Semi-Daily Journal
Brad DeLong's Thoughts of the Moment on Economics, and on Other Topics as Well
DeLong's Home Page
November 11, 2002
Hearty, Good-Humored, Likes to Crumble the Earth on His Farm Between His Fingers
William Safire (in Arik vs. Bibi) writes about Ariel Sharon: according to Safire, he is " ...of Israel's 'greatest generation', a passionate Zionist, hearty, good-humored, a leader in battle who likes to crumble the earth on his farm between his fingers..."
When I think of Ariel Sharon, I think of the stories told in John Boykin's Cursed Is the Peacemaker, of how the United States negotiated two agreements with Ariel Sharon during his early 1980s invasion of Lebanon--and how Sharon broke them both.
The first came when Ronald Reagan sent Philip Habib to see if he could negotiate a cease fire. Habib did: he obtained Syrian dictator Hafez Assad's assent; he obtained the assent of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. The Syrian troops stopped maneuvering and firing. The Israeli troops did not.
The second came at the end of the Lebanon War. Ronald Reagan had told Philip Habib to broker the evacuation of Arafat's PLO from Beirut. The PLO was hesitant: Who would protect the inhabitants of refugee camps? Wouldn't they be at risk of being massacred? Bashir Gemayel and Ariel Sharon gave Philip Habib guarantees that Palestinian civilians would not be harmed. Relying on these guarantees, the United States promised the PLO that civilians in refugee camps would not be harmed. And then, once the PLO had been evacuated, Sharon pulled back Israeli troops so that the Lebanese militia could enter the camps and carry out their massacre.
One would think that these two strikes would make Ariel Sharon into an unsuitable negotiating partner for the United States. What assurance can we have that he will do any better a job at keeping his promises in the future than he has in the past?
Posted by DeLong at November 11, 2002 09:04 AM
| Trackback
"What will the US do if we do this or that? my opponents always ask...", told Sharon to a bunch of Israeli fanatic nationalists... And then Sharon to finish his sentence: "I tell you, we have the US under control."
But then again, if Dubya thinks Sharon is a man of peace, what can go wrong?
Sharon, a Zionist? One should have read Theodor Herzl to appreciate the irony... Chapter V of The Jewish State reads as follows:
Shall we end by having a theocracy? No, indeed. Faith unites us, knowledge gives us freedom. We shall therefore prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on the part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples in the same way as we shall keep our professional army within the confines of their barracks. Army and priesthood shall receive honors high as their valuable functions deserve. But they must not interfere in the administration of the State which confers distinction upon them, else they will conjure up difficulties without and within.
Zionism as defined by Herzl (the movement for a secular and civil Jewish state) didn't have a chance in Israel; from day one, the country was run by priests and generals who, just as Herzl warned, do nothing but "conjure up difficulties without and within." Were Israel a Zionist state (which it isn't and has never been), a retired general like Sharon would have no business holding a seat in Knesset or a cabinet-level office.
So far, however, the events proceed according to Herzl's worst fears. The military brainwashes the population through lifetime conscription (which, by the way, is mandatory for both men and women; the only people exempt are... you got it, the priests and those studying to be priests), and the brainwashed population keeps electing retired generals to Knesset. What a convenient setup...
Groupthink Central had something from the Israeli press (Ha'aretz in English I think) about Sharon's trip to his "ranch". He's also visited Bush's "ranch" in Crawford. My own feeling is, that while Sharon has been jerking Bush around (remember when Bush demanded that Israel withdraw from the West Bank immediately, and then let it drop after a few days?), Sharon has also been mentoring Bush on "facts on the ground" -- the art of the fait accompli, of which Sharon is one of the world's great masters. Not at all a comforting thought.
Given the paucity of "clean hands" in that region of the world, it is irrational to assume that the US could find enough saintly counter-parties there to broker a peace accord.
"You have to be careful with your anti-semite drivel. Your statements are anti-semite in effect if not in intent. How dare you criticize Israel?"
This line of argumentation cannot be tolerated. Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism. One has every right to take to task lies and misrepresentation, but not to hide the truth.
Are the charges concerning Ariel Sharon accurate? This is the only valid question that should interest us.
>>Sharon, a Zionist? One should have read Theodor Herzl to appreciate the irony...<<
That's why I am temptatively trying to introduce the concept of "ultra-Zionism" vs. Zionism per se. Or does anybody have a better word to propose? Of course, there is Likudism but "ultra-Zionism" goes far beyond Likud; actually Likud is far from its most extreme expression.
And when I think of Zionism, then Einstein's Zionism comes to my mind. Something I feel much more comfortable about. I feel uncomfortable about attempts to vilify the term Zionism, just as I feel nervous about attempts to use the anti-Semite epithet on all critics of Israel's policies.
(A funny thing to note: To support a two-state ("just") solution for Palestine / Israel simultaneously casts one as an anti-Semite in the eyes of Likud supporters and a Zionist in the eyes of an Islamist...)
