Anyone who has spent considerable time in the Arab Middle East will soon run into the fact that conspiracy theories are part of the currency of communication and social networking. During my trips to the region, I have been dumbfounded and really shocked by some of the stories that are spun about American intentions in the world, or Jewish control of media and finance, or just completely fabricated nonsense that doesn't stand up to reason.
I have been witness to efforts by some in the Middle East to twist and distort comments made by American policymakers, Israeli leaders, and others in order to reify their fantastic but unreal constructs explaining some international event or accident or decision.
The "real" positions expressed by political leaders on all sides of the Middle East mess should be good enough to trigger actual, serious, and ultimately constructive debate without fabricating false stories or assigning motives to people that are demonstrably untrue.
But what is true in the Middle East churning of lies, false stories, and conspiracies is becoming true in America.
Our own debates -- whether about the causes and drivers of global terrorism, or what to do in the Israel-Palestine standoff, or whether China should be blamed or not for America's inattention and mismanagement of its economic interest, or what strategies would be best to either lure or force Iran on an alternative nuclear course, these debates and more -- are increasingly being commandeered by those who want to defame or twist or create guilt by association attacks on earnest, thoughtful commentators on public policy.
The one I see a lot in the press are references to George Soros -- someone I am proud to have a relationship with and a person I think had the markers right for a much smarter economic policy and banking/finance strategy than Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, and President Obama finally elected to embrace. But Soros and all who he knows or funds are subjected to increasing attacks, while the merit or lack thereof of some argument is ignored by these anti-Soros shock squads.
I recently came across a similar kind of attack on Daniel Levy who do-directs the Middle East Task Force for the New America Foundation and who was instrumental in setting up the J Street organization.
In this case, Omri Ceren writes a piece based on a transcript from the 5th Annual Al Jazeera Forum attacking Daniel Levy for a statement roughly stating that the 1948 creation of Israel was wrong. Ceren anticipates someone like me pushing back and saying "out of context don't you think?" by claiming to provide the full paragraph of Levy's statement (actually Ceren edits it in important ways, but I will get to that) but here's the part of the transcript Ceren posted:
One can be a utilitarian two-stater, in other words think that the practical pragmatic way forward is two states. This is my understanding of the current Hamas position. One can be an ideological two-stater, someone who believes in exclusively the Palestinian self-determination and in Zionism; I don't believe that it's impossible to have a progressive Zionism. Or one can be a one-stater. But in either of those outcomes we're going to live next door to each other or in a one state disposition. And that means wrapping one's head around the humanity of both sides. I believe the way Jewish history was in 1948 excused - for me, it was good enough for me - an act that was wrong. I don't expect Palestinians to think that. I have no reason - there's no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice in the creation of Israel.
The transcript is correct in offering a horizontal picture of what Levy said. But like most things of this sort, there's some critical topography missing. I don't fault Ceren at all for reacting to a transcript if that is what he had in hand (he doesn't offer a full transcript or link to one) -- but given Levy's stature on this issue and long standing profile in Israel, I'm surprised he didn't go beyond this.
Having been there, been in the hall, been on the panel, and seen the impact of Levy's remarks, I find the attacks particularly strange and out of place. Levy was principally making a very effective appeal to recognize the humanity of both sides - and in this case, the humanity that was not being recognized was that of the Jews and Israelis, so that was the point he was clearly driving at and he appeared to effectively wrong-foot a particularly unsympathetic and hard-line question.
Reading transcripts is what we all do. I've done the same with Ambassador John Bolton frequently -- but beyond just reading his remarks, I try to listen to Bolton who despite some of his harshness is occasionally being flippant, or humorous, or answering complex questions in a roundabout way -- and that is what I feel Levy did in this case. I was there in the room with Levy and know that he was in no way arguing or suggesting what he is accused of.
What Ceren doesn't report is the question Levy was responding to -- and in my view, it was a loaded, obnoxious question challenging the humanity of Jews.
The question was:
Q: Hi- Mr. Daniel Levy, you spoke about "progressive Zionists"--and my God, that's an astonishing phrase. It's a contradiction in terms and seems to reconcile the irreconcilable, puts opposites together. It's just like putting cat with mouse and wolf with lamb. It's just like saying there are progressive Nazis or progressive fascists. The truth is that Zionism is a racist ideology founded on the theft of another people's land. There can't be progressive Zionists. Zionism can only be racist, regressive and antidemocratic. And by the way the project you endorsed has already failed. It is the project espoused by Mahmoud Abbas and even by Yasser Arafat and the reason is that when it comes to Palestinian issue, the difference between the Israeli right and the Israeli left is one of a few degrees, not one of different nature.
