Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Making Room for Florida Immigrants to Palestine












Israel murdered these two boys from Jenin on October 23 to make room for Jon Schwartz (photo second from bottom) of Florida and the other supremacist immigrants from North America pictured above. Indigenous Palestinians are caged, murdered, ethnically cleansed, starved and humiliated so that privileged Zionist Jews from all over the world may thrive on stolen property and come and play soldier. Tell me why 7.2 million Palestinian refugees should accept that any Jew from anywhere in the world who has never set foot in Palestine may become an automatic citizen when Palestinians are denied their universal right to return to their actual property and homes.



Letting the Cat Out of the Bag
Attacking Iran for Israel?

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.
To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.
If this sounds familiar it is, in fact, déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, US intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq-the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes-the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence." Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" There is a simpler answer.
Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."
Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.
Truth be told, every other year since 1995 US intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years. It has become downright embarrassing-like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neo-conservatives" like James Woolsey, who in August publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt Tehran's nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb."
The day before Ambassador Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. That is why the Israeli ambassador says there is "very little time"-less than 15 months.
Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976. Westinghouse and General Electric successfully lobbied for approval to sell the Shah for $6.4 billion the kind of nuclear facilities that Iran is now building, but the deal fell through when the Shah was ousted in 1979.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and Israel's current leaders are pressing for the US to obliterate Iran's fledgling nuclear program.
Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush in the past. And the real rationale is reminiscent of the one revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10 2002, Zelikow said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is-it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities. During a Jan. 20, 2005 interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush's second inauguration, Cheney put Iran "right at the top of the list of trouble spots," and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran's nuclear program. Cheney then added, with remarkable nonchalance:

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

Does this not sound like the so-called "Cheney plan" being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli attack; Iranian retaliation; the United States springing to the defense of its "ally"
Israel?

A big fan of preemption, the vice president was the first U.S. official to speak approvingly of Israel's air attack on Iraq's reactor at Osirak in 1981. He included that endorsement in his important speech of Aug. 26, 2002, in which he set the terms of reference for the subsequent campaign to persuade Congress to approve war with Iraq.
Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt. Ten years after the attack on Osirak, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981."

Nothing is known of Ivri's response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of "we could not have done it without your country's help." Indeed, although the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq at the time), intelligence and operational support that the Pentagon shared with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid. With Vice President Cheney now calling the shots, similar support is a virtual certainty in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

It is no secret that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was already pressing in 2003 for an early preemptive strike, insisting that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than the time forecast by U.S. intelligence. Sharon even brought his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.
More troubling still, in the fall of 2004 Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as Chair of the younger Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.
A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized;" that he had our president "wrapped around his little finger." Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately ousted from the advisory board and is now persona non grata at the White House in which he worked for so many years.

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister at the time and took Bush on a helicopter tour of the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:

"If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he had decided to take Sharon "at face value" and unleash him.
At that point the president brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians. In Ron Suskind's Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who took part at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," the president said with a frown. He then said it was time to end America's efforts in the region: "I don't see much we can do over there at this point."

O'Neill reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of more nuanced and balanced longstanding policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." According to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled."
It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is unusual-but-sensible foot-dragging by the U.S. military. It seems likely that the senior military leadership has told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6-and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And in an online Q-and-A on Sept. 27, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest spoke of a possible "revolt" if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

"This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, has said...that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Besides, it's not the 'war' or 'bombing' part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?"
How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it. If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers.
Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.
And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey, "cakewalk" Ken Adelman and other "neo-cons." The air campaign "will be easy," says McInerney, a FOX pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. "Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate," he adds, and several hundred aircraft, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."
And the likely White House rationale for war? Since, particularly with the fiasco of Iraq as backdrop, it will be a hard sell to promote the idea of an imminent threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, the White House PR machine has already begun focusing on other "evidence"- amorphous so far-indicating that Iran is supporting those who are "killing our troops in Iraq."
The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how "easily" it can all be done-Cakewalk II.

Madness.