>>Are the charges concerning Ariel Sharon accurate? This is the only valid question that should interest us.<<
Aggreed, David. One would think it would be up to an International Criminal Court to settle this kind of question... Gush Shalom is currently threatened by closure (and worse) by Ariel Sharon for sending letters to IDF soldiers operating in Palestinians territories warning them of the possibility of having eventually to account for the human rights violation they would commit.
As an aside, here is an interesting Palestinian attack on anti-Semitism by Qais S. Saleh.
“Aggreed, David. One would think it would be up to an International Criminal Court to settle this kind of question... “
It is probably next to impossible to put together an international criminal court that is not anti-Semitic. The United Nations is mostly an organization devoted to anti-Semitism. Ariel Sharon is not a murderer. I am convinced that the massacre was a result of naiveté. After all, the killers of these innocent civilians were supposedly Christians. Sharon may be something of an abrasive jerk, but that alone doesn’t make him a war criminal.
“Gush Shalom is currently threatened by closure (and worse) by Ariel Sharon for sending letters to IDF soldiers operating in Palestinians territories warning them of the possibility of having eventually to account for the human rights violation they would commit.”
I haven’t the slightest respect for these mushy headed pacifist idiots. Gush Shalom is comprised of self hating Jews comparable to the radical chic Liberals residing in our own country. They should not be denied their right of free expression, but one shouldn’t suffer fools gladly. My guess is that the Gush Shalom kids are the sons and daughters of well to do Israeli Jews. Radicals are often spoiled rotten affluent kids with nothing to do.
Naivete? Killing several hundred helpless civilians. Boy oh boy! I have never seen "moral parity" stretched quite that far. Is it "charming naivete"?
P.S. Arafat is someone who we do not support who doublecrosses us. Sharon is someone who we support heavily who doublecrosses us.
Re>>I am convinced that the [Shabra and Shatilla] massacre was a result of [Ariel Sharon's] naiveté. After all, the killers of these innocent civilians were supposedly Christians. Sharon may be something of an abrasive jerk, but that alone doesn’t make him a war criminal. <<
I hope you are right--that Ariel Sharon thought that when he gave orders for his soldiers to let the militia into the refugee camps, they would do nothing more than arrest and bring out terrorists and leave the civilians alone.
But that position does require that one believe in a truly extraordinary degree of naivete on Ariel Sharon's part--that he had convinced himself that his Lebanese allies were very different people than they in fact were...
That the US sought and obbtained guarantees from Sharon and others in the Israeli government shows that the subsequent massacre cannot be passed off as resulting from Sharon's "naivete"--what, then, was the point of the guaranty? "I promised to protect these people but I naively thought nothing bad would happen if did nothing to protect them"?
That the US sought and obbtained guarantees from Sharon and others in the Israeli government shows that the subsequent massacre cannot be passed off as resulting from Sharon's "naivete"--what, then, was the point of the guaranty? "I promised to protect these people but I naively thought nothing bad would happen if did nothing to protect them"?
>>The United Nations is mostly an organization devoted to anti-Semitism.<<
Have you ever taken a second to learn about the programs that the UN typically funds? I have a hard time understanding why fighting poverty around the world (however unefficiently at times) would have anything to do with anti-Semitism...
And while you're at it, you might want to read a biography of Uri Avneri, founder of Gush Shalom. I think of him as Israel's Gandhi (which in itself is a bit of an irony. It's as if Gandhi had been Brittish... and had been percecuted by the Brittish themselves...)
Here's a question:
Bush I advisor James Baker famously said of US Jews "F--- 'em. They don't vote for us anyway". And pere Bush arguably came up wanting in the eyes of many Jews when it came to Israel.
Now, after Arafat topped the repeat-foreign-leader list in the Clinton administration, Bush fils has seemingly tilted toward Sharon.
Recall US Jews' overwhelming election support for Gore (about 7:1 or 8:1 IIRC), add in the logical need to line up Arab support in anticipation of a war on Iraq, and the apparent policy tilt seems quite puzzling.
Theories?
Interesting question, George.
Quick thought: it does not cost Dubya much to court the Jewish electorate these days as its perceived interests are supposedly in alignment with those of the Christian conservatives (and vice-versa). Paradoxically, these are the folks who reacted most negatively to Gore's choice of a Jewish running mate, if my memory serves me well. What a common external enemy won't do in politics...
Besides, it seems there has been a strong Jewish presence in the security policy circles of this administration, right from the start (which is a bit of a puzzle to me given the above). I can't think it has no effect on the administration's tilt toward Israel. The people I have in mind are, after all, Conservative-Jewish-American thinkers. They will necessarily have a tendency to associate with Sharon.
"I have a hard time understanding why fighting poverty around the world (however unefficiently at times) would have anything to do with anti-Semitism..."
I am restricting my comments to the political activities of the United Nation---and yes, they are normally very anti-Semitic! What else can one conclude after realizing that the UN has criticized Israel more than any other nation on this planet?
“And while you're at it, you might want to read a biography of Uri Avneri, founder of Gush Shalom. I think of him as Israel's Gandhi (which in itself is a bit of an irony. It's as if Gandhi had been Brittish... and had been percecuted by the Brittish themselves...)”
