mistreated by Israel are not citizens, and do not live in Israel proper. Arab citizens of Israel are treated just fine. A more fitting comparison is the treatment of the Iraqi population by the US.

[Brian Rucker]

Here I also agree with you. I think to the extent Israel can help us they will. If the U.S. vanished tomorrow where would Israel be?

What I question is the extent to which our, for lack of a better word, tolerance for Israel's behavior on certain issues and our willingness to take on considerable risks to protect Israel from any criticism whatsoever, like the way we're seen in the middle east for example, is worth the return on the investment.

That's not to say we should, could or would ever abandon Israel to its fate. We've too much in common for that to ever happen. But the extent to which that tail is wagging the dog of our foreign policy is getting a touch old for my tastes. I'd settle for a good rotorooting of Cheney's neocon network and their counterparts in AIPAC and Israeli politics.

The creepy thing about the neoconservatives isn't their ideology or love of Israel but the fact they went about this whole thing in such a backhanded and deceptive way. Some, like Kristol, wore their feelings on their sleeves and wrote openly even before the war, agitating and advocating, about spreading democracy in the middle east via Iraq.

But the neocons in Cheney's network weren't doing what professional intelligence people are supposed to be doing. They were cherrypicking intel and exaggerating it for the purposes of provoking a war. And Bush was on their team as much as Cheney. We've that recent example of him suggesting that a U2 plane should be painted UN blue and flown low to attract Iraqi fire.

That's the mentality that just sets me off.

[MikeSofaer]

What I question is the extent to which our, for lack of a better word, tolerance for Israel's behavior on certain issues and our willingness to take on considerable risks to protect Israel from any criticism whatsoever, like the way we're seen in the middle east for example, is worth the return on the investment.
And here I agree with you. Our willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel's treatment of the Arabs in the occupied territories is a major problem. We can and should be leaning on Israel to treat them way better

But the neocons in Cheney's network weren't doing what professional intelligence people are supposed to be doing. They were cherrypicking intel and exaggerating it for the purposes of provoking a war.
Yes, they were, and it pisses me off, too, but I really don't think it has much bearing on our strategic relationship with Israel. It has a lot more to do with the White House breaking the reins of Congress and going off half-cocked. In the end we have only ourselves to blame for that.

[Brian Rucker]

I'll blame the idiots who voted for Bush and Republican congressmen myself.

I suppose I do take issue with the way Israel's become some sort of sacred cow. It bonds the neocons to the religious right and ties the hands of Democrats who don't want to antagonise their base.

How do we get to what the neocons were really up to, the ones in this administration, when examining their motives and history also includes looking over how they decided that invading Iraq was the best thing for Israel back in the 90's? The minute you hold up a questioning finger you get slapped with accusations of being anti-semitic.

The fact the two leading officers of AIPAC were indicted along with Franklin, an OSP Pentagon guy, for distributing classified information tells me that there's more going on than well intentioned cheerleading here. The extent to which Chalabi advanced, and manipulated, the case for war against Iraq - found himself in a position where Defense wanted him to run the country is wholly determined by his success in convincing the neocons and right-wing Israel boosters that he'd turn Iraq into an ally for Israel.

But what politician will want to look at this stuff? It's unpalatable even if it's not a wholesale condemnation of our strategic relationship with Israel.

And I find this all terribly frustrating.

[Jason McCullough]

The Isreali thing is a red herring; our middle east policy is run by a bunch of insane cranks regardless of where they're from.

[Brian Rucker]

The "Israeli thing" is hardly a red herring. Understanding the role of the neoconservatives, and the conservative Israeli factions that dominate AIPAC, in promoting the war and serving as the nervous system for the Cheney-Rumsfeld corridor in the administration is fundamental in describing how we got to where we are.

However, an interesting and useful rebuttal appeared in Salon today which did poke some holes in the paper while also supporting its central premise that the powerful Israeli lobby does deserve scrutiny it hardly ever gets.

Though even here I have to quibble. The author does make a point about the importance of taking over Iraq's oil supply as one of the administration's motives for the war, no question, it's been documented and rightly takes Mearsheimer to task for claiming it didn't play a role. At the same time, though, Michelle Goldberg, doesn't refute or even address the importance of the the neoconservatives and their historical interest in such a war.

I tend to see the forces behind this war as a conglomeration of different agendas that formed up a perfect storm, a unique alignment, that forced the war forward. The neocons alone couldn't have done it. Cheney put them into power because he wanted war but he was no true pro-Israeli believer. As CEO of Haliburton he'd himself argued for taking trade restrictions off of Iran so they could do business there. The religious right whipped up support as they were passing out the flags and crosses by encouraging the conflation of 9/11 and Saddam as some sort of religious war. Bush clearly didn't want to govern in the shadow of his father hence his choices for both VP and Secretary of Defense - neither man was an intimate of George Bush, Sr. Cheney had split with him over the outcome of the first Gulf War.

But there's a crucial and key thread of deception here, and likely others with other sources will be revealed over time, that does focus on the role of the neocons in the administration and especially the VP's office and the OSP in the Pentagon which goes straight to issues like Franklin's spying for Israel and AIPAC's complicity and the rise of Ahmad Chalabi from finely dressed con man to our handpicked leader for Iraq. The latter situation gave birth to much of the disinformation that betrayed even the neocon Pentagon's goals as well as the distancing of the Pentagon's agenda for Iraq from any other arm of government or any foreign "interference" in keeping with neocon ideology and the practical goal of installing a particular individual into power.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe I should elaborate. Yes, yes, Isreal lobbies to get us to do what they want in the middle east. Big deal, so does everyone else. Seriously, the problem here is "government officials and neoconservatives want to do stupid shit", not that the Isrealis agree with them or prod them in that direction.

[Brian Rucker]

The Washington Post follows up with their version of an overview of the pro-Israeli lobby.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627.html

Live chat transcript with the author.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/14/DI2006071400780.html

[Flowers]

Israel's free trips to Jewish youth of foreign countries in order to instill in them a sense of racial pride or the notion that Israel warrants United States aid is something that I have always considered violative of the international law precept that states must not make gifts to the citizens of other states to influence their views. I also consider these offers wildly racist and offensive to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of my nation.

[MikeSofaer]

I also consider these offers wildly racist and offensive to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of my nation.Luckily for you, Michael Steinhardt is American. Go get him, tiger!

[Flowers]

Charles Bronfman is a Canadian though, and the Israeli government is, well...
You wouldn't like it if Pakistan did this.
Birthright Israel is a racist, religiously biased notion that violates international law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_israel)

[Aeon221]

I have a question! How similar is the issue of Jews in other countries feeling a strong connection to Israel to the issue of Mexicans in America feeling a strong connection to Mexico?

I don't have any available documentation, but I do remember Mexican American ties to Mexico being an issue whenever more flexible US-Mexico borders are talked about. Also there was that possibility that Mexican Americans could vote in Mexican elections next go around that seemed to draw some ire.

Shit class!

[Gav]

Israel's free trips to Jewish youth of foreign countries in order to instill in them a sense of racial pride or the notion that Israel warrants United States aid is something that I have always considered violative of the international law precept that states must not make gifts to the citizens of other states to influence their views. I also consider these offers wildly racist and offensive to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of my nation.

It's a good thing that Israel is the only country in the world that spends money to make itself look good. Otherwise, we might have to worry about French schools popping up in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_pour_l%27Enseignement_Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A0_ l%27Etranger), or other ghastly horrors.

