I wonder what happened to Israel, by which I mean the actual country and its seven million people.
It still exists, thank God, but one would hardly know it from the way its supposed supporters discuss it in the United States.
Take the brouhaha last week that started with this article in Politico. Its thesis was that some leading progressives are no longer part of a "pro-Israel" consensus and are trying to move the Democratic Party in an anti-Israel direction.
This would, of course, be big news if it were true.
But it isn't and the only evidence presented in the piece is that many progressive bloggers oppose a preemptive war against Iran. Additionally some argue that many of the people who promote military confrontation with Iran -- and oppose diplomacy -- are following Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's lead on the issue.
This is hardly controversial. No one seriously denies that AIPAC has been pushing "crippling sanctions" against Iran for years with the insistence that, if those fail, war would be the only recourse. Along with its cutouts in Congress, it strongly opposes dialogue as a means of resolving U.S. differences with Iran over its nuclear program.
Additionally, many progressives make the indisputable case that many of the neoconservatives who are itching for war with Iran are the same people who promoted the war with Iraq. (The Council on Foreign Relation's Max Boot is perhaps the most obvious example.)
Another charge, made against me, is that I habitually use the term "Israel Firster" to denounce those who are promoting Israel's positions on Iran and other issues over those of the United States. For some reason, that drives the right crazy although they consistently denounce both President Obama and his policies with almost obscene relish while consistently fawning over Netanyahu and his policies of the moment.
Can anyone argue with the assertion that for neocons Obama is always wrong and Bibi is always right? Not only that, they denounce those who dare criticize Netanyahu over anything while never ever letting up on Obama. How can it be that the prime minister is always right but the president is always wrong?
But I need to offer a clarification. By the term "Israel Firster, I do not mean that right-wingers and neocons who advance bellicose Middle East policies are putting the interests of Israel first.
Far from it. They are putting the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu and his hardliners first. After all, if they were putting Israel first, they would not be promoting policies (such as war with Iran or the perpetuation of the occupation) that could very easily lead to Israel's destruction or, at least, to its losing its Jewish majority.
The people I call "Israel Firsters" are, in fact, Netanyahu Firsters.
After all, many of these people were anything but "Israel Firsters" when the late Yitzhak Rabin was pursuing peace with the Palestinians or when Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were considering plans that would have returned most of the occupied territories to the Palestinians with Jerusalem converted into a shared capital. On the contrary, they fought these prime ministers, usually in conjunction with right-wing Republicans in Congress.
One might ask: why are progressives who care deeply about Israel never deemed Israel Firsters. (Think of people like those in J Street and Americans For Peace Now who devote their lives to achieving peace for Israel.)
The answer is simple. Peace in the Middle East is clearly in the interests of both the United States and Israel.
In the mid-1990's an American could have gone out to the town square shouting devotion to Rabin and no one would have blinked. And the reason was that Rabin was almost as pro-American as he was pro-Israel. He recognized that advancing an end to the Middle East conflict would have primarily benefitted Israel, but also its best friend and backer.
That is why, shortly after his 1992 election, he told AIPAC that he would not be needing its services as interlocutor with the Bush (and later Clinton) administrations. Knowing that the agenda he intended to pursue (peace) would be strongly supported by the United States, he intended to speak for himself. He did not need anyone to pressure Congress. (See this in Jewish magazine, MOMENT).
In fact, the whole business of strong-arming the American government only comes into play when the right is in power in Israel (unfortunately, that has been almost all the time since an Israeli rightist murdered Yitzhak Rabin). An Israeli government that pursues peace does not need pressure tactics, achieving support for its goals and generous U.S. aid without them.
The bottom line here is that it is important not to allow the right to highjack Israel's cause. For the right, Israel is all about maintaining occupation, ensuring Israel's regional hegemony, and fighting a civilizational war with Muslims.
For us, Israel is about... Israel. Its creation in the wake of the Holocaust -- the return of Jews to the place where their history began -- was right and inevitable. Israel's sole purpose, as I see it, is to be a sanctuary where Jewish children are safe. It has served that purpose well.
But that will not continue if Palestinians continue to suffer under occupation or if Israel and Iran go to war. Jewish children will not forever be safe if Palestinian children aren't. Nor will they be safe if a war with Iran (and Hezbollah) spreads into the Israeli heartland.
The hawks don't care much about that.