Your description of Uri Aveni unwittingly depicts him as some sort of idiot. Gandhi opposed the benevolent and moralistic British empire. He essentially embarrassed the British into doing the right thing. The Jews of Israel, however, are confronted with envious and bitter Islamists who could care less about moral decency and compromise with their non-Muslim neighbors. The Islamic fascists are racist, sexist, scum bags who will settle for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. Thus, Uri Aveni must be considered a naive fool for thinking anything to the contrary.
In the mean time Bibi has vowed that if he were elected prime minister he would expel Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. I can't wait to see how much more secure this is going to make Israel (and the rest of the planet)...
"In the mean time Bibi has vowed that if he were elected prime minister he would expel Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. I can't wait to see how much more secure this is going to make Israel (and the rest of the planet)..."
Yasir Arafat is a liar and it has always been foolish to deal with him in good faith. Thus, it makes perfect sense to expel him. It would likely result in a more peaceful region. Arafat desires nothing less than the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel.
'Islamist'
Can we please stop using this word? I can't put my finger on why, but it really sounds pejorative.
'Recall US Jews' overwhelming election support for Gore (about 7:1 or 8:1 IIRC), add in the logical need to line up Arab support in anticipation of a war on Iraq, and the apparent policy tilt seems quite puzzling.
Theories?'
Bush is a born-again believer. The reasons for fundamental christian support of Israel are quite compliated (ranging from "they're closer to agreeing with us than the arabs are" to "we need Israel for the rapture to work out correctly"), but I definitely get the impression that's the reasoning behind Bush's positions.
"'Islamist'
Can we please stop using this word? I can't put my finger on why, but it really sounds pejorative."
It is meant to be perjorative! Islamists are similar to Nazis, Communists, and other fascists desiring to impose their totalitarin beliefs upon the world.
Exactly how, pray tell, is the Mideast situation improved by augmenting vicious Moslem bigots with a vicious Jewish bigot? Even William F. Buckley readily admits that the Palestinians do have one genuine moral cause: the riddling of the West Bank and Gaza with Israeli settlements interconnected with guarded roads, which would chop any potential Palestinian state up into hopelessly nonviable fragments. The moral fault of the Palestinians lies in their refusal to accept Ehud Barak's offer to eliminate almost all of those settlements -- but Sharon has never had the slightest interest in doing that, even in return for peace. After all, he played one of the most important roles in establishing them in the first place, with the declared intention of keeping any viable Palestinian state (peaceful or otherwise) from ever being created there.
To Jean-Philippe: Most US Jews distrust the Christian right immensely. And recall that under Nixon, there was a Jewish SecState AND a war against Israel, neither of which endeared the GOP to Jewish voters. Pandering to the tiny (~2.5%) domestic Jewish vote - given the oil and military benefits that would accrue to swinging toward the Arabs -- strikes me as the least logical explanation for Bush's tilt.
"'Islamist'
Can we please stop using this word? I can't put my finger on why, but it really sounds pejorative."
It is meant to be perjorative!"
To me, the word sounds insulting to all adherents of Islam.
It's as if someone were to use the term "Judaist" to refer to those Israelis who want to expel all Arabs from Greater Israel, or the British Mandate, or Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, or whatever you want to call it. If I *ever* heard someone use the word in that way, which I never have, I would say "I'm Jewish, I don't believe that, and it sounds like you're trying to tar me with that brush, you nasty anti-Semite."
So I could understand why a peace-loving Muslim would be insulted by the term.
"So I could understand why a peace-loving Muslim would be insulted by the term."
I'm sorry but I fail to get your point. The perjorative Islamists refers only to those Muslims who embrace a fascist totalitarian mindset. Is there another term that you might prefer? I am open to suggestions. Unfortunately, one can only go so far when employing euphemisms. Should we hold a contest?
David--
My suggestions: "Islamic fundamentalists," "Islamic fascists," "violently fundamentalist Muslims" "extremist Muslims"--it's not hard to say what you mean, none of these are euphemisms, and all of them are clear about who they refer to.
You may mean the pejorative "Islamists" to refer only to some adherents of Islam. But there's nothing in the term that indicates that. (Which part does? "Islam" or "ists"?)
That was the point of the "Judaist" analogy. (To make things clear: I have never heard this word used; it's a hypothetical analogy.)
If someone kept on about how bad "Judaists" were, and when called on it said "I don't mean you, I mean the loonies in Moledet," then I would say: "So why did you use a word that looks like it refers to all Jews? Why not say 'Moledet,' or 'extremist Jews,' or 'advocates of transfer'"?
Look, this is just a semantic argument. I wish you understood the point I was trying to make the first time, but the word "Islamists" is the least of our problems. Of all the words I'd rather you drop, "self-hating Jew" comes in higher.
It seems that you insist that we use two words instead of merely one. Actually, you do indeed have a valid point. "Islamic fundamentalists" is a bit wordy, but it does more precisely label our enemies.
OK, you win.
"Self-hating Jew" is not my invention. Many Jews refer to these individuals in such unflattering terms. You will have to take it up with them. The self-hating phenomenon is not, however, limited to Jews. A lot of affluent kids hate their ethnic group or nation. Eric Erickson speculated that they had daddy issues to resolve. Jane Fonda, for instance, was upset with her famous father.