Gav

[Gav]

I have a question! How similar is the issue of Jews in other countries feeling a strong connection to Israel to the issue of Mexicans in America feeling a strong connection to Mexico?

I don't have any available documentation, but I do remember Mexican American ties to Mexico being an issue whenever more flexible US-Mexico borders are talked about. Also there was that possibility that Mexican Americans could vote in Mexican elections next go around that seemed to draw some ire.


Jewish Americans can't vote in Israeli elections. (Unless they're also Israeli citizens, of course. But even then, it's difficult, because Israel doesn't have an absentee ballot, so they have to arrange to be in the country on voting day)

I really thought this issue had been put to rest when JFK became president (Oh noes! The vatican will control US policy!)

In any case, right now, I think you'll find that evangelical Christians are more reflexively gung-ho for Israel than Jews.

[Flowers]

It's a good thing that Israel is the only country in the world that spends money to make itself look good. Otherwise, we might have to worry about French schools popping up in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_pour_l%27Enseignement_Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A0_ l%27Etranger), or other ghastly horrors.

Gav
Since when did two wrongs make a right?

While wrong as a gift to members of a foreign nation, language instruction at three locations in the United States is not the same as attempting wholesale to make a racially selected group of kids feel culturally indebted to some shitty dirt parcel smaller, smellier and more violent than the Detroit area. If they want to love that country, fine. If Israel wants to advertise for tourism, fine. But Israel must not make gifts to individuals in foreign countries in an attempt to curry their favor.

Furthermore, the fact that the Israeli government offers free trips to kids who have never been to Israel and have not had ancestors live in Israel in more than two thousand years is silly. The fact that the Israeli government does not offer the same "birthright," trips to Palestinian children of immigrants is flatly racist.

I hate to have to remind you, but racism is morally wrong.

[Lizard_King]

I hate to have to remind you, but racism is morally wrong.
What does morality have to do with this? Are you that guy that wanted the ten commandments in the courtroom? Since when has morality guided any country's actions? Also, is it racist when ethnic or national groups you like/pity practice the same sort of selectivity? Or is that just common sense there as well?

[shift6]

Racial hatred is probably morally wrong, but is racial preference? Is it racist to have a Mexican family set up a Mexican restaurant that caters to Hispanics and only has menus/discussions in Spanish?

[Flowers]

Also, is it racist when ethnic or national groups you like/pity practice the same sort of selectivity?
Yes it is.

[Lizard_King]

Yes it is.
Sorry, that was obvious. I meant "wrong", not "racist" there.

[Flowers]

Racial hatred is probably morally wrong, but is racial preference? Is it racist to have a Mexican family set up a Mexican restaurant that caters to Hispanics and only has menus/discussions in Spanish?
Are you actually saying that theme restaurants are a permissible form of cultural expression!?!

Oh Mr. Scarecrow, they've pulled out all your stuffing.

[Flowers]

Sorry, that was obvious. I meant "wrong", not "racist" there.
Yes, that is also wrong.

[Lizard_King]

Yes, that is also wrong.
And yet no less common and normal in the world. Could it be that surprisingly few surviving civilizations have shared your version of morality as policy?

[Flowers]

They are honored in the breach.

[Lizard_King]

Alright, now that was funny. Don't go changing gears on me now, it's too easy to hate.

[Tim Partlett]

If you can't see the difference between a privately run Mexican restaurant, and a government that discriminates in favour of the majority race, then you are either retarded, a racist or an apologist.

I mean come on. You might be able to understand why Israel has racist policies, but you can't claim they aren't racist or that racism isn't wrong. I mean "racial preference" is ok? Racism without hatred isn't wrong?

The term "racial preference" sounds like something dreamt up by the KKK to euphemise sending our coloured cousins back home.

[Lizard_King]

If you can't see the difference between a privately run Mexican restaurant, and a government that discriminates in favour of the majority race, then you are either retarded, a racist or an apologist.

I can. For one thing, judaism is not a race. That's one difference.

I mean come on. You might be able to understand why Israel has racist policies, but you can't claim they aren't racist or that racism isn't wrong. I mean "racial preference" is ok? Racism without hatred isn't wrong?
No one said they aren't some kind of -ist. I'm just unconvinced that it is harmful for anyone other than the people practicing it, in this case. Also, I'm unconvinced that in the boiling cauldron of dangerous and deadly -isms that is the Middle East, seizing on Israel's Jewish policies is anything but opportunistic use of modern cliche arguments, once again lawyerizing policies with jargon. I'm crazy like that, being able to see a huge distinction between the situation that gave rise to South African apartheid and what that was designed to maintain, say, relative to the Israeli situation.

In short, a red herring.

The term "racial preference" sounds like something dreamt up by the KKK to euphemise sending our coloured cousins back home.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bother with euphemisms, and the term racial preference as we know it likely arose as a result of "well intentioned" paternalistic social policy.

[Tim Partlett]

Ok, not "race", but that majority group that just happens not to be Arabs.

Pretending Israel's policies are not racist, when there is one race being clearly discriminated against, is possibly the worst kind of "lawyerizing" there is.

If all the non-Muslims in Iran just happened to be black, I'd call Iranian discrimination against non-Muslim racist too, even if Muslim itself isn't considered a race.

Personally I equate prejudice against Muslims and Jews as racist, whether they are considered races or not. The prejudice seems to me to be equally as nasty.

[Lizard_King]

Ok, not "race", but that majority group that just happens not to be Arabs.

Pretending Israel's policies are not racist, when there is one race being clearly discriminated against, is possibly the worst kind of "lawyerizing" there is.

If all the non-Muslims in Iran just happened to be black, I'd call Iranian discrimination against non-Muslim racist too, even if Muslim itself isn't considered a race.

Personally I equate prejudice against Muslims and Jews as racist, whether they are considered races or not. The prejudice seems to me to be equally as nasty.

I promise I said that for a reason, and not because in and of itself it would invalidate your argument with semantics. In that sense, I think there is a lot to be said for shades of grey when it comes to condemning bigotry and prejudices, because the moment animals evolved enough to think a little about differences between themselves and others, they found a reason to irrationally hate those who were not a part of their group.

I say irrationally because I think that is the key distinction. All bigotry is, by its very definition, what most decent people would consider bad. But that self evident statement ignores the very real distinction between irrational discrimination and rational discrimination, the latter which is of interest to me. In that sense, a group is selected for or against based on the benefit of experience using easily assessed criteria for purposes of expediency and practicality. Until mindreading becomes standard, I'd say Jewishness is probably as safe an automatic litmus test to use to find people that would best serve the interests of a Jewish nation as I understand them.

Now, it gets more interesting when you ask, but if the origins and defining precepts of said Jewish state are irrational, doesn't that cast into doubt everything that follows from them? Well, sort of. But to pretend the irrationality of Israel was created in a vacuum, independent of Jewish history prior or Israeli history since, is just about the only way you could pull that off and still find a way to pin the reasons for that bigotry on Israelis. It's not that they created an enemy out of vague stereotypes and conspiracies; their paranoia was understandable even if it led them to an irrational outcome (the creation of a "racist" democracy).

