Op-Ed: The RNC (long, bare with me if you’d like)
New York has been an interesting place to be the last few days with the presence of the Republican National Convention and a great many protestors. I don’t know if JewSchool is the best place for me to air out my thoughts on the convention, but I will do my best to keep it relevant to our discussion.
On the train home today, I saw a distinguished looking 50-60 year old gentleman. He was reading a book entitled “The I Hate Republicans Reader.” He also had two buttons on his messenger bag’s shoulder strap, the first saying “Bush/Satan 2004” and the other “Go Fuck Yourself” with a picture of Vice President Dick Cheney.
At the 2nd Ave. Deli the other night, I found myself drawing heat from several friends-of-friends/protestors at the table. We weren’t arguing policy points for the most part– but they took exception to my view that Republicans, even though I disagree with most of their policies, are not as a group apathetic to the needs of the American lower class and they are definitely not maliciously screwing them. Apparently, this made me as evil and stupid as a Republican, because I was told to “go read a history book.” (These oh-so-sensitive leftists later referred to a problematic detainment facility as a “concentration camp”).
Reviewing these events in my mind, I was reminded of something that ocurred while I was interning at AIPAC in 1998 (before Franklin-gate). AIPAC, which spends a huge amount of energy and resources cultivating relationships at all levels of government, sent its leaders to a meeting with then NSA Sandy Berger about a policy point regarding Iran. Seeing that Clinton had no chance against the AIPAC-inspired Congress, Berger relented and policy was changed. Yet, despite the yelling and clamoring, these protestors haven’t changed shit.
The only thing the protestors have accomplished is to make John Kerry look like an asshole. The Republicans came to NYC, it seems, to show the rest of the country what Kerry’s base looks like– and guess what, soccer moms don’t like people who spew obscenities aimed at individuals. Rather than engage in a policy debate from an energized, sophisticated and mainstream position (a la AIPAC), many of these protestors have brought it down to the level of curse words, condescension and personal attacks. Those that came to protest Bush’s policies are being drowned out by those who just hate Bush.
On CNN I saw a lady say that despite the fact that she has always voted Democratic, Bush’s support for Israel may well convince her to vote for him. Can you blame her? Beyond the fact that John Kerry didn’t say anything about the Be’er Sheva attack (did he? there’s nothing on his site), I think she may feel that Democracy has to be built on the exchange of ideas. But Kerry’s base is making it look like there is no room for debate because they are always right, and moreover, everyone else is not only wrong but evil and malicious. As Jews, we are very familiar with debate. Did the Talmudic Rabbis go home every night accusing one another of ill intent after their passionate discourse? Of course not. We have a responsibility as Jews to promote a constructive dialogue that is based on a shared goal: the betterment of the human condition. If we allow ourselves to degenerate to the level of personal attacks, like pathetic Mr. Subway Rider Wannabe Sophisticate on the train today, or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (the right does it too), we are hurting our own causes more than helping them.
I feel like the lady on CNN today– at the least, confused. I don’t think that the anti-Israel bias that the left has embraced will affect John Kerry’s pro-Israel positions (although that has certainly been enough to keep me from associating with the protestors). But after this convention, it seems that when the right wing blasts leftists for their smugness, they have a real point– I learned that in the diner. If the left is pro-democracy, then they must also be for a real conversation with the right, and against petty personal attacks, or covering their ears and yelling “La La La I can’t hear you!”. Yet, it also seems that the Democrats have a point when they say Republican domestic and foreign policy have been disasterous (and certainly their personal attacks are no more justified than the left’s). It upsets me to think that a person like myself– a social and economic moderate– cannot be entirely comfortable with either major political party right now or the course of American democracy.
Allow me to clarify one thing– what I mean by a passionate, energized, mainstream position is in reference to organizational philosophy, not policy.
“It upsets me to think that a person like myself– a social and economic moderate– cannot be entirely comfortable with either major political party right now.”
There are only two major parties representing a huge and diverse country of 290 million people. Virtually no one can be entirely comfortable with either of the parties. The Republicans have various types of conservatives, libertarians and centrists vying for control; the Dems are even more fractured with liberals, leftists and a few centrists fighting it out. Unless we somehow enter an era of consensus, this is how it’s going to stay, more or less. Your discomfort is a direct result of democracy. (And thank God for democracy – under other systems you’d be feeling sharp pain or worse.)
As a Republican – leaning conservative, I must object to your defense of Republicans – I’ve been kind of enjoying my status as an otherworldly demonic oppressor this week – and your demystification of people like me is spoiling the frisson (pardon my using French).
Not being a New York local, I can’t say that my commentary of the RNC will be close to relevant. But I would like to offer my view, as a Canadian.
I know, as a Canadian, I should be the last one to check in on American politics, especially with the recent condemnation of the war on Arabs (I’m calling a spade a spade). But as far as the portrayl of the either political party, the media (both CNN and the blogsphere) has given me ample coverage to help me form my own views.
During the first week of August, the Democratic National Convention saw the nomination of John Kerry and John Edwards for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively. There were no protestors out side, razor blades stashed in their shoes. There were no Police dodging urine-bombs. The only signs being waved outside read something to the effect of, “Money for education, not occupation.” All in all, everything seemed to be peaceful.
So why was there such a huge turn out to protest the RNC?
Looking back to 1968, shortly after the unfortunate assisnation of Robert Kennedy, the Democratic National Convention opened it’s doors and looked to nominate a new Democratic candidate. The unfortunate outcome of these protests is that it showed the world that the DNC condoned the force used by the officers protecting the candidates. The Republicans won that election, with Richard Nixon taking the presidency.
Flash back to today… I’m sure many of the protestors are hoping for the same sort of thing to occur. They toss a pissbag, the cop beats them with their club, the nation views the Republicans as a bunch of authoritarian hatemongers, and every leftist is happy. But, and as the media will attest, there have been no brutal beatings. Just crowd control.
Ronen, as you’ve opined, “Those that came to protest Bush’s policies are being drowned out by those who just hate Bush.”
While having lunch at a deli in SF in early July, I sat at a table with the machers of a Piedmont shul and listened to their take on the upcoming election. Three of the seven had been registered Democrats before Kerry’s anticipated nomination, and had recently changed their registered status. There was no way that they would associate themselves with the Democratic party anymore. They mentioned something that shocked me, but didn’t surprise me. “Michael Moore was write when he endorsed (General Wesley) Clark. Clark was a blessing. He was just Right enough to sway those who felt that Bush was bad, while still remaining true to his party’s ideologies.”
There will be a collective condemnation come election day, but it won’t be of Bush. So unless GWB gets caught with a cigar and an intern, we’ll see four more years.
Point well taken about the “La la la-ing,” but you leave out a VERY important difference between AIPAC and protesters in the streets – MONEY!! And of course, that money buys access. How often do political parties work really hard for the support of the poor, or students, or some of the others out protesting?