It is not as though our country has lacked statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other countries: "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."(George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

Labels:


Sunday, October 28, 2007





In the Wilderness of North America




In the Wilderness of North America: the Autobiography of Malcolm X, as Told to Alex Haley. It is an extraordinary account of an extraordinary man. No one should ever do themselves the disservice of judging this man before reading his autobiography in its entirety. In fact, no one should do themselves the disservice of trying to understand American history without reading this book in its entirety.This was the first time that I read it myself in its entirety. When I was younger, in college, I had skimmed parts of it, but did not realize fully what I was reading, even though my friends and I during those influential years liked to think that Malcolm’s life had a primary influence on our own young lives, given parallels between the Black struggle in American and our own people’s struggles in Palestine and Lebanon, and the hardships of an immigrant community fleeing war to America. I may sound like an old man saying so, but there is something to be said for re-reading important works after one has gotten along in years, and has been blessed with life experiences and insights, if only because of the merit of age and the passing of time.Reading it this time, I was injected with a special enthusiasm to read it straight through from cover to cover, because I found an old first edition paperback copy (published 1966) The excitement to read this first edition was due to the fact that I was holding in my hands a copy that was originally purchased and touched by someone who was a contemporary of Malcolm X and who may have heard him speak, and who had just witnessed the event of Malcolm's assassination the year before the publication of this first paperback edition, when Malcolm's words still reverberated loud and clear and fresh throughout the air, sea and land of this globe. (I mean this in literal terms; towards the end of his life, Malcolm had had an audience with many, many heads of state on every continent, befriended important artists and writers of the time, appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs all over the World, and caused exhilaration in audiences wherever he went, whether they were in the streets of Harlem or in the lecture halls of Harvard, Oxford, Cairo or Accra.)I also found and purchased another first edition, a hard cover, published in 1965, the same year that Malcolm's earthly life was snuffed out by people who were terrified of the words of this most humble and dignified man. I will give it to my friend Jamal, who, upon receiving his American citizenship , was asked if he would like to change his name on his new certificate of citizenship. (This is a very strange notion. I take it the assumption is that when a person becomes a citizen he would automatically want to adopt an Anglicized name? How peculiar.) Anyway Jamal snidely obliged, and inserted "Malcolm" into the middle of his name, thereby becoming Jamal Malcolm Lastname.The amazing life story of Malcolm X is one of historic and legendary proportions, and not just because he influenced an entire generation. In every one of its aspects, his own life personified, in the most mythical and grandiose manners, the very essence of human history in its American context. His boyhood story began with deprivation and hardship, founded deeply in genocide and slavery, racial subjugation, and the inhumanity of a segregated society and its brutal methods. His youth fell under the pressing thumb of ignorance and the need to survive in the jungles of America's northern cities, leading him to the most extreme dangers and immoralities of life on the streets, and later leading him into prison. What he found in prison were the beginnings of his involvement in what would later become the pivotal, turbulent histories of the race struggle in the U.S., and the global liberation struggle of the third world, during the 1950's and 60's.While still in prison, the Nation of Islam and its leader Elijah Muhammad opened Malcolm's eyes to a methodological, critical, uncompromising, passionate, and bold look at the meaning of life in America for the Black Man. Although filled with a lot of constructed mystical beliefs infused with science fiction, the story that the Nation of Islam conveyed was an amazing and, in my opinion, a beautifully allegorical tale of Original Man, his fall from grace, and his coming redemption, all from the approach and vantage point of the Black experience in America. It is a modern tale of a long, forgotten exile from paradise, in the best traditions of the Torah and the New Testament, and of promised messianic redemption that is likewise recounted in the Old & New Testaments, the Qur’an, Shiaa theology and political practice, the Book of Mormon, as well as in the literature of the time of unfolding Marxist movements all over the world struggling for a secular Heaven on Earth. Even Elijah Muhammad’s name, a combination of his first (family-given) name, named after the Biblical Messianic Elijah, and the original Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah(PBUH), proved to be an integral part of the legendary, mystical theology of the Nation of