Is this for real? On the Likud’s corner of the U.S. print media? I can’t wait to read the angry responses.
Found on the WSJ opinion page
Posted in Foreign policy, media.
24 Responses to Found on the WSJ opinion page
-
Bill Pearlman says:
Leon, first, the questionable math. 80% of 1.5 million is 1.2 million refugees. I understand that even in Jihadist circles the total number of Palestinian refugees was 700,000. So, evidently they all went to Gaza, nobody died, and somehow they multiplied. But I digress. Unlike the American Conservative, which when it comes to this issue has become a total mouth piece for Hamas. And unlike you. Who cheers them on in their goals. ( and the Hamas charter makes for truly fascinating reading ) The WSJ will give a platform to the other side. Something you might think about.
-
Thomas O. Meehan says:
All sorts of cards are being played, for instance, Ilana Isaccson Mercer , who normally works the Paleo side of the street, has come out with an “all Paleoconservatives must support Israel as an outpost of the west,” article over at Vdare.
It seems to me that the open commission of war crimes by Israeli forces, along with antipathy toward Israel on the left is taking its toll on the Israel propaganda offensive. The British right of center press such as the Times and the Telegraph have had much more even handed coverage of the Gaza offensive than their American counterparts.
-
Paulbe says:
So Bill, why is open slather OK if its being done by Israel? On what foundation does mass murder become legitimate? When does Jewish victimhood stop being an excuse for Israel’s bestial behaviour?
-
Mr. Meehan, it all depends on what Ms. Mercer means by “support.” I don’t much care which side individual paleos personally take. I do think that some paleo support of the Palestinians is primarily reactive. But there can be only one paleo and libertarian position as far as our government is concerned and that is neutrality and disengagement. If by “support” she means rhetorical support in the war of words, that is one thing. If by support she means foreign aid, security guarantees, etc. that is quite another.
-
Leon Hadar says:
Bill: This is the wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Demographics which indicates that there are 1 million refugees in Gaza. Also points that Gaza has one of the highest birth rates in the world. Regarding my own views: cheering Hamas on their goals? And when did you stop beating up your wife? For my views read (among others) http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/ which expresses my support for the two-state solution. In any case, I think that the WSJ decided to publish this piece with its provocative headline as a way of demonstrating that the “other side” is “radical,” etc. They could have published instead a critique of the Israeli operation by a mainstream American or Israeli. BTW, should a criticism of the U.S. war in Iraq be regarded as “anti-American?” Why is criticism of Israeli policies defined as “anti-Israeli?”
Re Paleos and Israel/Palestine. It all depends on your definition what are U.S. interests and values. In many cases, benign neglect could be an appropriate approach. -
I just happened upon Michael Goldfarb’s response to this article over at the “Weakly Standard”. My favorite line is the conclusion to Goldfarb’s response to the author’s description of an Israeli raid into Gaza that actually broke the truce in November. To solidify his claim that Israel’s raid was acting “preemptively” in “self-defense” by raiding Gaza, Goldfarb contends,
“Even if what the Israelis say about that raid is not the whole truth, their claims surely merit some consideration.”
Really? Why? And would the generous Mr. Goldfarb extend that same consideration to the Palestinians?
The entire post can be found at:
-
At what point does a refugee stop being a refugee. How many generations. And why is the United States the biggest contributor to the UNRWA when the Arab countries are sitting on the worlds oil reserves. But I digress. I read the article you referenced and it was disingenuous to say the least. And still no place have I read anything about any compromises that the Arabs might have to make. About anything. Look, your the American Conservatives “house jew” That has a long history. Some tried to help their fellow Jews. Others, like you, turned on them. I don’t know whether you really believe what you write or whether it eases your way in academic circles. And I don’t really care what your motivation is. But the fact is this. There are Jews under fire in southern Israel and have been since the Gaza settlements were closed. And their are Jewish kids on the front lines in Gaza. And not only don’t you care you take the side of the Hamas. And you don’t it in a publication that was founded by a man who believes that Winston Churchill was the instigator of WW2, not Hitler. ( and yes I read his book) But I think what it comes down to is this. But what it really comes down to is this. I think that institutions like Hebrew University should be preserved. Which would not happen under Islamic rule. You, an alumni don’t. It’s a betrayal
no matter how you couch it -
Mr. Phillips, I agree with your position entirely. We as citizens of this Republic have no business pressuring our government to spend our fellow taxpayers money or blood in inter-ethnic battles overseas. As you can see from the Pearlman post above, some of us have never given up our tribal identities.
Ilana Mercer claims that Israel is part of the West under siege, and therefore we have duty to defend Israel as we would ourselves. There are problems with that claim. I tend to agree with Toynbee that Jewish culture is neither Western or Eastern but stands sui generis. This is all a matter of honorable debate. If Israel behaved better, this would be a more palatable argument. Personally I see the Israel Palestine conflict as an inter-Semitic fight between cousins, and I want nothing to do with it. I marvel at how people like Ms. Mercer can hop from country to country always expecting her latest neighbors to put their blood and treasure at risk for her relatives elsewhere.