(BTW: the money thing is NOT a Jewish comment, it’s a “well-organized-political-lobbying-group-with-one-specific-
concern” comment)
J: I don’t actually think I’m special, but I wanted to express the source of my alienation. Bush just confirmed that, seeing as he expressed a desire to expand liberty (unless you are gay), reaffirmed his opposition to reproductive rights, and laid out a bunch of policy initiatives without explaining how he’ll pay for them (but Kerry is still crazy for wanting to tax the wealthiest Americans).
Jason: Clark lacked experience. My candidate was Joe Lieberman, and not because he’s Jewish. He was the only candidate who could appeal to Americans concerned with security, values and economic moderation while pursuing a iiberal social agenda. (I did disagree with him on some points too)
PG: If every radical in the country gave $10 or $20 to a well organized group, their operating budget would probably exceed AIPAC’s annual $16 million (AARP has around $540 million yearly by point of contrast). Maybe Sean Penn and Michael Moore can kick in a few bucks too.
Actually, I found some protesting that I like to see (NSFF / NSFW)
Click
ronen, i feel the same way with practically everything you said 🙂
I would need to agree with you ronen on everythinh you said
ronen thank-you for such a well thought out article. between this and the note on the beer’sheva attacks i have been able to see where you stand and explain it, in an intelligent and forthright manner.
your discomofrt in this political system, is also many of our’s. as a libertarian, i am loathe to check th republican box on election day, though in many ways i feel like i have no choice. i all the issues that matter to me, most are ignored by both, so i am forced to rely on one or two. Bush’s stance on israel is perhaps the only thing swaying me to vote for him, while i am still dissappointed with a plethora of other things, his admiistration has bungled. the only interesting thing about election day this year, will be perfecting my electoral math. either way, even if bush does win, i’ll still feel unmotivated, and discouraged with government. but as another fellow mentioned, if the other side won, it would be a sharp pain i’d feel instead. anyways, keep up all the observations, you speak for alot of us.
Unfortunately, you can hardly look to the Republicans as some kind of model alternative of reasoned discourse. Bush mischaracterized many of Kerry’s policies during his speech, and allowed Giuliani to say that voting for Bush is a moral obligation if you care about the victims of 9/11. He allowed Zell Miller to say that Kerry favors a U.S. military armed with “spitballs”, and allowed Schwarzenegger to say that Democrats are “economic girlie men”. Are you kidding me here? I can’t buy some kind of sincere soul-searching about Democratic rhetoric when the Republicans are acting like attack dogs.
Ronen,
It must take balls to post an anti-anti-Republican piece like this.
This extreme stance which shows that you’re standing up for your right not to hate Republicans will certainly stand out as the “farthest Right” post over here.
there was no anti-Israel bias at the convention protests
I’m not understanding a few things from the brain-slug version of John Brown’s comment.
1. is that really JB?
2. how would he recognize anti-Israel bias?
3. pppppbbbbttttttt……..hahahahahhahahahaa
great piece.
Israel simply was not an issue for 99.9% of the protesters. Their signs all referenced Bush, LIraq, Economics & Jobs, etc
well, the people i was near were chanting “long live the intifada, free, free, palestine.”
i went over to them and asked if they didn’t think that “long live the intifada” was a stupid chant, given its implications that: 1) the intifada must go on for a long time because it fails, 2) the intifada must go on for a long time because oppression in the territories continues, 3) the violence, bloodshed, heartbreak, and economic damage of the intifada tp palestinians should be extended.
i didn’t get a very good answer, so i decided to go march near the code pink chicks, who had more style.
I think JB tends to feel that a far left viewpoint regarding the Palestinians does not equal an anti-Israel position. However, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I agree that a difference in opinion regarding Israeli policy is not the same as an anti-Israel stance, but support of a binational state, support of Palestinian violence and/or holding to a belief that Zionism is a “colonialist/imperialist” movement is where I draw that line. If you don’t believe that Jews have a right to national self-determination in Israel, you are anti-Israel, period.
Sam and Velvel: My piece is not just anti-anti Republican. It’s about the course and tenor of the debate. Furthermore, while the Republican statments Sam referred to are cheap shots, they are related to policy, and do not constitute the kind of attack to which I’m referring. The kind of leftist vehemence I saw had me worried that Bush was in physical danger during his address. And the protestors that did sneak in to MSG made the left look disrespectful of the political process– that’s a shame, because they will only harm the effort to replace Bush.
“The kind of leftist vehemence I saw had me worried that Bush was in physical danger during his address. And the protestors that did sneak in to MSG made the left look disrespectful of the political process– that’s a shame, because they will only harm the effort to replace Bush.”
The protestors’ behavior would seem odd if we assumed it was rooted in an honest attempt to improve the government and country, but it makes perfect sense as a form of self-centered moral exhibitionism (and for the naked ones, just plain exhibitionism). Before I get flak for questioning motives rather than policies, let me note that I’ve tried to discuss politics civilly with such people on numerous occasions, and only rarely were they able or willing to respond in kind.
I would like to thank them, one and all, for their assistance in re-electing a man who understands how to deal with the world’s barbarians, and who has a better grasp of actual Jewish principles than most Jews.
The other day in Oakland, California, a friend of mine saw a volunteer with the Kerry campaign endure a vitriolic and obscenity-riddled verbal attack from an angry man in his 40s or 50s. It sounded like he was planning to support President Bush in November. I’ve had encounters with Republicans which have consisted of them running past me and yelling “I’m voting for Bush! Four more years!” At the RNC, all I saw (or heard on the radio) was one person after another getting up there and saying nasty stuff about Democrats and Kerry (sadly, Democrat Zell Miller was the worst) but giving no specifics. At Bush’s rallies, they keep out anyone who gives the slightest hint of not being totally supportive of Bush — even requiring the signing of loyalty oaths!
People like these are not, however, why I plan to support Kerry and vote against President Bush in November.
I am voting for Kerry for many reasons, including the fact that he is supportive of Israel (100% voting record according to AIPAC!) and will, I think, be a more credible commander in chief. I think he’s more honest, too. He may take a long time to explain his thoughts and ideas, and his words don’t fit nicely in soundbites (we’ve got Edwards for that) but his thoughts are coherent, his ideas are good. Not to mention that he and his party care more about the kinds of social justice issues Jews are supposed to care about.
At the end of the day, it’s about the candidates and what they bring to the table. Bush has had four years to prove himself and win over those of us who were uneasy about him. He’s failed miserably.
“…the kinds of social justice issues Jews are supposed to care about. ”
Could you describe what these issues are, and why Jews are supposed to care about them?
looks like webmacher isn’t the only one has noticed that the republicans are full of vitriol — paul krugman shares some insights into right-wing hate in his latest nytimes column:
http://tinyurl.com/3uewl
if you’re still not convinced that the left is more inclusive and safe than the right, try watching clips of barack obama and dick cheney side by side. one man is alive, hopeful, vibrant, willing to keep listening & experimenting & trying to find ways to fix the world. the other is a doomsayer, a depressed old man, frightful, dull, and unwilling to change, no matter the cost.