>>Of all the words I'd rather you drop, "self-hating Jew" comes in higher.<<
I'm glad you point this out, Matt. For one thing, I'm used to think that it is more often (repressed) self-hating people who tend to abuse others, and self-loving people who live in peace with others.
As for Uri Avneri, he fought both the 1948 and the 1967 wars on the Israeli side. I can hardly see this as self-hating. But in the process, he came to realize (and documented) that the state of Israel was commiting crimes that were not justified by its justifiable drive to protect itself.
As of today, his main activities, besides journalism, consists in activism such as serving as a human shield for olive growers in the Palestinian territories. He has these beautiful stories of Jews and Palestinians sharing the joy of the the harvest and the quest for peace at sunset.
Now, maybe it takes a (conservative?) Christian to perceive all kinds of socially progressive action as an act of (self-hating) crucifixion? After all, Uri Avneri is not providing any help to suicide bombers or anything like that... Or maybe Christians are projecting their cruisade fantasies onto (Israeli) Jews, forgetting along the way that cruisaders were particularly cruel to Jews...
>>Arafat desires nothing less than the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel.<<
That's shere disinformation, David. I suspect you know that, actually.
>>Pandering to the tiny (~2.5%) domestic Jewish vote - given the oil and military benefits that would accrue to swinging toward the Arabs -- strikes me as the least logical explanation for Bush's tilt.<<
George: I don't think the Jewish share of the US population is representative of the Jewish leverage in American politics (don't get me wrong, I could say similar things about other influential groups...) What's the Jewish share of seats in Congress e.g.?
And the GOP knows there is no point in courting liberal Jews, they're allergic to the Christian right anyway, as you rightly pointed out. What they can do though is court Jewish centrists and conservatives. My point is that it is far less politically sensitive for a conservative to be pro-Israel than it used to be before 9-11 because conservative Christians have ralied against Muslims and perceive Israel as an ally.
One of the Bushies' primary objective in the Middle-East (and Venezuela) is to break the bones of OPEC, once and for ever. I can hardly see this as in the interest of Arabs. I mean, this is a zero-sum game from this perspective. Recall that this is an oil industry administration.
In any case, I believe Dubya's tilt on Israel / Palestine can be summarized in one single word: cruisade. What else should be expect from a born-again Christian?
What's the Jewish share of seats in Congress e.g.?
Depends if we count Hillary. ;)
The new GOPer from Minnesota is Jewish, and I didn't even know they had Jews out there. [ba-da-bing]
Jewish centrists and conservatives
A fraction of the 2.5%? There are probably more left-handed Latinas in SoCal. Hardly an electoral prize worthy of grave foreign policy choices.
The War-For-Oil angle has been analyzed to death elsewhere, so I won't revisit it here.
What else should be expect from a born-again Christian?
Bill Clinton, a church-going Southern Baptist, also self-identified as a born-again Christian.
>>Bill Clinton, a church-going Southern Baptist, also self-identified as a born-again Christian.<<
Didn't know to be honest. Mmm, didn't he also spent a lot of quality time with his pet? :) Seriously now, when it comes to Camp David II, he surely operated as a Christian semi-fundamentalist (although I don't know how to weight that against ignorance of history and Hilary's political interests) at times.
>>There are probably more left-handed Latinas in SoCal. Hardly an electoral prize worthy of grave foreign policy choices.<<
Do they vote? How important are they in forming public opinion? How much money can they spend on political campains?
Seriously now, when it comes to Camp David II, he surely operated as a Christian semi-fundamentalist (although I don't know how to weight that against ignorance of history and Hilary's political interests) at times.
I think you mean the Barak plan that gave 90+% of the West Bank and a chunk of Jerusalem to the PLO?
I never really understood what that was about. Barak had little chance of selling it at home, so it was doomed no matter what. Arafat's bloody reply spoke for itself, shattering the beliefs of many Israeli doves, and bringing, perversely, Sharon to the fore.
In terms of US politics, obviously a peace accord would have been a boon to all Democrats, and Hillary, and made for a sure-thing Peace Prize.
That said, and I am not a fan of many things Clintonian, I cannot and will not scorn someone who tried mightily, even in a flawed and failed way, to bring peace to that part of the world.
">>Arafat desires nothing less than the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel.<<
That's shere disinformation, David. I suspect you know that, actually."
I meant exactly what I said: Yasir Arafat wishes to destroy the state of Israel. It is naive to believe otherwise. You need to stop reading ultra-Left wing propaganda. It's obviously doing you a lot of harm.
Do they vote? How important are they in forming public opinion? How much money can they spend on political campains?
They vote, but most Jewish "opinion-leaders" (in the poli sci sense) are of the liberal bent, as are the big-bucks donors.
'The perjorative Islamists refers only to those Muslims who embrace a fascist totalitarian mindset.'
The pejorative "Christianists" refers only to those Christians who embrace a fascist totalitarian mindset.
The pejorative "Papists" refers only to those Catholics who embrace a fascist totalitarian mindset.
