Any doubt we might have that the Israeli right has lost its mind should be eliminated by the latest column from one of its most prominent media figures, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.
Glick, a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, has flipped out over some remarks (which we'll get to later) made last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman. And here is how she explains those remarks.
Her first explanation is that "the Obama administration is an ideological echo chamber in which only certain positions are permitted."
Restrained by ideological thought police that outlaw critical thought about the dominant forces in the Islamic world today, US officials have little choice but to place all the blame for everything that goes wrong on the one society they are free to criticize -- Israel.
That, in itself, borders on hilarious.
Anyone who pays even a modicum of attention to the Middle East knows that rather than "place all the blame for everything" on Israel, the Obama administration blames Israel for nothing while providing more foreign aid to Israel than to any other country, supporting it on every issue at the United Nations -- often against America's own interests -- and never, ever attaching any conditions to our aid or support (as we do with every other country in the world).
The only thing President Obama has asked of Israel during his entire term is for a three-month settlement freeze, to which Israel said no. (Prime Minister Netanyahu himself says Obama has earned a "badge of honor" for his uncritical support for Israel.)
It is Glick's second explanation of the Obama administration's attitude toward Israel that demonstrates the mindset of those whose ardor for maintaining the occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza trumps the security of Israel. Get ready.
The second possible explanation for the administration's treatment of Israel is that it is permeated by anti-Semitism. The outsized responsibility and culpability placed on Israel by the likes of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and Gutman is certainly of a piece with classical anti-Semitic behavior.
They are anti-Semites! Who would have imagined?
Not only are Obama, Panetta and Clinton anti-Semites, but they are, she writes, from the "classical" school (by which she means, I guess, that their antipathy toward Jews comes from reading The Merchant of Venice and Oliver Twist).
I'll leave Gutman out for now because he is Jewish, which means that a "classical" anti-Semite he cannot be.
I am not going to address the absurdity of calling any of these people anti-Semites, a term that refers not (take note, Abe Foxman) to disagreeing with policies of the state of Israel, but to disliking Jews, discriminating against them, and, at worst, doing them bodily harm.
Disliking Israel or its policies does not make one anti-Semitic anymore than disliking Saudi Arabia or its policies makes one anti-Muslim.
Yes, some people who dislike Israel and/or its policies are anti-Semitic, but, by the same token, so are many (in the Christian right, in particular) who profess love for Israel and defend every one of its policies.
Of course, none of the people Glick calls anti-Semitic are remotely anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic.
Under President Obama, strategic military cooperation between Israel and the United States has reached an all-time high, as even Obama critic and neocon Elliot Abrams agrees.
Secretary of Defense Panetta said last week that America's "unshakeable bond" with Israel is the first of the "three pillars" on which U.S. policies in the Middle East stand and will remain so as long as he is Defense Secretary.
As for Secretary of State Clinton, her support for Israel and for progressive and Jewish causes during her years as First Lady, Senator from New York, and now Secretary of State has made her one of the most popular political figures in the American Jewish community.
Anti-Semites!
Glick reminds me of the truth of philosopher August Bebel's statement that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools." If he were alive today and read Glick and other neocons like her, he'd surely say that "invoking anti-Semitism is the Zionism of fools."
But enough about Glick.
What about those statements by administration figures that got the neocons so bent out of shape?
First, there was Panetta's.
According to neocon blogger (and Caroline Glick sidekick) Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, Panetta was being "antagonistic" to Israel when he said that Israel's security would be enhanced if it would "reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan. This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area."
As Rubin -- an ardent and outspoken Mitt Romney supporter -- explains, calling on Israel to "reach out" was typical of Panetta's view that everything bad in the Middle East is "Israel's fault" when, as she continuously argues, absolutely nothing is.
Then there was Clinton, who decried the effort in Israel to ban international funding for progressive Israeli NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that work in Israel on democracy building, civil rights, protecting minorities, environmental issues, and gay and women's issues, to name a few.
Clinton pointed out that she goes around the world promoting acceptance of NGOs and their empowerment, and the Israeli right was trying to shut them down with the support of the Netanyahu government.