** for those interested in learning how to identify and dismantle the linguistic devices used by the hard right, read george lakoff’s dissection of the rnc talks– really fascinating stuff:
http://tinyurl.com/4c2rn
http://tinyurl.com/6x6cc
Ronen, you said that support for a binational state constitutes an “anti-Israel” position, which I guess is equivalent to anti-Zionism. Are you aware that prior to the creation of the state of Israel, support for a binational state system was just the left wing of Zionism, and was considered by just about everyone to be a Zionist, rather than an anti-Zionist, position?
guess this is all israels fault:
WHEN THE KILLERS COME FOR THE KIDS
BY RALPH PETERS
September 4, 2004 — THE mass murder of children revolts the human psyche. Herod sending his henchmen to massacre the infants of Bethlehem haunts the Gospels. Nothing in our time was crueler than what the Germans did to children during the Holocaust. Slaughtering the innocents violates a universal human taboo.
Or a nearly universal one. Those Muslims who preach Jihad against the West decided years ago that killing Jewish or Christian children is not only acceptable, but pleasing to their god when done by “martyrs.”
It isn’t politically correct to say this, of course. We’re supposed to pretend that Islam is a “religion of peace.” All right, then: It’s time for Muslims to stand up for the once-noble, nearly lost traditions of their faith and condemn what Arab and Chechen terrorists and blasphemers did in the Russian town of Beslan.
If Muslim religious leaders around the world will not publicly condemn the taking of children as hostages and their subsequent slaughter — if those “men of faith” will not issue a condemnation without reservations or caveats — then no one need pretend any longer that all religions are equally sound and moral.
Islam has been a great and humane faith in the past. Now far too many of its adherents condone, actively or passively, the mass murder of school kids. Instead of condemnations of the Muslim “Jihadis” responsible for butchering more than 200 women and children in cold blood, we will hear spiteful counter-accusations about imaginary atrocities supposedly committed by Western militaries.
Well, the cold fact is that Western soldiers, whether Americans, Brits, Russians or Israelis, do not take hundreds of children hostage, then shoot them in cold blood while detonating bombs in their midst. The Muslim world can lie to itself, but we need lie no longer.
The tragedy in southern Russia occurred thousands of miles from the United States, but, in essence, that massacre happened next door. The parents, teachers and students kept for days without water or food in a sweltering school building before being butchered were our children, our sisters, our wives, our parents.
The mass hostage situation wasn’t about Chechen rebels (and at least 10 Arabs) opposing the Russian government. It was a continuation of the universal struggle between good and evil. And there is no doubt which side is evil, scorned though the word may be by our own elite.
How can any human being with a shred of conscience dismiss what occurred in that school as anything less than evil?
The attack in Beslan wasn’t about Russia’s brutal incompetence in Chechnya — as counter-productive as Moscow’s grim heavy-handedness may have been. It was about religious bigotry so profound that the believer can hold a gun to a child’s head, pull the trigger and term the act “divine justice.”
We will hear complaints that the Russian special forces should have waited — even after the terrorists began shooting children. Negotiations are the heroin of Westerners addicted to self-delusion. Who among us would have waited when he or she saw fleeing children cut down by automatic weapons? The urge to protect children is as primal as any impulse we ever feel.
Make no mistake: No blame attaches to the Russians for the massacre at that school. The guilt is entirely upon the Islamic extremists who have led the religion they claim to cherish into the realms of nightmare.
There will be repercussions. Having suffered the hijacking and destruction of two passenger jets, a deadly bombing at a Moscow subway station and a massacre in a primary school all in less than two weeks, the Kremlin will have learned to rue the day it imagined that there was anything to gain by opposing American efforts against terrorists, whether Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
As they inevitably do, the terrorists reminded the world of their heartless barbarism. Even if France manages to beg the release of its kidnapped journalists in Iraq, it has begun to sense its vulnerability. And all Europeans with a vestige of sense will recognize that the school seizure in Russia could easily repeat itself in Languedoc or Umbria, Bavaria or Kent.
An attack on children is an attack on all of humanity.
No matter what differences Western states discover to divide them, the terrorists will bring us together in the end. Their atrocities expose all wishful thinking for what it is.
A final thought: Did any of those protesters who came to Manhattan to denounce our liberation of 50 million Muslims stay an extra day to protest the massacre in Russia? Of course not.
The protesters no more care for dead Russian children than they care for dead Kurds or for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that Saddam Hussein executed. Or for the ongoing Arab-Muslim slaughter of blacks in Sudan. Nothing’s a crime to those protesters unless the deed was committed by America.
The butchery in Russia was a crime against humanity. In every respect. Was any war ever more necessary or just than the War on Terror?
And what will terror’s apologists say when the killers come for their own children?
guess this is all israels fault:
WHEN THE KILLERS COME FOR THE KIDS
BY RALPH PETERS
September 4, 2004 — THE mass murder of children revolts the human psyche. Herod sending his henchmen to massacre the infants of Bethlehem haunts the Gospels. Nothing in our time was crueler than what the Germans did to children during the Holocaust. Slaughtering the innocents violates a universal human taboo.
Or a nearly universal one. Those Muslims who preach Jihad against the West decided years ago that killing Jewish or Christian children is not only acceptable, but pleasing to their god when done by “martyrs.”
It isn’t politically correct to say this, of course. We’re supposed to pretend that Islam is a “religion of peace.” All right, then: It’s time for Muslims to stand up for the once-noble, nearly lost traditions of their faith and condemn what Arab and Chechen terrorists and blasphemers did in the Russian town of Beslan.
If Muslim religious leaders around the world will not publicly condemn the taking of children as hostages and their subsequent slaughter — if those “men of faith” will not issue a condemnation without reservations or caveats — then no one need pretend any longer that all religions are equally sound and moral.
Islam has been a great and humane faith in the past. Now far too many of its adherents condone, actively or passively, the mass murder of school kids. Instead of condemnations of the Muslim “Jihadis” responsible for butchering more than 200 women and children in cold blood, we will hear spiteful counter-accusations about imaginary atrocities supposedly committed by Western militaries.
Well, the cold fact is that Western soldiers, whether Americans, Brits, Russians or Israelis, do not take hundreds of children hostage, then shoot them in cold blood while detonating bombs in their midst. The Muslim world can lie to itself, but we need lie no longer.
The tragedy in southern Russia occurred thousands of miles from the United States, but, in essence, that massacre happened next door. The parents, teachers and students kept for days without water or food in a sweltering school building before being butchered were our children, our sisters, our wives, our parents.
The mass hostage situation wasn’t about Chechen rebels (and at least 10 Arabs) opposing the Russian government. It was a continuation of the universal struggle between good and evil. And there is no doubt which side is evil, scorned though the word may be by our own elite.
How can any human being with a shred of conscience dismiss what occurred in that school as anything less than evil?
The attack in Beslan wasn’t about Russia’s brutal incompetence in Chechnya — as counter-productive as Moscow’s grim heavy-handedness may have been. It was about religious bigotry so profound that the believer can hold a gun to a child’s head, pull the trigger and term the act “divine justice.”