The pejorative "Judaists" refers only to those Jews who embrace a fascist totalitarian mindset.
Facts, not articles of faith please... Arafat and the PA have signed several declarations stating their acceptance of the right of Israel to exist.
I haven't read any quote in recent history (and I read stuff from a whole range of sources, including the Arab press) that would lead one to believe that Arafat wants to overtake Israel or anything like that. As a matter of facts, that precisely what makes Hamas its #1 political enemy.
Further, Arafat has made substancial concessions on the right of return which directly infirms any visible intent to overtake Israel. That's just not what Arafat has based his political career on.
George: By the way, nothing prevents liberal Democrat Jewish Congressperson to cross party lines on Israel related issues... Also, Jewish liberals aren't traditionally as liberal when it comes to Israel.
It's so funny that people are still defending this thesis of liberal bias of the media and donors... It's near grotesque at this point.
Jewish liberals aren't traditionally as liberal when it comes to Israel.
Generalizations are always dangerous, but prior to the post-Barak plan
series of terror attacks, many/most liberal US Jews (and I know a lot of them) were in the dove/Peace Now/Gush Shalom/Labour spectrum. They spoke of Likud with the same revulsion usually reserved for the GOP.
Post 9/11 and post-ramped up civilian terror in Israel, US opinion - Jewish and gentile - has swung toward the Sharon end of the spectrum.
American Jews rightfully despised the Republican Party for its American First nonsense just before WWII. Roosevelt and the Democratic Party may very well have saved civilization. The result is that far too many Jews knee jerked under the Liberal banner. Now they realize that the world is a bit more complicated.
One should always look upon political parties in a very pragmatic manner. The question should constantly be asked: what have you done for me recently? The Democrats have been thriving off the capital they earned around fifty years ago. Hello, it's time for a reality check. The year is 2002 AD. But what do I know? I'm just a goy with a big mouth.
Re:
>>Arafat and the PA have signed several declarations stating their acceptance of the right of Israel to exist.<<
Arafat has also committed to resolving the Palestinians' struggle with Israel through peaceful and diplomatic means. Since this second commitment has been broken, why should not Sharon--and Netanyahu, and Barak, and every other Israeli politician--presume that the acceptance of Israel's right to exist will be revoked as well?
My idea for the Palestinian/Israeli problem: talking of the territories occupied by Israel in the West Bank and legitimate, pre-1967 borders basically misses the point. The issue is one of national self-detirmination, not legal claims going back to the British mandate.
As such, there should be a giant vote, across all of Israel and the West Bank, with the question: Israel or Palestine? Everyone -- Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Palestinians -- could vote.
Then, votes are put on a map of Israel/West Bank area, then a computer program is designed finds to find a continuous border which put those who want to be in Israel on one side and those who want to be in Palestine on the other. Since a continuous line of millions of miles in length could thread through, putting every Palestine-voter on one side and Israel-voter on the other, but would be totally meaningless a limit would have to be imposed on the length of the line that could be created, to make it reasonably enforceable/defensible.
If there is some heavily Jewish-settled part of the now-West Bank that votes for Israel, or some heavily Israeli-Arab part of Israel that votes for Palestine, then so be it. They have to give up those territories and lose all claims on them forever.
Yeah, that's naive, and won't happen anytime soon, but oh well.
Julian Elson
>>I think you mean the Barak plan that gave 90+% of the West Bank and a chunk of Jerusalem to the PLO?<<
That's not what happened at Camp David II, that's what things were converging to at Taba. But by then Barak was a political corpse. At Camp David, Barak offered only 80% of the 22% of historical Palestine that Palestinians are trying to hang on to. 16%, what a generous deal, those Arabs are so greedy! And with that, corridors everywhere, and Israeli control over the Jordan Valley.
So, as far as Clinton's stance was concerned, I don't think he cuts it in terms of commitment to peace for a Nobel Peace Prize. I do believe his intentions were relatively pure: he did want that prize for sure (which in retrospect sounds like the highest achievable standards...)
But full commitment to peace would have required serious preparation of the meetings and a more balanced approach rather than "here is the deal" kind of stance. Finally, Clinton should never have betrayed Arafat on his promise not to blame any single camp in case of failure: in other words, he twisted Arafat's arms to participate in a summit the PA righfully dreaded and then sent him to Hell for failing to hand him an undeserved NB peace prize.
P.S. Errata 22% (and not 20%) x 80 % = 17.6% (and not 16%). Unintended mistake, my point is unaltered though.
Let me preempt the next counter-argument to make discussion more interesting: why would the PA care so much about 4.4%? Well, that's a QUARTER of what Barak stood ready to offer at Camp David II, while only 5% of what Israel claimed at that point... (and I'm not even valuing correctly strategic assets like the Jordan and East Jerusalem etc.)
David--
I know you didn't invent "self-hating Jew." But that doesn't absolve you from responsibility for using it. We can both think of all sorts of phrases that I didn't invent, which would get us quite justly criticized if we used them.
I will grant that "self-hating Jew" is legitimately applied to some people. The Jewish neo-Nazi on whom "The Believer" (?) was based, for instance--he was Jewish, and hated Jews.
