Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Tony Judt on the Israeli lobby and our failure to "understand the plight of the Palestinians"
Judt's op-ed is likely to generate an extended debate in the blogosphere today and I have a lot going on, so I will leave the primary fisking of it to others. I do want to examine one point, which is Judt's argument that Americans are insufficiently empathetic to the condition of the Palestinians Arabs.
Judt approvingly quoted Times of London columnist David Aaronovitch, who "conceded that 'I sympathize with their desire for redress, since there has been a cock-eyed failure in the U.S. to understand the plight of the Palestinians.'"
Speaking for myself, I think this is hogwash. I absolutely have sympathy for individual Palestinian Arabs. They are obviously in a tough place, and Israel has killed a lot of innocent Palestinian Arabs in reprisal attacks (which attacks are richly justified, I might add, but that does not blind me to the suffering of the innocents). However, I also believe that I -- and other Americans -- understand their "plight" quite clearly: as a group, Palestinian Arabs have elevated incompetent and corrupt leaders who promoted their own interests at the expense of their constituents, and who have systematically sided with the enemies of the United States.
Their chosen leader, Yassar Arafat, threw away countless opportunities to secure permanent borders for the Palestinian Arabs and lift the occupation. Why? Because for most of his tenure as PLO Chairman his objective was the destruction of the Jewish state, not the construction of a Palestinian one, and the lining of his own pockets, not the full development of Palestinian government.
But that is a reason that even Europeans might take judicial notice of, and it does not explain American support for Israel or, more accurately, the lack of American "understanding" of the Palestinian Arabs. The ugly truth is that the Palestinian Arab leadership has repeatedly chosen to side with the enemies of the United States. During World War I, they sided with the Turks, who were our enemy. During World War II, they quite famously sided with the Germans. During the Cold War, they (and other Arabs in the area who purported to represent their interests) did the bidding of Moscow, virtually guaranteeing that the United States would embrace Israel. The Palestinians supported Saddam in his invasion of Kuwait, and they danced in the streets on September 11, indelible images in the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who lost friends and family that day. Tony Judt surely misunderstands the impact of these pictures on the American psyche, whatever our attitude would have been in 2000 when Bill Clinton tried so hard to work out a deal that would have gotten the Palestinian Arabs as much as they can ever hope to get.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the Palestinians have chosen -- choice being the operative concept -- to embrace Iran, the government of which has been the most implacable enemy of the United States -- but not Europe -- for 27 years. In making this idiotic choice, the Palestinians have missed the detail that the Iranian mullahs do not like Arabs nearly so much as they hate Israel. If we take the president of Iran at his word, Tehran's means for given effect to that hatred may well be the detonation of inaccurate chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that will slaughter hundreds of times the Arabs that Israel has ever killed. Does the Palestinian leadership not understand this, or is it also so committed to Israel's destruction that it is willing to absorb the obvious collateral damage from an Iranian attack?
The ugly truth is that the Palestinian Arabs have consistently chosen to side with America's enemies, in several cases well before the State of Israel even existed. Yes, many of these Palestinian choices were made for reasons of geopolitical or merely political expediency, but that is not a reason for Americans to admire them. So while I object to certain of Israel's practices and do not support the aspirations of Israel's expansionists, there are many people in the world more deserving of American sympathy than the Palestinian Arabs. Indeed, one might reasonably ask how it is that "the plight of the Palestinians," who bear at least some of the responsibility for their own condition, is so much more deserving of European "understanding" than countless other people in the world who have it far, far worse. Could it possibly be that European politics is dominated by a "Muslim lobby"?
UPDATED: Clarified a confusing sentence.
12 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 19, 02:44:00 PM:
Judt again betrays an important bias one hears repeatedly about the Mearsheimer/Walt piece. The criticism of AIPAC, of neocons, of Jews in the Administration all links to an opposition to the Iraq War. Thus far, these lines all connect. Then there is the invariable attempt to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel, or AIPAC, or these individuals on the one hand, and antisemitism on the other. Finally, there is another point that people aren't debating the core M/W point that the AIPAC has undue influence and the US pursues a policy not in its interest.