We will hear complaints that the Russian special forces should have waited — even after the terrorists began shooting children. Negotiations are the heroin of Westerners addicted to self-delusion. Who among us would have waited when he or she saw fleeing children cut down by automatic weapons? The urge to protect children is as primal as any impulse we ever feel.
Make no mistake: No blame attaches to the Russians for the massacre at that school. The guilt is entirely upon the Islamic extremists who have led the religion they claim to cherish into the realms of nightmare.
There will be repercussions. Having suffered the hijacking and destruction of two passenger jets, a deadly bombing at a Moscow subway station and a massacre in a primary school all in less than two weeks, the Kremlin will have learned to rue the day it imagined that there was anything to gain by opposing American efforts against terrorists, whether Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
As they inevitably do, the terrorists reminded the world of their heartless barbarism. Even if France manages to beg the release of its kidnapped journalists in Iraq, it has begun to sense its vulnerability. And all Europeans with a vestige of sense will recognize that the school seizure in Russia could easily repeat itself in Languedoc or Umbria, Bavaria or Kent.
An attack on children is an attack on all of humanity.
No matter what differences Western states discover to divide them, the terrorists will bring us together in the end. Their atrocities expose all wishful thinking for what it is.
A final thought: Did any of those protesters who came to Manhattan to denounce our liberation of 50 million Muslims stay an extra day to protest the massacre in Russia? Of course not.
The protesters no more care for dead Russian children than they care for dead Kurds or for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that Saddam Hussein executed. Or for the ongoing Arab-Muslim slaughter of blacks in Sudan. Nothing’s a crime to those protesters unless the deed was committed by America.
The butchery in Russia was a crime against humanity. In every respect. Was any war ever more necessary or just than the War on Terror?
And what will terror’s apologists say when the killers come for their own children?
Avi: in the future, please try to provide links to articles.
Madon: your comparison of Obama and Cheney highlights my points precisely. Reread it– you said nothing of their policy ideas, and only reflected on their personality and charisma. That does not amount to constructive debate. Also, I know that the Republicans have been attacking, and even taking some cheap shots. I’m against it either way, but how has your partisanship furthered our discourse? There is a built in hypocrisy that is revealed when you juxtapose your claim of leftist inclusiveness with your willingness to trash a Vice President. You choose to support linguistic nitpicking rather than a vigorous debate, and you opt for a “they do it too” defense of personal attacks. I don’t buy it– you’re hurting the cause of democracy.
Sam: A binational state was supported by the Zionist left because they thought the Arabs would be OK with living as a minority– never did they conceive of a state without a Jewish majority or Jews could not realize their right of self determination. As it turns out, the Arabs wanted self determination too. And yes, anti-Zionism is anti-Israel if you define Zionism as a movement that supports the right of Jewish self determination in Israel, and Israel as the physical manifestation of that cause.
Ronen: You’re not quite correct. Much of Brit Shalom and the Ichud spoke specifically of trying to create a politics that would be blind to questions of ethnic majorities and minorities, meaning that they did, exactly, “conceive of a state without a Jewish majority.” Self-determination, of course, remained the whole point.
Avi: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=473355&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
There was a Zionist left and a Zionist far left then as now. Explain to me how Jews today would possibly (given all applicable historical context) be able to realize national self-determination as a minority in Israel without creating an apartheid state– it can’t happen. The Zionist leaders recognized that problem and a possible solution when they agreed to the UN’s 1947 decision to confirm the right of both Arabs and Jews to separate homelands in Palestine/Israel.
I guess part of it is how you define “self determination.” Buber wanted the Palestinians to be supportive of Zionists coming to Israel, and for both groups to join together in establishing some sort of utopia that would fly in the face of the Jewish experience in Europe. Perhaps if the Palestinians had been open to Jewish immigration then, I would now be willing to accept a different definition of Zionism– but as it stands, the reality is that a 2 state solution is the only viable one that recognizes the rights of both Arabs and Jews to self determination on that land.
The fact that the organizations you mention are among the only Zionist organizations admired by Neturei Karta speaks volumes of their legitimacy as proponents of the Zionist vision…
This is something I just posted on my blog a couple days ago, but I wanted to share it with you guys because I think it relates to Ronen’s discussion of the tone of left-wingers in the current political climate:
After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 on the day it came out, my friend and I got into a heated argument about Michael Moore’s battle style. Anyone who’s seen F-911, I assume, can agree that Moore’s tactical appraoch in this movie was ugly. He used extremely clever editing techniques to misquote his subjects. He deliberately avoided an attempt at finding the truth, instead choosing to manipulate viewers with sneaky juxtaposition of images and, at times, misleading narration. My friend was sickened– he used the word “offended”– by Moore’s tactics. I was totally behind Moore, arguing: the times are too tight for fairplay, the hour is too late for nuance, the stakes are too high for the high road.
I have already strongly defended Moore on this site. I can think of no other public figure with the courage of Moore when it comes to confronting those in powerful posts. While the New York Times and the Washington Post, our nation’s two most respected journalistic institutions, played lapdog to the President in the lead-up to to war in Iraq, Moore was a fierce critic of the President’s abuse of power– a true watchdog.
And, for a long, long time, when most of the progressive world reacted to corporate greed and Republican domination with a wimpy, holier-than-thou, they-know-not-what-they-do attitude, Moore was fighting, tooth and nail, against his conservative combatants. While the rest of us turned the cheek, Moore punched back.
Right now, punching back is in among the Left. And, in many ways, our tactics have worked. We are fighting harder than ever before, and we are seeing results. If it weren’t for movies like F-911, radio stations like Air America, magazines like The Nation, and websites like MoveOn.org, Kerry wouldn’t have a chance right now.
Right-wing groups have won the ideological heart of America, not by accident, but because they have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into media outlets, think tanks, and grassroots movements. If you don’t believe me, read David Brock’s book, or Eric Alterman’s book, or, if you’re lazy, Lewis Lapham’s article in Harper’s.
Finally, the Left is realizing that, unless we punch back, we’re not going to stand a chance against the Right-wing propaganda machine. To be honest, I am thrilled that the Left is finally showing some chutzpah, that we’re refusing to be beaten into submission and allow our country’s soul to be corrupted by fanatical Right-wing ideologues.
Frankly, if the cliche “desperate times call for desperate measures” has any meaning whatsoever, it’s here and now. We’re facing a manaical President who is backed by an astonishingly powerful and exorbitantly fanatical cadre of reactionary extremists. We’re dealing with a guy who is making this country an intensely more dangerous place to live in– we’re talking about our lives being at stake in this election. So, if the Left is leaving the high road in order to literally save our lives, I not only accept, but applaud this type of action.
But when is enough enough? When exactly will it be time to return to our tactics of calm deliberation, nuanced examination, and sound conclusions? When can we return to turning the other cheek, allowing those who attack us to look silly, not dignified?
I’m no one special, so I don’t have any real answers here. But I can say this: it has to stop at some point.