But the phrase is frequently used to refer to any Jew whose position on the Palestinian question is to the left of Sharon's.* This is hateful. Such Jews don't hate Jews, or Israel, we just have different ideas about what will be in our/its longterm interest.
*Of course, you only used it on Gush Shalom. They're probably more extreme than I, but I doubt that they hate Jews.
The use of the phrase is meant to impose ideological uniformity on Jews. Conservatives often get in a swivet when they think some black people are trying to impose ideological uniformity on others. "Uncle Tom is a racist term," they say. Well, by the same token, "self-hating Jew" is an anti-Semitic term. Call us "useful idiots" if you like, but don't impugn our motives.
George--
"What's the Jewish share of seats in Congress e.g.?
Depends if we count Hillary. ;)"
Um, how's that? In internet parlance, WTF?
"The new GOPer from Minnesota is Jewish, and I didn't even know they had Jews out there. [ba-da-bing]"
Paul Wellstone, alav ha-shalom, was Jewish. My uncle and aunt, both Jewish, knew him in Minnesota (they all taught at Carleton). Also, there are two states with two Jewish senators, and one of them is right close to Minnesota. That's a quiz.
The Jewish share of Congress is....
(this link will spoil the quiz)
11 senators out of 100 (9 D, 2 R)
26 representatives out of 435 (24 D, 1 R, 1 I)
(Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is no relation, AFAIK.)
[Note to David: When I said "self-hating Jew" is an anti-Semitic term, I didn't mean to imply you're an anti-Semite; far from it. Most people who use the term aren't anti-Semites. What I actually mean is, "self-hating Jew" is anti-Semitic if "Uncle Tom" is racist; I'm not sure about either one, though I'm sure both are dicey.]
Thanks for the data, Matt! So, my "bottom line" is:
* 7% of Congress (that's a lot more than 2.5% - but I must admit that I was expecting it to be somewhat higher.) 11% of Congress is quite a potential leverage though. It's not surprising for a higher income, higher education group though.
* the bulk of Jewish Congresspersons are Democrats. I wasn't expecting it to be so overwhelmingly so. Besides, the social justice Jewish tradition, I must have to do with the geographical distributions of Jews in America: most probably live in (large) cities out of taste and because a person with high human capital finds it more rewarding to work in a high human capital environment.
On the other hand, I am not really sure that this means that the bulk of the Jewish _votes_ went to (Jewish) Democrats this time around e.g. I just have little idea about the probability of an American Jewish voter to vote for a Jewish representative. After all, I have this feeling there are plenty of Jewish conservatives. (hi! to all of those participating in this forum :)). Comments?
>>I will grant that "self-hating Jew" is legitimately applied to some people. The Jewish neo-Nazi on whom "The Believer" (?) was based, for instance--he was Jewish, and hated Jews.<<
It's probably also coming from Marx' Jewish Question. Critics typically (and insofar as I can tell, rightfully) depict Marx as a self-hating Jew. He alledgedly (I haven't read it myself) use throughout his book epithets that are clearly prejudiced against Jews.
My only problem though is with when do you stop classifying somebody as a Jew as opposed to as someone with some Jewish ancestry. After all, intermarriages between Jews and non-Jews have always been more frequent than some would like to think.
Going back to Uri Avneri and Gush Shalom, these are self-proclaimed Jews who would never think of hurting or verbally / intellectually abuse Jewish people, and least for being Jews. But then again, David calls them self-hating Jews just he would label a good chunk of American liberals as anti-Americans. The basic problem is that there is disaggreement about what America, Israel, and being Jewish is about and, as you pointed out, Matt, what's the best road to these ideals (to the extent we aggree upon them...)
Well, I'm not going to stand up for Uri Avnieri, simply because his affection for Arafat has gone too far. But he does have some interesting anecdotes, such as how when he compared the PLO to pre-State Jewish terror groups, ex-terrorist Begin was horrified while ex-terrorist Yitzhak Shamir smiled. By the way, the Hebrew borrow-word "terorist" applies only to the pre-State Jewish organizations: modern Arab you-know-whats are called another word entirely.
And I'm not going to stand up for Yasser Arafat. I will point out that as an abstraction probably 95% of Israeli Jews would be happy to wake up one morning and find the Arabs gone by some miracle, but only a small number actively pursue such a policy. Likewise, I have no doubt that 99.5% of Palestinian Arabs would love to wake up and discover that Israel and the Jewish immigration was just a (bad) dream, and I don't think that's necessarily an insuperable obstacle to peace. (What do American Indians dream on Columbus Day?) What's intolerable about Arafat is that there is strong reason to doubt that he has the political will to make any peace agreement, fair or not. I can't say it's 101% proven, but there is a lot of evidence. Let him say why he permitted the initifada to resume--the Mitchell Commission agreed it was in preparation even before Ariel Sharon's provocative tour of the Temple Mount.
And on a minor note, the usual figures I've seen are that Barak offered 91% of the territories at Camp David and at least 96% at Taba. (By Taba, IMHO, everything was so screwed up it didn't matter anyway.)