Islam. The divergent philosophy of “The Lost-Found Nation of Islam,” lost in "The Wilderness of North America," is influenced by other pseudo-mystical or radical political organizations that were active in the Black community in the U.S. preceding it, such as Noble Drew Ali and his Moorish Science Temple, or Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association and the general “Back to Africa” movement, and is intertwined in some respects with historical Islam, as well as traditional African-American culture and history. The Nation of Islam built on these, and created an allegorical narrative and program, in the guise of religion, by which people living under the boot of segregation, racial degradation and ignorance can begin to understand their history and their own current situation, in order to repeal the effects of the injustice and inequity that was thrust upon them. Although it used language, narratives and assertions that could be described as reverse racism, and it elevated its founders, in a most cultic and un-Islamic manner, to divine status, it nonetheless put up a mirror in front of both the white majority and the black minority in the U.S., so that they may see, in the starkest and harshest terms, the cruel and ruthless situation of both historical slavery and contemporary segregation. Malcolm saw in the preachings of the Nation of Islam, even with all its inventive tales of ancient scientists playing with genetics and creating new races, the most truthful telling of why the descendants of African slaves in America live in such an inhumane, destitute circumstance, and a most ingenuous way of countering the tricks perpetrated by those in power, by dishing out a few philosophical tricks of its own. Malcolm’s conversion to the Nation of Islam was God’s way of showing him a way out, but not necessarily all the way to the truth, all at once. Even more so than Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm would become, after prison, the Nation of Islam’s most vigorous and eloquent proponent and builder, while at the same time experiencing his own political and philosophical growth alongside his work within the Nation. He built the Nation’s membership from 400 at the time of his joining it, to 40,000 at the time that he was banished from its leadership. This then becomes the second chapter of the fable of the "Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the Wilderness of North America": Malcolm grows to legendary stature, whereby he single-handedly commands the attention of the world, influencing the popular racial and political mood of the country and the world, but also aggravating a most elemental and story-book resentment and envy from his brethren, just as the envy that Prophet Joseph experienced from his own brothers. After his exile from the Nation, his Pilgrimage to Mecca and subsequent tour of African and Arab countries took on a life of its own. He began to fall into the lap of destiny day by day, meeting ambassadors, kings, presidents, statesmen (both natives and African-American expatriates,) and speaking to thousands in every city he came into, all the while going through a spiritual, ideological and philosophical transformation the likes of which no single human being has had the privilege of experiencing during the Modern epoch.Throughout this, and while struggling against a sense of betrayal from the Nation of Islam, as well as the real physical dangers of threats on his own life and that of his wife and daughters, from white supremacists, government agents and ex-brethren in the Nation, he did not lose the focus of his philosophical compass, that being the demand for justice. Just as he was beginning to form a new organization to serve Muslims in American along the lines of the original Islamic faith that was revealed to him overseas, based on the oneness and equality of humankind under the Oneness of a common Creator; just as he was beginning to form a second, secular organization to unite and strengthen African-Americans; just as he said that he would formally raise the issue of slavery, discrimination and the human rights of African-Americans at the United Nations; just as he said that he would remain firmly against the violence that bigotry perpetrated against Blacks in America, while simultaneously seeing the equality of all humankind and his willingness to work with everyone for the purpose of justice, this earthly realm and its very fallible human inhabitants delivered into his blessed chest the message that they were not ready for someone of his eminence. The sudden metamorphosis of Malcolm X into Haj Malik El-Shabazz, a new butterfly of intense vibrant colors that bewildered, astonished, disoriented, enraged, or freed those who looked upon it, was too much for us. Once Malcolm’s mind and heart were opened by his Creator, he saw and was not willing to accept human society's abuse of the meekest of its members; and indeed like many a prophet throughout time who were mistreated and rejected by their people, the world proved that it was not ready for his rebuking of it and his foresight. He flew high above the wilderness to see it for what it really is; he flew too high and close to the sun, yet also stayed within the depths of this wilderness, to be an active and forceful part of the people’s struggle. May Allah grant his soul mercy , peace and his place in the realm of Allah