While verbal attacks are nowhere near in the same league as physical attacks, I am afraid that neither type of violence leads to ultimately positive outcomes. I’d be an idiot if I said violence was never an effective tactic for oppressed peoples– if we hadn’t risen up violently against the British, we’d still be a colony. On the flip-side of the coin, however, we have King’s Civil Rights Movement, where the sustained non-violent method obliterated the credibility of their foes. By taking the high road, King, and Gandhi for that matter, achieved so much more than they could have with violent means.
Again, I know that the current tactics of the Left are nowhere near the same as a physically violent movement, but the basic instincts behind both tactics–hating your enemies, wanting to take them down, humiliate, and punish them–share extremely similar roots.
And these instincts, I think we can all agree, are bad for America in the long-run.
In the long run, there should only be one focus of true progressives, of those who really want to make the world a better place. When we form ideas and make policy suggestions, we should have one thing in mind. We should abandon ideological dogmatism and strict oppposition to our supposed “enemies'” beliefs, and instead have allegiance to one thing. We should abandon the smears, the hatred, and the anger, and embrace one thing.
The Truth.
As long as we stay within the frameworks of political discourse, you’re right, Ronen — if you have a nation-state, and your nation is not the majority nation in that state, you don’t have “national self-determination” unless you have some kind of autonomy arrangement, like the Iraqi Kurds. What Buber and the others wanted was to move *beyond* the nation-state idea. They thought that if an event so momentous as the resurrection of the polity of the people of Israel was going to take place, that there was no reason it should adopt a particular European political formation that had only existed for a few hundred years and that they held responsible for much of the world’s problems. I share their dislike of and contempt for the nation-state as a form of political organization. The thing was, the rebuilding of the Jewish polity in Palestine caused a conflict between a particular stream of European history and a particular stream of Middle-Eastern history. The Palestinians could not place themselves in the shoes of the Zionists and understand how what they were experiencing was different than the other European colonialisms the Middle East had been shaking off for the past century. Indeed, Buber was one of the only Zionists able to do the reverse for the Palestinians, and understand that it was inaccurate to label Arab riots “pogroms”, for example. On the surface, it seemed like identical phenomena, but in reality what was happening was completely different. This is why I think we need some kind of effort at shared understanding today, once the violence has stopped, so that self-determination for both populations, and maybe even co-existence, can be achieved.
However, when we’re trying to end a conflict, one needs a kind of idea of how to get from “here” to “there”, and in the context we’re in today I support the two-state solution as the most widely accepted and thus most easily applicable method of at least stopping the violence, if not “ending the conflict”.
Oh yeah — and in case I wasn’t clear, those are just a couple of the reasons I think the binationalism of Buber and others is a better Zionism than the desperate Revisionism hand-me-downs of today. Another is this: Herzl and, I suppose, Ben-Gurion, subscribed to the idea that Israel should strive to be like all the nations. Buber and Magnes thought that no, the Jewish thing to do would be to create something that would *not* just “be like all the nations.” That would be something even worse than the individual assimilation with which the American Jewish community grapples with today — it would be *national* assimilation. For the Jews, national assimilation is a kind of theological death. It’s a kind of chillul hashem. If there’s a utopian, seemingly impossible way to strive for that’s morally superior to the politics of the naitons, then that’s what we have to go for.
OK, well if you’re going to subscribe to utopian ideologies, there’s really no argument to be had. I believe that there is no such thing as a utopia, because people always have competing interests (see: “USSR”). On that basis alone, I would recommend dropping the notion entirely– though somehow I doubt that that reasoning will resonate well with ideologues.
We can be a light unto the nations simply by striving to contribute to the advancement of the human race, and by striving to treat one another with respect and kindness. In the long run, we’d accomplish a great deal more by focussing on the smaller things, rather than trying to shake up the entire international political system.
As for the history lesson… the brutality of the Arab riots was not unlike that of the pogroms, and certainly did not help foster understanding. In reality, responsibility lies largely with the British for pitting Arabs and Jews against each other, so yes its root causes are different from those of the pogroms. Nevertheless, over the years, the Arab nations have taken to a classically European form of anti-Semitism.
And if our ability to move forward towards shared understanding depends on an end to the violence (and I believe it does too), then I say we should be so fortunate.
Buber was one of the only Zionists able to do the reverse for the Palestinians, and understand that it was inaccurate to label Arab riots “pogroms”, for example. On the surface, it seemed like identical phenomena, but in reality what was happening was completely different.
It depends what you mean by “completely different”, obviously. The Jews being murdered could not place themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians and understand how what they were experiencing was different than the other killing sessions they had been trying to avoid for the past, well, while.
But, then, it also depends on what is meant by pogrom. For many Jews, it referred exactly what was happening on the surface. That’s why we think of “farhud” as a synonym for “pogrom”: not from any sense that 1940s Iraq and 1880s Russia were the same place — there isn’t anybody who thinks that — but because the word’s modern usage quite exceeded the context in which it was invented.
The thing was, the rebuilding of the Jewish polity in Palestine caused a conflict between a particular stream of European history and a particular stream of Middle-Eastern history. The Palestinians could not place themselves in the shoes of the Zionists and understand how what they were experiencing was different than the other European colonialisms the Middle East had been shaking off for the past century.
As to Palestinians’ reactions, it sounds like you are referring to some sort of testimony as to how they perceived Zionists; if you could point me to it, it would make interesting reading.
To your point, though, it’s hardly fair and particularly inaccurate to position Zionism as nationalist therefore European therefore alien to the Middle East. The twentieth-century Middle East’s inhabitants were part of a wave of particularly enthusiastic and hearty European-style nationalism which, among other things, saw the invention of an identity called “Arab”, and which still resounds quite strongly today.
If there’s a utopian, seemingly impossible way to strive for that’s morally superior to the politics of the naitons, then that’s what we have to go for.
You mean withdraw from the earthly realm of politics, wrap ourselves in the spiritual world of moral superiority, and damn the consequences of not participating in the world around us? That’s certainly an approach that some have taken (cf Neturei Karta and their Islamic counterparts).
But it would be awfully hard to convince very many of us that that’s a terribly compelling approach. Many Jews who do not believe that the road is forked at either spitting on the secular or else abandoning our identities.
For the Jews, national assimilation is a kind of theological death. It’s a kind of chillul hashem.