I have also found the Al Jazeera broadcast of the session which is regrettably dubbed in Arabic. (OK -- just found the English language version of the YouTube posted clip). But even watching and listening to Levy's background English in this case, I think it's clear that rather than questioning Israel's essence, founding, right to exist and the humanity of Jews -- Levy is -- though stopping and starting mid-thought too much in his response -- affirming the humanity of both sides.
His full response, provided untopographically by me, was:
DL: I think you have to get your head around the idea that the Jewish community in Israel is not going back to Poland or Germany or Morocco or Iraq. One can be a utilitarian two-stater. In other words think that the practical, pragmatic way forward is two states. This is my understanding of the current Hamas position. One can be an ideological two-stater as someone who believes in exclusively Palestinian self-determination or in Zionism. I don't believe that it's impossible to have a progressive Zionism. Or one can be a one-stater. But in either of those outcomes, we're going to live next-door to each other or in a one state disposition.And that means wrapping ones head around the humanity of both sides. I believe that where Jewish history was in 1948 excused, for me - it was good enough for me - an act that was wrong. I don't expect Palestinians to think that. I have no reason - there is no reason - that Palestinians should think there was justice in the creation of Israel. But if we're going to live as neighbors or in one state, one has to begin to develop an understanding and a respect for who the other is. And to compare a Zionist to a Nazi doesn't really get you very far down that road.
[*italicized selections above did not make it into the cut that Ceren provided but which are contextually significant.]
I think that Levy's critic, who did not link to a transcript or the video, heard or was directed to a moment in an exchange that was lifted from its context -- and in which Levy not only defended Israel but made a broader claim for the importance of acknowledging the humanity of Israelis to someone whose bias was opposed.
But Levy is a former Israeli government official and a citizen of Israel. He's in love with Israel -- but believes that a two-state arrangement with Palestine is essential to Israel's survival and long term stability and interests. I agree with him.
But Levy is quoted all over the place -- and speaks and writes prolifically -- and yet none of these other comments that are clearly about creating a more just and stable Israel-Palestine situation that avoids the illusion of false choices is mentioned.
In his remarks, Levy says yes, there can be a progressive Zionism and that he supports Israel's creation - that the place the Jews were in in 1948 justified that for him. He also understands why Palestinians would likely not feel the same way, which all seems to me perfectly reasonable and probably a good thing to acknowledge if this conflict is ever going to be resolved.
Levy was not saying that Israel's creation was wrong; he is in fact saying that he supports it, a position I have also heard him espouse consistently over the years we have worked together. I know that he also believes, and have had this confirmed by him, that things that went on during Israel's creation, especially in relation to the creation of the Palestinian refugee community, did include wrongdoing. And that while he thinks it was crucial for Israel to be established, and that he personally identifies with Israel and the need for an Israel in the context of Jewish history, he can understand why Palestinians - including those ready to accept two states, recognize Israel, and live alongside Israel - would still be unable to embrace or legitimize the events of 1948.
In his statement, Levy goes after the question in a withering critique that had a powerful effect in the room, seeing this Jewish, Israeli, Zionist guy telling the audience - deal with it.
Levy ends with a clear call to end the 1967 occupation - for two states. And attempts to establish the two-state option as a common denominator for an audience not particular sympathetic to two states.
Levy's formulation is no different than that I have heard from the very highest levels of the Israeli government and among a wide variety of factions in the Knesset.
But what really gets me -- beyond the misreading of Levy -- is the conspiracism running rampant without challenge. We have lots of other blogs running with the innuendo-intoxicated and false conspiracy framework asserting that since Soros funds J Street and Soros hates Israel (wrong by the way!) that Daniel Levy has finally shown his stripes as an Israel-hater too.
This is just ridiculous -- and diverts attention from the merit of the arguments at hand.
I don't expect this kind of behavior to go away soon. Pamela Geller, who describes herself as a `racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot' got a lot of air time in the New York Times -- and this kind of conspiracist blogging and journalism drives readership and earns rewards at some level.