And as far as prejudice against Arabs goes, I would say the policies and actions of their own governments are exponentially worse than anything that Israel comes up for its Arab citizens. Claiming Palestinians fall into that category automatically is foolish and ignorant of their history; it is not out of racism so much as out of a desire to survive that they are treated differently. You can pretend it is apartheid by any other name, but to do so ignores the role Palestinians and the governments that manipulate them had in putting them and keeping them in that position. That matters, and keeps it from being an easy binary to wave about.

A final caveat: as any student of the enlightenment can tell you, being rational is not the same as being right. I would not pretend that in this case they are equivalent, nor would I want you to think I promote all rational forms of "racism" as perfectly ok. I just think in this case it provides a more nuanced lens with which to view Israeli choices, and allow for a greater sense of what happens when decent people are put in bad situations versus what happens when *nasty* people seek to hurt others and conquer illlegitimately.

As you've brought up before, there are many discussions that would probably go a lot less acrimoniously if they were being conducted verbally. This is probably one of those.

[Shiroko]

Ok, not "race", but that majority group that just happens not to be Arabs.

Pretending Israel's policies are not racist, when there is one race being clearly discriminated against, is possibly the worst kind of "lawyerizing" there is.

If all the non-Muslims in Iran just happened to be black, I'd call Iranian discrimination against non-Muslim racist too, even if Muslim itself isn't considered a race.

Personally I equate prejudice against Muslims and Jews as racist, whether they are considered races or not. The prejudice seems to me to be equally as nasty.

I'll try explain why I don't see anything racist about Israel although it being a jewish state.
When you think on racism you think on differentiate between people on their race to do different things. As in seperate hospitals, shops and such. You think about some race desires that the other "inferior" race will effectively be inferior.
Those thing don't exist in Israel (At least legally, and not worse than other countries). The difference is that Israel was made to protect jews around the world and in order for that it needs to be a haven for jews. There's no desire that palestinians will live a 2nd grade citizens and do the bidding of their jewish masters. But you also cannot ignore the cultural dispute between the two, which dictates a palestinian state and a jewish state need to be in two different states.
And that it what Israel wants as well. It doesn't want palestinians not to become citizens because because they don't deserve it, but because it ruin the most important goal of Israel, which is protecting jews.

[Tim Partlett]

And as far as prejudice against Arabs goes, I would say the policies and actions of their own governments are exponentially worse than anything that Israel comes up for its Arab citizens. Claiming Palestinians fall into that category automatically is foolish and ignorant of their history; it is not out of racism so much as out of a desire to survive that they are treated differently. You can pretend it is apartheid by any other name, but to do so ignores the role Palestinians and the governments that manipulate them had in putting them and keeping them in that position. That matters, and keeps it from being an easy binary to wave about.

It is perfectly rational that the whites of South Africa wanted to protect themselves and their property from the majority blacks. I mean look at what a shit hole South Africa turned into once the blacks gained their fair share of the government. Johannesburg was one of the safest cities in the world, now it's the murder capital of the world.

Does that excuse Apartheid?

I can't believe your "rational racism" argument.

It also doesn't matter what other nations are doing. It doesn't stop racism from being wrong or excuse it. Blacks in Apartheid South Africa were better off than blacks in the Congo, should we have supported their racist government on that basis?

Unbelievable.

If some people criticise Israel for everything they do, then this is pure apologism for everything they do.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I'll try explain why I don't see anything racist about Israel although it being a jewish state.
When you think on racism you think on differentiate between people on their race to do different things. As in seperate hospitals, shops and such. You think about some race desires that the other "inferior" race will effectively be inferior.
Those thing don't exist in Israel (At least legally, and not worse than other countries). The difference is that Israel was made to protect jews around the world and in order for that it needs to be a haven for jews. There's no desire that palestinians will live a 2nd grade citizens and do the bidding of their jewish masters. But you also cannot ignore the cultural dispute between the two, which dictates a palestinian state and a jewish state need to be in two different states.
And that it what Israel wants as well. It doesn't want palestinians not to become citizens because because they don't deserve it, but because it ruin the most important goal of Israel, which is protecting jews.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity. It's sublime. Separate but equal, but not equal, because equality would be dangerous. Have you studied the writings of Strom Thurmond or did you do this one from scratch?

[Shiroko]

I honestly don't understand what you want, nor feel like reading US senator's biographies in my spare time.
I'll put in more nicely for you. If you think Israel is racist, than you think the concept of a haven for jews is racist. And honestly I think that disallowing a haven for jews is a bit more racist than allowing one.

[E-phonk]

A haven for white people would be nice. Or make that the arian race, where we can live safely without being mugged on the streets. Don't you deny our rights!

[Shiroko]

Yes, because white people are the the targets of such attacks in the last 2000 years...
And here I thought minorities getting their own country was a good thing.

EDIT: You also make it as if black people (Or whatever I donnu) are mugging white people only. And it's a national thing, and not a symptom of something else.

[E-phonk]

Most of the jews I see in antwerp seem to live ok there, while about 10% of the city consists of muslims/arabs.

The only time there are problems is when things get to heated up in the middle east.

[Shiroko]

Mind you we're on a bigger scale here. And all the grave ruining in the world doesn't strike as important as even simple pogroms that have been happening for centuries. That is, I don't remember any pogrom since Israel exists. but aside for that they were quite popular here and there.

Jews can happily live around the world today, and most of them had simple peaceful life even before Israel. But not all of them, and most of these came to Israel.

[Gav]

Most of the jews I see in antwerp seem to live ok there, while about 10% of the city consists of muslims/arabs.

The only time there are problems is when things get to heated up in the middle east.

You do realize that a city in which, less than 70 years ago (August 28, 1942), most of the Jews were rounded up and deported to death camps is not necessarily a great example of how great the Jews have it.

Gav

[E-phonk]

By an invasion of a foreign nation that occupied most of western europe no less.

(A modern Nazi Germany alike nation would've just bombed israel to the ground. That's not really any safer imo)

[Tim Partlett]

Just think: if Zimbabwe had followed the same plan as the Israelis, it would still be white people ruling there now, instead of having some angry black president stealing all their hard earned farms from them. The whites of Zimbabwe have been basically kicked out of the country. Surely, according to the arguments here, they should have been protected from that angry African retribution, even if it meant racist policies?

They got it all wrong. They could have run a racist immigration policy, and encouraged mass white immigration, but made it almost impossible for anyone of a different colour. They could have reduced the number of blacks by parcelling up the worst parts of the country, the parts that only had blacks in them any way, and turned them into semi-autonomous prison states, just like Gaza and Lesotho.

They could have then allowed majority rule without fear, because majority rule would have been majority white!

Great solution, and without that distasteful Apartheid. If only Ian Smith had been smart enough to have copied the Israeli's "rationally racist" policies.

[Kyle Wilson]

To clarify--and I am legitimately curious here, not trying to score rhetorical points--are you all saying that a two-state solution with an independent Palestine would be inherently racist, and therefore immoral?

[Gav]

Tim, if Zimbabwe is your model for the a successful transfer of power in Israel to the Palestinians, I'd hate to see what you might consider a failure.

(edit for clarity)

[Gav]

By an invasion of a foreign nation that occupied most of western europe no less.


And this is an reason why Jews don't need a haven? That most of the places they were living were occupied by people who tried to kill them?

Still, I guess someone so irony-deficient that they could post that Jews = Nazis:

A haven for white people would be nice. Or make that the arian race, where we can live safely without being mugged on the streets. Don't you deny our rights!
can't be expected to think particularly rationally, I suppose.