What does this mean — and which aspects of sitting at the table of nation-states constitutes “assimilation”?
ronen said:
you said nothing of their policy ideas, and only reflected on their personality and charisma
so yes, i agree, i did make some less-than-useful comments related to the personalities of barack obama and dick cheney.
but i also pointed out differences in their approaches to national governance. cheney is a doomsayer, the “strict father” that george lakoff discusses in his book on political rhetoric. on the other hand, obama is the “nuturant parent“, the man who wants to bring vibrancy and opportunity back to the average american. read lakoff. he’s not just a nitpicking linguist. he’s trying to teach the masses how to think critically about the language we’re fed by the media. he’s trying to help us dissect republican rhetoric (which is, as boldprint pointed out, the result of millions of dollars spent on think tanks, lobby groups, etc). the stuff that we heard at the republican national convention SOUNDS LIKE truth but is actually vitriol– and it’s just as damaging to the voting public as the in-your-face left-wing posturing that you (ronen) saw on the subway or in the protest crowds in nyc. except that it sneaks in, unnoticed. so in some ways it’s even more damaging.
now i want to make another point. americans are notoriously bad at assessing risk. case in point: american “x” is afraid to fly in airplanes, and instead is willing to travel only by automobile. yet the risk of dying during air travel is miniscule compared with the risk of dying in a car accident.
here’s another example: for americans, the risk of dying young as a result of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, or even stress is MUCH, MUCH greater than the risk of being killed in a terror attack. and yet none of us (americans) vigorously protests when the country’s public health system is gutted, or when federal support for medical research is drastically cut back, or when medicare premiums are raised to unprecedented heights and record numbers of people are living without health insurance or employment.
we’re perfectly happy allowing the government to spend billions of dollars on a war that will probably do NOTHING to minimize the already-miniscule risk that a significant number of americans will be killed in terror attacks. yet we’re happy to weaken and starve those branches of the government that can provide better public health education [the Centers for Disease Control], health care and health insurance [Medicare], and new therapies & treatments for disease [NIH, NSF, etc]. and we’re happy to pillage the country’s state & local governments, which actually do have a chance of protecting us from terror attacks– if only they were given the money to improve port security, transit security, etc.
this is just another example of how misled it is to worry about terror, when there are far more dangers to your life than “terror”.
note: the above may not be true for those in israel– i don’t have the actual numbers. but here’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation: roughly 600 people dead from terror attacks over 15 years for a population of 1m is fewer than the number of people expected to die young from heart attacks in an industrialized nation. now i know that this is an unfair argument, because when people are killed in terror attacks, it creates so much emotional suffering among those who are left behind. it’s easy to die; it’s much harder to keep on after the loss of your loved ones. but every life is precious, and the loss of a young father to heart disease is also difficult for his children.
for those interested– a few more statistics on life expectancy and mortality in israel. american statistics are probably very similar.
i believe that heart disease, cancer, and car accidents are leading causes of death. most of these deaths are probably preventable (with adequate education, preventive treatment, and health care).
Look, I don’t need some Berkeley professor teaching me how to think criticially about a speech. There was some vitriol at the RNC, but if Republicans want to question Kerry’s fitness for leadership, that’s a legit criticism. Much as it is when MoveOn questions Dubya’s record in their ads. Both are somewhat mean spirited, but at least they are debating a relevant point.
A “Go Fuck Yourself” Cheney button is just assinine. And it makes people who care about issues, such as you Madon, look bad.
Ronen: “Ok, well, if you’re going to describe to utopian ideologies, there’s really no argument to be had.”
You could have easily told this to Herzl in 1897. Most Jews in the world would have agreed with you and thought you the modest bearer of simple common sense.
I’m just trying to point out that we are dealing with an extraordinary situation here, and that people need to be inspired for any change to happen. The vicissitudes of realpolitik don’t inspire anyone. The resignation of the “clash of civilizations” thesis inspires only fundamentalists who want to strengthen their own identities by opposing them to essentialized others. We need to aim higher. I’m not talking about a society in which people no longer step on each others’ toes, argue about how to divide the budget, and differ bitterly on some social issues. I’m talking about one where people from two different cultures live nearby without killing each other. If I used the word “utopian” it was only because to me that word signifies “justified striving” more than “impossible dream which it is harmful to attempt to access.”
Ronen and 8opus on the Arab riots/ pogroms: The argument I am making here is not that the analogy Arab riots : bad :: pogroms : also bad doesn’t work. The point is that in the Arab riots the Zionists were facing an enemy partially stirred up by their own presence, actions, and economic effects on the Arab population and partially stirred up by politically savvy Arab leaders. The difference is that the Arabs had real grievances *against the Zionists*, to which the Zionists were blind, while the Cossacks had merely been responding to an age-old impulse to scapegoat the disempowered Jews for whatever problems they were facing, while the government looked on. In that situation you had total innocence and therefore a sense of righteous anger, which was stifled due to disempowerment. In the Palestine situation, referring to the riots as “pogroms” called up those feelings, reinforcing the Zionists’ sense of total innocence — a reinforcement which did not help them to understand what was going on and what effect they were having on the Palestinian Arabs, or how they were being viewed. This is why context matters. No, you can’t tell this to a riot victim — but you can tell it to someone trying to learn from the riot, to try to, I don’t know, prevent at least 80 more years of horrific violence.
8opus: Of course Arab nationalism was European-inspired. We’re talking about a European idea that traveled to the Middle East and took a little while to get there. That’s why it always mystifies me when people talk about the late development of Palestinian nationalism like it’s some kind of proof that all the Palestinians are walking around going “hahaha, we are sure fooling the rest of the world that we are a nation! as soon as we kill those Jews, we will go back to being ‘just Arabs’, like we always wanted!” At the time of Zionism’s early days, however, it appeared to the Palestinians that they were confronting not a justified nationalist renewal but an imperialist project, with the Zionists as agents of Europe. There is a lot of interesting documentation on Palestinian reaction to the Balfour Declaration in this vein, for example. I’ll have to dig up some old papers I’ve written for citations, if you want them you should email me at [email protected].
Finally, I’m not talking about disengaging from the world. I’m referring to a specifically Buberian method of engagement by which one continues to get one’s hands dirty and react to developments while never losing sight of the utopian ideal which informs one’s activities. That’s why I support the two-state solution, for example; the exigencies of the situation point to a million reasons why it would be a better deal for everyone.
Oh, and on “national assimilation” — Jews without state: nation apart, remarkable for sustaining themselves over thousands of years of exile by cultivating religion and community (at least until western european enlightenment, at which point much assimilation begins). Jews with state: Participation in power of a certain kind means regular violation of prophetic ideals, on which it is impossible to sustain a state, especially a nation-state. Since this is what pretty much all the other nations have been doing to screw themselves over the course of history, our doing it too constitutes an assimilation on a national scale. One could even muse that it is like the repetition of the sin in the Book of Samuel, of asking for the king in the first place, to be “like all the nations”, ignoring the fact that God is supposed to be our only ruler.
getting back to the original topic: RNC protesters
1. Very few if any of the radical protesters who get all the press are Democrats. They believe, for the most part, that both parties are controlled by corporate interests and that neither party will stray from the AIPAC line. To call them Kerry’s “base” is not supported by the facts: like all national Dems, Kerry’s base is blacks, Jews, latinos and liberals. anti-globolization activists, hard-core civil libertarians, the anti-war movement, etc… are not the base of the party – in fact, the Dem platform is largely opposed to their concerns. “Base” does not mean far right or far left; the republican base used to be “moderates” – conservatives were the fringe. Now the reverse is true. At this point, the Dem base is moderate to liberal, the republicans base is conservative.