But there is the challenge of getting policy right -- and Daniel Levy is a key part of that debate, just like John Bolton, or Robert Kagan, or George Mitchell, or Aaron David Miller. And for that debate to happen, those who are key commentators should reach further and deeper to report what is real -- rather than what is contrived, or incomplete.
Middle East conspiracism is here in America now -- but our own political factions are now engaged in many of the same troubling patterns that drive some to unacceptable forms of violence.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons
Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons
War means blood shed. Folks who don't want particular blood to be shed need to stop particular wars. Similarly, folks who want particular wars to continue need to openly debate the cost of the blood that will inevitably be shed therein.
In the U.S., we ignore our own blood being shed by ourselves, because the drug war could not continue without that.
The rest of the world cannot ignore the blood that gets shed so that Israel can continue its unending war without a commensurate shedding of the blood of Israeli Jews and seemingly everyone but Israeli Jews are to be blamed for not noticing the obvious inequities. Israel, however, is allowed to experience a far more restrained debate than it ought to be having because it has so dramatically skewed the body count from what would normally be expected between parties at war.
War is supposed to be hell, but the inventors of sugar coated war are offering what many may see as a plausible alternative, and I really don't know of any stronger consumers of the new product than the supporters of the current Israeli government.
What do I think of Conspiracies you may ask? I think all any rational thinking person can do is judge each story they hear on its own merits and to remember that sometimes leaders CAN act in conspiritorial ways.
After all (some) conspiracies end up being true. Nixon DID conspire to wiretap the DNC in Watergate. The US DID conspire to illegally sell weapons to the Iranians in order to fund the Contras. Hell Huff Post reported last week that Obama had apologised to Guatemala for the US conspiring to infect inmates with Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
At the end of the day politicians are a conspiring bunch of people. It almost comes with the Job Description. So certainly take radical stories with a healthy pinch of skepticism but researching things is always good before making up your mind.
An Open Mind is a good thing.
It shows the foolishness of the "appeasement" stance all too easily assumed by certain well-meaning (but also very naive) friends of Israel. But letting himself be "interviewed" by the lowest type of Israel-haters (and responding meekly, humbly "explaining" his position) Mr. Levy inadvertantly offered those haters a political and PR victory. Not only did he let himself (and the ones he represented in the eyes of the public) be humiliated and forced into a weak defensive position; his stuttered reply will no doubt provide those haters with "juicy quotes" and propaganda material showing the "weakness" of the Israeli position.
No doubt at all: Mr. Levy meant well; he aimed for "dialogue", wanted to "engage with the opponent", "explain his position" and "promote peace and understanding". But the road to purgatory is paved with good intentions, as Neville Chamberlain proved many years ago. With his interview, Mr. Levy did ill service to the cause of understanding; he provided ammunition to those who have no interest in peace.
Mr. Levy should never have accepted to be interviewed by hate-filled extremists; and if he did, if he inadvertently painted himself into that corner, his answer should have been assertive, proud and indignant.
Let us hope he learned his lesson.
If I thought you'd done it intentionally, I would fan you for your skill.
Americans don't deny that our taking the native american's land was wrong. But it doesn't mean we are going back to Europe.
And as far as Zionism- the believe that god promised property to an ethnic group is by its very nature racist.
Even though israel stole its property, most Palestinians are willing to let them keep a lot of the land in exchange for either equal rights or independence.
Would you rather they be demanding something more?
Seems to be a similar deal that most countries with colonial periods ended up making. Every once in a while they throw the colonists out completely but usually some type of deal can be made where both can live together.
That's certainly the preferable option to both kicking the colonists out or killing off/oppressing the natives don't you think?
The reality is that the simple notion that the children of the people who had been forced to flee their homes in the face of violence and war (whether they waited until they were aboard the last train to make it out before the killing and beating reached a cresendo, or saw the gangs coming their way and read the handwriting on the wall) who were born one day before their mother or father fled should not be treated differently than the ones who weere born one day after was actually fully in place during WW1, as anyone who read the UNHCR definition of who qualifies as a refugee would know.
( see THE REAL ISREL LOBBY by William Kristol 10-18-2010 Vol. 16, No. 05 The Weekly Standard)
Yes, there can be a progressive Zionism. The test is if the Palestinians can return to the lands they fled in the face of war in 48.
If you cannot let these refugees from war return to their homes, you represent the racist face of Zionism. If you are for International Law and allow the Palestinians to return to their lands and homes, you'd be a progressive Zionist.
Is that what the author means?