For them, Israel is some kind of macho symbol rather than a place with real people who just want to live in peace and security. That is why I have to conclude that the term "Israel Firster" is a bit imprecise. There is no evidence that these people care about Israel at all.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
MJ Rosenberg: Ehud Barak: Iran Nuclear Program Not About Israel
Dr. Josef Olmert: From Sarkozy to the IAEA -- How Netanyahu Gets Stronger
Dan Ehrlich: Iran Plays a Good Poker Game, but When Will the Bluffing Stop?
Evelyn Leopold: UN Council Raps Syria With a Whimper, Not a Bang
Full stop
I wonder how long Americans will keep supporting this unappreciative, selfish little country. Maybe you'd prefer if the U.S. withdrew all support and left you alone. That way they won't get on your nerves anymore and force you to tell them to "just give us the money and weapons, then get the hell out of the way and stop talking."
Their hard right, uber nationalistic, bigotted beliefs and policies are reminiscent of a dark, dark past.
any attempt to destroy Israel
the use of the term "Israel Firster" is a way to tar ALL Jews as traitors to the US and it's interests.
But whatever your opinion of Israel, I am definitely not calling you or anyone else a traitor!
Nice GlennGreenwald story mentioning you...
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
Does that hurt, Mr. Rosenberg?
"The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country."
Unfortunately, for many, this doctrine still holds true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html
At the time that these agreements were made there was no such thing as a self-identified Palestinian nationality. There was no agreed-upon national system for anyone living there in fact. It was the mandate system that ultimately carved out these individual states in the first place.
If everything you listed is void then so are the states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and so on. Out of all of these states Israel is the one that was created with the most legitimacy by far. Iraq was just a random border with a totally foreign king stuck in there. And who had the right to steal the Kurdish nation without consent? We'll have to bust up Turkey too I guess.
But before we erase half the borders in the MidEast, answer me this. Who are these Palestinians you insist own all of Palestine anyway? Because they merely seem to be the Arabs that happened to be living in (or moved into) the area that Jews began settling in the early 20th century. Arafat was born and grew up in Egypt but he was Palestinian. Why was an Egyptian Jew who also emigrated not also considered Palestinian?
So why do they own ALL of Palestine anyway? Parts of it were mostly Jewish, like Jerusalem. Why was Jerusalem Palestinian also?
F&F
Since what AIPAC is doing is objectively endangering Israel's survival, I think it would be worthwhile to investigate those few powerful individuals who are at the very center of that organization, to see if they are, under the guise of protecting Israel, using the power generated in Washington, to simply further their own business interests.
1. someone who can't stop talking about the problems and enemies of Israel
2. someone who discusses Israeli problems more than American problems
3. someone who is a monomaniac on the subject of Israel
4. someone who is more preoccupied with the problems of Israelis than the problems of Americans or any other group
5. someone who is obsessed with Israeli issues to the exclusion of all other issues
6. someone who promotes policies on behalf of Israel that are damaging to Americans and the American interest
7. someone who puts the Israeli interest above the American interest and every other interest
People who fit this profile are easy to recognize when we encounter them.
Are you afraid that your viewpoint won't stand up to honest criticism?
How is the term "Israel Firster" a personal attack? It isn't when it is used appropriately, accurately, truthfully and objectively to describe people who place Israeli interests, issues, problems and conflicts at the top of their political agenda. Are you trying to claim such people don't exist when they are so conspicuous on the American scene?
I prefer the term "pro-Israel activist" or "pro-Israel militant" myself to "Israel Firster," but the term "Israel Firster" is not intrinsically offensive or pejorative -- it's purely descriptive.
There are "Firsters" out there for every nation, special interest and lobby -- Ireland Firsters, Germany Firsters, Saudi Firsters, Palestinian Firsters and so on. It's the way of the world.
I think some Israel Firsters don't want to admit they are Israel Firsters -- which strikes quite a few people as curious and irrational behavior. Fess up to what you are -- don't play games. I will readily admit that I am an America Firster -- I put the interests of the United States above those of any other nation in the world without qualification. I am selfish that way.
Here is an example of what "Israel Firstism" looks like:
I have entered into several discussions with people who are highly emotional about Israel who are urging the United States to attack Iran. When I point out to them that an American attack on Iran could trigger the collapse of the American and global economy, and cause enormous misery for Americans, they glide right by my point and fail to respond. The point doesn't even register on their minds.
From their behavior one concludes that they are Israel Firsters -- they care a great deal about the Israeli interest and not at all about the American interest. One is not engaging in a "personal attack" on them when remarking on the truth about their political values and agenda.