-
Red, I forgot to add that it is equally idiotic for American Paleo-Conservatives to side with, or romanticize Palestinian Arabs. While the Zionists did eject them from their land, most of them see themselves as part of the great Islamic/Arab Umma that extends from Morocco to Indonesia. At least past of this endless Punch and Judy show in the Middle East is due to the inability of Muslims to allow even the smallest portion of it to be seceded to Jews or Christians. The duplicity and intransigence of both sides is contemptible.
-
WRW says:
Mr. Pearlman,
A “refugee stops being a refugee”, when his status is resolved–either by going home or otherwise being permanently settled. A refugee camp would seem to still indicate one is a refugee. But you’re right–this irrelevancy from you is a “digression.”Apparently, you think dissent is akin to treason. What’s amusing is critics like Hadar are the ones who recognize Israel’s vast strategic superiority over her enemies. It’s the warmongering Zionists like you who like the peddle the hysteria of Israel under danger of eradication.
At least you let your chauvinism and prejudice out for all to see. Any number of civilian deaths is fine because Jews are “under fire.”
-
Jack Tracey says:
The US does not need to be engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict– as an ally to one or both sides or as a referee– unless we are intent on fulfilling the neocon dream of re-making the whole region in our image. However, my personal feelings are thus:
I feel sympathy for the average Palestinians who– trapped between a Jewish country that fears and sometimes hates them and Arab countries that do not want them– are also manipulated by cunning radicals that bring them food in one hand and Israeli tanks in the other.
I believe the Israelis are engaged in a legitimate defense of their people against the terror of random rocket attacks. If random rockets from Mexico were raining down on the American Southwest, the Marines would be in Mexico City before you could say “bienvenidos”. If casualty numbers were lopsided, we would declare the action a success. Statements from the article like the one below are spurious.
“Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them — as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable — to launch wars of aggression.”
There was nothing murky about the origin of the rockets. Political and strategic guile played their parts on both sides, and the action taken by Israel may prove the wrong one in the long run, but Israel is not engaged in a war of agression.
-
I believe Ms. Mercer needs to write an article clarifying just what she means. It sure sounds like she means we need to support Israel in ways other than rhetorically, but we should give her the benefit of the doubt. She has a long track record of being anti-intervention and friendly to Ron Paul.
-
Mr Pearlman: Your concern for Jewish interests and Israel is very touching. Indeed, you and many of the neocons are the ultimate “court Jews” who attach themselves to the Republican establishment’s centers of political power and in the process win jobs in government, media, think tanks, etc. And get this! — you guys have failed to persuade the majority of American-Jews to vote for the “pro-Israeli” Bush who ended up voting for the Democrats and Obama. Those “self-hating” Jews… BTW, with so much concern for Israel why don’t you move there, perhaps to one of the settlements in the West Bank. Put you money where your mouth is. Be a man. But it seems that the only courage you have manifests itself on internet blogs..
-
Well it’s like this. Some of us retain concern for our fellow Jews. Some of us want the IDF to prevail when the fight Hamas. Then there are those like you who go the other way. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
-
Mr. Tracey,
If the US blockaded Mexico and cut her off from access to energy, food and other basic necessities, the calculus of what the US could/would do is quite different.Israel provoked this conflict by maintaining her blockade of Gaza throoughout the ceasefire, in defiance of her commitments. (Just as she has continued to build settlements and roadblocks in the WB in defiance of her commitments under the Road Map and Annapolis.) She then further provoked the conflict with the November raid in Gaza.
This conflict has little to nothing to do with actual security and everything to do with cynical political manipulation by Barak/Livni to offsent Netanyahu’s longstanding manipulations (going back to his torpedoing of Oslo so he could gain the PM position and panic like a schoolgirl.)
Just as in the US, the state in Israel foments conflicts and security threats to enhance its power and that of its otherwise incompetent political class. Indeed, apart from Rabin, Israel has never seriously negotiated with the Palestinians because the domestic political benefits to be gain from the conflict are too apparent for the political class.
What better for a quartet of political failures like Olmert, Barak, Livni and Netanyahu than to foment some “Jews under attack” and get people like Kauffman to foam at the mouth, while forgetting about the political failures doing the manipulation.
-
Jack Tracey says:
WRW,
Are you saying that the political class in Israel has deliberately created and maintained a hostile ghetto on their border, so that they can use fear of terror to maintain political power?Would you also say that the Hamas et al have used a mirror strategem to keep the pressure on their people and stoke their loyalty and hatred of Israel?
Alternatively, are both simply acting in accordance with their views that insult and injury demand retribution else their people will seem weak?