[E-phonk]

And this is an reason why Jews don't need a haven?
Most of the Belgians never had anything against jews.
But like I asked: if all jews would be living in israel in 1940 - and Nazi germany wanted to get rid of all the jews, wouldn't the fact that they all lived in the same nation make it even more easy?

[Tim Partlett]

Tim, if Zimbabwe is your model for the a successful transfer of power in Israel to the Palestinians, I'd hate to see what you might consider a failure.

(edit for clarity)

I didn't say it was successful. It came about through violent revolution for a start, rather than peaceful transition. This didn't help the white population, because it left the new leadership embittered, and also a population filled with war veterans who had nothing to do after the revolution ended. These war veterans were kept sweet by the new government by giving them white people's farms.

South Africa is a better model, but you are never going to have a smooth and pleasant transition from power when you have huge immigration from a foreign culture to a colony, and then implement racist laws in order to protect those colonists from the locals. The smoothest transitions to non-racist governments have occurred where the colonists have swamped the original inhabitants, but that's not going to happen in Israel.

Would it be painful for Israel to revoke its racist policies? Yes, but so was it painful for South Africa? Should Israel revoke its racist policies? Should South Africa have?

[Shiroko]

Just think: if Zimbabwe had followed the same plan as the Israelis, it would still be white people ruling there now, instead of having some angry black president stealing all their hard earned farms from them. The whites of Zimbabwe have been basically kicked out of the country. Surely, according to the arguments here, they should have been protected from that angry African retribution, even if it meant racist policies?

They got it all wrong. They could have run a racist immigration policy, and encouraged mass white immigration, but made it almost impossible for anyone of a different colour. They could have reduced the number of blacks by parcelling up the worst parts of the country, the parts that only had blacks in them any way, and turned them into semi-autonomous prison states, just like Gaza and Lesotho.

They could have then allowed majority rule without fear, because majority rule would have been majority white!

Great solution, and without that distasteful Apartheid. If only Ian Smith had been smart enough to have copied the Israeli's "rationally racist" policies.

I'll assume its a perfect brilliant analogy. But why would all the white people want to move to zimbabwe?
Are they all persecuted in their homelands?
Any important anti-white pogroms? Because my history calsses are seriously biased if there were such pogroms.

[Shiroko]

Most of the Belgians never had anything against jews.
But like I asked: if all jews would be living in israel in 1940 - and Nazi germany wanted to get rid of all the jews, wouldn't the fact that they all lived in the same nation make it even more easy?

We would have our own country with our own weapons.
What made the holocaust possible is not Germany's military power (O.K. that too) but the people's co-operation with them. See france compared to denemark.

+ we have a powerful army just in case. :)

[Tim Partlett]

I might have some sympathy and understanding for why Israelis do it, but it doesn't mean it isn't racist, and it doesn't mean it isn't wrong. While, as a sympathetic and guilt-culture-laden Westerner, I might turn a blind eye to it, and only debate it when people deny that it is racism or wrong, I don't believe that other peoples, like the Arabs and Chinese, would see it in the same light. And I don't blame them.

[MikeSofaer]

Most of the Belgians never had anything against jews.The Nazi deportations relied on the antisemetism of the local populations. All over Europe there were people absolutely eager to tell the Nazis exactly where the Jewish families lived, so they could be carted away to someplace more appropriate for them.

[MikeSofaer]

Would it be painful for Israel to revoke its racist policies? Yes, but so was it painful for South Africa?I think it's pretty funny that people make this comparison with a straight face, but that's because I have a really dark sense of humor.

Israel will grant citizenship to any Jew who moves there. Oh, dear, cry the beloved country.

[Flowers]

It is a bad idea to associate with people and defend them based purely on the fact that your ancestors believed in the same iteration of Spiderman. When you pick your friends, you should pick a fun group of people that do not ask you or influence you to do bad things. If you are with a group of people and they tell you that you should go hurt someone or do something bad, they are not your friends.

[Tim Partlett]

I think it's pretty funny that people make this comparison with a straight face, but that's because I have a really dark sense of humor.

Israel will grant citizenship to any Jew who moves there. Oh, dear, cry the beloved country.

I've already stated in this thread, quite clearly, that comparing Israel to South Africa's Apartheid is unfair. That doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't share some aspects of Apartheid, including racist policies designed to preserve the hegemony of one group over another.

[MikeSofaer]

racist policies designed to preserve the hegemony of one group over another.Name two.

[MikeSofaer]

I've already stated in this thread, quite clearly, that comparing Israel to South Africa's Apartheid is unfair.And then you went ahead and compared them.

[Flowers]

Name two.
Ghettoization
Checkpoints

[Flowers]

Name two.
Race based right to return
Racial requirements for military service

[Flowers]

Name two.
Military attacks on civilian holdings
Pressuring foreign countries to withold aid to Palestine

[Flowers]

Name two.
Torture
Failure to release territory belonging to Palestine

[MikeSofaer]

Ghettoization
CheckpointsNot inside Israel.

[MikeSofaer]

Race based right to return
Racial requirements for military serviceThe first is good, and the only one. The second not a question of hegemony, and changing.

[MikeSofaer]

Military attacks on civilian holdings
Pressuring foreign countries to withold aid to PalestineNot racist, and there is as yet no Palestine to aid.

[MikeSofaer]

Torture
Failure to release territory belonging to PalestineAgain, not racist and there is as yet no Palestine to which to release territory, the sooner the better, though. Also, torture is illegal in Israel. It may happen, but it's not policy.

[Flowers]

Not inside Israel.
And also not while wearing their favorite red dress, point out a distinction that has shit to do with shit.

[MikeSofaer]

And also not while wearing their favorite red dress, point out a distinction that has shit to do with shit.Israel does not grant equal rights to non-citizens living in occupied territories outside the state. That's not racist, that's what nations do when they occupy territories.

[Flowers]

Again, not racist and there is as yet no Palestine to which to release territory, the sooner the better, though. Also, torture is illegal in Israel. It may happen, but it's not policy.
It is a policy. You don't have to lie. It's cute that you think we are so stupid, but even Newsweek has articles on Israeli torture ot Palestinians.

Yes, it is racist. It is racist because it is racially motivated and carried out on basis of race. Did you perhaps have some other meaning for the word? Perhaps you meant "highly sexual in nature?" Sorry, the word for that is rac-y.

[Flowers]

Israel does not grant equal rights to non-citizens living in occupied territories outside the state. That's not racist, that's what nations do when they occupy territories.
Israel does not allow Palestinians to become citizens the way it allows Jews to become citizens, so it is unable, in all fairness, to hide behind that point. They created the unjustice and the division. they cannot use it as a justification. That would be rude.

[Flowers]

The first is good, and the only one. The second not a question of hegemony, and changing.
Equal rights are equal rights, unequal rights are not equal rights.

Oh pshaw, you aren't even trying.

[MikeSofaer]

Equal rights are equal rights, unequal rights are not equal rights.

Oh pshaw, you aren't even trying.And yet Tim specified racist and intended to maintain hegemony as the criteria, and only the open immigration policy for Jews fits those criteria. They do other mean things, but they don't meet those particular standards.

But you are right, I'm not trying all that hard. You're a troll after all, and there's only so much effort I can put into arguing with someone who doesn't even believe his own bullshit.

[Shiroko]

Racial requirements for military service

Your examples are ranging on some levels in thier quality.
But this made laugh big time.
And I just want to ask, how come non-mandatory military service for arabs is a good example?