2. To those of you willing to vote for Bush simply because you think he is good for Israel, a few questions:
a) What does it mean to be “good for Israel?” Is it to be an ally to Likud, or an ally to which ever coalition is in power, or to move fwd with a specific American agenda regardless of who in Israel is in power? Depending on your answer, what will it mean if Labor comes to power? What would Bush have to do to be good for Israel under a Labor gvt that wanted to revive Arafat as a negotiating partner (for example)?
b) Once you have figured out which definition of good for Israel you like, test it against Bush’s record. Has he been an ally to Likud? For the most part he has been, although there was a period of significant criticism of Israeli policies as being contrary to the goals of the road map. Would Bush be an ally to a Labor coalition? maybe or maybe not. Depends on if you think Bush simply agrees with his fellow conservative Sharon or if Bush believes that Israel knows whats best and is willing to give any prime minster a lot of room to manuver. Folks say Guliani was a great friend of Israel as mayor, but in reality he was/is a supporter of the conservative (read Brooklyn Jewish) position on Israel – his words and deeds often flew in the face of the positions of Israel’s then Labor gvt.
c) Power in Israel will change hands again. It’s time to figure out if you are really willing to support any position taken by an Israeli gvt or if you really strongly prefer one of Israel’s major parties. If you support Sharon b/c you like the Likud approach, then stop calling yourself pro-Israel and start calling yourself pro-Likkud; its much more accurate.
d) If you are a Likkud supporter who is liberal on other local issues (eg: abortion, seperation of chuch and state, gay marriage, poverty, etc…), I’d love to hear why. Shouldn’t it be that you start off with a set of principles/beliefs, and then apply those prinicples? Why would a conservative Prime Minister be good for Israel but a conservative president bad for America? And vice versa?
e) If you would normally vote for Kerry/against Bush but for Israel, what is it about their respective appoaches to Israel that leads to to that decision? Kerry has shown himself to be willing to toe the AIPAC line (100% voting record) as a senator; why would that change as president? Both parties/candidates have their competing viewspoints on Israel/middle east – the republicans are in bed with a lot of oil interests that hate Israel, and the democrats are in bed folks who oppose the occupation of the WB & GS (some even prefer a binational state!). I would argue that the oil interests have more influence than the anti-occupation folks (just look at the repub. vs. dem. platforms). Does that not mean Bush is more susceptible to pressure from anti-Israel folks? What does Bush do if Israel signs take steps toward leaving the WB and GS and those steps are opposed by evangelical christians, Bush’s base?
f) If Israel could survive an antisemitic president like Nixon and a pro-palestinian rights president like Carter, won’t it be just fine if either bush or kerry are president for the next four years? Isn’t this a distraction from the real issues that effect our lives, like jobs, health care, education, crime, homeland security, civil rights/liberties, the environment, our economy, etc….?
Oh, and on “national assimilation” — Jews without state: nation apart, remarkable for sustaining themselves over thousands of years of exile by cultivating religion and community (at least until western european enlightenment, at which point much assimilation begins). Jews with state: Participation in power of a certain kind means regular violation of prophetic ideals, on which it is impossible to sustain a state, especially a nation-state.
Sigh. On nation-state as the end of Jewish history, no dice. On inability to govern and impossibility of sustaining ideals, see utopianism.
Sam: I don’t think Herzl was describing a utopia, but rather a normalized society. Sure there was some utopianism in there for spice, but the primary goal was to ensure a fully empowered political body to represent Jewish interests. And I think I would’ve been behind him 110%
Girlieman: Point taken on use of “base.” Nevertheless, the Bush-haters are perceived as such by the moderates in the country, and so Kerry ought to distance himself some from their virulence.
Though I don’t think your questions pertain to me (as I don’t intend to vote for Bush), I’d like to take a stab anyway, because I feel that they are somewhat problematic. There is no reason you can’t be both pro-Israel and pro one Israeli party or the other. Calling yourself pro-Israel, to me, means that you support the fundamental right to Jewish self determination in Israel (man, I feel like a broken record on this site sometimes). Beyond that, there are many different approaches to governance, where party loyalty may play a role. As you might have guessed, I might position myself somewhere between the Labor’s moderate faction and the Likud’s moderate faction. But seeing as I live in the diaspora right now, I would consider it my fundamental duty to support the *notion* of Israel first– and that means supporting Israel’s democratic process. So if the people living there have chosen a leader and a policy, I want their choice legitimized by America’s leadership. My opinions on various issues (security, economic growth, etc) I feel are more relevant within the greater Jewish dialogue. If we show a divided front, America will be less willing to support Israel, and American support is exactly what’s good for Israel. Our interests are best served if we can unite around the simpler points on which we agree and then hammer out the details amongst ourselves.
As far as whether support for Likud=support for the American right, there are a lot of problems with that idea. The two countries face very different economic/social/security issues, so there really isn’t much to correlate. For instance, at least until Netanyahu’s economic restructuring, the Likud has been a more populist party appealing to Israel’s lower class, which is more akin to the Democratic party here. It’s not quite cut and dry.
And yes, Israel will survive regardless of the American president. But a strong US-Israel is still to our benefit. And there is nothing wrong with making Israel an issue along with the rest you cite– that’s a personal, subjective call. If Nader were a serious contender, for instance, Israel’s security could be at serious risk, and to me that has ramifications that are at least as important as education and the like.
Michael Moore on Israel:
(I’m not sure this is the right spot to post this but I feel I should post this somewhere. This info. comes from Jewish Republicans, but it’s important. The Republicans will try to tie Moore to Kerry though.)
FROM ISRAEL INSIDER, SEPT. 3, 2004
Israel is not mentioned in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. But when Moore showed up as a journalist at the Republican National Convention, the conventioneers were none too pleased. Earlier this summer, a coalition of Jewish Republicans researched his stands on Israel over the past two decades.
Michael Moore dedicated his 2003 book, Dude Where’s My Country? to Rachel Corrie, an International Solidarity Movement volunteer who was accidentally killed when she climbed in front of a caterpillar bulldozer destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.
Moore expressed his understanding for other victims of the conflict. “Of course, many Israeli children had died too, at the hands of the Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response. Why? Because in their hearts,” he explained, [the Israelis] know they are wrong, and they know they would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on the other foot.”
He had some suggestions for preventing suicide terrorists. “Hey, here’s a way to stop suicide bombings – give the Palestinians a bunch of missile-firing Apache helicopters and let them and the Israelis go at each other head to head. Four billion dollars a year to Israel – four billion dollars a year to the Palestinians – they can just blow each other up and leave the rest of us the hell alone.”
Moore has a long history of supporting, and being rewarded for, anti-Israel stances. In 1987, Moore was honored by the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee for his “courageous efforts in journalism.” He attended and spoke at a June 5, 1990 demonstration protesting the continued Israeli occupation at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. In October 2003, Moore was honored by the Muslim American Public Affairs Council (MPAC) with a media award.
In his book, Stupid White Men and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, Moore proposed that Congress give Israel 30 days to end the bloodshed taking place in its name, and if Israel does not do so, funding to Israel should be cut. He also noted that while individual terrorism is bad, state sponsored terrorism is truly evil. Moore proposed that the Palestinians be given statehood and receive twice as much economic assistance from the United States as Israel receives.
