Letters to the Editor
-
On American Jewish organizations support for the peace process
Dunno the antecedents of this article, but seems interesting:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2008/0804052.html
"Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was sharply critical of American Jewish groups opposing the peace efforts. According to the Nov. 30 edition of The Forward, “In a rare public spat between Israel and its supporters in the U.S., Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bluntly denounced efforts by a coalition of American Jewish groups aimed at maintaining a united Jerusalem. Following statements by several hawkish and Orthodox groups that appeared to question Israel’s right to broach discussion of dividing Jerusalem with the Palestinians, Olmert told reporters...that Israel has exclusive purview over negotiating the future of its capital.”
Olmert declared: “Does any Jewish organization have a right to confer upon Israel what it negotiates or not? This question was decided a long time ago. The government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel.”"
-
It has happened before, and it was not in our best interests then either
What if Irish-Americans [...] for example, were to insist that what was good for Ireland [...] would be equally good for the US? Would your Jewish acquaintances who cannot see their own loyalty as dividing us, also think that other nationalities were equally justified in dividing their own loyalty? -- Anonymust
Through the first half of the 20th century, probably really until the ~1970s, Irish-Americans were treated to a similar pander -- "pulling the British Lion's tail". Urban Irish-American politicians did meddle with U.S. foreign policy, sometimes to the detriment of our national interests. Probably the worst example was Joe Kennedy right before Pearl Harbor. He worked against U.S. involvement in WWII in part because he had an affinity for fascism, but also because of this "what's bad for England is good for Ireland" bias (irrespective of what might have been best for the U.S.)
The malign influence of old Irish-American gangster pols like Kennedy has been forgotten over time. But it was a malign influence on our politics. His machinations were detrimental to our interests; we were less prepared for Pearl Harbor when it occurred than we might otherwise have been.
It's all dreary ancient history about bamboozling "Archie Bunker voters" so nobody knows or cares about it anymore, but, it should be relevant to these discussions. It won't be seen that way though -- which is a pity.
-
Gasoline
http://therealnews.com/id/1406/20080426/Israel+rejects+Hamas+truce+offer
or click sig for linky
Israel rejects Hamas truce offer:
Hamas offers a six-month 'calm,' but Israel signals it won't follow suit
-
The incident that Eisenhower was referring to
was, of course, the Suez Crisis of June, 1956, in which the military forces of Israel, England and France successfully seized the Sinai penninsula and Suez canal from Egypt after its leader, Nasser, nationalized the canal and threatened Israel's security. Militarily, it was a huge success. Diplomatically, it was a disaster, as all three were forced to withdraw their forces and give back 100% of what they had siezed. It hastened the already in progress demise of the British empire and France's last gasp at colonialism (on the heels of its losing Indochina and just prior to its losing North Africa). It also caused political turmoil in Israel (while at the same time making it clear that its military was quite capable). Eisenhower did the right thing, and won reelection.
I never cease to be amazed that the most right-wing and war hawkish American Jews that I know are invariably those who are not at personal risk from the potential repercussions of such stances since they would not have to serve in any such war and are safe in their comfortable lives in the US. This includes lots of Israeli expats who've immigrated to the US in part in order to evade reserve duty in the IDF (as well as, of course, to pursue a better life). It's always easy to advocate war and violence when you yourself do not have to wage or inflict it or risk anything by it. This is not restricted to American Jews, of course. No lack of non-Jewish American war hawks (but fewer now than a few years ago). But anyone who advocates for war who would not be willing to volunteer for it themselves if there was a need (which there is in our present mideast conflicts), who is fit to do so, is a hypocrite--and, frankly, a coward.
McCain is pandering to hypocrites and cowards. And fools. Of whatever religious or ethnic group. Fewer of these than was the case in '00 and '04, I suspect. Even in Florida. His "base", as it were, actual and potential, is dwindling. Queue up Macbeth's soliloquey (heh), substiture "he" for "she" and "quit" for "died", and it applies--or should apply--perfectly to McCrazy.
Out, out, brief maverick!
-
Not entirely beyond dispute
"It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30). "
I think to a degree you're mixing apples and oranges here. I would agree that American Jewish support for the broad neocon foreign policy, and for the Bush administration in general is weak. However, when the subject is support for the portion of the neocon agenda that aligns with the Likud hardline (e.g., with respect to Hamas, bombing Gaza, building the wall around the West Bank, the settlements), I think a significant portion of American Jews are on board, and could potentially be persuaded to donate to McCain and vote Republican. Maybe not a majority, but enough to make it worth McCain's while to stake out this position in Florida. Do you really disagree with that? Do you really think he's wasting his time and that it would be more effective for him politically to espouse negotiating with Hamas, giving back Jerusalem, etc.? Not morally, or even practically in terms of Mideast outcomes, but in terms of U.S. electoral politics?