[Tim Partlett]

Just a few of the major ones.

1. Israel is a Jewish state, not a democratic state for all the people of the country. It says so very clearly in the constitution. While not having a direct impact on the Arab minority, it is a very powerful message.

2. Citizenship laws: it's a plain and indisputable policy of Jewish Israeli governments to ensure the hegemony of Jews in Israel by operating racist immigration laws. Jewish people are actively encouraged to become citizens of the country, and have been given support, money and housing, whereas Arabs have been actively discouraged with discriminatory laws.

3. Land ownership: 93.5% of Israel is owned by the government, through the Israeli Lands Authority or the Jewish National Fund. The JNF has blatantly racist guidelines governing who should and should not be leased land and where they can lease it, and the ILA is ordered to follow JNF guidelines, as well as having half of its board made up of JNF members.

Jewish and Arab only towns exist, and have been encouraged by laws passed in the Knesset. It can be extremely difficult for Arabs to get homes in majority Jewish towns, and vice-versa. In Jerusalem it is a particular problem due to the sensitive nature of the city, and Arabs have been maneuvered out of the city through racist ILA decisions.

4. The Occupied Territories. While this may be outside of Israel proper, it is still a people under Israeli control, and Israeli policies greatly effect the Arab population here. Among racist policies already mentioned, here Jewish settlers were paid to take land belonging to Arabs, with the deliberate intention of taking Arab land while avoiding the necessity to absorb the Arab population into Israel (and thus give them equal rights and endanger Jewish hegemony).

Israel itself is nowhere near as bad as South Africa, which is why I wasn't comparing it, but just because it isn't as bad as South African apartheid, doesn't mean that it doesn't have racist policies.

[MikeSofaer]

Well, 1 isn't a policy and 4 is no longer in effect, but you did get two, I'd forgotten about the weird socialist land ownership situation. I have hope that the Israeli judicial system will eventually clean up the land allocation issues, particularly once the OT are truly self-governed.

2 is the basis of the state of Israel, somewhere any Jew can go if something goes very wrong. Its influence on the demographics of the nation are directly linked to how important it is that there be a Jewish homeland. If Jews really are fine in most of the world, there won't be the kind of influx needed to make a big difference in who runs the country. If, to choose a panicky biased example (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278919,00.html) the Jews are driven out of Spain again, well, maybe it's a good thing they still have a place to go.

[Shiroko]

Pretty much what he said.
2 is slowly improving and diminishing. And is more today the remaints of a 80 years old conception. Hopefully it will disappear in a decade.

[Tim Partlett]

Saying that Israel is a land for Jewish people (and therefore not Arabs although they are to be "respected") is not a policy? I'd say it was a defining policy of the state, especially as it is enshrined in the opening words of the country's constitution.

And 4 is still in effect, because there are settlers still in the occupied territories.

[MikeSofaer]

Saying that Israel is a land for Jewish people (and therefore not Arabs although they are to be "respected") is not a policy? I'd say it was a defining policy of the state, especially as it is enshrined in the opening words of the country's constitution.

And 4 is still in effect, because there are settlers still in the occupied territories.A mission statement is not a policy.

There are still settlers in the OT, but the current policy of Israel is to withdraw them.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

A mission statement is not a policy.

Come again?

[MikeSofaer]

Come again?It is the mission of Springfield PD to protect its citizens.

It is the policy of Springfield PD to patrol Main street at intervals no longer than 15 minutes to maintain order.

[Flowers]

It is the mission of Springfield PD to protect its citizens.

It is the policy of Springfield PD to patrol Main street at intervals no longer than 15 minutes to maintain order.
No motherfucker, it is the policy of the Springfield PD to protect its citizens. You are thinking of practice.

Jesus christ, and that inability to serve in the military? Fucking think about it.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

pol·i·cy1 (pŏl'ĭ-sē) pronunciation
n., pl. -cies.

1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.
2.
1. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.
2. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters.

[Middle English policie, art of government, civil organization, from Old French. See police.]

A good mission statement should accurately explain why your organization exists and what it hopes to achieve in the future.

The mission statement should be a clear and succinct representation of the enterprise's purpose for existence.

Or to look at another way, a brief selective timeline of this thread's recent moments as they pertain to this issue:

Post 94: Tim Partlett, having been challenged to produce examples of institutionalized racism in Israel, makes a list. Designated by the number 1 on that list is Israel's status as a Jewish state.

Post 95: Mike Sofaer, referring to Israel's status as a Jewish state, mysteriously describes it as "not a policy."

Post 97: Tim disagrees, citing the Israeli constitution. (NB -- the Israeli constitution, such as it is, is a series of "Basic Laws." As reproduced here (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1992/3/Basic%20Law-%20Human%20Dignity%20and%20Liberty-), the relevant passage is as follows: "1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." It is not entirely clear from this passage alone whether "Jewish" is intended in an ethnic sense, a religious one, or both. Giving Tim the least possible benefit of the doubt, the statement may not be racist, but in that case, it is still at the least theocratic. It should be noted that while this document does not appear to have much bearing on the behavior of the Israeli government or Israeli military organs in many other respects, it would seem justified to say that the declaration that Israel is a Jewish state is fully in keeping with most people's perceptions of Israel, including my own.)

Post 98: Mike claims a distinction between "policies" and "mission statements." No explanation is provided as to how catagorizing the passage in question as a "mission statement" rather than a "policy" calls into question Tim's contention that it is an example of Israeli racism.

Post 99: Unicorn McGriddle begs Mike clarify, hoping that he will elaborate somewhat sensibly -- though Unicorn may disagree -- on the lack of absolute precision in the law itself, or the tendency of Israel to ignore the broader, grander statements in its Basic Laws.

Post 100: I was going to drop character and tear into you with a melange of TRDX-isms, but I guess I'm just not that much of an asshole this morning. If you want to contend that Israel is not explicitly an ethnically Jewish state, there are more forthright ways to do it.

[Gav]

Jesus christ, and that inability to serve in the military? Fucking think about it.

They are not unable to serve in the military, they are not required to.

Some Arabs (notably the bedouin) do serve in the military.

If Israel required Arabs to serve in the military, you'd be arguing that that's racist, too. Fucking think about it.

Gav

edit: Hasidim aren't required to serve in the military either, but Druze are. Guess Druze are privileged over Jews. Sounds racist as hell.

[Flowers]

Just go take a gander at the IDF wikipedia entry or something, they should have a human rights report that lays out the negative societal effect of this particular differential treatment based on race.

[Shiroko]

They are not unable to serve in the military, they are not required to.

Some Arabs (notably the bedouin) do serve in the military.

If Israel required Arabs to serve in the military, you'd be arguing that that's racist, too. Fucking think about it.

Gav

edit: Hasidim aren't required to serve in the military either, but Druze are. Guess Druze are privileged over Jews. Sounds racist as hell.

I'll clear it to you all.
Conservative jews who study Torah aren't required to serve in the military, this is a legacy from 48 and is a heavy polictical debate all the time.
Non-jewish aren't forced to serve in the military, though a lot Beduin serve. And even rarely some muslims and christian arabs. (Rarely, I probably think that those are those guys who played too much delta warrior or something...)
Druze are forced to serve, basically because they were willing to since Israel was founded. As part of the druze way of life of living as equels in whatever country they are.
Ramat Hagolan druze for example don't serve BTW.