In Liverpool, England, Moore paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” (David Brooks in the New York Times, June 26. 2004) “Anyway,” the Los Angeles Times quoted him (June 22, 2004) as saying, “the support Bush and the Republicans feign for Israel is because Israel is near our oil. If the oil wasn’t there, I bet those same Republicans wouldn’t [care] about Israel.”
In 1990, speaking before the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Moore announced that he would refuse to attend a screening of his movie, “Roger and Me,” which was being held in Jerusalem. He was quoted as saying that he would not attend until Israel ceased to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. (Arab American News, 1990) According to the New Yorker (Feb. 16, 2004) Moore tried to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from being shown in Israel.
About one subject, the Moore had less to say: When questioned about the rumor that members of Hizbullah had been involved in the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11, he had
hunh. i support the fundamental right of Jewish self-determination in israel. by ronen’s definition, i’m pro-israel! woo-hoo, first time that’s happened!
ronen
i agree that being pro-israel and being pro-likkud are not mutually exclusive; in fact, i think that if you support the views of a major israeli zionist party, then by definition you are pro-israel. my point was to talk about differences within the pro-israel community. it is not uncommon for pro-israel americans who agree with meretz or labor to be called anti-israel (just like anti-war anti-bush protesters are called less patriotic than war/Bush supporters). This accusation only goes one way: in the US, labor/meretz folks never questions the zionist credentials of likkud supporters. so what happens is that support for likkud is pro-israel while support for labor is anti-israel. this dynamic is exacerbated when likkud is in power, b/c those who support likkud regardless of which party is in power push the labor folks to support likkud in solidarity with the elected gvt of israel.
you say that “I would consider it my fundamental duty to support the *notion* of Israel first– and that means supporting Israel’s democratic process. So if the people living there have chosen a leader and a policy, I want their choice legitimized by America’s leadership.” legitimizing a leader is easy. but what does it mean for america’s leadership to legitimize an Israeli policy? publicly declare its support? are there any israeli policies that the US leadership should not support? how does supporting Israel’s democratic process support the notion of Israel? can one support the right of israel to chose its leader in democratic elections while still opposing the policies of that leader? did some israelis opposition to carter undermine the notion of america? is the notion of Israel about process or outcome?
you said “My opinions on various issues (security, economic growth, etc) I feel are more relevant within the greater Jewish dialogue. If we show a divided front, America will be less willing to support Israel, and American support is exactly what’s good for Israel. Our interests are best served if we can unite around the simpler points on which we agree and then hammer out the details amongst ourselves.” what is the proper forum to hammer out these details? how can this dialogue happen in secret? is the evacuation of settlement a simpler point or a detail? how can we tell when there is consensus if we don’t encourage dissenters to speak up? what would a divided front look like? is it not enough that the community is united as “pro-israel” (using your definition) even if it disagrees how to best acheive peace?
the parallels between likkud/repubicans and labor/democrats aren’t perfect, but i would strongly disagree with your characterization that “there really isn’t much to correlate.” even on the populist issue, the likkud and republicans are faux populists in very similar ways, exploiting class resentment against a “secular, liberal elite.” sharon is definitely a conservative and peres is definitely a liberal.
my point about surviving nixon and carter was not to imply that we should not worry about a strong US-Israel relationship. it is that given the positions of Bush and Kerry, we have no reason to believe either wouldn’t be aredently pro-israel. both candidates for president are clearly friends of israel and not antisemites; there appears to be little if any difference in their israel policies. to overlook bush’s terrible record on issues of concern to most US Jews without any evidence that Kerry would be bad for israel is irresponsible. of course its ok for israel to be one of people’s concerns when choosing a candidate; but what is happening this year goes way beyond that. as for nader, yes, if he were a serious candidate his views on israel would be problematic to most american jews. but he is no where near being a serious candidate. that fact that there could, possibily be a serious candidate at some future date with views on israel innimical to most us jews is a red herring; the community is always taking steps to make sure that day never comes, and if/when it does come, then Jews can and will turn away from that candidate. but that is not the choice we are facing in this election, despite the Bush teams best efforts to convince people otherwise.
>>are there any israeli policies that the US leadership should not support?
At the present moment, no, I can’t think of any. In the future– depends on the policy, obviously. It should be our goal to keep American and Israeli moral standards on a high level and in synch with one another.
>> can one support the right of israel to chose its leader in democratic elections while still opposing the policies of that leader?
Yes– it’s a question of where and how. What are the consequences of dissent? Say the congress hears your opinions and withdraws aid for Israel. Has your dissent affected just the policy in question, or the security of all Israelis? If you are indeed pro-Israel, then you must realize that the way you express your message will be as or more important as the message itself.
>> did some israelis opposition to carter undermine the notion of america?
That’s clearly a ridiculous comparison– there is no balance of power between these countries. America’s decisions affect Israel far more than Israel’s decisions affect America. Nevertheless, it’s off topic.
>>is the notion of Israel about process or outcome?
That’s a vague question, I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
>>what is the proper forum to hammer out these details? how can this dialogue happen in secret?
I never said anything about secret. The most proper forum would be within the Israeli democratic framework (i.e., go and your voice will be counted). After that, maybe the Jewish orgs (flawed though they might be) are the best place to communicate your opinion to Israel. I’m not sure I really know– what do you think? I just don’t see how airing our dirty laundry in public will help much at all.
>>is the evacuation of settlement a simpler point or a detail?
That’s a loaded question. Most likely a detail, unless there was a prior agreement to evacuate said settlement that Israel was disregarding. I think Israel should remain accountable.
>>how can we tell when there is consensus if we don’t encourage dissenters to speak up?
There is never, ever, a concensus in the Jewish community. And I’m not talking about suppressing opinions, but simply finding a way to tactfully express them. Given that, we need to find a way to air our opinions in the most constructive framework. I don’t have all the answers, clearly, but I don’t think fracturing the American government’s support of Israel would count as constructive.
>>what would a divided front look like? is it not enough that the community is united as “pro-israel” (using your definition) even if it disagrees how to best acheive peace?
Well clearly that’s the case, so you well know what it looks like. Is that enough? enough for what?
Re: Bush and Kerry. Like I said, I don’t think I’ll be voting for Bush. I expect Kerry to remain a good friend of Israel, as his position papers and voting record indicate he will.
Well all of us here breathed a collective sigh of relief as nothing major happened at the RNC. Outside of some minor assaults on officers it was fairly peaceful. Which was a very good thing for the protesters. There were a large contingency of NYPD, FBI, and State Troopers congregated in a secluded location in NYC ready and waiting for the other shoe to drop. The protesters stayed in line. Lucky for us and for them.
Uh…you mean “bear” nor “bare,” right?
I don’t “bare” with any men, no offense (unless we happen to arrive at the mikvah locker room at the same time – what can ya do, right?).
My favorite linguistic abuse is the women who talk about “baring children”.
One of these days someone is gonna wise up and call the Center for Missing and Exploited Children on these shadowy ladies. 🙂