And on a second minor note, I think Mr Thomson's description of Gush Shalom is not all that accurate. Sure, the educated classes are probably over-represented on the Israeli left (is that bad?), but in a country with a universal draft, opposition to perpetual war is not so concentrated as he imagines.
"What's the Jewish share of seats in Congress e.g.?
Depends if we count Hillary. ;)"
Um, how's that? In internet parlance, WTF?
Standing joke here in NYC. The Illinois-born shiksah (gentile woman) suddenly discovered a Jew in her family tree in the course of her campaign for Senate in New York.
She won the seat, but with only 1/2 the Jewish vote, far less than Democratic victors here usually get.
>>Let him say why he permitted the initifada to resume--the Mitchell Commission agreed it was in preparation even before Ariel Sharon's provocative tour of the Temple Mount.<<
That's a good question. I see it as a gross political and tactical miscalculation. I don't think Arafat has much control over some entities within Fatah, and certainly even less upon Hamas (something even Likudists used to aggree with - that's their 'irrelevant' theme). So, there is always the possibility to see Arafat's endorsement of the second intifada as the recognition of a fait accompli. Additionally, it could be that Arafat thought this intifada would mostly stay at the stone throwing and civil disobedeince level and got sabotaged by Hamas' army of suicide bombers.
If you ask that question, you also have to ask why Barak accelerated to pace of settlement expension that took place ever since... Oslo. One only gets the negociating partners one deserves. One can easily depict both sides as unsupportive of any peace agreement, fair or not. After all, if they were, we wouldn't be commenting about this...
What worries me most is the effectiveness of the propaganda aimed at ridiculing the very idea that a political and deplomatic settlement of the conflict is possible. That obviously plays too well in the hand of extremists on both sides... (as well as American warmongers.)
George, you got us in Italic mode again. That's two times for the same man. I am accumulating suspicions... :)
Trying (without much hope) to close the tag.
I think this article gives a pretty good picture of who's who on Arafat's political landscape. I didn't even know Fatah had broken all talks with Hamas since 1995...
George--
I did not know that. Did you know Gwyneth Paltrow's dad was Jewish? (Off-topic, I'm not trying to say anything.)
J-P: I would have named Marx as a self-hating Jew, also L. Wittgenstein during the brief period when he was writing self-directed nasty remarks about Jews in his diary, but for the question of whether they count; they counted for Hitler.
"the bulk of Jewish Congresspersons are Democrats." I suspect you're right that this is partly because Jews tend to concentrate in cities. I wouldn't necessarily ascribe this to high human capital; patterns of immigration probably have something to do with it, as well as the European bans on Jewish landowning that forced Jews to live in cities. (Note: This is armchair theorizing in a big way.) Doesn't account for Bernie Sanders, but can't win 'em all.
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) just retired from a suburban district (Rockland County) with a large Hasidic population.
Because the exit polls were broken, it seems that no one knows how Jewish voters broke this year. I'd guess that the bulk of Jewish voters didn't vote for Jewish Democrats, just because there aren't Jewish candidates in a lot of districts (for instance, my district in Pittsburgh, which has a huge Jewish population), but that's probably not the question you were asking.
(Wrote this a few hours ago, only just got back online. Sorry to anyone who may have posted something relevant in the meantime.)
"whether they count"
--that is, as you said, whether they count as Jews.
Matt
Seems as though the Forward printed a story that Hillary's step-grandfather was Jewish, and Hillary talked about her warm memories of him. I can't tell whether her campaign planted the story.
May I mention, when you google on "Hillary Clinton Jewish," some disturbing things pop up?
Re: Hilary. I would think that acknowledging respect / fondness for Jewish members of her (extended) family should be welcomed or at the very least accepted from a non-Jewish politician (and anyone else for that matter). What's less clean is to use this kind of facts so as to claim to be Jewish onself (although I would probably more tolerant to this kind of strech, if the person in question had decided to convert herself to Judaism.)
Re: self-hate. While acknowledging it in some cases, we should be careful not to to cross the line and characterize as self-hate reasonable forms of self-criticism. For example, I have been raised Catholic, and yet, I find myself highly critical of (some virulent forms of) Christianism. But I assure you I hate neither myself nor Christians. Similarly, I don't think Michael More hates himself or his fellow Americans for writing Stupid White Men(regardless what you think of his claims.)
{humor}
Shouldn't reclaiming the right to adult language and nuanced morality make it way again to the top of the liberal agenda? :) Or do we have a moral obligation to think and talk like a 12-year old?
{/humor}
Well, I'm sure Hillary C. didn't claim to be Jewish. I think any politician who claims a tenuous connection to some large local voter's bloc is in for some good-natured ribbing. It's the same sort of thing as George HW Bush claiming three or four different home states--all of them were true, it just looked silly.
*I* don't see italics here! The last time this happened, IIRC, it was determined to be an issue with Movable Type!
Re: Hilary. I would think that acknowledging respect / fondness for Jewish members of her (extended) family should be welcomed or at the very least accepted from a non-Jewish politician (and anyone else for that matter). What's less clean is to use this kind of facts so as to claim to be Jewish onself (although I would probably more tolerant to this kind of strech, if the person in question had decided to convert herself to Judaism.)