I see nothing racist is these policies, not one was ever refused to serve in the IDF (Not on a racist basis).
There are a lot of debates to force all the non-serving communities to do national service instead to narrow the differences.

[Gav]

Just go take a gander at the IDF wikipedia entry or something, they should have a human rights report that lays out the negative societal effect of this particular differential treatment based on race.

Why don't you take a gander at it? It would've told you that Arabs can and do serve in the IDF. If Arabs are so desperate to change this policy, why don't they sign up (like the druze do)? Thank God they've got champions like you, who are ready and willing to get all of them drafted!

But, then again, having too many facts might get in the way of your argument. Better to stay away.

At least when Tim Partlett says stuff, he's usually got his facts right, even if I'd totally disagree with his interpretation. You just make shit up.

Gav

[MikeSofaer]

OK, Unicorn, I'll try to use a bit more detail.

I've already stated in this thread, quite clearly, that comparing Israel to South Africa's Apartheid is unfair. That doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't share some aspects of Apartheid, including racist policies designed to preserve the hegemony of one group over another.OK, that's worth quoting again just for the irony. Anyway, I think the definitions of "policy" and "mission statement" you quoted support my contention. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.That is not a course of action or procedure. It's not even a guiding principle in the sense of "honesty is the best policy"

Rather, that basic law is closer to "a clear and succinct representation of the enterprise's purpose for existence." Although it isn't very succinct. In other words, something cannot be a racist policy designed to preserve hegemony if it is not a policy in the practical sense of directing the actions of the government.

On the other hand, if you feel that Israel's mission to be a democratic Jewish state is an inherently racist one, you are not alone.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I think you're splitting the wrong hair here.

Jew (jū) pronunciation
n.

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

[Middle English Jeu, from Old French giu, from Latin Iūdaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic yəhudāy, from Hebrew yəhûdî, inhabitant of Judah, from yəhûdâ, Judah. See Judah2.]

The second definition seems most reasonable for these purposes. Can we agree that a people originally descended from a specific regional and ethnic group and said to "[share] an ethnic heritage" constitute a race?

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

racist rac'ist adj. & n.

The second is more immediately or indisputably relevant. But what is discrimination?

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

discriminational dis·crim'i·na'tion·al adj.

The third definiton seems to be the most appropriate. Is it not true that Israel treats people based on class or category rather than individual merit -- and that the category is often racial?

(Note that even if you believe that Israel takes no unwarranted negative action against non-Jewish ethnic groups as such, surely you concede that it gives preferential treatment to Jews.)

he·gem·o·ny (hĭ-jĕm'ə-nē, hĕj'ə-mō'nē) pronunciation
n., pl. -nies.

The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

[Greek hēgemoniā, from hēgemōn, leader. See hegemon.]
hegemonic heg'e·mon'ic (hĕj'ə-mŏn'ĭk) adj.
hegemonism he·gem'o·nism n.
hegemonist he·gem'o·nist adj. & n.

Israel -- controlled by Jews?

a·part·heid (ə-pärt'hīt', -hāt') pronunciation
n.

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

[Afrikaans : Dutch apart, separate (from French à part, apart; see apart) + Dutch -heid, -hood.]

The second definition seems appropriate. I can see some people possibly disputing the allegation that Jews are separated from other groups, though. After all, don't Palestinians live within the borders of Israel and work in Jerusalem etc. Here's something interesting, though:

in·te·gra·tion (ĭn'tĭ-grā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. The act or process of integrating.
2. The state of becoming integrated.
2. The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.
3. Psychology. The organization of the psychological or social traits and tendencies of a personality into a harmonious whole.
4. Mathematics. The process of computing an integral; the inverse of differentiation.
5. Electronics. The process of placing more than one integrated circuit on a single chip.

Consider that second definition. Are all of the people of Israel, irrespective of their racial and/or ethnic groups, in "unrestricted and equal association"?

seg·re·ga·tion (sĕg'rĭ-gā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
3. Genetics. The separation of paired alleles or homologous chromosomes, especially during meiosis, so that the members of each pair appear in different gametes.

Going by the second definition, it sounds like Israel may be segregated.

Let's synthesize all this:

- Judiasm in the context of Israel connotes ethnicity, or more bluntly, Jews are a race.
- Israel gives preferential treatment to Jews.
- Giving preferential treatment to people based on their race is racist per se.
Therefore, Israel is racist. (As a matter of policy, since Israel has policies which favor Jews as a racial group.)

And how about this one?
- Israel is a multi-racial country which is not integrated. (Are the inhabitants of Israel in "unrestricted and equal association"?)
- Israel is in fact segregated.
- Israel's status as such results from its long-term goals as a "Jewish state," i.e., a state with an explicit and specific ethnic hegemony.
- Apartheid is the practice of segregation.
Therefore, Israel operates under policies and goals of apartheid, which yield the conditions of apartheid.

I don't see what's unfair about the South Africa comparison. Tim, would you like to tell me where the unfairness lies in comparing two governments which practice apartheid?

[Ed Solomon]

There are still settlers in the OT, but the current policy of Israel is to withdraw them.
Come on Mike, be serious.

[MikeSofaer]

Israel gives preferential treatment to Jews.
- Giving preferential treatment to people based on their race is racist per se.
Therefore, Israel is racist. (As a matter of policy, since Israel has policies which favor Jews as a racial group.)And here we are back where we started. Which actual policies give preferential treatment to Jews? The immigration policy clearly does, and Tim reminded me of the land issues, but that is pretty much it. Can you think of any other policies that discriminate between Israeli Jews and Israeli non-Jews? I'm unclear why you went off on this broad-brush description of how Israel is a Jewish state (well done, by the way), when I was making a much narrower point about what Israel does and does not do in terms of providing advantages to its Jews.

- Israel is a multi-racial country which is not integrated. (Are the inhabitants of Israel in "unrestricted and equal association"?)Well, actually, the citizens of Israel pretty much are. Tim pointed out that there remain some land use issues that are not yet resolved, but otherwise, yes. Unrestricted and equal association.
Israel is in fact segregated.Only if you define Israel to include the OT, which you can do if you want, I won't defend their policies in the OT.

[Ed Solomon]

Guys, come on. Israel is an imperfect country but all countries are imperfect.

For a country locked in an existential struggle for 50 years, it's doing all right civil rights wise (not counting the occupied territories, which are a travesty). I certaintly don't think we, as Americans, should be throwing any stones. Al Qaeda, in the grand scheme of things, is a pretty minor threat to the US as a whole, and we haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory defending the most basic principles of our founding if they conflict with catching terrorists.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

And here we are back where we started. Which actual policies give preferential treatment to Jews? The immigration policy clearly does, and Tim reminded me of the land issues, but that is pretty much it. Can you think of any other policies that discriminate between Israeli Jews and Israeli non-Jews? I'm unclear why you went off on this broad-brush description of how Israel is a Jewish state (well done, by the way), when I was making a much narrower point about what Israel does and does not do in terms of providing advantages to its Jews.

Israel practices and perpetuates Jewish hegemony. It is currently waging a strange punitive war that has created half a million refugees. Not enough for you?

I also like how you concede the existence and nature of two discriminatory policies, then throw up your hands and wonder where all the discrimination is.

Tim pointed out that there remain some land use issues that are not yet resolved, but otherwise, yes. Unrestricted and equal association.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/photos/fence.10.17.03.jpg

Good fences make good neighbors?