If an Iraq War critic wants to criticize the Bush Administration for the war, that is fine. Do it on its merits. But don't blame AIPAC. That is ridiculous. AIPAC has no more influence than Saudi Arabia or Exxon. There is a free market in legal lobbying. AIPAC is doing nothing wrong in seeking to make its arguments for what it considers to be sound policy. Many others do exactly the same,
CAIR included.
Now, these same critics get frustrated because they lose the argument. They then propose something nefarious and conspiratorial must be at work. They then extend the criticism to individuals, then to Jewish individuals, and then claim dual loyalties. That, folks, is antisemitism, plain and simple.
TH's points defending America's robust alliance with Israel are plain and obvious. Israel is a capitalist democracy. It has a large and important economy, which is exceedingly productive financially, scientifically, etc. The other regional actors are primarily tyrannies, and economically moribund and backward. Frankly, the only reason we even contemplate relations with these nations is oil. Why else put any effort into relations with Saudi Arabia? It's a pathetic country, offering no prospect of anything worthwhile except its oil production.
As for the Palestinians, Americans understand their plight perfectly. They have allied themselves with enemies of the US at every turn, from the Turks, to the Soviets, to Iraq and now Iran. They are our ENEMY. And this predates Israel. Americans would very much like to see peace between the Palestinians and Israel, and supported Clinton's peace process and forcing Israel to do business with Arafatistan - a disgusting proposition for Israel, I promise you.
And Americans also understand that Arafat walked away from Clinton's and Barak's outstreched hand. And then bit it by launching Intifada II.
So please, let's give te American people plenty of credit, and let's also observe that these M/W/Judt AIPAC critics are doing so precisely at a moment when HAMAS has taken control of Palestine. How ridiculous does that make their criticism? Do they completely ignore the core tenets of Hamas? Of Jihadism? Of Islamism?
Are they asleep?
No, they are basically anti-Zionist, and in this share Hamas's vision for the destruction of Israel. That, or they are hopelessly unrealistic or poorly informed about Hamas, labelled a terrorist organization by our notoriously arabist State Dept.
So let's call a spade a spade when we have this discussion, please.
By 
, at
Wed Apr 19, 06:52:00 PM:
Cardinalpark:
>>There is a free market in legal lobbying. AIPAC is doing nothing wrong in seeking to make its arguments for what it considers to be sound policy. Many others do exactly the same,
CAIR included.
Actually, Walt and Mearsheimer concede as much. It's their conclusion--that the Jews are simply too good at it--that is truly anti-Semitic. It's tantamount to saying that when you level the playing field (allow Jews in), Jews are too successful. What makes it anti-Semitic is that it's the ultimate rationale for everything from barring their entry into country clubs to wanting to exterminate them.
Here's what Walt and Mearsheimer say in their paper:
>>In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better.
I wrote about Judt today on my blog, and I've written a lot about Walt and Mearsheimer if you're interested.
By , at
Wed Apr 19, 07:00:00 PM:
Forgot to say:
TigerHawk:
You don't really have to read past the first couple of pages of W&M's paper, but be sure to read the first "footnote"--in which the authors claim that the mere existence of AIPAC is evidence that its goals are not in the American interest (otherwise why would they need a lobby?).
Jaw-dropping logic and scholarship, that.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Apr 19, 08:04:00 PM:
Counterpoint: It (AIPAC) is a lobby whose entire purpose is to promote the interests of a foreign, ethno-centric power to the US legislators and whose membership just so happens to represent said ethnicity. So no, it does not necessarily argue in America's best interests. It argues in Israel's best interests vis a vis America. Likewise, the oil lobby doesn't argue for America's interest, it argues for its own. If it happens to coincide with America's, happy day. If not, it's a harder sell. *shrug*
I have nothing against Jews, and more than a little sympathy for them as a group, but because of the special place Israel has in the world and in their hearts they are some of the first people I'll examine if there's evidence of espionage. They have a nasty habit of considering themselves Jewish first and American second. Ref: Jonathan Pollard, and a personal experience I can't comment on. Is that anti-semitism? No, it's logical counterintelligence.