I wonder if we are sometimes overestimating the craft of poitical leaders and underestimating their fear and shortsightedness. I am often struck by the genuine intentions of leaders as they contrast with the disastrous consequences that result from their ignorance of history’s moral principles.
-
Mr. Tracey,
One must indeed always consider the law of unintended consequences. However, the fact remains that Israel purposefully cultivated Hamas in the 80s and early 90s at the expense of Fatah (using the same type of misjudgment we used in Afghanistan around that time.) And Israel also placed tiny settlements in a sea of Palestinians for most of the past 40 years. Finally, she retained control over Gaza even after withdrawing and has imposed a blockade for many months.I don’t discount the element of “face” that you reference either. However, the notion that the current offensive by Israel is the result just of “self-defense” for her people is too naive for me. There is at least one eye on the elections at play here.
As for Hamas, they are undoubtedly playing the radical card and attacking Israel (in a manner that qualifies as crimes) to advance their position domestically, create propaganda, force Israel to deal with her. Politics is in play for it as well. And in between the hammer and anvil rest the populace.
-
Do we really expect to get anywhere with discussions about who started this and who’s committing the worst war crimes? Is that how problems like this are settled?
http://www.rightklik.net/ -
There can be no discussion if the Israeli spin of “self-defense” is accepted. Then the discussion is no more than how Israel is victimized and its unfortunate civilians are killed because Hamas hides among them. (Gee, that didn’t take long to say and you don’t even need to maintain a blog to say it.)
-
And then we have to deal with the role of our gov’t to Israel’s gov’t–which according to Olmert, makes one wonder who’s the senior partner:
‘”Olmert Says Israel Determined To Go On, Recalls Phone Talk on UNSC Vote With Bush
Telephone report from Ashqelon by political correspondent Shmu’el Tal — liveA
Voice of Israel Network B
Monday, January 12, 2009 . . .
Document Type: OSC Translated Text[Olmert:] “It transpired all of a sudden that a vote would be held in 10 minutes’ time. I tried to find President Bush, and I was told he was attending an event in Philadelphia.”
Cont’d
‘I know that if somebody tried to find me on the phone right now, it would have to be something unusual and extraordinary for them to say: Leave it all and go to some room to talk to me. In this case, I said: I don’t care, I have to talk to him right now.
He was taken off the podium and brought to a side room. I spoke with him; I told him: You can’t vote for this proposal.
He said: Listen, I don’t know, I didn’t see, don’t know what it says.
I told him: I know, and you can’t vote for it!
He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.
It was a proposal she had put together, one she formulated, one she organized, one she maneuvered. It left her rather embarrassed, abstaining in the vote on a proposal she herself had put together. That was why the French and the Brits said she had pulled a fast one on them, she having been the one to spur them to submit the proposals.”
-
Philip Giraldi says:
There was considerable speculation on the blogosphere yesterday whether the story of Olmert’s issuing instructions to Bush on how to vote would even appear anywhere in the MSM. The Wash Post hid the story three quarters of a way through a piece on page 7, “Rice, Eager to Depart, Heartily Defends Record” by Glenn Kessler. The NYT did, however, report it more fully in “Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote” by Mark Landler.
-
I clumsily tried to respond to Ileana’s (who I greatly admire) piece on her blog to the effect that paleos have heir hands full with problems in this country, the biggest of which is that we have virtually no power or influence over our own government. I slipped up by mentioning in a very unkind manner, using a crude epithet that completely shot my case, the Rev. Hagee, as an example of the kind of supporter Israel doesn’t need. My point being that after being alternately ignored and vilified, paleos and libertarians have no dog in the fight. The “West” to which she was referring is over, war without mercy is now accepted by all sides. Israel has jumped the cliff and it’s now in gravity’s hands. I don’t see how we could help now anyway. God help them all.
On a lighter note: “I don’t know whether you really believe what you write or whether it eases your way in academic circles”. Oi! and Vey! (Can I say that? I’m not Jewish but I’m a big fan of Larry David.)
-
John Dudley says:
This isn’t the first place this turnabout has happened. A similar article was posted, on of all places, The Washington Times website:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/14/when-israel-expelled-palestinians/
This is probably the only truly impartial article The Times has ever published about the MIdeast.
However,I am not overly optimistic about this change. The Times continues to use Neocons shills like Mona Charen and Alan Dershowitz as regular columnists.
Dr. Hader,
I have found that the media is a little more open this time around. For instance, in the 2006 Lebanon war there wasn’t this much of an “other side,” nor was there during the second intifada, the 1996 Lebanon conflict, nor 1982′s Lebanon invasion.
The NYTimes has run a few harsh editorials, Nickolas Kristof had a very good column on the situation a few days ago. Yes of course, Bill Kristol and his ilk are still all over the place, but the fact is the NYTimes, the WSJ, and CNN are opening up a little bit…