Only if you define Israel to include the OT, which you can do if you want, I won't defend their policies in the OT.

I think that the actions of the Israeli government are Israeli actions, no matter where they take place. Do actions of the American government that would be important in Wyoming not count in Puerto Rico?

Edit: I'm not throwing stones as an American. America sucks. Any stones I throw are leaving the hand of a mere human, without endorsement of the nation that claims the soil he stands on.

Also, Israel has not been locked in an existential struggle for 50 years without damn good cause.

[MikeSofaer]

I think that the actions of the Israeli government are Israeli actions, no matter where they take place.So the US is an Aparrtheid state because Iraqis can't vote in US elections.

[Qenan]

Also because we have disenfranchised the Samoans or something.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

So the US is an Aparrtheid state because Iraqis can't vote in US elections.

Iraqis can vote in territorial elections, though. (Admittedly, those territorial elections are largely meaningless, but hey, what American election isn't?) If territorial elections don't count, then Puerto Rico is under apartheid too.

[MikeSofaer]

Iraqis can vote in territorial elections, though. (Admittedly, those territorial elections are largely meaningless, but hey, what American election isn't?) If territorial elections don't count, then Puerto Rico is under apartheid too.Which is why normally Apartheid is a term reserved for when a state segregates its citizens by race.

[Qenan]

Well, the situation is a bit different when you've been occupying some territories for almost 40 years.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Which is why normally Apartheid is a term reserved for when a state segregates its citizens by race.

Israel has both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, and Israel treats Jews and non-Jews differently, therefore...

[MikeSofaer]

Israel has both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, and Israel treats Jews and non-Jews differently, therefore...Israel has some issues with land allocation, but for the most part does not deny rights to its citizens on the basis of race. If you want to argue about how pernicious the land thing is, I'll be upset, because I'll have to go find out the details instead of playing "The Ship"

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Nah, go ahead and play The Ship. I'm too lazy to look for references. It's like 100 degrees in here.

[Tim Partlett]

I've just noticed a convenient paradox here:

Non-Jewish governments discriminating against Jewish people is racist, but it is not racist for Jewish governments to discriminate against non-Jews.

Is it not true that the Arabs of Israel are ethnically different to the Jewish population? Because if so, there's no argument that it is racism to discriminate against them.

[invitroman]

If you can't see the difference between a privately run Mexican restaurant, and a government that discriminates in favour of the majority race, then you are either retarded, a racist or an apologist.

I mean come on. You might be able to understand why Israel has racist policies, but you can't claim they aren't racist or that racism isn't wrong. I mean "racial preference" is ok? Racism without hatred isn't wrong?

The term "racial preference" sounds like something dreamt up by the KKK to euphemise sending our coloured cousins back home.


I practice racism everytime I make a very Freudian decision to pursue nooky with the VERY WHITE, freckled ginger siren who tends to sunburn verrryyy easily. I just don't naturally attract towards darker hued women.

At some point, a rational person must openly acknowledge that the vernacular has achieved, in some places, a linguistic elasticity that is nonsensical and irrelevent at best. Your so-called 'racism' is contraindicative here because it is stretched to the point of red herring, and simply because you do not like what a so-called racist is doing.

Birthright Israel is a racist, religiously biased notion that violates international law.

I don't agree that a bunch of mostly white, crusty bureaucrats at a random political summit in europe should dictate to the rest of the world how to conduct itself, so I'm gonna have to call you a racist. Y'know, because I'm so intellectually bankrupt I have to use tarbrushes and cheap labels to make my point.

And I believe your universal moralism has lost it's bearings on that little known reality called the human condition.

Tim: It's semite vs. semite, so I'd have to say "r0ng!"
It's xenophobic, it's genocide, BUT IT IS NOT RACISM.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Oh, oh, oh - this is awesome.

[Tim Partlett]

Why are you quoting two different people as if they were both me, invitroman?

I practice racism everytime I make a very Freudian decision to pursue nooky with the VERY WHITE, freckled ginger siren who tends to sunburn verrryyy easily. I just don't naturally attract towards darker hued women.

At some point, a rational person must openly acknowledge that the vernacular has achieved, in some places, a linguistic elasticity that is nonsensical and irrelevent at best. Your so-called 'racism' is contraindicative here because it is stretched to the point of red herring, and simply because you do not like what a so-called racist is doing.

In less wordy prose:

I prefer white women, this is an act of "racism".

Some words have very broad definitions. You have stretched the definition of racism too far, because you don't like what the supposed racist is doing.

I disagree!

[Gav]

Thread zombie for the win...

I just came across this discussion of the Walt/Mearsheimer book about the Israel lobby. I haven't finished reading it, but it's interesting so far:
http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/IsraelLobby-Roundtable.pdf

[Brian Rucker]

I started it and there's food for thought from most of the participants. Most more reflective than reflexive. Don't have time right now to wade through the whole thing though.

[Dirt]

If being a Democracy counts for whom we should or should not support, why does the USA support the Communists over Taiwan as to who should be the governing body over China? It is so not rational to base our support on a country based upon their governmental structure. Our foreign policy needs to be as economically practical as it is politically. The Muslims used to call Jewish and Christians "People of the Book", meaning you all worship the same God and treated both fairly. Israel isn't a good ally because they're part of the reason we are at war with the Muslim world. Just as Taiwan is a bad ally if it threatens our peace with Communist China. If they cause problems for us politically and ecomomically, I say nuke both those fuckers, twice. But let me get my family out of Taiwan first...

[Jag]

Very good read, although a bit wordy. This review does do a good job at objectively explaining the faults of the W/M book although it treats them with far more respect than they deserve given those faults.

[Gav]

Israel isn't a good ally because they're part of the reason we are at war with the Muslim world.
If you had read the article, you'd know have read the bit where the second reviewer points out that the Muslim world is the reason we're allies of Israel. (p. 20)

As usual, you have cause & effect reversed. What a surprise.
As usual, you decided to bring Taiwan and China into a discussion of Israel. What a surprise.

[Dirt]

If you had read the article, you'd know have read the bit where the second reviewer points out that the Muslim world is the reason we're allies of Israel. (p. 20)

As usual, you have cause & effect reversed. What a surprise.
As usual, you decided to bring Taiwan and China into a discussion of Israel. What a surprise.
You support Israel unquestionably, what a surprise. It must be so comforting when there's only one truth in the world.

We cut up the Muslim world after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. After WWII, we cut it up again and gave Israel to the Jews. The only reason I can think of someone saying that is the idea that it's better to have Jerusalem under Jewish rule than Muslim rule. The Crusades are over, man.

I can only compare against what I know. Taiwan is a Democracy. China is not. Why do we not support Taiwan over China? Where else do we unquestionably support totalitarian rule over a democracy? We don't even do that for South Korea (though we did fight a war for them). Vietnam we lost. Then again, there's Saudi Arabia but that relationship depends on who is President, I think.

[Lizard_King]

I can only compare against what I know. Taiwan is a Democracy. China is not. Why do we not support Taiwan over China? Where else do we unquestionably support totalitarian rule over a democracy? We don't even do that for South Korea (though we did fight a war for them). Vietnam we lost. Then again, there's Saudi Arabia but that relationship depends on who is President, I think.

Calling Israel totalitarian is stupid. Again, not surprising.