The right-wing Commentary website called Clinton's remarks an "anti-Israel" broadside, although thankfully not classical anti-Semitism. Of course, that would require calling the Anti-Defamation League anti-Semitic, because it shares Clinton's views on the NGO law.
I'll devote the least space to Ambassador Gutman's remark because, although it stirred the most outrage among the usual suspects, the hysteria is transparently ridiculous.
Gutman said that what he calls Muslim anti-Semitism "stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." This rather obvious statement caused a brouhaha because, as Jeff Goldberg tells us, anti-Semitism comes from the air and is, in no way, connected to anything Israel does.
Goldberg writes: "Jews do not cause anti-Semitism; blacks do not cause racism; gays do not cause homophobia. Hatred is a mental and spiritual illness, not a political position."
Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, as Israeli writer Yossi Gurvitz points out.
Muslim-baiting in this country stems from the misconception that Muslims, as a people, were responsible for 9/11. Anti-Japanese hysteria in the United States reached fever pitch because of Pearl Harbor. And Muslim antipathy toward Jews is, as everyone knows, directly connected to the history of Palestine since the Zionist movement began.
We may not like it. We may wish it wasn't so. But all it takes is talking to a Muslim (whether from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or anywhere else) to discover that yes, the displacement of the Palestinians is at the root of any antipathy that exists. (Much like Israeli antipathy toward Palestinians has something to do with terrorism.)
The good news is that Gutman's truth-telling is not costing him his job, a sign, I guess, that the classical anti-Semites are really in charge!
It's insane. But less insane than this crowd's current big project: war with Iran.
Question: If Israel bombs Iran, how will Jeff Goldberg explain the world's rage toward Israel? Will fury over the attack stem from the fact that it plunged the region into war and crashed the world economy or will it just be another result of some "mental or spiritual illness"? You know the answer.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Brent E. Sasley: Israel's Ex-Pat Ad Campaign: A Canadian Jew Reacts
Guy Ziv: Netanyahu and Hamas: A Love Story
Mitt Romney Hits Obama Over U.S.-Israel Relationship After Nicolas ...
It's a fact: U.S.-Israel relations at low ebb - Right Turn - The ...
This opinion blog is an attempt to blame a writer for "dual loyalty" when in reality, many of your insights are not true. You first discuss foreign aid to Israel, the most complained FMF in America; That Israel is the highest recipient with no pre conditions and benefits. As of 2011, Egypt receives the most aid. So much so, that 65% of its military is American funds. You failed to provide the true reasons for aid program, in which USA benefits from everything from job creation to prototype weapons testing by the Israeli's. There is even a exhibit at Fort Knox of General Tal and the IDF contribution to the armor corps of the American military.
Secondly, you mention the only thing President Obama asked for Israel is a three month settlement freeze. This is absolutely wrong in its entirety. Obama also asked Israel for a 10 month construction freeze last year and Netanyahu agreed. Can you disprove this never happened Mr.Rosenberg? And what did Abbas say other than not negating once again? There are much more examples that I have no room for.
Your story stinks and your clear bias against Israel is fine. But you have to document the correct facts to even seem credible.
http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/03/bbc-poll-shows-israel-4th-most-hated-country-in-the-world-up-from-3rd-last-year.html
First, he says that Obama asked Netanyahu for a 3-month settlement freeze, and that Netanyahu said no when, in truth, Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze only for the PA to evade talks for the first 9.5 months.
Second, he lies about the part of Panetta's comments that Caroline Glick took issue with in he column (as would any sensible pro-Israel American). It wasn't the part he quoted, rather, it was Panetta saying that he "wants Israel to get to the damn [negotiating] table." That comment, in itself, is outrageous since it is Abbas and the PA that have refused negotiations without preconditions for literally dozens of months now. In contrast, Netanyahu has repeatedly made himself available to meet Abbas anywhere and anytime.
Third, he writes that "the displacement of the Palestinians is at the root of any antipathy that exists." Really, MJ? Is that way Haj Amin al-Husseini famously met with Hitler and conferred with him on how best to execute his Final Solution? Muslim anti-Semitism dates back centuries, but that's an inconvenient truth for our author.
Nice try, MJ, but some people out there actually know the truth and care about the truth, though your agenda can't accommodate minor details like facts. We understand.