If you want to find the most influential foreign policy lobby in Washington, try the one that (unabashadly) focuses on 1) a foreign power 2) in a strategically important part of the world 3) that is generally viewed with sympathy by Americans. It's not hard to figure out why they get undue attention, or are successful.
Lastly, I can't follow the reasoning that if someone says the Jewish lobby is better than other lobbies, that someone is anti-semitic. It just doesn't make sense.
By , at
Thu Apr 20, 01:26:00 AM:
Dawnfire82:
"They have a nasty habit of considering themselves Jewish first and American second."
Which "they"? Does this include my father and brother who served honorably for many years in our armed forces? Does it include me? I guess you have ESP, knowing my "habits" and all.
Go fuck your antisemitic self.
Thank you for letting me share this with you.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Apr 20, 07:59:00 AM:
A couple of things might be said about the "dual loyalty" charge.
First, it has rarely been true of American Jews, certainly no more than other American immigrant groups. The United States is the only country with a large Jewish population that has not seen significant immigration to Israel. There is a reason. American Jews feel enormous loyalty to this country, which (whatever its shortcomings) has treated them better than any other country has, by a long shot.
Second, to the extent there is some truth to the dual loyalty charge in other countries, it is almost always, if not actually always, the result of the rejection of Jews by those very countries. Why should any Jew be a loyal German, Austria or Russian?
Third, Jews have benefited, in some sense, from the fact that they scattered all over the world and developed a body of law for their own dealings. In the Middle Ages, Jews had a much easier time of international trade than Gentiles, because they had a means for enforcing contracts across borders. This internationalism, which is an ancient Jewish tradition that the entire Western world has benefited from, meant that Jews were comfortable in dealing with foreigners at a time when most people did not travel more than 20 miles in the entire lives. People have misinterpreted this comfort, or cosmopolitanism, as "dual loyalty" for centuries.
Finally, may I suggest that if Ireland sat at some strategic crossroads instead of an out-of-the-way corner of the North Atlantic, America's Irish-Americans would be intensely interested in the security of that country. There is nothing strange in the support of American Jews for Israel, and it says nothing about their loyalty to the United States.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Apr 20, 09:08:00 AM:
DF 82 - often you and I agree, but in this instance, you have really shamed yourself. "Jews have a nasty habit of considering themselves Jews first and Americans second?" then reference one guy? That is a the most absurd and bigotted line of thinking I've yet heard here. You may not know it or feel it, but that is antisemitism.
Let me offer you counterpoint. 6mm jews in Europe thought of themselves as loyal countrymen in Germany, Poland, France and other wretched countries -- so much so that when the leaders of those countries rose up to smite them (and I don't use that term without reason), they presumed their staunch loyalty to their country would protect them.
6mm loyal dead jews.
So please, spare me your "sympathy." With sympathy like that, I don't need enemies.
Jews who consider themselves "Jews first" move to Israel. There is a full spectrum of opinion about Zionism even amongst American Jews. Many are, in fact, antizionist. An American Jew is like any other American - Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, whatever. Period.
Jiminy Christmas.
By , at
Thu Apr 20, 10:10:00 AM:
DawnFire:
You prejudge all Jews on the basis of Jonathan Pollard and one other Jewish person. That makes you prejudiced. Against Jews. Are you anti-Semitic? I dunno. Why don't you tell me? I don't like "isms," but if I had to pick one, I'd say "nativist."
Never mind, though. You think just like the CIA, Bush 41's crew, and too many others to mention.
Walt and Mearsheimer are despicable, or fools, or both. They are certainly entitled to their opinions about American policy vis-a-vis Israel. But they use classic anti-Semitic arguments to "make their case."
I'm no fan of AIPAC. I am a concerned friend of Israel. Here's the thing, though: if I were president and I thought the U.S. was in mortal danger, I'd listen to smart Jews too. After all, the Jews' greatest accomplishment is their survival for millennia in every hostile environment known to man.