You say you "know" China. Then how is it possible you can't factor out the incredibly different strategic and political situations that surround each of those issues? You would have to be deranged to regard "Arab opinion" as the same sort of issue as the one China presents in that equation, and how can you compare wanting to destroy Israel with wanting to reunite with Taiwan? (just for starters)

It is a given that you will be shitting up every Israel thread, and the subsequent constant shift of your concept of "we" from US citizen to "those of us who represent the idealized Confucian concept of China in some ignorant pipe dream".

[Dirt]

Calling Israel totalitarian is stupid. Again, not surprising.

What? I'm calling Israel the democracy and the Muslim world totalitarian. Go read my posts again.

You say you "know" China. Then how is it possible you can't factor out the incredibly different strategic and political situations that surround each of those issues? You would have to be deranged to regard "Arab opinion" as the same sort of issue as the one China presents in that equation, and how can you compare wanting to destroy Israel with wanting to reunite with Taiwan? (just for starters)
I'm all for reunification. What if the people of Taiwan don't want it? Chen Shui-bian has been doing everything he can the past 7 years to erase anything "Chinese" from Taiwan.

It is a given that you will be shitting up every Israel thread, and the subsequent constant shift of your concept of "we" from US citizen to "those of us who represent the idealized Confucian concept of China in some ignorant pipe dream".
I'm an unabashed Taiwan lover, I admit it. The issue with me is, most people can identify with the Jews, at least in the Western world. I've found that it's near impossible for Westerners to truly understand the Chinese way of thinking, Chinese political though, Chinese religious beliefs. But I have to keep trying.

And yeah, I really don't think the USA should be sacrificing so much for Israel. Call me an anti-Semite if you want. Ultimately, I care about the USA and it's safety and prosperity. Yeah, I defend China, however, if their economic policies posed a threat to the prosperity of the USA, the USA needs to do anything and everything to stop them. If they ever posed a real military threat to the USA, nuke the fuckers.

[Lum]

I'm an unabashed Taiwan lover, I admit it. The issue with me is, most people can identify with the Jews, at least in the Western world. I've found that it's near impossible for Westerners to truly understand the Chinese way of thinking, Chinese political though, Chinese religious beliefs. But I have to keep trying.

Understanding and agreeing with are two separate things. I think most of us understand the China/Taiwan dilemma perfectly fine, thanks. Totalitarian ex-communist state appeals to nationalism to try to annex democratic US ally splinter, which is split between unrealistic independence advocates and people who want to keep the large neighbor next door happy. I'm sure if I could I could work in some elegant metaphor about the Ming dynasty or something but that's close enough. Amazingly, most people support the status quo. Probably because no one's dying as a result of it.

And yeah, I really don't think the USA should be sacrificing so much for Israel. Call me an anti-Semite if you want. Ultimately, I care about the USA and it's safety and prosperity. Yeah, I defend China, however, if their economic policies posed a threat to the prosperity of the USA, the USA needs to do anything and everything to stop them. If they ever posed a real military threat to the USA, nuke the fuckers.

You and Leonid Brezhnev, everyone's so eager to nuke China.

The US sacrifices very little for Israel save a good chunk of military aid (much of which feeds back to the US as military intel, procurement contracts, and technology transfers - there's a lot of back and forth between Israel and the US on anti-ballistic missile tech, for example) and the goodwill of the radical Islamic world. As for the latter, the moderate Arab leaders understand that Israel is a political fait accompli and are working with the West to try to get concessions out of Israel to lead to a Palestinian sister state. The radical Islamic leaders would hate us for not stoning Democrats and allowing our women to drive and read books, so I'm not seeing a whole lot of loss of potential here.

Trying to appeal to the radical Muslim sense of "justice" irks me when I read news stories of huge rallies in Gaza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7145718.stm), in the face of overwhelming military force and a punishing blockade, in favor of never negotiating with said overwhelming force, continuing to lob militarily useless rocket shells next door aimed at civilian non-combatants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6977346.stm) in hopes of sparking a military conflagration they cannot win, and fighting to the last dead martyr. This is not a political force that suddenly would become good peaceful middle class mortgage owners were it not for that annoying pro-Israeli lobby in Washington.

[AaronSofaer]

^^ What Lum said.

[Lizard_King]

What? I'm calling Israel the democracy and the Muslim world totalitarian. Go read my posts again.

Oh, I see. My bad. Anyway, the status quo as Lum describes it does consist of supporting Taiwan. It's the only way to support them. To tilt too far in either direction would force China to do something about that thorn in their side. We're clearly unwilling to take it to that level, and we should be. It's in the best interests of Taiwan not to be smashed militarily, wouldn't you agree?


I'm an unabashed Taiwan lover, I admit it. The issue with me is, most people can identify with the Jews, at least in the Western world. I've found that it's near impossible for Westerners to truly understand the Chinese way of thinking, Chinese political though, Chinese religious beliefs. But I have to keep trying.
So let me get this straight: your posts are calibrated to increase Western empathy for Chinese culture? Truly, your people work in mysterious ways.


And yeah, I really don't think the USA should be sacrificing so much for Israel. Call me an anti-Semite if you want. Ultimately, I care about the USA and it's safety and prosperity. Yeah, I defend China, however, if their economic policies posed a threat to the prosperity of the USA, the USA needs to do anything and everything to stop them. If they ever posed a real military threat to the USA, nuke the fuckers.
Judging from your continued efforts to paint them in the same light, you don't support Israel because you are resentful about a lack of similar support for Taiwan. You hate inconsistency, or something, and you're not going to let any damned *facts* about how different the situations are keep you from conflating the two constantly. Is this the part where I'm supposed to apply knowledge of China's thousands of years of being the center of the world to your ego-driven approach to foreign relations?

[Ed Solomon]

So let me get this straight: your posts are calibrated to increase Western empathy for Chinese culture? Truly, your people work in mysterious ways.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9674/forgetitjakepx3.jpg

[shift6]

You support Israel unquestionably, what a surprise. It must be so comforting when there's only one truth in the world.
I support Israel unconditionally, but I don't view it as the "only truth" in the world. For instance, clearly they have a number of avenues in the peace process with first the Palenstinians, and then with the Arab world, and I may even think some of those options are better than others. But I don't claim to have near enough knowledge about the intricacies of the region to foist my opinions upon them; I support what they do as a nation and assume they are doing what they believe is best.

JOOZ4LYFE (is there a gang sign I can sling?)

[MikeSofaer]

is there a gang sign I can sling?
I think Star Trek stole our gang sign.

[shift6]

Funny hats = OK.
Funny ears = fuck that.

[Gav]

You support Israel unquestionably, what a surprise. It must be so comforting when there's only one truth in the world.

The first sentence is just false, and second sentence is senseless. Running true to form, I guess.

I can only compare against what I know. Taiwan is a Democracy. China is not.

Is that how you look at all world events?

Next thing you'll be jumping into a Hugo Chavez thread to explain why Venezuela is Taiwan to the US's China. Or maybe it's the other way around.

And you can tell us that Poland is Taiwan to Russia's China. Or something--maybe Poland is more like Tibet, and the Ukraine might be Taiwan.

And how about India and Pakistan? Maybe Kashmir is like Taiwan and Pakistan is China, or should India be China? Maybe Pakistan should be Japan, if India's supposed to be China.

Or you could take a really radical step and learn something about the countries you're talking about. The Middle East doesn't operate through the lens of China and Taiwan, and neither does the rest of the world.