"First, he says that Obama asked Netanyahu for a 3-month settlement freeze, and that Netanyahu said no when, in truth, Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze only for the PA to evade talks for the first 9.5 months. "
The first part of that sentence contains a grain of truth i.e. Obama did ask Netanyahu for a 3 month settlement freeze in exchange for an extra squadron of F-35 jets.
Netanyahu did turn down that deal.
The second part of that sentence is a lie, because Netanyahu never "agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze".
That "freeze that wasn't a freeze" was a UNILATERAL announcement from Netanyahu, and it announced (unilaterally, remember?) precisely so that he could pre-empt calls for Israel to instigate the "real" freeze that was specified in the 2003 Road Map agreement.
What he actually said was:
"Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table. (Applause.) The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences – you know, we all know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement. We’ve talked it out, worked through, we understand the concerns, we understand the concerns of Israel, understand the concerns of the Palestinians. If they sit at a table and work through those concerns, and the United States can be of assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what could be a process that would lead to a peace agreement.
But if they aren’t there – if they aren’t at the table, this will never happen. So first and foremost, get to the damn table"
which is clearly a call to BOTH Israel and the Palestinians.
It came as the concluding remarks at the end of a long talk, during which Panetta was effusive about America's continuing, determined, financial, military and political support for Israel. The hyperbolic reporting of the speech is astounding.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4937
http://www.livestream.com/sabanforum2011/video?clipId=pla_8a85e34e-bccb-470c-9f4b-da244c0b9cf2
Alternative Jewish perspective:
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2818295&ct=11536269¬oc=1
Israel is likely going to face increasing regional pressure in response to their blind intransigence concerning the settlements and occupation, and their blind cheerleaders will, accordingly, become even less discriminating in their attempts to shoot the messenger, smear their critics, and and wildly attempt to distract the worlds attention away (LETS BOMB IRAN..... Iran.....? anybody?) from their own self destructive behavior.
God help Israel if any major breakthrough in energy happens (which grows increasingly likely with every years increasingly massive technological advances) over the next decade or two. Their US support will disappear overnight when we are no longer in the oil price stabilization business. They need to make their peace now, if they ever expect to survive without our support. Instead, they continue to dig their hole deeper, creating a defacto one state solution that will ultimately end with a massive Arab majority.
Their one chance at peace and ensuring a Jewish Homeland is to give up the settlements now, end the occupation, and make peace with their neighbors. Most of the world knows this, Israels radical settler supporters do not.
Wish she would run for PM of Israel....
Gates’s role in shaping this radical shift was evidenced by the positions he took on the issues of the day in the two years leading up to his replacement of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. In 2004, Gates co-authored a study for the Council on Foreign Relations with Israel foe Zbigniew Brzezinski calling for the US to draw closer to Iran at Israel’s expense. -Caroline Glick
If you have a point, please feel free to come to it....
It does not surprise me that the author agrees with the idea that Israel causes anti-semitism.
However that denies the reality that the entire arab-Israeli conflict is based in muslim anti-semitism.
Islamic intolerance for the right of self determination and freedom for non muslims is the entire core of the issue and always has been.
If Israel were a muslim nation----there would be no conflict.
And now he thinks he got it! Proof positive! Ms Glick writes an article and, therefore, ALL neocons have snapped!!
Someone on this commentline provides a link to the article, and I read it. It appears to me that Ms Glick does not see an Islamic Government as a Democratic one. I tend to concur with that. And I always thought that liberals are for separation of Church and State. That there are, still ongoing, democratic elections in Egypt is one thing, that the citizens elect an Islamic Government is their choice. But the result, and Islamic Government, is NOT a Democratic Government. As we have already seen, Egyptian Copts have been attacked, for no reason other than their religion. So, the apprehension Ms. Glick feels is not a result of having *snapped*, but rather, it appears, for not being *neocon* enough. At least that is how I read it. The Muslim brotherhood is but one of several Muslim Political Parties, and a few of them could *possibly* favor terrorism. At least, attacks on those who do not believe as they do, are likely to increase.
A snappy article was written, not a person, let alone a whole groups of persons snapped.Oh, well.