Cardinalpark:
Jews also go to Israel when they feel threatened in their own lands. Such as, for example, France. In 2006.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Apr 20, 06:09:00 PM:
Hepzeeba - it seems you and I are primarily in agreement. My comment about Jews who go to Israel can still hold -- sometimes the nations where they have chosen to live consider them Jews first -- making it unpleasant to stay. Often it matters more what others think of you than what you believe of yourself. A Frenchman who happens to be Jewish but doesn't realize how some of his dangerous fellow French neighbors feel about him is at grave risk.
As for Mearsheimer and Walt, their paper is really just terrible in som many ways, it're really impossible to be complete about any critique. And Judt, by not coming clean on his Israel agenda, is really quite dishonest I think in his op ed piece. Of course, his commentary, published in the NYT, at least debunks in some measure the notion of this monolithic Jewish Lobby. Bunk.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Apr 20, 08:51:00 PM:
Holy crap, I had no idea that one word would doom me to the academic trenches.
I've sat and discussed politics with three Jews that I've known personally, two of whom were in the Army, and all three have demonstrated some level of dual loyalty. One (the civilian) told me that they (meaning Jews as a group) will "do whatever they can to help and protect Israel, no matter what." (in context, even if it went against US interests) A second, in Army intelligence (at the time), declared that Jonathan Pollard was his personal hero. A third, leaving Army intelligence, declared her intent to immediately emigrate to Israel. That's 3 for 3 kids. Maybe it's not a universal trend, but as far as I've seen, the generalization has held true, and in the intelligence community. (which, if you recall, is what I was talking about) Jews in MI feel like if they leak secrets to Israel, it's no big deal because Israel is a friendly nation. Other countries use this tactic to recruit spies too. The Chinese did it in the 90's with people of Chinese ethnicity and relations with the US were warming. (Los Alamos?) Jihadis and unfriendly Arab countries target Muslims in the armed forces. It works. It works more often than anyone would like to admit. Why does it work? Dual loyalties. All it takes is a little dual loyalty, a favor, and people skills. Money makes them feel more like a spy and less like a patriot, and so tends to be eschewed in this case.
I'm a professional, and I'm more than a little pissed at being attacked the way I was, but I guess I ought to have been more clear. Muslims of Arab descent also warrant extra scrutiny, (esp. in the foreign connections and ideological beliefs and behaviors category) for obvious reasons. Does that make me anti-Muslim or anti-Arab? How about anti-Chinese, for the reference I gave above? If anyone of the groups sells or gives away national secrets, then they have placed their loyalty to the US in a secondary position. Period. And Israel (until lately) has historically been very successful at covert intel gathering in the US. How? I'm apparently not allowed to say.
Wake up folks. We live in a hostile world and there are concerted efforts to penetrate our national security, including by friendly powers. To overlook potential security risks because it is not politically correct is unexcusable. But I guess in the future I just won't talk about it.
By , at
Thu Apr 20, 09:29:00 PM:
Yes, Cardinalpark, I think we do agree.
The professors take unwarranted leaps of logic. They claim:
a) there's no national security reaon to support Israel
and
b) there's no moral reason to support Israel
therefore
c) the only way to account for America's continuing to uphold this policy (which, according to them, makes no sense) is that a bunch of Jews, aided by Christian fundamentalists, holds undue influence over the policy.
The logic is the same as that used by David Duke, which is why he was among the first to endorse it. Much to the professors' embarrassment.
They tried to distance themselves from Duke, but their defense was even more lame than their paper. They said: We didn't even use the word "cabal.
We didn't violate any "hate speech" rules! What did we do wrong? See, we told you they'd use the anti-Semitism card against us.
They're creepy and dishonest, and Judt is giving them a total pass.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Apr 21, 09:47:00 AM:
No DF 82, you wake up. Your mistake was in generalizing to all Americans who are Jewish. I could care less about your conversations with 3 jews in intelligence. They don't speak for all of us. Your generalization is bigotted. Step back and take a deep breath. I am plenty awake. And plenty realistic. And I know antisemitism when it is directed at me, even when the director doesn't.
Think about it. No need to respond.