OTOH, your point is totally off topic. You're saying, in essence "Israel is no better than any other nation in the Middle East, so they should be have just as badly as any other country" - again, NOT AN ARGUMENT.
International Law guarantees the right of return of refugees. You're saying that Israel should ignore the law, which is certainly in their power. I do not advocate using force to "make" Israel behave in a lawful way. I'm just saying that keeping refugees forced from their homes in the face of war is in no way "Progressive"
Hope that helps!
And the American media is just as compliant in those efforts as the Middle East media is compliant in the efforts you talked about.
Russia, 1905. In the aftermath of the failed revolution, two Jewish Communists face a Tsarist firing squad. They are blindfolded. Rifles are loaded and aimed. The captain in charge offers each of them a last cigarette.
‘FRAKK your cigarette, running-dog imperialist lackeys!’ one of them shouts.
The other shushes him, says, ‘Isaac, Don’t make unnecessary trouble …’
The attacks against Daniel are happening because the Right is for the first being challenged by pro Israeli activists coming from a different philosophy of how to change the dynamics between the Israelis and Palestinians, but also know time is short. What people like Geller, who I've written about for years, including here on HuffPost, with the help of the Israeli lobby, are doing is attempting to delegitimize a group of individuals leading the way to think about Israeli security in new ways, because what people like Geller are offering won't lead to stability.
Daniel Levy is an uncompromising activist for Israeli and Palestinian interests, because he understands better than anyone on the Right that to have any semblance of peace in the Mideast all parties must be equatably treated.
How could the EU, Arab goverments and the rest of the world stand behind Israel if the US president doesn't?
How can the Palestinians demand less than what the American president demand?
If Obama demanded an unrealistic total settlement freeze how can the Palestinians agree to less?
Not only J street but they were a part of a movement that made Israel the scapegoat of the world made it less secure and made a peaceful solution to the Israel Palestinian problem virtually impossible.
When did we ever have a Israeli prime minister agreeing to announce a building freeze taking down checkpoints and still have the Palestinians refuse to talk?
Palestinians have come to the understanding they do not need to make any concessions they don't need to negotiate and either the US will do the work for them and push for concessions from Israel for nothing in return or refuse to talk and blame Israel.
If by that you mean the same three pillars they've always had:
(1) 1967 borders;
(2) Palestinain Soveriegnty; and,
(3) Right of Return... (and between me and you, the RoR position seems to have modulated to compensation)
What's so extreme about a peace on those terms? The only thing that has changed in the Israeli position (desire to hold on to settlements and the Jordan Valley).
Perhaps it's Israel's strong move to the right that makes the same old Palestinains demands seem radical. There might be more distance between the sides, but that's from Israel changing it's position, not the Palestinians.
In short, any reasonably informed person understands full well that the impediment to a peaceful solution is expansionist/occupier Israel, not the Palestinians.
What he fails to mention is the way forward where.
Hamas position is a tow state solution is the way forward to disown the Jews from every last inch of Israel.
Trying to portray their position as if they have peace and the end of the conflict on their minds is like claiming Hitler had peace on his mind when he agreed to take parts of Czechoslovakia .
He was also utilitarian practical and pragmatic that agreed to take what ever was given to him without war until the other side agreed to give no more.
Hamas: '67 border deal won't recognize Israel
Senior Hamas official Khalil Al-Haya
The proposal put forward by Hamas would see the acceptance of a Palestinian state "in stages" on the green line, the 1967 armistice line, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and "the return of all refugees without recognizing Israel in exchange for a 10-year truce,"
By stages they mean getting a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines as a first stage building an army for 10 years and after 10 years the second stage starts when they will get the other part of their state which is the rest of Israel.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=285466
Details please?
Learn the difference between a hudna and a truce.
Arafat said many contradictory things depending on his audience. The Hamas Charter hasn't changed, they still call for the complete destruction of Israel. Anything intermediate is just a stepping stone.
Why did the U.S. lie to invade Iraq, Oil and a closer base of operations directly
between Israel and it's alleged enemies.
Afghanistan is all about trillions in natural resources and the establishment
of safe passage trading routes throughout the region, as always.
It may not be a conspiracy, but I do wonder what role the natural aquifers
play in the land grab between Israeli and Palestinian territories.
After all, the most valuable resource in the desert is water.
If we don't brush up on our distortions and propoganda, how will we understand what the policy makers are saying at all?