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Which is worse: getting “perfected” or getting “killed”?

Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 15:45Either way, it’s the notion of a forced conversion to Christianity that’s shaking mainstream American media to its core. Lo and behold, people have suddenly discovered that Ann Coulter is – gasp – a bigot. How could she proclaim, out of the blue moon, that non-Christians should convert? What a scandal.
Except that it wasn’t a scandal when the intended “converts” were Muslims (all of them), and when she wrote that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Contrary to what many people think, she did not get fired for writing this, as is explained here by the National Review Online itself.

Nor was she attacked for going too far; after all, this was right after September 11, when emotions ran high and every “raghead” deserved to be scorned because of his “car-burning religion,” because Muslims have a “predilection for violence” and their “default mode is rioting and setting things on fire.” (Coulter’s quotes are easy to find on numerous websites, I will not link to any of her writing.)

Muslims were not allowed to complain, for they had to bear the collective guilt for the actions of a few men, mostly nationals of America’s strongest Arab ally. So nobody minded when Coulter wanted to convert Muslims at gunpoint. (Nor did Syrian officials flinch or bother protesting when she suggested ”bombing Syrians back to the stone age;” who could blame her – they had after all rioted because of some really tasteful cartoons.)

Of course, it’s an entirely different story when Coulter wants to convert Jews. That makes her a racist, you see, and a racist of the most forbidden kind: an anti-Semite. Not that she wants to force Jews to convert (compulsion is purely for Muslims), but she thinks they should be “perfected” by becoming Christians (a notion that some of her coreligionists are actually defending as a correct Christian dogma).

Even Coulter knows that what is acceptable discourse with regards to Muslims becomes a huge red line with regards to Jews; therefore, she insisted that her offended host give her more airtime to explain herself, which doesn’t seem to have helped, judging from the outraged or exasperated comments in the US.

But this same media shouldn’t pretend to be shocked. Since her eruption into American media, several years ago, Ann Coulter has been banking (royally, literally) on her shock factor, her rudeness, her insensitivity, her slandering, her lying, her bigotry, all of which became fuel for bestselling books (an incomprehensible phenomenon) and which became her trademark. It says a lot about American media and politicians that such an essentially stupid, ignorant, vulgar, offensive and prejudiced person should be given a platform in the first place.

It is pointless to waste more time stooping to Coulter’s level to attack her. But maybe the so-called independent media should begin to deliberate on the monsters they helped create, and on the deplorable standards, and the double standards, they have accepted as the norm.

As for all the indignation about the issue of conversion, I still think the Jews got away with a lot less grief than the Muslims: after all, if these were your only choices, would you rather be perfected or killed?

Labels:


Monday, October 01, 2007




How about a peace lobby?
The debate [on the Israel Lobby and US foreign policy] triggered by the authors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, has understandably touched on raw emotions and too often degenerated into name-calling. But it has also aired a rather important question: Is the special relationship as currently pursued actually healthy for either Israel or America?
Addressing that challenge and achieving a constructive outcome in Annapolis are two sides of the same coin. Of course the Palestinians too will have a say in how things unfold, but the undeniable asymmetry between occupier and occupied places the onus on the former, and its enabler.
On the Israel side, the relationship delivers the very dubious luxury of misbehavior without consequences. It also denies Israel’s leaders an external impetus and excuse for taking necessary, if unpopular steps.
Settlements, land confiscations, the resulting anger, violence and internal moral decay: Many Israelis now recognize that the entire accessories catalog of a continued occupation is terribly self-destructive.
But instead of organizing an intervention, Israel’s best friend indulges the addiction. The fiction is maintained that Israel can coexist snugly with greater Israel; and the Muslim world, from Sahara to Sumatra, is fed the daily bloody Palestinian soap opera.
On the U.S. side, the relationship encourages Lilliputian politics on an issue that, especially post 9/11, touches defining foreign policy and security concerns. The failed framing of the war on terror, for instance, becomes more difficult to recast.
To address the root causes and legitimate grievances that facilitate anti-American mobilization and jihadi recruitment and embarrass allies requires a recognition of the role of the Israeli occupation. If that is a “no go” area for politicians, then the pushback against current policy is severely handicapped.
The choice is not an unattractive and unrealistic all-or-nothing, America as Israel’s best friend or America turning its back on Israel. Rather, can the special relationship be deployed to more mutually beneficial effect with the United States, at Annapolis for instance, vigorously pushing a dignified two-state solution and engaging if necessary with stakeholders that are shunned by Israel?
The existing, unhelpful reality is perpetuated by many factors, but three stand out in the current terrain. First, the traditionally liberal American Jewish community has outsourced leadership on Israel-related issues to an increasingly hawkish right-wing minority. It’s part diaspora guilt and identity politics, part fear mongering that is both effective and great for fundraising, and part the justifiable liberal tendency to be multi-issue, campaigning and donating across a range of worthy causes. The liberal majority often avoid the internal community headache of being progressive on Israel. Not so the single-issue Israel zealots.
A second and increasingly powerful factor is the evangelical Christian Zionist right. Their philo-Zionism has a disturbing little anti-Semitic twist to it (once the Jews are all gathered in the promised land they either die or convert), but this inconvenient truth is overlooked by those who have welcomed them as allies in the American Jewish establishment. A rich vein of populist Islamophobia also now plays into the equation.
The final factor is the strong and mutually supportive cooperation built between the neocons and their benefactors in the U.S. and certain right-wing politicians and think tanks in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu and Natan Sharansky both have more of a constituency in Washington than in Jerusalem. These long-cultivated links have been most effectively deployed since 9/11.
The urgent challenge is to construct a competing alliance. To steal a page from the hawks’ playbook, let’s call it Sanity Watch. The political leadership of the center-left in both Israel and America is unlikely to rise to the challenge. The drive for a coalition of sanity may have to come from civil society.

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]