Letters to the Editor
-
Trashing Israel?
An unsolicited word of advice for Salon readers; don't expect President Obama (!) to try to solve the middle east problems by trashing Israel, because, as smart Presidents (Clinton) and dumb ones (you know who), have found out, Israel isn't the cause of all of the problems in the middle east and the appetite of the Arabs for to regain their manhood, which they lost in their failed wars with Israel, is insatiable. The middle east peace process will remain frozen until the Arabs want peace. Could be a long wait.
misaac
This is another example of the reflexive, unthinking equation with any criticism of radical Likud policies with "trashing Israel." Does Haaretz believe in trashing Israel? Do the overwhelming majority of Israeli's who favor negotiating with Hamas favor "trashing Israel"? Of course not. But if Obama - or any other candidate - were to take positions routinely taken by many in Israel, both in the media and in the more liberal factions of the Labor Party, they would be driven from the race.
misaac, the comments I'm reading here (aside from those of a few trollish agitators) evince no desire to trash Israel. They are critical of a political discourse that is restricted exclusively to the most radical and militarist options.
-
LWM @ Nuttswack
Saw that in my NYT newsletter. Read it but didn't have to, knew what it would say and I was right. Some decent reactions in comments, though.
There should be a law, an Ordinance on Narrow Competencies: Military historians, for one, should be required to refrain from commenting on anything other than military history, and offer neither media criticism, nor political commentary, nor economic theories, etc.
This would take care of Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan, and others as well.
-
Doktor Krankheit on relative good
I believe Frum and his ilk (neo-conservatives of all confessions) are doubly-deluded: deluded in thinking that their desires for Israel are completely consonant with American interests, and deluded in the belief that what they want would be good for Israel.
It may bring things into sharper focus to look at them this way: a basic part of the neoconservative worldview is the idea that American public discourse is fatally compromised by wussy liberal ideals. A swaggering, full-blooded people (in their view) goes out and does things, and others can sit around and figure out the theory and write the history in their wake.
So Israel, or the Israel of their imagining, represents an ideal toward which America needs to be prodded, beaten, driven by whatever means.
In other words, it's not so much that Israeli interests are in their minds conflated with American interests. It's a more emotional presumption — that the only interests that the US should actually have are the exact same ones as Israel, because those are, self-evidently, the only interests to which any true, bold, macho people would ever aspire.
Thus the apparent inability to perceive how their politics are consistently — even necessarily — against the actual interests of either Israel or the United States. Real interests are never the issue with these people. That's too sordid, too detail-oriented, too petty.
All that matters is that you act, boldly and unthinkingly, according to your own will to power. And if the United States can't do that, then its only fitting role is to be led around by the nose by the one nation that can.
It's hardly a new idea, but its philosophical pedigree would shame the men and women, especially the Jews, who embrace it today — that is, if they had any capacity for shame.
-
tommy c
I don't support radical Likud policies, but I don't see myself as trashing Israel. However, my point is that the Arab world sees itself as 100% victim (despite occupying 99+% of the middle east) and has not shown any appetite for compromise. While you can probably depend upon 70% of Israelis to relinquish 95% of the west bank (despite historic ties to the land), I doubt that you can find 20% of the Arab world willing to give real peace to Israel. Just look what happened when Israel left Gaza (conquered from Egypt, not Palestinians), it wasn't land for peace, it was land for war.
Explain it away all you want (apartheid, blockade, blah, blah, blah), but tell me anywhere else in the world that people shoot rockets while hiding behind women and children. The Likud crazies proved ineffectual and have long been voted out of office, the Hamas ones were just voted in.
-
-- thomas c @ "aside from those of a few trollish agitators"
Hey I'm not a trollish agitator, I'm just trying to stir things up by baiting an extremist. Oh wait, that's the same thing, isn't it? Oops, my bad.
-
Nonsensical stereotypes
I am a strong "friend of Israel" who also strongly supports Obama for the Presidency.
The long-term safety and flourishing of Israel is, for me, a significant issue, but one among others. Most American Jews have long favored a progressive domestic agenda, including civil liberties and civil rights, religious freedom and separation of church and state, a strong social safety net--policies compatible with Jewish tradition (and, perhaps not incidentally, compatible with the success Jews have achieved in American life), and strongly reflected in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Senator Obama is excellent on these issues, and offers the best prospect of advancing them in American life after years of political division.
Anyone knowledgable about Israeli life understands the vigorous, lively debate about politics and policy that is a constant feature of Israeli discourse. There is an Israeli right wing, to be sure, but its views capture the support of only a minority of Israelis (or of Israeli Jews). The tendency of some American supporters of Israel (often self-appointed, or appointed by virtue of their financial status rrather than any representational legitimacy) to insist on American support of Likud/right-wing (or American neoconservative) opinions misrepresents the center of gravity in both Israel and the American Jewish community. Many of us believe in the necessity of a strong American role in encouraging steps toward a peaceful two state solution, not least to cut through the clog of domestic Israeli (and Palestinian) political cultures.
In precisely that sense, a President Obama is likely to prove a far better, and more far-sighted "friend of Israel" than has been President Bush, or would likely be a President McCain.
Jews with knowledge, or personal memories, of the world's willingness to tolerate Hitler's "final solution" are rightly apprehensive of potential threats, such as that now posed by Iran, to the security of Israel and of Jews everywhere. It does not follow that an unremittingly bellicose and aggressive response from an American leader is necessarily the wisest policy. Once again, a President Obama may prove more adroit in meeting this challenge to both American and Israeli interests, and in recreating international respect for America's good offices on the international scene.
We would all be better off with less stereotyping and a broader, as well as better informed, discussion of these issues.