In her long and visible public life, the famously meticulous current junior Senator from the State of New York had never mentioned having a Jew in her family tree.
At the time, the revelation was widely seen as a brazen, cyncial plant to ingratiate her with a local ethnic constituency lacking apparent kinship to the former First Lady of Arkansas.
Giuliani's response: "Next we'll hear she played for the Brooklyn Dodgers."
The photo of Hillary kissing Mrs. Arafat after a famous speech where the PLO leader's wife accused Israel of atrocities still rankles many.
Last fall, Mrs. Clinton sparked a controversy by kissing Arafat’s wife, Suha Arafat, after a speech in the Middle East during which Mrs. Arafat claimed Israelis had used poison gas on Palestinian women and children.
ABC news.
And yes, I closed the tags.
That's a good question. I see it as a gross political and tactical miscalculation. I don't think Arafat has much control over some entities within Fatah, and certainly even less upon Hamas (something even Likudists used to aggree with - that's their 'irrelevant' theme). So, there is always the possibility to see Arafat's endorsement of the second intifada as the recognition of a fait accompli. Additionally, it could be that Arafat thought this intifada would mostly stay at the stone throwing and civil disobedeince level and got sabotaged by Hamas' army of suicide bombers.
Oh, I agree it was a miscalculation, but I don't see it as passive. I think Arafat got caught up in the idea of violent resistance as a marker (the marker?) of Palestinian authenticity. (Unfortunately, he had been permitted no small measure of preparatory incitement before the intifada, so long as he balanced it out with ruthless suppression of Hamas and other apparently irredeemable extremists.) And as often happens, events controlled him rather than the other way around. I don't think his current lonely office in the Muqata was part of any plan.
In interviews Barak said he allowed settlements to go forward (BIG mistake) because he viewed them as irrelevant; what went up would come down. He was either blind to the message as understood by the Palestinians, or dissembling. I lean towards the former.
So, we have succesfully drifted away from criticism of Sharon to discussing the political tactics of Hilary Clinton, and the ideas of PA's first lady...
Sorry, but NY discussions of Jews in politics, of which there are thankfully few, always include at least one passing reference to our notional junior senator.
We now return to the Sharon-bashing thread, already in progress.
Among Jews, Gore mauled Bush 80-17. Many conservatives had expressed hopes this year that Jewish voters would swing sharply to the right in appreciation of the strong stand on various Middle Eastern issues taken by Republicans in this trying time for Israel. Only a small change, however, was evident in the exit poll data.
In California, Jews voted for Davis 69-22. In Florida, the President's brother lost 73-27. In New Jersey, the Fox poll found Jews voting for Frank Lautenberg, who is Jewish, at a 71-24 rate. Meanwhile, an exit poll sponsored by the New Jersey Jewish News, saw Lautenberg winning 80-19. Interestingly, the last time Lautenberg was elected to the Senate (back in 1994), the same Jewish News poll found him gaining only 65 percent of Jewish votes.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sailer111502.asp
George: I like to read that the vast majority of American Jews are still commited to social democracy. Note, however, that you have just made my point: the GOP _is_ effectively courting Jewish votes... Or you can see it as a "convergence of interests." Fortunately, fewer are fooled than I was afraid of. I hope it stays that way.
Note: I didn't even know we had reliable exit poll figures... %-)
>>We now return to the Sharon-bashing thread, already in progress.<<
What would you think if I wrote: "Let's now return to the Hamas-bashing thread, already in progress"? Besides, trying to decredibilise Hilary Clinton both for ackowledging some Jewish connection and meeting with Arafat's wife is weird.
I am not endorsing Suha Arafat's ideas here, but I need to tell you that physical contact is the ABC of cordial relationships with Arab people. If you don't understand that (like Barak) just don't pretend to understand anything about Arab culture or how to work around /with it.
What kind of character assassination is that? Is the name of the business that anybody who has any dialog with the PA, should be considered (explicitely or implicitely) anti-Semite and thus should be witch-hunt? This would be in fact the dumbest way I have heard of to legitimize the paranoia of anti-Semite consipiration theorists...
>>"the bulk of Jewish Congresspersons are Democrats." I suspect you're right that this is partly because Jews tend to concentrate in cities. I wouldn't necessarily ascribe this to high human capital; patterns of immigration probably have something to do with it, as well as the European bans on Jewish landowning that forced Jews to live in cities. (Note: This is armchair theorizing in a big way.)<<
Matt: In fact I have had a similar theory: Jews have progressively specialized themselves in human capital intensitive activities because nobody can expropriate one's human capital (one can destroy it though but not appropriate it). Human capital just walks with you as you pack your things to a new country / city where you believe there will be less percecution. I guess it's just the flip side of your story, though.
physical contact is the ABC of cordial relationships with Arab people
Someone who has just uttered a classic "blood libel" -- accusing Jews of willfully using poison gas on Arab children -- may feel entitled to "cordial relationships" with some people, but not necessarily a sitting First Lady of the United States.
It is not unheard of, in diplomatic circles, for outrageous remarks to be greeted cooly.